THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 PROF. CHARLES A. KOFOID AND 
 MRS. PRUDENCE W. KOFOID 
 
COSMICAL EVOLUTION 
 
 CRITICAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE 
 
 BY 
 EVAN McLENNAN 
 
 \\ 
 
 Thus there followed one another, five provisional theories of the Solar 
 System, before the sixth and absolutely true theory was reached. In 
 which five provisional theories, each for a time held as final, we may 
 trace both the tendency men have to leap from scanty data to wide gen- 
 eralizations, that are either untrue, or but partially true; and the neces- 
 sity there is for these transitional generalizations as steps to the final one. 
 
 To the true reformer no institution is sacred, no belief above criticism. 
 Everything shall conform itself to equity and reason; nothing shall be 
 saved by its prestige. HERBERT SPENCER. 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR 
 CORVALLIS, OREGON 
 
 
COPYRIGHT, 1916 
 BY 
 
 EVAN MCLENNAN 
 
 1916 
 
 GAZETTE-TIMES PRESS 
 CORVALLIS. OREGON 
 
QB 
 
 whatever outside scientific investigation and criticism 
 this work has received during the past twenty-five years, 
 the author desires to express his obligation to the OREGON 
 AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, Corvallis, and to THE REED 
 INSTITUTE, Portland, Oregon. The latter, besides being an 
 educational college, is also, so far as it is able, a means for 
 the general propagation and diffusion of knowledge among 
 men; which is also the sole foundation and purpose of older 
 and much stronger institutions. The younger institution, how- 
 eyer, does not concern itself with the source or class from 
 which the propagation of knowledge proceeds, but welcomes 
 investigation- and research by amateur or professional alike; 
 its only object therein being the ascertainment and establish- 
 ment of the truths of Nature, however and wherever found. 
 
 To THE REED INSTITUTE, therefore, in acknowledgement 
 of its generous and liberal treatment in this respect, and in 
 the hope of the continuance in the future of its helpfulness and 
 eagerness to maintain the spirit of openminded inquiry re- 
 garding the value of results obtained by all students of Nature, 
 in all her fields, this work is respectfully and gratefully in- 
 scribed and dedicated by the author. 
 
 M358720 
 
PREFACE 
 
 What are we in this so-called nineteenth century doing 
 in our laboratories and our libraries? Too many of us are 
 content to acquire simply what others have observed and 
 discovered, with an eye directed mainly to medals, certif- 
 icates, diplomas and other honors recognized as the fruits 
 of "passing." PROF. WILLIAM CKOOKES. 
 
 It is true that, in contemplating the material universe, 
 they who discern the causes and effects of things must be 
 more rapturously entertained than those who perceive noth- 
 ing but shape and size, color and motion. Yet in the 
 mere outside of nature's works if I may so express myself 
 there is a splendour and magnificence to which even un- 
 tutored minds cannot attend without great delight. 
 
 DR. BEATT1E. 
 
 PLAUSIBLE. No but seriously I hate to do a rude thing: 
 I speak well of all mankind. 
 
 MANLY. I thought so; but I know that speaking well 
 of all mankind is the worst kind of detraction; for it takes 
 away the reputation of the few good men in the world, by 
 making them all alike. Now I speak ill of most men be- 
 cause they deserve it: I can do a rude thing rather than an 
 unjust thing. WILLIAM WYCHERLY. 
 
 This book, while really a new edition of a work entitled 
 "Cosmical Evolution," published twenty-six years ago, may 
 yet be regarded as a new book giving extensive extracts con- 
 taining the principal facts of the older work, together with 
 the author's findings regarding the subject during the last 
 quarter of a century; the latter constituting the greater part 
 of the volume. The following, from the preface of the work 
 referred to, still indicate the scope and nature of the sub- 
 jects discussed: 
 
 "From what cause and how did this world of ours come 
 into existence? How did it come to circulate around the Sun 
 in its present path and with its present velocity? 
 
Vi PREFACE 
 
 What are the changes which have taken place 
 upon it, and by how many races of beings like our- 
 selves, separated from each other by long, lifeless periods, 
 has it been inhabited in the past? \Vhat causes bodies to 
 fall towards its center? Why does the magnetic needle 
 point approximately to the north upon the greater portion of 
 its surface? What is the nature of the aurora and the elec- 
 tricity manifested in its atmosphere? Why does its tem- 
 perature, so far as we know, increase at a regular rate from 
 its surface towards its center, and what is the physical con- 
 dition of its internal regions? What causes the tides upon 
 its ocean surface? How did it happen that plants and ani- 
 mals of temperate latitudes once flourished far within its 
 Polar Circles, and that, subsequently, almost its entire sur- 
 face was encrusted with a thick sheet of ice? What caused 
 the extremely favorable conditions for vegetable growth de- 
 noted by the coal deposits of its Carboniferous Age? What 
 is the significance of the changes which are now taking 
 place upon it the earthquakes and earth-tremors, the gey- 
 sers, the volcanic eruptions, and the displacements of the 
 vertical and of terrestial latitudes? What changes are yet 
 to take place upon it, and what is eventually to become of it? 
 "What connection have the phenomena taking place upon 
 the Sun's surface the sunspots and the explosive erup- 
 tions with the phenomena taking place upon the Earth's sur- 
 face magnetic storms and disturbances, barometric varia- 
 tions, and precipitation? What is the nature and significance 
 of the solar corona and the zodiacal light? How came the 
 Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the innumerable stars into 
 their assigned paths or positions, and what maintains them 
 there? What are the comets which, with their mysterious 
 trains sweep around the Sun, and the meteorites which, as 
 occasional bearers of strange organic remains, fall from the 
 depths of space upon our world; and whence came they and 
 why? What is the nature of the magnificent Saturnian Ring, 
 and how is its equilibrium maintained? And, finally, what 
 are the temporary stars which suddenly blaze forth in the 
 
PREFACE yii 
 
 firmament and then gradually fade away, the variable stars 
 which increase and decrease in luster in regular periods, and 
 the gauzy nebular forms?" 
 
 These are some of the subjects discussed in this work, 
 and surely they are worthy of a small portion of our time 
 and attention. 
 
 "In the midst of this universe of seething movements is our 
 home. The mind, uplifted in '"ie effort to contemplate them 
 and grasp their method, grows giddy and impotent. How 
 sublime these activities! To what a numerous and lofty 
 companionship does* our little planet belong! Hard it seems 
 to be imprisoned here while the realm of the universe tempts 
 us to its exploration. How can a human soul content itself 
 to roll and whirl through space during its mortal days, and 
 eat and sleep and trifle, like rats in a ship at sea, without 
 wondering where we are and whither we are bound".* 
 
 These subjects involve many, if not indeed all, of the 
 fundamental conceptions of physical science. They are here 
 examined in the light of current principles and theories, from 
 many points of view. First, by way of introduction, a brief 
 review is given of our impressions of them, from the ear- 
 liest and most primitive down to those of the present day; 
 this review showing a sequence of many different theories, 
 each for a time held as true, but subsequently rejected as er- 
 roneous and replaced by another. The last of these, the 
 Newtonian theory of gravitation, has been accepted as per- 
 fect for centuries, and is generally so accepted today; but af- 
 ter a careful and apparently complete examination of it, it 
 appears to be fallacious, just like its predecessors. And, 
 finally, the same subjects, including about all of the larger 
 phenomena of the Solar and Sidereal Systems, are consid- 
 ered in the light of new principles and a new theory, in one 
 consecutive process of cosmical evolution. 
 
 The abtruse nature and vast scope of the subject make 
 it difficult to command completeness and perfect accuracy 
 of its discussion, especially from the new viewpoint here 
 
 *Alexander Winchell, World-Life, p. 142. 
 
Viii PREFACE 
 
 presented. It is confidently believed, however, that many 
 new truths of the highest scientific importance are here 
 placed before the reader. The confidence in this belief i? 
 largely enhanced by the unmistakable signs of disintegration 
 of present-day scientific conceptions, and by the apparent 
 convergence of recent scientific opinion towards the views 
 advanced in this and the former work during the last quarter 
 of a century, and even by the actual adoption of these views, 
 in at least one instance, by leading men of science, though 
 (unintentionally, of course) without any credit to the au- 
 thor, who had published them ten years before.* 
 
 The highest scientific authorities have been consulted, 
 and copious quotations on essential points given from their 
 works. Involved processes of logic or mathematics have 
 been studiously avoided, as well as the utmost pains taken 
 to bring the subjects clearly within the comprehension of the 
 ordinary reader and make them attractive and interesting 
 to all who have a bent in their direction. 
 
 The author is greatly indebted to several scientific men 
 for much valuable information, kindly and freely furnished. 
 To Gen. W. B. Hazen and Lieut. A. W. Greely, Chief Signal 
 Officers U. S. A.; Prof. S. P. Langley, of Allegheny Obser- 
 vatory, and Mr. G. W. Hill, of the Nautical Almanac Office, 
 the author is especially under obligations for such aid in 
 preparing the former work; and Prof. W. S. Eichelberger, of. 
 the U. S. Naval Observatory, has furnished similar data for 
 the present volume. Prof. E. R. Shepard, formerly of the 
 Oregon Agricultural College, has kindly, but very cursorily, 
 looked over most of the principal portions of this work; and 
 while emphatically still retaining his belief in the older views, 
 he has nevertheless confessed his inability to point out a 
 single important defect in the views herein advanced by the 
 author. 
 
 Criticism is cordially invited; and the reviewer's atten- 
 
 *See Art. 164 (e). 
 
PREFACE IX 
 
 tion is especially directed to the concluding chapter (just 
 preceding Appendix A). 
 
 NOTE. In the winter of 1914-15, after this work had been 
 ready for the press, the kindly offices of Dr. W. J. Kerr, Pres- 
 ident of Oregon Agricultural College, and Dr. William T. Fos- 
 ter, President of Reed College, Portland, Ore., fortunately 
 procured for it, in a measure, a critical examination by the 
 heads of the physical departments of four of the principal 
 colleges of the Western United States. All of the results of 
 this examination, for which permission to publish has been 
 obtained, are given in Appendix A, together -with the author's 
 replies thereto. The eighteen months' delay in the publica- 
 tion of the work thus necessarily entailed is amply compen- 
 sated by the benefits of the discussion of some of the prin- 
 ciples involved, for the perusal of which the interested reader 
 will scarcely need any special urging. 
 
 October, 1916. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 ARTICLE. PAGE. 
 
 1. The Riddle of the Universe 1 
 
 2. Nature of Man's Earliest Conceptions of the Heavens 1 
 
 3. Various Legends of Creation 2 
 
 4. Primitive Astronomical Ideas of the Past 3 
 
 5. Primitive Astronomical Ideas of the Present 4 
 
 6. The Dawn of Astronomical Science 6 
 
 7. The Almagest or Ptolemaic System 6 
 
 8. The Copernican System 7 
 
 9. The Vortical Theory 9 
 
 10. The Theory of Gravitation 11 
 
 11. The Nebular Hypothesis 13 
 
 12. Astronomical Science Still in Its Infancy 15 
 
 13. Current Acceptance of Scientific Dogmas 16 
 
 14. Present-Day Doubts 17 
 
 15. Plan of This Work 18 
 
 PART I 
 
 Objections to the Theory of Gravitation. 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Law of Gravitation. 
 
 16. Definition of the Law 20 
 
 17. Application of the Law 21 
 
 18. Application to the Moon and the Earth 22 
 
 19. The Law of Gravitation and the Conservation 
 
 of Energy 23 
 
 20. The Attraction of a Sphere or Spherical Shell 25 
 
 21. Terrestrial Attraction 27 
 
 22. Gravity in an Ellipse 28 
 
xii CONTENTS 
 
 ARTICLE. PAGE. 
 
 23. The Runaway Stars 29 
 
 24. Gravitation and Solar Heat 29 
 
 25. The Pressure of Sunlight *. 30 
 
 26. Gravitative Strain Upon a Revolving Planet 31 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 The Problem of Three Bodies. 
 
 27. Data of the Problem 36 
 
 28. Perturbation of the Moon's Motion Owing to the 
 Sun's Distance- Variation 36 
 
 29. Perturbation of the Moon's Motion Owing to the 
 Earth's Distance- Variation 38 
 
 30. Perturbation of the Moon's Motion Owing to Var- 
 
 iation of its Velocity Around the Sun 9 
 
 31. Perturbation of the Moon's Motion Owing to Var- 
 iation of its Velocity Around the Earth 41 
 
 32. Back-Action of the Earth's Attraction 41 
 
 33. Front-Action of the Sun 42 
 
 34. Contradiction of the Theory by the Facts 43 
 
 35. Possibility of the Given Case 44 
 
 36. Previous discussions of the Problem 45 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 The Problem of Two Bodies. 
 
 37. The Law of Equal Areas in Equal Times 48 
 
 38. Supra-Rational Mathematics 54 
 
 39. The Parallelogram of Forces 56 
 
 40. Contradiction of Kepler's Second and Third Laws. 59 
 
 41. The increase of Absolute Velocity 61 
 
 42. Instability of a Two-Body System 62 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The Tides. 
 
 43. The Tidal Theory 63 
 
 44. The Tide-Raising Force Directly Opposed by Ter- 
 restrial Gravity 64 
 
CONTENTS xiii 
 ARTICLE. PAGE 
 
 45. The Tides Not Raised Where the Alleged Tide- 
 
 Raising Force is Applied 65 
 
 46. The Oceanic Tides Obliterated by Tides in the 
 
 Earth's Interior 67 
 
 47. Another Tidal Theory 68 
 
 48. The Solar Tide 70 
 
 49. Inland Sea and Lake Tides 72 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 The Amount and Distribution of the Sun's Heat. 
 
 50. Temperature of the Sun's Surface 75 
 
 51. Unvarying Quantity of Solar Heat at Various Dis- 
 
 tances from the Sun 77 
 
 52. Amount of Solar Heat Falling Upon Either Pole of 
 
 the Earth During its Summer Season Greater 
 
 Than upon a Point at the Equator 78 
 
 53. The Sun's Heat on Mars 81 
 
 54. Direct Contradiction of the Theory by the Facts. . 82 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Tne Nebular Hypothesis. 
 
 55. Various Modifications 84 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 Nebular Rotation and Translation. 
 
 56. The Primal State of Matter 87 
 
 57. Atomic Attraction and Repulsion 87 
 
 58. Cooling and Precipitation of the Primordial Vapor 88 
 
 59. Rotation by Precipitation of Irregular Flocculi ... 88 
 
 60. Rotation by Nebular Collisions 91 
 
 (a) Density of the Primordial Vapor 91 
 
 (b) Conditions of Nebular Condensation 93 
 
 61. Rotation by the Attraction of Distant Masses .... 94 
 
 62. Discordance of the Theory with the Facts 95 
 
xiv CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 Projection of Planet-Rings. 
 
 ARTICLE. PAGE 
 
 63. Modification of the Radial and Tangential Forces 
 
 by Contraction 97 
 
 64. The Generation of a Repulsive Force, or Heat, by 
 
 Contraction 99 
 
 65. Conflicting Theories of Ring-Projection 101 
 
 66. Discordance of the Theory with the Facts 103 
 
 CHAfTER IX. 
 The Idea of Force. 
 
 67. Force and Gravity 105 
 
 68. Summary of Part I 112 
 
 PART II 
 
 The Connective Theory. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Premises and Principles. 
 
 69. Molecular Bonds 116 
 
 70. Molecular Motion 116 
 
 71. Planetary Bonds 118 
 
 72. Designation and Essential Principles of the New 
 
 Theory 119 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Evolution of the Solar System. 
 
 73. The Original Solar Spheroid 120 
 
 74. Surface Contraction and Development 121 
 
 75. Surface Rigidity and Ring-Formation 123 
 
 76. Ring-Separation 125 
 
 77. Disruption of the Ring Into the Planetary Form . . 126 
 
 78. Corroborative Evidences 
 
 (a) Of Initial Solidification at the Surface 126 
 
 (b) of Ultimate Crust Rigidity . 128 
 
CONTENTS xv 
 
 ARTICLE. PAGE 
 
 (c) Of the Equatorial Crust Expansion 129 
 
 (d) Of the Connective Bond 132 
 
 79. Comparison of the Old and the New Ideas 133 
 
 80. Results of the Ring-Disruption: 
 
 (a) Loss of Acquired Development 134 
 
 (b) Axial Rotation of the Planet 134 
 
 (c) Recession of the Planet 135 
 
 (d) Cause of the Different Absolute Velocities 
 
 of the Planet's Orbital Motion and of the 
 
 Rotation of the Spheroid 135 
 
 (e) Increased Axial Rotation of the Sun 137 
 
 (f ) Origin of Comets and Meteorites 137 
 
 81. Genesis of a Second Planet "138 
 
 82. Genesis of a Secondary Connexion 138 
 
 83. Mutual Planetary Accelerations and Retardations 139 
 
 84. Systemic Complexity 139 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 The Evolution of the Sidereal System. 
 
 85. The Original Sidereal Spheroid 142 
 
 86. The Sidereal System and What It Includes 143 
 
 87. Arrangement of the Sidereal System 144 
 
 88. Probable Number of the Heavenly Bodies and of 
 
 Their Successive Generations 145 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The Universe. 
 
 89. Other Sidereal Systems 148 
 
 90. The Origin of Motion 149 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Cosmical Gravitation. 
 
 91. The Ball-and-String Hypothesis 152 
 
 92. The Factors of Cosmical Gravitation: 
 
 (a) Rotational Velocity of the Primary Body . . 155 
 
 (b) The Structural Development of the Connex- 
 
 ions 155 
 
xvi CONTENTS 
 
 / 
 
 ARTICLE. PAGE 
 
 (c) The Density of the Connective Atmosphere 
 
 Upon the Surface of the Primary Body . . 159 
 
 93. Difference Between the Actions of Gravitation in 
 
 the Two Theories 161 
 
 94. Action of the Secondary Connexions 163 
 
 95. Accurate Prediction of Astronomical Events 164 
 
 96. Ethereal Atmospheres 165 
 
 97. Terrestrial Gravitation 166 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The Cosmical Distribution of Light and Heat. 
 
 98. The Connective Theory of Heat Distribution 168 
 
 99. Comparisons of the Two Theories 170 
 
 100. Heat Transmission by the Secondary Connexions . 172 
 
 101. Connective Theory of Light Distribution 172 
 
 102. Horizontal Enlargement of Visual Objects 174 
 
 103. Question Raised by the New Theory 175 
 
 104. Dark Transits of Jupiter's Satellites 175 
 
 105. Sunlight and Earthlight on the Moon 178 
 
 106. The Moon's Sunlight on the Earth 181 
 
 107. The Aberration of Light 181 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 Anomalies of the Solar System. 
 
 108. The Saturnian Ring 183 
 
 109. Comets 190 
 
 110. Meteorites 193 
 
 111. Discrepancies of the Planetary Masses and Motions 197 
 
 112. The Minor Planets 199 
 
 113. Comets from Satellite Rings 200 
 
 CHAPTER VIM. 
 Interplanetary Connexions and Weather. 
 
 114. Classification of Connexions 201 
 
 115. Factors of the Planetary Connexion-Variations . . . 205 
 
 116. Amount of the Planetary Factors 207 
 
 117. Monthly Variations of the Planetary Factors .... 208 
 
CONTENTS xv ii 
 
 ARTICLE. PAGE 
 
 118. Deductions from These Variations 211 
 
 119. Monthly and Yearly Variations of the Planetary 
 
 Factor for the Period, 1840-1923 212 
 
 120. Connection of the Periods of Variation of the Plan- 
 
 etary Factor with the Sunspot Periods 216 
 
 121. Coincidence of the Periods of Variation of the Plan- 
 
 etary Factor with the Periods of Atmospheric 
 Precipitation 218 
 
 122. Relation of the Periods of Variation of the Plan- 
 
 etary Factor to the Periods of Atmospheric 
 Pressure 220 
 
 123. Coincidence of the Periods of Variation of the 
 
 Planetary Factor with the Periods of Atmos- 
 pheric Electricity 221 
 
 124. The Wet and the Dry Seasons of the Year 222 
 
 125. Lagging of the Actual Weather 223 
 
 126. The Solar Factor of the Connective Variation 224 
 
 127. The Lunar Factor of the Connective Variation 226 
 
 128. The Sidereal Factor of the Connective Variation .. 227 
 
 129. Connection of the Sidereal Factor and the Wet and 
 
 Dry Seasons 229 
 
 130. Coincidence of the Actually Wet and Dry Periods 
 
 of Years with the Indicated Wet and Dry Periods 230 
 
 131. Relative Amounts and Effects of the Several Fac- 
 
 tors 231 
 
 132. Incompleteness of Our Meteorological Data 232 
 
 133. Application and Value of These Weather Indications 233 
 
 134. A Probable Basis for the Flood Legend 234 
 
 135. Connection of the Orbital Period of Jupiter with 
 
 the Indicated Wet and Dry Periods of Years, and 
 with the Sunspot Periods 237 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Interplanetary Connexions and Sunspots, the 
 Zodiacal Light, and the Solar Corona. 
 
 136. The Maxima and Minima of Sunspots and Their 
 
 Causes 240 
 
xviii CONTENTS 
 
 ARTICLE. PAGE 
 
 137. The Zodiacal Light and its Connection with the 
 
 Sunspot Periods 242 
 
 138. Explanation of Anomalous Sunspot Periods 247 
 
 139. Existence of Invisible Heavenly Bodies 249 
 
 140. Sidereal Connexions and Sunspots 251 
 
 141. Connective Variation Upon the Earth by the Sun's 
 
 Primary System 252 
 
 142. The Solar Corona 253 
 
 143. Relative Visibility of the Various Solar Connexions 
 
 and Their Real Directions as Viewed in the Rays 
 
 of the Corona 256 
 
 144. Summary of Results from Planetary Connexion 
 
 Variations 258 
 
 145. Possible Objections to the New Theory 261 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 General Meteorological Phenomena. 
 
 146. Atmospheric Extension 265 
 
 147. Aerial Tides and Barometric Pressure 266 
 
 148. Cloud Zones 269 
 
 149. Sky-Glows 270 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 The Ocean Tides. 
 
 150. Comparison of the Two Theories - 274 
 
 151. The Greater Tidal Wave Due to the Sun and the 
 
 Lesser to the Moon 276 
 
 152. Possible Objections 277 
 
 153. Corroborative. Evidence from Inland Sea Tides ... 280 
 
 154. Discordance of Present Tidal Theories 281 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 Terrestrial Electricity and Magnetism. 
 
 155. The Idea of an Immaterial Substance 283 
 
 156. Differentiation of the Earth's Connexions 284 
 
 157. Relation of the Magnetic Poles to the Planes of the 
 
 Earth's Motions . 286 
 
CONTENTS xix 
 ARTICLE. PAGE 
 
 158. The Earth a Magnet 288 
 
 159. Irregular Courses of the Terrestrial Magnetic Lines 290 
 
 160. Height of the Aurora 291 
 
 161. Diurnal Variation of the Magnetic Needle 293 
 
 162. Annual Variation of the Magnetic Needle 295 
 
 163. The Irregular Variations of the Magnetic Needle. 296 
 
 164. The Secular Variation of the Magnetic Needle: 
 
 (a) The Earliest Observations 298 
 
 (b) Explanation of the Observations at London 
 
 and Paris 298 
 
 (c) The Southeastern Direction of the Lines of 
 
 No Declination 300 
 
 (d) Explanation of the Observations at Boston. 300 
 ' (e) Explanation of the Secular Variation 302 
 
 (f) Period of the Secular Variation 304 
 
 165. Corroborative Evidences 305 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Geological Climatic Changes. 
 
 166. Geological Periods 313 
 
 167. The Age of Ice 314 
 
 168. The Causes of the Climatic Changes 315 
 
 169. Supposed Subdivisions of the Ice Age 317 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 Cosmical Evolution in the Future. 
 
 170. Significance of the Sunspots 321 
 
 171. The Equatorial Movements of the Sunspots 322 
 
 172. The Greater Angular Velocity of Sunspots at the 
 
 Equator 324 
 
 173. Present Crust-Development Upon the Earth 326 
 
 174. Variation of Terrestrial Latitudes 328 
 
 175. Ring-Projection of the Earth-Crust 331 
 
 176. The Primary Connexion of the Earth-Crust 332 
 
 177. Gravitation Upon the Expanded Earth-Crust 333 
 
 178. Inner Fringe of the Earth-Ring 334 
 
xx CONTENTS 
 
 ARTICLE. PAGE 
 
 179. The Higher Forms of Life as Affected by These 
 
 Changes 334 
 
 180. Disruption of the Earth-Ring. ., 336 
 
 181. Pre-Lunar and Other Races of Mankind 337 
 
 182. Continued Evolution and the Limit at Which the 
 
 Process of Subdivision Would Cease 339 
 
 183. Glimpse of the Successive Stages of Cosmical 
 
 Evolution 341 
 
 184. Expansion of Evolving Systems 341 
 
 185. Eventual Interference of Evolving Systems and 
 
 the Results 342 
 
 186. Effects of the Irregular Motions of Comets and 
 
 Meteorites 343 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 The Nebulae. 
 
 187. The Regular Nebulae 345 
 
 188. The Irregular Nebulae 347 
 
 189. Observed Changes in Nebular Forms 349 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 Temporary and Variable Stars. 
 
 190. Temporary Stars 351 
 
 191. Double, Triple, and Multiple, Stars 354 
 
 192. Variable Stars of Short Period 354 
 
 193. Secular Variation of Periodic Stars 356 
 
 194. Variable Stars of Long Period 357 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 Ultimate Conceptions of Mass and Velocity. 
 
 195. Nature of the Ultimate Subdivisions of Matter... 360 
 
 196. The Cosmic Chain of Causation Kepler's Third 
 
 Law 364 
 
 197. The Theory of Gravity and Atomic Velocities ... 370 
 
 198. Weight or Mass, the Measure of Energy 371 
 
 199. Results of a Grand Cycle of Cosmical Evolution.. 372 
 
CONTENTS xxi 
 ARTICLE. PAGE 
 
 200. The Constitution of Matter 374 
 
 201. Connective Resistance to the Motions of the Heav- 
 
 enly Bodies 379 
 
 202. Retrospect 381 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 Conclusion. 
 
 203. A Final Inference 386 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 204. Introductory Remarks 391 
 
 205-212. Criticism by Dr. A 393 
 
 213-220. Reply to Dr. A's Criticism 399 
 
 221-229. Criticism by Dr. B 407 
 
 230-239. Reply to Dr. B's Criticism 413 
 
 240. Letter of Transmittal of Dr. C's Criticism 421 
 
 241. Reply to Dr. C's Letter of Transmittal 422 
 
 242-272. Reply to Dr. C's Criticism 424 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Extracts from Press Notices of First Edition 461 
 
 Index 467-490 
 
COSMICAL EVOLUTION 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 New truths begin as heresies and end as superstitions. 
 Nature, 85, 447. 
 
 In this connection we may well remember the words of 
 Liebig: "All our views have been developed from errors." 
 From the flashing embers of fallacy springs the Phoenix of 
 Truth. A. U. N., Nature, 90, 103. 
 
 If it happens to any of us as to 
 A man who looks at glass, 
 
 On it may stay his eye, 
 Or, if he pleases, through it pass, 
 
 And then the heavens espy; 
 
 are not those heavens which are beyond the immediate ob- 
 jects of our observation colored by our prejudices, prepos- 
 sessions, emotions, or imagination, as often as they are de- 
 fined by any profound insight into the depths of Nature's 
 laws? PROF. W. H. FLOWER. 
 
 1. The Riddle of the Universe. The great, silent heaven 
 in its ceaseless round of Sun, Moon, and stars must early 
 have engaged man's profoundest attention. When his mind 
 emerged out of the primordial darkness, and the barbarian 
 struggle for existence had lulled; when his daily wants were 
 supplied and he began to have leisure from the pitiless toils 
 of capturing prey, or destroying his enemies the myster- 
 ious, all-surrounding expanse, and the restless objects with 
 which it was peopled, could not but excite his attention and 
 wonder. And probably the earliest flights of his fancy and 
 exercise of his reason were directed to solve the grand rid- 
 dle of his being and his environment. 
 
 2. Nature of Man's Earliest Conceptions of the Heavens^ 
 The earliest conceptions of man, as handed down to us in 
 the legends of antiquity, may seem to us crude and childish; 
 but nevertheless they have been of no small value. They 
 
2 INTRODUCTION [3 
 
 were the first stepping-stones to the temple of knowledge, 
 and without them, or others equally as crude, the grander 
 conceptions of Kant and Laplace could never have existed. 
 The ideas of the origin and mechanism of the universe which 
 these legends convey are extremely various; for every iso- 
 lated race and tribe had a legend of its own. Each bears 
 the imprint of the peculiar conditions of its native locality; 
 and each attests that man's first attitude to the forces of 
 Nature was that of wonder, mingled with fear. His sole 
 standard of things and actions was himself and his life. 
 Everything that moved he conceived to be animated, and the 
 movement directed by a personal will for some personal end. 
 There was a ceaseless battle between the darkness and the 
 light. In the raging tempest, when light and darkness al- 
 ternately prevailed, the heroes of the spirit-land waged the 
 war of their still unsettled blood-feuds. The forked light- 
 ning serpent was the foe of the thunder-bird. To the Aryans, 
 a pastoral people, the Sun was the bull of majesty; the white 
 clouds driven by the children of the morning to their pas- 
 tures in the blue fields of the sky, were cows from whose 
 swelling udders dropped the milk of heaven the rain. In 
 the dark clouds dwelt the mountain robber Vritra, the thief- 
 dragon, who lured away the herds, until Indra, the Sun-god, 
 smote him with his shafts and set free the imprisoned cows. 
 In Latin guise, Indra and Vritra became Hercules and Cacus; 
 in Greek myth, Apollo and Python; and in the Scandinavian 
 legend, the grim and fearful ogres, sailing swiftly in their 
 cloud-ships, and Odin and his phanton crew. The rainbow 
 was a demon coming down to drink when the rain fell; or 
 the Heaven-ladder or bridge along which the souls of the 
 blest are led by angels into Paradise. The tides were the 
 beatings of the ocean's heart. Volcanoes were the dwelling 
 places of angry demons. And there were spirits of the 
 mountains, of the woods, of the winds, of the waterfalls. 
 
 3. Various Legends of Creation. The more general con- 
 ceptions were of a similar character. In the Babylonian 
 legend, handed down by Berosus, the goddess of Nature, 
 
4] INTRODUCTION 3 
 
 mother of all, is cut in twain by Belus, chief of the gods, one- 
 half becoming the sky and the other the Earth. Belus, un- 
 able to bear the light which he thus created, cut off his own 
 head; and from his blood mingled with the dust of the 
 Earth arose the race of men. 
 
 In the Hindu legend, from the laws of Manu, Brahma dis- 
 pelled the original darkness and gloom and created the 
 waters. In the waters he placed a seed. The seed pro- 
 duced a golden egg of a thousand brilliant beams; and in 
 this egg Brahma gave birth to himself. He split the egg 
 in halves, one becoming heaven and the other Earth. He 
 then created gods and wise men, who in turn created de- 
 mons, animals, clouds, mountains and rivers. 
 
 The Greek legend of the Theogony is that in the begin- 
 ning was Chaos. From Chaos came Gaia, the Earth, and 
 Tartarus, dreadful and dark below. Then appeared beauti- 
 ful Eros. The Earth gave birth to Uranus, the starry heaven, 
 and to the mountains and the sea. Then Gaia and Uranus 
 married, and from them sprang demigods and men. 
 
 The Scandinavians conceived a yawning gulf south of 
 which was a region of flame, and to the north an abode ice- 
 cold and dark. Torrents of venom flowed from the north 
 into the void, filling it with ice, but the flames of the south 
 melted it and formed water. Out of the water arose Ymir 
 and his wicked family of frost-giants. Ymir was slain by 
 Odin, Vili, and Ve, and out of his flesh they formed the 
 earth, from his blood the seas and waters, from his bones 
 the mountains, from his hair the trees, from his skull the 
 heavens, from his brains the floating clouds, and from his 
 eyebrows a wall around the Earth to guard them from the 
 giant sons of Ymir, 
 
 4. Primitive Astronomical Ideas of the Past. Descend- 
 ing from the universe as a whole, let us glance at man's ear- 
 liest interpretations of its component parts. The Hindu con- 
 ceived the Earth to be supported by animals standing one 
 upon another, four elephants being the lowermost, their legs 
 reaching all the way down. The over-arching sky was firm 
 
4 INTRODUCTION [5 
 
 and solid like a hammered plate and rested upon the borders 
 of the flat Earth. It had windows in it to let the rain through 
 and gates through which angels descended, or through which 
 prophets saw into the mysteries of the beyond, and outside 
 of which lived other people.* The Sun, Moon and stars were 
 father, mother and children, or heroes translated without 
 seeing death. Their movements are prompted by love, jeal- 
 ousy, or revenge; sometimes borne across the heavens on the 
 backs of ancestors, swimming again to the east through the 
 ocean, or transported across by fishes waiting to receive them. 
 The stars were men who climbed up into the trees, and were 
 left in the branches by the trunks being cut away. The 
 Milky Way was the place where the two halves of the sky 
 were joined together. It was also, like the rainbow, the 
 ladder or bridge whereby the departed pass from Earth to 
 Heaven; the Red Man's road of the dead to the Sun; the 
 Roman p?.th of, or to, the gods. The Moon was chased by 
 monster dogs or wolves that bit and Avounded her until her 
 blood hid her from the view; and, to render her assistance 
 a fearful noise was made to frighten the monsters away. 
 Or she was continually hacked and maimed by the Sun for 
 loving the morning star. Eclipses were caused by great 
 dragons trying to devour the Sun and Moon. The Chinese 
 and the natives of India beat brass kettles, and the Peru- 
 vians beat their dogs, to make the monsters give up their 
 prey. Meteors were the souls of the departed taking their 
 flight from Earth. And the Northern Lights were the 
 shades of the departed in spirit dance, the brighter the 
 flashes of the aurora, the greater the merriment. 
 
 5. Primitive Astronomical Ideas of the Present. This 
 is the childhood of the intellect!; and it is by no means con- 
 fined to any single age. Indeed very gross conceptions of 
 the heavens are entertained by our own contemporaries. The 
 
 *The Polynesian teim for a stranger is ' 'papalangi' ', or heaven- 
 burster. 
 
 tPor these legends* more in detail and many others, the reader may 
 consult Edward Clodd's Childhood of the World, Childhood of Religions, 
 Birth and Growth of Myth, and Fritz Sclmltze's Fetichism; wherein 
 many other authorities are cited. 
 
5] INTRODUCTION 5 
 
 Namaquas, a branch of the Hottentots, regard the Sun as 
 a lump of clear fat, which seamen attract to themselves 
 by enchantment during the night and spurn in the morning 
 because they have no further use for it. The Moon is a 
 man riding an ass, and wanes because he puts his hand up 
 to his head when he has the headache. According to the 
 Patagonians, two men quarreled over the parentage of a 
 child, as a result of which it was cut in two, one man taking 
 the upper half and immediately flinging it into the sky, thus 
 forming the Sun. The other sullenly let his lie on the 
 ground; but seeing the glory of his rival's share, he waited 
 till the Sun went down and then flung his part in the sky 
 also, thus forming the Moon, whose paleness is owing to 
 the blood having oozei out as it lay on the Earth. 
 
 Nor are the savages entirely alone, perhaps, in the an- 
 thropomorphism of astronomical conceptions.* While a great 
 many of us today have outgrown such legends as that 
 of the Man in the Moon, the influence of the lunar phases 
 upon animals, plants and weather, the baneful or beneficial 
 effects of being born under a certain star or planet, or of 
 an event happening in a certain sign of the zodiac, etc., yet, 
 to quote the words of Prof. Flower at the third Newcastle 
 meeting of the British Association, "It is impossible to be 
 blind to the fact that we who are engaged with the investi- 
 gation of those subjects which are commonly accepted as 
 belonging to the domains of physical science are unfortun- 
 ately not always, by virtue of being so occupied, possessed of 
 that most precious of gifts, 'a right judgment in all things. > " 
 And again, "are not those heavens which are beyond the 
 immediate objects of our observation colored by our preju- 
 dices, prepossessions, emotions, or imagination as often as 
 they are defined by Nature's laws?" 
 
 * 'Looked at from this point of view we can not refuse to regard 
 them' 1 (the '-willow-leaves' of the Sun's surface) ''as organisms of 1 
 seme amazing kind; and thou.eh it would be too daring to speak of such 
 organization as partaking of the nature of life, yet we know that vital 
 action is competent to develop at cnce, heat, light and electricity." 
 SIR JOHN HERSCHEIj, quoted by L'rof. bangley in the Century Mag- 
 azine, Vol. VI, 717. The "willow-leaves" are about 1000 miles long 
 by abcnt 200 miles broad. 
 
6 INTRODUCTION [7 
 
 6. The Dawn of Astronomical Science. Although the 
 oldest of be sciences, astronomy has been pretty much a 
 concatenation of illusions quite* similar to these from the 
 earliest observations of the Chaldean priests down to the time 
 of Copernicus, or the beginning of the sixteenth century. 
 This especially applies, however, to physical astronomy, with 
 which this volume throughout will be chiefly concerned. 
 
 In the earliest times the Earth was regarded as fixed, and 
 the heavens as revolving around it every twenty-four hours. 
 Pythagoras and his disciples (about 500 B. C.) are said to 
 have conceived the true heliocentric theory of the planetary 
 world. But if this docrine was taught at that time, it was 
 soon forgotten or ignored. Great geometrical and mathe- 
 matical discoveries in astronomy were made by Hipparchus 
 of Bithnia (about 160-125 B. C.) and by Ptolemy of Alexan- 
 dria (about 139 A. D.) ; and the geocentric theory of Thales 
 (accepted also by all ancient philosophers of eminence, in- 
 cluding Aristotle and Plato) was invested with these dis- 
 coveries and built by Ptolemy into the theory known 
 as the Ptolemaic System, or Almagest of the Arabians. 
 
 7. Tihe Almagest, or Ptolemaic System. A glance at this 
 venerable and at one time universally approved thought- 
 structure may be instructive. The belief that the Earth was 
 the center of the universe Ptolemy supported by the ob- 
 served relations of the elements. Thus earth, the most 
 stable of the elements, held the lowest place and supported 
 water, the second in order. Above water was placed air, 
 then ether; the latter being supposed to extend indefinitely 
 above all. In or above the ether were successive, concen- 
 tric zones or heavens, each containing an immense crystal- 
 line shell or sphere to which was attached a heavenly body, 
 and which revolved around the Earth carrying the body with 
 it. The smallest sphere or crystalline surrounded the Earth 
 and its elements, and carried he Moon. The next in their 
 order from the Earth carried Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, 
 Jupiter, Saturn and the fixed stars; eight in all. Later as- 
 tronomers added a ninth, the motion of which caused the 
 
8] INTRODUCTION 7 
 
 precession of the equinoxes, and a tenth, or primum mobile, 
 revolving from east to west in twenty-four hours, and im- 
 parting motion to all the others. As geometrical observations 
 increased in accuracy, it was found that the motions of the 
 heavenly bodies were apparently not uniform. Sometimes 
 a planet moved slowly and at other times comparatively fast. 
 This was explained by supposing that the Earth was not 
 at the center of the sphere of that planet but more to one 
 side, and that the planet, when carried past that side, would 
 move more rapidly owing to its nearness, and, when on the 
 other side, more slowly owing to its distance. The path 
 thus described by the planet with respect to the Earth was 
 called an eccentric. At other times a planet seemed to stand 
 still, move backwards, and then rapidly forwards. This was 
 really owing to the different positions of the planet and the 
 Earth, and their different velocities, around the Sun. But 
 the Ptolemaic astronomers attributed it to a movement of the 
 planet, not directly with the crystalline, but in a smaller 
 secondary orbit, the center of which was a fixed point in 
 the crystalline; so that, when the planet was in t.ne outside 
 half of the secondary orbit, it moved rapidly forwards, and 
 when in the inside half, it moved backwards. The path 
 of the planet in this secondary orbit was called an epicycle. 
 
 This theory of eccentrics and epicycles, upon still further 
 investigation, was seen to be still further defective, until fin- 
 ally it was found necessary to pile epicycle upon epicycle, 
 and patch explanation upon explanation so much that Al- 
 fonso X, of Castile, to whom it was being taught, was led 
 to exclaim that "if the Deity were now to reconstruct the 
 world, he (Alfonso) could give him a few useful hints." Yet 
 this theory commanded the approval of the best intellects of 
 the world for about two thousand years, and was replaced 
 only in the beginning of the sixteenh century by the Coper- 
 nican System. 
 
 8. The Copernican System. This system, which is the 
 one now held, regards the Sun as at rest in the center, and 
 the Earth and the planets as moving around it in ellipses. 
 
8 INTRODUCTION [8 
 
 The general idea of. this system was very probably first pro- 
 mulgated by Pythagoras, as already stated. But to Coper- 
 nicus belongs the honor of its revival after the lapse of so 
 many centuries. He attempted to explain for the first time 
 the variations of the seasons, the precession of the equinox- 
 es, and the stations and retrogradations of the planets accord- 
 ing to this system. But his knowledge of mathematics was 
 not great, and, to account for apparent irregularities, he 
 was obliged to introduce a system of epicycles similar to that 
 of Ptolemy. 
 
 Subsequent philosophers, however, sought to explain 
 the movements of the planets by a theory of vortical mo- 
 tion. This theory, probably suggested to the mind by the 
 familiar phenomena of whirlpools and whirlwinds, was in ex- 
 istence ages before this time, but the Copernican System 
 awoke it into new life and energy. 
 
 Kepler (1571-1630) conceived the Sun to be a magnet, 
 the Immaterial substance of which was sent forth radially in 
 all directions. These radiations rotated with the Sun, thus 
 constituting a universal vortex, the motion of which car- 
 ried with it the planets. The Sun's surface was attractive 
 and its center was repulsive, and these two forces (which Em- 
 pedocles, about 450 B. C., designated "love" and "hate") was 
 everywhere in equilibrium, so that a planet had no tendency 
 to recede from, or approach towards, the Sun. The depar- 
 ture of the planetary paths from the circular form was ex- 
 plained by supposing each planet to have an attractive and 
 a repulsive side, which turned alternately towards the Sun. 
 The supply of solar emanations and their motion was con- 
 stantly maintained by the Creator, or by some spirit specially 
 designated for that employment. By means of the observa- 
 tions of the great Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), to whom also 
 he was indebted for valuable counsel, Kepler discovered his 
 three famous laws. He also affirmed the essential inertia of 
 matter (Galileo's first law of motion) ; gave a complete the- 
 ory of solar eclipses and- calculated the exact epochs of the 
 transits of Venus and Mercury across the Sun's disc. 
 
9] INTRODUCTION 9 
 
 To this same epoch also belongs the honor of producing 
 the brilliant genius of Galileo (1564-1642). To this great 
 Italian we owe the discovery of the three laws of motion, 
 the law of falling bodies, and the isochronism of the pendu- 
 lum. He also, with a telescope of his own invention, discov- 
 ered the inequalities of the Moon's surface and the re- 
 flected nature of her light, the four satellites of Jupiter, the 
 ring of Saturn, and the movable spots on the Sun's surface, 
 from which he inferred the rotation of that body. For ad- 
 vocating the Copernican System and for promulgating dis- 
 coveries antagonistic to the prevailing creed, he was, at the 
 age of seventy, incarcerated by the Inquisition, and after 
 a long and painful trial, forced to retract the sublime truths 
 which he had discovered and taught. 
 
 9. The Vortical Theory. By far the ablest advocate 
 and expositor of the Vortical Theory was the French phil- 
 osopher, Des Cartes (1596-1650). He assumed that infinite 
 space is filled with infinite matter, which was originally 
 chaotic and formless. In the beginning God created par- 
 ticles of nearly uniform size, each of which had an axial rc- 
 tation. Groups of such also revolved about distant centers. 
 Mutual friction reduced the particles to various sizes, the 
 smallest of which was called the "first element," and the 
 larger the "second element." Vortices would arise in the 
 mass owing to some groups of revolving particles being more 
 powerful and energetic and subduing into harmonious move- 
 ment with themselves contiguous minor groups. As the 
 vortical motion increased, the "second element" would re- 
 move from the center, the larger and more massive particles 
 to the greater distance. But the "first element," having but 
 little mass, and consequently but little momentum, would 
 chiefly fall to the center, and there aggregate into a sun. 
 This sun rotated rapidly, and sent out emanations of its 
 element upon the plane of its equator; these emanations 
 passing between the particles of the second element and 
 carrying them forward; the nearest the most rapidly, because 
 they had the least mass. Some of the minor vortices sub- 
 
10 INTRODUCTION [9 
 
 dued by the solar vortex, while they moved around the latter, 
 would yet maintain their own vortical movement, at the cen- 
 ter of which would collect some -of the element, and thus 
 give rise to planets. Other vortices, subdued by the planet- 
 ary vortices, would in a similar manner account for the sat- 
 ellites. But some vortices would escape from the influence 
 of the solar vortex, and these last would become comets. 
 
 This really absurd theory was so ingeniously constructed 
 and so elaborately finished in detail by the great intellect of 
 Des Cartes that there was little doubt of its correctness; 
 and, indeed, it was the most plausible theory of cosmical 
 mechanism at that time. It was advocated by many eminent 
 scientists, and for a time, maintained its ground upon the 
 continent against the theory of gravitation. 
 
 The German philosopher and mathematician, Liebnitz, 
 accepted the general cosmical conceptions of Des Cartes, but 
 he modified them so far as to recognize the necessity of a 
 tangential force and a central attractive force to guide the 
 motions of the planets. Liebnitz also conceived the germs 
 of geology. In his Protogoea he plainly states his belief that 
 our world was primitively in a molten state; and that, in 
 cooling, it formed a crust which, upon continued refriger- 
 ation, was crumpled up into mountain ranges and depressed 
 into ocean basins. The action of water upon the plutonic 
 rocks, ground them down into sediment, which, collecting into 
 strata, was again solidified. Thus he combined aqueous and 
 igneous action as in modern geology; although later scien- 
 tists, less wise, wrangled long and bitterly in favor of either. 
 
 In various forms the vortical theory was promulgated and 
 defended by many other philosophers and scientists. But 
 it soon began to lose ground. When fairly contrasted with 
 the new theory of gravitation, its flimsiness and absurdities 
 became plainly apparent. Yet, in the words 01 Chambers' 
 Encyclopedia, its author "is not to be laughed at; mistakes 
 more ridiculous than his are gravely propounded at the 
 present day." 
 
10] INTRODUCTION 11 
 
 10. The Theory of Gravitation. Sir Isaac Newton, the 
 illustrious English philosopher and mathematician and found- 
 er of the theory of gravitation, was born in 1642, the same 
 year in which Galileo died a prisoner of the Inquisition. It is 
 said that in 1665 the law of universal gravitation was sug- 
 gested to his mind by the fall of an apple in his garden. 
 Might not, he reasoned, the same force that caused the 
 apple to fall, extend outwards to the Moon, and acting on that 
 body with an energy diminished by the distance, pull it 
 continually from the straight path it would otherwise pur- 
 sue, and so mainain it in its orbit around the Earth? No 
 sooner did this grand conception arise in his brain than he 
 put it to the test of actual calculation. But the knowledge 
 of the Earth's magnitude in those days was very imperfect, 
 and Newton employed a value of the Earth's radius so large 
 that, according to the law which he had conceived, the fall 
 of a body upon the Earth's surface in each second should 
 have been only 13.9 ft., instead of 16.1 ft., the actual fall, 
 as previously determined by Galileo. This discrepancy was 
 so great that he regarded the law of universal gravitation 
 as irreconcilable with the facts, and he consequently aban- 
 doned it, until Picard, in 1670, obtained a more correct meas- 
 ure of the Earth. At least in the year 1684 it became known 
 that he was in possession of the complete theory and its 
 demonstration, and in 1687 he was persuaded by his friends 
 to give it to he world in his famous Principia. 
 
 Newton's law of universal gravitation may be thus stat- 
 ed: Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every 
 other particle with a force directly proportional to the mass 
 of the attracting particle and inversely proportional to the 
 square of the distance through which it acts. Accepting 
 this law provisionally, Newton proceeded to its demonstra- 
 tion. He first endeavored to show that the attraction of the 
 Earth is precisely the same upon another body, as if its 
 whole mass were compressed into one atom at its center. 
 Then, at the distance of the Earth's radius from this point, 
 the energy of its attraction, according to the law of gravi- 
 
12 INTRODUCTION [10 
 
 tation, is such as to cause a body to fall a distance of 16.1 
 feet in one second. Calling the Earth's radius 1, then the 
 Moon's distance from the Earth's center will be about GO, 
 and to find the energy of the Earth's attraction at the Moon, 
 the law of gravitation gives the following proportion: 
 
 (60) 2 : (I) 2 = 16.1ft. : x; 
 
 whence x, or the pull of he Earth's attraction upon the 
 Moon, is found to be about 0.00447 ft. in each second. Know- 
 ing the Moon's period of sidereal revolution around the 
 Earth to be about twenty-seven days, seven hours 
 and forty-three minutes, and its mean distance from 
 the Earth's center to be about 240,000 miles, then the Moon's 
 orbital velocity would be about 0.64 mile per second; and by 
 a simple geometric theorem, the actual pull upon the 
 Moon towards the center of its motion is 
 
 V (240,000)2 -f (0.64)2 240,000, 
 
 or about 8.33X10- 7 miles, or 0.0044 feet, in each second. The 
 actual pull and the theoretic pull are thus found to agree 
 very closely; and the demonstration was so simple, and the 
 accordance of theory and fact, out of the infinitude of pos- 
 sible discordances, was so striking and forcible that in a few 
 years every scientist accepted it unreservedly; and it con- 
 tinues to be accepted almost without the least question or 
 doubt, to the present day. 
 
 But this is by no means all of Newton's theory; indeed 
 it is only the foundation upon which that theory is built. 
 Having found that his law of gravitation applied to the Moon, 
 Newton next sought to apply it to the Earth itself and to 
 the other planets. Knowing the period of the Earth's revo- 
 lution around the Sun and their distances asunder, he de- 
 termined as in the case of the Moon and the Earth, the 
 attractive pull of the Sun upon the Earth in one second. 
 This he found to be about 0.0096 feet, which was about 
 315,000 times the effect which the Earth's attraction, extend- 
 ed to the same distance would be able to accomplish. He 
 concluded, therefore, that the Sun's attraction, and conse- 
 
11] INTRODUCTION 13 
 
 quently its mass, was 315,000 times as great as the Earth's. 
 This solar attraction would cause a body to fall at the Sun's 
 surface a distance of about 437 feet in one second; and tak- 
 ing this fall, the Sun's radius, and the distance of every 
 planet in succession, to form successive proportions similar 
 to that employed in the case of the Earth and the Moon, 
 he found that the pulls per second of this supposed solar 
 attraction were very nearly the same as the actual pulls per 
 second by which the planets were drawn towards the Sun 
 and maintained in their orbits. Here was additional and 
 apparently overwhelming evidence in support of his theory. 
 But it was not all. The Jovian and the Saturnian systems 
 furnished still further evidence, for it was found that the 
 law of gravitation accounted for the motions of the satellites 
 as fully as it did for those of the planets. Every member 
 of the Solar System appeared to be strictly amenable to 
 that law. And thus, from the 16.1 feet determined by Ga- 
 lileo to be the gravity pull in one second at the Earth's sur- 
 face, did Newton account for the motion of the Moon, the 
 Earth, the planets, the satellies, the comets, and even 
 the stars; for the philosopher Kant, the two Herschels, the 
 two Struves, Argelander, Airy, and many other astronomers 
 agree that the Sun and the stars have a proper motion about 
 distant centers, to which they are held in the same manner 
 as the Moon is held to the Earth, or the planets to the Sun. 
 Vhus upon the solid basis of actual observation, with 
 our own eyes, upon our own world, has the theory of grav- 
 itation been constructed and extended to the whole universe; 
 to which it applies with such apparent harmony and exact- 
 ness that its implicit acceptance as the essential basis of 
 physical science by the profoundest intellects of the modern 
 world is not at all to be wondered at. 
 
 11. Tihe Nebular Hypothesis. But after this extension 
 and general acceptance of the theory of gravitation, there 
 yet remained facts which were totally inexplicable. The 
 mere orbital motions of the planets and satellites were made 
 intelligible, but how about the planets and satellites them- 
 
14 INTRODUCTION [11 
 
 selves? Whence came they and in what manner? How 
 came their orbits to lie nearly in the same general plane 
 that of the Sun's equator and their motions, both of or- 
 bital revolution and axial rotation,* to be generally in the 
 same direction from west to east? And how also did it 
 happen that there was an invariable relation beween a plan- 
 et's distance from the Sun, or primary, and its period of 
 circulation around that body? In these adjustments, Newton 
 could see only the finger of God. In his general scholium 
 he pronounces them to be the work of an intelligent and 
 all-powerful Being. 
 
 There was one, however, to whom such an explanation 
 was not wholly satisfactory the great French mathema- 
 tician, Laplace (1749-1827). "Might not these arrangements 
 be an effect of the laws of motion?" he asks, "and might 
 not the Supreme Intelligence, which Newton invoked, have 
 caused them to depend on a more general phenomenon?" 
 And such a phenomenon is, according to his conjecture, 
 "that of a nebulous matter dispersed in masses throughout 
 the immensity of the heavens." In a note at the end of his 
 System Du Monde, Laplace expands this general idea more 
 into details. He commences with a universal nebulosity "so 
 diffuse that its existence is barely imaginable". This neb- 
 ulosity, aggregated into individual masses, some of which 
 became stars and one of which became the Solar System. 
 Through the agency of gravitation these primordial masses 
 would develop nuclei; the spiral or vortical motions of floc- 
 culi towards this nucleated mass-center giving rise to a 
 rotation of the whole mass. Thus after a time our system 
 consisted of a dense nucleus, or the Sun, surrounded by a 
 vaporous atmosphere which extended "beyond the orbits of 
 all the planets". "The atmosphere of the sun could not 
 extend outwards indefinitely; its limit would be the point 
 where the centrifugal force due to its movement of rotation 
 would counterbalance gravitation. But in proportion as cool- 
 ing contracted the atmosphere and condensed at the sur- 
 face of the body the molecules located in that region, the 
 
12] INTRODUCTION 15 
 
 movement of rotation increased by virtue of the principles 
 of areas." And the velocity becoming greater and greater 
 as the solar atmosphere contracted more and more, an equa- 
 torial ring would be left behind by the contracting vapor. 
 This ring, which is supposed to have considerable breadth, 
 would not be of uniform density and tenacity in all its parts, 
 and would consequently fracture and collapse into a sphere; 
 this sphere having an orbital motion around the Sun de- 
 rived from its original rotation around that body, and an 
 axial rotation caused, and its direction determined, by the 
 greater absolute velocity of the outer portion of the ring. 
 This process would continue in the Sun's atmosphere until 
 all the planets and planetoids were successively cast off and 
 left behind. But in the meantime some of the planets, in 
 contracting from the vaporous condition, would also acquire 
 a rapid rotation and cast off rings of vapor which would 
 disrupt into satellites. The present ring of Saturn for some 
 extraordinary reason still remains unbroken, although it is 
 supposed to be either vaporous or composed of discrete par- 
 ticles. The comets are entire strangers and their origin is 
 wholly mythical. 
 
 Such is the "nebular hypothesis" of Laplace regarding 
 the origin of the Solar System. It is, moreover, with very 
 little modification, the view now held; but it may be stated 
 here that recent eminent astronomers are beginning to find 
 insuperable difficulties in it. 
 
 12. Astronomical Science Still in Its Infancy. Having 
 thus rapidly passed in review the earliest astronomical ideas 
 down to the most recent cosmological conceptions, we may 
 here pause for a moment's reflection. 
 
 One thing this glance at our past physical views is well 
 calculated to impress upon our minds, and that is their prob- 
 able immaturity and incompleteness. The history of phys- 
 ical astronomy seems to be one of successive illusions, 
 each tenaciously held for a time and given up only with 
 reluctance. The most chimerical ideas of the heavenly bodies, 
 their motions, their nature, and their origin, generally 
 
16 INTRODUCTION [13 
 
 prevailed up to the fifteenth century; and it is only in the 
 last two centuries that anything like true ideas of the mech- 
 anism and origin of the Solar Sygtem began to be enter- 
 tained. Indeed, regarding these matters, the human intellect 
 appears to be even yet in its infancy. Not only is it true 
 that the number of men who have intelligent ideas of the 
 mechanism and laws of the universe is extremely small com- 
 pared with the number of those who entertain very prim- 
 itive ideas, or who entertain no ideas whatever regarding 
 the subject, but even these intelligent ideas are but recently 
 derived from their fallacious predecessors; and being thus 
 recently born of error, it is really very improbable that they 
 can be wholly free from error themselves. 
 
 The human race may be compared to a healthy and active 
 child just beginning to exercise its reason; but with the 
 difference that the former has no tutor. It has to answer its 
 own inquiries and to explain its own difficulties. Conse- 
 quently it makes mistakes which, however, owing to its ac- 
 tivity, it soon discovers and replaces by others less palpable. 
 Such seems to be our intellectual progress, from gross mis- 
 conceptions to misconceptions less gross. And, if our ex- 
 istence and our progress are to continue, such in all proba- 
 bility will our intellectual progress continue to be for many 
 years to come. 
 
 13. Current Acceptance of Scientific Dogmas. With thte 
 history of our intellectual development before us a history 
 of successive escapes from sense-illusions a history of man's 
 implicit faith and confidence* in the truth and perfectness of 
 his newest conceptions of Nature, and of his subsequent 
 discoveries that Nature is yet quite different from his new- 
 est conceptions of her a history of the fallacies and re- 
 jection of all theories but the last one, and of the unquali- 
 fied approval and acceptance of this one as a demonstrated 
 law; with such a history of our progress in the past for 
 our present guidance, it seems that we ought to be liberal 
 towards new ideas, and to regard our present conceptions as 
 very liable to be fallacious like their predecessors. The 
 
14] INTRODUCTION 17 
 
 fact, however, has every appearance of being the contrary. 
 The present theory of gravitation, e. g., is regarded by near- 
 ly all scientists as a demonstrated fact. No recent physicist 
 questions its general application, and apparently never has 
 questioned it, but has fully accepted it upon the authority 
 of its illustrious expounders. 
 
 Thus "owing to the temptation to accept as still sufficient 
 any time-honored scientific dogma having respectable spon- 
 sors",* it becomes possible that serious errors are, as they 
 certainly have been, propagated by very intelligent men. 
 They have little, if any, doubt of the truth and perfectness 
 of current scientific doctrines. They do not exercise their 
 reason at all in their investigation. Their minds are sat- 
 isfied with the evidences adduced, and the magnificent tal- 
 ents displayed, by their propoundeis. Their respect and rev- 
 erence for these magnificent talents are so profound that 
 they invest the doctrines and protect them from criticism 
 as the wax protects the copperplate. In more subordinate 
 matters their acumen is great, and their investigation thor- 
 ough; but the matters of prime importance are as if preserv- 
 ed under lock and key from the dangerous pryings of rea- 
 son and investigation. But in science nothing should be held 
 so sacred as to be above the strictest scrutiny with the 
 light of reason not once for all, but frequently; for that 
 light become ever brighter and more searching as our knowl- 
 edge increases with increasing years. In the words of the 
 Duke of Argyle : t "We should be awake to the retarding ef- 
 fects of a superstitious dependence on the authority of great 
 men, and to the constant liability of even the greatest observ- 
 ers to found fallacious generalizations on a few scanty facts." 
 
 14. Present-day Doubts. These remarks were written 
 twenty-five years ago. Today there are many indications 
 that a few scientific men are beginning to recognize that 
 even the basic and fundamental conceptions of physical 
 science are erroneous. 
 
 *Prof. S. P. Langley. 
 tNineteenth Century, April '94. 
 
18 INTRODUCTION [15 
 
 "Physical theories at the present moment are so shaky at 
 the foundations that the doubt arises sometimes whether the 
 superstructure is not being built up to rapidly. The diffi- 
 culties, now ten years old, in reconciling the undulatory and 
 corpuscular types of radiation in one theory, the hopeless 
 confusion that prevails as to the necessity for the existence 
 of an ether, and the modern discrete or quantum theory of 
 energy, seem to call for a more drastic reconsideration. . . 
 of many of the simplest physical conceptions and their exper- 
 imental basis. There seems to be really no evidence for 
 this. All experiment and observation justify is its propa- 
 gation between portions of space occupied by matter. Else- 
 where it may not be propagated at all. Recent suggestions 
 that it is propagated along 'Faraday tubes,' which starting 
 from the radiator must necessarily end 'somewhere,' seem 
 vaguely to imply something of the kind. But what a dif- 
 ferent complexion would be assumed by some of the larger 
 generalizations of science in the field, e. g., of the maintain- 
 ance of solar and cosmical energy, not to mention problems 
 in wireless telegraphy connected with the curvature of the 
 waves round the earth . . . if it were frankly confessed 
 at the outset that we are really in complete ignorance as 
 to the answer to this simplest first question about the nature 
 of radiation."* 
 
 15. Plan of This Work. In the following pages these 
 matters are to be examined more in detail. And even deep- 
 er and more important subjects than the theory of radiation 
 will be looked into, beginning with the very cornerstone of 
 present-day physical science, the Theory of Gravitation it- 
 self; upon which, in fact, nearly all other physical theories 
 rest, and with which they consequently all stand or fall to- 
 gether. 
 
 The Law of Gravitation is the essential principle of the 
 Theory of Gravitation, and so will first engage our attention. 
 All the principal phenomena which that law is held to gov- 
 ern are to pass careful examination in the light of that 
 theory; the results of which evidently appear to justify the 
 examination of the same phenomena again farther on in 
 the light of a new theory. 
 
 Frederick Soddy; Nature, 92, 339. 
 
PART I 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION 
 
 Men of science do not pledge themselves to creeds; they 
 are bound by articles of no sort. There is not a single be- 
 lief that it is not a bounden duty with them to hold with a 
 light hand, and to part with it cheerfully, the moment it is 
 proved to be contrary to any fact great or small. 
 
 PROF. HUXLEY. 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE LAW OF GRAVITATION 
 
 Newton's law is, doubtless, not absolutely correct; . . . 
 the attraction is not rigorously proportional to the inverse 
 squares of the distances but to some other function of them. 
 In this way Prof. Newcomb has recently tried to explain 
 the movement of the perihelion of Mercury. 
 
 M. H. PO1NCARE. 
 
 It is always safe and philosophic to distinguish, as much 
 as is in our power, fact from theory; the experience of past 
 ages is sufficient to show us the wisdom of such a course; 
 and considering the constant tendency of the mind to rest on 
 assumption, we ought to remember that it, in such cases, 
 becomes a prejudice, and inevitably interferes, more or less, 
 with a clear-sighted judgment. MICHAEL FARADAY. 
 
 In order to seek the truth it is necessary once in the 
 course of our life to doubt, as far as possible, of all things. 
 As we are at one time children, and as we formed various 
 judgments regarding the objects presented to our senses, 
 when as yet we had not the entire use of our reason, nu- 
 merous prejudices stand in the way of arriving at the knowl- 
 edge of truth; and of these it seems impossible to rid our- 
 selves, unless we undertake, once in our lifetime, to doubt 
 of all things in which we may discover even the smallest 
 suspicion of uncertainty. DES CARTES. 
 
20 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [16 
 
 16. Definition of the Law. What is the law of gravi- 
 tation? Prof. R. A. Proctor* defines the law as follows: 
 "Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every 
 other particle with a force varying* directly as the masses 
 and inversely as the square of the distance"; while in the 
 same work (Art. Gravitation), Sir R. S. Ball states the 
 law to be: "Every particle of matter in the universe at- 
 tracts every other particle with a force varying directly as 
 the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the 
 distance." 
 
 Do these two statements of the law agree? Do varying 
 "as the masses" and varying "as the product of the masses" 
 mean the same thing? If the masses of the attracting par- 
 ticles be 2 and 5, will not the attraction between them, 
 varying as the masses, be the sum of 2 and 5, or 7,. and vary- 
 ing as the product of the masses, be the product of 2 and 5, 
 or 10? Yet strange as it may seem, about half of the scien- 
 tific authorities give the sum-statement of the law and the 
 other half the product-statement. 
 
 This criticism, which is not made here for the first time, 
 is not advanced as one of very great importance. The 
 present writer does not stand sponsor for either the sum or 
 the product statement. But indignant protests have been 
 made because any difference whatever should be held to 
 exist between the two, as they both are alleged to mean 
 precisely the same thing. It is submitted to the reader 
 whether or not the expression, "Every particle of matter in 
 the universe attracts every other particle with a force di- 
 rectly as their masses"! has the same meaning as when it 
 is stated that the particles attract each other with a force 
 "directly as the product of the masses", as is frequently 
 done in scientific textbooks. All that is here contended xor 
 is that there is a very material difference; and that the 
 existence of such different expressions for a fundamental law 
 
 *Ency. Britt., Art. "Astronomy." 
 tNewcomb's Pop. Astron., 6th Ed., p. 81. 
 
17] THE LAW OF GRAVITATION 21 
 
 in physics manifests a looseness and carelessness of thought 
 which ought not to exist among scientific men. 
 
 Newton himself certainly used the product-statement; 
 and, indeed, the phrase, "Every particle of matter in the 
 universe attracts every other particle", clearly implies this 
 and. nothing else. To illustrate, let us suppose that the mass- 
 es of the two attracting bodies A and B, are m and n re- 
 spectively. Then each particle of A attracts each of the n 
 particles of B, making n units of attraction for the one par- 
 ticle of A; and as there are altogether m particles in A, 
 there would be obviously m times n, or mn, units of attrac- 
 tion between the two bodies. Or, in other words, the at- 
 traction between the two bodies would be represented by 
 the product of their masses. It is clear that, if it "varied 
 directly as the masses", the attraction between A and B 
 would be entirely different, or m + n, instead of mn. So that 
 such a statement as "Every two bodies or portions of matter 
 in the universe attract each other with a force propor- 
 tioned directly to the quantity of matter they contain"* is 
 simply a contradiction in terms, ?n impossibility (unless 
 the "particles" be of atomic dimensions).! 
 
 17. Application of the Law. Let U3 now examine the lav/ 
 in the light of the product-theory. Suppose two bodies, A and 
 B, each consisting of m particles, attracting e^ch other at 
 unit distance. Then the attraction between them will be 
 mXm, or m 2 . Now let one particle be transferred from A 
 to B, and then the attraction between the two bodies will 
 be ( m i) (^-^i), or rn - 1 > which, stivncely enough, is 
 one unit less than it was before, although the amount of 
 matter in the two bodies remains unchanged. If, instead of 
 transferring one particle from A to B, we transfer m 1 par- 
 ticles, then, according to the product-theory, the attraction 
 between the two bodies will be 2m 1, which is not only 
 less than the product of the masses of the two bodies be- 
 fore the transfer, but is less even than the sum of the mass- 
 es of the two bodies! And, indeed, if the remaining par- 
 
 *Webstcr's Dictionary. 
 
 tFcr further discussion of this subject see Arts. 222, 231, 242. 
 
22 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [18 
 
 ticle of A be also transferred to B, it may fairly be inferred 
 that the resulting body would have no attraction whatso- 
 ever! For 2m XO = 0. 
 
 The same reasoning applies for systems of three, four, 
 or more, bodies; the ratio of the maximum total attrac- 
 tion to the minimum total attraction in each system being pre- 
 cisely the same as in the case of two bodies, so long as each 
 body in that system is kept at unit distance from every other 
 body in that system. 
 
 18. Application to the Moon and the Earth. But does 
 this teaching of the law of gravitation conform with the 
 facts? For example, let the mass of the Earth be E and 
 that of the Moon E/80; then the attraction between them 
 according to the law will be E 2 /80. Then, transferring half 
 the Moon's mass to the Earth, the masses of the two bodies 
 will be 161E/160 and E/160, and the attraction between them 
 will be, very nearly, E 2 /159, or only about half as much as 
 before. In other words, halving the Moon's mass halves 
 the Earth-Moon attraction although the Earth's mass is in- 
 creased! What has become of the other half of the Earth's 
 attraction? 
 
 Sir R. S. Ball, in his article on gravitation in the Ency- 
 clopedia Brittanica illustrates the action of gravity by sup- 
 posing two attracting bodies to be held apart by a rigid rod 
 between them. The pressure exerted upon one end of 
 the rod by one body is shown to be precisely equal to the 
 pressure upon the other end of the rod by the other body, 
 regardless of the relative sizes of the two bodies. And it 
 is shown that, by doubling, trebling, etc., the mass of the 
 body at one end of the rod, the pressure exerted upon each 
 end of the rod is consequently doubled, trebled, etc. 
 
 Let us now use this illustration in the case of the Moon 
 and the Earth. The pressure of the Moon upon one end 
 of the rigid rod separating it from the Earth, is precisely 
 equal to that of the Earth upon the other end, the two 
 bodies being supposed to be at rest and the attraction of 
 gravity being the only force operating between them. Doub- 
 
19] THE LAW OF GRAVITATION 23 
 
 ling the mass of the Moon, the pressure on each end of the 
 rod is doubled. Trebling the mass of the Moon, the pres- 
 sure on each end of the rod is trebled. And so on. But if 
 instead of doubling the mass of the Moon, we double the 
 mass of the Earth, what will happen then? The mass of 
 the Earth is eighty times as great as that of the Moon, and 
 one would reasonably think that the doubling of this greater 
 mass ought to produce a correspondingly greater effect. 
 But, according to the law of gravitation, it does not. The 
 pressure upon each end of the rod is doubled when the 
 Earth's mass is doubled, precisely the same as when the 
 Moon's mass is doubled. For doubling the mass of the 
 Earth only doubles its attraction upon the Moon, which thus 
 would press upon the rod with twice the weight it had be- 
 fore, just as when its own mass was doubled. Moreover, 
 this follows as a mathematical result from the product- 
 theory of the law of gravitation. For the two masses be- 
 ing 1 and 80, respectively, doubling the first gives a product 
 of 2X80, or 160, and doubling the second gives a product 
 1X160, or 160, as before. 
 
 To make the absurdity of this conclusion still plainer, let 
 one particle of matter be at one end of the rod, and let 
 all the matter of the universe, excepting the one particle 
 and the rod, be at the other end. Then, according to the 
 law of gravitation, doubling the mass of the particle would 
 cause precisely the same effect as doubling the mass of 
 the rest of the universe! Or. in other words, the attrac- 
 tive effect of a single particle is practically the same, ac- 
 cording to the law of gravitation, as that of the whole uni- 
 verse. What a strange jumble of conceptions we sometimes 
 really, though unwittingly, entertain!* 
 
 19. The Law of Gravitation and the Conservation of En- 
 ergy. What, then, is the law of the attraction of gravity? 
 How does one mass of matter act upon another mass with- 
 out connection, and apparently without requiring time for 
 the transmission of the impulse, however great the distance 
 
 *For further discussion of this subject see Arts. 206, 213, 232, 244. 
 
24 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [19 
 
 at which it acts ? What logical right have we to assume, 
 as scientists do, that a something called gravity is so won- 
 derfully radiated out in all direction* into empty space, to 
 an infinite distance, where it meets with no reciprocally at- 
 tracting body? And then again: "Every particle of matter 
 in the universe attracts every other particle"! This is 
 part of the statement of the law of gravitation. What does 
 it imply? If the attraction of every smallest particle of 
 matter in the universe extends outwards on all sides of that 
 particle to the utmost limits of the universe, or to infinite 
 distances, what becomes of the law of the conservation of 
 energy? For this statement implies not only an infinite 
 amount of attractive force in every particle of matter, but 
 also the continual action, expenditure, and generation of 
 this infinite force through all eternity; or in other words, 
 a double-actioned infinity of force (in space and time) for 
 every particle of matter! Would any person of intelligence 
 claim that a material particle, independently of any exter- 
 nal cause, could forever continue to generate any other form 
 of energy, such as heat or light? And, if not, why do scien- 
 tists make the sole exception in favor of gravity? For 
 since every known property of the particle remains un- 
 changed and unaffected by this doubly infinite generation 
 of energy by it, there appears to be, in the light of our pres- 
 ent knowledge., no other conclusion than that this infinite 
 supply of force is actually created out of nothing! In the 
 words of Samuel Laing: 
 
 "This affects not only the permanent maintenance of the 
 supply of gravity, but goes even deeper to the fundamental 
 axioms of all modern conceptions, whether scientific or phil- 
 osophical, of the universe, viz., the Conservation of Energy. 
 You cannot make something out of nothing; you cannot cre- 
 ate energy or matter, but only transform them. Good; but 
 how about that which is one of the principal manifestations 
 of energy in the universe that of gravity? You can catch 
 limited portions of it, transform them into mechanical power, 
 and then backwards and forwards as you like in heat, light, 
 chemical action, electricity and magnetism, neither gaining 
 
 nor losing by any of these transformations If 
 
 Thomson and Helmhoitz assume an infinite fund of energy in 
 
20] THE LAW OF GRAVITATION 25 
 
 the form of gravity to account for heat, why shall they not 
 as well assume an infinite amount of heat to account for 
 gravity? And if heat is dissipated by use until it is exhaust- 
 ed, or reduced to one sui^onary average of temperature, 
 and worlds and suns die, why should gravity be gifted with 
 perpetual youth and escape the general law of birth, matur- 
 ity and death?"* 
 
 So much for the law of gravitation. Next may be con- 
 sidered the application of that law in the broader field of 
 the theory of gravitation.! 
 
 20. The Attraction of a Sphere or Spherical Shell. Af- 
 ter discovering the law of gravitation, Newton realized that 
 there was needed a proof of a further proposition, viz., that 
 a sphere, however large, would attract another sphere, how- 
 ever close, as though its mass were concentrated in one 
 point at its center. This, 
 
 "which he ultimately succeeded in proving . . . com- 
 pleted the great law which was given to the world in 1686; 
 but without this proposition, the law of gravitation would 
 have remained a mere rough approximation, instead of tak- 
 ing its place at once, and thereafter, as the most accurate 
 law known to science."! 
 
 In Thomson's and Tait's Natural Philosophy, sec. 488, 
 there is a demonstration of this proposition with regard to 
 a spherical shell, which is too long to be quoted here. It 
 must suffice to show that it cannot be proved that the at- 
 traction of equal diametrically opposite portions of that 
 shell on an external body, P, is J:he same as if both por- 
 tions were at the center of the shell. 
 
 Let C be the center of a shell, P a body external to the 
 shell, and A the point of the shell nearest to P. Also let 
 CP=h and CA a. Then, according to the law of gravita- 
 tion, the sum of the attractions of an area at A, the near- 
 est point to P, and of an equal area at a point diametrically 
 opposite to A, will be as follows: l/(b+a) 2 + l/(b a) 2 , 
 
 *Problems of the Future; Humboldt .Library of Science, No. 166, 
 p. 23. 
 
 tThis subject is continued in Arts. 207, 214, 223, 233, 245e. 
 $Prof. H. H. Turner; Nature, 83, 338. 
 
26 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [20 
 
 which, if the proposition were true, would equal 2/b 2 . But 
 this equation reduces to a--bV3, which is absurd. If 
 we place the equal elements at opposite ends of a diameter 
 of the shell at right angles to CP, it is obvious at a glance 
 that each area will be farther from P than it would be at 
 the center. And the computation for intermediate diam- 
 eters, equally distributed with respect to the shell's sur- 
 face some of which give a surplus and some a deficit, of at- 
 traction, as compared with the attraction of the pair of op- 
 posite elements at the center do not at all appear to in- 
 dicate that they balance one another. 
 
 In Thomson and Tait's demonstration referred to, the 
 total force of the shell on P was found to be 4^ da 2 /(CP) 2 , 
 where d is the density of the surface and a equals CA, the 
 radius of the shell. Now if CP be continually diminished, 
 this force, according to the formula, would evidently con- 
 tinually increase until, as the particle P moved within the 
 shell and arrived at the center, it would become infinitely 
 great; whereas the actual teaching elsewhere is that it 
 should become zero at that point. In sec. 479 the authors 
 state that "a particle placed within the surface is not at- 
 tracted in any direction". But this also leads to a con- 
 clusion just as strange, for when P would arrive at A, the 
 force would be at a maximum, whence, passing just with- 
 in the shell, it instantly becomes zero. 
 
 In the case of a solid sphere, the same reasoning would 
 apply to the attraction Of two equal and diametrically op- 
 posite elements upon an external particle as in the case 
 of a spherical shell. According to the law of gravitation, 
 no two equal elements of a sphere, equally distant and dia- 
 metrically opposite from the center, can have the same at- 
 tractive force upon an external particle as if they were sit- 
 uated at the center; and as the whole sphere consists of 
 such pairs of elements, no sphere, either homogenous or 
 uniformly increasing or decreasing in density towards the 
 center, can act on an external particle, according to the law 
 of gravitation, as if its whole mass were concentrated at 
 
21] THE LAW OF GRAVITATION 27 
 
 its center. Pages of further comment could not make this 
 any plainer.* 
 
 21. Terrestial Attraction. One method of measuring the 
 Earth's density is by means of a pendulum. The number of 
 its oscillations in a given time depends upon the strength 
 of the attraction of gravity. It is in accordance with the 
 theory of gravitation that, as we descend beneath the Earth's 
 surface, the Earth's attraction will decrease in strength in ex- 
 act proportion to the mass of the layer penetrated; and, 
 knowing the density of the latter, we can compare with it 
 the density of the rest of the Earth by comparing the force 
 of gravity at the surface with the force of gravity at the in- 
 side of the layer. In 1843, Sir G. B. Airy, by means of the 
 pendulum, measured the force of gravity at the surface and 
 at the bottom of Harton Colliery, 1200 feet deep. But, to 
 his astonishment, he found that the force of gravity at the 
 bottom of the colliery was considerably greater than at the 
 surface. 
 
 Prof. Young f endeavors to explain this as follows: 
 
 "If we go down into a mine the effect on gravity is the 
 same as if a shell composed of all that part of the earth 
 above our level had been removed. At the same time 
 our distance from the earth's center has been decreased by 
 d, the depth of the mine. At the surface, g =kE/R :j . . . . 
 At the bottom of the mine g' = k(E shell )/(R d)*. The 
 ratio of g to g' is given by pendulum observations. Obvious- 
 ly, however, the mass of the shell is difficult to determine 
 with accuracy. And it is by no means, homogenous; so that 
 there is no great reason for surprise at the discordant re- 
 sult, g' was found to be actually greater than g, showing 
 that, although at the center of the earth the attraction nec- 
 essarily becomes zero, yet, as we descend below the surface, 
 gravity increases, for a time down to some unknown, but 
 probably not very great, depth, where it becomes a max- 
 imum." 
 
 Now in the first place, it is very doubtful, to say the 
 least, that gravity would be increased owing to the Earth's 
 diminished radius. Even if the attraction of the outer shell 
 
 *This subject continued in Arts. 208, 215, 216, 224, 234, 246. 
 tGeneral Astronomy, Art. 169. 
 
28 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [22 
 
 of 1200 feet thickness were eliminated, it is hardly likely 
 that, according to the theory, the smaller Earth would have 
 a greater force of gravity at its surface than before. Sim- 
 ple arithmetic plainly shows that the Earth's gravity ought 
 to decrease with depth beneath the surface even according 
 to Young's own explanation. Calling the Earth's diameter 
 8000 miles, then the Earth's volume is 267 billions of cubic 
 miles and the volume of the shell is 46 millions of cubic 
 miles; which is 0.00017 of the Earth's volume. The differ- 
 ence between R 2 and (R d) 2 is about 1800, which is 0.0001- 
 125 of R 2 ; so that the numerator of the fraction, (E shell) 
 /(R d) 2 , is diminished considerably more than the denom- 
 inator, as compared with the fraction E/R 2 . It is true that 
 volume is considered instead of mass; but if we allow just 
 half the volume of the shell for its mass, g' would be only 
 1/500 of one per cent greater than g, which would account 
 for only about one-third of the difference observed.* 
 
 It is clearly absurd, then, to hold that, by the law of 
 gravitation, the attraction of the Earth could be greater at 
 the bottom of the mine than at its mouth. t (For defection of 
 the theory of gravitation above the Earth's surface, as well 
 as below it, see Art. 247). 
 
 22. Gravity in an Ellipse. 
 
 "If a body be projected with a very small velocity from 
 the top of a tower near the earth's surface, it will fall nearly 
 straight downwards. If the earth were concentrated at the 
 point in its center so that the body should not strike its sur- 
 face, it would move in a very long, narrow ellipse having the 
 center of the earth at the farther focus, and would return 
 to the original point after an interval of 29.9 minutes."} 
 
 But it is generally accepted that if a straight hole were 
 bored through the Earth's center from one surface to the 
 other, and a body dropped into the hole from one surface, it 
 would continually increase in velocity towards the center 
 and, if not resisted by the air, would acquire a momentum 
 at that point which would carry it to the opposite surface; 
 whence it would vibrate, like a pendulum, back again to the 
 
 *Nature, 59, 131. 
 
 tContinued in Arts. 209, 216, 225, 247, 263e. 
 
 ?Prof. Young, Gen. Astron., Art. 435. 
 
24] THE LAW OF GRAVITATION 29 
 
 starting point; and so on. Now Prof. Young, and Newton, 
 and in fact, all scientific authorities, hold that the Earth's 
 attractive action is the same as if its whole mass were con- 
 centrated at a point at its center, and that if a body, start- 
 ing from the surface distance from that center, were given 
 a small horizontal velocity, no matter how small, presum- 
 ably, the body would go just to the center, turn sharply 
 round it, and come back again to the starting-point. Isn't 
 this strange? The slight projection of the body horizon- 
 tally has the tremendous effect of annihilating half of the 
 body's previous path! Can this be true? or is there some- 
 thing radically wrong ;n our premises?* 
 
 23. The Runaway Stars. All the planetary movements 
 of the Solar and Sidereal Systems are held amenable to 
 the law of gravitation. Yet Prof. Newcomb 
 
 "has shown by mathematical calculation that the gravitation 
 of the whole universe, assuming it to contain 100,000,000 
 stars each on the average five times larger than the sun, 
 would require to be sixty-four times greater than it reaily is 
 to have given one star, 1830 Groombridge, the velocity of 200 
 miles per second which it actually possesses. . . . Of 
 course this applies with greater force to a star like Arcturus, 
 moving with the velocity of 400 miles per second. "t 
 
 24. Gravitation and Solar Heat. According to the theory 
 of gravitation, the Sun's mass is contracting continually upon 
 itself owing to the continual strain of its central attrac- 
 tion; this contraction being the main source of the Sun's 
 heat for all past and future ages. This is the generally ac- 
 cepted view now and has been for a long time. Yet 
 
 "leading mathematicians, such as Sir W. Thomson and Helm- 
 holtz, assign twenty, or more probably, ten millions of years 
 as the outside possible past duration of a supply of heat from 
 the Sun, sufficient to maintain the earth under conditions 
 enabling it to support life. Lyell and a majority of the best 
 geologists consider that one hundred or two hundred millions 
 
 *Continucd in Arts. 210, 217, 226, 235, 248. 
 
 tin a recent paper in The Astrophysical Journal, May 1914, 
 Messrs. W. S. Adams and Arnold Kohlschuetter give the radial veloc- 
 ity of Lai. 1966 as H25 km., or 202 miles, which is declared to be 
 "the highest recorded radial velocity among the stars.'' (Nature, 93, 
 416). Later, however. (Nature, 96,323), Dr. Adams assigns an abso 
 lute velocity of 577 km. /sec. to the star AOe 14320. 
 
30 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [25 
 
 of years are required to account for the undoubted facts of 
 geology since life began. Each side support their case by 
 arguments, which, taken by themselves, seem conclusive. 
 And yet the gap between them is o wide that it cannot be 
 bridged over by mutual concessions, and it is evident that 
 there must be some fundamental error in the assumed data 
 on one side or the other.* 
 
 This estimate of the Sun's heat is based on a pres- 
 ent shrinkage of 35 metres per year and theoretic distribu- 
 tion of the heat thus engendered; while geology determines 
 the time from the rate of deposition and denudation of the 
 various strata of the Earth's crust, and is based primarily 
 on actual observation.! 
 
 25. The Pressure of Sunlight. Many eminent physicists 
 still hold that the law of gravitation is perfectly true; others, 
 that it is only approximately true, and still others, that it 
 appears to be rather questionable. Of the former, Prof. R. 
 A. Proctor says: 
 
 "The principle of gravitation, which had been found by 
 Newton to confine the moon and the planets to their respec- 
 tive orbits, was shown to occasion every apparent irregular- 
 ity, however minute, in the motions of the planets and sat- 
 ellites; and those very irregularities which were at first 
 brought forward as objections to tne hypothesis have been 
 ultimately found to afford the most triumphant proofs of its 
 accuracy and have placed the truth of the Newtonian theory 
 beyond the reach of all future cavil. "$ 
 
 Samuel Laing, himself a severe scientific critic, says: 
 
 "If there is one thing more certain than another, it is that 
 mathematical calculations, based on the Newtonian law of 
 gravity, explain all the movements of the Solar System." 
 
 And Sir John Herschel is still more positive. He says : 
 
 "What Newton left undone, however, his successors have 
 accomplished and at this day it is hardly too much to assert 
 that there is not a single perturbation, great or small, which 
 observation has become precise enough to detect and place 
 
 *Samuel Laing, Humboldt Librsry of Science, No. 166, p. 9. 
 
 tSee also Arts. 227, 2:36. 
 
 JEncy. Britt., Art. "Astronomy." 
 
 Hnm"boldt Library of Science, No. 166, p. 36. 
 
26] THE LAW OF GRAVITATION 31 
 
 in evidence, which has not been traced up to its origin in the 
 mutual parts of our system, and minutely accounted for in 
 its numerical amount and value by strict calculation on New- 
 ton's principles."* 
 
 Yet today, there are admittedly a dozen instances in 
 which the motions of the Moon and planets are inexplicable 
 by Newton's law; and moreover we have recently discover- 
 ed, or think we have, a very formidable perturbing force 
 which was wholly unconsidered by these quoted authorities; 
 viz., the pressure of sunshine. As early as 1873, Maxwell 
 found that the sunlight at the surface of the Earth should 
 oxoi t a pressure of 0.592X10- 10 grams per sq. cm. Prof. 
 Peter Lebedew gives the pressure as 0.4 milligramme per 
 square metre of Earth-section, or about 5000 tons on the 
 whole Earth t, which was corroborated by Profs. E. F. Nich- 
 ols and G. F. Hull.J Prof. Crookes, however, estimated the 
 pressure of sunshine at 57 tons per square mile, or about 
 three thousand millions of tons upon the whole Earth. 
 
 Prof. Arthur Schuster describes this pressure as a prop- 
 agation of momentum accompanying the transmission of 
 light, and states that this momentum is destroyed whether the 
 molecules upon which the light falls act as absorbing, or as 
 scattering centers. || 
 
 Now if the pressure of sunshine is a fact, and actual ex- 
 periments appear to prove it, what are we to think of the 
 theory of gravitation, which has been built up without the 
 least regard to it? 
 
 26. The Gravitational Strain of a Revolving Planet. It 
 is stated by Sir Oliver Lodge that the force with which the 
 Moon is held in its terrestial orbit would be great enough 
 to tear asunder a steel rod 400 miles thick with a tenacity 
 of thirty tons per square inch. The present writer ques- 
 tioned this conclusion, asserting the sufficiency of a rod 
 
 *0utlines of Astronomy, p. 412. 
 tSmith. Kept. 1902. pp. 177-8. 
 ISmith. Eept. 1908, pp. 115-138. 
 
 iGravitation, by Wm. B. Taylor, from Smith. Kept. 1876. 
 IINature, 81, 98. 
 
 0n the Ether of Space, ,1 lecture at the Royal Institution, London, 
 Feb. 21, '08. 
 
32 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION L26 
 
 6.5 miles in diameter, instead of 400.* The former estimate 
 is based on the theory that it is the mass of the revolving 
 body that determines the strain upon the restraining rod, 
 the latter on the theory that it is the weight of the revolv- 
 ing body that determines this strain. Briefly expressed, it is 
 MV 2 versus WV 2 ; and though the latter formula, owing to 
 its novelty and contravention of accepted views, may seem 
 preposterous at first, it is not at all without evidence to 
 support it. 
 
 The mass of a body is generally considered to be invar- 
 iable wherever placed; but its weight depends entirely upon 
 its circumstances. If the strain upon the Moon's retaining 
 rod be determined by the Moon's mass, then that strain will 
 be 3600 times as great as it would be if it were determined 
 by the weight of the Moon at the Moon's distance, as com- 
 pared with its weight upon the Earth. This is a question 
 regarding the strength of gravity which it seems worth while 
 to solve if we can; and more especially as it appears to be 
 a matter of immense significance in the future stages of 
 cosmical evolution, as glimpsed in the almost inconceivable 
 orbital velocities implied in the molecules of radiant matter. 
 (See Art. 198). , 
 
 At the Earth's surface, weight is primarily used to de- 
 termine mass, or quantity of matter. If a body weighs so 
 much, we say it contains so much substance: if it weighs 
 half as much, the substance it contains is only half as much; 
 and so on. Work done is also based on weight. If we raise 
 a pound weight one foot, we use one "foot-pound" as a meas- 
 ure of the energy expended. 
 
 Now at the Earth's surface, let us swing a pound weight 
 vertically in a sling three feet long. Then, from the lower- 
 most point of the swing to the uppermost point, the pound 
 weight has been raised 6 feet; implying an amount of work 
 done, or strain on the string, of 6 foot-pounds. Then if 
 we similarly swing the same body in the same sling, through 
 the same angle, 1600 miles above the Earth's surface, that 
 
 *Nature, 80, 276. 
 
26] THE LAW OF GRAVITATION 33 
 
 body will weigh only half a pound, owing to the increased 
 distance from the Earth; and the work done by, and con- 
 sequently the tension on, the string will be only a half pound 
 multiplied by 6 feet, or 3 foot-pounds. The body in the sling 
 is raised against gravity in both cases; but the lessened 
 work in raising it at the higher elevation necessarily implies 
 a diminished strain upon the string. 
 
 Again, let a pound ball revolve at the end of a string 4.5 
 feet long on a horizontal plane at the Earth's surface, with 
 a velocity of 3 feet per second. This implies that the ball 
 is drawn from the tangent to its momentary path a distance 
 of 1 foot in each second; and this foot-pound movement rep- 
 resents the work or strain which the string withstands each 
 second owing to the revolution of the ball in the sling. Let 
 the same ball in the same sling be revolved on a horizontal 
 solid plane with the same velocity 1600 miles above the 
 Earth's surface. Then the ball will weigh only half a pound. 
 This half pound will be drawn from the tangent to its mo- 
 mentary path 1 foot in each second, and why should not 
 this half-foot pound movement represent the strain which 
 the string withstands each second owing to the revolution 
 of the ball in the sling, in a manner exactly similar to the 
 first case? In fact, will not a spring balance placed as a 
 link in the spring register just half the strain in the latter 
 case as in the former? 
 
 By the same reasoning, weight also affects inertia. If 
 a man and a cannon-ball were removed to a place where the 
 cannon-ball weighed no more than a feather does at the 
 Earth's surface, will not the man's strength be less taxed 
 to raise the ball than it would be to raise it where it weigh- 
 ed 100 pounds? The man's strength, like that of a spring 
 balance, remains the same, and it is only plain common sense 
 that a man's strength will accomplish most where it is re- 
 sisted least by the forces of Nature. If a man were carried 
 to the Moon, could he not jump higher than on the Earth? 
 or, if carried to the Sun, could he jump as high as here? 
 And why should not change of weight similarly affect the 
 
34 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [26 
 
 strain suffered by the string, or bond, holding the Moon in 
 its orbit? 
 
 Prof. Young states* "The attraction of the sun for the 
 earth expressed as tons of force (ot tons of mass of course) 
 is 3,600,000 of millions of millions of tons (36 with seventeen 
 ciphers annexed)". Now how did Prof. Young obtain this 
 result? He took the Earth's 6X10 21 tons of weight over 
 to the Sun's surface (about 440,000 miles from the Sun's 
 center), where he multiplied it by 27.5, the ratio of grav- 
 ity upon the Sun to gravity upon the Earth, making the 
 Earth's weight there 165 XlO 21 tons, where it would require 
 a velocity of 270 miles per second to balance the solar grav- 
 ity of 444 feet in one second. So in removing the Earth to 
 its solar orbit, 92,000,000 miles away from the Sun, where 
 the velocity is about 19 miles per second, to obtain the at- 
 tractive strain there he had to dimmish 165 XlO 21 tons by 
 (19/270) 2 owing to change of velocity and by 440,000/92,- 
 000,000 owing to change of distance; which gave him about 
 36 XlO 17 tons, just as he states. Now in taking the Earth 
 over to the Sun's surface, he did not forget at all to increase 
 the Earth's weight to correspond with the greater solar grav- 
 ity existing there; but when he removed the Earth back 
 again to its solar orbit, he forgot entirely to diminish the 
 Earth's weight to correspond with the smaller solar gravity 
 there, modifying it with regard to change of velocity and 
 distance alone; although the orbital strain is certainly mod- 
 ified by weight just as well as it is by distance and velocity. 
 This may not be the exact method employed by Young to de- 
 termine the Earth's gravitative strain in its solar orbit; 
 but it must be equivalent to it because it arrives at the 
 same result. Why did Prof. Young allow for the change of 
 the Earth's weight in the one case and not the other ?t 
 
 A more general application of the theory of gravitation 
 to the case of a simple unit of the Solar System, consisting 
 of three bodies, may next be considered. Though neces- 
 sarily involving a great deal of detail and apparently a rath- 
 
 *Gen Astron., Art. 436. 
 
 tSee also Arts. 198, 211, 218, 238, 249e. 
 
26] THE PROBLEM OF THREE BODIES 35 
 
 er complex problem, only the simplest mechanical princi- 
 ples are really involved, and all of it seems easily within the 
 comprehension of the average high school graduate. 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 THE PROBLEM OF THREE BODIES 
 
 It is questionable whether it can be safely said that the 
 motion of the moon cannot be completely accounted for by 
 the law of gravity. . . . We cannot fully explain these 
 motions by Newton's law of gravity. ORMOND STONE. 
 
 You state that I have misinterpreted my results, and it 
 looks as though you believe my views to be unsound. Your 
 arguments are those of an eminent scholar. For years 1 
 po|ndered, so TO speak, day and night over books, and filled 
 my head with sound views very sound ones indeed those 
 of others. But I could not get to practical results. 1 then 
 began to work and think independently. Gradually my views 
 became unsound, but they conducted me to sound results. 
 
 NIKOLA TESLA. 
 
 There is growing to be an unspoken, rather than a clear- 
 ly formulated admission, that we know little of the order of 
 nature, and nothing at all of the "laws" of nature. . . . 
 'If any opinion,' says Priestly, 'in all the modern doctrine con- 
 cerning air be well .founded, it is certainly this, that nitrous 
 air is highly charged with phlogiston. If I have completely 
 ascertained anything at all relating toi air, it is this.' . . . 
 Those who are capable of being instructed or warned by the 
 history of human thought may, then, ask what kind of a guar- 
 antee are we to have for any other 'fact' of our new knowl- 
 edge. May not all these 'facts' be gone like the baseless fab- 
 ric of this vision before another hundred years are passed? 
 . . . The lesson for us is that we must not consider that 
 anything is absolutely settled or true. . . How many doc- 
 trines of our own day will stand the light of the next cen- 
 tury? . . . But let me repeat what I have said elsewhere, 
 that the truths of the scientific church are not dogmas, but 
 something put forward as provisional only, and which her most 
 faithful children are welcome to disprove if they can. Re- 
 member it is the same human nature which judged that evi- 
 
36 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [27 
 
 dence then that judges this evidence now, and remember that, 
 however rapidly science changes, human nature remains very 
 much the same, and has always u good conceit of itself. 
 
 PKOF. S. P. WANGLE Y. 
 
 27. Data of the Problem. The most familiar instance 
 of the problem of three bodies is that of the Earth, the Sun, 
 and the Moon. Let us consider this celebrated problem once 
 more using these bodies for a special case. For brevity, 
 the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon may be designated by their 
 initial letters, E, S and M, respectively; also E will be taken 
 at its mean distance, or about 92,000,000 miles from S, and 
 M at a point between full and new Moon 54 44' distant from 
 the latter and at its mean distance, or about 240,000 miles 
 from E; with the apogee of the lunar orbit at, or nearly at, 
 new Moon. The object of taking M at the given point of its 
 orbit around E is' that, at this point, the perturbing forces 
 upon M are supposed to be balanced, are, in fact, said to be 
 tangential to the orbit, so that the latter body has no ten- 
 dency to recede from, or approach towards, its primary. 
 According to Sir John Herschel the distance of the given 
 point from new Moon is 64 14',* but Prof. R. A. Proctor 
 maintains that the balancement takes place at the point first 
 given f; and this point is selected here briefly because it is 
 the less favorable to the purpose here to be served. At the 
 given point, M would be some 140,000 miles nearer to S than 
 E is, and, taking the Moon's apogeeal distance from the 
 Earth at about 259,000 miles $, M will yet approach S about 
 119,000 miles before it reaches syzygy, the point at which 
 it is called new Moon. And as the synodic period of M 
 around E is about 29.5 days, the time required to traverse 
 the arc of 54 44' will be about 4.5 days, and therefore 
 the average approach per second of M towards S between 
 the given point and the apogeeal point at syzygy will be 
 119,000/4.5X24x60X60, or about 0.3 mile. 
 
 28. Perturbation of the Moon's Motion Owing to the Sun's 
 
 *Outliites cf Astronomy, Art. 676. 
 
 tThe Moon, p. 81, Note. 
 
 JNewcomVs Popular Astronomy, p. 312. 
 
28] THE PROBLEM OF THREE BODIES 37 
 
 Distance-Variation. Now at the given point we may read- 
 ily find, according to the law of gravitation, that the force 
 of the attraction of S upon M will be of such value as to 
 cause the latter to fall towards S a distance of about 0.01 
 ft. in one second. But since at the given point the radial 
 forces upon M are supposed to be balanced, we may assume 
 that this attraction of S upon M is wholly antagonized by 
 the centrifugal force of the latter in its solar orbit. At the 
 end of the first second after leaving the given point, how- 
 ever, M will have approached S a distance of 0.3 mile; 
 and consequently, by the law of gravitation, the attraction 
 of S upon M will be greater than 0.01 ft. in one second 
 by a quantity x, as indicated in the following proportion: 
 
 (91,860,000-0.3) 2 : (91,860,000) 2 == 0.01 : 0.01 + x; 
 from which the value of x is found to be about 6X10- 11 ft. 
 At the end of the second second, the approach of M towards 
 S would be twice as great, or 0.6 mile, and consequently x, 
 or the incrcease of the attraction of S, would be twice as 
 great, or 12XlO- n ft. And so on. The increase of attrac- 
 tion in the first second, if not counteracted, would obviously 
 urge M at the same rate in all subsequent seconds; and 
 similarly with the increment of attraction in the second, 
 third, etc., second; so that the rate of fall of M towards 
 S in any second owing to these momentary increments of 
 solar attraction upon M would be equal to the sum of all 
 the falls in that and the preceding seconds up to the start- 
 ing point. Thus, 
 
 In the 1st second, the fall is 6X10- 11 ft. 
 
 In the 2nd second, the fall is (12+ 6)X10- 1X ft. 
 
 In the 3rd second, the fall is (18+18) X10- 11 ft. 
 
 In the 4th second, the fall is (24+36) X10- 11 ft. 
 
 In the 5th second, the fall is (30+60) X10-" ft. 
 
 In the 388800th second, the fall is 4 1 /& ft. 
 
 Now since the orbital forces are balanced upon M at 
 the given starting point, so that it has no tendency to recede 
 from, or approach towards, E, the foregoing series of mo- 
 mentary increments of solar attraction obviously constitute a 
 perturbing force pulling M away from E towards S; and we 
 see that, if left to itself, the effect of this perturbing- force 
 
38 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [29 
 
 for the 4.5 days, or 388,800 seconds, during which M moves 
 from the given point to the apogeeal point at new Moon, is 
 such as to generate a velocity of M directly toward S of not 
 less than 4.5 feet per second at the latter point; which is 
 more than a thousand times greater at that point than the 
 effect of E's restraining attraction in the same time. There- 
 fore, unless some other equal and opposite perturbing force, 
 or forces, are generated at the same time, it is very obvious 
 that, in accordance with the theory of gravitation, M would 
 be carried rapidly inwards to S, instead of actually away from 
 S to the opposite side of E. Let us inquire, then, what other 
 perturbing forces upon M can possibly arise between the two 
 points in accordance with the present theory. 
 
 Starting from a point where the radial forces are in equil- 
 ibrium, as in the present instance, there are only two classes 
 of perturbing forces that can possibly arise as the revolving 
 body leaves that point, namely, those arising from variations 
 of distances from attracting centers and those arising from 
 variations of orbital velocity around these centers. Now 
 there are only two attracting centers concerned in this prob- 
 lem, or E and S; and these two give rise therefore to four 
 perturbing forces upon M, and no more. These perturbing 
 forces are (1) that due to the distance-variation of M from 
 S, (2) that due to the distance-variation of M from E, (3) 
 that due to velocity-variation of M around S, and (4) that due 
 to velocity-variation of M around E. The first of these has 
 just been determined; we may now proceed to discuss the 
 others. 
 
 29. Perturbation of the Moon's Motion Owing to the 
 Earth's Distance-Variation. It has already been stated that 
 at the first given point of M's orbit, that body is at its mean 
 distance, or 240,000 miles, from E, at which the value of E's 
 attraction is about 0.0044 feet per second; and that at the 
 second given point, or the apogee of M's orbit at new Moon, 
 the distance of M from E is 259,000 miles. Between the 
 two points, therefore, M has receded from E, owing to the 
 tangential perturbing force, as already mentioned, a distance 
 of 19,000 miles, or about 0.049 mile per second; and it follows 
 
30] THE PROBLEM OF THREE BODIES 39 
 
 that, in every second after leaving the given point, E's at- 
 traction upon M would become less and less owing to this 
 increase of the distance at which it acts. To find this dim- 
 inution of E's attraction in the first second, we have the 
 following proportion, similar to that of the preceding article: 
 
 (240,000+.049) 2 : (240,000) 2 = 0.0044 : 0.0044-x; 
 where x is found to be 17XlO- 10 ft. In the second second 
 the recession being twice as great, x would be twice as great, 
 or 34XlO- 10 ft. In tht third second the recession would be 
 three times as great, and x would therefore be 51X10- 10 ft. 
 And so on. These diminutions of E's attraction upon M 
 would obviously cause corresponding excesses of M's cen- 
 trifugal force around E, which consequently would urge M 
 away from E and towards S. In the first second, the excess 
 would urge M away from E a distance of 17XlO- 10 ft., at 
 which rate it would, of course, keep moving in each subse- 
 quent second, if not prevented by some other cause. In the 
 second second M would be urged a distance of 34X10- 10 ft., 
 which, like the first, and every succeeding impulse, would 
 also continue through subsequent seconds. So that the total 
 fall in any second, owing to these series of impulsions, would 
 thus have a common difference of the second order of 
 17XlO- 10 ft.; according to which the fall in the last second 
 owing to this series is about (388800) 2 X 17XlO- 10 /2, or 
 128 ft. 
 
 30. Perturbation of the Moon's Motion Owing to Varia- 
 tion of Its Velocity Around the Sun. The two series of per- 
 turbing forces arising from distance-variation being thus 
 found to act in unison, we turn to the perturbing forces 
 which may be due to variations of velocity. We may first 
 consider those due to such variation around S. As M leaves 
 the given point, it moves inwards to S, and also its motion 
 around E is opposite in direction to its motion around S, 
 and the latter is therefore diminished by a very considerable 
 portion of the former. The mean velocity of M around S 
 is about 18.3 miles per second. If the velocity is variable 
 and the distance constant, the centrifugal force varies di- 
 
40 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [30 
 
 rectly as the square of the velocity and inversely as the dis- 
 tance. At the given starting point, M is some 190,000 miles 
 in advance of E in its solar orbit, and 4.5 days, or 388,800 
 seconds, afterwards, M is exactly between E and S. This 
 would involve a diminution of M's velocity around S of near- 
 ly 0.5 mile per second. But M's velocity has been diminish- 
 ing ever since last quarter. This last point is in advance 
 of the given point with respect to M's solar orbit, about 50,- 
 000 miles; and it required about. 250,000 seconds for M to 
 move from last quarter to that point; which involves a dim- 
 inution of velocity of about 0.2 mile per second before the 
 given point was reached. This reduction of velocity pre- 
 ceding the arrival at the given point, was presumably one 
 of the circumstance required for the equilibrium of the radial 
 orbital forces at that point; and it is necessary therefore to 
 deduct it from the rate of reduction after the given point 
 was passed in order to compare M's velocity at that point 
 with its subsequent velocity. Deducting 0.2 mile from 0.49 
 mile leaves 0.29 mile, which is the comparative rate of dim- 
 inution after leaving the given point. Now since M's actual 
 velocity at that point is some 18.3 miles per second, then 
 to find the diminution of M's centrifugal force around S cor- 
 responding to this diminution of velocity we have the follow- 
 ing proportion: 
 
 (18.3) 2 /91,860,000 : (18.3-0.29) 2 / (91,860,0000.3) = 
 0.01 : 0.01-x; 
 
 whence x is found to be 0.0003 ft. And since the diminution 
 of velocity in each second after leaving the given point is 
 about the same, and that of the distance from S at all times 
 comparatively inconsiderable, the diminution of the centrifu- 
 gal force around S in each subsequent second will also be 
 about the same. Now the diminution of M's centrifugal 
 force around S obviously leaves an equivalent portion of the 
 attraction of S in excess upon M in each second, which, like 
 the other perturbing forces, would of course draw M away 
 from E and towards S. In each second the pull in this di- 
 rection is 0.0003 ft., which, as in the other series, is effective 
 
32] THE PROBLEM OF THREE BODIES 41 
 
 also in all subsequent seconds. And therefore the rate of 
 fall in the last second is 0.0003 ft. X 388,000, or 116 ft. 
 
 31. Perturbation of the Moon's Motion Owing to Varia- 
 tion of Its Velocity Around the Earth. There now remains 
 to consider only the variation of M's velocity around E. 
 Since all the perturbing forces already determined tend to 
 draw M towards $, that is, somewbat indirectly in the di- 
 rection of M's orbital motion around E in the period con- 
 sidered, it is obvious that the velocity of that motion would 
 gradually increase for this reason after M leaves the given 
 point. This would evidently increase M's centrifugal force 
 around "E and the increase of this force would constitute a 
 perturbing force which, between the given points, would also 
 urge M towards S and therefore in unison with the other 
 perturbing forces. 
 
 32. Back-Action of the Earth's Attraction. But there is 
 one circumstance which, it is alleged, would diminish M's 
 velocity around E between the given points. At the start- 
 ing point, the distance between the two bodies was stated 
 to be about 240,000 miles, while at new Moon, where the 
 apogee of M's orbit is assumed to be situated, the distance 
 between the two bodies is 259,000 miles. Between the two 
 points, therefore, M recedes from E a distance of 19,000 miles. 
 In consequence of this the orbital motion of the former is 
 somewhat oblique to the direction of E's attraction, instead 
 of at right angles to it, so that a portion of E's attraction is 
 thus brought to act in opposition to M's motion, and the latter 
 is consequently diminished. 
 
 In a pretty thorough discussion of this problem some 
 thirty-five years ago, between the present writer, and a Pro- 
 fessor of the Mass. Institute of Technology, this was the 
 sole cause assigned by the latter to maintain the Moon's po- 
 sition against the perturbing forces acting upon it. 
 
 It is true that the actual motion of M around E is dimin- 
 ished between the given point and new Moon. But that is 
 not the question. The problem is How is this decrease 
 of M's velocity compatible with the theory of gravitation? 
 
 The radial components of M's orbital forces were just bal- 
 
42 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [33 
 
 anced at the given point. But immediately after passing that 
 point, according to the theory of gravitation, several perturb- 
 ing forces are seen to arise, which tnd to increase M's ve- 
 locity instead of to diminish it; and the farther M moves 
 beyond the said point towards new Moon, and the farther it 
 recedes from E, the stronger these forces become, and con- 
 sequently, the greater would become M's velocity around E. 
 The recession of M during any second after passing the 
 given starting point can not possibly occasion a diminution 
 of M's velocity around E; but would, on the contrary, nec- 
 essarilly imply an acceleration of that velocity and consequent 
 increase of M's centrifugal force. The ground for this con- 
 clusion is that, in the absence of recession, M's path would 
 be at right angles to E's attraction. A perturbing force 
 then acts upon M, causing it to recede from its rectangular 
 path. This external perturbing force acts with the force 
 that maintains M's velocity, and not in any degree against 
 that force; therefore, the former cannot possibly diminish 
 the latter. And moreover, the perturbing force causing the 
 recession is clearly more powerful than any internal or op- 
 posing force, because, in spite of the latter the perturbing 
 force causes M to recede, thus asserting its superiority. It 
 is therefore absurd to suppose that any body urged by two 
 forces in the same direction will move with a less velocity 
 than when the body is acted on by one' of the forces only. 
 And this argument applies, not to any particular second or 
 number of seconds, but obviously to every second during 
 which recession takes place. 
 
 There is, therefore, no rational theoretic ground for grav- 
 itative back-action in this case, for the theory not only ab- 
 solutely precludes such action, but furnishes instead several 
 powerful opposite, or front actions. 
 
 33. Front-Action of the Sun. In fact this back-action is 
 only a part of the theory of such actions. After M passes 
 new Moon, its path in reality begins to incline forwards 
 towards E's attraction; and the latter, acting indirectly in 
 the direction of M's motion, is theoretically supposed to ac- 
 celerate M's motion, the same as before new Moon it was 
 
34] THE PROBLEM OF THREE BODIES 43 
 
 supposed to retard it. So that, by the theory, front-action 
 is just as effective as back-action. 
 
 Now between the given point and new Moon, there would 
 not only be a theoretic back action, but also a theoretic front 
 action, both at the same time. The front action is chat of 
 S, towards the direction of whose attraction M's path is in- 
 clined even more than that path is inclined from the di- 
 rection of E's attraction; and moreover the attraction of S 
 is more than twice as powerful as that of E between the giv- 
 en points. So that, if such actions were applicable to the 
 case, the front action of S would far more than counter-bal- 
 ance the back action of E. It is true that the attraction of 
 S is opposed and nearly balanced by M's centrifugal force 
 around S, but exactly the same thing happens in the other 
 case; E's attraction on M being opposed and fully balanced 
 by M's centrifugal force around E. It is therefore wholly 
 unnecessary and superfluous to consider here thjs back ac- 
 tion more in detail, for it is quite apparent that, if such ac- 
 tion could possibly operate in the given case consistently with 
 the given theory, it would furnish a far more powerful force, 
 aside from the other perturbing forces, to draw M away from 
 E rather than towards it, and so to conspire with the per- 
 turbing forces already considered. 
 
 34. Direct Contradiction of the Theory by the Facts. 
 From all points of view, then, we find that, according to the 
 theory of gravitation, apparently all of the perturbing forces 
 upon the Moon, in the given case, tend to draw that body 
 away from the Earth and towards the Sun; which tendency 
 rapidly increases as new Moon, or the apogeeal point, is 
 approached. At the given starting point the orbital forces 
 upon the Moon around the Earth are so adjusted that there 
 is no perturbing force whatever, tending to draw the latter 
 either from, or towards, the former. Prof. Proctor says that 
 at the given point the perturbing force is wholly tangential, 
 i. e., tending to draw the Moon along the tangent to its 
 orbit around the Earth, and therefore in a direction at right 
 angles to that of the Earth's attraction. The Moon is also 
 assumed to be at its mean distance from the Earth at this 
 
44 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [35 
 
 point, so that the Earth's attraction and the Moon's cen- 
 trifugal force are about balanced. In fact we know that at 
 the given point the orbital forces upon the Moon at least 
 do not urge that body towards the .Earth, because we actu- 
 ally observe that the Moon moves away from the Earth af- 
 ter leaving the given point. Now after leaving the given 
 point, new perturbing forces are seen to arise, which would 
 urge the Moon away from the Earth; and these forces con- 
 tinually increase in amount as the Moon's distance from 
 the point increases, until at new Moon these perturbing 
 forces become thousands of times more powerful than all 
 other orbital forces upon the Moon combined. Therefore, 
 unless there should exist some perturbing force or forces 
 which would all along counteract these perturbing forces 
 so as to prevent them from getting such headway, it is 
 manifest that the Moon's motion according to the theory of 
 gravitation, would be little better ordered than those of the 
 moon of Mr. Artemus Ward. Yet, after a diligent search 
 for such perturbing forces in every conceivable quarter, there 
 has been found instead only still greater and more powerful 
 forces conspiring to derange the Moon's motions still more. 
 So that the returning of the Moon backwards around the 
 Earth and from the Sun, which we actually observe to take 
 place, would be a physical impossibility in accordance with 
 that theory. 
 
 35. Possibility of the Given Case. In concluding tne 
 discussion of this problem a few words may be said regarding 
 the possibility of the given case. It is, of course, a well 
 known fact that the apogee of the Moon's orbit is not a fixed 
 point, with respect to the Earth or to the Sun, but a point 
 which itself moves around in the orbit, although more slowly 
 than the Moon. Its rate of motion is, in fact, nearly 41 per 
 annum; so that the periods between successive conjunctions 
 of apogee with the Sun is about nine years.* During every 
 such period, then, the apogeeal point moves slowly from new 
 Moon around through every point of the Moon's synodic or- 
 bit back again to new Moon. If further evidence were nec- 
 
 *Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy, p. 266. 
 
36] THE PROBLEM OF THREE BODIES 45 
 
 essary to show that the apogeeal point may lie at new Moon, 
 we have it in the fact of annular eclipses of the Sun. Solar 
 eclipses happen at new Moon; and ordinarily the distance 
 of the latter from the Earth is such that the Moon's disc 
 will totally cover and hide the Sun from the view of an ob- 
 server in the line of the Moon's shadow. But when the 
 apogee of the Moon's orbit is at new Moon, and the conditions 
 are such that the latter will pass over the Sun's disc at that 
 time, the distance of the Moon from the Earth is so great 
 that only the central portion of that disc will be covered by 
 the Moon and the outer portion of the rim of the Sun will 
 be visible all around the lunar disc; whence the name, an- 
 nular eclipse. Those annular eclipses prove, therefore, 
 that the Moon's apogee, or point of greatest distance from 
 the Earth, occasionally lies at new Moon, as has been assum- 
 ed in the given case, because it is only the Moon's greatest 
 distance at new Moon that can cause such eclipses. This 
 and the balancement of the orbital forces upon the Moon at 
 the given starting point are the essential points of the case. 
 The given distance of the Moon at that point is not an essen- 
 tial element; as any other possible distance at that point 
 would not appreciably change the results obtained. 
 
 As to the equilibrium of the orbital forces at the given 
 point, it may be stated here that only the normal components 
 of the perturbing forces upon the Moon, that is, those com- 
 ponents which cause the Moon to recede from, or approach 
 towards, the Earth are said to be balanced at that point. 
 The tangential components of the perturbing forces, that is, 
 the components which retard or accelerate the Moon's motion 
 around the Earth, are stated by both Herschel and Proctor 
 to be nearly at a maximum at that point. It is very mani- 
 fest, however, that this condition of things is by no means 
 unfavorable to the conclusions here arrived at. 
 
 36. Previous Discussions of the Problem. It may appear 
 strange to the reader that no computation of the perturb- 
 ing forces upon the Moon by other authorities has here been 
 referred to. But where, it may be asked, are such compu- 
 tations to be found? Inquiries regarding this subject have 
 
46 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [36 
 
 been sent to various observatories and scientific journals 
 and the answers received to these inquiries indicate that 
 no such computations are anywhere in existence. As a sam- 
 ple of such answers I may quote from Mr. G. W. Hill of the 
 Naval Observatory, Washington, D.* C., upon this subject: 
 
 "I do not know any more accurate values of the quanti- 
 ties you ask for than those given by Mr. Proctor. They 
 do not particularly interest the mathematical astronomer 
 as he has no use for them. Hence, they have never been 
 computed with the last degree of precision. Their com- 
 putation is sufficiently laborious . . . and two months' 
 work would be necessary to get them with all possible ex- 
 actitude. 
 
 "No exhaustive treatise on the lunar theory exists in the 
 English language. Perhaps the translation of Laplace's 
 Mecanique Celeste by Dr. N. Bowditch comes the nearest 
 to it." 
 
 Laplace and Mr. Proctor, however, treat only of the gen- 
 eral problem and do not discuss the perturbing forces upon 
 the Moon in detail. Newton gives the mean value of the 
 solar perturbing force upon the Moon as 1/638,000 of gravity 
 at the Earth's surface, or 1/179 of the principal force which 
 holds the Moon in its orbit. Herschel gives the ratio of the 
 solar perturbing force to the central force holding the Moon 
 in its terrestial orbit for three positions of the perturbed 
 body, or full Moon, last quarter, and new Moon, as 1 : 90, 
 1 : 179, and 1 : 89, respectively. He also represents by 
 means of lines of various lengths the values of the perturb- 
 ing forces at intermediate positions. But he makes no at- 
 tempt to compute the continuous effect of these values of 
 the perturbing force. And Mr. Proctor, one of the most re- 
 cent authorities on the subject, and in a volume devoted 
 wholly to our satellite, follows very closely in the footsteps 
 of Herschel and Newton. All these authorities appear to 
 notice only one of the perturbing forces upon the Moon, name- 
 ly, that due to the distance-variation of the perturbed from 
 the perturbing body. The more powerful factors due to the 
 distance-variation of the Moon from the Earth and to the 
 variation of the Moon's velocity around the Sun are ignored, 
 and no reference whatever is made to any work where these 
 ignored factors are discussed, or where the continuous effect 
 
36] THE PROBLEM OF THREE BODIES 47 
 
 of the factor, the separate values of which are given, is car- 
 ried out consecutively and cumulatively through the suc- 
 cessive time-units during which it acts.* 
 
 In contrast with this there may be inserted here the fol- 
 lowing from Prof. Young's General Astronomy, Art. 438: 
 
 "But while the general problem of three bodies is thus in- 
 tractable, all the special cases of it which arise in the con- 
 sideration of the moon's motion and in the motion of the 
 planets have been solved by special methods of approxima- 
 tion. Newton himself led the way; and the strongest proof 
 of the truth of his theory of gravitation lies in the fact that 
 it not only accounts for the regular elliptic motions of the 
 heavenly bodies, but also for the irregularities, of these 
 motions.". 
 
 *The lunar theory is also discussed by Airy in his Gravitation. 
 Hugh Godfrey has published a brief 'elementary book, and Prof. John 
 N. Stockwoll a larger volume, upon this subject. But these works, like 
 those of Laplace, Newton, Herschel and Proctor, treat only the general 
 problem and do not attempt to give the cumulative effect of all or any 
 portion of the perturbing forces here considered for the entire periods 
 of their action. Probably the best treatises on the subject are in 
 French, German' and Latin. Some of them are: by Plana, Theorie du! 
 Mouvement de/ la Lime, 1832 ; by Delauney, Theorie du Mouvement de 
 la Lune, Tomes xxviii and xxix, of the Memoirs of the Paris Acaae- 
 my of Sciences; by P. A. Hansen, Fundamenta Nova Investigations Or- 
 bitae quam Luna Perlustrat, 1834; and by the same author, Darlegung,-. 
 etc., 1864. 
 
 Jt is a strange commentary that these earlier works should have at 
 least fully as complete a theory of the lunar forces as those most re- 
 cently published. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE PROBLEM OF TWO BODIES 
 
 In respect, however, merely of philosophic thought, we 
 must feel that Daniel Bernouilli was right; we can conceive 
 the sun attracting Jupiter and Jupiter attracting the sun 
 without any intervening medium, if they are ordered to do 
 so. But the question remains Are they so ordered? 
 
 LORD KELVIN. 
 
 Can gray hair make folly venerable? JUNIUS. 
 
 Another lump of ignorance (which had enabled the old 
 generalization to exist) was removed, and a new generaliza- 
 tion, that of universal gravitation, was afterwards formed. 
 But it is probable that this law is only conceived of as true 
 through our ignorance; nay it is certain that belief in its 
 truth presents the gravest difficulties. 
 
 EDWARD CARPENTEK. 
 
 37. The Law of Equal Areas in Equal Times. In the last 
 chapter the back action of the Earth's attraction when the 
 Moon was receding, and the front action of the same attrac- 
 ion when the Moon was approaching, were mentioned as 
 the current regulator of the Moon's motion in its terrestial 
 orbit. There is, however, another regulator assigned for 
 such motions, especially in the case of the planets; viz., the 
 second law of Kepler; which is that the radius vector of a 
 planet's orbit sweeps over equal areas in equal times. The 
 famous astronomer, John Kepler, finding it impossible to rec- 
 oncile the actual positions of the planet Mars with the idea 
 of circular planetary motion, which was then generally ac- 
 cepted, tried elliptic motion with varying velocity and the 
 Sun at one focus. This fitted the observed facts so well in 
 the case of both Mars and the Earth that he became con- 
 vinced of the correctness of his first two laws (regarding 
 elliptic orbits and equal areas in equal times) for all plan- 
 etary motions. 
 
37] THE PROBLEM OF TWO BODIES 49 
 
 The thought occurs here that, if the back and front ac- 
 tions of the central attractions could account for the elliptic 
 motions of the Moon and of the planets, the law of equal 
 areas would be uncalled for, or vice versa; for both are giv- 
 en to explain the same phenomena, and, it seems, in view 
 of the conclusions arrived at in the last chapter, that the 
 one cannot be implied by, or involved in, the other. 
 
 Now it is true that the radius vector of a moving body 
 under certain circumstances will describe equal areas in 
 equal times; and these circumstances are: uniform circular 
 motion with respect to the center of revolution and uniform 
 rectilineal motion with respect to a fixed point outside of 
 the line of motion. The radius vector of the moving body 
 in the former case gives the base of a triangle of which the 
 velocity of the body gives the perpendicular height; and to 
 obtain equal areas in equal times it is necessary that as the 
 radius vector increases or diminishes in a unit of time, the 
 perpendicular height must diminish or increase, respectively, 
 in the same time in exactly the same ratio; or vice versa. 
 In the case of elliptical motion with a varying radius vector, 
 e. g., this law of equal areas requires not only a variation 
 of the angular velocity, but of the absolute velocity, of the 
 moving body, 'the latter in exact inverse correspondence with 
 the variations of the radius vector. Bearing this in mind, 
 let us examine the explanations of the law of equal areas 
 given by three principal scientific authorities, to which nearly 
 all other authorities merely refer. 
 
 Prof. R. A. Proctor* says: 
 
 "The law of equable discription of areas indeed is true for 
 a body moving around a center attracting according to any 
 law, since it simply implies that there is no force perpen- 
 dicular to the radius vector. . . . Hence under a force 
 not tending to change at any instant the rate of the moving 
 body's perpendicular departure from the radius vector, the 
 areas swept over in equal times will be equal. But a cen- 
 tral force acts always in the direction of the radius vector 
 and is therefore a force of the kind supposed. Accordingly 
 a body traveling around an attracting center will move so 
 that the radius vector sweeps over equal areas in equal 
 times." 
 
 *Ency. Britt., Art. "Astronomy." 
 
50 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [37 
 
 Unfortunately for this explanation, Prof. Proctor confined 
 his attention to change of perpendicular height of the area 
 only, apparently ignoring change of the radius vector itself. 
 It is obvious that the area of a triangle depends just as much 
 on the base (radius vector) as on the vertical height (veloc- 
 ity) ; and it is equally obvious that with an attracting center 
 "varying according to any law,'* which appears to imply a 
 variable radius vector, and with a constant vertical height 
 which is Proctor's proposition we cannot have equable de- 
 scription of areas. A perturbing force is just as apt to act 
 along the radius vector as vertically to it; in which case, if 
 the velocity or vertical height be unaffected, there would be 
 elliptic motion but without equal description of areas in 
 equal times. It seems really strange to see so lame an ex- 
 planation from so high an authoritiy. 
 
 Sir John Herschel, having occasion to speak upon the 
 subject* says: 
 
 "As an abstract dynamical proposition, the reader will 
 find it demonstrated by Newton, in the first proposition of the 
 Principia, with an elementary simplicity to which we really 
 could add nothing but obscurity by amplification, that any 
 body, urged toward a central point by a force continually 
 directed thereto, and thereby deflected into a curvilinear path, 
 will describe about that center equal areas in equal times. 
 . . . It is a property of orbital rotation under the influ- 
 ence of central forces generally, and, as such, we daily see 
 it exemplified in a thousand familiar instances. A simple 
 experimental illustration of it is to tie a bullet to a thin string 
 and, having whirled it round with a moderate velocity in 
 a vertical plane, to ... allow it to coil itself round a 
 cylindrical rod held very firmly in a horizontal position. 
 The bullet will then approach the center of motion in a 
 spiral line; and the increase of its angular velocity, and the 
 rapid diminution of its periodic time when near the center, 
 will express, more clearly than words, the compensation by 
 which its uniform description of areas is maintained under 
 a constantly diminishing distance." 
 
 But the increase of the bullet's angular velocity, and the 
 rapid diminution of its periodic time, do not necessarily ex- 
 press the compensation by which its uniform description 
 
 * Outlines of Astronomy, p. 324. 
 
37] THE PROBLEM OF TWO BODIES 51 
 
 of areas is maintained under a constantly diminishing dis- 
 tance. The expression of such compensation involves more 
 than an increase of angular velocity and a diminution of per- 
 iodic time. Jt involves, in fact, an increase of the bullet's 
 absolute velocity; and not only an increase of its absolute 
 velocity, but of the tangential component of its absolute ve- 
 locity. For a uniform velocity of the bullet involves, under 
 diminishing distance, both an increase of angular velocity 
 and a diminution of periodic time, as well as an increase of 
 absolute velocity; but it does not involve an increase in the 
 vertical component of the absolute velocity, and consequently 
 does not involve a uniform description of areas in equal 
 times. This is sufficiently obvious from what has already 
 been said. The familiar illustration which Herschel gives 
 of the law of equal areas in equal times turns out, therefore, 
 to be no illustration of that law at all. An essential element 
 is lacking the necessary increase of the tangential com- 
 ponent; and this element the illustration does not involve, 
 nor is it even mentioned by the illustrious author. We turn, 
 then, to Newton's Principia, where Herschel assures that 
 we shall find a simple demonstration of the law in the first 
 proposition of that work, and this is what we find: 
 
 "PROPOSITION I. 
 
