102 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



reason : this is markedly so in matters social and political, and still more 

 should it be so in matters scientific. Therefore it is to be hoped that either 

 Mr. Jones or some other representative of Greenwich has been prevailed upon 

 to explain why Drayson's discovery — no inverted commas, please — has been 

 left uninvestigated by official astronomy for close on half a century. 



The geological facts and arguments adduced by Major Marriott are not, 

 it would seem, contested by geologists and therefore stand. Yet official 

 astronomy, while offering no explanation itself, rejects that which he gives ; 

 assigns no grounds for so doing ; and seems content to reflect that the two 

 sciences are at variance on another point. This is unsatisfactory, and 

 indeed unreasonable. However, by their rejection of Drayson's problem 

 astronomers have involved themselves in a very singular dilemma, as I will 

 briefly explain. 



There is a point in the heavens from which all the stars appear to be 

 separating, those on the one side increasing their right ascensions and those 

 on the other decreasing them. This spot is known as the Apex of Solar 

 Motion, since it is thought to be the direction taken by the solar system in 

 its motion through space. Its exact location is not definitely known, and 

 many different determinations have been made during the last hundred 

 years or so. Just about fifty years ago Drayson demonstrated that this 

 spot was in 



R. A. 265.1 N. Dec. 31.1 

 The latest determination by Weersma in 1908 assigns it to 



R. A. 268.0 N. Dec. 31.4 



It will be seen that these positions are almost identical. They are at any 

 rate vastly more accordant than any two that can be picked out of the list 

 of thirty-six different determinations given by Campbell in his Stellar Motions. 



Weersma's result is derived from all the *' proper motions " that were 

 available to him in 1908 and is presumably to be preferred above any of the 

 earlier ones cited by Campbell. Yet fifty years earlier Drayson secured an 

 almost identical result — not by guessing, but by calculation — and without 

 having recourse to the " proper motion " of one single star ! 



Essentially, both these determinations rest upon certain definitely ascer- 

 tained facts, namely the recorded observations of stars and the discrepancy 

 existing between the observed positions and the predicted positions as de- 

 rived by calculation from the orthodox precession theory. But whereas in 

 finding an explanation to fit the facts orthodox astronomy throws the efl[ect 

 upon the stars generally, and on the solar system as a whole, predicating 

 heterogeneous motions in many vast and distant bodies, Drayson on the other 

 hand explains the same phenomena — and, be it noted, reaches the same 

 numerical result — by throwing the effect upon one homogeneous movement 

 of a single small and near body, the earth. 



The first of Newton's three regulcs philosophandi requires that no more 

 causes are to be admitted than are sufficient to explain the phenomena. 

 Official astronomy is consequently confronted with this dilemma : that she 

 must either admit Drayson's explanation, or palpably fly in the face of the 

 First Rule in Philosophy. 



I trust you may be able to publish this letter, for the matter is too im- 

 portant to be let drop, and should be threshed out. Other points might have 

 been enumerated, but the one given is that which I personally consider the 

 most striking as prima facie evidence on the astronomical side of the 

 question. 



Yours faithfully, 



Alfred H. Barley, 



