One of the most astonishing of the phenomena of "ball lightning" is a phenomenon of many meteorites: violence of explosion out of all proportion to size and velocity. We accept that the icy meteorites of Dhurmsalla could have fallen with no great velocity, but the sound from them was tremendous. The soft substance that fell at the Cape of Good Hope was carbonaceous, but was unburned, or had fallen with velocity insufficient to ignite it. The tremendous report that it made was heard over an area more than seventy miles in diameter.
That some hailstones have been formed in a dense medium, and violently disintegrate in this earth"s relatively thin atmosphere:
_Nature_, 88-350:
Large hailstones noted at the University of Missouri, Nov. 11, 1911: they exploded with sounds like pistol shots. The writer says that he had noticed a similar phenomenon, eighteen years before, at Lexington, Kentucky. Hailstones that seemed to have been formed in a denser medium: when melted under water they gave out bubbles larger than their central air s.p.a.ces. (_Monthly Weather Review_, 33-445.)
Our acceptance is that many objects have fallen from the sky, but that many of them have disintegrated violently. This acceptance will co-ordinate with data still to come, but, also, we make it easy for ourselves in our expressions upon super-constructions, if we"re asked why, from thinkable wrecks of them, girders, plates, or parts recognizably of manufactured metal have not fallen from the sky.
However, as to composition, we have not this refuge, so it is our expression that there have been reported instances of the fall of manufactured metal from the sky.
The meteorite of Rutherford, North Carolina, is of artificial material: ma.s.s of pig iron. It is said to be fraudulent. (_Amer. Jour. Sci._, 2-34-298.)
The object that was said to have fallen at Marblehead, Ma.s.s., in 1858, is described in the _Amer. Jour. Sci._, 2-34-135, as "a furnace product, formed in smelting copper ores, or iron ores containing copper." It is said to be fraudulent.
According to Ehrenberg, the substance reported by Capt. Callam to have fallen upon his vessel, near Java, "offered complete resemblance to the residue resulting from combustion of a steel wire in a flask of oxygen."
(Zurcher, _Meteors_, p. 239.) _Nature_, Nov. 21, 1878, publishes a notice that, according to the _Yuma Sentinel_, a meteorite that "resembles steel" had been found in the Mohave Desert. In _Nature_, Feb.
15, 1894, we read that one of the meteorites brought to the United States by Peary, from Greenland, is of tempered steel. The opinion is that meteoric iron had fallen in water or snow, quickly cooling and hardening. This does not apply to composition. Nov. 5, 1898, _Nature_ publishes a notice of a paper by Prof. Berwerth, of Vienna, upon "the close connection between meteoric iron and steel-works" steel."
At the meeting of Nov. 24, 1906, of the Ess.e.x Field Club, was exhibited a piece of metal said to have fallen from the sky, Oct. 9, 1906, at Braintree. According to the _Ess.e.x Naturalist_, Dr. Fletcher, of the British Museum, had declared this metal to be smelted iron--"so that the mystery of its reported "fall" remained unexplained."
24
We shall have an outcry of silences. If a single instance of anything be disregarded by a System--our own att.i.tude is that a single instance is a powerless thing. Of course our own method of agreement of many instances is not a real method. In Continuity, all things must have resemblances with all other things. Anything has any quasi-ident.i.ty you please. Some time ago conscription was a.s.similated with either autocracy or democracy with equal facility. Note the need for a dominant to correlate to.
Scarcely anybody said simply that we must have conscription: but that we must have conscription, which correlates with democracy, which was taken as a base, or something basically desirable. Of course between autocracy and democracy nothing but false demarcation can be drawn. So I can conceive of no subject upon which there should be such poverty as a single instance, if anything one pleases can be whipped into line.
However, we shall try to be more nearly real than the Darwinites who advance concealing coloration as Darwinism, and then drag in proclaiming luminosity, too, as Darwinism. I think the Darwinites had better come in with us as to the deep-sea fishes--and be sorry later, I suppose. It will be amazing or negligible to read all the instances now to come of things that have been seen in the sky, and to think that all have been disregarded. My own opinion is that it is not possible, or very easy, to disregard them, now that they have been brought together--but that, if prior to about this time we had attempted such an a.s.semblage, the Old Dominant would have withered our typewriter--as it is the letter "e" has gone back on us, and the "s" is temperamental.
"Most extraordinary and singular phenomenon," North Wales, Aug. 26, 1894; a disk from which projected an orange-colored body that looked like "an elongated flatfish," reported by Admiral Ommanney (_Nature_, 50-524); disk from which projected a hook-like form, India, about 1838; diagram of it given; disk about size of the moon, but brighter than the moon; visible about twenty minutes; by G. Pett.i.t, in Prof.