 "T)he areas which revolving bodies describe by radii drawn 
 to an immovable center of force do lie in the same immov- 
 able planes, and are proportional to the times in which they 
 are described. 
 
 "For, suppose the time to be divided into equal parts, and 
 in the first part of the time let the body by its innate force 
 describe the right line AB. In the second part of that time 
 the same would, (by Law 1)* if not hindered, proceed di- 
 rectly to c, along the line Be, equal to AB; so that by the 
 radii AS, BS, cS, drawn to the center, the equal areas ASB, 
 BSc, would be described But when the body is arrived at 
 B, suppose that the centripetal force acts at once with a 
 great impulse, and, turning aside the body from the right 
 line Be, compels it afterwards to confine its motion along 
 the right line BC. Draw cC parallel to BS, meeting BC in 
 C; and at the end of the second part of time, the body (by 
 
 *LAW 1. Every body perseveres in a state of rest, or uniform mo- 
 tion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces 
 impressed thereon. 
 
52 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION 
 
 [37 
 
 Cor. 1. of the Laws*) will be found in C, in the same plane 
 with the triangle ASB. Join SC, and, because SB and Cc are 
 parallel, the triangle SBC will be equal to the triangle SBc, 
 and therefore, also to the triangle SAB. By the like argu- 
 ment, if the centripetal force acts successively in C, D, E, 
 etc., and makes the body, in each single particle of time, 
 to describe the right lines CD, DE, EF, etc., they will all 
 lie in the same plane; and the triangle SCD will be equal 
 to the triangle SBC, and SDE to SCD, and SEF to SDE. 
 
 B 
 
 And therefore, in equal times, equal areas are described in 
 one immovable plane; and, by composition, any sums SADS, 
 SAFS, of tnese areas, are one to the other as the times in 
 which they are described: Now let the number of these 
 
 *COR. 1. of the Laws. A body by two forces conjoined will describe 
 the diagonal of a parallelogram, in the same time that it would describe 
 ihe sides, by these forces apart. 
 
87] THE PROBLEM OF TWO BODIES 53 
 
 triangles be augmented, and their breadth diminished ad in- 
 finitum; and (by Cor. 4, Lem. Ill)* their ultimate perimeter 
 ADF will be a curve line; and therefore the centripetal force 
 by which the body is perpetually drawn back from the tan- 
 gent of this curve, will act continually; and any described 
 areas SADS, SAFS, which are always proportional to the 
 times of description, will, in this case also be proportional to 
 these times. Q. E. D. 
 
 "Cor. 1. The velocity of a body attracted toward an im- 
 movable center in spaces void of resistance, is reciprocally 
 as the perpendicular let fall from that center on the line that 
 touches the orbit. For the velocities in these places A, B, 
 C, D, E, are as the bases AB, BC, CD, DE, EF, of equal 
 triangles, and these bases are reciprocally as the perpendic- 
 ulars let fall upon them." 
 
 It will be seen that, from the law of equal areas, the cor- 
 ollary (Cor. 1) necessarily follows that the tangential veloc- 
 ity of a revolving body incrceases as its distance from the 
 center diminishes. This is the essential point of which we 
 have all along been trying to find some explanation in har- 
 mony with the present theory. Newton's explanation is in- 
 deed clear and simple and admirable verbally; but logically 
 and mathematically it may do no harm to examine it closely, 
 especially with regard to two important particulars. 
 
 The first of these is changing the periphery of a polygon 
 into a curve line, which is effected as follows: "Let the 
 number of these triangles" (forming the polygon) "be aug- 
 mented and their breadth diminished ad infinitum and 
 
 their ultimate perimeter will be a curve line." This is true 
 if by infinite subdivision a magnitude can be annihilated, for 
 that is, in plain words, what it means. Otherwise it can 
 not be true. A curve is a line no part of which is a straight 
 line. If the straight lines which form the bases of the tri- 
 angles of a polygon become by infinite subdivision a curve, 
 then the ultimate base of each division of such triangles must 
 have become something less than a straight line must have 
 become a mere point, which has no magnitude. Thus the 
 original sides of the polygon would each have become changed 
 
 *LEMMA III. The same ultimate ratios are also ratios of equality 
 when the breadths AB, BC, CD, etc., of the parallelograms are unequal 
 and are diminished ad infinitum. COR. 4, and therefore these ultimate 
 figures (as to their perimeters) are not rectilinear, but curvilinear lim- 
 its of rectilinear figures. 
 
54 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OP GRAVITATION [38 
 
 into an infinite number of points having no magnitude have, 
 in fact, become annihilated, for reversing the process and 
 multiplying the ultimate point, or no magnitude, by infinity, we 
 still have no magnitude. Nothing taken even an infinite num- 
 ber of times is still nothing. Would a square mile, or the 
 solid Earth, be reduced to an infinite number of points of 
 no magnitude if infinitely subdivided? and if a surface or 
 a volume cannot be thus annihilated, what right have we to 
 take the liberty of entertaining such notion solely with regard 
 to a linear entity? 
 
 And besides there is the objection of time. To some 
 minds the process of infinite subdivision seems to be: Poly- 
 gon divided ad infinitum: Presto change: There's your 
 curve! While to other minds the process could not take 
 place in all eternity, because infinite means without end. 
 
 38. Supra-Rational Mathematics. It is true that we teach 
 this instantaneous annihilation in our mathematical text- 
 books that any finite quantity or number divided by infin- 
 ity equals nothing. We also teach the direct contrary of 
 this that the product of the divisor and the quotient equals 
 the dividend. Either one or the other must be wrong; which 
 is it? 
 
 We also have mathematical "axioms" which are not al- 
 ways axiomatic. For example, that equals multiplied or di- 
 vided by equals are equals; also that like powers and roots of 
 equals are equals. By the use of such "axioms," we may, and 
 do, have all sorts of absurd equations. For example, let x = 
 the reader's age and y = the age of Methuselah, and let s = 
 the sum of both. Then x+y = s, and (x+y) (x y = s(x y) ; 
 whence x 2 y 2 = sx sy; whence x 2 sx y 2 sy; whence 
 x 2 sx+s 2 /4 = y~ sy+s 2 /4; whence, extracting roots, x=y, 
 or the reader is just exactly as old as Methuselah! By in- 
 troducing the factor x y into both sides of the equation, 
 the value x=y was introduced, and after the extraction of 
 the roots, the solution is confined to this value alone. This 
 is a common practice in algebraic operations, and often in 
 important physical investigations. Textbooks nearly always 
 urge dividing an equation through by x to simplify the ex- 
 
c8] THE PROBLEM OF TWO BODIES 55 
 
 pression when possible, though by doing so one possible value 
 of x, namely, x = 0, is thus eliminated. 
 
 Again, let x 1 = 2. Multiplying by x 5, then x 2 6x+5 
 = 2x 10. Subtracting x 7. then y* 7x+12 = x 3. Divid- 
 ing by x 3, then x 4 = 1; whence x = 5, though in the 
 first equation x = 3. In multiplying by x 5, the value 
 x 5 was introduced and in dividing by x 3, the value 
 x 3 was lost out. Hundreds of such illustrations, known 
 to the writer, many of them known for centuries, might be 
 given. Prof. Huxley's warning is certainly apropos: "Mathe- 
 matics is like a mill and what we take out of it depends en- 
 tirely on what we put in." 
 
 We have in our mathematics even an infinite variety of 
 infinities; an infinity of serial numbers, an infinity of even 
 numbers, an infinity of prime numbers, an infinity of per- 
 fect numbers, an infinity of terms in each of an infinite 
 number of infinite series of an infinite variety of common 
 differences and ratios. The difference between the infinite 
 series 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc, and the infinite series 2, 4, 6, 8, etc., 
 is another infinite series 1, 3, 5, 7, etc., and all three are 
 equal in the sense that as a divisor each gives the same quo- 
 tient for any finite dividend. The infinite series 1, 3, 9, 27, 
 etc., is one-third of the infinite series 3, 9, 27, 81, etc., term 
 for term, or the former exceeds the latter by unity; take 
 your choice. 
 
 Passing over Bishop Berkeley's "ghosts of departed quan- 
 tities, >' and Sydney Lupton's "opprobrium of mathematics," 
 a few quotations from other excellent authorities on this 
 subject may not prove unedifying. 
 
 "What has given great force to certain principles of phys- 
 ics and mechanics has been the very complicated mathe- 
 matical apparatus in which they have been wrapped. Every- 
 thing presented in an algebraic form at once acquires for 
 certain minds the character of indisputable truths. The 
 most perfect sceptic willingly attributes a mysterious virtue 
 to equations and bows to their supposed power. They tend 
 more and more to replace in teaching, reason and experience. 
 These delusive veils which now surround the most simple 
 principles only too often serve to mask uncertainties. It 
 is by lifting these that I have succeeded more than once 
 
56 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [39 
 
 in showing the frailty of scientific beliefs, which for many 
 scholars possess the authority of revealed dogmas."* 
 
 "In mathematics, as in other sciences, conviction comes 
 from many quarters, and one might almost say that where 
 higher mathematics enters into the work of the physicist 
 or the engineer, the conviction that comes from the logical 
 consistency of a mathematical demonstration is less import- 
 ant than the conviction that is due to insight into the phys- 
 ical facts and to the perception of the correspondence between 
 the mathematical representation and the data of experi- 
 ment.''! 
 
 "At various times differences of opinion have existed among 
 mathematicians giving rise to controversies as to the valid- 
 ity of whole lines of reasoning, and affecting the results 
 of such reasoning: a considerable amount of difference of 
 opinion of this character exists among mathematicians at 
 the present time. ... It has been shown that results 
 which were once supposed to have been fully established 
 by demonstrations are, in point of fact, affected with error. 
 . . . It is" clear that the idealist may build whole super- 
 structures on a foundation which the empiricist regards as 
 made of sand."$ 
 
 "The tendency to hide ignorance under the cover of a 
 mathematical formula had already appeared, but was not 
 openly advocated. " 
 
 "Mr. Bertrand Russell was right in saying that 'mathema- 
 tics is the science in which one never knows what one is 
 talking about nor whether what one says is true'."|| 
 
 The object here is to show the looseness of some of our 
 mathematical conceptions, even today, of which Newton's ex- 
 pression above is one example. It was necessary for the 
 proof of his propositions that a polygon should be transformed 
 into a curve; and though the process he used seemed, and 
 still seems to the vast majority even today, perfectly inno- 
 cent and legitimate, it none the less appears to others noth- 
 ing else than a species of mathematical anarchy, or nihilism. 
 
 39. The Parallelogram of Forces. But the most fatal 
 objection to Newton's demonstration, because directly ap- 
 
 *M. Le Bon, The Evolution of Forces; Nature, 79, 122. 
 tDr. George A. Gibson, Professor of mathematics, University of Glas- 
 gow; Nature, 82, 110. 
 
 JProf. E. W. Hohson; Address Sec. A. B. A.. Sheffield, 1910. 
 Prof. Arthur Schuster; Nature, 87, 375. 
 IIC. J. Keyser, Science, No. 904, p. 640. 
 
9] THE PROBLEM OP TWO BODIES 57 
 
 plica ble to his main argument, is his assumption that the 
 body would move in any unit of time in the path produced 
 of the preceding unit of time. He does not make this as- 
 sumption directly; in fact he bases such impulsion of the 
 body upon his first law of motion. But the assumption cer- 
 tainly seems not the less clearly involved in his argument. 
 "For suppose the time to be divided into equal parts," he 
 says, "and in the first part of that time let the body, by its 
 innate force, describe the right line AB. In the second part 
 of than time the same would (by Law 1), if not hindered, 
 proceed directly to c along the line Be, equal to AB, so that 
 by the radii AS, BS, cS, drawn to the center, the equal areas 
 ASB, BSc, would be described." Here liesi the error. In the 
 second part of the time the body would proceed directly to c, 
 along the line Be. Similarly in the third part of the time, 
 the body would proceed directly to d along the line Cd; in 
 the fourth part, directly to e along the line De; and so on. 
 The assumption is clearly implied here that each of the lines 
 ABc, BCd, CDe, DEf, are right lines. Indeed if they were 
 not right lines, the geometrical theorem which Newton em- 
 ploys, and on which the whole argument depends (namely, 
 that triangles on equal bases and between the same paral- 
 lels are equal), could not apply. It is certain also that this 
 argument is employed with respect to motion in a curve, for 
 eventually these same right lines are by a process of infin- 
 ite division alleged to be reduced to a curve line. The ul- 
 timate curve line would certainly pass through the points A, 
 B, C, D, E, F, etc. The lines AB, BC, CD, DE, EF, etc., 
 would therefore be chords of the curve line; and the lines 
 Be, Cd, De, Ef, in which Newton assumes the centrifugal 
 force would impel the body, would be continuations of these 
 chords. But such impulsion is impossible and inconceivable. 
 Newton employs the law of the parallelogram of forces to 
 prove the law of equal areas. In one unit of time the body 
 would move in the diagonal of the two forces and in the 
 following unit of time, if not acted on by the central force, 
 it would move in the continuation of this diagonal . But 
 under no conceivable circumstances can a body revolving 
 
58 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [39 
 
 round a center do this; neither in a circle, an ellipse, nor 
 even in a polygon, as a whole. It can be done by a moving 
 body acted on by two forces, not revolving round a center. 
 But angular motion necessarily intplies tangential projection, 
 the direction of which as well as of the diagonal of the 
 parallelogram formed by the tangential projection with the 
 central force consequently changes in every unit of time. 
 
 This is not a case of limiting values. The objection is 
 of a different kind, due to a faulty diagrammatic construc- 
 tion. The real triangles involved in the parallelograrnic 
 representation of a planetary orbit have the radius vectors 
 extremely long, the tangential side of the parallelogram 
 (representing the velocity per second) being much shorter 
 (about 1/5,000,000 of the radius vector, in the case of the 
 Earth), and the other side of the parallelogram, represent- 
 ing the value of the Sun's attraction in one second, more 
 minute still (only 1/10,000,000 of the tangential side), with 
 the tangential side always very nearly at right angles to 
 the radius vector. When we represent these conditions as 
 accurately as we conveniently can, we find that the moment- 
 ary paths of the planet are each and all inclined to one an- 
 other, and that the diagonal of one parallelogram, produced, 
 can not possibly form the tangential side of the next paral- 
 lelogram, as Newton assumes, because that diagonal, being 
 in fact a chord of the ultimate curve, if continued, would nec- 
 essarily project outwards across that curve, in which the 
 planet actually moves; i. e., the assumed path of the planet 
 would cross its actual path. 
 
 Newton's assumption that the tangential force would im- 
 pel the body, not in a tangent to its curved path, but in a 
 continuation of a chord of that path, is, therefore erroneous. 
 The line Be must be supposed to unite angularly with the 
 line AB at the point B. The triangles ASB and BSc are not, 
 therefore, between the same parallels, and, being on equal 
 bases, they can not be equal. Consequently Newton's dem- 
 onstration has not a particle of foundation to rest upon, and 
 in the absence of any assignable physical cause for the es- 
 sential acceleration of absolute tangential velocity which 
 
40] THE PROBLEM OF TWO BODIES 59 
 
 the law of equal areas involves, it certainly appears that 
 that essential acceleration, and consequently that law, still re- 
 mains undemonstrated. 
 
 40. Contradiction of Kepler's Second and Third Laws. 
 B'.it perhaps the most fatal objection to Kepler's law of equal 
 areas in equal times is that it is directly contradicted by 
 Kepler's third law. The latter may be stated as follows: 
 The squares of the times of revolution of two planets,- are 
 in the ratio of the cubes of their mean distances. 
 
 Let the distance of one planet be D, its period P, and let 
 the distance of a second planet be D', and its period P'. 
 Then according to Kepler's third law, D 3 : D' 3 = P 2 : P' 2 . 
 But P = 2^-D/V and P' = 2 7r D'/V, where V and V are 
 the velocities of the planets in whatever unit of time chos- 
 en. Substituting these values of P and P' in the foregoing 
 equation, we have D' 3 4 7r a DVV^=D 3 4 fl . 2 D'VV /2 , or DV 2 = D'V' 2 ; 
 that is, the product of the planetary distances by the squares 
 of the velocities of the respective planets at these distances 
 are constant. For example, the distance of Neptune, that 
 of the Earth being unity, and its velocity in miles per sec- 
 ond are respectively 30.0543 and 3.36; of Uranus 19.18338 and 
 4.20; of Saturn 9.5399 and 5,95; of Jupiter 5.2028 and 8.06; 
 of Mars 1.5237 and 14.99; of the Earth 1 and 18.38; of Venus 
 0.723 and 21.61; of Mercury 0.387 and 29.55*. And the prod- 
 ucts of the distance and velocity squared of each planet are 
 339, 338, 338, 338, 342, 338, 337, and 338, respectively; none 
 of which varies much from the Earth's average value of 338. 
 Now, by Kepler's second law, if a planet's orbit were so 
 perturbed as to expand it outwards, no matter how far, the 
 planet's velocity would become diminished, in order that 
 equal areas would be described by the radius vector in equal 
 times. Let it be supposed, then, that Mercury's orbit were 
 so perturbed that it occupied the orbits of all the planets 
 from the innermost to the outermost in succession. At its 
 own distance of 0.387 and velocity of 29.55, the area described 
 by its radius vector in one second is 5.7. Then, as it arrived 
 
 *Newcomb's Popular Astronomy. 
 
60 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [40 
 
 at the orbit of Venus, the area it would describe would of 
 course be the same, according to Kepler's second law. But 
 Venus itself with its distance of 0*.723 and velocity of 21.61 
 describes an area of 7.8 in one second, or nearly two-fifths 
 more than it should be according to Kepler's second law. 
 Arriving at the Earth's orbit, Mercury's area per second would 
 still be 5.7, while that of the Earth itself is 9.2. Continuing 
 outwards, Mars' area per second is 11.4, Jupiter's 20.9, Saturn's 
 28.4, Uranus' 40.3, and Neptune's 50.5; while, by the law of 
 equal areas in equal times, Mercury's described area at each 
 of these positions would still be 5.7, or just half what it 
 should be at Mars and little more than one-tenth what it 
 should be at Neptune. 
 
 It cannot be objected here that Mercury's orbit could not 
 be perturbed so much, because no limit has been assigned to 
 the action of perturbing forces, and because comets are ac- 
 tually supposed to describe equal areas in equal times in 
 just such orbits. Besides, if instead of the planets of the 
 Solar System, there existed a swarm of meteorites extend- 
 ing outwards in the Sun's equatorial plane like the Aster- 
 oids, or the alleged constituents of the ring of Saturn not 
 one of these meteorites could describe the same area in 
 the same time as another meteorite, if the radius vectors 
 of the two differed^by as much as a foot, or an inch, for the 
 reason that each of these bodies must conform to the law 
 of inverse distance squares, which is, in other words, Kep- 
 ler's third law, and which is entirely different from the law 
 of equal areas in equal times both as to velocity and gravity- 
 fall per second for equal radius vectors. And yet it is cur- 
 rently assumed, in direct contradiction of this, that a re- 
 volving body can sweep outwards or inwards millions of 
 miles from an average distance and continually conform to 
 the law of inverse squares, or Kepler's third law. 
 
 Since the two laws are thus found to be contradictory, 
 which are we to accept for our guidance? There is, however, 
 no question of the truth of Kepler's third law. It admits of 
 proof by actual observation, and has been so proved; while 
 the second law appears to be merely theoretic and never to 
 
41] THE PROBLEM OF TWO BODIES 61 
 
 have been proved at all nothing more than an adjunct nec- 
 essary to the law of gravitation. 
 
 After discovering his three laws, Kepler is said to have 
 exclaimed "O God, I think Thy thoughts after Thee!" It 
 would seem more in keeping with wisdom to ask God's pity 
 and help in rightly thinking hardly anything. 
 
 41. The Increase of Absolute Velocity. It is admitted 
 that, when a body revolving about a center moves inwards 
 to that center, its absolute velocity is generally increased 
 because the diagonal of the tangential force and the central 
 force is generally greater than the tangential side of the 
 parallelogram of the two forces. But the component of this 
 increased absolute velocity which is vertical to the radius 
 vector and which determines the area swept over by it is 
 not increased but remains exactly as before; so that, with 
 a changed radius vector, the areas described would be chang- 
 ed correspondingly. Prof. Young* says that a resistance ac- 
 celerates a comet's speed. "It is accelerated," he states, 
 "by being thus allowed to drop nearer to the sun and gains 
 its speed in moving inwards under the sun's attraction.'* 
 The diagonal motion (with possibly a slight degree of ap- 
 plication of the law of falling bodies) might increase the 
 velocity so long as the falling inwards continued. But just 
 as soon as the inward motion should stop, the diagonal in- 
 crease of speed would stop, and, owing to the supposed re- 
 sistance, the tangential velocity would be really less than 
 before the inward motion began; so far, at least, as any 
 physical cause appears to the contrary. The same diagonal 
 velocity would increase even if the body were projected out- 
 wards from the Sun, instead of inwards, for exactly the same 
 reason, and would continue until the outward motion stop- 
 ped, the tangential velocity, though not of course the angular 
 velocity, always remaining unchanged. 
 
 If the perturbing force acts along the radius vector, as 
 is here supposed, what physical cause can possibly be im- 
 agined to cause a change in the rate of motion in a direction 
 perpendicular to the radius vector? Some such cause, acting 
 
 *Gen. Astron., Art. 710. 
 
62 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [42 
 
 along the tangent, such as the resistance supposed, or the 
 perturbing action of some external body, must be assigned 
 before change of tangential velocity* can take place. But in 
 the absence of such tangential perturbance, the mere motion 
 inwards or outwards cannot be regarded as a physical cause 
 for such change of velocity as the law of equal areas re- 
 quires. It seems to exist as such only in imagination, be- 
 cause apparently demanded by the exigencies of the case. 
 And without such real, physical cause producing a change in 
 the tangential component of the absolute velocity, there 
 cannot be equable description of areas with a changing ra- 
 dius vector, as in elliptic motion. 
 
 42. Instability of a Two-Body System. Since there ap- 
 pears to be no real foundation for the law of equal areas in 
 equal times, it is manifest that it would be quite impossible 
 for even a single body to circulate around a central body 
 attracting according to the law of gravitation. The law of 
 equal areas constituted the machinery whose function it 
 was to slacken the tangential speed of the body as it moved 
 outwards, so as to prevent the further tendency to move 
 outwards; and it. was the function of the same law to in- 
 crease the speed of the body as it moved inwards, in order 
 to prevent its further tendency to move inwards and thus 
 maintain the stable equilibrium which is actually observed. 
 But with the law of equal areas discredited and without 
 real existence in fact, as has just been found, apparently from 
 all points of view, even the simplest two-body astronomical 
 unit sometimes called Roche's Problem could not, accord- 
 ing to the theory of gravitation, maintain a stable equilib- 
 rium for a moment, and the present arrangement of the 
 Solar and Sidereal Systems would be impossible. 
 
 The human mind will, no doubt, naturally revolt against 
 such a conclusion when no other apparent natural cause ex- 
 ists to prevent the universe from falling into utter disorder 
 and anarchy. Nature, however, though coy regarding her 
 motives, resorts to no miracles or fictitious agencies, but as 
 
43] THE TIDES 63 
 
 we may see later on, employs only the simplest means m 
 the simplest possible, yet beautifully efficient, ways to ac- 
 complish her ends. 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE TIDES 
 
 If we should come to a case in which the evidence is 
 plainly against the theory we are examining, we must give 
 up the theory at once. For one case of discordance does 
 more to destroy a theory respecting association between such 
 and such phenomena, than a hundred cases of agreement 
 would do in the way of affirming it. JUDGE N. T. CARR. 
 
 Wherefore if we would philosophize in earnest and give 
 ourselves to the search of all the truths we are capable of 
 knowing, we must, in the first place, lay aside all our preju- 
 dices; in other words, we must take care scrupulously to 
 with-hold our assent from the opinions we formerly admit- 
 ted, until upon new examination we discover that they are 
 true. DES CARTES. 
 
 It was declared to be inexpugnable, and put away and 
 labeled "hands off" among the most sacred achievements 
 of astronomy. It is now in our schoolbooks, and copied 
 from textbook to textbook, and so impregnable that, if any 
 fact were quoted against it, then so much the worse for the 
 fact. PROF. J. A. PATTERSON. 
 
 43. The Tidal Tiheory. According to this theory the 
 Moon is the chief tide-producer; and the alleged cause of 
 the tides, at least according to Newton and most other au- 
 thorities, is the difference between the Moon's attraction at 
 the center of the Earth and at the two points of the Earth's 
 surface which is nearest to, and farthest from, our satellite. 
 Thus on the side of the Earth nearest to the Moon, the Moon's 
 attraction would be greater than at the Earth's center be- 
 cause the distance in the former case is less than in the 
 latter; and therefore the water on that side of the Earth 
 would be drawn away from the Earth's center, thus causing 
 
64 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [44 
 
 the tide. Also the Moon's attraction would be less upon the 
 the farthest side of the Earth from the Moon than upon the 
 Earth's center, because the distance in the former case is 
 greater than in the latter; and therefore the Earth's center 
 would be drawn away from the water on that side, which 
 would thus bulge away from the Earth's center and cause 
 the antitide. At a first glance this theory may seem plaus- 
 ible, but closer examination shows that it has enormous dif- 
 ficulties to surmount. 
 
 44. The Tide-Raising Force Directly Opposed by Terres- 
 trial Gravity. One of these difficulties is the attraction of 
 the Earth itself upon its surface waters. By Newton's own 
 computation, this attraction holds these waters to the Earth's 
 center with a force or power more than twelve million times 
 greater than the alleged force would pull them away from the 
 Earth's center. Does it not really seem, even to the most 
 casual reader, that it would be utterly impossible for this 
 very minute force to pull the waters away from the Earth's 
 center, in direct opposition to the immensely more powerful 
 force holding the waters to that center? And does it not 
 really seem, also, that this impossiblity is a vital objection 
 to the current tidal theory? 
 
 This impossibility appears to be so self-evident and ax- 
 iomatic, that it is really difficult to present the objection in 
 plainer words. If, however, we suppose that twelve million 
 horses were pulling a car in one direction and a single 
 horse pulling it in the other direction, it would be very plain 
 to us that the car would not move in the direction of the 
 single horse. Nor would the case be altered in the least, if 
 we should suppose that a physical obstruction, aside from 
 the single horse, prevented the car from moving in the di- 
 rection in which the many horses pulled it, with no ob- 
 struction whatever, aside from the many horses, to prevent 
 it from moving in the direction of the single horse. In this 
 last case, it is just as obvious that the millions of horses 
 would hold the car against the obstruction, from which, 
 therefore, it would be quite impossible for the single horse 
 
45] THE TIDES 65 
 
 to pull it away in his own direction. Now the car repre- 
 sents the water on the Earth's surface; the twelve million 
 horses pulling the car in one direction represents the Earth's 
 attraction pulling the water towards the Earth's center; the 
 one horse pulling the car in the opposite direction is the 
 difference of the Moon's attraction upon the central mass 
 and upon either side of the Earth in the line of the two bodies, 
 pulling the water from the Earth's center; and the obstruc- 
 tion which prevents the many horses from moving the car 
 in their direction represents the solid surface crust of the 
 Earth, which prevents the falling of the water towards the 
 Earth's center. 
 
 Is it reasonable, then, that the one horse-power can 
 raise the water in the least degree away from the Earth's 
 center in direct opposition to the united pull of the twelve 
 million horse-power towards the Earth's center? This ap- 
 pears to be an extremely simple mechanical problem. Yet, 
 apparently in the face of all reason and experience, the the- 
 ory of gravitation alleges that the one horse-power actually 
 pulls the water from the obstruction against which the unit- 
 ed strength of twelve million horse-power is continually 
 holding it. 
 
 The reasonable view of the case would seem to be that 
 the one unit of power pulling away from the Earth's center 
 would counteract the effect of one of the twelve million 
 units of power pulling in the opposite direction, thus leaving 
 a balance of 11,999,999 units of power pulling towards the 
 Earth's center. But while this would diminish the pull upon 
 the water towards the latter point in a very slight degree, 
 yet very obviously the water would still be held almost as 
 strongly as ever towards that point with nothing at all now to 
 pull it away therefrom. 
 
 45. The Tides Not Raised Where the Alleged Tide-Rais- 
 ing Force Is Applied. While the absurdity of the gravita- 
 tional theory of the origin of the tidal wave is thus shown 
 is clearly, it seems, as anything can possibly be made, yet 
 this absurdity appears still more glaring owing to the well- 
 
66 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [45 
 
 known fact that the actual tidal wave rarely, if ever, is rais- 
 ed, or appears, directly upder the Moon, but generally at a 
 portion of the Earth's surface 90 from that at which the 
 Moon is in the meridian. Prof. G..H. Darwin says:* "If 
 we consider the moon as revolving round the earth, the 
 water assumes nearly the shape of an oblate spheroid with 
 the minor axis pointed to the moon. . . In fact observa- 
 tion shows that it is more nearly low water than high water 
 when the moon is on the meridian. . . . An observer 
 carried round with the earth . . . will have low water 
 twice in the lunar day, somewhere about the time when the 
 moon is in the meridian, either above or below the horizon; 
 and high water half way between the low waters. v 
 
 Some authorities cannot but remark on the incongruity of 
 this undoubted fact with the theory. One Reviewer (of 
 "Moxley's Theory of the Tides," by J. F. Ruthven) says:| 
 "The author seems to labor under some misconception of the 
 dynamical theory in thinking, for instance, that it implies 
 impossible ocean currents and that the tidal crest must be 
 90 behind the moon." And another says:$ "It is perhaps 
 disappointing to gather" (from Sir G. H. Darwin's "Scientific 
 Papers") "that we cannot yet with any confidence make any 
 wide generalizations as to the nature of the tide-wave in 
 the open ocean." 
 
 How the Moon's attraction can thus raise the waters in 
 a direction at right angles to its own and where no tide- 
 raising force whatever theoretically applies, is simply in- 
 explicable. It would seem that if it were the Moon's attrac- 
 tion that raised the tidal wave directly towards, or indirectly 
 from, itself, in the open sea at least that tidal wave would 
 be directly underneath the Moon's orb, and that, if for any 
 reason, the wave were delayed a considerable distance behind 
 that position, it would gradually die out, simply on account of 
 the friction it has to encounter and the absence of any cause 
 to sustain it in its displaced position. But, wonderful to 
 
 *Ency. Britt., Art. "Tides." 
 fNature, 87, 478. 
 JNature, 87, 449. 
 
46] THE TIDES 67 
 
 relate, we have it on the authority of the theory of gravita- 
 tion that the tidal wave generated by the transit of a tide- 
 producer over a certain meridian of the tide-bearer may not 
 itself arrive at that meridian until some one or two days 
 have elapsed after the transit which caused it! "The inter- 
 val of time between the transit of the moon which originates 
 a tide and the appearance of the tide itself, is called the 
 age or retardation of the tide. . . The age of the tide is, from 
 the times, 391-2 hours, from the heights, 421-2 hours.''* 
 
 46. The Oceanic Tides Obliterated by Tides in the Earth's 
 Interior. Another vital objection to the present theory of 
 the tides is that, according to the generally received physical 
 condition of the Earth, there would be no tides at all. Strange 
 as this may appear, it is nevertheless true, as the following 
 considerations go to prove. It is a well-known fact that the 
 temperature of the Earth's crust increases about 1 for every 
 50 to 60 feet below the surface. This uniform increase of 
 temperature with depth is found at all points of the surface 
 without respect to the sea-level, and is therefore a general 
 characteristic of the Earth's crust. This temperature gradient 
 obviously implies a constant transfer of heat from warmer 
 inner strata to cooler outer strata by conduction; according 
 to which, difference of temperature would soon disappear 
 by the warmer strata cooling off if there were not a con- 
 stant supply of heat within the Earth. And this proves that 
 the rise of temperature thus maintained for untold millions 
 of years is not merely superficial, but continues to a very 
 great depth. Now this rate of increase implies a temper- 
 ature of about 1,500 at a depth of 15 miles; a temperature 
 sufficient to reduce to a fluid state about all of the known ma- 
 terials which form the solid crust of the globe. The appar- 
 ently solid Earth on which we live is therefore a comparative- 
 ly thin shell of solid matter inside of which is inclosed the 
 vast bulk of the Earth in a molten or gaseous state. Many 
 facts are observed to corroborate tfiis conclusion; among 
 which are boiling springs, earthquakes, and volcanoes; the 
 torrents of melted rock or lava from the latter for thousands 
 
 *Orray Taft Sherman. Prof. Pap. U. S. Sig. Ser., No. XI, p. 28. 
 
68 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [47 
 
 of years clearly testifying to the molten condition of the 
 Earth's interior. 
 
 But how is this state of things to be reconciled with the 
 present theory of the tides? If the mterior of the Earth is 
 in a molten state, it is very clear that, in accordance with the 
 theory of gravitation, a tidal swell would be caused there 
 just as well as at the surface of the crust. This tidal swell 
 would cause the thin crust to be successively elevated and 
 depressed; and these successive bendings of the crust would 
 neutralize the effects of the ocean tides because the bottom 
 of the sea would be raised almost, if not quite, as much as 
 its surface, and the depth of the sea would thus remain un- 
 changed, and consequently no tide would be observed. 
 
 47. Another Tidal Theory. A comparatively new theory, 
 and entirely different from the static theory of Newton, is 
 given by Sir Oliver Lodge, (Pioneers of Science, p. 364) and 
 is also mentioned by Hastings and Beach,* and possibly by 
 others. The former says: 
 
 "Now consider the earth and moon revolving round each 
 other. . . . It" (the Earth) "revolves around the common 
 center of gravity of the earth and moon. This is a vital 
 point in the comprehension of the tides; the earth's center 
 is not at rest, but is being whirled round by the moon, in a 
 circle about 1/80 as big as the circle which the moon describes. 
 . . . The effect of the revolution is to make both bodies 
 slightly protrude in the direction of the line joining them. 
 . These elongations or protuberances constitute the 
 tides." 
 
 Dr. Lodge ought to have been aware that his second last 
 statement above is directly contradicted by Sir G. H. Darwin, 
 as we have just seen; the actual protrusion of the tides being 
 generally in a line at right angles to that joining the Earth 
 and the Moon. Moreover his new theory described above he 
 himself directly contradicts when he says (p. 357): "The 
 prime cause of the tiftes is undoubtedly a vertical elevation 
 of the ocean, a tidal wave or hump produced by the attraction 
 of the moon." His new theory does not depend on the Moon's 
 
 * General Physics, p. 52. 
 
47] THE TIDES 69 
 
 attraction at all, but on the centrifugal force of the Earth's 
 surface around the Earth-Moon center of gravity. 
 
 Another statement which Dr. Lodge makes (pp. 369-70) is 
 
 "the moon swings the earth round once a month, the sun 
 swings it around once a year. The circle of swing is bigger, 
 but the speed is so much slower that the protuberance pro- 
 duced is only one-third of that caused by the monthly whirl; 
 i. e., the simple solar tide in the open sea, without taking 
 momentum into account, is but a little more than a foot high 
 while the simple lunar tide is about three feet." 
 
 The "speed" to which Dr. Lodge refers above is probably 
 the angular speed, for the actual velocity of the Earth around 
 the Sun is about a thousand times its velocity around the 
 Earth-Moon center; moreover, the centrifugal force (which is 
 the tide-raising agency in Dr. Lodge's theory) of the Earth's 
 motion around the Sun is about seventy times that of the 
 Earth's motion around the Earth-Moon center; so that, by 
 his theory, the solar tide should be seventy times that of the 
 lunar. 
 
 Absurd as this theory appears to be, it may be worth 
 while to examine it further. The Earth-Moon common center 
 of gravity would be about 7,000 miles from the farthest, and 
 1,000 miles from the nearest, side of the Earth from the 
 Moon; the respective circles of swing being, therefore, 44,- 
 000 and 6,286 miles, in which the respective speeds per sec- 
 ond would be about 0.02 and 0.0026 mile. And the respective 
 'tide-raising 1 forces (according to Dr. Lodge) implied by these 
 speeds and distances would be (0.02)714,000 and (0.0026)Y 
 2,000, or 0.0001584 ft.,and 0.0000185 ft. per second, the former 
 being over eight times as great as the latter. 
 
 It is true that these tide-raising forces, if real, would be 
 vastly greater than Newton's; but just the same they would 
 be directly counteracted by the Earth's attraction, which is 
 some 100,000 times greater than the larger. However, if 
 the particles of the Earth's surface be supposed to be loose 
 and independent of one another, like an aggregation of me- 
 teorites, then a particle at d (in diagram) would be urged 
 away from c 0.0001584 ft. in one second, as previously found. 
 
70 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [48 
 
 But at e, midway between d and a, a particle would move 
 away from c some 41 feet in each second. The velocity per 
 second at e around the Earth-Moon center at b would be 
 about 0.013 mile, and if this be directed at right angles to 
 the radius vector, be, as in other circular motions, the mo- 
 mentary path would incline some 38.5 upwards from the 
 horizon, and the vertical component of the 0.013 mile would 
 be 0.0078 mile, or 41 feet which certainly would be some 
 tide. At f, however, the conditions would be reversed, the 
 momentary path, being at right angles to bf, now points in- 
 wards to c, so that at the point f, by Dr. Lodge's theory, the 
 
 water particles would b depressed 41 feet per second. Here 
 would be some prolateness, though in a direction at right 
 angles to that stated by Dr. Lodge. One immense tide and 
 one immense depression in each lunar day, compared with 
 which all other tides and depressions would sink into in- 
 significance. Not even terrestrial gravity itself could cope 
 with such a tide-raising force and so we leave it in the sole 
 charge and guidance of its sponsors. 
 
 48. The Solar Tide. Of all doctrines now or hitherto 
 ever taught of which there remains any record, probably 
 none has been so universally received and accepted as that 
 the Moon is the chief cause of our terrestial ocean tides. 
 And no wonder, for the tides always follow the Moon's mo- 
 tion around the Earth. In the words of Prof. Young:* 
 
 "The average interval between successive high waters be- 
 ing 24h. 51m., which is precisely the same as the average in- 
 terval between two successive passages of the moon across 
 the meridian. This coincidence maintained indefinitely, of 
 
 *Gen. Astron. Art. 462. 
 
48] THE TIDES 71 
 
 itself makes it certain that there must be some casual con- 
 nection between the moon and the tides. As some one has 
 said, the odd 51 minutes is the' moon's 'earmark.' " 
 
 What, then, must be thought of the statement here to be 
 made that, although the casual connection of the Moon with 
 the tides is admitted, the Sun is the chief tide-producer and 
 not the Moon? Yet incredible as this statement may seem, 
 and however inconsistent with the theory of gravitation, 
 there is not a little evidence in favor of it. There would 
 no doubt be a great deal more evidence in favor of it, if 
 such were not probably considered as worthless because con- 
 tradictory of a doctrine universally accepted as true. Much 
 of the evidence here advanced must have seen the light by 
 mere accident. (See analecta, chapter XI, part II). 
 
 If the Moon is the chief cause of the ocean tides, why 
 is it not the chief cause of the aerial tides? We know from 
 actual observation that there are two maxima and two min- 
 ima of barometric pressure, the former at about 10 a. m. and 
 10 p. m. and the latter between these, all over the Earth's 
 torrid and temperate zones; and these variations of pressure 
 are due solely to the Sun. Dr. Julius Hann* quotes this pass- 
 age from "Herschel's Meteorology," p. 163: 
 
 "Colonel Sykes remarks that among many thousand obser- 
 vations taken personally by himself on the plateau of the 
 Deccan (1825-1830), there was not a solitary instance in 
 which the barometer was not higher at 9 or 10 a. m. than 
 at sunrise and lower at 4 or 5 p. m. than at 9 or 10 a. m., 
 whatever the state of the weather might be." 
 
 Dr. Hann also quotes from Humboldt:f 
 
 "This regularity is such that, in the daytime especially, 
 we may infer the hour from the height of the column of mer- 
 cury without being in error on an average more than 15 or 
 16 minutes. In the torrid zone of the new continent I have 
 found the regularity of this ebb and flow of the aerial ocean 
 undisturbed either by storm, tempest, rain or earthquake, 
 both on the coasts and at elevations of nearly 13,000 feet 
 above the level of the sea." 
 
 Now it cannot be the Sun's heat during the day and the 
 
 *Smith. Kept., 1877, p. 394. 
 tTome I, p. 308. 
 
72 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [49 
 
 absence of the Sun's heat during the night that cause these 
 aerial tides because the effects in the day and in the night 
 are almost exactly aHke, having a^ maximum and a minimum 
 in each, and because in the Arctic and the Antarctic regions 
 where the days and nights are months long, it occurs with 
 the same regularity. There is a small factor attributable to 
 to the Sun's heat, but it is easily separable from the other 
 factor. M. A. Angot of the French Meteorological Office has 
 done this; but the main part remains either unaccountable or 
 attributable to the Sun.* 
 
 The amplitude of the solar diurnal tide is given by Mr. 
 R. A. Curtis t as one-tenth inch in the tropics, gradually de- 
 creasing to 1/30 inch in the British Isles and similar lati- 
 tudes* while the maximum amplitude of the lunar tide is 
 given by M. Boquet de la Grye as 1/50 inch at Brest! and 
 by Prof. F. A. R. Russel as 0.003 to 0.004 mch. 
 
 It is unnecessary to go into further detail to show that 
 the aerial tide ascribable to the Sun is considerably greater 
 than that ascribable to the Moon. The subject will be fur- 
 ther considered with the new tidal theory, Art. 147. 
 
 49. Inland Sea and Lake Tides. Upon lakes and inland 
 seas, tides would be produced by only one of the two tide- 
 producers when they are about 90 apart, because the area 
 of the water surface is so small that when one body would 
 be in a position to produce a tide upon it, the tide-raising 
 effect of the .other body would be shut out by the land surface 
 surrounding the water. If the Moon were the chief agent in 
 raising the tides on the waters of the Earth, it should be an 
 easy matter to prove it in these cases. Let us see what 
 really happens. 
 
 M. Heraud read a paper before the Paris Academy of 
 Sciences, Aug. 8, 1887, on "The Tides of the Tunisian Coast," 
 partly as follows: 
 
 * Nature, 41, 449. 
 
 tNature, 61, 119. 
 
 tNature, 51, 516. 
 
 Smith. Miscel. Coll., No. 1072, 
 
49] THE TIDES 73 
 
 "The observations made during the hydrographic survey 
 of the coast have enabled the author to study the tidal move- 
 ment, the existence of which on the Gulf of Gabes and on 
 the adjacent seaboard has long been demonstrated. These 
 tides appear to be the most regular and important in the 
 whole Mediterranean basin. > . . They continually in- 
 crease in magnitude as far as Gabes, where they acquire a 
 maximum of 2 metres at the mean spring tides, thence de- 
 creasing to 1 metre at Zarzis on the Tripoli Coast. The tidal 
 wave appears to come from the east, the mean period being 
 apparently about 24 hours. All the observed circumstances 
 would seem to show that the relation of tine lunar to the 
 solar wave is less than the absolute actions of the sun and; 
 moon."* 
 
 Regarding the tide in the great lakes, some writer in the 
 Milwaukee (Wis.) Sentinel of Aug. 17, 1892, says of the tides 
 at Green Bay, Wis.: 
 
 "The tides come in the morning and evening and are high- 
 est at 7 a. m. and 7 p. m. From 3 until 7 in the morn- 
 ing the tide gradually comes in. After that time it begins 
 to recede and is at its lowest between 11 and 2:30. At the 
 latter hour the evening tide commences and it rises contin- 
 ually until 7 m the evening, when it begins to recede. The 
 height of the tide varies at times a trifle, but it is never less 
 than 5 inches and seldom over 8 inches under ordinary cir- 
 cumstances. . . . The tide comes night and morning, 
 whatever the direction of the wind and whether the water is 
 high or low . . . Green Bay is shaped not unlike the 
 Bay of Fundy, where the tides on the Atlantic rise to enor- 
 mous heights. It is not unreasonable to suppose that a tide 
 from a half inch or an inch from the wide stretch of waters 
 east and west, reaching several hundred miles from Georg- 
 ian Bay across Lake Huron, through the wide straits of 
 Mackinac, across the foot of Lake Michigan and up the long, 
 narrow bay, would be compressed so as to be at least per- 
 ceptible." 
 
 An answer to this, two or three days later, stated that 
 scientists also had observed the tide on Lake Michigan, but 
 said not one word about its daily occurence. 
 
 Tides also appear sometimes in under-ground waters. 
 "A self-recording gage was set up in an unused well" (near 
 Tokio, Japan). "This showed that the water in the well 
 rose and fell 1-4 to 1-2 inch twice every 24 hours. "t And 
 
 *Nature, 36, 383. 
 
 tJchn Milne, Nature, 53, 182. 
 
74 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [49 
 
 Dr. O. Hoist of the Geological Survey of Sweden states 
 that "one of the Australian geologists" found a tidal action 
 of the ground water in the sandy regions of the interior of 
 Australia. "The water rises and falls at regular daily inter- 
 vals and the oscillations appear to be too great to be explain- 
 ed as resulting from the daily variations in atmospheric 
 pressure."* 
 
 Even in the open ocean "the relative part played by the 
 sun and moon, as deduced from gravitational formulae does 
 not quite agree with the observed phenomena of the daily 
 tides. It is believed by many that the ordinary lunar tide 
 affecting mainly the oceanic envelope, is complicated by the 
 presence of a terrene tide largely influenced by the sun, and 
 that the earth does to an appreciable extent yield twice in 
 the twenty-four hours to the deforming force of solar gravita- 
 tion."! 
 
 And still another witness, the humble polyp, Alcyonium, 
 appears to tell the story of the Sun as the chief arbiter of his 
 ocean home. "During the first two or three days after Al- 
 cyonium is placed in the tank, it contracts completely with 
 tolerable regularity twice in every twenty-four hours. . . . 
 These experiments seem to prove that Alcyonium contracts 
 normally twice in every twenty-four hours, and that the 
 rythm of these contractions continues for some time after 
 it is removed from the action of the tides."* 
 
 See also Art. 153 for further evidence in this connection. 
 
 *Nature, 57, 86. 
 
 tThos. W. Kingsmill; Nature, 47, 30. 
 
 JS. J. Hickscn; Phil. Soc. Cambridge, Feb. 22, 1892. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SUN'S HEAT 
 
 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set 
 the dominion thereof in the earth? JOB, 38, 33. 
 
 Any given generalization from observatioin may be true, 
 within the limits of our powers of observation at a given time, 
 and yet turn out to be untrue when these powers of obser- 
 vaion are directly or indirectly enlarged. Or, to put the mat- 
 ter in another way, a doctrine which is untrue absolutely, may, 
 to a very great extent, be susceptible of an interpretation 
 in accordance with the truth. PROP. HUXLEY. 
 
 I think in that respect he is of my mind, that we are all 
 liable to error, but that we love truth, and speak only what 
 at the time we/ think to be the truth; and ought not to take 
 offense when proved to be in error, since the error is not in- 
 tentional; but be a little humbled and so turn the correction 
 of the error to good account. FAKADAY. 
 
 50. Temperature of the Sun's Surface. The theory of 
 gravitation teaches that the Sun's heat and light and force 
 of attraction radiate out equally in all directions in space, 
 diminished only as the inverse square of the distance. The 
 quantity of solar heat which would be intercepted by the 
 Earth, therefore, would be such a part of the whole heat 
 radiated from the Sun as the apparent angular area of the 
 Earth as viewed from the Sun's center is of the area of the 
 whole sky. Now the angular diameter of the Earth, as it 
 would be seen from the Sun is only about 17 seconds; and as 
 similar areas are to each other as the squares of their di- 
 mensions, the angular area of the Earth, viewed from the 
 Sun, will be to that of the whole sky as (17) 2 is to 2(180X 
 60X60) 2 , or about as 1 to 2,900,000,000;* so that only about 
 1/2,900,000,000 of the heat radiated from the Sun falls upon 
 
 *Dr. J. R. Mayer in his Beitrage xur Dynamik des Himmela makes 
 the amount of solar heat intercepted by the Earth 1/2,300,000,000 of 
 the whole amount radiated into space. Tyndal makes it the same as 
 Mayer, Fragments of Science, "On Force." 
 
76 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [50 
 
 the Earth. Then as the Sun's angular diameter from the 
 Earth is about 31 minutes of arc, the Sun's area as compared 
 with that of the Earth will be about as (31X60) 2 to (17) 2 , or 
 about as 12,000 to 1. Therefore the heat radiated from a 
 certain area of the Sun, as a square inch or a square yard, 
 is 2,900,000,000/12,000, or about 240,000 times greater than 
 that which is received from the Sun upon an equal area on 
 the Earth. The Earth's temperature is supposed to be about 
 300C. above absolute zero,* and, as the heat from an equal 
 area on the Sun is about 240,000 times greater, the Sun's 
 temperature ought to be about 300X240,000 or 72,000,000C. 
 above absolute zero. This is about the same reasoning as 
 Newton's regarding this subject; and the result above ob- 
 tained is of the same order as Newton's result. This would 
 make the immediate neighborhood of the Sun so extremely 
 heated that all known substances traversing it would be re- 
 duced to vapor. Therefore, when the comet of 1680 passed 
 so close to the Sun, as to almost graze its atmosphere, New- 
 ton was very much surprised indeed when that body, which 
 remained in the immediate neighborhood of the Sun for 
 many hours, brushed around the great luminary without un- 
 dergoing the slightest noticeable change, although, according 
 to his own computation, the comet must have been subjected 
 during that time to a degree of heat 2,000 times that of red- 
 hot iron. 
 
 Whether this circumstance staggered his belief in the 
 extremely elevated temperp.ture which, according to his the- 
 ory, he had deduced for the Sun, or not, it, together with 
 many other circumstances, certainly staggered others in 
 that belief, and as a consequence there are today probably a 
 score of different estimates of the Sun's temperature from 
 several million degrees down to as low as 3,000. On this 
 subject, Prof. J. Norman Lockyer says: 
 
 "The values that have been suggested by various men of 
 science vary between 18,000,000 and 3,000". You may take 
 your choice. The fac* is I think, that we are not yet in a 
 position to find out the very best method of determining the 
 
 *Prof. J. H. Poynting, Address B. A. 1904. 
 
51] AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SUN'S HEAT Tl 
 
 temperature and thus marking it down in a perfect manner, 
 for the reason that the more one knows about the problem, 
 the more one sees how terribly complicated it is."* 
 
 In the Scientific American Supplement, No. 259, p. 4132, 
 Mr. Robt. Ward summarizes in chronogical order of publi- 
 cation the solar temperatures in degrees centigrade found 
 by various investigators as follows: 
 
 "Newton, 1,669,300; Pouillet, 1,461; Zollner, 102,200; 
 Secchi, 5,344,840; Ericsson, 2,726,700; Fizeau, 7,500; Wa- 
 terston, 9,000,000; Spoerer, 27,000; H. St. Claire Deville, 
 9,500; Soret, 5,801,846; Vicaire, 1,398"; Violle, 1,500; Kos- 
 etti, 20,000. . . . There probably does not exist in science 
 a more astonishing contradiction than is revealed in these 
 figures."! 
 
 To overcome the difficulty, a law bearing the name of 
 Stefan's, was published about 1881, which assumes that ra- 
 diation increases as the fourth power of the tempera ture.J 
 This would make the Sun's temperature about 5,000 or 
 6,000' centigrade above absolute zero, which from the spec- 
 troscopic evidence of variations of wavelength and width of 
 spectral lines in varying temperatures, is probably not far 
 from the fact. 
 
 But what is the physical justification of Stefan's law? 
 Apparently nothing more than that the single instance of the 
 Sun's radiation seems to demand it. The radiation of heated 
 bodies upon the Earth's surface appears to be strictly accord- 
 ing to Newton's law; and why, or where, a change should take 
 place between the Earth and the Sun from the one law to the 
 other, no cause whatever is assignable. 
 
 51. Unvarying Quantity of Solar Heat at Various Dis- 
 tances from the Sun. Another serious conflict of actual 
 observation with the theory is found in the cons/tancy of the 
 amount of solar heat which falls upon the Earth at various 
 distances from the Sun. It is well-known that the Earth 
 is some three millions of miles nearer to the Sun in January 
 than in July. According to the theory of gravitation, it is 
 shown by Sir John Herschel that "the least variation of 
 
 *Nature, 33, 402. 
 
 fA similar summary is given by Prof. Young, Gen. Astron., Art. 351. 
 
 tNature, 51, 33 
 
78 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [52 
 
 temperature under such circumstances which can be reason- 
 ably attributed to the actual variation of the Sun's distance 
 is 23 F."* The summers of the Southern Hemisphere, there- 
 fore, should be at least 23 hotter than ours on the average, 
 and the winters of the Southern Hemisphere colder than 
 ours by the same difference. Yet Sir William Thomson 
 tells us| that "neither at the equator nor in the southern or 
 northern hemisphere has this difference been discovered 
 by experience or general observation of any kind." This is 
 certainly vital evidence, and it goes remarkably direct against 
 the theory of gravitation. 
 
 52. Amount of Solar Heat Falling Upon Either Pole of 
 the Earth During Its Summer Season Greater Than That 
 Upon a Point at the Equator. In still another instance is 
 the amount of sunheat which would be received upon the 
 Earth in accordance with the theory of gravitation, glaringly 
 at variance with the observed facts. That the temperature 
 of the North Frigid Zone during our summer is a great deal 
 lower than at the Equator, is so commonplace a fact that It 
 seems puerile to mention it. Yet we have it upon the author- 
 ity of Dr. Zenker, in a work which has been awarded a prize 
 by the Paris Academy, that, "leaving the air out of account, 
 as has usually been the case, . . . the heat received by 
 the Pole on a summer day is greater than that which falls on 
 a point at the equator. Thus, taking as unit the heat re- 
 ceived during twenty-four hours by a place at which the sun 
 is in the zenith, the North Pole receives an amount of heat 
 represented by 0.397, and a point at the equator an amount 
 represented by 0.292."J 
 
 In other words, there would fall upon the North Pole, ac- 
 cording to the present theory, an amount of solar heat great- 
 er by over one-third than that which would fall upon a point 
 at the Equator! Paradoxical as this may at first Bight ap- 
 pear, it readily admits of a simple explanation. For, during 
 
 *Outlines of Astronomy, Art. 369 a. 
 tNature, 35, 29'/. 
 JNature, 37, 552. 
 
52] AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SUN'S HEAT 79 
 
 our summer season, the Sun's rays are at no time perpen- 
 dicular to the Equator, the average inclination of these rays 
 to a point upon the equatorial surface while exposed to the 
 ^olar heat being considerably more than half as great as the 
 average inclination to the polar surface; and also the equator- 
 ial surface receives the Sun's rays for half of every twenty- 
 four hours, while the polar surface receives the Sun/s rays 
 during the entire summer without intermission. V/hy, then, 
 is it not warmer at the polar regions than at the equatorial 
 regions, to correspond with the greater amount of solar heat 
 which theoretically falls upon the former place? Some are 
 inclined to think that the reason is, the Sun's rays, which fall 
 upoi. the Pole, having the greater inclination, and consequent- 
 Jy having to pass through the greater thickness of atmos- 
 phere, would be more absorbed by the air before reaching 
 that surface. But this view is open to the objection that the 
 absorption and accumulation of the solar heat by the atmos- 
 phere is the very thing that raises the temperature at the 
 Earth's surface; for if there were no atmosphere at all to 
 absorb and retain the Sun's heat, the temperature of the 
 Earth's surface would be some hundreds of degrees below 
 zero, even under a vertical Sun. An excellent authority on 
 this subject says : 
 
 "Although the actual solar radiation is thus largely in- 
 creased, yet the temperature of the Earth's surface is not 
 due principally to this direct radiation, but to the quality of 
 selective absorption in our atmosphere, without which the 
 temperature of tW,e soil in the tropics under a vertical surf 
 would probably not rise above 200 C. Nearly all the 215 
 or more degrees of difference between this and the actual 
 mean temperature of the planet's surface is due to this se- 
 lective absorption, which accumulates the heat, though in a 
 manner which has not been hitherto correctly understood. 
 It should be understood that these researches have had a 
 practical bearing of great consequence. The temperature 
 of this planet, and with it the existence not only of the hu- 
 man race, but of all organized life on the globe appears, in 
 the light of the conclusions reached by the Mount Whitney 
 expedition, to depend far less on the direct solar heat than 
 
80 OBJECTIONS TO THJE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [52 
 
 on the hitherto too little regarded quality of selective ab- 
 sorption in our atmosphere which we are now studying."* 
 
 From this it seems quite clear, then, that the greater the 
 amount of heat which was absorbed by the amosphere of 
 a region, the warmer the temperature of that region ought tt 
 be. For the same writer adds : "Generally speaking, the 
 radiation that we see enter, we see escape within the utmost 
 limit ol the known solar spectrum"; according to which the 
 radiation which the atmosphere absorbs and stores up is 
 all that remains and is very obviously that to which almost 
 alone the surface temperature is due. 
 
 Still another explanation of the low temperature of the 
 polar regions as compared with the temperature of the 
 equatorial regions, in spite of the greater amount of solar 
 radiation and atmospheric absorption at the former which 
 the theory implies is that, in these regions, the ice and snow 
 reflect the heat falling upon them to a much greater extent 
 than the land surface of the equatorial regions does. It is 
 unnecessary to discuss all the objections that could be made 
 to this explanation. An insuperable objection to it is in- 
 volved in the single question If there is a greater solar ra- 
 diation and atmospheric absorption at the polar regions, than 
 there is at the lower temperate and tropical latitudes, as 
 Dr. Zenker apparently shows, why is not the snow and ice 
 melted away at the former place as it is in the latter upon 
 the approach of the summer season? In latitude 40, e. g., 
 tracts of country fully as large as Greenland are frequently 
 covered with ice and snow; yet a very few warm days of 
 spring, not to mention summer at all, is sufficient to melt 
 it all away; while the ice and snow of Greenland, where the 
 amount of solar radiation is theoretically much greater, scarce- 
 ly melts at all! It is true that a considerable amount of ice 
 and snow accumulate in the Arctic regions during our winter; 
 but it is equally true that, if all the ice and snow of Green- 
 land were removed down to latitude 40 and spread over that 
 country to the same depth, it would all melt away during 
 
 *Prof. S. P. Langley. Researches on Solar Heat, Prof. Papers No. XV, 
 U. S. Sig. Service, p. 215. 
 
53] AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SUN'S HEAT 81 
 
 a single month of summer* ; and yet according to the current 
 theory, a much less amount of solar heat is available to melt 
 the ice and snow in latitude 40 than in northern Greenland. 
 53. The Sun's Heat on Mars. By the theory of gravita- 
 tion, Mars should receive only two-fifths as much solar heat 
 as the Earth. And we have it on the authority of Prof. 
 Newcombf that a "diminution of the solar heat by one- 
 fourth of its amount would probably make our Earth so cold 
 that all the water on its surface would freeze." This "means 
 that if the earth were now 15.5 per cent farther away 
 from the sun, there would be no water and no life, only ice." 
 But Mars is more than 50 per cent farther from the Sun 
 than the Earth is, and therefore ought to be, by the theory 
 of gravitation, much colder still than if only 15.5 per cent 
 farther. Yet we read that its temperature is equal to, if not 
 higher than, that of the Earth, and its polar snows melt per- 
 iodically to a far greater extent than on our planet. $ 
 
 "The observation left no doubt on my mind that Mars 
 had an atmosphere like our own; that its temperature did 
 not vary many degrees from our own; that there were land 
 surfaces and water surfaces; clouds and very obvious cloud 
 drift; polar snows which melted with marvelous rapidity as 
 the perihelion sun made its full strength felt." 
 
 Much more might be given from the writings of Prof. 
 Very and Percival Lowell, the latter having made the study 
 of this planet specially his own; how they discovered water- 
 vapor lines in the Martian spectrum; have seen the blueness 
 of the water issuing from the rapidly melting polar ice-fields; 
 and the appearance of canals and change of color due to 
 consequent upspringing vegetation and foliage. Prof. Very 
 
 *Langley computes from his researches that the^ solar heat upon the 
 outer limits of our atmosphere is such as would melt an ice-sheet 178 
 feet thick annually over the entire surface of the Earth; and he further 
 finds that only one-third of this heat is absorbed by the atmosphere from 
 a vertical Sun. Of course then, a much greater thickness of ice would 
 actually be melted at the Equator during even a single summer, because 
 the temperature there is much above the average temperature of the 
 Earth's surface; and, theoretically, a still greater thickness should be 
 melted at the Pole daring the same time because a greatei amount of solar 
 radiation theoretically falls and is retained there. 
 
 tPopular< Astronomy, p. 523. 
 
 JM. Flammarion; Nature, 38, 263. 
 
 ,T. Norman Lockyer; Nature, 46, 445. 
 
82 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OP GRAVITATION [54 
 
 says:* "Mars has a rather rare atmosphere but a climate 
 of the continental type giving it warm summers." But as 
 we have just seen in the preceding article, the rareness of 
 the atmosphere is a very great handicap to a warm temper- 
 ature, the warmth of the planet existing, not because of it, 
 but in spite of it. 
 
 It is true that Prof. Alfred Russel Wallace, Prof. Camp- 
 bell of Lick Observatory, and a few others, question, to some 
 extent, the results of the investigations of Lowell and Very. 
 This, however, is only natural when these results are so 
 astoninshingly at variance with the generally accepted the- 
 ory. But, nevertheless, the great preponderance of scientific 
 authority cannot but support the conclusions of Lowell, how- 
 ever contradictory of the current theory. The melting of 
 1,600,000 square miles (a tract about as large as India) of 
 polar snow-fields in 33 days, observed by Prof. Pickering at 
 the opposition of 1892, t together with the seasonal regularity 
 of the snow-caps' dissolution, one alternating with the other 
 invariably at about the same intervals, just as on the Earth, 
 could not but impress the fact of even a warmer climate upon 
 Mars than that of the Earth, on most unbiased minds, regard- 
 less of the fact that not one logical reason can be assigned 
 to alleviate the apparently fatal contradiction of the theory 
 of gravitation by these actually observed facts. Many minds 
 are only stupefied and dumfounded by this hopeless contra- 
 diction, and keep silent regarding it, though naturally, of 
 course, still clinging to the old theory which is so signally 
 discredited by it. 
 
 54. Direct Contradiction of the Theory by the Facts. It 
 follows, therefore, that both the temperature of the Sun's 
 surface and the distribution of the solar radiation, which the 
 current theory clearly involves, is emphatically contradicted 
 by actual observation. The degree of heat at the Sun's sur- 
 face which that theory undoubtedly implies is, in the first 
 place, almost inconceivably great; in the second place, it is 
 belied by the presence of black spots on the Sun's surface, 
 
 *Science, 37, 952. 
 t Nature, 81, 337. 
 
54] AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SUN'S HEAT 83 
 
 which are generally admitted to be formed by the down-rush 
 of cooled, solid particles, whereas the theoretical temper- 
 ature of the Sun is such as would almost instantly dissolve 
 all known substances into vapor, even at a distance of mil- 
 lions of miles from the Sun's surface; in the third place, it 
 is belied by the impunity with which the comet of 1680 passed 
 through the immediate neighborhood of the Sun; in the 
 fourth place, it is belied by comparison with known tem- 
 peratures upon the Earth's surface; in the fifth place, the 
 distribution of the solar heat which the theory involves is 
 belied by the utter absence of those very considerable differ- 
 ences of temperature upon the Earth, which should theoret- 
 ically accompany its varying distances from the Sun; in the 
 sixth place, the theoretical distribution of the solar heat 
 over the Earth's surface is almost diametrically the opposite 
 of that which we actually observe; and in the seventh place, 
 Mars, which by the theory should have a temperature of 
 less than 30 C C., is actually observed to have a temperature 
 probably warmer even than the Earth itself. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS 
 
 Every hypothesis is bound to explain, or, at any rate, not 
 be inconsistent with, the whole of the facts which it professes 
 to account for; and if there is a single one of these facts 
 which can be shown to be inconsistent with (I do not merely 
 mean inexplicable by, but contrary to) the hypothesis, the 
 hypothesis falls to the ground; it is worth nothing. 
 
 PROF HUXLEY. 
 
 The nebular theory ... is emphatically a specula- 
 tion; it cannot be demonstrated by observation or establish- 
 ed by mathematical calculation. Yet the boldness and splen- 
 dour of the nebular theory have always given it a dignity not 
 usually attached to a doctrine which has so little direct evi- 
 dence in its favor. SIR ROBERT STAWELL BALL. 
 
 The theory of Laplace, in the form in which it was pre- 
 sented, cannot be maintained by any one acquainted with 
 the laws of physics. . . . The theory that* the star- clouds, 
 or any of them, are external galaxies has received a death- 
 blow. This is not saying that it was not dead before. The 
 blow may be such a one as Falstaff gave the dead Percy; but 
 no one can mistake its force. With this new wound the theo- 
 ry has no longer even the semblance of life, and will possi- 
 bly disappear ere long from those cemeteries for defunct 
 theories, the textbooks. PROF. R. A. PROCTOR. 
 
 55. Various Modifications. Having now glanced over the 
 minor phenomena in the field of the theory of gravitation, 
 the whole domain of its operation may here finally be sur- 
 veyed. Taking the Solar System as a whole, there obviously 
 must have been some primordial state from which the pres- 
 ent arrangement naturally arose. The first theory regarding 
 its evolution was that by Laplace, called the "nebular hy- 
 pothesis." It began with a homogeneous globe of vapor of 
 extreme rarity extending on all sides of the Sun far beyond 
 the orbit of Neptune. In conjunction with the theory of grav- 
 itation, however, the nebular hypothesis meets with numerous 
 
55] THE NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS 85 
 
 insurmountable difficulties; and as, of course, the former 
 could not be questioned, doubt and suspicion were cast upon 
 the latter; so much so that Sir J. Norman Lockyer and others 
 published a new and different theory, the "meteoritic hypoth- 
 esis," which has a still more recent "planetesimal" variant. 
 Instead of a homogeneous vapor, "the meteoritic theory of 
 the universe supposes that in the beginning space was filled 
 by an innumerable multitude of . . . little stony masses 
 moving in all directions with immense velocities the colli- 
 sions of which originate systems such as the Solar System. 
 As meteorites have invariably the appearance of fragments 
 torn from larger bodies by collisions or explosions, Dr. Croll 
 supposes the existence of countless dark stars of enormous 
 velocities primordially colliding, and so, by his Impact The- 
 ory, giving origin to all the various forms of matter seen in 
 the heavens."* 
 
 Now with all deference to the ability and genius of the 
 originators and supporters of this meteoritic hypothesis, many 
 of whom are among our greatest scientific investigators, it 
 cannot be said thai their theory appeals to the mind as a 
 treatment of first principles. These meteoritic stones clearly 
 must have been derived from a preceding state, or indeed sev- 
 eral successive states. We might just as well commence with 
 the worlds we now see about us as to commence with frag- 
 ments which, their own internal evidence shows, have been 
 derived from just such worlds; and which, even after we as- 
 sume them, appear, with regard to their evolution into the 
 present state, to be subject to just as insuperable difficulties 
 as are met with in the nebular hypothesis. Indeed the latter 
 is the only logical theory which treats of absolutely primor- 
 dial conditions; and from what has already in the preceding 
 chapter been learned of the theory of gravitation, which is 
 supposed to govern the operation of the nebular hypothesis, 
 the suspicion very naturally arises that the difficulties which 
 block our progress may not be owing to the latter theory at 
 
 *William Kingdon Clifford, Humboldt Library of Science, No. 166, 
 pp. 26 32. 
 
86 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OP GRAVITATION [55 
 
 all, but to the former itself, which has really furnished all 
 the evidence against the other. The very best character can 
 be impeached by a false witness when the evidence of that 
 witness is unquestioned. 
 
 In any case the nebular hypothesis, being the most logi- 
 cal theory and the most generally accepted, will now be con- 
 sidered in connection with the theory of gravitation in order 
 that the difficulties of its operation may be pointed out and 
 traced to their source, if possible, with a view to their event- 
 ual removal later on. 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 NEBULAR ROTATION AND TRANSLATION 
 
 There has been of late a growing trend of opinion, 
 prompted in part by general philosophical views, in the di- 
 rection that the theoretical conceptions of physical science 
 are largely factitious, that instead of presenting a valid image 
 of the relation of things on which further progress can be 
 based, they are still little better than a mirage. SIR J. 
 LARMOR (quoted by Sir Oliver .Lodge, Address B. A. 1913.) 
 
 The cause of science is more truly served, even by the 
 denial of what may be a truth, than by the indolent accept- 
 ance of it on insufficient grounds. Such denials drive us to a 
 deeper communion with Nature, and, as in the present in- 
 stance, compel us through severe and laborious inquiry to 
 strive after certainty, instead of resting satisfied, as we are 
 prone to do, with mere conjecture. JOHN TYNDALL. 
 
 In our glorification of the Newtonian system we are apt 
 to overlook some obvious facts which the law of gravitation 
 fails to explain. One of these is the rotational velocity of 
 our solar system and of many stellar systems, which cannot 
 be self-generated. Unless we threw our laws of dynamics 
 overboard, or imagine the rotation to have been impressed by 
 creation, we must conclude that some outside body or system 
 of bodies is endowed with an equal and opposite angular 
 momentum. What has become of that outside body, and how 
 could it have parted company with our solar system, if at- 
 tractive forces only were acting? 
 
 PROF. ARTHUR SCHUSTER. 
 
57] NEBULAR ROTATION AND TRANSLATION 87 
 
 56. TKe Primal State of Matter. The most general con- 
 ception involved in the nebular hypothesis is "that of a 
 nebulous matter dispersed in masses throughout the im- 
 mensity of the heavens." This appears to be the postulate 
 of Kant, Huyghens, Sir W. Herschel, Laplace, and, more 
 recently, Herbert Spencer. It is not, however, the most 
 general conception; for Anaxagoras, Democritus, Descartes, 
 Newton, and, it seems, Sir W. Thomson, believed that there 
 primordially existed a universal homogeneous medium, or 
 "primitive fluid," as Sir W. Thomson calls it which certain- 
 ly appears to be the true starting-point of cosmical evolution. 
 But this universal medium may be considered as a grander 
 type of a systemic nebulous mass; and the same reasoning 
 will then apply to both. 
 
 Suppose, then, a vast nebulous mass, employing it as the 
 representative of any nebulous mass down to, and including, 
 the dimensions of the Solar System. And regarding the 
 phenomena likely to arise in such a mass, we may examine 
 here chiefly the views of Mr. Herbert Spencer, which appear 
 to be the most logical and also, approximately, those of the 
 most eminent scientists on this subject. 
 
 57. Atomic Attraction and Repulsion. 
 
 "Given a rare and widely-diffused mass of nebulous matter 
 having a diameter, say as great as the distance from the Sun 
 to Sirius, what are the successive changes that will take 
 place in it? . . . Mutual gravitation will approximate its 
 mass; . . . The approximation will be opposed by atomic 
 repulsion." 
 
 Now here, right in the start, is something that seems very 
 curious. The atoms attract one another and they repel one 
 another at the same time; the clashing of their action caus- 
 ing "the evolution of heat." To use plain language, this 
 idea seems no more conceivable than if it were said that the 
 atoms (in the words of the Greek philosopher Empedocles 
 regarding these two tendencies) both loved and hated one 
 another at the same time. If any two atoms were materially 
 connected, such opposite actions might be intelligible, for, 
 while gravitation would pull them together, the material con- 
 
85 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [59 
 
 nection might hold or push them apart. But, there being no 
 material intermedium, how the two atoms can push-pull or 
 pull-push one another as above intimated, appears to be en- 
 tirely beyond the power of the human mind to grasp. 
 
 58. Cooling and Precipitation of tihe Primordial Vapor. 
 
 "As fast as this heat partially escapes by radiation, fur- 
 ther approximation will take place, followed by further evo- 
 lution of heat, and so on continuously. When a certain 
 amount of heat and pressure is thus attained, some of the 
 atoms will suddenly enter into chemical union." 
 
 But another difficulty occurs here ; for Prof. William 
 Crookes and others maintain that gravitation can exist, or 
 operate to approximate primordial atoms, only after their 
 union has already taken place.* 
 
 "When radiation has adequately lowered the temperature, 
 these newly-formed primary atoms will precipitate . . will 
 aggregate into flocculi, as water precipitated from air forms 
 clouds." 
 
 These flocculi, acted upon by gravitation, 
 
 "must not only be drawn to their common center of grav- 
 ity, but also toward neighboring flocculi. Hence the whole 
 assemblage of flocculi will break up into subordinate groups, 
 each group concentrating toward its local center of gravity." 
 
 In very large nebulae, these groups would become stars 
 and systems. 
 
 59. Rotation by Precipitation of Irregular Flocculi. The 
 flocculi would have irregular shapes, somewhat like snow- 
 flakes, and, in consequence of this, their motion through the 
 rarer substance of the nebulae towards the center would not 
 be in straight lines, but spiral or oblique. 
 
 "What now must result when a flocculus having such 
 oblique movement encounters in its progress a medium that 
 is always denser on the side towards the center than on the 
 side away from it? There must perpetually be caused a 
 deflection by the difference of pressure, which will tend to 
 bring the flocculus to one side or other of the common center 
 of gravity. . . . Each flocculus, in describing its spiral 
 
 *Nature, 34, 432. 
 
G9] NEBULAR ROTATION AND TRANSLATION 89 
 
 course, must give motion to the rarer medium through which 
 it is moving. . . . The probabilities are infinity to one 
 against all the motions thus impressed on the rarer medium 
 balancing each other. . . . The inevitable result must be 
 a rotation of the whole mass of the rarer medium in one 
 direction. . . . Preponderating momentum in one di- 
 rection . . . must gradually arrest such flocculi as are 
 moving in opposition, and impress its own motion upon them; 
 and thus there will ultimately be formed a rotating medium 
 with suspended flocculi partaking of its motion." 
 
 Mr. Spencer's object here is chiefly to show how a rota- 
 tion arises in a riebuluous mass, such as the original solar 
 spheroid. Now, let it be granted that gravitation will approx- 
 imate the mass-atoms; that compound flocculi will consequent- 
 ly be formed; that the flocculi will be of irregular shape; that 
 the central rarer medium will be most dense; and that the 
 direction of motion of the flocculi towards the center will 
 therefore be spiral or oblique all of which are quite open to 
 debate it is still impossible that rotation of the mass as a 
 whole can consequently arise. 
 
 If, at any distance from the mass-center, flocculi should 
 be drawn towards that center, it is clear that the rarer med- 
 ium through which the flocculi moved would also be attracted 
 towards that center; and although the rarer medium would not 
 have actually approached to the center so much as the floc- 
 culi, yet it would be held to that center firmly by the agency 
 which carried the flocculi inwards. Therefore, from the ut- 
 most distance at which a flocculus would move inwards to the 
 center, the rarer medium through which it moved would be- 
 long to the central mass towards which the flocculus was 
 attracted. In fact, the rarer medium would be the so-called 
 atmosphere of the central mass, and would always appertain 
 and adhere to that mass at least unil the formation of the 
 first vapor-ring. 
 
 In that case, then, how can any motion of the mass as a 
 whole ever arise? Do not the motions and the irregularities 
 of the motions of the flocculi all arise in the mass itself? 
 And would it not be as rational for us to hold that we could 
 accelerate the Earth's rotation by sliding a large rock down 
 
SO OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [59 
 
 I he inclined east side of a mountain, or that we could increase 
 the speed of a vessel by blowing upon its sails from a bellows 
 placed in the stern, as to hold that any spontaneous, internal 
 motions of the components of a mass will cause motion of that 
 mass as a whole? Indeed, it is a well-known law the third 
 law of Newton that action and reaction are always exactly 
 equal and opposite. Applying this law to special cases it 
 means that a gun, e. g., when fired, has precisely the same 
 quantity of motion, or momentum, backwards in the recoil 
 as the bullet has forwards, or that the rock which has rolled 
 down the inclined side of a mountain conveys precisely the 
 same amount of motion to the earth at the foot of the moun- 
 tain, in one direction, as it has conveyed to the mountain it- 
 self in the opposite direction during its descent; or, which is 
 a precisely analogous case, that the flocculus in its irregular 
 descent towards the mass-center will transmit just as much 
 and no more motion to the central mass in one direction as 
 it has transmitted in its descent in the opposite direction to 
 the rarer medium through which it fell. The supposed re- 
 sistance offered by the rarer medium to a flocculus on the 
 side next to the center can be nothing more than the mere 
 displacement of the atoms or particles of that medium in one 
 direction simultaneously with the deflection of the flocculus 
 in the opposite direction. The flocculus may, for this illus- 
 tration, be taken to be a solid body, like a marble or ball, 
 which is falling through a vast number of smaller marbles 
 or balls freely suspended in space. The large ball, as it 
 starts upon its downward journey, will, it is supposed, strike 
 against one of the small balls of the rarer medium, and so 
 suffer deflection from its central course. But the small ball 
 is also deflected; and, by the third law of motion, the mo 
 mentum of each ball away from the radius would be precisely 
 equal and opposite; and since every subsequent collision of 
 the large ball with the small balls must be precisely similar 
 in this respect to the first collision, as well as that other 
 flocculi must also be similar in the same respect to this par- 
 
60] NEBULAR ROTATION AND TRANSLATION 91 
 
 ticular flocculus it clearly follows that however much denser 
 may be the central medium, and however irregular may be 
 the downward motion of the flocculus, there can never arise 
 the slightest motion one way or the other that would tend 
 to rotate the gaseous spheroid as a whole. 
 
 It may be, as Mr. Spencer states, that the probabilities are 
 infinity to one against all the motions impressed upon the 
 rarer medium by the falling flocculi balancing each other. 
 It is equally improbable also that all the motions impressed 
 upon the central mass thereby will balance each other. Ac- 
 cording to Mr. Spencer's theory, therefore, there would be, in 
 all probability, a rotation of the rarer medium and a rotation 
 of the central mass. But what is fatal to this theory is that 
 the third law of motion teaches that the one rotation must be 
 precisely equal to the other. If by mutual friction the two 
 rotations should counteract one another, there would be no 
 preponderance whatever to rotation of the whole mass in 
 any direction; and it would remain in a state of complete rest 
 as respects axial rotation. And, on the other hand, the the- 
 ory of the co-existence of the two rotations is emphatically 
 denied by the uniform direction of the orbital motions of the 
 planets and the axial rotation of the Sun. Mr. Spencer's the- 
 ory seems, therefore, utterly untenable. It wholly fails to as- 
 sign a possible cause for the rotation of the original solar 
 spheroid. And without such rotation, the separation of vapor- 
 rings is, of course, absolutely precluded by the law of gravi- 
 tation. 
 
 60. Rotation by Nebular Collisions. Now, if it be impossi- 
 ble that rotation of a vast nebulous mass can arise owing to 
 internal agency, there is yet one, and only one, cause to 
 which such rotation may be ascribed, namely, external agen- 
 cy. Certain scientists hold that rotation would very proba- 
 bly arise in this way; and the premises involved may be ex- 
 amined to see what conclusion may be derived therefrom. 
 
 (a) Density of the Primordial Vapor. The true ultimate 
 postulate of cosmic evolution, as already intimated, is the one 
 universal medium. This medium, in some way or other, is 
 
92 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [60 
 
 supposed to have eventually segregated into the nebulous 
 masses of matter postulated by Laplace. Now, according to 
 current views, no cause for such segregation is conceivable 
 save the attraction of gravity drawing the surrounding mat- 
 ter towards local centers or nuclei; whence would result the 
 nebular masses of which Laplace speaks. One of these mass- 
 es was originally our Solar System, and others became the 
 fixed stars and nebulae of the Sidereal System. Now the 
 interval between the Solar System and the nearest star or 
 nebula is about twenty billions of miles, (the distance of 
 Alpha Centauri), or about seven times the radius of the known 
 Solar System. Assuming that the primordial vapor of the 
 Solar System and of the contiguous systems have contracted 
 at about the same rate, we have half the distance of cur 
 nearest sidereal neighbors, or about three and one-half times 
 the distance of Neptune, as the probable primitive limit of 
 the homogeneous solar substance. To find the corresponding 
 primordial density, we have, then, the total mass of all the 
 principal bodies of the Solar System, about 324,873, and their 
 total volume, about 1,285,833, the Earth being the unit of 
 both mass and volume; consequently, the average densitv 
 of the matter of our system today is 0.2526, the Earth's den- 
 sity being unity. But since the Earth's density is said to be 
 5.66 times that of water; and since the density of water is 
 773.28 times that of air, then the present average density of 
 the matter of the Solar System with reference to air is about 
 1107.* Since volumes vary as the cubes of their like dimen- 
 sions, and the radius of the present total volume, as above, 
 of the Solar System, being about 430,000 miles, and of the 
 primordial solar spheroid about 9,700,000,000 miles, then the 
 present and primitive volumes of the Solar System will be to 
 each other as (43) E and (970,000) 8 , respectively. The original 
 density is, therefore, (43) 3 X1107/(970,000) 3 , or about 10- 1U , that 
 of air being unity, or thirty times less than the most perfect 
 vacuum produced by the Gaede atomic airpump exhausting 
 *Compare Amiuaire du Bureau des Longitudes, 1881. 
 
60] NEBULAR ROTATION AND TRANSLATION 93 
 
 to 1/300,000,000 of an atmosphere; which would be equal to 
 about 1/700,000 of a grain per cubic yard. 
 
 (b) Conditions of Nebular Condensation. This, according 
 to present ideas, would be the probable density of the original 
 universal medium. And by the attraction of gravitation (if 
 in such a medium a center of attraction is conceivable) this 
 medium began to concentrate around local centers or nuclei. 
 Slowly and gradually the interval between the borders of the 
 contiguous nebulae widened. Having such extreme rarity, 
 the periphery of a nebula would concentrate at equal rates 
 upon all sides ; and this would continue until the interval be- 
 tween neighboring nebulae was very great. How, then, is it 
 possible that motion of a nebula, as a whole, can arise? Con- 
 densation of a nebula towards its center can not surely cause 
 a translation of that nebula in space; and neither can it cause 
 the separation and translation in space of any portion of that 
 nebula. Yet Prof. Alexander Winchell states* that "the most 
 plausible conception of the forming process of nebulae rep- 
 resents them as falling together and acquiring of necessity 
 a rotary motion from an early stage of their existence"; and 
 again he states that owing to these collisions "the chances 
 of the causation of rotary motion are nearly as infinity to 
 unity." And even Sir William Thomson maintained the prob- 
 ability of these collisions, t 
 
 In another place, J in a statement of an original theory of 
 his own, Prof. Winchell says: 
 
 "The universal world-stuff is scattered generally through 
 boundless space. Perhaps, as Macvicar and Saigey have sug- 
 gested, this primordial stuff in an extreme state of attenuation 
 is the ether, the medium whose vibrations, according to Dr. 
 Young, striking the retina, produce the sensation of light. 
 Out of this semi-spiritual substance germinates, then, the 
 molecules of common matter. ... It may be, on the 
 other hand, only a highly attenuated condition of ordinary 
 matter, or matter in a state of ultimate dissociation. This 
 characteristic world-stuff, born out of ether, in the depths 
 
 * World-Life, p. 170. 
 tNature, 35, 299. 
 JWorld-Life, pp. 65-6. 
 
94 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OP GRAVITATION [61 
 
 of space, or however born, strewn through the depths of 
 space, is acted upon by forces of attraction and probably of 
 repulsion. The material particles, either as atoms, or less 
 probably as molecules, are drawn by mutual attraction into 
 groups and swarms." 
 
 This is essentially the same view of nebular evolution as 
 that just described in the preceding pages, and in logical ac- 
 cordance with which it is wholly incomprehensible how "the 
 collisions of nebular masses," which Prof. Winchell so con- 
 fidently postulates, can arise. It is somewhat strange that 
 Prof. Winchell did not attempt to explain the cause of these 
 collisions, although he states that the difficulty of nebular 
 rotation which he sought to explain by them "has often balked 
 belief in the nebular theory of the origin of the solar system." 
 It certainly is no explanation of nebular rotations to say that 
 they are caused by still more inexplicable nebular collisions. 
 Such attempts at explanation may be consistent with the idea 
 of "the ever-present activity of an intelligent personality con- 
 trolling and effectuating all the operations of nature;"* but 
 it hardly seems consistent with the idea of natural causation. 
 
 61. Rotation by the Attraction of Distant Masses). Two 
 other external causes of nebular rotation may be noticed, 
 namely, the attraction of distant masses upon amorphous neb- 
 ular forms and the attraction of distant masses upon precip- 
 itating nebular particles. 
 
 With respect to the first, it may be said that such amor- 
 phous forms are themselves incompatible with the theory of 
 gravitation. How vapor of such extreme tenuity, condensing 
 on all sides upon an attracting center, could assume an ir- 
 regular form can not be explained. Moreover we have no 
 certain proof that such forms exist. The apparent irregular 
 forms of nebulae may be entirely owing to their immense dis- 
 tance from us, coupled with our own feebleness of vision. 
 
 With respect to the other alleged cause of nebular rotation 
 it may be said that the external masses which would influence 
 a falling particle are so very distant from, and so nearly uni- 
 formly distributed around, the Solar System, that the prepon- 
 
 *World-Life, p. 94. 
 
62] NEBULAR ROTATION AND TRANSLATION 95 
 
 derance of attraction, if any at all existed, must be so infin- 
 itesimal as to require almost an eternity to deviate the path 
 of a particle a single hair's-breadth. Moreover, if we only 
 enter into the details, we shall find that there really can not 
 exist any preponderance of external attraction tending to ro- 
 tation of a nebula. For, granting that an external attraction 
 did exist, which measurably deflected the path of a falling 
 particle towards the center from which this perturbing force 
 emanated, it is manifest that the tailing particles in the op- 
 posite hemisphere of the nebula would be acted upon with 
 precisely the same energy and effect by this perturbing at- 
 traction. And the particles being equally deflected towards 
 the same point, and moving in opposite directions, just what 
 the deflection of the particles of one hemisphere tended to 
 rotate the nebula in one direction, just so much precisely 
 would the deflection of the particles of the opposite hemi- 
 sphere tend to rotate it in the opposite direction, and both 
 tendencies would exactly balance. And similarly also with 
 all other external attractions, so that not even an infinitesi- 
 mal preponderance of perturbing attraction could exist avail- 
 able for nebular rotation. 
 
 Yet Sir Robert Stawell Ball says: "There is no difficulty 
 in conceiving how a nebula, quite independently of any in- 
 ternal motion of its parts, shall also have as a whole a move- 
 ment of rotation."* 
 
 62. Discordance of the Theory with the Facts. But never- 
 theless, nebular rotation is a fact a fact which it is not at 
 all attempted here to deny; for it is simply endeavored to be 
 shown that the current theory does not furnish any rational 
 explanation of it. Moreover, nebular rotation is not an ul- 
 timate or final fact like the existence of matter or of force, 
 any more than rotation of the Earth is an ultimate fact. If 
 the idea of rotation were applied to the material universe as 
 a whole, the claim would then logically apply that this rota- 
 tion was an ultimate, and therefore an inexplicable, fact. But 
 it seems really absurd to claim that the rotation and trans- 
 
 *Ency. Britt. Art. "Astronomy." 
 
96 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [62 
 
 lation of discrete masses of matter, such as the solar spher- 
 oid and the innumerable similar masses in the Sidereal Sys- 
 tem, are ultimate facts in the case of each body. Such a 
 lavish application of the idea of finality is simply an indi- 
 cation of poverty of knowledge of the proximate facts of Na- 
 ture in the theory which unavoidably resorts to it, and the 
 same remarks equally apply to nebular collisions; but, as al- 
 ready intimated, such collisions, in the early stages of neb- 
 ular evolution, should be regarded as very improbable, to say 
 the least. It seems far more probable that the Solar System, 
 stars, and nebulae have each a proper orbital motion and that 
 their' relative distances are generally invariable beyond cer- 
 tain limits, much like the planets of our own system a mod- 
 ification of the views of Kant, Herschel, and Laplace. These 
 two facts of nebular translation and nebular rotation must 
 surely have had a natural cause; that is, they must have been 
 brought about by the action of natural forces precisely in the 
 same manner as other natural phenomena, with which we 
 are familiar. And the action of these forces in producing such 
 simple effects in such a multitude of cases ought not to be 
 beyond our comprehension in the case of a nebula a whit more 
 than in the case of more familiar phenomena, if only the in- 
 investigation takes place equally in each case upon a basis 
 of facts. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 PROJECTION OF PLANETRINGS 
 
 Even the great Newton pretended to see the finger of 
 God in the tangential or lateral motion of the stars; and 
 Laplace himself could not refrain from exclaiming "O philos- 
 opher, show me the hand which has thrown the planets on 
 the tangents of their orbits!" BUCHNER. 
 
 Berzelius laid down the following principle: The test 
 of the truth of a theory is that it should harmonize the par- 
 ticular instance with the whole system of science; for the 
 laws of nature are always consistent with one another. Now 
 if you advance a principle which makes an exception of what 
 was before consistent with scientific ideas, logic pronounces 
 against you. R. MELDOLA. 
 
 Obstinate adherence to things antiquated and irreconcil- 
 able with advancing knowledge and thought, may repel, and 
 forever, how many, I know not; how far, I know still less. 
 Avertat omen Deus. DEAN MILMAN. 
 
 63. Modification of the Radial and the Tangential Forces 
 by Contraction. But let us assume the existence of nebular 
 rotation. In defense of such assumptions it is sometimes 
 claimed, as already intimated, that we always arrive sooner 
 or later at Questions of origin, which must for the time being 
 remain unanswered. But the validity of this defense, except 
 in the case of a proved ultimate fact, ought not to be allowed, 
 as has just been shown. And neither should it be allowed, 
 according with Prof. A. Winchell, e. g., that "many different 
 modes of action, for the production of a particular result are 
 possible''; but choose rather to hold that there can be but 
 one correct explanation and one possible cause of any par- 
 ticular phenomenon, and that all other explanations of it are 
 precluded by the true one. It is not meant that a combination 
 of effects, such as determine the Earth's orbit, may not have 
 a combination of causes, some of which, from their small- 
 ness, may remain for a time undetermined. But the simple 
 fact of the Earth's orbital motion (or the equally simple fact 
 
98 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OP GRAVITATION [63 
 
 of nebular rotation) can obviously have but the one true gen- 
 eral explanation. 
 
 But merely for the sake of examining the nebular hypoth- 
 esis a few steps further, let the tatement of Helmholtz be 
 conceded, that nebular rotation "must be assumed." Taking 
 the case of the original solar spheroid, and supposing either, 
 with Laplace, that it consists of a brilliant and dense nucleus 
 surrounded by a rare nebulosity or atmosphere, or, with M. 
 Faye, that it consists of a globular nebula gradually increas- 
 mg in density from circumference to center; and granting 
 its axial rotation, let us see if, according to current scientific 
 views, the alleged vapor-rings could possibly be generated. 
 
 Evidently the centrifugal tendency at the equator of the 
 spheroid, owing to its axial rotation, must have been less than 
 the power of the central attraction prior to the genesis of the 
 first ring. If this be granted, as, in fact, it must be and is 
 by every supporter of the nebular hypothesis, then it can be 
 shown that the more the spheroid contracts its volume, the 
 less relatively to the central attraction will become the cen- 
 trifugal tendency, thus making the projection of a vapor-ring 
 an impossibility. Suppose, for illustration, that the initial 
 velocity of the spheroid's equatorial surface was one mile 
 per second; and suppose that subsequently the spheroid con- 
 tracted to about one-third of its original diameter, or to the 
 orbit of Neptune; then, by the law of gravitation, the central 
 attraction at the smaller radius would be nine times as power- 
 ful as at the original radius; and, not only this, but at the 
 smaller radius the surface is only one-ninth what it was at 
 the larger radius; so that nine times the attraction upon the 
 original surface, is, after contraction, concentrated upon one- 
 ninth of that original surface, and therefore the central attrac- 
 tion upon a unit of the contracted surface is eighty-one times 
 as great as upon an equal unit of the original surface.* The 
 centrifugal tendency would also become more powerful, but 
 in a much smaller ratio; for the absolute velocity of the 
 equatorial surface, as we have seen (Art. 41), would still be 
 
 *J. Homer Lane, Am. Jour. Sci., July, 1870; A. Winchell, WorlcU 
 Life, p. 84; Newcomb's Pop. Astron., p. 520. 
 
64] PROJECTION OF PLANET-RINGS 99 
 
 no greater than one mile per second. And as the centrifugal 
 force varies as the square of the velocity divided by the ra- 
 dius, it follows that, while the central attraction becomes 
 eighty-one times as powerful owing to this shrinkage of the 
 spheroid, the centrifugal or ring-making tendency becomes 
 only three times as powerful. In other words, the central 
 attraction increases as the fourth power of the radius dimin- 
 ishes, while the centrifugal tendency increases simply as the 
 first power of the radius diminishes. And even if all that 
 the current theory claims in this respect be granted, the cen- 
 trifugal tendency would increase only as the square of the 
 radius diminishes. Thus it is clearly seen that, whatever the 
 radius of the spheroid would be, the central attraction is al- 
 ways in excess of the centrifugal tendency. And the greater 
 the concentration of the spheroid, the less powerful relatively 
 to the central attraction becomes the centrifugal, or ring-pro- 
 ducing, force. 
 
 This appears to dispose of the theory of gravitation com- 
 pletely as accounting for the projection of rings from the 
 original spheroid. According to that theory, the central at- 
 traction increases as the square of the radius of the spheroid 
 diminishes; and the centrifugal tendency increases at the 
 same rate as the central attraction. Then where is the force 
 that causes the projection of the ring, since both of the prin- 
 cipal forces increase at the same rate? If there were no 
 other consideration than this alone, the projection of rings 
 would be quite inexplicable by the theory. But, as just seen, 
 the central attraction increases, not, as the square of the ra- 
 dius diminishes, but as the fourth power of the radius dimin- 
 ishes; and it appears also that the centrifugal force would 
 increase only as the first power of the radius diminishes. 
 
 64. T,he Generation of a Repulsive Force, or Heat, by Con- 
 traction. It is sometimes assumed that a third force acts upon 
 an equatorial particle of a spheroid a force of repulsion urg- 
 ing the particle from the center. The difficulty of conceiving 
 how this force of repulsion for the particle can emanate from 
 
100 OBJECTIONS TO VHE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [64 
 
 sister particles from which in the same moment emanates 
 a force of attraction for the particle, has already been refer- 
 red to. 
 
 Prof. Simon Newcomb, speaking of the Sun's heat, says: 
 
 "As his globe cools off it must contract, and the heat gen- 
 erated by this contraction will suffice to make up almost the 
 entire loss."* 
 
 Speaking of a gaseous body, he again says: 
 
 "The more heat such a body loses the hotter it will be- 
 come. By losing heat a gaseous body contracts, and the heat 
 generated by the contraction exceeds that which it had to 
 lose in order to produce the contraction. "f 
 
 This doctrine is known as "Lane's Law." In plain words, 
 it means that cooling causes contraction and contraction 
 causes heat; or, briefly, cooling causes heat. In fact a little 
 cooling causes a great deal of heat. In a gaseous body, ac- 
 cording to Prof. Newcomb, the loss of heat to cause contrac- 
 tion is less than the gain of heat which that contraction gen- 
 erates ; from which it would seem that the more a body cooled, 
 the hotter it would get; and from which, if any conclusion 
 whatever is allowable from such apparently absurd premises, 
 it would follow that such a body could never cool, and there- 
 fore never contract, at all. Yet in view of all the insurmount- 
 able difficulties here pointed out, Sir William Thomson, Pres- 
 ident of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, communicated a 
 paper, March 7, 1887, to that Society, stating that in the light 
 of thermo-dynamical principles Laplace's theory is seen to be, 
 not a mere plausible theory, but a statement of actual fact. 
 He has not, indeed, committed himself to the foregoing view 
 of Prof. Newcomb and others, for in a lecture upon the Sun's 
 heat} he assumes that his hearers are no longer misled by 
 such a delusion. Still he maintains that the heat generated 
 by the Sun's contraction owing to cooling differs so little from, 
 as to be practically equivalent to, the heat that is radiated 
 
 *Pop. Astion., 6th! ed. p. 519-20. 
 
 tlbid. 
 
 J Royal Institution, London, Jan. 21, 1887. 
 
f,5] PROJECTION OP PLANET-KINGS 101 
 
 from the Sun at the same time.* But this view appears to 
 be only a little more logical, or rather a little less illogical, 
 than the other. For if the gain and the loss of heat at the 
 Sun's surface are practically equivalent, how can fhe Sun 
 cool at all so as to admit of contraction? 
 
 Now if it be held that the gain of heat generated by con- 
 traction does not exceed the loss of heat necessary to cause 
 that contraction (which is the view of Thomson, Siemens, 
 Lockyer, Helmholtz, Williams, etc.), then it obviously follows 
 that the force of repulsion (or the heat) after contraction is 
 no greater than it was before contraction; which for the pres- 
 ent purpose wholly eliminates this agent as a factor in the 
 generation of planet-rings upon the bosom of the solar spher- 
 oid. And therefore the tendency to the projection of such 
 rings from the contracted surface of that spheroid as com- 
 pared with the tendency to non-projection of such rings, or 
 adherence of all matter to the spheroid itself, remains as de- 
 termined by the centrifugal force of rotation and the central 
 force of attraction; that is, as the first power of the con- 
 tracted radius is to its fourth power, in favor of the latter, 
 supposing that the tendency to projection and to non-projec- 
 tion were equal, or balanced, at the original surface. 
 
 65. Conflicting Theories of Ring-Projection. In further 
 illustration of the chaotic confusion to which the nebular hy- 
 pothesis, subject to the law of gravitation, leads, it may be 
 remarked that Sir David Brewster approved a calculation by 
 M. Babinet that when the solar spheroid had contracted to 
 the present orbit of the Earth, its period of rotation, accord- 
 ing to the nebular hypothesis (assuming the accepted solar 
 density and equal angular velocity of all parts) must have 
 been 3,181 years! although the Earth itself, which by the same 
 hypothesis was but a portion of the solar surface at that time, 
 performs its annual revolution in one year! Mr. Herbert 
 Spencer disapproved of such calculations, and remarked upon 
 
 *Macmillan's Magazine, March 1862. and Thomson and Tait's Natur- 
 al Philosophy, Appendix E 
 
102 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [65 
 
 "the extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, of subjecting the 
 nebular hypothesis to mathematical treatment."* 
 
 M. Faye, disbelieving the possibility of ring-projection ac- 
 cording to the conceptions of Laplace, says: 
 
 "By the intervention of heat and the play of centrifugal 
 force, Laplace caused to be produced a totally different dis- 
 tribution of the mass and of its movements. This corre- 
 sponds, to a certain extent, with what we see. But thia in- 
 tervention of heat is itself pure hypothesis. To justify it we 
 must suppose, with Poisson, that there are in the universe 
 regions with very different temperatures, and that the prim- 
 itive globe, by virtue of its motion of translation, had passed 
 into one of the hottest." f 
 
 But he assigns no cause whatever for such ring-projection 
 according to the somewhat different conceptions from that of 
 Laplace which he himself entertains of the solar spheroid. 
 He gets over the difficulty thus: "If, then, trains of matter 
 
 somewhat circular, in a word, rings like those of Saturn, 
 
 become finally established in the bosom of the nebula" with- 
 out attempting to assign the slightest physical cause of their 
 becoming so established. 
 
 Another view by Phillip Spiller is that the planets are pro- 
 jected out from a liquid Sun by the centrifugal force of ro- 
 tation and a tidal swell caused by another body; that Saturn 
 was projected by the tidal swell caused by Uranus; that Ura- 
 nus was projected by the tidal swell caused by Neptune.$ But 
 the projection of Neptune itself is not accounted for; and it 
 is moreover disputed by modern astronomers that even now 
 the Sun has attained a liquid condition. And Prof. R. A. Proc- 
 tor expressed his belief upon the subject as follows: 
 
 "No one who applies the laws of physics, as at present 
 known, to the theory of the simple contraction of a great neb- 
 ulous mass formerly extending far beyond the orbit of Nep- 
 tune, till, when planet after planet had been thrown off, the 
 sun was left in his present form and condition in the center, 
 will fail to perceive enormous difficulties in the hypothesis. 
 
 *First Principles, p. 365. 
 tComptes Rendus, March 22, 1880. 
 
 $Prof. Gr. H. Darwin held a nearly similar view concerning the re- 
 tirement of the lunar mass from the semi-fluid Earth. 
 
66] PROJECTION OF PLANET-RINGS 103 
 
 . , . Has it ever occured, I often wonder, to those who 
 glibly quote the nebular theory as originally propounded, to 
 inquire how far some of the processes suggested by JLaplace 
 are in accordance with the now known laws of physics?"* 
 
 And what is Prof. Proctor's improvement upon the Laplac- 
 ean conception? Simply the addition of accretion to contrac- 
 tion, and an assumption of a central nucleus and subordinate 
 nuclei with independent motions! an assumption which, al- 
 though apparently countenanced by men of such eminence as 
 Kant, Sir W. Herschel, and Herbert Spencer, is so manifestly 
 improbable that it need not here be discussed. 
 
 As already stated, the theory of Laplace is the one now 
 generally accepted. M. Wolf in his Cosmogonic Hypotheses 
 shows that, as completed by the labors of M. Roche and other 
 savants, that theory still answers best to the conditions re- 
 quired of a cosmogonic hypothesis. These criticisms, as al- 
 ready intimated, are not directed at it, but almost entirely to 
 the application thereto of the theory of gravitation. 
 
 66. Discordance of the Theory With the Facts. From all 
 points of view, then, the nebular hypothesis, as subject to the 
 theory of gravitation, seems rationally unapproachable. If we 
 ask how the nebular primordial rotation originated, we find 
 that every assignable cause eludes rational conception. 
 Whether it be the centerward spiral movement of irregular 
 flocculi through a rarer atmosphere, the collisions of nebular 
 masses, or the various attractions of distant nebular masses 
 either upon the concentrating particles of a nebula, or upon 
 amorphous nebular forms each such assignable agency, when 
 ultimately analyzed, proves to be entirely visionary. Yet it 
 is undeniable that such rotation must actually have existed. 
 And, for the moment, granting the existence of primordial 
 rotation as an ultimate fact, when we inquire how this rota- 
 tion became accelerated so as to project the planets outwards 
 from the solar spheroid, we are met by equally unsurmount- 
 able difficulties. For, if we assume the agency to be con- 
 traction of the spheroid, we find that such contraction in- 
 
 *Humbcldt Library cf Science, III, 351. 
 
104 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [66 
 
 creases the central attraction much more rapidly than it does 
 the tangential, or ring-producing, force; if we assume the 
 generation of a repulsive force, or Jieat, by such contraction, 
 it leads us to the self-contradictory conclusion that the cooling 
 of the solar spheroid engendered a more intense degree of 
 heat than that which existed before the cooling began. While 
 we know that nebular rotation, translation, and acceleration 
 of the tangential velocity of rotation must have taken place 
 and muse have* had physical causes, it seems that all our in- 
 quiries after such causes are utterly baffled by some ever- 
 present preconception which enters the fabric or our thoughts, 
 or upon which our inquiries are based; and this ever-present 
 premise is evidently none other than the theory of universal 
 gravitation. 
 
 There really can be scarcely a doubt of the truth of the 
 nebular hypothesis. Sir Robert S. Ball himself admitted that, 
 "if the direction of movement" of all the bodies of the Solar 
 System "were merely decided by chance, the probability 
 against such an arrangement" (the present arrangement) " is 
 represented by the ratio of unity to a number containing 
 about eighty figures." Yet the only explanation of the pres- 
 ent arrangement is furnished by the nebular hypothesis or 
 some near modification of it. But we know the nebular hy- 
 pothesis lies in inextricable difficulties at the present time 
 and we know moreover that the only company it has kept is 
 the law of gravitation and a few subordinate laws dependent 
 thereon. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE IDEA OF FORCE 
 
 Matter is not that "mere empty capacity which philoso- 
 phers have pictured her to be, but the universal mother who 
 brings forth all things as the fruit of her own womb." 
 
 BKUNO. 
 
 We can thus, by a touch, call into action at will an in- 
 definite number of stresses, and put them again out of ex- 
 istence as easily. This, of itself, is a very strong argument 
 against the supposition that force in any form can have ob- 
 jective reality. PROF. P. G. TAIT. 
 
 All our experience, without a single exception, enforces 
 the proposition that no body moves in any direction, or in 
 any way, except when some other body in contact with it 
 presses upon it. The action is direct. In a letter from New- 
 ton to his friend Bentley, he says: "It must not be forgotten 
 that energy is not a simple factor, but is always a product of 
 two factors: a mass with a velocity, a mass with a temper- 
 ature, a quantity of electricity with a pressure, and so on. 
 One may sometimes meet the statement that matter and 
 energy are the two realities; both are spoken of as entities. 
 It is much more philosophical to speak of matter and motion; 
 for in the absence of motion there is no energy, and the en- 
 ergy varies as the amount of motion; and furthermore, to 
 understand any manifestation of energy one must inquire 
 what kind of motion is involved." PROF. E. A. DOLtfEAR. 
 
 The aim and effort of science is to explain the unknown 
 in terms of the* known. Explanation, therefore, is condition- 
 ed by knowledge. . . . Instead of introducing light into 
 our minds, this hypothesis considered scientifically increases 
 our darkness. You do not in this case explain the unknown 
 in terms of the known, which as stated above, is the method 
 of science, but you explain the unknown in terms of the 
 more unknown. JOHN TYNDALL. 
 
 67. Force and Gravity. This part of the present work was 
 commenced by asking What is the law of gravitation? and it 
 may fittingly be closed with another question What is 
 gravity ? 
 
106 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OP GRAVITATION [67 
 
 According to the theory of gravitation, gravity is an en- 
 tity called force. What is force? We understand the term 
 when applied to denote a mode, such as strength or violence of 
 action or impact; but as an entity, a thing, we really have no 
 conception of it. It seems to be merely a, cloak with which 
 to cover our ignorance; nothing more. 
 
 The entity, force, is supposed to be something that ema- 
 nates from bodies as a sort of spiritual aura or atmosphere 
 which extends outwards in all directions into space whether 
 empty or full of matter, and so causing these bodies to act 
 where they themselves do not exist. But all our experience 
 tarnishes no analogue of this and therefore it is quite beyond 
 our comprehension. Even Newton himself, in his Bentley 
 Letters, emphatically disavows this idea. In his third letter 
 he says: 
 
 "That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to 
 matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance 
 through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, 
 by and through which their action and force may be con- 
 veyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, 
 that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a 
 competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it." 
 
 Before the British Association, Sept. 8, 1876, Prof. Tait 
 said : 
 
 "Why two masses of matter possess potential energy when 
 separated, in virtue of which they are conveniently said to 
 attract one another is still one of the most obscure problems 
 in physics." 
 
 So also Prof. Challis: 
 
 "Actio in distans does not admit of being explained by any 
 previous or concomitant knoledge, but if it be a reality, must 
 forever remain incomprehensible."* 
 
 "But no scientific theory is final until its ultimate postu- 
 late is inconceivable. . . . For if the successively deeper 
 interpretations of nature which constitute advancing knowl- 
 edge are merely successive inclusions of special truths in 
 general truths, and general truths in truths still more general, 
 it obviously follows that the most general truth, not admitting 
 
 *Phil. Mag., 1859, 13, 451. 
 
67 J THE IDEA OF FORCE lOT 
 
 of inclusion in any other, does not admit of interpretation. 
 Manifestely as the most general cognition at which we can 
 arrive can not be reduced to a more general one, it can not 
 be understood. The deepest truth which we can get at must 
 be unaccountable."* 
 
 It is indeed true that continued explanation will at length 
 bring us to the inexplicable; but this does not appear to be 
 a sufficient reason why we should permit our imagination 
 to multiply inexplicables unnecessarily. There must of ne- 
 cessity be one thing that is incomprehensible, but it by no 
 means follows from this that there must be two. Yet the 
 ultimate nature of matter is inexplicable, and here is added 
 to it the inexplicable entity, force. Now master is some- 
 thing which we know to exist, if we know anything; and no 
 one has yet observed, or even conceived the idea of, force 
 separate from matter. Prof. P. G. Tait says: "Till we know 
 what the ultimate nature of matter is, it will be premature 
 to speculate a"s to the ultimate nature of force." t We know 
 that matter exists. We do not know that matter is incapable 
 of performing all the functions ascribed to force, because we 
 do not know the ultimate nature and capabilities of matter 
 at all. It is not explanation and it is not science or logic to 
 endeavor to explain a certain entity or action by the supposi- 
 tion ot another entity, not only less certain, but even incon- 
 ceivable. 
 
 "In physics we should banish the practice of explaining 
 phenomena by chimerical principles more obscure than those 
 presented for investigation. "$ 
 
 It is far more in accordance with the law of parsimony, 
 everywhere manifested throughout Nature, that this inex- 
 plicable and superfluous idea of force should be abandoned. 
 Many brilliant students of Nature have endeavored to do this, 
 even Newton himself as we have just seen in his third Bently 
 letter. 
 
 "Maxwell established the mathematical validity of the way 
 
 *Horbert Spencer, First Principles, (Second Edition) p. 73. 
 tNorth British Review, Feb. 1864. 
 JJohn Bernouilli, Oper Omnia, sec. 32. p. 288. 
 
108 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [67 
 
 in which Faraday was accustomed to represent to himself 
 the mechanical interactions across space."* 
 
 "In 1845, Lord Kelvin was already mathematically formu- 
 lating with most suggestive success^ continuous elastic con- 
 nections by whose strain the fields of electric currents .. . 
 would be illustrated. And so also Prof. Tait, to whom, as 
 every one knows, or should know, we owe the first clear 
 demonstration of the dogma that force has no objective ex- 
 istence."t 
 
 But after all, the old so-called Newtonian idea of attractive 
 force is the accepted idea today. Newton himself in later 
 years returned to it "as if driven back from every assault to 
 the only retreat which in earlier years he had stigmatized 
 as 'so great an absurdity' that no competent thinker could 
 'ever fall into it.' "J Lord Kelvin also confessed that gravi- 
 tation "was a fundamental fact behind which it was impossible 
 to get." And Wm. B. Taylor, after summarizing various 
 theories, says : 
 
 "Gravitation, therefore, is not a motion; nor is it thte 
 product of any motion. We are forced to the conclusion, how- 
 eveit 'unable to conceive' the fact, that it is really an actio 
 in distans, and that infinitum; that it is a force, a faint re- 
 flex of its Author, instantaneously omnipresent." 
 
 And, later, after a thorough discussion of all the views on 
 gravitation of about all the philosophers of modern times, he 
 says || that the usual statement of the law of gravitation 
 
 "after two centuries of busy thought and daring specula- 
 tion, still remains the largest, . clearest, surest, yet attained 
 by man; and with each revolving year new demonstrations of 
 its absolute precision and of its universal domination serve 
 only to fill the mind with added wonder and with added con- 
 fidence in the stability and the supremacy of the power, in 
 Wihich has been found no variableness, neither shadow of 
 turning, but which is the same yesterday, today and forever." 
 
 Some one has said that the more absurd and inexplicable, 
 if not even ridiculous, a doctrine appears to be, the more ad- 
 
 *Nature, 46, 62, 463. 
 
 fNature, 46, 98 
 
 $Wm. B. Taylor. Gravitation, p. 5; Smith. Kept., 1876. 
 
 Royal Society, London; Dec. 17, 1900. 
 
 Nature and Origin of Force; Smith. Rept., 1870. 
 
 H Smith. Rept., 1876. 
 
67] THE IDEA OF FORCE 109 
 
 herents it usually receives. Mr. Taylor says:* "It may be 
 a fact of natural law that everything 'acts where it is not' 
 
 . . and certainly there is no difficulty in believing it." 
 Yet he quotes exactly such difficulty in the cases of many 
 of the greatest intellects of the scientific world! There is 
 some excuse, however, for reluctance in giving up the theory 
 of gravity. Its propounders and supporters are among the 
 greatest leaders of human thought; it has long been generally 
 accepted; and there appears today not even a straw to cling 
 to if it were cast away. 
 
 But after all, this only serves to emblazon all the more 
 the honor and respect we owe the few who preferred to drift 
 with their conscience wherever it might lead, rather than to 
 grasp and lean upon a doctrine which they felt morally cer- 
 tain was baseless and without foundation in fact. Several 
 such have already been quoted. This is an honor to which 
 every one of them is justly entitled; and a fitting conclusion 
 to the first Part of this work is the quotation of a few more. 
 
 "In all cases where physical motion is involved, however, 
 I would have a medium sought for; it may not be matter, 
 but it must be something; there must be a connecting link 
 of some kind, or transference cannot occur. There can be 
 no attraction across really empty space; even when a mate- 
 rial link exists, so that the connection is obvious, the explan- 
 ation is not complete, for when the mechanism of attraction 
 is understood, it will be found that a body really only moves 
 because it is pushed by something from behind." f 
 
 "For mathematical purposes it has sometimes been con- 
 venient to treat a problem as if one body could act upon an- 
 other without any physical medium between them; but such 
 conception has no degree of rationality, and I know of no 
 one who believes in that as a fact. If this be granted, then 
 our philosophy agrees with our experience, and every 
 body moves because it is pushed, and the mechanical ante- 
 cedent of every kind of phenomenon is to be looked for in 
 some adjacent body possessing energy that is, the ability 
 to push or produce pressure." $ 
 
 "Smith. Eept., 1876. 
 
 tDr. Oliver Lodgf. Discourse, Royal Institution, London, Feb. 21, 
 1908. 
 
 JFrof. A. E. Dolboar, Nature, 55, &6. 
 
130 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [67 
 
 " 'The very idea of attractive force/ as Prof. Brucke re- 
 marks, 'includes that of action at a distance/ No principle 
 will ever be generally received that stands in opposition to 
 the old adage, 'A thing cannot act where it is not,' any more 
 than it would were it to stand in opposition to that other 
 adage, 'A thing cannot act before it is, or when it is not.' 
 . . . The attraction theory is also in opposition to the 
 principle of the conservation of force, as has been shown I 
 think clearly by Faraday.* ... If the force of gravity 
 does not sustain any loss as work is performed by it, what 
 then is it that is supposed to sustain the loss? Some form 
 of energy must diminish as work is performed: and if it be 
 not gravity, it must be something else."f 
 
 '.'I admit that two bodies separated by an absolute void 
 cannot act on each other; that action takes place only by 
 contact, the play of forces following the laws of ordinary 
 mechanics. "$ 
 
 "It may be said that force like this (pressure of sunlight) 
 must alter our ordinary ideas of gravitation. " 
 
 "Though the term attraction may have been occasionally 
 used in the above to denote the tendency of bodies to ap- 
 proach, the line of conclusions here indicated tends to argue 
 that there is no such thing as attraction in the sense of a 
 pulling force, and that two utterly isolated bodies cannot in- 
 fluence one another." 
 
 "The usual idea of force implies direct action at a distance. 
 . . . This idea of gravity appears to me to ignore entirely 
 the principle of the conservation of force. . . For my own 
 part, many considerations urge my mind towards the idea of 
 a cause of gravity which is not resident in the particles of 
 matter merely, but constantly in them and in all space. 
 I would much rather incline to believe that bodies affecting 
 each other by gravitation act by lines of force of definite 
 amount, by an ether affecting all parts of space, than admit 
 that the conservation of force could be dispensed with."|| 
 
 "I cannot but suspect that his speculations on this mys- 
 terious action at a distance contributed not a little to the 
 leading of the great English mathematician into the obscure 
 labyrinth of mystic dreams and theistic superstition in which 
 he passed the last thirty-four years of his life. We find him 
 
 * James Croll, L. E.D. Phil. Mag., 1867, 34, 450-1. 
 
 tlbid, Loc. Cit., 1376, 2, 242. 
 
 JM. Lecoq de Boisl>adron, Comptes Rendus, 49, 703. 
 
 Prof. Wm. Crookes, Quarterly Journal Sci., April, 1876, p. 254. 
 Prof. Frederick Guthrie, L. E. D. Phil. Mag. 1870, 40, 354. 
 
 HProf. Michael Faraday, L. E. D. Phil. Mag., 1857, 13, 228. 
 
67] THE IDEA OF FORCE 111 
 
 at the end, giving metaphysical hpotheses on the predictions 
 of Daniel and on the paradoxical fantasies of St. John."* 
 
 "Let us confine ourselves to the bodies we meet with on 
 the surface of the earth. Every one admits that these would 
 tall downward, unless they were supported. Now the question 
 turns on the real cause of this fall. Some say it is the earth 
 wttiich attracts these bodies, by an inherent power natural 
 to it: others that it is the aether, or some other subtile or 
 invisible matter, which impels the body downward, so that 
 the effect is nevertheless the same in both cases. This last 
 opinion is most satisfactory to those who are fond of clear 
 principles in philosophy, as they do not see how two bodies 
 at a distance can act upon each other if there be nothing 
 between them. . . . Let us suppose that before the cre- 
 ation of the world, God had created only two bodies, at a 
 distance from each other; that absolutely nothing existed be- 
 tween them, and that they were in a state of rest: would it 
 be possible for the one to approach the other, or for them to 
 have a propensity to approach? Whence could arise the de- 
 sire of approaching? These are perplexing questions. But 
 if you suppose that the intermediate space is filled with a 
 subtile matter, we can comprehend at once that this matter 
 may act upon the bodies by impelling them. The effect would 
 be the same as if they possessed a power of mutual attrac- 
 tion. Now as we know that the whole space which separates 
 the heavenly bodies is filled with a subtile matter called 
 aether, it seems more reasonable to ascribe the mutual at- 
 traction of the bodies to an action which the aether exer- 
 cises over them, though its manner of acting may be un- 
 known to us, than to have recourse to an unintelligible prop- 
 erty. ... As the idea of all occult qualities is now ban- 
 ished from philosopny, attraction ought not to be considered 
 in this sense. : 't 
 
 "If there is anything certain in the world, it is that mole- 
 cules of bodies and bodies themselves are not really self- 
 attractive; it is that attraction is not an intrinsic but a de- 
 veloped force; it is that notwithstanding everything occurs 
 as though bodies mutually attracted each other, it is in- 
 contestably true that bodies do not so attract. Newton, as Eu- 
 ler as every philosopher worthy of the name has seen in 
 nature but two things, inertia and motion. . . . And it is 
 with these two great facts of inertia and movement that 
 advancing science shall ultimately explain all the phenomena 
 of the physical world. "J 
 
 *Prof. Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe, p. 217. 
 tLeonard Euler, Letters, Letter 68, Oct. 18, 1860. 
 
 JMarc Seguin, as interpreted by Abbe Moigno, Cosmos, Vol. 1, pp. 
 693-4. 
 
112 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION [68 
 
 68. Summary of Part I. In the beginning of this investi- 
 gation of the theory of gravitation, it was found that, strangely 
 enough, scientific authorities were about equally divided be- 
 tween two different statements of e^en the main principle of 
 that theory, the law of gravitation; and, stranger still, that 
 upon close examination, either statement of that law leads 
 to self -contradictory and irrational results. According to 
 this law, doubling the Moon's mass, or doubling the Earth's 
 mass, has precisely the same effect on the mutual attraction 
 ot these bodies; or even doubling an atom has the same mu- 
 tual attractive effect as doubling the rest of the universe. 
 Its assumption of a location at the center of spheres for the 
 starting-point of its influnece is mathematically shown to be 
 untenable. Its assertion that gravity should decrease beneath 
 the Earth's surface is contrary to the results of actual obser- 
 vation. It annihilates half the path of a body falling towards 
 the Earth's center to form its theory of elliptic motion. It 
 wholly fails to account for the great velocities of the "run- 
 away stars", which it is its province to govern. The amount 
 of heat to which it restricts the Sun in past ages does not, 
 from its own view-point, account for a tenth of the period of 
 the Earth's encrusted development. The gravitative effect 
 it is supposed to exert upon a revolving planet or satellite 
 to maintain it in its orbit is much greater than appears to 
 be needed for that purpose; its requirement being based upon 
 the mass of the revolving body, whereas it apparently should 
 be based upon its weight. It assigns no physical cause for 
 the enormous changes of climate upon the Earth's surface 
 implied by the Carboniferous and Ice Ages. It alleged its 
 complete explanation of all the anomalies of planetary and 
 lunar motions, while at the same time it was entirely unaware 
 of the powerful perturbing agency of sunlight pressure. In 
 the problem of three bodies it breaks down so completely that 
 only the most fragmentary explanation of this problem has 
 ever been attempted by its exponents; the motion of the 
 Moon in its orbit around the Earth being absolutely impos- 
 
6&1 THE IDEA OF FORCE 11H 
 
 sible in accordance with its sway. Its subordinate law of 
 equal areas in equal times, by means of which it presumes to 
 govern the planetary motions, was found to be without founda- 
 tion in fact; so that even the simple problem of two bodies 
 is wholly inexplicable by it. The tides in the aerial ocean 
 and upon isolated lakes and seas repudiate its claim as a 
 chief causal agent; and the mode of its causation of the 
 .ocean tides is seen to be wholly at variance with mechanical 
 principles. The temperature it assigned to the Sun is shown 
 by actual observation to be vastly exaggerated. The distribu- 
 tion of the solar heat which it prescribes for the whole of the 
 Earth's surface at aphelion and perihelion, and for portions 
 of the Earth's surface at all times, is indisputably at variance 
 with the observed facts ; and the amount of heat it should send 
 out to the planet Mars is far exceeded by the heat which act- 
 ual observation of that planet predictates. In the evolution 
 of the Solar System it affords no explanation of the rotation 
 of the solar spheroid, and, even if this rotation were granted, 
 it absolutely precludes all separation of planetary rings and, 
 consequently, all development into the present systemic com- 
 plexity. And, finally, from inquiry into the nature of the 
 agent itself the force of gravity by means of which the the- 
 ory of gravitation is supposed to act, it was found to be wholly 
 incomprehensible; emanating from a body through empty 
 space to indefinite or even infinite distances and acting there 
 without any intervening material connection; ceaselessly ac- 
 complishing work, it matters not how much or how little, yet 
 ever without the least diminution of its energy and power, 
 without the least regard to the law of the conservation of 
 energy; infinite and eternal; a lawless philosophical dream; 
 a stupendous scientific miracle; a Creator! 
 
 Goethe, one of the greatest of poets and an indefatigable 
 student of Nature in all her fields, is quoted by Dr. Shoepfer 
 in a lecture in Berlin as follows: 
 
 "In whatever way or manner may have occured this busi- 
 ness, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of cos- 
 monogy, and hope that perchance there may appear in due 
 
114 OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF GRAVITATION rfig 
 
 time some young scientist of genius who will pick up courage 
 enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of 
 lunatics. The terrible thing in all this is that one is obliged 
 to repeatedly hear the assurance that all the physicists ad- 
 here to the same opinion on this Question."* 
 
 There are, indeed, portions of the phenomena of Nature 
 to which the law of gravitation apparently applies with per- 
 fect fitness, namely, the action of gravity on, and to some 
 extent above, the Earth's surface, and to certain relations, 
 considered by themselves, of the motions of planets and sat- 
 ellites around their primaries; and these phenomena are so 
 conspicuous and common in our daily experience, and they 
 appear to corroborate the law so well, that it to a large de- 
 gree excuses the centuries of faith in its credibility. But 
 now, when we see how completely it fails to account for the 
 ordinary phenomena in these same fields in other relations, 
 as shown in the preceding pages, we surely are justified in 
 suspecting its veracity, and replacing it, if possible, by some 
 substitute which will not only account for all that it appears 
 to account for, but also for all that it does not account for. 
 
 To accomplish this will be the aim and purpose of the 
 following pages. And this accomplishment will be attempted 
 wholly without the aid of any attractive or repulsive force, 
 or any force-entity whatsoever, or action at a distance, or 
 occult quality of any kind. The basic elements to be em- 
 ployed are simple and familiar to all matter, motion, space, 
 and time, of which alone all the phenomena of Nature, with- 
 out exception, appear to be built up. 
 
 *Scientific American Supplement, No. 121, p. 1927. 
 
PART II 
 
 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY 
 
 In Nature's infinite book of secrecy, a little I can read. 
 
 SHAKESPEARE. 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 PREMISES AND PRINCIPLES 
 
 Clausius suggested* that the atoms or groups of atoms 
 constituting a molecule revolve around one another similarly 
 to planets, and are sometimes nearer to and sometimes far- 
 ther from each other. The difference between the infinitely 
 great and the infinitely little is only one of degree. The 
 motions of the solar system and that of a molecule of water 
 are similar. These motions are imparted to and transmitted 
 by the ether, and they are again taken up by matter. One 
 kind of waves gives us light, another radiant heat, another 
 magnetism and electrification. They move at a rate of 192, 
 000 miles per second. MR. W. H. PREECE. 
 
 It seems to me that just as atoms may be structures 
 built up of sub-atoms of some kind, and just as molecules of 
 gases are built up of atoms variously linked together, it is 
 reasonable to conceive that molecules might combine to form 
 aggregates, particularly when constituting solids; that as the 
 sub-atoms may be conceived to have a combining valency 
 and the atoms are already accredited with this property, and 
 in addition, as is supposed with Thiele's partial or Werner's 
 auxiliary valencies molecules may have valencies also 
 whereby to combine into molecular aggregates. 
 
 PROF. A. SEN1ER. 
 
 Valency is that property by which an atom attracts to 
 itself other atoms, or radicals, and its numerical value is 
 deduced from the structural formulae of compounds in which 
 the atom occurs. Glaus seems to have been the first to rec- 
 
 *Pogg. Ann., CLVI, 618. 
 
116 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [70 
 
 ognize that this attraction between two atoms is not a con- 
 stant, but depends on the nature of the other atoms or radi- 
 cals in the molecule. . . . Valency may, therefore, vary 
 from compound to compound; it is known to alter under the 
 influence of change in temperature, as, for example, when 
 carbon dioxide or phosphorous pentachloride undergoes ther- 
 mal dissociation. PROF. W. P. WYNNE. 
 
