On the deviation from the perpendicular of falling bodies.
Showing 1–20 of 45 items
On the deviation from the perpendicular of falling bodies.
Col. Ouseley had a son at Addiscombe. Has ascertained the relative value of the various branches of study in the final examination. Gives table of values. Hears that military drawing puzzles some. Children are well. If Johnny [Herschel] draws as well as Louisa [Herschel] at 14 he will do well.
Outlining the apparent controversy between himself and W. C. Bond over the discovery of the satellites.
Further regarding W. C. Bond's discovery of the Neptunian satellites.
Criteria for deciding who can claim to be the discoverer of the satellite. [This letter marked 'not sent on second thoughts; see RS:HS 23.41 for letter sent.]
Some question of Harvard University observer having observed the satellite [see JH's 1848-9-22] one day before WL.
Will now work with S. J. A. Compton, the President of the R.S.L., to try to get fair treatment for another applicant for the Admiralty money [see GA's 1848-9-25].
Further clarification to JH's 1848-10-26.
Sends GA's correspondence on the subject of the Admiralty grant, with further explanatory comments [see JH's 1848-10-28].
Replies to JH's letter of [9]-11 stating that he will do the article on statistics for JH's Admiralty Manual, and outlines what he expects it to include and to exclude. Asks JH for directions.
[Addressed to 'General ?'.] Comments on memo on refraction sent to Thomas Maclear.
Regrets Admiralty's giving whole of grant to [Charles] Brooke, when [Francis] Ronalds's photographic processes seem at least as satisfactory. Will join SC in supporting Ronalds's claims.
Is glad that WH is trying in his Lectures on Quaternions to clarify principles of quaternions. Suggests that WH define highly abstract terms.
Sends letter of Lord P [Palmerston, i.e., Henry John Temple] on 'Ch. Reventlow's [Count de Reventlow, Danish Ambassador to London?] case.' Comments on the present political situation and the causes for conflict, citing William Shakespeare.
Remarks in response to GA's 1848-10-4..
JH begs to differ with GA and Isaac Newton on the moon's motions [see GA's 1848-10-13]; warns GA against accepting J. H. Seyffert's work as accurate.
Still arguing that Isaac Newton is not correct concerning the moon's motions [see GA's 1848-10-24].
A note accompanying the return of a paper.
Asks HT to appeal for a pension for H. C. Schumacher, director of the Royal Danish Observatory.2
Further clarification to the moon's motions [see JH's 1848-10-25].