Baden-Powell"s Catalogue (_Rept. Brit. a.s.soc._, 1849); very brilliant hook-like form, seen in the sky at Poland, Trumbull Co., Ohio, during the stream of meteors, of 1833; visible more than an hour: large luminous body, almost stationary "for a time"; shaped like a square table; Niagara Falls, Nov. 13, 1833 (_Amer. Jour. Sci._, 1-25-391); something described as a bright white cloud, at night, Nov. 3, 1886, at Hamar, Norway; from it were emitted brilliant rays of light; drifted across the sky; "retained throughout its original form" (_Nature_, Dec.
16, 1886-158); thing with an oval nucleus, and streamers with dark bands and lines very suggestive of structure; New Zealand, May 4, 1888 (_Nature_, 42-402); luminous object, size of full moon, visible an hour and a half, Chili, Nov. 5, 1883 (_Comptes Rendus_, 103-682); bright object near sun, Dec. 21, 1882 (_Knowledge_, 3-13); light that looked like a great flame, far out at sea, off Ryook Phyoo, Dec. 2, 1845 (_London Roy. Soc. Proc._, 5-627); something like a gigantic trumpet, suspended, vertical, oscillating gently, visible five or six minutes, length estimated at 425 feet, at Oaxaca, Mexico, July 6, 1874 (_Sci.
Am. Sup._, 6-2365); two luminous bodies, seemingly united, visible five or six minutes, June 3, 1898 (_La Nature_, 1898-1-127); thing with a tail, crossing moon, transit half a minute, Sept. 26, 1870 (London _Times_, Sept. 30, 1870); object four or five times size of moon, moving slowly across sky, Nov. 1, 1885, near Adrianople (_L"Astronomie_, 1886-309); large body, colored red, moving slowly, visible 15 minutes, reported by Coggia, Ma.r.s.eilles, Aug. 1, 1871 (_Chem. News_, 24-193); details of this observation, and similar observation by Guillemin, and other instances by de Fonville (_Comptes Rendus_, 73-297, 755); thing that was large and that was stationary twice in seven minutes, Oxford, Nov. 19, 1847; listed by Lowe (_Rec. Sci._, 1-136); grayish object that looked to be about three and a half feet long, rapidly approaching the earth at Saarbruck, April 1, 1826; sound like thunder; object expanding like a sheet (_Am. Jour. Sci._, 1-26-133; _Quar. Jour. Roy. Inst._, 24-488); report by an astronomer, N.S. Drayton, upon an object duration of which seemed to him extraordinary; duration three-quarters of a minute, Jersey City, July 6, 1882 (_Sci. Amer._, 47-53); object like a comet, but with proper motion of 10 degrees an hour; visible one hour; reported by Purine and Glancy from the Cordoba Observatory, Argentina, March 14, 1916 (_Sci. Amer._, 115-493); something like a signal light, reported by Glaisher, Oct. 4, 1844; bright as Jupiter, "sending out quick flickering waves of light" (_Year Book of Facts_, 1845-278).
I think that with the object known as Eddie"s "comet" pa.s.ses away the last of our susceptibility to the common fallacy of personifying. It is one of the most deep-rooted of positivist illusions--that people are persons. We have been guilty too often of spleens and spites and ridicules against astronomers, as if they were persons, or final unities, individuals, completenesses, or selves--instead of indeterminate parts. But, so long as we remain in quasi-existence, we can cast out illusion only with some other illusion, though the other illusion may approximate higher to reality. So we personify no more--but we super-personify. We now take into full acceptance our expression that Development is an Autocracy of Successive Dominants--which are not final--but which approximate higher to individuality or self-ness, than do the human tropisms that irresponsibly correlate to them.
Eddie reported a celestial object, from the Observatory at Grahamstown, South Africa. It was in 1890. The New Dominant was only heir presumptive then, or heir apparent but not obvious. The thing that Eddie reported might as well have been reported by a night watchman, who had looked up through an unplaced sewer pipe.
It did not correlate.
The thing was not admitted to _Monthly Notices_. I think myself that if the Editor had attempted to let it in--earthquake--or a mysterious fire in his publishing house.
The Dominants are jealous G.o.ds.
In _Nature_, presumably a va.s.sal of the new G.o.d, though of course also plausibly rendering homage to the old, is reported a comet-like body, of Oct. 27, 1890, observed at Grahamstown, by Eddie. It may have looked comet-like, but it moved 100 degrees while visible, or one hundred degrees in three-quarters of an hour. See _Nature_, 43-89, 90.
