824 
with a horizontal stretch (minimum) of 4s, the quick rise from 1897 
to 1906 corresponds to a decrease of 4;. The effect of absorption 
cannot have another period than 18.03 years, while in the observed 
fluctuations periods of different length are certainly present. 
It appears to me, therefore, that so far we have no reason to 
consider the existence of a sensible absorption of gravitation as proved, 
or even as probable. 
(To be continued). 
Astronomy. — “On Absorption of Gravitation and the moon’s 
longitude”. By Prof. Dr. W. pr Srrrmr. Part II. 
(Communicated in the meeting of December 28, 1912). 
The conclusions derived in the first part of this paper are entirely 
confirmed by the second computation, which was already referred to 
in that part, and which was based ona different hypothesis regarding 
the distribution of mass in the body of the earth. I now assumed a 
core of density d', = 20 and radius &’,=0.55 FR, surrounded by a mantle 
of density d', = 2.8"). In the same way as before, I put, for 7, < 93.5 
Pan 
A re eee 
112 
Tet 
nl ZM 
112 
The multiplier 100 has been replaced by 84.7 — 100 d'/d, in 
order to get the same value of g for both computations. The result 
of the introduction of this new distribution of mass instead of the 
formerly assumed one is to increase the amount of absorption for 
long eclipses and to diminish it for short eclipses. The ratio J,'/J/, 
varies from 0.51 to 1.25. It is smallest for those eclipses in which 
with Wiecuert’s hypothesis the core also contributes to the absorption, 
while in the new hypothesis the ray of gravitation is situated entirely 
in the mantle. For the purpose of computation this ratio J,'//, was 
tabulated with the argument 7. We have then 
! 
and for 7, > 93.5 
J! = 84.7 
dn = — dn. 
J, 
') This hypothesis has been suggested by recent investigations by Mr. GUTENBERG, 
which were kindly communicated to me by Dr. LorrLINGER Mr. GUTENBERG finds 
that the real distribution of mass is included between the limits given by -', = 20, 
7 = 2.8 and 3,’= 8, 5 = 4.4. It being my intention to investigate the effect of 
a change in the function Jo, I purposely took the upper limit, which differs most 
from WIECHERT’s assumption, 
