Lenses and Waves
Lenses and Waves
Lenses and Waves
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1653 - TRACTATUS 45<br />
measurements resulted in the determination of the arc of the meridian,<br />
published in Mesure de la Terre (1671). In London, Hooke <strong>and</strong> Wren devoted<br />
themselves to carrying out the idea of telescopic sights. In 1669, Hooke<br />
announced that he had established the motion of the earth by means of a<br />
mural quadrant thus equipped. His claim met with great skepticism. In 1675,<br />
Flamsteed was appointed Astronomer Royal at the London counterpart to<br />
the Paris observatory. At the Royal Observatory, he erected a wealth of<br />
precision instruments <strong>and</strong> set up a program of astronomical measurements,<br />
eventually resulting in Historia coelestis brittanica (1725).<br />
The usefulness of telescopic sights was not, however, beyond all doubt.<br />
Hevelius, the most renowned astronomer in those days, was suspicious. He<br />
believed that telescopic sights were unreliable <strong>and</strong> therefore preferred naked<br />
eye views. 133 In 1672, a letter by Flamsteed was published in Philosophical<br />
Transactions in which he defended the use of telescopes for astronomical<br />
measurements. 134 He praised Hevelius for having improved Brahe’s<br />
astronomical data, but doubted whether any further progress could be<br />
possible as long as the latter refrained from using ‘glasses’. Hevelius took<br />
offense at Flamsteed’s allegations, <strong>and</strong> responded in Machina coelestis pars prior<br />
(1673) <strong>and</strong> in a letter that was published in part in Philosophical Transactions of<br />
April 1674:<br />
“For it is not only a question of seeing the stars somewhat more distinctly (…) but<br />
whether the instruments point correctly in every direction, whether the telescopic sights<br />
of the instrument can be accurately directed many times to any observations, <strong>and</strong> can<br />
be reliably maintained; but I very much doubt whether this can be done with equal<br />
precision every time.” 135<br />
The argument went a bit out of h<strong>and</strong> when, later in 1674, Hooke interfered<br />
with a vehement attack on Hevelius in Animadversions on the first part of the<br />
machina coelestis. Deeply hurt, Hevelius sent Flamsteed a letter in which he<br />
once more explained his doubts about the reliability of telescopic sights. The<br />
dispute was settled only five years later after a visit to Gdansk by Halley. He<br />
reported that Hevelius’ naked eye observations were indeed incredibly<br />
accurate.<br />
Hevelius had fought a lost battle – so it can be said with hindsight – but<br />
he was right in his suspicions about the reliability of telescopic sights. He<br />
knew from experience how difficult it is to align instruments reliably. Already<br />
in 1668 – right after the announcement of the micrometer – he had written<br />
to Oldenburg: “For many things seem most certain in theory, which in<br />
practice often fall far enough from truth.” 136 He was astonished that Hooke<br />
would claim great accuracy for his measurements on the basis of just single<br />
observations. Hevelius knew that accuracy was gained by hard <strong>and</strong> systematic<br />
work. Picard, Cassini <strong>and</strong> Flamsteed undertook such an arduous task, but<br />
133<br />
Flamsteed, Gresham lectures, 34-39 (Forbes’s introduction).<br />
134<br />
OldCorr9, 326-327.<br />
135<br />
OldCorr10, 520.<br />
136<br />
OldCorr4, 448.