In _Nature_, 44-519, Prof. Copeland describes a similar appearance that he had seen, Sept. 10, 1891. Dreyer says (_Nature_, 44-541) that he had seen this object at the Armagh Observatory. He likens it to the object that was reported by Eddie. It was seen by Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, Sept. 11, 1891, in Nova Scotia.
But the Old Dominant was a jealous G.o.d.
So there were different observations upon something that was seen in November, 1883. These observations were Philistines in 1883. In the _Amer. Met. Jour._, 1-110, a correspondent reports having seen an object like a comet, with two tails, one up and one down, Nov. 10 or 12, 1883.
Very likely this phenomenon should be placed in our expression upon torpedo-shaped bodies that have been seen in the sky--our data upon dirigibles, or super-Zeppelins--but our attempted cla.s.sifications are far from rigorous--or are mere gropes. In the _Scientific American_, 50-40, a correspondent writes from Humacao, Porto Rico, that, Nov. 21, 1883, he and several other--persons--or persons, as it were--had seen a majestic appearance, like a comet. Visible three successive nights: disappeared then. The Editor says that he can offer no explanation. If accepted, this thing must have been close to the earth. If it had been a comet, it would have been seen widely, and the news would have been telegraphed over the world, says the Editor. Upon page 97 of this volume of the _Scientific American_, a correspondent writes that, at Sulphur Springs, Ohio, he had seen "a wonder in the sky," at about the same date. It was torpedo-shaped, or something with a nucleus, at each end of which was a tail. Again the Editor says that he can offer no explanation: that the object was not a comet. He a.s.sociates it with the atmospheric effects general in 1883. But it will be our expression that, in England and Holland, a similar object was seen in November, 1882.
In the _Scientific American_, 40-294, is published a letter from Henry Harrison, of Jersey City, copied from the _New York Tribune_: that upon the evening of April 13, 1879, Mr. Harrison was searching for Brorsen"s comet, when he saw an object that was moving so rapidly that it could not have been a comet. He called a friend to look, and his observation was confirmed. At two o"clock in the morning this object was still visible. In the _Scientific American Supplement_, 7-2885, Mr. Harrison disclaims sensationalism, which he seems to think unworthy, and gives technical details: he says that the object was seen by Mr. J. Spencer Devoe, of Manhattanville.
25
"A formation having the shape of a dirigible." It was reported from Huntington, West Virginia (_Sci. Amer._, 115-241). Luminous object that was seen July 19, 1916, at about 11 P.M. Observed through "rather powerful field gla.s.ses," it looked to be about two degrees long and half a degree wide. It gradually dimmed, disappeared, reappeared, and then faded out of sight. Another person--as we say: it would be too inconvenient to hold to our intermediatist recognitions--another person who observed this phenomenon suggested to the writer of the account that the object was a dirigible, but the writer says that faint stars could be seen behind it. This would seem really to oppose our notion of a dirigible visitor to this earth--except for the inconclusiveness of all things in a mode of seeming that is not final--or we suggest that behind some parts of the object, thing, construction, faint stars were seen. We find a slight discussion here. Prof. H.M. Russell thinks that the phenomenon was a detached cloud of aurora borealis. Upon page 369 of this volume of the _Scientific American_, another correlator suggests that it was a light from a blast furnace--disregarding that, if there be blast furnaces in or near Huntington, their reflections would be commonplaces there.
We now have several observations upon cylindrical-shaped bodies that have appeared in this earth"s atmosphere: cylindrical, but pointed at both ends, or torpedo-shaped. Some of the accounts are not very detailed, but out of the bits of description my own acceptance is that super-geographical routes are traversed by torpedo-shaped super-constructions that have occasionally visited, or that have occasionally been driven into this earth"s atmosphere. From data, the acceptance is that upon entering this earth"s atmosphere, these vessels have been so racked that had they not sailed away, disintegration would have occurred: that, before leaving this earth, they have, whether in attempted communication or not, or in mere wantonness or not, dropped objects, which did almost immediately violently disintegrate or explode.
Upon general principles we think that explosives have not been purposely dropped, but that parts have been racked off, and have fallen, exploding like the things called "ball lightning." Many have been objects of stone or metal with inscriptions upon them, for all we know, at present. In all instances, estimates of dimensions are valueless, but ratios of dimensions are more acceptable. A thing said to have been six feet long may have been six hundred feet long; but shape is not so subject to the illusions of distance.
_Nature_, 40-415:
That, Aug. 5, 1889, during a violent storm, an object that looked to be about 15 inches long and 5 inches wide, fell, rather slowly, at East Twickenham, England. It exploded. No substance from it was found.
