183. In all observations, to have the true altitude of the Sun, Moon, or Stars, the refraction must be subtracted from the observed altitude. But the quantity of refraction is not always the same at the same altitude; because heat diminishes the air’s refractive power and density, and cold increases both; and therefore no one table can serve precisely for the same place at all seasons, nor even at all times of the same day; much less for different climates: it having been observed that the horizontal refractions are near a third part less at the Equator than at Paris, as mentioned by Dr. Smith in the 370th remark on his Optics, where the following account is given of an extraordinary refraction of the sun-beams by cold. “There is a famous observation of this kind made by some Hollanders that wintered in Nova Zembla in the year 1596, who were surprised to find, that after a continual night of three months, the Sun began to rise seventeen days sooner than according to computation, deduced from the Altitude of the Pole observed to be 76°: which cannot otherwise be accounted for, than by an extraordinary quantity of refraction of the Sun’s rays, passing thro’ the cold dense air in that climate. Kepler computes that the Sun was almost five degrees below the Horizon when he first appeared; and consequently the refraction of his rays was about nine times greater than it is with us.”
184. The Sun and Moon appear of an oval figure as FCGD, just after their rising, and before their setting: the reason is, that the refraction being greater in the Horizon than at any distance above it, the lowermost limb G appears more elevated than the uppermost. But although the refraction shortens the vertical Diameter FG, it has no sensible effect on the horizontal Diameter CD, which is all equally elevated. When the refraction is so small as to be imperceptible, the Sun and Moon appear perfectly round, as AEBF.
Our imagination cannot judge rightly of the distance of inaccessible objects.
185. We daily observe, that the objects which appear most distinct are generally those which are nearest to us; and consequently, when we have nothing but our imagination to assist us in estimating of distances, bright objects seem nearer to us than those which are less bright, or than the same objects do when they appear less bright and worse defined, even though their distance in both cases be the same. And as in both cases they are seen under the same angle[[44]], our imagination naturally suggests an idea of a greater distance between us and those objects which appear fainter and worse defined than those which appear brighter under the same Angles; especially if they be such objects as we were never near to, and of whose real Magnitudes we can be no judges by sight.
Nor always of those which are accessible.
186. But, it is not only in judging of the different apparent Magnitudes of the same objects, which are better or worse defined by their being more or less bright, that we may be deceived: for we may make a wrong conclusion even when we view them under equal degrees of brightness, and under equal Angles; although they be objects whose bulks we are generally acquainted with, such as houses or trees: for proof of which, the two following instances may suffice.
The reason assigned.
[PLATE II].
First, When a house is seen over a very broad river by a person standing on low ground, who sees nothing of the river, nor knows of it beforehand; the breadth of the river being hid from him, because the banks seem contiguous, he loses the idea of a distance equal to that breadth; and the house seems small, because he refers it to a less distance than it really is at. But, if he goes to a place from which the river and interjacent ground can be seen, though no farther from the house, he then perceives the house to be at a greater distance than he imagined; and therefore fancies it to be bigger than he did at first; although in both cases it appears under the same Angle, and consequently makes no bigger picture on the retina of his eye in the latter case than it did in the former. Many have been deceived, by taking a red coat of arms, fixed upon the iron gate in Clare-Hall walks at Cambridge, for a brick house at a much greater distance[[45]].
Fig. XII.
Secondly, In foggy weather, at first sight, we generally imagine a small house, which is just at hand, to be a great castle at a distance; because it appears so dull and ill defined when seen through the Mist, that we refer it to a much greater distance than it really is at; and therefore, under the same Angle, we judge it to be much bigger. For, the near object FE, seen by the eye ABD, appears under the same Angle GCH, that the remote object GHI does: and the rays GFCN and HECM crossing one another at C in the pupil of the eye, limit the size of the picture MN on the retina; which is the picture of the object FE, and if FE were taken away, would be the picture of the object GHI, only worse defined; because GHI, being farther off, appears duller and fainter than FE did. But if a Fog, as KL, comes between the eye and the object FE, it appears dull and ill defined like GHI; which causes our imagination to refer FE to the greater distance CH, instead of the small distance CE which it really is at. And consequently, as mis-judging the distance does not in the least diminish the Angle under which the object appears, the small hay-rick FE seems to be as big as GHI.