The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1882-11-04
Is THE COMET BREAKING Ur!
New York Sun.l

New York Sun.l
The come AIRY mass, describe lss be-
ing two degrees in length, which has
been observed travelling beside the
gIeat comet, ought TO be easily seen
with small telescopes; aud if it is as
bright rs tho tail Of the comet should
be visible to the naked eye. The dis
coyery Of this new comet, or,;cs some
observers prefer to call it, fragment OF
the old comet, is the most interesting
| that has been made since the great
comet suddenly appeared near the sun
at broad noon. The cloudy weather
which has prevented any observation
OF it in this city is, therefore, greatly
to be regretted.
1t is very interc sting question
whether the new comet is a portion of
the old one or an entirely separate
comet. Very few observations of it
have been reported, and they appear
to Ge somewhat contradictory. On
October S, Prof. Schmidt of Athens
discovered cometary mass four de.
Grees southwest of the great comet, and
moving il the same direction. Two
| weeks later Prof. Brooks of Phelps, N .
", noticed cometary mass eight de-
gcees east of the great comet, and ap-
parently following in its path. Were
these the same object: An approxi-
mate estimate Of the size Of the mys-
terious masses, their distances from the
comet, and their motions, may throw
light upon the question. Prot. Brooks
says the mass he saw was two degrees
in length. In that case it must have
been five or six million miles long, and
supposirg its direction from the comet
TO be at right angles to the line Of
sight, its distance east of the comet
could not have been less than twenty
nlifions miles. We have no infOrma-
tIon as to the size Of the MESS observed
oy Irot. Smith, but, according to his
estimate OF its angular distance, it must
nave been al out 5000, miles southwest
or the comet when no saw it. Now,
if these two objects were one and the
same, ii must have moved, in the
course oftwo weeks, at least 26, ,OOO, 900
miles in a retrogradc direction with
respect to the motion of the comet;
that is, it has moved backward. But
both Prof. Schmidt and Prof. Brooks
describe the objects they saw as NOV
ing with the comet. Thea, unless
there is some mistake in the reports of
their observations, it is hardly possible
that the two astronomers saw the
Same object. The question then arises
whethers the great comet is throwing
off fragments which disappear or are
diSSipatcu after time. Certain ap-
pearancos at )ut the nucleus Of the
co'"at fond to support this view; and
Prof. Brooks noticed on tho second
morning OF his observation of the COM
etary morning of his observation of the
conlctary mass that it had grown small
Icy. The nucleus has been seen div:.
dcd, and envelopes have been thrown
Off from il.
If it turns out Chat the comet hcs
really thrown Off two such m-uense
fragments :'I those seen by Me-srs.
Schmidt and Brooks, astronomers will
be called upon to explain what force
resides in comet sufficient to produce
such an effect. Undoubtedly, IS Prof
Pcirce pointed out, a comet going very
close TO tho sun would be torn apart in
its swift perihclion sweep unl'@s it
were cOmrO ed OF exceedingly tena-
cious materials and the nucleus of the
present comet may have been separa-
ted into Il number Of parts in that way.
But the fragments in question appear
to have been thrown Off after the comet
had got Far away from the sun on it's
outward journey into space, and the
question is, How was the comet able
TO throw them toa distance of several
miliiOn MUGS: II appears more nKely |
that this effect would result from a |
swift rotation about an axis than from |
resembling an explosion, and
ccrtriu observations made within the |
last few weeks indicate that there is a |
rotary motion in the nucleus OF the |
comet. Ifso, then we must look upon
the comet aS body, or collection of
bodies, spinning so swiftly as it flies |
space that lis outer portions
are hurled on like drops of water from
the periphery ofa whiriing grindstonc. |