 69. Molecular Bonds. When one elementary substance 
 unites chemically with another, the union generally takes 
 place between certain proportions of each element. One atom 
 of chlorine, e. g., unites with a single atom of hydrogen, one 
 atom of zinc with two of hydrogen, one of boron with three, 
 one of silicon with four, one of phosphorous with five, atoms 
 of hydrogen; which substances are consequently called monad, 
 dyad, triad, tetrad, or pentad, respectively. One atom of a 
 monad can combine with but one atom of another monad; 
 one atom of dyad can combine with one atom of another dyad, 
 or with two monad atoms; one atom of a triad with onu 
 atom of another triad, with one atom of a dyad and one monad 
 atom, or with three monad atoms; and so on. There are var- 
 iations of this rule owing to change of temperature and other 
 causes; but there always remains a certain degree of fixity 
 in it. The number of these "atomic bonds", or "units of af- 
 finity", possessed by an element profoundly affects not only 
 its combining value, but also the photo-electric effect of light 
 upon it, the amount of its specific heat, the quantity of elec- 
 tricity each of its atoms yields in a galvanic battery, and 
 many other physical properties. These bonds appear to ap- 
 ply to molecules as well as to atoms; and the supposition here 
 to be made is that such bonds are material and extend, not 
 only Detween atoms, sub-atoms, and molecules, but also be- 
 tween all naturally and regularly derived bodies. 
 
 70. Molecular Motion. As early as 470 B. C., Democritus 
 taught that "the atoms, which are infinite in number and 
 form, constitute the visible universe by their motions, impact 
 and consequent revolving motion." Marc Seguin in 1824 also 
 taught that the molecules of bodies "circulate around one an- 
 other so that each body, though it appears at rest, has really 
 
70] PREMISES AND PRINCIPLES 117 
 
 a certain quantity of motion, whose measure will be a func- 
 tion of the mass and the velocity of the molecules in mo- 
 tion."* Mendelieff, who has elaborated this idea on the solid 
 basis of chemistry says: 
 
 "This dynamic hypothesis of the constitution of matter is 
 now revived and the world of atoms is regarded as like the 
 universe of heavenly bodies, with its suns, planets, and met- 
 eors, endued with everlasting force of motion, forming mole- 
 cules as heavenly bodies form systems, like the solar system, 
 which molecules are only relatively indivisible, in the same 
 way as tne planets of the solar system are indivisible, and 
 stable and lasting as the solar system is lasting." 
 
 And, more recently still, this dynamical molecular structure 
 is borne in upon us with irresistible conviction by the phe- 
 nomena of radiant matter, wherein X-rays and alpha and beta 
 particles are shot out of atoms and molecules with velocities 
 approximating that of light. 
 
 The origin of matter seems utterly beyond our grasp, be- 
 cause it appears to be a necessary limitation of our being 
 that one underlying and ultimate fact must remain inexplic- 
 able. The origin of motion seems easier of comprehension 
 and possibly admits of explanation. It may be possible that 
 matter could exist without motion, but it would not be possi- 
 ble to conceive this of all matter, for though we can con- 
 ceive of a condition of absolute zero of temperature, which 
 means a state devoid of all minor motions of matter, concep- 
 tion itself implies mental action, which can exist only by 
 means of molecular motion. As a matter of fact we know of 
 no matter free from motion, any more than we know of mo- 
 tion free from matter, and there are worlds of motion which 
 until recently have been wholly unknown to us. There art, 
 motions of almost inconceivable minuteness of range, of ap- 
 parently inscrutable complexity, and of almost incomprehen- 
 sible velocity, all lying hidden in the commonest objects 
 around us. The book lying upon the table, the stone resting 
 upon the ground, are each a volume of motions of marvelous 
 intricacy, minuteness, and speed; and only by the different 
 
 *The Edinlmrgh Phil. Jour., Oct. 1824; 10, 280-2. 
 
118 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [71 
 
 motions of each are we able to distinguish them as to color, 
 taste, smell, or touch. Even our own bodies are only aggre- 
 gates of still more complex system^ of motions by means of 
 which only are we able to distinguish the different kinds and 
 properties of matter. Our Solar System, yea even our Sider- 
 eal System, seems but little more intricate in structure and 
 in the maze-like number of its constituent bodies and sys- 
 tems, than the molecule and the atom. The spectrum of the 
 simplest element, hydrogen, consists of not less than 1600 
 lines* each of which, no doubt, represents a systemic motion 
 of different magnitude existing within the domains of every 
 atom of the gas.t A new universe is here opening before 
 us of which even the foremost intellects have as yet but the 
 faintest conception. 
 
 71. Planetary Bonds. Now if these minor aggregates and 
 sub-aggregates of matter have orbital motions like the planets, 
 and have units of affinity, or material bonds, holding them to 
 the primaries or suns of their systems, it seems only reason- 
 able to suppose that the planets also have similar material 
 bonds holding them to the Sun, or primary of the planetary 
 system, in the same manner. 
 
 Probably, to most readers, this idea of planetary material 
 bonds may seem extremely airy and inept, even incredible. 
 But really what is the difference except magnitude, between 
 the chemical elements, or molecules and atoms, and the 
 cosmical elements, or heavenly bodies? and why should 
 not the latter have connecting bonds by means of which they 
 would remain attached in a cosmical molecule or system, just 
 the same as the former do in a chemical molecule? If plan- 
 etary bonds were familiar to us and atomic bonds unknown, 
 belief in the latter then would no doubt have the same inertia 
 to overcome as in the former now. 
 
 We cannot say that we have no evidence of these plane- 
 
 *Nature, 39, 370. 
 
 tThis at least appears to be the view of the majority, though there 
 are a few who hold that the different lines of the spectrum of a sub- 
 stance may be due to different atoms of that substance. The invariable 
 uniformity cf elementary spectra under uniform conditions of temper- 
 ature and pressure is, however, strongly against the latter view. 
 
72] PREMISES AND PRINCIPLES 119 
 
 tary bonds, because there are too many phenomena in the 
 heavens of the nature of which we confessedly know nothing. 
 The tails of comets, which increase in magnitude as they ap- 
 proach the Sun, are not at all unlikely to be accumulations 
 upon the comets of the bond-substance which extends between 
 them and the Sun. The zodiacal light which extends from 
 the Sun in one fixed direction (the astronomers say two di- 
 rections, at least, see Art. 137) far out into the starry system 
 may it not be the bond connecting the Sun with its primary 
 system? Approximately at right angles to this direction also 
 lies the solar apex, the point in the heavens towards which, 
 astronomers say, the Solar System actually moves. And the 
 solar corona, which stretches in great streamers outwards 
 from the Sun's surface to great distances, and which very 
 slowly revolve around the Sun at various speeds between one 
 solar eclipse and another apparently in exact correspondence 
 with the movements of the planets may these not be the 
 inner ends of the bonds connecting the Sun with the revolv- 
 ing planets? All these hitherto mysterious phenomena cer- 
 tainly seem, at least at a first glance, to be exactly similar 
 to such appearances as we should expect such planetary 
 bonds to make. 
 
 72. Designation and Essential Principles of the New The- 
 ory. Now this is the main principle of the theory here ad- 
 vanced that every regular heavenly body, of whatever size, 
 is connected with its neighboring heavenly bodies by real, 
 ethereal bonds. This and one other principle, derivable from 
 the first, namely, that all bodies have ethereal atmospheres 
 in connection with their ethereal bonds, constitute the basic 
 elements of the theory which are new; and these in connection 
 with the elements of motion, space, time, and the ordinary 
 physical laws, appear to be all that is necessary to account for 
 all the phenomena of which the human organism, as now 
 known, is capable of taking cognizance. 
 
 The chief principle of the new theory being the existence 
 of material bonds, or connexions (as they will henceforth be 
 
120 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [73 
 
 termed), between all regularly derived bodies, the theory may 
 be designated by the special name, connective theory. 
 
 These principles are not asserted here as facts, but only 
 
 . 
 as premises or assumptions for temporary guidance, to be 
 
 ultimately accepted or rejected according to their agreement 
 or disagreement with the phenomena of cosmical evolution, 
 as these phenomena are investigated in connection with them. 
 With this brief statement of the premises now before us, 
 the argument from the rational investigation of cosmical evo- 
 lution will be next in order; after which the conclusion will 
 be left to the reader himself. And the same primitive stage of 
 evolution may here be commenced with that was considered 
 in connection with the theory of gravitation. 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 
 
 Truth cannot speak with two voices, and the laws of 
 nature cannot give contradictory results. SAMUEL LAING. 
 
 We must deal strictly with the facts in accordance with 
 the rules of philosophizing; i. e., we must never have a com- 
 plicated explanation until we are perfectly certain that a 
 simple explanation will not do, and the simplest explanation 
 of all is that which occurs most frequently in the region of 
 facts. J. NORMAN LOCKYER. 
 
 For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called 
 the law of parsimony or the law which forbids us to assume 
 the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found 
 sufficient to explain the observed effects this law consti- 
 tutes the only logical barrier between science and supersti- 
 tion. GEORGE J. ROMANES. 
 
 73. The Original Solar Spheroid. The primary concep- 
 ceptions of the new theory are little different from those of 
 the nebular hypothesis. These conceptions are that the Solar 
 System was once a vast rotating spheroid of vapor, nearly or 
 quite homogeneous, the equator of which probably extended 
 
74] EVOULTION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 121 
 
 outwards on all sides nearly to Neptune's orbit; and that this 
 vapor was made up of minute, but distinct, component parts 
 having some material connexions with one another by virtue 
 of which the vapor would cohere within certain limits, and 
 its component parts, if unrestrained, would tend to lessen the 
 distance between them. This tendency of the component 
 parts to approach one another may seem not unlike the at- 
 raction of gravity; but the two are not necessarily identical. 
 There are other agencies that cause approximation of parts 
 besides gravity, such, for example, as magnetism, electricity, 
 and loss of heat. The connexions here premised between the 
 ultimate parts of the vapor, and tending to hold or approximate 
 them to each other, are supposed to be highly elastic, and, 
 in support of this view, it may be mentioned here that New- 
 ton and Faraday have thought that gravitation itself would 
 find its true explanation by means of some such material 
 agency as is here conceived. As to whether the original solar 
 spheroid was intensely heated, or even heated at all in the 
 ordinary sense of that word, seems uncertain. Heat is a mode 
 of motion, and there appear to be many degrees, or different 
 modes, of such motion, forming a regular series, similar to the 
 wavelengths of the solar spectrum, of which the modes that 
 are sensible to us may be comparatively few, and belonging 
 perhaps to the middle portion. It may not be impossible, 
 therefore, that, if the processes by which bodies become to 
 us intensely heated were further intensified to a certain de- 
 gree, the resulting mode "of motion would no longer be sensi- 
 ble to us as heat, and it may even be possible that, if the 
 intensification of the heating process were sufficiently great, 
 the resulting mode of motion would not be sensible to us at 
 all. It seems not improbable that this last condition would 
 be that of the original solar spheroid, its density being prob- 
 ably far below that of the most perfect vacuum that man can 
 produce. 
 
 74. Surface Contraction and Development. Our premises, 
 then, once more, are a vast rotating spheroid of vapor, nearly 
 or quite homogeneous, and made up of minute parts having 
 
122 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [74 
 
 connexions between them, by virtue of which the mass co- 
 heres, and, under certain circumstances, the parts may ap- 
 proach one another. From these premises it would follow 
 that those parts situated on the surface of the sphere would 
 have the greater liberty of action, because they are not in- 
 fluenced by other parts upon their outer sides, while the sub- 
 jacent parts are thus influenced on all sides. For this reason, 
 these parts would tend to approach their subjacent neighbors 
 and form with them a closer union. What the nature of this 
 union would be, cannot be stated with certainty at present; 
 but it may be supposed that the two adjacent layers of sur- 
 face parts would eventually join together in forming consoli- 
 dated groups of component parts, which may be designated 
 by the term sub-atom, each sub-atom being connected with its 
 neighbors, much in the same manner as the primordial parts, 
 save that the connexions of the former may be more complex. 
 This change in the structure of the two surface layers from 
 approximate homogeneity to comparative heterogeneity would 
 allow to the third layer a greater liberty of inward motion; 
 and this layer, or some of its component parts, would tend 
 to approach the fourth layer of component parts, though per- 
 haps more slowly than the parts of the first layer. Thus 
 would be formed a second layer of sub-atoms; and in much 
 the same way would be formed a third, a fourth, a fifth, layer 
 of sub-atoms; though quite probably each successive layer, 
 owing to the influence of the outer heterogeneous layers, 
 would require a much greater time to form than the preceding 
 layer. Now the same causes that made the original surface 
 components approach their subjacent neighbors would also 
 operate upon the surface sub-atoms. These would approach 
 the second layer of sub-atoms and form with them a layer 
 of units still more compound, having still more complex re- 
 lations with the simpler sub-atoms and with one another. 
 And so also a third and a fourth layer. In the same manner 
 would also be formed still more compound units, eventually 
 arriving at the atomic and the molecular stages; and we ap- 
 parently have no reason to suppose that this process would 
 
75] EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 123 
 
 not continue, or to draw a line beyond which, if left to it- 
 self, it would cease. 
 
 These views are corroborated and further illustrated by 
 the following instructive extract from the presidential ad- 
 dress of Prof. William Crookes at the fifty-sixth annual meet- 
 ing of the British Association: 
 
 "In the course of time, some process akin to cooling, prob- 
 ably internal, reduces the temperature of the cosmic protyle 
 to a point at which the first steps in granulation take place; 
 matter as we know it comes into existence, and atoms are 
 formed. As soon as an atom is formed out of protyle it is a 
 store of energy, potential (from its tendency to coalesce 
 with other atoms by gravitation or chemically) and kinetic 
 .(from its internal motions). To obtain this energy, the 
 neighboring protyle must be refrigerated by it, and thereby 
 the subsequent formation of other atoms will be accelerated. 
 But with atomic matter the various forms of energy which 
 /require matter to render them evident begin to act; and, 
 amongst others, that form of energy which has for one of 
 its factors what we now call atomic weight. Let us assume 
 that the elementary protyle contains within itself the poten- 
 tiality of every possible combining proportion or atomic 
 weight. Let it be granted that the whole of our known ele- 
 ments were not at this epoch simultaneously created. The 
 easiest formed element, the one most nearly allied to the 
 protyle in simplicity, is first born. Hydrogen or shall we 
 say helium? of all the known elements the one of simplest 
 structure and lowest atomic weight, is the first to come into 
 being. For some time hydrogen would be the only form or 
 matter (as we know it) in existence, and between hydrogen 
 and the next formed element there would be a considerable 
 gap in time, during the latter part of which the element next 
 in order of simplicity would be slowly approaching its birth- 
 point; pending this period we may suppose that the evolu- 
 tionary process, which soon was to determine the birth of a 
 new element, would also determine its atomic weight, its 
 affinities, and its chemical position. 
 
 "In the original genesis, the longer the time occupied in 
 that portion of the cooling down during which the hardening 
 of the protyle into atoms took place, the more sharply defined 
 would be the resulting elements ; and, on the other hand, with 
 more irregularity in the original cooling we should have a 
 nearer approach to the state of the elemental family as we 
 know it at present." 
 
 75. Surface Rigidity and Ring-Formation. The sphere Is 
 premised to have a rotatory motion; and this motion would 
 
124 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [75 
 
 have some effect upon the molecules. These bodies, owing to 
 the approach of their constituent parts, would obviously be 
 much denser than the original vapor; and it is well known to 
 us that in a revolving mass, whjen the constituent particles 
 have freedom of motion, the denser of them will invariably 
 seek the circumference. Moreover, there would be a move- 
 ment of the molecules towards that portion of the circum- 
 ference having the greatest amount of motion; i. e., the equa- 
 tor of the spheroid. For if we are to judge from analogy, 
 the connexions of the primordial molecules and atoms would 
 be readily transferable from one to another, even more so 
 than in the case of gases and vapors upon the Earth. So 
 that these developed molecules would glide slowly over their 
 subjacent neighbors towards the more swiftly rotating equa- 
 torial regions. In course of ages a ring of compound par- 
 ticles would thus aggregate near the equator; and, at the 
 same time, the surface development would be continually pro- 
 gressing, both inwards into the sphere and into greater and 
 greater complexity of surface structure. As already intimaf 
 ed, there does not appear to be any reason whatever for as- 
 signing any particular limit to this development. And it 
 seems evident that its uninterrupted continuance would event- 
 ually result in a rigidity of the surface matter, particularly 
 at the equator, where the developed structure would be much 
 the thickest. The rigidity would spread slowly from the equa- 
 tor to the poles; the internal development still going on, and 
 the equatorial flow of compound molecules taking place on the 
 inside of the rigid structure. 
 
 The rigidity, increasing with increasing thickness, would 
 eventually resist further contraction at the equator; the less 
 rigid polar regions still following the contracting body of the 
 sphere, in obedience to its connexions with that body. But 
 the rigidity would continually spread towards the poles, thus 
 gradually forming a solid ring concave to the sphere, the 
 concavity being filled with partially developed original vapor. 
 
 At this stage, probably, as the sphere contracts its vol- 
 ume, a space would be formed between it and the ring. The 
 
76] EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 125 
 
 molecular connexions between the two would become elong- 
 gated and refined in the vast laboratory; their tension, as 
 the space widens, being relieved by the addition of the gaseous 
 atoms or molecules of the sphere. 
 
 76. Ring-Separation. It seems probable that the polar 
 regions, having previously become rigid, but having the weak- 
 er crust, would eventually begin slowly to fracture and bend 
 inwards owing to the continual strain upon their connexions 
 with the sphere; and at the same time the equatorial portion 
 of the ring would slowly move outwards owing to its rota- 
 tion, thus gradually stretching itself to a greater diameter 
 and depth and lessening is thickness. Both the fracture and 
 the expansion might at first be extremely slow far more so, 
 perhaps, than the gradual sinking or elevation of certain por- 
 tions of the Earth, which geology brings to our notice; and 
 which is generally no greater than an inch or two in a cen- 
 tury. But the process would continue; and in the course of 
 a very great lapse of time, the ring would have separated 
 wholly from the sphere, save for the inchoate connexion or 
 bond of attachment between the two bodies. Before the sep- 
 aration of the ring from the sphere, but during the process in 
 which the separation culminated, the polar regions of the orig- 
 inal crust, still adhering to the surface of the sphere, would 
 approach more and more towards the equator as the equator- 
 ial portion continually recedes by the continual tension of 
 the ring itself and the increasing contraction of the sphere. 
 So that, at the point of separation, the ring would be a broad 
 and flat body lying in the sphere's equatorial plane; in which 
 its thickness would be about double the thickness of the or- 
 iginal crust; the greatest material thickness of the ring being 
 obviously at the outer edge, where the crust was originally 
 the thickest. 
 
 The following quotation illustrates the earlier stages of 
 this ring-separation: 
 
 "The restriction of the fiord areas to high northern and 
 southern latitudes gives a clue to the cause of the fiord move- 
 ments. They may be explained as a deformation of the earth 
 
126 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [78 
 
 which is more marked in the polar than in the tropical zones. 
 If a flexible circular band be rotated about its axis, it be- 
 comes oval, and the radial movement is greater on the flat- 
 tened polar sides than on the raised equatorial zone. The 
 deformation of the earth which produced the fiords caused 
 greater vertical movements in the polar and circumpolar 
 regions than in the tropics, and the fiords are characteristic 
 of higher latitudes."* 
 
 77. Disruption of the Ring Into the Planetary Form. It 
 may chance that some sudden violence of the polar fractures 
 of the crust, as the projection of the ring proceeds, would 
 cause the collapse of the whole equatorial crust upon itself; 
 upon itself partly because the molecular connexions generated 
 in the developed structure of the crust would reasonably be 
 much more powerful than the connexions between the crust 
 and the undeveloped sphere; and partly for reasons to be 
 noticed farther on. If any violence of the polar fractures 
 does not occur to disrupt it (which it seems would generally 
 be the case owing to the extreme slowness of their occur- 
 ence), the ring would continue to expand its circumference, 
 diminishing its depth and thickness; and it might maintain 
 its equilibrium in this state for a very long period indeed. 
 But obviously such expansion could not last forever. Event- 
 ually some irregularity, either in the structure or in the ex- 
 pansion, or in both, would suddenly destroy its balance; the 
 disruption of the ring would quickly ensue, and (owing to the 
 superior strength of its own molecular connexions) its sub- 
 stance would aggregate into . a sphere in some point of its 
 circumference. 
 
 The ring's connexion with the original sphere, which had 
 been continually fabricated and supplied as the separation of 
 the two bodies proceeded, would follow the fractured por- 
 tions of the ring, and finally, upon the spherical formation 
 of the latter, would aggregate into a cylindrical bond between 
 the new-born planet and its parent. 
 
 78. Corroborative Evidences. 
 
 (a). Of Initial Solidification at the Surface. Let us here 
 
 *Prof. J. W. Gregory, Lecture, Midland Institute, Birmingham. Jan. 
 22, 1912. 
 
78] EVOLUTION OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 12? 
 
 pause tor a moment. It would be a very unusual thing in- 
 deed if such novel ideas as these would not be received with 
 doubting hesitation, or even emphatic incredulity, especially 
 in the case of grizzled veterans of science who have all their 
 lives accepted unreservedly diametrically opposite ideas. But 
 and the appeal is directed particularly at these same veter- 
 ans what idea in the foregoing articles is it that can be re- 
 garded as specially unworthy of our credence? Apparently 
 it cannot be the equatorial flow of the denser molecules, for 
 that seems undeniable on the ground of terrestial analogies. 
 It is well known that when bodies of different densities are 
 mechanically mixed in an inclosed space and then caused to 
 rotate with a speed sufficient to overcome gravity, their parts 
 having liberty of motion, the denser will always move towards 
 the circumference. It is true that, if the attraction of gravity 
 were supposed to operate upon the newly formed molecules, 
 in accordance with the law of inverse squares, their equator- 
 ial flow would not then be indisputable: although, indeed, it 
 may be remarked, as illustrating the confusion to which the 
 assumption of such an atraction leads, that the most eminent 
 physicists are by no means agreed as to where solidification 
 really would begin. While some (among whom are Sir Will- 
 iam Thomson, Prof. G. H. Darwin, Newcomb, Hopkins, and 
 Mallet) hold that it would begin at the center, others (among 
 whom are Leibnitz, Descartes, Delaunay, Hennesly, Scrope, 
 Babbage, and Airy) hold that it would begin at the surface; 
 and the question still remains unsettled. 
 
 In a work by T. M. Keade, entitled "The Origin of Moun- 
 tain Ranges", in which he attacks the theory of central solid- 
 ification, the following quotation is given* from Captain Dut- 
 ton, of the U. S. Geol. Survey: 
 
 "The line of argument which is relied upon to maintain 
 a cooling globe proves, when pushed to its consequences, 
 that the great interior of the Earth has not, as yet, undergone 
 any sensible amount of cooling. The only cooling which that 
 argument admits of has been located in a thin external shell. 
 . . . In short, the cooling would be only skin deep, while 
 the nucleus would be as hot as ever." 
 
 *Page 126, Note. 
 
128 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [78 
 
 Mr. Herbert Spencer also shows* the rational superiority 
 of the view that liquefaction and solidification would first 
 take place upon the Sun's surface, while its internal regions 
 would be still gaseous. M. Folie pointed out before the 
 Paris Academy of Sciences f that the astronomical consid- 
 erations which led Sir William Thomson and others to the 
 belief that the Earth was centrally solid, proves, on the con- 
 trary, beyond doubt, the fluid state of the interior of the 
 globe, surrounded by a relatively thin outer crust. And an 
 editorial in NatureJ, speaking of the "supposition made by 
 Sir W. Thomson as to the way in which the Earth cooled", 
 says: "There have been people bold enough to think that 
 in making this supposition, a great master of physics for once 
 lent his name to an hypothesis which is in itself, physically 
 not very probable." Yet, of course, the attraction of gravi- 
 tation is premised by these authorities; while in the present 
 work that attraction would be profoundly modified (diminish- 
 ed) by other circumstances; as will be explained more fully 
 farther on. 
 
 A fact which seems to be a general principle of matter, 
 and which furnishes a valuable corroboration of the position 
 here taken is that, even when subject to gravity, matter in 
 the solid form, such as ice, type-metal, iron, glass, melted 
 rock and earth, etc., will float upon the same matter in a 
 liquid or molten state. In any case, therefore, it is hardly 
 to be doubted that solidification from processes akin to cool- 
 ing would begin on the surface of the globe and gradually 
 extend downwards. 
 
 (b). Of Ultimate Crust Rigidity. The ultimate rigidity 
 of the crust can hardly be a ground for incredulity for the 
 reason that we cannot assign any proximate limit to the mole- 
 cular development, and because, if the ultimate rigidity be 
 denied, no conceivable cause can be assigned for the projection 
 of the ring from the contracting spheroid (see Art. 63.). 
 
 *Recent Discussions in Science, p. 2 9 ?. 
 tJan. 3, 1887. 
 J35, 861. 
 
 Nature, 16, 23; Am. Jour. Sci.. Ill, 8, 287; Nature, 26, 138; Scrope, 
 Volcanoes, pp. 84, 487; Chemical News, 18, 191. 
 
78] CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES 129 
 
 The same idea, in a somewhat cruder form, has been indors- 
 ed by good scientific authorities. As far back as 1862, the late 
 Rev. O. Fisher "suggested that, when according to Sir G. H. 
 Darwin's view, the moon broke away from the earth and com- 
 menced an independent existence, the scar left by the great 
 catastrophe forms now the basin of the Pacific Ocean. The 
 same idea was elaborated five years later by Prof. Pickering 
 (Jour, of Geol., vol. 15, No. 1, 1907).* Also Prof G. K. Gil- 
 vert in his address to the Philosophical Society of Washing- 
 ton, D. C., 1892, gave it as his theory that the Earth was at 
 one time attended by a ring similar to that which encircles 
 the planet Saturn, and that this afterwards "gradually coal- 
 esced, gathering first around a large number of nuclei and 
 finally all uniting in a sphere,' the moon." 
 
 "If the material which now constitutes the moon was in 
 any way detached from the earth, the matter so detached 
 cannot have coalesced into a single sphere until Roche's limit 
 was reached, which would be 2.44 of fhe earth's radii from its 
 center. During this initial stage of the moon's existence the 
 nearest analogy seems to be found in Saturn's rings. Hut 
 the difficulty remains why the matter detached should not 
 have fallen back again."! 
 
 "There is some evidence to show that the actual materials 
 that once formed part of our globe were transferred to our 
 satellite, and this probability is strengthened by the agree- 
 ment between the density of the moon and that of the super- 
 ficial rocks of the earth. Indeed, as the author reminds us, 
 there are not wanting those who can point to the exact spot 
 where the catastrophe occurred that in times past tore from 
 the earth the eightieth part of its mass."$ 
 
 (c). Of the Equatorial Crust Expansion. It may be 
 
 thought that the circumferential expansion of the solid ring 
 away from the sphere's center is a doubtful assumption; but 
 it should be borne in mind that this expansion is supposed 
 to take place very slowly and gradually, requiring, especially 
 at first, a vast period to produce scarcely a measurable re- 
 sult. However small the centrifugal strain upon the ring, 
 
 *Nature, 92, 714. 
 
 tO. Fisher; Nature, 93, 214. 
 
 JReviewer; Nature, 87, 3. 
 
130 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [78 
 
 as it is not supposed to be counteracted by the ordinary attrac- 
 tion of gravity, and falling upon its connexion with the sphere, 
 some yielding of that connexion would take place, which would 
 certainly have a tendency to expajid the ring. Even though 
 the strength of the ring-connexion be quite sufficient at first 
 to withstand the centrifugal strain, another consideration sug- 
 gests that the strain would gradually become more and more 
 powerful, and, falling upon the ring-connexion, must cause 
 it to elongate. This consideration is that the ring and the 
 parent spheroid would probably continue to rotate at about 
 the same rate of angular velocity. The parent spheroid, 
 being continually contracting its volume, owing to continual 
 surface development, would thus continually but gradually 
 increase its angular velocity. A portion of this increase of 
 angular velocity would be transmitted by the intervening 
 connexion to the ring, and the absolute velocity of the latter 
 would thus be increased at the obvious expense of the ab- 
 solute velocity of the spheroid. It is quite possible that this 
 increase of angular velocity of the spheroid would take place 
 contemporaneously with a diminution of its absolute velocity. 
 The absolute velocity of the ring would thus continually in- 
 crease; and the consequent centrifugal tension upon it, trans- 
 ferred gradually through its molecular connexions to the ring- 
 connexion, would eventually become so great that that must 
 yield and elongate. Moreover it is undeniable on other 
 grounds that however rigid a ring of such vast diameter may 
 be, the strain, if long continued, would not be without an 
 effect. Prof. Tyndall has shown us ("Forms of Water") that 
 vast rivers of solid ice actually flow in their beds or channels. 
 He has measured the motion of the Mer de Glace and found 
 it to be quite similar to that of water, only much more slow. 
 And there is no end of evidence transmitted down from the 
 great Ice Age proving the tremendous power of glaciers in 
 grinding and polishing the rocky sides of the valleys through 
 which they flowed, and in piling up the vast moraines or heaps 
 of detritus which they deposited where they terminated in 
 the ocean. The influence that causes the ice to flow is the 
 
78] CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES 131 
 
 attraction of gravity, exerted upon the ice in an almost level 
 bed. The power of the strain which causes it thus to move 
 nearly horizontally may be very small indeed; but it is un- 
 varying and continual and so eventually produces very per- 
 ceptible effects. Yet ice is, in a degree rigid. It is not so 
 rigid as some other substances; but all the forms of matter 
 appear to be rigid only in a degree, and not absoluetly so. 
 Glass is more rigid than ice, and steel is more rigid than 
 glass. But even steel is far from being perfectly rigid. Sir 
 William Thomson states* that if the Earth were as rigid as 
 steel, the amount of is yielding to tidal action would be one- 
 third of the tidal effect upon a yielding globe. In other words 
 if the Earth were a globe of solid steel, the effect of the 
 Moon's attraction upon it would be to cause a tide about 
 nineteen inches in height. These views are almost generally 
 concurred in by other authorities. Prof. J. W. Juddf joins 
 in the belief of Scrope and Darwin, that the solid rock mass- 
 es of the globe under certain conditions actually flowed like 
 viscous lavas; and mentions that this belief is fully corrob- 
 orated by the experiments of MM. Tresca and Daubree. And 
 if further evidence be required, we have it in the actual equa- 
 torial expansion of the Earth itself, in precisely the same 
 manner as the planetary ring has been supposed to expand 
 outwards from the solar spheroid. The Earth's equatorial 
 regions have already expanded outwards from the center to 
 a distance of thirteen miles on every side; and the cause 
 which everybody assigns for this extension, is nothing else 
 than the Earth's rotation, even though it is supposed at the 
 same time, that the centrifugal force generated by his rota- 
 tion, is directly opposed by the vastly more powerful terres- 
 trial attraction. Therefore, if the Earth's rotation, subject 
 to such powerful opposition is supposed to have projected the 
 equatorial regions away from the center to a distance of thir- 
 teen miles, it will hardly be denied that the rotation of the 
 solar spheroid, theoretically subject to much less opposition, 
 
 *Phil. Trans. 1863, p. 574 
 
 fAddress to the Geological Society, London, Feb. 18, 1887. 
 
132 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [78 
 
 is quite capable of projecting the solar ring outwards from, its 
 parent into complete isolation and eventual disruption. 
 
 (d). Of the Connective Bond. With regard to the assump- 
 tion of molecular connexions, and especially that the mole- 
 cular connexions may be elongated by addition of atoms or 
 molecules into the planetary connexions, it seems, so tar, to 
 involve nothing unreasonable. It is everywhere admitted, 
 that some connection exists between every portion of matter 
 by means of which actions and interactions are supposed to 
 take place. Usually such connection is designated a force; 
 but as already stated, the very propounders of that force 
 liave been driven to the belief that the true explanation of 
 it will be found to involve some such material mechanism 
 as is here assumed. 
 
 The inchoate planet is held by its molecular connexions 
 upon the bosom of the parent sphere. When the increasing 
 rigidity of the former and the continual development and con- 
 traction of the latter, necessitates a separation of the bodies, 
 is it not reasonable that these molecular connexions, being 
 thus subjected to a gradual strain, would be elongated con- 
 formably to it? and, as the tension becomes great, that it 
 would draw either upon the connexions of the surface mole- 
 cules of the sphere, or upon these molecules themselves, or 
 upon both, to relieve the strain by addition to the connexion? 
 Indeed nothing seems more reasonable. As already stated 
 the connexions of developed molecules would be stronger 
 than those of atoms or undeveloped molecules; the connex- 
 ions subtending between the developed crust and the con- 
 tracting spheroid would be stronger than the interconnexions 
 of the comparatively undeveloped molecules of the spheroid's 
 surface; and these last would in turn be stronger than the 
 subjacent atomic connexions. The tension falling slowly upon 
 the surface molecules would not cause their connexions to 
 sunder because there are weaker connexions beneath them. 
 Yet they would absorb a portion of the strain, the remainder 
 falling upon adjacent molecules still less developed, or per- 
 haps, down even upon the primary components. Thus would 
 
79] CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES 133 
 
 the tension be distributed, and evidently the more it is dis- 
 tribued the less likely is any disjunction to take place. The 
 tension falling upon the surface molecules and their connex- 
 ions would slowly absorb some of them into the strained con- 
 nexion, where they would themselves be strained into a new 
 form. These would be followed by others and still others, 
 and thus would a main connexion be formed between the 
 planet-ring and the spheroid. As the ring becomes farther 
 and farther removed from the latter, owing to the causes al- 
 ready assigned, it seems probable also that connexions would 
 be formed between adjacent portions of the ring itself, which, 
 would also suffer stress by the continual ring-expansion. In 
 the final disruption of the ring these would accelerate the 
 approach of the disjoined parts to one point. At the same time 
 the central connexion would follow the falling parts, and when 
 these parts finally join in forming the spherical planet, the 
 corresponding portions of the connexion would naturally coal- 
 esce into cylindrical conformity. In all this there appears 
 nothing unreasonable or improbable; indeed, from approxi- 
 mate terrestial analogies, it appears to be the only thing that 
 could naturally happen. 
 
 79. Comparison of the Old and the New Ideas. If these 
 views are contrasted with the current views, they will be 
 seen in a still more favorable light. For, according to the 
 latter, an increase of absolute tangential velocity of the axial 
 rotation of the spheroid is necessary to the projection of the 
 ring; yet no such increase of velocity before or during the 
 ring-period is rationally assignable (see Arts. 63, 66). And 
 after the ring is precipitated into the planet-sphere it is sup- 
 posed to be held to the original spheroid by means of some 
 immaterial thing admittedly unaccountable in its nature, in 
 its origin, and in its operation. Even then it became neces- 
 sary to introduce some substance into the interplanetary re- 
 gions, and so it was imagined that these regions were filled 
 wih a highly volatile fluid called ether. But by what means 
 this ether came to occupy or abide in these regions still re- 
 
134 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [80 
 
 mains inexplicable. This is the present theory, and it does 
 seem that, if we cast aside all bias, the comparison of the 
 two theories is, so far, not at all unfavorable to the new one. 
 
 80. Results of the Ring-Disruption. 
 
 (a). Loss of Acquired Development. In the precipitation 
 of the planetary ring into the spherical form, there are sev- 
 eral things which require careful consideration. First of 
 these is that, in general, all the development of the ring would 
 be lost in its collapse, so that the resulting planet would be 
 in tl^e same state of vapor as the original spheroid. We are 
 impelled to this conclusion by the consideration that, if a 
 very little development were preserved by each new-born 
 planet more than was possessed by its parental sphere at 
 its birth, then, obviously, in a vast number of generations, 
 the structure of a new-born planet would be highly developed, 
 and as the original spheroid of our system may itself have 
 been the descendant of many preceding generations, and as 
 that spheroid is supposed in the premises to have been in a 
 state of extremely rare and nearly homogeneous vapor, it 
 appears that no other conclusion is admissible. Moreover, the 
 conclusion is far from improbable. The vast mass of solid 
 matter in the ring, and the vast distances through which the 
 greater portions of the mass would fall, must engender an 
 amount of heat quite sufficient, in accordance with current 
 estimates, to reduce the colliding masses to their primordial 
 state. 
 
 (b). Axial Rotation of the Planet. A second result to be 
 considered, which arises from the precipitation of the ring, 
 is the axial rotation of the resulting planet. In the premises 
 has been accorded to the original spheroid of our system some 
 axial rotation, and it is obvious that this rotation would be 
 imparted to the ring at the time of its gradual separation 
 from the spheroid, and, after its disruption, changed into the 
 planet's orbital motion. 
 
 Now, in the ring-collapse, one portion of the ring would 
 move with this original motion, and the other portion would 
 
80] CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES 135 
 
 move against it, towards the point of aggregation. The por- 
 tion moving with the original rotation would, therefore, have 
 a greater absolute velocity around the spheroid than the oth- 
 ers. This greater velocity, owing to the increased centri- 
 fugal tendency which it generates, would cause this portion to 
 move farther outwards from the spheroid than the others, so 
 that while this part would approach the central point of ag- 
 gregation far away from that point, the diametrically 
 opposite portions, owing to their diminished absolute velocity, 
 and consequently diminished centrifugal tendency, would ap- 
 proach it from the opposite direction at a comparatively 
 smaller distance; the obvious result being an axial rotation 
 of the planet in the same general direction as the original 
 spheroid. 
 
 (c). Recession of the Planet. It seems probable that the 
 falling velocity of both parts of the ring, especially when near 
 the point of aggregation, would be much greater than the 
 velocity of the original rotation; in which case the planet 
 would be bodily carried outwards to a considerably greater 
 distance from the center of the spheroid than that of the 
 ring just prior to its disruption. The connexion of the plan- 
 et, being highly elastic and capable of adding to its length, 
 as already indicated, would permit such removal, but would 
 also slowly hinder it and finally overcome it. This subject 
 will be further considered in the next section of this article. 
 
 (d). Cause of t)he Different Absolute Velocities of the 
 Planet's Orbital Motion and of the Rotation of the Spheroid. 
 Why is it that the absolute velocity of Neptune in its orbit 
 is about three miles per second, while the absolute rotational 
 velocity of the Sun's equator, even now, after the repeated 
 accelerations which, as we shall shortly see, would take place 
 in the several ring precipitations which have taken place 
 since Neptune's time, is only little more than one mile per 
 second? and this when it is taught by the new theory, as by 
 the old, that it is the rotational velocity of the Sun from which 
 Neptune's orbital velocity has been derived. 
 
 In answering this question, the first thing to be noticed 
 
136 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [80 
 
 is that the planet-ring, just at the point of separation from the 
 Sun, would probably have the same angular rate of rotation 
 as the other portions of the Sun, owing to the friction of the 
 crust with the internal solar substance; and, being a broad, 
 flat body, this would involve a much greater absolute ve- 
 locity of the ring than of the equatorial surface, which it 
 leaves behind. A second thing to be noticed is that the con- 
 nexion of the ring with the Sun, being grosser in the earlier 
 stage, would tend to maintain the same angular rate of the 
 ring and the Sun for a considerable time after the separation. 
 What absolute velocity the ring would gain by this means 
 would obviously be lost by the Sun; and thus would the ab- 
 solute velocity of the ring, compared with that of the Sun, be 
 doubly increased, the increased velocity of the ring being, of 
 course, transmitted to the subsequent planet. Prof. Young 
 has much the same idea:* 
 
 "A ring would revolve for a while as a whole, but in time 
 it would break and the material would collect into a single 
 globe. Laplace supposed that the ring would revolve as if 
 it were solid, the outer edge, therefore, moving more swiftly 
 than the inner. If this were so, the mass formed from the 
 collection of the matter of the ruptured ring would neces- 
 sarily rotate in the same direction as the ring revolved." 
 
 In this greater absolute velocity of the ring we have a 
 further cause of the recession of the planet; for the centri- 
 fugal tendency which the ring possessed just prior to its dis- 
 ruption would be greater than the elasticity of the connective 
 bond could withstand after the spherical aggregation of the 
 ring. Before the breaking up of the ring, the cohesive 
 strength of the ring-substance would withstand a consider- 
 able portion of the centrifugal strain. After this cohesive 
 strength was destroyed, the entire strain would fall upon the 
 newly-formed planetary bond, which consequently would very 
 probably yield, permitting the planet to move outwards until 
 the centrifugal strain and the elasticity of the connexion were 
 balanced. 
 
 *Gen. Astron., Art. 969 
 
80] CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES 137 
 
 (e). Increased Axial Rotation of the Sun. Another thing 
 to be noticed in the ring-disruption, is an increased axial ro- 
 tation of the Sun. For, as already stated, one part of the 
 ring has a much greater absolute velocity with respect to 
 the Sun's center than the other. Owing to this greater ve- 
 locity, its connexion would be in greater tension, and this 
 tension would be transmitted to the surface molecules of the 
 Sun; pulling them in the direction in which that portion of 
 the ring was moving. Since the opposite portion of the 
 ring has a smaller absolute velocity, the strain of its 
 connexion upon the Sun's surface would be correspondingly 
 weak; and so would not balance the greater strain upon the 
 other side. And the obvious consequence would be an in- 
 crease of the Sun's absolute rotatory velocity. 
 
 Here, then, is a very simple explanation of a phenomenon 
 hitherto inexplicable. We now find a cause for the greater 
 absolute velocity of the inner planets as compared with the 
 outer, which the theory of gravitation is incapable of furnish- 
 ing. For the force of gravity is supposed to act with pre- 
 cisely equal strength whether it acts upon another body or 
 not. One body is supposed to attract another directly as its 
 mass, and inversely as the square of the distance between 
 them. It is true that, in conformity with this tneory, the re- 
 ceding portion of the ring would attract the Sun; but its 
 recession, instead of increasing the strain upon the Sun's sur- 
 face, would diminish it. While, upon the other side of the 
 Sun, the slow-moving portion would be the nearer, and so its 
 attraction or strain upon that side would be the greater. Thus 
 in accordance with the theory of gravitation, if any variation 
 of the Sun's rotation would take place, it would be in the 
 direction of retarding, rather than in accelerating that rota- 
 tion. 
 
 (f). Origin of Comets and Meteorites). Yet another thing 
 to be noticed in the disruption of the ring, is the origin of 
 comets, planetoids, and meteorites. In the light of the new 
 theory, the comets and meteorites are nothing else than frag- 
 ments of the planet-ring, which by some irregularity in the 
 
138 THE CONNECTIVE TH.EORY [82 
 
 tremendoug crash, are hurled outwards with such violence 
 as to break the connexions, both with the Sun and the new- 
 born planet; whence they wander through space until their 
 career has been arrested by colksion with some other sun 
 or planet. This, together with the various peculiarities of 
 comets, will be more fully discussed farther on. 
 
 81. Genesis of a Second Planet. The surface of the Sun 
 would still continue to contract in volume and to develop in 
 structure as before, with the exception of the single circum- 
 stance of being subject to the influence of the planet's con- 
 nexion. The effect of this circumstance, however, would 
 probably be nothing more in this respect than slightly to 
 hasten the equatorial movement of the developed molecules. 
 The same progressive steps as before would ensue, the same 
 structural development, the same ring-formation with its 
 evolving connexion, the same polar fractures and equatorial 
 expansion of the ring, the same eventual disruption generat- 
 ing the new axial rotation and again increasing that of the 
 Sun. And thus, as a result of almost an eternity of evolution, 
 comes the dissolution; and out of the dissolution arises a sec- 
 ond new-born planet, with perhaps a comet or two and a shoal 
 of meteorites. As the second planet-ring became separated 
 from the Sun, different parts of It would be temporarily in 
 the connexion of the first planet, serving for the time, as a 
 part of that connexion ; and the two connexions mingling to- 
 gether between the ring and the Sun. In the collapse of the 
 ring, its own connexion would follow it to the point of aggre- 
 gation; the connexion of the first planet joining behind the 
 falling portions of the ring, and so remaining intact. 
 
 82. Genesis of a Secondary Connexion. But the connexion 
 of the first planet would not all stay behind the precipitating 
 ring. A portion of it, it is reasonable to suppose, would ad- 
 here to the ring-substance and would form a connexion be- 
 tween the two planets. This secondary connexion quite 
 probably would differ materially from the primary connexion 
 with the Sun being more refined and rarer, agreeable to the 
 functions it or rather the remainder of the connexion has 
 
84] CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES 139 
 
 to perform. In support of this difference in the nature of 
 the two connexions, it may be urged in the first place that 
 the Sun, being by far the greater mass, would naturally claim 
 the greater share of the first planet's connexion; whence the 
 share falling to the second planet would be comparatively 
 attenuated. And in the second place, those portions of the 
 connexion which perform the office of holding the first planet 
 in its orbit, and transmitting to it heat and light, may reason- 
 ably be supposed to be sufficiently fixed in that office to 
 resist removal; so that the less necessary (that is, the less 
 gross, or more volatile), portion only of the first connexion 
 would fall to the second planet. 
 
 83. Mutual Planetary Accelerations and Retardations. 
 Owing partly to the increase of the Sun's axial rotation in the 
 breaking up of the first ring, the orbital periods of the two 
 planets would differ; that of the inner being the shorter. The 
 inner planet would therefore move away from the first planet 
 between conjunction and opposition,* and would approach it 
 between opposition and conjunction. The interplanetary con- 
 nexion would therefore be subjected to a long-continued ten- 
 sion; the substance for its elongation being supplied from the 
 atmospheres of the two planets. Evidently when the con- 
 nexion between the two planets is thus strained, the outer 
 planet would be accelerated and the inner planet retarded. 
 But after opposition, the reverse would occur; for whatever 
 resistance was offered by the amospheric molecules in elong- 
 ating the connexion may be supposed to be compensated by 
 their mutual affinity when the tension is removed. So that 
 the acceleration and retardation of each planet would be ap- 
 proximately equal. 
 
 84. Systemic Complexity. Each planet, being at its birth 
 a globe of vapor similar in all respects except magnitude to 
 the original solar spheroid, would contract its volume by sur- 
 face development and pass through the same generative 
 stages as the parent; the eventual result of which would be 
 
 *Conjunction of two planets here means that both are on the same 
 side of the Sun; and opposition, that they are on opposite sides of the 
 Sun. 
 
140 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [84 
 
 the birth of satellites in the same manner as the planets. The 
 satellites would be connected primarily with the parent plan- 
 ets and secondarily with the Sun and with sister satellites; 
 and the action of the secondary connexions upon the satellites 
 would be similar to, though less in magnitude than, their ac- 
 tion in the case of the planets. 
 
 It seems unnecessary in this place to follow the details 
 of the genesis of each of the other planets and satellites. 
 The generating process of each planet is but a repetition of the 
 steps involved in the generation of its predecessors, with the 
 exception of an increasing complexity of interplanetary con- 
 nexions, as every successive planet would be connected with 
 every preceding one. This complexity becomes mazelike, even 
 if there were no greater number of connected bodies than 
 is comprised in the Solar System at its present stage. But 
 when we consider that our Sun is but a planet of a still great- 
 er system, having its own proper connexions with its sun and 
 sister planets nay, when we consider, as according to the 
 new theory we must, that our Sun is but a satellite a sat- 
 ellite of the tenth or twelfth order of descent from a grand 
 but vastly remote parent; when we consider the vast number 
 of other suns, planets and satellites necessarily involved be- 
 tween us and that parent, with each of which our own little 
 world is quite probably connected truly the highly intricate 
 plexus of connexions thus approximately indicated is apparent- 
 ly not very far removed from the current idea of universal 
 ether after all. But there is this difference: There is a 
 system in the former, while the latter is a mere chaotic homo- 
 geneity; a natural and rational derivation for the one, while 
 the other has no other basis than mere assumption. 
 
 It would be equally impossible and unnecessary to trace out 
 all the connexions involved in our system and their various 
 effects upon each other and upon the bodies they connect. It 
 seems that if the moving equilibrium of any three bodies can 
 be demonstrated to be stable according to this connective the- 
 ory, that of a greater number need not, perhaps, be considered. 
 For the addition of a fourth, or a fifth, or any number of other 
 
84] CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES 141 
 
 bodies in a regular manner, while increasing the complexity, 
 apparently involves no new or greater difficulty than is found 
 in the simple system of three bodies. The grand Complexity 
 appears to be but a repetition and combination of simple uni- 
 ties compounded and recompounded in time, in space and In 
 motion. 
 
 When a planet, or a satellite, would impinge upon some 
 other connexion than its own, the latter would part its molec- 
 ular attachments and fix them upon the entering body. Dur- 
 ing the passage, the latter would practically form a part of 
 the connexion; and when the body would pass through it, the 
 molecules of the connexion, following its contour and succes- 
 sively attaching themselves to the different portions, would fi- 
 nally close up behind it and unite together as before. The con- 
 nexion of the one body would pass through that of the other 
 much upon the same principle except that the lateral molec- 
 ular connexions of both planetary bonds, instead of the longi- 
 tudinal molecular connexions of one only, would part, those 
 of each to admit the longitudinal connexions of the other; 
 these lateral connexions joining together after the passage in 
 the same manner as the longitudinal connexions during the 
 passage through them of a heavenly body. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 * 
 
 EVOLUTION OF THE SIDEREAL SYSTEM 
 
 The question is so vast that the researches of our great- 
 est astronomers have done little more than lead us to the 
 top of Pisgar and show us from afar the promised land; but 
 every newly ascertained fact, or even confirmation of old 
 ones, is a valuable contribution towards the general stock 
 of knowledge which is Demg gradually accumulated; out of 
 which, perhaps, the genius of some future Newton may evolve 
 some general law. HOWARD PAYN. 
 
 Unfortunately, whatever progress we may make in pho- 
 tography or in optics, whatever penetrating and sensitive 
 power we may hope to give to our instruments, it is evident 
 that we shall never succeed in seeing the most distant stars, 
 and that, at whatever limit we may arrive, there will always 
 be beyond it an infinity of others lost in the profundity of 
 the heavens which will always escape our knowledge; but 
 it is by photography and the scientific study of negatives that 
 we shall be able to go further than by any other means. 
 
 ADMIRAL MOUCHEZ. 
 
 I not believe that the great Architect 
 
 With all these fires the heavenly arches decked 
 
 Only for show, and with these glistening shields 
 
 To amaze poor shepherds watching in the fields; 
 
 I not believe that the least flower which flanks 
 
 Our garden borders, or our common banks, 
 
 And the least stone that in her warming lap 
 
 Our mother earth did covetously wrap, 
 
 Haih some peculiar virtue of its own, 
 
 And that the glorious stars of heaven have none. 
 
 JOSHUA SYLVESTER (1593-1(518). 
 
 85. The Original Sidereal Spheroid. If the solar spheroid 
 with which we started, instead of being the parent of the 
 Solar System, were considered as the parent of the Sidereal 
 System, still the same premises would apply, and the same 
 results of the process of subdivision or segregation, would evi- 
 dently be arrived at. Planet after planet would be continually 
 given out from the spheroid in the equatorial plane of its ro- 
 tation, its still remaining nucleus constituting the center 
 
86] EVOLUTION OF THE SIDEREAL SYSTEM 143 
 
 around which all these bodies revolve. Each of these grander 
 planets would in their turn give forth sub-planets and consti- 
 tute a sub-system of which the still remaining nucleus of the 
 planet would be the immediate governing center. Each sub- 
 planet in turn would subdivide in a similar manner, the sub- 
 divisions of which would also become the centers of a still 
 inferior order. And so on down to the present stage. In cor- 
 roboration of this, we observe that the bodies of the Sidereal 
 System are distributed principally in one plane, that of the 
 Milky Way, which would thus be determined as the equatorial 
 plane of the Sidereal System; this, it may be added, being also 
 in accordance with the views of nearly all eminent philoso- 
 phers and astronomers. And in still further corroboration, it 
 is observed that the greatest degree of subdivision, as man- 
 ifested in the nebulae, has taken place in the peripheral parts 
 of the Sidereal System, in the older sub-systems, just where 
 we should reasonably look for it. 
 
 86. The Sidereal System and What It Includes. It has 
 been thought probable by many astronomers that the nebulae 
 are other galaxies, or sidereal systems, at distances propor- 
 tionately as great from ours as the distances of the fixed stars 
 are greater than the planetary distances. And they were not 
 unnaturally led to this view; for, gazing at these nebulae, they 
 looked through and beyond the countless stars of the Milky 
 Way, and they saw nothing beyond them but the perfect black- 
 ness of the heavens. But the nebulae, though probably be- 
 yond the visible stars of our galaxy, can hardly be at such 
 almost infinite distances. For, if the distance of the neb- 
 ulae from the Sidereal System were about a million times 
 that of the fixed stars from us, as the stated supposition im- 
 plies, it would inevitably follow that the telescopic power re- 
 quired to resolve these remote galaxies into stars must be in- 
 comparably greater than that required to resolve our own gal- 
 axy into stars. But this is not the case, as it is well known 
 that the same telescopic power by which many of the stars 
 certainly belonging to our galaxy are barely visible, will clear- 
 ly resolve many of the nebulae into distinct and separate stars. 
 
144 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [87 
 
 And it seems far more reasonable to suppose that the stars 
 of our own galaxy and the starlets of the nebulae, both of 
 which are barely discernible separately in the most powerful 
 telescopes, are both about the same distance from us, than to 
 suppose that the starlets of the nebulae are each a million 
 times greater than the stars of the Sidereal System. 
 
 It is not here contended that there are no other galaxies 
 or firmaments beyond our own, but only that if such really 
 exist, they must be invisible to us, owing to the remoteness 
 of our relationship with them and to our immense distance 
 from them. From the present state of our knowledge it seems 
 nothing less than presumption either to assert the existence 
 of other firmaments than ours, or to deny that our firmament 
 may even be a constituent atom of an eye beholding but a 
 tittle of the Cosmos. 
 
 87. Arrangement of the Sidereal System. According to 
 the telescopic researches of Sir William Herschel, our little 
 world is situated nearly in the plane of the Galactic Circle 
 which passes through the Milky Way, but somewhat eccen- 
 trically, being apparently nearer to the southern than to the 
 northern portion of that circle. In, or very nearly in, this 
 plane, which differs only about 40 from that of the Solar Sys- 
 tem, the vast majority of the heavenly bodies lies, and, as we 
 recede from it, the number of stars in equal areas of the sky 
 rapidly diminishes up to the Galactic Poles. Had the evolu- 
 tion of every successive body of the Sidereal System been reg- 
 ular, all the stars and planets, according to the new theory, 
 would lie in this plane. But as the evolution of the Solar 
 System has not all been regular, the motions of some bodies 
 being at very great inclinations to the plane of the Sun's equa- 
 tor, it might reasonably be expected that the same irregular- 
 ities would occur in the Sidereal System in the same propor- 
 tion. The stars which we observe in high galactic latitudes 
 furnish, therefore, no greater objection to the common origin 
 of all the bodies of our firmament than the great inclinations 
 of the orbit planes of the satellites of Neptune and Uranus 
 
88] EVOLUTION OF THE SIDEREAL SYSTEM 145 
 
 furnish to the common origin of all the bodies of the Solar 
 System. 
 
 It may be incidentally remarked that, although apparently 
 numberless, the visible bodies of our firmament are in all prob- 
 ability few compared with the number of those, equally large, 
 which are totally invisible to us. Beyond the puny limits of 
 our own Solar System, we observe, even with the most power- 
 ful telescopes, probably none but incandescent bodies shin- 
 ing by their own proper light. Around many of them and 
 receiving their light and heat, are revolving other bodies which 
 of themselves give forth no light, just as we find the dark 
 planets circling our own Sun. Occasionally, indeed, we ob- 
 serve bright planets revolving round their primaries, as in the 
 case of periodic, binary and multiple stars; but those planets 
 themselves are theoretically of recent origin and in an incan- 
 descent state. As not more than two or three such may rea- 
 sonably be supposed to exist among the many dark bodies of 
 the Solar System, we may safely presume that in snniiar sys- 
 tems a similar state of things prevails. And even in the sys- 
 tems in which the incandescent planets are observed, it is 
 quite probable that they are not always unaccompanied by 
 more developed sister planets (see Art. 139). 
 
 88. Probable Number of the Heavenly Bodies and of Their 
 Successive Generations. To gain some idea of the number 
 of successive generations of heavenly bodies which would have 
 taken place from the original spheroid of the Sidereal System 
 down to the present time, let us assume that heavenly bodies 
 of all magnitudes are equally prolific; i. e., that suns, planets, 
 satellites, etc., have on the average (to use a familiar phrase) 
 the same period of gestation. The actual number of stars 
 visible to the naked eye, including all down to the 7th magni- 
 tude, is about 6,000; and the number telescopically visible 
 down to the 13th magnitude is about 43,000,000. Let us put 
 the whole number of heavenly bodies, from those of the first 
 magnitude down to those which are barely visible in the most 
 powerful telescopes, both inclusive, at one billion; and let us 
 further suppose that the number of dark bodies in the Sider- 
 
146 
 
 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY 
 
 [88 
 
 eal System which are wholly invisible to us, is about ten times 
 as great as the number we observe; and, finally, to the sum 
 thus obtained let us add, for accidental contingencies, enough 
 to make one hundred billions, and call this the number of 
 bodies regularly derived (excluding meteorites and most com- 
 ets, which are not supposed to generate new bodies), of which 
 the Sidereal System now consists. From these various facts 
 and assumptions it follows that the number of generations 
 from the primordial spheroid of the Sidereal System down to 
 the present time, is about thirty-three; a generation in this 
 case being the time elapsing between the birth of a heavenly 
 body and the birth of the next heavenly body from the same 
 parent. In the following table, let S represent the primordial 
 spheroid of the Sidereal System, and let the horizontal col- 
 umns represent the orders of descent of the heavenly bodies, 
 and the diagonal columns the orders of their generations in 
 time; then the figures in these columns will denote the num- 
 ber of oodies of each order of descent, in each order of time 
 down to the 12th. 
 
 TABLE OF SIDEREAL GENERATIONS 
 
 In the first order of time, the spheroid would give birth to 
 one body of the first order of descent. In the second order of 
 time, the latter would give birth to one body of the second 
 
88] EVOLUTION OF THE SIDEREAL SYSTEM 147 
 
 order of descent, and the spheroid would give birth to another 
 body of the first order of descent. In the third order of time, 
 there would be one of the first order of descent from the spher- 
 oid, two bodies of the second order of descent from the two 
 previously existing bodies of the first order of descent, and 
 one body of the third order of descent from the previously ex- 
 isting body of the second order of descent. And so on; the 
 numbers of the bodies of the various orders of descent, in any 
 order of time, forming the co-efficients of the terms of a sim- 
 ple algebraic binomial raised to a power denoted by the num- 
 ber less one of that order. Thus the numbers of the bodies 
 of the various orders of descent, from the first to the seventh 
 inclusive, in the seventh order of time, are 1, 6, 15, 20, 15, 6, 1, 
 respectively; these numbers being also the co-efficients of the 
 respective terms of (a+b) e fully expanded. It is also to be 
 observed that the number of all bodies of all orders of de- 
 scent in any order of time, is just twice the number in the 
 preceding order of time; so that the sums of all the bodies 
 in the successive orders of time, form the terms of a geomet- 
 rical progression of which the ratio is 2. And finding the sum 
 of 33 terms of such a series, the first term being one, we have 
 a number larger by half than the number of bodies of which 
 we assumed the Sidereal System to consist. 
 
 It would follow from this consideration, then, that the 
 Sidereal System is composed of some thirty-two or thirty- 
 three consecutive principal systems; and also that the Solar 
 System, if its original spheroid were regularly derived from 
 the primordial spheroid of the Sidereal System, (as seems 
 probable in comparison with the supposition of its being a 
 comet) and supposing Neptune to be its first planet, and the 
 Asteroids temporally equivalent to another planet would 
 probably be a member of the tenth of these consecutive sys- 
 tems from the sidereal center; which appears to be strongly 
 corroborated by actual observation. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE UNIVERSE 
 
 The density of stars in the Sidereal System gradually 
 diminishes until the limit of stellar matter would be reached 
 at about 30,000 light-years. Nature, 78, 234-7. 
 
 If the universe is infinite, the number of stars would be 
 theoretically four times greater for each fainter magnitude, 
 but, as observed, it was only three times greater. The hy- 
 pothesis that light is absorbed by material particles would 
 apparently explain the discrepancy. PROF. H. H. TURNER. 
 
 In all the various realms of sense-perception, there will 
 always be that which lies beyond, and which can only be con- 
 jectured, or at best reasonably inferred, but which can never 
 become immediately perceived by human senses. Surround- 
 ing the expanding island of the visible world will be the bound- 
 less sea of the invisible. GEORGE TRUMBULL LADD. 
 
 89. Other Sidereal Systems. Does the Sidereal System 
 comprise ail there is the entire Cosmos the Universe? 
 There appears to be no ocular evidence today that there is 
 anything beyond it. It was once thought the irresolvable 
 nebulae were other systems similar to the Sidereal System 
 but at a vastly greater distance. However when new stars 
 of considerable magnitude Avere seen suddenly to blaze out in 
 these nebulae, it was impossible to believe that these new 
 stars could be of such immense size as to make them thus vis- 
 ible at distances millions of times greater than the utmost lim- 
 its of the Sidereal System. Therefore the belief seemed nec- 
 essary that these nebulae were within the confines of our own 
 system, and that their irresolvability was owing to the com- 
 parative smallness of their constituent units rather than to 
 their greater distance. So that, if there really be anything 
 outside of the Sidereal System, we have no visual evidence 
 of it; nothing but the dense, mysterious blackness of the 
 Beyond. 
 
 But there are other and stronger reasons for refusing to 
 
90] THE UNIVERSE 149 
 
 believe that the universe is confined to just all that puny mart 
 is able to behold. Some of these are noticed in the follow- 
 ing article. 
 
 But whether the Sidereal System 'be the entire Cosmos or 
 not, the idea of an original spheroid which has already been 
 considered would apply just the same; the sole difference be- 
 ing that in the primordial spheroid of the whole Cosmos, ax- 
 ial rotation cannot be assumed. 
 
 90. The Origin of Motion. In all of the new theory that 
 precedes, axial rotaion has been assumed; and from the axial 
 rotation, orbital revolution in all its phases naturally follows. 
 It seems necessary to believe that matter always existed in 
 some form or other; but it does not seem necessary to be- 
 lieve either that motion is matter, as some do (such as Kighi, 
 Ostwald, Einstein, and Planck),* or that motion is eternal the 
 same as matter is. It seems more natural to suppose that 
 motion in some way or other arose out of matter, and such a 
 supposition seems not inconceivable. 
 
 In the cosmical spheroid, as in the others, the ultimate 
 components upon the surface of the spheroid would be differ- 
 ently circumstanced from those beneath them; from which 
 the same process of surface consolidation as before is infer- 
 able. But in the absence of rotation, this process would 
 eventually culminate, not in an equatorial ring, as before, but 
 in a hollow spherical shell. This shell would be held to the 
 central spheroid by a primary connexion just as was the ring, 
 and the molecules of the shell would have intermolecular con- 
 nexions just as those of the ring had. Continual development 
 would cause rigidity of the shell as of the ring, which would 
 prevent it from following the contracting spheroid within it; 
 and, in its final collapse, the intermolecular connexions, being 
 stronger than the primary connexions with the spheroid, 
 would draw the fractured portions of the shell together chief- 
 ly in its own plane until a falling velocity was acquired which 
 would balance the elasticity of the central connexion. It is 
 not likely, however, that all of such a shell would coalesce at 
 
 *Nature, 91, pp. 3, 27. 
 
150 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [90 
 
 one point. There would no doubt be several points of aggre- 
 gation, at each of which the aggregating matter would be cer- 
 tain to acquire axial rotation because all the impacts of the 
 falling portions at each point of aggregation cannot be sup- 
 posed to have balanced one another; and there would also be 
 orbital motions of the several aggregated masses (which mo- 
 tions could be obviated only by all of the shell aggregating 
 at one point, in which case there would be no orbital motion, 
 though there could be axial rotation, just as in the other case) 
 and these orbital motions would necessarily be in various di- 
 rections. 
 
 If the number of bodies resulting from the shell were 
 great, their orbital motions would be inclined to each other 
 at many angles ; but if the collapse of the shell resulted main- 
 ly in two principal bodies, then the orbital revolutions of 
 these two would be in one plane and in opposite directions; 
 and these directions would determine the equator of the re- 
 sulting system; from which subsequent smaller bodies would 
 extend in diminishing density towards the poles. 
 
 It is some evidence in favor of the view that the entire 
 Cosmos is co-extensive with "the Sidereal System that these 
 two motions are actually within it in the galactic circle and 
 that the stars diminish in number towards the galactic poles 
 in the proportion of about fifty at the former place to one 
 at the latter.* 
 
 "The great mass of the stars are distributed in a lens- or 
 bun-shaped system, in which our sun occupies a central posi- 
 tion; round this and in the same plane are coiled the clusters 
 which make up the Milky Way. In the central parts of this 
 the stars form two great streams moving in opposite direc- 
 tions: this is most easily explained as being the result of two 
 more or less independent systems of stars having become 
 intermingled, 'f 
 
 "Seven years ago Prof. Kapteyn, at the scientific congress 
 of the St. Louis Exposition, introduced his now~ well-known 
 hypothesis that the visible universe consists of two great 
 intermingling streams moving in opposite directions. The 
 
 *J. Norman Lockyer, Nature, 60, 618. 
 ' fA. E>. Eddinton, Nature, 87, 468. 
 
90] THE UNIVERSE 151 
 
 direction of one he called the 'vertex,' which he fixed at K. 
 A. 6h. 4m., decl. + 13. Quite recently Eddington of the 
 Greenwich Observatory, with the same hypothesis . . . 
 found for this vertex R. A. 6h. 16m., decl. + 12."* 
 
 There are other considerations, however, which compel the 
 belief that the Sidereal System cannot be commensurate with 
 the Cosmical System, and that the present stage of cosmical 
 evolution cannot be the primordial stage. It will appear lat- 
 er that the present highly developed molecular mechanism 
 must have been derived from a previous stage, possibly from 
 many previous stages, of cosmical evolution. And it seems 
 not improbable that the two opposite stellar streams could 
 result from a system derived from, and subordinate to, the 
 Cosmical System, and possessing an axial rotation, though at 
 a rate so slow that the resulting ring would not be greatly 
 different from the spherical shell. 
 
 But whatever the dimensions of the Cosmical System as 
 compared with the Sidereal System, and however remote the 
 primordial stage of cosmical evolution as compared with the 
 present, motion could still arise in the manner indicated from 
 the collapse of the spherical shell of the motionless primordial 
 cosmical spheroid. 
 
 *G. A. Miller, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 1911; Science, 35, 221. Sea 
 also F. W. Dyson, Nature, 82, pp. 11, 12, 13. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 COSMICAL GRAVITATION 
 
 If we found an agreement between the results of the ap- 
 plication of our theory to special problems and the solutions 
 of the corresponding problems as worked objectively in na- 
 ture, we should have reason to believe that our hypotheses 
 agreed with the facts, or, in other words, that they were true, 
 and we should then raise them to the dignity of natural laws. 
 It is on evidence of this kind that our acceptation of all 
 natural laws is based. If our conclusions were inconsistent 
 with natural phenomena, our system of dynamics would be an 
 abstract, instead of a natural, science if, indeed, it might 
 be called a science at all and would be valuable merely as 
 intellectual exercise. WILLIAM GARNETT. 
 
 This energy, in the interval between its departure from 
 the sun and its arrival at the earth, must be in the space be- 
 tween them. Thus this space must contain something which, 
 like ordinary matter, can store up energy, which can carry at 
 an enormous pace the energy associated with light and heat, 
 and can, in addition, exert the enormous stresses necessary 
 to keep the earth circling round the sun and the moon around 
 the earth. SIR J. J. THOMSON. 
 
 Nature is generally more simple than our conceptions 
 thereof; we begin with very complicated theories and end 
 with the most simple. DU PREL. 
 
 91. The Ball-and-String Hypothesis. After this rapid gen- 
 eral survey of cosmical and systemic evolution, we may now 
 proceed to the consideration of that evolution more in detail, 
 and observe what corroborative or contradictory evidence the 
 new theory meets with in the various phenomena involved. 
 
 Of the first importance in this direction is the phenomena 
 of cosmical gravitation and a comparison of the actions of 
 the planetary connexions in producing these phenomena with 
 that of the force of gravity. The theory of gravitation seems 
 by no means a flimsy one which may be lightly considered and 
 passed over. The attraction by means of which bodies fall 
 
91] COSMICAL GRAVITATION 153 
 
 to the Earth's surface, when extended outwards to the Moon 
 in accordance with the law of inverse squares, almost exactly 
 accounts for the fall of that body towards the Earth in each 
 second of time. If the Earth's surface attraction be extended 
 outwards to the Sun in the same manner and then compared 
 with that of the Sun upon the Earth, it is found that the ef- 
 fect of the latter is some 328,000 times more powerful than 
 the former. And when this value of the Sun's attraction is 
 similarly extended from the Sun outwards to each planet of 
 the Solar System successively, it is found to account for the 
 fall of these bodies in each second with the same exactness 
 that the Earth's attraction accounts for that of the Moon. 
 Here is a basis for the theory of gravitation, the apparent so- 
 lidity and strength of which seems to be completely impreg- 
 nable; and truly it is not to be wondered at that the intellect 
 of a Newton should place great reliance upon it. But that 
 he did not place as great reliance upon' it as some of his re- 
 cent disciples do, sufficiently appears from the fact that he 
 regarded it as the greatest of absurdities to imagine "that one 
 body might act upon another through a vacuum without the 
 mediation of anything else by and through which their action 
 and force may be conveyed from one to another." And Sir 
 William Thomson says that we must be temporarily satisfied 
 to explain capillary attraction as intensified Newtonian at- 
 traction "until we see how gravity itself is to be explained, as 
 Newton and Faraday thought it must be explained, by some 
 continuous action of intervening or surrounding matter."* It 
 is this continuous action of surrounding and all-pervading 
 matter which constitutes the essential feature of the new the- 
 ory we are now considering; and the wider operations of 
 which we are now to examine more closely. 
 
 But how can the phenomena, which so strongly corroborate 
 the theory of gravitation, be accounted for on the basis of 
 the material connexions which the new theory postulates? 
 How can this material medium explain the fact that the fall 
 per second of every body, belonging to any particular system, 
 
 *Nature, 34, 271. 
 
154 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [92 
 
 is related to that of any other body of the same system in the 
 precise ratio of their square distance reciprocals? that, in 
 fact, in any particular system, the fall per second of each of 
 its members towards the center of motion, may be regarded 
 as a uniform function of the distance from the center? Yet, 
 strange as it may at first glance appear, the material cord 
 which, according to the connective theory, joins the planet 
 to its primary and causes the former to fall towards the lat- 
 ter, involves exactly the same distance function of that fall 
 that is involved in the theory of gravitation. 
 
 What there is between the sun and the planets that makes 
 each of them pull the other, Newton did not know; nobody 
 knows to this day, and all we are now able to assert positive- 
 ly is that the known motion of the planet is precisely what 
 would be produced if it were fastened to the sun by an elastic 
 string, having a certain law of elasticity. Now observe the 
 nature of this discovery, the greatest in its consequences that 
 has ever yet been made in physiral science: 
 
 1. It begins with an hypothesis, by supposing that there 
 is an analogy between the motion of a planet and the motion 
 of a ball at the end of a string. 
 
 2. Science becomes independent of the hypothesis, for 
 we merely use it to investigate the properties of motion, and 
 do not trouble ourselves further about the cause of it."* 
 
 "By the thrust of an incompressible pole, energy is trans- 
 mitted from butt to tip. . . So also the pull of gravitation 
 may be (and pro tern. I believe is) transmitted by an in- 
 compressible (or nearly incompressible) ether." t 
 
 May it not be, indeed, that, in the former quotation, science 
 has become too independent of the hypothesis that, in fact, 
 it might be well for it to trouble itself with an earnest and 
 humble inquiry into the real operation of this ball-and-string 
 theory? The elastic string, by the new theory, is the primary 
 connexion of the planet, and the law of its elasticity we may 
 now proceed to investigate. 
 
 92. The Factors of Cosmical Gravitation. It may be re- 
 garded as axiomatic that the strength of the various connex- 
 
 *Prof. William Kingdon Clifford. Discourse at the Royal Institution 
 London. Humboldt Library of Science, 6, 281. 
 
 tProf. Oliver J. Lodge, Nature, 47, 293. 
 
92] COSMICAL GRAVITATION 155 
 
 ions would vary with the different circumstances attending 
 their evolution. It may be well to consider the most import- 
 ant of these, whether they may be found to affect the strength 
 of the connexion or not. These circumstances are: (a), the 
 rotational velocity of the primary body; (b), the structural 
 development of the connexion, and (c), the density of the con- 
 nective atmosphere upon the surface of the primary body. 
 
 (a). Rotational Velocity of the Primary Body. This fac- 
 tor would have the least value in the case of the first planet 
 of a system, and would gradually increase in value for each 
 subsequent planet, as already shown (Art. 80, e). While the 
 planet-ring was extending outwards from the primary, and the 
 primary connexion was forming between the two, the extra 
 strain which the greater rotational velocity involves in the 
 inner or more subsequent ring-formations would produce some 
 effect, either upon the connexion or the ring itself. But here 
 we must bear in mind that the ring i j a solid body firmly held 
 together by molecular attraction or cohesion. This cohesion 
 would evidently be more powerful than the centrifugal tend- 
 ency of the greater rotational velocity of the ring, at least 
 until the planet was formed and the connexion matured. In 
 fact the cohesive attraction and the centrifugal tendency 
 would be directly opposed to one another; and it would seem 
 that the former would receive the full brunt of the latter, so 
 that the forming connexion would be left unaffected by this 
 cause. The sole effect of this factor, therefore, would appear 
 to be to hasten the expansion of the ring, and so diminish the 
 generative planetary period. So that, so far as the rotational 
 factor is concerned one planetary connexion would appear to 
 differ in no respect from another. 
 
 (b). The Structural Development of the Connexions. For 
 the consideration of this factor, we may take the case of the 
 Earth and the Moon. When the Earth was in the first stage of 
 its planetary existence as a globe of fiery vapor, not only 
 would its surface be vastly enlarged, in comparison with its 
 present surface, but all its present surface development would 
 be absent. Nothing but the primordial vapor existed on its 
 
156 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [92 
 
 surface, and this in the full and fiercest energy of its molec- 
 ular heat-motion. Can we, then, avoid the belief that the 
 structural development of the surrounding connective atmos- 
 phere would correspond to that of the Earth's surface at that 
 time? And does it not seem equally probahle that, as the 
 development of the Earth's surface advanced, the development 
 of the connective atmosphere would advance correspondingly? 
 According to this view, then, the Earth's connective atmos- 
 phere would increase in development as the Earth contracted. 
 
 Without attempting here to show how the mechanism by 
 which the greater central development of the Earth's connec- 
 tive atmosphere would cause bodies to fall towards the Earth's 
 center, it seems tolerably evident that a body possessing a 
 certain degree of development would be moved (by means of 
 its secondary molecular connexions, or connecting-rods, with 
 the molecules of the connective atmosphere) in that direction 
 in which the atmospheric molecular motions were most in 
 harmony with its own. Now as the Earth contracts in vol- 
 ume subsequently to the formation of the Moon, and its sur- 
 face development proceeds, the Moon's connexion must be 
 elongated or spun out over the interval which the Earth has 
 contracted; and as the connective atmosphere itself undoubt- 
 edly furnishes the material for this elongation, it clearly fol- 
 lows that the connexion would be possessed of the same struc- 
 tural development at every successive stage as the Earth's 
 connective atmosphere. 
 
 Here, then, is a circumstance that would modify a plan- 
 etary connexion so as to enable it to act in a manner similar 
 in some degree to that prescribed by the law of inverse 
 squares. But, on the other hand, it does not account for the 
 distance-variation of the planetary falls per second; for the 
 reason that each planetary connexion would be almost an 
 exact repetition of its predecessors in this respect. The pri- 
 mary body immediately after the birth of each successive 
 planet would obviously be in the same state of surface devel- 
 opment. About the same degree of development would beget 
 the planetary ring in each case, and the ring would in every 
 
92] COSMICAL GRAVITATION 157 
 
 case appropriate the developed crust of the primary down to 
 the same degree of development. So that after each ring-sep- 
 aration, the remaining* degree of development of the primary 
 would be the same. And so the crust development of the pri- 
 mary and the corresponding development of the connective 
 atmosphere would be similar in kind and degree after the 
 birth of each planet. Therefore, while this factor applies to 
 an individual connexion, modifying it in accordance with the 
 varying structural development to which it is subject, it does 
 not apply to two connexions so that the one will differ in any 
 degree from the other. Indeed it may be objected, perhaps, 
 that even in the case of a single connexion, the varying struc- 
 tural development of the primary crust would fail to produce 
 a measurable change of the structural development of the con- 
 nective atmosphere. For, subjected to the most intense de- 
 gree of destruction which man can produce, the function of 
 the connective atmosphere now upon the Earth's surface, and 
 which, according to these views, would now be highly devel- 
 oped, remains precisely the same as under ordinary circum- 
 stances. A body appears to weigh none the less when cast 
 into the fiercest furnace, although the connective atmosphere 
 ourrounding it at that time is subjected to a very intense de- 
 gree of heat. 
 
 But in answer to this objection it may be remarked that 
 the puny furnaces of man are quite incomparable to the vast 
 and grand catastrophes of Nature. The greatest and fiercest 
 conflagration possible with man would scarcely be a drop in 
 the ocean of the Earth's connective atmosphere; so that the 
 structural development of so minute a portion of it as would 
 thus be affected by our fires might easily be maintained by 
 that of the general atmosphere surrounding it; whose molec- 
 ular motions we know are capable of being transmitted near- 
 ly 200,000 miles in a single second of time. If the entire sur- 
 face of the Earth were simultaneously subjected to an intense 
 degree of heat the effect of which would extend for thousands 
 of miles beyond the surface, then we would have something 
 comparable to the operations of Nature; and which in all 
 
158 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [92 
 
 probability would diminish in a degree the weight of every 
 body subjected to it. The nearest we can approach an in- 
 stance wherein the whole of a body's connective atmosphere 
 would be affected is by way of analogy. A magnet, if sub- 
 jected to a certain degree of heat, loses its power of attrac- 
 tion in a degree; and even, if the heat be sufficiently intense, 
 will lose that power wholly. Yet, without undertaking here 
 to prove that the connective atmospheres of the magnet and 
 of the Earth are similar with respect to the mechanism of 
 their function of attraction, it seems tolerably plain that the 
 loss of that function in the heated magnet is due to the de- 
 struction of some such molecular arrangement or development 
 as, in the case of its larger analogue, the new theory implies. 
 The question is not entirely a one-sided one. Prof. W. M. 
 Hicks in his presidential address to the British Association, 
 1895, says: 
 
 "The effective mass of any atom is not composed of that 
 of its core alone, but also of that portion of the surounding 
 ether which is carried along with it as it moves tnrough the 
 medium. ... In this explanation the density of the mat- 
 ter composing an atom is the same for all, whilst their masses 
 depend on their volumes and configurations combined. Now 
 the configuration alters with the energy, and this would make 
 the mass depend to some extent at least on the temperature. 
 However repugnant this may be to current ideas, we are not 
 entitled to deny its possibility, although such an effect must 
 be small or it would have been detected." 
 
 Also Prof. William Crookes:* 
 
 "It must be remembered that we only know the force of 
 gravity between bodies such as they actually exist, and we do 
 not know what this force would be if the temperatures of the 
 gravitating masses were to undergo a change." 
 
 But still the action of the planetary connexions as a whole 
 exhibit no trace of conformity to the law of inverse distance 
 squares upon which the theory of gravitation fundamentally 
 rests. There is yet remaining, however, a circumstance 
 which, as we shall now see, fully harmonizes the action of 
 the connexions with that law. 
 
 *Quarterly Journal of Science, 6, 254 
 
92] COSMICAL GRAVITATION 159 
 
 (c). The Density of the Connective Atmosphere Upon the 
 Surface of the Primary Body. Let us in imagination extend 
 the volume of the Sun outwards again to its primordial limits, 
 or nearly to Neptune's orbit. The Sun's surface would thus 
 be vastly enlarged; and it is equally obvious that the density 
 of the solar connective atmosphere on that surface would di- 
 minish in the precise ratio that the surface increased. It 
 is also an elementary geometrical truth that the surface of 
 the Sun would vary in the direct ratio of the square of its 
 distance from the Sun's center. From all of which it mani- 
 festly follows that the density of the connective atmosphere 
 upon the Sun's surface varies inversely as the square of the 
 distance from the Sun's center, or precisely in accordance with 
 the distribution of the supposed force of gravity in the theory 
 of gravitation. 
 
 Let us suppose now that the Sun has contracted in volume, 
 that a developed crust has been formed, and that this crust 
 is about to separate from the Sun to form the Neptune-ring. 
 The inchoate planetary connexion would be evolved out of the 
 Sun's connective atmosphere, which at that time possessed a 
 certain degree of density; and it seems very evident that the 
 density of the forming connexion would be similar to, or at 
 least modified in conformity with, that of the connective at- 
 mosphere out of which it was spun. It seems unquestionable, 
 from the view we are now able to take, that the connexion 
 would be evolved out of the connective atmosphere of the pri- 
 mary body. And since the centrifugal tendency of the ring's 
 rotation affects the forming connexion to a merely infinitesi- 
 mal degree, if at all, being primarily directed against the co- 
 hesive attraction of the ring itself and bringing about its even- 
 tual disruption no conceivable reason seems assignable why 
 the density of the connexion should be either greater or less 
 than that of the material out of which it was formed. From 
 this it clearly follows that the primary connexion of the 
 planet Neptune, or so much of it as was formed up to the 
 time of the rupture of the Neptune-ring, would have a consti- 
 tution precisely conformable in degree of densiy, strength, and 
 
160 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [92 
 
 elasticity to that of the connective atmosphere of the Sun in 
 the period in which ftie ring existed. After the rupture of the 
 ring, as the Sun contracted in volume, and as the density of 
 its connective atmosphere consequently increased, the newly 
 formed portions of the planetary connexion would partake of 
 the increased density of that atmosphere, and would therefore 
 be stronger than the portion of it that was first formed. But 
 a connexion, in common with everything else, can not be 
 stronger than its weakest part; so that, whether the planet 
 moves outwards or inwards from the place of its ring-exist- 
 ence, the portion of its connexion formed in that place would 
 for all subsequent ages determine the strength and elasticity 
 of the entire connexion as such. 
 
 Let the Sun still farther contract in volume, and let a sec- 
 ond planet-ring project outwards from its surface. At this 
 period the connective atmosphere upon the Sun would obvious- 
 ly be denser than in the period of Neptune in the ratio of the 
 inverse squares of the Sun's radii at these periods, as al- 
 ready shown. The density of the connexion of the second 
 planet would, therefore be greater than that of the first con- 
 nexion beyond the second planet in the same ratio that the 
 surface density of the connective atmosphere was greater at 
 the later time. And the greater strength and elasticity thus 
 conferred upon the second connexion would regulate its ac- 
 tion as a whole for future ages, just as in the case of the 
 first connexion. Still farther contraction of the Sun would 
 beget a third ring and a density and consequent strength and 
 elasticity of the connective atmosphere and therefore of the 
 planetary connexion formed out of it, which would be greater 
 than in the preceding periods in the same ratio as before. 
 And so on, in the case of every subsequent planet-ring and 
 planetary connexion in the Solar System. 
 
 Had we commenced with any other system, the reasoning 
 would have been exactly the same. The Saturnian System 
 was evolved in precisely the same manner, but more rapidly, 
 owing to the greater rotational velocity of the original spher- 
 oid of that system. And the Terrestrial System was similarly 
 
93] COSMICAL GRAVITATION 161 
 
 evolved, only the comparative slowness of the Earth's rota- 
 tion causes the generative period to be much greater. And 
 similarly also, no doubt, in the cases of those systems which 
 are superior to the Solar System, even up to the Sidereal Sys- 
 tem itself. 
 
 93. Difference Between the Actionsi of Gravitation in the 
 Two Theories. Here, then, in the case of the attraction of 
 gravitation, is the general law of inverse squares exemplified 
 in the connective theory of cosmical evolution precisely the 
 same as in the theory of gravitation. The restraining 
 strength of a planetary connexion is seen to vary inversely 
 with the square of the distance at which it acts, just the 
 same as in the case of the force of gravity Where, then, it 
 may be asked, is the difference between the restraining ac- 
 tion of a connexion and the supposed force of the present 
 theory? A moment's consideration will suffice to make this 
 clear. For in the case of a primary connexion, the restraining 
 energy is constant, whether the planet moves outwards from, 
 or inwards towards, its primary. The absolute velocity of a 
 planet in its orbit would also be invariable (in the absence of 
 external agencies, of course, and aside from mutual accelera- 
 tions and retardations caused by the secondary connexions 
 and possibly one other cause to be considered later on) 
 for the reason that there is nothing conceivable to which any 
 change of it is assignable (see Art. 41) ; although its angular 
 velocity, owing to various causes, may vary considerably. 
 Therefore, since the restraining power of the connexion, and 
 also the absolute velocity of the undisturbed planet are con- 
 stant, it is manifest that if the planet, owing to any ordinary 
 disturbing cause, should move beyond its normal distance, 
 the centrifugal tendency would diminish, owing to the diminu- 
 tion of the planet's angular velocity involved in the outward 
 movement. It is very plain, therefore, that the outward move- 
 ment would not continue very long subject to a continually 
 diminishing centrifugal tendency and a constant restraining 
 power. And it is equally obvious that if the planet would 
 move inwards to less than its normal distance, the centrifugal 
 
162 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [93 
 
 tendency would increase, owing to the increased angular ve- 
 locity accompanying the inward movement; and that this in- 
 ward movement could not long continue subject to a contin- 
 ually increasing centrifugal tendency and a constant restrain- 
 ing power. 
 
 By the connective theory, then, it would be a physical im- 
 possibility lor a planet to move beyond a limited range of its 
 normal distance from its primary in consequence of the or- 
 dinary perturbations to which it is subject, such as the ac- 
 celerations and retardations of the secondary connexions. But 
 compare this now with the supposed force of gravity. As 
 the planet would move outwards, the restraining force, in- 
 stead of remaining constant upon it like the elasticity of the 
 connexions, would continually diminish in power; so that, in 
 order that the planet may not fly entirely away from the Sun, 
 it becomes necessary to suppose that the absolute velocity of 
 the planet becomes less as it moves outwards, and the cen- 
 trifugal tendency thus diminished in just the _same ratio as 
 the supposed restraining force. Similarly as the planet moves 
 inwards, the power of the supposed restraining force would 
 increase upon it; so that, in order to prevent its falling upon 
 the Sun, it becomes necessary to suppose that the planet's ab- 
 solute velocity is increased, that the increased centrifugal 
 tendency thus generated may balance the increased radial 
 force. And this necessity of some means of thus maintaining 
 the balance of the two opposing tendencies appears to be the 
 sole justification for supposing that such a change of the 
 planet's absolute velocity would take place; as no other ade- 
 quate means of maintaining that balance, in accordance with 
 the theory of gravitation, is conceivable. 
 
 We thus see that even the very foundation stones of the 
 theory of gravitation are readily, and even advantageously, 
 replaceable by the material of the connective theory; and, if 
 it be granted that the law of equal areas has no foundation 
 in fact, as our investigations so far seem to prove, then the 
 theory of gravitation has really no foundation at all, and 
 
94] COSMICAL GRAVITATION 163 
 
 stands condemned by the very phenomena which have hitherto 
 been regarded as furnishing its main support. 
 
 94. Action of the Secondary Connexions. With respect to 
 the action of such connexions as those of the planets with 
 one another and those of the Sun with the satellites, its na- 
 ture does not at the present stage of the inquiry appear to be 
 determinable. These connexions would evidently differ from 
 the primary connexions in their function and consequently in 
 their materiality. As already indicated, the former would be 
 more refined, and would therefore possess less strength. 
 Consequently their action would be characterized by less en- 
 ergy and power. But what diminution of energy and power 
 of action would be attributable to these causes does not seem 
 to be ascertainable owing to the quanitative vagueness of the 
 causes themselves. The secondary connexions would certain- 
 ly cause considerable effects upon the motions of the bodies 
 between which they subtend. In fact their actions would con- 
 stitute the ordinary causes of planetary perturbations. In the 
 case of two planets thus connected, the connexion would at 
 certain times retard the orbital motion of one and accelerate 
 that of the other, while, at other times, these actions would be 
 reversed; thus causing the chief anomalies of planetary mo- 
 tions which we observe. Similarly in the case of the Moon, 
 the secondary connexion of that body with the Sun would at 
 times accelerate its motion round the Earth and at other 
 times retard it; thus no doubt giving rise to the wider pecul- 
 iarities which the lunar motion is observed to possess. The 
 Moon's connexions with the other planets would also produce 
 noticeable effects upon its motion. But none of these effects 
 appears to be calculable at the present time. In corrob- 
 oration of this the most recent authorities on this subject are 
 compelled to admit that, from actual observation, the various 
 peculiarities of the lunar, and even of the planetary motions, 
 are yet by no means all accounted for. And in still stronger 
 corroboration, it has been pointed out by Poincaire (Report 
 to the International Congress in Physics, 1900) that "the mass 
 of Jupiter as derived from the orbits of its satellites, as de- 
 
164 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [95 
 
 rived from its perturbations of the large planets, and as de- 
 rived from its perturbations of the small planets, has three 
 different values."* 
 
 95. Accurate Prediction of 'Astronomical Events. It may 
 perhaps be wondered how such accurate prediction of astro- 
 nomical events, such as eclipses, conjunctions, transits, etc., 
 can be made in connection with such imperfect knowledge ot 
 the causes affecting the. lunar and planetary orbits. But it 
 is to be observed that such astronomical events are not pre- 
 dicted from our knowledge of these causes themselves, but 
 from our knowledge of their effects, as ascertained from act- 
 ual observation. From long-continued observation of the act- 
 ual anomalies of the motions of the heavenly bodies, we are at 
 length enabled to foretell with a high degree of accuracy the 
 orbital positions of any or all of these bodies at any particular 
 time, providing it be not too remote. But this does not ap- 
 pear to involve any knowledge whatever of the real causes 
 which produce these phenomena. The computation of future 
 events seems to be grounded almost entirely upon the obser- 
 vaions of similar events in the past; upon the observed ef- 
 fects of certain causes and conditions similar to those to 
 which the future event is known to be subject; in fact upon 
 a practical rather than upon a theoretic basis. 
 
 "The eccentricities of the planetary orbits are partly de- 
 duced from observation, and partly from the law of the equa- 
 ble description of areas. The inclinations of the orbits; and, 
 of course, all elements relating to the planets' own globes, 
 their dimensions, compression, inclination, rotation, and so 
 on, are obtained by telescopic observation and measure- 
 ment.''! 
 
 "In general all the data of astronomy are determined in 
 this way, and the same may be said of such subjects as 
 Tides and Meteorology. Isothermal Lines, Lines of Equal 
 Dip or Intensity, Lines of No Declination, the Connection of 
 Solar Spots with Terrestial Magnetism, and a host of other 
 phenomena . . . are thus deducible from Observation 
 merely." J 
 
 *Nature, 97, 401. 
 
 f Prof. R. A. Proctor, Ency. Britt., Art. Astron. 
 
 ^Thomson and Tait's Elements of Natural Philosophy, p. 111. 
 
96] COSMTCAL GRAVITATION 165 
 
 96. Ethereal Atmospheres. It has been observed that, by 
 the new theory, solar gravitation upon a new planet consisted 
 in the elasticity of the primary bond between planet and Sun. 
 [t was noticed also that this planetary bond, owing to the con- 
 traction and development of the planet's surface, becomes 
 correspondingly developed in structure and density as it ap- 
 proaches the planet's surface. Such also would, no doubt, be 
 the case with all of the planet's connexions all around it. 
 
 There would also be a reserve ethereal atmosphere around 
 each planet. The approaches and departures of heavenly 
 bodies to and from each other implies accretion and drain 
 of ethereal bond-substance upon each at different times; but 
 the drains would often be supplied from the primordial vapor 
 of the newly born planets, because that vapor would be more 
 simple in structure and therefore more yielding to the strain, 
 than the connective atmosphere upon a developed planet; so 
 that on the latter there would always be a surplus of accre- 
 tion over depletion of bond-substance constituting an ethereal 
 atmosphere appertaining to it. 
 
 Indeed it appears to be a characteristic of all bodies, great 
 and small, to possess such ethereal atmospheres; the greater 
 density of the ether at and near a body's surface accounting 
 for several common phenomena. A good conductor of elec- 
 tricity has such an atmosphere which is always the seat of 
 the transmission of an electric current along it, which barely 
 if at all, penetrates the surface of the conductor. Contact 
 electricity is also explained by such atmospheres, as also the 
 diffraction of light, sonorous sand, etc. Gases adhere to such 
 surfaces with such tenacity that they can hardly be driven 
 away without melting the substance. 
 
 "The neighborhood of gross matter seems also to render 
 the ether more dense. It is difficult to suppose that It can 
 really condense an incompressible fluid, but it may load it, 
 or otherwise modify it, so as to produce the effect of Increas- 
 ed density. In iron this density reaches its highest known 
 value, and in all substances the density or inertia per unit 
 volume of their ether may be denoted by m, and called their 
 magnetic permeability."* 
 
 *Sir Oliver J. Ledge, Nature, 38, 389. 
 
166 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [97 
 
 "It appears, therefore, that the dielectric strength of a 
 thin stratum of air (near a conductor) is much greater than 
 that of a thick one. It is very difficult to understand why 
 this should be so. 'Is it possible that the air very near to the 
 surface of dense bodies is condensed, so as to become a better 
 insulator?' "* 
 
 97. Terrestrial Gravitation. It is such an ethereal atmos- 
 phere as this that is the seat of what is called the attraction 
 of gravity upon the Earth's surface, and upon the surface of 
 every heavenly body. Both the structural development and 
 the density of this atmosphere would vary approximately as 
 the inverse square of the distance from the Earth's center. 
 Smaller bodies would have less dense atmospheres and there- 
 fore weaker gravitational action., A body suspended in this 
 atmosphere would be drawn in all directions, but mostly tow- 
 ards the Earth's center because the density is greater on that 
 side. And if an opening extended downwards through the 
 Earth's crust, this atmosphere would continue inwards and 
 be of greater density there than at the surface, if only from 
 mere geometrical concentration. This explains the otherwise 
 surprising result of Airy's gravitational experiment at the bot- 
 tom of Harton colliery, where the effect of gravity was found 
 to be considerably greater than at the surface, though by the 
 current theory it should be less; and it also explains why the 
 great mass of the Himalaya mountains have no effect on the 
 plumbline, in direct violation of the law of gravitation (see 
 Art. 21). 
 
 The mechanism of the attraction would reside in the sec- 
 ondary molecular connexions. These would act in a manner 
 similar to the function of the sidebars on the driving wheels 
 of a locomotive engine; communicating motion from one at- 
 om or molecule to another. While these secondary connex- 
 ions become easily detached from one revolving component 
 and united with another, there would still be some strain ex- 
 erted along them between the two components they unite; and 
 
 *Prof. George Chrystal, Ency. Britt., 9th ed., 8, 61. The last quo- 
 tation is from Maxwell's Elec. and Mag., 1. 57. See also in same con- 
 nection Prof. F. E. Nipher, Pres. Add., Am. Assoc., 1891, and Dr. 
 Young, Phil. Trans., R. S. 92, 21 
 
97] OOSMICAL GRAVITATION 167 
 
 this strain it is that draws the body downwards. The effect 
 of any one connexion would be extermely small, but the di- 
 mensions of the orbit al'motions involved being extremely mi- 
 nute much more so than those of the motions of heat and 
 light and therefore their number so inconceivably great, 
 their differential effect downwards would not be inconsider- 
 able. Chemical action, the conduction of heat, and the trans- 
 mission of light admit of easy explanation by this theory; 
 these different manifestations of energy being simply differ- 
 ences of atomic or molecular orbital velocities and magni- 
 tudes, which are transmitted from one atom or molecule to 
 adjoining atoms or molecules by means of these secondary 
 connecting-rods. 
 
 How far this ethereal atmosphere would extend above a 
 planet's surface is not easy to determine, but probably not 
 many times farther than the aerial atmosphere. How far it 
 extends below a planet's surface would be determined by the 
 thickness of the developed crust, probably attaining its great- 
 est density not far from the middle of that thickness. 
 
 At least this planetary attraction is of an entirely different 
 nature from the agency holding the planet in its orbit; for 
 though the ethereal atmosphere of a primary body once ex- 
 tended outwards to planetary distances, yet when that pri- 
 mary contracts its volume, the ethereal atmosphere would con- 
 tract with it, leaving only the various connexions behind. 
 These connexions would be the seat of the so-called planetary 
 gravitation, which would be constant for each planet, as just 
 seen (Art. 92, c) ; while the ethereal atmosphere would be 
 the seat of the so-called attraction of gravitation as we know 
 it on the Earth's surface, which, with some modifications, 
 would vary inversely as the square of the central distance. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 COSMICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEAT AND LIGHT 
 
 As Prof, Young observes, "perhaps we assume with a little 
 too much conffdence that in free space radiation does take 
 place equally in all directions," and he asks whether the con- 
 stitution of things may not be such that radiation and trans- 
 fer of energy can take place only between ponderable masses ; 
 and that too, without the expenditure of energy upon the 
 transmitting agent (if such exists) along the line of trans- 
 mission, even in transitu. If this were the case, then the sun 
 would send out its energy only to planets, meteors, and sis- 
 ter stars, wasting none in empty space; and so its loss would 
 be enormously diminished, and the time scale of the planetary 
 system would be correspondingly extended. 
 
 SAMUEL LAING. 
 
 The fact is that neither the corpuscular nor the undula- 
 tory, or any other system which has yet been devised, will 
 furnish that complete and satisfactory 1 explanation of all the 
 phenomena of light which is desirable. Certain admissions 
 must be made at every step, as to modes of mechanical 
 action, where we are in total ignorance of the acting forces; 
 and we are called on, where reasoning fails .us occasionally, for 
 an exercise of faith. SIR JOHN HERSCHEL. 
 
 There is no absurdity so palpable but that it may be 
 firmly planted in the human mind if you only begin to incul- 
 cate it before the age of five, by constantly repeating it with 
 an air of great solemnity. For, as in the case of animals, 
 so in that of man, training is successful only when you begin 
 in early youth. ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER. 
 
 98. The Connective Theory of Heat Distribution. By the 
 popular theory, the Sun's heat and light is equally diffused 
 outwards in all directions from that body; diminishing at any 
 point in the same ratio that the square of its distance from 
 the heat and light source increases. The confusion resulting 
 from this view, regarding the actual temperature of the Sun, 
 has been already noticed (Art. 50) ; and it is significant that 
 this view makes the Sun to be much hotter than is found to 
 be the case from actual observation. 
 
98] COSMICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEAT AND LIGHT 169 
 
 Now the teaching of the new theory with respect to solar 
 heat is, it may be said, almost the reverse of Newton's theory. 
 Instead of the Sun's heat being diffused outwards from the 
 Sun equally in all directions, it would be distributed trom that 
 body in a comparatively small number of lines or connexions ; 
 which being chiefly with bodies vastly smaller than the Sun, 
 the heat instead of being diffused outwards to these bodies, 
 would rather be concentrated upon them. But it is far from 
 being contended here that, on this account, the Sun's surface 
 temperature is less than that we receive on our hottest sum- 
 mer day. We really do not know what the Sun's temperature 
 is, and can as yet assign to it only a probable value. The un- 
 known factors which render the real value uncertain are nu- 
 merous and important; but it does not appear impossible that 
 at some future day we may determine them all, and so ascer- 
 tain the actual temperature. 
 
 In the first place, we have no apparent means of knowing 
 what portion of. the actual solar heat is imparted to the con- 
 nective substance at the Sun's surface. In the second place, 
 we cv.uiot say how the transmission through the connective 
 substance affects the unknown portion thus imparted. In the 
 third place, we possibly are not quite certain of the effect of 
 our own upper atmosphere upon the unknown portion thus 
 transmitted to it. And there are still other unknown factors 
 of minor importance. We cannot reason here from analogy 
 because we have no analogue. We are surrounded on all 
 sides by a connective atmosphere made up of an unknown 
 number of individual connexions of an unknown number of 
 kinds; and we cannot separate with certainty the effect or in- 
 fluence of any one from the effect or influence of the others. 
 Heat is a species of motion; but it is not certain whether 
 some other species of motion, which is not heat, may or may 
 not generate heat motion in certain substances, or vice versa. 
 By the new theory, hear, is but a degree of an essential, if not 
 indeed the essential, property of all matter; and we know not 
 yet how many degrees are mutually interchangeable. We 
 may, therefore, leave the discussion of these questions for the 
 
170 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [99 
 
 present, until at least we see what light the examination of 
 cosmical evolution in its future processes may cast upon them. 
 99. Comparison of the Two Theories. The new theory 
 places us apparently in no greater dilemma, in this respect, 
 than we are now in, for the same difficulties (together with 
 several others more important) are met with in the present 
 theory also, as the following quotations show: 
 
 "If we had a thermometer so long that we could dip the 
 bulb into the sun and read the degrees on the stem here, we 
 should find out what observers would like very much to know, 
 and at present are disposed to quarrel about. The difficulty 
 is not in measuring the heat, but in telling what temperature 
 corresponds to it, since there is no known rule by which to 
 find one from the other."* 
 
 "The energy of vibrational radiations is a transformation of 
 the heat of a hot body, and can be again frittered down into 
 heat, but in the interval of its passage through space, devoid 
 of tangible matter, or even while passing unabsorbed through 
 tangible matter, it is not necessarily heat."t 
 
 Also Prof. W. K. Clifford states : "There is no reason why 
 the vibratory motions of the ether should not be transformed 
 into other kinds of ethereal motions." And many other phys- 
 icists might be quoted to the same effect. 
 
 That heat in certain cases is transformed into other kinds 
 of energy, is now a commonplace of the school-books. One 
 instance of this transformation is that, in the powerful fric- 
 tion caused by boring iron, as in the making of cannon, the 
 enormous amount of heat thus generated disappears at once, 
 as such, when the iron operated on is strongly magnetized. 
 But whether or not similar transformations take place in our 
 own amosphere, or in the solar atmosphere, in the region be- 
 tween me two, or in all three, is equally an unknown factor 
 in either theory. 
 
 But although these uncertainties are common to both the- 
 ories, none of the more serious objections, which the present 
 theory involves, is applicable to the new theory. We certain- 
 ly would not infer from the latter, as is unavoidably infer- 
 able from the former, that the Sun's temperature would be 
 
 *Prof. S. P. Langley, Century Magazine, Dec. 1884. 
 tProf. P. G. Tait. 
 
99] COSMICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEAT AND LIGHT 171 
 
 several millions of degrees ; that the temperature of the Earth 
 ought to be much higher during our winter than during our 
 summer; or that more solar heat would be received at the 
 North Pole during our summer than would be received at the 
 Equator (see Arts. 50-1-2-3). 
 
 With respect to this last inference, the old theory assumes 
 that equal areas at right angles to the solar beams receive 
 the same amount of sunheat, whether at the Pole or at the 
 Equator; whereas, the new theory implies, on the contrary, 
 that the amounts of sunheat which fall upon equal areas 
 at right angles to the solar beams on different portions of 
 the Earth's surface are not equal, but vary directly about as 
 the Earth-masses directly behind such areas from the Sun; 
 because the density of the tension- or heat-rays of the solar 
 connexion reasonably depends upon the mass rather than 
 upon the surface to which it is distributed; and because the 
 amount of solar radiation obviously would vary directly as 
 the density of these connexion-rays transmitting it. In other 
 words, the heat falling on a certain area normally exposed 
 to the solar beams on dinerent portions of the Earth's sur- 
 face varies approximately as the portion of the ray's path pro- 
 duced included between the opposite surfaces of the Earth; 
 varies, i. e., as the cosine of the Sun's zenith distance. But 
 as the actual surface of the Earth directly behind the area 
 perpendicular to the solar rays (i. e., the area of the shadow 
 of the latter) varies as the sine of the Sun's zenith distance, 
 we have, at the equinoxes, the relative solar heat upon a cer- 
 tain area on any portion of the Earth's surface having the Sun 
 in its meridian approximately determined by the quotient of 
 the cosine, divided by the sine, of the latitude. Thus accord- 
 ing to these circumstances the Sun's zenith distance would 
 be very great near the Poles and very small near the Equa- 
 tor (or equal to the latitudes of these places at the equinox 
 es) ; and therefore its cosine would be very small at the for- 
 mer and very great at the latter place. Also the sine of the 
 Sun's zenith distance is very small near the Equator but very 
 great near the Poles. The relative amount of heat at the 
 
172 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [101 
 
 Poles would therefore be represented by the very small cosine 
 divided by the very large sine, while at the Equator it would 
 be represented by the very large cosine divided by the very 
 small sine. Thus the actual solar heat falling upon a unit 
 area near the Equator would be refatively much greater than 
 by the current theory, while that received upon a unit area 
 near the Poles would be much smaller than by that theory; 
 which appears to agree precisely with the observed facts and 
 accounts fully for the low temperature of the Frigid Zones as 
 compared with that of the Torrid Zone. 
 
 100. Heat Transmission by the Secondary Connexions. 
 It is reasonably supposable that, in accordance with the new 
 theory, a greater degree of heat would be trasmitted from the 
 Sun through the primary connexions with the planets than 
 through the secondary connexions with the satellites and oth- 
 er bodies. This would naturally follow from the supposed 
 comparative grossness, density, and strength of the former 
 connexions. It appears probable also that the solar connex- 
 ions with remoter bodies, such as the fixed stars, and per- 
 haps some comets, transmit little or no heat. By the new 
 theory the planet Saturn would at the present time be ap- 
 proximately in the same physical state as the Sun; i. e., an 
 intensely heated gaseous body; yet as our connexion with it 
 gives no evidence of such heat, we are left to conclude that 
 little or no heat is transmitted by such connexions. More- 
 over it is likely that heat transmitted through even the pri- 
 mary connexions would be chiefly, or perhaps wholly, in one 
 direction, or from the primary to the derived body. And final- 
 ly it would be almost self-evident that as the Sun contracted 
 its volume and its crust became hard and cold, the heat-sup- 
 ply to the primarily connected bodies would be very pro- 
 foundly modified accordingly. 
 
 101. Connective Theory of Light Distribution. In our in- 
 vestigations regarding light, much the same preliminary re- 
 marks apply as in the phenomena of heat. The light energy 
 would travel only in the connexions; and that of the primary 
 would be somewhat concentrated upon the derived body in 
 
101] COSMICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEAT AND LIGHT 173 
 
 the same manner as the heat energy. Of the actual amount 
 of light at the surface of a neavenly body, however, tne quan- 
 tity we receive from it would not (at least yet) be any indi- 
 cation whatever; and for the same reason that the amount of 
 heal we receive from it is no indication of its actual heat. 
 The effect of the solar light rays as well as the amount or 
 solar heat would be greater from a zenith Sun; but the same 
 rate of diminution towards the edges of the solar connexion 
 would quite probably not apply to light as to heat. Different 
 altitudes of the Sun do not appear to cause the same varia- 
 tions in the solar light as in solar heat., Our winter days 
 are about as bright as our summer days, though the latter 
 are much the colder; and similarly there seems to be nearly 
 as intense a degree of daylight in the middle of the forenoon 
 as at mid-day, although the latter is usually by far the warm- 
 er. Also there' are times when clouds entirely cut off direct 
 sunlight for days, during which the amount of daylight is not 
 proportionately diminished. Our atmosphere evidently mul- 
 tiplies the light effects of the solar energy to a much greater 
 extent than it does the heat effects of it; and this greater 
 multiplication of light effects in our atmosphere manifestly 
 causes an approximately equable light distribution over the 
 day hemisphere. But probably the chief reason for this equa- 
 ble distribution of light is that the light rays are not con- 
 centrated like the heat rays, towards the center of the solar 
 (or any) connexion, but are more equally distributed through- 
 out its entire section are, perhaps, nearly as dense at the bor- 
 ders of the connexion as at its center. Heat or tension rays 
 very probably vary as the mass to which they extend, because 
 their function necessarily requires it. But the light rays, 
 having a very different nature, would consequently have an 
 entirely different function, having more to do with surface 
 than with mass; and are therefore more uniformly mingled 
 among the other rays throughout the whole connexion. 
 
 As for the necessary geometrical relations of space, they 
 of course remain wholly unaffected by any theoretic deduc- 
 tion. The apparent angular size of a body, e. g., would still 
 
174 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [102 
 
 be primarily modified by its distance from the observer; but 
 it may also be secondarily modified by tM quantity or den- 
 sity of the light rays issuing from it to the observer. It is 
 well known that none of the so-called fixed stars presents any 
 disc whatever, but a mere point of* light. This may not, how- 
 ever, be altogether owing to the great distance, or to the 
 smallness of these bodies. It is true that the distances of the 
 fixed stars are comparatively vast, as is evidenced by their 
 annual parallax (or rather its absence) as indicated by the 
 diameter of the Earth's orbit. But it may be that the paral- 
 lax is itself underestimated, owing to our approximately cen- 
 tral position in the Sidereal System, and the absence or in- 
 visibility of all bodies beyond its confines. 
 
 Our sensations within terrestrial limits would again be no 
 criterion for the interpretation of our sensations within celes- 
 tial limits. Owing to the approximate constancy and uniform- 
 ity of the terrestrial connective atmosphere, the law of in- 
 verse squares, with reference to light upon the Earth's sur- 
 face, holds, at least in most cases, with a tolerable degree 
 of exactness; in most cases, and with a tolerable degree of 
 exactness, because in some cases the law does not appear to 
 account for the facts at all; as in the case of the glimmer of 
 a taper being visible in the darkness for many miles, and even 
 for a time apparently diminishing in intensity as the light is 
 approached; and because in other cases there is only a par- 
 tial accordance, as in the case of an object appearing only 
 about four-fifths as large above our heads as on a level with 
 our eyes.* 
 
 102. Horizontal Enlargement of Visual Objects. This phe- 
 nomenon, in the case of heavenly bodies, such as the Sun and 
 Moon, has puzzled astronomers and physicists from the time 
 of Alhazen, who observed it in the eleventh century, down to 
 the present day; but it still remains inexplicable. By the new 
 theory the explanation of this fact would be simply that the 
 horizontal rays of the connective atmosphere are more nu- 
 merous at any time, or at any point of the Earth's surface, 
 
 *Bcll. Astron., Aprii. 1885. 
 
104] COSMICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEAT AND LIGHT 175 
 
 than the vertical rays are. This would follow, partly at least, 
 from the overlapping in the Earth's atmosphere of rays ex- 
 tending in opposite horizontal directions. The solar rays 
 would communicate their light-action directly to other rays 
 of the connective atmosphere which are parallel with them; 
 and thus, in effect, the density of the solar rays would be in- 
 creased by these parallel rays and the visual effect would 
 consequently be enlarged, for the same reason that it is en- 
 larged by the greater density of the rays in the focus of a 
 lens. The same reasonng also applies to any other object as 
 well as to the Sun, Moon, or stars. The greater number of 
 horizontal than of vertical connexion rays transmitting its 
 light causes a corresponding enlargement of the horizontal, 
 as compared with the vertical, object 
 
 103 Question Raised by the New Theory. In general, as 
 already stated, the necessary space relations mainly govern 
 the apparent size of the heavenly bodies as viewed from any 
 particular one. Thus we know that the Sun, Moon, and plan- 
 ets are apparently smaller at their greater than at their 
 smaller distances from us. But the question raised by the 
 new theory is this: Does the light transmitted to us by all 
 classes of heavenly bodies indicate their real relative dimen- 
 sions, or their real relative distances as determined from 
 their apparent dimensions? If Jupiter and an equal volume 
 from the Sun and another equal volume from a fixed star, 
 each shining by its respective light-rays, as we now see it, 
 were all placed at the same distance from the Earth, would 
 they appear to us of the same size? Or, if placed where their 
 apparent sizes were equal, would their distances from us be 
 alike? If the new theory be the true one, it seems probable 
 that they would not. For the remoter connexions are sup- 
 posed to differ very materially from the less remote, the dif- 
 ference varying probably with the remoteness; and with such 
 variation of the connexion, a corresponding variation in the 
 character and quantity of light transmissible by it may rea- 
 sonably be posited. 
 
 104. Dark Transits of Jupiter's Satellites. A fact which 
 
176 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [104 
 
 probably lends support to the connective theory of light trans- 
 mission is furnished by Jupiter's satellites. The third and 
 fourth of these satellites, and especially the latter, are 
 frequently seen to cross the disc of jthe planet as dark objects, 
 although tneir sunny sides are turned towards us at the time. 
 At other times, the satellites are seen to cross the planet's 
 disc as bright objects; and the inner satellites, it appears, 
 nearly always cross it as bright objects. 
 
 By the popular theory this phenomenon is explained as 
 follows : "The perpetual whiteness of the second satellite, 
 and the darkened tints of the others during transit (not to 
 sny in explanation of the casual appearances strange and un- 
 usual reported at other times) is due to differences in their 
 relative albedo, as compared with that of Jupiter." And al- 
 bedo is defined as the "relative capacity for reflection of d.t- 
 fused light from equal areas."* 
 
 As the fourth and third satellites from the planet arc- 
 sometimes bright and sometimes dark as they pass over the 
 planet's disc, it is assumed that the sides of them presented 
 to us in the latter case have a much greater capacity for re- 
 flecting the sunlight than the other sides. This explanation 
 fceems plausible, and it may be the correct one. It is liable 
 to some objections, however, which seem to make it rather 
 doubtful. It is shown that the albedo of the edges of Jupiter s 
 disc is much smaller than that of its center. In consequence 
 of this, the first, third, and fourth satellites some times ap- 
 pear bright on the edges of the disc and dark on its center, 
 while in every transit the second satellite is always bright. 
 Now one objection to this is that if the difference of albedo at 
 the edges and at the center of the planetary disc be such as 
 to cause any body to appear bright on the former and dark 
 on the latter, it ought to cause some such effect during the 
 transit of every body; which, however, we have in any degree 
 failed to observe in every transit of the second satellite, and 
 in many transits of the first and third. It would seem also 
 
 "Edmund J. Spitta, Monthly Notices R. A. S.. 48, No 1, Nov 1887, 
 V. 32. 
 
104] COSMICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEAT AND LIGHT 177 
 
 that if the albedo of one side of a satellite, the third, e. g., is 
 so small as to appears black on the planetary disc, and that 
 of the other side so great as to appear bright on that disc 
 (Miraldi observed this satellite in transit as a dark spot, April 
 4, 1707, and as a white spot during the next transit, April 11) 
 the black and the white transits ought to occur with about 
 equal frequency; which again is not the case, as the dark 
 transits of some satellites appear to be much less frequent 
 than the bright ones. And still another objection seems to 
 be that the albedo of any of the satellites should at any time 
 be so much greater than that of the planet as to cause the for- 
 mer to appear white upon the latter. The edges of the sat- 
 ellites' discs should, of course, have a smaller albedo than 
 their centers, similarly to the planet's disc. Yet these edges 
 or the satellites' discs appear whiter than the center of the 
 planetary disc upon which they pass, which, as a matter of 
 fact, seems to contradict the actual measurements of these 
 relative values of the albedos which would reasonably be ex- 
 pected under the circumstances. 
 
 The following explanation of these facts is suggested by 
 the new theory. The third and fourth satellites have the planes 
 of their orbits inclined to the plane of the planet's orbit. This 
 circumstance, together with greater distance from the planet, 
 permits them occasionally to pass outside of the planet's con- 
 nexion with the Sun as they revolve in their own proper or- 
 bits; at which time they appear to us as dark objects upon the 
 planet's disc. If Jupiter and the Earth revolved round the 
 Sun in the same orbit-plane, obviously it would be impossible 
 for us to see any of Jupiter's satellites pass across that plan- 
 et's disc outside of the planet's connexion with the Sun, ex- 
 cept for a few moments on the eastern or western side of the 
 connexion when Jupiter was near quadrature. But .the plane 
 of Jupiter's orbit is somewhat tilted to that of the Earth, so 
 that the latter when about in conjunction with the former is 
 nearly always either above or below Jupiter's connexion. 
 Therefore, when the Earth and a satellite are both upon the 
 upper or the lower side of that connexion, it is quite possible 
 
178 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [105 
 
 that the three bodies would be in a straight line, at which 
 time the satellite would appear as a dark spot upon the plan- 
 et's disc. At other times the satellite would pass through the 
 planet's connexion, and receiving its full effect of light and 
 heat together with its own, it would appear about of the same, 
 or even greater, brightness than that of the planet. The 
 third satellite, being less distant, and its orbit less inclined, 
 would pass outside of the planet's connexion at rarer inter- 
 vals; and the second and first satellites not at all for the 
 same reasons. 
 
 According to this view, each of the satellites would appear 
 black upon the planet's disc, except when it passed through 
 the planetary connexion during the transit; and the peculiar 
 grayish or ashen hue frequently observed would be owing to 
 the passage of the satellites through, or partially through, 
 the edges of the connexion. This appearance in the case of 
 the first satellite, whose inclination is so small that it would 
 about always pass through the center of the planetary con- 
 nexion during its front transit may possibly be owing to its 
 being viewed when the Earth and Jupiter are separated by 
 a considerable heliocentric angle, so that it would pass over 
 a portion of the planetary disc after it had passed through, 
 or before it entered, the main part of the planetary connexion. 
 
 105. Sunlight and Earthlight on the Moon. The illumina- 
 tion of the Moon's surface next to the Sun is not necessarily 
 opposed to this view. Jupiter's satellites invariably appear 
 bright to us when not crossing behind, or in front of, the 
 planet's disc; and this brightness can not always be due to 
 the primary light of the planet. These satellites, therefore, 
 appear bright by the Sun's secondary light just as in the case 
 of the Moon. And we appear to have no evidence whatever 
 that, to an observer on Venus, the Moon in its occasional 
 transit across the Earth's disc does not appear at times as a 
 dark object, and at others as a bright object, as it passed re- 
 spectively to one side of, or through, the Earth's solar con- 
 nexion; just in the same manner and for the same reasons 
 that Jupiter's satellites appear so to us. The solar illumination 
 
105] COSMICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEAT AND LIGHT 179 
 
 of the Moon does not appear to be very intense. There is, in 
 fact, no reason for believing that the solar illumination of the 
 Earth would not quite probably appear more intense from the 
 Moon than that of the latter does to us; and a slight defi- 
 ciency of solar light upon one body as compared with another 
 over whose disc it was passing would cause the former to 
 appear comparatively dark. Now, besides being illuminated 
 by direct sunlight (and possibly also by its own inherent 
 light), the Moon would also be illuminated by earthlight. 
 This earthlight would probably at the present time consist 
 chiefly of reflected sunlight. But it may also consist partly 
 of light inherent in the Earth itself. We know as little of the 
 ultimate riature and transformations of light as we do of heat. 
 As the latter may be manifested in the transformation of en- 
 ergies which are not heat, so the former may possibly be man- 
 ifested in the transformation of energies which are not light. 
 It seems not impossible, therefore, that along with the toler- 
 ably certain component of the earthlight upon the Moon (i. e., 
 the reflected sunlight), there may also co-exist a component 
 consisting of a light originating on the Earth. The light re- 
 flected from the Earth to the Moon should obviously be much 
 greater than the light reflected from the Moon to the Earth. 
 Even by the current theory the former should be at least 
 twelve times the latter. Yet, while we know that the Earth 
 is very considerably illuminated by moonlight, the Moon at 
 the most favorable conjuncture, as at or near new Moon, is 
 little more than barely visible to us by earthlight. In fact 
 Mr. Frank W. Very 
 
 "finally concludes that in round numbers the earth shine 
 (on the Moon) at new moon has an intrinsic brightness of 
 about 1/1600 of moon light of average quality, such as is re- 
 ceived shortly before first quarter."* 
 
 This is just about 1/20,000 as much as it should be, supposing 
 the albedo of the Earth and of the Moon to be equal. And 
 there certainly appears no reason to think that the albedo of 
 the Earth, which is mostly covered with clouds, water, or 
 
 *Astron. Nach., No. 4696. 
 
180 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [105 
 
 snow, should be less than that of the brown rocks or soil of 
 the Moon's surface; so that, by the current theory, this com- 
 parative dimness of the earthshine upon the Moon remain; 1 
 unexplained. 
 
 By the new theory this fact would be explained by the 
 structure of the Moon's primary connexion. It has already 
 been intimated that heat would travel chieftly in the primary 
 connexions, and almost wholly in a direction from the primary 
 to the derived body. One reason for this is that the primary 
 body was in a state of intensely heated vapor while yet the 
 derived body was a ring of highly developed crust material; 
 so that heat naturally traveled from the hotter to the colder 
 body, and, once started that way, would so continue. Light, 
 however, embraces a higher range of phenomena; so that one 
 kind of light might be transmitted by a connexion in one di- 
 rection, while a different kind or degree of light might be 
 transmitted by it at the same time in the opposite direction. 
 But it seems very difficult to conceive that the same connec- 
 tive substance would at the same time transmit the same kind 
 of light in opposite directions; for -the reason that the same 
 connective lines or rays would be required for such trans- 
 mission; and if these rays transmitted the light in one di 
 rection, it appears impossible that they could at the same 
 time transmit that light in an opposite direction also. Now 
 it is only reasonable to suppose that the Moon's primary con- 
 nexion is continually transmitting light (and probably heat 
 also) from the Earth towards the Moon; and, for the reason 
 just stated, little or none of this light (and heat) could be 
 transmitted back again to the Earth. While at the same time 
 the solar light falling on the Moon, being supposably of a 
 different kind, is readily transmitted Earthwards by that con- 
 nexion. There is no evidence whatever by the popular theory 
 that the solar light reflected from the Moon would be pre- 
 cisely similar to the light reflected from the Earth. And by 
 the new theory we have good grounds for believing that the 
 solar light transmitted by the secondary connexion of th? 
 Moon is different both in quantity and kind from the solar 
 
107] COSMICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEAT AND LIGHT 181 
 
 light transmited by the primary connexion of the Earth. 
 Therefore, we seem to be quite justified in assuming that, 
 of the light transmitted from the Earth to the Moon, very 
 little, or none whatever, would be transmited in a backward 
 direction; which obviously explain the faint visibility of "the 
 old Moon in the new Moon's arms." 
 
 106. The Moon's Sunlight on the Earth. At the time of a 
 lunar eclipse, the lunar connexion with the Sun falls upon the 
 Earth, which thus receives for the time the full benefit of the 
 heat and light of this connexion, in addition to that of its own. 
 As already intimated, the ratio or relation .which the one con- 
 nexion bears to the other is not determined. But, if upon no 
 other consideration than that of mass, the Moon's solar con- 
 nexion would be only about one-eightieth of the Earth's; and, 
 by virtue of its secondary character, it would probably be 
 much less than this. The additional amount of light and heat 
 which at that time would be transmited to us would there- 
 fore be scarcely perceptible unless special pains were directed 
 to determine it. And it is from such determination that the 
 quantitive and qualitative relations of the solar connexions of 
 the two bodies will, in all probability, eventually be ascer- 
 tained. 
 
 If only the Earth could eclipse an outer planet, we would 
 then, by the new theory, receive about double the ordinary 
 solar heat and light. Such an event would last for a few 
 hours; but it would be difficult to predict, and might easily 
 pass unobserved if not specially looked for. 
 
 107. The 'Aberration of Light. In a Report to the British 
 Association, on "Optical Theories", by R. T. Glazebrook, it is 
 stated that Stokes 
 
 "has given us an explanation of aberration by showing 
 that we may suppose the Earth to move through space carry- 
 ing the ether with it, the ether at some distance from it being 
 at rest; provided that the motion thus produced in the ether 
 be irrotational, all the known phenomena of aberration will 
 follow."* 
 
 *Nature, 33, 19. 
 
182 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [107 
 
 This, however, would hardly be the case according to the cur- 
 rent theory, for if the ether for a certain distance should be 
 carried along with the Earth in its orbit, it would hardly tail 
 also to be carried along with the Earth in its axial rotation. 
 But by the new theory it is just wriat would actually happen. 
 The planetary connexions and the ethereal atmosphere upon 
 the Earth are of course carried along by that body in its an- 
 nual revolution, while they in no degree rotate with it about 
 its axis, but are relatively fixed while the Earth rotates with- 
 in them. And the ethereal interplanetary connexions sub- 
 tending between other heavenly bodies, through which the 
 Earh passes in its annual motion, would of course be at rest 
 ^relatively to that motion. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 ANOMALIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 
 
 We must at once put the comets out of view. . . . We 
 do not know whether the comets are really indigenous to the 
 solar system or whether they may not be merely imported 
 into the system from the depths of space. R. S. BALL. 
 
 The tails of comets, however they may be viewed, wheth- 
 er as regards their immense length, both in degrees and in 
 miles, the separation of some into two or more parts in the 
 direction of their lengths, their great breadth and curvature, 
 the rapidity of their formation, their deviation from the line 
 of the radius vector, frequent formation of a tail towards the 
 sun, the black stripe through the center of some, and its 
 absence in others, their chemical composition, and, above all, 
 the source and nature of the force that throws back from the 
 sunny side of the coma a train of unimagined extent in one 
 instance 200,000,000 miles in length and 15,000,000 in breadth 
 are among the most inscrutable of the marvels which the vis- 
 ible universe presents for our contemplation and study. No 
 explanation has ever been propounded that will satisfactorily 
 account for a single one of these phenomena. 
 
 PROF. LEWIS SWIFT. 
 
 Perhaps there is no object upon which it is easier to ex- 
 ercise the imigination than upon Saturn. And there is prob- 
 ably no orb in reference to which more errors in detail have 
 been made. . . . As a matter of fact it is an extremely 
 difficult point to distinguish between real and imaginative 
 features on Saturn. The tremblings of the image, its faint- 
 ness under high power, or its smallness under low power, 
 encourage much fictitious detail which every observer cannot 
 regard as illusory. . . . Enke's division in the outer ring- 
 is a doubtful, or probably a very variable feature, which at 
 certain times appears to be missing altogether. 
 
 W. F. DENNING. 
 
 108. The Saturn iah Ring. There are many curious and 
 hitherto inexplicable anomalies in the Solar System which 
 furnish the strongest possible corroborative evidence of the 
 new views here advanced. The planet Saturn and its ring- 
 are very remarkable instances, the evidence of which alone 
 
184 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [108 
 
 is almost sufficient to establish the truth of the new theory. 
 There is, properly speaking, no explanation of the curious phe- 
 nomenon of Saturn's ring by the current theory. There are 
 quite a number of alleged explanations, none of which, how- 
 ever, are tenable. The most common view is that the ring is 
 composed of discrete particles of dust or tenuous vapor, sim- 
 ilar to the substance of a comet's tail or of the zodiacal light. 
 This view is now accepted by the highest living authorities 
 on the subject. The planet itself, on the other hand, is sup- 
 posed to be an ice-covered solid body.* How the planet be- 
 came solidified out of the original vapors while the ring, 
 which had, to say the least, an equal chance to solidify, yet 
 remains almost in the original state, is of course wholly 
 inexplicable. 
 
