ÓÑÇéÌáʾ£ºÈç¹û±¾ÍøÒ³´ò¿ªÌ«Âý»òÏÔʾ²»ÍêÕû£¬Çë³¢ÊÔÊó±êÓÒ¼ü¡°Ë¢Ð¡±±¾ÍøÒ³£¡ÔĶÁ¹ý³Ì·¢ÏÖÈκδíÎóÇë¸æËßÎÒÃÇ£¬Ð»Ð»£¡£¡ ±¨¸æ´íÎó
¾ÅÉ«Êé¼® ·µ»Ø±¾ÊéĿ¼ ÎÒµÄÊé¼Ü ÎÒµÄÊéÇ© TXTÈ«±¾ÏÂÔØ ½øÈëÊé°É ¼ÓÈëÊéÇ©

darwin and modern science-µÚ171ÕÂ

°´¼üÅÌÉÏ·½Ïò¼ü ¡û »ò ¡ú ¿É¿ìËÙÉÏÏ·­Ò³£¬°´¼üÅÌÉ쵀 Enter ¼ü¿É»Øµ½±¾ÊéĿ¼ҳ£¬°´¼üÅÌÉÏ·½Ïò¼ü ¡ü ¿É»Øµ½±¾Ò³¶¥²¿£¡
¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ªÎ´ÔĶÁÍꣿ¼ÓÈëÊéÇ©ÒѱãÏ´μÌÐøÔĶÁ£¡



y¡¡secures¡¡a¡¡considerable¡¡multiplication¡¡of¡¡the¡¡examples¡¡available¡¡for¡¡observation£»¡¡and¡¡some¡¡30¡¡have¡¡already¡¡been¡¡discovered¡£

Dr¡¡Alexander¡¡Roberts£»¡¡of¡¡Lovedale¡¡in¡¡Cape¡¡Colony£»¡¡truly¡¡remarks¡¡that¡¡the¡¡study¡¡of¡¡Algol¡¡variables¡¡¡¨brings¡¡us¡¡to¡¡the¡¡very¡¡threshold¡¡of¡¡the¡¡question¡¡of¡¡stellar¡¡evolution¡£¡¨¡¡¡¡£¨¡¨Proc¡£¡¡Roy¡£¡¡Soc¡£¡¡Edinburgh¡¨£»¡¡XXIV¡£¡¡Part¡¡II¡£¡¡£¨1902£©£»¡¡page¡¡73¡££©¡¡¡¡It¡¡is¡¡on¡¡this¡¡account¡¡that¡¡I¡¡propose¡¡to¡¡explain¡¡in¡¡some¡¡detail¡¡the¡¡conclusion¡¡to¡¡which¡¡he¡¡and¡¡some¡¡other¡¡observers¡¡have¡¡been¡¡led¡£

Although¡¡these¡¡variable¡¡stars¡¡are¡¡mere¡¡points¡¡of¡¡light£»¡¡it¡¡has¡¡been¡¡proved¡¡by¡¡means¡¡of¡¡the¡¡spectroscope¡¡that¡¡the¡¡law¡¡of¡¡gravitation¡¡holds¡¡good¡¡in¡¡the¡¡remotest¡¡regions¡¡of¡¡stellar¡¡space£»¡¡and¡¡further¡¡it¡¡seems¡¡now¡¡to¡¡have¡¡become¡¡possible¡¡even¡¡to¡¡examine¡¡the¡¡shapes¡¡of¡¡stars¡¡by¡¡indirect¡¡methods£»¡¡and¡¡thus¡¡to¡¡begin¡¡the¡¡study¡¡of¡¡their¡¡evolution¡£¡¡¡¡The¡¡chain¡¡of¡¡reasoning¡¡which¡¡I¡¡shall¡¡explain¡¡must¡¡of¡¡necessity¡¡be¡¡open¡¡to¡¡criticism£»¡¡yet¡¡the¡¡explanation¡¡of¡¡the¡¡facts¡¡by¡¡the¡¡theory¡¡is¡¡so¡¡perfect¡¡that¡¡it¡¡is¡¡not¡¡easy¡¡to¡¡resist¡¡the¡¡conviction¡¡that¡¡we¡¡are¡¡travelling¡¡along¡¡the¡¡path¡¡of¡¡truth¡£

