half minute will be neutralised by the opposite effect of that given in the second half. The effect of the strokes of the second pendulum will therefore be alternately to increase and decrease the vibrations of the first, so that a new kind of vibration will be produced running through its phases in 61 seconds. An effect of this kind was actually observed by Ellicott, a member of the Royal Society, in the case of two clocks.1 He found that through the wood-work by which the clocks were connected a slight impulse was transmitted, and each pendulum alternately lost and gained momentum. Each clock, in fact, tended to stop the other at regular intervals, and in the intermediate times to be stopped by the other.

Many disturbances in the planetary system depend upon the same principle; for if one planet happens always to pull another in the same direction in similar parts of their orbits, the effects, however slight, will be accumulated, and a disturbance of large ultimate amount. and of long period will be produced. The long inequality in the motions of Jupiter and Saturn is thus due to the fact that five times the mean motion of Saturn is very nearly equal to twice the mean motion of Jupiter, causing a coincidence in their relative positions and disturbing powers. The rolling of ships depends mainly upon the question whether the period of vibration of the ship corresponds or not with the intervals at which the waves strike her. Much which seems at first sight unaccountable in the behaviour of vessels is thus explained, and the loss of the Captain is a sad case in point.

1 Philosophical Transactions, (1739), vol. xli. p. 126.

CHAPTER XXI.

THEORY OF APPROXIMATION.

IN order that we may gain a true understanding of the kind, degree, and value of the knowledge which we acquire by experimental investigation, it is requisite that we should be fully conscious of its approximate character. We must learn to distinguish between what we can know and cannot know-between the questions which admit of solution, and those which only seem to be solved. Many persons may be misled by the expression exact science, and may think that the knowledge acquired by scientific methods admits of our reaching absolutely true laws, exact to the last degree. There is even There is even a prevailing impression that when once mathematical formulæ have been successfully applied to a branch of science, this portion of knowledge assumes a new nature, and admits of reasoning of a higher character than those sciences which are still unmathematical.

The very satisfactory degree of accuracy attained in the science of astronomy gives a certain plausibility to erroneous notions of this kind. Some persons no doubt consider it to be proved that planets move in ellipses, in such a manner that all Kepler's laws hold exactly true; but there is a double error in any such notions. In the first place, Kepler's laws are not proved, if by proof we mean certain demonstration of their exact truth. In the next place, even assuming Kepler's laws to be exactly true in a theoretical point of view, the planets never move according to those laws. Even if we could observe the motions of a planet, of a perfect globular form, free from all perturbing

or retarding forces, we could never prove that it moved in a perfect ellipse. To prove the elliptical form we should have to measure infinitely small angles, and infinitely small fractions of a second; we should have to perform impossibilities. All we can do is to show that the motion of an unperturbed planet approaches very nearly to the form of an ellipse, and more nearly the more accurately our observations are made. But if we go on to assert that the path is an ellipse we pass beyond our data, and make an assumption which cannot be verified by observation.

But, secondly, as a matter of fact no planet does move in a perfect ellipse, or manifest the truth of Kepler's laws exactly. The law of gravity prevents its own results from being clearly exhibited, because the mutual perturbations of the planets distort the elliptical paths. Those laws, again, hold exactly true only of infinitely small bodies, and when two great globes, like the sun and Jupiter, attract each other, the law must be modified. The periodic time is then shortened in the ratio of the square root of the number expressing the sun's mass, to that of the sum of the numbers expressing the masses of the sun and planet, as was shown by Newton.1 Even at the present day discrepancies exist between the observed dimensions of the planetary orbits and their theoretical. magnitudes, after making allowance for all disturbing causes.2 Nothing is more certain in scientific method than that approximate coincidence alone can be expected. In the measurement of continuous quantity perfect correspondence must be accidental, and should give rise to suspicion rather than to satisfaction.

One remarkable result of the approximate character of our observations is that we could never prove the existence of perfectly circular or parabolic movement, even if it existed. The circle is a singular case of the ellipse, for which the eccentricity is zero; it is infinitely improbable that any planet, even if undisturbed by other bodies, would have a circle for its orbit; but if the orbit were a circle we could never prove the entire absence of eccen

1 Principia, bk. iii. Prop. 15.

2 Lockyer's Lessons in Elimentary Astronomy, p. 301.

tricity. All that we could do would be to declare the divergence from the circular form to be inappreciable. Delambre was unable to detect the slightest ellipticity in the orbit of Jupiter's first satellite, but he could only infer that the orbit was nearly circular. The parabola is the singular limit between the ellipse and the hyperbola. As there are elliptic and hyperbolic comets, so we might conceive the existence of a parabolic comet. Indeed if an undisturbed comet fell towards the sun from an infinite distance it would move in a parabola; but we could never prove that it so moved.

Substitution of Simple Hypotheses.

In truth men never can solve problems fulfilling the complex circumstances of nature. All laws and explanations are in a certain sense hypothetical, and apply exactly to nothing which we can know to exist. In place of the actual objects which we see and feel, the mathematician substitutes imaginary objects, only partially resembling those represented, but so devised that the discrepancies are not of an amount to alter seriously the character of the solution. When we probe the matter to the bottom physical astronomy is as hypothetical as Euclid's elements. There may exist in nature perfect straight lines, triangles, circles, and other regular geometrical figures; to our science it is a matter of indifference whether they do or do not exist, because in any case they must be beyond our powers of perception. If we submitted a perfect circle to the most rigorous scrutiny, it is impossible that we should discover whether it were perfect or not. Nevertheless in geometry we argue concerning perfect curves, and rectilinear figures, and the conclusions apply to existing objects so far as we can assure ourselves that they agree with the hypothetical conditions of our reasoning. This is in reality all that we can do in the most perfect of the sciences.

Doubtless in astronomy we meet with the nearest approximation to actual conditions. The law of gravity is not a complex one in itself, and we believe it with much probability to be exactly true; but we cannot calculate out in any real case its accurate results. The law asserts

that every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle, with a force depending on the masses of the particles and their distances. We cannot know the force acting on any particle unless we know the masses and distances and positions of all other particles in the universe. The physical astronomer has made a sweeping assumption, namely, that all the millions of existing systems exert no perturbing effects on our planetary system, that is to say, no effects in the least appreciable. The problem at once becomes hypothetical, because there is little doubt that gravitation between our sun and planets and other systems does exist. Even when they consider the relations of our planetary bodies inter se, all their processes are only approximate. In the first place they assume that each of the planets is a perfect ellipsoid, with a smooth surface and a homogeneous interior. That this assumption is untrue every mountain and valley, every sea, every mine affords conclusive evidence. If astronomers are to make their calculations perfect, they must not only take account of the Himalayas and the Andes, but must calculate separately the attraction of every hill, nay, of every ant-hill. So far are they from having considered any local inequality of the surface, that they have not yet decided upon the general form of the earth; it is still a matter of speculation whether or not the earth is an ellipsoid with three unequal axes. If, as is probable, the globe is irregularly compressed in some directions, the calculations of astronomers will have to be repeated and refined, in order that they may approximate to the attractive power of such a body. If we cannot accurately learn the form of our own earth, how can we expect to ascertain that of the moon, the sun, and other planets, in some of which probably are irregularities of greater proportional amount?

In a further way the science of physical astronomy is merely approximate and hypothetical. Given homogeneous ellipsoids acting upon each other according to the law of gravity, the best mathematicians have never and perhaps never will determine exactly the resulting movements. Even when three bodies simultaneously attract each other the complication of effects is so great that only approximate calculations can be made. Astronomers have not