 Prof. Keelerf by photographing the spectrum of Saturn's 
 ring and noting the relative displacements of the spectral 
 lines, has obtained, according to Doppler's principle, what he 
 regarded as proof that the outer portion of the ring revolves 
 more slowly than the inner portion; which appears to con- 
 firm the meteoric hypothesis of the ring's constitution put 
 forth by Maxwell in 1856. Prof. Keeler's work has been re- 
 peated and corroborated by Dr. W. W. Campbell of Lick 
 Observatory.:}: 
 
 Doppler's principle is now generally accepted as authori- 
 tative in such cases, and there is not much room for doubt that 
 in some cases it leads to correct results. But the displace- 
 ments of the spectral lines of a body owing to its recession 
 or approach upon which the principle depends are extreme- 
 ly small in nearly all cases and requires very accurate com- 
 parison with the same spectral lines of a stationary body. 
 
 In Newcomb's Astronomy, (ed. 1893), the diameter of the 
 planet Saturn is given as 70,500 miles, the distance of the 
 inner edge of tlyi bright ring from the planet's center, 58,280 
 
 *The ultra- Jovian planets "are globes of solid ice, inclosing cores of 
 rocky material and wrapped in vapor-laden atmospheres.' 1 Prof. A. 
 Winchell, World-Life, p. 473. 
 
 tAstrophysical Journal, May 1895, p. 416. 
 lAstrophysical Journal, Aug. 1895, p. 127. 
 
108] ANOMALIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 185 
 
 miles, that of the outer edge, 83,557 miles, and the gravity-fall 
 at the planet's surface in one second, 19 feet. Now, if it be 
 granted that the ring consists of a swarm of meteorites, it is 
 found from the foregoing data that, according to the variation 
 of gravtiy-fall inversely as the square of the distance, a veloc- 
 ity of 12.55 miles per second would be required to balance 
 the gravityrfall at the inner edge of the ring, and a velocity 
 of 10.4 miles per second to balance the gravity-fall at the outer 
 edge of the ring; giving a velocity-difference of 2.15 miles 
 per second at the inner and outer edges of the ring. Now 
 this difference is alleged to be detected by the spectroscope 
 in the v/idth of the ring, or a space of less than six seconds 
 of arc; and moreover, since this difference can only be ob- 
 served when the plane of the ring is tilted considerably to 
 the line of sight, the real velocity-difference with respect to 
 our instruments would, for this reason, be considerably less 
 than two miles, probably about one and a half miles, and the 
 conditions of observation extremely difficult besides. 
 
 When has so small a velocity-difference been spectroscop- 
 ically observed before under similar circumstances? The 
 nearest approach to it appears to be the velocity of the Sun's 
 rotation, attempts at the Spectroscopic determination of which 
 by vailous observers have recently been made, the results 
 varying around two kilometres, or about one and one-fourth 
 mile per second at the equator. This makes a velocity-differ- 
 ence of about two and a half miles between the opposite edges 
 or the Sun's disc, which, by using a very high dispersion spec- 
 troscope, gives a total line displacement of only one-tenth of 
 a millimetre, or about 1/250 inch. And though the observa- 
 tions were made under the most favorable circumstances, and 
 the velocity-difference much larger than in the case of Sat- 
 urn's ring, the variations in the results, both by the different 
 observers and by the lines of different substances, were such 
 that the question is still left with six different institutions 
 for settlement.* The following from an excellent authority 
 refers to the same difficulties: 
 
 *See Publication 2106, Smithsonian Institution, p. 260. 
 
186 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY 
 
 "It may be worth while to indicate the accuracy necessary 
 in such measurements. The velocity of rotation of the sun's 
 equator is approximately 2km. per second, while the velocity 
 of light is 300,000 km. per second. According to Doppler's 
 principle, the corresponding change in wavelength should be 
 1 : 150,000 a quantity too small* to be 'resolved' by any 
 prism or grating then in existence. But by a sufficient num- 
 ber of careful micrometer measurements of the position of 
 the middle of a given spectral line, the mean value of two 
 such sets of measurements would show the required shift. It 
 is clear, however, that if such radial velocities are to be de- 
 termined with any considerable degree of accuracy, nothing 
 short of the highest resolving power of the most powerful 
 gratings should be employed."* 
 
 Now if such observers as Huggins and Vogel were unable to 
 determine spectroscopically the velocity-difference of the 
 Sun's rotation in opposite directions, it may easily be im- 
 agined how much more difficult and uncertain would be the 
 determination of the smaller velocity-difference of the inner 
 and outer edges of Saturn's ring under the far more difficult 
 circumstances of observation. (See W. F. Denning's quota- 
 tion under heading of this chapter). 
 
 Does it not seem barely possible that this current view of 
 the constitution of the Saturnian ring is somewhat of the na- 
 ture of reasoning in a circle, or of a leading question suggest- 
 ing its own answer? According to the theory of gravitation, 
 the ring could not possibly revolve as a solid whole, if com- 
 posed of ordinary crust material. This suggested the meteor- 
 itic hypothesis of its constitution, which appears to have no 
 other evidence or reason whatever in its favor; after which 
 the theory of gravitation necessitated variable velocity, and 
 has it not occured before? unconscious bias towards a uni- 
 versally accepted theory molded doubtful instrumental ob- 
 servations accordingly. 
 
 We know that several other causes besides difference of 
 velocity in the line of sight displaces spectral lines, and we 
 know moreover that in many such cases some lines are dis- 
 placed more than others; for which reasons some authorities 
 reject Doppler's principle as untrustworthy. (See Nature, 
 
 *Dr. A. A. Michelson, Nature, 88, 363. 
 
108] ANOMALIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 187 
 
 79,431). There are others who have investigated this question 
 spectroscopically, and who differ from Keeler, not considering 
 this kind of evidence as a proof of the meteoritic nature of 
 the ring.* "Sir W. Herschel concluded that the matter of the 
 ring is no less solid than that of Saturn as it casts a strong 
 shadow upon the planet. The light of the ring is generally 
 brighter than that of the planet." f A. Mascari observed per- 
 manent bright spots on the ring July 25 to August 6, 1895, $ 
 which is not easy to explain on the meteoritic theory. Bessel 
 determined the mass of the ring as 1/118 of that of the planet, 
 while its volume, adopting Bond's value of 40 miles for its 
 thickness, is only 1/400 of the planet's volume. Prof. Asaph 
 Hall reduced Bessel's value to 1/1180; while the mass per- 
 missible by Maxwell's meteoritic hypothesis is only 1/120,000 
 of the planet's mass. 
 
 But by far the strongest reason for believing that the ring 
 is solid is its extreme thinness, as compared with its width, 
 and the clear definition of its edges and of its shadow upon 
 the planet. It is wholly inexplicable and inconceivable that a 
 swarm of meteorites could dispose themselves in a plane ring 
 of about 170,000 miles diameter, 30,000 miles width, and of a 
 uniform thickness of only 1/750 part of its width. The most 
 natural form of a ring composed of a loose swarm of meteor- 
 itic bodies would seem to be one of an approximately cir- 
 cular section, thinning in density towards the outside surface, 
 and therefore of blurred or fading definition at the edges. 
 There is no conceivable agency which would compress a me- 
 teoritic swarm into a pancake form of such extreme thinness 
 relative to width and of such perfect definition; just as if it 
 were pressed between immense rollers. The only rational 
 view seems to be that the ring is solid and that it had its ori- 
 gin in the manner indicated by the new theory. Its width 
 would thus be determined by the quadrant of the planet's sur- 
 
 *M. H. Deslandres, Nature, 52, 144. 
 
 fProf. R. A. Proctor, Ency. Brit., 9th ed., 11, 811. 
 
 JAstron. Nach., 3318. 
 
 Nature, 33, 303. 
 
188 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [108 
 
 face and its thickness by double that of the original crust; 
 both of which, however, would now be less than at first owing 
 to the expansion which the ring has already undergone. 
 
 Some authorities are agreed that the ring is getting con- 
 tinually smaller in diameter, and will continue to grow in- 
 wards ; * while others hold that the diameter of the ring-sys- 
 tem is continually increasing at the rate of about 29 miles 
 annually from the time of Huyghens,.f Prof. C. A. Young 
 states that "the most recent micrometric measures have failed 
 to confirm Struve's suspicion that the rings are contracting 
 on the planet." 
 
 The ring is, in all probability, continually receding from 
 the planet, therefore expanding in diameter; and, being thus 
 subjected to an increasing centrifugal strain, it will yield 
 eventually at some point and collapse into a satellite. There 
 is little further to .add to this explanation. Regarding the 
 real attraction of the planet upon the ring by the new theory, 
 it may be stated that it would supposably be very small. The 
 crust of the planet as it separated into its present ring-form 
 would carry with it a portion of the structurally developed 
 connective atmosphere in which the function of attraction 
 lies; the remainder of which on the planet's surface would 
 supposably conform itself structurally, and therefore function- 
 ally with respect to gravitation, to the different conditions 
 supervening there after the crust's removal (see Art. 92 b). 
 The same change in the connective atmosphere of the ring 
 would take place during its precipitation into the spherical 
 form. Notwithstanding the general belief that the ring is 
 multiple, or made up of two or three separate rings, there is 
 no real evidence whatever that such is the case. There are 
 indeed striations and bands of different colors ; but this would 
 quite supposably arise from the manner in which the ring is 
 here conceived to have been derived, without involving any 
 actual breach of continuity. Mr. Asaph Hall of Washington 
 
 *A. Winchell, Woild-Ljfe, p. 483; Otto Struve, Astron. Nach., No. 
 2948. 
 
 fRay's Elements of Astronomy. 
 
108] ANOMALIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 189 
 
 Observatory has especially examined the planet Saturn and. 
 its ring during the fourteen years 1875-89. Following are the 
 results of his observations so far as they relate to this point: 
 
 "Although a careful examination was made to find if a notch 
 could be seen in the outline of the shadow of the ball upon 
 the ring, no such phenomenon was recorded. Of the prin- 
 cipal rings, no division was recorded in the inner ring. The 
 Cassini division gave the impression 'of not being a complete 
 separation, or that small particles of matter remain in this 
 partly dark space.' The Encke division of the outer ring, 
 although specially looked for, could not be definitely stated 
 as a 'real and -permanent division,' although a slight marking 
 was seen at times."* 
 
 The transparent inner portion of the ring (the crape ring), 
 which we observe to be precisely analogous in substance to 
 the coronal rays, the zodiacal light, and the tails of comets, 
 is, by the new theory, nothing else than the ring's primary 
 connexion with the planet, mixed, perhaps, near the ring, with 
 some aqueous and other vapors. The main body of the ring 
 is certainly solid enough to cast an unbroken shadow upon 
 the planet, and also to receive the shadow of the latter upon 
 the side farthest from the Sun. The outline of this latter 
 shadow, minutely scrutinized with powerful telescopes, has 
 led astronomers to believe that the outer edge of the ring is 
 rounded in form; precisely as the new theory would lead us 
 to expect. Changes appear to be taking place in the ring's 
 sructure, owing, no doubt, to its continual expansion. M. 
 Stuyvaert of the Royal Observatory, Brussels, from drawings 
 made February 8 and 15, 1887, and presented to the Royal Bel- 
 gian Academy, shows that the black band corresponding to 
 the Cassinian division, is encroaching on the outer portion 
 of the ring, in a remarkable series of indentations. Another 
 portion is broken up into a series of bright white spots, by a 
 number of dusky patches. Also there were observed three or 
 four "large re-entering angles, like the teeth of a saw", on the 
 inner margin. These observed changes have led to the belief 
 that the matter composing the ring is at present much less 
 evenly distributed than usual. And, in fact, we really know 
 
 *Nature, 43, 65. 
 
190 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [109 
 
 not at what moment a serious break may occur which would 
 precipitate the awful catastrophe terminating the existence of 
 the ring as such, and transforming it into another Saturnian 
 satellite. 
 
 109. Comets. If the privilege of witnessing this grand 
 catastrophe the crashing together of billions upon billions of 
 cubic miles of solid rock and earth, separated by about 170,- 
 000 miles, or about three-fourths the distance of the Moon 
 from the Earth if the rare privilege of gazing with our 
 mortal eyes upon this convulsion of a world in the throes of 
 a planetary birth be granted us, it may be that other bodies 
 besides the off-spring will be seen to engage our attention. 
 In the extreme violence of the collisions, vast fragments 
 would probably have their parental connexions severed, and 
 with a portion of these severed connexions clinging about 
 them as an infant robe, these fragments would speed to distant 
 worlds and systems as messengers bearing tidings of the na- 
 tivity. These, although apparently wandering in all direc- 
 tions, yet would have their determined, definite courses which 
 they must pursue. The agents determining the comet's 
 course would probably be one of the secondary connexions 
 which yet remain attached to it. Some one of these connex- 
 ions would lie more nearly in the direction of the comet's orig- 
 inal projection than the others, and this one the body would 
 follow. The leading connexion would thus become continually 
 shorter, its substance accumulating upon the body; and, ow- 
 ing to the swift motion of the one and the material inertia 
 of the other, it would fall behind the comet and form the 
 "tail." This tail would of course increase in magnitude, ow- 
 ing to the continual accumulation of the connexion as the 
 connected body was approached. Sometimes one or more 
 subordinate tails are observed to exend from the body in dif- 
 ferent directions; but quite probably these are only other 
 secondary connexions carried by the comet, and into which 
 a part of the accumulating connective substance finds its 
 way, thus making them visible to us. Now the chances would 
 be almost infinity to one against the original projection of the 
 
109] . ANOMALIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 191 
 
 comet exactly in the direction of the connected body towards 
 which the comet would move. The direction of projection 
 would, in fact, be more or less to one side or other of that body. 
 The comet, therefore, would not move directly towards the 
 body approached, and as it moved past that body a gradual 
 strain would come upon the connexion between the two, by 
 means of which the former, in the course of several hours or 
 days, would be swung around the latter until its motion was 
 nearly in line with some other connexion which it carried and 
 which it would afterwards follow. 
 
 The substance of the tail, in obedience to its material co- 
 hesion and momentum, would also move round with the com- 
 et; and as the latter was more directly detained by the con- 
 nexion, the former (whose momentum would be comparative- 
 ly unchecked) would generally swing round to the side far- 
 thest from tHe other body. Thus the normal position of the 
 tail would usually be away from the Sun or other body around 
 which the comet was moving. But this position of the tail is 
 not an essential feature of the phenomenon. In fact, exact 
 opposition of the tail to the Sun would rarely be the case. 
 Indeed one comet at least has been observed whose tail point- 
 ed almost directly towards the Sun.* And although one 
 prominent authority! says ocmets' tails never point to the 
 Sun, at least four others have been observed to do so very 
 approximately,! and many others in various directions. 
 
 In this manner the comet would recede much in the same 
 way that it approached; the connexion with the first body 
 now elongating itself from the accumulated connective sub- 
 stance upon the body of the comet, just as the Earth's con- 
 nexions with the planets become elongated when the Earth 
 recedes from them. After the comet rounded this second 
 body, it might return again to the first, or it might, subject 
 to the guidance of still another secondary connexion which 
 
 *Nature, 41, 255. 
 
 tDr. Oliver J. Lodge, Pioneers of Science, p. 343. 
 
 JViz., 1888, c (Nature, 40, 255); 1895, IV (Nature, 54, 600); 1910, 
 a (Nature, 87, 21) ; and 1911, b (Nature, 87, 257) 
 
192 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [109 
 
 it would carry, move towards a third body, and then even 
 towards a fourth, coming back by way of one or more of 
 these, or perhaps directly to the first; or it may be that it 
 would never return to the first, but would continue circulat- 
 ing round some others. In its wanderings it would suffer 
 a continual loss of motion from the friction of the connective 
 medium through which it passes; and in all probability a 
 plunge into the body towards which finally it would thus 
 move, is the ultimate fate which would terminate its career. 
 
 All the peculiar and hitherto mysterious phenomena of 
 these bodies thus fall in apparent harmony with the new the- 
 ory. But in still further confirmation of the new views, it 
 has been observed that the substance forming the tail seems 
 to rise in a continual stream from the side of the approach- 
 ing comet nearest to the Sun; and, after ascending a certain 
 distance, apparently sweeps behind the body. "It flows past 
 the nucleus", says Dr. Huggins, "on all sides, still ever ex- 
 panding and shooting backwards until a tail is formed, in a 
 direction opposite to the Sun. This tail is usually curved, 
 though sometimes rays or extra tails are also seen." This 
 curvature of the tail, regarding which so many different the- 
 ories have been invented, would, by the new view, be owing 
 simply to the motion of the comet in a direction different from 
 that in which the leading connexion lies; the inertia of the 
 connective substance and the comet's motion giving to the 
 connective particles the observed resultant path. If the comet 
 moved directly towards the Sun, or exactly in the direction 
 in which the leading connexion lies, the tail would suppos- 
 ably be exactly straight during the approach of the comet. 
 
 It has been supposed by Siemens, Proctor, Langley, Huy- 
 ghens, and others, that the activity above noticed on the side 
 nearest the Sun would be caused by the extreme solar heat 
 driving occluded gases out of the solid nucleus; and then 
 repelling them in a manner similar to electric repulsion. But 
 Prof. Stokes has observed that this activity is just as pro- 
 nounced in the cases of comets which have approached the 
 Sun no nearer than our Earth does, or not so near; and these 
 
110] ANOMALIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 193 
 
 bodies, having no proper atmosphere, and subject, therefore, 
 according to Prof. Langley and others, to a temperature sev- 
 eral hundred degrees below zero, such a theory, under such 
 circumstances, can hardly be regarded as tenable. 
 
 Moreover the evidence of the spectroscope goes to show 
 that there is almost an exact similarity of composition and 
 matter in comet's tails, the coronal streamers, the zodiacal 
 light, and the aurora borealis. Euler was led by observation 
 to put forward the theory "that there is a great affinity be- 
 tween these tails, the zodiacal light, and the aurora borealis." 
 And similar views were entertained by Angstrom, Otto Struve, 
 and Prof. R. A. Proctor. The latter believed it "far from be- 
 ing unlikely that these long-vexed questions the nature of 
 the aurora, and that of the zodiacal light, and that of comet's 
 tails will receive their solution simultaneously." 
 
 During the last appearance of Halley's comet, the Earth 
 appears to have passed through the tail. This passage was 
 due on May 1$, 1910, and at 2h 15m a. m. of that day two 
 tails were seen, one in the east and one in the west; both 
 remaining visible to 3h 5m a. m. This observation was made 
 on the sea near Naples. After passing through it, the tail 
 seemed shorter and brush-, or aigrette-shaped (Nature, 83, 
 pp. 487, 534). Yet though the Earth evidently passed through 
 the comet's tail at that time, and no doubt absorbed a good 
 portion of its substance, judging by the abbreviated appear- 
 ance of the tail afterwards, not the slightest effect could 
 with any probability be atttributed to this fact; which clearly 
 demonstrates the extreme tenuity and ethereal nature of this 
 substance. It was supposed at the time that the tail must 
 have been electrically repelled by the Earth's atmosphere 
 (Nature, 84, 163); but the contrary conclusion seems to have 
 been clearly proved by the subsequent appearance of the tail, 
 as intimated above. 
 
 110. Meteorites. Meteorites would differ from comets in 
 no respect whatever but their size. They would originate 
 at the same time and in the same manner; the larger frag- 
 ments being comets, the smaller being meteorites. The lat- 
 
194 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [HO 
 
 ter would circulate in the same manner as the former, and 
 often, no doubt, round the same bodies. Indeed it has re- 
 cently been observed that comets are nearly always accom- 
 panied by immense streams of nteteorites. Owing probably 
 to their smallness alone these bodies are invisible to us, 
 except upon very close approach; but each of them is, no 
 doubt, accompanied by a minute tail or connective atmos- 
 phere in the same manner as a comet. If we are in need of 
 further evidence, we have it in the bodies themselves, which 
 we see with our eyes and handle with our hands. Many 
 meteorites, or aerolites, or comets, whichever we choose to 
 call them, fall annually upon the surface of the Earth. We 
 see them fall: we dig them out of the earth in which their 
 momentum has buried them; and we place them in our mu- 
 seums. What are they? They are simply pieces of rock, 
 about in all respects similar to the rocks of our own world. 
 
 "It has now been shown that meteoric stones sometimes 
 contain pieces of essentially different rocks fused together 
 and pieces of detritus the wearing down of older rocks. Thus, 
 as we know that sandstone is made of compacted sand, and 
 sand itselt was in some still earlier time part of rocks worn 
 down by friction when it is shown, as it has been by M. 
 Meunier, that a sandstone with threads of copper in it (like 
 some of our Lake Superior formations) has come to us in 
 a meteorite, his conclusion that these stones may be part of 
 some other world is one that, however startling, we cannot 
 refuse to consider."* 
 
 "When sixteen years ago I published the last edition of 
 my work 'The Plurality of Inhabited Worlds' I did not 
 expect to see the speedy confirmation that the progress of 
 astronomy was to give to my essay, by allowing us, so to 
 speak, to put our finger on the manifestation of planetary 
 life. On the one hand those samples of other worlds the 
 aerolites have brought us, in their composition, certain ele- 
 ments which play a very extensive role in life such as oxy- 
 gen, hydrogen, chloride of sodium, and carbon. The aero- 
 lite which fell at Orgueil (Tarn-et-Garonne) in 1864, brought 
 us coaly matter carburets that are due, like peat, to vege- 
 table remains; the one which fell at Lance (Loire-et-Cher) 
 in 1872, brought us salt. They had already brought us water 
 in the form of hydrated oxide of iron. The worlds whence 
 
 *Prof. S. P. Langley, Century Magazine, Jan. '87. 
 
110] ANOMALIES OP THE SOLAR SYSTEM 195 
 
 these fragments come, do not differ then essentially from our 
 own."* 
 
 Another meteorite which fell at Mighei, in Russia, June 9, 
 1889, has been examined by M. Stanislaus Meunier, with the 
 following result: 
 
 "About 85 per cent of the rock was found to be attacked 
 by acids, the portion so attacked being shown by analysis 
 to consist mainly of a silicate of magnesium and iron having 
 the composition of peridote. On the remaining 15 per cent 
 being treated in a current of dry oxygen gas, it readily took 
 fire and burnt very brilliantly. The products of combustion, 
 which were allowed to pass through the usual absorption 
 tubes containing pumice and sulphuric acid and potash, 
 showed that the meteorite contained nearly 5 per cent of 
 organic matter." f 
 
 The subject is of sufficient interest to justify a few fur- 
 ther quotations of the same tenor. 
 
 "The commonest kind of meteoric stone consists of a mix- 
 ture of iron and various rocks, and contains a number of 
 small, globular bodies, which has obtained for these bodies 
 the name of chond rites. These chondrites are sometimes quite 
 black and contain amorphous carbon and bituminous sub- 
 stances, probably products of decomposition of organic com- 
 pounds. According to Dr. Hahn, they are nothing more than 
 a mass of tissue of animals or plant-animals of the lowest 
 kind, such as sponges, crinoids, corals, etc. According to 
 Dr. Weiland ("Ausland", 1881, p. 302) they are remains of 
 corals belonging to the family of the favostima, which on 
 earth are found only as fossils in the very oldest strata; in 
 chrondrites they are of liliputian size as compared with their 
 terrestrial relatives. "I 
 
 "The diamonds exposed (in a meteoric iron from Albu- 
 querque, N. M.) were small and black; . . . the presence 
 of such in meteorites having been unknown until 1887, when 
 two Russian mineralogists discovered traces of diamond in 
 a mixture of olivine and bronzite." 
 
 "It is said that the diamond is a direct gift from heaven 
 conveyed to earth in meteoric showers." 
 
 *Camille Flammarion, Sci. Am. Suppl., No. 175. 
 
 fNature, 41, 232. 
 
 JBuchner, Force and Matter, p. 137. 
 
 Prof. G. A. Koenig, Nature, 45, 180. 
 
 A. Mcydenbauer, Chemical News, 66, 209. 
 
196 THfi CONNECTIVE THEORY [110 
 
 "In 1,846 a meteorite fell in Hungary ("Ava Meteorite") 
 which contained diamonds; in 1886 one fell in Russia contain- 
 ing about one per cent, of carbon in light grey grains having 
 the hardness of diamonds and burning in oxygen to carbonic 
 acid. In Arizona over an area five miles in diameter are 
 scattered thousands of masses of metallic iron from half a 
 ton weight down. Near the center of the tract, where most 
 of the meteorites lay, is a crater three-quarters of a mile in 
 diameter, with raised edges, and about 600 feet deep, which 
 has exactly the appearance which would be produced by a 
 mighty mass of iron, or falling star, striking the ground and 
 burying itself deep under the surface. These Canon Diabolo 
 meteorites about all contain black and transparent dia- 
 monds."* 
 
 "The Farmington meteorite contained metallic veins, 
 which, on our planet, are usually deposited by water in the 
 open fractures of rock."t 
 
 "Spectrum analysis shows in cometary nebulae the four or 
 five lines characteristic of hydro-carbons. Cosmic matter 
 must then contain compounds of carbon of the substances 
 that are especially typical of organic chemistry. Besides, 
 carbon and a sort of humus have been found in several 
 meteorites. "J 
 
 Now all these remarkable facts are wholly inexplicable 
 by the present theory. They are, indeed, so utterly at var- 
 iance with the genesis of worlds, according to that theory, 
 that prominent scientists, as the easiest way of avoiding the 
 contradiction, strenuously deny that meteorites contain any 
 organic traces whatever ; or, if they undeniably contain or- 
 ganic traces, deny their meteoric origin. Up to the present 
 time, the most reasonable theory of the origin of meteorites 
 is that of J. Norman Lockyer and G. H. Darwin; which 
 is that they are mere isolated condensations of the primordial 
 vapor in the extreme cold of interplanetary space, and 
 brought into their present state by innumerable collisions 
 with one another in meteoritic swarms. Of course this the- 
 ory utterly precludes the existence of any vegetable or or- 
 ganic substance in these bodies. 
 
 *Prof. W. M. Crookes, Royal Institution, London, June 11, 1897. 
 
 fNature, 63, 290. 
 
 JProf. A. Dastre, Smith. Rept., 1902, 395. 
 
 Nature, 34, 533. 
 
 Transactions, Astron. and Phys. Soc., Toronto, 1898, p. 121. 
 
Ill] ANOMALIES OP THE SOLAR SYSTPIM 197 
 
 The theory of their origin which is advanced in the pres- 
 work is, on the contrary, completely in harmony with that 
 oi M. Sanislaus Meunier, of which a Commission of the Paris 
 Academy said that he was justified in concluding "that all 
 these masses once belonged to a considerable globe like the 
 earth, having true geological epochs, and that later it was 
 decomposed into separate fragments under the action of caus- 
 es difficult to define exactly, but which we have more than 
 once seen in operation in the heavens themselves."* So also 
 Prof. Win. A. Pickering,! who ventures so far as to suppose 
 that the fracture of the Earth's solid crust gave origin to the 
 stony meteorites though not to the iron meteorites. He says: 
 "This implies a solid crust for the earth at the date of birth 
 of the moon, which previous investigations of the place of 
 origin of that body seems to justify." 
 
 111. Discrepancies of the Planetary Masses and Motions. 
 It is probable that in the collapse of each planet-ring, sev- 
 eral comets and numberless meteorites would come into ex- 
 istence. It seems possible even that in the extraordinary 
 violence of the falling masses, almost the whole ring might 
 thus occasionally be broken up into such separate fragments. 
 It is a reasonable geometrical deduction that the mass of 
 each planet-ring should bear a definite ratio to the space 
 through which the Sun contracted during the crust-formation, 
 or, approximately, the space between the orbit of the result- 
 ing planet and that of the next preceding. According to this 
 view, the outermost planets should be vastly larger than the 
 iimermost; and, in general, this is the fact. But still there 
 are great discrepancies. Uranus and Neptune ought to be 
 much larger than Saturn or Jupiter, whereas they are much 
 smaller. Mars again should be larger than the Earth, where- 
 as it is little more than a tenth as large. And the united 
 mass of the Asteroids should be second only to that of Jupi- 
 ter, whereas it is less than a millionth of Jupiter's mass. 
 By the present theory these discrepancies are unaccountable. 
 
 *Prof. Holden, Account of Progress in Astronomy, in 1881, p. 28. 
 fPop. Astron., May, 1909. 
 
198 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [HI 
 
 By the new theory they are reasonably attributable to the 
 dissipation of the ring-substance in comets and meteorites. 
 In corroboration of this view, we observe that it is in those 
 cases in which the mass-discrepancy is most marked that we 
 meet with other irregular phenomena. For example, the axis 
 of rotation of Neptune, Uranus and Mars vary the most from 
 the perpendicular to the orbit-plane; which clearly indicates 
 that these bodies are but larger residual fragments of the 
 parent-rings, the axes of which have been tilted in the part- 
 ing shocks of the portions ejected as comets and meteorites. 
 However great the violence of the ring-disruption, if only the 
 whole mass of the ring would aggregate into the resulting 
 sphere, there could be no variation of the axis of rotation of 
 this sphere from the perpendicular to the orbit-plane. It is not 
 impossible that very large masses might be ejected from the 
 resulting sphere without changing the inclination of its axis. 
 But it is quite evident that when the axis of rotation is in- 
 clined from the axis of orbital revolution, an ejection of por- 
 tions of the planet-ring as comets and meteorites is certainly 
 indicated. Of course after the axis of the new sphere becomes 
 once tilted, "it always remains so; and the succeeding satel- 
 lites would have their axes of revolution at the same inclina- 
 tion. This would obviously be the case with Neptune and 
 Uranus, the orbit-planes of whose satellites are almost per- 
 pendicular to the planes of the planetary orbits. 
 
 Another hitherto inexplicable irregularity of which this 
 cometary ejection is a very plausible explanation is the ex- 
 traordinarily small period of revolution of the recently dis- 
 covered Martial satellites; that of the inner one being less 
 than one-third the rotation period of Mars. Of this very 
 unusual phenomenon the probable explanation is that the sat- 
 ellite is comparatively a small fragment of the satellite-ring, 
 the ejected portions of which, by their final impact, impressed 
 upon it a certain amount of motion in a backward direction; 
 and hence the body was drawn inwards by the elasticity of 
 its connexion until its increased angular velocity generated 
 a, centrifugal force balancing the elasticity of the connexion. 
 
112] ANOMALIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM 199 
 
 it seems quite probable that the structure of the planet- 
 and satellite-rings would differ very considerably; the sub- 
 stance of some being hard and elastic, while that of others 
 would be soft and pliable, according with the various con- 
 ditions to which their formations would be subjected. To 
 the former class evidently would belong the anomalous plan- 
 ets here considered, together with their satellites. It is also 
 probable that, owing to their fragmentary nature, some of 
 this class of planets and satellites, especially the smaller 
 bodies, might at their origin have retained a portion or nearly 
 all, of their structural development, much the same, in fact, 
 as the nuclei of comets. Upon this assumption, the two sat- 
 ellites of Mars may be blocks of solid rock. In such bodies 
 the genitive process, if it existed at all, would be exceedingly 
 slow; the more so on those in which the greater degree of 
 development was retained. 
 
 112. The Minor Planets. According to the current the- 
 ory, the minor planets or Asteroids, may have been owing 
 to a stratification of the parent ring from which "it is quite 
 conceivable that numerous planets might result."* Or the 
 ring might have persisted until excess of perturbation 
 "brought it into contact with the planet Mars,"t by which 
 collision it was broken up into the Asteroids. Or Olber's 
 theory of an exploded planet might be the correct one,$ 
 t;pon reviewing which array of "contingencies," Prof. A. Win- 
 ehell confidently remarks: "The possibilities of the nebular 
 theory, therefore, deprive of all force any objection based 
 upon the existence of a group of asteroids." 
 
 As the superior genius of its more recent supporter would 
 lead us to expect, the last theory (of which Prof. Winchell 
 mentions his rejection merely in a footnote) comes the near- 
 est to the explanation which appears to be the true one. The 
 "grotesque" conception of a body liquifying, and even solid- 
 ifying, around a gaseous nucleus, which Mr. Spencer "sets 
 forth", is in exact accordance with the views here advanced. 
 
 *A. Winchell, World-Life,, p. 176. 
 
 tB. Pierce, Gould's Astron. Jour., 2, 18; G. Hinnicns, Am. Jour. Sci., 
 
 II, 39, p. 54. 
 JHerbert Spencer, Westminister Review, 70, 113. 
 
200 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [113 
 
 Had he only extended his conception a little further to the 
 equatorial projection and eventual separation of such a solid- 
 ified crust, and its final fracture and falling together through 
 many millions of miles, Mr. Spencer would have arrived at 
 precisely the same explanation of these bodies that is here 
 offered with only this exception: He had the solidified 
 crust upon the planet, while the new theory would have it 
 upon the Sun. If the substance of such a solidified planet- 
 ring be supposed to be peculiarly brittle and elastic, in which 
 supposition there appears to be nothing unreasonable, the vio- 
 lence of its collapse through such an immense space would 
 amply account for the fragments which alone remain to tell 
 the story. These are but the few the violence of whose ejec- 
 tion from the center of aggregation chanced to be only suffi- 
 cient to separate their mutual connexions without severing 
 those with the primary. The vast majority, having wholly 
 severed their parental connexions (and probably their frater- 
 nal connexions also), had become wanderers among other and 
 distant worlds. 
 
 133. Comets from Satellite Rings. Would these wanderers 
 ever return to the place of their birth? Probably not; for 
 their family connexions would all, or nearly all, be severed; 
 and therefore they would have no inducement to retrace their 
 path. It would probably be otherwise, however, with the 
 fragments escaping from the satellite-rings. These, while 
 severing their primary connexions with the planets, might 
 still retain their secondary connexions with the Sun and some 
 other planets; in the direction of some one of which they 
 might perhaps be projected and so circulate around the Sun 
 and that one planet. The following quotation is strongly con- 
 firmatory of this view: 
 
 "The Pons-Brooks comet of 1883-84 is extremely interest- 
 ing, as presenting the first instance (excepting Halley's comet 
 of course) of one of the Neptunian family of comets return- 
 ing to perihelion. There are six of these bodies, with per- 
 iods ranging from sixty-eight to seventy years. Halley's comet, 
 the only large one of the group, has made many returns, 
 and is due in 1910. Pon's comet, first observed in 1812, has 
 now returned; Giber's comet of 1815 is due in 1889, and three 
 
114] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 201 
 
 others, all of them small, in 1919-20 and 1922. I have spoken 
 of them as Neptunian comets, i. e., their presence in our sys- 
 tem is known to be due in some way to this planet. The 
 now generally received theory is that they have had their 
 orbits changed from parabolas into their present shape by 
 the disturbing action of Neptune. Mr. Proctor has pointed 
 out certain unquestionable, though I think, inconclusive, ob- 
 jections to this view, and he proposes, as an alternative, the 
 startling and apparently improbable hypothesis that they 
 have been ejected from the planet at some time past by some- 
 thing like volcanic action."* 
 
 But although Mr. Proctor's hypothesis after all comes re- 
 markably near to what has every appearance of being the 
 fact, yet it seems certain that a comet could never return to 
 the primary from the ring of which it was first ejected, and 
 with which all its connexions are broken. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 INTE PLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 
 
 What are the fewest assumptions, which being granted, 
 the order of nature as it exists would be the result? What 
 are the fewest general propositions from which all the uni- 
 formities existing in nature could be deduced? J. S. MILL. 
 
 In matters of evidence, as in all other human things, we 
 neither require, nor can attain, the absolute. We must hold 
 our strongest convictions with an opening left in our minds 
 for the reception of facts which contradict them; and only 
 when we have taken this percaution have we earned the right 
 to act upon our convictions with complete confidence when 
 no such contradiction appears. J. S. MILL. 
 
 The true test of theory, in physical science, is to bring 
 it face to face with the facts of nature, to see if it is consist- 
 ent with these facts, and if it can help us to explain them. 
 
 GERALD MOLLOY. 
 
 114. Classification of Connexions. According to the con- 
 nective theory, every planet of the Solar System is connected 
 with the Sun by a primary bond, with every other planet 
 
 *Frof. C. A. Young, Nature, 35, 117. 
 
202 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [114 
 
 by a secondary bond, and with other heavenly bodies by 
 bonds of various degrees of kinship. Also these planetary 
 bonds, or connexions, are in every case material and highly 
 elastic, though very probably decreasing in material density 
 with the remoteness of relationship of the bodies between 
 which they subtend; and though even the densest or primary 
 connexions may be quite as tenuous as entities now regarded 
 as immaterial. 
 
 Now the Earth must be profoundly affected by material 
 connexions of such immense magnitude exending outwards 
 on all sides of it to all known bodies. As our planet circu- 
 lates annually around the Sun, it alternately approaches and 
 recedes from each of the other planets, as well as the Sun 
 itself; and these alternate approaches and recessions involve, 
 according to the new theory, alternate accumulations and 
 drains of the connective substance in our atmosphere. How- 
 ever tenuous and ethereal this substance may be, the accu- 
 mulations and drains of such enormous quantities of it in 
 our atmosphere cannot but profoundly affect the elements or 
 processes naturally existing therein the barometric pressure, 
 the atmospheric electricity, precipitation, etc. Ana if there 
 really should be found changes of these atmospheric elements 
 corresponding to these accumulations and drains of connec- 
 tive substance, extending over a great period of time with 
 scarcely a single exception what a beautiful and wonderful 
 and indisputable corroboration of the new theory it would be! 
 
 It is however an extremely laborious undertaking, of very 
 great magnitude and difficulty. But it is not an impossible 
 task and is surely well worth the effort. The necessary data 
 for this calculation is the actual amount of the drain or ac- 
 cumulation of the connective substance upon the Earth for 
 each month of a period of years sufficient to deter- 
 mine the relation, if such there be, between the assigned 
 cause and the actual phenomena. 
 
 At a first glance, the vast number and various kinds of 
 connexions which, according to our premises, would fall upon 
 the Earth appears amazing; and the reduction to order and 
 
114] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 203 
 
 the determination of their variations seem utterly impossible. 
 Moreover, to determine the relative amount of connective 
 variation due to any body with which the Earth is connected, 
 the relative mass of the body is an indispensable datum; 
 >et this datum is ascertainable at the present time only for 
 the bodies primarily, and for a portion of the bodies second- 
 arily, connected with us. 
 
 Fortunately, however, it is not necessary for the present 
 purpose to determine the relative quantitive variations of the 
 Earth-connexions of every order. In fact we need only con- 
 sider such variations in the case of primary and secondary 
 connexions, or just in those cases alone in which it is now 
 possible to do so. Connexions more remote than the second- 
 ary, and even a few secondary connexions themselves, are 
 with bodies so distantly related to us that their masses, mag- 
 nitude, and often, perhaps, their existence are absolutely un- 
 known to us. All these connexions will, therefore, be grouped 
 in one class, which will be designated the sidereal class or 
 factor; and as both the period and the linear amount of var- 
 iation is almost mathematically identical for every member 
 of this class, it is only necessary for us here to consider their 
 quantitive difference upon opposite sides of the Earth, and 
 regard this difference as if it were owing to a single heavenly 
 body. All the connexions which fall upon the Earth's sur- 
 face may, therefore, be included in three groups primary, 
 secondary, and sidereal. 
 
 The primary group consists of only two members, or that 
 with the Sun and that with the Moon. The secondary group 
 may be divided into two sub-groups, or those connexions 
 which extend towards the bodies which are immediately de- 
 rived from the Sun and those which extend towards the 
 bodies from which the Sun itself is immediately derived. 
 But the latter of these is really included in the sidereal fac- 
 tor, and, therefore, does not require a separate consideration 
 for the present purpose. It may subsequently receive at- 
 tention, however, in connection with another subject. So 
 that there is thus finally arrived at four different factors to 
 
204 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [114 
 
 which the supposed connective variations in the Earth's at- 
 mosphere would be due, viz., the sidereal, the solar, the lunar, 
 and the planetary. 
 
 Now there is one thing that distinguishes the planetary 
 and the lunar factors from the other two, viz., the incommen- 
 surableness of their periods with the year. The sidereal and 
 the solar factors each go through a complete cycle of vari- 
 ations in almost precisely one year; whereas each planet- 
 ary variation goes through a complete cycle only in the syn- 
 odic period of its respective planet with the Earth; and the 
 lunar variation has a period of thirteen and three-fourths 
 days each of which is incommensurable with the Earth's 
 period. The effect of the former two factors, therefore, 
 would be almost exactly alike in each succeotuve year; where- 
 as the effects of the latter two would not be alike in every 
 year, but only in successive periods or cycles of years. The 
 latter are, therefore, independent of the former so far as 
 these periods of years are concerned; and once these periods 
 are determined, they remain almost wholly unaffected by the 
 other factors. 
 
 The lunar factor, although of some consequence in small 
 portions of time, such as a day, would have scarcely an ap- 
 preciable effect on a table of monthly values. Although its 
 period is incommensurable with the year, yet that period is 
 such that, in any particular month, its algebraic effect is 
 comparatively small; so that the main characteristics of the 
 longer periods of connective variations upon the Earth, as 
 ascertained from the planetary factor alone, will not be meas- 
 urably affected by this any more than by the other two fac- 
 tors. This will subsequently be shown more in detail. 
 
 From this preliminary examination, then, it is found that 
 the planetary factor is almost the only portion of the whole 
 body of connective variations upon the Earth which would 
 cause one year to differ from another, and so cause ordinary 
 yearly periods, with respect to such variations. We may, 
 therefore, conveniently begin with this factor of the connec- 
 tive variation in our atmosphere in order to ascertain these 
 
115] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 205 
 
 yearly periods of these variations, and afterwards the effects 
 of the other factors may be added to modify the results thus 
 determined. 
 
 115. Factors of the Planetary Connexion-Variations. The 
 current relative masses of the seven planets with which the 
 Earth is here .assumed to be connected are sufficiently ac- 
 curate for the present purpose. It is to be observed first 
 that, whatever the magnitude of the planet may be, the con- 
 nexion joining it with the Earth will manifestly have the 
 same sectional area at the Earth's surface as the Earth itself; 
 and second, that the mass-values for equal linear units of this 
 uniform sectional area obviously depend upon the mass-val- 
 ues of the bodies to which the connexions respectively ex- 
 tend. 
 
 Commencing with the planet Mercury, the linear variation 
 of its connexion with the Earth would be 71,500,000 miles, or 
 the diameter of Mercury's orbit; and also this variation takes 
 place in 58 days, or half its synodic period with the Earth. 
 To obtain the volume-variation corresponding to this linear 
 variation, the latter is to be multiplied by 49,000,000, or the 
 sectional area of the Earth in square miles. Then to obtain 
 the mass-variation, this last is to be muliplied by the mass- 
 value of the planet. This will give the relative mass-varia- 
 tion of this connexion with respect to that of some other 
 planet, obtained in the same way. If the absolute mass-var- 
 iation were to be obtained, the relative mass-variation of the 
 connexion would have to be multiplied by the mass-value of 
 the connexion itself, as compared with that of an equal vol- 
 ume of some known standard substance. But, at the present 
 time, this absolute mass-value of a connexion is wholly un- 
 known. It seems certain that the connective substance must 
 be extremely attenuated, so much so, in fact, that it would 
 be quite independent of the attraction of gravity, and there- 
 fore would possess, as such, no degree whatever of the pecul- 
 iar property which is called weight. The mass-value of one 
 connexion with respect to, or in terms of, that of another 
 may be determined. But this appears to be the limit of our 
 
206 
 
 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY 
 
 [115 
 
 present knowledge in this respect. As to how many grains 
 of substance there are in a cubic yard, or a cubic mile, of any 
 particular planetary connexion if it were all changed into 
 some form amenable to gravity,, nothing is known. There- 
 fore, since only relative mass-values of the planetary connex- 
 ions must be employed, and since Mercury is the smallest of 
 the seven planets, its mass may be taken as unity; that of 
 any other planet being greater than unity as its mass is great- 
 er than that of Mercury. The mass-variation of Mercury's 
 connexion, then, since the density of that connexion is taken 
 as the standard, will be just the same as its volume-variation. 
 The linear variation of the Earth's connexion with Venus 
 is 133,500,000 miles, or the diameter of the latter's orbit, and 
 it takes place in 292 days, or half the synodic period of Venus 
 with the Earth. The volume-variation is obtained just as in 
 the case of Mercury; and to obtain the mass-variation, the 
 volume-variation is multiplied by 12, that being the relative 
 mass-value of Venus as compared with that of Mercury as 
 unity. The linear variation, and consequently the volume- 
 variation, of each of the outer planets is numerically the 
 same; the former, in the case of each of these planets, being 
 
 TABLE I. 
 Planetary Connexion-Variations With Respect to the Earth.* 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 C3 TJ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 S !l 
 
 
 ai 
 
 o 
 
 ' 
 
 
 PH 
 
 
 3 ' $ 
 
 0} T-J 
 p 1 
 
 .2 ' S 
 
 2 ^ * 
 
 
 j| 
 
 > & 
 
 ^ s 
 
 ~ II 
 
 K S 
 
 ,* <5 5 
 
 
 
 fc JJ " 
 
 c 
 
 K* ^ 
 
 ^* C 
 
 ^ * * 
 
 
 !* 
 
 g i 
 
 111 
 
 cc Z 
 
 a v 
 
 i I 
 
 111 
 
 
 J>.2 
 
 13 '- ^ 
 
 K*" '^ O 
 
 S^ 
 
 S ' C> 
 
 S .S o 
 
 Mercury . . . 
 
 58 
 
 71,500,000 
 
 3.500X10 1 
 
 1 
 
 35X10 1 * 
 
 6XlO' a 
 
 Venus 
 
 292 
 
 133,500,000 
 
 6,500X10' 
 
 12 
 
 78X10' S 
 
 27X10" 
 
 Mars 
 
 390 
 
 186,000,000 
 
 9,114X10' 
 
 1.5 
 
 14X10 1& 
 
 4X10" 
 
 Jupiter .... 
 
 199 
 
 186,000,000 
 
 9.114X10 1 
 
 4,771 
 
 43,483X10' a 
 
 21,851X10" 
 
 Saturn .... 
 
 189 
 
 186,000,000 
 
 9,114X10' 
 
 1,428 
 
 13.015X10 15 
 
 6,886X10" 
 
 Uranus .... 
 
 185 
 
 186,000,000 
 
 9.114X10 1 
 
 221 
 
 2,014X10' 
 
 1,089X10" 
 
 Neptune . . . 
 
 184J186, 000,000 
 
 9,114X10' 258 
 
 2.351X10 15 
 
 1,278X10" 
 
 *The masses, periods, and distances of the planets here. employed are 
 those given by Prof. Simon Newcomb in his Popular Astronomy, sixth 
 edition. 
 
116] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 207 
 
 186,000,000 miles, or the diameter of the Earth's orbit. 
 The half-synodic period, the linear, volume-, and mass- 
 variations, and the mass-value for each of the seven planets 
 are given in table I on the preceding page; a sixth column 
 being added in which is given, for purposes of comparison, 
 the mass-variation of each planet for one day. 
 
 As for the less important members of the Solar System 
 with which the Earth is secondarily connected, such as the 
 satellites, minor planets, and perhaps some comets, even 
 their aggregate mass, so far as known, would be comparative- 
 ly small; and besides, these bodies are always distributed on 
 all sides of the Earth, so that their quantitive excess on one 
 side as compared with the opposite side is all that would 
 really operate to affect connective variation upon the Earth. 
 And this excess, in view of the extremely small individual 
 masses of the bodies, and their comparatively small aggre- 
 gate mass, is quite safely negligible. 
 
 Indeed, a glance at the last column of table I shows us 
 that the same is true also of the three smaller of the major 
 planets; the variations in equal times due to all but the tour 
 outermost of which sink into comparative insignificance. In 
 fact we observe that Neptune, the most distant planet, is 
 nearly fifty times more effective than Venus, the nearest. 
 So that, dividing the value of each body in order that the val- 
 ue of the greatest may be represented by three figures for 
 convenience in tabulating, all the three inner planets together 
 drop below unity, and therefore out of the calculation. 
 
 116. Amount of the Planetary Factors. Now it is possible 
 that all of the four outer planets may be nearly in conjunc- 
 tion, or have nearly the same heliocentric longitude; and 
 the drains or accumulations of their respective connexions 
 may, therefore, affect the Earth's atmosphere all at the same 
 time. Summing up the values of the average variations of 
 the connexions of these bodies in the last column of table I, 
 taking half the sum for the variations caused upon these 
 bodies themselves, and multiplying by three to allow for the 
 maximum rate of variation owing to the curvilinear path in 
 
208 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [117 
 
 which the Earth moves, we have, possibly, about 5 X 10" cubic 
 miles of connective substance either drawn out of, or accu- 
 mulating in, our atmosphere in a single day. This tremen- 
 dous volume is about twenty million times that of our atmos- 
 phere, estimating its height at five hundred miles. 
 
 But, on the other hand, the outer limits of our atmosphere, 
 and especially of the connective atmosphere, must be far 
 more distant than five hundred miles. Moreover the least 
 density, that of Mercury's connexion, is taken as the stand- 
 ard, the density of Jupiter's connexion being some 4,800 
 times greater. Also the connective substance, or ethereal 
 fluid, which is thus supposed to ebb and flow in our atmos- 
 phere, is really imponderable matter matter not subject to 
 the attraction of gravity because it is matter similar to that 
 whose molecular motions really constitute the attraction of 
 gravity and thus does not admit of comparison with matter 
 as we are sensible of it. The most perfect vacuum attain- 
 able with a Gaede molecular pump has a density of only 
 about 1/300,000,000 of an atmosphere; yet the density of this 
 vacuum must be immensely greater than that of a planetary 
 connexion, for the reason that the" former possesses still the 
 undiminished density of the Earth's connective atmosphere, 
 to which each of the innumerable terrestial connexions com- 
 posing it must contribute but a minute degree. 
 
 It is contended here simply that an increased pressure or 
 density of the connective substance in our atmosphere, man- 
 ifested, perhaps, in the phenomena of earth-currents and 
 auroras, may induce the transformation of a portion of the 
 imponderable fluid into ponderable forms, affecting baromet- 
 ric pressure and atmospheric precipitation; and also that an 
 extensive drain upon the connective fluid in cur atmosphere 
 may induce transformation of sensible gases and vapors back 
 again into the imponderable state and have opposite meteor- 
 ological effects. 
 
 117. Monthly Variations of the Planetary Factor. Divid- 
 ing the mass-values of the connective variations as given in 
 the fifth column of table I by 10", so that the figures may 
 
117] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 
 
 209 
 
 be conveniently tabulated, gives 435 for the value of that 
 due to Jupiter, 130 for that due to Saturn, 20 for that due 
 to Uranus, and 24 for that due to Neptune, in the respective 
 half synodic periods of these planets with the Earth. The 
 
 TABLE II. 
 
 Monthly Variations of the Planetary Connexions Upon the 
 Earth, 1888-91. 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 >> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FH 
 
 3 
 
 ,Q 
 
 h 
 
 S3 
 
 ,0 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 V 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 g 
 -s 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 eS 
 
 I 
 
 > 
 
 0) 
 
 a 
 
 
 -s 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 W> 
 
 $ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 OQ 
 
 ,Q 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 1888 
 
 Jupiter 
 
 88 
 
 uw 
 
 199 
 W9 
 
 88 
 
 60 
 
 11* 
 
 38 
 
 76 
 
 94 
 
 94 
 
 76 
 
 38 
 
 "11 
 
 
 Saturn 
 
 *0 
 
 15 
 
 25 
 
 31 
 
 29 
 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 24. 
 
 33 
 
 33 
 
 24 
 
 
 Uranus 
 Neptune .... 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 6 
 
 1* 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 2 
 
 5 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 2* 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1889 
 
 Jupiter 
 
 60 
 
 88 
 
 99 
 
 88 
 
 60 
 
 12* 
 
 39 
 
 76 
 
 94 
 
 94 
 
 76 
 
 38 
 
 
 Saturn 
 
 8 
 
 7* 
 
 21 
 
 29 
 
 31 
 
 25 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 30 
 
 34 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 * 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Uranus 
 Neptune 
 
 o 
 
 4 
 
 ; 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 A 
 
 4 
 
 : 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 2* 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1890 
 
 Jupiter 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 83 
 
 103 
 
 97 
 
 69 
 
 25* 
 
 *, 
 25i 
 
 69 
 
 97 
 
 103 
 
 83 
 
 
 Saturn 
 
 16 
 
 if 
 
 15 
 
 25 
 
 31 
 
 29 
 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 24 
 
 33 
 
 33 
 
 
 Uranus 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 ] 
 
 *1 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 4; 
 
 1 
 
 *1 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 Neptune 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 2* 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 2* 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1891 
 
 Jupiter . . . . 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 38 
 
 76 
 
 94 
 
 94 
 
 76 
 
 38 
 
 11* 
 
 60 
 
 88 
 
 99 
 
 
 Saturn ...... 
 
 24 
 
 g 
 
 *7 
 
 21 
 
 29 
 
 31 
 
 25 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 30 
 
 34 
 
 
 Uranus 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 
 Neptune ..... 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 2* 
 
 2 
 
 values of the connective variation of the other planets in 
 their respective half synodic periods are each less than unity 
 of this scale, and are, therefore, disregarded. 
 
 Between opposition and conjunction* of these planets with 
 the Earth, the intervening connective substance would accu- 
 mulate in our atmosphere, and, between conjunction and oppo- 
 sition, it would be drawn out. The times of these conjunctions 
 and oppositions are, therefore, to be ascertained in the case of 
 
 *If they could conveniently be avoided, these terms would not be 
 employed, as they must be used here in a sense directly opposite to that 
 usually given them. Throughout these pages two planets are regarded 
 as being in conjunction when they are together on one side of the Sun, 
 or have the same heliocentric longitude; and they are regarded as in 
 opposition when they are on opposite sides of the Sun, or are 180 of 
 heliocentric longitude apart. On the contrary, a planet is usually re- 
 
210 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [117 
 
 each planet, plotted down in the horizontal lines rep- 
 resenting years, each divided into twelve spaces represent- 
 ing months; and in the monthly spaces are to be placed the 
 figures denoting the values of the, connective variations due 
 to the respective planets, based on their respective distance 
 variations for that month. Figures denoting approach of the 
 Earth and a planet, or accumulation of their connective sub- 
 stance in our atmosphere, are given in full-faced type, and 
 those indicating the contrary conditions are given in Roman 
 type. Table II on the preceding page gives these values for 
 the four great planets during the years 1888-91, inclusive. 
 
 By table II, Jupiter was in conjunction with the Earth May 
 28, 1888; in opposition with it December 11, 1888; again in con- 
 junction June 24, 1889; again in opposition January 12, 1890; 
 again in conjunction July 30, 1890; again in opposition Febru- 
 ary 22, 1891 ; and again in conjunction September 5, 1891. Fol- 
 lowing conjunction up to opposition, the full value (435) of 
 Jupiter's periodic variation is distributed among the interven- 
 ing months in approximate accordance with the versed sine 
 approaches towards the planet for each month. The plain type 
 in which these figures are given indicate recession of the 
 two planets and consequent diminution of their atmospheres. 
 Following opposition up to conjunction, the full value of the 
 periodic variation of Jupiter's connexion is distributed in a 
 similar manner, but in full-face type indicating approach of 
 the bodies; and consequent accumulation of their respective 
 atmospheres. 
 
 Saturn was in conjunction with the Earth January 23, 1888; 
 in opposition with it July 25, 1888; in conjunction February 
 5. 1889; in opposition August 15, 1889; in conjunction Feb- 
 ruary IS, 1890; in opposition August 27, 1890; in conjunction 
 March -1, 1891; and in opposition September 10, 1891. The 
 
 garded as being in conjunction when it lies in a straight line passing 
 from the observer through the Sun, whether the planet be on this side 
 or the other of that luminary, and it is regarded as in opposition when 
 it lies in a continuation of the same line from the observer outwards 
 from the Sun. In the former sense the Sun is regarded as the center; 
 in the latter the Earth is so regarded, and some of the planets conse- 
 quently have no opposition at all. This view, however, is unsuitable to 
 the considerations here involved, and, therefore, the employment of the 
 terms in the first sense is necessary, if they are employed at all. 
 
118] 
 
 INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 
 
 211 
 
 full value of its periodic variation (150) is distributed among 
 the intervening monhs, as in the case of Jupiter. And sim- 
 ilarly also with Uranus and Neptune. 
 
 118. Deductions from These Variations. It will be ob- 
 served that in any particular month the Earth is approaching 
 some of the planets, while from others it is receding; the 
 figures denoting the former being positive with respect to the 
 Earth's atmosphere, and those denoting the latter, negative. 
 
 The quantitive effect of all four planets upon our atmos- 
 phere in any month will, therefore, be the algebraic sum of 
 their individual values for that month. Following are the 
 figures for the same four years, these sums in the case of 
 each month having been obtained; a thirteenth column being 
 added, in which is placed the algebraic sum of all the month- 
 ly sums of each year: 
 
 Monthly and Yearly Sums of the Planetary Connexion-Varia- 
 tions Upon the Earth, 1888-91. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o> 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 t> 
 
 rt 
 
 !>> 
 
 fcfi 
 
 ft 
 
 1 
 
 > 
 
 O 
 
 2 h 
 
 
 2 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 rj 
 
 p 
 
 0) 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 ^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 S 
 
 1-8 
 
 
 << 
 
 02 
 
 O 
 
 fc 
 
 H 
 
 >< 
 
 1888 
 
 89| 82 
 
 58 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 62 
 
 84 
 
 84 
 
 65 
 
 38 
 
 11 38 
 
 65 
 
 1889 
 
 69 
 
 78 
 
 73 
 
 54 
 
 23 
 
 16 
 
 55 
 
 74 
 
 73 
 
 59 
 
 36J 5 
 
 21 
 
 1890 
 
 17 
 
 48 
 
 63 
 
 73 
 
 60 
 
 37 1 3 
 
 30 
 
 56 
 
 68 
 
 64 1 47 
 
 36 
 
 1891 
 
 25 
 
 6 
 
 26 
 
 51 
 
 61 
 
 60 
 
 49 
 
 24 
 
 7 
 
 40 
 
 54 
 
 62 
 
 89 
 
 It is seen from these results that in 1888 the Koman fig- 
 ures, extending from April to November, indicate a relative 
 drain upon our atmosphere during that time, and, according 
 to the theory here advanced, a consequent relative deficiency 
 of atmospheric electricity and precipitation. In 1889 this de- 
 ficient or dry season extends from May to the folowing Jan- 
 uary, and the next extends from July 1890 to February 1891. 
 The figures for the remaining months of 1888, 1889, 1890, and 
 from January to September 1891, indicate relative accumula- 
 tion of connective substance in our atmosphere and conse- 
 ouent relative increase of electricity and precipitation. 
 
 It. is further to be observed that the algebraic sums of the 
 
212 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [119 
 
 monthly figures for 1888 arid 1889, as given in the thirteenth 
 column, indicate that the drain upon our atmosphere, on the 
 whole, has been in excess in these years, and that conse- 
 quently they were comparatively dcy. The annual results for 
 1890 and 1891, similarly obtained, indicate that the accumu- 
 lation in our atmosphere has been in excess, and that con- 
 sequently these years were comparatively wet;. And, finally, 
 it is to be observed that the indicated change in the year 
 column from dry to wet occurs about the time of sunspot 
 minimum. This coincidence in just the one instance might 
 of course have arisen out of mere chance; but if in carrying 
 the calculation back some forty or fifty years and forwards 
 some thirty or forty years more, from, that date, it be found 
 not only that this change from dry to wet years takes place 
 at, or very nearly at, sunspot minimum, but also that the 
 opposite change of wet to dry years always takes place at, 
 or very nearly at, sunspot maximum or, in other words, 
 that the longer periods of the planetary connective varia- 
 tions which are now on the point of being determined are 
 almost exactly coincident with the sunspot periods it is 
 absolutely unthinkable that from mere chance such exact 
 parallelism of the two phenomena could happen for so long 
 a period. 
 
 119. Monthly and Yearly Variations of the Planetary Fac- 
 tor for the Period 1840-1923. We proceed at once to this 
 test. The times of opposition and conjunction of each of the 
 four greater planets with the Earth have been ascertained 
 for the period 1840-1923, inclusive, in precisely the same man- 
 ner as has been done for 1888-1891.* The negative or the 
 positive value of each planet has been determined for every 
 
 *For the earlier work, the writer is indebted to the late Mr. G. W. 
 Hill of the Nautical Almanac Office, Washington, D. C., for kindly fur- 
 nishing the dates of the oppositions (i. e., conjunctions here) of Jupiter 
 and Saturn, each with respect to the Earth, for the period 1726 to 1891, 
 inclusive. From this up to 1904, for these planets and also for Uranus 
 and Neptune for the period 1840-1904, the times of opposition and con- 
 junction have been computed by means of synodic periods of the planets 
 with respect to the Earth, and by giving rough values to the equation of 
 the center. The maximum error by this method cannot exceed three or four 
 days; which, in the case of the two smaller of the four planets, and in 
 a table of monthly results, is safely negligible. For the present work 
 Prof. W. S. Eichelberger of the U. S. Naval Observatory has kindly 
 furnished the necessary data of oppositions and conjunctions of all four 
 planets for nearly all the rest of the greater period. 
 
119] 
 
 INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 
 
 213 
 
 month of this period, the algebraic sum of these for each 
 month obtained and tabulated, and the algebraic sum of these 
 monthly sums found for each year and placed in the year 
 column. A fourteenth colum'n is added in which is given 
 the maxima and minima of sunspots, and a fifteenth column 
 in which is shown the maxima and the minima of the con- 
 nective variations upon the Earth. Following are the results: 
 
 TABLE III. 
 
 Monthly and Yearly Sums of the Planetary Connexion-Varia- 
 tions Upon the Earth for the Period 1840-1923. 
 
 
 January 
 
 K 
 L 
 
 ft 
 
 9 
 (=( 
 
 | 
 
 5 
 
 C 
 p< 
 * 
 
 & 
 * 
 
 <D 
 
 1 
 
 
 i-a 
 
 ta 
 
 3 
 
 September 1 
 
 October 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 to 
 
 1 
 I 
 
 Connexion 
 Variation. 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 549 
 
 
 
 
 
 1840 
 
 122 
 
 129 1103| 56 
 
 7 
 
 62] 97 
 
 134 
 
 132 
 
 90 
 
 27 
 
 41 
 
 98 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 565 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 571 
 
 
 
 
 1841 
 
 93 
 
 134 
 
 136 
 
 109 
 
 52) 11 
 
 60 
 
 112 
 
 136 
 
 127 
 
 94 
 
 29 j 47 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 574 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1842 
 
 40 
 
 99|129|135 
 
 113| 58 
 
 12 
 
 82 
 
 128 
 
 140 
 
 120 
 
 80 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 582) 
 
 
 588 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1843 
 
 20| 44 
 
 100 
 
 136 
 
 141 
 
 110 
 
 57 
 
 14 
 
 82 
 
 125 
 
 148 
 
 125 
 
 74 
 
 
 Max. 
 
 
 
 581 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 558 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1844 
 
 76 
 
 11 
 
 52 
 
 106 
 
 131 
 
 127 
 
 95 
 
 47 
 
 15 
 
 86 
 
 124 
 
 135 
 
 111 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 
 
 536 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 536 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1845 
 
 111 
 
 65 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 105 
 
 123 
 
 114 
 
 90 
 
 44 
 
 12 
 
 68 
 
 109 
 
 171 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 521 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 494J 
 
 
 
 
 
 1846 
 
 125 j 114| 74 
 
 19 
 
 45 
 
 94 
 
 114 
 
 115 
 
 87 
 
 39 
 
 20 
 
 69 
 
 73 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 449 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 419 
 
 
 
 
 
 1847 
 
 100 
 
 109 
 
 94 1 52 
 
 5 
 
 44 
 
 81 
 
 95 
 
 95 
 
 72 
 
 32 
 
 17 
 
 42 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 366| 
 
 
 
 
 
 327 
 
 
 
 
 1848 
 
 55 1 82 
 
 88 
 
 79 
 
 50 
 
 15 
 
 29 
 
 61 
 
 76 
 
 74 
 
 56 
 
 31 
 
 42 
 
 Max. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1298 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1849 
 
 2 
 
 34 
 
 60 
 
 69 
 
 66| 46 
 
 21 
 
 8 
 
 32 
 
 57 
 
 65 
 
 59 
 
 77 
 
 
 
 
 
 280 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 268 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1850 
 
 40 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 49 
 
 60 
 
 60 
 
 48 
 
 28 
 
 3 
 
 22 
 
 46 
 
 57 
 
 84 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 266 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 267 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1851 
 
 GO 46 
 
 32 
 
 3 
 
 27 
 
 43 
 
 60 
 
 60 
 
 51 
 
 26 
 
 10 
 
 35 
 
 81 
 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 
 
 283 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 303 
 
 
 
 
 1852 
 
 53J 68 
 
 57 
 
 45 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 41 
 
 68 
 
 71 
 
 64 
 
 37 
 
 6 
 
 65 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 320 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1853 
 
 31 59 
 
 76 
 
 71 
 
 57 
 
 26 
 
 11 
 
 42 
 
 71 
 
 84 
 
 76 
 
 50 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 343 
 
 
 
 
 
 [3621 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1854 
 
 9 
 
 31 
 
 66 
 
 85 
 
 82 66 
 
 321 9 
 
 47 
 
 81 
 
 95 
 
 80 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 
 357 
 
 
 
 
 
 |423 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1855 
 
 45 
 
 47 
 
 78 
 
 94| 91 
 
 75 
 
 38| 18| 55 
 
 98J 
 
 104(103 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 440 
 
 
 
 
 |448 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 1856 
 
 92 
 
 57 
 
 16 
 
 29 
 
 72 
 
 101 
 
 106 
 
 91 
 
 49 
 
 3 
 
 57 
 
 95 
 
 128 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 486 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 521 
 
 
 
 
 
 1857 
 
 112J107 
 
 76 
 
 36 
 
 31 
 
 84|120 
 
 125 
 
 103 
 
 58 
 
 
 
 54|136 
 
 
 
214 
 
 THT; CONNECTIVE THEORY 
 TABLE III. (Continued). 
 
 [119 
 
 
 >> 
 
 3 
 1 
 
 February 
 
 ,d 
 g 
 
 03 
 
 9 
 
 fe 
 
 o> 
 
 a 
 1 
 
 
 
 bo 
 S 
 <! 
 
 September 
 
 October 
 
 . .1 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 i 
 
 >H 
 
 Sunspots 
 
 Connexion 
 Variation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 |529| 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 [6091 
 
 
 
 1858 
 
 98 
 
 122 
 
 123 
 
 96 
 
 36 
 
 31 
 
 86 
 
 116 
 
 124 
 
 89 
 
 62 
 
 1 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 531 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 531 
 
 
 
 
 1859 
 
 63 
 
 108 
 
 128|123 
 
 83| 26| 40 
 
 90 
 
 120 
 
 125 
 
 102 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 |549 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1860 
 
 6 
 
 67 
 
 109 
 
 131 
 
 119 
 
 83 
 
 34 
 
 34 
 
 92 
 
 129 
 
 134 
 
 107 
 
 53 
 
 Max. 
 
 
 
 554 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 550 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1861 
 
 58 
 
 21 
 
 88 
 
 116 
 
 123 
 
 111 
 
 73 
 
 18 
 
 41 
 
 96 
 
 128 
 
 130 
 
 97 
 
 
 Max. 
 
 
 
 543 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 538 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1862 
 
 99 
 
 49 
 
 32 
 
 74(116 
 
 127 
 
 110 
 
 67 
 
 12 
 
 44 
 
 97 
 
 125 
 
 124 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 525 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 517 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1863 
 
 127 
 
 90 
 
 42 
 
 30 
 
 83 
 
 113 
 
 121 
 
 101 
 
 60 
 
 9 
 
 49 
 
 97 
 
 116 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 518 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 502 
 
 
 
 
 
 1864 
 
 120 
 
 119 
 
 84 
 
 49 
 
 33 
 
 84 
 
 112 
 
 116 
 
 96 
 
 57 
 
 4 
 
 50 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 489 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 472 
 
 
 
 
 1865 
 
 96 
 
 119|112 
 
 78 
 
 34 
 
 25 
 
 77 
 
 105 
 
 112 
 
 94 
 
 54 
 
 5 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 466 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1866 
 
 58 
 
 90 
 
 111 
 
 101 
 
 75 
 
 31 
 
 26 
 
 75 
 
 100 
 
 108 
 
 90 
 
 58 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 465 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 434 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1867 
 
 8 
 
 48 78 
 
 105 
 
 89 
 
 77 
 
 37 
 
 15 
 
 61 
 
 89 
 
 94 
 
 84 
 
 83 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 
 
 442 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 397 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1868 
 
 58 
 
 41 
 
 22 
 
 65 
 
 80 
 
 93 
 
 81 
 
 48 
 
 8 
 
 41 
 
 74 
 
 94 
 
 89 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 381 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 362 
 
 
 
 
 
 1869 
 
 88 
 
 60 
 
 24 
 
 19 
 
 44 
 
 74 
 
 82 
 
 73 
 
 52 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 65 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 362 
 
 
 
 
 
 3391 
 
 
 
 
 1870 
 
 81 
 
 79 
 
 61 
 
 35| 6 
 
 30 
 
 62 
 
 77 1 76 
 
 58 
 
 36 5 
 
 72 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 337 
 
 
 
 
 
 J325 
 
 ! 
 
 
 1871 
 
 43 
 
 61 
 
 89 
 
 74 
 
 51 
 
 14 
 
 25 
 
 53 
 
 71 
 
 76 
 
 62 
 
 38 
 
 7 
 
 Max. 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 324 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1872 
 
 1 
 
 36 
 
 60 
 
 77 80 
 
 52 
 
 18 
 
 16 
 
 45 
 
 68 
 
 76 
 
 65 
 
 54 
 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 
 322 
 
 
 
 
 330 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1873 
 
 43 
 
 9 
 
 26 
 
 54 
 
 76 
 
 79 
 
 .62 
 
 33 
 
 1 
 
 34 
 
 62 
 
 76 
 
 105 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 338 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 347 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1874 
 
 74 
 
 61 
 
 30 
 
 22 
 
 53 79 
 
 84 
 
 69 
 
 38 
 
 2 
 
 32 
 
 63 
 
 87 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 358 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 376 
 
 
 
 
 
 1875 
 
 79 
 
 81 
 
 68 
 
 35 
 
 19 
 
 53 
 
 82 
 
 90 
 
 77 
 
 48 
 
 7 
 
 30 
 
 83 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 402 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 438 
 
 
 
 
 1876 
 
 67 j 92 
 
 95 
 
 78 
 
 40 21 
 
 77 
 
 89 
 
 97 86 
 
 55 
 
 13 
 
 66 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 |442 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1877 
 
 31 
 
 73 
 
 99 
 
 105 
 
 90) 44 
 
 9 
 
 61 
 
 93 
 
 108 
 
 102 
 
 69 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 461 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 481 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1878 
 
 19 
 
 39 
 
 82 
 
 108 
 
 114 
 
 93 
 
 45| 16 
 
 70 
 
 101 
 
 116 
 
 106 
 
 53 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 
 
 508 
 
 
 
 
 
 |544| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1879 
 
 71 
 
 28 
 
 47 
 
 84 
 
 123 
 
 129 
 
 106 
 
 55 
 
 11 
 
 69 
 
 114 
 
 131 
 
 120 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 543 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 544 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1880 
 
 118 
 
 81 
 
 19 
 
 32 
 
 89 
 
 123 
 
 130 
 
 111 
 
 59 
 
 5 
 
 72 
 
 112 
 
 127 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 556 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 579 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 1881 
 
 128 
 
 132 
 
 76 
 
 31 
 
 37 
 
 98 
 
 130 
 
 137 
 
 109 
 
 68 4 
 
 70 
 
 138 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 572 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 575 1 
 
 
 
 
 1882 
 
 114 
 
 139 
 
 127 
 
 90] 28 
 
 40 101 
 
 136 
 
 138 
 
 105 
 
 55 14 
 
 63 
 
 
 Mar. 
 
119] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 215- 
 
 TABLE III. (Continued). 
 
 
 K 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 February 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 p. 
 <! 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 1 
 
 j> 
 
 "3 
 
 1-3 
 
 1 
 < 
 
 September 
 
 October 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 I 
 
 {x 
 
 Sunspots 
 
 Connexion 
 Variation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 |555| 
 
 
 1 15411 
 
 
 
 1883 
 
 70 
 
 117|131 
 
 116 
 
 81 26 38 
 
 98|124 
 
 126 
 
 100 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 Max. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 |536 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1884 
 
 14 
 
 90 
 
 122 
 
 131 
 
 110 
 
 66 
 
 3 
 
 55 
 
 97)117 
 
 119 
 
 92 
 
 56 
 
 
 
 
 523 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 521 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1885 
 
 43| 24 
 
 90 
 
 117 124 
 
 101 
 
 65 
 
 6 
 
 56 
 
 93 
 
 114 
 
 108 
 
 101 
 
 
 
 
 |478 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 446 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1886 
 
 72 
 
 29| 26 
 
 70 
 
 101 
 
 104 
 
 88 
 
 53 
 
 4 
 
 47 
 
 91 
 
 106 
 
 101 
 
 
 
 
 
 1439 
 
 
 
 
 
 408 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1887 
 
 100 70 
 
 25 
 
 27 
 
 74 | 95 
 
 95 
 
 76 
 
 41 
 
 1 
 
 48 1 79 
 
 85 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 381 
 
 
 
 357 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1888 
 
 89 82 
 
 58 24 
 
 24! 62 
 
 84 
 
 84 
 
 65 
 
 38 
 
 1 
 
 38 65 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 336| 
 
 
 
 
 
 318| 
 
 
 
 1889 69) 78 
 
 73 
 
 54 
 
 23 
 
 16 
 
 55 
 
 74 
 
 73 
 
 59 
 
 36 
 
 5 
 
 21 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 301 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1890 
 
 17 48 63 
 
 731 60 
 
 37 
 
 3| 30 
 
 56 
 
 68 
 
 64 
 
 47 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 290 
 
 
 ij 
 
 
 J277i 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1891 
 
 25 
 
 61 26 
 
 51| 61 
 
 60 
 
 49| 24 71 40 54 
 
 62 
 
 89| 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 I |280 
 
 
 
 12911 
 
 
 
 
 
 1892 
 
 561 45 
 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 42 57 
 
 62! 61 
 
 40 
 
 11 22 
 
 47 
 
 105 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 316| 
 
 
 
 
 
 |345 
 
 
 
 
 1893 
 
 68 
 
 74 
 
 65 
 
 37 
 
 3 
 
 33 
 
 62 
 
 80 
 
 79 
 
 61 
 
 26 
 
 4 
 
 98 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 356 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1894 
 
 45 
 
 65 
 
 83 
 
 86 
 
 57 
 
 20 1 25 
 
 57 
 
 85 
 
 91 
 
 79 
 
 44 
 
 25 
 
 Max. 
 
 
 
 384 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 I4J4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1895 
 
 3 
 
 47 80 
 
 97 
 
 94| 65 31 
 
 22 
 
 62 
 
 98 
 
 108 
 
 95 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 
 4511 
 
 
 1468 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1896 
 
 59| 7 47 
 
 92|113J10fj 80 j 30 
 
 27 
 
 71 
 
 106 
 
 115 
 
 83 
 
 
 
 
 |485 
 
 { 
 
 501 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1897 
 
 100 
 
 68] 8 
 
 47 
 
 91|116|114 90 
 
 43 
 
 32 
 
 81 
 
 120 
 
 102 
 
 
 
 
 507 
 
 | 
 
 
 524 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1898 123 
 
 99 52| 7 
 
 65J107|128|115 
 
 81 
 
 21 
 
 45 
 
 94 
 
 111 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 |532 
 
 
 
 
 538 
 
 
 
 
 
 1899 
 
 127 
 
 125 
 
 96 
 
 45 
 
 7| 6211071129 
 
 121 
 
 86| 26 
 
 52 
 
 93. 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 538) 
 
 
 
 548 
 
 
 I 
 
 1900 
 
 102(132 
 
 128 
 
 95 
 
 39| 22j 78 113 127 
 
 113 
 
 79 
 
 16 
 
 52 
 
 
 Max, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1543 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1901 
 
 49 100 
 
 124|128j 98 
 
 44 
 
 21 81 114 
 
 126 
 
 111 
 
 78 
 
 12 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 
 539J 
 
 
 
 
 5251 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1902 
 
 8 
 
 59 102 
 
 121|117| 90 36J 23 
 
 87 
 
 120 
 
 128 
 
 103 
 
 56 
 
 
 
 
 519 
 
 
 I 
 
 I |516 
 
 
 
 
 
 1903 
 
 58 
 
 3 
 
 60 
 
 105 
 
 122 
 
 114 
 
 81| 31 
 
 32 
 
 91130122 93 
 
 
 
 
 
 506 
 
 
 
 
 
 493 1 mf'nA 
 
 
 
 
 1904 
 
 94 
 
 47 
 
 13 
 
 70 
 
 107 
 
 116 
 
 102 
 
 62 
 
 23 
 
 24 67 
 
 103 158 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 463 
 
 
 
 
 
 |462| 
 
 
 
 
 1905 
 
 115 | 93 
 
 61 
 
 14 
 
 40 
 
 85 
 
 109 
 
 105 
 
 73 
 
 36 
 
 17| 65 
 
 111 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 425 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 407 
 
 
 
 
 
 1906 
 
 97 
 
 1001 86 
 
 53 
 
 7, 
 
 42 
 
 85 
 
 96 
 
 92 
 
 65 
 
 27 
 
 20 
 
 44 
 
 Max. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 403 
 
 
 
 
 
 1366 
 
 
 
 
 1907 
 
 51) 84 1 91 
 
 83 
 
 54 
 
 20 
 
 26 
 
 65 
 
 84 
 
 88| 67J 36 
 
 17 
 
 
 
216 
 
 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY 
 
 TABLE 111. (Concluded). 
 
 [120 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 February 
 
 ,=3 
 
 
 I 
 
 fe 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 "M 
 
 
 September 
 
 October 
 
 November 
 
 December 
 
 1 
 
 Sunspots 
 
 Connexion 
 Variation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1351 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1908 
 
 6 
 
 41 
 
 70 
 
 83 
 
 78 
 
 53 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 58 
 
 76 
 
 79 
 
 65 
 
 52 
 
 
 
 
 325 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 334 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1909 
 
 26 
 
 13 
 
 34 
 
 63 
 
 76] 75 
 
 50 
 
 23 
 
 16 
 
 50 
 
 66 
 
 75 
 
 101, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 343 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 293 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1910 
 
 62 
 
 57 
 
 17 
 
 38 
 
 61 
 
 69 
 
 62 
 
 47 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 30 
 
 53 
 
 66 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 292 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 285 
 
 
 
 
 
 1911 
 
 60 
 
 61 
 
 51 
 
 29 
 
 30 53 
 
 61 
 
 59 
 
 50 
 
 30 
 
 2 
 
 21 
 
 63; 
 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 |316 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 308 
 
 
 
 
 1912 
 
 51 
 
 61 
 
 63 
 
 75 
 
 40 
 
 5 
 
 35 
 
 55] 68 
 
 67 
 
 62 
 
 21 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 314 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1913 
 
 14 
 
 41 
 
 58 
 
 70 
 
 70 
 
 48 
 
 13 
 
 24 
 
 53 
 
 74 
 
 81 
 
 62 
 
 20 
 
 Min. 
 
 
 
 321 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 340 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1914 
 
 27 
 
 10 
 
 43 
 
 64 
 
 74 
 
 78 
 
 54 
 
 17 
 
 27 
 
 58 
 
 79 
 
 90 
 
 59 
 
 
 
 
 
 356 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 391 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1915 
 
 76 
 
 26 
 
 7 
 
 46 
 
 72 
 
 87 
 
 83 
 
 63 
 
 33 
 
 4 
 
 51 
 
 82 
 
 152 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 410 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 421 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1916 
 
 101 
 
 101 
 
 71 
 
 4 
 
 51 
 
 86 
 
 93 
 
 92 
 
 63 
 
 32 
 
 8 
 
 55 
 
 85 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 455 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 484 
 
 
 
 
 
 1917 
 
 93 
 
 110 
 
 101 
 
 70 
 
 18 
 
 39 
 
 S0|107 
 
 114 
 
 99 
 
 45 
 
 14 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 502 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 527 
 
 
 
 
 1918 
 
 70 
 
 104 
 
 122 
 
 111 
 
 71 
 
 10 
 
 54 
 
 98 
 
 125 
 
 123 
 
 93 
 
 34 
 
 39 
 
 Max. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 533 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1919 
 
 32 
 
 78 
 
 111 
 
 121 
 
 107J 65 
 
 19 
 
 40 
 
 93 
 
 121 
 
 125 
 
 103 
 
 51 
 
 
 
 
 539 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 539 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1920 
 
 57 
 
 7 
 
 70 
 
 114 
 
 132 
 
 119 
 
 82 
 
 15 
 
 48 
 
 102 
 
 127 
 
 125 
 
 80 1 
 
 Max. 
 
 
 
 542 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 522 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1921 
 
 98 
 
 42 
 
 2 
 
 77 
 
 113 
 
 128 
 
 115 
 
 77 
 
 10 
 
 55 
 
 101 
 
 123 
 
 ioa 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 536 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 519 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1922 
 
 121 
 
 93 
 
 43 
 
 17 
 
 63 
 
 105 
 
 121 
 
 111 
 
 74 
 
 28 
 
 35 
 
 91 
 
 136 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 534 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 481 
 
 
 
 
 
 1923 
 
 119 
 
 124 
 
 107J 58 
 
 3J 61 
 
 105 
 
 119 
 
 113 
 
 66 
 
 14 
 
 42 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 120. Connection of the Periods of Variation of the Plan- 
 etary Factor with the Sunspot Periods. A glance along the 
 thirteenth and fourteenth columns of the foregoing table 
 shows us at once the almost exact accordance for the entire 
 period of the indicated changes of the wet and dry years with 
 the sunspot changes. Taking excess of accumulation of con- 
 nective substance upon the Earth (indicated in the table by 
 the heavier figures) to mean excess of precipitation, etc., in our 
 atmosphere, we observe in the year column that all the years 
 in the entire 84-year period which are included in a forward 
 direction from the maxima to the minima of sunspots are in- 
 
120] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 217 
 
 ciicated to be dry, with the exception of five; and all the years 
 included in the same direction from the minima to the max- 
 ima of sunspots are indicated to be wet, WITHOUT A SIN- 
 GLE EXCEPTION. In other words, the actual change 
 from drain to accumulation of the planetary bond-substance 
 in our atmosphere, as indicated by its algebraic sums for the 
 different years, occurs almost exactly at the time of sunspot 
 minimum, with the sole exception of the minimum of 1856, 
 which was three years behind the change; and every sunspot 
 maximum without exception takes place at the change from 
 accumulation to drain of the supposed bond-substance in our 
 atmosphere, similarly indicated. Besides, the year 1856, in 
 which the discrepancy does occur, is itself anomalous, as 
 there were but very little less spots on the Sun during that 
 year than during the three or four years immediately preced- 
 ing it. This remarkable coincidence alone, if there were no 
 other evidence whatever in its favor, is really quite sufficient 
 to establish the reality of inter-planetary bonds, which is the 
 principal factor of the connective theory. 
 
 Now these are the longer periods of the connective var- 
 iations upon the Earth which we have been in search of, and 
 which, as alerady stated, stand independent of, and 
 unaffected by, any of the other connective factors but the 
 lunar; and the evidence which they furnish in support of the 
 truth of the essential supposition of the new theory is sur- 
 prisingly strong and clear. The most fastidious critic would 
 hardly contend that, for a period of eighty-four years, the 
 changes from excess to deficiency in our atmosphere of a 
 supposed connective substance, extending in bonds or cords 
 between our world and the other planets, would occur at sun- 
 spot maximum, and the changes from deficiency to excess at 
 sunspot minimum all out of mere chance; for the probabil- 
 ities appear to be vastly against such chance coincidences in 
 this case,. There must be a real connection between the 
 quantitive changes of the supposed material inter-planetary 
 connexions and the sunspot changes with which they are thus 
 seen to coincide. This is undeniable. And not here only but 
 
218 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [121 
 
 in other fields as well shall we find equally valuable and 
 incontrovertible evidences supporting this conviction. 
 
 121. Coincidence of the Variations of the Planetary Facxor 
 with the Periods of Atmospheric Precipitation. In the first 
 place it may be well to show that there is an actual deficiency 
 of atmospheric electricity and precipitation in the indicated 
 dry years, and an actual excess of these elements in the in- 
 dicated wet years, when a certain amount of lag of the actual 
 after the indicated weather is taken into consideration. It 
 is some forty years now since inquiries were started in this 
 department of Nature, and the evidence they yield appears 
 to be no less voluminous than it is valuable and conclusive. 
 
 Prof. Balfour Stewart, reviewing the results hitherto ar- 
 rived at, dealt extensively with a supposed connection be- 
 tween the height of rivers and the number of sunspots. He 
 found that the Nile agrees with European rivers and exhib- 
 its a maximum at about the time of maximum sunspots.* 
 Now the tabular wet years are indicated as following mimi- 
 mum sunspots; and if (for reasons presently to be considered) 
 we estimate the lag of the actual precipitation after the time 
 indicated as between two and three years on the average, the 
 wet periods predicated by the tabular figures would almost 
 precisely correspond to the periods in which the spots were 
 in excess, and the actual dry periods to those in which the 
 spots were deficient. 
 
 Dr. Meldrum, from a comparison of Wolfe's sunspot num- 
 bers with the rainfall at Madras, 1816-1877; Edinburgh, 1824- 
 1872 ; and Paris, 1824-1872, concludes that there is an intimate 
 connection between sunspots and rainfall. He shows that in 
 a great many places there is a greater rainfall during years 
 of maximum than during years of minimum sunspots, and 
 that this phenomenon repeats itself from one cycle to another. 
 
 Mr. Henry Blanford, in the course of a general investiga- 
 tion of the rainfall of India t especially considers the Car- 
 natic province, consisting of the plain below the Eastern 
 
 *Nature, 25, 237; 25, 269; 26, 448-9. 
 
 flndian Meteorological Memoirs, Vol. III., Part I; Nature, July 7. 
 1887. 
 
121 J INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 219 
 
 Ghauts, occupying the southeast of the peninsula, and ex- 
 tending from Cape Comorin to the mouth of the Kistna. Its 
 area is about 72,000 square miles, with the town of Madras 
 situated nearly midway along the coast. The data are fur- 
 nished by the registers of this and thirty-nine other stations 
 pretty evenly distributed; most of the records extending back 
 to 1864, This province is partially relieved from the local 
 vicissitudes of rainfall characterizing the summer months of 
 Central and Northern India; so that the annual fluctuations 
 ot the Carnatic rainfall often differs widely from that of other 
 provinces in the peninsula. The results arrived at by Mr. 
 Blanford are as follows: "The rainfall reached a minimum 
 in 1867" (year after sunspot minimum), "then rose steadily 
 to a maximum in 1872," (one year after sunspot maximum), 
 "and after a drop in 1873, and partial recovery in the following 
 year, fell rapidly to a second minimum in 1876" (two years 
 before sunspot minimum). "From 1877 to 1881, it oscillated 
 considerably, but thereafter rose again, steadily, to a second 
 maximum in 1884" (one year after sunspot maximum), "drop- 
 ping again in 1885 to something below the average." And 
 this, he justly concludes, "affords, at least, a very high prob- 
 ability that the apparent undecennial fluctuation is no chance 
 phenomenon." 
 
 Prof. Cleveland Abbe says: "If in general the rainfall 
 is above the mean in the years of sunspot maxima, and be- 
 low the mean in years of sunspot minima, then we must have 
 the following equation: 
 
 S s./s' S = R r/r' R, 
 
 where large S is the mean value of the sunspot frequency 
 for the whole period under investigation; small s is the 
 mean value for the period during which the sunspot frequency 
 is below the mean; small s' is the value for the period during 
 which the sunspot frequency is above the mean; R, r, r', the 
 corresponding rainfall for these years for which S, s, s', hold 
 good. That the frequency of sunspots has a simple ratio to 
 the rainfall is now evident from the fact that the above equa- 
 tion holds good approximately for fifty-four stations in Great 
 
220 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [122 
 
 Britain, and thirty-four in America for the interval 1824 to 
 1867. During this interval the rainfall was in excess when 
 the spots were in excess, and deficient when the spots were 
 deficient. The excess was .90 of an inch in England and 1.13 
 inches in America; and the deficiencies were .75 inch in 
 England and .94 in America."* 
 
 Prof. Cleveland Abbe shows us then that the wet periods 
 which the movements of the planets and their connexions 
 predicate, according to the new theory, are actually wetter 
 than the average, and that the dry periods, similarly predi- 
 cated, are actually drier than the average in England and 
 America from 1824 to 1867. 
 
 Also in Nature, 88, 449, almost exactly parallel curves of 
 sunspots and rainfall are given for the period 1841 to 1910. 
 
 122. Relation of the Periods of Variation of the Planetary 
 Factors to the Periods of Atmospheric Pressure. With re- 
 spect to the lagging of the actual weather after the planetary 
 and solar phenomena which indicate it, Mr. Frederick Cham- 
 bers, summarizing the sunspot studies of Charles Chambers, 
 Brown, Hill, Archibald, Blanford, and Meldrum, and extend- 
 ing their investigations in still greater detail, finds that the 
 epochs of maximum and minimum barometric pressure lagged 
 behind the corresponding epochs of minimum and maximum 
 solar-spotted area at an interval varying from about six 
 months to two and a half years. His conclusions in this 
 respect are briefly (1) that variations of the solar-spotted 
 area are succeeded many months afterwards by corresponding 
 abnormal barometric variations, and (2) that abnormal baro- 
 metric variations in the tropics travel at a very slow rate 
 from west to east, ariving at westerly stations several months 
 before they reach more easterly ones.f 
 
 From this and from the researches of Prof. Balfour Stewart 
 and others, it appears that the lag of the weather after its 
 indications is by no means constant, but varies at different 
 times and places. The foregoing results arrived at by Mr. 
 
 *Account of Progress in Meteorology in 1879-81, p. 52 
 tNature, 23, 84-110; Cleveland Abbe, Account of Progress in Meteor- 
 ology in 1882, p. 80. 
 
123] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 221 
 
 Frederick Chambers show that, when alowance is made ror 
 the lag, the maximum barometric pressure corresponds to the 
 minimum of sunspots, or the lowest ebb of connective sub- 
 ttance in our atmosphere, and the minimum barometric pres- 
 sure to the maximum accumulation of connective substance 
 in our atmosphere. The probable explanation of this (as 
 subsequent considerations furnish excellent grounds for be- 
 lieving) is that the excess of connective substance in our 
 atmosphere enables the rarer vapors and gases to ascend 
 therein to a greater elevation, where the attraction of gravi- 
 tation is less; and that, when the excess is withdrawn and 
 the connective atmosphere sinks below its normal density, 
 the vapors and gases descend where gravitation is more 
 powerful and so cause a maximum barometric pressure. 
 
 Here, then, is a complete parallelism of the indicated wet 
 and dry years, not only with the sunspot changes, but with 
 the actually observed periods of excessive and deficient pre- 
 cipitation and the periods of maximum and minimum baro- 
 metric pressure. This is additional incontrovertible evidence 
 of the existence of material interplanetary connexions, on the 
 basis of which alone these indicated wet and dry periods 
 have been determined. 
 
 123. Coincidence of the Periods of Variations of the Plan- 
 etary Factor wit|h the Periods of Atmospheric Electricity. 
 But the parallelism may be pushed still further. We know 
 that there is an almost complete correspondence between 
 the number of auroras and the relative extent of black spots 
 on the Sun as far back as reliable observations extend, the 
 curve of the one being almost exactly parallel with that of the 
 other for more than a hundred years.* And as to the nature of 
 the aurora, Mr. W. S. Jevons, after describing the five auroras 
 of August, 1882, says: 
 
 "I venure to make the suggestion that these ocrruscations 
 arise from highly tenuous matter (in what Mr. Crookes calls 
 the radiant state), projected through the higher part of the 
 atmosphere. My belief is that during the auroras described, 
 puffs, as it were, of radiant matter were discharged at great 
 elevations above the earth's surf ace." t 
 
 *Frof. Balfour Stewart, Nature, 23, 252. 
 tNature, 23. 149. 
 
222 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [121 
 
 H. Fritz, in a very complete summary of our present knowl- 
 edge regarding the aurora,* quotes from Cramer that the 
 auroras change themselves into clouds, the whole heavens 
 being covered with them if the aunoras last for a sufficiently 
 long time. Also that Stevenson at Dunse, Scotland, found the 
 annual frequency of cirrus clouds to run parallel with the 
 frequency of auroras; that Winnecke, from observations at 
 Pulkowa, concludes that the cirrus must be considered as the 
 agent of the aurora phenomena; that Weber and Klein and 
 others give data to show that the times of greatest frequency 
 of auroras and sunspots are also the times of greatest fre- 
 quency of polar bands; that similar parallelisms connect the 
 
 | 
 
 sunspots with the height of rivers, the rainfall, and numerous 
 other phenomena; that, in fact, the parallelism between svery 
 form of atmospheric, phenomena and the solar spots, shows 
 the connection to be a real one, although the rationale of the 
 connection is not yet made clear, f 
 
 It is known further even that the constitution of the ai- 
 mosphere is variable, higher percentages of some ingredients 
 being present at certain times than at others; and Regnault 
 suspected rightly when he declared it deceptive to regard the 
 air as of a constant constitution and a fit standard for the 
 specific gravity of gases. J 
 
 124. The Wet and the Dry Seasons of the Year. Still an- 
 other feature of table III is the wet and the dry seasons of the 
 year. In 1848, e. g., the first half of the year is indicated 
 to be dry and the latter half wet. In subsequent years the 
 dry season pushes more and more towards the latter half of 
 the year, and the wet into the first. In 1858 the first half 
 of the year is again dry and the last half wet. In 1866 these 
 seasons again change places. And so on; a complete revo- 
 lution of a wet or a dry season from a certain portion of the 
 year back again to the same portion, taking, on the average, 
 nearly twelve years. It may be noticed also that the interval 
 
 *Das Polarlicht, Leipsic, 1881. 
 
 fProf. Cleveland Abbe, Account of Progress in Meteorology in 1879-81, 
 pp. 80-81. 
 
 jSee Jolly's investigations, Zeitschrift Oesterreichischen Gessell- 
 schaft fur Meteorologie, 14, 228. 
 
125] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 223 
 
 during which a certain half of the year changes from wet to 
 dry, corresponds to a dry period of years, and that the inter- 
 val from dry to wet is contemporary with a wet period of 
 years. The wet and the dry periods of years are, therefore, 
 dependent on, and derived from, the wet and the dry seasons. 
 If, however, observations corroborating these indicated wet 
 and dry seasons, as in the case of the indicated wet and dry 
 periods of years, are looked for, little, if any, will be found 
 lor the following reasons: 
 
 First, as already intimated, the precipitation indicated for 
 a certain time may lag behind that time for several months, 
 the period being various at various times and places. Sec- 
 ond, present observations cover but a very small portion of 
 the Earth's surface (a mere fraction of even these being 
 easily accessible to one person), and this portion is mainly 
 removed from the tropics, within which the indicated vari- 
 ations would theoretically occur more regularly. Third, both 
 regular and iregular causes, such as wind and ocean currents, 
 and position with respect to mountain ranges and elevation, 
 would, to a very great extent, smooth down the differences 
 of such short periods in most places where observations are 
 made. And, fourth, the effects of the other factors of the 
 connective variations upon the -Earth. Indeed, the most pow- 
 erful factors of the connective variations upon our planet yet 
 remain to be considered. But as already stated, the effects 
 of these, with the single exception of the lunar factor, go 
 through a complete cycle in almost exactly one year; so 
 that, while they alone completely mask the indicated plan- 
 etary factor, they produce no measurable effect whatever 
 upon the planetary periods. The nature and effects of these 
 factors will now very shortly be considered. 
 
 125. Lagging of the Actual Weather. With regard to the 
 first of the foregoing reasons, it may be said that the cause 
 of the lagging of the actual weather behind the indicated 
 weather would very probably be that the withdrawal or ac- 
 cumulation of a certain amount of connective substance would 
 be required to effect a change of the normal atmospheric 
 
224 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [126 
 
 conditions. These normal conditions are indicated in the 
 table for any month or year by a cipher, or zero. Then, if 
 we suppose that, in this normal state of the atmosphere, it 
 required a withdrawal or an accumulation of a quantity of 
 connective substance denoted by about 200 on the scale of 
 the figures of table III to effect a corresponding measurable 
 change in the actual weather, we observe that this quantitive 
 accumulation or withdrawal would require, in the case of the 
 seasons, from three to four months, and in the case of the 
 periods, from three to four years; more being required in 
 such years as 1871 than in 1884. 
 
 The probable reason why such a quantitive variation of 
 the connective substance would be necessary to produce an 
 appreciable effect on the actual precipitation is that, during 
 the first part of the season or period of accumulation, the 
 capacity of the atmosphere to hold vapors in suspension would 
 increase up to a certain limit, owing to the increased volume 
 and quantity of connective substance it contains; and that, 
 during the first part of the period of drain, the capacity of 
 the atmosphere would diminish in this respect down to a 
 certain limit, owing to the diminution of its connective sub- 
 stance. So that, from the normal amount of connective sub- 
 stance in the atmosphere up to the one and down to the 
 other, the normal precipitation would be likely to prevail. 
 
 126, T|he Solar Factor of the Connective Variation. The 
 other factors of the connective variation upon the Earth, 
 which yet remain to be considered may now be computed. 
 As already stated in article 115, it was necessary for the 
 determination of the longer periods of the connective varia- 
 tions that the planetary factor should alone be computed; the 
 consideration of the other factors being left for a subsequent 
 occasion. This occasion is now at hand; and the variations 
 of the remaining connexions upon the Earth are to be de- 
 termined as nearly as practicable. 
 
 Taking first the Earth's primary connexion with the Sun, 
 there is, from the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, a linear 
 variation of about 3,000,000 miles in a period of six months. 
 
126] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 225 
 
 This multiplied by the sectional area of the connexion at the 
 Earth's surface, in order to obtain the volume-variation, and 
 also by the relative density of the connexion, obtains the 
 mass-variation in the period. But what is the relative den- 
 sity of a primary with respect to that of a secondary con- 
 nexion? At the present stage of our inquiry this question 
 cannot receive a definite answer. The best that can be done 
 is to assign a probable value, less than which the density 
 of the solar connexion upon the Earth, with respect to that 
 of its secondary connexion, can not be. 
 
 According to the connective theory, as well as to the neb- 
 ular hypothesis also, the outermost planets were the first 
 born of the solar family. Each of the planets as they suc- 
 cessively came into existence, appropriated from the Sun 
 a primary connexion, the sectional massiveness of which, it 
 may reasonably be supposed, depended upon the masses of 
 the respective planets between which and the Sun the con- 
 nexions extended; and each planet also appropriated a cer- 
 tain portion of the primary connexion of each of the pre- 
 viously existing planets for a secondary connexion between 
 the two. What this portion is, is the point to be determined; 
 and the limit which it cannot reasonably exceed may be rep- 
 resented by the fraction having the mass of the appropriating 
 planet, for the numerator and that of the Sun for the denom- 
 inator. Several reasons might be assigned for a smaller 
 value of this portion of the previously existing solar con- 
 nexions which the new-born planet appropriates such as that 
 the restraining functions of the solar connexions would re- 
 quire, and, therefore, retain a proportionately greater share 
 of their substance thanjrtie functions of the portions forming 
 the secondary connexion between the planets would require, 
 the latter being of a far lighter nature; but there appears to 
 be no reason whatever for assigning a greater value to it. 
 
 Thus, when the Earth first separated from the bosom of 
 the parent Sun, it would have a solar connexion, the sectional 
 density of which would be to that of Jupiter's solar connex- 
 ion, e. g., as the Earth's mass is to that of Jupiter; and it 
 
226 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [127 
 
 would also appropriate a portion of the solar connexion of 
 Jupiter not greater, at most, than 1/326,800 of its entire sub- 
 stance, the mass of the Earth having a ratio to that of the 
 Sun of 1 to 326,800. Now, if we call the Earth's mass unity, 
 Jupiter's mass will be about 312,and the sectional massive- 
 iiess of these solar connexions, at equal distances from the 
 Sun, will also be in the same ratio, respectively. At the 
 Sun's surface the sectional density of the Earth's solar con- 
 nexion is, therefore, 1, and of Jupiter's solar connexion, 312. 
 Then the sectional density of the portion of the latter con- 
 nexion which the new-born Earth would appropriate for a 
 secondary connexion between the two planets would be 
 1/326,800 of 312, or 1/1048 of the density of the Earth's solar 
 connexion. It may therefore be concluded that, for equal lin- 
 ear units, the density or mass of the connexion between the 
 Earth and the Sun is at least a thousand times greater at 
 the Earth's surface than that of the connexion between the 
 Earth and Jupiter. 
 
 Thus the mass-variation caused in our atmosphere by the 
 solar connexion in a period of six months would be 3,000,000 
 X 49,000,000X1,048 154 XlO 15 cubic miles, or rather one-half 
 of this, as the Sun's atmosphere would also be affected like 
 that of the Earth; while the mass-variation caused by the 
 Earth's connexion with Jupiter is half of 186,000,000X49,000,- 
 000X1=9 XlO 15 cubic miles in a period of 199 days. So that, 
 in equal units of time, the influence of the Sun upon the con- 
 nective variation in our atmosphere is about eighteen times 
 as powerful as the influence of Jupiter. Had this value of 
 the solar connective variation been placed in table III, the to- 
 tal value of all the planetary connective variations would sink 
 almost into comparative insignificance. But as the period of 
 this solar variation is almost precisely one-half of a calendar 
 year, every year would be exactly the same so far as this 
 disturbing factor is concerned; and the peculiarities of the 
 table, with the exception of the wet and the dry seasons of 
 the year, would remain wholly unaffected. 
 
 127. The Lunar Factor of the Connective Variation. Here 
 again is met a difficulty similar to that met in determining 
 
128] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 227 
 
 the relative density of the Earth's primary connexion. What 
 is the relative density at the Earth's surface of the Moon's 
 primary connexion with respect to that of the Earth's pri- 
 mary connexion? It will, perhaps, suffice here to suppose 
 that the actual work which a connexion performs affords a 
 trustworthy indication of its actual strength or material den- 
 sity. The Moon's primary connexion draws the Moon from 
 the tangent to its orbit about 0.0045 ft. in one second, and 
 the Earth's primary connexion draws the Earth from the 
 tangent to its orbit about 0.0096 ft. in one second, which is 
 2. 335 as far as the Moon is drawn in the same time; and, the 
 Earth being 80 times heavier than the Moon, the strain on 
 its connexion would thus be 2.135X80, or about 171 times 
 greater than on the Moon's connexion; so that the strength 
 or material density of the former connexion (that of the 
 Earth's primary connexion being 1048 times that of its con- 
 nexion with Jupiter see preceding Art.) will be about 6. 
 Now the average linear variation of the Moon's primary con- 
 nexion is about 26,000 miles, or the difference of the Moon's 
 distance at apogee and perigee. So that, to obtain the mass- 
 variation of the lunar connexion, we have 26,000X49,000,000 
 X6 = 77X10 11 cubic miles. The period of this variation is 
 the average time required by the Moon to pass from the 
 perigee of its orbit to the apogee, or nearly 14 days. The 
 standard density here used is that of Jupiter's secondary con- 
 nexion with the Earth, and to reduce this to the standard 
 used in table III, the above result must be multiplied by 
 4771; which gives 77 X 10" X 4771, or about 37X10 15 , or about 
 2/5 of unity on the basis of table III, and half of this must 
 le assigned to the variation on the Moon itself. Also, since 
 there are, on the average, some 2.033 lunar variation period's 
 in a month, there would remain but 1/30 of 1/5 of unity to 
 affect any monthly value in table III; so that not a single 
 figure of that table would be affected by the insertion of this 
 factor. 
 
 128. The Sidereal Factor of the Connective Variation. 
 It might be supposed, at a first glance, that, as the Earth 
 
228 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [128 
 
 swings from one side of the Sun, to the other, the accumu- 
 lation of the connexions with the heavenly bodies beyond 
 the Solar System, from one direction, would be about bal- 
 anced by the withdrawals from the opposite direction. But 
 this, in all probability, is not ttfe case, for the reason that 
 our world is not situated in the center of the Sidereal Sys- 
 tem, but considerably to one side of that center. One reason 
 we have for believing this is that, in examining the sky with 
 our telescopes, in one direction we see comparatively few 
 stars, and generally the individual stars are clearly projected 
 upon the general blackness of the heavens; while, looking 
 in the opposite direction, the number of the stars is greatly 
 increased and their magnitude so reduced that they appear 
 to terminate in a completely irresolvable nebulosity. So 
 that, in the words of Sir John Herschel* "Whatever other 
 conclusions we may draw, this last must anyhow be regarded 
 as the direction of the greatest linear extension of the ground 
 plane of the galaxy." In the same paragraph, Herschel 
 places this greatest linear extension of the starry sphere in 
 the constellation Scorpius, which is situated nearly in the 
 intersection of the planes of the ecliptic and the Milky Way, 
 and through which the Earth passes in the first half of June. 
 According to the new theory, then, the Earth, during the six 
 months of the year preceding, would be approaching the 
 greater portion of the sidereal sphere and leaving behind the 
 lesser portion of it; so that, the accumulation of connective 
 substance, owing to this cause, upon the front of the Earth 
 during that time would be in excess of the drain in its rear. 
 Also, during the following six months, the drain would be 
 in excess of the accumulation. Again allowing a lag of 
 about three months, this would cause a comparative excess 
 of precipitation from about the middle of March to the mid- 
 dle of September, and a deficiency from the middle of Sep- 
 tember to the middle of March. 
 
 It will thus be observed that the wet season of the year, 
 owing to this cause, almost exactly coincides with the dry 
 
 *Outlines of Astronomy, Art. 798. 
 
129] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 229 
 
 season, owing to the solar factor. For the Earth is at peri- 
 helion, or at the least distance from the Sun about the first 
 of January; and allowing three months of lag, as before, the 
 solar dry season would be from March to October, while the 
 sidereal wet season, as just found, extends from the middle 
 of March to the middle of September. Thus one factor coun- 
 teracts the effects of the other, so that, if the two factors 
 were of equal value, scarcely any effect whatever would be 
 assignable to either at the present time. But the actual 
 weather appears to be in very close conformity to the the- 
 oretical effects of the sidereal factor. For from an examin- 
 ation of rainfall statistics over the Earth's surface, it is found 
 that, in the winter season of the northern hemisphere, the 
 amount of precipitation is decidedly less than in the summer 
 season. 
 
 129. Connection of the Sidereal Factor and the Wet and 
 Dry Seasons. The Signal Service records of the United 
 States show undeniably that this is the case in that country.* 
 As far back as these records extend, with respect to ten 
 principal Atlantic cities, viz., Eastport, Boston, New York, 
 Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Key West, 
 New Orleans, and Galveston, they show that the average 
 monthly precipitation in all is 4.35 inches; that November, 
 December, January, February, March, April, and May are 
 below the mean, the middle month of the period, February, 
 having a maximum deficiency of just one inch ; and that June, 
 July, August, September, and October are above the mean, 
 the middle month, August., having a maximum excess of about 
 an inch and a half. 
 
 Also in Professional Papers, No. X, of the U. S. Signal 
 Service may be found the average precipitation of each month 
 of the year at seventy-two stations scattered over the whole 
 country, as deduced from all the records at the respective 
 stations. Summing up all of these, the average monthly mean 
 is found to be 3.60 inches for the whole area. The precip- 
 itation is in excess of this in March, April, June, July, and 
 
 *See also American Weather, pp. 139-144. 
 
230 
 
 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY 
 
 [130 
 
 August, and below it in September, October, November, De- 
 cember, January, February, and May. It is noticeable also 
 that the nearer we approach to the tropics, the more exact 
 is the correspondence. Thus, at the oceanic station, Key 
 West, Florida, in latitude 28 ISfc, the Signal Service records 
 give six months of excessive precipitation or May to October 
 inclusive, and six months of deficient precipitation, or No- 
 vember to April inclusive. 
 
 130, Coincidence of the Actually Wet and Dry Periods of 
 Years With the Indicated Wet and Dry Planetary Periods. 
 
 The correspondence of the actual precipitation at the last- 
 named station with the theoretic deductions holds, not only 
 for these sidereal seasons of the year, but, what is more re- 
 markable, it holds fairly well also for the wet and dry plan- 
 etary periods of years indicated in the 13th column of table 
 III. Thus, for the period of years 1870 to 1913, inclusive, the 
 mean annual precipitation at this station is 39 inches, and 
 the actual variation from this mean for each year is as fol- 
 lows, the theoretical results from table III for the same years 
 being placed in the third and sixth columns for comparison 
 (full-face figures denoting excess and the plain figures de- 
 noting deficiency) : 
 Annual Precipitation at Key West, Florida, 1870-1913, Inclusive 
 
 YEAR 
 
 Actual Excess 
 or 
 Deficiency. 
 Inches. 
 
 Theoretic 
 Excess or 
 Deficiency. 
 
 | YEAR 
 
 Actual Excess | Theoretic 
 or | Excess or 
 deficiency. (Deficiency 
 Inches. 1 
 
 1870 
 
 30.69 (ex.) j 72 (ex.) 
 
 1892 
 
 14.09 (def.) 
 
 105 (ex.) 
 
 1871 
 
 4.32 (def.) 7 (def.) 
 
 1893 
 
 17.00 (def.) 
 
 98 (ex.) 
 
 1872 
 
 .7.23 (def.) 
 
 54 (def.)l 1894 
 
 3.34 (ex.) 
 
 25 (ex.) 
 
 1873 
 
 6.25 (def.) 
 
 105 (def.)| 1895 
 
 9.81 (def.) 1 26 (def.) 
 
 1874 
 
 6.25 (def.) 
 
 87 (def.)| 1896 
 
 13.28 (def.) 
 
 83 (def.) 
 
 1875 
 
 2.63 (def.) 
 
 83 (def.) 
 
 1897 
 
 7.46 (ex.) (102 (def.) 
 
 1876 1 1.05 (def.) 
 
 68 (def.) 
 
 1898 
 
 4.39 (ex.) 
 
 Ill (def.) 
 
 1877 | .85 (def.) 
 
 (def.) 
 
 1899 
 
 9.45 (def.) 
 
 93 (def.) 
 
 1878 | 10.03 (ex.) 
 
 53 (ex.) 
 
 1900 
 
 9.81 (ex.) 
 
 52 (def.) 
 
 1879 
 
 19.54 (ex.) | 120 (ex.) 
 
 1901 
 
 1.98 (def.) 
 
 12 (ex.) 
 
 1880 
 
 5.59 (def.) 
 
 127 (ex.) 
 
 1902 
 
 .39 (def.) 
 
 56 (ex.) 
 
 1881 
 
 14.10 (ex.) 
 
 138 (ex.) 
 
 1903 
 
 8.64 (def.) 
 
 97 (ex.) 
 
 1882 
 
 2.86 (ex.) 
 
 63 (ex.) 
 
 1904 
 
 1.02 (def.) |158 (ex.) 
 
 1883 
 
 9.24 (ex.) 
 
 (ex.) 
 
 1905 
 
 2.84 (ex.) 
 
 Ill (ex.) 
 
 1884 
 
 5.95 (def.) 
 
 56 (def.) 
 
 1906 
 
 9.53 (ex.) 
 
 44 (ex.) 
 
 1885 
 
 4.97 (def.) 
 
 101 (def.)| 1907 
 
 12.35 (def.) 
 
 17 (def.) 
 
 1886 
 
 8.97 (def.) 
 
 101 (def.)| 1908 
 
 .17 (def.) 
 
 52 (def.) 
 
 1887 
 
 4.62 (ex.) 
 
 85 (def.)| 1909 
 
 17.35 (ex.) 
 
 101 (def.) 
 
 1888 | 3.42 (def.) 
 
 65 (def.)| 1910 
 
 10.57 (def.) 
 
 66 (def.) 
 
 1889 | 13.67 (ex.) 
 
 21 (def.) 
 
 1911 
 
 3.33 (def.) 
 
 63 (def.) 
 
 1890 
 
 3.87 (ex.) 
 
 36 (ex.) 
 
 1912 
 
 4.45 (ex.) 
 
 13 (def.) 
 
 1891 
 
 .75 (ex.) 
 
 89 (ex.) 
 
 1913 
 
 9.04 (def.) 
 
 20 (ex.) 
 
131] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 231 
 
 As shown by the U. S. Signal Service records for the 44 
 years given in the preceding table, the actual annual excesses 
 of precipitation agree with the theoretic excesses for 11 years, 
 and the actual annual deficiencies of precipitation agree with 
 the theoretic deficiencies for 18 years, leaving a disagreement 
 of theory and fact in 15 years of the period; or nearly two 
 eases of agreement to one of disagreement. As illustrating 
 the effects of local disturbances, it may be mentioned that 
 the three years of most pronounced disagreement (1892-3 and 
 1S09) all actually agree with the theory at each of several 
 other stations in the same locality (e. g., Clermont and Hypo- 
 luxo) ; that is, the first two years show actual excesses at 
 these stations instead of large deficiencies, and the other 
 year shows a deficiency instead of a large excess. As we 
 go northwards to New York and Boston, however, this cor- 
 respondence becomes less and less distinguishable, although 
 it still appears to be distinctly traceable over the entire 
 country. 
 
 Similar correspondences could be given for similar stations 
 in the East Indies, Asia, South Africa, and Australia. The 
 season* of heavy precipitation at Key West are coincident 
 with the seasons of cyclones and typhoons of the entire equa- 
 torial belt, at which seasons all portions of the Earth's sur- 
 face accessible to the influence of these storms have a max- 
 imum amount of precipitation. But much greater accordance 
 of theory and fact would no doubt be found, if statistics were 
 available, from within the Torrid Zone itself, owing to the 
 much greater precipitation occuring therein. 
 
 "We take from M. Lemstrom's pages the following concise 
 table, strongly corroborative of Edlund's theory, showing the 
 dependence upon latitude of storm-frequency: Mean annual 
 number of storms between and 30, 52; between 30 and 
 50, 20; between 50 and 60", 15; between 60 and 70, 10; 
 about 70, 0."* 
 
 131. Relative Amounts and Effects of the Several Factors. 
 
 Of course it is not possible at the present time to compute 
 the actual amount of variation of the sidereal connexions, as 
 
 *Prof. H. E. Armstrong, Nature, 35, 596-7. 
 
232 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [132 
 
 has been done with the planetary and the solar connexions. 
 The relative efficiency of the former with respect to the lat- 
 ter cannot, therefore, be determined. But if the reasoning 
 is correct in other respects, it mast obviously follow that the 
 sidereal variation, from the preponderating effects correspond- 
 ing to it, must certainly be greater than the solar and the 
 planetary variations. 
 
 Since the relative efficiency of the solar' and the sidereal 
 factors of the seasonable weather changes cannot be com- 
 puted, neither can be computed the relative efficiency of the 
 effective difference between the two and the planetary fac- 
 tor, the value of which is given in table III. It may be that 
 the planetary factor is nearly as powerful as the excess of 
 the sidereal factor over and above the solar factor, or it may 
 be that the latter is the more powerful. Subsequent inves- 
 tigations may determine this point. In the meantime it may 
 in any case reasonably be 'supposed that, when a planetary 
 wet or dry season coincides with a similar sidereal season, 
 an in the periods 1879 to 1883 and 1891 to 1894, more than 
 the ordinary intensity of precipitation and drouth will char- 
 acterize our summers and winters, respectively, of these 
 years; and that when the dry season of the one nearly coin- 
 cides with the wet seanson of the other, as from 1884 to 1890 
 and from 1895 to 1900, less than the ordinary intensity of 
 precipitation and drouth which characterize our summer and 
 our winter seasons respectively, may be looked for. Much 
 less than the usual lag would take place in these cases for 
 the reason that, in the first case, normal conditions would 
 always accompany an approximately even balance of the fac- 
 tors. 
 
 132. Incompleteness of Our Meteorological Data. But a 
 great deal undoubtedly yet remains to be known regarding 
 the effect upon precipitation of the drains and accumulations 
 of connective substance in our atmosphere. The views here 
 offered are simply those which, from a consideration of the 
 facts so far as they are known, have appeared the most 
 reasonable. Other facts, however, may yet come to light 
 
133] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 233 
 
 which may considerably modify these views. Moreover, our 
 present system cf meteon lomcal observations is very incom- 
 plete. In the comparatively few observations made, most 
 nations appear to act independently of each other; and of 
 course no observation whatever is made with reference to the 
 theory here advanced. So that there is not only no digest 
 of the observations of the world as a whole, but there ap- 
 pears to be, in most cases, no digest even of the observations 
 of a single country as a whole. Maps and charts are usually 
 given showing the actual precipitation over the different por- 
 tions of a country, and the variations of this from the mean 
 monthly or annual precipitation for each particular locality. 
 (Also this mean or standard amount of precipitation itself 
 appears to vary from year to year, whereas an invariable 
 standard should be adopted, at least for a considerable per- 
 iod of years). But if the mean monthly or annual precipita- 
 tion, and the actual monthly and annual variations there- 
 from, for the country as a whole, are desired, the inquirer 
 himself must generally perform the almost herculean labor of 
 reducing these data from the raw statistics of each individ- 
 ual locality. Nor can even these be always obtained at one 
 head office; some of the statistics are usually out of print, 
 and various different places must be searched for the rnanu- 
 script records. 
 
 It is urgently needed that a more extensive and complete 
 system of meteorological observations should at once be 
 adopted by all nations, and the general results from each 
 country sent to one office for more complete generalization. 
 Indeed comparatively little in the important department of 
 weather prediction can be accomplished until the maze of in- 
 tricate agents and complex disturbing factors are brought 
 into some such general system. 
 
 133. Application and Value of These Weather Indications. 
 Finally, it must be borne in mind that the weather indicated 
 by means of the variations of the terrestrial connexions of 
 all kinds apply, not to any particular locality or country, but 
 to the Earth's surface as a whole. It may not infrequently 
 
234 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [134 
 
 happen through local disturbing causes (which, however, 
 may sometime not improbaly be pre-determined) that in 
 certain localities extreme drouth prevails while over the 
 Earth's surface as a whole, the precipitation is excessive; or 
 there is excessive precipitation in certain localities while ex- 
 treme drouth generally prevails. But the instances of this 
 discordance would obviously be comparatively rare; and the 
 indications would necessarily hold good in the great majority 
 of cases, even if the effects of the local disturbing forces 
 could not be foretold. 
 
 With respect to the wet and the dry periods of years, the 
 lag is more regular than in the wet and the dry seasons, and 
 the effects of the disturbing factors are largely eliminated by 
 inclusion of them in nearly equal amounts and kinds in each 
 period. It appears to be a safe deduction from the new views 
 here advanced that from the second year of a tabular dry 
 period to the second year of a tabular wet period (such as 
 are given in table III), the precipitation will be compara- 
 tively deficient generally over the Earth's surface, and that 
 from the second year of a tabular wet period to the second 
 year of a tabular dry period, the precipitation will be com- 
 paratively excessive. There appears to be no doubt of the 
 theoretic correctness of this conclusion, and being also strong- 
 ly corroborated by actual observation, as we have just seen 
 in this chapter, it ought to prove of no small value to us, 
 from the -facility with which these periods may be computed 
 for immediate future years. 
 
 134. A Probable Basis for the Flood Legend. It has been 
 observed that a solar wet or dry season is almost exactly 
 cne-half of a sidereal year. The difference between the two 
 less than two and a half minutes is very small indeed. 
 But small as it is, it may prove to be of considerable theo- 
 retical importance. 'The length of a solar wet and a solar 
 dry season together is the period of time during which the 
 Earth passes from the aphelion of its orbit around to the 
 same point of its orbit again; and this period does not exactly 
 correspond in length either to the sidereal or the tropical 
 
134] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 235 
 
 year. A sidereal year is the period of time during which the 
 Earth passes from a straight line joining a so-called fixed star 
 and the Sun around to the same line again; and this period 
 exactly includes a sidereal wet season and a sidereal dry 
 season together and no more. If the line which joins the 
 perihelion and the aphelion of the Earth's orbit were as fixed, 
 or rather moved as slowly, as that joining the Sun and the 
 star, the sidereal and the solar seasons would be exactly sim- 
 ilar in length. But this line, the line of apsides, is not fixed. 
 It has an extremely slow direct motion of nearly 12" per 
 annum from the star-line; so that the Earth's perihelion 
 makes a complete revolution, from a certain fixed star around 
 to the same star again in about 109,830 years. 
 
 Now the longitude of the Earth's perihelion at the pres- 
 ent times is 100 30', and that of the point of greatest linear 
 extension of the sidereal sphere is about 262. The line of 
 apsides has, therefore, traversed over 198 since the time 
 when perihelion and the point of greatest extension of the 
 Leavens were coincident; which movement has taken place 
 in a period of nearly 60,000 years. At that time, then, the 
 sicfereal and the solar seasons exactly coincided, wet with 
 wet and dry with dry; so that instead of the one antagonizing 
 the other, as at present, both factors would unite in producing 
 a wet season of tremendous precipitation and a dry season 
 in which the Earth's surface would be extremely parched. 
 Sixty thousand years ago these conditions would supervene 
 with a maximum degree of intensity; and they would con- 
 tinue with slowly diminishing intensity for some 25,000 years 
 longer. After this more than half of the one factor would 
 be counteracted by the other, and this degree of counterac- 
 tion would gradually increase down to 4,500 years ago, when 
 it would have been at a maximum, or the two factors would 
 be completely antagonistic. At this time, therefore, the sea- 
 sonal intensity would be at a minimum. It is now increasing 
 and, in some 50,000 years, will be again at a maximum. 
 
 These are the theoretical deductions, but perhaps they 
 are not entitled to implicit reliance. The revolution of the 
 
236 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [134 
 
 line of apsides may possibly be irregular, and such irregular- 
 ities might very considerably modify the times of theoretic 
 maximum and minimum seasonal intensity. t is true that 
 such irregularities are as yet unknown; but the periods are 
 so vast compared with the period of recorded observations, 
 that it might be premature to assume, amidst the maze-like 
 intricacies of Nature, that such irregularities did not exist. 
 Still the coincidence of the solar and the sidereal seasons 
 would certainly have taken place sometime in the past, and, 
 if the new theory be true, this coincidence would as cer- 
 tainly be accompanied by extreme drouths and deluges. 
 
 The question now occurs May not these seasonal deluges 
 be the origin of the legends of the Flood? If man was con- 
 temporary with the great Ice Age, as apparently reliable tes- 
 timony goes to prove, he would have had ample opportunity 
 to witness and experience the tremendous floods ascribable 
 to this cause; as the most conservative estimate of the per- 
 iod since glaciation is more than 30,000 years, while by far 
 the greater number and the most eminent of geologists place 
 it at six times this duration. It is undeniable that the the- 
 ory thus furnishes a possible and even plausible scientific 
 explanation of the diluvial legends. (In any event a compar- 
 ison of this explanation with that of collision of the Earth 
 with a comet's tail that of Kant and William Whiston and 
 about the only other is certainly not unfavorable to the 
 newer view. 
 
 The same explanation would also apply to the periods of 
 excessive erosion of the Earth's surface, which the testimony 
 oi' the rocks so clearly indicates, and which geologists find 
 so inexplicable, especially in the later geological periods. 
 No more probable explanation of this excessive erosion, fol- 
 lowed again by quiescent periods of deposition can scarcely 
 be imagined than the alternate extreme drenchings and 
 parchings of the Earth-crust continued for many thousands 
 of years and followed again by an equally long period of 
 comparative elemental equilibrium and quiescence, as implied 
 
135] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 237 
 
 by the foregoing deductions from the connective theory. (See 
 also Art. 141), 
 
 135. Connection of the Orbital Period of Jupiter With the 
 Indicated Wet and Dry Periods of Years and With the Sun- 
 spot PeriodsL A tabular dry season and wet season together 
 usually aggregate about thirteen months, and generally a 
 year is indicated to be wet or dry according as all of the wet 
 or all of the dry season is included in it. Pushing this in- 
 quiry further in the same direction, it is observed that the 
 synodic period of the great planet Jupiter is also thirteen 
 months, and that the indicated dry seasons of the year very 
 closely correspond to the times of the Earth's recession from, 
 and the indicated wet seasons to the times during which the 
 Earth is approaching, that planet. It is found, then, that, 
 in general, a year is indicated to be dry or wet according 
 as the planet Jupiter comes in conjunction with the Earth 
 in the first half or in the last half of the year; as in the 
 former case, all the recession from, while in the latter case 
 all the approach towards, that planet would be included with- 
 in the year. 
 
 The time of maximum sunspots, which, as already seen, 
 is the time of theoretic change from wet to dry years, would 
 thus correspond to the time in which the planet Jupiter comes 
 into opposition* with the Earth about the middle of the year, 
 and the time of sunspot minimum corresponds to that in which 
 it comes into conjunction with the Earth about the same 
 time. Thus, in the sunspot maxima of 1907, 1895, 1883, 1871, 
 1860, 1848, 1837, the times of Jupiter's opposition were July 
 ID, July 29, July 6, July 3, July 27, July 23, and August 19 
 respectively; and in the sunspot minima of 1913, 1902, 1890, 
 1878, 1867, 1856, 1843, 1833, the times of Jupiter's conjunction 
 were July 4, July 1, July 25, July 24, August 25, September 
 26, August 15, and October 23, respectively; all of which are 
 not far from the middle of the year except the last. 
 
 Before discussing a possible explanation of ttiis, let us 
 glance one more at the figures of table III. Taking the in- 
 dicated dry season of 1840 and adding its monthly values to- 
 
 *See footnote p. 209. 
 