The¡¡brightness¡¡of¡¡a¡¡star¡¡is¡¡specified¡¡by¡¡what¡¡is¡¡called¡¡its¡¡¡¨magnitude¡£¡¨¡¡¡¡The¡¡average¡¡brightness¡¡of¡¡all¡¡the¡¡stars¡¡which¡¡can¡¡just¡¡be¡¡seen¡¡with¡¡the¡¡naked¡¡eye¡¡defines¡¡the¡¡sixth¡¡magnitude¡£¡¡¡¡A¡¡star¡¡which¡¡only¡¡gives¡¡two¡­fifths¡¡as¡¡much¡¡light¡¡is¡¡said¡¡to¡¡be¡¡of¡¡the¡¡seventh¡¡magnitude£»¡¡while¡¡one¡¡which¡¡gives¡¡2¡¡1/2¡¡times¡¡as¡¡much¡¡light¡¡is¡¡of¡¡the¡¡fifth¡¡magnitude£»¡¡and¡¡successive¡¡multiplications¡¡or¡¡divisions¡¡by¡¡2¡¡1/2¡¡define¡¡the¡¡lower¡¡or¡¡higher¡¡magnitudes¡£¡¡¡¡Negative¡¡magnitudes¡¡have¡¡clearly¡¡to¡¡be¡¡contemplated£»¡¡thus¡¡Sirius¡¡is¡¡of¡¡magnitude¡¡minus¡¡1¡£4£»¡¡and¡¡the¡¡sun¡¡is¡¡of¡¡magnitude¡¡minus¡¡26¡£

The¡¡definition¡¡of¡¡magnitude¡¡is¡¡also¡¡extended¡¡to¡¡fractions£»¡¡for¡¡example£»¡¡the¡¡lights¡¡given¡¡by¡¡two¡¡candles¡¡which¡¡are¡¡placed¡¡at¡¡100¡¡feet¡¡and¡¡100¡¡feet¡¡6¡¡inches¡¡from¡¡the¡¡observer¡¡differ¡¡in¡¡brightness¡¡by¡¡one¡­hundredth¡¡of¡¡a¡¡magnitude¡£

A¡¡great¡¡deal¡¡of¡¡thought¡¡has¡¡been¡¡devoted¡¡to¡¡the¡¡measurement¡¡of¡¡the¡¡brightness¡¡of¡¡stars£»¡¡but¡¡I¡¡will¡¡only¡¡describe¡¡one¡¡of¡¡the¡¡methods¡¡used£»¡¡that¡¡of¡¡the¡¡great¡¡astronomer¡¡Argelander¡£¡¡¡¡In¡¡the¡¡neighbourhood¡¡of¡¡the¡¡star¡¡under¡¡observation¡¡some¡¡half¡¡dozen¡¡standard¡¡stars¡¡are¡¡selected¡¡of¡¡known¡¡invariable¡¡magnitudes£»¡¡some¡¡being¡¡brighter¡¡and¡¡some¡¡fainter¡¡than¡¡the¡¡star¡¡to¡¡be¡¡measured£»¡¡so¡¡that¡¡these¡¡stars¡¡afford¡¡a¡¡visible¡¡scale¡¡of¡¡brightness¡£¡¡¡¡Suppose¡¡we¡¡number¡¡them¡¡in¡¡order¡¡of¡¡increasing¡¡brightness¡¡from¡¡1¡¡to¡¡6£»¡¡then¡¡the¡¡observer¡¡estimates¡¡that¡¡on¡¡a¡¡given¡¡night¡¡his¡¡star¡¡falls¡¡between¡¡stars¡¡2¡¡and¡¡3£»¡¡on¡¡the¡¡next¡¡night£»¡¡say¡¡between¡¡3¡¡and¡¡4£»¡¡and¡¡then¡¡again¡¡perhaps¡¡it¡¡may¡¡return¡¡to¡¡between¡¡2¡¡and¡¡3£»¡¡and¡¡so¡¡forth¡£¡¡¡¡With¡¡practice¡¡he¡¡learns¡¡to¡¡evaluate¡¡the¡¡brightness¡¡down¡¡to¡¡small¡¡fractions¡¡of¡¡a¡¡magnitude£»¡¡even¡¡a¡¡hundredth¡¡part¡¡of¡¡a¡¡magnitude¡¡is¡¡not¡¡quite¡¡negligible¡£

