Remarks in response to GA's 1848-10-4..
Showing 1–19 of 19 items
Remarks in response to GA's 1848-10-4..
Some question of Harvard University observer having observed the satellite [see JH's 1848-9-22] one day before WL.
[Addressed to 'General ?'.] Comments on memo on refraction sent to Thomas Maclear.
Returned proof of Lord Lovelace's [William King's] review of [A. E. P.] Gasparin. Notes and sketch regarding actinometers and other instruments.
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.]
Asks HT to appeal for a pension for H. C. Schumacher, director of the Royal Danish Observatory.2
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.
Regarding Isaac Newton's theory of the motion of the moon's apse. Concerning the reliability of J. H. Seyfforth's theories. Status of the Ipswich Philosophical Society.
Giving his views on planetary and lunar perturbations.
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].
Further regarding his dispute with Isaac Newton's theory on the moon.
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 the moon's motions [see JH's 1848-10-25].
Regarding the moon's orbit.
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.
Further clarification to JH's 1848-10-26.
Thanks GA for the time and trouble he took in the drawn-out debate over the moon's motions [see 1848-9-25 to 1848-10-26].