238 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [135 
 
 gether, they are found to aggregate 549, which sum is placed 
 over the last monthly value of that season. The same is 
 done with the succeeding wet season and with each follow- 
 ing season in succession. In 1851 the minimum seasonal 
 sum of 266 is obtained, after which these gradually increase 
 to a maximum of 554 in 1861, decrease to a minimum of 324 
 in 1872, increase to a maximum of 575 in 1882, decrease to 
 a minimum of 277 in 1891, and so on. A moment's consid- 
 eration suffices to show that the cause of these seasonal 
 maxima and minima is the relative bunching and scattering 
 of the four planets. If the four planets were all in the same 
 longitude with respect to the Earth, the latter would recede 
 from, or approach towards, them all at the same time, and 
 the aggregate valuei of a dry or of a wet season would then 
 be a maximum. But if the planets were so evenly distributed 
 around the Earth that the recession upon one side of it was 
 balanced as nearly as possible by the approaches On the other, 
 then the aggregate value of a dry or a wet season would be 
 the smallest possible. The dry and the wet periods of years, 
 as given in table III, are therefore determined solely by the 
 movements of the planets around the Earth, principally by 
 the movement of the planet Jupiter; these movements deter- 
 mining the seasonal changes on which, in turn, the wet and 
 dry periods of years depend. 
 
 Now here is a promising explanation of the sunspot per- 
 iods, because, when the planets are bunched with respect to 
 the Earth, they are so to a great extent with respect to the 
 Sun also. But on closer inspection the explanation fails, 
 because, from a comparison of the 14th and 15th columns 
 of table III, it is seen that the yearly periods of the sun- 
 spots and of the connexion variations upon the Earth are 
 Quite incommensurable, and so cannot have the same cause. 
 While the rotation, in the successive years, of the seasonal 
 changes, as determined by the planetary movements, which 
 causes the wet and dry periods of years, gives a relation 
 between the planetary movements and the sunspot periods, 
 because these wet and dry periods of years and the sunspot 
 
135] INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND WEATHER 239 
 
 periods coincide for nearly a century,, yet the manner of der- 
 ivation of the wet and dry periods of years is independent of 
 the seasonal maxima and minima, so that a maximum sea- 
 sonal variation does not at all correspond with a maximum 
 yearly variation; the latter being only the algebraic sum of 
 a wet and a dry season within the limit of a calendar year; 
 which sum may be about as great in the case of a seasonal 
 minimum as in the case of a seasonal maximum.* 
 
 *This, however, has reference only to the principal 11-year sun- 
 spot period. The minor sunspot periods of 4, 8, and 14 years, which 
 Prof. Schuster is said to have found (See Prof. H. H. Turner, Address 
 sec. A, B. A. A. S., 1911), appear to harmonize, to a certain extent, with 
 the planetary connexion variations. From the last column of tahle III, 
 it is seen that the period between successive maxima of the seasonal 
 planetary variations which correspond to the comparative bunching of 
 the planets upon one side of the Sun, and which, therefore, by the new 
 theory, should have some effect upon the formation of sunspots is about 
 19 years; which very approximately equals 44-14 and 8-|-ll years. For 
 various conflicting views on these minor sunspot periods, see Nature, 
 87,293; 90,454; 92,411. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 INTERPLANETARY CONNEXIONS AND SUN- 
 
 SPOTS, THE ZODIACAL LIGHT, AND 
 
 THE SOLAR CORONA. 
 
 In the corona at minimum sunspots, we have a well-devel- 
 oped, regular equatorial elongation; at maximum spots, all 
 this is changed and we get streamers and their separating 
 rifts very irregularly distributed. J. NORMAN LOCKYER. 
 
 The attenuated cosmical matter of which the zodiacal 
 light is probably composed extends all around the sun, in the 
 form of a very flattened ellipsoid of revolution, to a distance 
 well beyond the earth's orbit in the plane of the sun's equa- 
 tor. E. MARCHAUD. 
 
 Yet all these were when no Man did them know, 
 Yet have from wisest Ages hidden beene; 
 
 And later Times thinges more unknown shall show. 
 Why then should witlesse Man so much misweene 
 That nothing is, but that which he hath seene? (?) 
 
 136. The Maxima and Minima of Sunspots and Their 
 Causes. If maximum sunspots coincided with the grouping 
 of the planets upon one side of the Sun, and minimum sun- 
 spots coincided with the even distribution of the planets all 
 around the Sun, it would furnish a beautiful explanation of 
 the phenomena of sunspots, because the grouping upon one 
 side of the Sun of the primary planetary connexions would 
 in effect increase the density and elevation of the solar con- 
 nective atmosphere on that side; which would enable the 
 heated vapor to ascend higher therein and so cool, condense, 
 and fall back again upon the Sun to form the spots; while 
 the even all around distributiion of the planets would imply 
 a uniform height of solar atmosphere and consequent min- 
 imum opportunity for such vapor cooling and condensing. 
 
 That something like this is really the mechanism of sun- 
 spot formation is abundantly verified by the researches of 
 nearly all investigators of this subject. Prof. J. Norman 
 Lockyer quotes from Dr. Peters and Rev. S. J. Perry to show 
 
136] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 241 
 
 that sunspots almost invariably commence life as little dots, 
 which accumulate in larger and larger groups until full spot 
 maturity is attained, usually in five or six days; and that the 
 last act in their history is their invasion and extinction by 
 taculae. These faculae are enormous upheavals of heated 
 vapor which occur only in the neighborhood of spots and in- 
 variably arise subsequently to their appearance. In other 
 words, a facula is the fire and vapor of a burning sunspot. 
 Prof. Lockyer says: 
 
 "We can see that it is the most natural thing in the world 
 to suppose that in an atmosphere like the sun's, seeing that 
 there is enormous radiation and therefore cooling of the ex- 
 terior, there must be a descent of solid particles into the in- 
 terioir heated region. Now can we associate this with spot 
 phenomena? 
 
 "Yes, we can, and we are absolutely driven to it. We 
 have already seen that the spot, when it travels over the 
 limit, is a hollow. We also find when we examine a spot 
 * T itih the spectroscope that certain vapors get very much 
 denser, as if they were being crushed together into a certain 
 limited region either by an up thrust or a downfall. Which? 
 Well, the spectroscope answers that question for us perfectly 
 because it shows that the vapors are absorbing, and therefore 
 that they are cooler than the photospheric material imme- 
 diately underlying them, and that they have not an excess 
 of radiation, as they would have if they came up from below; 
 the vapors there are cooler, as they should be if they came 
 from a cooler place; they are denser, as they should be, if 
 they are descending rapidly into a place which is more or 
 less confined; and, more than all, the change of the refran- 
 gibility of certain lines enables us to determine roughly the 
 rate at which these descents take place. A very common 
 velocity is thirty miles a second."* 
 
 Elsewhere he also states: 
 
 "Above latitude 30 3 , as a rule, we have no spots, because 
 . . . the atmosphere is of lower elevation, so that there 
 is not sufficient height of fall to give the velocities required 
 to bring down the material in the solid form."f 
 
 It has already been observed that the giant planet, Jupi- 
 ter, largely determines the wet and the dry seasons, as well 
 as the wet and the dry periods of years; and that for nearly 
 
 *Nature, 33, 470. 
 fNature, 34, 255. 
 
242 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [137 
 
 a century, the times of sunspot maximum closely coincide 
 with the times this planet comes into opposition with the 
 
 Earth about the middle of the year, and the times of sunspot 
 
 
 minimum coincide with those in which this planet comes into 
 
 conjunction with the Earth about the middle of the year. 
 Now it is generally admitted that the Sun itself is but a 
 greater planet revolving slowly round some distant central 
 body or system. By the new theory the Sun would be pri- 
 marily connected with that distant central system just as 
 Jupiter and its system is with the Sun. The material con- 
 nexions of the Sun with each member of its parent system 
 would, in their totality, be much more dense and voluminous 
 than any of the planetary connexions, just as the Earth's 
 primary connexion is more dense and voluminous than that 
 of the Moon; also it would lie about in the plane of the solar 
 equator for precisely the same reasons that the planetary con- 
 nexions lie in that plane. About every twelve years, there- 
 fore, the primary connexion of Jupiter and the Sun's primary 
 connexion would coincide upon one side of the Sun, and so 
 form the comparatively elevated atmosphere there which, as 
 has just been seen, would facilitate the rapid formation of 
 sun spots. And the fact that maximum sunspots actually oc- 
 curs when Jupiter is on the opposite side of the Sun from 
 the Earth in the middle of the year, points unmistakably to 
 the conclusion that the solar connexion lies in the direction 
 of Jupiter at that time, and that the Earth passes through 
 it in December and January. 
 
 137. The Zodiacal Light and Its Connection With the Sun- 
 spot Periods. Is there any evidence corroborative of this 
 conclusion? Indeed there appears to be a splendid and in- 
 controvertible corroboration of it in the phenomenon of the 
 zodiacal light. This phenomenon, hitherto inexplicable, in- 
 terpreted by the connective theory, is nothing else than the 
 Sun's primary connexion with the central parent system of 
 which the Solar System is an immediate member; and it ex- 
 tends precisely in the indicated direction. 
 
 Regarding the zodiacal light, the peculiar misconception 
 
137] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 243 
 
 apparently everywhere prevails that it is lenticular-shaped 
 and extends equally around the Sun's equator, or at least in 
 two opposite directions from it. But that it extends only in 
 one direction from the Sun is clearly shown by the fact that 
 for about six months of the year (from about August 1 to 
 January 31), it is seen in the east just before daybreak, and 
 that, for a somewhat longer season, (from the end of Octo- 
 ber to about the middle of June), it is visible in the west 
 after sunset. So that for about eight months of the year, 
 it is visible only in the evening or in the morning, that is, 
 on only one side of the Sun; in the month of July, it is -not 
 visible at all, being then behind the Sun: and in November, 
 December, and January, or while the Earth is passing through 
 it, it is visible both in the evening and in the morning of 
 each day. And, moreover, just before the Earth enters it 
 in November, it attains its greatest brilliance in the east, and 
 just after the Earth passes out of it in January, it attains 
 its greatest brilliance in the west. 
 
 If the light really extended equally in all directions from 
 the Sun's equator, or even in two opposite directions from it, 
 why should it not be visible in the month of September, for 
 example, after sunset as well as before daybreak? One re- 
 cent authority answers: 
 
 "The reason it cannot be well seen in the summer and 
 autumn evenings is, that in our latitudes the course of the 
 ecliptic m the southwest is, during those seasons, so near the 
 horizon that the light in question is extinguished by the great 
 thickness of the atmosphere through which it has to pass."* 
 
 Here evidently is another instance of judgment biased by 
 a prepossessed erroneous notion; for he entirely forgets that 
 the same great thickness of the atmosphere would preclude 
 its appearance in the southeast in the morning as well as 
 in the southwest in the evening when in the same paragraph 
 he adds: "It may also be seen rising from the eastern hor- 
 izon just before daybreak in the summer and autmun." 
 
 The error regarding this phenomenon, apparently enter- 
 tained by every astronomer without exception, is so strangely 
 
 *Newcomb's Popular Astronomy, p. 416. 
 
244 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [137 
 
 and palpably at variance with the obvious facts, that it will 
 perhaps excuse here the following lengthy description of it, 
 from a memoir on La Lumiere Zodiacale, by P. Marc Dechev- 
 rens, S. J., who made at Zi-Ka-Wei, near Shanghai, China, 
 regular observations of the zodiacal light from September 1, 
 1875 to September 1, 1879 : 
 
 (a) "The observatory stands in the middle of an immense 
 plain about twenty-five miles from the sea, and in no direc- 
 tion is its horizon broken by the slightest irregularity of the 
 country; moreover, the observatory is isolated and the few 
 neighboring buildings do not render the air impure or inter- 
 fere with the most delicate astronomical observations. 
 
 (b) "When its two branches (the east in the morning, 
 the west in the evening) have the same length not exceed- 
 ing 80 or 90 p the zodiacal light assumes the same shape 
 on either side of the horizon; it is that of a lance-head or of 
 half a lens a Ititle flattened. But when its length reaches 
 90, 100, and beyond, it is rather a long band of light of 
 nearly constant width, whose splendour does not sensibly di- 
 minish even to its extremity, which it is frequently difficult 
 to find among the brilliant stars. Sometimes near the hori- 
 zon the band appears as if it were to be enwrapped near its 
 base in an envelope yet more luminous. 
 
 (c) "The luminosity always appears quite steady and 
 motionless. Its color is always pure white, like to the Milky 
 Way. * * * 
 
 (d) "The luminosity participates in the apparent diurnal 
 motion of all the stars ; this fact has been noticed by all who 
 have observed the phenomena and is opposed to all theories 
 which designate the terrestial atmosphere as the place of the 
 zodiacal light. 
 
 .(e) "The general features already described are not de- 
 rived alone from the observations made at Zi-Ka-Wei; they 
 have been admitted by the earliest observers and are gener- 
 ally adopted by all servants. 
 
 (f) "The following details, undescribed as far as I know 
 by any author, stand out prominently in the whole series of 
 observations. 
 
 (g) "The two branches of the zodiacal light, the eastern 
 in the morning, the western in the evening, neither appear 
 on, nor disappear from, the horizon at the same time; but 
 their maximum of elongation takes place at the same mo- 
 ment. 
 
 (h) "The total duration for their appearance is six 
 months for each branch. 
 
 (i) "The first luminosity in the east appears in the early 
 days of August, and the last dies out at the end of January. 
 
137] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 245 
 
 On the western sid6 the zodiacal light is first observed about 
 the end of October, and entirely disappears in June. 
 
 (j) "Thus, during November, December, and January, in 
 the morning before dawn, and in the evening after twilight, 
 there can be viewed these two luminous bands among the 
 stars, making in that part of the sky an angle of nearly 60 
 with the Milky Way, whose brightness and purity they rival 
 especially in parts nearest the Sun. 
 
 (k) "The eastern branch (in the morning) slowly elong- 
 ates from its first appearance; on the contrary, the western 
 branch (in the evening) rapidly develops, and in a month 
 can reach its maximum of elongation. Inverse phenomena 
 prevail in its disappearance; that is to say, the morning lu- 
 minosity grows faint in a short time after the epoch of its 
 greatest elongation, while in the evening the opposed limin- 
 osity varies very slowly, and disappears almost insensibly. 
 
 (1) "As to the brightness of the two branches the max- 
 imum not coinciding with the greatest elongation was ob- 
 served in November for the eastern and in February for the 
 western branch."* 
 
 Through all this description there evidently runs in the 
 mind of the observer the idea that there are two separate 
 branches of the zodiacal light; whereas, according to the 
 description itself, there can have been but the one branch. 
 The side of the Sun which becomes first visible in the morn- 
 ing and from which the zodiacal light projects, say in Sep- 
 tember, is the opposite side to that which last disappears be- 
 neath the horizon in the evening and from which the oppo- 
 site branch of the luminosity would be seen to project if 
 there were such a branch. But no such branch has ever been 
 seen at that time. It is equally obvious that, if, for sim- 
 plicity, the Sun be regarded as stationary on its axis, the side 
 of it which first becomes visible in the morning from the 
 first of August to the last of October and from which the 
 morning branch is seen to project, is precisely the same 
 side which last disappears in the evening from the first of 
 February till June and from which the evening branch is 
 seen to project, This follows so manifestly from the Earth's 
 motion round the Sun that it were superfluous to dwell upon 
 it further. Therefore, according to the observations from 
 July to November and from January to July, the zodiacal 
 
 *Report of the Chief Signal Officer U. S. Army, 1881, pp. 908-9. 
 
246 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [137 
 
 light is observed to extend only from one side of, or rather 
 in one direction from, the Sun; and so there could be pred- 
 icated from these observations but^one branch of the lumi- 
 nosity. Then as to the three months during which the lu- 
 minosity is visible both in the evening and in the morning of 
 each day, nothing seems plainer, if the luminosity occupies 
 an angular space of some 90 on one side of the Sun,* than 
 that, when the Earth passed into the angular space thus oc- 
 cupied, the luminosity would become visible on both sides 
 of the horizon. Paragraph (k) of the above description 
 really proves that this is the case. The rapid development 
 of the western branch, occupying only a month from its first 
 appearance to its maximum elongation, finds its only explan- 
 ation in the passage of the Earth suddenly into the midst 
 of the luminosity; and the equally rapid decadence of the 
 eastern branch from its maximum elongation to its extinction 
 is explicable only by the sudden passage of the Earth out 
 of the midst of the luminosity. Precisely the same thing 
 happened when the Earth passed through the tail of Halley's 
 comet in 1910, when two tails were seen, one in the east and 
 one in the west during the time of passage. 
 
 This phenomenon is thus somewhat elaborately discussed 
 on account of its great importance in the new theory and 
 also on account of the singular misconception alluded to, 
 which seems to be generally inculcated regarding it 
 
 In the light of the connective theory, it furnishes the most 
 complete explanation of the sunspot periods, compared with 
 which the configurations of the planets alone play but a very 
 subordinate part. The maxima of sunspots occur when Ju- 
 piter's primary connexion is about in the last stage of its 
 coincidence with the "zodiacal light", or as it may now be 
 termed, the Sun's connexion with its primary and sister suns; 
 which at the present time, and for about three-quarters of a 
 century back, would happen when that planet is on the side 
 
 *This does not necessarily contradict paragraph (b) of the foregoing 
 description. The "long band of light" there mentioned may be only the 
 central and densest portion, the rest, that is, the secondary components 
 of the light, being too tenuous to be visible. 
 
138] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 247 
 
 of the Sun where the Earth is in January and February. In 
 the first part of the period of coincidence of the two great 
 connexions, the solar vapors and gases would be ascending, 
 so that the maximum of descent of cooled material would 
 occur in the latter part of that period, or even just after co- 
 incidence was over and the elevation of the solar atmosphere 
 on that side was at a maximum rate of reduction down to the 
 general average. And the time of the sunspot minima 
 (though thus less regularly determined) would, in general, 
 occur when the two chief connexions were as far apart as 
 possible, or when Jupiter occupies that side of the Sun where 
 the Earth is in July and August. It is very obvious also that 
 the maxima and minima of the spots would not be suddenly, 
 but slowly and gradually attained, as the two connexions 
 (modified, of course, by the other connexions also) moved 
 gradually, in the course of five or six years, into, or out of, 
 coincidence. 
 
 These theoretic deductions appear to be strongly corrobo- 
 rated by actual observation. Assuming for the present (what 
 will shortly be more fully shown) that the long streamers 
 or rays of the corona are really portions of the Sun's con- 
 nexions with the planets and other heavenly bodies, the fol- 
 lowing quotation clearly shows the connection of the spots 
 with the movements of the connexions : 
 
 "The coronal streamers follow the spots by which 1 mean 
 that the corona and the coronal streamers put on their great- 
 est intensity, according as the spots have moved nearer the 
 equator. When we have the minimum sunspot period, you 
 can hardly call that equatorial extension a streamer at all, 
 because it is so dim."* 
 
 When the spots move nearer to the equator, it is about 
 the time of maximum sunspots, and this, we are told, is the 
 time v-hon the coronal streamers put on their greatest in- 
 tensity, in precise accordance with the theory, f 
 
 138. Explanation of Anomalous Sunspot Periods. But 
 
 *.T. Nci man Lockyer, Nature, 34, 44. 
 
 iTho vaiicus peculiarities of sunspots, such as their equatorial drift- 
 ing ar.d t'uir gi eater angular velocity in the U wer latitrdt-s <f th un. 
 will VM discussed farther on. 
 
248 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [138 
 
 still this explanation is apparently imperfect; for, if we go 
 back as far as fairly reliable sunspot records extend, we 
 find that Jupiter no longer comes into opposition with the 
 Earth in July and August, but rather towards the end of 
 the year, Thus, in the sunspot maxima of 1829, 1817, and 
 1804, the times of opposition of Jupiter were in December, 
 December, and November, respectively; while in the maxima 
 of 1790 and 1779 they come back again as far as September. 
 It has been observed, however, that the three former sunspot 
 maxima were of little more than half the average extent.* 
 
 Indeed, there appears to be between one and two cen- 
 turies at that time during which the sunspots were very ir- 
 regular; for in the period 1672-1713, there were scarcely any 
 spots at all.f It is significant, however, that the elonga- 
 tion of the zodiacal light suffered a corresponding diminu- 
 tion in these times. J It is possible that these facts may be 
 accounted for by the compound nature of the zodiacal light, 
 or, in other words, the Sun's connexion with its primary and 
 sister suns. If the system of which the Sun is a planetary 
 member should have a giant sister sun near the latter, as 
 Jupiter is to the Earth, the Sun's connexion with such a body 
 might easily change its direction from the Sun by a consid- 
 erable .angle in the course of a few centuries, just as the 
 direction of Jupiter's connexion with the Earth changes with 
 respect to the latter body in the course of a few months. 
 This would obviously profoundly modify the angular distri- 
 bution and density of the Sun's connexion. 
 
 The Sun is said to have a proper orbital motion of its 
 own of some 20 miles per second, the apex of which is said 
 to be in or near the constellation Hercules, This direction 
 of the Sun's motion, which is nearly that of the greatest 
 linear extension, or towards the center, of the sidereal sphere, 
 does not harmonize with the new views, for it is almost in 
 the direction opposite to that in which the Sun's primary 
 
 *See Prof. Balfour Stewart's diagram, Nature, 33, 252. 
 
 fNature, 39, 469. 
 
 tSee O. T. Sherman's diagram, Nature, 38, 595. 
 
139] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 249 
 
 theoretically lies, that of the zodiacal light; whereas it should 
 be at right angles to the latter. However the subject is only 
 in the first stages of its investigation and may be affected 
 by some error. According to the netv theory the Sun lies 
 nearly between its own primary system and the center of 
 the Sidereal System; and if it revolves about in the same di- 
 rection and plane as the Earth does around itself, it should 
 move towards the constellation Virgo in R. A. 180, instead 
 of towards the constellation Hercules in R. A. 270. 
 
 Now if the precession of the equinoxes be chiefly due 
 to the Sun's orbital motion in a plane somewhat different 
 from that of the ecliptic, as the new theory appears to post- 
 ulate (in place of the rather lame explanation of it based on 
 the theory of gravitation), it indicates a period of some 25,- 
 000 years for the Sun's orbital revolution, and, of course, 
 a considerably smaller period for a supposed inner giant sis- 
 ter sun, the direction of whose connexion with the Sun is 
 supposed to change. Such conditions would easily permit of 
 a gradual change from a more diffuse or evenly distributed 
 form of the Sun's connexions with its primary and sister 
 suns to such a degree of concentration some two centuries 
 ago as would account for the observed change of sunspot 
 phenomena at that time. Also movement of external sister 
 suns would cause precisely similar effects. 
 
 139. Existence of Invisible Heavenly Bodies. It is true 
 that, from the present view-point, we observe no stellar par- 
 allax of sufficient magnitude to account either for the Sun's 
 revolution in this period or for the supposed motion of a 
 isister sun. But from the new view-point, the sun is located 
 comparatively near the center of the Sidereal System, which 
 would evidently lessen the apparent displacement of the 
 outer stars due to the Sun's motion. The stars of the sys- 
 tems more central than that of the Sun would be smaller 
 than in the outer systems, as in the Solar System, and might 
 for this reason be invisible to us. If the Sun's velocity be 
 20 miles per second and its period 25,000 years, as suggested 
 in the preceding article, the distance of its primary would 
 
250 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [140 
 
 l>e over two millions of millions of miles (about 800 times 
 the distance of Neptune); and, by analogy, the distance of 
 the next system inwards would be so much greater that the 
 theoretically smaller bodies there "would be beyond our tel- 
 escopic vision. And as for the sister suns whose motions 
 would disturb the distribution of the Sun's principal connex- 
 ions, and whose parallaxes would evidently be greater than 
 any yet discovered, they may be dark bodies and invisible 
 for that reason. Of the principal planets and satellites of 
 the Solar System not one is self-luminous according to the 
 present theory; and by the new theory, not less than nine 
 out of every ten would be invisible to us if not illuminated 
 by some other body. The same conditions may supervene in 
 the larger system of which the Sun is a planet; and the cen- 
 tral body or sun of a system is just as likely to be dark, 
 from surface development, as the other principal members. 
 
 The subject is a vast one, and this explanation is offered 
 as a mere conjecture. But the observed fact that the zodi- 
 acal light diminishes in density and elongation contempora- 
 neously with the irregularity and diminution of the sunspots, 
 evidently points to some such relationship of the phenomena 
 concerned. In any case, the maxima and minima of sunspots 
 are determined, according to the new theory, by the conjunc- 
 tions and oppositions of Jupiter, principally, witn respect to 
 the zodiacal light. Conjunction of these two factors has co- 
 incided with maximum sunspots and opposition with mini- 
 mum sunspots lor nearly a century past; both coincidences 
 have the appearance of continuing for many years to come; 
 and, so tar as known, when one of the two factors is weakened 
 in intensity or individuality, the sunspot phenomena become 
 correspondingly irregular, or almost entirely disappear. 
 
 This is not the first time that the movement of the planet 
 Jupiter (and of other planets also) has been suspected of 
 bearing a definite relation to the sunspot periods. But owing 
 to the disparity of the two periods that of Jupiter being 
 11.86 years, while the sunspot cycle is about 11.2 years the 
 theory has not been generally accepted. By the new theory 
 
140] CONNEXIONS, SUNSFOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 251 
 
 this disparity is modified by the actions of the three other 
 outer planets and, at the present time, very probably also 
 by the angular variations of the zodiacal light. 
 
 140. Sidereal Connexions and Sunspots. Still another 
 difficulty has, no doubt, oceured to trip reader. The zodiacal 
 light, or the Sun's primary connexion, extends from that lu- 
 minary in one direction, but the line of greatest sidereal 
 extension is almost exactly in the opposite direction; and 
 since trie greatest amount of solar connexions must lie in this 
 last direction, how can it be that, when Jupiter's connexion 
 coincides with it, there is a minimum of solar atmospheric 
 elevation and, consequently, of sunspots? The new theory 
 meets this with the answer that, as already intimated on 
 several occasions, it is not the quantity of the connexions 
 which affects the solar, or any other, atmosphere so much 
 as the kind. The sidereal connexions on the one side are 
 about all with distantly related bodies. They have been 
 sifted again and again from the secondary connexions of the 
 successive orders of the sidereal sub-systems down to the 
 Solar. At every sifting the stronger components of the con- 
 nexions were, in all probability, left behind, and the more 
 superfluous, least used, and weaker components taken up. 
 So that when the Sun, as it separated from its parent sun, 
 took up its due proportion of the already more than thrice- 
 blown sidereal connexions of that body, the very faintest, 
 weakest, and literally most useless components must have 
 fallen to its share. 
 
 And these are the connexions which, though comparatively 
 i^reat in quantity, owing to the comparative greatness of their 
 number, extend from the Sun in the opposite direction to that 
 of its primary connexion. The latter, on the contrary, is in 
 its pristine strength, and, together with the next most im- 
 portant connexions in this respect (with the exception of the 
 primary connexions of the planets), namely, the secondary 
 connexions with the Sun's sister planets, it serves as a sup- 
 port, in and around which the surrounding solar atmosphere 
 may collect and up-climb. The Sun's primary connexion is 
 
252 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [141 
 
 also in a state of strain, owing to its function of restraining 
 the Sun in its orbital motion, and this strain would, of itself, 
 serve to elevate the solar atmosphere within it; .whereas the 
 shlere.il connexions have no su:h^ restraining function, ara 
 too refined even to transmit heat-motion, -md serve onJ\, to 
 convey a faint amount of light, and even this possibly con- 
 sisting of the most refined components of lif.ht-motion. All 
 this is also implied in the application of the connective the- 
 ory to the cosmical distribution of heat and light, and to the 
 aerial and the oceanic tides, and is further elucidated in the 
 discussion of these subjects. 
 
 141 Connective Variation Upon the Earth by the Sun's 
 Primary System. The variation upon the Earth of its con- 
 nexions with the Sun's primary system has already been 
 included in the sidereal factor, because both have practically 
 the same period. At the present time, however, these two 
 factors are almost diametrically opposed. In effect It amounts 
 to the same as if the sidereal factor had been found less 
 powerful, or the solar factor more powerful, by the amount 
 of the factor now considered. The annual results and indica- 
 tions of table III are wholly unaffected by it for reasons al- 
 ready stated. And, at the present time, it appears to be of 
 theoretical importance as corroborating the Flood legends al- 
 ready referred to. Since the Sun's parent is presumably 
 much larger than the Sun itself, the value of the variation of 
 this component can not be much less than that of the solar 
 factor. Indeed, if we should assume that the former were 
 as much larger than the Sun, as the latter is larger than the 
 Earth, then the density of the Earth's connexion with the 
 Sun's primary might be no less than that of the Earth's con- 
 nexion with the Sun itself; in which case it would be some 
 GO times more powerful than the solar factor, because its 
 linear variation is that much greater. Now as the Sun very 
 slowly revolves around its primary, this factor, instead of 
 being in opposition with the sidereal factor, as both it and 
 the solar factor now is, would eventually be brought into 
 conjunction with the sidereal factor, and so cause much more 
 
142] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 253 
 
 intense periods of precipitation and drouth than the conjunc- 
 tion of the latter with the solar factor. And if the period 
 of the Sun's orbital revolution be only 25,000 years, such 
 conjunction would have happened some 12,500 years ago. 
 This period is less than one-fourth the greater period of the 
 solar factor; so that approximate conjunction of all three 
 factors would take place at rarer intervals. This obviously 
 would modify the age of the Earth as determined from the 
 present rate of denudation and deposition. 
 
 The last remaining significant factor of the connective 
 variation in our atmosphere has now been considered, The 
 almost geometrically diminishing massiveness of the con- 
 nexions with the arithmetically diminishing relationship of 
 the bodies they connect (owing partly to the smallness of the 
 derived, as compared with the primary, bodies) would render 
 the value of any individual connexion between bodies related 
 beyond the second degree of kinship, too small to affect 
 perceptibly the results already obtained. 
 
 142. The Solar Corona. Since, in the crepuscular light of 
 the dawn and the twilight, there is faintly observable the 
 Sun's primary connexion, or at least a portion of what we 
 suppose to be the Sun's primary connexion, extending out- 
 wards to its parent system, the question arises Why are we 
 not able to observe the planetary connexions at the same 
 time? The answer is that the planetary connexions are sup- 
 posably much less voluminous and massive than the solar 
 connexions; and that, consequently, the former, if visible 
 at all, would be so only in the immediate neighborhood of 
 the Sun, where, perhaps, extremely rare gaseous constit- 
 uents arising from the Sun itself might contribute to their 
 visibility. But, at the time the "zodiacal light" is observed, 
 the immediate neighborhood of the Sun is, of course, below 
 the horizon. 
 
 There are, however, certain rare occasions when the face 
 of the Sun is hid from, while its immediate neighborhood is 
 exposed to, our view: and these occasions furnish us the 
 strongest possible evidence confirmatory of the existence of 
 
254 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [142 
 
 these connexions, as above surmised. When the Sun is 
 eclipsed by the Moon, rays, or streamers, are seen to pro- 
 ject outwards from the solar surface in various directions 
 and to various distances. Prof. Langley stated that, in the 
 eclipse of 1878, the streamers could be traced to a distance 
 of 14,000,000 miles. The effects of fore-shortening would 
 probably add considerably to this value. These streamers 
 appear perfectly steady and permanent so long as circum- 
 stances permit them to be seen at one time; but between 
 one eclipse and another, they vary their positions; so that, 
 in two eclipses separated by some five or six years, their 
 positions are not at all alike. 
 
 What are these rays or streamers of the Sun's corona? 
 The most eminent students of solar phyics tell us frankly 
 that they do not know. 
 
 "The sun is doubtless surrounded by a gaseous atmos- 
 phere of a certain extent, but there are a number of reasons 
 why ihe corona should not be regarded as a prolongation of 
 this atmosphere. A gas even a hundred or a thousand times 
 lighter than hydrogen, at the height of the corona, would, 
 at the sun's surface, be heavier than metals; a state of 
 things which spectroscopic and other observations show can 
 not be the true one."* 
 
 The same scientist also speaks of "the relative perma- 
 nency of the coronal forms during several weeks", and states 
 further: "If the forces to which the corona is due resides 
 in the sun, the corona ought, of course, to revolve with it; 
 but if the corona is produced by causes extraneous to the 
 sun, it may be otherwise." The fact is that the corona does 
 not revolve with the Sun, as its "relative permanency during 
 several weeks" indubitably attests. But that it has a pecul- 
 iar revolution of its own, the following extract from an ex- 
 cellent authority sufficiently proves: 
 
 "If the photographs taken during eclipses in the past 
 twenty years are compared with each other, it will be seen 
 that the corona varies in a regular way with the state of the 
 sun's surface, although there are irregular minor changes. 
 At the sunspot minimum, the corona is much more regular 
 
 *Dr. Huggins, Royal Institution, Feb. 20, 1884. 
 
142] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 255 
 
 than at the sunspot maximum. At the maximum there is 
 practically no regularity at all; the long streamers go up 
 sometimes in one direction and sometimes in another, and 
 this last year (1882), near the sunspot maximum, there was 
 absolutely no symmetry in the appearance of the corona."* 
 
 This, as well as the quotation from Lockyer (Art. 137), 
 is in precise accordance with the theoretic conclusion just 
 discussed regarding the relative aggregation of the principal 
 connexions at maximum sun-spots and their more equable 
 diffusion on all sides of the Sun at sunspot minimum. 
 
 By the new theory, the coronal phenomena are understood 
 at a glance to be nothing more than the Sun's connexions 
 with the heavenly bodies. The solar connexions with certain 
 bodies would, at times, owing to the varying positions of 
 these bodies, lie in about the same direction from the Sun, 
 and thus would become visible to us as a "ray", or "stream- 
 er", or "radial glory." The visibility could not extend very 
 far, however, as the connexions diverge as they proceed out- 
 wards from the Sun, and thus the density of the "ray" is 
 diminished. It also becomes intelligible that the positions 
 of the "streamers" do not vary during the time of any one 
 eclipse, but that, during the far greater period between eclip- 
 ses, remarkable changes in their positions take place; all of 
 which observation shows to be the case. Another signifi- 
 cant feature is described by Lockyer as follows: 
 
 "At both the poles, north and south, there is a wonderful 
 curving, right and left; this out-curving having been one of 
 the most exquisite things wnich it is possible to imagine. 
 
 "There is further evidence indicating that the equatorial 
 extension on the photograph may only, after all, have been 
 a part of a much more extended phenomenon, one going to 
 almost incredible distances considering it as a solar atmos- 
 phere from the sun iself. 
 
 "It has already been stated that at that eclipse one ob- 
 server took exterme precautions to guard his eyes from being 
 fatigued by the light of the inner corona, which sometimes 
 is so bright that observers have mistaken it for the limb of 
 the sun itself. What this gentleman, Prof. Newcomb, did 
 was to erect a screen which covered the moon and a space 
 12' high around it. The result was, that as soon as he 
 took his station at the commencement of totality, he saw a 
 
 *Prof. Edward S. Holden, Account of Progress in Astronomy in 1883. 
 
256 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [143 
 
 tremendous extension of the sun's equator on both sides of 
 the dark moon, the extension being greater than that recorded 
 in the photograph. It does not follow that the photograph 
 gives us the totality of the extension; it may be that the 
 extended portions may have bee.n so delicately illuminated, 
 that they would not impress their image on the photographic 
 plate in the time during which the plate was exposed, or that 
 the light itself was poor in blue rays. So considerable was 
 this extension, amounting to six or seven diameters of the 
 dark moon, which practically may be taken to be the same 
 as that of the sun behind it, that Prof, Newcomb had at once 
 suggested to him the zodiacal light . . . The drawing made 
 in 1867 gives us the same result. We again get the equatorial 
 extension east and west, and the wonderful outcurving right 
 and left from the sun's poles."* 
 
 As all the members of the Solar System, and also in all 
 probability the Sun's primary and sister system's lie very 
 nearly in the plane of the Sun's equator, this "tremendous 
 extension of the corona in the direction of the solar equator", 
 as well as "the wonderful outcurving right and left from the 
 sun's poles", become at once intelligible by the new theory, 
 and serve moreover as a wonderful corroboration of it 
 
 By this theory all other bodies of our system have a corona, 
 as well as the Sun. But as the latter is a central body 
 and vastly larger than any of them its corona would there- 
 fore be far more dense, and so more likely to be visible to us. 
 
 143. Relative Visibility of the Various Solar Connexions, 
 and their Real Direction^ as Viewed in the Rays of the 
 Corona. But a further question arises If some of the plane- 
 tary connexions are visible at the time of a solar eclipse, 
 ought not the solar connexion, or the zodiacal light, owing to 
 its greater density and prominence, to be much more con- 
 spicuously visible, and to a vastly greater distance? To 
 which the reply is, that while the solar connexion would for 
 this reason be more conspicuously visible and, in general, 
 very probably is so it would not reasonably be expected to 
 be seen to a much greater distance owing to the much greater 
 amount of sunlight in the air during an eclipse than at the 
 time it is viewed as the zodiacal light. 
 
 As the real position-angles of the coronal streamers 
 
 *Nature, 34, 42-3. 
 
143] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 257 
 
 have not in the past been very systematically observed, it is 
 extremely doubtful that the real positions of the planets 
 could be deduced from the apparent positions of the coronal 
 rays observed in past eclipses. But one eclipse, that of July 
 29, 1878, observed on the summit of Pike's Peak, Colorado, 
 from the minute details of it given in the Report for 1880 of 
 the Chief Signal Officer, U. S. Army, who, with several other 
 distinguished observers, was personally present, appears 
 strikingly to show the two principal connexions in opposition 
 with each other (it being the year of sunspot minimum), the 
 solar connexion extending outwards in the background be- 
 yond the Sun, and that of Jupiter extending in the direction 
 of the Earth, the two planets being then almost exactly in 
 conjunction. These two great streamers and their apparent- 
 ly direct opposition to one another, are the only prominent 
 characteristics of the corona observed on the Peak itself, and 
 they are the most prominent characteristics in the twenty- 
 seven sketches of the eclipse at different places which accom- 
 pany the Report,. 
 
 "The positions of the rays or beams seen by the different 
 observers all agree with each other within the limits of 
 accuracy of the sketches. However various may have been 
 the impressions received by the observers, yet each failed to 
 see and record any material change during the two or three 
 minutes that the corona was visible to him. We thus have 
 twenty-five little intervals of two or three minutes each, 
 many of which overlap each other so that in effect there is 
 a continuous line of testimony to the permanence of the 
 corona." (p. 922). 
 
 A casual glance at the streamers (as observed on the 
 Peak by H. H. C,. Dunwoody, for instance) does not, indeed, 
 give the impression that one of them extends towards the 
 observer and the other beyond the Sun; for both apparently 
 extend at right angles to the line of sight. But this would 
 obviously be the case Ijpwever small the inclination to the 
 line of sight (the Earth was 4^ in advance of Jupiter at 
 the time, and, it being about 4 o'clock P. M., local time, Jup- 
 iter's connexion would therefore appear to extend from the 
 upper left-hand corner of the Sun), for the same reason that 
 the rays of a lighted candle, which really enter the nearly 
 
258 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [144 
 
 closed eye of the observer, appear to him to extend from the 
 flarne in opposite directions almost at right angles to their 
 real direction. It is therefore a matter of some difficulty to 
 determine the real drections in which the coronal streamers 
 extend; and too much, perhaps, is assumed when the two 
 principal connexions in the sketches alluded to are regarded 
 as in opposition. But the prediction is here ventured that, 
 with more systematic observations in the future with respect 
 to this special subject, the directions of the coronal rays will 
 be found to coincide exactly with those in which the bodies 
 lie to which they respectively extend; and two of these bodies 
 will be Jupiter and Saturn, while one or more will lie beyond 
 the planetary limits and belong to th Sun's parent system.* 
 Indeed, only nine years after this prediction was first 
 published, there appeared the following corroboration of it: 
 
 "In the picture of the solar corona in the eclipse of Aug. 
 9, 1896 presented here by Nicolaus Kaulbars (Lieutenant- 
 Gtneral and Chief of Staff Finland Miltiary District) of Solar 
 Eclipse Expedition, Russian Astronomical Society, Jupiter's 
 streamer is seen extending to the right to just about the 
 position of that planet as seen from the Earth at that time.f 
 
 144. Summary of Results from Planetary Connexion Va- 
 riatons. The inquiry into the connection between the plane- 
 tary motions and the phenomena of precipitation in our 
 atmosphere, spots on the Sun, the zodiacal light, the solar 
 corona, etc., is now completed; and while no evidence what- 
 ever, going to disprove such connection has been met with, 
 many valuable evidences have been found which go to prove 
 that such connection really exists. The principal portions of 
 these evidences may be here briefly recapitulated. 
 
 According to the principal assumption of the connective 
 theory that the planets are connected with the Sun and with 
 one another by material cords or connexions, the relative 
 
 *The present writer, during a visit to one of the most prominent ob- 
 servers of solar eclipses, personally appcalvd to him to make a special 
 object of determining the real directions of the coronal streamers in fu- 
 ture eclipses, with special reference to the positions of the principal 
 planets. He expressed his belief at first that these extended in all direc- 
 tions from the Sun, and it was extremely difficult to make him compre- 
 hend the effect of foreshortening, as explained above; but he finally 
 admitted it. However, after many years of waiting, subsequent inquiry 
 by letter elicited no response whatever regarding this point. 
 
 fNature, 55, 298. 
 
144] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 259 
 
 variations of the supposed connective substance in the case 
 of each principal planet of the Solar System were computed, 
 and these bodies which, other things equal, produced com- 
 paratively insignificant variations, were disregarded. Cal- 
 culating the variations for each of the remaining bodies for 
 each month of a period of nearly a century, and obtaining the 
 algebraic sum of the results, both for each month and for 
 each year, the first evidence in favor of the existence of 
 such interplanetary connexions was brought to light in the 
 fact that the periods of years during which the quantity of 
 the connective substance in our atmosphere would be below 
 the average and above the average, were found to be almost 
 precisely parallel with the periods of years during which the 
 area of black spots on the Sun was below the average and 
 above the average, respectively; the chance occurence of such 
 a parallelism for so long a period on any other basis being 
 deemed improbable in the highest degree. 
 
 The second evidence for the existence of material inter- 
 planetary connexions was the equally exact coincidence of 
 the periods during which the connective substance in our 
 atmosphere would be above the average with those periods 
 during which the auroras and the quantity of atmospheric 
 precipitation were actually observed to be in excess of the av- 
 erage; and also with those in which the barometric pressure 
 was observed to be below the average; the most reasonable 
 view being that a considerable excess of the connective sub- 
 stance in our atmosphere would cause a corresponding excess 
 of auroras (which would be merely streams of the connective 
 fluid itself), and of atmospheric precipitation (which would, 
 in part, be simply a condensed form of the connective fluid) ; 
 the diminution of pressure accompanying the excess of con- 
 nective substance being due to the high elevation, or region 
 of diminished attraction of gravity, which the rarer atmos- 
 pheric vapors are, in consequence of the more elevated con- 
 nective atmosphere, enabled to attain,* 
 
 *In autumn, the Earth approaches the Sun and also the Sun's primary 
 two of the principal sources of connective variation upon the Earth. 
 It has occurred to the writer that one form of precipitation due to the 
 accumulation of connective substance then taking place in our atmosphere 
 owing to this cause, may be the otherwise mysterious gossamer, or 
 
260 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [144 
 
 The third evidence supporting the material planetary con- 
 nexions was the correspondence of the deductions derived 
 from them to the views of modern astronomers, according 
 to which our world is situated considerably to one side of the 
 center of the Sidereal System. 'Agreeably to this view, the 
 connective substance would accumulate on the Earth while it 
 was moving towards the point in which the greatest linear ex- 
 tension of the heavens from the Earth lies, and would be 
 drained away while moving in the opposite direction. The 
 former movement occurs in the first half of the year, imply- 
 ing, when necessary allowances are made, more than the 
 average precipitation during our summer season; and the lat- 
 ter occurs in the latter half of the year, equally implying less 
 than the average precipitation in our winter season all of 
 which is in accordance with actual observation. 
 
 The fourth evidence found in support of material plan- 
 etary connexions was the simple manner in which the sun- 
 spot periods admitted of explanation by means of them. It 
 was found that the sunspot maximum nearly always occurred 
 when the great planet, Jupiter, was in a certain longitude 
 with respect to the Sun, or in the neighborhood of the great 
 stars Aldebaran, Capella, Sirius, Alpha and Beta Orionis, 
 Procyon, Pollux, and Regulus all of which are of the first 
 magnitude and form such a splendid galaxy as no other area 
 of the heavens can nearly approach. Pushing the inquiry 
 further it was found that the vast luminous band called the 
 zodiacal light extended precisely in this direction, and occu- 
 pied approximately the same heliocentric angle as the group 
 of stars just named. It became evident, therefore, that the 
 so-called zodiacal light is nothing else than the material con- 
 nexions uniting our Sun with bodies not very distantly re- 
 
 "Marien-faden" (our Lady's winding-sheet), which appears usually at 
 this time of the year, and consists of tufts of very light, white material, 
 like spider-web, floating in the air. The usual explanation assigns it as 
 the product of some insect; but the writer has frequently observed it in 
 clear, frosty weather forming over a whole field of newly ploughed soil, 
 each freshly turned furrow being covered in a few minutes with a net- 
 work of extremely fine, tense lines, like spider-lines, visible only at a 
 certain angle with the rays of the Sun, and no insect whatever, or any 
 other apparent cause, visible either in earth or air. Indeed, it seems not 
 improbable that various kinds of connexions accumulating in our atmos- 
 phere, under various conditions, would occasion various forms of precip- 
 itation. 
 
145] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODICAL LIGHT, CORONA 261 
 
 lated to these stars and others in this neighborhood. And 
 the sunspot maximum would be due to the aggregation upon 
 one side of the Sun of Jupiter's primary connexion and the 
 Sun's connexions with these bodies. For, by means of this 
 aggregation of connexions on one side of the Sun, the solar 
 vapors would be enabled to ascend to comparatively great 
 elevations, where they would cool, condense and fall 
 to form the spots, in exact accordance with the ob- 
 servations and deductions of all modern students of solar 
 physics. This view was further corroborated when it was 
 found that the sunspot minima corresponded, with about 
 equal exactness, to the times during which the planet Jupiter 
 lay in the direction from the Sun opposite to that which it 
 occupied at maximum sunspots. 
 
 And the fifth and last principal evidence in favor of the 
 existence of material planetary connexions is that we actually 
 see them with t|he naked eye, not only in the zodiacal light, 
 but also in the streamers of the corona. It is possible that 
 these streamers and coronal rays are not material connexions 
 extending outwards from the Sun to neighboring heavenly 
 bodies; but they certainly present the exact appearance 
 which such material connexions would make on every occa- 
 sion of their observation; and they certainly have remained 
 for all these centuries up to the present time confessedly 
 inexplicable on any other basis. And the same remark also 
 applies to the sunspots, the zodiacal light, and the known 
 variations of the numbers of the auroras and the amounts of 
 atmospheric pressure and precipitation. 
 
 145. Possible Objections to the New Theory. These are 
 strong, apparently incontrovertible evidences in favor of the 
 connective theory. What are the evidences against it? Will 
 it be adduced as an evidence against it that the opposed 
 force-theory has been long established and is generally ac- 
 cepted? Perhaps so; but against such evidence argument is 
 useless. 
 
 One serious objection, and apparently the only one which, 
 so far, seems assignable, is the various effects upon terrestrial 
 heat, light, and gravitation which the deduced various quant- 
 
262 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [145 
 
 ities of connective substance in our atmosphere might be 
 supposed to predicate. Thus the solar connexion is probably 
 as dense for equal volumes as any other which falls upon 
 our planet. How is it, then, that on the side of the Earth 
 upon which this connexion falls, the attraction of gravitation 
 is not measurably increased, since it is upon the density of 
 this connective atmosphere that the attraction is held chiefly 
 to depend (Art. 97) ? In other words, why does not an ob- 
 ject weigh more during the day than it does during the night? 
 Also the enormous accumlations and drains caused by the. 
 predominant sidereal connexions would not they also be 
 accompanied by corresponding variations in the light, heat, 
 and gravitation manifested upon our Earth, since it is upon 
 the quantity of the connective atmosphere that these phe- 
 nomena also depend? 
 
 Precisely similar questions might be asked of the present 
 theory also, and not wholly without reason; for at mid-day 
 an object at the equator is not only about 8000 miles nearer 
 the Sun than at midnight, but the opposing centrifugal force 
 around the Sun is less at the former than at the latter by 
 double the velocity of the Earth's axial rotation; the attrac- 
 tion of the latter being the same in both cases. According 
 to the law of gravitation, a pound weight should, for this 
 reason, be about 1/3 of a grain less in the night than in the 
 day; a quantity easily within our ability to measure, if it 
 existed. And a similar difference would be caused also by 
 the Moon. 
 
 According to the new theory, it may be stated first that, 
 as already intimated, the connective atmosphere of the Earth 
 is made up of innumerable individual connexions connexions 
 not only with all the heavenly bodies visible to the naked 
 and the telescopic eye, but also with countless others of which 
 the eye or the telescope furnishes no evidence. It seems 
 reasonable to suppose, therefore, that the density of an 
 atmosphere thus constituted would not be affected by the 
 addition or withdrawal of any one connexion, even that with 
 the Sun, to any sensible degree. Owing to the eccentric 
 position of the Earth with regard to the celestial sphere, there 
 
145] CONNEXIONS, SUNSPOTS, ZODIACAL LIGHT, CORONA 263 
 
 would obviously be a greater number of connexions, and 
 therefore a possibly denser connective atmosphere on that 
 side of the Earth on which the greater portion of the sidereal 
 sphere was situated. But granting that the connective atmos- 
 phere on one side would be very considerably increased ow- 
 ing to this cause, or a combination of similar causes, it is also 
 true that the supposed change of density would take place 
 slowly, and, as the movements of the free or reserve con- 
 nective substance in our atmosphere is much more rapid, is, 
 in fact, literally as quick as lightning, there would be ample 
 time for the free connective substance to move from the side 
 of greatest pressure to the opposite side, and thus continually 
 maintain a very approximate uniformity of density on all 
 sides of the Earth. Of course it is not implied here that 
 greater elevation of the connective atmosphere does not 
 occur on one side of the Earth than upon the other. Such 
 greater elevation of the connective atmosphere (accompanied 
 no doubt by greater aerial elevation) would be owing to the 
 location of principal primary connexions on that side, and 
 would, therefore, of itself, tend to equalize the distribution 
 of connective density and pressure. 
 
 A further consideration is that the connective atmosphere 
 itself does not revolve with the Earth in its diurnal rotation. 
 It is, indeed, bodily carried along with the Earth around the 
 Sun; but it is absolutely fixed with respect to its axial rota- 
 tion. Therefore, an equable distribution of pressure or den- 
 sity, once attained, would be unaffected by an accumulation 
 or drain from any particular direction. 
 
 If it be objected that the density (and consequently the 
 functions) of the connective atmosphere, as a whole, changes, 
 from time to time, with the variations of its connective sub- 
 stance, it may be replied that the connective atmosphere of 
 the Earth is vastly more extensive than the limits either 
 assigned or assignable to its aerial atmosphere. Thus the 
 influx or the efflux of the enormous volumes of connective 
 substance involved by the variations of the terrestrial con- 
 nexions has a correspondingly inferior effect on the connect- 
 ive density. And another consideration in this respect is 
 
264 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [145 
 
 that an increase of connective pressure and consequent den- 
 sity above the normal, even if it did exist to some extent in 
 particular localities, would quickly be relieved by precipita- 
 tion of the surplus connective substance into some form 
 amenable to the attraction of gravity, and therefore no longer 
 contributing to the sum of that attraction. The converse of 
 this is equally true. A deficiency of connective pressure and 
 density would be relieved by transformation of previously 
 precipitated forms into the original state. So that, very prob- 
 ably, no perceivable variation of connective substance could 
 exist in our atmosphere owing to this cause. 
 
 But supposing that variations in the density and functions 
 of the connective atmosphere did actually exist; that, for 
 instance, the absolute effect of the attraction of graviy is 
 really variable within tolerably wide limits it might be in- 
 quired in turn how we could ever become conscious of such 
 a variation. We never could detect it by means of the bal- 
 ance, for obvious reasons. And if it be replied that the 
 variation might still be detected by means of the elastic 
 strength of springs, or by means of muscular sense and 
 strength, the inquiry at once occurs Is any one really pre- 
 pared to demonstrate that the elastic strength of springs, 
 and even the energy of muscular action, and the resistance 
 to the motion of a pendulum, would not be affected in pre- 
 cisely the same manner as the attraction of gravity? May 
 not every molecule of the spring, and of the muscle, and even 
 of the perceiving brain, have a proper connective atmosphere 
 of its own (as Helmholtz and others have suggested), upon 
 the density of which the energy of their action depends, and 
 the density and energy of which are in turn dependent on the 
 density and energy of the general atmosphere? 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 GENERAL METEOROLOGICAL PHENOMENA. 
 
 At altitudes above 100 kilometres there is supposed to be 
 no trace of anything but the lighter gases, especially hydro- 
 gen (and geocoronium, if it exists). C. CHREE. 
 
 It can be argued on the hydrodynamic or vortex theory 
 of matter, as well as on the electrical theory, that every atom 
 of matter has a universal, though nearly infinitesimal, prev- 
 alence, and extends everywhere, since there is no definite 
 sharp boundary or limiting periphery to the region perturbed 
 by its existence. DR. OLIVER J. LODGE. 
 
 The diurnal oscillations of the barometer occur alike over 
 the open sea and over the land surfaces of the globe. The 
 atmosphere over the open sea, as already shown, rests on the 
 floor or surface subject to a diurnal range of temperature 
 so small as to render that temperature practically a constant 
 day and night. This consideration leads to the vital and all- 
 important conclusion that the diurnal oscillations of the ba- 
 rometer are not caused by the heating and cooling of the 
 Earth's surface by solar and terrestial radiation and by the 
 effects which follow these diurnal changes in the tempera- 
 ture of the surface, but that they are primarily caused by the 
 direct and immediate heating by solar radiation, and the cool- 
 ing by nocturnal radiation to the cold regions of space, of 
 the molecules of the air, and of its aqueous vapor. These 
 changes of temperature are instantly communicated through 
 the whole atmosphere from the lowermost stratum resting 
 on the earth's surface to the extreme limit of the atmosphere, 
 which the flight of meteors prove to be not less than 500 
 miles. A. BUCHAN. (Meteorology, Ency. Brit.) 
 
 (Let the reader endeavor to harmonize this last explana- 
 tion, which is just as good as any in the textbooks, with the 
 actual facts. The almost exact similarity of barometric phe- 
 nomena in the day and in the night, even in the polar regions, 
 where the nights and days are months long, seems to be en- 
 tirely lost sight of.) 
 
 146. Atmospheric Extension. It has been noticed (Arts. 
 136-7) that the solar atmosphere extends to very great dis- 
 tances from the Sun's surface, and that this atmospheric ex- 
 
266 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [147 
 
 tension is greater, at times, in certain directions than in oth- 
 ers. From analogy, the same condition of things in the 
 Earth's atmosphere as a whole may also be deduced. It was 
 once thought that the height of the atmosphere was 5 miles; 
 then, later on, 45 miles. The various appearances of meteor- 
 ites indicate today a height of from 300 to 500 miles. Indeed 
 "It would be a very bold proposition to assign a limit to 
 the atmosphere within 1000 miles."* 
 
 There is reason for believing, however, that atmospheric 
 ail 1 would not increase in tenuity and height to an indefinite 
 distance, and neither would the connective atmosphere, ex- 
 cepting the individual connexions. The connective atmos- 
 pheres of smaller bodies are observed to be of comparatively 
 minute extension; and there appears to be no reason why the 
 Earth should be an exception to this rule. 
 
 147. Aerial Tides and Barometric Pressure. For the 
 reasons already stated (Arts, 140-1), the two primary connex- 
 ions upon the Earth, or those connecting it with the Sun and 
 Moon, have a profound influence upon the atmosphere of our 
 globe; piling it up at certain places and times, in waves called 
 tides, while at other times they absorb its rarer gases out- 
 wards to greater distances from the planet's surface. Owing 
 to the diurnal rotation of the Earth, all portions of its sur- 
 face are successfully swept over from east to west by these 
 connexions; which, being material, would tend, in a degree, to 
 drag the floating atmospheric particles through which they 
 move along with them, and so give rise to the aerial tides. 
 The existence of these aerial tides would be indicated by the 
 barometer, an instrument for measuring the pressure, and 
 therefore, supposedly, the quantity or mass of air, at invar- 
 iable distances, vertically above it; and that they are indica- 
 ted by it, is now generally accepted. 
 
 What is remarkable about these aerial tides, however, is 
 that the solar tide is much greater than the lunar tide, and 
 this apparently not because of the Sun's heat or any other 
 solar influence, but due solely to the Sun as a tide-producer. 
 A few quotations on this subject from the best authorities, 
 
 *I'roC. A. R. Russel, Smith. Miscel. Coll., No. 1072. 
 
147] GENERAL METEOROLOGICAL PHENOMENA 267 
 
 is well worthy of perusal, if only as illustrating their non- 
 plussed predicament regarding this matter: 
 
 "For the British Isles the barometric pressure has two 
 maxima and two minima each day the first minimum early 
 in the morning, the second in the afternoon, the first max- 
 imum in the forenoon and the second about 10 o'clock in the 
 evening. In the tropics the amplitude of the oscillation 
 amounts to about one-tenth inch; in the British Isles and 
 all similar latitudes, this gradually decreases to about 3/100 
 inch."* 
 
 "Lunar air-tides can, according to M. Bouquet de la Gyre, 
 be distinctly traced in the records of barometric pressure col- 
 lected at insular stations . . . where there are no power- 
 ful disturbances to obscure them . . . The maximum 
 amplitude at Brest is about 1/4 inch of water or 1/50 inch of 
 mercury, which though small, is well within the limits of 
 accurate measurement."! 
 
 "If we examine the facts as recorded by the barometer, we 
 find . . . the semi-diurnal oscillation extremely regular 
 in amplitude for places in the same latitude and in phase for 
 places in the same longitude. The first thing that suggests 
 itself is that this is a tide caused by the Sun's attraction; 
 but the corresponding lunar tide ought to be more marked, 
 whereas, actually, the lunar tide is almost absent . 
 Lord Kelvin was the first to suggest that the semi-diurnal tide 
 was a temperature effect. The daily variation of tempera- 
 ture is not harmonic, and when it is analyzed there is a defin- 
 ite component with a half day period. The objection to 
 attributing the semi-diurnal pressure variation to this is that 
 the latter is extremely regular, while the temperature varia- 
 tion changes considerably with the locality. "$ 
 
 "After having given the mean range for each month and 
 for the year, he has calculated the amplitudes and phases 
 of the first four simple harmonic oscillations into which the 
 complex oscillation of the barometric diurnal range may be 
 resolved, and which may be considered as the resultant of 
 the superposition of two waves of different origin and char- 
 acter. One of these, which the author terms the thermic 
 wave, is of a more or less complicated form in appearance, 
 and is easily explained as being produced by the diurnal 
 
 *Mr. R. H. Curtis, Nature, 61, 119. 
 
 t Nature, 51, 516. 
 
 JProf. Horace Lamb, British Association, 1908. 
 
 M. A. Angot, of the French Meteorological Office, who has publish- 
 ed in the Annales of that Office a very careful discussion of the diurnal 
 range of the barometer, based upon the best available data for all parts 
 of the globe. 
 
268 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [147 
 
 variation of temperature, and by the differences that these 
 variations present between neighboring stations. The other, 
 the principal semi-diurnal wave, for which he has given the 
 numerical law, presents a much more simple form, and is 
 not at all affected by local conditions. It is possibly pro- 
 duced by the calorific action of the Sun upon the upper strata 
 of the atmosphere; but, as the author states, this is still only 
 an hypothesis, and the theory of this part of the phenomenon 
 remains to be established."*, 
 
 "Somehow or other this protuberance remains fixed with 
 regard to the sun, at which it indirectly points, while the 
 solid earth revolves beneath it. Whatever the cause of this 
 effect, obviously cosmical, and attributed to the sun, . . . 
 it is now accepted as one of the fundamental facts of meteor- 
 ology.''! 
 
 From these extracts it will be noticed that the solar tide 
 is just about as much larger than the lunar tide as, according 
 to the present theory, the lunar tide should be larger than 
 the solar tide. Of course this fact remains so far without 
 the slightest tenable explanation; but with the new theory, 
 it fits perfectly hand-and-glove. 
 
 There are over the greater portion of the Earth's surface, 
 two maxima and two minima of air-pressure every 24 hours. 
 The two daily maxima are in the morning and in the evening, 
 about from 8 to 10 A. M., and from 8 to 11 P. M., and the two 
 daily minima are intermediate, or at about 2 to 4 A. M. and 
 1 to 4 P. M. The observations made by the Challenger Ex- 
 pedition in the Antarctic Ocean, and those made by the Nor- 
 wegian Expedition in the North Atlantic, show only one max- 
 imum and one minimum in the 24 hours, the maximum occur- 
 ring in the day and the minimum during the night. This is 
 another fact which is wholly inexplicable by the current the- 
 ory, but is exactly what the new theory requires. 
 
 According to the connective theory, the morning and the 
 evening maxima would correspond to the passage of the east 
 and the west edges of the solar connexion, or bond, over the 
 Earth's surface; the rays or filaments of the bond, being at- 
 tached to the atmospheric particles as well as to the land and 
 ocean particles, would have a tendency, as they were success- 
 
 *Nature, 41, 449. 
 
 tDr. W. N. Shaw, Address British Association. Dublin; Nature, 78. 
 429. 
 
148] GENERAL METEOROLOGICAL PHENOMENA 269 
 
 ively transferred from one set of particles to another, to pile 
 them up somewhat upon one another at those portions of the 
 Earth's surface where the strain of the connective filaments 
 operated at right angles to terrestrial gravity, and where the 
 only resistance, therefore, to such piling up would be the 
 mutual friction of the atmospheric particles. The two minima, 
 being about midway between the maxima, would evidently 
 correspond to the center of the solar connexion, where the 
 connective strain would be directly opposed by gravity, and 
 where the rarer vapors ascend, and to the side of the Earth 
 diametrically opposite to the center of the solar connexion, 
 upon which no connective strain whatever is exerted. The 
 single maximum of the higher latitudes, with respect both to 
 the Sun and to the Moon, at about the middle of the respect- 
 ive day of each, just as obviously corresponds to the north 
 and the south edges of their respective connexions, the cen- 
 tral or denser portions of which pass but once daily over any 
 place, and which would cause a slight movement of the air 
 particles in latitude, as the east and the west edges did in 
 longitude; and the single minimum would likewise correspond 
 to the opposite side of the Earth upon which were no solar 
 or lunar connexion. And the solar tide is the greater for the 
 simple reason that the strain on the Earth's solar connexion 
 is greater than on the Earth's lunar connexion in the exact 
 ratio observed, or about as 5 to 2. 
 
 Here the new theory and the phenomena of Nature fit to- 
 gether so perfectly that it were superfluous to dwell longer 
 upon the subject. It may be noticed, however, that, in ascend- 
 ing from middle to higher latitudes, the phase, or time of 
 maximum or minimum barometric pressure would not be the 
 same at all places along any meridian, as it should be by the 
 present theory, but would lag and advance at northern and 
 southern stations as compared with middle localities, in 
 accordance with the circular contour of the edges of the con- 
 nexions. This too appears to be fully borne out by actual 
 observation. 
 
 148. Cloud Zones. In further corroboration of the gen- 
 eral theory, it may be noticed that the barometric pressure 
 
270 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [149 
 
 is somewhat greater within the tropics, and that the clouds 
 are distributed in zones parallel to the Equator. M. L. Teis- 
 serence de Bort has shown, by charts based on observations 
 made at 500 stations, and on an immense number of observa- 
 tions collated by the Meteorological Office in Paris, 
 
 "(1) that there is a marked tendency in all months towards a 
 distribution of cloud in zones parallel to the equator; (2) 
 when disturbing influences are eliminated, it is seen that 
 there is a maximum amount of cloud near the equator; that 
 there are two belts of slight nebulosity from 15 to 35 of 
 north and south latitude, and two zones of greater cloudiness 
 between latitudes 45 and 60, and that beyond this (so far 
 as can be judged from observations in the northern hemis- 
 phere) the sky appears to become clear towards the Poles; 
 (3) these zones have a tendency to follow the march of the 
 sun's decimation; they are transferred towards the north in 
 spring and towards the south in summer.* 
 
 It would also be inferred from the new theory that the 
 upper currents of the equatorial belt would tend continually 
 to follow the movement of the primary and planetary con- 
 nexions over the Earth's surface that is, from east to west; 
 or, in other words, tend to remain stationary among the com- 
 paratively fixed connexions while the Earth revolves from 
 west to east beneath them; and this, according to the best 
 authorities, is now admitted to be the fact. In this connection, 
 E. Douglas Archibald, of the Krakatao Committee, says: 
 
 "Theory is naturally, perhaps, though still somewhat sing- 
 ularly, silent as to what is supposed to be the motion of the 
 air in the upper regions of the belt bunded by 15 on either 
 side of the equator. Ferel's equations are' not very satisfac- 
 tory for this place. . . . That the wind there, however, 
 still maintains its westward component under the normal 
 conditions which accompany the north and south trades is 
 plain both from Mr. Abercomby's and other observations.! 
 
 149. Sky-Glows. An extraordinary terrestrial phenom- 
 enon seems to have placed this westerly equatorial current 
 beyond dispute. On the 26th day of August, 1883, occurred a 
 frightful eruption of the volcano Krakatao, on the island of 
 Java, in which 50,000 people lost their lives. Enormous vol- 
 
 *Nature, 36, pp. 15-16. 
 
 tNatur*, 36, 153. 
 
149] GENERAL METEOROLOGICAL PHENOMENA 271 
 
 umes of smoke, dust, and ashes were ejected upwards into 
 the air. for a distance of many miles. Almost immediately 
 afterwards appeared in the surrounding region the peculiar 
 sunset glows which afterwards became so prominent nearly 
 all over the world. Here is the sequence of the first appear- 
 ance of this phenomenon in different parts of the world, as 
 given by Mr. Ralph Abercromby: 
 
 "On August 26, the day of the eruption, ashes, lofty haze, 
 or red twilights, are reported south of the equator, nearly 
 20 of longitude west of Java, from one station in Sumatra, 
 just north of the line, and from near Formosa. 
 
 "Next day, the 27th, similar phenomena were reported 
 from many stations in the Indian Ocean, south of the equator, 
 as far west as Mauritius and the Seychelles, while north of 
 the line strange appearances were reported for the first time 
 in Borneo and Ceylon. 
 
 "On the 28th, the haze and abnormal glows had extended 
 to Natal on one side and Japan on the other. 
 
 "No important extension of the area is reported on August 
 29; but by the 30th unusual coloration of the sky is reported 
 from various parts of the South Atlantic and Guiana, and, 
 what is especially noticeable, from about the Cape Verde 
 islands, north of the equator. 
 
 "On the 31st, another station in Brazil, and also a West 
 Indian island, report a strange look about the sun or sky; 
 while on September 1 the same was noted at Guayaquil, on 
 the coast of South America; and in a quite unexpected local- 
 ity, far away from there New Ireland. 
 
 "September 2 was characterized by an outburst of colored 
 suns all over the northern provinces of South America; while 
 between the 3rd and fourth of the same month the glows ex- 
 tended across the Pacific, both north and south as far as the 
 Society and Gilbert Islands, and were reported from two sta- 
 tions in New Britain. 
 
 "By September 5 the Sandwich Islands were reached while 
 the outburst of glows in Southern India did not commence till 
 about the 6th to 8th of the same month. 
 
 "The northward extension of the dust all this time was 
 very small and not widespread. Isolated phenomena are re- 
 ported from Formosa on August 26, and from Japan on the 
 28th, but I am unable to say whether the glows which ap- 
 peared in the Sandwich Islands on September 5, had come 
 via Japan, or across South America. 
 
 "Thus the general system of the dust-flow appears to have 
 been very simple. The great dust-stream was carried for the 
 first twenty-four hours by the normal easterly upper currents 
 over the south-east trade, at the extraordinary rate of about 
 120 miles an hour, but hardly extended north of the line. 
 Three days after the eruption we find the products of Krak- 
 
272 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [149 
 
 atao in Guinana, the South Atlantic and also north of the 
 line in the Cape Verde Islands. Just to the south of the lat- 
 ter we know that the south-east trade with its attendant upper 
 currents, crosses the equator. Then all the north of South 
 America was invaded; and six or seven days after 
 the first outburst, the Pacific Islands south of or on the 
 line were also overshadowed. 
 
 "In fact we may say, that the great streams of Krakatao 
 dust was carried nearly round the world by the usual upper 
 winds of the south-east trade, in which the dust was first 
 ejected, at a rate of about 120 miles an hour, and that the dust 
 spread very slowly either north or south of the main cur- 
 rent."* 
 
 The most serious objection that has been offered against 
 this explanation of the sky-glows of 1883-4, is the enormous 
 velocity with which the volcanic ejecta must have been car- 
 ried round the world; a greater velocity, in fact, than had 
 ever before been observed in atmospheric currents. A partial 
 explanation of this was that the velocity of atmospheric cur 
 rents near the Equator was shown by observation to increase 
 with the elevation. But of this fact of greater aerial velocity 
 at greater elevations there seems to have been no explanation 
 offered, as Mr. Archibald in the foregoing quotation has ob- 
 served. By the new theory, however, the explanation is ob- 
 vious at a glance. The rarer and more volatile aerial fluids 
 which ascend to the greater elevation are more easily de- 
 tained by the nearly stationary connexions of the Earth. As 
 our planet performs its diurnal rotation, the connexions fall- 
 ing upon it remain absolutely fixed so far as that rotation is 
 concerned. The lower and grosser strata of air freely permit 
 the passage through them of this connective substance, but 
 the higher and higher strata, becoming more and more ten 
 uous and of less and less momentum, would more easily suffer 
 detention by the connective substance, until, at very great 
 elevations, the aerial tenuity would almost approximate that 
 of the connective substance itself, and so suffer complete de- 
 tention. Thus while the Earth revolved from west to east in 
 every 24 hours, the upper aerial regions remaining nearly or 
 wholly stationary (but gradually partaking more and more 
 
 *Nature, 36, pp. 86-7. 
 
149] GENERAL METEOROLOGICAL PHENOMENA 273 
 
 of the Earth's rotation as the Earth's surface is approached) 
 would seem to an observer near the Equator to be moving 
 with great velocity from east to west. And;, therefore, 
 when the equally tenuous and volatile smoke and dust of 
 Krakatao were ejected into these slowly moving or nearly 
 stationary upper regions of the connective atmosphere, they 
 would be partially retained therein, and the Earth's surface 
 would revolve under them towards the east until, in the 
 course of a few days, it had gained an entire revolution upon 
 the ejected substance. Thus the extremely rapid apparent 
 westward movement of the ejecta appears to be fully account- 
 ed for, while the north and south movement of the same 
 would just as obviously require a much longer period because 
 it would be accomplished only by diffusion and occasional 
 local currents. 
 
 Here, then, are additional important phenomena which 
 are confessedly wholly inexplicable by the current theory, 
 but which are explained perfectly by the new theory. The 
 same explanation may also apply to some epidemic diseases 
 such as influenza, cholera, the black plague, etc., (the ma- 
 terial cause of which may possibly be, partly, the accumla- 
 tion in our atmosphere of some peculiar substance from inter- 
 planetary spaces), which occasionally appear to be trans- 
 mitted over the Earth's surface almost precisely in a similar 
 manner. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE OCEAN TIDES 
 
 The waves which forever disturb the surface of the sea 
 demand much study. The greater of these, and the most reg- 
 ular, is the tidal wave. On this many powerful intellects 
 have been brought to bear, but it still presents many un- 
 solved anomalies. . . . 
 
 In some places there is but one appointed tide in the day: 
 in others this phenomenon only occurs at particular periods 
 of each lunation, while in the majority of cases it is the 
 movements of each alternate tide only that appear to have 
 much to do with one another. 
 
 CAPTAIN W. J. L. WHARTON. 
 
 The great danger which besets all men of large speculative 
 faculty is the temptation to deal with the accepted facts in 
 natural science as if they were not only correct but exhaust- 
 ive; as if they might be dealt with deductively, in the same 
 way as propositions -in Euclid may be dealt with. In reality 
 every such statement, however true it may be, is true only 
 relatively to the means of observation and the point of view 
 of those who have examined it. So far it may be depended 
 upon. But whether it will bear every speculative conclusion 
 that may be logically deduced from it, is quite another ques- 
 tion. PROF. HUXLEY. 
 
 The human intellect, in those things which have once 
 pleased it, (either because these have been received and be- 
 lieved, or because they delight) draws also all other things to 
 vote with and consent to these and though the weight and 
 multitude of contrary instances be the greater, yet either it 
 does not observe them, or despises them, or draws distinc- 
 tions, and so removes and rejects them not without great 
 and pernicious prejudice in order that the authority of those 
 previous conclusions may remain unshaken. LORD BACON. 
 
 150. Comparison of the Two Theories. The same general 
 explanation applies to the ocean as to the aerial tides. The 
 two tidal waves would correspond to, and, on the open ocean, 
 would nearly always accompany, the east and the west edges 
 of the lunar or the terrestrial primary connexion. And the 
 two tidal troughs or depressions would correspond to, and 
 
150] THE OCEAN TIDES 275 
 
 generally accompany, the central meridian of the connexion 
 (where the tide-raising force was directly opposed by grav- 
 ity) and the opposite meridian upon which the connexion did 
 not act. Owing to the far greater density of the water, and 
 the ease and rapidity of its wave transmission, these tidal 
 waves and depressions would quickly assert themselves over 
 the entire ocean surface contiguous to each connexion border, 
 and so largely overwhelm or mask the minor single wave 
 which, but for this circumstance, would alone take place in 
 the higher latitudes, as in the case of the aerial tide. 
 
 According to the popular theory of the tides, the tidal 
 wave is raised by the attraction of the Sun or the Moon upon 
 the central meridian directly beneath its orb, where it is 
 directly opposed by the twelve million fold more powerful 
 terrestrial gravity (Art. 44) ; whereas, by the new theory, the 
 tidal wave is raised at the east and the west borders of the 
 Earth as viewed from the tide-producer, and where the tide- 
 raising force is at right angles to, and therefore wholly un- 
 opposed by the Earth's attraction. According to the popular 
 theory, tidal waves and depressions are nearly always delayed 
 for relatively great periods after their causes; the "establish- 
 ment" or "age of the tide," that is, the interval of time be- 
 tween the transit over a meridian of the body which origi- 
 nates a tide and the appearance of the tide itself at that mer- 
 idian, being supposed to vary at different places from a 
 few hours to several days. While, strangely enough, the 
 "tidal interval," or difference between the time of high water 
 and that of the transit of the tide-producer immediately pre- 
 ceding the tide, is known rarely to exceed seven hours; the 
 average "tidal interval" being about six hours. Thus the 
 "age" of the tide on the east coast of the United States is 
 held to be about a day, and in Cumberland Sound, British 
 America, nearly two days; while the new theory would make 
 the age of the tide at both places about six hours; correspond- 
 ing with the actual observed angle of separation of the tidal 
 wave from its producer. As for the ports upon a western 
 continental coast, such as London, they would by the new 
 theory have no proper tide at all, but simply a branch or 
 
276 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [151 
 
 secondary wave spreading outwards from the proper tidal 
 wave in accordance with well-known hydro-static laws. 
 
 151. The Greater Tidal Wave Due to the Sun and the 
 Lesser to tine Moon. Now if the new theory be the correct 
 one, the solar tide ought to be nearly two and a half times 
 as great as the lunar tide because the strain of the solar 
 connexion upon the Earth is about that much greater than 
 the strain of the lunar connexion. It has already been noticed 
 that this is actually the case with respect to the aerial tide; 
 which very obviously is in direct opposition to the current 
 theory and in favor of this view. In any event, this is just 
 what the new theory teaches, not only with respect to the 
 aerial tides, but also with respect to the oceanic tides. The 
 greater tidal wave would be owing to the Sun, and the lesser 
 to the Moon. The terms of the ratio of the two tides would 
 be almost precisely the same (though very differently de- 
 rived) in the one theory as in the other, but the new theory 
 takes the reciprocal of the old for the new ratio. The pull 
 of the Earth's connexion with the Sun is such as to deflect 
 the Earth from a tangent to its orbit about 0.01 ft. in one 
 second of time. The pull of the Moon's connexion with the 
 Earth is such as to deflect the Moon from a tangent to its 
 orbit about 0.00447 ft. in one second. These pulls by the new 
 theory represent exactly the tide-raising values of the con- 
 nected bodies respectively upon the Earth, and, therefore, the 
 solar tide-raising power is more than twice as great as the 
 lunar tide-raising power, or the two have just about the same 
 ratio as the actual tides. 
 
 Now the angular difference between the solar and the 
 lunar tide at no time exceeds six hours, according to either 
 theory. But, what is of the utmost importance in this con- 
 nection, it will also be observed that the angular difference 
 of the effective directions in which the tide-raising powers of 
 the two theories act, is also just six hours. From which it 
 clearly follows that a change from the adoption of the central 
 meridian of the Earth's hemisphere next to the tide-producer 
 to the adoption of the east and west edges of that hemisphere 
 as the lines of application of the tide-raising power must 
 
152] THE OCEAN TIDES 277 
 
 necessarily involve the adoption of the supposed lunar tide 
 as being due to the Sun, and of the supposed solar tide 
 as being due to the Moon. In other words, if the lunar and 
 the solar tides are on the average six hours apart, and if an 
 error of just six hours is shown to be involved by the present 
 theory in the origin of each tide, a correction of the error 
 would put the lunar tide exactly in the place of the solar 
 tide, and vice versa. 
 
 But the new theory does involve a difference of just six 
 hours in the place of origin of each tide, as indicated by the 
 present theory; and, therefore, it follows that the adoption 
 of the former instead of the latter theory involves the sub- 
 stitution or transposition of each tide in the one theory as 
 an effect of the producer of the other tide in the other theory. 
 
 152. Possible Objections. No doubt it will be at once 
 objected to this view that the tide now ascribed to the Moon 
 can not be assigned to the Sun for the reason that the two 
 bodies do not travel at the same angular rate around the 
 Earth, and, therefore, the Sun would not keep pace with the 
 tide, as it ought to do if the new theory were correct. Now 
 it is a fact that the tidal wave approximately keeps pace with, 
 the Moon. The latter body comes to the meridian of any 
 place about 49 minutes on the average later on any particular 
 day than on the preceding day, and the tide also appears at 
 any particular place in approximate parallelism with the 
 Moon's meridian passage at that place; while, of course, the 
 Sun comes to the meridian of any place once in every 24 
 hours, and, therefore, out of all conformity to the appearance 
 of the tides. 
 
 In reply to this apparently very serious objection, we may 
 first note that there is only one tidal wave upon a hemisphere 
 of the Earth at one time and but one also upon the opposite 
 hemisphere at that time. In other words, any place upon the 
 Earth has no more than two high tides and two low tides in 
 any 24 hours; and this although, according to either theory, 
 there are two tide-producers each of which would cause two 
 nigh tides and two low tides in about that time. It is to be 
 borne in mind that a tidal wave due to any tide producer 
 
278 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [152 
 
 would cover nearly a whole oceanic hemisphere of the tide- 
 bearer at once. We know this from the fact that at any par- 
 ticular place it requires about five Jiours for any tide to flow 
 and about six hours for it to ebb,. Now since there are two 
 tide-producers each of which alone would cause two tidal 
 waves, it follows that the utmost angular distance between 
 the crest of one wave and that of some neighboring wave 
 would not exceed 90; and even at this maximum distance, 
 the one would lap considerably over the other. In fact, it 
 appears that, even at this maximum distance, the crest of 
 each wave unites with that of the other at some intermediate 
 point to form one compound tidal wave with a single apex 
 at that point; and thus it happens that, with the two tide- 
 producers, there are but two tidal waves. In the more ele- 
 gant words of Sir John Herschel 
 
 "The actual tide-day, then, or the interval of the occur- 
 rence of two successive maxima of their superposed waves, 
 will vary as the separate waves will approach to or recede 
 from coincidence; because when the vertices of the two 
 waves do not coincide, their joint height has its maximum 
 at a point intermediate between them." 
 
 Also Prof. Tait 
 
 "The joint effect of the sun and moon is practically the 
 resultant of the effects which they would separately pro- 
 duce/' * 
 
 Here, then, is the explanation of the nonconformity of the 
 tidal wave with the Sun's apparent motion. The wave does 
 not, as a matter of fact, conform generally either to that of 
 the Sun's apparent motion or to that of the Moon: 
 it nearly always conforms only to the apparent motion 
 of a variable point either between the two bodies or between 
 their tides,. Let us suppose for illustration that the Sun and 
 the Moon are together; in which case the tidal wave obvious- 
 ly conforms to the position of both bodies. Suppose now 
 that the Moon moves some 30 in advance of the Sun; then 
 the apex of the tide would also move in advance of the Sun 
 conformably to a point between the two bodies. This would 
 
 *Ency. Brit., 9th ed., 15, 687. 
 
152] THE OCEAN TIDES 279 
 
 obviously cause a lagging of the tide behind the Sun 
 at any particular place upon the Earth. If the Moon moves 
 90 in advance of the Sun, then the apex of the tide also 
 moves still farther in advance of the Sun, and there would 
 be still further lagging of the tide behind that body. 
 As the Moon moved away from the Sun, the height 
 of the tidal wave continually diminished; so that when 
 the former was 90 in advance of the latter, the 
 tide, as such, would be at its minimum hieght. After the 
 Moon's distance from the Sun exceeded 90, the former apex, 
 still advancing, would continue to sink still lower, and a new 
 apex would form still farther in advance in conjunction with 
 the opposite solar tide. This new apex would increase in 
 height and advance rapidly with the Moon at first, but more 
 slowly as the Moon's distance from the Sun neared 180; at 
 which positions the tide would be again at its maximum 
 height, and its apex would again conform to the positions of 
 both bodies. Thus, between conjunction and opposition of 
 the two tide-producers, there is a continual advance of the 
 tidal apex from the Sun, and therefore a continual 
 lagging of the tide behind the Sun at any particular place 
 upon the Earth. In fact, in half a synodic revolution of the 
 Moon or in about 15 days, the tidal apex advances from west 
 to east around the Earth a distance of 180, or just the same 
 distance that the Moon moves around it; so that the Moon 
 and the tide, while not maintaining an exactly parallel con- 
 formity throughout, yet move around the Earth at precisely 
 the same rate on the average. From opposition back to con- 
 junction, the same reasoning would apply; and just the same 
 movement of the oposite tidal wave around the Earth would 
 take place as that of the one we have considered. Many 
 circumstances would modify the general result, however, 
 such as the varying distances of the tide-producers, implying: 
 their various angular velocities around the Earth, and conse- 
 quently various strains of their connexions upon the waters 
 causing various heights of the tides. 
 
 Generally, according to this theory, the greater amount of 
 lagging of the tides behind the Sun would be at the Moon's 
 
280 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [153 
 
 quadrature, or when the tide is at its minimum height, and 
 the least amount of lagging of the tide would be at the 
 syzygies, or when the tide is at its maximum. The amount 
 of lag would thus theoretically vary from a few minutes to 
 about two hours in a period of "twenty-four hours ; which 
 appears to be fully borne out by actual obsevation, 
 
 153. Corroborative Evidence from Inland Sea Tides. It is 
 only on the ocean surface, however, that, at great angular 
 distances, the crests of the lunar and of the solar tides 
 would always blend into one common apex. Upon lakes and 
 inland seas, tides would be produced by only one of the two 
 bodies when they are about 90 apart, because the area of the 
 water surface is so small that when one body would be in a 
 position to produce a tide upon it, the tide-raising effect of 
 the other body would be shut out by the land surface sur- 
 rounding the water. Thus, under these circumstances, the 
 tide of one body would be isolated from that of the other, and 
 if the new theory be the correct one, the solar tide would be 
 the larger of the two, and would occur regularly every twen- 
 ty-four hours. 
 
 Now, upon most lakes and inland seas the tides are so 
 small, owing to their smiall areas, as almost to escape detec- 
 tion. This, however, is not the case on the western end of 
 funnel-shaped Green bay, a western arm of Lake Michigan; 
 where it has already been shown (Art. 49) how morning and 
 evening tides of considerable size regularly occur. It has 
 also been shown in the same place how much greater daily 
 tides occur on the Mediterranean Sea, and how the gravita- 
 tional formula of the tides fits so badly with the facts that 
 it becomes necessary to assume a terrene tide responding 
 "twice in the twenty-four hours to the deforming force of 
 solar gravitation." 
 
 To these instances may be added the fact that the Severn 
 Bore occurs regularly every evening and morning "at about 
 7:30 to 9 o'clock A. M. and P. M."* The height of this 
 river tide is three to four feet, and it is best seen about one 
 day after new or full Moon. 
 
 *Vaughan Cornish, Nature, 62, 126. 
 
154] THE OCEAN TIDES 281 
 
 It is also a well-known fact that the average semi-diurnal 
 aerial tide is observed to be one-tenth greater at the time of 
 perihelion than at the time of aphelion,* and that, although 
 the theoretically more powerful lunar tide ought to be 49 per 
 cent, greater at perigee than at apogee, f the actual difference 
 of the aerial tide owing to this cause is so minute as almost 
 to escape detection. 
 
 It has already been observed that the freedom with which 
 wave motion is transmitted over the ocean surface permits 
 the masking of the single tidal wave in each day which other- 
 wise would appear in high latitudes, in correspondence with 
 the single diurnal aerial tide actually observed there. But 
 the "singular misbehavior of the sea, which does not main- 
 tain a constant level, its fluctuations being due, according to 
 Prof. Darwin, to the irregular melting of ice in the polar re- 
 gions," J indicates that in some localities, or on some occa- 
 sions, the single diurnal wave of the polar regions is not 
 always wholly obliterated. 
 
 How many other observations, similar to those described 
 in the abstracts given in Art. 49 and elsewhere, have been 
 made and failed to receive publicity because directly con- 
 tradicting a universally accepted theory, is left to the reader 
 to imagine. The wonder is that even these have been brought 
 to light when either they or the current tidal theory, being 
 directly at variance with each other, must be absolutely er- 
 roneous. See again the analect quoted from Lord Bacon 
 at the head of this chapter. 
 
 154, Discordance of Present Tidal Theories. The larger 
 phenomena of the tides, both aerial and oceanic, are thus 
 seen to harmonize perfectly with the gene/al principle of the 
 new theory; and there seems little room for doubt that the 
 minor details will fit equally well. There appears to be no 
 objection whatever to the application of the new theory to 
 account for the actual facts obesrved; while the old theory, 
 on the contrary, has always been, and is today, a jumble of 
 
 *Alexander Winchell, World Life, p. 349. 
 tNature, 43, 586. 
 JNature, 62, 488. 
 
282 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY j 154 
 
 inextricable contradictions. There is no present theory of 
 the tides which answers all the requirements of tidal phenom- 
 ena. The Wave Theory of Sir G." B. Airy fails in its appli 
 cation to the open ocean. The Dynamical Theory of La- 
 place fails in its application to shallows, estuaries, and rivers. 
 And the Equilibrium Theory of Newton and Bernoulli! is 
 pronounced simply "contemptible" by Sir G, B. Airy.* 
 
 *Prof. Alexander Winchell, World-Life, p. 225. 
 
 I. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 
 
 In the Journal de Physique, Nov. 1899, M. A. B. Chauveau 
 discusses the diurnal variations of atmospheric electricity, to 
 explain which no less than about thirty different theories 
 have been proposed. Nature, 61, 136. 
 
 As to the causes of the secular change, various hypoth- 
 eses have been advanced,. Thus in the early part of the 
 last century, Halley considered the change was chiefly caused 
 by a terella with two poles. . . . rotating within and 
 independently of the outer shell of the earth. . . . the 
 axes of the two globes being inclined to one another, but hav- 
 ing a common center. Again, Hansteen at the beginning of 
 the present century concluded that there are four poles of 
 attraction, and computed both the geographical positions and 
 the probable period of revolution of the dual system of poles 
 . around the terrestrial pole. In later years Sabine 
 considered the secular change to be caused by the progres- 
 sive translation of the point of attraction at present in North- 
 ern Siberia, this point of attraction resulting from cosmical 
 action. Walker also agreed with Sabine as to the cosmical 
 origin of the change, Later still, Balfour Stewart gave rea- 
 sons for attributing the secular variation to the result pf so- 
 lar influence of a cumulative nature. Keeping in view these 
 hypotheses and recalling the results of observation during 
 recent years, how do they accord? Observation generally 
 points to the fixity of the magnetic poles. . . in respect 
 to the geographic poles. E. W. CREAK. 
 
 A series of articles on the origin of the earth's magnetic 
 field have appeared in Terrestrial Magnetism during the last 
 two years from the pen of the editor of that journal, Dr. L. 
 A. Bauer. The subject has been recently dealt with by Prof. 
 Schuster in his address to the Physical Society of London and 
 by Dr. W. F. Swann in the July number of the PJiil. Mag. The 
 conclusion to which each examination leads is that none of 
 the present theories offers a satisfactory explanation of the 
 earth's magnetic state. Nature, 90, 287. 
 
 155. The Idea of an Immaterial Substance. Examining 
 
284 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [156 
 
 mjore closely the conception of the Earth which the new the- 
 ory implies, it is seen that our globe revolves annually around 
 the Sun in what is called the plane of the ecliptic; and that 
 it also rotates diurnally upon an axis which is inclined from 
 a perpendicular to this plane at an angle of about 23.5. The 
 present theory is that the Earth is substantially isolated 
 from all other heavenly bodies; that it is held to the Sun 
 by an entity called force; an immaterial thing which is cap- 
 able of acting upon it through millions of miles of perfectly 
 empty space; and that the heat of the Sun and the light of 
 the Sun and stars, which are diffused equally in all directions, 
 are transmitted to it by the vibrations of an imaginary and 
 unaccountable universal etherial medium, which the re- 
 searches of recent years have compelled a belief in as an 
 indispensable vehicle for the transmission of heat and light 
 phenomena. It seems quite impossible for the mind to grasp 
 any conceivable mechanism which would serve as a basis 
 for such conceptions; and, as an apparent consequence, they 
 lead to a great deal of mental confusion. It may be, as 
 Prof. Huxley says, that "an immaterial substance is perfectly 
 conceivable", and "may have any conceivable properties"; 
 which proposition, he says, "may be affirmed with. complete 
 dialectic safety inasmuch as they cannot possibly be dis- 
 proved,." But whatever may be the "dialectic safety" of their 
 affirmation, their essential elements seem utterly to elude 
 the grasp of the intellect. An immaterial substance appears 
 to be about as intelligible or conceivable as a cold heat, a 
 void plenum, or a black white; each of which is, in plain 
 words, a contradiction in terms, and cannot, therefore be 
 regarded as conceivable in any proper sense of that word. 
 But such are nevertheless, the so-called conceptions by 
 means of which many phenomena are sought to be inter- 
 preted, and such appears to be that in the popular theory 
 regarding the Earth's connection with the Sun, 
 
 156. Differentiation of the Earth's Connexions. Accord- 
 ing to the new theory, the Earth is the center of a very great 
 number of material connexions, or bonds, with other heavenly 
 bodies. These envelope it on all sides in what may be termed 
 
156] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 285 
 
 a connective atmosphere, which, as far as the daily rotation 
 of the Earth is concerned, remains fixed, and in which the 
 body of the Earth, with the atmosphere proper, or the air, 
 performs its daily rotation. The connective atmosphere, as 
 already intimated, is much rarer than the air; so much so, 
 indeed, that when the air is about all extracted from a space 
 near the Earth's surface, it is said to be an empty space 
 or vacuum, although all of the connective atmosphere which 
 the space originally contained still remains in it. There- 
 fore, the friction which the rotation of the Earth in the 
 connective atmosphere would engender, would reasonably be 
 very small indeed; but still, the connective atmosphere being 
 material, there is supposably a certain amount of friction. 
 Now the individual connexions which make up this connec- 
 tive atmosphere are supposed to differ materially from one 
 another, and the degree of difference very probably corre- 
 sponds to the degree of relationship of the connected bodies 
 with the Earth, Thus the grosser connexions would be those 
 with the Sun and the Moon, which are respectively the pa- 
 rent and offspring of our world, the next in grossness would 
 be those with sister planets and our grand-sun, then those 
 with our grand-grand-sun, sister suns, and the satellites, and 
 so on back to the remote bodies of the Sidereal System, and 
 perhaps even to innumerable other sidereal systems 
 
 But, as already intimated elsewhere, although the connex- 
 ions are supposed thus to differ materially from one another, 
 it is not implied in this that any individual connexion is 
 comiposed of a form of matter uniformly different from that 
 of any other connexion. On the contrary it is reasonably 
 supposable that each connexion, and especially each of those 
 with the bodies nearly related to us, is made up of many dif- 
 ferent forms of matter having different degrees of gross- 
 ness. These forms we may designate by the term rays, such 
 as tension rays, heat rays, light rays, etc. The supposition 
 involves only that the grossest rays have a tendency to di- 
 minish with diminished degrees of relationship, until there 
 would be in the connexions with very distant bodies ex- 
 tremely little, if any, of such rays, and chiefly, or only, those 
 
286 THE CONNECTIYE THEORY [157 
 
 more delicate rays which transmit to us light, or even still 
 more delicate kinds of motion, of the existence of which 
 we have no conception whatever. The most delicate rays 
 may exist in the grossest connexion, but not so the grossest 
 rays in the most distant connexions. 
 
 Another probable circumstance is that the nature of the 
 connexions changes rapidly with the degrees of relationship, 
 and especially with the nearest degrees; so that the Earth 
 would be profoundly affected, at least with respect to other 
 phenomena than light, only by the nearest related bodies. 
 Now all of the bodies nearly related to the Earth, such as 
 the members of the Solar System, or of its sister systems, 
 or the primary around which the latter immediately revolve, 
 are all supposed to lie in, or very nearly in, the plane of the 
 ecliptic. The Earth, in its diurnal rotation, is continually 
 swept by the connexions of these bodies, and reasons will 
 shortly be found for believing that it is to the variations of 
 these connexions, or of certain elements of them, or to some 
 influence clearly attributable to them, that the hitherto mys- 
 terious phenomena of terrestrial magnetism are due. And 
 this not only on theoretic grounds, but also from the actual 
 observations of the most eminent students of the subject 
 
 157. Relation of the Magnetic Poles to the Planes of the 
 Earth's Motion. If a straight line perpendicular to the plane 
 of the ecliptic should pass through the Earth's center, it 
 would pierce the Earth's surface in the Northern hemis- 
 phere 23.5 on one side of the geographic pole, and the 
 Southern Hemisphere 23.5 on the opposite side of the geo- 
 graphic pole. Now when it is well-known from actual ob- 
 servation that this is almost exactly the position of the 
 Earth's magnetic axis, the north pole of which is near the 
 Arctic Circle in North America, and the south pole of which 
 is near the Antarctic Circle south of Australia it seems un- 
 equivocably to refer the cause of the Earth's magnetism to 
 the plane of the ecliptic, in which, as we have seen, those 
 connexions lie to which, by the new theory, the electric 
 fluid is supposed to be attributable. 
 
 Without further preface, the explanation of terrestrial 
 
157] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 287 
 
 magnetism suggested by the new theory is as follows: The 
 connexions of the bodies mentioned are continually varying 
 in quantity upon the Earth, owing to continual variations of 
 the distances of these bodies from the Earth, and, to a cer- 
 tain extent, perhaps, to other causes. The connective fluid 
 of these connexions penetrates the Earth-crust to an indef- 
 inite depth; and, if aggregating upon the Earth, it would be 
 liberated in that crust, and flowing at first in the direction 
 of least resistance, directly away from the ecliptic plane in 
 which the pressure is exerted upon it, would thus give rise 
 to the observed earth-currents. Away from the ecliptic 
 plane means either north or south of it; and it really would 
 make little practical difference which direction is taken, but 
 the path, being once determined, would be easier to follow 
 thereafter than a new path. In the case of the Earth, either 
 all or the greater portion of the fluid at first appears to have 
 traveled northwards; and thus, perhaps by mere chance, be- 
 came permanently established in this direction. As the con- 
 nective fluid continually pours inwards upon the Earth and 
 northwards through the crust, and as it approaches the far- 
 thest point of that crust from the ecliptic plane, it becomes 
 concentrated owing to the curvature of the Earth's surface, 
 and partially escapes from the crust into the atmosphere. 
 This partial escape of the fluid would continue and grad- 
 ually increase in amount until the farthest point of the crust 
 was reached, where the remaining and relatively greater por- 
 tion would escape, and thus establish the North Magnetic 
 Pole. The atmosphere at the north becoming saturated, the 
 fluid would find its way southwards on all sides of the Earth, 
 and, crossing the Equator, would be again concentrated by 
 the Earth's curvature, and therefore would partially escape 
 into the Earth's crust, and so establish the South Magnetic 
 Pole* The earth-currents again flowing northwards tow- 
 ards the North Magnetic Pole, the circuit would be complete. 
 If the connective fluid be leaving the Earth, instead of ar- 
 riving upon it, the connexion suffering the tension would 
 be supplied from the earth-currents, just as in arriving it 
 was supplied to them. This explanation, following as a nee- 
 
288 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [158 
 
 essary consequence from the main principle of the new the- 
 ory, has certainly the advantage of great simplicity; and, 
 moreover, as it is examined further, it is thought that it will 
 be found to correspond exactly with, and fully explain, the 
 observed facts. 
 
 It appears to be the belief at the present time that the 
 electric fluid ascends at the Equator and there divides into 
 north and south streams which descend into the crust at the 
 Poles.* Actual observation, however, appears to contradict 
 this view. From the Report of the magnetic results of the 
 Challenger Expedition, it is found: 
 
 "(1) That in islands north of the magnetic equator, the 
 north-seeking end of the needle is generally attracted verti- 
 cally downwards, and horizontally towards the higher parts 
 of the land; (2), south of the magnetic equator the opposite 
 effects are observed, the north-seeking end being repelled: 
 in both cases by an amount above that due to the position 
 of the island on the earth considered as a magnet. "f 
 
 This seems clearly to show that, if north of the Equator 
 the currents are ascending, south of it they must be descend- 
 ing, in order to produce the observed opposite effects upon 
 the needle. 
 
 158. The Earth a Magnet. In fact the Earth is a magnet, 
 and its electric currents are apparently the perfect analogues 
 of those of a magnet. If a common bar magnet is placed un- 
 der a sheet of paper or glass upon which are sprinkled pro- 
 miscuously some iron filings, upon tapping the sheet the 
 filings will be observed to arrange themselves in beautiful 
 curves or semi-ellipses extending from pole to pole. These 
 are the "magnetic curves" which, Professor John Tyndall 
 tells us, so fascinated Faraday 
 
 "that the greater portion of his life was devoted to pondering 
 over them. He invested the space through which they run 
 with a kind of materiality; and tne probability is, that the 
 progress of science by connecting the phenomena of magne- 
 tism with the luminiferous ether, will prove these 'lines of 
 force', as Faraday loved to call the magnetic curves, to rep- 
 
 *See Prof. S. P. Thomson's Electricity and Magnetism, p. 145. 
 fNature, 41, 106. 
 
158] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 289 
 
 resent a condition of this mysterious substratum of all rad- 
 iant action."* , 
 
 Evidently this is just what the new theory does, except 
 that, instead of an imaginary luminiferous ether, there is 
 the substance or fluid of the Earth's connexions. The ground- 
 currents of the Earth flowing northwards and escaping into 
 the air chiefly about the North Magnetic Pole manifest them- 
 selves in the "auroral circle." The Northern Lights would, 
 therefore, be the electric currents of the Earth ascending 
 into the air preparatory to their journey southwards in that 
 element Their visibility would be owing to their concentra- 
 tion in the north by the Earth's curvature; but as they move 
 southwards, they spread over a greater area, become more 
 diffused, and so become invisible^ It is this electric flow 
 southwards through the air that would determine the di- 
 rection of the magnetic needle; which is simply another mag- 
 net almost exactly similar to the Earth, having similar elec- 
 tric currents circulating northwards through Its surface, from 
 which they escape and pass southwards to the opposite hemi- 
 sphere, or pole, of the needle, and so complete the circuit. 
 The atmospheric currents of the needle would evidently be 
 disposed to arrange themselves parallel to the atmospheric 
 currents of the Earth, as this arrangement offers the least 
 resistance; and this parallelism of the needle to the electric 
 currents of the Earth, throughout their length and their var- 
 ious positions will be seen, from a cursory study of the 
 "magnetic curves", to determine both the dip and the declin- 
 ation of the needle. 
 
 According to Werner Siemens, all bodies are filled with 
 such circular currents, and magnetic bodies differ from non- 
 magnetic bodies only inasmuch as the number or quantity 
 of circular currents present in the unit volume is niuch 
 greater in the first case than in the second, f This might ac- 
 count for the attraction by the magnet of non-magnetized 
 substances, such as soft iron. But perhaps other causes may 
 
 *Humboldt Library of Science, 4, 20. 
 
 tPhil. Mag., April, 1885 ; Journal of Physics, September, 1885. 
 
290 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [159 
 
 be found for this attraction when the molecular mechanism 
 of these phenomena is more closely examined,. 
 
 159. Irregular Cours.es of the Terrestrial Magnetic Lines. 
 As the magnetic poles of the*Earth do not coincide with 
 the geographic poles, so neither will the magnetic meridians 
 and equator coincide with the geographic meridians and 
 equator. Therefore, the course of the atmospheric electric 
 currents to the South Magnetic Pole would be somewhat an- 
 omalous, geographically considered. But whatever direction 
 these electric streams would take, the magnetic needle ad- 
 justs itself parallel to them, and points in the direction 
 whence the currents come. As the currents move southwards 
 over the Western Hemisphere, since the pole towards which 
 they move is situated in the Eastern Hemisphere, they would 
 be deflected both eastwards and westwards, in somewhat 
 diagonal courses, towards their destination. East of this 
 place of divergence, the needle would point westwards; west 
 of it, the needle would point eastwards; and in it, the needle 
 would point due north. Similarly in the Eastern Hemisphere, 
 there would be a confluence of the previously divergent cur- 
 rents, along the line of which the needle would point due 
 north, east of it, eastwards, and west of it, westwards. These 
 lines of divergence and confluence would be the lines of no 
 declination. Their courses are not straight, but veer irreg- 
 ularly eastwards, especially the line in the Eastern Hemi- 
 sphere. These irregularities in their courses would be ow- 
 ing probably to the equatorial protuberance of the Earth, to 
 various irregularities of the land surface, such as mountain 
 ranges and elevated plateaus, and also to the nature and di- 
 rection of the air-currents through or in which the electric 
 currents move. 
 
 The eastern line passes southeastwards through the White 
 Sea, eastern Russia, the Caspian Sea, Persia, the Arabian 
 Sea, then veers eastwards through the Indian Ocean, pass- 
 ing southwards through the western part of Australia to 
 about the Antarctic Circle,. A strong corroboration of this 
 material current theory is here met with in the effect which 
 the lofty plateaus and mountain ranges have upon their sup- 
 
160] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICTY AND MAGNETISM 291 
 
 posed course. The present eastern line of no declination 
 avoids these obstructions and after passing around them 
 along the low-lying regions veers suddenly eastwards about 
 to its proper position. More than a century ago, the line 
 passed on the eastern side of these mountains and plateaus; 
 but as it moved gradually westwards, it became divided by 
 the obstruction and passed around it in both directions. 
 There remains even today an isolated oval area of western 
 magnets, including the Japan Empire and portions of east- 
 ern Asia; which would evidently be owing to the downward 
 sweep of currents from the west which had been deflected 
 upwards into the cirrus regions by the lofty mountain 
 ranges. This isolated region is continually decreasing in 
 size; and as the line moves farther westwards, will event- 
 ually disappear. Indeed over all this region, the deviation 
 of the needle is very slight; so that from the Caspian Sea 
 to the Japan Sea, the needle points almost due north. That is, 
 the direction of the needle is chiefly determined by the elec- 
 tric currents originating in these regions themselves. There 
 seems to be every reason for believing, then, that if the 
 whole of Asia were as low as its northern portion, the line 
 would pursue its normal southeastern course unaccompanied 
 by any peculiarity of loops or isolated ovals, and that the 
 Earth would be about equally divided into two hemispheres 
 of eastern and western magnets. 
 
 160. Height of the Aurora. In offering this view of the 
 deflection of atmospheric electric currents, it is of course 
 not unknown that the height of these currents is held by 
 many eminent observers to be much more elevated than the 
 highest range of mountains on the globe. M. Flogel calcu- 
 lated the height of several aurorae which appeared in the au- 
 tumn of 1870, and concluded that only the very lowest parts 
 of the aurora came at all within the limits of the atmosphere : 
 he gave the actual limits as 150 to 500 kilometres. M. Rei- 
 mann found a height of from 800 to 900. kilometres for an 
 aurora on October 25, 1870; and Baron Nordenskiold came to 
 the conclusion that the mean height of the aurora was about 
 
292 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [160 
 
 200 kilometres, or more than twenty times the height of the 
 highest mountain on the Earth,. 
 
 The opinion is here ventured, however, that some error 
 may possibly have vitiated these calculations. In support 
 of this it may be stated that the more recent observations 
 give much smaller values to the heights of the' electric cur- 
 rents. From observations made at Godthaab, by M. Paulsen, 
 and near Cape Farewell, in 1885, by MM. Garde and Eberlin, 
 the heights of the aurorae were found to range from 0.6 to 
 67.8 kilometres, and from 1,6 to 15.5 kilometres, respectively. 
 And the Swedish International Expedition at Spitzbergen 
 found the extremes of these heights tobe 0.6 and 29.2 kilo- 
 metres, M. Paulsen gives accounts of several appearances 
 of aurorae beneath the clouds and the summits of moun- 
 tains ; * and M. Hildebrandsson has seen aurorae in a com- 
 pletely clouded sky.f 
 
 But perhaps the most conclusive observation confirma- 
 tory of a low elevation for the electric currents is the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 "Arsuk Fiord is in 61 15' north latitude. This fiord is 
 2 miles wide by 25 miles long, and its shores are steep, rocky 
 cliffs, from one to four thousand feet high,. Midway of its 
 length, on the south side, lies Ivigtut. At this station the 
 aurora light begins with a development in the west over the 
 north of the fiord, and as it progresses eastwards follows 
 the direction of the fiord, sometimes covering its entire 
 length, and having outliers over the smaller arms of the 
 fiord; but ordinarily the western part of this auroral band 
 disappears before the development has extended to the east- 
 ern end and new bands of light come again from the western 
 end eastward. The phenomenon is best developed at two 
 hours after sunset, and appears then to be near the Earth's 
 surface, occasionally only 1000 feet above sea-level." $ 
 
 In fact, the electric currents of the atmosphere are here 
 observed to have their courses modified by elevated ob- 
 structions in a manner precisely similar to that which the ir- 
 regular course of the eastern line of no declination has led 
 
 *Royal Danish Academy, February, 1889. 
 tlbid. 
 
 JZeitschrift der Oesterreichischen Gesselschaft fur Meteorologie, 
 XVIII, p. 320; Prof. Cleveland Abbe, An Account of Progress in Meteor- 
 ology in the Year 1883, p. 70. 
 
161] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 293 
 
 us deductively to expect. There appears to be a certain ele- 
 vation or density of the atmosphere that offers the least re- 
 sistance to the movement of the electric currents. Indeed 
 it is well-known that in a very rare atmosphere no electric 
 current whatever can take place,. Prof. S. P. Thompson 
 says: 
 
 "It is possible to exhaust a tube so perfectly that none of 
 our electric machines or appliances can send a spark through 
 the vacuous space, even over so short a distance as one cen 
 timetre, ... A perfect vacuum is a perfect insulator."* 
 
 It would be in regions far below such a density as this, 
 
 however, that the bulk of the aerial electric streams would 
 
 i 
 
 find the most favorable conditions for their transmission; 
 and evidently not at the place of greatest density either; for 
 although the electric currents permeate all of the lower at- 
 mospheric strata, yet, as we ascend from the Earth's surface, 
 the voltage increases very rapidly. 
 
 161. Diurnal Variation of the Magnetic Needle. There 
 are four different kinds of variation of the magnetic needle, 
 the diurnal, the annual, the irregular, and the secular. And 
 on the basis of the foregoing views, each of these readily 
 admits of an explanation which seems really beautiful in its 
 simplicity. 
 
 It has already been noticed how the edges of the Sun's 
 connexion would originate two aerial waves or tides between 
 which would be two aerial troughs or depressions; and also 
 how this is shown to be the actual fact by the barometer. 
 It may now be pointed out that the diurnal variations con- 
 form exactly to these aerial waves and depressions. The 
 barometric maxima are from 8 to 10 A. M. and 8 to 11 P. M., 
 and the minima are about equi-distant from these hours. Now 
 M. Arago, from a careful series of observations of the mag- 
 netic elements, deduced the following results: 
 
 "At about eleven at night the north end of the needle be- 
 gins to move from west to east, and having reached its 
 greatest easterly excursion at about a quarter past eight in 
 the morning, returns to the west to attain its greatest west- 
 erly excursion at a quarter past one. It then moves again 
 
 *Electricity and Magnetism, p. 298. 
 
294 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [161 
 
 to the east, and having reached its greatest easterly excur- 
 sion at half past eight in the evening, returns to the west, 
 and attains its greatest westerly excursion at eleven, as at 
 starting."* 
 
 A moment ago we noticed liow the electric currents are 
 prone to follow the low-lying, and therefore denser portions 
 of the atmosphere by avoiding the elevated mountain ranges 
 and plateaus of central Asia. We now notice a similar tend- 
 ency of the electric currents to follows the denser aerial 
 waves or tides, rather than the rarer aerial depressions. At 
 about midnight We are in the middle of the aerial depres- 
 sion; but the morning aerial tide is advancing in the east, 
 into which the electric currents have collected in the far 
 north, and from which they spread out laterally on both sides 
 of the wave on their way southwards. From about midnight 
 to 8. A. M., therefore, the needle would point more and more 
 eastwards into partial parallelism with these branch cur- 
 rents. At 8 A. M., when near the center of the tide the 
 eastward deflection is at a maximum. Then the center of 
 the wave passes, and the needle points westwards towards 
 parallelism with the lateral currents issuing from its eastern 
 side. At about midday the needle is again in an aerial de- 
 pression; but the evening tide is advancing in the east, tow- 
 ards which the needle again turns. Near the center of this 
 wave, or at about 8 P. M., there is another maximum of 
 easterly declination. After which the needle again follows 
 the wave westwards to about midnight as before. 
 
 This remarkably direct evidence in favor of the views here 
 advanced, is also strongly corroborated by the phenomena 
 of aurora and atmjospheric electricity. When the aerial 
 tide is over a place, the aurora are at a maximum. At Cum- 
 berland Sound, N. A., the greater number of aurorae always 
 occur at about 6 A. M. and 10 P. M.f And the maxima of 
 electricity in the air, as determined from six months' ob- 
 servation at the observatory of Lausanne, are approximately 
 at 7 A. M. and 9 P. M. ; and the minima are at 3 to 5 P. M. 
 
 *Prof. R. A. Proctor, Humboldt Library of Science, 2, 8. 
 fOrray Taft Sherman, Professional Papers U. S. S. S., No. 10, p. 199. 
 
162] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 295 
 
 and 3 to 4 A. M. * It should be borne in mind that the tidal 
 wave does not occur at different places on the same geo- 
 graphical meridian at the same time except during the equi- 
 noxes. Hence arise the slight differences in the hours of 
 the occurence of auroral and electric maxima at places hav- 
 ing the same longitude. When allowance is made for this 
 circumstance, the maxima of the aurorae and atmospheric 
 electricity appear to correspond exactly to the passages of 
 the aerial tidal waves, 
 
 In still further confirmation of these views, it is observed 
 that, in accordance with the single diurnal maximum of high 
 latitudes i. e., the midday aerial tide caused by the pulling 
 southwards or northwards of the particles of the air by the 
 northern or the southern edges of the Sun's connexion, and 
 the midnight depression corresponding to the absence of this 
 connexion we have, from the observation of aurorae at 
 Godthaab by Prof. Kleinschmidt in 1865 to 1880, a southward 
 movement of the auroral zone during the day and a northward 
 movement during the night.f 
 
 Moreover, although it is the chief agent, it is not the Sun 
 alone that affects the terrestrial magnetic and electric ele- 
 ments; for Sabine has discovered that the Moon also (as by 
 the new theory we should naturally expect, and in about the 
 ratio which that theory assigns) has a distinctly traceable 
 and similar connection with them; the lunar effects in the 
 lunar day being the analogues of the solar effects in the so- 
 lar day.J 
 
 162. The Annual Variation of the Magnetic Needle. The 
 annual variation of the magnetic needle is chiefly a modifi- 
 cation of the diurnal variation. Thus, in the summer season 
 of the Northern Hemisphere, the daily variation is about 
 twice as great as in the winter season. This is evidently 
 accounted for by the solar connexion sweeping more directly 
 over this hemisphere at this time. The maximum tidal effect 
 of the connexion is at the edges; but it is the aerial tides of 
 the east and the west edges that would chiefly carry the 
 
 *Prof. H. Dufour, Zeitschrift der Oesterreichischen Gesselschaft fur 
 Meteorologie, 19, 129. 
 
 tProf. Sophus Tromholt, Om Ndrdlysets Perioder; Ibid, 18, 306. 
 JProf. R. A. Proctor, Humboldt Library of Science, 2, 10. 
 
296 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [163 
 
 electric currents, because the direction of the electric cur- 
 rents and these edges approximately coincide. In our sum- 
 mer these edges of the solar connexion are chiefly in the 
 Northern Hemisphere, and therefore we have there a maxi- 
 mum diurnal variation. In our winter these edges are chiefly 
 in the Southern Hemisphere, and therefore the maximum di- 
 urnal variation is then in that region, and we have our min- 
 imum diurnal variation. 
 
 It has already been observed (Art. 123) that there are 
 maxima and minima of aurorae corresponding to the maxima 
 and minima of sun-spots and of the planetary factor of the 
 connexion-variations upon the Earth. But as the sidereal 
 factor of the connexion-variations upon the Earth is shown, 
 by the phenomena of atmospheric precipitation, to predomi- 
 nate over all the other factors, it would seem that there 
 should also be a maximum and minimum of atmospheric 
 electricity corresponding to the variation of this factor also; 
 that is, a maximum sometime in the first half of the year and 
 a minimum in the last halt And this appears to conform 
 precisely to the facts so far as they are known. Thus it has 
 been found by P. F. Denza from twelve years' observation 
 six times daily at Moncalieri that "the daily variations 
 show themselves clearly in the winter and summer, having 
 two maxima after sunset and sunrise. The yearly variations 
 attain their maximla at the end of February, the minima at 
 the end of September,"* But while the observations thus 
 generally accord with the theory, it should be borne in mind 
 that many causes (some of which are known and many of 
 which are probably unknown) would modify the actual maxi- 
 ma and minima of atmospheric electricity; and moreover our 
 system of observation of the phenomena involved is, to say 
 the least, very incomplete. 
 
 163. The Irregular Variations of the Magnetic Needle. 
 The irregular variations of the magnetic elements are such 
 as break in suddenly, and often with great violence, upon 
 the quiet regularity of the others. There is scarcely a doubt, 
 even among the ablest exponents of the present views upon 
 
 *Prof. Cleveland Abbe, An Account of Progress in Meteorology in 
 1879-81, p. 88. 
 
163] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 297 
 
 the subject, that many, if not all, of these irregular vari- 
 ations are owing to some disturbances taking place on the 
 Sun. How such disturbances could be transmitted, they 
 frankly admit their inability to explain. But they have ob- 
 served the disturbances take place upon the Sun; they have 
 noticed that these disturbances were almost immediately fol- 
 lowed by violent disturbances of the Earth's magnetic and 
 electric elements; and therefore the connection of the two 
 disturbances was undeniable. Such instances need not here 
 be particularized as they are generally well-known. Their 
 explanation seems sufficiently simpley As just stated, it is 
 known from observation that tremendous convulsions occur 
 upon the Sun. Enormous masses of gas and flame are hurled 
 with frightful energy upwards into its outer atmosphere. If 
 such eruptions occur upon the side of the Sun next to the 
 Earth, the disturbance is at once communicated to the con- 
 nexion between the two bodies, by the elastic medium of 
 which it is conveyed as an enormous wave or pulse towards 
 our planet. This pulse is transmitted to the earth-currents, 
 and by the earth-currents northwards to the atmospheric cur- 
 rents, where it becomes manifest as the aurora, 
 and the intensity and momentum of which drives the aerial 
 currents, and consequently the magnetic needle, from their 
 ordinary courses, often to the comparatively great extent of 
 several degrees, Thus would the disturbance originating on 
 the Sun be transmitted to the Earth's atmosphere. "Nay," 
 in the words of Prof. Proctor, which appear to be at least 
 half the truth, "it is even probable that every flicker and cor- 
 ruscation of our auroral displays correspond with similar 
 manifestations upon every planet which travels round the 
 Sun." It may not be the amount of connective fluid trans- 
 mitted to the Earth by this solar wave that wholly causes 
 the terrestrial perturbation. The more probable causes are 
 the violent energy of its transmittal, its simultaneity over the 
 entire hemisphere next to the Sun, and the convergence of 
 the rays of the solar connexion as they approach the Earth. 
 But even its amount is far from insignificant, as the solar 
 
298 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [164 
 
 eruption sometimes continues for hours, even days, shooting 
 upwards among the planetary connexions. 
 
 161 The Secular Variation of the Magnetic Needle. (a) 
 The Earliest Observations. The earliest observations of the 
 secular variation are probably those taken at Paris. At that 
 city, about the year 1541; the needle pointed 7 east; and 
 about 1580, 11.5 east, being the maximum eastern declina- 
 tion. The needle then began to move westwards, and about 
 1663 had returned to the meridian, The declination then be- 
 came westerly, and continued to increase until, about 1814, 
 it attained its maximum, 22 11' west of north. It is now 
 gradually moving eastwards. 
 
 In London, the declination of the needle, about the year 
 1576, was 15 11' east; about 1657, due north; about 1700, 9 
 40' west; about 1778, 22 11' west; about 1819, nearly 25 
 west; and about 1843, 23 8' west. 
 
 At Boston, the decimation about 1708 was 9 west; about 
 1807, 6 5' west; about 1840, 9 18' west. 
 
 (b) Explanation of the Observations at London and 
 Paris. In explanation of these various positions of the mag- 
 netic needle, it may be well to reconsider some things already 
 noticed. The two lines of no declination are about on op- 
 posite sides of the Earth. The one now in the Western 
 Hemisphere is theoretically the line of divergence of the 
 electric currents; and that in the Eastern Hemisphere, the 
 line of confluence of these currents. And, it being granted 
 that the needle points in the direction whence the electric 
 currents come, it follows that the maximum eastern or west- 
 ern declination at any place, will be, other things equal, 
 when it is midway between the two lines of no declination; 
 western, if east of the line of divergence, eastern if west of 
 it. The motion of the aerial electric currents is principally 
 southward and at the two lines of no declination is wholly so. 
 The divergence close to the western line would be slight, but 
 farther away from it the angle would increase; but beyond a 
 certain limit the angle would decrease, as the opposite line 
 of convergence was approached,. 
 
 Now, according to this theory, Paris, about the year 1580, 
 
164] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 299 
 
 must have been nearly midway between the two lines, and 
 west of the line divergence, as the declination was easterly. 
 But the line of divergence was slowly advancing westwards 
 over the Earth (the cause of which will shortly be discussed), 
 and the divergent angle of the currents consequently di- 
 minishing, the needle would begin to move westwards, and so 
 continue. After eighty-three years, or about 1663, the line of 
 divergence would have advanced westwards to the city, and 
 the needle pointed due north. Still, after this, the needle 
 would keep moving westwards into parallelism with the east- 
 ern divergent currents, until some 151 years after the passage 
 of the line, or about 1814, the city was again nearly midway 
 between the two lines, but east of the line of divergence. 
 After this the needle would begin to move east, in obedience 
 to the gradually diminishing angle of divergence of the cur- 
 rents as the line of confluence advanced westwards. This 
 eastern movement still continues to the present time, the 
 line of confluence being yet advanced only as far as the 
 Caspian Sea. 
 
 The magnetic history of London is similar in about all 
 respects, save the dates. This city is about 3 north and 2 
 west of Paris, and what is chiefly remarkable in the magnetic 
 history of the two cities is that the divergent line of no de- 
 cimation advanced to London about 6 years before it arrived 
 at Paris. In London the needle pointed due north about 
 1657; in Paris it did not point due north until about 1663. 
 But here again we see the effect of mountain ranges in de- 
 flecting the electric currents. Over the low-lands of Russia 
 and Germany the magnetic line advanced at an approximately 
 uniform rate, but farther south the advance of the line was 
 delayed by the apparent obstruction of the European Alps 
 and the elevated regions surrounding them, so that it prob- 
 ably formed a loop extending eastwards around these regions, 
 as about a century later the opposite line formed a loop 
 around the Asiatic ranges and plateaus. Thus it may have 
 been that the magnetic meridian appeared at London before 
 ft appeared at Paris, southeast of London. Paris would 
 
300 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [164 
 
 have been simply inside the loop surrounding high Europe, 
 and London just outside of it on the north. 
 
 In further support of this view, we further observe that 
 the maximum western decimation occurred at Paris about 
 the year 1814, while at London, on the contrary, it occurred 
 about the year 1819, or about the time it was normally due. 
 In the formter year at Paris, the effect of the obstruction 
 would have been to check the western movement of the line 
 (and therefore the variation of the magnetic needle) to a 
 later time than if the obstruction had not interfered; while 
 in the latter year, after the line did overcome the obstruction, 
 its progress was comparatively rapid with respect to that 
 locality, and fully made up for its previous delay; whereas 
 London, being farther removed from the obstruction, would 
 have a more uniform variation of the magnetic lines. 
 
 (c) The Southeastern Direction of the Lines of no De- 
 clination. Another remarkable peculiarity to be noticed is 
 the southeastern direction in which the lines of no declina- 
 tion extend, the southern portion lagging behind the northern. 
 This may be attributed, partly at least, to the tenacity with 
 which the electric currents apparently cling to the land sur- 
 face in preference to wide and deep bodies of water. In con- 
 firmation of this view, it may be mentioned that the intensity 
 of the magnetic elements is much greater over the land, and 
 especially the island surfaces, than over the ocean surface.* 
 
 (d) Explanation of the Observations at Boston. About 
 the year 1657, the needle pointed due north at London, as we 
 have already noticed. But in what direction the north end of 
 the line of no declination extended from London at that time 
 we appear to have no record. About fifty-one years after- 
 wards, however, or in 1708, the decimation at Boston was re- 
 corded to have been 9 west. This evidently goes to show, 
 according to this theory, that in 1657, or shortly thereafter, 
 the line of no decimation extended almost due west from 
 Southern Europe across the Atlantic Ocean, passing north- 
 wards to the west of Boston and perhaps recurving again 
 
 *See paper On Local Magnetic Disturbances in Islands Situated Far 
 from a Continent, by Staff-Commander E. W. Creak, R. N., F R. S., Royal 
 Society, Jan. 28, 1886; Nature, 33, 404. 
 
164] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 301 
 
 northeastwards parallel to the northeastern coast. There is 
 nothing particularly remarkable in this; indeed an instance 
 very similar to it occurs in the Indian Ocean at the present 
 day. But what seems strange is that, for the next hundred 
 years, or up to 1807, the western declination at Boston con- 
 tinually decreased; whereas, according to analogy and theo- 
 retical deduction, it ought to have continually increased. 
 
 Of this curious phenomenon, the following explanation is 
 suggested by the new theory. The western extension from 
 Europe of the divergent line of no declination in the latter 
 part of the 17th cetury, took place probably in a compara- 
 tively short time. The southern end of the line yet, and 
 for many succeeding years, clung to southwestern Europe 
 and Africa. Now this diagonal southeastern extension of the 
 line would have a tendency to reduce the eastern declination 
 and increase the western declination upon the western and 
 eastern sides, respectively, of the line. Thus we observe 
 that at both London and Paris, about the year 1580, the min- 
 imum eastern declination was only about half what the min- 
 imum western declination wsfe about 240 years later at the 
 same time and places, while evidently, if the line of no de- 
 clination extended north and south, the eastern declination 
 would be very approximately equal to the western. Similarly 
 at Boston in 1708, the western declination was greater than 
 it would be if the magnetic lines were parallel to the geo- 
 graphic meridian, instead of being at a comparatively great 
 angle to it. But about this time the southern end of the 
 divergent line freed itself from the hold of the Eastern Con- 
 tinent and was making relatively rapid strides across the 
 southern Atlantic (which has few islands) to the Western 
 Continent. This rapid western movement of the south end 
 of the line, while the north end moved at a much slower rate, 
 tended to straighten the whole line, and therefore to dimmish 
 the western decimation at Boston and other places north and 
 east of the line in its anomalous position,. So that in the 
 period from 1708 to 1807, during which the straightening took 
 place, the declination was reduced at these places nearly 3, 
 or from 9 west to 6 5' west. After the line had touched 
 
302 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [164 
 
 South America, the western secular movement of the southern 
 end of the line slackened to about a parity with the rest, the 
 western declination again increased at Boston owing to the 
 western movement of the whole divergent line, and so con- 
 tinues at the present time. 
 
 (e) Explanation of the Secular Variation. It now only 
 remains to inquire into the cause of this continual western 
 movement of the magnetic meridians and poles. And, with- 
 out further preface, the simple answer is The eastern rota- 
 tion of the Earth on its axis. It has already been noticed 
 that the connective fluid set free in the earth-currents tended 
 to escape from the plane of the ecliptic where the fluid is 
 most dense; and this movement away from the ecliptic plane 
 would, owing to the inclination of the Earth's axis, be to- 
 wards some point of the polar circles, which would be a mag- 
 netic pole. The electric currents, becoming once estab- 
 lished in certain routes in the Earth's crust, would have a 
 tendency to follow such routes more readily thereafter;* so 
 that, although the rotation of the Earth carries the magnetic 
 axis out of its natural position of perpendicularity to the 
 ecliptic plane, the resistance offered to this wrenching of the 
 axis is small compared to that offered by the Earth's crust 
 to the continual establishment of new momentary routes per- 
 pendicular to the ecliptic, the magnetic axis remains prac- 
 tically permanent in any place, and it is thus rotated east- 
 wards around the geographic axis once in every twenty-four 
 hours. But although the resistance offered to the wrench- 
 ing of the magnetic axis out of its vertical position with re- 
 spect to the ecliptic, is comparatively small, yet it is con- 
 stantly maintained; and although its effect is practically in- 
 appreciable in any one rotation, yet in the course of a year 
 it accumulates so as to become quite perceptible. Taking 
 the magnetic axis (or the general electric earth-current) in 
 its vertical position to the ecliptic plane, and following it 
 eastwards around the Earth's axis of rotation, we observe 
 
 *Even in air, "where once a spark has passed, it is easier for a 
 second one to follow on the same track. Probably the first spark pro- 
 duces chemical dissociations in its path which do not instantly pass 
 away." Prof. S. P. Thompson's Electricity and Magnetism, p. 298. 
 
164] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 303 
 
 that, during the first half of the rotation, the tendency of the 
 former would be to return westwards to the vertical position; 
 but, during the last half of the rotation, the tendency of the 
 magnetic axis to adjust itself to the vertical would urge it 
 eastwards, as the nearest way to that position then lies in 
 that direction But the tendencies of the magnetic axis in 
 these opposite directions do not balance each other for the 
 reason that the Earth's rotation favors the one tendency and 
 opposes the other. A much greater and more effective force 
 or pressure is manifestly exerted by the electric fluid when 
 tending to regain its vertical position to the ecliptic diagonal- 
 ly backwards against the Earth's rotation, than when tending 
 to regain that position diagonally backwards with the Earth's 
 rotation; just in the same manner that a much greater pres- 
 sure is exerted by the current of a river upon a boat moving 
 diagonally against it than upon a boat moving diagonally with 
 it. And this greater pressure of the electric fluid against 
 the Earth's rotation exists, not for half the time of a rotation 
 only, but is constantly maintained during the whole rotation. 
 For the currents are continually flowing northwards upon all 
 sides of the Earth, and therefore there is a balance of pres- 
 sure exerted against the Earth's rotation for every moment 
 It does not apply here that the electric fluid flowing north- 
 wards from the Equator and partaking of the swifter rota- 
 tional motion at that place, would tend to preserve it as it 
 moved northwards and thus tend to move eastwards instead 
 of westwards first, because the magnetic fluid is supposed 
 to issue chiefly from the neighborhood of the South Mag- 
 netic Pole, rather than from the Equator; and second, be- 
 cause, as will shortly be found, the electric flow is incom- 
 parably more rapid than the Earth's rotational motion,. The 
 explanation of the terrestrial secular variation, then, is sim- 
 ply that this continual balance of pressure of the magnetic 
 earth-currents westwards over the Earth, slowly and grad- 
 ually changes their course (and therefore that of the mag- 
 netic axis) towards this direction. Other causes may con- 
 tribute; but evidently this is the primary cause. The varia- 
 tion does not take place at an equal rate all over the Earth, 
 
304 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [164 
 
 or even at neighboring localities; but lags behind in some 
 areas and shoots forwards with comparative rapidity in 
 others. The magnetic meridians and equators are invar- 
 iably distorted and twisted intd unsymmetrical forms; all 
 of which clearly refers to an unevenly resisting crust medium 
 through which the electric currents are slowly effecting a 
 change of their courses. 
 
 Indeed, precisely the same explanation has recently been 
 offered by no less an authority than Prof. Arthur Schuster, as 
 follows : 
 
 "If electricity behaves like a body possessing inertia, the 
 rotation of a body through which currents pass should affect 
 the flow of these currents in the same manner as the earth's 
 rotation affects the direction of currents of air. If the 
 earth's magnetism is due to electric currents, it is interesting 
 to see if the effects of inertia can explain the secular varia- 
 tion. The investigation shows that a magnetic precession 
 of the character of the secular variation would be produced, 
 but that the precession would be very much slower than the 
 variation actually observed, . . . The calculated 
 period of a cycle comes out as 7X10 14 years. If the currents 
 are confined to a thin slice of the earth, the time would be 
 reduced to about 14X10 6 years."* 
 
 Prof. Rucker congratulated the author of the foregoing 
 for his attempt to solve the problem of terrestrial magnetism. 
 The date of the paper, however, was nearly ten years after 
 the same explanation had been given by the present writer. 
 Moreover, it is hard to see how such an immense period could 
 have been obtained for the secular variation. The currents 
 would travel in the Earth-crust probably to a depth of ten 
 miles, and it seems not very easy to calculate the resistance 
 of the unknown strata down to that depth. 
 
 (f) Period of the Secular Variation. According to the 
 new theory, the period is between 600 and 650 years. At 
 London the needle pointed due north in 1657, and about 1819 
 it was at its maximum westerly declination of 25. At the 
 first of these dates, the city was just in the line of diverg- 
 ence, and at the latter date it would be half-way between 
 the line of divergence and the line of convergence, which last 
 
 *Physical Society, London, December 14, 1900; Nature, 63, 194. 
 
165] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 305 
 
 was approaching from the east. This means that the former 
 line had traveled westwards from the city about one-fourth 
 of the distance around the Earth between these dates; for 
 there would be two periods of western magnets and two per- 
 iods of eastern magnets for every complete revolution; one 
 of each for each of the two lines. From 1657 to 1819 is 162 
 years, and four times this is 648 years. The corresponding 
 dates for Paris are 1663 and 1814, giving 151 years for the 
 quarter period, or 604 years for the entire period. The aver- 
 age of these is 626 years, and the half-period, or the time be- 
 tween two successive north magnets at one place, is 313 years; 
 so that at London the needle will be due to point north again 
 about the year 1970, when the line of convergence will arrive 
 westwards to that city . Of course the resistance would vary 
 at different places and with different circumstances; and the 
 above is only a roughly approximate estimate from the slender 
 data as yet available. 
 
 165. Corroborative Evidences. In conclusion of this 
 chapter, it may be well, perhaps, to notice a few observations 
 out of hundreds of similar ones that have been made by other 
 inquirers in this department of Nature, which seem thor- 
 oughly to corroborate the general theory of terrestrial mag- 
 netism here offered. 
 
 On the morning of March 30, 1886, a violent earth-current 
 storm occurred in London, stopping all telegraphic work. 
 During the same time, strong earth-currents were reported in 
 the Medeterranean, Bombay, and Madras, the Madras and 
 Penang, and the Java, China, and Japan, cables; causing all 
 work over them to be stopped. In the evening, brilliant 
 aurorae were observed in Donegal and Kingstown in Ireland, 
 at Konigsberg in Prussia, and no doubt at many other places 
 from which no reports were made . * This evidently goes 
 to show that there is an intimate connection between the 
 earth-currents and the aurorae, as the theory postulates. 
 
 In an article on terrestrial magnetism in the 9th edition of 
 the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. Balfour Stewart endeavors 
 to show two things : 
 
 *The Electrician, April 2. and August 6, 1886; Nature, 34, 408. 
 
306 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [165 
 
 "(1) That of all the various hpyotheses which have been 
 started with a view of explaining the solar diurnal inequali- 
 ties of terrestrial magnetism, the most probable is that which 
 considers these inequalities to be caused by electric currents 
 in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. (2) That 
 in the neighborhood of the North Pole (judging from observa- 
 tions discussed by Sabine) such currents have in all prob- 
 ability horizontal components flowing in from all sides to- 
 wards that pole, so that on one side of the pole this component 
 will have a direction the reverse to that which it has on the 
 opposite side of the pole." 
 
 This is just what the new theory teaches, except that, in- 
 stead of the aerial currents flowing in from all sides towards 
 the North Magnetic Pole, they radiate in all directions away 
 from it; unless obstructed by great elevations of land, or by 
 extreme cold, or other cause. The same authority, before 
 th.e London Physical Society, April 10, 1886, after reviewing 
 various other theories and hypotheses, says: 
 
 "We seem, therefore, compelled to seek for the cause of the 
 variations in the upper atmospheric regions, and we cannot 
 imagine such a cause to exist in any other form than that of 
 a system of electric currents. That currents may, and act- 
 ually do, exist at great heights is shown by the aurora, which 
 is unquestionably an electric current, and manifests a close 
 connection with the phenomena of terrestrial magnetism."* 
 
 M. Faye, before the Paris Academy of Sciences, April 19, 
 1886, 
 
 "deals with the important series of diagrams appended by the 
 Astronomer Royal to the volume of Greenwich Observations 
 for 1884, embodying the diurnal variations in horizontal direc- 
 tions and intensity of the terrestrial magnetic force for the 
 thirty-six years ending in 1876, inclusive. As a general re- 
 sult it would appear that the magnetic curves, as exhibited 
 in the 430 diagrams of Sir G. B. Airy's series, contract and 
 expand periodically in direct agreement with the greater or 
 less prevalence of the solar spots, and also with great regu- 
 larity according to the seasons, the summer curves being 
 invariably greater than those of winter." t 
 
 This is exactly in accordance with what the new theory 
 has already predicated in the greater accumulation of con- 
 nective substance in our atmosphere at these times. (See 
 Arts. 120, 124.) 
 
 *Nature, 33, 620. 
 tNature, 33, 622. 
 
165] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 307 
 
 Dr. Weinstein, before the Meteorological Society of Berlin, 
 March 2, 1886, spoke on the subject of earth-currents as fol- 
 fows: 
 
 "A course precisely analogous to that of the earth-current 
 was manifested by the earth's magnetism, the connection of 
 which with the electricity of the earth attracted attention 
 from the very beginning, when disturbances made themselves 
 observable. To demonstrate with perfect precision the co- 
 incidence of the two phenomena it was necessary to take 
 for the purpose of comparison, not a single magnetic element, 
 but the earth's total magnetism. The earth's electricity and 
 the earth's magnetism showed, moreover, in their regular 
 daily course, their affinity, by the simultaneity with which 
 their disturbances occurred. This simultaniety was so pre- 
 cise that in one case the distance between Berlin and Wil- 
 helmshaven could be determined from the time when the dis- 
 turbance of the earth's current made itself felt in Berlin, and 
 the time when the magnetic disturbance occurred in Wil- 
 helmshaven. This simultaniety of disturbances at distant 
 points of the earth pointed to a cosmical cause. Thus, in 
 August, last year, at the very time when in Paris the emerg- 
 ence of an altogether unusual protuberance was observed, a 
 magnetic disturbance was registered in Petersburg, and a 
 disturbance of the earth's current in Berlin. The earth's 
 current and the earth's magnetism showed further in com- 
 mon the periods of eleven years which coincided with those 
 of the solar spots. In respect of the earth's current, the 
 period could not indeed be demonstrated to a certainty, see- 
 ing that the regular observations made respecting it were yet 
 of too recent date; but the regular course of the oscillations 
 warranted the conclusion of a like period being drawn. 
 With reference to the question which phenomenon was the 
 primary, the earth's current or the earth's magnetism, oppo- 
 site views were entertained."* 
 
 In a subsequent communication to the same Society, April 
 6, respecting the disturbances which had occurred January 9, 
 and March 30, 1886, Dr. Weinstein states: 
 
 "On March 30, the disturbances were so great that in the 
 course of the forenoon telegraphic communication in Germany 
 was stopped. Even with currents of 60 Daniells no signs 
 could be forwarded by the telegraph wires. The magnetic 
 elements in Wilhelmshaven showed great simultaneous dis- 
 turbances, and from the direction of these magnetic disturb- 
 ances it was inferred that the disturbance of the earth's elec- 
 tricity were the primary, the oscillations of the earth's mag- 
 netism the secondary. "f 
 
 *Nature, 33, 624. 
 tNature, 34, 24. 
 
308 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [165 
 
 This precisely agrees with the theory; the incoming dis- 
 turbing wave of connective fluid first appearing in the elec- 
 tric currents of the crust, and subsequently affecting the mag- 
 netic elements, just as theoretically deduced. 
 
 From autographic records of the magnetic storms of 1880, 
 August 11-14, at Pavlosk, Kew, Zikawei, and Melbourne, Prof. 
 H. Wild concludes that 
 
 "the disturbance of all three elements, decimation and hori- 
 zontal and vertical intensity, began and ended simultaneously. 
 . . . The magnitude of the perturbation for each element, 
 especially the intensity, and for each day, shows a diurnal 
 period closely coinciding with normal daily variations." 
 
 The same scientist, from magnetograph records of the 
 magnetic weather of January 30-February 1, 1881, at eleven 
 places in America, Europe, China, India, and Australia, finds 
 that 
 
 "the perturbations began everywhere simultaneously, so far 
 as the time scales enabled the moments to be determined. 
 . . . The times of occurrence of maxima and minima, and the 
 amplitudes, especially of the variations in declination, corres- 
 pond very closely to the distance of the stations from the 
 auroral circle surrounding the north magnetic pole, as lately 
 defined by Baron Nordenskiold."* 
 
 Also from observations of earth-currents made upon buried 
 telegraph cables in the neighborhood of the observatory of 
 Pavlosk up to September 1883, he draws the following con- 
 clusions : 
 
 "The earth-currents appear not like currents of uniform 
 intensity, but as alternating stronger and weaker currents. 
 
 "Only by taking the mean of the twenty-four term days 
 during the year do we find traces of slight diurnal change 
 whose amplitude corresponds nearly to 0.0008 volt. The 
 diurnal change of the earth current is therefore not the cause 
 of the diurnal change in the magnetic elements. 
 
 "As soon as the earth currents in both lines become strong, 
 the magnetic instruments deviate from their ordinary posi- 
 tions, and these perturbations increase with the strength of 
 the earth currents, but not in any regular proportion. 
 
 "The changes in the south-to-north line preceded by about 
 five minutes the changes in variation of declination, so that 
 
 *Prof. Cleveland Abbe, An Account of Progress in Meteorology in 
 1883, pp. 66-68. 
 
1651 TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 309 
 
 the earth currents would appear as the primary cause. He 
 concludes that the earth currents are the primary cause of 
 many perturbations, but not the cause of the periodic varia- 
 tions in the magnetic elements."* 
 
 Now all this is very obviously in perfect harmony with the 
 connective theory. The simultaneity of the disturbances of 
 the magnetic elements over the whole Earth points unmistak- 
 ably to a cosmical cause of them. The small time-interval 
 of five minutes between the appearance of the disturbance 
 in the earth-current at Pavlosk and its reappearance in the 
 aerial currents as affecting the magnetic needle, indicates the 
 extreme velocity of the terrestrial electric currnts; and the 
 correspondence of the times of maxima and minima of the 
 variation of the magnetic elements at various places to the 
 distances of these respectively from the north auroral circle,- 
 indicates clearly the course which the electric currents take 
 and their mode of distribution. We read also that the mag- 
 nitude of the magnetic perturbation shows a diurnal period 
 coinciding with the diurnal barometric variations. This 
 shows that a proprtionately great amount of the distributing 
 fluid (as well as of the ordinary currents) appearing at the 
 polar regions is gathered into the aerial tides theoretically 
 shown to account for the diurnal variations. And still an- 
 other discovery by Prof. Wild that furnishes a very strong 
 confirmation of the theory, is that there is no appreciable 
 variation of the earth-currents corresponding to the diurnal 
 or other periodic changes in the magnetic elements. This 
 certainly goes far to prove that the atmospheric tides caused 
 upon the Earth by the solar connexion is the sole cause of 
 these changes, as the theory predicates. That there is ap- 
 parently no regular proportion between the irregular per- 
 turbations of the earth-currents and the immediately follow- 
 ing disturbances of the magnetic elements, may very reason- 
 ably arise from the infinitesimalness of the observed portions, 
 of these currents, the great bulk of which is probably deep- 
 seated in the Earth's crust. 
 
 It may be added here that, in perfect harmony with the 
 
 *Prof. Cleveland Abbe, Account of Progress in Meteorology in the 
 Year 1884, pp. 111-112. 
 
310 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [165 
 
 new theory, the intensity of the disturbances of the magnetic 
 elements, or of the atmospheric electricity, varies directly 
 with the magnetic latitude; being 'most intense at the "auroral 
 circle" surrounding the Magnetic Pole.* This is the strong- 
 est possible corroboration, not only of the solar origin of these 
 phenomena, but also of the connective-bond theory of their 
 transmission to us from the Sun; for the solar disturbances 
 would very obviously be best transmitted when situated near 
 tlie center of the Earth-Sun connective bond than when near 
 its edges; and not at all when on the other side of the Sun. 
 (See Art. 101) . 
 
 There appears to be a strong connection too between the 
 electric currents, cirrus clouds, and precipitation. Change 
 'of weather almost invariably accompanies unusually brilliant 
 aurorae. The electric tension of the air is also profoundly 
 modified by precipitation ; and lightning seldom occurs except 
 during, or in connection with, rain. At this stage of the 
 inquiry, it is not easy to determine whether the electric fluid 
 itself is directly converted into the precipitated water, or 
 water vapor, or merely accompanies the fluid which, in the 
 lightning flash, is so converted. That the lightning flash is 
 a manifestation of connective substance in some form or 
 transformation, and even disturbs the magnetic needle, there 
 is, however, no doubt. The following suggestive extract re- 
 garding the connection of thunderstorms, aurorae, and solar 
 disturbances may fitly close this chapter: 
 
 "As a result of the extended series of observations de- 
 scribed, it has been found that in general whenever groups 
 of faculae, with or without dark spots, are appearing by 
 rotation or are bursting forth upon the earthward side of 
 the sun, there is an immediate increase of thunderstorms 
 in the lower latitudes, and probably auroras in the higher 
 latitudes. If, however, the aurora becomes visible near the 
 equator at such times, there is an immediate, though, per- 
 haps, themporary decrease in thunderstorms, as though the 
 aurora had taken their place. In short, the aurora and 
 
 *Nature, 90, 37; 33, 614-5. Also, according to the investigations of 
 Mr. J. A. Brown, Mr. Arthur Harvey, Mr. E. W. Maunder, and the Ger- 
 man magnetician, Dr. Schmidt, the terrestrial magnetic variations have 
 also a period corresponding to that of the Sun's rotation; 27% days by 
 the three first mentoned and about 30 days by Dr. Schmidt. See Dr. C. 
 Chree, Nature, 83, 354-5-6; 91, 495; 97, 511. 
 
165] TERRESTRIAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM 311 
 
 thunderstorms appear to have a common origin, and in cer- 
 tain localities, at least, a reciprocal relation to each other. 
 
 "The relation between the various phenomena is such, 
 that if an increase of thunderstorms or auroras is noted, 
 faculae coming into view by rotation or bursting forth else- 
 where upon the sun may be looked for with confidence. On 
 the other hand the appearance upon the sun of bright fac- 
 ulae betokens an immediate increase in the electrical phe- 
 nomena attending the storms which may be prevailing at 
 the time anywhere on the face of the earth, unless the au- 
 rora should intervene, as has already been noted. 
 
 "In general the disturbed solar and terrestrial conditions, 
 increase or diminish in like ratio. The curious fact has been 
 noted, however, that a single disturbance occupying the sun's 
 disc alone seems to have a more marked effect than a suc- 
 cession of such disturbances, as though variability of ten- 
 sion were most concerned in the production of the phenomena 
 in question."* 
 
 *M. A. Veeder, The Electrical World, Vol. 10, No. 9 ; Monthly Weath- 
 er Review (of the U. S. Signal Service), July, 1887, p. 206. An article 
 on the same subject by Henry C. Maine also appeared in Frank Leslie* a 
 Illustrated Newspaper of Aug. 31. 1889. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 GEOLOGICAL CLIMATIC CHANGES 
 
 From the point of view of the physicist, a theory of 
 matter is a policy rather than a creed; its object is to con- 
 nect or coordinate apparently diverse phenomena, and above 
 all to suggest, stimulate, and experiment. It ought to fur- 
 nish a compass which, if followed, will lead the observer 
 further arid further into previously unexplored regions. 
 Whether these regions will be barren or fertile, experience 
 alone will decide; but at any rate one who is guided in this 
 way will travel onward in a definite direction, and will not 
 wander aimlessly to and fro. PROF. J. J. THOMSON. 
 
 In Middle and Upper Eocene times, great palms and other 
 plants flourished in Europe whose nearest relatives now ex- 
 ist in tropical Africa, India, and Australia. The most north- 
 ern point which has plant impressions is Grinnell Land, N. 
 A., 81 45' N. Its present mean temperature is 4 F. ( 20 
 C . ) . The plants evidenced by its impressions required a 
 mean annual temperature of 46 F. A still warmer climate 
 is indicated by the fossil flora of Greenland and Spitzbergen, 
 N. Siberia, and Alaska: indicating a difference of about 49F. 
 between those times and the present at these places. This 
 cannot be accounted for by distribution of land or of marine 
 currents. Apparently the only possible explanation is a dis- 
 placement of the pole coupled with an actually warmer cli- 
 mate in Tertiary times. 
 
 In the Himalaya and the Karakorum were enormous glac- 
 iers as well as in the neighborhood of the equator in S. 
 America. It was long doubtful whether the glaciation of 
 the northern and southern hemispheres took place simulta- 
 neously; but there is no longer any doubt that such was 
 really the case. 
 
 With our present knowledge, any explanation is quite 
 impossible. We must content ourselves with recognizing 
 that the cooling was simultaneous, and, as far as research 
 has yet gone, extended over the whole globe. It is then 
 obviously impossible to attribute it to a displacement of the 
 pole, for in that case a part of the earth must have expe- 
 rienced an increase of temperature; and, in addition to this, 
 we certainly cannot suppose any considerable change in the 
 position of the pole within so comparatively short an interval 
 as separates us from the Glacial epoch. The uniform ex- 
 tension of the phenomena excludes all these attempted ex- 
 
166] GEOLOGICAL CLIMATIC CHANGES 313 
 
 planations which appeal to geological or geographical changes 
 of the earth's surface, a different distribution of land and 
 sea, changes in the ocean currents, etc., and all point to some 
 agency, external to the earth, and therefore acting on it as 
 a whole. . 
 
 If we follow the march of these vicissitudes of temper- 
 ature, evidently determined by some cosmical agency, we 
 find at the beginning of Tertiary times a moderately warm 
 climate; then a rise during' the Eocene, and then a gradual 
 cooling, interrupted possibly by some oscillations, down to 
 a degree nearly corresponding to that now prevailing, at 
 the beginning of the Pleistocene epoch. Then the cooling 
 continued below the present temperature, to a minimum at 
 the time of the greatest glaciation of the land; then a re- 
 warming in the interglacial period nearly up to the present 
 temperature; after which the cold and glaciation regained 
 the upper hand, finally to give way to the present conditions, 
 which are about midway between the greatest warmth of the 
 Tertiary age and the greatest cold of the Pleistocene. . 
 
 Just as little can we determine at present by what agency 
 all these vicissitudes are brought about; most plausible and 
 simple would it certainly be were the sun a variable star 
 that at different periods emits different quantities of heat; 
 but for this or any other assumption there is no proof forth- 
 coming. This enigma, like so many others, will some day 
 be solved by man's searching intelligence, but, like all other 
 acquisitions of science, this goal can be won by assiduous 
 and patient labor. Haply the triumph may not be for our 
 generation; but what we may certainly accomplish is to pre- 
 pare the way for it, by an accurate and critical collection of 
 the facts. DR. M. NEUMAYR.* 
 
 166. Geological Periods. Having now examined the gen- 
 eral phenomena of cosmical evolution and gravitation, plan- 
 etary light and heat, aerial and oceanic tides, and terrestrial 
 magnetism, in their relation to the new theory, and invariably 
 finding apparently perfect and unquestionable harmony of 
 that theory with the f^cts let us now turn into a different 
 department of scientific inquiry and see if the same harmony 
 is manifested there also. Having tested the theory by the 
 various manifestations above and upon the Earth's surface, 
 let us now test it by the manifestations beneath the Earth's 
 surface, or the testimony of the Earth's crust itself. This 
 crust upon which we temporarily have our being, has cer- 
 tainly been subjected to vast changes both of form and sur- 
 
 *Lecture before the Society for Dissemination of Natural Science, 
 Vienna, Jan. 2, 1889. 
 
314 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [167 
 
 rounding conditions; and, if the new theory be in the main 
 the true one, it will even yet be subjected to changes com- 
 pared with which the past changes, the evidence of which 
 the crust affords, are utterly insignificant. However, it is 
 the record of these past changes that are here to be ex- 
 amined, and though perhaps they are relatively insignifi- 
 cant, we shall nevertheless find them vast enough for the con- 
 sideration of our puny faculties. 
 
 The time since the appearance of the human race upon 
 the Earth is apparently but a moment of the Earth's his- 
 tory. There is some evidence that man existed shortly prior 
 to the great Ice Age, but the highest scientific authorities 
 are of the opinion that the earliest traces of Paleolithic man 
 is to be found in river drifts deposited after the vast glaciers 
 began to melt away. Now the duration of the great Ice Age 
 is said to be double that of the period since, and yet the Ice 
 Age and the period since together are supposed to be, on 
 the most probable basis, but a fraction of one per cent, of 
 the period since the formation of the present crust upon the 
 Earth. 
 
 167. The Age of Ice. For hundreds of thousands of 
 years, then, probably before the first appearance of man, 
 vast sheets of ice covered the temperate regions which we 
 now inhabit, and perpetual winter reigned half way to the 
 Equator. But still prior to this, for a far longer period, the 
 climate of the same regions was extremely torrid, and per- 
 petual summer reigned as far north as the Pole. Of these 
 vast changes of the Earth's climate in the past, there is no 
 question whatever among scientific men. The evidence is 
 abundant and unmistakable, and carries conviction at once 
 to the mind of the student of Nature. But if the scientist 
 be asked how these changes of climate came about, practically 
 no answer is received. He does not know. He has, or 
 rather he had, theories regarding these climatic changes, but 
 they are all untenable, and so obviously so that they are 
 about all practically rejected and laid aside. The late Mr. 
 Searles V. Wood, in a summary of the possible causes of the 
 succession of cold and warm climates, enumerates no less 
 
168] GEOLOGICAL CLIMATIC CHANGES 315 
 
 than seven different theories, which have met with more or 
 less acceptance. And Sir J. William Dawson, in his inaugural 
 address at the fifty-sixth annual meeting of the British Asso- 
 ciation, justly exclaims that "nearly every cause available in 
 the heavens and in the earth have been invoked to account for 
 these astounding facts." 
 
 The theory of Dr. James Croll, as elaborated in his works 
 "Climate and Time," "Climate and Cosmology," etc., was prob- 
 ably the ablest as well as the most widely accepted. But 
 after a critical examination of it by Dr. Woeikof,* not to 
 mention former criticisms of it by Simon Newcomb and 
 others, there remains little else than a series of erroneous 
 assumptions. In the words of J. Norman Lockyer 
 
 "His whole system of estimating temperature breaks down 
 when seriously tested, the errors being enormous, in some 
 cases upwards of 100 F., or greater than the difference of 
 annual temperature between the equator and the North Pole. 
 His hypotheses, although brilliant and fascinating, can not 
 be accepted, the main points on which they rest being op- 
 posed to the most certain teachings of meteorology, and the 
 whole fabric, in its explanation of glaciation and geological 
 climates generally, being entirely fallacious."* 
 
 168. The Causes of the Climatic Changes. By the new 
 theory, however, the explanation is simple and obvious at a 
 glance. As already intimated some pages back, the Earth, 
 after its transformation from the solar ring into the spherical 
 form, at once began to contract its volume and form a crust 
 upon itself, in all respects similar to the solar crust out of 
 which it originated; and also, at the same time, a similar 
 process took place upon the Sun. It appears that this gener- 
 ative process upon the Sun in this case required less time 
 than it did upon the Earth. In other words, the solar crust 
 first matured and brought forth the planet Venus, before the 
 Earth had been delivered of its satellite. The evidence 
 of this solar priority lies in the fact that in the same period 
 during which the Earth gave birth to only one body, the 
 Moon, the Sun gave birth to two bodies, Venus and Mercury. 
 
 * American Journal of Science and Art, March 1886. 
 *Nature, 34, 40. 
 
316 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [168 
 
 A partial reason at least for this solar priority would be that 
 the generative process upon the Sun was supposably some- 
 what advanced while the Earth-ring was yet extending out- 
 wards from its parent, and preparing itself for its aggrega- 
 tion into the planetary form. But no doubt the chief reason 
 of the priority would be the greater centrifugal tendency 
 of the Sun's equatorial surface. In any event, it appears 
 tolerably plain from the new theory that, after the Earth, the 
 next in order of generatioin of the three bodies subsequently 
 begotten was Venus, then the Moon, and lastly Mercury. 
 
 Now it is a corollary reasonably following from this the- 
 ory, and is practically self-evident, that when the Sun's sur- 
 face cools and contracts into a solid crust, a much smaller 
 solar heat will be distributed outwards to the planets of the 
 Solar System, than when the Sun's crust is in a gaseous form. 
 From these premises it follows that, at the birth of the 
 Moon, the Sun was tolerably well advanced upon Mercury. 
 By the time the present crust of the Earth was sufficiently 
 formed to support vegetable life, the solar crust would have 
 been in a still more advanced stage, and so would furnish 
 less heat to the Earth than it at present receives. Perhaps 
 this consideration does not with equal probability apply to 
 the Sun's light; which, for aught that we can assign to the 
 contrary, may have remained practically undiminished. At 
 this time of comparative solar frigidity, the light and possibly 
 the heat of the Moon, owing to its recent formation, might 
 also be relatively great. But the chief source of heat, in all 
 probability, would be the Earth itself. It is certain that at 
 this period the Earth-crust would be generously warmed over 
 its whole extent by the Earth's internal heat; and with light 
 either from the Sun or the Moon, or from both, the Earth's 
 surface would have been one great hot-bed, and the favorable 
 condition for vegetable growth would be unsurpassed. This 
 would be the Carboniferous Era upon the Earth, in which 
 the vast coal beds were deposited; the comparative thinness 
 of the crust affording relatively frequent opportunities for its 
 upheaval or subsidence. And at the same time the tepid wa- 
 ters would support more gigantic and a greater number of 
 
1691 GEOLOGICAL CLIMATIC CHANGES 317 
 
 animals than with either a greater or less amount of heat. 
 
 But the Earth-heat would gradually diminish at the sur- 
 face. After hundreds of thousands of years, the temperature 
 would fall upon the land and in the water; the Sun would 
 afford a minimum of heat; the climate would gradually be- 
 come frigid the water would congeal into snow and ice; and 
 excepting probably a strip bordering on either side of the 
 Equator, preserved by the remnants of solar heat, the whole 
 Earth would be one vast sheet of glaciers and snow. 
 
 But another change was beginning to daw upon our planet. 
 When its internal heat had become greatly reduced at the 
 surface, and the Sun also had cooled by encrustation so as 
 to furnish but a minimum quantity, the solar crust began to 
 part and the gaseous interior would gradually be exposed to 
 view; affording to our world once more the life-restoring 
 heat. This process of crust separation would continue and 
 the heat would increase in intensity until the ring wholly 
 separated from the body of the Sun. This would be the sec- 
 ond or post-glacial tropical period. After a time the first 
 intensity of the solar heat would wear away, and this gradual 
 diminution would have continued down to the present day; 
 in which, according to the new theory, the solar surface is 
 just in the inceptive stage of its solidification in the process 
 of generating another planet. 
 
 By the new theory, then, the sequence of geological cli- 
 mates, so far as the present Earth-crust is concerned, is as 
 follows: First, very hot, corresponding to the original heat 
 of our globe the gradual tempering of which produced the 
 magnificant flora and the gigantic fauna of the Coal Meas- 
 ures; second, very cold, corresponding to the cooling and more 
 advanced solidification of the Earth's, the Moon's, and the 
 Sun's, surface; third, very warm, corresponding to the sep- 
 aration of the Sun's solidified crust; and fourth, a gradual 
 reduction of the heat of this last period down to the present 
 day. It is scarcely necessary to state that this sequence is 
 almost precisely similar to that deduced by geologists from 
 the evidence of the crust itself. 
 
 169. The Supposed Subdivisions of the Ice Age. There 
 
318 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [169 
 
 is, indeed, one apparent discrepancy; which, however, may 
 quite possibly be owing to the extraordinary and . incorrect 
 causes which the confusion of previous theories compelled 
 scientists to assign for the facts. The view involving this 
 apparent discrepancy is that, very generally received among 
 geologists, which regards the great Ice Age as divided into 
 several portions, separated by interglacial periods. This 
 view, if true, would not be absolutely inconsistent with the 
 theory here advanced, as the interruption by various causes 
 of the cooling process upon the Sun can by no means be said 
 to be impossible. But the great probability appears to be 
 that this view is erroneous. Leaving out of consideration the 
 astronomical grounds upon which Dr. Croll and others based 
 the subdivisions of the Ice Age, as having been quite suf- 
 ficiently criticised by other inquirers, one ground, of a very 
 different character, for a belief in such subdivision may be 
 noticed. 
 
 Archibald Geikie, in his "Geological Sketches," describes 
 what he thinks is probably the oldest portion of land surface 
 on our globe, in the northwest part of Scotland. A some- 
 what extensive platform of old gneiss had first been 
 
 "buried under several thousand feet of red sandstone. 
 The area was then further submerged until the vast pile of 
 sediment was deposited out of which the Highlands had 
 been formed, that these sedimentary accumulations how 
 many thousand feet thick we cannot yet tell were subse- 
 quently over the Highland area crumpled and metamorphosed 
 into crystalline schists, and that towards the west the ancient 
 platform of gneiss was once more ridged up and gradually 
 bared of its superincumbent load of rock, until now at length 
 some portions of it have been once more laid open to the air." 
 
 What is strange about the old gneiss platform thus laid 
 bare is the peculiar bossy, hummocky appearance which it 
 presents, which is not presented by the later formations re- 
 maining above it, and which, "if they were found in a recent 
 formation, would without hesitation be ascribed to land ice." 
 The overlying formations are marked by parallel striations 
 and bands of rocky terrace, but are far from exhibiting such 
 energy of glacial action as in the older gneiss. Moreover 
 the peculiar smooth, bossy character of the latter can be 
 
169] GEOLOGICAL CLIMATIC CHANGES 319 
 
 traced under the recent formations and under patches of 
 breccia or moraine which have been left standing by recent 
 erosions. From this the inference clearly follows that an 
 earlier period of glaciation existed, which was separated from 
 the recent period of glaciation by the immense interval of 
 time required for the deposition of the red sandstone and 
 overlying schists, and their submergence, crystallization and 
 subsequent elevation. 
 
 Regarding this inference as true, the new theory would 
 still regard the two periods, however distant, as the inceptive 
 and final stages of one grand period of glaciation. Accord- 
 ing to this view, the old gneiss was, in the first place, sub- 
 jected to the action if the glaciers during a comparatively 
 great time in the beginning of the Ice Age; that then it was 
 submerged, water intervening between it and the ice, and 
 had deposited upon it the sandstone and schists by the action 
 of the glaciers and the overlying waters; that subsequently, 
 with its overlying burden it was upheaved and again sub- 
 jected to the action of the uninterrupted, but diminished ice, 
 suffering denudation of its overlying deposits in the closing 
 and more moderate period of the Ice Age, and by continued 
 elevation and denudation, itself a second time polished and 
 striated by ice-action. 
 
 There is nothing certainly known regarding these alleged 
 interglacial periods. Geologists are by no means agreed 
 either upon their existence or their number. 
 
 ''Opinions differ as to the number of glacial and interglac- 
 ial epochs, many holding that we have evidence of only two 
 cold stages, and one general interglacial stage. .... 
 While some observers are of opinion that there are only two 
 epochs of general glaciation, others, as for example, M. Tar- 
 dy, find what they consider to be evidence of several such 
 epochs. Others, again, as M. Falsan, do not believe in the 
 existence of interglacial stages, although they readily admit 
 that there were great advances and retreats of the ice during 
 the glacial period."* 
 
 This last, in which Dr. N. O. Hoist also agrees, t is pre- 
 
 *Prof. James Geike, Presidental Address to the Geological Section, 
 British Association, 1889 ; Nature, 40, 491. 
 
 tNature, 97, 247. 
 
320 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [169 
 
 cisely the view here entertained, except that, instead of ad- 
 vances and retreats of the ice, upheavals and subsidences, 
 various in number in various places, are substituted. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV 
 
 COSMICAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 
 
 Like the wife of Ulysses, who undid at night what her 
 industrious fingers had wrought by day, Nature amuses her- 
 self with an eternal building up and destroying, the beginning 
 of which is like its end and the end like the beginning. 
 Thence, as Spiller thinks, by a "continual perfecting in the 
 aggregation of atoms (as actually occurs on the earth) there 
 might possibly arise an improvement in organization and in 
 the conditions of life" which would enable us to imagine that 
 a gradual progression from the imperfect to the perfect and 
 from the lowlier to the higher . . . would take place 
 within definite periods in the never-ending regions of the 
 universe. BUCHNER. 
 
 And what is this world in the immensity which teems 
 with them, and what are we who occupy it? The universe 
 at large would suffer as little in its splendour and variety by 
 the destruction of our planet, as the verdure and sublime 
 magnitude of a forest would suffer by the fall of a single 
 leaf. The leaf quivers on the branch which supports it. It 
 lies at the mercy of the slightest accident. A breath of wind 
 tears it from its parent stem, and it lights on the stream of 
 water which falls underneath. In a moment of time an oc- 
 currence so insignificant to the eyes of man . . carries 
 with it to the myriads which people the little leaf an event 
 as terrible and as decisive as the destruction of a world. Now, 
 on the grand scale of the universe, we, the occupiers of this 
 ball which performs its little round among the suns and the 
 systems that astronomy has unfolded we may feel the same 
 littleness and the same insecurity. We differ from the leaf 
 only in this circumstance, that it would require the operation 
 of greater elements to destroy us. But these elements exist. 
 
 DR. THOMAS CHALMERS. 
 
 This sea of fire, like the first abyss, will cover the face 
 of the whole earth, make a kind of second chaos, and leave 
 a capacity for another world to rise from it. ... Let 
 us reflect . . on the variety and transient glory of all 
 this habitable world; how by the force of one element break- 
 
170] COSMJCAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 321 
 
 ing loose upon the rest, all the varieties of nature, all the 
 works of art, all the labors of men are reduced to nothing. 
 . Where are now the great empires of the world and 
 their imperial cities? Their pillars, trophies, and monu- 
 ments of glory? . . . What remains, what impressions, 
 what difference or distinctions do you see in this mass of fire? 
 
 170. Significance of the Sunspots. It is apparent from 
 what has already been observed, that the evolution of the 
 Solar System, according to the new theory, is still far from 
 completion is, in fact, even now going on and will continue 
 to go on. It has been noticed when discussing the facts of 
 geology that the Sun is now continually cooling; and there 
 are grounds for regarding the spots which are observed upon 
 its surface as incipient attempts at solidification of that 
 surface. These sunspot phenomena may now be examined 
 more in detail. 
 
 Nearly all scientific authorities regard the solar spots as 
 solid, and as cooler than the rest of the surface. According 
 to Zollner, the Sun was a white-hot body, and its spots were 
 scoriaceous products of local cooling. Zollner's theory, as 
 elaborated by M. Schulz, sixteen years later, was, that a cer- 
 tain gas, escaping from tremendous pressure in the lower 
 regions of the photosphere into the upper regions of the 
 solar atmosphere, would dilate and cool sufficiently to con- 
 dense into the liquid and then into the solid state, and thus 
 fall in showers upon the photosphere. When the shower is 
 a light one, a "pore" would be the result; when it is heavy 
 and long-continued, groups of slag islands would form, around 
 which the photospheric clouds would arrange themselves into 
 the characteristic funnel shape of the penumbra, at the bot- 
 tom of which is the obscure, solid nucleus. Prof. Balfour 
 Stewart states: 
 
 "It has been pointed out by the Kew observers that the 
 bottom of a spot is blacker, because it is colder than the 
 general surface, and they have likewise brought forward evi- 
 dence to show that this diminution of temperature has prob- 
 ably been produced by the down-rush of comparatively cold 
 mjatter from above, a conclusion which has since been con- 
 clusively verified by spectroscopic observation. . . . We 
 
322 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [171 
 
 have ... in the faculae the necessary reaction of this, 
 or the up-rush of comparatively hot matter from below." 
 
 And also Dr. J. Norman Lockyer says: 
 
 "We have seen, in fact, that one chief point about the 
 sun is that it is cooled on the outside; that masses of gas 
 going up to tremendous altitudes eventually arrive where the 
 atmosphere is cold and quiet, and where they again take on 
 the solid or liquid form, when they begin to go down again." 
 
 These are representative current views from the highest 
 authorities on the subject; and, while they differ somewhat 
 in detail, yet they essentially agree with each other, and with 
 .the deductions from the theory here advanced. 
 
 171. The Equatorial Movement of the Sun&pots. The 
 chief peculiarities of sunspots with respect to motion and 
 locality, which have hitherto remained unexplained, is readily 
 and reasonably accounted for on the basis of the connective 
 system of evolution. It has been observed that the spots 
 near the sunspot minimum, appear generally about latitude 
 30 north or south of the solar equator. Here they seem to 
 rotate round the Sun in a period of some 26^ days (slightly 
 greater south, and slightly less north of the equator). But, 
 during the succeeding years up to about the next sunspot 
 minimum, the spot-zone gradually approaches towards the 
 equator; where their rotation-period around the Sun's axis 
 is only about 25 days. It may be remarked here, as conceded 
 by nearly all authorities on the subject, that the equatorial 
 regions of the Sun are hotter than the higher latitudes. And 
 another fact which should be borne in mind is that the sun- 
 spots which we ordinarily see are not all the spots which form 
 upon the Sun's surface by the descent of cooled material 
 from above; that, in fact, such spots are continually formed 
 upon the entire solar surface. Upon this point, Prof. Bal- 
 four Stewart may be quoted once more: 
 
 "What we have on a large scale in the spots and faculae 
 we have on a small scale all over the Sun's disc. When 
 viewed with a powerful telescope the brightness of his disc 
 is found to be far from uniform, the whole surface being 
 made up of bright and dark patches existing side by side. 
 This mottled appearance was first noticed by the elder Her- 
 schel, who considered the pores, as he termed them, to be 
 
171] COSMICAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 323 
 
 small spots a conclusion which has since been abundantly 
 verified by the spectroscope."* 
 
 Now these spots thus forming over the entire surface of 
 the Sun, being solid bodies formed by the descent of cooled 
 material from the upper regions of the solar atmosphere, are 
 obviously denser than the heated ocean on which they float. 
 And as the Sun has a comparatively great velocity of axial 
 rotation^ we know from analogy that these denser bodies, 
 having freedom of motion, would tend, owing to the centrifu- 
 gal force generated by the rotation, to approach the solar 
 equator just as we have noticed would be the case with the 
 original solar spheroid. But, as, in obedience to this tend- 
 ency, the incipient crust-fragments move equatorwards, they 
 encounter the greater heat in these lower regions, and are 
 therefore gradually dissolved. At all times, ho doubt, there 
 falls by far the greater amount of cooled material in the 
 equatorial regions, and smaller and smaller amounts on equal 
 surfaces as the poles are approached, owing to the decreasing 
 height of the solar atmosphere in these directions. But at 
 the same time, the greater heat of the former prevents the 
 aggregation of this cooled material into spots (except when 
 the precipitation is comparatively great in amount, as at 
 sunspot maximum), just as the paucity of the falling material 
 in the polar regions has the same effect. So that, other 
 things equal, the first appearance of the spots would most 
 probably be at the latitudes between the polar and the equa- 
 torial regions. This would approximately be the case at 
 the time of sunspot minimum when the planetary connexions 
 are about evenly distributed over the Sun's equatorial surface. 
 But towards the sunspot maximum, the connexions become 
 bunched in certain directions upon the Sun's equatorial sur- 
 face; the solar atmosphere, ascending in these aggregated 
 connexions, would become elongated outwards from the 
 equator, and consequently would be of still less elevation over 
 the polar regions. Moreover, the ascending vapors rising 
 higher in the elongated equatorial atmosphere, the showers 
 of cooled matter would descend in still greater profusion upon 
 
 *Nature, 33, 36. 
 
324 THE CON/TECTIVE THEORY [172 
 
 the equatorial regions; and thus, owing both to the dimin- 
 ished precipitation in the higher latitudes and the increased 
 precipitation in the lower, the 'spot-zone moves towards the 
 equator between minimum and maximum of sunspots. 
 
 After maximum, however, up to minimum again, we might 
 expect a poleward movement of the spot-zone to the place 
 of beginning. But this return is precluded by the premised 
 circumstances. For as the solar connexions are moving out 
 of conjunction, the regions where they are intermingled and 
 where the elevated density of the connective atmosphere is 
 consequently maintained, become smaller and smaller, until 
 they finally disappear at the equator. Thus the wave of 
 spots would continually approach the equator as the con- 
 nexions moved out of angular coincidence; until finally the 
 previous condition of approximate uniformity of the con- 
 nective density was restored, and another wave would begin 
 in the intermediate latitudes as before. 
 
 172. The Greater Angular Velocity of Sunspots at the 
 Equator. Regarding the more rapid equatorial rotation of 
 the spots, the reasonable supposition may be made that the 
 different parts of the Sun, including all but the outer portion 
 of its atmosphere, revolve axially at the same angular rate. 
 This is what happens an the case of our own world, so far as 
 we know; the atmosphere, except in the extreme upper re- 
 gions, revolving approximately in the same time as the Earth 
 itself; and it seems proper to reason that what happens 
 in our own world happens also in other worlds in analogous 
 cases. From this approximately equal angular velocity of 
 all parts of the Sun in equal times, it follows that the middle 
 regions of the solar atmosphere (in which probably most of 
 the ascending vapors are cooled) would revolve with a con- 
 siderably greater absolute velocity than the proper surface 
 of the Sun, where the spots are formed. Now, as the heated 
 vapors ascend into these atmospheric regions, they gradually 
 acquire the absolute velocity of these regions; and when they 
 become cooled, and fall again to the solar surface in a denser 
 and more compact form, they would take with them a portion, 
 at least, of the increase of velocity thus acquired; so that the 
 
172] COSMICAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 325 
 
 spots which they form would really have a greater angular 
 and absolute velocity of rotation than the general surface 
 on which they float. Also, it is clear that the equatorial 
 atmospheric regions of the Sun would have a greater absolute 
 velocity of rotation, and that this velocity continually dimin- 
 ishes up to the poles of the Sun, where it is nothing. And 
 besides, as the equatorial atmospheric regions extend out- 
 wards to a far greater distance from the Sun's center than 
 those in higher latitudes, the absolute velocity of the former 
 would have a greater ratio to that of the latter than the 
 absolute velocity of the proper equatorial surface would have 
 to that of the proper solar surface of the higher latitudes. 
 Therefore, the cooler matter which falls upon the equatorial 
 regions would not only have a greater absolute velocity, but 
 also a greater angular velocity than that which falls in higher 
 latitudes; and so the period of rotation of the former would 
 be less than that of the latter, in accordance with actual ob- 
 servation. 
 
 The equatorial movement of the spots would partly coun- 
 teract this; but this movement is so slow, and the existence 
 of an individual spot, whether large or small, is so short 
 (about ten or twelve days on the average, rarely so high as 
 fifty days) that the effect of this counteraction is relatively 
 insignificant. The same remark also applies to the friction 
 of the solar surface with the spots ; which, if the period of ex- 
 istence of individual spots were much greater, would reduce 
 their angular velocity down to that of the supporting solar 
 surface.* 
 
 But the friction of a solid body floating upon the solar 
 surface, whether gaseous or liquid, would probably be so small 
 that, during the brief life of a spot, its effect would be to 
 dimmish, rather than to overcome, the extra velocity. It 
 follows, then, from these considerations, that the period of 
 the Sun's rotation would be somewhat greater than those 
 of the spots, by which it has hitherto been determined; and 
 that the greater spot-period the most closely approximates 
 to it. 
 
 *It is to be borne in mind that a sunspot is being continually con- 
 sumed from below, and continually renewed from above. 
 
326 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [173 
 
 Thus, then, does the secular cooling of the Sun proceed; 
 and thus would it, in all probability, continue until, in succeed- 
 ing ages, and after countless catastrophic interruptions, one 
 solid and continuous crust would eventually cover the Sun's 
 entire surface. And this crust would expand outwards at the 
 equator, separate into the ring form and precipitate into a 
 planet with a display of comets and meteorites, just as the 
 first crust did upon the original solar spheroid; this again to 
 be followed by secular cooling of the new and diminished Sun, 
 by sunspots and succeeding crusts and planets, almost infi- 
 nitely repeated through the seeming eternity of the future. 
 
 173. Present Crust-Development Upon the Earth. On 
 our world we find the development much more advanced than 
 it is upon the Sun; which is scarcely to be wondered at when 
 we recollect that, since the birth of our planet, two crusts 
 have matured upon, and separated from the bosom of the 
 Sun, while the Earth has given birth to just one. But it is 
 only natural that the parent should be more prolific than the 
 offspring in the earlier period of the latter's existence, even 
 though the former did not possess the more powerful rotation 
 and ring-producing energy. The Earth is not yet greatly 
 behind in the matter of progeny; and probably long before 
 the Sun gives birth to another planet, the Earth will be de- 
 livered of a second satellite. 
 
 The Earth-crust upon which we have our being has long 
 since become cold and firm at the outer surface. It has long 
 since commenced to bulge outwards at the equator, and this 
 bulging now amounts to thirteen miles from the center all 
 around the Earth. This equatorial expansion, being ab- 
 stracted chiefly from- the polar regions, no doubt leaves these 
 regions with a thinner crust than that of the lower latitudes; 
 which also implies a warmer climate there than would other- 
 wise prevail. 
 
 We appear to have every reason for believing that this 
 equatorial and expansive movement of the Earth-crust is 
 now taking place, and will continue to do so. It is slow and 
 almost imperceptible; but the evidences of its existence are 
 clear and unmistakable. When we examine the Earth-crust 
 
173] COSMICAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 327 
 
 closely we find that it is in a state of continual tremor; indi- 
 cating, no doubt, the continual strain to which it is sub- 
 jected. Prof. G. H. Darwin has investigated these Earth- 
 tremors, and the results at which he has arrived are best 
 stated in his own words in the Fortnightly Review. 
 
 "Within the last fifteen years it has been discovered that 
 the earth's surface is being continually shaken by tremors, 
 so minute as to remain unsuspected without the intervention 
 of the most delicate instruments. In every country where 
 the experiments have been tried these tremors have been 
 detected, and not merely at certain periods, but so incessantly, 
 that there is never a second of perfect rest. The earth may 
 fairly be said to tremble like a jelly. The pioneer in this 
 curious discovery was Father Bertelli. His experiments 
 relate only to Italy, but that which has been found true also 
 of England, France, Egypt, Brazil, and a solitary island in 
 the South Pacific Ocean, probably holds good generally, and 
 we may feel sure that earth-tremors or 'microseisms' are not 
 confined to countries habitually visited by the grosser sort 
 of earthquakes." 
 
 It is probable that as the Earth rotates in the heart of the 
 great connective atmosphere surrounding it, and as the indi- 
 vidual connective rays pass from molecule to molecule of the 
 Earth-crust, this alternate tension and relief would occasion 
 vibrations of the parts something like those observed. In 
 support of this view, it has been observed that earthquakes 
 and Earth-tremors are more frequent during our winter in 
 both hemispheres, at which time the strain of the solar con- 
 nexion upon the Earth is most intense. M. Perrey has also 
 shown that there are more earthquakes when the Moon is 
 nearest the Earth, and more when she is on the meridian 
 than in any other position; all of which is obviously explic- 
 able by the undeniably greater strain of the lunar connexion 
 upon the Earth-crust in these positions. 
 
 But the strain of the Earth-connexions upon the Earth- 
 crust, would not alone be the cause of the observed tremors. 
 There is also the centrifugal strain caused by the Earth's 
 rotation, which in turn produces a slow and gradual tendency 
 of the crust to move towards the Equator or place of greater 
 motion. In obedience to this strain the crust is continually 
 moving irregularly upwards and downwards and towards the 
 
328 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [174 
 
 Equator. Quoting again from Prof. Darwin in the same 
 article : 
 
 "Rossi has made some interesting experiments with the 
 microphone on microseisms. . . . As long as the micro- 
 phone is still, nothing is heard; but on the occurrence of the 
 slightest tremor a noise is audible . . . The instrument 
 can be made so sensitive, that a fly may be heard to walk 
 near the microphone with a loud tramp. . . . Rossi placed 
 the microphone on the ground, in a cavern sixty feet below 
 the surface, on a rocky part of Rocca di Papa, an extinct 
 volcano not far from Rome, whilst he listened with his tel- 
 ephone at the surface of the earth. He then heard the most 
 extraordinary noises, which, as he says, revealed 'natural 
 telluric phenomena'. The sounds he describes as 'roarings, 
 explosions, occurring isolated or in volleys, and metallic 
 or bell-like sounds'. They all occurred mixed together and 
 rose and fell in intensity at regular intervals. He found it 
 impossible by any artificial disturbance to a microphone to 
 produce the greater number of these noises. The microphone 
 is especially sensitive to vertical movements of the soil, 
 whereas the tronometer fails to reveal them. Nevertheless, 
 there was more or less accordance between the agitations of 
 the two instruments. In order, then, to determine the noises 
 corresponding to various oscillations, he transported his 
 microphone to Palmieri's Vesuvian Observatory, where mild 
 earthquakes are almost incessant; here he discovered that 
 each class of shocks had its characteristic noise. The ver- 
 tical shocks gave the volleys of musketry and the undulatory 
 shocks gave the roarings." 
 
 174. Variation of Terrestrial Latitudes. Prof. Darwin 
 continues : 
 
 "Astronomers are much puzzled by slight changes in the 
 level of their instruments, and they meet this inconvenience 
 by continually reading their levels and correcting their re- 
 sults accordingly. Of course they also take average results. 
 These troublesome changes are probably earth tremors, with 
 so slow a motion to and fro that the term tremor becomes 
 inappropriate. This kind of change has been called a dis- 
 placement of the vertical, since the plummet moves rela- 
 tively to the ground. Thus we found at Cambridge that as 
 the pendulum danced it slowly drifted in one direction or the 
 other. There was a fairly regular daily oscillation, but the 
 pendulum would sometimes reverse its expected course, for 
 a few minutes, or for an hour. During the whole time that 
 we were observing, the mean position of the pendulum for 
 the day slowly shifted in one direction; but even after a 
 voyage of six weeks the total change was still very small. 
 How far this was a local effect, and how far general, we had 
 no means of determining. 
 
174] COSMTCAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 329 
 
 "This is a subject which M. d'Abbadie, of the French Insti- 
 tute, has made especially his own. Notwithstanding his 
 systematic observations, carried on during many years in an 
 observatory near the Bay of Biscay, on the French side of the 
 Spanish frontier, hardly anything has been made out as to 
 the laws governing displacements of the vertical. He has, 
 however, been able to show that there is a tendency for de- 
 flection of the vertical towards the sea at high tide, but this 
 deflection is frequently masked by other simultaneous chang- 
 es of unexplained origin." 
 
 It has long been known also that earthquakes are pre- 
 ceded by tremors leading by a gradual crescendo to the de- 
 structive shocks, these shocks being, by this theory at least, 
 partly due to the sudden adjustment of parts of the crust to 
 accumulated centrifugal stresses. According to this view, 
 then, the displacement of the Earth-crust should, on the 
 whole, be in a direction towards the Equator; and, as a matter 
 of fact, this appears to be borne out by actual observation. 
 
 "An examination of observations made at a number of 
 Northern observatories during the past seventy-five years 
 Konigsberg, Milan, Naples, Paris, Pulkowa, and Washington 
 appears to confirm the existence of such changes. At Pul- 
 kowa, which furnishes the most careful series of observations, 
 a dimunition of the latitude of 0.23", equivalent to about 23 
 feet, is indicated between the years 1843 and 1872; but in all 
 these cases the variations are small, and we must be extreme- 
 ly cautious in ascribing them to actual changes of latitude."* 
 
 It does not seem, however, that 23 feet in the time stated 
 is so very small a movement of the Earth-crust towards the 
 Equator after all; and although we certainly ought to be 
 cautious of accepting it as a fact, it would just as certainly 
 be very imprudent to regard the evidence of our own eyes 
 with undue suspicion, because its acceptance would so pro- 
 foundly modify the existing doctrines. Speaking of this 
 subject, Prof. C. A. Young says: 
 
 "As regards the earth's form and dimensions, it has be- 
 come quite certain that Bessel's ellipticity (1/300) is too 
 small. Clarke's value of 1/294 is now admitted and em- 
 ployed on the U. S. Coast Survey with a decided improvement 
 of accordance. A slightly larger value even is suggested by 
 the most recent pendulum observations, and 1/292 is now 
 
 *Sir William C. Winlock, An Account of Progress in Astronomy in 
 the Year 1885, p. 61. 
 
330 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [174 
 
 adopted in Europe. . . . At the same time it is becom- 
 ing increasingly evident that very little is now to be gained by 
 endeavoring to find a spheroid fitting the Earth's actual form 
 more closely. It will be best simply to adopt some standard 
 (say that of Clarke, but it makes very little difference what), 
 and to investigate hereafter the local deviations from it. 
 These deviations seem to be larger and more extensive than 
 used to be supposed, the station errors in latitude and longi- 
 tude being at least quantities of the same order as the vari- 
 ations of elevation."* 
 
 The subject is so important and its evidence in favor of 
 the teaching of the new theory is so direct and so unanimous 
 that the insertion here of a few further quotations regarding 
 it from more recent authorities may be pardoned. 
 
 "The determinations of the latitude of Greenwich made 
 from the time of Flamsteed (1693) to now nearly two cen- 
 turies indicate a very appreciable diminution. "f 
 
 "Progressive diminution of latitude at Washington, 1845- 
 1883, 0".31; Paris, 1825-1891, 2". 05; Milan, 1811-1871, 0".51; 
 Naples, 1820-1871, 1".22; Konigsberg, 1820-1843, 0".15; Green- 
 wich, 1838-1856, 0".51. A similar tendency is shown by the 
 observations of Peters, Gylden, and Nyren at Pulkowa, also 
 by my own observations at Bethlehem, Pa., since 1875."$ 
 
 "The latitude of Natal Observatory has decreased steadily 
 from 1885 to 1890 at the rate of 0".27 per annum." 
 
 "He (Sir George Darwin) accepted as worthy of consider- 
 ation Prof. Hecker's explanation of the remarkable absence 
 of symmetry in the path of the vertical. . . . The earth 
 has much greater rigidity east-west than north-south. 
 Lord Kelvin introduced the idea of gyroscopic rigidity, that 
 is, of greater rigidity east-west due to rotation." 
 
 "Prof. Turner, in his Astronomical Discovery, states that, 
 apparently, earthquakes are more numerous at the time when 
 the vibration is greatest. . . . The severe earthquakes of 
 1906 occurred soon after the time of maximum activity of the 
 Pole." || 
 
 As soon as the secular variation of terrestrial latitudes 
 was discovered, various periods were assigned to it, from 
 
 *Nature, 35, 67. 
 
 tProf. Geo. C. Comstock, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1891. 
 
 JProf. C. L. Doolittle, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1893. 
 
 Nature, 51, 327. Nature, 81, 427. 
 
 ||C. G. Abbot, Smith. Kept. 1906, pp. 167-171 
 
175] COSMICAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 331 
 
 about 10 months up to 12 years. The late Prof. S. C. Chand- 
 ler, who was a pioneer in this investigation assigned a period 
 of 427 days and also one of 12 years. He supposed that its 
 effect was to periodically increase the latitudes of places on 
 one side of the Earth by 30 or 40 feet and simultaneously di- 
 minish those on the other side by the same amount. Some 
 assign a periodical movement of the axis of rotation as its 
 cause, while others deny this agency. Prof. Newcomb as- 
 cribed it to local precipitation of ice and snow and to the 
 effect of winds*, and Lord Kelvin "considers that the rain 
 falling on the land and the soil transported with it to distant 
 places would displace the earth's axis so as to account for 
 the observed variation of latitude."! More recently three 
 prominent Japanese scientists have resolved the variation 
 into three components, one of which, however, still remains 
 unexplained. 
 
 This is very strong confirmatory evidence of the theory 
 here advanced; especially the continual diminishing of ter- 
 restrial latitudes, the greater susceptibility of the Earth to 
 north and south perturbances, and the concurrence of maxi- 
 mum variation of latitude with severe earthquakes all of 
 which clearly and unmistakably suggest the real cause of the 
 variation. The observations, very apparently, are not direct- 
 ed by any recognized guiding principle or system; but never- 
 theless they could hardly be in more complete harmony with 
 the principles assigned by the connective theory. 
 
 175. Ring-Projection of the Earth-Crust. It appears, 
 therefore, both from theoretic deduction and from actual ob- 
 servation, that our world is at the present time continually 
 changing its form and its dimensions; continually, but with 
 extreme slowness, propelling its surface crust towards the 
 Equator, thus diminishing its polar and increasing the equa- 
 torial diameter. Have we any grounds for believing that 
 this change is to have a period and will eventually cease? 
 On the contrary, the new system indicates that the change 
 will continue into the future, and that, instead of ceasing, 
 it will gradually increase in energy. For, owing to the in- 
 
 *Natnl. Acad. feci., New York, Nov. 18, 1896. fNature, 47, 110. 
 
332 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [176 
 
 creased equatorial diameter, the absolute rotational velocity 
 of the equatorial regions will be increased on the basis of 
 the observed equal angular rate of rotation of all terrestrial 
 parts, and this increased absolute velocity of the equatorial 
 regions will in turn increase the centrifugal tendency by 
 which the expansion of the equatorial diameter takes place. 
 By this system of evolution then, we have no alternative 
 but to regard the changes now taking place in the Earth- 
 crust as mere steps in the general cosmical evolution, sub- 
 sequent steps of which will be the projection of the crust 
 into an Earth-ring, and the disruption of this ring into a 
 second terrestrial satellite. 
 
 176. The Primary Connexion of the Earth-Crust. It may, 
 perhaps, be profitable to glance at the various steps of this 
 process of change which will take place in the Earth-crust, 
 even though at the expense of some repetition. Premising, 
 as in the case of the original spheroid, that atoms are con- 
 nected with contiguous atoms, and that molecules formed 
 from such atoms will also be connected with similar con- 
 tiguous molecules by bonds stronger and more complex than 
 those of atoms, as the molecules themselves are more com- 
 plex than the atoms, we can comprehend how the particles 
 of the initial fragments of crust (the earthspots, as they may 
 be termed) would firmly cohere, and how the connexions 
 between such crust fragments and the heated vapor under- 
 neath (which hold the two together) would diminish in com- 
 plexity and strength from the fragments down into the va- 
 por. And after the crust became continuous, as it is at 
 present, we can conceive that its particles are still held to- 
 gether by their molecular connexions, as well as to the va- 
 por underneath the crust by the graduated connexions of that 
 vapor. As each particle of the crust originally lay upon the 
 bosom of the vapor, and so had its independent connexion 
 with it, and as the coalescence of particles reasonably in- 
 volves the coalescence of the connexions of these particles 
 with the vapor, it follows that however piled up and aggre- 
 gated the crust particles eventually become, each would still 
 have substantially its own original connexion with the vapor, 
 
177] COSMICAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 333 
 
 although really the individual connexions of a mass of par- 
 ticles may be joined into a complex bond, as the mass itself 
 is a complex body of molecules. So that between the pres- 
 ent Earth-crust and, the internal vapor we may posit the ex- 
 istence of a bond of union which is equal to the aggregated 
 bonds of all the individual particles of the entire crust. As 
 the crust moves equatorially, it would evidently be accom- 
 panied by a similar movement of the bond; and when the 
 crust separates from the Earth in the ring form, the undi- 
 minished bond would still unite the ring with the Earth's 
 equator, and would elongate by additions (probably to its 
 inner end) as the ring expanded outwards. 
 
 177. Gravitation Upon the Expanded Earth-Crust. It has 
 been already intimated that the attraction of gravitation 
 varies not only with the law of inverse squares, but also in 
 accordance with the surface conditions. The present crust 
 of the Earth being of a highly developed structure, the molec- 
 ular motions of the Earth's connective atmosphere are cor- 
 respondingly complex; but as the connective atmosphere 
 passes inwards or downwards through the crust and into 
 the heated central vapor, its molecular motions would grad- 
 ually diminish in complexity until, when the vapor is reached, 
 its molecular motions are reduced to their simplest form. 
 Assuming that this complexity of molecular motions of the 
 connective atmosphere, which would invariably accompany 
 crust development, would cause bodies of a similar devel- 
 opment with the crust to approach or fall towards it, and 
 bodies of a dissimilar development to be repelled from it 
 it can be understood that the resistance to the outward ex- 
 pansion of the crust by the attraction of gravitation would 
 thus be very materially diminished. As the crust moves 
 equatorially, and eventually separates from the Earth, the 
 connective atmosphere surrounding it would still maintain 
 the complexity of its molecular motions, until its final dis- 
 ruption, when all the acquired complexity of motion would 
 be lost. But the connective atmosphere remaining upon the 
 Earth would evidently correspond in the simplicity of its 
 
334 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [179 
 
 motions to the primordial state of development there pre- 
 vailing. 
 
 This consideration by itself implies, therefore, that a body 
 of a similar development to that of the ring, if placed be- 
 tween the ring and the Earth, would gravitate to the for- 
 mer, rather than to the latter. But how much this factor 
 of gravitation would be antagonized by the density factor, 
 there does not appear to be sufficient data to determine. It 
 seems probable, however, that the resistance to the outward 
 movement of the ring would arise chiefly from the molecular 
 connexions of the ring itself, and from the tension of the 
 primary connexion with the Earth. And when the ring would 
 eventually fracture at some weak point, the developed at- 
 mosphere which still surrounds it would draw the separated 
 parts to the point of aggregation, perhaps with nearly as 
 great an energy as it now exerts on falling bodies. 
 
 178. Inner Fringe of the Earth-Ring. As the crust would 
 continue to expand at the Equator, the crust at the Poles 
 would become more and more attenuated; and eventually, 
 as the expansion proceeds, the polar crust would fracture 
 down even to the original vapor. As this polar fracture con- 
 tinues to widen, the equatorial expansion would become com- 
 paratively more rapid, as one of the hindrances to such 
 expansion, the molecular connexions of the crust itself, is 
 thus to a great degree overcome. In the wake of the borders 
 of the polar fractures as they move towards the Equator, 
 would follow an inceptive crust of a liquid or scoriaceous 
 nature, which would form through the cooling influence of 
 ocean and air upon the exposed sea of vapor; and when the 
 borders of the two polar fractures finally met upon the 
 Equator to form the inner edge of the solid ring, this neo- 
 plastic crust would form, as the ring expanded outwards, an 
 inner fringe, thinner and thinner towards the inner edge, 
 until it finally dissolves into the ring-connexion. 
 
 179. The Higher Forms of Life as Affected by These 
 Changes. In this process of the evolution of our world, there 
 does not appear to be any indication of sudden and serious 
 catastrophes, at least until the stage of the ring-disruption 
 
179] COSMICAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 335 
 
 is arrived at. Violent shakings and snappings would char- 
 acterize the equatorial movement of the crust in the future, 
 just as in the present and in the past, and very likely with 
 even more disastrous results; but these quakings and snap- 
 pings would evidently occur in those regions with great 
 thickness and extent of solid rock, and the disastrous ones 
 only where this rock exists near the surface. For in those 
 regions where the solid rock is wanting in the crust, the 
 yielding would evidently be so slow and gradual as to be 
 imperceptible; and where it is deep down beneath softer 
 material, the jar would be about absorbed by the latter be- 
 fore arriving at the surface. 
 
 After the polar fractures had taken place, there would be 
 geysers and volcanoes and earth-trembling for a time prob- 
 ably on a much grander scale than at present; but this 
 would take place far from the abodes of man; and the most 
 probable ultimate effect of the increased seismic activity at 
 the Poles, would be the amelioration of the frigid climate 
 now prevailing there. But long prior to the separation of 
 the crust in the ring form, gradual changes in the quality 
 of the atmosphere, arising out of these disturbances, would 
 presumably take place; and these changes might fatally af- 
 fect, or at least depauperate, the higher forms of animated 
 existence. And after the separation of the crust, the dis- 
 tribution of air, water, heat, and gravitation upon it would 
 evidently change to such an extent as to make the extinction 
 of the higher forms of life no longer improbable. For the 
 air that we now breathe would certainly not all appertain 
 to the crust in the ring form but probably such a part of it 
 as the mass of the ring is of the mass of the entire globe; 
 and the same remark would also apply to the connective at- 
 mosphere; so that both air and gravitation would be very 
 greatly modified upon the Earth-ring. Moreover the extreme 
 heat to which all but the outer edge of the ring would be 
 subjected from the fiery globe of the Earth, together with 
 the probability that the remnant of the waters not gasified 
 and thus retained upon the Earth, would seek the outer edge 
 of the ring and there form an ocean all these probable cir- 
 
336 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [180 
 
 cumstances confirm the belief that the essential conditions 
 of all but the lowest forms of life upon every part of the 
 world would be entirely subverted. What remained of the 
 labors of our hands from the cruel erosion of the winds and 
 the waters would be the sole mementos alas! not mementos, 
 but mere material and unrecognized remains of our race; 
 and these would presumably endure through the dreary and 
 sterile ages of the ring-expansion. 
 
 180. Disruption of the Earth-Ring. But the continual ex- 
 pansion of the ring would not forever be compatible with 
 its stability as such. It must sooner or later yield to the 
 ever-increasing centrifugal strain upon it. The final crash 
 must come; and all the development which ages of ages have 
 accumulated would pass into its original vapor. All the arts 
 and sciences which we have been at such infinite pains to 
 perfect; all our vast literature and almost perfected intel- 
 lectual culture; all our grand monuments of architecture and 
 engineering; our inventions, our plans, our hopes, our fears, 
 our loves, our memories all melt away forever! Not the 
 least vestige or trace would remain to tell the story of our 
 being, our wealth, our magnificence, our intelligence! From 
 the vapor out of which we arose, to that vapor shall we re- 
 turn; and in that vapor shall all our achievements be buried 
 and our memories be eternally forgotten! 
 
 It may indeed chance that a very slight trace of us would 
 survive the awful convulsion. The fragments which by the 
 tremendous energy of the crash are hurled outwards to wan- 
 der through space, may bear some marks of our inscriptions 
 and our handiwork. Prof. Langley, speaking of the same sub- 
 ject from a different standpoint, gives utterance to the same 
 thought in referring to the possibility of "a meteorite bring- 
 ing to us the story of a lost race in some fragment of art 
 or architecture of a lost world." At least the rocks in which 
 are buried the solid remains of the lowest organic forms 
 these may partly escape destruction; and as they wander 
 through space in after ages, they may fall upon some remote 
 inhabited planet and convey to the beholder the intelligence 
 that other worlds than his own, somewhere in the realms of 
 
181] COSMICAL EVOLUTION IX THE FUTURE 337 
 
 space, have been peopled with creatures not greatly different 
 from those of his own world. 
 
 The eminent geologist, Dr. Hahn, has a few years ago 
 completed a series of investigations upon some huge me- 
 teoric stones which fell from the sky in Hungary during the 
 summer of 1866. Thin laminae of these bodies, subjected to 
 examination under a powerful microscope, have been found 
 to contain what was supposed to be coralline and spongeous 
 formations, and to reveal unmistakable traces of the lower 
 forms of vegetation. The writer is aware that these alleged 
 discoveries of Dr. Hahn are almost entirely discredited by 
 men of science. But how far this may be owing to the totally 
 different views on the origin of meteorites which these scien- 
 tists entertain (by the most generally accepted of which 
 such formations and traces would, of course, be impossible), 
 it is not for the writer to say, particularly as he has never 
 examined Dr. Hahn's drawings. The latter's conclusions, 
 however, are in direct accordance with the new system; and 
 not only his, but those of others also who have impartially 
 examined the subject. 
 
 Such traces as these are all that would remain of us and 
 our surroundings ; and apparently they can remain in no other 
 manner. In all probability, then, the meteorites are our most 
 permanent monuments ; and alas ! even they are but transient. 
 
 181. Pre-Lunar and Other Races of Mankind. After all, 
 our fate is but the fate of other races of mankind which have, 
 in all probability, preceded us; and will be the fate of others 
 that will, in all probability, follow us. There appears to be 
 no reason to doubt that our world was inhabited while yet 
 the Moon laid upon its bosom. All the conditions which now 
 supervene, in all likelihood supervened then; the same genial 
 warmth of the Sun interrupted for a time by an ice age, 
 prior to the birth of Venus, as in our own epoch it has been 
 just prior to the birth of Mercury;, the same atmosphere, only 
 somewhat more dense, perhaps; the same moisture, and the 
 same ages on ages of crust-development. And these condi- 
 tions would leave nothing to be desired more than we enjoy, 
 
338 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY 
 
 to bring forth the successive steps of the ascending organic 
 development up to the highest order of human intelligence; 
 which may, indeed,* have been higher than we have even 
 the capacity to imagine. The time for such development had 
 surely been ample, as, no doubt, it will be with ourselves. 
 
 But this prelunar race, with all its supposable perfectness, 
 has dissolved away forever; and it may indeed be that an- 
 other, but a different race, will arise from its ashes, which, 
 in its turn, will suffer a similar fate. We can as- 
 sign no valid reason why the Sun, and even the Moon, 
 should not eventually be inhabited. It is true that there is 
 little or no evidence of the existence of air upon the latter 
 at the present time; and in any event the air upon the Moon 
 would be less for equal areas than upon the Earth, because 
 the surface of the former is greater relatively to its mass 
 than the surface of the latter is to its mass. But while this 
 would evidently tend to modify organic beings as we know 
 them, we have no right to suppose that it would render the 
 existence of all organic beings impossible. It is also true 
 that we see upon the lunar surface not the least sign or trace 
 of water, and only a slight trace of its vapor in the lunar at- 
 mosphere. But it is to be remembered that the Moon's crust 
 at the present time may, in accordance with the new system 
 of things, be so little cooled from its original state as to 
 render the existence of water upon it impossible. If this 
 should really be the case, as indeed apparently undeniable 
 changes in the craters of the lunar volcanoes seem to indi- 
 cate,! the lunar gravity being so small, and the lunar air 
 so thin, the most probable form in which the bulk of the wa- 
 ter could be supposed to exist there is in a gaseous state, or 
 state of dissociation into its elements; in which it would not 
 only be invisible to us, but would also very likely have little 
 or no effect in refracting the rays of light which pass through 
 it. 
 
 The Moon is a planet and the Earth is its sun. It evi- 
 dently does not receive as much heat from the Earth at the 
 present time as the latter does from the Sun; but it may re- 
 
 * Judging from the present savage exhibition by some of our most civ- 
 ilized nations. 
 
 fSee Prof. R. A. Proctor, The Moon, pp. 266-72. 
 
182] COSMICAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 339 
 
 ceive more heat today from the Earth than it does from the 
 Sun, owing to the differentiation of the connexions which has 
 already been sufficiently discussed (Arts. 100, 105). The Sun 
 also is a planet with respect to its sun; and its surface con- 
 ditions may eventually be nearly the same, with respect to 
 the existence of life, as now obtains upon the Earth. 
 
 182. Continued Evolution and the Limit at Which the 
 Process of Subdivision Would Cease. The same process of 
 evolution in various stages of advancement appears to be gen- 
 eral. The Sun, the Earth, the planets, the Moon, the sat- 
 elites each is continually becoming colder at the surface 
 and developing its crust; and as each has more or less of 
 axial rotation, a centrifugal strain and an equatorial move- 
 ment of the crust inevitably ensues; this eventually culmi- 
 nating in the separation of the crust in the ring form, and in 
 the precipitation of the ring into a new and independent body. 
 And then the new bodies and the old begin the same pro- 
 cess over again. 
 
 The question now arises Where is this process of evo- 
 lution to end? .for surely it would not be logical to assume 
 that it could continue in one changeless cycle forever. In 
 the first edition of this work, the limit assigned to this pro- 
 cess of subdivision was the atom. But twenty-five years have 
 not gone by without resulting additions to our knowledge, and 
 today it is known that the atom itself is a vast and complex 
 system containing thousands of components, each more com- 
 plex than the atom, according to our former conception of it. 
 It is necessary, therefore, to assume that the process of plan- 
 etary subdivision which we now see going on about us, must 
 be gradually carried down, step by step, not only to the atom, 
 but even to the smallest ultimate component of the atom; 
 for, according to the new theory, it is only by this very pro- 
 cess of subdivision that the smallest ultimate component of 
 the atom has been, or can be, obtained. 
 
 This is undoubtedly a very large conception to be at once 
 comprehended. Besides the mind is naturally much hamp- 
 ered by the necessary grossness of the ideas which hitherto 
 have nearest approached this conception. We have become 
 
340 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [182 
 
 so accustomed to the present order and condition of things 
 that we unconsciously regard them as permanent. We do, 
 indeed, conceive the planets and the Sun to have a beginning, 
 but of their end, if we have any conception at all, it is a 
 very flimsy and visionary one. Radiant phenomena, recently 
 discovered, have forced an expansion of our previous ideas 
 of the ultimate element of matter, the atom; have indeed 
 opened up the latter before our mental eyes as an extremely 
 complex microcosm, seething with orbital motions having 
 velocities ranging around that of light. There is, however, 
 a hesitation to foresake beloved old ideas and accept radi- 
 cally different ones instead. We are unconsciously very an- 
 thropomorphic; we judge phenomena both great and small, 
 actual and potential, as regards their nature and even tneir 
 existence, largely by our own sensations; and we naturally 
 grope with reluctance in the slackness of Nature where our 
 senses no longer guide and direct us. This is not at all to 
 be wandered at ^ben we hava no conception whatever of the 
 origin or causation of the new phenomena which we dimly 
 endeavor to perceive. And now when we are about to be 
 carried much farc.-ier into the depths of the unknown, where 
 the structural complexity is beyond anything of which wo 
 httve hitherto dreamt and where the speed of orbital motion 
 may be millions of times greater even than that of Jight-- 
 how cnn frail human mentality help an almost irresistible 
 aversion to such a plunge? Yet such a step the connective 
 theory now compels us to take. But we are not to take it 
 wholly in darkness. Our patn will be lightened by a glimpse 
 of the continuous and regular process of Nature leading into 
 these domains the one grand chain of causation of which 
 a few great philosophers have dreamt as connecting all phe- 
 nomena, and showing the consecutive derivation of every phe- 
 nomenon at any time from preceding phenomena in the past, 
 in the present, and in the future. 
 
 There appears no alternative. The process of evolution 
 we now see going on around us must continue to go on until 
 all matter is reduced to its proximately ultimate divisions. 
 And this applying to the universe as well as to any particular 
 
184] COSMICAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 341 
 
 system, we thus finally arrive at the same state of things 
 With which we started a universal spheroid of approxi- 
 mately homogenous vapor; which in turn develops a surface 
 crust, and repeats over again the same grand evolutionary 
 round of division and segregation. 
 
 183. Glimpse of the Successive Stages of Cosmical Evo- 
 lution. It seems utterly beyond the power of the human in- 
 tellect to follow the various and apparently innumerable 
 stages of this Grand Round of physical evolution from the 
 present down to the atomic stage. And yet, in order to ob- 
 tain a true understanding of the phenomena of our environ- 
 ment, some glimpse of these various stages appears to be 
 absolutely necessary. For, if the new system be the true 
 one, these phenomena are results which have been deter- 
 mined by similar cosmic rounds of evolution in the ages of 
 ages of the past. Heat, light, gravitation, magnetism, and 
 life, being now acknowledged on all hands as various forms 
 of atomic or molecular motion, it behooves us to trace if pos- 
 sible the successive stages of evolution which lead down to 
 atomic and molecular phenomena in order that we may right- 
 ly comprehend the mechanism by, or in, which they exist. 
 Imperfect as we can only hope to perform a labor of such 
 magnitude, yet some general deductions may be arrived at 
 which will be, perhaps, near approximations to the truth, and 
 therefore valuable for our guidance. 
 
 184. Expansion of Evolving Systems. As already inti- 
 mated, the orbit of Neptune probably extends outwards con- 
 siderably beyond the primordial limits of the solar spheroid; 
 and similarly, perhaps, with the Moon's orbit with respect 
 to the primordial limits of the Earth, and with the orbits of 
 sub-satellites, sub-sub-satellites, etc., with respect to the 
 original limits of their respective primaries. But evidently 
 the amount of recession of the bodies immediately arising 
 from the parent of a system would considerably depend upon 
 the original velocity of rotation of that parent (Art. 80, c, d) ; 
 that system in which the rotational velocity of the parent 
 was the greatest obviously having the greatest amount of 
 recession. In the Solar System the original rotatory veloc- 
 
342 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [185 
 
 ity of the solar spheroid has been such as to cause a certain 
 amount of recession; but in other systems of a similar order 
 this velocity may have been comparatively small, so that 
 little recession would take place* and in still others it may 
 have been comparatively great, so that a much greater 
 amount of recession would take place therein than in the 
 Solar System. 
 
 In the Solar System the recession appears to be so great 
 that the similar recession of the bodies in the planetary 
 systems of which it is composed, is not likely ever to inter- 
 fere with the proper motions of these systems. For ex- 
 ample, the utmost reasonable expansion of the Earth-system, 
 or of the various sub-systems which would eventually com- 
 pose it, can hardly be supposed to exceed 13,000,000 miles 
 from the Earth's center, or about half of the least distance 
 that ever separates us from the nearest planet, Venus. And 
 what is true of the Solar System in this respect would evi- 
 dently be true of sister systems in which the original rota- 
 tional velocity was as great or greater. 
 
 185. Eventual Interference of Evolving Systems and the 
 Results. But in a system in which the original velocity was 
 comparatively very small, and in which the recession of the 
 bodies arising from its original spheroid was small in con- 
 sequence, this, it appears, would not be the case. For in such 
 a system the component systems would be situated close to- 
 gether, and as these component systems were eventually sub- 
 divided into lower and lower orders of systems, which might 
 ultimately expand outwards, just as in the Solar System,* 
 the obvious consequence would seem to be an eventual 
 clashing of the motions of the component planetary, or sub- 
 systems. In this clashing of the bodies of neighboring sys- 
 tems, several things are to be considered: (1) it would likely 
 take place at first between the two outer sub-systems, be- 
 cause these are the older and their evolution consequently 
 more advanced; (2) the bodies would collide from opposite 
 
 *The planetary, or lunar, rotations in the system of a slowly rotating 
 primary may be just as rapid as the similar rotations in the system of a 
 rapidly rotating primary, as these rotations appear to have no connection 
 or dependence whatever upon the rotations of their respective original 
 spheroids. 
 
186] CObMTCAL EVOLUTION IN THE FUTURE 343 
 
 directions with respect to their motions in all orders of sys- 
 tems lower than the planetary, because the planetary sys- 
 tems, of which they are the peripheral components, revolve 
 in the same general direction, and thus about all sensible 
 motion of the colliding bodies would cease, except their prop- 
 er planetary motion; (3) the colliding bodies would be re- 
 duced to their original vapor, as the violence of their colli- 
 sion would probably be even greater than that of the aggre- 
 gating matter in the disruption of a planetary ring; and (4) 
 the gaseous matter thus resulting would gravitate inwards 
 to the centers of their respective planetary systems, owing 
 to the destruction of about all their motion around these and 
 probably other subordinate centers; and as the products of 
 the collisions were falling into the center of each planetary 
 system, each of the other bodies which revolves around this 
 center would impinge upon and impart to them a portion of 
 its own motion, so that, as the center was more and more 
 approached, the rotation thus imparted to the vapor would 
 be more and more accelerated. And endless varieties of 
 these phenomena, depending upon the systemic order and the 
 endless variations of the masses and motions of the colliding 
 bodies, would obviously take place. 
 
 186. Effects of the Irregular Motions of Comets and Me- 
 teorites. But these varieties are but a moiety of the cosmic 
 phenomena of this nature. The comets and meteoritic 
 streams, which no doubt appertain to every other system as 
 to our own, and which, quite possibly, form the greater por- 
 tion of it, would continually fall at all inclinations upon the 
 plane of rotation of the system and so expand it into a globu- 
 lar form. Even in our own Solar System, and in every system 
 which had an equal or greater amount of primordial rotation,, 
 the agency of comets and meteorites would ultimately produce 
 the same effect. For as the various subdivisions of the sys- 
 tem continually subdivided and expanded, the probability of 
 collision with the cometary and meteoritic bodies would be- 
 come greater and greater, and every collision, by expanding 
 the colliding bodies to still greater dimensions, would still 
 
344 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [186 
 
 further enhance the probability of such collisions in the fu- 
 ture. So that, whatever system we may start with, great 
 or small, or swiftly or slowly rotating, we ultimately arrive 
 at the same result at about the same state of matter as 
 that with which we began a rotating spheroid of vapor. 
 
 CHAPTER XV 
 
 THE NEBULAE 
 
 Lift up your eyes on high and behold who hath created 
 these things. ISAIAH. 
 
 The real presumption I may almost say the real blas- 
 phemy in this matter is in the attempt to limit the inquiry 
 into the causes of the phenomena, which is the source of all 
 human blessings, and from which have sprung all prosperity 
 and progress; for, after all, we can accomplish comparatively 
 little; the limited range of our own faculties bound us on 
 every side the field of our powers of observation is small 
 enough, and he who endeavors to narrow the sphere of our 
 inquiries is only pursuing a course that is likely to produce 
 the greatest harm to his fellowmen. All human inquiry must 
 stop somewhere; all our knowledge and all our investigation 
 cannot take us beyond the limit set by the finite and re- 
 stricted character of our faculties, or destroy the endless 
 unknown, which accompanies, like its shadow, the endless 
 procession of phenomena. So far as I can venture to offer 
 an opinion on such a matter, the purpose of our being in 
 existence, the highest object that human beings can set be- 
 fore themselves is not the pursuit of any such chimera as 
 the annihilation of the unknown; but it is simply the un- 
 wearied endeavor to remove its boundary a little farther from 
 our little sphere of action. PROF. HUXLEY. 
 
 With us, heretical opinions do not perceptibly gain or even 
 lose ground in each decade or generation. They never blaze 
 out far and wide, but continue to smoulder in the narrow 
 circle of thinking and studious persons, among whom they 
 originate, without lighting up th.e general affairs of mankind 
 with either a true or deceptive light. ... A convenient 
 plan for having peace in the intellectual world, and keeping 
 all things going on therein very much as they do already. 
 But the price paid for this intellectual pacification is the sac- 
 
187] THE NEBULAE 345 
 
 rifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind. A 
 state of things in which a large portion of the most active 
 and inquiring intellects find it advisable to keep the genuine 
 principles and grounds of the convictions within their own 
 breasts, and attempt, in what they address to the public, to 
 fit as much as they can of their own conclusions to premises 
 which they have virtually renounced, cannot send forth the 
 open, fearless characters, and logical consistent intellects 
 who once adorned the thinking world. 
 
 JOHN STEWART MILL. 
 
 187. The Regular Nebulae. Glancing at the Sidereal Sys- 
 tem, we can not fail to observe thousands of instances con- 
 firmatory of this conclusion to which the new theory has 
 deductively led us. Here we find systems in all stages of 
 subdivision and development, just as the theory has led us to 
 expect. There are regular and irregular, resolvable and ir- 
 resolvable, nebulae, in almost endless variety; and the Milky 
 Way, which the theory indicates to lie in the equatorial 
 plane of rotation of the Sidereal System, appears to be an 
 intimate mixture of all these, together with innumerable 
 stars of all orders of magnitude. We may briefly examine 
 these various phenomena to see what interpretation of them 
 the new theory furnishes. 
 
 Regarding the Sidereal System as originally consisting 
 of a rotating gaseous spheroid in all respects, except that 
 of magnitude, similar to the solar spheroid, from which all 
 of its present members have descended as the result of the 
 continued process of evolution in the past we shall reason- 
 ably expect to find among these members some in which, 
 owing to their primogeniture, the process has been carried 
 to a much greater degree of subdivision than in our Solar 
 System; and this, to the number of many thousands, is just 
 what we observe. 
 
 Basing our judgment on all available evidence, the ir- 
 resolvable nebulae are instances where this cosmical commi- 
 nution has been carried nearly to its ultimate stage. These 
 nebulae are either globular (called planetary nebulae), or 
 oval. Planetary nebulae are regarded as very extraordinary 
 objects, presenting round or slightly oval discs, in some 
 cases terminating sharply, in others bordered with softened 
 
346 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [187 
 
 haze. Their light varies from perfect equability to a mottled 
 or curdled appearance, and from a faint white to a deep blue. 
 These colors imply a physical condition nearly similar to 
 that indicated by the spectroscope to prevail upon the white 
 stars, a few of which approach to a faint blue. The spectra 
 of the planetary nebulae are of the discontinuous kind, and 
 consist of a few bright lines, and their light is shown by 
 Huggins and Lieut. J. Herschel to be monochromatic, or 
 nearly so; which are the accepted indications of an incan- 
 descent gas. 
 
 The oval nebulae are of all degrees of eccentricity from 
 moderately oval forms to ellipses so elongated as to appear 
 almost linear; the latter, no doubt, edge-views of still-flat- 
 tened systems. These nebulae evidently correspond to those 
 systems in which the centrifugal tendency of the original 
 rotation, and therefore the amount of expansion or recession, 
 was great; while the globular or planetary nebulae corre- 
 spond to those in which the centrifugal tendency and con- 
 sequent recession was small. The elliptic nebulae are rarely 
 resolvable. In all of them the density increases towards 
 the center, and generally, so far as can be judged by their 
 telescopic appearance, their internal strata approach more 
 nearly to the spherical form than their external strata. Such 
 of these as admit of resolution give a continuous spectrum, 
 showing light of various degrees of refrangibility, and indi- 
 cating incandescent solids or liquids; while those that are 
 irresolvable give the bright line spectrum characteristic of 
 the planetary nebulae. 
 
 Evidently by the new system of evolution the irresolv- 
 able nebulae are the oldest, in which the process of subdi- 
 vision has been carried nearly to its ultimate limit; while 
 the more and more resolvable nebulae are those in which the 
 process of subdivision has been less and less advanced; the 
 least resolvable of which therefore consists of innumerable 
 starlets or planetoids which are individually so small as to 
 be barely discernible in telescopes of the highest power. Of 
 this latter kind is the elliptic nebula in the girdle of Androm- 
 eda which in a reflecting telescope of 18 inches aperture 
 
188] THE NEBULAE 347 
 
 is quite irresolvable; but which with the exquisite defining 
 power of the great achromatic at Cambridge, U. S., though 
 not itself clearly resolved, was found to be thickly sown over 
 with visible minute stars so numerous as to allow of 200 be- 
 ing counted in a field of one-third of a degree in diameter. 
 
 By the current cosmogony, the irresolvable nebulae are 
 the youngest portions of the Sidereal System portions in 
 which the primordial "world-stuff" is just aggregating by 
 gravitation into the parent spheroid of some future solar 
 system; and the resolvable nebulae are somewhat older 
 members in which the process of aggregation is more ad- 
 vanced the elliptic form and innumerable minute bodies of 
 which they are composed thus of course remaining unac- 
 counted for. 
 
 188. The Irregular Nebulae. Besides these nebulae of 
 regular form there are other nebulae of forms that seem 
 to us very irregular. These are noted for their very great 
 extent, and they have also this one important characteristic 
 in common a location in, or very near, the borders of the 
 great Milky Way. Now since the Milky Way is supposed 
 to be in the equatorial plane of the Sidereal System, we 
 might expect to meet with innumerable nebulae together 
 with stars of all orders of magnitude, just as in the equa- 
 torial plane of the Solar System we meet with the great 
 bulk of the regular bodies which it contains. And this is 
 just what we find. The stars are indeed numerous here, and 
 the vast majority are both comparatively small and distant; 
 indicating that the process of subdivision has been carried 
 on at the periphery of the Sidereal System to a greater de- 
 gree than at the central regions, just as, according to our 
 theory of sidereal segregation, it should be. And in still 
 further confirmation of this view we observe that beyond all 
 of these stars are situated the irregular nebulae. Sir John 
 Herschel, after observing one of these nebulae through his 
 telescope, says: "The conclusion can hardly be avodied that 
 in looking at it we see through and beyond the Milky Way, 
 far out into space, through a starless region." Beyond, or 
 rather in the outskirts of, the Milky Way, the nebula un- 
 
348 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [188 
 
 doubtedly lies; but its relative farness and its starless en- 
 vironment, while they are suggested naturally enough by the 
 utter darkness of the regions beyond, are in all probability 
 imaginary. Moreover these irregular nebulae are found 
 chiefly in groups, which also accords with the theory; for it 
 is those systems first originating in the Sidereal System in 
 which the nebulae would chiefly appear; and these would 
 occupy separate spots in the equatorial plane of the solar 
 rotation. The remaining feature of irregularity of form may 
 be assignable to two apparently sufficient causes; first, the 
 vast number of these superposed upon one another in the 
 line of sight, and second, their immense distance from us 
 which prevents our seeing them in all their completeness. 
 With regard to the first cause, Sir John Herschel, speaking 
 of the Magellanic Clouds, or the nubeculae major and minor, 
 visible to the naked eye in the Southern Hemisphere, and 
 which are probably nothing more than irregular nebulae in 
 a less distant region from us, says: 
 
 "When examined through powerful telescopes, the consti- 
 tution of the nubeculae, and especially of the nubecula major, 
 is found to be of astonishing complexity. The general ground 
 of both consists of large tracts and patches of nebulosity 
 in every stage of resolution, from light irresolvable with 18 
 inches of reflecting aperture, up to perfectly separated stars 
 like the Milky Way. . . . But besides those, there are 
 also nebulae in abundance, both regular and irregular; globu- 
 lar clusters in every state of condensation; and objects of a 
 nebulous character quite peculiar, and which have no analogue 
 in any region of the heavens. Such is the concentration of 
 these objects that in the area occupied by the nubecula ma- 
 jor not fewer than 278 nebulae and clusters have been enu- 
 merated, besides 50 to 60 outliers." 
 
 It is this grouping together in the immensity of space to 
 which the irregular forms of all such nebulae may be chiefly 
 ascribed. For, however regular may be each individual neb- 
 ula, yet these to the number of many hundreds and possibly 
 thousands, may be so arranged naturally as to present a fan- 
 tastic or capricious appearance just as the configuration of 
 the planets of the Solar System may never have a regular 
 form, as a whole, although each planet is itself of regular 
 
189] THE NEBULAE 349 
 
 form and has a regular motion around a common central body. 
 
 Another circumstance also which would tend to render 
 nebulae amorphous, and especially such as are of a resolvable 
 nature (as the irregular nebulae almost invariably are in 
 whole or in part), is that many of their component bodies 
 or planetoids must, at their extreme distance, be invisible to 
 us. Annular nebulae, e. g., are probably systems in which 
 the peripheral sub-systems, owing to their expansion, as al- 
 ready noticed, have collided together, the resulting vaporous 
 mass becoming self-luminous, and having so little cohesion 
 as to be distributed over the entire path of these sub-sys- 
 tems; while the inner sub-systems composed of planetoids 
 which are not self-luminous, remain invisible. 
 
 The spiral nebulae are readily derivable from the annular, 
 when sufficient time is allowed for many collisions of the 
 component sub-systems and for the slow gravitation inwards 
 of the resulting vaporous annuli in the manner already de- 
 scribed. Nebulous stars would result from a still longer 
 continuation of this process, when the vapors would nearly 
 all have aggregated at the center. And besides these it may 
 be added that the irregular action of cometary bodies would 
 obviously constitute a third cause of the anomalous forms 
 which nebulae so frequently present. 
 
 189. Observed Changes in Nebular Forms. In further 
 confirmation of these views, various changes of appearance 
 have been suspected in the irregular nebulae which seem to 
 be clearly attributable to such relative motions of the com- 
 ponent parts as the theory here predicates. Owing to their 
 great distance from us, the theoretical slowness of their an- 
 gular motions, and the invisibility of all but their incandes- 
 cent and larger components, only small and almost imper- 
 ceptible changes in their appearance are to be looked for; 
 and these, even in comparatively short periods, we have good 
 reasons for regarding as actually taking place. The Magel- 
 lanic Clouds, according to Sir John Herschel, have under- 
 gone important changes during a lifetime.* The great neb- 
 ula in Orion is now generally admitted to be in process of 
 
 *PM1. Trans., 1811. 
 
350 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [189 
 
 change. The great nebula surrounding the variable star, Eta 
 Argus, is also subject to great changes. And probable move- 
 ments are shown by Prof. Holden to take place in the Omega 
 nebula.* Prof. Holden says: "These drawings show that 
 the western end of this nebula has moved relatively to its 
 contained stars from 1832 to 1862, and again from 1862 to 
 1875 and always in the same direction." And several other 
 instances of this kind could be mentioned. 
 
 Besides these changes of nebular form, movements of neb- 
 ulae as wholes take place. "Several objects observed as 
 nebulae are now missing from the heavens." "There are 
 cases in which a nebula, undoubtedly such, have either dis- 
 appeared and reappeared in the same place, or has under- 
 gone some remarkable changes of brightness; or, lastly, has 
 been observed as a conspicuous object in a part of the heav- 
 ens so well known as to make it exceedingly improbable 
 that it should have escaped all previous observation. "f 
 These, as well as nearly similar phenomena among the stars, 
 are very probably owing, at least in part, to the proper mo- 
 tions of our own system and of the systems containing these 
 bodies. Aside from the rotation of the Sidereal System as 
 a whole (in which, however, every member probably has a 
 different angular and absolute velocity) nearly every body 
 which that system contains has an indefinite number of minor 
 rotations as members of the various sub-systems of which the 
 Sidereal System is composed; and by virtue of one or several 
 of these rotations, some of which are of very great amplitude, 
 the bodies and ourselves are continually either approaching 
 towards, or receding from, each other. The approximations 
 obviously causing the new appearance, or the greater bright- 
 ness, of the bodies, and the recessions causing their disap- 
 pearance, or diminished brightness. These phenomena are 
 commonly ascribed in the current theory to practically the 
 same causes. 
 
 *Am. Jour. Sci. and Art, III, XI, 341-61 
 
 tSir John Herschel, Outlines of Astronomy, Mote (K). 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 
 TEMPORARY AND VARIABLE STARS 
 
 Time whose tooth gnaws everything else is powerless 
 against truth. HUXLEY. 
 
 The strange star, Eta Argus, . . . ranges all the way 
 from zero magnitude (in 1843) . . . down to the 7th 
 magnitude, which is its present brightness and has been ever 
 since 1865. Between 1877 (when it was observed . 
 as of the 4th mag.) and 1800, it oscillated in brightness, so 
 far as we can judge from the few observations extant, be- 
 tween the 4th and 2nd mags. About 1810, it rose rapidly in 
 brightness, and between 1826 and 1850 it was never below 
 the standard first mag. When brightest in 1843 it was giving 
 more than 25,000 times as much light as in 1865. A singular 
 fact is that the star is in the midst of a nebula which ap- 
 parently sympathizes with it to some extent in its fluctua- 
 tions. YOUNG'S ASTRONOMY. 
 
 A possible explanation of most of the new and variable 
 stars is to be found in the meteoritic theory; the innumerable 
 components of one group of meteorites colliding with those of 
 another group would be component to give out light sufficient 
 to make the whole appear as a star. J. N. LOCKYER. 
 
 190. Temporary Stars. But other phenomena are cur- 
 rently attributed to other causes than those that are here 
 indicated; among which are temporary stars and variable 
 stars of regular periods. Temporary stars are those which 
 have appeared from time to time in different parts of the 
 heavens, blazing forth with extraordinary luster; and after 
 remaining awhile apparently immovable, have died away and 
 left no trace. According to Humboldt, twenty-one such stars 
 were recorded during the interval 134 B. C. to 1848 A. D. 
 Such stars are recorded to have appeared, one, 125 B. C., 
 visible in the daytime; another, 389 A. D., remaining for three 
 weeks as bright as Venus and eventually disappearing entire- 
 ly; others 945, 1264, and 1572; the last in Cassiopoeia, 
 studied by the celebrated Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, 
 surpassing both Sirius and Jupiter, when brightest, and being 
 
352 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY ]19Q 
 
 visible at midday. It began to dimmish in December of 
 the same year, and in March, 1574, had entirely disappeared. 
 Also in October, 1604, a star of this kind and not less brilliant, 
 burst forth in the constellation of Serpentarius which con- 
 tinued visible till October, 1605. In May, 1866, one appeared 
 in the Northern Crown exceeding the second magnitude in 
 brightness. This star was spectroscopically investigated, 
 and, according to Huggins, "the spectrum indicated two dis- 
 tinct sources of light, each producing a separate spectrum. 
 One was a continuous spectrum crossed by dark lines similar 
 to that yielded by the Sun and most of the stars. The other 
 consisted of four brilliantly bright lines. The first spectrum 
 showed a photosphere of cooler vapors giving rise by absorp- 
 tion to the dark lines. The other spectrum showed the pres- 
 ence of an intensely luminous gas which was apparently 
 hydrogen at a higher temperature than existed in the photo- 
 sphere of the star.* 
 
 Now these phenomena correspond precisely with those of 
 a ring-disruption upon some sun in a distant region of the 
 Sidereal System. Prior to the disruption, the ring itself and 
 its parent body would be invisible to us owing to the distance, 
 comparative smalmess, remoteness of relationship, or possib- 
 ly all three; but after the disruption, much of the ring-sub- 
 stance would be reduced to its original vapor, which aggre- 
 gating into one mass of intense heat and luninosity, would 
 very reasonably become visible to us. This is clearly indi- 
 cated by the two spectra above described; the gaseous spec- 
 trum of bright lines obviously belonging to the newly vapor- 
 ized ring-substance, and the spectrum of dark lines belonging 
 to the original sun upon which the ring was generated, and 
 partly, perhaps, to comets and meteorites originating in the 
 ring-collapse. These latter bodies, as already intimated, may 
 contain by far the greater portion of the ring substance, and 
 so may give rise to a separate spectrum of their own, to which 
 that of the sun might also contribute. To the abstraction of 
 these bodies from the general aggregated mass and their 
 wandering apart into distant regions (together with the com- 
 parative smallness of the bodies) would also be reasonably 
 
 * Alexander Winchell, World-Life, p. 514. 
 
190] TEMPORARY AND VARIABLE STARS 353 
 
 attributable the gradual waning away of the new star. The 
 cometary velocities, while really great, would yet owing to 
 their distance, require months, and perhaps even years, to 
 separate so widely as to dissipate into invisibility; while, 
 when the individual bodies were apparently close together, 
 though really separated perhaps by planetary distances, the 
 whole would be visible in one glare as if produced by a single 
 body at a distance not so great. It was formerly thought 
 that these stars entirely disappeared; but, as a further con- 
 firmation of the new views, "it is now maintained that none 
 of the temporary stars are new originations, and that none of 
 them have disappeared from existence, if even from visibility. 
 That occurring in the Northern Crown is still telescopically 
 visible; and it is maintained that the new stars of Tycho and 
 Kepler may still be seen;"* exactly as the new theory predi- 
 cates. 
 
 The explanations usually given of these "temporary stars" 
 are, (1) Collision of planets precipitated inwards with their 
 suns. This, if possible, would certainly account for the sud- 
 den blazing forth of the planetary and solar substance into 
 vapor. But a very apparent and fatal objection to it is the 
 brief duration of the phenomenon; as, in the absence of com- 
 etary and meteoric abstractions, a pair of united worlds thus 
 made incandescent would obviously require a much greater 
 time for the dissipation of their heat. (2) Eruptive action 
 on an encrusting globe, just as volcanic eruptions take place 
 upon our own world. But this is clearly inadequate. In 
 the first place, either as lava or as gas, it could hardly be sup- 
 posed to take place over the entire surface of a world at once; 
 and in the second place, the two spectra observed are thus 
 entirely unexplained, as only one solid body surrounded by a 
 luminous gas is implied; which accounts for only one of the 
 observed spectra. (3) Collision of a darkened star with a 
 cometary body. But this is open to the same objection as 
 explanation (1), and both explanations (1) and (3) are open 
 to the second objection to explanation (2) as accounting for 
 one half of the observed phenomena. (4) Collision of two 
 
 *Alexander Winchell, World-Life, p. 515. 
 
354 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [192 
 
 meteoritic streams; which, however, hardly accounts for the 
 continuous, dark-line spectrum. 
 
 191. Double, Triple, and Multiple Stars. Moreover we 
 have in other regions further evidence supporting the views 
 here advanced. The double, triple, and multiple stars are 
 simply incandescent members of minor systems, the remain- 
 ing members of which are invisible. Double stars are fre- 
 quently observed, numbering between 4,000 and 5,000, while 
 triple and multiple stars are rare, numbering only about 53 
 in all. The former would evidently be composed of a cen- 
 tral sun and a new planet of recent origin revolving around it, 
 several of them having been traced through complete revolu- 
 tions, and some of their periods or years varying from 36 to 
 1,200 pf ours. The triple and the multiple stars similarly 
 imply the nearly contemporary origin of bodies corresponding 
 to both planets and satellites in the same system, which seems 
 to be fully corroborated by the extreme minuteness of all but 
 one or two sun and planet of the component bodies. 
 
 192. Variable Stars of Short Period. We are thus natur- 
 ally brought round to the phenomena of the periodical stars, 
 which in all probability will be found to have their true ex- 
 planation based upon the same facts. These stars alter- 
 nately increase and diminish in brilliancy, the changes hav- 
 ing fixed periods varying from two days to about a year. The 
 star Algol, or Beta Persei, e. g., is usually visible as a star 
 of the second magnitude and continues so for 2 days 13 % 
 hours, when it suddenly begins to diminish in splendour, and 
 in about 3^ hours is reduced to the fourth magnitude at 
 which it continues about 15 minutes. It then begins to in- 
 crease and in 3% hours more is restored to its usual bright- 
 ness, going through all its changes in 2 days 20 hours, 54.7 
 seconds. Goodricke, the discoverer of these changes, took 
 the view that they were caused by the revolution round some 
 star of some opaque body which, when interposed between us 
 and the star, cut off a large portion of its light. This ex- 
 planation does not appear to incur any serious objection, and 
 is quite in harmony with the new theory. If it be the true 
 one, however, the velocity of the opaque body around Algol 
 
192] TEMPORARY AND VARIABLE STARS 355 
 
 must be very great, or the real dimensions of Algol and of 
 its opaque planet comparatively small. Another explanation 
 suggested by the new theory seems to account for it equally 
 well, or perhaps better. This explanation is that, instead 
 of an opaque body revolving round a self-luminous star, the 
 two bodies are self-luminous, the smaller revolving round 
 the larger in an orbit the plane of which is coincident with 
 the line of sight. Two minima and two maxima would thus 
 occur in each revolution, the former occurring at each con- 
 junction of the revolving body with the Earth, and the latter 
 at each quadrature. The distance between the bodies in the 
 latter case, though really great, perhaps, would appear so 
 minute, owing to the distance of the observer, that the two 
 bodies at their greatest angular distance apart would be in- 
 distinguishable one from the other. So that the effect of 
 their separation from one another in the line of sight would 
 be in effect to increase the magnitude of an apparently single 
 body. The short minimum of 15 minutes, the long maximum 
 of some 61 hours, and the comparatively short periods of 
 waning arid brightening, each 3^ hours, appear to be thus 
 fully accounted for, all in a semi-revolution; the waning and 
 brightening periods being so short because the motion of the 
 revolving body to and from minimum is at right angles to the 
 line of sight, and therefore apparently rapid, and the maxi- 
 mum period so long because the motion of the body at that 
 time is nearly parallel to the line of sight, and because the 
 amount of apparent separation or approximation of the bodies 
 with respect to that line is imperceptibly small, except in 
 comparatively short times at the beginning and closing of 
 each semi-revolution. 
 
 The same explanation also applies to Delta in the constel- 
 lation Cepheus, its period being 5 days, 8 hours and 47 2/3 
 minutes, of which the interval between minimum and maxi- 
 mum is only 1 day and 14 hours. The periodical star Beta 
 Lyrae, appears to admit of no other explanation but this, as 
 it has two minima and two maxima, owing evidently to a con- 
 siderable inclination of the orbit-plane of the revolving body 
 to the line of sight, so that the latter approaches near, but 
 
356 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [193 
 
 not to, the disc of the central star. Its period was formerly 
 stated at between 6 and 7 days, as its light certainly under- 
 went a remarkable diminution" and recovery in that time. 
 But the more accurate observations of M. Argelander have 
 led him to conclude the time-period to be 12 days, 21 hours, 
 53 minutes, 10 seconds, in which a double maximum and min- 
 imum takes place.* 
 
 193. Secular Variation of Periodic Stars. In addition to 
 this subdivision of the whole interval of change (correspond- 
 ing to an entire revolution) into two semi-periods (corres- 
 ponding to semi-revolutions), we are presented, not only in 
 the case of this star, but in the case of about every period- 
 ical star, with another instance of slow alteration of period, 
 which has all the appearance of being itself periodical. This 
 alteration is the gradual lengthening of the period, slow at 
 first, then much more rapid, then slow again, followed by a 
 dimunition of the period in all probability through the same 
 gradations. In the case of the last mentioned star, the per- 
 iod of variation was increasing from 1784, the epoch of its 
 discovery, to the year 1840, after which it began to diminish. 
 In the case of Algol, a comparison of the earlier with the 
 more recent observations indicates a dimunition of the per- 
 iodic time, not uniformly progressive, but "actually proceed- 
 ing with accelerated rapidity, which, however, will probably 
 not continue, but, like other cyclical combinations in astron- 
 omy will by degrees relax and then be changed into an in- 
 crease according to the laws of periodicity which, as well as 
 their causes, remain to be discovered." 
 
 It seems strange that the simple explanation of this slow 
 alteration suggested even by the analogous phenomena of 
 the Solar System, has not previously occurred to investiga- 
 tors of this subject. All astronomers are aware that no body 
 in the whole visible heavens is at rest. Observation has 
 demonstrated the occurrence of movements even of the fixed 
 stars in directions at right angles to the line of sight, and 
 the spectroscope reveals to us even the actual rate of their 
 motions in that line; which appears to be quite comparable 
 
 *Astron. Nach., Nos. 417, 455, 472. 
 
194] TEMPORARY AND VARIABLE STARS 357 
 
 with that of the Earth around the Sun. Now granting that 
 the variable stars are approaching towards, or receding from, 
 us, in virtue of the proper motions of these bodies, or of the 
 Solar System, or both together the light which travels be- 
 tween us and them at the rate of about 190,000 miles per sec- 
 ond would come to us more slowly when they are receding 
 than when they are approaching. For every 190,000 miles 
 they recede from us, the duration of their phenomena would 
 apparently, though not really, lengthen one second, and for 
 every 190,000 miles they approach, the same would be simi- 
 larly diminished. We know this to be the fact in the case 
 of the transit-periods of Jupiter's satellites, which are found 
 to lengthen slowly and gradually when the Earth recedes 
 from, and to dimmish slowly when it approaches towards, 
 that planet; the total variation of all the transit periods oc- 
 curring between opposite points of the Earth's orbit, or in the 
 course of about six mouths' time, being about 17 minutes. 
 And there appears no reason whatever to think that the slow 
 alterations of changes of the periodic stars (in the case of 
 which, however, the velocity of the motion causing the varia- 
 tion is not so great as that of the Earth's motion around the 
 Sun) are not attributable to the same cause. 
 
 194. Variable Stars of Long Period. There are some per- 
 iodic stars the phenomena of which, however, can not be due 
 to the revolution of one incandescent body around another; 
 these in every instance being comparatively long periods. 
 The most remarkable of these is the star Omicron in the con- 
 stellation Cetus, or Mira Ceti, its period being 331 days, 8 
 hours, 4 minutes, 16 seconds. At its greatest brightness it 
 is sometimes equal to a star of the second magnitude. After 
 about a fortnight, it begins to decrease in luster, and at the 
 end of five months becomes invisible to the naked eye, in 
 which state it remains about five months more, finally bright- 
 ening up as before in the remainder of the period. It does 
 not always return to the same degree of brightness, however, 
 nor increase and diminish by the same gradations. Of these 
 phenomena there appears to be little or no explanation, other 
 than that they are, as the name Mira implies, strange and 
 
358 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [194 
 
 wonderful. In the light of the new theory, they are clearly 
 referable to a system nearly in its ultimate stage of evolu- 
 tion. The collisions which we have already noticed as tak- 
 ing place between the expanding sub-systems into which any 
 particular system would be divided, would, in their initial 
 stage, very probably not occur at one time only, but at many 
 successive times; and at each collision a portion of the col- 
 liding systems would be vaporized. The resulting incan- 
 descent vapor, while it was collected at one spot, would be 
 brightly visible to us; but as it was dissipated between the 
 paths of the colliding bodies (in which it would ultimately 
 appear, after many reinforcements, as an annular nebula), 
 it would become less and less apparent and would finally dif- 
 fuse and dwindle into invisibility. This theory appears to 
 explain fully the facts of the case; and no other theory ap- 
 pears to be tenable. A falling planet, or colliding comet, is 
 manifestly precluded by the regularity of the occurrence; 
 and Zollner's theory of rotation of a body having sides of 
 different degrees of luminosity, while it provides for the 
 regularity of the occurrence, is in turn precluded by the brief 
 duration of brightness as compared with the long period of 
 invisibility, as well as by the suddenness with which max- 
 imum brilliance is attained, while the waning of that bril- 
 liancy requires nearly half of the entire period. Goodricke's 
 theory of occultation by an opaque body revolving about an 
 incandesc'ent star is, for the same reason, entirely inadmis- 
 sible. 
 
 The most reasonable and by far the best supported by 
 spectroscopic and other evidence, is the explanation (very 
 similar to the one here suggested) offered of these phenomena 
 by J. Norman Lockyer in a series of papers in volumes 39 
 and 40 of Nature. In these papers he accounts for the phe- 
 nomena of periodic stars by collisions with meteoric swarms. 
 The regularity would thus be owing to the passage of the 
 body presenting the changes through a swarm of meteorites, 
 whose orbit intersects its own, the collisions with the meteor- 
 ites at the point of intersection causing the evoluion of in- 
 candescent vapors to which the brightness is due. This 
 
194] TEMPORARY AND VARIABLE STARS 359 
 
 explanation, with little exceptions, is about the same as the 
 new theory suggests. The periodicity -by the latter would 
 be determined by the synodic period of an expanding usb- 
 system of planetoids with a neighboring expanding sub-sys- 
 tem around a common center of revolution; the collisions 
 occurring when the inner sub-system would overtake the 
 outer. The explanation of meteoritic swarms appears, how- 
 ever, to be open to one or two slight objections from which 
 the latter is free. In the first place, the number of meteor- 
 ites encountered during every passage of the body through 
 their orbit would not reasonably be the same, and, as in the 
 case of our own world passing . through the orbits of the 
 August and November swarms, it is even probable that at 
 times, scarcely any meteorites whatever would be encoun- 
 tered. Thus the maximum brightness of the body would 
 vary from the minimum up to the highest magnitudes, and 
 the intensities of any two maxima would be hardly ever alike. 
 And in the second place, it can hardly be regarded as prob- 
 able that the orbital paths of the swarm and of the body 
 would continue to intersect one another for such long periods 
 of time; for as the two would probably belong to different 
 systems of some order or other, they would obviously part 
 company owing to the divergence of the wider motions of 
 the different systems to which they would belong. 
 
CHAPTER XVII 
 
 ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE 
 AND VELOCITY 
 
 All the various kinds of matter, all the various so-called 
 chemical elements, may be built up in some way of the same 
 fundamental substance (protyle). . . . "It is ever the 
 desire of the human mind to see all the phenomena of nature 
 bound by one connecting chain, and the forging of this chain 
 can be realized only gradually and after great labor in the 
 laboratories of science." THOMAS PRESTON. 
 
 Not only the great thought of the original unity of the 
 Cosmos and the development of all phenomena out of the all- 
 pervading primitive matter found expression in Anaximander, 
 but he even enunciated the bold idea of countless worlds in 
 a periodic alternation of birth and death. Many other great 
 philosophers of classical antiquity, especially Democritus, 
 Heraclitus, and Empedocles, had, in the same or an analog- 
 ous sense, a profound conception of this unity of Nature and 
 God. . . . Also the famous Roman poet Lucretius Carus 
 in his poem "De Rerum Natura." PROF. ERNST HAECKEL, 
 
 If we imagine very minute rapidly-spinning fly-wheels or 
 gyrostats spread through the medium, they will retain their 
 motion forever, in the absence of friction on their axles, and 
 they will thus form a concrete dynamical illustration of a 
 type of elasticity which arises solely from inertia; and this 
 illustration will be of great use in realizing some of the pe- 
 culiarities of a related type, which I believe can be thorough- 
 ly established as the actual type of elasticity transmitting all 
 radiation, whether luminous and thermal or electrical for 
 they are all one and the same through the ultimate medium 
 of fluid character of which the vortices constitute matter. 
 
 DR. JOSEPH LARMOR. 
 
 Every atom is a standing miracle and endowed with such 
 qualities as could not be impressed upon it by a Power and 
 Wisdom less than infinite. ADDISON. 
 
 195. Nature of the Ultimate Subdivisions of Matter. 
 Now these processes of subdivision which are taking place 
 in the nebulae and the periodic stars are but continuations of 
 the processes which are taking place in our own Solar Sys- 
 
195] ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE, ETC. 361 
 
 tern. The latter will be reduced by the continuation of the 
 process now going on, to the nebular stage; the nebulae will 
 be still further comminuted, expanded, and amalgamated, 
 until finally we have a universal nebula silimar in all respects 
 save magnitude and density to the planetary nabulae which 
 we now see in the heavens and similar in all respects to the 
 universal nebula with which we started. 
 
 Thus briefly and very imperfectly has been traced the 
 segregation of any particular original spheriod having a cer- 
 tain amount of axial rotation into subordinate spheroids each 
 revolving round the nucleus of the original spheroid in the 
 plane of its equator; the segregation of each of these in a 
 similar manner into smaller spheroids revolving round both 
 the subordinate spheroids and the genetic spheroid; and so 
 on until a stage is arrived at nearly like that with which we 
 began. Now if this process had taken place in a regular 
 manner, without interference from neighboring parts, or from 
 erratic bodies, the motions of the ultimate components of the 
 ultimate spheroid would be of a very complex nature. But 
 obviously even in this case, all of the ultimate components 
 would not possess the same number of motions or velocity of 
 rotation. For, in general, the central components being the 
 most recently formed would have comparatively simple mo- 
 tions (i. e., around only a few different centers), the velocity 
 of which, however, would be comparatively great; while the 
 peripheral components, being the older, would have motions 
 of greater complexity (or round many different centers), but 
 of a less degree of velocity. 
 
 But it does not seem probable that, in a spheroid thus 
 reduced to its ultimate constituents, motions of very great 
 complexity would be permanent. The intricate network of 
 connexions would undoubtedly resist complicated movements 
 of parts having such extremely small masses; and would 
 eventually resolve itself into comparatively simple bonds be- 
 tween contiguous components and between contiguous groups 
 of components. For, as the subdivision continued, the mass 
 (and therefore in general the momentum) of each component 
 would decrease while at the same time the massiveness of 
 
362 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [195 
 
 the connexions through which the components have to move 
 would increase (owing to the continual formation of new 
 ones) ; and thus would a more and more powerful brake be 
 put upon complex motions of the parts as the subdivision 
 proceeds. 
 
 The result, then, would be an arrest of motions around 
 distant subordinate centers; the arrested motions probably 
 going to augment the equal angular rotation of the resulting 
 spheroid as a whole. The connexions of the arrested com- 
 ponents would perhaps be appropriated in part by the con- 
 nexions and the connective atmospheres of neighboring com- 
 ponents. But these disused connexions would chiefly exist, 
 in all probability, as an independent and special form of mat- 
 ter; consideration of which' belongs in the domains of elec- 
 tricity and magnetism, which itself would require almost an 
 entire volume. The lowest ultimate component thus arrived 
 at would be a primary body incapable of further subdivision 
 with the rate of rotation which it then possesses, and one or 
 more bodies connected with it and circulating round it. 
 Higher forms of ultimate components also might consist of a 
 similar central body around which circulates a second sim- 
 ilar body which is itself a center for a third circulating body, 
 or even with one or more of these bodies themselves com- 
 pound. 
 
 That the circulating motions of these components would 
 be arrested by the connective substance would not follow 
 from the same causes that arrested the motions round more 
 distant centers, for the reason that whereas the latter would 
 be resisted by a multitude of connexions subtending between 
 all bodies among which they moved, the former would be re- 
 sisted by only the few connexions between its own primary 
 and the neighboring primaries. 
 
 If instead of a system in which no interference by expan- 
 sion of component parts, or action of erratic bodies, was sup- 
 posed to take place, we consider the case of a system in which 
 expansive interference would occur, it will be seen that the 
 same motions would be arrested by it as by the eventful 
 resistance of the connective substance, and no other. In the 
 
195] ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE, ETC. 363 
 
 collision of an inner with an outer sub-system revolving 
 around the same center, the orbital revolution of the latter 
 would be increased and that the former diminished; while it 
 is always the wider of the revolutions in the colliding sub- 
 systems themselves that would be thus destroyed. So that, 
 in either case, we arrive at the same result an accelerated, 
 equable rotation of the resulting spheroid as a whole; and a 
 simple, together with some slightly compound, systemic 
 motions of its ultimate components. 
 
 And considering also the agency of erratic bodies, such 
 as comets and meteorites, we can still ascribe nothing to 
 them that would seriously interfere with the same result. 
 As for the resulting spheroid as a whole, as these bodies 
 would fall upon it about equally from all directions, they 
 could influence it in any particular direction but little, while 
 the larger intermediate motions would suffer at least partial 
 arrestation. And as for the motions of the ultimate com- 
 ponents, they can only be met and arrested by the motions 
 of bodies of a magnitude similar to their own, and even then, 
 perhaps, but rarely, if ever. 
 
 The collisions of masses of matter, if they occur with the 
 tremendous energy implied by planetary velocities, would 
 indeed, not only arrest the motions of a portion of the elemen- 
 tary systems, but also give rise to their motion in a reversed 
 direction with a still greater energy; while the motion of 
 another portion would not suffer arrest, but acceleration 
 wholly. In mechanical collisions of any kind there can be 
 but comparatively an extremely small number of elementary 
 bodies be brought to rest; first, because it is highly improb- 
 able that the velocity of the colliding masses would be exact- 
 ly equal to that of the bodies of the elementary systems; and, 
 second, because even if the velocities were exactly equal, it is 
 equally improbable that the direction of the collision and 
 that of the elementary rotation would be exactly opposite. 
 And the very few elementary bodies which might be thus 
 brought to rest would be again immediately started in motion 
 by their connexions with the accelerated adjoining bodies. 
 Thus the result arrived at by the regular process of cosmical 
 
364 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [196 
 
 segregation remains practically unaffected by the various 
 accidental contingencies, such as systemic interference, com- 
 etary and meteoritic impacts, ring-disruptions, etc., to which 
 that process may be subject. 
 
 The ultimate element of matter in its simplest form at 
 which we have thus arrived would consist of a central body, 
 a secondary body revolving around it, a primary connexion 
 joining the two, and various secondary connexions joining 
 the bodies to neighboring elements. Moreover, each of the 
 two bodies, according to analogy, would have a connective 
 atmosphere which would permit the expansion of the element 
 when the velocity of revolution of the secondary body was 
 increased; and finally each of the elementary bodies would 
 also have a certain amount of axial rotation. This axial 
 rotation of the primary body, if it should be the remnant of 
 an originally large spheroid, would be extremely rapid; and 
 the more rapid the rotation of the primary body, caeteris par- 
 ibus, the more rapid would be the revolution of the derived 
 secondary body also. What it is that performs this rotation 
 and revolution, we do not know and may never know, nor 
 even conceive or imagine; and it seems as yet only futile to 
 speculate about it. The ultimate nature of the elementary 
 connexions seems equally as inscrutable as that of the 
 elementary bodies. To both entities the name of matter or 
 substance may properly apply; but the connexion, though 
 not theoretically any more indivisible than the body, may, 
 perhaps, be regarded as perfectly homogeneous, whereas its 
 analogue, the planetary connexion, can only be regarded as 
 composed of simple and compound elements. 
 
 196. The Cosmic Chain of Causation Kepler's Third Law. 
 But though nothing can be premised of the nature of the 
 stuff of the ultimate elements, something can be deduced 
 from the present stage of cosmical evolution regarding their 
 dimensions and the speeds of their motions, and this, as inti- 
 mated some pages back, is to be the final and perhaps the 
 severest test of the new views here advanced, as well as of 
 intellectual integrity and loyalty regarding them. 
 
 "In a lecture delivered at the Royal Institution last May 
 
196] ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE, ETC. 365 
 
 (1889), Prof. Mendeleef attempted to show that there existed 
 an analogy between the constitution of the stellar universe 
 and that of matter, as we know it on the surface of the earth, 
 and that from the motions of the heavenly bodies down to the 
 minutest interatomic movement in chemical reactions, the 
 third law of Newton's holds good."* 
 
 It is not the third law of Newton that is to be applied here, 
 however, but the third law of Kepler. There is no question 
 of this law as governing the motions and distances of the 
 planets; and what is now to be done is to carry it, according 
 to the idea of one grand chain of causation connecting all the 
 phenomena of the universe, from the present motions and 
 dimensions of the Solar System down to the motions and 
 dimensions of the molecule and the sub-atoms. 
 
 According to the third law of Kepler, the squares of the 
 periods, P and P', of two planets vary as the cubes of their 
 distances, D and D', respectively. That is 
 
 p 2 : p' 2 D 3 : D' 3 
 
 But P 2^0 /V and P' = 2 V D'/V', where V and V are the 
 respective velocities of the two planets in their orbits. 
 Whence, from the preceding equation, 4 7r 2 D 2 D' 3 /V 2 = 
 
 4 7r 2 D' 2 D 3 /V' 2 , or D'V /2 = DV 2 and V == WD/D'. 
 
 Sir William Thomson calculated that if a drop of water 
 were expanded to the size of the Earth, the atoms in it would 
 appear of a size somewhere between that of small shot and 
 that of a cricket ball; which would make the radius of an 
 atom about 10- 8 cm. Now let Kepler's law be carried inwards 
 through the innumerable successive intermediate generations 
 to this atomic distance from the center in the case of each 
 principal body of the Solar System. It will be convenient 
 to take the radius of a planet (in round numbers) for the 
 distance D, and for V such a velocity as will balance by cen- 
 trifugal force the planet's attraction (or, according to the new 
 theory, the elastic strength of the planet's primary connexion) 
 at this distance. D' will be the atomic radius, 10- 8 cm., or 
 62X10- 15 mile, which will be the same in each case; and V, 
 the result sought, will be the velocity which Kepler's third 
 
 *Wm. Anderson, Nature, 40. 509. 
 
