420 
allow in taking aim for the effect of the wind upon the ball ; it is a question 
of resistance. 
The Chairman. — No, it is not a question of resistance ; it is the very- 
reverse. 
Mr. Brooke. — It is, indeed. 
The Chairman. — It is a different thing altogether. I think Mr. Brooke 
has mistaken Admiral Fishbourne’s point. It is this. We are not dealing 
with a circular ball, but with a bolt. The wind acts upon it more on one 
side than on the other as it is revolving on its own axis, and the consequence 
is that it is deflected from a straight line, not by the resistance of the air, 
but by the effect of the wind upon it. It is not a case of resistance, but of 
deflection, which is a totally distinct thing. (Hear, hear.) 
Admiral Halsted. — It is shown by the experiments of Mr. Glaisher that 
at the extreme point of the atmosphere from the surface of the earth it is 
very attenuated ; so that, upon the upper surface of the atmosphere, we 
should get a medium scarcely more dense than Encke’s comet itself. I 
merely mention the point with regard to the effect it would produce. 
Mr. Brooke. — The fact is unquestionable that the density of our rarest 
atmosphere is so great compared with the density of the ether, that the 
moment one of those shooting stars enters the confines of our atmosphere it 
becomes red hot, and is very soon ignited and burns away ; whereas it has 
travelled indefinitely through ether without being sensibly warmed. 
The Chairman. — That I doubt altogether. (Laughter.) 
Mr. Brooke. — That is my belief. 
Mr. Beddie. — There is no proof of that, of course 1 
Mr. Brooke. — No proof at all, but strong inference. But there is abundant 
proof that aerolites 
The Chairman. — But that is a totally different thing. I read a paper in 
which I endeavoured to show that there was no analogy between aerolites 
and falling stars. 
Mr. Brooke. — I think I have read the paper. (Laughter.) 
The Chairman. — I have few observations to make, except to say that I 
doubt whether Mr. Reddie is altogether right in the title of the paper he has 
read, as being in opposition to “ current physical astronomy.” I do not think 
his paper really touches current physical astronomy at all. A great part of 
the paper is directed against arguments contained in Newton’s Principia, 
but more against mathematical methods made use of by him than those 
current amongst physical astronomers of the present day. I believe that, in 
order to attack current physical astronomy, you will have to attack, not the 
mathematical processes of Newton, but those mathematical processes which 
have been introduced by astronomers into the present system, which is in 
the main very different from Newton’s. (Mr. Reddie. — Hear, hear.) His 
very peculiar kind of geometrical analysis enabled him to solve the problem 
of the three bodies, but only to a certain limited extent ; and it has been 
conceived by some that had Newton lived, and had more facts of physical 
astronomy been brought within the range of his vision, probably his powerful 