For¡¡example£»¡¡in¡¡observing¡¡the¡¡star¡¡RR¡¡Centauri¡¡five¡¡stars¡¡were¡¡in¡¡general¡¡used¡¡for¡¡comparison¡¡by¡¡Dr¡¡Roberts£»¡¡and¡¡in¡¡course¡¡of¡¡three¡¡months¡¡he¡¡secured¡¡thereby¡¡300¡¡complete¡¡observations¡£¡¡¡¡When¡¡the¡¡period¡¡of¡¡the¡¡cycle¡¡had¡¡been¡¡ascertained¡¡exactly£»¡¡these¡¡300¡¡values¡¡were¡¡reduced¡¡to¡¡mean¡¡values¡¡which¡¡appertained¡¡to¡¡certain¡¡mean¡¡places¡¡in¡¡the¡¡cycle£»¡¡and¡¡a¡¡mean¡¡light¡­curve¡¡was¡¡obtained¡¡in¡¡this¡¡way¡£¡¡¡¡Figures¡¡titled¡¡¡¨Light¡¡curve¡¡of¡¡RR¡¡Centauri¡¨¡¡£¨Fig¡£¡¡5£©¡¡and¡¡¡¨The¡¡light¡­curve¡¡and¡¡system¡¡of¡¡Beta¡¡Lyrae¡¨¡¡£¨Fig¡£¡¡7£©¡¡show¡¡examples¡¡of¡¡light¡¡curves¡£