366 THE CONNECTIVE TH.EORY [196 
 
 law requires with the given atomic radius vector. Following 
 are the results: 
 
 D V D' V 
 Miles. Miles per sec. Miles. Miles per sec. 
 
 Mercury, 1500 2 62X10- 15 3X10" 
 
 Venus, Earth .... 4000 5 13X10 8 
 
 Mars, 2300 2.28 " 4X10 8 
 
 Jupiter, 45000 26 " 221 XlO 8 
 
 Saturn, 38000 15 117 XlO 8 
 
 Uranus, 17000 8.8 46 XlO 8 
 
 Neptune, 19000 9.3 51 XlO 8 
 
 Sun, 440000 270 7200 X 10 s 
 
 Moon, 1000 1 1X10 8 
 
 We see from this that the ultimate velocity decreases 
 with the size of the body started with, and also that the 
 least velocity thus arrived at is 500 times that of light, while 
 the greatest velocity is 4,000,000 times that of light; the ve- 
 locity derived from the Sun being about 100 times greater 
 than the average derived from the planets and that from the 
 Moon 50 times less; with an almost infinite variety of slower 
 and slower motions inferable from sub-satellites, sub-sub-sat- 
 ellite, etc., systems. But the ultimate atomic radii of revolu- 
 tion are no doubt as variable as the ultimate velocities; so 
 that, instead of the uniform radius above mentioned, the 
 atom itself must be penetrated far within into the domains 
 of the electron; involving still greater velocities (in some 
 cases) and still more minute radii of action. 
 
 Do these extreme velocities at these almost infinitesimal 
 distances seem absurd and incredible? They are truly as- 
 tounding; but, when certain modifications are taken into 
 consideration, they are not only not incredible, but apparent- 
 ly demanded by the actual facts. One of these modifications 
 is the fact that the molecular velocities here calculated are 
 not those which exist now, but only those which will exist 
 for the next grand round of cosmical evolution. One grand 
 round or cycle extends from one phase of cosmical evolution 
 to the next similar phase from one universal spheroid of 
 homogenous vapor down through all the stages of systems, 
 suns, planets, satellites, etc., to a state of homogenous vapor 
 similar to that with which the cycle began; which would 
 
196] ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE, ETC. 367 
 
 constitute the beginning of the next grand round. And, so 
 far as can now be seen, the sole product and effect of this 
 cyclical process, this seeming eternity of consolidation, seg- 
 regation, and grinding of matter back again to its ultimate 
 elements, constituting one grand round is nothing more than 
 a gain of MOTION, with probably a correspondingly greater 
 degree of comminution, or fineness, of the resulting ele- 
 ments. The ultimate velocities existing today are the result, 
 not of the present cycle of evolution, but of the preceding 
 cycles. There are many circumstances to consider in deter- 
 mining the difference between the present velocities and 
 those figured out above for the next cycle. It will here be 
 merely assumed that the former, while considerably less, are 
 yet not immensely different from the latter. 
 
 That there must be today extreme molecular velocities 
 coupled with ultra-microscopic radii of revolution is manifest 
 from various phenomena. We know that electrons are some- 
 times shot out of atoms with velocities approximating that 
 of light; and electrons themselves, being thousands of times 
 smaller than atoms, must contain much more rapid motions. 
 We know also that the spectrum of a single atom more 
 correctly, perhaps, simply the spectrum of the simplest of 
 the many different elements consists of some 1600 lines of 
 different refrangibilities (Art. 70e) ; each line ,no doubt, rep- 
 resenting a motion of a different magnitude and velocity. 
 How else is it possible or conceivable to account for spectral 
 phenomena except in this way? And though the speed of 
 light is the greatest of which we now have any conception, 
 yet even the speed of light depends upon wavelength and 
 frequency; which generally implies a still smaller amplitude 
 of oscillation, which last, in the light of the new theory, 
 would be the orbital diameter of the revolving particle whose 
 oscillations give rise to light. Now the wavelength of yel- 
 low light is 0.0005895 millimetre, and the frequency of the 
 oscillation is some five hundred millions of millions per 
 second; the product of these two factors being the velocity 
 of light, or about 190,000 miles per second. 
 
 Now, by Kepler's third law, having the period of atomic 
 
368 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY , [196 
 
 revolution, 5X10- 14 second, as just stated, we may find a cor- 
 responding distance by using any other heavenly body whose 
 mass and dimensions are known. Each different body, how- 
 ever, will give a different value to this distance. The 
 Sun, for example, gives us D = 440,000 miles, P = 1000 sec- 
 onds (=the Sun's circumference divided by 270, the velocity 
 in miles per second required to balance the Sun's attraction at 
 distance D), and P' = 5X10-" second; which gives D' by 
 simple proportion, according to Kepler's law, equal to 0.023 
 cm. It is obvious, however, that this value of the radial 
 distance corresponding to this atomic period is much too 
 large, being some 400 times the wavelength; whereas the 
 latter should be at least twice as great as the former. Ap- 
 parently the phenomena of yellow light could not, therefore, 
 have been derived in a direct line from such body as the 
 Sun. Taking next the Earth, D = 4000 miles, P = 5000 sec- 
 onds, and P' = 5X10-" second, as before; which gives D' = 
 0.00039 cm., a radius still some seven times greater than 
 the wavelength. Next, for the Moon, D may be taken at 
 1000 miles, P at 6300 seconds, and P' 5X10- 14 second; giving 
 D' z= 0.00008 cm., which is still larger than the wavelength. 
 Finally, taking a body some 300 miles in diameter and of 
 such mass that the period of a particle at its surface is 10,- 
 000 seconds, we have D = 150 miles, P = 10,000 seconds, P' 
 = 5X10- 14 second; giving D' = 0.000008 cm., which is only 
 about one-seventh of the wavelength, and gives the velocity of 
 light for that of the revolving atomic particle at this radius 
 and the given atomic period. 
 
 This may interpreted that the speed of revolution is 
 transmitted by one revolving particle to a neighboring one, 
 by means of the secondary connexions between them; the 
 ratio of the amplitude (= twice the radius) to the wave- 
 length indicating that, in this particular instance, the distance 
 between the centers of the revolving units is between three 
 and four times their dimensions. As the radius becomes 
 smaller and smaller than this, the period would also become 
 smaller and consequently also the wavelength, and the fre- 
 
196] ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE, ETC. 369 
 
 quency would be greater; thus apparently preserving the 
 same velocity for light-phenomena of various wavelengths 
 and frequencies, at least within limits. But the extreme ve- 
 locities derived linearly from such bodies as the Sun, when 
 brought down to atomic dimensions, would be incommensur- 
 able with light phenomena and apparently would not be 
 transmitted by them. Of some such nature would probably 
 be the X-rays, which are "harder" and more penetrating 
 than light motions. The indications are, however, that many 
 of these motions are absolutely beyond us; are wholly out 
 of tune with the mechanism of our organization, and more 
 lost to our ken even than light is to the totally blind. There 
 would also be many slower motions, derived from the smaller 
 laterally descended heavenly bodies in apparently endless 
 variety. Possibly some of these would merge down into 
 the phenomena of sound, taste and smell, as some certainly 
 do into those of heat; but undoubtedly many, probably most, 
 of these motions, especially the finer and most rapid, would 
 be, in varying degrees, incommensurable with our mental- 
 ity. Here the idea expressed in Buchner's quotation at the 
 head of chapter XIV applies with peculiar fitness. 
 
 It will be observed that the atomic radius at which the 
 velocity of light was above arrived at is considerably greater 
 than that assigned by Sir William Thompson for the atom. 
 Of course the new theory implies much smaller unit dimen- 
 sions than those of Sir William Thomson. But the fact that 
 a radius of some 10- 5 cm. may possibly account for the phe- 
 nomena of light suggests that it may not be impossible that 
 the size of the atom has been underestimated. As some 
 corroboration of this, the Brownian movement was recently 
 observed with the ordinary eye-piece of a microscope replaced 
 by another complete microscope, giving thus a linear mag- 
 nification of over 20,000. 
 
 "Under these conditions the Brownian movement proved 
 to consist of a double motion: the first with an amplitude 
 of the order of a micron, the other about l/50th of this."* 
 
 This at least indicates how molecular structure is com- 
 posed of motions of various orders of magnitude, as the new 
 
 *F. Bourieres, Nature, 92, 521. 
 
370 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [197 
 
 theory suggests. It must not be forgotten that all of these 
 deductions are subject to the imporant modification men- 
 tioned in this article. 
 
 197. The Theory of Gravity and Atomic Velocities. If 
 the law of gravitation governed the subsequent stages of cos- 
 mical evolution, these atomic velocities would, of course, be 
 impossible. And the general acceptance of the theory of 
 gravity may not improbably thus account for the present ap- 
 parently unphilosophical kinetic view that atoms merely os- 
 cillate or vibrate linearly, instead of circularly, like a planet. 
 According to that theory, as the central body around which 
 the planets revolve continually decreased in mass through con- 
 tinual subdivision, the central restraining force would contin- 
 ually diminish, at the same time that the centrifugal force con- 
 tinually increased through diminished distance and increased 
 velocity. The geometrically diminishing planetary distances 
 inwards would, in a degree, compensate the decreasing mass 
 of the central body, if it were not itself compensated by the 
 greater centrifugal force generated in the smaller orbit, aside 
 from the greater absolute velocity implied by Kepler's third 
 law. Even with the aid of the law of equal areas in equal 
 times, the theory of gravity r'equires a practically constant 
 central mass or attraction; whereas in this case the central 
 mass is continually diminishing from planetary magnitudes 
 down to the almost infinitesimal magnitude of an electron. 
 Also according to the theory of gravity, the diminishing size 
 of the planets themselves, as the process of subdivision con- 
 tinued, would make no difference in the power of the cen- 
 tral force necessary to restrain them. This is not the case 
 with the connective theory, in which the restraining force 
 is the elasticity of the bond which holds the revolving planet 
 to its sun; which itself depends upon the magnitude of the 
 revolving body. In other words, the connective theory has 
 the advantage that the diminishing mass of the central body 
 does not diminish the restraining power, as in the theory of 
 gravity, because, in the former, the strength of the bond 
 is determined largely by the mass of its planet and the 
 
198] ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE, ETC. 371 
 
 amount of the very strain which it is required to withstand 
 In its formative stage. 
 
 Unless molecular orbital motions at such velocities be 
 denied entirely, these phenomena also constitute a serious 
 objection to the theory of gravity along with the many 
 others mentioned in the first part of this work; the phenom- 
 ena and the theory being certainly inconsistent. For, ac- 
 cording to that theory, the radial strain upon the revolving 
 body does not depend upon the mass of the latter, but on the 
 mass of the central body which is entirely inconsistent with 
 atomic phenomena; whereas, by the new theory, the radial 
 strain does depend upon the magnitude of the revolving body 
 and not upon that of the central body which is in harmony 
 with the observed facts. 
 
 198. Weight or Mass, the Measure of Energy. Here 
 again arises the question Is it really the mass of a planet 
 which determines its centrifugal strain or its weight? It 
 will be remembered this subject was referred to before (Art. 
 26), and the arguments there employed ned not be repeated 
 here. They seem plainly to show that weight is the main 
 factor in determining centrifugal strain rather than mass. 
 Just one further argument will here be referred to. 
 
 The energy of a moving mass, in absolute units, is said 
 to be equal to half the mass multiplied by the square of the 
 velocity; or, as it is commonly written, MV 2 /2. Now con- 
 sider a pound mass falling with a velocity of 100 feet per 
 second at the Earth's surafce. This, according to the above 
 formula, would be equal to 5000 absolute units of energy. 
 Then consider the same mass as falling with the same ve- 
 locity at the Sun's surface. Instead of one pound, this mass 
 would now be 27 pounds, and according to the formula MV 2 /2, 
 the 27 pounds multiplied by 5000 would exactly equal the one 
 pound multiplied by 5000; in other words, the 27 pounds 
 weight striking a solid obstruction on the Sun would give 
 exactly the same amount of heat or any other kind of energy 
 as the one pound weight striking a solid obstruction on the 
 Earth with the same velocity! If this be true, then MV 2 is 
 the true formula; if it be not true, then WV 2 is the correct 
 
372 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [199 
 
 formula for general use, and MV 2 is only locally applicable. 
 
 We know that there are molecular motions the velocity 
 of which is of the same order as that of light, because elec- 
 trons are projected with this v*elocity out of molecules and 
 atoms; and it is now conceded by excellent authorities that 
 the phenomena can only be accounted for by an orbital mo- 
 tion around some central entity in the system from which 
 it has been projected. And the tremendous centrifugal force 
 ascribable to even the velocity of light, confined in orbits so 
 extremely minute, seems explicable only on the assumption 
 that the strain of the revolving body diminishes with its di- 
 minishing weight owing to the decreased mass of the central 
 body around which it circulates ; so that, though weight could 
 never disappear entirely, it ultimately would become so small 
 as to fully compensate the enormous mechanical forces 
 otherwise implied by the velocities of molecular and atomic 
 systems. By the new theory, the centrifugal strain would 
 be diminished not only by the diminishing mass of the re- 
 volving body but also by the diminishing weight of that mass 
 in consequence of the diminishing mass of the central body. 
 
 199. Results of a Grand Round of Cosmical Evolution. 
 It may now be said that we have taken a panoramic view 
 (though undoubtedly an extremely incomplete one) of one 
 Grand Round of cosmical evolution. How many similar 
 Rounds the Cosmos had previously undergone we probably 
 can never tell, any more than we can tell how many may 
 take place in the future. It does not now seem conceivable 
 that the ultimate elements of matter could have been evolved 
 out of a perfectly homogeneous magma wholly without parts 
 or divisions in such a cosmical process as is now taking place, 
 because there would be lacking the individual components 
 which, in the surface-contractions, are to approach one an- 
 other. In fact it appears we have now arrived at the "most 
 general conception" in which all other conceptions must be in- 
 cluded and which, therefore, must itself remain inexplicable 
 at least until we know somewhat more about the universe than- 
 we do at present. The nature of the process by which Mat- 
 ter first became subdivided into component elements is just 
 
199] ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE, ETC. 373 
 
 as inscrutable as the nature of the stuff of which the ele- 
 mentary bodies and connexions consist. These are the pres- 
 ent limits of our knowledge a Universal Whole of nearly 
 homogeneous vapor, made up of distinct component parts, 
 and the Sub-Atom, or ultimate component part itself. Beyond 
 either of these limits, our intellect cannot soar, for nothing 
 there appears to render it support or rest. 
 
 But premising these limits, we can trace with a tolerable 
 degree of clearness the processes which would naturally take 
 place until almost an eternity of evolution brings us again 
 to a state of things apparently similar in all respects to that 
 with which we started. This vast cycle of evolution, how- 
 ever, would surely cause some change in the pre-existing 
 state of things. As already intimated, some results would 
 be thus attained, which would be more and more enhanced 
 by succeeding cycles. What, then, are these results? From 
 what we have already gone over we can, with a fair degree 
 of confidence, deduce the following: first, either an original 
 rotation, or an acceleration of the previous rotation, of the 
 Whole (Art. 90) ; second, an expansion of the Whole out- 
 wards into space owing to this increase of its axial rotation 
 (Art. 80, c) ; third, an acceleration of the rotation of the ul- 
 timate primary components of the Whole (Art. 80, e) ; fourth, 
 greater subdivision and fineness of the ultimate primary com- 
 ponents owing to acceleration of their rotation; and fifth, an 
 accelerated revolution of the secondary components around 
 the primary components owing to accelerated rotation 
 and finer subdivision of the latter, according to Kepler's 
 third law. This acceleration of the previous rotation of the 
 Whole, mentioned in the latter portion of the first result, 
 would naturally follow from the intermediate stages leading 
 to the third and fifth results. 
 
 These, then, are our most general deductions. The sole pro- 
 ducts of the myriads of ages of evolution and dissolution, de- 
 velopment and destruction, pleasure and pain, life and death, 
 of any one Round of cosmical segregation are a mere gain 
 of Motion in Time and an increased encroachment of Matter 
 
374 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [200 
 
 upon Space as compared with these elements in the pre- 
 ceding Round. 
 
 200. The Constitution of Matter. We are thus led by the 
 new theory in one consecutive process from suns and planets 
 down to the domains of the molecule and the electron. There 
 now open before us the" phenomena of heat, light, electricity, 
 magnetism, sensation, and even life itself. The grosser phe- 
 nomena of the universe are seen to blend gradually into its 
 most refined phenomena; and Prof. Huxley's words apply 
 here with peculiar fitness : 
 
 "Living matter differs from other matter in degree and not 
 in kind; the microcosm repeats the macrocosm; and one chain 
 kind; the microcosm repeats the microcosm; and one chain 
 of causation connects the nebulous origin of suns and plan- 
 etary systems with the protoplasmic foundations of life and 
 organization."* 
 
 For obvious reasons, it will be impossible here to follow 
 the new theory into these various branches of microsmic phe- 
 nomena. The treatment of even the grosser phenomenon 
 thmselves could not be entred into fully, but merely suffi- 
 ciently indicated to give an intelligent idea of them. It may 
 be remarked, however, that the constitution of mater accord- 
 ing to the new theory is really not so easy to comprehend as it 
 may at first sight seem. , The almost inconceivably great 
 velocities in ultra-microscopic orbits, no doubt, have powerful 
 effects which we can yet hardly fathom because we cannot 
 imitate either the magnitudes or the motions. The gyro- 
 scope has revealed to us some curious effects of circular 
 motion, which were absolutely unknown to us be- 
 fore. But the molecules and the sub-atoms are gy- 
 roscopes of almost infinitely more rapid rotation of 
 almost infinitely various magnitudes and bound to one an- 
 other by both real and potential connections. We can dimly 
 imagine how the smaller gyroscopes may fit in among the 
 larger, and be held there in a firm structure by virtue of their 
 rapid rotations. We can conceive how bodies composed of 
 very small gyroscopes with the most rapid rotations, on the 
 average, would be the harder and more permanent; while 
 
 *Humboldt Library of Science, 6, 352. 
 
200] ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE, ETC. 375 
 
 those composed of the wider and slower rotations would be 
 more easily decomposed to unite again with different con- 
 stituents of other bodies in chemical combinations. We can 
 understand how certain kinds of light rays having motions 
 conmmensurable with those of certain bodies can affect the 
 constitution of these bodies by changing some of their mo- 
 tions. And we can faintly comprehend how a body composed 
 of many different units of many different rates and ranges 
 of motion, compressed and locked together by virtue of their 
 gyroscopic properites, may sometimes be so delicately bal- 
 anced that a small disturbance by an external commensurate 
 motion may unlock the combination which holds the con- 
 stituents together, and the tremendous energy bound up in 
 the expelled and the expelling components become partially 
 manifst as an explosion. It is still easier to idealize the heat 
 of chemical change as a modification of pre-existing molec- 
 ular motions, which in turn modifies the molecular motions 
 of thermometers or of the organs of sensation; and the con- 
 duction of heat as an approximation of the planes of molec- 
 ular motions into coincidence with a certain direction, while 
 no heat would be transmitted in a direction perpendicular 
 to the plane of rotation. We can conceive that heat and 
 light are both mere differences of pre-existing motions faith- 
 fully transmitted by the ethereal molecular rotations; either 
 accelerations with wider range of slow laterally derived ro- 
 tations, or retardations with wider range of rapid linearly 
 derived rotations. 
 
 And we can conceive of no other way of explaining the 
 enormous number of lines in each of the various spectra than 
 that each line repersents a circular motion of different mag- 
 nitude and velocity, and therefore of different refrangibility. 
 "It was the orbital movement of the electrons in the atoms 
 to which . . . Storey attributed in 1891 the spectral 
 lines and their various singularities."* 
 
 By this theory, it is not differences of intrinsic material 
 qualities which determine the differences between the ele- 
 mentary substances, but differences of degree and complex- 
 
 *Nature, 87, 51. 
 
376 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [200 
 
 ity of motion. What it is that moves, wo do not know, only 
 that it possesses some mass and inertia; motion is all the 
 rest. A drop of water, if it has sufficient speed, will pene- 
 trate a steel plate. Straws and feathers, driven by cyclonic 
 storms, have been known to pierce the bark and trunks of 
 trees. A swiftly spinning round sheet of paper acts like a 
 circular saw, and discs of soft iron in rapid rotation cut the 
 hardest steel. A flexible chain, twisting rapidly around its 
 length becomes rigid and stands on end like a pole. And 
 Lord Kelvin constructed a spring balance of nothing but rigid 
 bodies in spinning motion. 
 
 A sling, revolved slowly, permits the passage through its 
 plane of rotation of small projected bodies practically with- 
 out hindrance, but if revolved with sufficient rapidity, would 
 reflect back a bullet, or even light. The same thing pre- 
 cisely is true of molecular motions. The breaking of a piece 
 of iron is caused by the rupture of the primary and second- 
 ary molecular connexions along the break. Myriads of mole- 
 cules and sub-molecules are still spinning with inscrutable 
 velocities along the boundaries of the fragments, to which 
 alone their hardness, color, etc., is due; and only by modify- 
 ing these motions, to the limited extent which is possible 
 for us, can we change these properties. 
 
 Light is composed of a multitude of different motions, 
 the most rapid of which is occasionally commensurable with 
 some of the atomic motions of matter and modifies the latter 
 motions so much as to cause the ejection of electrons; and 
 it has been shown that the shorter the wavelength causing 
 the ejection, the greater the velocity of the ejected electron, 
 just as according to theory it should be. X-radiation, how- 
 ever, causes the ejection of much greater numbers of elec- 
 trons having still greater speeds; and the reason why this 
 radiation can penetrate bodies impervious to light is that the 
 more rapid motions and smaller radii of the former are more 
 commensurable with the motions of ordinary opaque bodies 
 than light motions and radii are. The recent "quantum" 
 theory of energy is readily explicable by the circular atomic 
 motions, each rotation yielding a certain quantity of energy 
 
200] ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE, ETC. 377 
 
 separable from the preceding or the following rotation, just 
 like the motion of a piston. 
 
 The more recent dynamical theories of the constitution of 
 matter are very nearly in harmony with these views. Lar- 
 mor, having extended Sir William Thomson's vortex-ring hy- 
 pothesis into "orbital motions of electrons in the atom," Prof. 
 Tait objected that such theories reduce phenomena to mere 
 difference-effects, 
 
 "thereby implying the presence of stores of energy abso- 
 lutely gigantic in comparison with anything hitherto ob- 
 served, or even suspected to exist in the universe; and there- 
 fore demanding the most delicate adjustments, not merely to 
 maintain the conservation of energy which we observe, but to 
 prevent the whole solar and stellar systems from being in- 
 stantaneously scattered in fragments through space."* 
 
 But the objection really proves the theory; for such "in- 
 stantaneously scattered fragments through space," on a small 
 scale, (in the form of explosions) actually transpire occa- 
 sionally, and requires such stores of energy to explain them 
 just as much as if such instances were more general; are 
 indeed wholly inexplicable by any other theory because noth- 
 ing less than such gigantic stores of energy can account for 
 them. Moreover there are gigantic stores of such energy 
 still untapped, which are not so delicately adjusted, but, on 
 the contrary, firmly bound; which some day, however, we 
 may become intelligent enough to be able to unlock and draw 
 upon for our comfort, convenience, and power. 
 
 The following extracts from a recent resume of modern 
 ideas on the constitution of matter, by Jean Becquerel, are 
 exactly in harmony with the ultimate results to which the 
 connective theory has led us: 
 
 "The volume of an atom is sufficient to contain billions 
 on billions of electrons, but as its mass indicates that it con- 
 tains at most a few thousands, it is certain that the electrons 
 are at enormous distances from each other in comparison 
 with their dimensions. We might liken them to a swarm 
 of gnats gravitating about in the dome of a cathedral. . 
 
 "We know today that radio-active substances undergo an 
 evolution in which there appears a whole series of more or 
 less ephemeral bodies whose duration of existence may be as 
 
 *Properties of Matter, London, 1885, Art. 164. 
 
378 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [200 
 
 small as a few days, or even a few seconds, as in the case 
 of the emanation of actinium. All these bodies are new ele- 
 iments. 
 
 "These transformations are* veritable transmutations. 
 They are not qhemica! decompositions. They appear to be 
 independent of temperature; they bring into play a consid- 
 erable amount of energy; for instance, the emanation of ra- 
 dium is, as a matter of fact, capable of setting free 2,500,000 
 times as much energy as the explosion of a mixture of hy- 
 drogen and oxygen of equal volume. . 
 
 "Sir William Ramsay at present is carrying out some re- 
 markable experiments. He has announced the transmuta- 
 tion of copper into potasium, sodium, and helium under the 
 action of the concentrated energy which the radium emana- 
 tion brings to bear upon them. In some recent experiments, 
 which appear to be beyond criticism, he has attained the 
 transmutatioin into carbon of silicon, titanium, zirconium, 
 lead, and thorium. All these bodies belong in the same col- 
 umn in Mendelejeff's table. ... 
 
 "It is probable that all matter is undergoing a process of 
 evolution. The slowness of the transformation, however, or 
 the rarity of conditions favorable to quick change gives an 
 illusion of stability."* 
 
 That 2,500,000 times the energy manifested in the explo- 
 sion of oxygen and hydrogen is given out by an equal vol- 
 ume of radium admits of no other conceivable explanation 
 than the extreme velocities of molecular orbital motions de- 
 ductively arrived at by the new theory. But, nevertheless, 
 much of the mechanism of matter we cannot as yet hope to 
 fathom, because two essential elements of this mechanism 
 extremely great velocity coupled with extremely minute mag- 
 nitude lie wholly beyond our experience. 
 
 As to whether the density of the ether, or connective at- 
 mosphere, is very small, according to Sir William Thomson 
 and Mendelejeff, or comparable to that of ordinary matter, 
 as others hold, the preponderance of evidence appears to 
 point to the former view. That the ethereal density is mil- 
 lions of times that of lead or platinum, as recently taught 
 by Dr. Oliver Lodge, seems to be absolutely precluded by 
 the Earth carrying the ether along with it in its orbital mo- 
 tion, as well as by the phenomena of refraction and resist- 
 ance. 
 
 *Publication 2024, Smith. Tnst., pp. 288-9. 
 
201] ULTIMATE CONCEPTIONS OF MAGNITUDE, ETC. 379 
 
 201. Connective Resistance to the Motions of the Heaven- 
 ly Bodies. There is but one thing further that will here en- 
 gage our attention, and that is the resistance which the con- 
 nective substance must surely offer in some degree or other 
 to the motions of the heavenly bodies. Of course the re- 
 sistance would not be greater in the case of the connective 
 substance than in would be in the case of the ethereal me- 
 dium of the present theory. In either case friction of some 
 kind seems unavoidable when a body passes through a mate- 
 rial medium. It is true that dense bodies sometimes pass 
 through other dense bodies with surprising velocity and much 
 less friction than would naturally be expected such as rings 
 of colored water shot through a tank of clear water with a 
 velocity of about two metres per second; maintaining at the 
 same time their form and orientation even in passing through 
 thin textures suspended in the tank.* Also a vacuum ap- 
 pears to offer no resistance to a moving body, though the 
 density of the ethereal substance within it is still undimin- 
 ished. Nevertheless, it is difficult to conceive a body moving 
 through even an ethereal substance without some friction, 
 however small. And though all the planetary motions seem 
 unabated by it during all recorded time, still its existence ap- 
 parently cannot logically be denied. 
 
 But if the friction cannot be denied, then it remains to be 
 accounted for; and one seemingly not impossible way of ac- 
 counting for it is as follows: 
 
 It is generally conceded that the cord which confines a 
 revolving body to a circular path does not affect the motion 
 of the body in that path. But, as a matter of fact, does not 
 the action of the cord quantitively modify the actual path 
 which the circulating body pursues? It is true that a pull 
 acting upon a body at right angles to the direction in which 
 it is moving would neither increases nor diminish the quan- 
 tity of its motion in that direction. But since the pull 
 changes the direction of the motion, it seems to follow from 
 this very fact that, in the case of rectangular motion, the 
 path of the body in a unit of time, would be greater in the 
 
 *Nature, 88, 464-5. 
 
380 
 
 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY 
 
 [201 
 
 changed than in the unchanged direction. If the projectile 
 motion of the body in a unit of time were such as to make 
 it describe the path a b, and tne body were subjected to a 
 pull which, during that time, would cause it to move a dis- 
 tance a d, at right angles to a b, then does it not clearly 
 
 follow, from the composition of forces, that the body would 
 describe, in the same unit of time, the path a c, or the diag- 
 onal of the rectangle of which a b and a d are the sides? 
 And if the inward pull upon the body has thus caused it to 
 describe a longer path in a unit of time than it would de- 
 scribe in the absence of that pull, has not that pull, as a 
 matter of fact, actually increased the absolute velocity of the 
 body? In fact would not the a b of the second unit of time, 
 be greater than the a b of the first unit, in consequence? 
 And since the inward pull operates upon the body contin- 
 ually, it would thus follow that the absolute motion of the 
 body in its circular path, other things being equal, would be 
 continually increased. And the explanation here suggested 
 is that approximately what the resistance of the medium 
 diminishes the absolute motion of the body, the radial pulling 
 of the cord increases it. 
 
 In corroboration at least of an appropriate equivalence of 
 the two opposing tendencies, it is to be observed that while 
 
202] RETROSPECT 381 
 
 an outer planet moves in a less dense medium than an inner 
 planet, its radial pull, on the other hand, is also less; and 
 the inner planet moving through the greater density has a 
 relatively great radial pull to compensate for the greater 
 density of the medium. Of course this greater radial pull 
 on the inner planet would not fully compensate for the greater 
 density of the medium, if the resistance of the latter varies 
 as in gross matter, or matter as we are sensible of it. In 
 other words, an increase of density of the connective sub- 
 stance does not necessarily imply a proportional increase in 
 the resistance it would offer to moving bodies. The resist- 
 ance would obviously be greater in the greater density, but 
 very probably in a smaller ratio. And thus, perhaps, even 
 the exact equivalence of the resistance offered by the con- 
 nective medium to the absolute motion of a planet and the as- 
 sistance of that motion by the radial pull may in all cases be 
 continually maintained. 
 
 202. Retrospect. To summarize the results of this in- 
 vestigation, as it has been carried out, would be little less 
 than a repetition of what has already been said. Only the 
 more important results have been given, and these in the 
 briefest possible form which would convey them to the read- 
 er's mind. The entire work is little more than a summary 
 of the more detailed investigations necessarily implied; and 
 a summary would be scarcely more than a mere recapitula- 
 tion of the subjects discussed. Even such a summary, how- 
 ever, being possibly of some value in calling to mind once 
 more the salient facts discussed, may now close this inves- 
 tigation. 
 
 In the first place, then, a cursory survey has been made 
 of the progress of physical inquiry in the past, from the 
 crudest fancies of the savage to the highly abstract con- 
 ceptions of Newton and Laplace. And from this it was ob- 
 served that the history of physical astronomy is merely a 
 recital of the general belief in some conception of the mech- 
 anism of the heavens, the more careful examination of this 
 conception after a time proving it to be erroneous, and of 
 its consequent rejection and replacement by a new concep- 
 
382 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [202 
 
 tion, in turn generally received, in turn eventually rejected 
 like its predecessor, and in turn replaced by still another con- 
 ception. The last of this series of conceptions is that of 
 Newton as modified by Laplace; and, in accordance with 
 precedent, this conception has been examined much in the 
 same manner that each of its predecessors has been exam- 
 ined. 
 
 Commencing with the main principle of the Newtonian 
 theory, it was found that even the statement of this princi- 
 ple was without logical or rational foundation. Its appli- 
 cation was found to be inconsistent with and repugnant to 
 the interaction of two or more particles; the conservation 
 of energy; the theoretic location of gravity at the center of a 
 sphere or spherical shell; the strength of gravity beneath the 
 Earth's surafce; motion in an elongated ellipse; the run- 
 away stars; the pressure of sunlight; the temperature of the 
 Sun and of Mars; the strain of a revolving body upon its cen- 
 ter of motion; the problem of three bodies, or even of two 
 bodies; nebular rotation, translation, contraction, subdivi- 
 sion, and development into the forms in which the Solar 
 System, or the Sidereal System, now exists; the Sun's heat 
 upon different portions of the Earth's surface, and upon the 
 whole Earth at different distances from the Sun; and the 
 phenomena of the tides in the Earth's atmosphere and upon 
 its ocean surface. The law of equal areas in equal times 
 having been found without logical proof or support, even di- 
 rectly contradictory of the third law of Kepler, the theory of 
 gravitation, largely grounded on this law, was found to be 
 wholly inadequate in every conceivable instance, except an 
 apparent conformity with some facts upon and near the 
 Earth's surface. 
 
 On the other hand, the new theory of material interplanetary 
 bonds was found to offer a rational explanation of all these 
 phenomena, and moreover was seen to harmonize with the 
 sunspot periods and their related phenomena for nearly a 
 hundred years; with the solar corona; and with the zodiacal 
 light. The Saturnian ring, the comets, the meteorites, are 
 unimpeachable witnesses in its favor. The hitherto silent 
 
202] RETROSPECT 383 
 
 and mysterious movements of the magnetic needle, mani- 
 fested in its diurnal, annual, irregular, and secular varia- 
 tions, have for the first time found a voice apparently as 
 true to that theory as that needle to its pole. Even the tes- 
 timony of the rocks, the Coal Measures, and the great Ice 
 Age, which time has engraved upon the Earth-crust and 
 which has heretofore remained undecipherable, is clearly 
 interpreted by means of the guiding principle which this the 
 ory furnishes; and, in turn, further elucidates and exempli- 
 fies it. Even when we ascend to the remotest bodies of the 
 Sidereal System, the new, the variable, and the periodical, 
 stars and the various nebular forms, the light which they 
 shed from the almost infinite depths of space, but illustrates 
 the harmony of the theory with their various manifesta- 
 tions. And finally, when the connective theory is applied as 
 orie great consecutive process of cosmical evolution, from 
 planets and suns down to the domains of the molecule and the 
 electron, the motions and magnitudes which are thus arrived 
 at are found, so far as can be seen, to be fully corroborated 
 by the phenomena of heat, light, radiant emissions, and ma- 
 terial structure, so far as they are known. 
 
 Thus, while the present Force-theory seems to be square- 
 ly confuted and discredited by many very important phenom- 
 ena, and apparently not contradicted by comparatively few, 
 every phenomenon of Nature, without exception, appears to 
 be consonant and of a piece with the new connective system 
 here advanced. 
 
 But a word of caution may not here be amiss. Although 
 apparently so excellent and so agreeable with the facts, it 
 can hardly be expected that the new theory could be per- 
 fect. Even though it be regarded so meritorious as to be 
 generally accepted in preferance to any other, there are many 
 considerations which lead to the belief that it must contain 
 errors, and that it may be just as erroneous in comparison 
 with a still more radical and exhaustive theory as its pred- 
 ecessor is in comparison with it. We apparently have no 
 right, at the present rtage of our development, to assume 
 that we have attained to perfection in anything; and espe- 
 
384 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [202 
 
 cially is this true in the case now under consideration, of 
 which past records show but successive acceptance of er- 
 rors, each of which is only less gross than its predecessor. 
 But though we cannot yet claim perfect conception of the 
 mechanism of natural phenomena, our duty now, as in the 
 past, is none the less to cleave to those conceptions of them 
 which appear to be the nearest to perfection, and willingly 
 to reject all others. Whether we may or may not ultimately 
 arrive at perfect knowledge of these things, we seem at the 
 present time to have not sufficient grounds for deciding; but 
 if ever we shall attain to such perfection, however great the 
 genius or the prestige or the material interests by which op- 
 posing conceptions may have been or is maintained, the ready 
 acceptance of the less erroneous conceptions is the only road 
 which leadeth in that direction. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 Twenty years ago, the system of theoretical physics 
 seemed so complete as to justify the opinion, not infre- 
 quently expressed, that it was probable that the great dis- 
 coveries in physics had all been made, and that future ad- 
 vances were to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals. 
 And yet, in the very midst of these predictions, came the an- 
 nouncement, made just 18 years ago this week, of Roentgen's 
 discovery which showed that there were great mines of phys- 
 ical gold as yet unworked. Since that time discoveries of 
 fundamental importance have followed one another with such 
 amazing frequency that one who is at all familiar with the 
 history of physics will scarcely challenge the statement that 
 the past 15 years is quite unparalleled in the number and the 
 significance of its advances. PROF. R. A. MILLIKAN.* 
 
 What mathematicians and physicists have long consid- 
 ered as well established is now being uprooted and replaced 
 by non-Newtonian mechanics based on the principle of rela- 
 tivity. . . . Scientific thought, Prof. Ogg described as 
 so plastic nowadays that the most cherished tenets of the 
 last generation of men of science are being abandoned. f , 
 
 The true observer is, above all things, an amateur, using 
 the word in that splendid sense to which Prof. Hale recently 
 introduced us. There have been many attempts to define an 
 amateur. One was given by Prof. Schuster in his eloquent 
 address to this section at Edinburgh in 1892: "We may 
 perhaps best define an amateur as one who learns his science 
 as he wants it and when he wants it. I should call Faraday 
 an amateur." We need not quarrel with this definition, and 
 certainly not with the noble instance with which he points 
 it. But after all I prefer the definition of Prof. Hale (Month- 
 ly Notices, 68, 64) : "According to my view, the amateur is 
 the man who works in astronomy because he cannot help it, 
 because he would rather do such work than anything else 
 in the world, and who therefore cares little for hampering 
 traditions, or for difficulties of any kind." 
 
 PROF. H. H. TURNER. J 
 
 *Address Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Dec., 1912. 
 
 tC. F. J. on Dr. A. Ogg^s Address, South African Assoc. Adv. Sci., 
 Kimberly, 1914; Nature, 93, 672. 
 
 JAddress, B. A. 1911; Nature, 87, 296. 
 
386 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [203 
 
 I speak as my understanding instructs me, and mine hon- 
 esty puts it to utterance. SHAKESPEARE. 
 
 How long? Ask our respected friends President X and 
 Professor Y and Dr. Z Editor P and Director Q, who sit at 
 the gates of science and scrutinize the tickets, and exclude 
 every man who does not spell according to their Moham- 
 medan way. In the name of the Prophet phigs! 
 
 O. E. WHITE.* 
 
 203. A Final Inference. There is one further argument 
 in favor of the views advanced in this work. The first edi- 
 tion of 1000 copies was published twenty-six years ago, and 
 contained nearly all the principal arguments of the present 
 work. Of the 1000 copies, 150 were sent to the press and 
 various scientific authorities for reviews and nearly all of the 
 remainder was eventually disposed of practically as waste 
 paper. Uniformly favorable, though not really critical, no- 
 tices were received from the lay press; but not one criticism 
 worthy of the name came from scientific sources (See Ap- 
 pendix B). This is not a complaint, nor merely a bit of naked 
 history. Judging from the past, if the views here set forth 
 are true, no other treatment was to be expected; and that 
 such treatment has been received 'is, therefore, some indica- 
 tion that the views advanced are true. This argument may 
 not be so convincing as some in the preceding pages, but it 
 is not entirely without weight. The writer has seen more 
 than one work, apparently of much less merit than this one, 
 whose arguments were torn to shreds at considerable pains 
 by a Reviewer in one of the great scientific journals; while, 
 about the same time and in the same journal, the first edi- 
 tion of this work received an absolutely colorless notice of 
 only twelve lines. 
 
 But that was twenty-six years ago, and today better 
 things are to be expected. The principles discussed are cer- 
 tainly of prime importance in physical science. If the con- 
 clusions arrived at regarding them are true, it will not be 
 conducive to any one's reputation or honor, nor to the pub- 
 lic welfare, to ignore them, however great may be the pri- 
 vate convenience and the material profit; and if they are 
 not true, the sincerity, good intention, and perseverance of 
 
 * Science, 36, 74. 
 

 203] CONCLUSION 387 
 
 the author over so long a period, seems to deserve at least 
 that his errors should be pointed out. 
 
 There is undeniably an extreme reluctance to surrender 
 long-cherished ideas, however apparently wrong, and accept 
 in their stead original and novel ideas, however apparently 
 right. This reluctance appears to be much more prevalent 
 than is realized by leaders in the various departments of in- 
 tellectual and social activities, and from which even science is 
 not at all entirely free. It is due largely, no doubt, to easy- 
 going acceptance of current views, but occasionally assumes 
 curious forms. Some eighteen years ago the present writer 
 published in Notts and Qurtes one or two of the principal ob- 
 jections to the theory of gravitation given in* the first part 
 of the present work. A long editorial on these objections, 
 entitled "Removing a Landmark," appeared in a leading news- 
 paper, admitting the probable correctness of the criticisms 
 and the apparent error and absurdity of the theory criti- 
 cised. Yet the editorial concludes as follows: 
 
 " "We are by no means sure that the intelligent world will 
 care to part with its faith in the long-accepted law of grav- 
 itation even in the face of these apparently unanswerable 
 arguments. The trouble is that when one lets go of a thing 
 of that sort a precedent is established which may lead too 
 far."* 
 
 This strange utterance may, however, be much in the same 
 line of thought as Prof. Schuster's idea: "We all want to 
 be right rather than to be wrong. But it is better to be 
 wrong than to be neither right nor wrong." What appears 
 to be meant is that it is far more conducive to our attainment 
 of eventual intellectual perfection to entertain even a wrong 
 theory than to have no theory at all, because the former 
 implies intellectual activity and eventual progress, while the 
 latter implies only intellectual stagnation. Had the writer 
 of the editorial consulted the new views in this volume, as 
 he had a portion of the criticisms of the old, and had found 
 the new views as true as the old were found to be erroneous, 
 then surely he would not have expressed hesitation in part- 
 ing with the latter, because there would then be something 
 *The Detroit Free Press, Oct. 1, 1896. 
 
388 THE CONNECTIVE THEORY [203 
 
 still to cling to when the old were given up. And the pres- 
 ent writer may state here his emphatic judgment that, strong 
 as are the arguments presented iiere against the old theory, 
 the arguments presented in favor of the new theory are at 
 least ten-fold stronger. 
 
 The writer is not one of those who has wholly lost faith 
 in the generosity and intellectual hospitality of present-day 
 men of science. The following is an astounding utterance 
 by one who, though himself a leader in science, had to fight 
 for many years for the original truths he had discovered: 
 
 "You may.be right I will not undertake to say about 
 that but you will find that astronomers are a very prejudiced 
 and a very lazy set of men, and are shiftlessly inclined to 
 accept Newton's law because it saves them the trouble of 
 doing any more thinking. Then, too, the acceptance of your 
 views would spoil the whole existing body of astronomical 
 literature, which would be a pity, even if it is all wrong. 
 I am ashamed to make these admissions."* 
 
 It is hard to believe that such a condition of things can be 
 true. As to the present writer's own experience, it may be 
 said that, while he has many times sought for expression of 
 his views In scientific journals, and even for private opinion 
 regarding them, and almost as often been refused, he does 
 not fail to see that, in these busy days, such revolutionary 
 views, by an unknown amateur, could hardly be expected to 
 receive any other treatment. But he hopes and believes that 
 the same treatment will not apply to his publications ex- 
 tended over more than a quarter of a century. His best ef- 
 forts have been given to the subject for the greater portion 
 of his life; he has as much confidence in the results of his 
 investigations here presented as any one, practically alone, 
 possibly can have; he has such faith in the honor and in- 
 tegrity of his contemporaries that he cannot for a moment 
 entertain the belief that a studied ignoring today of important 
 physical truths, from whatever source, is possible; he ap- 
 
 *Prof. Seth C. Chandler, Editor Astronomical Journal, in a letter to 
 the author dated March 31, 1897, declining for publication a paper on the 
 theory of gravitation. 
 
203] CONCLUSION 389 
 
 peals on these grounds to the intellectual world for a fair 
 and imparital consideration of his work; and he has implicit 
 trust that, in this day and age, he will receive what he de- 
 serves: he asks no more. 
 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 Further investigation is just what is wanted. No one 
 can expect others to accept his word for an entirely new 
 fact, except as establishing a prima facie case for investi- 
 gation. . . . What we know is as nothing to that which 
 remains to be known. This is sometimes said as a truism; 
 sometimes it is doubted. To me it seems the most literal truth, 
 and that if we narrow our view to already half-conquered 
 territory only, we shall be false to the men who won our 
 freedom, and treasonable to the highest claims of science. 
 
 DR. OLIVER J. LODGE. 
 
 An increasing and unfaltering search for truth, with a 
 belief in the betterment of humanity through knowledge, is 
 the ethical basis of science, and none other. 
 
 ROBERT THORBURN AYTON INNES. 
 
 On all hands of us there is the announcement, audible 
 enough to those who have ears to hear, that the old empire 
 of routine is ended, and that to say a thing has long been is 
 no reason for its continuing to be. CARLYLE. 
 
 204. During the year 1915, as stated in the Preface, this 
 work has been submitted for critical examination to the phys- 
 ical department heads of two of the principal colleges and 
 two state universities in the western United States. The 
 result from one of the latter was entirely nil, the work hav- 
 ing been returned after six weeks' time without a single 
 comment of any kind. Two of the other three responded 
 with criticisms consisting of about three and eight typewrit- 
 ten pages of the first chapter only; while the remaining one 
 made an extensive review of portions of the whole work, con- 
 sisting of some ninety typewritten pages, with much subse- 
 quent discussion besides. 
 
 It is freely conceded here that each of the three gentlemen 
 responsible for these examinations was actuated therein by 
 nothing else than the deep interest which they have in sci- 
 ence; and that their perfect sincerity and kindly intentions, 
 as well as their absolute confidence in all their findings, is 
 clearly apparent and indubitable. 
 
392 APPENDIX A [204 
 
 The results of the first and second examinations, with the 
 replies thereto, were all submitted in the examinations fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 As the last of the examiners thought the publication of 
 his comments undesirable because it might be understood 
 in a controversial sense, the writer thought it best to accord 
 the same treatment to all three and therefore refer to them 
 anonymously as Dr. A, Dr. B, and Dr. C. The criticisms of 
 the first two are given in full, while, for the reason stated, 
 only as many brief quotations are made from Dr. C's com- 
 ments as were necessary to make the answers thereto in- 
 telligible. 
 
 Although one was promised, no reply to the answers 
 made to the first two criticisms of the work has been offered, 
 with the exception that Dr. A, after reading Dr. B's criti- 
 cism and the answer thereto, again kindly advised that the 
 work should not be published "because of erroneous conclu- 
 sions." He further stated "I believe that any physicist to 
 whom you may wish to refer our criticisms will declare them 
 valid." The strength of this position is undeniable. It does 
 not necessarily follow, however, that the strength of Dr. A's 
 position with respect to the great majority of physicists 
 proves the strength of his argument. On the contrary, the 
 writer has much more confidence now than ever before that 
 his own views are correct because he feels morally certain 
 that not one valid argument has been made against them. 
 
 The issue is a large but not very difficult one, and the 
 decision is left entirely to the impartial reader of today and 
 of all future ages. 
 
CRITICISM BY DR. A. 
 
 205. January 30, 1915. 
 
 Dear Sir: I at last took time to read with considerable 
 care portions of your book, especially those relating to the 
 subject of physics. In view of the great amount of time 
 and thought that you have devoted to the subject it is with 
 sincere regret that I must say that I do not find your con- 
 tentions well upheld in many instances. I infer that you 
 desire my candid opinion of the work rather than a few vague 
 statements of approval or disapproval. I trust that you will 
 appreciate the improbability that the thousands of scientists 
 of the past and present have uniformly overlooked the er- 
 rors which you think to point out. I judge from reading the 
 manuscript that you have not had the advantage of advanced 
 training in mathematics and physics which seems to me in- 
 dispensable in handling the collosal subject you have in hand. 
 
 I find the manuscript well worded and clearly presented, 
 so that it could be easily read by any one interested. For 
 this reason I believe it would be a serious mistake, and an 
 injustice to yourself as well as to the public, to have the man- 
 uscript published without its first securing the approval of 
 a competent physicist, a competent astronomer, and a com- 
 petent geologist, as these three phases of scientific endeavor 
 a*re most involved. 
 
 Large portions of the manuscript seem to me very inter- 
 esting reading and might in my judgment, perhaps, be util- 
 ized in the makeup of a book; but the conclusions in many 
 instances which I have looked into do not seem to be well 
 grounded. I may say that I have not seen any theory of 
 gravitation which seems to me at all plausible; but I should 
 prefer this state of mind to the acceptance of various fantas- 
 tic theories which I have heard promulgated. The tre- 
 mendous amount of force necessary to hold the earth and sun 
 together because of the centrifugal force is so great as to stag- 
 
394 APPENDIX A [206 
 
 ger the imagination. I fail to see, however, that we make the 
 matter easier to understand by supposing that there exists be- 
 tween them a bond manufactured out of the atmosphere which 
 seems to have no tenacity. In 'this connection I may add 
 that your question as to whether centrifugal force should be 
 expressed by MVVR or WV 2 /R, should not arise. You real- 
 ize, I trust, that under all circumstances the centrifugal force 
 is equal to the centripetal force. The latter varies, as I be- 
 lieve you concede, in accordance with the inverse square 
 law which you quoted in various places. For this reason, 
 considering the fact that a body weighs 27 times as much at 
 the sun as here you can easily compute the weight of the 
 earth with regard to the sun. This force you will see must 
 necessarily be equal to the centrifugal force acting upon the 
 earth, and you can very soon determine whether MV 2 /R or 
 WV 2 /R must be used to check this force. 
 
 While many of the matters which you are considering 
 cannot be treated by experiment, some of them can, and it 
 would seem to me highly advisable to have this tested. One 
 case which I shall especially point out occurs in Section 18. 
 I shall now take up in detail some of the points which seem 
 to me to be erroneous in the various sections. I have en- 
 deavored in most cases to point out the error in such a way 
 that I believe you will upon careful reading be willing to 
 concede it. 
 
 206. (18) You should change E 2 /80 to E 2 /80D 2 , in which 
 D is the distance between the earth and the. moon. Doubling 
 the earth's mass would produce exactly the same effect upon 
 the mutual attraction as would doubling the mass of the 
 moon. This is not an absurdity, and could be proved, I am 
 sure, by the use of magnets of different strengths. Suppose, 
 e. g., that we have two strong magnet poles A and B and 
 two weak magnet poles a and b. I am sure that it would be 
 found that the attraction between A and a and b placed side 
 by side at a distance D from A, would have exerted upon them 
 the same force as it would from a if placed at the same dis- 
 tance D from A and B placed side by side. This equality of 
 the force in these two cases would be in complete accord 
 
209] CRITICISM BY DR. A 395 
 
 with the inverse square law as applied to magnets, and its 
 verification by experiment would support the application of 
 the inverse square law as applied to gravitation. 
 
 207. (19) Gravitational attraction is not energy, hence 
 there is no conflict with the law of the conservation of en- 
 ergy in assuming that there is an attraction between each 
 mass particle and each other mass particle of the universe. 
 To be sure two bodies have potential gravitational energy 
 when separated by a distance, and if they fall toward each 
 other they develop kinetic energy. 
 
 208. (20) Your demonstration that a hollow gravita- 
 tional sphere does not act upon a body outside of it as 
 though its mass were concentrated at the center is not at 
 all conclusive. Indeed, by showing that the first pair (that 
 is the area on the near side and the similar equal area on 
 the far side from the outside point in question) gives a 
 higher value, and the second pair of areas a lower value than 
 if situated at the center, you have proved the probability or 
 at least the possibility that the average effect would be the 
 same as if the mass were all concentrated at the center of 
 the hollow sphere, since you show conclusively that one pair 
 would give too high a value and the other too low. A rig- 
 orous demonstration of the fact that such a shell would be- 
 have as though all of its material were at the center would 
 require a very thorough knowledge of the integral calculus 
 as the integration here involved would be quite difficult. I 
 believe, however, that a fairly good proof for the similar case 
 of electrical attraction of a hollow sphere is given in Had- 
 ley's "Electricity and Magnetism," which volume is in the 
 library. 
 
 209. (21) A very elementary proof may be given that 
 the attraction inside of a hollow gravitational shell is zero. 
 See Hadley's "Electricity and Magnetism" for this proof as 
 applied to an electrically charged hollow sphere. Please note 
 that the inverse square law applies to electro-static as well 
 as to gravitational attraction. I may state that the observed 
 increase in gravitational attraction in deep mines shown by 
 the decrease in the period of a pendulum is what might rea- 
 
396 APPENDIX A [211 
 
 sonably be expected. For, with the "shell" removed, the 
 earth would then be smaller to be sure, but the deep portions 
 of the earth might consist of material of enough greater den- 
 sity than the surface portions to more than offset this. If it 
 were possible to descend into the earth a great many miles 
 a decrease in weight would undoubtedly be shown, the weight 
 becoming zero upon reaching the center of the earth. At 
 this point the gravitational pull would be exerted equally in 
 all directions and, of course, give a result at zero. 
 
 210. (22) Near the close of this section a very serious 
 error occurs in supposing that the slight horizontal motion 
 of the body in question would make an appreciable difference 
 in its path through the earth. In this connection it should 
 be emphasized that the earth attracts bodies which are sit- 
 uated outside of it as though its mass were concentrated at 
 the center. If the earth were homogeneous, or rather of the 
 same density throughout, the weight of the body would con- 
 stantly decrease until it became zero upon reaching the cen- 
 ter of the earth. If now the gravitational attraction of the 
 earth behaves for bodies within its volume as though its 
 mass were all concentrated at its center, then the body, 
 if given a slight horizontal motion, would pass down and 
 around the center of the earth in a greatly elongated ellipse 
 with the center of the earth as one of its foci. If a hole were 
 bored along the axis of the earth a body dropped in would 
 pass back and forth between the north and the south poles. If 
 the hole were bored at the equator then the falling body 
 would strike against the east side of the hole because of the 
 slower rotation toward the center of the earth. 
 
 211. (26) Unquestionably the mass, not the weight, is 
 involved in centrifugal force. Prof. Young's calculations 
 seem to be correct. For, making use of the data you give, 
 and computing them in a somewhat different way than he 
 does, I obtain the same result for the total pull that is given 
 by him. To begin with, let us note that the centrifugal 
 force MV 2 /R is equal to the centripetal force (the pull of the 
 sun upon the earth). If M is the mass of the earth in pounds, 
 V its velocity in feet per second and R the distance between 
 
211] CRITICISM BY DR. A 397 
 
 the earth and the sun in feet, then the centrifugal force will 
 be in poundals not pounds. Disregarding for the present 
 the units involved but using the same for the earth in its 
 orbit and the earth at the sun's surface, we make the fol- 
 lowing computations. Call the centrifugal force X (earth in 
 its orbit). Call the centripetal force Y (earth in its orbit). 
 Then X Y. (Note that X and Y are not in tons, pounds, 
 or poundals, but merely in an arbitrary unit of force the val- 
 ue of which could be found, but its value does not interest 
 us in the present consideration) . If the earth were revolving 
 about the sun just above its surface we wo,uld have according 
 to your data, for the centrifugal force 
 
 MV 2 /R = (270/19) 2 X 92,000,000/440,000 X X = 42,500X. 
 In this position the pull on the earth (that is, the centri- 
 petal force) in accordance with the inverse square law would 
 be 
 
 (92,000,000/440,000) 2 X Y = 44,500Y. 
 
 That is, both the centrifugal and the centripetal forces have 
 been increased by the same amount, namely about 44,000- 
 fold. The difference between 42,500 and 44,500 is due either 
 to errors in my calculation or in the assumed data, or per- 
 haps in both.* 
 
 Perhaps it would be of interest to you should I give some 
 numerical calculations. Assuming the mass of the earth to 
 be 6 X 10 21 tons, its weight at the sun would be 27.5 X 6 X 
 10 21 , and, in accordance with the inverse square law, the pull 
 of the sun upon the earth when in its orbit would be 
 27.5 X 6 X 10 21 X (440,000/92,000,000) 2 = 37 X 10" tons. (1) 
 Note that (19/270) 2 = 440,000/92,000,000, so that Prof. Young 
 virtually multiplies 165 X 10 21 by (440,000/92,000,000) 2 , as I 
 have done. 
 
 Note as above stated that the centrifugal force MV 2 /R is 
 in poundals (32.2 poundals equals one pound). If V is in 
 feet per second, R in feet, and M the mass in poundals, then 
 the centrifugal force (Fc) exerted outward by the earth when 
 
 *The error is chiefly in 19,- the Earth's orbital velocity in miles per 
 second, which is too large, 18-525 being the velocity corresponding with 
 the given distance. The Author. 
 
398 APPENDIX A [212 
 
 in its orbit is given by 
 
 Fc = (6X10 21 X2000X19 2 X5280 2 /92,000,000 X5280X32.2)lbs. = 
 
 38.2X10" tons.* (2) ! 
 
 Note that equations (1) and (2) give concordant results 
 considering that the computations are made roughly on the 
 slide rule with rough data. Thus, for example, 19 miles per 
 second, 92,000,000 miles, etc., are but rough approximates. 
 
 212. While I am not attempting to go into the criticisms 
 of the astronomical side of your work with which I am not 
 familiar, I will state that I believe that your criticisms of 
 Kepler's second law seems to arise from a misapplication of 
 that law. The areas swept out by the radius in unit time is 
 a constant for a given planet, but a different constant for 
 each planet, being greater for the more distant planets. 
 
 I sincerely hope you will take these criticisms in the spirit 
 in which they are given, and trust that you may take the 
 advantage of the criticisms of competent astronomers also. 
 
 With best regards and with fullest appreciation of the 
 great amount of labor the work has been to you, I am, 
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 *The why, or wherefore, of this curious poundal equation is certainly 
 not apparent. The ordinary method of determining centrifugal force is 
 by means of the ratio of two distances and the ratio of the squares of 
 two velocities ; while the poundal method eliminates one of the two dis- 
 tances and the square of one of the two velocities. The latter method 
 does not appear to get true results for the Earth at the Sun's surface, or 
 for the Moon, or for any of the planets other than the Earth, in their 
 proper orbits ; and that it gives an approximately true result in the case 
 of the Earth appears to be merely an accident. The Author. 
 
REPLY TO DR. A'S CRITICISM 
 
 February 5, 1915. 
 
 Dear Sir: I am under great obligation to you for your 
 examination of a part of my work, and for the seven or eight 
 pages of Criticisms of it which you enclosed with the re- 
 turned MS. 
 
 Your reading of the latter was no doubt very cursory, and 
 your criticisms hurriedly conceived and very briefly consid- 
 ered; and I sincerely hope you will pardon me if I do not 
 agree with them and point out to you the reasons why. 
 
 213. You say that, in Art. 18, I should change E 2 /80 to 
 E 2 /80D 2 ; but this would not alter the conclusion arrived at in 
 the slightest degree. The total mutual attraction of the 
 Earth and the Moon is E 2 /80, or E 2 /80D 2 , or E 2 /80D 4 , which 
 may be even more accurate still. Doubling the Moon's mass, 
 we have E 2 /40, or E 2 /40D 2 , or E 2 /40D 4 , and doubling the 
 Earth's mass, we have precisely the same values as when 
 the Moon's mass is doubled. This is the absurdity, that doub- 
 ling the Moon's mass produces precisely the same effect, ac- 
 cording to the theory of gravitation, as doubling the Earth's 
 mass. This absurdity you do not explain, nor does it appear 
 to admit of explanation, either by magnetism or any other 
 phenomenon. 
 
 214. Your reference to Art. 19, that "Gravitational at- 
 traction is not energy, hence there is no conflict with the law 
 of the conservation of energy," is certainly extraordinary and 
 seems wholly inadmissible. If the action of the Sun in hold- 
 ing the planets in their orbits and in causing bodies to fall 
 towards its surface is not a manifestation of energy, then it 
 is clear that energy must be defined anew and quite differ- 
 ently from the conception of Faraday, Tait, and Kelvin. 
 
 215. With regard to the attraction of a spherical shell 
 upon an external particle, P, (Art. 20) you suggest that the 
 
400 APPENDIX A [215 
 
 greater attraction of the diametriaclly opposite equal ele- 
 ments in the line CP m<ay average up with the lesser at- 
 traction of the diametrically opposite equal elements in a 
 line at right angles to CP, so that the average elementary 
 attraction would equal the attraction of an element at the 
 center. But by actual computation they are found not to do 
 so. 
 
 In the diagram let AMBN represent the shell, CA its 
 radius, and CP the distance of the particle at P. Three cases 
 have been considered, first, where CA = 10cm. and CP = 
 llcm.; second, where CA = 10cm. and CP = 20cm.; and 
 third, where CA 5cm. and CP = 50cm. In the first case 
 the measurements of the variable distances, Ps and Ps', for 
 twenty pairs of opposite particles, the successive positions 
 of the pairs varying from P by uniform cosine differences of 
 the shell, gave for the real attractions of all the pairs an 
 excess of three-fourths of the total attraction of the shell, as 
 compared with its total attraction if concentrated into one 
 point at its center. In other words, according to the law 
 of gravitation, the attraction of the shell upon P is greater 
 by three-fourths of itself than it would be if the shell were 
 concentrated at its center. In the second case the same num- 
 ber of measurements in the same way gave an excess of at- 
 traction of the real shell upon P of 2/23 of* its whole amount, 
 as compared with what that attraction would be if concen- 
 trated at the center. And in the third case ten simliar meas- 
 urements gave an excess upon P of 1/359 of its total attrac- 
 
216] REPLY TO DR. A's CRITICISM 401 
 
 tion, as compared with the attraction it would have upon P if 
 placed at one point at its center. 
 
 With greater and greater comparative values of CP, the 
 decrease of the shell's attraction at the center, as compared 
 with its real attraction, becomes smaller and smaller, but 
 never entirely disappears. 
 
 Thus, with the ratio of the real attraction of the shell to 
 its theoretic attraction at the shell's center continually chang- 
 ing with the distance of the external particle on which it 
 acts, it seems perfectly obvious that Newton's theorem of the 
 continual equality, under all circumstances, of these real and 
 theoretic attractions, can not be true. 
 
 216. Regarding Art. 21, you maintain that the attraction 
 of a hollow, spherical shell upon any point within it is zero. 
 According to the reply to your criticism of the preceding ar- 
 ticle, it is inferable, however, that the attraction of a hol- 
 low, spherical shell is not zero at every point within it. 
 Your reference to electric and magnetic phenomena in proof 
 of the correctness of your views, however much supported 
 by current scientific authorities, cannot be accepted as valid, 
 for the simple reason that electricity has to do with surfaces, 
 while the attraction of gravity has to do with solids, or 
 masses; and, when the surfaces or areas are multiplied by 
 thickness, in order to obtain volume and mass, the law of 
 inverse distance squares no longer applies. 
 
 It is easy enough for high scientific authorities to give 
 out a statement regarding a physical fact without the arduous 
 investigation from all points of view which is necessary for 
 scientific accuracy; and it is equally easy for the scientific 
 learner to swallow such statements solely on the authority 
 of their authors. But however generally this may be done 
 does not prove the statements to be facts. It is easy enough 
 to employ the artifice d, or density, instead of thickness, as, 
 it appears, scientists frequently do, and then cancel this 
 common factor out of the calculation; but this will not do, 
 for the reason that thickness is a necessary factor of the prop- 
 osition to be proved and, when thickness is introduced, it 
 causes different variations of the distances of the masses, or 
 
402 
 
 APPENDIX A 
 
 [216 
 
 centers of gravity, of the two elements, except when they 
 have the same value. Sometimes the mere idea, or ghost, of 
 thickness is introdced, though not the reality; in which cases 
 the thickness is supposed to be tnfimtesimally small; which, 
 of course, practically reduces the shell to a mere area, as 
 before. 
 
 The usual method of proving that the attraction of a shell 
 is zero at any point within it is to regard that point as the 
 
 V 
 
 common vertex, v, of two opposite cones, or pyramids, the 
 bases of which lie in opposite portions of the surface of the 
 shell. Let the lengths of these inverted cones be 1 and 10 
 from the common vertex, with a common angle. Then, if 
 the areas of the respective bases did the attracting, the two 
 attractions at the vertex, l/l 2 and 100 /10 2 , would be equal, 
 of course. But if the shell be of unit thickness and of uni- 
 
216] REPLY TO DR. A's CRITICISM 403 
 
 form density, then the masses of the respective base segments 
 of the two cones will be to each other as 1 and 271, and by 
 simple arithmetic, the respective distances of the mass-cen- 
 ters of these segments from the vertex will be about 0.7937 
 and 9.5262. But l/(6.7987) 2 and 271/(9.5262) 2 are no longer 
 equal; in fact the one is nearly twice the value of the other. 
 
 Now these segments are certainly centrobaric (see Thom- 
 son and Tait, Nut. Phil., Sec. 544); i. e., each has a point, or 
 center of gravity, within it through which a plane passing in 
 any direction cuts the mass into two equal parts. And we 
 have it on the authority of the same authors (Sec. 544) 
 that such a body "attracts all matter external to itself as if 
 its own mass were collected at its center of gravity". In 
 apparent contradiction to this it is also held that the center 
 of gravity is not always the gravitating center; which also 
 it may be well to look into. 
 
 Let the same two cones be solid and of uniform density, 
 and let x and y denote the distances from the vertex of the 
 gravitating centers of the two base segments, each being of 
 unit thickness. Then, by the law of gravitation, 1/x 2 = 
 271/y 2 , whence y = xV271. Now let x = .6, then y = 9.877+, 
 which is evidently too large; while, instead of taking the 
 tenth segment of the larger cone, if, from the same assumed 
 value of x, we find the y of the second segment we have 
 1/x 2 = 7/y 2 , whence y = 1.587+, which is evidently too 
 small. And, no matter what value we may assign to x, either 
 above .6 or below it, it is impossible for it, by the law of in- 
 verse squares, to accord with the true distances of any two 
 segments of the larger opposite cone. The value of x that 
 most nearly satisfies the distance of the mass-center of the 
 outer segment of the large cone is .5820691, which makes that 
 distance 9.5820666, which cannot be far from correct. But 
 this same value of x gives for the distance of the mass-cen- 
 ter of the second segment from the vertex only about 1.54, 
 which is clearly too small. Therefore, it seems evident that, 
 even according to the law of gravitation itself, the proposi- 
 tion that a spherical shell does not attract a particle within 
 it in any direction (Thomson and Tait, Nat. Phil., Sec. 479; 
 
404 APPENDIX A [218 
 
 Newton, Prop. LXX, Bk. I, Principia) is absolutely without 
 foundation in fact. 
 
 The formula given in Thomson and Tait's Nat. Phil., Sec. 
 488, expressive of the total attraction of a spherical shell 
 upon a particle, P, viz., 4 7r a 2 d/(CP) 2 , in which d represents 
 the density of the shell and a represents CA, its radius, is 
 another illustration of some of the "laws" of present-day 
 science. According to this formula, as CP diminishes, the 
 attraction of the shell upon P continually increases until it 
 arrives at the center where it becomes infinitely great. Or, 
 if the attraction inside of the shell be nil, then the maximum 
 attraction of the shell changes instantly to zero, as P passes 
 through the surface.* 
 
 217. Perhaps the meaning of your criticism of Art. 22, 
 where you say "a very serious error occurs in supposing that 
 the slight horizontal projection of the falling body would 
 make an appreciable difference in its path through the earth," 
 is not fully comprehended. The writer does not make that 
 proposition, only Prof. Young and even yourself, in your 
 very criticism of it as the writer's. If the Earth were con- 
 centrated into a point at its center, a bod\, starting from 
 a point 4000 miles from that center, would fall towards it 
 and, if not hindered, would gain a momentum which would 
 carry it to a point 4000 miles on the opposite side of the cen- 
 ter. This is admitted by yourself, and, indeed, generally. 
 But Prof. Young and yourself too hold that a slight hori- 
 zontal motion applied to the falling body at the starting-point 
 would cause it to return back immediately after passing the 
 center. The present writer neither makes nor believes such 
 a statement; and he cannot conceive how anybody else can 
 accept such apparent absurdity. 
 
 218. Regarding Art. 26, you say "unquestionably the 
 mass, not the weight, is involved in the centrifugal force;" 
 and yet you take the Earth's weight at the Sun (27.5X6 
 X10 21 tons) and multiply it by (440,000 /92X10 6 ) 2 to find the 
 centrifugal force in its terrestrial orbit (37Xl0 1T tons), just 
 as Young does. Why do you take the Earth's weight at the 
 
 *For a further proof of the results arrived at above, see Art. 246 (d). 
 
218] REPLY TO DR. A's CRITICISM 405 
 
 Sun to measure its centrifugal force 92,000,000 miles awa3 
 from the Sun, where you admit its weight to be only 6X10 21 
 tons? This question was asked with regard to the same op- 
 eration by Prof. Young, but it appears to have escaped your 
 notice. If it is right to increase the Earth's weight as it is 
 moved in towards the Sun, why should it not be right to 
 decrease it as it is again moved back to its orbit, to obtain the 
 measure of its centrifugal tendency there? 
 
 (To make this point as plain as possible to the reader, a 
 few words may here be added to the original reply. The 
 Earth's mass is admitted to be 6X10 21 tons. It is also admit- 
 ted that the Earth's centrifugal force required to balance the 
 Sun's attraction is about 44,000 times greater at the Sun's 
 surface than in its present orbit (see Art. 211). At the Sun's 
 surface the Earth's mass is still 6X10 21 tons; and dividing 
 this by 44,000 gives 136 XlO 15 tons for the centrifugal force 
 at the Earth's orbit, if that force were based on the Earth's 
 mass-value. But Prof. Young and Doctor A do not use the 
 mass-value of the Earth upon the Sun at all, but its weight- 
 value, and so multiply the mass-value by 27.5, thus arriving 
 at the centrifugal force of about 37X10" tons, as shown by 
 Prof. Young and Dr. A. Now in the body of the work the 
 present writer contends that the centrifugal strain should be 
 based on the weight-value, rather than on the mass-value, and 
 quotes Young in support of this view in the case of the Earth 
 and the Sun. This appears to be denied by Dr. A, who, how- 
 ever, himself does the very thing which he denies that Young 
 does (see his equations, Art. 211). This is the whole of this 
 matter in a nut-shell and ought to be perfectly clear to any 
 one.) 
 
 Where it was asked "If a cannon-ball were removed to a 
 place where it weighed no more than a feather does at the 
 Earth's surface, would not a man's strength be less taxed 
 to raise the ball there than where it weighed a hundred 
 pounds ?" you make the marginal comment on the MS., 
 "Surely." But where it was asked if a spring balance, placed 
 as a link in a string by which such a ball was lifted or swung 
 around, would not register a smaller strain where the ball 
 
406 APPENDIX A [220 
 
 weighed the least, you make the marginal comment, 
 "NEVER." 
 
 Now let these two comments of yours be placed side by 
 side. Let the man take the spring balance in his hand and, 
 by means of it, lift the ball where it weighed the least. Ac- 
 cording to your view, the strain upon the man's arm would be 
 no greater than if he were lifting a feather at the Earth's sur- 
 face, while the spring balance would indicate the strain to be 
 still one hundred pounds. Isn't that strange? Why should 
 the molecular springs of the man's arm and of the spring 
 balance give such different results? 
 
 219. You say "The areas swept out by the radius in unit 
 time is a constant for a given planet, but a DIFFERENT 
 constant for each planet, being greater for the most distant 
 planets." It is to be presumed that you do not deny that, 
 owing to various causes, the radius vector of a planet's orbit 
 may itself vary considerably. Now if, for instance, the radius 
 vector of Mercury's orbit should stretch out to the orbit of 
 Venus, you hold that the two planets would describe different 
 areas in unit time. But how is it possible for the two plan- 
 ets to behave so differently when their motions are governed 
 entirely by precisely the same central attraction? If, on the 
 contrary, you hold that the variation of a planet's radius vec- 
 tor has a limit beyond which equable description of areas is 
 impossible by it, what is that limit, and why and by whom 
 has it been assigned? And, besides, is it not a matter of fact 
 that the radius vector of a comet's orbit varies through all 
 the planetary distances and still maintains equable descrip- 
 tion of areas, though subject to the same power of attraction 
 which determines the entirely different description of areas 
 by the several planets? 
 
 220. All your criticisms appear to be now answered fully 
 and fairly. If you still think they are not, the writer will be 
 much pleased for a statement to that effect, however brief. 
 It is regrettable that you were unable to review the far more 
 important criticisms regarding the distribution in time and 
 space, of solar heat; the problem of three bodies; the ocean 
 and aerial tides; the various discrepancies of the nebular 
 
221] CRITICISM BY DR. B 407 
 
 hypothesis; and especially that you took no notice whatever 
 of the new positive views advanced regarding these and many 
 other phenomena. 
 
 You kindly advise that the work should be submitted be- 
 fore publication to a competent astronomer and a geologist; 
 which, indeed, would undoubtedly be an excellent thing, if 
 only the views would be taken seriously enough to receive 
 a fair consideration. But perhaps you do not realize the 
 weight of the prestige of the centuries of acceptance of the 
 present views. Various high authorities have already been 
 appealed to, among them the Carnegie and Smithsonian insti- 
 tutions, and wholly without success, although, in one of these 
 instances, the payment of the cost of examination was of- 
 fered by the writer. This is why special gratitude and appre- 
 ciation is due to yourself and the good, old institution you 
 represent for having treated the writer more kindly in this, 
 respect than all others excepting a few lay friends. 
 
 The writer earnestly hopes that, some day and somehow,, 
 he may be able to repay your trouble and kindness in this 
 matter. 
 
 CRITICISM BY DR. B. 
 
 221. May 15, 1915. 
 
 Dear Sir: At the request of President Foster I have read 
 the manuscript of your proposed book and am sending you 
 this expression of my opinion of its scientific merit. In so 
 boldly and severely criticising the accepted scientific theories 
 and methods you must, of course, realize that you lay your- 
 self open to severe criticism to the extent to which you have 
 misunderstood or misapplied these theories and methods. I 
 shall, therefore, write frankly my criticism of your work. At 
 the same time I realize the tremendous amount of work 
 which you have done, and make my criticisms only in a spirit 
 of good will. 
 
 You have invited criticism of your work and wish to know 
 
408 APPENDIX A [221 
 
 why publishers, scientific societies and authorities have re- 
 fused to pay attention to it. Possibly the following discus- 
 sion will suggest to you the reason. 
 
 Your work is divided into two main divisions: (1) a crit- 
 icism of the accepted theories of astronomical and physical 
 science, in which you attempt to cast doubt on some, ridicule 
 on others and to point out the general inaccuracy and inad- 
 equacy of all; (2) the exposition of your own theory of cos- 
 imcal evolution which you think succeeds where you claim 
 the other theories fail. 
 
 In reading over your first part I have not found one single 
 argument that is valid. In some cases you have misunder- 
 stood the facts, in others you have drawn conclusions that 
 are not warranted by the facts and in many cases you have 
 quibbled over or misunderstood definitions of terms which 
 are the most elementary foundation of physical science and 
 which are verified experimentally thousands of times every 
 year in laboratories. 
 
 Let me illustrate by a consideration of your first chap- 
 ter. You criticise Newton's law of gravitation in eleven par- 
 ticulars. In three cases (20, 20, 25) you have drawn conclu- 
 sions which do not follow from your argument or from the 
 facts of the case. In four cases (17, 18, 19, 26) you confound 
 ideas of mass, weight, force and energy. Physics is an ex- 
 act science which cannot be successfully handled without ad- 
 herence to the definitions of the concepts in terms of which 
 the laws of physics are stated. In one case (16) you fail be- 
 cause of ignorance of a commonly accepted mode of expres- 
 sion, which you interpret in a manner neither warranted by 
 the statement nor in accord with well understood custom and 
 usuage. In two cases (22, 24) you fail to consider all im- 
 portant factors of the problem. These cases are typical of 
 your entire book and I have discussed them in more detail 
 in the accompanying pages. 
 
 You are concerned over the fact that these teachings of 
 Newton and others are commonly accepted on authority with- 
 out test, neglecting the fact that they have been and are 
 being subjected to the most rigid experimental tests which 
 
222] CRITICISM BY DR. B 409 
 
 human ingenuity can devise. They have stood the test thou- 
 sands of times and neither you nor anyone else has yet put 
 forward one reliable, authenticated and convincing proof of 
 their incorrectness. 
 
 With regard to the second part of the book I shall not go 
 into detail. Your speculations regarding connective fluid, 
 molecular bonds, etc., have nothing to back them up which 
 leads me to consider them seriously. 
 
 Because of the inaccuracies throughout your book in state- 
 ments of fact, argument and conclusions I cannot honestly 
 say anything except that I consider it worthless from a scien- 
 tific point of view. For there remains in it, as far as I have 
 found, not one convincing argument in support of the theories 
 you advocate. If I had time I should go more into detail, but 
 I trust the criticism of Chapter I will illustrate my point. 
 
 I hope you will take this letter in the spirit in which it 
 is meant, for I have simply given my frank opinion, which you 
 invited. For your methodical study and interest in the sub- 
 ject I have the highest respect. It seems to me that, with 
 the great fund of facts which you have gathered together, you 
 should be in a good position to write popular articles on As- 
 tronomy. But I feel certain that you will have no success 
 in your attempts to overthrow modern science with arguments 
 such as those embodied in the proposed book. 
 
 CRITICISM OF CHAPTER I, PART I. 
 
 222. (16) You make the point of this section a criticism 
 of what you conceive to be a contradiction between two com- 
 mon methods of stating Newton's law of gravitation. In do- 
 ing this you assume that the phrase "varies as the masses" 
 means "varies as the sum of the masses." This is entirely 
 your own interpretation and no more logical than to consider 
 that it means "varies as the product of the masses." As a 
 matter of fact all people educated in mathematical terms rec- 
 ognize the phrase as being a statement of a variation as the 
 
410 APPENDIX A [224 
 
 product of the masses. You are either ignorant of or else 
 ignore the common accepted usage in the interpretation of 
 this phrase. The inconsistency which you make a point of 
 does not exist. 
 
 223. (17, 18) The fact which you consider so strange is 
 nothing more startling than that two pounds weigh twice as 
 much as one pound. There is nothing inconsistent or at all 
 peculiar about the hypothetical cases you consider. 
 
 (19). Your error in the two preceding sections and in this 
 one comes from not understanding the distinction between 
 force and energy. The application of force does not neces- 
 sarily involve doing any work or using any energy. For in- 
 stance a book lying on the table exerts a continual force but 
 does no work because there is no motion in the direction of 
 the force. The principle of the conservation of energy ap- 
 plies only to work and energy, and not to forces, gravitational 
 or any other kind. You object to Professor 's crit- 
 icism on this point. I do not care to argue but simply call 
 attention to the fact that you have no right to criticise the 
 "principle of the conservation of energy" unless you abide by 
 the concept of energy which is defined and employed in the 
 statements of this principle. Nobody believes in a "principle 
 of conservation of force," which is really the principle which 
 you attack. 
 
 224. (20) In dividing up your sphere into opposite pairs 
 of elements you considered the attraction at P due only to the 
 
 N 
 
 pair at A and B and find that the attraction at P is greater 
 than if A and B were located at C. This is correct. But you 
 are not justified in concluding that the same thing is true of 
 
227] CRITICISM BY DR. B 411 
 
 all pairs. For instance the attraction at P due to M and N 
 is less than if they were at C. It thus appears that on the 
 average the total attraction at P is about the same as if the 
 sphere were concentrated at C. To prove this exactly cal- 
 culus must be used. You evidently do not understand the 
 proof or you would not have included the paragraph dealing 
 with the effect of considering a, point inside the sphere. 
 
 225. (21) The average density of the earth is more than 
 twice that of the earth's crust, whence the inside is consid- 
 erably more than twice as dense as the 6rust. Thus it is 
 easily possible that the increased nearness to dense masses 
 more than counterbalances the decreased total attracting 
 mass as we go toward the earth's center. On a more striking 
 scale you will recognize a case of the same phenomenon when 
 the value of gravity at the earth's surface is compared with 
 that of a balloon high above the earth's surface. The 
 value of "g" is greater at the earth's surface although the at- 
 tracting mass is greater at the balloon, since it includes the 
 earth and a portion of the atmosphere as well. In this case 
 also the result is due to the fact that the increased amount of 
 attracting matter does not compensate for the increased dis- 
 tance when the density of the matter is comparatively small. 
 Your calculation, where you make allowance for difference 
 in densities, is all right as far as it goes. You can not place 
 much reliance, however, on data from the bottom of a single 
 mine, since a few tons of dense rock near the bottom would 
 make a great difference. 
 
 226. (22) You neglect the all important fact that with- 
 out a slight sidewise motion the falling body would, while 
 passing through the center of force, for an infinitesimal time 
 experience an infinite force. The effect of the sidewise dis- 
 placement is to prevent the body from passing through this 
 central region where the force is practically infinite. It is 
 this difference which causes the elliptic orbit in the second 
 case instead of the oscillatory vibration like a pendulum as 
 in the first case. 
 
 227. (24) The calculations by Lord Kelvin and others on 
 
412 APPENDIX A [229 
 
 the age of the earth are now regarded only as curiosities, 
 since it has been found that the quantity of radioactive mate- 
 rial present in the earth is sufficient to have kept its temper- 
 ature approximately constant for millions of years. There 
 are now no accepted limits of the earth's age. Probably the 
 best estimates are based on the rate of certain radioactive 
 changes and calculated from the amount of salt in the ocean. 
 These calculations give the geologists plenty of time to work 
 in their theories. 
 
 228. (25) According to my calculation the sunlight pres- 
 sure on the earth is about 100,000 tons instead of 5,000 tons, 
 which you mention. I take my data from the papers by Nich- 
 ols and Hull, which you quote. This difference would make 
 your argument stronger rather than weaker, however. But 
 you have entirely neglected to consider the question of wheth- 
 er this force, great as it is, would be appreciable when acting 
 on so great a mass as the earth. If you compare this force 
 with the force of gravitation you will find that it is only 
 0.000 000 000 000 5 as large as the force of gravitation. It 
 is therefore entirely too small to measure in gravitation ex- 
 periments. In the last ten thousand years it would have al- 
 tered the distance of the earth from the sun by a factor of 
 about one part in fifteen hundred, and its effect is balanced 
 entirely or in part by the collisions of the earth with me- 
 teorites. 
 
 229. (26) You are confounding mass and weight. In 
 
 view of your argument and your answer to Prof. 'a 
 
 criticism of it I do not feel that it is worth while to argue 
 the matter. You also confound force and work as in the three 
 preceding sections. For instance you express a tension 
 (force) in terms of foot pounds (work). The point of crit- 
 icism of your argument is that you calculate your centrifugal 
 force in terms of work done against gravity. The two are 
 entirely distinct. The tension on the string at the earth's 
 surface due to gravity is of course twice as great as that due 
 to gravity at 1600 miles above the earth. But the part of the 
 tension due to centrifugal force is the same at these two or 
 any other places'. 
 
REPLY TO DR. B'S CRITICISM 
 
 Cherish as a vital principle an unbounded spirit of inquiry 
 and ardency of expectation, unfetter the mind from prejudices 
 of every kind, leave it open and free to every impression of 
 a higher nature which it is susceptible of receiving guarding 
 only against self-deception by a habit of strict investigation. 
 
 SIR JOHN HERSCHEL. 
 
 230. May 21, 1915. 
 
 Dear Sir: Your letter, together with three small pages of 
 criticism of the work submitted to you some ten weeks since 
 through Dr. Foster, has been received a few days ago. 
 
 It may be stated in the first place that the writer feels 
 sincerely grateful to you for criticising the work at all. Af- 
 ter some thirty years of diligent effort towards having the 
 work examined by those who make the study and teaching of 
 this subject their profession, you are the second one who, 
 through the kindness of Dr. Foster, has responded; and, dis- 
 cussion being the breath of life to a new work of this kind, 
 you can easily conceive how thankful its author is to you for 
 even the little you have had opportunity to afford. 
 
 In the second place, it is hoped you will not be offended 
 when it is stated that much disappointment is felt, not only 
 at the amount of your discussion, but even at its inadequacy. 
 No disrespect whatsoever is meant in saying this ; but in such 
 a matter as this one should be emphatically in earnest. 
 Whatever the writer may be, you can be regarded only as a 
 man of science, who ought, and professes, to desire the truth, 
 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You have cer- 
 tainly been very severe, not in your criticism of the work, 
 where severity was really called for, but in the mere asser- 
 tions and aspersions of your letter. But this is taken in the 
 best possible spirit because you were undoubtedly perfectly 
 sincere and thought it the very best thing for the writer to 
 know exactly what you thought. 
 
 Now the writer presumes to express his thoughts with 
 
414 APPENDIX A [230 
 
 equal frankness, exposing what he conceives to be your faults 
 and correcting your errors, without the least intention to of- 
 fend, but merely to place the case fairly and squarely before 
 the court of public opinion; and it is expected that you will 
 accept these criticisms in the same spirit as that in which 
 your own are accepted. 
 
 In reading over the first part of the work, you say you 
 "have found not one single argument that is valid;" that the 
 author has "misunderstood facts," "drawn conclusions not 
 warranted by the facts," "quibbled over or misunderstood def- 
 initions;" and because of these faults and other "inaccura- 
 cies" throughout the book "in statements of fact, argument 
 and conclusions," you "cannot honestly say anything except 
 that" you "consider it worthless from a scientific point of 
 view." 
 
 In all this the possibility that you may be quite right is 
 admitted, but not so its moral certainty. After all it seems 
 rather unlikely that a person of a fairly sound mind, as de- 
 termined from comparison with his neighbors, who was born 
 with a strong natural bent for investigations in the domains 
 of physical science and who, through extreme difficulties and 
 with infinite pains, has gratified that bent almost continually 
 for the past forty years and always in touch with the best 
 scientific data has not produced "one single argument that 
 is valid," and that all the results from his most diligent in- 
 quiries during that time are absolutely "worthless from a sci- 
 entific point of view." Standing alone before the bar of pub- 
 lic opinion, the writer honestly and sincerely desires to ex- 
 press his belief that, in making this statement, you have en- 
 tirely and inexcusably overstepped the bounds of propriety 
 and reasonable probability. 
 
 From his experience and observation for about half a 
 century and over a considerable portion of this planet, the 
 writer has come to the conclusion that there are a consider- 
 able number of men, who make science their profession, who 
 entertain such extremely positive views regarding the doc- 
 trines they themselves accept and teach that, if an angel from 
 Heaven should tell them these doctrines were defective, they 
 
231] REPLY TO DR. B's CRITICISM 415 
 
 would not, could not, believe it. And the questioning of such 
 doctrines by a mere amateur calls only for their emphatic si- 
 lence at best. Any evidence against their views they look 
 at through the wide end of their mental telescopes, while the 
 evidence in favor of their views is magnified so highly as to 
 leave no room for doubt or question. You will, perhaps, ad- 
 mit that there are such people and others also who range 
 through various degrees of conservatism and liberality up to 
 the true progressive in science. And what an -excellent thing 
 it would be if we all occasionally made a thorough introspec- 
 tion as to our status in this respect. 
 
 Of the 26 chapters of the work, you have partially and, 
 judging from the results, very cursorily criticised only one, 
 and that one far from being the most important. Dr. Foster 
 spoke so kindly and enthusiastically that really much more 
 had been expected; and the disappointment was certainly not 
 diminished when it was found that the chapter you had dis- 
 cussed was the very same which Dr. A. had already dis- 
 cussed; whose results together with the reply thereto, were 
 placed before you with the work itself. 
 
 There is, however, a sort of negative compensation both 
 in the limited scope of your criticism and in its quality. The 
 confinement of your special objections to a single chapter, 
 the ground of which had already been broken by another, 
 may possibly imply that this was the most vulnerable point 
 of attack; and the weakness of that attack, however cursor- 
 ily attempted by a teacher of your standing, is some indica- 
 tion of the strength of the defense. This weakness may now 
 be demonstrated more in detail. 
 
 231. (16) Regarding this article you object that the 
 writer "assumes that the phrase 'varies as the masses' means 
 'varies as the sum of the masses/ " which you say is entirely 
 my own interpretation and is "no more logical than to consid- 
 er that it means 'varies as the product of the masses;' " which 
 last you further state all people educated in mathematical 
 terms accept as the correct interpretation of the phrase. 
 Now why do you find fault with the sum-interpretation of 
 the phrase when you admit it is only "no more logical" than 
 
416 APPENDIX A [233 
 
 the product-interpretation, which you say everybody accepts? 
 It must be reaffirmed, however, that the sum-interpreta- 
 tion of the phrase "varies as the masses" is the only logical 
 interpretation of it. If the masses are 5 and 6^ then "varies 
 as the masses" means varies as 5 and 6. According to the 
 "well understood custom and usage" of the physical depart- 
 ment of College, 5 and 6 may be 30; but the pres- 
 ent writer still prefers to "quibble" and manifest his "ignor- 
 ance" by maintaining that 5 and 6 are 11. 
 
 232. (17, 18) Your mention of these articles contains 
 no criticisms, nothing but mere assertions, and calls for no 
 reply for that reason. The objection to the theory of gravi- 
 tation that the gravitative effect of doubling a single atom at 
 one end of a rod is precisely the same as that of doubling the 
 mass of the Earth at the other end, you pass wholly unno- 
 ticed; except that you say under Art. 19 that the error in con- 
 sidering this an objection is that no distinction is made be- 
 tween force and energy. However, if gravitative power ex- 
 erted at one end of the rod be force (or energy), it sems very 
 hard to see why a similar gravitative power exerted at the 
 other end of the rod is not also force (or energy) of precisely 
 the same nature, without distinction. 
 
 233. (19) You say "the application of force does not 
 necessarily involve doing any work or using any energy. For 
 instance, a book lying on the table exerts a continual force 
 but does no work because there is no motion in the direction 
 of the force." How do you know that the weight of the book 
 upon the table does no work upon the invisible molecular 
 motions of the table and of the book? and, if one book does 
 no work because it produces no visible motion, why do several 
 books produce visible motion by causing the table to collapse? 
 Was it the last book that did it, or did each book do its part? 
 What is force if it is not something that acts? and what 
 matters it whether its action produces a visible or an invis- 
 ible effect? What right have we to draw the limit of motion 
 at the boundaries of our own particular sensations? 
 
 The force of gravitation, conceived as drawing all the 
 bodies of the universe towards one another, is undeniably a 
 
235] REPLY TO DR. B's CRITICISM 417 
 
 manifestation of something that does work, and is so regarded 
 by eminent scientists, who are quoted to that effect; and 
 therefore it ought to be subject to the law of the conserva- 
 tion of energy just the same as anything else that does work, 
 such as heat or electricity. 
 
 234. (20) Like Dr. A, you maintain that the attraction 
 upon P of the pairs of elements, AB and MN, average the 
 same as if all were placed at C, (See fig. Art. 224) because 
 that of one pair is greater than this average while that of 
 the other is less. But how do you know that they do? To 
 prove it exactly, you say the calculus must be used; but you 
 do not refer to a single authority who has used the calculus 
 for this purpose.* 
 
 In reply to Dr. A, it was stated that computation from 
 diagrams drawn to actual scale proved that the average at- 
 traction of the particles of a spherical shell was not the same 
 as if the whole were placed at the center. This statement 
 can be proved by simple arithmetic and would require but a 
 small portion of your time to look it up; yet you have wholly 
 ignored it, although it leaves not a shred of justification for 
 the central allocation of the attraction of a sphere according 
 to Newton's Proposition LXXI, which you accept as an in- 
 disputable fact. 
 
 Newton, the propounder of this theorem, was admittedly a 
 great scientist, but he was only human, and it is human to 
 err. Indeed it is not half so disgraceful for Newton to err 
 as it is for some of his disciples to ignore the evidence which 
 seems to make the error obvious at a glance and logically 
 undeniable. 
 
 235. (22) Your explanation of the passage of a bodj 
 from one side of the Earth through the center to the opposite 
 side, and so back 'and forth continually, seems at least orig- 
 inal and rather ingenious. You say it is because the falling 
 body experiences for an infinitesimal time an infinite force 
 while passing through the center, which enables it to pass to 
 the' opposite side; and that the slight sidewise movement 
 
 *Both Dr. A and Dr. C have referred to such a proof as applied to 
 electric potential. Exit for reasons stated in Art. 216, such proof cannot 
 be considered as applicable in the case of gravitation. 
 
418 APPENDIX A [237 
 
 permits it to avoid this infinite force, and so enables it to 
 turn around the center into an elliptic orbit. But where do 
 you find authority for the infinte, or indeed any, force at the 
 Earth's center? The present teaching is that the force of 
 gravity decreases inwards to the Earth's center, where it is 
 zero. A center of force is usually involved in elliptic motion, 
 though, even in that case, in view of the magnitude of the 
 Earth as compared with that of the universe, infinitesimal 
 rather than infinite, might better describe it. But in the the- 
 oretic vibration of a body from one surface of the Earth to the 
 opposite surface, no such center of force is a factor. The 
 cause usually assigned for such vibration is the falling mo- 
 mentum which the body acquires in obedience to the decreas- 
 ing series of momentary gravitative impulses impressed upon 
 it between the surface and the center; where that momentum 
 becomes sufficiently great, in the supposed absence of fric- 
 tion, to carry the body against the Earth's attraction just to. 
 the opposite surface. 
 
 Yet this infinite center of force, which is really out of the 
 question, is, no doubt, one of the "all important factors of the 
 problem" which, in this article, you charge the writer with 
 failing to consider. It seems difficult to believe that such 
 an argument could be intended seriously; yet reference to 
 your comments upon this article appears to leave no doubt 
 upon this point. 
 
 236. (24) You maintain that Kelvin's calculations about 
 the past heat of the Sun are today regarded merely as curios- 
 ities, and that radio-active agencies now take the place of 
 Kelvin's gravitational pressure and amply account for the 
 facts of geology. You may be right in this, but there are 
 quite a number of people who do not accept that view. It 
 has not been proved that radio-active energy has been greater 
 in past time than at the present time; and don't you really 
 think that most people would regard it a very cold day on 
 this planet, if the Sun's heat were cut off and we had to rely 
 on radio-active energy alone? 
 
 237. (25) As to the pressure of sunshine, it does not 
 appear that Profs. Nichols and Hull's estimate of five thou- 
 
238] REPLY TO DR. B's CRITICISM 419 
 
 sand tons upon the Earth, which alone you notice, is of one 
 whit more importance than Prof. Crookes' estimate of three 
 thousand millions of tons, which is equally quoted. Your own 
 estimate of 100,000 tons you say would have an effect almost 
 wholly unappreciable, which, in ten thousand years would dis- 
 turb the Earth only 1/1500 of its solar distance; which effect 
 you say is counteracted "entirely or in part by the collisions 
 of the earth with meteorites." The meteorites, however, ap- 
 pear to strike the Earth about equally from all directions; 
 and, moreover, if the Earth be balanced in its orbit between 
 the centrifugal and the centripetal tendencies, a continual 
 pressure of 100,000 tons acting upon it as on a body starting 
 from a state of rest, moving it three times as far in the sec- 
 ond second as in the first, five times as far in the third sec- 
 ond, and so on for ten thousand years, it certainly does seem 
 to one who draws "conclusions which do not follow . 
 from the facts" that your estimate would not be a drop in the 
 bucket of the real perturbation from such a cause. 
 
 The usual slipshod method of calculating the perturbing 
 forces without the slighest consideration of their cumulative 
 effect in time and space may be according to the textbooks, 
 but it is hardly good science. 
 
 238. (26) You say that in this article mass and weight 
 are confounded when only deliberate use is made of the latter 
 instead of the former in measuring the inertia and momentum 
 of bodies and the stresses caused by their motions. You 
 also say that force and work are similarly confounded when 
 only the latter is assigned as an effect of force-action. You 
 criticise the conception of the centrifugal tendency of a cir- 
 culating body working against and balancing the opposite 
 tendency of gravity. If any of these views is illogical, you 
 should state why and give others more logical, or not make 
 just the bare assertions. 
 
 Your two statements regarding the revolving sling that 
 "the tension of the string at the earth's surface due to grav- 
 ity is of course twice as great as that due to grav- 
 ity at 1600 miles above the earth. But the part of the ten- 
 sion due to centrifugal force is the same at these two or any 
 
420 APPENDIX A [239 
 
 other places," appear to admit of only one meaning, namely, 
 that the tension on the string is determined by the two fac- 
 tors, weight of the revolving body and its centrifugal force. 
 When you admit then that this tension is diminished when 
 the weight of the revolving body is diminished, you admit the 
 very contention that is made against Dr. Lodge and Prof. 
 Young. That contention is that the centrifugal tendency of 
 circular motion is determined solely by the distance from the 
 center of motion and the velocity around it, and causes a 
 body to move away from that center precisely the same dis- 
 tance in each second, whether the body be a grain of sand 
 or a planet; but that when a change of the distance of revo- 
 lution involves a change of the weight of the revolving mass, 
 then the strain upon the agency which holds that revolving 
 mass to the center is also changed correspondingly. Dr. 
 Lodge and others stoutly maintain the contrary of this, name- 
 ly, that it is the mass and not the weight which determines 
 the strain on the string. But, while you probably intended 
 to support their view, the matter appears so plain and simple 
 that your common sense seems, unwittingly, to have asserted 
 itself and you really admitted the very opposite. 
 
 The importance of this point does not wholly lie in its ap- 
 plication to the measurement of the strain upon the agency 
 holding a planet in its orbit, but mainly in its application to 
 the measurement of the inertia and momentum of matter. 
 But this phase, "in view of" the "argument and ' . . . the 
 answer to Prof. A's criticism of it," you "do not feel that it 
 is worth while to argue the matter." This appears to admit 
 of either of two meanings of diametrically opposite signifi- 
 cance. Let the reader decide which, if either, is really jus- 
 tified by the facts. , 
 
 239. This completes the answering of all your criticisms, 
 and it does seem that, to a Martian mind absolutely without 
 prepossession, not one shred of validity remains to a single 
 one of them. On the contrary, you undoubtedly regard them 
 as absolutely unscathed and, like the main theories which 
 they support, still as impregnable as the rock of Gibraltar. 
 You will, therefore, not object, it is hoped, to their being sub- 
 
240] LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OF DR. C's CRITICISM 421 
 
 mitted to the arbitrament of our contemporaries and our pos- 
 terity, essentially as in their present form. 
 
 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OF DR. C'S CRITICISM 
 
 240. Sept. 15, 1915. 
 
 Dear Mr. McLennan: I am returning to you the book on 
 Cosmical Evolution together with some comments of mine on 
 the various parts of the work. You will observe that there 
 is evidence that I have spent some time and thought on the 
 subject. I have in fact read the whole work carefully twice 
 and a considerable portion of it three times. In fact I may 
 say that I have not read any other book within a year with 
 so great care. I wish I might say that I think the work of 
 value commensurate with the labor it represents. I am much 
 impressed with the extent of your reading and believe that 
 you have in hand material from which a book of much inter- 
 est and real value might be prepared. On the other hand I 
 must join with Dr. A in urging upon you the futility of pub- 
 lishing the work in its present form. My reasons for this 
 are set forth in some detail in the comments. Here I wish 
 only to apologize for going out of my way to advise as to the 
 course you* are to pursue. I trust that it will be taken as it 
 is intended, as an evidence of a very sincere desire that you 
 may do the thing which it seems to me would be of value and 
 refrain from doing the thing which can, in my judgment, re- 
 sult in nothing other than disappointment to you. 
 
 In case there are any matters in the comments concern- 
 ing which you wish further discussion, would it not be pos- 
 sible for you to come to for a day some time this 
 
 fall? I should be very glad to meet you and to go more at 
 length into any matters which you might wish to discuss. 
 
 In one of your letters of last summer you suggested that 
 you should publish whatever I might wish to send to you 
 concerning the book. I trust that you will agree with me that 
 this would be unwise. If what I have done is of any service 
 
422 APPENDIX A [241 
 
 to you I shall be very glad. I should not, however, be will- 
 ing to appear to have engaged in any controversy over the 
 matter and fear that the printing of comments, as you sug- 
 gested, would be understood in that light. 
 
 You will find what I have written to be merely disjointed 
 notes on points which seemed to be of importance. It is 
 likely that I have in places repeated myself and that I have 
 failed to make my meaning clear in other places. If so I 
 will be glad to discuss the obscure points further. If I seem 
 to have been anywhere too severe in my comments please 
 believe that I have not intended them to have any personal 
 bearing. 
 
 REPLY TO DR. C'S LETTER 
 
 241. Oct. 17, 1915. 
 
 Dear. Dr. : I desire to express my gratefulness 
 
 to you for the immense labor you have devoted to this sub- 
 ject; which is far and away ahead of any previous effort. 
 Your investigation has been very valuable to me, especially 
 in the two or three mathematical flaws which you picked out, 
 and which, though not affecting any essential point, are yet 
 very objectionable in a work of this kind. 
 
 Of course, in the main, as was to be expected, we sadly 
 differ practically on everything. Naturally there is much 
 disappointment at your failure to see the new theory in its 
 true plan of preliminary assumptions or premises to be proved 
 or disproved by the numerous phenomena of Nature exam- 
 ined in connection with these premises. This of course 
 caused your failure to appreciate the discussion of these phe- 
 nomena with reference to the miain purpose they were in- 
 tended to serve. 
 
 As to the points on which we essentially differ, the writer 
 really feels loath to express himself point blank in opposition 
 to the views of one to whom he is under such deep obliga- 
 tions. Yet the claims of science are to be regarded above 
 all other considerations, and for this reason one must express 
 his honest thoughts on such subjects with firmness and fair- 
 
241] REPLY TO DR. C's LETTER 423 
 
 ness to the truth as he sees it. But however opposed our 
 views and however vigorous our expressions regarding points 
 on which we emphatically disagree, it is believed that you 
 will willingly concede and bear in mind with the writer that 
 not the slightest reflection is at any time involved in the dis- 
 cussion; nothing but the kindliest feelings and the very best 
 intentions on the part of both. 
 
 The suggestion of not publishing your criticism in full 
 will be complied with; and it is thought best that the same 
 rule should apply also to the others so far as to refer anony- 
 mously to all three as Dr. A, Dr. B, and Dr . C . However your 
 discussion of the subject is of too much interest to the gen- 
 eral reader to omit it entirely, and therefore it is planned that 
 just so much of each important criticism is to be given as 
 will make the reply thereto intelligible. 
 
 The writer feels very grateful to you for your valuable 
 services and your kindly intentions and advice. If you ever 
 should be in need of similar services, and you should consider 
 his acceptable, you are assured that he will be very pleased 
 to render them in the same spirit. 
 
REPLY TO DR. C'S CRITICISM 
 
 242. (16) All that is contended for here is that about as 
 many scientific authorities give the sum-statement of the law 
 of gravitation as give the product-statement of it; and that, 
 while this is not a matter of great importance, yet it shows a 
 looseness of expression which ought not to exist in science. 
 It is not maintained that the sum-statement is correct; so 
 your proof of the product-statement is uncalled for. 
 
 In assuming an essential difference in the two statements, 
 you say that "the author twists a common expression into a 
 meaning which is never given it in mathematics." To this 
 may be reiterated what was said to Dr. B, that if the masses 
 are 5 and 6, and attraction varies as the masses, then the 
 attraction varies as 5 and 6, which are 11. It is impossible 
 not to see clearly that the "twisting", if any exists, is entirely 
 on the part of those who maintain that 5 and 6 are 30. It 
 appears to be solely a question of grammar and common horse 
 sense. 
 
 243. (17) You say a single body has no attraction what- 
 ever beyond its own boundary. Now you admit that there 
 are substances so subtle that they are not amenable to grav- 
 ity. Suppose a single body of ordinary matter in one corner 
 of the universe, and another body suddenly changed from the 
 subtle form to the ordinary form of matter in another corner 
 of the universe. Since there was no attraction before the 
 second ordinary body existed, then the attraction between 
 the two bodies must come instantly into existence throughout 
 all of the almost infinite distance separating the two bodies. 
 This may seem to you a simple matter of science: to others it 
 seems more like magic or legerdemain. 
 
 244. (18) According to your views it is perfectly simple 
 and natural that the doubling of the mass of the Moon at one 
 end of a medium intervening between it and the Earth should 
 produce in that medium precisely the same effects as the 
 
244] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 425 
 
 doubling of the mass of the Earth at the other end. To others 
 this seems unreasonable and absurd. It is admitted that the 
 teaching is fully in accordance with the theory of gravitation ; 
 but it does seem, nevertheless, that the attractive stress pro- 
 duced in the medium ought to bear some proportion to the 
 mass of the attracting body. Denoting Earth and Moon by 
 E and M respectively, considering them kept apart by Sir R. 
 S. Ball's rigid rod at unit distance from one another, and 
 
 doubling. E or M, (2E M), or (E - 2M), 
 
 then according to the law of gravitation we have the gravita- 
 tive pressure exerted by them upon the rod : =2EM=160, M 
 being considered as unity. But if we double the Earth's mass 
 by placing another Earth at an equal unit distance on the 
 
 opposite side of the Moon, (E M E), then the 
 
 gravitative pressure on the rods between the two bodies will 
 be represented by EM+E 2 /4-ME=E 2 /4=:1600. Again, doubling 
 the Moon's mass by placing another Moon at an equal unit 
 
 distance on the opposite side of the Earth, (M E 
 
 M), the gratitative pressure on the rods between the 
 
 bodies will be represented by ME+M 2 /4 EM=M 2 /4=l/4. 
 Thus, considering the same two bodies at the same distances 
 from each other and doubling the one or the other in differ- 
 ent ways, we have, by the theory of gravitation, a value of the 
 gravitative strain upon the medium between them represented 
 by 640 in the first case, 6400 in the second, and I in the third. 
 In the first case, doubling the one body or the other gave the 
 result; in the second case, doubling the one gave 6400 times 
 the result of doubling the other in the third case! 
 
 You assert these strange results are verified by actual ex- 
 periments, such as those of Cavendish and others. Such ex- 
 periments, however, appear to have little if any justification 
 for this assertion. The two small balls suspended by a torsion 
 thread very close to two large balls gave rather uncertain re- 
 sults, even when completely housed upder glass in the com- 
 parative stillness of a deep basement, with the body heat of 
 the observer mostly excluded, and the results observed with 
 a telescope. And, in any case, even if the results so obtained 
 
426 APPENDIX A [244 
 
 were quite positive, they would have little if any bearing on 
 the theoretic results above mentioned. 
 
 Taking the case of the Earth and a pound ball at the 
 Earth's surface: doubling the ball doubles its gravitative 
 strain for the Earth, or doubling the Earth, within its present 
 confines, doubles its gravitative strain for the ball, and thus, 
 it is maintained, the law is proved; and so it is in a superfi- 
 cial way. But the doubling of the ball adds only the influ- 
 ence of another pound, while doubling the Earth adds the 
 potential influence of trillions of trillions of pounds; and this 
 potential influence would exist even in the absence of all 
 other bodies but the one in which it has its source. Morover 
 this potential energy is real energy. 
 
 "The word potential does not imply that this energy is not 
 real and exists only in potentiality: it is energy and has as 
 much claim to the title as it has in any other form in which 
 it may appear."* 
 
 It is not science to regard bringing a pound ball into 
 existence as equivalent in the resulting gravitative energy to 
 bringing the Earth into existence, and there must be some- 
 thing radically wrong with the theory which asserts the 
 equivalence of these gravitative energies. And neither is it 
 science to assert that, if the ball drops out of existence, or 
 into the Earth, the gravitative energy of both bodies goes 
 instantly and totally out of existence because of that event. 
 What becomes of the energy in -the latter case? If there 
 were a medium which transmitted it by movement or action 
 between the bodies, did that medium crawl into a hole too 
 when the two bodies coalesced? or, if not, why does not the 
 movement or action due to the joint gravitative energy of the 
 united bodies continue in it as before? 
 
 Is it not perfectly conceivable that an ethereal atmosphere 
 around the Earth may in some way be the seat of terrestrial 
 gravity? There seems nothing unreasonable or extremely im- 
 probable about such a conception. In such an atmosphere 
 would of course reside the power of attraction, even if all 
 other bodies were swept out of existence. Yet the law of 
 
 *WiIliam Garnett, Ency. Brit., Art. Energy. 
 
245] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 427 
 
 gravitation arbitrarily steps in to say that this is impossible 
 because EX 00! "Thou shalt have no other gods before 
 Me"! 
 
 At considerable length you intimate the unreasonableness 
 of the views regarding this subject expressed in the work. 
 But may it not be barely possible that a mote in your own 
 eye may account for the beam that you see in your brother's? 
 * 245. (19) You say "the law of gravitation itself assumes 
 neither the existence of a connective medium nor the con- 
 trary," but that all scientists do assume such a medium "to 
 account for the observed phenomena." In this, therefore, we 
 all appear to agree. You say gravity is not an entity which 
 is radiated out from a body, but an "action", a "push or a 
 pull". Now how is that action transmitted through the space 
 between one body and another? Does it originate in the 
 attracting body and is then conveyed to the medium and 
 transmitted by it through the space between the two bodies? 
 If so, how is it possible for this transmission to take place in 
 a single instant of time, as the law of gravitation implies? 
 You very emphatically deprecate the "unreasonable" views 
 and "assumptions" in the work regarding the new theory, 
 instead of the "proofs" which you say ought to have been 
 offered instead. But is it "reasonable" for you to "assume" 
 the existence of any medium which will instantly convey a 
 movement or action of its parts to almost infinite instances? 
 And, if you reject this alternative, there remains only the 
 theory which you are contesting, that the action continually 
 resides in the connecting medium itself; which thus perfectly 
 accounts for the instantaneous action through all space occu- 
 pied by this medium. 
 
 You simplify Sir R. S. Ball's illustration of the equality of 
 attraction of two different bodies by the statement "The 
 attractive effect of a single particle upon the remainder of 
 the universe is exactly the same as that of the remainder of 
 the universe upon the single particle. This is what the law 
 of gravitation implies and this agrees with our experience." 
 There are some, however, who humbly confess that they did 
 not know our experience had been so extensive. A reason- 
 
428 APPENDIX A [245 
 
 able view would hardly pretend to such large claims, and 
 would assign a particle's influence within only a very limited 
 sphere determined and specially modified by the nature and 
 mass of the particle. 
 
 At considerable length you criticise the classification of 
 force as a form of energy, stating that by doing so the author 
 can neither correctly understand the writings of scientific 
 men nor make himself understood by them because, no doubt, 
 there is such a great difference in the meaning of these two 
 words; after which you define the words to illustrate this 
 difference. Very likely you are aware that Prof. Tait once 
 discarded the idea of Force entirely and used in its stead the 
 conception of energy; but you perhaps may not have read 
 the opinion of other scientists who maintained that the ad- 
 vantage of the exchange was not very apparent owing to the 
 ultimate similarity of the meanings of the two words. It 
 seems the same thing may be said of your definitions, a dis- 
 tinction without a difference. 
 
 Force you define as an action, a pusih or a pull. To accom- 
 plish work you say "a force must be exerted", and "there 
 must be a motion in the direction of the force. The measure 
 of the quantity of work done is the product of the force ex- 
 erted multiplied by the distance the body acted on moves in 
 the direction of force". "When a body can do work it is said 
 to possess energy and the quantity of energy is directly 
 measured by the quantity of work the body can do." These 
 are your definitions. Compared more closely they are To 
 do work a body must exert a force: when a body does work 
 it possesses energy, which is measured by the work done: 
 the force which a body possesses does work which is the 
 measure of that force; and this same work is also the meas- 
 ure of the energy which the body possesses. In brief, the 
 work done by the body is equally a measure both of the force 
 which the body exerts, and of the energy which the body 
 expends, in doing work. It is an axiom in mathematics that 
 things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each 
 other. Wherein, then, is the great difference between the 
 
245] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 429 
 
 meanings of the two words, which you say vitiates the whole 
 body of my argument? 
 
 You hold again that "there is no generation of energy in 
 the gravitational case any more than in the case of the balls 
 held together by the elastic string", and therefore you main- 
 tain that there is no more violation of the law of the con- 
 servation of energy in the one case any more than in the 
 other, and that the allegation of such violation on the writer's 
 part is merely a "bogie man" which will disappear when he 
 sees things in their proper relations. But let us look into the 
 case more closely. 
 
 If you mean in the last quotation that there is no genera- 
 tion of energy at all in the gravitational case, you contradict 
 your statement that a body which does gravitational work 
 possesses energy which is expended in doing the work. If 
 not, the force which you say is exerted by the body in doing 
 work is not at all similar to the string which does the same 
 work. You say the force is not an entity: the string is; it 
 is even material. In the case of the string, the bodies exert 
 no energy or force whatever. They are merely passive, the 
 material strength of the string taking the place of such force 
 or energy. 
 
 Clearly, then, there is no radiation of energy at all in the 
 case of the string. But how is it in the case under the law 
 of gravitation? You admit that a body exerts a force which 
 does work upon another distant body, the action of the force 
 being transmitted through the intervening space by means 
 of an intervening medium, or in some other way. You call 
 this an expenditure of energy by the attracting body. And 
 as, in the absence of external causes, the body may continue 
 doing work forever by this expenditure of energy, in causing 
 ' another body to move in a very elongated ellipse, e. g., why 
 is not the continual expenditure of energy by the body, with- 
 out the slightest diminution through all time and without the 
 least reduction of any other of the body's properties why 
 is this not a violation of the principle of the conversation of 
 energy? In Arts. 19 and 67 of the work are given quotations 
 from such authorities as Laing, Tait, Tyndall, Guthrie, Croll, 
 
430 APPENDIX A [246 
 
 and Faraday to the effect that this is a violation of the con- 
 servation of energy. Is the "bogie man" of which you speak 
 really theirs or your own? 
 
 246. (20) (a) Regarding Newton's Prop. LXXI, that a 
 spherical shell attracts an outside particle as if its mass were 
 concentrated at its center, you state that it is not at all 
 affected by the demonstration given in this article because 
 Newton's assumption of uniform distribution of the attracting 
 particles on the shell is not adhered to therein. Answering 
 the special question "How can the attraction of a single pair 
 of particles of the shell vary with the distance at which it 
 acts, as compared with its attractive value at the center, 
 when Newton's theorem expressly states that its attraction 
 is precisely the same under all circumstances as if it existed 
 at the center?" you state that "Newton's Prop. LXXI says 
 NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE ATTRACTION OF ANY 
 ASSEMBLAGE OF DISCRETE POINTS FOR ANY OTHER 
 POINT. It makes no such statement as is attributed in the 
 above quotation either explicitly or implicitly. The prop- 
 osition refers only to a complete spherical shell of uniform 
 thickness and density". 
 
 Now Thomson and Tait (Nat. Phil., sec. 488) used a pre- 
 cisely similar method, taking the attraction of a single pair of 
 opposite elements of the shell upon an external body, P, for 
 a mathematical demonstration of the truth of this very prop- 
 osition of Newton's. And, if the proposition were true, why 
 should they not? No one can deny that a uniform shell is 
 built up wholly of pairs of particles at opposite ends of 
 diameters of the shell, or that the two elements of each such 
 pair are equably distributed with respect to the center or 
 surface of the shell. Such pairs of opposite particles are, in 
 fact, the ultimate unit components of the shell with respect to 
 its central concentration, and such components, with nothing 
 else, can of course be distributed equably to form the sub- 
 stance of a uniform shell. 
 
 But the most vital objection to Newton's theorem, because 
 the most obvious and undeniable, is that the attraction of any 
 number of such pairs of particles, however equably distribu- 
 
246] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 431 
 
 
 
 ted in the shell, as compared with the attraction of the same 
 number of pairs of particles at the center, IS NEVER THE 
 SAME AT ANY TWO DIFFERENT DISTANCES OF THE 
 ATTRACTED BODY. The attraction of not one such pair of 
 particles conforms to the truth of Newton's proposition. You 
 say that this is only "nearly correct" because "for one partic- 
 ular angular position of the points they do have the same at- 
 traction for an external point as if they were situated at the 
 center." But this statement is itself only "nearly correct" be- 
 cause it is true only for a certain distance of the external 
 point. When the distance of the external body varies with 
 respect to the radius of the shell, the "one particular angu- 
 lar position" in which the pairs of particles conform to New- 
 ton's proposition also changes; so that, generally, for all dis- 
 tances, not a single such pair of particles conforms to New- 
 ton's proposition. 
 
 It is true that the attraction of a portion of these pairs of 
 particles is in excess, while that of most of the remainder is 
 deficient, as compared with their attraction at the center. 
 But your assumption that these "opposite effects do actually 
 offset one another" can not be true generally, if indeed in any 
 single instance, because, as already stated, the ratio of the 
 one to the other continually changes with change of the dis- 
 tance at which they act. This fact, together with the other 
 fact that the ratio of the attraction anywhere in the shell and 
 at the center, of a single such pair of particles also varies 
 with the distance at which it acts, clearly shows Newton's 
 Prop. LXXI to be a mere approximation, which is nearly true 
 for very great relative distances, though never exactly so far 
 any distance. 
 
 (b) Even Newton himself had doubts of the general accur- 
 acy of his proposition. In Prop. VIII, Book III of the Prin- 
 cipia he says: "I was yet in doubt whether that reciprocal 
 duplicate proportion did accurately hold, or but nearly so, in 
 the total force compounded of so many partial ones . For it 
 might be that the proportion, which accurately enough took 
 place in the greater distances, should be wide of the truth 
 near the surface of the planet, where the distances of the 
 
432 APPENDIX A [246 
 
 particles are unequal and their situation dissimilar. But by 
 the help of Props. LXXV and LXXVI, Book I, and their Corro- 
 laries, I was at last satisfied of the" truth of the proposition, 
 as it now lies before us." It is obvious, however, to any one 
 who will take the trouble to compare them, that Props. 
 LXXV and LXXVI are ultimately and essentially based upon 
 Prop. LXXI itself. 
 
 Prof. Young also refers to the difficulty as follows : "When 
 the distance between attracting bodies is large, as compared 
 with thei rown magnitude, then reckoning the distance be- 
 tween their centers of mass as their true distance, the 
 formula is sensibly true for them, at it would be for mere 
 particles. When, however, the distance is not thus great, the 
 calculation of the attraction becomes a very serious prob- 
 lem".* 
 
 (c) (Before leaving this subject, it may be stated to the 
 reader that this proposition, which is perhaps the main corn- 
 erstone of the theory of gravitation, as, without it, the law 
 of gravitation could not be applied, has been further discussed 
 during 1915-16 by Dr. C and the writer to such extent as 
 would really require a volume for its own presentation alone. 
 Dr. C (whom the writer has never seen) is evidently an ardent 
 student of Nature himself. Although he most firmly believes 
 that the present writer is entirely in error and Newton and 
 his followers wholly in the right, he has nevertheless, with 
 wonderful patience and at an immense expenditure of time 
 and labor, with no other motive than pure love of the sub- 
 ject and generosity of heart, endeavored to set the author 
 right and dissuade him from a venutre which he felt sure 
 was bound to end in failure. The writer desires here to ex- 
 press his deep obligation to him for the invaluable benefits 
 derived from his logical and mathematical skill, as well as for 
 the great pleasure of his perfect courtesy and civility in all 
 the discussions. 
 
 The preceding discussions of this subject regarded only 
 the ratio of the absolute amount of the surface, to that of 
 the central, attraction of the shell upon P; the variation of 
 *Gen. Astron., Art. 162. 
 
246] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 433 
 
 which ratio with variation of the distance of P was, and is 
 still, regarded by the writer as a vital objection to Newton's 
 proposition. Dr. C, however, suggested that it is not the 
 amount of the surface attraction of any zone of the shell 
 upon P that ought to be compared with the attraction of that 
 zone at the center, but the component of that attraction which 
 acts in the direction PC, or the line joining P with the center 
 of the shell. This is really all that is effective in causing P 
 to approach the center; and Dr. C intimated that, if the sur- 
 face attraction of the shell were resolved into its elements 
 and only the portion acting along the line from P towards 
 the center be compared with the attraction of the shell at 
 the center, the facts would agree precisely with Newton's 
 proposition. So, in compliance with this view, a shell of 
 radius 10 (representing any absolute size) was divided into 
 various numbers of zones, each of equal thickness along the 
 line PC, and therefore of equal surface and mass, and the 
 attraction of a particle at the middle line of each zone (which 
 is the same distance from P all around the zone) upon P was 
 determined and resolved along the line PC. Various cases, 
 depending on the distance of P and the number of equal zones 
 into which the shell was divided, were considered, the attrac- 
 tion of a particle at the middle line of each zone and resolved 
 along PC, determined, all of which were averaged in each 
 case for the whole shell and compared with the attraction of 
 a particle at the center. The results are far too voluminous 
 to be given here in detail; but the general results, for two 
 distances, may be briefly stated as follows: 
 
 Distance 
 of P from 
 shell-center 
 
 No. of 
 equal zones 
 of shell. 
 
 Av. resolved 
 elemental f of 
 surface on P. 
 
 Elemental f 
 at center of 
 shell on P. 
 
 CP R 10 
 
 40 
 
 80 
 100 
 40 
 100 
 200 
 
 .004662000995 
 .004763418695 
 .00485104438 
 .002496405 
 .0024995092 
 .002500000935 
 
 .01 
 
 H 
 
 .0025 
 
 These results do not depend on diagrammatic construc- 
 tion, which would be unreliable, but on formulae derived from 
 
434 * APPENDIX A [246 
 
 actual trigonometric measurement of the sines, cosines, and 
 distances involved, mostly correct to 10 decimal places. We 
 see from them that the average elemental attraction, resolved 
 along PC, of the surface of a shell divided into 100 zones, e. g., 
 is less than half of the elemental attraction at the center, 
 when the distance CP=R=10; while for the same shell sim- 
 ilarly divided the surface and the central attractions are very 
 nearly the same when the distance CP=2R=20, It appears 
 also that, at all external distances of P, the average surface 
 attraction of the shell continually increases as the zonal sub- 
 division becomes greater and greater. But the rate of this 
 increase is only 1/3 per cent, of the amount required for 
 equality by the ratio of the two attractions at the shorter 
 distance; while, at the greater distance, the rate of increase 
 is 88 1/3 per cent of that amount: so that, by greater and 
 greater subdivision, long before the ratio would have arrived 
 at equality at the lesser distance, it would have approached, 
 or possibly surpassed, equality at the greater distance. 
 
 In reply to this Dr. C admits that "the method you are 
 using is legitimate and is, in fact, essentially that used in 
 every direct proof of Newton's theorem". But he regards it 
 as not legitimate at the lesser distance because P at the sur- 
 face of the shell is not external to the shell and therefore "is 
 not included under the particular theorem cited" and thus 
 '"'would not constitute a disproof of the Newtonian theorem." 
 But, even if it be true that a particle at the surface of the 
 shell is not external to it, what difference would it make in 
 the result obtained if a hairbreadth more were added to the 
 distance of P, which would then certainly make it external 
 to the shell and the method perfectly legitimate? 
 
 (d) When P is carried within the shell, another univer- 
 sally acceptf/d theorem* is shattered. Let the same shell be 
 again diviued into various numbers of equal zones, and let 
 P be placed between one of the zones (called the cap-zone) 
 and all the rest, in the case of each number of divisions. Pro- 
 ceeding in the same manner as before, the following resolved 
 values of the average attractions of each zone are obtained: 
 
 *Prop. LXX, Bk. I, Principia. 
 
246] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 435 
 
 Four-Zone Shell 
 
 Av. f upon P of cap-zone 00707107 
 
 Av. f upon F of 2nd zone 002o 
 
 Av. f upon P of 3rd zone 00486654 
 
 Av. f upon P of 4th zone 00441235 
 
 Cap-zone f is less than 2/3 that of the rest of shell. 
 
 Ten-Zone Shell 
 
 Av. f upon P of cap-zone 01118028 
 
 Av. f upon P of 2nd zone 00266683 
 
 Av. f upon P of 3rd zone 003896743 
 
 Av. f upon P of 4th zone 004002067 
 
 Av. f upon P of 5th zone 003887814 
 
 Av. f upon P of 6th zone 003726779 
 
 Av. f upon P of 7th zone 003563381 
 
 Av. f upon P of 8th zone .'. 003410818 
 
 Av. f upon P of 9th zone 003271332 
 
 Av. f upon P of 10th zone 003145016 
 
 Cap-zone f is less than 1/3 that of rest of shell. 
 
 Twenty-Zone Shell 
 
 Av. f upon P of cap-zone 01581107 
 
 Total av. f s of other 19 zories 06999162 
 
 Cap-zone f is less than 1/4 that of rest of shell. And so on. 
 
 From this it is clearly seen that Newton's Prop. LXX, that 
 a particle inside of a spherical shell is not attracted in any 
 direction, is not true, except at the center; but that, on the 
 contrary, the attraction of the shell gradually diminishes upon 
 the particle from a maximum at the surface to zero at the cen- 
 ter. This is also in exact conformity with the similar con- 
 clusion arrived at from entirely different premises in Art. 216. 
 
 Regarding the results in this case Dr. C replied as fol- 
 lows: "The method which you have used is not correct and 
 cannot lead to correct conclusions. No refinement of numer- 
 ical exactness will be of value so long as this method is used. 
 These calculations are wholly valueless. The source 
 of the error lies in the fact that when, for example, you dealt 
 with 20 zones and computed the attractions toward and away 
 from the center, you wholly neglected the cosine factor in 
 the case of the cap. ... To test by a correct method 
 of approximation, select a given point, divide the shell into 
 two segments by a plane passing through this point, divide 
 
436 APPENDIX A [246 
 
 each segment into a considerable number of zones the same 
 in each case and compute the total attraction of each seg- 
 ment. As the number of zones is increased the position of 
 the internal point remaining fixedthe attractions of the two 
 segments will approach numerical equality." 
 
 With regard to Dr. C's first criticism above, he is honestly, 
 but certainly mistaken. The cosine factor has been used 
 to determine the attraction of the cap-zone precisely the same 
 as it has been in determining that of any other zone. In- 
 deed, if the cosine factor had not been so used, the contrast 
 would have been still more pronounced, as that factor oper- 
 ates to reduce the attraction rather than to increase it. And 
 as for Dr. C's own idea of the correct method, it is apparent 
 that he has entirely failed to realize that equal zonal division 
 of two different segments implies different values of the zon- 
 al attractions of these segments. Of course if the attractions 
 of the zones of the smaller segment are equated with those 
 of the larger segment, equality might thus be arrived at; 
 but if due allowance be made for this difference, we appear 
 to arrive at the same result as before. 
 
 It is submitted that the method employed is absolutely 
 fair. The whole shell is divided into any number of equal 
 zones, and the particle P is placed just inside of one of them. 
 What is there impossible, or illogical, or unfair about that? 
 The only reason Dr. C assigns is the wholly baseless one of 
 neglect of the cosine factor, already noticed. 
 