_L"Annee Scientifique_, 1864-54:
That, Oct. 10, 1864, M. Leverrier had sent to the Academy three letters from witnesses of a long luminous body, tapering at both ends, that had been seen in the sky.
In _Thunder and Lightning_, p. 87, Flammarion says that on Aug. 20, 1880, during a rather violent storm, M.A. Trecul, of the French Academy, saw a very brilliant yellowish-white body, apparently 35 to 40 centimeters long, and about 25 centimeters wide. Torpedo-shaped. Or a cylindrical body, "with slightly conical ends." It dropped something, and disappeared in the clouds. Whatever it may have been that was dropped, it fell vertically, like a heavy object, and left a luminous train. The scene of this occurrence may have been far from the observer.
No sound was heard. For M. Trecul"s account, see _Comptes Rendus_, 103-849.
_Monthly Weather Review_, 1907-310:
That, July 2, 1907, in the town of Burlington, Vermont, a terrific explosion had been heard throughout the city. A ball of light, or a luminous object, had been seen to fall from the sky--or from a torpedo-shaped thing, or construction, in the sky. No one had seen this thing that had exploded fall from a larger body that was in the sky--but if we accept that at the same time there was a larger body in the sky--
My own acceptance is that a dirigible in the sky, or a construction that showed every sign of disrupting, had barely time to drop--whatever it did drop--and to speed away to safety above.
The following story is told, in the _Review_, by Bishop John S. Michaud:
"I was standing on the corner of Church and College Streets, just in front of the Howard Bank, and facing east, engaged in conversation with Ex-Governor Woodbury and Mr. A.A. Buell, when, without the slightest indication, or warning, we were startled by what sounded like a most unusual and terrific explosion, evidently very nearby. Raising my eyes, and looking eastward along College Street, I observed a torpedo-shaped body, some 300 feet away, stationary in appearance, and suspended in the air, about 50 feet above the tops of the buildings. In size it was about 6 feet long by 8 inches in diameter, the sh.e.l.l, or covering, having a dark appearance, with here and there tongues of fire issuing from spots on the surface, resembling red-hot, unburnished copper. Although stationary when first noticed, this object soon began to move, rather slowly, and disappeared over Dolan Brothers" store, southward. As it moved, the covering seemed rupturing in places, and through these the intensely red flames issued."
Bishop Michaud attempts to correlate it with meteorological observations.
Because of the nearby view this is perhaps the most remarkable of the new correlates, but the correlate now coming is extraordinary because of the great number of recorded observations upon it. My own acceptance is that, upon Nov. 17, 1882, a vast dirigible crossed England, but by the definiteness-indefiniteness of all things quasi-real, some observations upon it can be correlated with anything one pleases.
E.W. Maunder, invited by the Editors of the _Observatory_ to write some reminiscences for the 500th number of their magazine, gives one that he says stands out (_Observatory_, 39-214). It is upon something that he terms "a strange celestial visitor." Maunder was at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Nov. 17, 1882, at night. There was an aurora, without features of special interest. In the midst of the aurora, a great circular disk of greenish light appeared and moved smoothly across the sky. But the circularity was evidently the effect of foreshortening.
The thing pa.s.sed above the moon, and was, by other observers, described as "cigar-shaped," "like a torpedo," "a spindle," "a shuttle." The idea of foreshortening is not mine: Maunder says this. He says: "Had the incident occurred a third of a century later, beyond doubt everyone would have selected the same simile--it would have been "just like a Zeppelin."" The duration was about two minutes. Color said to have been the same as that of the auroral glow in the north. Nevertheless, Maunder says that this thing had no relation to auroral phenomena. "It appeared to be a definite body." Motion too fast for a cloud, but "nothing could be more unlike the rush of a meteor." In the _Philosophical Magazine_, 5-15-318, J. Rand Cap.r.o.n, in a lengthy paper, alludes throughout to this phenomenon as an "auroral beam," but he lists many observations upon its "torpedo-shape," and one observation upon a "dark nucleus" in it--host of most confusing observations--estimates of height between 40 and 200 miles--observations in Holland and Belgium. We are told that according to Cap.r.o.n"s spectroscopic observations the phenomenon was nothing but a beam of auroral light. In the _Observatory_, 6-192, is Maunder"s contemporaneous account. He gives apparent approximate length and breadth at twenty-seven degrees and three degrees and a half. He gives other observations seeming to indicate structure--"remarkable dark marking down the center."
In _Nature_, 27-84, Cap.r.o.n says that because of the moonlight he had been able to do little with the spectroscope.
Color white, but aurora rosy (_Nature_, 27-87).