I¡¡shall¡¡now¡¡follow¡¡out¡¡the¡¡results¡¡of¡¡the¡¡observation¡¡of¡¡RR¡¡Centauri¡¡not¡¡only¡¡because¡¡it¡¡affords¡¡the¡¡easiest¡¡way¡¡of¡¡explaining¡¡these¡¡investigations£»¡¡but¡¡also¡¡because¡¡it¡¡is¡¡one¡¡of¡¡the¡¡stars¡¡which¡¡furnishes¡¡the¡¡most¡¡striking¡¡results¡¡in¡¡connection¡¡with¡¡the¡¡object¡¡of¡¡this¡¡essay¡£¡¡¡¡£¨See¡¡¡¨Monthly¡¡notices¡¡R¡£A¡£S¡£¡¨¡¡Vol¡£¡¡63£»¡¡1903£»¡¡page¡¡527¡££©¡¡¡¡This¡¡star¡¡has¡¡a¡¡mean¡¡magnitude¡¡of¡¡about¡¡7¡¡1/2£»¡¡and¡¡it¡¡is¡¡therefore¡¡invisible¡¡to¡¡the¡¡naked¡¡eye¡£¡¡¡¡Its¡¡period¡¡of¡¡variability¡¡is¡¡14h¡¡32m¡¡10s¡£76£»¡¡the¡¡last¡¡refinement¡¡of¡¡precision¡¡being¡¡of¡¡course¡¡only¡¡attained¡¡in¡¡the¡¡final¡¡stages¡¡of¡¡reduction¡£¡¡¡¡Twenty¡­nine¡¡mean¡¡values¡¡of¡¡the¡¡magnitude¡¡were¡¡determined£»¡¡and¡¡they¡¡were¡¡nearly¡¡equally¡¡spaced¡¡over¡¡the¡¡whole¡¡cycle¡¡of¡¡changes¡£¡¡¡¡The¡¡black¡¡dots¡¡in¡¡Fig¡£¡¡5¡¡exhibit¡¡the¡¡mean¡¡values¡¡determined¡¡by¡¡Dr¡¡Roberts¡£¡¡¡¡The¡¡last¡¡three¡¡dots¡¡on¡¡the¡¡extreme¡¡right¡¡are¡¡merely¡¡the¡¡same¡¡as¡¡the¡¡first¡¡three¡¡on¡¡the¡¡extreme¡¡left£»¡¡and¡¡are¡¡repeated¡¡to¡¡show¡¡how¡¡the¡¡next¡¡cycle¡¡would¡¡begin¡£¡¡¡¡The¡¡smooth¡¡dotted¡¡curve¡¡will¡¡be¡¡explained¡¡hereafter£»¡¡but£»¡¡by¡¡reference¡¡to¡¡the¡¡scale¡¡of¡¡magnitudes¡¡on¡¡the¡¡margins¡¡of¡¡the¡¡figure£»¡¡it¡¡may¡¡be¡¡used¡¡to¡¡note¡¡that¡¡the¡¡dots¡¡might¡¡be¡¡brought¡¡into¡¡a¡¡perfectly¡¡smooth¡¡curve¡¡by¡¡shifting¡¡some¡¡few¡¡of¡¡the¡¡dots¡¡by¡¡about¡¡a¡¡hundredth¡¡of¡¡a¡¡magnitude¡£

This¡¡light¡­curve¡¡presents¡¡those¡¡characteristics¡¡which¡¡are¡¡due¡¡to¡¡successive¡¡eclipses£»¡¡but¡¡the¡¡exact¡¡form¡¡of¡¡the¡¡curve¡¡must¡¡depend¡¡on¡¡the¡¡nature¡¡of¡¡the¡¡two¡¡mutually¡¡eclipsing¡¡stars¡£¡¡¡¡If¡¡we¡¡are¡¡to¡¡interpret¡¡the¡¡curve¡¡with¡¡all¡¡possible¡¡completeness£»¡¡it¡¡is¡¡necessary¡¡to¡¡make¡¡certain¡¡assumptions¡¡as¡¡to¡¡the¡¡stars¡£¡¡¡¡It¡¡is¡¡assumed¡¡then¡¡that¡¡the¡¡stars¡¡are¡¡equally¡¡bright¡¡all¡¡over¡¡their¡¡disks£»¡¡and¡¡secondly¡¡that¡¡they¡¡are¡¡not¡¡surrounded¡¡by¡¡an¡¡extensive¡¡absorptive¡¡atmosphere¡£¡¡¡¡This¡¡last¡¡appears¡¡to¡¡me¡¡to¡¡be¡¡the¡¡most¡¡dangerous¡¡assumption¡¡involved¡¡in¡¡the¡¡whole¡¡theory¡£

Making¡¡these¡¡assumptions£»¡¡however£»¡¡it¡¡is¡¡found¡¡that¡¡if¡¡each¡¡of¡¡the¡¡eclipsing¡¡stars¡¡were¡¡spherical¡¡it¡¡would¡¡not¡¡be¡¡possible¡¡to¡¡generate¡¡such¡¡a¡¡curve¡¡with¡¡the¡¡closest¡¡accuracy¡£¡¡¡¡The¡¡two¡¡stars¡¡are¡¡certainly¡¡close¡¡together£»¡¡and¡¡it¡¡is¡¡obvious¡¡that¡¡in¡¡such¡¡a¡¡case¡¡the¡¡tidal¡¡forces¡¡exercised¡¡by¡¡each¡¡on¡¡the¡¡other¡¡must¡¡be¡¡such¡¡as¡¡to¡¡elongate¡¡the¡¡figure¡¡of¡¡each¡¡towards¡¡the¡¡other¡£¡¡¡¡Accordingly¡¡it¡¡is¡¡reasonable¡¡to¡¡adopt¡¡the¡¡hypothesis¡¡that¡¡the¡¡system¡¡consists¡¡of¡¡a¡¡pair¡¡of¡¡elongated¡¡ellipsoids£»¡¡with¡¡their¡¡longest¡¡axes¡¡pointed¡¡towards¡¡one¡¡another¡£¡¡¡¡No¡¡supposition¡¡is¡¡adopted¡¡a¡¡priori¡¡as¡¡to¡¡the¡¡ratio¡¡of¡¡the¡¡two¡¡masses£»¡¡or¡¡as¡¡to¡¡their¡¡relative¡¡size¡¡or¡¡brightness£»¡¡and¡¡the¡¡orbit¡¡may¡¡have¡¡any¡¡degree¡¡of¡¡eccentricity¡£¡¡¡¡These¡¡last¡¡are¡¡all¡¡to¡¡be¡¡determined¡¡from¡¡the¡¡nature¡¡of¡¡the¡¡light¡­curve¡£

In¡¡the¡¡case¡¡of¡¡RR¡¡Centauri£»¡¡however£»¡¡Dr¡¡Roberts¡¡finds¡¡the¡¡conditions¡¡are¡¡best¡¡satisfied¡¡by¡¡supposing¡¡the¡¡orbit¡¡to¡¡be¡¡circular£»¡¡and¡¡the¡¡sizes¡¡and¡¡masses¡¡of¡¡the¡¡components¡¡to¡¡be¡¡equal£»¡¡while¡¡their¡¡luminosities¡¡are¡¡to¡¡one¡¡another¡¡in¡¡the¡¡ratio¡¡of¡¡4¡¡to¡¡3¡£¡¡¡¡As¡¡to¡¡their¡¡shapes¡¡he¡¡finds¡¡them¡¡to¡¡be¡¡so¡¡much¡¡elongated¡¡that¡¡they¡¡overlap£»¡¡as¡¡exhibited¡¡in¡¡his¡¡figure¡¡titled¡¡¡¨The¡¡shape¡¡of¡¡the¡¡star¡¡RR¡¡Centauri¡¨¡¡£¨Fig¡£¡¡6¡££©¡£¡¡¡¡The¡¡dotted¡¡curve¡¡shows¡¡a¡¡form¡¡of¡¡equilibrium¡¡of¡¡rotating¡¡liquid¡¡as¡¡computed¡¡by¡¡me¡¡some¡¡years¡¡before£»¡¡and¡¡it¡¡was¡¡added¡¡for¡¡the¡¡sake¡¡of¡¡comparison¡£

On¡¡turning¡¡back¡¡to¡¡Fig¡£¡¡5¡¡the¡¡reader¡¡will¡¡see¡¡in¡¡the¡¡smooth¡¡dotted¡¡curve¡¡the¡¡light¡¡variation¡¡which¡¡would¡¡be¡¡exhibited¡¡by¡¡such¡¡a¡¡binary¡¡system¡¡as¡¡this¡£¡¡¡¡The¡¡curve¡¡is¡¡the¡¡result¡¡of¡¡computation¡¡and¡¡it¡¡is¡¡impossible¡¡not¡¡to¡¡be¡¡struck¡¡by¡¡the¡¡closeness¡¡of¡¡the¡¡coincidence¡¡with¡¡the¡¡series¡¡of¡¡black¡¡dots¡¡which¡¡denote¡¡the¡¡observations¡£

It¡¡is¡¡virtually¡¡certain¡¡that¡¡RR¡¡Centauri¡¡is¡¡a¡¡case¡¡of¡¡an¡¡eclipsing¡¡binary¡¡system£»¡¡and¡¡that¡¡the¡¡two¡¡stars¡¡are¡¡close¡¡together¡£¡¡¡¡It¡¡is¡¡not¡¡of¡¡course¡¡proved¡¡that¡¡the¡¡figures¡¡of¡¡the¡¡stars¡¡are¡¡ellipsoids£»¡¡but¡¡gravitation¡¡must¡¡deform¡¡them¡¡into¡¡a¡¡pair¡¡of¡¡elongated¡¡bodies£»¡¡and£»¡¡on¡¡the¡¡assumptions¡¡that¡¡they¡¡are¡¡not¡¡enveloped¡¡in¡¡an¡¡absorptive¡¡atmosphere¡¡and¡¡that¡¡they¡¡are¡¡ellipsoidal£»¡¡their¡¡shapes¡¡must¡¡be¡¡as¡¡shown¡¡in¡¡the¡¡figure¡£

This¡¡light¡­curve¡¡gives¡¡an¡¡excellent¡¡illustration¡¡of¡¡what¡¡we¡¡have¡¡reason¡¡to¡¡believe¡¡to¡¡be¡¡a¡¡stage¡¡in¡¡the¡¡evolution¡¡of¡¡stars£»¡¡when¡¡a¡¡single¡¡star¡¡is¡¡proceeding¡¡to¡¡separate¡¡into¡¡a¡¡binary¡¡one¡£

As¡¡the¡¡star¡¡is¡¡faint£»¡¡there¡¡is¡¡as¡¡yet¡¡no¡¡direct¡¡spectroscopic¡¡evidence¡¡of¡¡orbital¡¡motion¡£¡¡¡¡Let¡¡us¡¡turn¡¡therefore¡¡to¡¡the¡¡case¡¡of¡¡another¡¡star£»¡¡namely¡¡V¡¡Puppis£»¡¡in¡¡which¡¡such¡¡evidence¡¡does¡¡already¡¡exist¡£¡¡¡¡I¡¡give¡¡an¡¡account¡¡of¡¡it£»¡¡because¡¡it¡¡presents¡¡a¡¡peculiarly¡¡interesting¡¡confirmation¡¡of¡¡the¡¡correctness¡¡of¡¡the¡¡theory¡£

In¡¡1895¡¡Pickering¡¡announced¡¡in¡¡the¡¡¡¨Harvard¡¡Circular¡¨¡¡No¡£¡¡14¡¡that¡¡the¡¡spectroscopic¡¡observations¡¡at¡¡Arequipa¡¡proved¡¡V¡¡Puppis¡¡to¡¡be¡¡a¡¡double¡¡star¡¡with¡¡a¡¡period¡¡of¡¡3d¡¡2h¡¡46m¡£¡¡¡¡Now¡¡when¡¡Roberts¡¡discussed¡¡its¡¡light¡­curve¡¡he¡¡found¡¡that¡¡the¡¡period¡¡was¡¡1d¡¡10h¡¡54m¡¡27s£»¡¡and¡¡on¡¡account¡¡of¡¡this¡¡serious¡¡discrepancy¡¡he¡¡effected¡¡the¡¡reduction¡¡only¡¡on¡¡the¡¡simple¡¡assumption¡¡that¡¡the¡¡two¡¡stars¡¡were¡¡spherical£»¡¡and¡¡thus¡¡obtained¡¡a¡¡fairly¡¡good¡¡representation¡¡of¡¡the¡¡light¡­curve¡£¡¡¡¡It¡¡appeared¡¡that¡¡the¡¡orbit¡¡was¡¡circular¡¡and¡¡that¡¡the¡¡two¡¡spheres¡¡were¡¡not¡¡quite¡¡in¡¡contact¡£¡¡¡¡Obviously¡¡if¡¡the¡¡stars¡¡had¡¡been¡¡assumed¡¡to¡¡be¡¡ellipsoids¡¡they¡¡would¡¡have¡¡been¡¡found¡¡to¡¡overlap£»¡¡as¡¡was¡¡the¡¡case¡¡for¡¡RR¡¡Centauri¡£¡¡¡¡£¨¡¨Astrophysical¡¡Journ¡£¡¨¡¡Vol¡£¡¡XIII¡£¡¡£¨1901£©£»¡¡page¡¡177¡££©¡¡¡¡The¡¡matter¡¡rested¡¡thus¡¡for¡¡some¡¡months¡¡until¡¡the¡¡spectroscopic¡¡evidence¡¡was¡¡re¡­examined¡¡by¡¡Miss¡¡Cannon¡¡on¡¡behalf¡¡of¡¡Professor¡¡Pickering£»¡¡and¡¡we¡¡find¡¡in¡¡the¡¡notes¡¡on¡¡page¡¡177¡¡of¡¡Vol¡£¡¡XXVIII¡£¡¡of¡¡the¡¡¡¨Annals¡¡of¡¡the¡¡Harvard¡¡Observatory¡¨¡¡the¡¡following£º¡¡¡¡¡¨A¡£G¡£C¡£¡¡10534¡£¡¡¡¡This¡¡star£»¡¡which¡¡is¡¡the¡¡Algol¡¡variable¡¡V¡¡Puppis£»¡¡has¡¡been¡¡found¡¡to¡¡be¡¡a¡¡spectroscopic¡¡binary¡£¡¡¡¡The¡¡period¡¡1d¡£454¡¡£¨i¡£e¡£¡¡1d¡¡10h¡¡54m£©¡¡satisfies¡¡the¡¡observations¡¡of¡¡the¡¡changes¡¡in¡¡light£»¡¡and¡¡of¡¡the¡¡varying¡¡separation¡¡of¡¡the¡¡lines¡¡of¡¡the¡¡spectrum¡£¡¡¡¡The¡¡spectrum¡¡has¡¡been¡¡examined¡¡on¡¡61¡¡plates£»¡¡on¡¡23¡¡of¡¡which¡¡the¡¡lines¡¡are¡¡double¡£¡¨¡¡¡¡Thus¡¡we¡¡have¡¡valuable¡¡evidence¡¡in¡¡confirmation¡¡of¡¡the¡¡correctness¡¡of¡¡the¡¡conclusions¡¡drawn¡¡from¡¡the¡¡light¡­curve¡£¡¡¡¡In¡¡the¡¡circumstances£»¡¡however£»¡¡I¡¡have¡¡not¡¡thought¡¡it¡¡worth¡¡while¡¡to¡¡reproduce¡¡Dr¡¡Roberts's¡¡provisional¡¡figure¡£

I¡¡now¡¡turn¡¡to¡¡the¡¡conclusions¡¡drawn¡¡a¡¡few¡¡years¡¡previously¡¡by¡¡another¡¡observer£»¡¡where
·µ»ØĿ¼ ÉÏÒ»Ò³ ÏÂÒ»Ò³ »Øµ½¶¥²¿ ÔÞ£¨0£© ²È£¨0£©
δÔĶÁÍꣿ¼ÓÈëÊéÇ©ÒѱãÏ´μÌÐøÔĶÁ£¡
ÎÂÜ°Ìáʾ£º ο´Ð¡ËµµÄͬʱ·¢±íÆÀÂÛ£¬Ëµ³ö×Ô¼ºµÄ¿´·¨ºÍÆäËüС»ï°éÃÇ·ÖÏíÒ²²»´íŶ£¡·¢±íÊéÆÀ»¹¿ÉÒÔ»ñµÃ»ý·ÖºÍ¾­Ñé½±Àø£¬ÈÏÕæдԭ´´ÊéÆÀ ±»²ÉÄÉΪ¾«ÆÀ¿ÉÒÔ»ñµÃ´óÁ¿½ð±Ò¡¢»ý·ÖºÍ¾­Ñé½±ÀøŶ£¡