 Indeed, this appears to be just another splendid illustra 
 tion of the effect of unconscious bias. Dr. C, in common with 
 all other scientists, regards Newton's theorem as unassail- 
 able gospel truth; and, if any fact unexpectedly bobs up in 
 flat contradiction of this alleged truth, "then," in the words 
 of Prof. Patterson, "so much the worse for the fact." 
 
 The correspondence, which appears to end here, is a 
 most interesting one, but could not be entered into more fully 
 in this work. By way of brief recapitulation, it may be 
 stated that to the strictures on Newton's theorems regarding 
 the attraction of a spherical shell, Dr. C at first offered a 
 mathematical proof of electric potential as applicable to the 
 
247] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 437 
 
 attraction of gravity. When it was replied (Art. 216) that 
 this mathematical proof is not applicable to the one as to the 
 other, Dr. C said that the components of the surface attrac- 
 tion of the shell, being partly greater and partly less than if 
 placed at the center, would presumably average the same 
 as if the whole were placed at the center. When, in reply 
 to this, it was shown by actual calculation that this was not 
 true, Dr. C objected that the method employed, that of cal- 
 culating the attraction of discrete points in the surface of the 
 shell, was erroneous and not at all implied in Newton's the- 
 orems, but rather the attraction of a continuous, uniform sur- 
 face. When, in answer to this, it was pointed out that Sir 
 William Thomson and Prof. P. G. Tait had used the same 
 method of discrete points for proving the same theorem re- 
 ferred to, and also when Dr. C's own method of continuous, 
 uniform surface was applied and found equally wanting, Dr. 
 C held that the error lay in not resolving the computed sur- 
 face attraction in the direction between the particle and the 
 center and that, if this were done, the complete harmony of 
 Newton's theorems with the facts would be clearly apparent. 
 But when the surface attraction of the shell was thus re- 
 solved in the manner suggested and admitted as legitimate 
 by Dr. C himself, and was still more clearly shown to be 
 flatly contradictory of Newton's theorems, Dr. C appears to 
 have arrived at the end of his resources. These last compu- 
 tations were sent to him on June 24, 1916, since which date 
 up to the time of correcting the final proofs, October 1916, 
 no word has been received from him. Possibly, with his 
 no doubt still unshaken conviction of the utter absurdity of 
 the idea that Newton could ever be shown by a mere ama- 
 teur to be in error, he regards the writer as absolutely and 
 irretrievably incorrigible and all further efforts for his refor- 
 mation as a waste of time and energy.) 
 
 247. (21) The statement* that the strength of gravity 
 at the bottom of the Harton mine ought to be diminished by 
 twice the attraction value of the Earth-shell above the bottom 
 
 *Previously made in the body of the work, but subsequently elim- 
 inated. 
 
438 APPENDIX A [247 
 
 of the mine, rather than by that value itself, as mentioned 
 by Prof. Young, you say is incorrect. That, however, de- 
 pends somewhat on whose views are taken as the standard. 
 If, according to the law of gravitation, a shell does not at- 
 tract as if its mass were concentrated at its center, as seems 
 to be clearly shown in the results above arrived at (Arts. 216, 
 246), then, even according to that law, Prof. Young and your- 
 self would be in error; and under the circumstances, it is 
 indeed rather a difficult matter to determine the effect which 
 the shell really would have in the case. But there is some 
 justification in your claim, as, according to the law of grav- 
 itation, twice the amount of the shell could hardly be the 
 proper amount to lessen the attraction, any more than just 
 the bare amount of the shell. It may confidently be expected, 
 however, that, for many miles down into the Earth-crust, or 
 about to where the temperature is so great as to profoundly 
 affect the ordinary constitution of matter, the value of the 
 attraction of gravity will continue to increase with the depth. 
 And, if the law of gravitation be really inapplicable to the 
 case, as is here claimed, another reasonable deduction is that 
 the surface or crust density of the Earth is far greater than 
 its central density. 
 
 (As a note to the reader, it may be added here that when 
 we ascend above the Earth's .surface, well known facts con- 
 tradict the theory of gravitation just the same as when we 
 descend below that surface. Mr. R. D. Oldham, F.R.S., 
 states that "the major prominences of the earth's surface 
 . do not exert the attractive force, either in a hor- 
 izontal or in a vertical direction, which should result from 
 their mass,"* and Sir Sidney Burrard, F.R.S., also states 
 that "about 1860 the observations of the plumb-line brought 
 to light a most important and wholly unexpected fact, namely, 
 that the Himalaya were not exercising an attraction at all 
 commensurate with their bulk. ... By the theory of 
 gravitation the plumb-line ought to be deflected at Kaliana 
 
 *Address Indian Science Congress at Lucknow, Jan. 13, 1916. 
 
249] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 439 
 
 58 seconds towards the hills. It is not deflected at all; it 
 hangs vertically."* 
 
 Mr. Oldham endeavors to explain this strange fact by sup- 
 posing that the substance of the mountains extends down- 
 wards into a deep root which is lighter than the matter there 
 surrounding it; which, of course, leaves unexplained the hor- 
 izontal defect of attraction. And Sir Sidney Burrard thinks 
 the mountains owe their elevation to expansion of the sub- 
 jacent material; which thus accounts for the isostasy, but 
 this view is itself in direct opposition to the generally ac- 
 cepted theory that mountains are elevated by shrinkage of 
 the Earth-crust and consequent horizontal pressure; which 
 would obviously cause a greater, instead of a less, density 
 of the mountain roots.) 
 
 248. (22) You admit the contention that a body falling 
 through a hole from the Earth's surface through its center 
 would reach the opposite surface, and so vibrate back and 
 forth continually; but you say the Earth's attraction under 
 these circumstances would be "proportional to the first power 
 (directly) of the distance from the center." Your meaning 
 here seems not very clear. But anyway, it is certain that 
 the Earth's attraction, according to the theory of gravitation, 
 would be less in this case than when the Earth is concen- 
 trated at its center because, in the former case, the effect 
 of the shells of the Earth passed through on the way in- 
 wards would at least be partially eliminated; while, in the 
 second case, there would be no such elimination. And there- 
 fore the velocity in the later case, upon arriving at the cen- 
 ter ought to be much greater than in the former case. Yet 
 you hold that, by means of a slight horizontal motion, the 
 body falling with this greater velocity will turn around the 
 center and come right back to the starting point, while with 
 the lesser velocity it would go 4000 miles farther and then 
 turn back! This may be easy for scientists, but to an ama- 
 teur it looks more like the work of a fairy's wand. 
 
 249. You claim that the statement in Art. 26 that work 
 is based on weight is inaccurate; and thereafter you say: 
 
 *Address Geol. Soc., London, Feb. 2, 1916. 
 
440 APPENDIX A [249 
 
 "in lifting a body, the work done is proportional to the weight 
 of the body and to the distance through which it is lifted." 
 You find much fault with the sling illustration of the rela- 
 tion of weight and work. It was endeavored to be shown 
 by it that a pound weight swung vertically at the Earth's 
 surface in a sling which raised the weight 6 feet from the 
 lowest to the highest point of the swing did 6 foot-pounds 
 of work; which you say is correct; and also that the same 
 body in the same sling when similarly swung through the 
 same angle 1600 miles above the Earth's surface did only 
 3 foot-pounds of work, because the pound there weighs only 
 half as much; which also you say is correct. This is all that 
 was contended for, and seems not at all hard to understand. 
 Yet you devote two pages to criticising inconsequential de- 
 tails the using of "tension on the string" synonymously 
 with "work done by the string," "strain on the string" with 
 "force pulling on the string," the failure to consider the dif- 
 ferent conditions of the strain at the top and bottom of the 
 swing, or to mention the velocity of the body in the sling, 
 etc., etc. These minor factors, however, it is entirely un- 
 necessary to consider as they were either supposed to be pre- 
 cisely the same in the upper and the lower parts of the il- 
 lustration, or to have no essential bearing on the case. Ve- 
 locity, e. g., may be entirely different in the upper and the 
 lower vertical slings. The essential fact is that 6 foot-pounds 
 of work are done by the half-swing in the lower, while only 
 3 foot-pounds of work are done by the similar half-swing of 
 the same body in the upper. 
 
 In the illustration of the horizontal sling, you object to 
 the use of the term "foot-pound" to designate the work of 
 moving a pound a distance of one foot; yet a few lines below 
 you define work as "the product of the force acting to pro- 
 duce the motion by the distance the body moves in the di- 
 rection of that force." Indeed it seems that the definition of 
 work which you criticise, though perhaps defective, is fully 
 as good as your own because you leave out of your definition 
 the factor of mass. Holding the Moon in its orbit is incom- 
 parably greater work than holding a pound mass in the same 
 
249] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 441 
 
 orbit; yet they both are subject to the same force, and each 
 would fall the same distance in one second in obedience to 
 that force. But, in any case, these definitions are not at all 
 an essential element of the illustration. In the lower hori- 
 zontal sling the pound weight is drawn from the tangent to 
 its curved path one foot in one second, and in the upper hor- 
 izontal sling the half pound weight is also drawn from the 
 tangent to its curved path one foot in one second; which 
 proves that the work done in the latter case is one-half the 
 work done in the former. This and only this is the sole 
 purpose and object of the illustration. 
 
 But on the same page you state that "if the word work 
 is to be accepted in the only sense in which it is ever used 
 in mechanics, no work at all is done against the centrifugal 
 force. . . . Neither the 'foot-pound' of the first case 
 nor the. 'half foot-pound' of the second case represents 
 any physical quantity whatsoever"; and this correct 
 mechanical definition of work, as stated by you, is given 
 in the preceding paragraph,. Do you really mean that it re- 
 quires no work, e. g., to hold the Moon in its terrestrial orbit 
 against the centrifugal force urging it outwards from the 
 Earth? Don't you think that, if you would try to hold it in 
 its path by means of a cord, in the absence of the Earth's 
 attraction, you would find it some work? and that also you 
 would find it a great deal less work to hold a pound weight 
 instead of the Moon in the same orbit with the same velocity? 
 You know that Dr. Lodge says that the strain (or "stress," 
 or '-'tension," or "force," or "work," or "pull," or any other 
 word which you please that will clearly express the fact) 
 exerted by the centrifugal tendency upon the agency holding 
 the Moon in its orbit would tear asunder a rod of steel nearly 
 400 miles in diameter, if substituted instead of that agency. 
 And far more powerful means would be necessary to coun- 
 teract the centrifugal force of the Earth in its orbit around 
 the Sun. 
 
 The agency holding the Moon in its orbit draws that body 
 from a tangent to its path 0.00446 ft. in each second, and the 
 agency holding the Earth in its orbit draws it 0.01 ft. in one 
 
442 APPENDIX A [249 
 
 second from the tangent to its path. Does the agency in the 
 latter case perform more work to correspond with the greater 
 result it obtains? or, as you claim, does neither agency per- 
 form one iota of work in obtaining these results? Defini- 
 tions cannot alter facts. 
 
 You admit that a man can pick up a cannon ball far more 
 easily where it weighs only as much as a feather: don't you 
 think he could also swing it round in a sling much more easily 
 where it is as light as a feather than where it weighs 100 
 pounds? Do you think the world will consider it reasonable 
 for you to maintain, as you do, that a ball which a man can 
 pick up as easily as a feather would feel as heavy as a hun- 
 dred weight when whirled around in a sling? 
 
 In connection with Young's calculation regarding the at- 
 traction of the Sun for the Earth in tons of force, you take 
 exception to the expression "the Earth's 6X10 21 tons of 
 weight," saying it ought to be "tons of mass," and that "the 
 'Earth's weight' would mean the earth's attraction for itself, 
 which is meaningless." However it does not seem meaning- 
 less to some but, on the contrary, very clear and proper. The 
 Earth's weight is the total of what another body like the 
 Earth would weigh piecemeal upon the Earth's surface. The 
 Earth's weight at the Sun's surface would be nearly 28 times 
 this, and at a distance of 92,000,000 miles from the Sun would 
 be 1/44,000 of its weight on the Sun, or about 136 XlO 15 tons. 
 This last change is what Prof. Young and Dr. Lodge failed 
 to take into account, their result being arrived at by vari- 
 ation of centrifugal force alone and ignoring the weight 
 factor at the Earth's orbit. 
 
 You over and over again impute inaccuracy in definition 
 of terms and a lack of consistency in the use of these defini- 
 tions which you say vitiates the whole work. No doubt the 
 work is by no means perfect in these respects; but the sug- 
 gestion may be permitted that, if scientists themselves would 
 only discard the old lumber and worse than useless machinery 
 of an untenable theory, which they use as a standard for 
 judging' the work of others, they would be far less liable to 
 commit even more serious blunders. 
 
251] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 443 
 
 250. More than one-fourth of your examination of the 
 work is devoted to this single chapter, the rest receiving but 
 scanty treatment. Regarding the problem of three bodies in 
 the second chapter, you say you are no astronomer and do 
 not consider yourself competent to do more than pronounce 
 it not convincing. It requires no astronomer, however, to 
 calculate, according to the law of gravitation, the effects of 
 perturbing forces upon constant masses due to their distance- 
 and velocity-variations. You do not enter at all into the 
 computations which lead to such extraordianry results against 
 the theory which you entertain, and you offer no excuse for 
 the total failure of scientists to enter into such computations, 
 not even as much as Mr. G, W. Hill's excuse that it requires 
 such a vast amount of labor. You fall back again solely upon 
 criticisms of definitions of terms and the uses to which they 
 are put. 
 
 You imply that the attraction of the Sun upon the Moon 
 should not be measured "in 'ft. per second' (a unit of veloc- 
 ity)," Yet the power of attraction can very easily and ac- 
 curately be measured in this way. The Sun's attraction, 
 e. g., draws the Earth from a tangent to its orbit 0.01 ft. in 
 one second, and, other things equal, the attraction of any 
 other body which would draw the Earth twice, or ten times 
 as much from the tangent to its orbit in the same time 
 would be twice, or ten times, as powerful as that of the Sun. 
 This is undeniable even to an astronomer. Yet this is the 
 only specific criticism you offer on this most important 
 chapter,. 
 
 251. In the third chapter, you understand Kepler's sec- 
 ond law to be independent of any hypothesis explanatory of 
 gravitation; yet the former is a very essential factor of the 
 latter. When a planet moves outwards beyond its average 
 distance from the Sun, Kepler's second law is at once invoked 
 to account for a theoretic decrease of linear velocity nec- 
 essary for the balancement of the system according to the 
 theory of gravitation; and when the planet moves inwards 
 from its average distance, the same law is again invoked to 
 account for a theoretic increase of the planet's linear velocity 
 
444 APPENDIX A [253 
 
 for the same purpose; and such variations appear to have no 
 other physical cause than their grounding in Kepler's sec- 
 ond law. Kepler discovered his second law by actual obser- 
 vation, and it does not appear that either he or any other as- 
 tronomer ever claimed that this observation amounted to ex- 
 act mathematical demonstration of it. It is clear, therefore, 
 that, in proving the law to be without mathematical founda- 
 tion even in the demonstrations of Newton, Herschel, and 
 Proctor, a vital blow is dealt the theory of gravitation of 
 which the law is a vital part. 
 
 252. Of the first equation of Art. 38, you say the process 
 "consists of introducing and removing the value x = y and 
 neglecting the fact that the original equation still remains as 
 a solution of the equation obtained by the multiplication," 
 which you say is unfair. This statement compels the reply 
 that, while the value x = y appears to have been introduced 
 by multiplying both members of the equation by x y, that 
 value has nowhere been removed; and also that the fact of 
 the first equation remaining to aid in the solution has not 
 been neglected because it is comparison with the first equa- 
 tion that makes the final result absurd. The symbols x and 
 y represent entirely different quantities whose sum is repre- 
 sented to be s; and multiplying both members of this equa- 
 tion, x + y = s, by x y is perfectly legitimate according 
 to the present rules of mathematics. All the rest consists 
 of the ordinary operations in the simplification of equations, 
 finally, however leading ,to the result, x = y, which flatly 
 contradicts the relation of the values of x and y in the first 
 equation. Wherein is there anything unfair in this? and if 
 "such methods do not inspire confidence," upon what or 
 whom, ought the reflection to be cast? 
 
 253. Regarding Newton's proof of the law of equal areas, 
 you say "Newton does not assume the centrifugal force to 
 'impel the body in the lines Be, Cd, etc.' " Here once more 
 are Newton's exact words: "In the first part of the time let 
 the body by its innate force describe the right line AB. In 
 the second part of the time the same would, ... if not 
 hindered, proceed directly to c along the line Be, equal to AB." 
 
254] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 445 
 
 (See Newton's own diagram, Art. 37). Newton, then, does 
 assume the body, if not hindered, to be impelled in the lines 
 Be, Cd, etc., by the motion of the body in its orbit, call it 
 "innate force," "centrifugal force," or any other other name 
 you please; and ABc, BCd, are assumed to be right lines. 
 He does assume afterwards that the body is hindered by 
 having its path bent at B, but the part Be in which he con- 
 ditionally assumed the body would move, but does not, is 
 nevertheless the peg on which the geometrical theorem of 
 his proof and therefore his whole argument wholly depend, 
 as has already been shown in Art. 39. It is regrettable that 
 you failed to notice this; but it certainly was made suffi- 
 ciently plain. 
 
 The objection to Newton's demonstration of the law of 
 equal areas in equal times, which you say you do not clearly 
 understand, is that Newton assumes the body to move in any 
 unit of time in the path produced of the preceding unit of 
 time. Thus, in the first unit of time, the body describes the 
 line AB, and, if not hindered, would, in the second unit of 
 time, describe Be, which is the path produced, or continua- 
 tion of the path, in the first unit of time. In the second unit 
 of time the body describes BC and, if not hindered, would in 
 the third unit of time describe Cd, which is the path of the 
 second unit of time produced or extended. And so on. But 
 this, as has already been explained in the body of the work, 
 is an impossibility in the case of circular or elliptic motion. 
 
 The paths BC, CD, etc., are diagonals of parallelograms 
 the sides of which are formed by the momentary forces act- 
 ing upon the body, and Be, Cd, etc., which really are not 
 and could not be described at all, but are absolutely necessary 
 for Newton's argument, are continuations of these diagonals, 
 respectively. Whether the parallelograms mentioned are 
 formed by forces or by motions (as you claim) is immaterial. 
 You are, however, certainly mistaken in supposing only one 
 force to act on the body. In all circular motion there are a 
 tangential, or "inate," or centrifugal, force, and a central or 
 centripetal force, or some other agency answering thereto. 
 
 254. You are also mistaken, where you criticise Art. 40, 
 
446 APPENDIX A [256 
 
 in holding that "the law of equal areas applies to a single 
 planet moving in its own orbit. It does not say or imply that 
 if the same planet moved in a different orbit the areas swept 
 out in equal intervals of time in the second orbit . . would 
 be equal to the areas swept out in intervals of the same length 
 in the first orbit." This is practically equivalent to saying 
 that the law of equal areas does not apply to planetary mo- 
 tion at all; for, owing to various causes, no two orbital paths 
 of the same planet are ever alike. Therefore the argument 
 of Art. 40 remains as before. 
 
 255. In your comments on the chapter regarding tides, 
 why do you charge the author with having "ignored the real 
 reasons which cause scientists to regard the moon as the 
 chief tide producing agent," when the first, and by far the 
 most important of these reasons that the tides follow the 
 Moon's motions has been discussed and explained at great 
 length in Arts. 48 and 152 of the work, and when you say you 
 have read that work carefully twice? You say "I should de- 
 scribe this as the method of an attorney attempting to make 
 a case rather than the method of a scientific investigator." 
 If the writer did not believe that you are perfectly sincere, 
 so also should he. 
 
 The remaining reason which you mention, that "tides are 
 highest when the moon is nearest the earth," is not a whit 
 of more consequence than that the tides are highest when 
 the Sun is nearest the Earth, which is equally true. You say 
 you are not very well acquainted with tidal data, but even 
 those which are called to your attention you have passed over 
 without a single comment the solar aerial tides, the solar 
 inland sea and lake tides, etc., which are some of the most 
 important theoretic phenomena in physical science,. You con- 
 tent yourself with again commenting severely on the "loose- 
 ness" of the logic and observing that the "confusion between 
 forces, velocities, accelerations, and distances vitiates his 
 whole argument;" and this said of what appears to be per- 
 fectly clear and understandable to any person of ordinary in- 
 telligence. 
 
 256. In Art. 51 of Chap. V, Herschel's estimate of the tern- 
 
257] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 447 
 
 perature difference upon the Earth which ought to correspond 
 with the difference of the Sun's distance, you think of little 
 value because too many factors are involved. But the differ- 
 ence, 23 F., seems far too great to be accounted for in that 
 off-hand way. 
 
 If Mars is as warm as the Earth, or warmer, you think it 
 may be owing to a greater proportion of carbon dioxide in its 
 atmosphere. This, however, in connection with the observed 
 facts, is not at all so reasonable an assumption as Dr, Lowell's. 
 
 You say that, in any case, none of the objections mentioned 
 in this chapter, even if true, affects in the least the theory 
 of gravitation. This is, perhaps, true in a limited sense. But 
 if it can be shown that heat and light are not radiated out 
 equally in all directions in interplanetary space, it inferen- 
 tially limits the force of gravity in the same manner. Of 
 course you deny that force is so radiated even now. But you 
 admit that "bodies at a distance from one another do influ- 
 ence one another," and you also admit that energy, which has 
 been shown to be practically the same thing as force, is con- 
 tinually expended by a body doing attractive work; and this 
 energy has either to be radiated outwards from the body in 
 all directions, without requiring time for its transmission, or 
 is continually resident in the intervening medium, which last 
 is the theory advanced in the work. There is no other al- 
 ternative. 
 
 257. You speak of the "unjustified and uncalled for fling" 
 at the close of Art. 53; but the statement is still held to be 
 fully warranted by the facts. Even you yourself have passed 
 over the undeniable facts of preponderance of the solar fac- 
 tor in aerial and inland sea and lake tides without a single 
 comment. You have also merely slurred over the compara- 
 tively immense perturbing forces shown to arise according to 
 the law of gravitation in the problem of three bodies,. These 
 are vital objections to the theory of gravitation and should 
 be met and answered if possible, but you have passed them 
 practically in silence. And in the second part of the work, 
 you appear liable to the graver fault of calling the premises 
 mere "assumptions" instead of which you say "proofs" 
 
448 APPENDIX A [258 
 
 should have been given, and when the most important phe- 
 nomena of Nature were furnished as proofs of the correctness 
 of the premises the co-planer orbital and rotational motions 
 of the planets, the origin and peculiar phenomena of comets 
 and meteorites, the Saturnian Ring, the connection of the 
 planet Jupiter with the sunspots, the zodiacal light (regarding 
 which it was proved that present day astronomers hold an 
 entirely erroneous view), the solar corona, the velocity and 
 direction of the currents of the upper aerial regions, the tides, 
 terrestrial electricity and magnetism, geological climatic 
 changes, variation of terrestrial latitudes, temporary and var- 
 iable stars, the cosmic chain of causation connecting the mac- 
 rocosin with the microcosm, etc. you have entirely ignored 
 nearly all of them or offered only disparaging general re- 
 marks. This is not an "unjustified fling"^ it is a fact. Yet 
 your perfect sincerity in it all and your excellent, even kindly, 
 intentions are freely admitted. But you, and other scientific 
 men as well, are unconsciously biased in favor of a diametri- 
 cally different theory which, for centuries past, has enjoyed 
 practically universal acceptance, and equally so down to the 
 present time. Even the writer, or any one, who had the 
 strongest possible conviction of the truth of a most important 
 view, if a fact should accidentally turn up which appeared 
 to contradict that view, could hardly fail, unless special pre- 
 cautions were taken to guard against it, to regard the fact 
 with suspicion as being in some way grounded in error and 
 incline to ignore it, or pigeon-hole it for possible future ref- 
 erence or corroboration . And this is undoubtedly done today 
 to an undreamed-of extent in the investigations of physical 
 astronomy, as well as in other departments of science. 
 
 258. The authority for the statement that sunspots are 
 formed by the downrush of cooled, solid particles, is J. Nor- 
 man Lockyer (Nature, 33, 470 and 34, 255), as stated in Art. 
 136 of the work. 
 
 You say you "disagree altogether" with Wm. B. Taylor's 
 statement in Art. 67 that Newton himself in later years re- 
 turned to his old idea of attractive action at a distance, which 
 he once characterized as "so great an absurdity;" and you 
 
259] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 449 
 
 think the basis for the statement "lies not in his own writ- 
 ings but in the preface to the second edition of his Principia, 
 which was written by Roger Cotes." You are mistaken, how- 
 ever. The statement is grounded on his own Optics, Book 
 III, Query 28. It is quite probable that you are also mis- 
 taken about the general abandonment of the idea of action 
 at a distance today. Aside from the conception that attrac- 
 tive energy lies wholly in the connective medium, no other 
 view appears to meet with any less difficulty than actio in 
 distans. 
 
 259. This concludes your criticism of the first part of 
 the work, and, as already intimated, it is hardly worth while 
 to follow your remarks on the second part as you have en- 
 tirely misconceived its plan. 
 
 You enumerate the elements which go to form the basis 
 of the new theory according to Art. 69 as (1) atoms, (2) 
 atomic bonds, (3) molecular bonds, (4) materiality of these 
 bonds, (5) extension of the bonds between all bodies. To 
 the first you appear to offer no objection. To the second you 
 object that these bonds are always regarded as figurative, 
 instead of literal. The third you regard as a not improbable 
 assumption, but questionable whether similar to atomic 
 bonds. The fourth, you say, is without a particle of justifi- 
 cation because the attraction between atoms "are certainly 
 known to be electrical." Electricity is certainly a very handy 
 source of explanation for a whole lot of phenomena; but one 
 objection to it is that we know next to absolutely nothing of 
 the ultimate nature of electricity. And the fifth you hold to 
 be a more violent assumption than the fourth. It may be 
 stated, however, that no such assumption has been made. 
 What has been assumed is that such bonds extend between all 
 naturally and regularly derived bodies (Art. 69), and by far 
 the greater number of bodies are irregularly derived in the 
 natural process of evolution. 
 
 In Art. 72 are stated the basic elements of the connective 
 theory which are new, namely that "every regular heavenly 
 body of whatever size" (including even atoms and electrons) 
 "is connected with its neighboring heavenly bodies by real, 
 
450 APPENDIX A [260 
 
 ethereal bonds" and that "all bodies have ethereal atmos- 
 pheres in connection with these ethereal bonds." It is fur- 
 ther stated that these basic elements "are not asserted here 
 as facts, but only as premises or assumptions for temporary 
 guidance, to be ultimately accepted or rejected according to 
 their agreement or disagreement with the phenomena of cos- 
 mical evolution, as these phenomena are investigated in con- 
 nection with them." It is very regrettable indeed that you 
 have, apparently, wholly overlooked this last statement. For 
 you say "The important thing is that the premises of the 
 author . . . are not the self-evident matter which he 
 assumes them to be." You cannot but see clearly now that 
 no such assumption is made. 
 
 260. You keep continually pounding away at my premises 
 and "assumptions" without waiting a moment for their cor- 
 roboration and harmony with the facts of Nature. 
 
 You say "Here the bonds are spoken of as ethereal: pre- 
 viously they were called material. They cannot be both. 
 This is another instance of a confusion of terms accompanied 
 with a confusion of ideas. It continues through the book 
 If there were no other weakness in the hypoth- 
 esis, this alone would, in my opinion, be enough to condemn 
 it." The writer does not know what intellectual food it is 
 that can evolve such conclusions, but he is pretty certain 
 that he, at least, has never tasted it. Do you really mean 
 to say that the ether is not material? Who besides your- 
 self regards it as non-material? J. Clerk Maxwell defines 
 the ether as "a material substance of a more subtile kind 
 than visible bodies",* and assigns to it inertia and a small 
 density. Lord Kelvin assigns it a small mas^t 
 as does R. A. Fessenden.$ Mendeleef gives the ether 
 a place in a new table of elements. Prof. W. M. Hicks 
 gives it the density of ordinary matter and Sir J. J. Thom- 
 
 *Ency. Brit., Art. Ether. 
 
 tNature, 79, 459. 
 
 JPhys. Rev., X, pp. 4, 29, 30, 32. 
 
 Appendix III, to the Principles, Eng. Ed., 1905. 
 
 Pres. Add., B. A. A. S., 1895. 
 
260] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 451 
 
 son* and Sir Oliver Lodge f give it a density of millions of 
 times that of platinum! You will surely see now that the 
 assignment of materiality to the ether and to ethereal bonds 
 does NOT vitiate the whole argument of the new theory, but 
 rather that your assumption if non-materiality to that sub- 
 stance sadly affects your own. 
 
 It seems almost useless to follow you further. Whenever the 
 idea of material connexions is used, it is at once condemned 
 in advance. You go so far as to say that "even if the word 
 material is accepted and the assumption itself admitted to be 
 sound, yet nothing has really been added to our knowledge 
 until some way is suggested of dealing with these connexions 
 experimentally." But why don't you wait until facts corrob- 
 orative of the premises are presented? and, when they are 
 presented, why do you pass them by in silence, or merely 
 profess your unacquaintance with them? One experimental 
 corroboration offered is that, when an element is dissociated 
 out of a chemical compound, the amount of electricity it 
 yields is directly proportional to its valency (Art. 69). De- 
 tailed experiments have not been given as the space could 
 not be afforded and as it was thought the fact would be gen- 
 erally known and admitted The subject of electricity is a 
 grand one and of vast magnitude; and the writer once 
 dreamed that he might publish a volume as large as this con- 
 taining some new ideas on that subject alone; but time is 
 fleeting and life is short. However the evidence of this sin- 
 gle experiment clearly shows a connection between the atomic 
 bonds, or lines of chemical affinity, and the electric fluid. 
 Regarding the planetary bonds considerable important evi- 
 dence has been given to show that they are directly connected 
 with the rays of the solar corona, the movements of which 
 appear to correspond to those of the planets (Arts. 142-3) ; 
 and it is stated (Art. 143) that, not being an astronomer him- 
 self, the writer begged of a friend who is one of the principal 
 observers of eclipses, to determine if one of the main stream- 
 ers of the corona did not always point in the direction of 
 the planet Jupiter. Subsequent inquiry elicited nothing re- 
 
 *Nature, 81, 253. 
 
 tPres. Add., B. A. A. S., 1913. 
 
452 APPENDIX A [261 
 
 garding this matter; but it has been shown (Art. 143) that, 
 nine years later, another observer had confirmed this fact. 
 But these and many other equally 'important confirmations 
 of the truth of the premises you have passed without the 
 slightest notice 
 
 In response to your request regarding "the passages from 
 Newton and Faraday in which they speak of gravitation as 
 acting through a material agency," it may be stated that ref- 
 erence to the passages by these men themselves is not at 
 hand and that they were given only on the authority of Sir 
 William Thomson in an article on Capillary Attraction* 
 
 It may be added that Boscovich postulated an "electric 
 solid ether; "t that Des Cartes, imitating Archimedes, said 
 "Give me matter and I will give you the universe; "$ and 
 that Hertz supposed rigid connections between bodies acting 
 upon one another at a distance; which supposition is closely 
 related to the similar conception of Osborne Reynolds and 
 "Waterdale." 
 
 261. The assumption that the surface of a gaseous spher- 
 oid is more favorable for contraction and development, 
 through some process akin to cooling, than the central re- 
 gions, you deny on the ground that such a gaseous spheroid 
 would possess no surface at all, even though we actually see 
 many such bodies in the heavens and with well defined sur- 
 faces too. And you hold also that, owing to this alleged 
 want of surface, a rigid surface crust from such surface cool- 
 ing and development is a "mechanical impossibility." Pages 
 of such remarks and objections call for no further reply. 
 
 You say "So far as I can see the thing might have hap- 
 pened somewhat as outlined by the author, but there is no 
 evidence that it did;" and then you practically skip over 
 about 200 pages of just such evidence! 
 
 You state "Unfortunately he has thought it necessary to 
 attempt to deny certain mechanical relations among which 
 
 *Nature, 34, 271. 
 
 tW. W. R. Ball, Researches and Essays, pp. 357-378. 
 
 JProf. d'Arcy, Add., B. A. A. S., 1911. 
 
 Nature, 51, 283. 
 
263] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 453 
 
 are the quantitive facts of the gravitational theory;" but, 
 if you are correctly Understood here, no such thing has been 
 attempted at all. What has been attempted was to show 
 that the quantitive facts of gravitation, which are of course 
 indisputable, are absolutely incompatible with the present the- 
 ory of gravitation, and also that these facts are fully ac- 
 countable on the basis of a different theory. 
 
 262. You dispute the statement in Art. 96 that the electric 
 current is confined to the surface of the conductor, saying 
 "most certainly the current does not flow in the region sur- 
 rounding the wire, but in the wire itself," or "throughout the 
 cross-section of the conductor." A few quotations regarding 
 this subject may interest you. 
 
 "It is still to many a hard saying that in an 
 electric circuit the conducting wire, though it guides, 
 does not carry the energy; that the energy-paths lie out- 
 side in the surrounding medium, not inside within the 
 so-called conductor. That the guttapercha sheath and not 
 the copper wire within it, is the actual medium which con- 
 veys the impulse from one side of the Atlantic to the other 
 in cable telegraphy is still incredible to those brought up in 
 the older school of thought. But it is none the less a nec- 
 essary consequence of the views which the inescapable logic 
 of facts drove Maxwell and his followers to adopt."* 
 
 "It is probable . . that in the case of a steady current . . 
 the disturbance in the wire itself is not, as has hitherto been 
 assumed, the cause of the phenomena in the neighborhood; 
 but that, on the contrary, the disturbances in the neighbor- 
 hood of the wire are the cause of the phenomena inside 
 of it" . t 
 
 "The metal instantly assumes or loses .the appear- 
 ance of red heat the moment the current is turned on or off, 
 showing that, if the appearance is really due to a rise of tem- 
 perature, it does not penetrate much below the surface" . $ 
 
 It is also well known that the current is always most 
 dense along the sharp edge of a conductor. 
 
 263. You object to the connective theory because "it re- 
 
 *Prof. S. P. Thompson, El. lies. Elec. and Mag., Preface, p. IX. 
 fHertz, Electric Waves, p. 275. 
 
 JProf. "Wm. Crookes, Lecture Royal Society, London, July 11, 1891; 
 Lord Kelvin Address Royal Society, Nov. 30, 1893. 
 
454 APPENDIX A [264 
 
 quires a different explanation for gravitational attraction be- 
 tween bodies upon the surface of the earth and those lying 
 outside the connective atmosphere of the earth." Yet it has 
 been shown that this theory of attraction accounts very well 
 for all of the observed facts. In the Earth's connective at- 
 mosphere, for obvious reasons, attraction varies inversely as 
 the square of the distance. In the case' of the primary bond 
 of each planet, the attractive function is practically con- 
 stant; while the attractive strength of the primary bonds of 
 the planets collectively have been determined at their several 
 places of origin in the solar connective atmosphere, and there- 
 fore varies among themselves according to the inverse dis- 
 tance squares also. 
 
 You seem sufficiently impressed with the new theory to 
 suggest that such experiments as Airy's in the Harton mine 
 would afford a test of it and that many more such experi- 
 ments should be made. After diligent search for other simi- 
 lar experiments, even publishing an inquiry to that effect in 
 one of the leading scientific journals, no trace was found of 
 any. The probable reason is that, when people are firmly 
 convinced that the present theory is "impregnable" and 
 wholly beyond contravention, they cannot see any use of 
 making investigations which lead to results which tend to 
 stultify that theory and therefore can only be regarded as 
 inept and abortive themselves, as if necessarily vitiated by 
 some hidden error. 
 
 264. You say that "if this connection between the posi- 
 tion of Jupiter and sunspots can be established it would be a 
 scientific achievement of the very first rank and be worth a 
 man's lifetime of work. It is to be observed that this con- 
 nection, if it existed, would be a fact independent of any 
 hypothesis". The last sentence betrays how little you have 
 understood the new theory. One of the two main principles 
 of that theory is that the planets are connected together and 
 with their parent Sun by means of material bonds, in which 
 alone heat, light, and electric disturbances are transmitted 
 between them, and in which the action of interplanetary grav- 
 itation is located. Now at immense labor the quantitative 
 
264] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 455 
 
 variations of this assumed interplanetary bond-substance up- 
 on the Earth has been computed for each month of a period 
 of nearly a century; and it was found from this investigation 
 that the periods of variation of the theoretic bond-substance 
 upon the Earth almost exactly corresponded with the sun- 
 spot periods and with the movements and positions of the 
 planet, Jupiter, for all that time. And yet you say this 
 correspondence is independent of the hypothesis! It has 
 been clearly shown that the sun-spot periods depend almost 
 entirely on the positions with respect to the Sun of two great 
 interplanetary bonds, namely, that between Jupiter and the 
 Sun and that between the Sun and its own primary system, 
 which last is popularly called "the zodiacal light". It has 
 been further shown and proven by actual observation that the 
 current conception regarding the latter is erroneous and that 
 it really extends from the Sun in one direction, namely that 
 in which the Earth lies from that body about the first of 
 each calendar year. 
 
 Now the new theory assumes that, when Jupiter also lies 
 upon that side of the Sun, so that the two principal inter- 
 planetary bonds coincide on that side of the Sun, or, in other 
 words, when Jupiter is on the opposite side of the Sun from 
 the Earth (or in what is called in the new theory opposition 
 with the Earth) about the middle of the year, then (for obvi- 
 ous reasons which need not be repeated here) we should have 
 maximum sun-spots. And, when we consult the sun-spot rec- 
 ords, we find that about as far back as accurate records ex- 
 tend, the years of sunspot maxima are in fact the years in 
 which Jupiter is on the opposite side of the Sun from the 
 Earth about the middle of the year. The years of sun-spot 
 maximum and the corresponding dates of Jupiter's opposition 
 with the Earth for the past 85 years are as follows: 1907, 
 July 15; 1895, July 29; 1883, July 6; 1871, July 3; 1860, July 
 27; 1848, July 26; 1837, Aug. 19. It cannot be maintained for 
 a moment that these coincidences could have happened out 
 of mere chance. Yet this wonderful corroboration of the new 
 theory by the actual facts; this undeniable connection of sun- 
 spot phenomena with the movements of Jupiter, and the ev- 
 
456 APPENDIX A [265 
 
 ident interdependence and intimate causal relationship of 
 sun-spot phenomena with the theoretic interplanetary bonds 
 you pass them all by with merely superficial remarks or 
 off-hand denial. And this is only a single instance out of 
 dozens of similar corroborations of the connective theory 
 similarly treated. There appears to be no remedy but time; 
 but time will tell! 
 
 265. In reply to your intimation that the constancy assum- 
 ed for the density of the Earth's connective atmosphere seems 
 contradicted by the assumption of additions and subtractions 
 of connective substance therein due to quantitative variations 
 of interplanetary connective bonds, it may be repeated that 
 the material in the case of the latter variations would likely 
 take on a form amenable to gravity before its existence in 
 such quantity as to noticeably affect gravity itself. 
 
 To your further query why "the movements of the free 
 connective substance in our atmosphere are . . . literally 
 as quick as lightning" the answer is because that free con- 
 nective substance is supposed to be that which constitutes 
 lightning, a form of electric fluid itself. 
 
 "Why should not that part of the connective atmosphere 
 which has been called the free or reserve portion revolve 
 with the earth?" Because it is a part of the Earth's con- 
 nective atmosphere which is held nearly stationary by the 
 relatively fixed planetary connexions extending outwards 
 from the Earth. There would be, however, considerable move- 
 ments of it. 
 
 "Is such an assumption of an easy interchange between 
 connective matter and ordinary matter in good agreement 
 with the previous assumption that the two kinds reached 
 their present state of development through long processes of 
 evolution?" Yes, just as in chemical combination an ele- 
 ment set free from a compound is ready to unite under favor- 
 able circumstances with some other element to form a new 
 compound. Your criticism applies no more to connective sub- 
 stance than it would to radium. 
 
 "Is it true that the connective atmospheres of smaller 
 
266] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 457 
 
 bodies are observed . . ."? Yes, through the effects upon 
 them of light, electricity, etc. 
 
 It is rather surprising that you claim to have no knowledge 
 of aerial tides, which one would think should be familiar to 
 every student of physics. 
 
 "Is not the statement in the last part of the first paragraph 
 of this section (Art. 153), 'the tide-raising effect of the other 
 body would be shut out' . . . equivalent to assuming that 
 the land surface surrounding the body of water would cut off 
 the gravitational attraction of the sun or moon as the case 
 might be from the water?" No; it is not gravitational attrac- 
 tion that is shut out but the tide-raising effect which, accord- 
 ing to the accepted theory, does not operate on a land-locked 
 body of water that is 90 distant from the tide-producer. 
 
 Your remarks in the last paragraph of p. 66 has already 
 been replied to (Art. 257). Try a new theory yourself, and 
 probably you will learn something, especially if your theory 
 has real merit. If not, consult the teaching of history. 
 
 266. Your criticism of the comments in the work regard- 
 ing "immaterial substance" is too refined for the writer's 
 senses. He is no metaphysician. In physics, matter and sub- 
 stance are to him synonymous. Both are bodies, and he knows 
 of none such that are immaterial: he cannot even conceive 
 of one. There are various forms of isubstance solids, col- 
 loids, liquids, vapors, electricity, ether, and possibly others 
 still more refined; but they are all and equally forms of 
 matter. The odor, the aura, the most tenuous medium, the 
 most ethereal form of substance, whether amenable to grav- 
 ity, or many degrees removed from subjection to it each is 
 matter, or it is nothing. However it may be in theology or in 
 mathematics, there are no ghosts in cosmical physics, except 
 as products of the imagination or of disordered nerves. Lord 
 Kelvin ascribed to the ether a density of one sixty-billionth 
 of a grain per cubic meter, but this makes it material equally 
 with Sir Oliver Lodge's assignment to it of a density millions 
 of times that of lead. So that, when you say that the writer 
 also, in assuming a connective atmosphere and material inter- 
 planetary bonds, has "formed a conception of an immaterial 
 
458 APPENDIX A [269 
 
 substance", you have again misconceived his intention and 
 his work. 
 
 "What is meant by the 'electricfluid'?" It is conceived to 
 be a form of the free or reserve connective substance, a ten- 
 uous form of matter not amenable to gravity. Then you "pass 
 over without comment" one of the most valuable chapters of 
 the work, on terrestrial magnetism, containing the most splen- 
 did corroborations of the new theory because, according to 
 your notions, the connective matter of the new theory had 
 been dematerialized when it was called electricity (p71>, al- 
 though (p. 69) you charge it with being a "conception of an 
 immaterial substance"! 
 
 267. The authorities for ascending atmospheric electric 
 currents at the Equator are Prof. S. P. Thompson* and Prof.B. 
 Stewart, t M. S. Lemstrom in a work on auroras, reviewed 
 by A. M. Clerke,J and probably Dr. Bauer appear to be 
 other authorities. 
 
 268. "The author appears to assume that a magnet placed 
 near an electric current would tend to set itself parallel to 
 the direction of the current". It does so to the direction of 
 an atmospheric electric current, but not to the direction of 
 a current in a wire, or to the direction of the currents circulat- 
 ing around a line of force of a magnet, but rather to the lines 
 of force themselves. The atmospheric electric currents are 
 analogous to the lines of force of a magnet. 
 
 269. "So far as I am aware there is no reason to believe 
 that the electrical resistance of a solid is lessened by the 
 initial passage of a current". There is reason for such a be- 
 lief, however, especially in the case of loose particles or a 
 conglomerate mixture such as the Earth-crust, which is the 
 case under discussion. It does not seem unreasonable that, 
 in such a case, when a current picks out the path of least 
 resistance and overcomes that resistance, that the current 
 would be more liable to follow that path thereafter than a 
 new path of greater resistance; which is all that is claimed. 
 
 *E1. Les. Elec. and Mag., p. 145. 
 
 tEncy. Brit., Art. Ter. Mag.; also Nature, 33. pp. 618, 620-1. 
 
 JNature, 35, 473. 
 
 SBulletin No. 21, U. S. Weather Bureau, p. 77. 
 
271] REPLY TO DR. C's CRITICISM 459 
 
 "This" (Geological Climatic Changes) "is a matter con- 
 cerning which my opinion is of little value" another instance 
 of tossing aside some of the new theory's best corroborative 
 evidence, for the alleged lack of which severe criticism has 
 elsewhere been made. 
 
 270 . "I cannot help feeling that if the author were to con- 
 sider some of his conclusions in the light of more recent de- 
 velopments he would find much to modify". The author re- 
 spectfully begs to protest against the evident meaning and 
 application of this remark. He has endeavored to keep fully 
 posted on all the developments in all branches of physical 
 science by means of the published works and the leading sci- 
 entific journals for the past forty years; and anything that 
 had an important bearing on the subjects discussed has been 
 fully considered. Everything, however, does not call for dis- 
 cussion. The conception of Ostwald that energy exists inde_ 
 pendently of matter; the plea of Einstein for the identity of 
 matter and energy, equating one gram with V 2 ergs, where V 
 is the velocity of light; or Planck's more recent hypothesis of 
 the discrete or atomic structure of radiant energy; or the de- 
 pendence of mass upon speed, one of your own favorite doc- 
 trines which you say is now accepted by the whole scientific 
 world appears to appertain rather to the domains of meta- 
 physics than to those of physical science. When hard-headed 
 scientists adopt such intellectual frills, one can hardly blame 
 femininity for the sudden and crazy changes of fashion. No 
 one who denies the existence of matter as such has a right 
 to call himself a physcist. Indeed, with matter a nonentity 
 and force a nonentity, all or nonentities, and the cosmical 
 equation reduces to absolute zero. 
 
 "Now-a-days the student finds little to disturb him, per- 
 haps too little, in the idea that mass changes with velocity; 
 and he does not always realize the full meaning of the con- 
 sequences which are involved".* 
 
 271. You say it is an error to hold that circular motion 
 increases the absolute velocity, because the two forces are 
 at right angles to each other. According to the parallelogram 
 
 Prof. Arthur Schuster. Nature, 87, 336. 
 
460 APPENDIX A [272 
 
 of forces, however, the diagonal or actual path owing to the 
 two forces is always greater than either of the other sides 
 and is traversed in precisely the same time; and changing 
 the straight diagonal path to a curvilinear form would cer- 
 tainly not shorten it. 
 
 272. Aside from remarks of minor importance, this is the 
 extent of your criticism. All the rest of the evidence advanced 
 farther on the cosmical processes of the future, the neb- 
 ulae, the temporary and variable stars, the derivation of the 
 molecular and atomic velocities and distances through the 
 cosmic chain of causation appeal to you in vain; as, indeed, 
 through misconceptions of the general scheme of the work 
 and unacquaintance with the subjects treated, is also practi- 
 cally true of about all the evidence advanced in support of 
 the new theory. However it must be said that you have done 
 comparatively nobly, as certainly no one has done half as 
 well before. 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE PRESS NOTICES OF THE 
 FIRST EDITION OF THIS WORK. 
 
 "A NEW COSMOGONY 
 
 "The outlining of a new cosmogony is indeed a serious 
 matter, scientifically considered, which should be undertaken 
 in a serious manner, and which deserves more serious con- 
 sideration than is possible in the hurry and bustle of a news- 
 paper office. Of such nature is the new book by Evan Mc- 
 Lennan entitled 'Cosmical Evolution'. It is the outcome of 
 careful study and thought, and bears evidences on every page 
 of the sincerity of the author. He thinks that the theory of 
 gravitation is not likely to be so amended as to account for 
 the known phenomena of physics and astronomy. 
 
 "In place of an intangible 'attraction' Mr. McLennan sub- 
 stitutes 'real, material bonds' which connect every known 
 heavenly body with its neighbors, and 'every phenomenon of 
 the universe, without exception, is due solely to the action 
 of bodies upon one another through and by means of these 
 bonds which join them together'. The book is devoted to the 
 development of this 'theory' in its relations to physical phe- 
 nomena. The author shows extraordinary knowledge of the 
 facts of nature, into all departments of which he enters, and 
 displays much ingenuity in discussing the bearings of his 
 truths upon his hypothesis". Boston Daily Advertiser, Febru- 
 ary 28, 1893,. 
 
 "Four or five hundred years before the beginning of our 
 era was promulgated the Ptolemaic cosmogony, according to 
 which the earth is the center of the universe, and around it 
 revolve all other bodies, fixed in concentric spheres. In the 
 present state of our knowledge and theory it seems astonish- 
 ing to us that this theory was the accepted one for two thou- 
 sand years, and that it is only about four hundred years 
 one-fifth as long since Copernicus struck out the heliocentric 
 theory of our planetary system, and still later that Galileo 
 was ecclesiastically bulldozed into a scientific lie. It is well 
 nigh inconceivable now, but it is true that Corpernicus stood 
 so much in awe of the church that he feared to promulgate 
 his theory during his life, preferring to put the barrier of his 
 own grave between himself and the priests before doing so. 
 The men who revolutionized the theory in that day were exe- 
 crated then, but are glorified now. 
 
462 APPENDIX B 
 
 "The heliocentric theory may be regarded as pro tanto 
 a finality, and until lately the law of gravity has been re- 
 garded as equally final, and the nebular theory as little less 
 so. Of course, it is understood that tione ot this touches the 
 question of origin at all. Lately students of astronomy have 
 begun to find that many undeniable phenomena are not ex- 
 plicable by means of the theory of gravitation or the modified 
 nebular hypothesis of Laplace, and this has led to more or 
 less speculation as to some other explanation of things. 
 
 "The latest excursion in this direction is found in a volume 
 called 'Cosmical Evolution', presenting a new theory of the 
 mechanism of nature, by Evan McLennan, recently published. 
 The foundation of the new theory is the agreement of scient- 
 ists that a 'number of bonds or lines of affinity pertaining to 
 the ultimate elements thereof, bind together every chemical 
 compound',. By a brief course of reasoning the author reaches 
 the conclusion that there is no difference other than mag- 
 nitude and complexity between a molecule and a world, and 
 that there is no reason why worlds should not have bonds 
 'connecting them together in a cosmical molecule, just the 
 same as the ultimate chemical elements have in a chemical 
 molecule'. The essential principle of the new theory is that 
 it is not some inconceivable thing like force, as separate 
 from matter such as gravitation presupposes that holds 
 the universe in order, but that 'every known heavenly body 
 is connected with its neighboring heavenly bodies by means 
 of real, material bonds, and that every phenomenon in the 
 universe, without exception, is due solely to the action of 
 bodies upon one another through and by means of these 
 bonds which join them together'. These bonds the author 
 describes as 'connective atmosphere,' acting something after 
 the fashion of an elastic string between each body and the 
 primary around which it revplves through which are trans- 
 mitted the forms of energy known to us as light, heat, etc. 
 And this, one may note, disposes at a stroke of the colossal 
 waste involved in the old idea that the sun radiates heat 
 equally in all directions, in which case this earth would re- 
 ceive only about one-twenty-nine hundred millionth part of 
 the whole amount radiated. 
 
 "The new theory begins with assuming the existence of a 
 vast nebular spheroid for our system axially rotating with- 
 in nearly the present orbit of Neptune. The problem of the 
 origin of the matter is frankly accepted as insoluble, and 
 probably also the origin of its rotation. The action of 
 molecular affinities on the outer layers of the spheroid, with 
 loss of heat by radiation, and possibly other causes, developed 
 it is argued, a crust formation, which, owing to the centri- 
 fugal tendency developed by rotation, concentrated the in- 
 crustations along the line of greatest motion, the equator, 
 continuing to expand the crust while the core continued to 
 shrink, still maintaining the elastic connective atmosphere 
 
APPENDIX B 463 
 
 between the two, at last the crust or ring parted at its weak- 
 est point, and with a tremendous cataclysm collapsed and 
 rolled up into a planet, swinging around the diminished prim- 
 ary at a somewhat greater distance than when a ring. And 
 so the process goes on, the primary throwing off planet after 
 planet, the planets, satellites, each with connective bonds, 
 disintegrating and redisintegrating, until the whole solar sys- 
 tem is once more in the nebulous state where the theory 
 begins, ready to take up another vast cycle of cosmical evolu- 
 tion. This process is still going on, of course. The hitherto 
 inexplicable sun spots are the beginning of encrustation for 
 the benefit of a new planet. The equatorial radius of the 
 earth, already thirteen miles greater than the polar, is in- 
 creasing and must result in a future catastrophe which will 
 be the birth throes of another moon. The ages of incrusta- 
 tion of the sun, when the plant Mercury was yet a ring and 
 hid the sun's face, were the ice age on this earth, and by 
 consequence on each of the other planets, etc. 
 
 "This outlines, or hints, the theory. The author's plan 
 is peculiar. He points out that by the current nebular hypo- 
 thesis neither rotation, translation, contraction, subdivision, 
 nor development into solar or sidereal form is explained; 
 that some of the moon's motion, the distribution of the sun's 
 heat on the earth's surface, and at varying distances, the tides 
 of the ocean surface, are not only inexplicable by, but are 
 absolutely incompatible with, the current theory; that the 
 zodiacal light, the solar corona, the sun spots, and the con- 
 nection of these with our atmospheric pressure, precipitation 
 and electrical phenomena are also absolutely inexplicable 
 by the current theory, and then he proceeds to show how 
 they are all simply and completely soluble by his theory, in 
 support of which he brings them all successively, the ring 
 of Saturn, the comets, the meteorites, every one of the move- 
 ments of the magnetic needle, heretofore so mysterious, the 
 rocks, the coal measures, the glacial age, and, passing to the 
 sidereal heavens, the new, the variable, the periodical stars, 
 the various nebular forms all are marshalled by the author 
 in support of his theory, the result being, as he sums it up, 
 that 'while the force theory seems to be squarely confuted by 
 several very important phenomena, and is incompatible with, 
 or at least unrecognized by, many of the rest, every phenom- 
 enon of nature, without exception, appears to be consonant, 
 and of a piece with the new connective system here advanced/ 
 And yet he urges that the theory is only one in a long suc- 
 cession of steps toward the whole truth, nearer to truth than 
 those that have preceded it, but as likely to be superceded by 
 further advance, though, like all the earlier steps, absolutely 
 necessary, in its place, to any advance. 
 
 "But the work must be referred to the reader. Enough 
 has been said to show that, unless scientists dissenting from 
 it can refute its arguments or disprove its statements of fact, 
 
464 APPENDIX B 
 
 it must have a very profound effect on beliefs as to the mode 
 of evolution. ... It must be the task of scientists to 
 study it and decide if it has any scientific basis, but a lay- 
 man may be permitted to say that off its face it comes nearer 
 to satisfying a lay view of what is necessary in any theory 
 than any of the earlier hypotheses." Commercial Advertiser, 
 New York, January 14, 1893. 
 
 "The real basis of distinction between the old and new 
 theories lies in the special connections insisted on by Mr. 
 McLennan, and here he is probably on the right track. That 
 the sun and planets mutually act on each other is universally 
 admitted, and it is reasonable to suppose that the constant 
 passage of the active principle along particular paths would 
 so differentiate those parts of the medium, call it ether or 
 fluid, as to form special lines of connection. 
 ************ 
 
 "Mr. McLennan's criticisms are very ingenious and his 
 work, which is highly suggestive and original, deserves to be 
 read with attention as a very thoughtful contribution to a 
 very difficult and important subject and for the large amount 
 of information not readily accessible to the ordinary reader 
 it contains, apart from the author's special views". The Re- 
 ligio-Philosophical Journal, Chicago, April 1, 1893. 
 
 "Whether he is visionary or not the author is evidently a 
 thinker and an original. Mr. McLennan also has some advan- 
 tages over other evolutionists in the fact that he flies higher 
 into infinite space and is harder to follow". Chicago Inter- 
 Ocean, Jan. 7, 1893. 
 
 "Another book on astronomical theory lies before us. 
 'Cosmical Evolution' is a serious scientific study of the dis- 
 crepancies of the present generally apcepted 'gravitation' 
 theory of the universe. The author seems to our non-tech- 
 nical eyes to be thoroughly familiar with the ground over 
 which he is traveling. He concludes that the present con- 
 ceptions are erroneous and substitutes what he calls the 
 'connective theory', proceeding to show how the actual facts 
 of tidal movements, lunar and solar phenomena agree with 
 his theory. We cannot judge of the importance of his dis- 
 coveries, but he has had favorable notice from scientific men, 
 and his work has the non-personal tone of genuine investiga- 
 tion", Review of Reviews, February, 1893. 
 
 "Of Mr. McLennan's book, it may at least be said that 
 * * * he has certainly collated numerous facts of real 
 interest and of possible, it not probable, importance in the 
 relations to which he seeks to attach them". Science, Jan- 
 uary 13, 1893. 
 
APPENDIX B 465 
 
 "Those who have a taste for speculation on abstruse scien- 
 tific questions will be interested in Cosmical Evolution, by 
 Evan McLennan. It is a new theory of the physical universe, 
 which substitutes for gravitation a system of bonds connect- 
 ing the stars and planets as chemical atoms and molecules 
 are assumed to be connected,. The author's handling of the 
 subject gives evidence of much ability". The Popular Science 
 Monthly, April, 1891. 
 
 "The author states that the essential principle of the new 
 theory is 'that every known heavenly body is connected with 
 its neighboring heavenly bodies by means of real, material 
 bonds and that every phenomenon of the universe, without 
 exception, is due solely to the action of bodies upon one an- 
 other, through and by means of these bonds which join them 
 together' (p. 48). 
 
 "Among the principal evidences in favor of the existence 
 of this material planetary connection is that 'we actually see 
 them with the naked eye' in the zodiacal light and in the 
 streamers of the solar corona. 
 
 "The theory is of a very general nature and includes not 
 only cosmical but terrestrial phenomena, such as aerial and 
 aqueous tides, terrestrial electricity and magnetism. The 
 author is of the opinion that 'the greater tidal wave is due 
 to the sun and the lesser to the moon. (p. 291)' 
 
 "The conditions of prelunar and other races of mankind 
 are discussed (p. 360). The work consists of 399 pages. There 
 is no index". Nature xliv, 342. 
 
 "The author of this work is not a crank, nor a hobby horse 
 rider. He has a theory, it is true, and he fearlessly expounds 
 it, no matter what or whom it opposes. He follows the sub- 
 lime words of Spencer, which he adopts as a motto for his 
 volume 'To the true reformer no institution is sacred, no 
 belief above criticism. Everything shall conform itself to 
 equity and reason; nothing shall be saved by its prestige'. 
 It is not the concern of Mr. McLennan what has been taught 
 heretofore, or who has taught it, but rather what is true, 
 what are the facts! He places facts above authority, truth 
 above authors, and he has advanced his theory in a way to 
 command the attention and respect of the thinking portion 
 of his race. 
 
 "There is much in this book which the average man would 
 be interested in as well as the student and scientist. It is 
 written with a high purpose and is in sympathy with all pro- 
 gressive thought". Boston Investigator, December 17, 1890. 
 
 "Evan McLennan, Dear Sir: I am so sensitive and half 
 crazy on all astronomical questions that on the publication of 
 your volume I put all other books aside that I might read 
 your arguments and conjectures. Your book is one more val- 
 
466 APPENDIX B 
 
 uable study, at least, and is more valuable than many of its 
 predecessors, because it springs up in an age of more thought. 
 "Your theory that the solar system is all under the influ- 
 ence of some strings or cords along which pass power and 
 light and heat, cannot well be refuted. Your chapter on the 
 'cooling' process which begets 'heat' is very fine, only equaled 
 by the discussion of the tides, in which it is shown that one 
 moon horse ought not to lift the sea very high when twelve 
 million earth horses are pulling the other way, 
 
 "You may well feel a degree of pride in the work, because 
 it tells the public how much it has been deluded by many of 
 the star-gazers of the past. I do not write as an astronomer, 
 but only as one who is thankful for each new and deep in- 
 vestigation. And you have certainly performed wen a part 
 of the great task which rests upon the students of the sky. 
 
 Your friend, 
 
 DAVID SWING, 
 October 28, 1890. 66 Lake Shore Drive". 
 
INDEX 
 
 N. B. The references are to the articles, not to the pages. 
 
 The inclosed letters, (a), (b), (c), etc., denote article sub-divisions. 
 
 The letters b, m, e, denote the beginning, middle, or end, respectively, 
 of an article, or an article sub-division. 
 
 The expression 142-150 means these articles as well as all articles 
 between them; and the expression 153,-6,-8 means articles 153, 156, 158. 
 
 The letter q denotes a quotation under chapter heading preceding the 
 given article. 
 
 Article numbers are given on upper inner corners of pages. 
 
 Abbe, Prof. Cleveland, relation of rainfall and sunspots, 121e, 
 123e; relations of atmospheric pressure and sunspots, 122b; 
 height of aurora, 160m; seasonal variations of terrestrial 
 magnetism, 162e; connection of earth-current changes and 
 changes of magnetic elements, 165m. 
 
 Abbot, C. C., coincidence of maximum deviation of the verti- 
 cal and severe earthquakes, 174e. 
 
 Abercrombie, Ralph, sky-glows from eruption of Krakatao, 
 149b. 
 
 Aberration of light, explanation of (Glazebrook), 107. 
 
 Acceleration of velocity by circular motion, 201, 271; mutual 
 planetary accelerations and retardations, 83. 
 
 Actio in distans, see under Gravitation. 
 
 Adams, W. S., highest radial velocity of the stars, 23e. 
 
 Airy, Sir G. B., gravitational experiments in Harton Colliery, 
 21, 209, 225, 247, 263. 
 
 Albedo, definition of, 104b; of Jupiter's satellites, 104. 
 
 Alcyonium as a tide choronometer, 49e. 
 
 Algol, 192b. 
 
 Almagest, or Ptolemaic System, 7. 
 
 Alpha Centauri, distance of, 60 (a) m. 
 
 Amateur, definition of, 203q; unsound views (Tesla), 27q. 
 
 Anaximander, periodic alternation of birth and death of 
 worlds, 195q. 
 
 Angot. M. A., resolution of diurnal barometric range, 48e, 
 147m. 
 
 Apex, solar, 138m. 
 
 Apsides, line of, period of revolution, 35b, 134b. 
 
 Arago, Dominic Francois, diurnal magnetic variation, 161b. 
 
 Archibald, E. Douglas, east to west upper aerial currents, 149b 
 
 Argyle, Duke of, "superstitious dependence on the authority 
 of great men", 13e. 
 
468 INDEX 
 
 Aristotle, geocentric theory, 6e. 
 
 Armstrong, Prof. H. E., relation of storm frequency to lati- 
 tude, 130e. 
 
 Asteroids, should have been next to Jupiter in mass, lllb; 
 origin of, 112. 
 
 Astronomers, Prof. Chandler's opinion of, 203e. 
 
 Astronomy, earliest conceptions of, 2-5; still in its infancy, 12. 
 
 Atmosphere, absorption of solar heat by, 52m; extension of 
 146; constitution of variable, 123e; constituents above 100 
 km. 146q; upper currents of from east to west, 149; atmos- 
 phere of ether on all bodies, 96; pressure of, related to var- 
 iations of planetary bond substance, 122e; pressure of, re- 
 lated to atmospheric electricity, 123; aerial tides in, 147. 
 
 Atmospheric electricity, diurnal maxima, 161e; connected 
 with planetary bond-substance, 123; currents of, ascend at 
 Equator (Thompson, Stewart), 157e, 267. 
 
 Atoms, infinite in number and form (Democritus), 70b; have 
 circular motions (Seguin), 70b; "the world of atoms is 
 regarded as like the universe of heavenly bodies" (Mende- 
 leef), 70e; complexity of the atom, 70e; ultimate velocities 
 and radii of, 196; constituents of an atom (Becquerel), 
 200e; every atom a standing miracle (Addison), 195q; na- 
 ture of the ultimate sub-divisions of matter, 195; size of 
 atoms in a drop of water (Thomson), 196b. 
 
 Attraction, see Gravitation. 
 
 Aurora, nature of, 123; height of, 160; relation of, to clouds, 
 123. 
 
 Axial rotation, planetary uniformity of direction of, explained, 
 80(b), (d)e. 
 
 B 
 
 Babinet, M., Earth's orbital period in solar spheroid, 65b. 
 
 Bacon, Lord Francis, bias of the human intellect, 150q. 
 
 Ball, Sir R. S., statement of the law of gravitation, 16b; grav- 
 ity illustrated by means of a rigid rod, 18, 232, 244; "neb- 
 ular theory ... is emphatically a speculation", 55q; 
 no difficulty in conceiving nebular rotation, 61e; origin 
 of comets, 108q. 
 
 Barometric variations, 48e, 147; clock-like regularity of, for 
 all places and conditions, 48m; cause of, 147e; only one 
 diurnal maximum in the polar regions, 147m; seasonal var- 
 iation, 148b; greater by one-tenth at perihelion than at 
 aphelion, scarcely perceptibly greater at perigee than at 
 apogee, 153e; barometric pressure and sunspots, 122. 
 
 Bauer, Dr. L. A., no explanation of terrestrial magnetism, 155q, 
 
 Beattie, Dr., magnificence of Nature, Preface q. 
 
 Becquerel, Jean, on the constitution of matter, 200e. 
 
 Bernouilli, John, explaining the obscure by the more obscure, 
 67m. 
 
 Berzelius, test of a theory, 63q. 
 
INDEX 469 
 
 Bessel, Friedrich W., mass of Saturn's ring, 108m. 
 
 Bias, see Preconception. 
 
 Blanford, Henry, connection of rainfall and sunspots, 121m. 
 
 Boscovich, "electric solid ether", 260e. 
 
 Bourieres, F., magnification of Brownian movement, 196e. 
 
 Brown, J. A., solar rotation period of magnetic disturbances, 
 165e. 
 
 Brownian Movement, components of, 196e. 
 
 Bruno, Giordano, matter not a mere capacity but a universal 
 mother, 67q. 
 
 Buchan, A., diurnal oscillation of barometer alike over sea 
 and land, 146q. 
 
 Buchner, Friedrich K. C. L., cause of tangential planetary mo- 
 tion unknown to Newton and Laplace, 63q; meteorites con 
 taining organic matter, 110m; gradual progression in Na= 
 ture from the imperfect to the perfect, 170q. 
 
 Burrard, Sir Sidney, defection of theory of gravitation in th 
 Himalaya, 247e. 
 
 Campbell, Prof. W. W., opposed to Profs. Lowell and Very re 
 
 garding temperature of Mars, 53e; rotation period of Sa 
 
 turn's ring, 108b. 
 
 Carlyle, Thos., the old empire of routine ended, 393q. 
 Carpenter, Edward, belief in gravitation presents gravest 
 
 difficulties, 37q. 
 Carr, Judge N. T., one evidence against a theory of more 
 
 weight than many evidences in its favor, 43q. 
 Causation, cosmic chain of, 195q, 196-7-; periodic alternation 
 
 of the birth and death of worlds (Anaximander, Heraclitus 
 
 Empedocles, Carus, Haeckel), 195q. 
 Centrifugal force of Earth in its orbit, 26, 211, 218, 249e; oi 
 
 Moon, 26b. 
 
 Challenger expedition, magnetic results of, 157e, 
 Challis, Prof. James, actio in distans incomprehensible, 67b. 
 Chalmers, Dr. Thos., destruction of Earth comparable to thai 
 
 of a leaf, 170q. 
 
 Chambers, Frederick, barometric pressure and sunspots, 122. 
 Chandler, Prof. Seth C., variation of terrestrial latitudes, 174e; 
 
 opinion of astronomers, 203e. 
 Chauveau, M. A.-B., thirty theories of terrestrial magnetism 
 
 155q. 
 
 Childhood of the intellect, 2-5. 
 Chree, Dr. C., aerial constitution above 100 km., 146q; solar 
 
 rotation period of terrestrial magnetism, 165m. 
 Chrystal, Prof. George, dielectric strength of air near a con 
 
 ductor, 96e. 
 Clifford, Prof. W. K., meteoritic theory of the universe, 55m; 
 
 planets move as if fastened to the Sun by an elastic strong, 
 
 91e. 
 Climatic changes in geological time, cannot be due to changes 
 
470 INDEX 
 
 on Earth's surface (Neumayr), 166q; age of ice, 167; crit- 
 icism of Croll's theory (Dawson, Lockyer), 167e; causes 
 of (Croll), 167,-8; subdivisions of ice age, 169. 
 
 Cloud-zones, 148. 
 
 Comets, origin of, 80 (f), 108q, 109, 113; unexplained wonders 
 of, 108q; direction of tails, 109m; origin of tails (Huggins), 
 109m; effect of passage of Earth through tail of Halley's 
 comet, 109e; comet of 1680 almost grazed Sun, 50m; spec- 
 tra of tails similar to that of corona, zodiacal light, and 
 aurora (Euler, Angstrom, Struve, Proctor), 109e. 
 
 Comstock, Prof. Geo. C., variation of latitudes, 174m. 
 
 Conjunction and opposition, new definition of, 117b. 
 
 Connective substance, relation of to lightning, 265b. 
 
 Connective Theory, essentials of, 72; premises, 72,-3, 259; sur- 
 face rigidity from cooling of spheroid, 75; ring formation 
 and separation, 76,-7; planetary birth, 77, 80m; planetary 
 bond, 77e, 79 (d), 176; secondary bond, 82; relative value 
 of secondary and primary bonds, 126e, 127; 
 results from a planetary birth: loss of development, 
 80 (a); uniform direction of planetary rotation, 80 (b); 
 recession of planet, 80 (c ); different absolute velocities 
 of planet and parent surface, 80 (d); increased axial 
 rotation of parent, 80 (e); origin of comets and meteor- 
 ites, 80 (f), 108q. 
 
 origin of secondary bonds, 82; cosmical gravitation, 91, 
 -2,-3; gravity explained by continuous action of matter 
 (Newton, Faraday), 91m; or by that of an elastic string 
 (Clifford), 21e; or by the thrust of an incompressible ether 
 (Lodge), 91e; effect of heat on gravitation (Hicks, Crookes) 
 92(b)m; action of secondary planetary bonds, 94; terres- 
 trial gravitation, 92 (b), 97, 177, 244e; classification of 
 planetary bonds, 114; relations of quantitative variations 
 of planetary bonds to terrestrial weather, 115-135; factors 
 of the planetary bond variations, 115,-6; monthly variations 
 of these factors, 117; monthly and yearly variations of 
 these factors for the period 1840-1923, 118, -9; connection of 
 the yearly variations with the sun-spot periods, 120; do. 
 with the periods of atmospheric precipitation, 121; do. with 
 the periods of atmospheric pressure, 122; do. with the per- 
 iods of atmospheric electricity, 123 ; the solar factor of the 
 connexion variation, 126 ; the lunar factor of the connexion 
 variation, 127; the sidereal factor of the connexion varia- 
 tion, 128; present crust-development on the Sun, 170,-l,-2; 
 present crust-development on the Earth, 173; variations of 
 terrestrial latitudes, 174; ring-projection of the Earth- 
 crust, 175; primary connexion of the Earth-crust, 176; 
 gravitation upon the expanded Earth-crust, 177; disruption 
 of the Earth-ring, 180; limit of planetary subdivision, 182; 
 expansion of revolving systems, 184; interference of re- 
 volving systems, 185 ; ultimate subdivisions of matter, 195 ; 
 cosmic chain of causation, 196; molecular and planetary 
 
INDEX 471 
 
 dimensions giving velocity of light, 196m; ultimate atomic 
 
 velocities and radii, 196m; results of a grand round of 
 
 cosmical evolution, 199. See also New Theory. 
 Conservation of energy, 19, 207, 214, 223, 233, 245e. 
 Constitution of matter, 200; living matter differs from other 
 
 matter in degree, not in kind (Huxley), 200b. 
 Copernican System, 8. 
 
 Cornish, Vaughan, Severn Bore, 153e. , 
 
 Corona, solar, at minimum and maximum sunspots (Lockyer), 
 
 136q; connection of coronal streamers and sunspots (Lock- 
 
 yer), 137e; great length of coronal streamers, 142me; cor- 
 
 onae of other bodies, 142e; real direction of coronal rays, 
 
 143. 
 Creak, E. W., various theories of terrestrial magnetism, 155q; 
 
 intensity of magnetic elements greater over land than 
 
 over water, 164 (c). 
 Croll, James, "a thing cannot act where it is not" any more 
 
 than "when it is not", 67e; causes of geological climatic 
 
 changes, 167e. 
 Crookes, Prof. W., perfunctory knowledge, Preface q; pressure 
 
 of sunlight must alter our ordinary ideas of gravitation, 
 
 25e, 67e; primordial stages of systemic evolution, 74e; 
 
 effect of heat on gravity, 92(b)e; diamonds in meteorites, 
 
 HOe. 
 Curtis, R. H., diurnal barometric variations, 48e, 147b. 
 
 D 
 
 D'Abbadie, M., displacement of the vertical, 174b. 
 
 Dark Stars, 139. 
 
 D'Arcy, Prof., quotation from Des Cartes, 260e. 
 
 Darwin, Sir G. H., low water directly under Moon in open 
 sea, 45b; retirement of Moon from Earth by a tidal swell, 
 65m; Earth-tremors, 173m; displacements of the vertical, 
 174b. 
 
 Dastre, Prof. A., organic matter in meteorites, HOe. 
 
 Dawson, Sir J. W., on causes of geological climatic changes, 
 167m. 
 
 De Bort, M. L. Tiesserance, cloud zones, 148b. 
 
 Dechevrens, P. Marc, description of zodiacal light, 137m. 
 
 Democritus, universe constituted of atoms of infinite number 
 and forms, 70b. 
 
 Denning, W. F., hard to distinguish real from imaginary fea- 
 tures on Saturn, 108q, 
 
 Density of the solar spheroid, 60 (a); of the ether, 116e, 200e, 
 260,-6; of planetary bonds, 115m, 126b, 141e. 
 
 Denza, P. F., diurnal magnetic variations, 162e. 
 
 Des Cartes, the vortical theory, 9; necessary to doubt in order 
 to arrive at truth, 16q; lay aside all prejudice, 43q; "give 
 me matter and I will give you the universe", 260e. 
 
 Deslandres, M. H., on Doppler's principle, 108m. 
 
472 INDEX 
 
 Detroit Free Press, reluctance to reject accepted views though 
 wrong, 203m. 
 
 Diamonds in meteorites, llOb. 
 
 Diffraction of light caused by ether atmospheres, 96e. 
 
 Discrepancies of planetary masses and motions, 111. 
 
 Dolbear, Prof. E. A., matter and motion the two realities, 67q; 
 actio in distans has no degree of rationality, 67m. 
 
 Doolittle, Prof. C. L., variation of latitudes, 174m. 
 
 Doppler's Principle, as applied to determine the period of the 
 Saturnian ring, 108m; as applied to determine the Sun's 
 rotation-period, 108m; accuracy necessary for measure- 
 ment by (Michelson), 108m. 
 
 Dufour, Prof. H., diurnal electrical maxima, 161e. 
 
 Du Prel, simplest theory best, 91q. 
 
 E 
 
 Earth, temperature of its interior, 46b, 78 (a) m, 112m; fraction 
 of Sun's heat intercepted by it, 50b; no variation of solar 
 heat at various distances from Sun, 51; effect of air- 
 blanket on surface temperature (Langley), 52m; temper- 
 ature of surface, 50,-l,-2; temperature difference corres- 
 ponding to Sun's distance-variation (Herschel), 51b, 256b; 
 comparative solar heat on Pole and Equator, 52b; physical 
 state of its center, 78 (a) m; relative density of Earth-Sun 
 and Earth-Jupiter bonds, 126e; do, of Earth-Sun and Earth- 
 Moon bonds, 127; age of, 24, 227, 236; form of (Young), 
 174m. 
 
 Earth-crust continually expanding equatorially, 173; ring-pro- 
 jection of, 175,-8. 
 
 Earth-light on Moon much less than present theory requires, 
 105. 
 
 Earthquakes, more severe at maximum deviation of the verti- 
 cal, 174e. 
 
 Earth tremors (Darwin), 173me, 174b. 
 
 Eddington, A. E., arrangement of Sidereal System, 90e. 
 
 Einstein, identity of matter and energy, 90b, 270m. 
 
 Electricity, relation of to ether atmospheres, 96e; propor- 
 tional to valency in electrolysis, 69, 260m; currents flow 
 outside of conductor, 262; is a form of matter, 266e. 
 
 Electrons, orbital motions of, the source of spectral lines, 
 200m; shot out of atoms with the speed of light, 196m. 
 
 Elements, new, 200e; transmutation of, 200e. 
 
 Energy, identical with matter (Einstein), 270m; measured by 
 weight or mass which? 26, 198, 211, 218, 229, 238, 249. 
 
 Epidemic Diseases, aerial transmission of, 149e. 
 
 Errors, "All our views have been developed from errors" 
 (Liebig), Iq; childhood of the intellect, 2-5; present con- 
 ceptions descended from erroneous predecessors, Titlepage 
 q, 12; organic solar "willow leaves" (Herschel), 5; recent 
 changes in physical theories (Soddy), 14; tendency of 
 
INDEX 473 
 
 mind to rest on assumptions (Faraday), 16q; Sun can at- 
 tract Jupiter without intervening medium if so ordered 
 (Kelvin), 37q; resistance increases a comet's speed 
 (Young), 41; "Can gray hairs make folly venerable?" 
 (Junius), 37q; comparative solar heat on Pole and Equator, 
 52 ; theoretical conceptions of science largely factitious and 
 little better than a mirage (Larmor), 56q; "the more heat 
 a body loses, the hotter it will become" (Newcomb), 64; 
 no absurdity so great that it cannot be planted, in the 
 human mind (Schopenhauer), 98q; comet's tails never 
 point to Sun (Lodge;, 109m; extension of the zodiacal light 
 in more than one direction from Sun, 137; universal prev- 
 alence of every atom (Lodge), 146q; immaterial substance 
 (Huxley), 155; most cherished tenets of last generation of 
 men of science now abandoned (Ogg), 203q; reluctance to 
 reject accepted wrong views, 203m; force does no work, 
 233, 245m. 
 
 Eta Argus, 190q. 
 
 Ether, density of, 200e, 260,-6; ether atmospheres, 96, explains 
 sonorous sand, contact electricity, diffraction, etc., 96e; 
 resistance to motion in, 201b. 
 
 Euler, Leonard, "Do not see how two bodies at a distance 
 can act upon each other if there be nothing between 
 them", 67e; great affinity between comet's tails, zodiacal 
 light, and aurora borealis, 109e. 
 
 Explosion, nature of, 200e. 
 
 Falling bodies, velocity of towards Earth's center, 22b; law 
 of as applied to lunar perturbations, 28-31. 
 
 Faraday, Michael, actio in distans ignores entirely the prin- 
 ciple of the conservation of force, 67e; tendency of the 
 mind to rest on assumptions, 16q; all liable to error, 50q; 
 gravity explained by continuous action of matter, 91m. 
 
 Faye, M., criticism of nebular hypothesis, 65b; connection of 
 magnetic variations and sunspots, 165b. 
 
 Fiords are polar crust fractures (Gregory), 7Gb. 
 
 Fisher, Rev. O., terrestrial origin of Moon, 78(b)b. 
 
 Flammarion, Camille, v arm temperature of Mars, f.3b; me- 
 teorites containing organic matter from other worlds, llOb. 
 
 Flogel, M., height of aurorae, 160b. 
 
 Flood legend, a scientific basis for, 134,141. 
 
 Flower, Prof. W. H., on scientific prejudice, Iq, 5e. 
 
 Folie, M,., criticism of Sir William Thomson's theory of Earth 
 centrally solid, 78 (a) m. 
 
 Force, what is it? 67; has no objective reality (Tait), 67b; 
 "explains the unknown in terms of the more unknown" 
 (Tyndall), 67b; bodies cannot act where they are not 
 (Newton), 67b; "One of the most obscure problems in 
 physics" (Tait), 67b; does not admit of explanation 
 (Challis), 67b; "Explaining phenomena by chimerical 
 
474 INDEX 
 
 principles more obscure than those presented for inves- 
 tigation" (Bernouilli), 67m; "A fundamental fact" (Kel- 
 vin), 67m; Newton, however, returned to the idea that 
 bodies do act where they are Hot (Taylor), 67m; grav^- 
 itation is a force, an actio in distans, instantaneously om- 
 nipresent, infinitum (Taylor), 67m; actio in distans has 
 no degree of rationality (Dolbear), 67e; "A thing cannot 
 act where it is not" any more than it can act "before 
 it is,, or when it is not" (Croll), 67e; "Two bodies separ- 
 ated by an absolute void cannot act on each other" (De 
 Boisbadron, Guthrie), 67e; actio in distans ignores entirely 
 the principle of the conservation of force (Faraday), 67e; 
 "Do not see how two bodies can act upon each other if 
 there is nothing between them" (Euler), 67e; "Molecules 
 of bodies and bodies themselves are not really self-at- 
 tractive" (Seguin), 67e; does no work, 233, 245m; force 
 and energy, 245m. 
 
 Forces, parallelogram of, 39, 201. 
 
 Friction of the ether, 201b. 
 
 Fritz, H., relation between auroras and clouds, 123. 
 
 G 
 
 Galileo's discoveries, 8e. 
 
 Garnett, William, theory must be consistent with natural 
 phenomena, 91q. 
 
 Geikie, Archibald, evidences of interglacial periods, 169b. 
 
 Geikie, Prof. James, various opinions regarding interglacial 
 periods, 169e. 
 
 Gibson, Dr. Geo. A., mathematics less important than insight 
 into physical facts, 38e. 
 
 Gilvert, Prof. C. K., Moon was once an Earth-ring, 78(b)m. 
 
 Glaciation, evidence of interglacial periods (Geikie), 169b; 
 various opinions regarding interglacial periods (Geikie), 
 169e. 
 
 Glazebrook, R. T., aberration of light, 107b. 
 
 Goethe, criticism of the theory of gravitation, 68e. 
 
 Gossamer, possibly a form of precipitation, 144m. 
 
 Gravitation, present theory of, 10; law of, differently stated, 
 16, 222, 231, 242; law of, not correct (Poincare), 16q; law 
 of, self-contradictory, 17-8; most accurate law known to 
 science (Turner), 20b; violates law of conservation of en- 
 ergy (Laing), 19e; explains every movement of the Solar 
 System (Laing), 25b; "remains the largest, clearest, sure- 
 est yet attained by man" (Taylor), 67m; attraction of a 
 sphere or spherical shell at its center, 20, 208, 215,-6, 224, 
 234, 246; of Earth-Moon rigid rod system (Ball), 18, 206, 
 213, 232, 244; greater under than on the Earth's surface, 
 
 21, 209, 225, 247, 263e; in a hole through Earth's center, 
 
 22, 210, 217, 226, 235, 248: does not account for the "run- 
 a-way stars," 23; gravitational solar heat inconsistent 
 
INDEX 475 
 
 with geological evidence, 24, 227, 236; truth of Newtonian 
 theory beyond reach of cavil (Proctor), 25b; every minute 
 perturbation of the Solar System strictly accounted for 
 by gravitation (Herschel), 25bm; enormous pressure of 
 sunlight inconsistent with such accuracy (Crookes), 25e; 
 Moon's motion not explained by gravitation (Stone), 27b; 
 problem of three bodies not solved by it, 27-36; problem 
 of two bodies likewise, 37-42; perturbing forces on Moon 
 never precisely computed (Hill), 36b; belief in theory of 
 gravitation presents grave difficulties (Carpenter), 37q; 
 theory of, depends on Kepler's second law, 37, 251; law of 
 equal areas in equal times baseless, 37-42; incompatible 
 with tidal phenomena, see Tides; also with amount and 
 distribution of solar heat, 24, 50; "obvious facts which the 
 law of gravtiation fails to explain" (Schuster), 56q; actio 
 in distans absurd (Newton), 67b; do. irrational (Dolbear, 
 Guthrie, Tait, Challis, Euler), 67be; "a fundamental fact 
 behind which it is impossible to get" (Kelvin), 67m; "this 
 universally disseminated delirium of lunatics" (Goethe), 
 68m; gravitation "is really an actio in distans 
 infinitum . . . omnipresent" (Taylor), 67m; "A body 
 really moves only because it is pushed by something from 
 behind" (Lodge), 67m; single body has no attraction, 243; 
 measured in feet per second, 250e; acts through material 
 agency, 250e; "a body cannot act where it is not" (Croll), 
 67e; defection of theory of gravtiation in the Himalaya, 
 247e. 
 
 Gravitation, new theory, see Connective Theory. 
 
 Gravitational strain of a revolving planet, 26, 198, 211,-8, 238, 
 249e. 
 
 Gravity and force, 67. 
 
 Gregory, Prof. J. W., fiords are crust-fractures, 76e. 
 
 Grye, M. Bouquet de la, amount of lunar aerial tide, 48e. 
 
 Gyroscopic structure of matter, 200 . 
 
 H 
 
 Haeckel, Prof. Ernst, intellectual weakening of Newton in 
 his later years, 67e; periodic alternation of birth and 
 growth of worlds, 195q. 
 
 Hale, Prof. G. E., definition of amateur, 203q. 
 
 Hall, Prof. Asaph, mass of Saturn's ring, 108m; divisions of 
 Saturn's ring doubtful, 108e. 
 
 Halley, Edmund, explanation of terrestrial magnetism, 155q. 
 
 Halley's comet, effect of Earth's passage through, 109e, 137m. 
 
 Hann, Dr. Julius, regularity of aerial tide at various eleva- 
 tions and in all states of weather, 48m. 
 
 Hardness and rigidity explained by swiftness of constituent 
 motions, 200m. 
 
 Harton Colliery, Airy's gravitational experiment in, 21, 209, 
 225, 247, 263e. 
 
476 INDEX 
 
 Harvey, Prof. Arthur, solar rotation period of magnetic var- 
 iations, 165e. 
 
 Heat, generated by contraction, 24, 64; Newton's law of heat- 
 radiation, 50bm; Stefan's law, 50e; heat increases by cool- 
 ing (Newcomb), 64; heat of original solar spheroid, 73e; 
 heat affecting gravity (Hicks, Crookes), 92(b)me; radi- 
 ation possibly not equal in all directions (Young, Laing), 
 98q; heat and temperature different (Langley), 99b; heat 
 passing through space not necessarily heat (Tait), 99b. 
 
 Heat, connective theory of ,98-100; does not take place equal- 
 ly in all directions (Laing), 98q; distribution of solar 
 heat on planet, 99e; nature of heat conduction, 200b. 
 
 Hecker, Prof., deviation of vertical greater N S than E W, 
 174m. 
 
 Heliocentric theory, conceived by Pythagoras, 6, 8; later by 
 Copernicus, 8. 
 
 Heraud, M., period of Mediterranean Sea tides 24 hours, 48m. 
 
 Herschel, Sir John, "Willow-leaves" as organisms, 5; every 
 planetary perturbation accounted for by gravitation, 25b; 
 proof of law of equal areas, 37m; great regularity of bar- 
 ometric variations, 48m; no complete theory of all light- 
 phenomena, 98q; greatest linear extension of the heavens, 
 128b; union of lunar and solar tidal waves, 152m; consti- 
 tution of the Nubeculae, 188m; variable and new nebulae, 
 189b; unfetter the mind from prejudice, 230q. 
 
 Herschel, Sir William, Saturn's ring solid, 108m. 
 
 Hicks, Prof. W. M., heat affecting gravity, 92(b)e. 
 
 Hickson, S. J., alcyonium as a tide chronometer, 49e. 
 
 Hill, G. W., perturbing force on Moon never precisely com- 
 puted, 36b. 
 
 Hildebrandsson, M., height of aurora, 160m. 
 
 Himalaya, defection of theory of gravitation in, 247e. 
 
 Hinrichs, G., origin of minor planets, 112b. 
 
 Hobson, Prof. E. W., mathematical demonstrations affected 
 with errors, 38e. 
 
 Holden, Prof. E. S., origin of meteorites, llOe; changes of 
 nebular forms, 189. 
 
 Hoist, Dr. O., tides of under-ground water, 49e; one period 
 of glaciation, 169e. 
 
 Horizontal enlargement of visual objects, 102. 
 
 Huggins, Sir W., origin of comet's tails, 109m; solar corona 
 not a gas, 142m; spectrum of temporary stars, 190b. 
 
 Hull, Prof. G. T., pressure of sunlight, 25m. 
 
 Humboldt, regularity of barometric variations for all places 
 and conditions, 48m. 
 
 Huxley, Prof,, liberality obligatory on men of science, 16q; 
 "Mathematics is like a mill," 38m; untrue doctrine sus^ 
 ceptible of a true interpretation, 50q; one fact clearly 
 against a theory condemns it, 55q; temptation to regard 
 accepted views as exhaustive, 150q; object of inquiry not 
 to annihilate the unknown, but to remove its boundaries 
 
INDEX 477 
 
 a little farther from our sphere of action, 187q; truth 
 eternal, 190q; living matter differs from other matter in 
 degree, not in kind, 200b. 
 Hydrogen, number by lines in spectrum of, 70e. 
 
 I 
 
 Immaterial substance, 8m, 155, 260,-6. 
 Innes, R. T. A., the ethical basis of science, 204q. 
 Inertia, as related to weight and mass, 26, 198, 211, 218, 229, 
 238, 249. 
 
 Jevons, W". S., cause of aurora, 123b. 
 
 Job, "Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven?" 50q. 
 
 Judd, Prof. J. W., flow of solid rock masses, 78m. 
 
 Junius, "Can gray hairs make folly venerable?" 37q. 
 
 Jupiter, different values of mass of, 94e; connection of orbital 
 period of with sunspot periods, 135, 139e, 264; of the past 
 century, those years about the middle of which Jupiter 
 comes into opposition or conjunction are years of maxi- 
 mum or minimum sunspots, respectively, 135b, 264; dark 
 transits of Jupiter's satellites, 104; relative density of 
 Earth-Sun and Earth-Jupiter bonds, 126b; connection of 
 with solar corona, 143, 260e. 
 
 K 
 
 Kapteyn, Prof. J. C., arrangement of the Sidereal System, 90e. 
 
 Keeler, Prof., rotation of Saturn's ring, 108b. 
 
 Kelvin, Lord, see Thomson. 
 
 Kepler, conception of Solar System, 8m; second law of, proofs 
 by Proctor, Herschel, and Newton, 37me; disproo! of sec- 
 ond law, 37,-9, 40, 253; unlike areas described by two 
 planets, 212, 219, 254; third law the cosmic chain of 
 causation, 196. 
 
 Keyser, C. J., criticism of mathematics, 38e. 
 
 Kingsmill, Thos. W., "terrene tide largely influenced by the 
 sun", 49e. 
 
 Koenig, Prof. G. A., diamonds in meteorites, 110m<. 
 
 Kohlschuetter, Arnold, highest radial velocity of the stars, 23e 
 
 Krakatao, sky-glows from eruption of, 149. 
 
 Ladd, George T., surrounding the expanding island of the 
 visible is the boundless sea of the invisible, 89q. 
 
 Laing, Samuel, conservation of energy and the law of gravita- 
 tion, 19e; gravitational solar heat and geological periods, 
 24e; "Laws of Nature cannot give contradictory results", 
 73q; radiation possibly not equal in all directions, 98q; 
 
478 INDEX 
 
 Newtonian law explains all movements of the Solar Sys- 
 tem, 25b. 
 
 Lamb, Prof. Horace, lunar aerial tide almost imperceptible, 
 147m. 
 
 Lane, J. Homer, ratio of attraction on contracted surface to 
 that on original surface, 63m. 
 
 Lane's law, the more heat a body loses the hotter it gets 
 (Newcomb), 64b; is a delusion (Thomson), 64b. 
 
 Langley, Prof. S. P., acceptance of time-honored scientific 
 dogmas, 13m; scientific truths are not dogmas, 27q; effect 
 of air-blanket on Earth-temperature, 52m; annual amount 
 of Sun's heat on outer atmosphere, 52e; relation of 
 Sun's heat and Sun's temperature, 99b; origin of comet's 
 tails, 109e; great length of coronal streamers, 142b; me- 
 teorites containing stratified matter from other worlds, 
 llOb; life from other worlds, 180. 
 
 Laplace, nebular hypothesis, 11. 
 
 Larmor, Sir J., theoretical conceptions of science little better 
 than a mirage, 56q; minute gyrostats constituting matter, 
 195q; electron orbits in atoms, 200m. 
 
 Latitude displacement, 174; various assigned causes of, 174e; 
 latitude and storm-frequency, 130e. 
 
 Law, of gravitation, what is it? 16; of falling bodies, 22b; do. 
 applied to lunar perturbations, 28-31; Stefan's law, 50e; 
 law of parsimony constitutes the only barrier between 
 science and superstition (Romanes), 73q; Kepler's laws, 
 see Kepler; Lane's law, 64; "Laws, of nature cannot give 
 contradictory results" (Laing), 73q. 
 
 Le Bon, mysterious virtue of mathematical equations, 38m. 
 
 Lebedew, Prof. Peter, pressure of sunlight, 25m. 
 
 Lecoq de Boisbadron, M., action takes place by contact only, 
 67e. 
 
 Legends of creation, 3. 
 
 Leibnitz, modification of vortical theory and geological views, 
 9m. 
 
 Liebig, "All our views have oeen developed from errors", Iq. 
 
 Life, as affected by future processes of evolution on Earth, 
 179, 180; life from other worlds (Langley), 180; prelunar 
 and other races, 181; living matter differs from other 
 matter in degree, not in kind (Huxley), 200b. 
 
 Light, no complete theory of (Herschel), 98q; connective 
 theory, 101-107; problem involved in connective theory, 
 103; radiation possibly not equal in all directions, (Laing, 
 Young) 98q; diffraction, 96e; dark transits of Jupiter's 
 satellites, 104; Earth-light on Moon less than present 
 theory requires, 105; sunlight and Earth-light on Moon, 
 105; Moon's sunlight on Earth, 106; pressure of sunlight, 
 25; aberration of light, 107; derivation of light-velocity, 
 196; frequency of oscillation of light waves, 196e; velocity 
 of light=wavelength X frequency, 196e; light modifying 
 
INDEX 479 
 
 constitution of bodies, 200b; albedo, 104b; components of 
 light motion, 196m. 
 
 Lightning, relation to connective substance, 265b. 
 
 Lockyer, J. Norman, estimates of the Sun's temperature, 
 50m; climate of Mars like that of Earth, 53e; meteoritic 
 hypothesis, 55m; simplest explanation best, 73q; arrange- 
 ment of Sidereal System, 90m; corona at minimum and 
 maximum sunspots, 136b; connection of coronal streamers 
 and sunspots, 137e; great length of coronal streamers, 
 142e; criticism of Croll's theory of climatic changes, 167e; 
 formation of sunspots, 170e; explanation of variable stars, 
 190q,194m. 
 
 Lodge, Sir Oliver, gravitational strain upon the Moon, 26; 
 new tidal theory, 47; "There can be no attraction across 
 really empty space", 67e; action of gravity like thrust of 
 incompressible ether, 91e; greater ethereal density near 
 gross matter, 96e; comet's tails never point to Sun, 109m; 
 universal prevalence of every atom, 146q; the known is 
 insignificant compared with the unknown, 204q; density 
 of the ether, 200e, 260, -6. 
 
 Lowell, Percival, warm temperature of Mars, 53e. 
 
 M 
 
 Magellanic Clouds, cause of their apparent irregularity, 188m; 
 changes in, 189m. 
 
 Magnetic Poles, always in a line perpendicular to ecliptic 
 plane, 157b. 
 
 Man, prelunar races, 181; earliest astronomical conceptions, 
 2-5. 
 
 Marchaud, E., zodiacal light, 136q. 
 
 Marien-faden, 144m. 
 
 Mars, solar heat on, 53; its temperature equal to that of 
 Earth (Flammarion, Lowell, Very), 53b; its temperature 
 much lower than that of Earth (Wallace, Campbell), 53e; 
 should have been larger than Earth, lllb. 
 
 Mathematics, "is like a mill" (Huxley), 38m; some irrational 
 examples in, 38, 252; mysterious virtue of equations (Le 
 Bon), 38m; less important than insight into physical facts 
 (Gibson), 38m; erroneous results from (Hobson), 38e; 
 tendency to hide ignorance under (Schuster), 38e; criti- 
 cism of (Keyser), 38e. 
 
 Mascari, A., spots on Saturnian ring, 108m. 
 
 Mass versus weight as affecting gravitational strain, 26, 198, 
 211, 218, 229, 238, 249. 
 
 Matter, a universal mother (Bruno, Des Cartes), 67q, 260e; 
 matter and motion the two philosophical realities (Dol- 
 bear), 67q; till we know what matter is it will be pre- 
 mature to speculate on the nature of force (Tait), 67m; 
 origin of beyond our grasp, 70m; always conjoined with 
 motion, 70m; nature of ultimate subdivisions, 195; con- 
 stitution of, like that of the stellar universe (Mendeleef), 
 
480 INDEX 
 
 196b; size of atoms in a drop of water (Thomson), 196b; 
 composed of rapidly-spinning gyrostats (Larmor), 195q; 
 every atom a standing miracle (Addison), 195m; trans- 
 mutation of, 200e; forms of, .266; is energy (Einstein), 
 270m; is motion, 90b, 270e. 
 
 Maunder, E. W., solar rotation period of magnetic variation, 
 165m. 
 
 Mayer, Dr. J. R., fraction of Sun's heat intercepted by Earth, 
 50b. 
 
 Maxwell, Clerk, meteoritic hypothesis of Saturn's ring, 108b; 
 mass of Saturnian ring, 108m; pressure of sunlight, 25m. 
 
 Meldola, R., test of the truth of a theory, 63q. 
 
 Meldrum, Dr., connection between sunspots and rainfall, 121b. 
 
 Mendeleef, Prof., world of atoms like the universe of heaven- 
 ly bodies, 70b, 196b; density of the ether, 200e. 
 
 Meteoritic hypothesis of cosmical evolution (Lockyer) 55b. 
 
 Meteorites, 110; origin of, 80b, llOe; contain organic matter 
 (Langley, Hann, Flammarion, Meunier, Buchner, Koenig, 
 Maydenbauer, Crookes, Dastre), 110; bearers of life from 
 other worlds (Langley), 180b. 
 
 Meterological data scanty, 132. 
 
 Meunier, M.Stanislaus, meteorites containing organic matter, 
 HOb. 
 
 Meydenbauer, A., diamonds in meteorites, llOe. 
 
 Michelson, Dr. A. A., accuracy necessary for measurements 
 according to Doppler's principle, 108m. 
 
 Microseisms, 173m. 
 
 Mill, J. S., that theory best which explains the facts of Na- 
 ture with fewest assumptions, 114q; our strongest con- 
 victions must be left open for facts contradicting them, 
 114q; sacrifice of moral courage for the sake of intellectual 
 peace, 187q. 
 
 Miller, G. A., two stellar streams in opposite directions, 90e. 
 
 Millikan, Prof. R. A., the past fifteen years unparalleled for 
 scientific advances, 203q. 
 
 Milman, Dean, obstinate adherence to things antiquated, 63q. 
 
 Milne, John, ground-water tides, 49e. 
 
 Minor planets, origin of, 112. 
 
 Molecular bonds, 69. 
 
 Molecular motions, similar to those of the Solar System 
 (Preece, Mendeleef), 69q, 70be; extremely great velocities 
 of, 196me. 
 
 Molloy, Gerald, the true test of a theory, 114q. 
 
 Moon, motions not explained (Stone), 27q; lunar aerial tide, 
 48e; originated in tidal swell on Earth (Darwin, Picker- 
 ing), 65m, 78m; scar left by Moon's retirement now the 
 basin of the Pacific Ocean (Fisher, Pickering), 78m; was 
 first a ring around Earth (Gilvert), 78(b)m; Earth's sun- 
 light on Moon (Very), 105m; Moon's sunlight on Earth, 
 106; effect of, on terrestrial magnetism, 162b; air, moisture 
 and temperature on, 181m; effect of on tides, see Tides. 
 
INDEX 481 
 
 Motion, molecular, 70; always conjoined with matter, 70m; 
 origin of, 70m, 90b; accounts solely for the various prop- 
 erties of matter, 200m; motion and matter the two philos- 
 ophical realities (Dolbear), 67q; extreme velocities of 
 atomic and molecular motions, 196m; is the sole product 
 of cosmical evolution, 196m; different properties of mat- 
 ter explained solely by differences of motion, 200m; is 
 matter, 90b, 270e. 
 
 Mouchez. Admiral, we can never see the most distant stars, 
 85q. 
 
 N 
 
 Nebulae, regular, 187; irregular, 188; changes of form, 189; 
 nebular rotation easily conceived (Ball), 61e. 
 
 Nebular Hypothesis, 11; objections to, 57-61; modifications, 
 55; "Emphatically a speculation" (Ball), 55q; a statement 
 of actual fact (Thomson), 64m; extreme difficulty of sub- 
 jecting it to mathematical treatment (Spencer), 65m; re- 
 quires in the universe regions with very different temper- 
 atures (Faye), 65m; enormous difficulties in it (Proctor), 
 65e; Proctor's improvement, 65e; still answers best 
 (Wolf), 65e; various discordances, 66; probability great 
 against chance arrangement of the Solar System (Ball), 
 66e. 
 
 Neptune, should have been much larger than Jupiter, lib; 
 temperature of, 108b. 
 
 Nuemayr, Dr. M,., geological changes of Earth's surface can- 
 not account for its changes of climate, 166q. 
 
 Newcomb, Prof. Simon, gravitation does not account for 
 "runaway" stars, 23; effect of diminution of solar heat on 
 Earth, 53b; ratio of central attraction on contracted sur- 
 face to that on original surface, 63m; by losing heat a 
 body gets hotter, 64b; misconception regarding zodiacal 
 light, 137b. 
 
 New Theory (See Connective Theory), recent acceptance of 
 it in part: Planetary bonds (Soddy), 14e; origin of Moon 
 (Darwin), 65m, 78m; planetary ring-collapse (Young), 
 80(d)e; explanation of secular variation of terrestrial mag- 
 netism (Schuster), 164e; gravity explained by continuous 
 action of matter (Newton, Faraday, Thomson), 91m; the 
 most cherished tenets of the past generation of men of 
 science now abandoned (Ogg), 203q. 
 
 Newton, Sir Isaac, could see only the finger of God in the 
 uniform direction of planetary movement, lib; proof of 
 law of equal areas, 37m, 253; actio in distans a great ab- 
 surdity, 67b; actio in distans after all accounts for grav- 
 itation, 67m, 246e, 258; speculations on actio in distans 
 accounting for Newton's later intellectual weakness 
 (Haeckel), 67e; doubts his Proposition LXXI Bk. I, Prin- 
 cipia, 246e; gravity explained by continuous action of 
 matter, 91m. 
 
482 INDEX 
 
 Nichols, Prof. E. P., pressure of sunlight, 25e. 
 Nordenskiold, Baron, height of aurora, 160b. 
 
 
 
 Ogg, Dr. A., most cherished tenets of last generation of men 
 
 of 'science now abandoned, 203q. 
 
 Oldham, R. D., defection of gravitation in the Himalaya, 247e. 
 Opposition and conjunction, new definition of, 117b. 
 Ostwald, motion is matter, 90b. 
 
 Parallelogram of forces, 39, 201m. 
 
 Patterson, Prof. J. A., "So impregnable that if any fact were 
 quoted against it, then so much the worse for the fact", 
 43q. 
 
 Paulsen, M., height of auroras, 160m. 
 
 Payn, Howard, vastness of sidereal evolution and so little of 
 it known, 85q. 
 
 Perihelion of Earth's orbit, movement and present position of, 
 134b. 
 
 Pickering, Prof. E. C., Moon projected from Earth, 78(b)m. 
 
 Pickering, Prof, W. A., meteorites from Earth, llOe. 
 
 Pierce, B,, origin of minor planets, 112b. 
 
 Planck, Dr. Max, motion is matter, 90b; atomic structure of 
 energy, 270. 
 
 Planetary bonds, 71, 77e, 78e, 94, 176; classification of, 114; 
 factors of, 115,-6; monthly variations of, 117-119. 
 
 Planetary subdivision, limits of, 182. 
 
 Plato, geocentric theory, 6e. 
 
 Poincaire, M. H., Newton's law not correct, 16q; different 
 values of Jupiter's mass, 94e. 
 
 Poundal, 211m. 
 
 Poynting, Prof. J. H., absolute temperature of Earth's sur- 
 face, 50m. 
 
 Precession of the equinoxes, 138e. 
 
 Precipitation, connection of, with sunspots, variation of plan- 
 etary bonds, etc., 121,-4,-9; over the United States, 129; 
 at Key West for the period 1870-1913, 130. 
 
 Preconceptions discrediting evidence: tides, 44-46, 153e; tem- 
 perature of Mars, 53e; constitution of Saturnian ring, 
 108m; attraction of a shell, 246 (d); organic matter in me- 
 teorites, llOe; one zodiacal light, 137b; our observations 
 colored by our prejudices (Flower), 5m, (Faraday, Des 
 Cartes), 16q; bias of the intellect (Bacon), 150q; intel- 
 lectual peace at the sacrifice of moral courage, 187q; "So 
 impregnable that if any fact were quoted against it, then 
 so much the worse for the fact" (Patterson), 43q; "Super- 
 stitious dependence on the authority of great men" 
 (Argyle), 13e; reluctance to surrender long-cherished 
 
INDEX 483 
 
 views, however wrong, and accept new views, 203m; 
 prestige opposing evidence, 257b. 
 
 Prediction of astronomical events based on experience (Proc- 
 tor, Thomson and Tait), 95; of the weather, 133. 
 
 Preece, W. H., the motions of the Solar System and those of 
 a molecule of water are similar, 69q. 
 
 Prejudices, see Preconception. 
 
 Pressure of sunlight, 25, 67e, 228, 237. 
 
 Preston, Thomas, cosmic chain of causation, 195q. 
 
 Problem of three bodies, 27-36, 250b; never fully calculated 
 (Hill), 36b; is intractable (Young), 36e. 
 
 Problem of two bodies, 37, 42. 
 
 Proctor, Prof. R. A., statement of the law of gravitation, 16b; 
 gravitation accounts for every irregularity of planetary 
 motion, 25b; proof of law of equal areas, 37m; "Cemeteries 
 for defunct theories, the textbooks", 55q; enormous diffi- 
 culties in the nebular hypothesis, 65e; astronomical events 
 based on observation, 95e; on solidity of Saturnian ring, 
 108m; origin of comets, 113e; diurnal variation of mag- 
 netic needle, 161b. 
 
 Ptolemaic System, 7, 
 
 Ptolemy, geocentric theory, 6e, 7. 
 
 Pythagoras, conceived the heliocentric theory, 6e. 
 
 Q 
 
 Quantum theory of energy, 200m. ? 
 
 R 
 
 Radiation from Sun possibly not equal in all directions 
 (Young, Laing), 108q. 
 
 Radium, energy of, 200e. 
 
 Rainfall, see Precipitation. 
 
 Ramsay, Sir William, has transmuted copper into various 
 other elements (Becqerel), 200e. 
 
 Reade, T. M., Earth's nucleus as hot as ever, 78 (a) m. 
 
 Reimann, M., height of aurora, 160b. 
 
 Resistance, to passage of matter through matter, 201 ; through 
 ether, 201b; accelerates a comet's speed, 41b. 
 
 Results of a grand round of cosmical evolution, 199. 
 
 Retardations and accelerations by mutual planetary inter- 
 actions, 83. 
 
 Retrospect, 202. 
 
 Riddle of the universe, 1. 
 
 Rigidity and hardness due to rapidity of constituent motions, 
 200m. 
 
 Ring-disruption, 77; results of, 80. 
 
 Ring-projection, as modified by contraction, 63me; conflict- 
 ing theories of, 65,>-6; of planets from Sun, 76-8 (c); of 
 Moon from Earth, (Fisher, Pickering, Darwin, Gilvert), 
 78 (b); of Saturnian ring, 108e. 
 
484 INDEX 
 
 Roentgen rays, of smaller amplitude than light motion, 196e, 
 
 200m. 
 Romanes, George J., law of parsimony constitutes the only 
 
 barrier between science and superstition, 73q. 
 Rotation, by precipitation, 59; by nebular collisions, 60; by 
 
 attraction of distant masses, 61; origin of, 90; uniform 
 
 direction of axial rotation, 80 (b), (d)e; increase of Sun's 
 
 axial rotation, 80 (e). 
 "Runaway" stars not accounted for by gravitation (Newcomb) 
 
 23. 
 
 Russel, Prof. A. R., height of the atmosphere, 146b. 
 Russel, Prof. F. A. R., amount of lunar aerial tide, 48e. 
 
 Sabine, Sir Edward, explanation of terrestrial magnetism, 
 163e; Moon affects terrestrial magnetism, 163e. 
 
 Saturn, physical condition of, 100; difficult to distinguish 
 real from imaginary features on (Denning), 108q; dimen- 
 sions of planet and ring (Newcomb), 108m; temperature 
 of, 108b. 
 
 Saturnian Ring, consists of a meteoritic swarm, 108b; rotation 
 period, 108b; solid, (Herschel, Proctor), 108m; spots on 
 (Mascari), 108m; dimensions, ltf8m; mass (Bessel, Hall, 
 Maxwell), 108m; growing smaller (Struve, Winchell), 108e. 
 divisions of doubtful (Hall), 108e; changes on (Stuyvaert), 
 108e. 
 
 Schmidt, Dr., solar rotation period of terrestrial magnetism, 
 165e. 
 
 Schopenhauer, Arthur, no absurdity so great that it cannot 
 be planted in the human mind, 98q. 
 
 Schuster, Prof. Arthur, ignorance under cover of mathematics, 
 38e; "Obvious facts which the law of gravitation fails to 
 explain", 56q; no explanation of Earth's magnetic state, 
 155q; explanation of the secular variation of terrestrial 
 magnetism, 164 (e)e; definition of amateur, 203q; pressure 
 of sunlight, 25e; better to be wrong than to be neither 
 right nor wrong, 203m. 
 
 Science, great recent advances in, 203q; most cherished 
 tenets of, abandoned (Ogg), 203q. 
 
 Seguin, Marc, bodies not really self -attractive, 67e. 
 
 Senier, Prof. A., molecules may have valencies the same as 
 atoms, 69q. 
 
 Severn Bore, occurs every morning and evening, 153e. 
 
 Shaw, Dr. W. N., aerial tidal protuberance fixed in direction 
 with respect to the Sun, 147m. 
 
 Shell, attraction of, see Gravitation. 
 
 Sherman, Orray Taft, age of tide, 45e; times of maximum 
 electricity in air, 161e. 
 
 Sidereal System, similar to Solar System, 85; what it in- 
 cludes, 86; limits of 30,000 light-years, 89q; arrangement 
 
INDEX 485 
 
 of, 87, 90m; probable number of successive generations of, 
 88; other sidereal systems, 89; dark stars of, 87e, 139; 
 surrounding the expanding island of the visible is the 
 boundless sea of the invisible (Ladd), 89q; relative num- 
 bers of stars of each magnitude (Turner), 89q; greatest 
 linear extension of, 128b. 
 
 Siemens, Werner, all bodies filled with electric currents, 158e. 
 
 Sky-glows of 1883, 149. 
 
 Soddy, Frederick, recent changes in physical theories, 14e. 
 
 Solar Apex, 138m. 
 
 Solar Corona, nature of, 142; rotation of, 142m; coronae of 
 other bodies, 142e; position angles of streamers, 143; con- 
 nection of with Jupiter, 143, 260e. 
 
 Solar Spheroid, density of, 60 (a); rotation of, 59, 60,-1; de- 
 velopment of, 73-78. 
 
 Solidification, began at surface or center which? 78(e)m, 
 (b). 
 
 Solids float on their liquids, 78 (a) e. 
 
 Sonorous sand and ether atmospheres, 95e. 
 
 Space, must contain something like ordinary matter, which 
 can store up energy and exert enormous stresses (Thom- 
 son), 91q; temperature of (Langley), 52m. 
 
 Specific gravity, of solids compared with their liquids, 78 (a) e* 
 
 Spectrum, number of spectral lines of hydrogen, 70e, 196m; 
 spectra of comet's tails, coronal streamers, aurora borealis, 
 and zodiacal light nearly similar (Euler, Struve, Angstrom, 
 Proctor), 109e; spectrum of temporary stars, 190b; origin 
 of spectral lines, 200m. 
 
 Spencer, Herbert, five successive theories of the Solar Sys- 
 tem, Titlepage; on nebular condensation and rotation, 57,- 
 8,-9; nebular hypothesis not amenable to mathematical 
 treatment, 65b; Sun's interior gaseous, 78 (a) m; origin of 
 minor planets, 112; ultimate postulate must be unaccount- 
 able, 67b. 
 
 Spherical shell, or sphere, attraction of, 20, 208, 224, 246e. . 
 
 Spiller, Phillip, planetary rings projected by tidal swells, 
 65m; continual perfecting of the aggregation of atoms, 
 170q. 
 
 Spitta, Edmund J., dark transits of Jupiter's satellites, 104b. 
 
 Stars, velocity of, 23; arrangements of the, 87; number of, 
 successive generations of, 88m; temporary, 190; double, 
 triple and multiple, 191; short period variables, 192; long 
 period variables, 194; secular variation of periodic stars, 
 193; we can never see the most distant (Mouchez), 85, 91; 
 relative number of stars of each magnitude (Turner), 89q. 
 
 Stewart, Balfour, connection of sunspots, heights of rivers, 
 atmospheric electricity, etc., 121b; 123b; explanation of 
 terrestrial magnetism, 155q; diurnal magnetic variation, 
 165b; general formation of sunspots over entire solar sur- 
 face, 170e,-lb; ascending atmospheric electric currents at 
 Equator, 267. 
 
486 INDEX 
 
 Stokes, Prof., origin of comet's tails, 109e. 
 
 Stone, Ormond, Moon's motion not explained by gravitation, 
 27q. 
 
 Stoney, origin of spectral lines, 206m. 
 
 Storm-frequency and latitude, 130e. 
 
 Struve, Otto, the Saturnian ring getting smaller, 108e. 
 
 Stuyvaert, M., changes in Saturn's ring, 108e. 
 
 Sun, gravitational theory of amount and distribution of solar 
 heat contradicted by geology and actual observation, 24, 
 50,-l,-2,-3; temperature, 50; "The difficulty is not in meas- 
 uring the heat but in telling what temperature corresponds 
 to it" (Langley), 99b; fraction of solar heat intercepted by 
 Earth, 50b; no variation of solar heat at various distances 
 from the Sun, 51; orbital motion, lOe; orbital period, 138m, 
 139b, 141e; solar apex, 138m; increase of axial rotation, 
 80 (e); relative density of Earth-Sun and EarthsJupiter 
 bonds, 126e; rotation period, 172e. 
 
 Sunlight, pressure of, 25, 67e, 228, 237. 
 
 Sunspots, periods of, 135e,-6,-7,-8 ; connection of with bond- 
 substance 120; do, with weather, 120-125, 135; do, with 
 Jupiter, 135,-6, 140, 264; do. with the zodiacal light, 137, 
 264; do. with coronal streamers, 137e; dq. with sidereal 
 connexions, 140; formation of, 136b, 169e; anomolous per- 
 iods of, 138; cosmological significance of, 170; prevalence 
 of, over entire solar surface, 171b; equatorial movement of, 
 171m; greater angular velocity of, at solar equator, 172; 
 comparative development on Earth and Sun, 173. 
 
 Surface cooling and solidification, 74, 261b. 
 
 Swann, Dr. W. F., no explanation of terrestrial magnetism, 
 155q. 
 
 Swift, Prof. Lewis, unexplained wonders of comets, 108q. 
 
 Sylvester, Joshua, significance of the stars, 85q. 
 
 Tait, Prof. P. G., force has no objective reality, 67q, 67b, ac- 
 tio in distans most obscure problem in physics, 67b; "Un- 
 til we know what matter is, it will be premature to specu- 
 late as to the ultimate nature of force", 67m; heat passing 
 through space not necessarily heat, 99b; union of lunar 
 and solar tidal waves, 152m; objection to Larmor's orbital 
 motion theory of electrons, 200m. 
 
 Taylor, Wm. B., gravitation really an actio in distans, instan- 
 taneously omnipresent, infinitum, and law of gravitation 
 "remains the largest, clearest, surest, yet attained by 
 man", 67m. 
 
 Temperature of Sun, Moon, and planets, see under name of 
 each. 
 
 Temporary stars, 190. 
 
 Terrestrial Electricity and Magnetism, 155-165; thirty theor- 
 ies of (Chauveau), 155q; no satisfactory theory of (Bauer, 
 Schuster, Swann), 155q; relation of magnetic poles to 
 
INDEX 487 
 
 ecliptic plane, 157; ascending currents at Equator, 157e, 
 267; the Earth a magnet, 158; explanation of north-point- 
 ing magnetic needle, 158; direction of the lines of no 
 declinition, 159; height of aurorae, 160; diurnal magnetic 
 variation, 161; lunar effect on, 161e; annual magnetic 
 variation, 160; irregular magnetic variations, 163; secular 
 magnetic variation, 164; explanation of observations at 
 London and Paris, 164 (b); southeastern direction of mag- 
 netic lines, 164 (c); explanation of observations at Bos- 
 ton, 164 (d)e, (f ) ; explanation of secular variation, 164 (e); 
 period of secular variation, 164 (c)e, (f ) ; simultaneity 
 of magnetic disturbances over the Earth's surface, 
 165m; solar period of magnetic variation, 165e; relation 
 of earth-currents and magnetic elements, 165m; intensity 
 of disturbances varies, with magnetic latitude (Wein- 
 stein, Wild), 165e; Faraday's lines of force, 158b; relation 
 to sun-spots and weather (Veeder), 165e; magnetic storms 
 simultaneous over all the planets (Proctor), 163e; easier 
 for one earth-current to follow path of a preceding one, 
 164(0) b. 
 
 Tesla, Nicola, "unsound" views leading to sound results, 27q. 
 
 Thales, geocentric theory, 6e. 
 
 Thomson, Sir William, Sun can attract Jupiter without inter- 
 vening medium if so ordered, 37q; rotation by nebular col- 
 lisions, 60(b)m; Lane's law a delusion, and Laplace's 
 theory a statement of fact, 64m; gravitation a fundamental 
 fact, 67m; tides on an Earth of Steel, 78(c)e; density of 
 the ether, 200e; 260,-6. 
 
 Thomson and Tait, prediction of astronomical events based 
 on observation, 95e; proof of central attraction of spheres 
 by that of pairs of opposite particles, 246b. 
 
 Thomson, Sir J. J., space between Earth and Sun must con- 
 tain something that can store and transmit energy, 91q; 
 what a theory should do, 166q. 
 
 Thompson, Prof. S. P., ascending electrical currents at Equa- 
 tor, 157e, 267; a perfect vacuum is a perfect insulator, 
 160e; easier for one electric current to follow the path of 
 another, 164e. 
 
 Tides, various objections to tf.dal theory, 44,-5,-6; low water 
 directly under the Moon in open ocean (Darwin), 45b; 
 new theory by Sir Oliver Lodge, 47; aerial tide due to 
 Sun, 48m, 147; Moon's tidal "earmark", 48b; chronometri- 
 cal regularity of aerial tide at all elevations and in all 
 kinds of weather (Herschel, Humboldt), 48m; amplitudes 
 of solar and lunar aerial tides, 48e; lunar aerial tide almost 
 imperceptible, 48e, 147b; inland sea and lake tides due to 
 Sun, 49, 151, ; ground water tides, 49e; "Terrene tide 
 largely influenced by the Sun" (Kingsmill), 49e; greater 
 oceanic tidal wave due to Sun, 151; yet follows the Moon, 
 152, 255; merging of solar and lunar ( tides, 152; Severn 
 Bore, 153e; discordance of present tidal theories, 154; 
 
488 INDEX 
 
 comparison of the old with the new theory, 50; retiral of 
 Moon from Earth by a tidal swell (Darwin), 65m; height 
 of on an Earth of steel (Thomson), 78,(c)e. 
 
 Transmutation of the elements (Becquerel), 200e. 
 
 Tromholt, Prof. Sophus, diurnal movement of the auroral 
 zone, 161e. 
 
 Truth cannot speak with two voices (Laing), 73q. 
 
 Turner, Prof. H. H., law of gravitation most accurate known 
 to science, 20b; is the universe infinite? 89q; coincidence 
 of maximum deviation of the vertical and severe earth- 
 quakes, 174e. 
 
 Tyndall, John, fraction of Sun's heat received on Earth, 50b; 
 denial of a truth better than indolent acceptance of it 
 on insufficient evidence, 56q; "explains the unknown in 
 terms of the more unknown," 67q; a flowing river of solid 
 ice, 78(c)m; Faraday's lines of force, 158b. 
 
 u 
 
 Ultimate results of a grand round of cosmical evolution, 199. 
 
 Universe, we can never see the most distant stars (Mouchez), 
 85q; other sidereal systems, 89; not infinite (Turner), 
 89q; "Surrounding the expanding island of the visible is 
 the boundless sea of the invisible" (Ladd), 89q. 
 
 "Unsound" views leading to sound results, (Tesla), 27q. 
 
 Uranus, should have been larger than Jupiter, lllb; tem- 
 perature of, 108b. 
 
 Vacuum, is a perfect insulator (Thompson), 160e. 
 
 Valency, defined, 69q, 69; possibly possessed by molecules 
 as by atoms (Senier),69e. 
 
 Variable stars, 190q, 192,-3,^-4. 
 
 Variation of latitudes, see vertical, secular variation of peri- 
 odic stars, 193. 
 
 Veeder, M. A., connection of solar faculae, aurorae, and thun- 
 derstorms, 165e. 
 
 Velocity, as affected by motion around a center, 41, 63m, 
 201, 271; of falling body towards Earth's center, 22b; of 
 the stars, 23; increase of absolute velocity, 41, 63m; dif- 
 ferent orbital velocities of the planets, 80(d)e; velocities 
 and radii of the ultimate subdivisions of matter, 196me; 
 velocity of the upper aerial currents, 149; velocity of light 
 as related to molecular and planetary dimensions, 196me; 
 hardening properties of great velocity, 200m. 
 
 Vertical, displacement of the, 174; severe earthquakes coin- 
 cident with maximum displacement of, 174e; greater dis- 
 placement N S than E W (Hecker), 174e. 
 
 Very, Frank W., Earthlight on Moon 1/1600 of moonlight, 
 105m; warm temperature of M?rs, 53m. 
 
 Vortical theory, 9. 
 
INDEX 489 
 
 w 
 
 Walker, W. J, explanation of terrestrial magnetism, 155q. 
 
 Wallace, Prof. A. R., opposed to Profs. Lowell and Very as 
 to warm temperature of Mars, 53e. 
 
 Ward, Robt., the various estimates of the Sun's temperature, 
 50e. 
 
 Weather, as related to interplanetary connexions, 114-135; 
 weather factors of the planetary connexion variations, 
 115; monthly variations of these factors, 116; monthly and 
 yearly variations of the planetary factors for the period 
 1840-1923, 117,-8,-9; connection of the yearly variations 
 with the sunspot periods, 120; do. with the periods of at- 
 mospheric precipitation, 121; do. with the periods of at- 
 mospheric electricity, 123; the wet and dry seasons of the 
 year, 124; lagging of the actual weather, 125; the solar 
 factor, 126; the lunar factor, 127; the sidereal factor, 128,- 
 9; coincidence of the actually wet and dry periods of 
 years with the theoretic wet and dry periods, 129, 130; 
 precipitation at Key West 1870-1913, 130b; relation of 
 storm-frequency and latitude, 130e; incompleteness of our 
 meteorological data, 132; value of the theoretic weather 
 indications, 133; flood legend, 134; connection of the or- 
 bital period of Jupiter with the theoretic weather periods 
 and with the sunspot periods, 135; connection of solar 
 faculae, aurorae and thunderstorms, (Veeder), 165e. 
 
 Weight, variable in day and night, 145; weight versus mass 
 as affecting gravitational strain, work, and inertia, 26, 
 198, 211, 218, 229, 238, 249. 
 
 Weinstein, Dr., coincidence of earth-current changes with 
 changes of Earth's magnetism, 165e. 
 
 Wharton, Capt. W. J. L., on the ocean tide, 150q. 
 
 White, O. E., the St. Peters at the gates of science, 203q. 
 
 Wild, Prof. H., simultaneity of terrestrial magnetic disturb- 
 ances, 165m. 
 
 Winchell, Prof. Alexander, our home in the universe, Pref- 
 ace, m; rotation by nebular collisions, 60(b)m; ratio of 
 central attraction on a contracted surface to that on the 
 original surface, 65e; Saturn's ring getting smaller, 108m; 
 origin of minor planets, 112b; discordance of tidal the- 
 ories, 154; spectra of temporary stars, 190b; temporary 
 stars still visible, 190e. 
 
 Winds, direction and velocity of upper aerial currents, 149. 
 
 Winlock, William C., changes of latitudes, 174h. 
 
 Woeikof, Dr., criticism of Dr. Croll's theory of climatic 
 changes, 167e. 
 
 Wolf, M., nebular hypothesis still answers best, 65e. 
 
 Wood, Searles V., on the causes of geological climatic 
 changes, 167m. 
 
 Wynne, Prof. W. P., valency defined, 69q. 
 
 Wytcherly, Wm., propriety and justice of criticism, Preface, q. 
 
490 INDEX 
 
 X-radiation, of smaller amplitude and harder and more pene- 
 trating than light motion, 196e; 200m. 
 
 Young, Prof. C. A., gravitation at the bottom of Harton Col- 
 liery, 21; gravity in an ellipse, 22e; gravitational strain 
 of the Earth, 26e; problem of three bodies intractable, 
 36e; resistance accelerates a comet's speed, 41b; Moon's 
 tidal "earmark," 48b; Sun's temperature, 50e; collapse of 
 a planet-ring into the spherical form, 80(d)e; doubts 
 equal radiation in all directions, 98q; Saturnian ring not 
 contracting upon planet, 108m; Neptunian comets, 113e; 
 form of the Earth, 174m; Eta Argus, 190q; doubts of 
 Newton's Prop. LXXI, 246e. 
 
 Zenker, Dr., on the heat falling upon the Pole as compared 
 with that upon the Equator, 52b. 
 
 Zodiacal Light, form and extension of (Marchaud), 136q; 
 description of (Dechevrens), 137m; connection of, with 
 sunspot periods, 137b, 264; misconception regarding its 
 extension in more than one direction from the Sun, 137me. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK fROtt WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 LIBRARY USE 
 
 
 JUN 8 1959 
 
 
 
 
 iOwQ 
 
 
 jUHtt WiJ 
 
 
 
 
 HOV 221987 7 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD 21A-50m-4,'59 
 (A1724slO)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley