We have thought it worth while to dedicate this chapter to some remarks on cosmogonies in general, and examination into a very few conceived by eminent men; these forming in our opinion the most attractive matter for those readers who do not pretend to make a study of astronomy, but are very desirous to have some knowledge of the most plausible ideas which have been conceived by astronomers, of how the universe, and more particularly the solar system, were brought into existence; while, at the same time, they are the subjects on which more crude conceptions, more limited study, and more fanciful unexamined thought have been expended, than any others we have met with. Some readers will, no doubt, be able to reject what is erroneous, to speak mildly, but there will be, equally surely, some who cannot do so; and it must be confessed there are a good many to whom the most complicated conceptions, and the most difficult of comprehension, are the most attractive.

A great many centuries ago, astronomers and philosophers had already conceived the idea that the sun and stars had been formed into spherical bodies by the condensation of celestial vapours; but when the telescope was invented, and the nature of nebulÆ in some measure understood, it was not long till it came to be thought that the matter, out of which the sun and stars were formed, must have been much more substantial in its nature than celestial vapours. Being visible, they were naturally considered to be self-luminous, and consequently endowed with great heat, because the self-luminous sun was felt to be so endowed, though perhaps not with the same degree. Accordingly, astronomers began to form theories, or hypotheses, on the construction of the solar system out of a nebula, which, like everything else, went on each one improving on its predecessor as, through continued observation and study, more knowledge was acquired of the nature of nebulÆ. The most notable of these cosmogonists were Descartes, Newton, Kant, and Laplace, each of whom contributed valuable contingents to the general work; which may be said to have culminated about a century ago in the Nebular Hypothesis of the last-named; for the many attempts that have been made to improve upon it, or to supplant it altogether, have been very far from successful.

The hypothesis is about a century old, as we have said, and there may still be many people who can remember having heard it denounced as a profane, impious, atheistic speculation, for it is not over half a century since the ban begun to be taken off it. Sir David Brewster, in his "Life of Newton," said of it, "That the nebular hypothesis, that dull and dangerous heresy of the age, is incompatible with the established laws of the material universe, and that an omnipotent arm was required to give the planets their positions and motions in space, and a presiding intelligence to assign to them the different functions they had to perform." With others, its chief defect was that the time required to form even the earth in the manner prescribed by it, must have been infinitely greater than six days of twenty-four hours each. In the meantime, geologists had also discovered that, for the formation of the strata of the earth, which they had been examining and studying, the time required for their being deposited must have been, not days of twenty-four hours, but periods of many millions of years each; and the evidence adduced by them that such must have been the case was so overwhelming, that Theology had to acknowledge its force, and gradually to recognise that the days must have been periods of undefinable length. Thus relieved from the charge of heresy, the hypothesis rose rapidly into favour, and came to be generally accepted by the most eminent astronomers, subject always to certain modifications, which modifications have never been clearly defined, if at all. It was not, however, allowed to enjoy long the exalted station to which it had attained.

Astronomers had begun to consider from whence the sun had acquired the enormous quantity of heat it had been expending ever since the world began, and, after long discussion, had come to the conclusion that by far the greatest source must have been the condensation from the nebulous state of the matter of which it is composed. Having settled this point, it was calculated that the amount of heat derived from that and all other sources could not have kept up its expenditure, at the present rate of consumption, for more than twenty million years, and could not maintain it for more than from six to eight million years in the time to come. Owing in good part to this great difference between the calculations of astronomers and geologists about the age of the earth, the hypothesis began again to suffer in repute, and then all its faults and shortcomings were sought out and arrayed against it.

The chief defects attributed to it were: The retrograde motion of rotation of Uranus and Neptune and revolution of their satellites—that fault in the former having been noted by Sir John Herschel, in his Treatise on Astronomy already cited; the discovery of the satellites of Mars which exposed the facts, that the inner one revolves round the planet in less than one-third of the time that it ought to, and that the outer one is too small to have been thrown off by Mars, in accordance with the terms of the hypothesis; the exclusion from it of comets, some of which at least have been proved, in the most irrefutable manner, to form part of the solar system; and what can only be called speculations, on the formation of a lens-shaped nebula brought about by the acceleration of rotation—caused by condensation according to the areolar theory—which it is supposed would be enormously in excess of the actual revolution of the inner planets, and of the rotation of the sun. Here we must protest against retrograde motion of rotation in any of the members of the solar system being considered as militating against the theory, because Laplace states distinctly, while explaining his hypothesis, that the rotation of the earth might just as well have been retrograde as direct: a fact that some eminent astronomers have not noticed, simply because they have not paid proper attention to what they were reading. We shall have to return to this statement again, and to present the proof of its being true.

An idea of how far the hypothesis had fallen into disrepute may be formed from the following extract, from "Nature" of August 4, 1887, of a Review of a "New Cosmogony," by A. M. Clerke, in which it is said: "But now the reiterated blows of objectors may fairly be said to have shattered the symmetrical mould in which Laplace cast his ideas. What remains of it is summed up in the statement that the solar system did originate somehow, by the condensation of a primitive nebula. The rest is irrecoverably gone, and the field is open for ingenious theorising. It has not been wanting.... The newer cosmogonists are divided into two schools by the more or less radical tendencies of the reforms they propose. Some seek wholly to abolish, others merely to renovate the Kant Laplace scheme. The first class is best represented by M. Faye, the second by Mr. Wolfe and Dr. Braun"—the author of the "New Cosmogony."

We cannot pass this quotation without remarking "How glibly some people can write!" More we do not want to say about it, except that it gave us the notion to examine closely some of the new cosmogonies, which have not been wanting, to see whether they are better than Laplace's.

We have not had the opportunity of knowing what are Mr. Wolfe's amendments, but the Review, just cited, gives us a pretty good notion of those of Dr. Braun, and we have been able to study carefully M. Faye's "Origine du Monde," in which he considers the solar system to have been evolved from cosmic matter partially endowed with motion in the form of eddies, whirlwinds, vortices, or tourbillons, which last may comprehend all of them, and even more. We have also studied, with some surprise, in "Climate and Cosmology" Dr. Croll's Impact, or Collision, Theory, and will confine our examination to the three of which we know something, beginning with Dr. Croll's, which we believe to be the oldest of the three.

We understand that Dr. Croll accepts the nebular hypothesis in all its main features, including the intense heat in which the original nebula is supposed to have existed from the beginning; and has only invented the collision theory in order to increase its quantity, to suit the demands of geologists for unlimited time, by showing how an unlimited supply of both heat and time may be obtained. But he has incurred an oversight in not taking into consideration the kind of matter in which that unlimited supply of heat was to be stored up—whether it would hold it. He wrote in times when something was really known about heat, and we cannot suppose him to have believed that heat could exist independent of matter, or that a gas or vapour could be heated to a high temperature except under corresponding pressure; but he has evidently overlooked this point, his thoughts recurring to old notions; and he has fallen, probably for the same reason, into other oversights equally as grave.

When showing how a supply of fifty millions of years of sun-heat could be produced from the collision of two half-suns colliding with velocities of 476 miles per second, Dr. Croll says in his "Discussions on Climate and Cosmology," of 1885, at page 301: "The whole mass would be converted into an incandescent gas" (the handmaid of the period), "with a temperature of which we can have no adequate conception. If we assume the specific heat of the gaseous mass to be equal to that of air (viz. 0·2374), the mass would have a temperature of about 300,000,000° C., or more than 140,000 times that of the voltaic arc."

Now, let us suppose the whole mass of the whole solar system to be converted into a gas, or vapour, at the pressure of our atmosphere, and temperature of 0° C., its volume would be equal to that of a sphere of not quite 9,000,000 miles in diameter. Suppose, then, this volume to be heated to 300,000,000° C. in a close vessel, as would necessarily have to be the case, the pressure corresponding to that temperature would be 1,094,480 atmospheres, according to the theory on which the absolute zero of temperature is founded. Without stopping to consider whether air or any gas could be heated to the temperature mentioned; or the strength of the vessel 9,000,000 miles in diameter required to retain it at the equivalent pressure; if we increase the diameter of the containing sphere to a little more than that of the orbit of Neptune, or, say 6,000,000,000 miles, and allow the air or gas or vapour to expand into it; then, as the volume of the new sphere will be greater than the former one in the proportion of 9,000,000 cubed to 6,000,000,000 cubed, or as 1 is to 296,296,296, the pressure of the gas will be reduced to 296,296,296 divided by 1,094,980, that is just over the 270th part of an atmosphere; which, in its turn would correspond to a temperature of a very little more than -273°, or what is considered to be[A] 273° C. above absolute zero of temperature; or, at all events, to the temperature of space, whatever that may be.

Dr. Croll goes on to say at page 302: "It may be objected that enormous as would be such a temperature, it would nevertheless be insufficient to expand the mass against gravity so as to occupy the entire space included within the orbit of Neptune. To this objection it might be replied, that if the temperature in question were not sufficient to produce the required expansion, it might readily have been so if the two bodies before encounter be assumed to possess a higher velocity, which of course might have been the case. But without making any such assumption, the necessary expansion of the mass can be accounted for on very simple principles. It follows in fact from the theory, that the expansion of the gaseous mass must have been far greater than could have resulted simply from the temperature produced by the concussion. This will be obvious by considering what must take place immediately after the encounter of the two bodies, and before the mass has had sufficient time to pass completely into the gaseous condition. The two bodies coming into collision with such enormous velocities would not rebound like two elastic balls, neither would they instantly be converted into vapour by the encounter. The first effect of the blow would be to shiver them into fragments, small indeed as compared with the size of the bodies themselves, but still into what might be called in ordinary language immense blocks. Before the motion of the two bodies could be stopped, they would undoubtedly interpenetrate each other; and this of course would break them up into fragments. But this would only be the work of a few minutes. Here then we should have all the energy of the lost motion existing in the blocks as heat (molecular motion), while they were still in the solid state; for as yet they would not have had time to assume the gaseous condition. It is obvious, however, that the greater part of the heat would exist on the surface of the blocks (the place receiving the greatest concussion), and would continue there while the blocks retained their solid condition. It is difficult in imagination to realize what the temperature of the surfaces would be at this moment. For supposing the heat were uniformly distributed through the entire mass, each pound, as we have already seen, would possess 100,000,000,000 foot-pounds of heat. But, as the greater part of the heat would at this instant be concentrated on the outer layers of the blocks, these layers would be at once transformed into the gaseous condition, thus enveloping the blocks and filling up the interstices. The temperature of the incandescent gas, owing to this enormous concentration of heat, would be excessive, and its expansive force inconceivably great. As a consequence the blocks would be separated from each other, and driven in all directions with a velocity far more than sufficient to carry them to an infinite distance against the force of gravity were no opposing obstacle in the way. The blocks, by their mutual impact, would be shivered into small fragments, each of which would consequently become enveloped in incandescent gas. These smaller fragments would in a similar manner break up into smaller pieces, and so on until the whole came to assume the gaseous state. The general effect of the explosion would be to disperse the blocks in all directions, radiating from the centre of the mass. Those towards the circumference of the mass, meeting with little or no obstruction to their outward progress, would pass outwards into space to indefinite distances, leaving in this manner a free path for the layers of blocks behind them to follow in their track. Thus eventually a space, perhaps twice or even thrice that included within the orbit of Neptune, might be filled with fragments by the time the whole had assumed the gaseous condition.

"It would be the suddenness and almost instantaneity with which the mass would receive the entire store of energy before it had time even to assume the molten, far less the gaseous condition, which would lead to such fearful explosions and dispersion of the materials. If the heat had been gradually applied, no explosions, and consequently no dispersion of the materials would have taken place. There would first have been a gradual melting; and then the mass would pass by slow degrees in vapour, after which the vapour would rise in temperature as the heat continued, until it became possessed of the entire amount. But the space thus occupied by the gaseous mass would necessarily be very much smaller than in the case we have been considering, where the shattered materials were first dispersed in space before the gaseous condition could be assumed."

We have made this very long quotation; first, because we have not been able to condense it without running the risk of not placing sufficiently clearly the whole of the argumentations employed in it; secondly, because the purport of the whole explanation set forth is evidently to demonstrate that, by means of the explosions of gases produced by the collision, the matter of the whole mass would be more extensively distributed into space—bearing heat along with it—than were it gradually melted and converted into vapour; and thirdly, because every argument advanced in favour of the theory of explosions, if carefully looked into, brings along with it its testimony that it has not been studied thoroughly out to the end. Thus the quotation in a great measure saves us that labour.

Dr. Croll seems sometimes to demand more from the laws of nature than they can give. He says, at p. 42 of the work cited, that the expansion of the gaseous mass, produced by the collision of the two bodies, must have been far greater than could have resulted simply from the temperature produced by the concussion; and goes on to show how it—the expansion—might be caused by explosions of gases blowing out blocks of matter in all directions to indefinite distances. But he forgets that these explosions of gases would consume a great part of the heat they contained, that is, turn it into motion of the blocks, and so diminish the quantity produced by the collision, just in proportion to the velocities given to the masses of all the blocks blown out; so that what was gained in expansion would be lost in heat, and the object aimed at—of producing heat for the expenditure of the sun—so far lost. Also, that, were the thing feasible, the blocks could not carry with them any of the heat of the exploded gases that might not be used up, and that the heat contained in them derived from the concussion would have time in their flight—about two hours at 476 miles per second—to melt the matter composing them and turn it into vapour, long before even the orbit of Neptune was reached. The heat produced by the explosion of powder in a cannon gives the projectile all the impulse it can, and disappears; it is converted into motion. It does not cluster round the projectile, nor follow it up in its flight, nor push it through an armour plate when it pierces one. We cannot admit—for this reason—the possibility of a block of matter flying off into space, with a mass of heat clustering round it, like bees when swarming round a branch of a tree. Thermodynamics does not teach us anything about a mass of heat sticking to the surface of a block of matter of any kind.

If the heat were, at a given moment—that is, when motion was stopped—brought into existence uniformly throughout the entire mass, which, according to the law of conversion of motion into heat and vice versÂ, would most assuredly be the case, and each pound of the mass possessed 100,000,000,000 foot-pounds of heat, it could not be heaped up on the outer layers of the blocks—it matters not whether this means the layers of the outside of the whole mass, or at the outsides of the blocks—for the energy of lost motion, converted into heat, must have existed at the centres of the blocks or masses just in as great force as it did at the surfaces when motion was stopped. If each pound of matter carried along with it 100,000,000,000 foot-pounds of heat, that given out by one pound at the centre of a block would be as great as that given out by one pound at its surface; and the pounds at the surface could not acquire any greater heat from a neighbouring pound, because its neighbour could have no greater quantity to give it. Pounds of matter would be melted and vaporized, or converted into gas, just as readily at the centre of the mass or block as at its surface; and storing up of heat in the interstices of the blocks is rather a strange notion, because we are not at liberty to stow away heat in a vacuum. Besides, it is impossible to conceive how anything in the shape of a block could exist in any part of the whole mass, long enough for it to be blown out into space as a block. But supposing that a block could exist, it would most notoriously be in a state of unstable equilibrium; and were it then to receive from an explosion of gas, an impulse sufficient to drive it off to the verge of the sun's power of attraction—or rather to a distance equal to what that is—which would imply a velocity of not less than 360 miles per second, the shock would be quite sufficient to blow it into its constituent atoms. Moreover, as already stated, the heat of the explosion of the gas required to give the impulse would be immediately converted into motion, and disappear; so that out of the heat produced by the stoppage of a motion of 476 miles per second, that required to produce a motion of 360 miles per second, in each one of the blocks blown out to the distance above mentioned, would be entirely lost to the stock of heat schemed for so boldly. Of course, the less the distance from the centre the blocks were blown the less would be the loss, but the fact remains that there would be a loss instead of a gain of heat, in dispersing the matter of two half suns into space by explosions of gas. In fine, a given amount of heat will raise the temperature of a given amount of matter to an easily calculable degree, and no more; and if part of that is expended in expanding the volume of the matter, the whole stock of heat will be diminished by exactly the quantity required to produce the expansions. So that we come back to what we have said at page 54, viz., that when the matter and the heat of the collision of the two half suns were dispersed, under the most favourable circumstances, into a sphere of 6,000,000,000 miles in diameter, the mean density of the matter would be equal to about 1/270th part of an atmosphere, and its temperature—what is called—273° C. of absolute temperature, always considering the quantity of the heat to have been 300,000,000° C.

Dr. Croll says that if a velocity of 476 miles per second were not sufficient to produce the quantity of heat required, any other necessary velocity might be supposed, but when we consider that his supply of 300,000,000° C. would have to be increased to 82,000,000,000° C., in order to add 1° C. of heat to the matter dispersed through a sphere of 6,000,000,000 miles in diameter, it seems unnecessary to pursue the subject any farther.

We may now take a look at Dr. Braun's Impact Cosmogony, of which we know nothing beyond what is set forth in the Review in "Nature" already alluded to, but that is enough for our purpose. We understand that he extends his operations to the whole universe, which he conceives to have been formed out of almost unlimited, and almost imponderable, nebulous matter, not homogeneous, but with local irregularities in it, which "would lead to the breaking up of the nebula into a vast number of separate fragments." Out of one of these fragments he supposes the solar system to have been formed. This fragment would contain local irregularities also, which through condensation would lead to the formation of separate bodies, and these bodies are supposed to have been driven into their present forms, and gyrating movements of all kinds, by centric and eccentric collisions among themselves, caused by their mutual attractions. Of course anything can be supposed, but in a construction of this kind the idea is forced upon us of the necessity of the active superintendence of the Creator, to create in the proper places and bring in the matter at the exact moment required, and to see that the collisions were directed with the proper degree of energy and eccentricity, to construct the kind of machine that was proposed. To this idea we have no objections whatever, but we would like to see the necessity for it acknowledged. Perhaps Dr. Braun does acknowledge it, but the cosmogony is given to us, it would seem, to show what most probably was the original scheme of construction, and implying that no continual supervision and direction were required during the process. If Dr. Braun could show us some method of attraction, and suspension and variation of attraction, by which some of the separate bodies could be drawn towards each other so as to form a central mass, nebula, or sun, and to give it, by their impacts of collision, a rotary motion; and how others of the separate bodies could be formed and held in appropriate places, so as to be set in motion at the right moment; and how they were to be so set in motion without the direct action of the constructor, to revolve as planets around the central mass, we might be able to recognise that a mechanism such as that of the solar system might be brought into existence; but when we are left to discover all these requisites, and their modus operandi, we find that we might be as well employed in designing a cosmogony of our own.

Dr. Braun indulges in somewhat startling numbers in temperature and pressure. He considers that the temperature of the sun, at the surface, may be from 40,000° to 100,000° C., and that it may reach to from ten to thirty million degrees at the centre. In this he may be right for anything we know to the contrary. When riding over a sandy desert, under an unclouded vertical sun, we could easily have believed anything of the central heat of such a fire, especially when we considered that it was at a distance of ninety-three millions of miles from us. But when he tells us that in the depths of the sun's interior the pressure reaches a maximum of two thousand millions of atmospheres, we "pull in resolution and begin to doubt." Air at that pressure would have a density 2,585,984 times that of water, or 456,887 times the mean density of the earth, and we should have a species of matter to ponder over, of which no physicist has ever as yet dreamt.

We have been able to study M. Faye's cosmogony in his work on "L'Origine du Monde," second edition of 1885, and can give a better account of it than of Dr. Braun's.

(1) He repudiates almost all existence of heat in the cosmic matter he is about to deal with, recognising that its temperature must have been very near the point of absolute zero, and also that its tenuity must have been almost inconceivable; so tenuous that a cubic miriamÈtre of it would not contain more perhaps than 5·217 grammes in weight. And very properly, we think, he looks upon the solar systems as having, at one time, formed a part of the whole universe, all of which was brought into existence, created, more or less, about the same time. In this universe, he considers that the stars have been formed, as well as the sun, by the progressive concentration of primitive materials disseminated in space, which conception gives rise to a totally new notion of the most positive character: viz. that each star owes to its mode of formation a provision of heat essentially limited; that it is not permissible, as Laplace thought he could do, to endow a sun with an indefinite amount of heat; and that what it has expended and what it still possesses, depend upon its volume and actual mass. And also that the primitive materials of the solar system were, at the beginning, part of a universal chaos from which they were afterwards separated, in virtue of movements previously impressed on the whole of the matter; and sums up his first ideas in the following manner or theorem:

"At the beginning the universe consisted of a general chaos, of extreme tenuity, formed of all the elements of Chemistry more or less mixed and confounded together. These materials under the force of their mutual attractions were, from the beginning, endowed with diverse movements which brought about their separation into masses or clouds. These still retained their movements of rapid translation, and very gentle interior gyrations. These myriads of chaotic fragments have given birth, by means of progressive condensations, to the diverse worlds of the universe."

(2) So much for the formation of the universe, including, of course, the solar system, for which he acknowledges the necessity for the intervention of a creating power, because it is impossible to account for it simply by the laws of nature; and adds: It is unnecessary to say that the universe is an indefinite series of transformations, that what we see results logically from a previous condition, and thus necessary in the past as in the future; we cannot see how a previous condition could tend towards the immense diffusion of matter, to the chaos out of which the actual condition has arisen; and that it is, therefore, necessary to begin with a hypothesis, and postulate of God, as Descartes did, the disseminated matter and the forces which govern it.

(3) From dealing with the universe, M. Faye comes to the formation of an isolated star, and begins with an entirely ideal case, that of a spherical homogeneous mass, without interior movement of any kind, and concludes that the molecules would fall in straight lines towards the centre; that the mass would condense regularly without losing its homogeneity, and would end in producing an incandescent sphere perfectly immovable; and that that would be a star, but a star without satellites, without rotation, without proper movement. This not being what was wanted, he goes on to show how, previous to its separation and complete isolation from the universal chaos, such a mass would possess, and carry with it when separated, a considerable velocity of rotation, and would still retain the internal movements it had acquired from the attraction of the other masses with which it had been previously in contact; and how the molecules, drawn towards the centre in obedience to gravitation, would not fall in straight lines but in concentric ellipses.

(4) From this state of affairs, two very different results might arise. One, that the molecules might resolve themselves into a multitude of small masses without the centre acquiring a preponderating increase. The other, that the central condensation might greatly exceed the others, and there would be formed a central star accompanied by a crowd of small dark bodies. M. Faye accepts the second result, in which case the ellipses described by the small bodies, now become satellites, would, as the central mass increased in preponderance, have one of their centres at the centre of the preponderating mass, and their times of revolution would vary from one to another in conformity to the third law of Kepler.

(5) For the formation of the solar system M. Faye finds that it is of little importance whether the movements of bodies around the sun be very eccentric or almost circular; the first cause is always the same. They arise from the eddies, tourbillonnements, they have brought with them from their rectilinear movements in the primitive chaos. But the circle is such a particular case of the ellipse, that we ought not to expect to see it realized in any system. It is therefore necessary that, among the initial conditions of the chaotic mass, one should be found which would prevent the gyrations, eddies, from degenerating into elliptical movements, and which has at first made right, and afterwards firmly preserved, the form, more or less circular, in all its changes.

(6) For the formation of circular rings he gives us the following conceptions: In order that a star should have companions, great or small, circulating round the centre of gravity of the system, it is necessary that the partial chaos from whence it proceeded should have possessed, from the beginning, a gentle eddying movement affecting a part of its materials. Besides, if the partial chaos has been really round and homogeneous, we shall see that these gyrations must have taken up, and to some extent preserved, the circular form. He then requests the reader not to lose sight of the feeble density of the medium, in which a succession of mechanical changes are to be brought about; and not to conclude that that density was such that a cubic miriamÈtre of the space occupied by it might not contain 3250 grammes of matter, as he stated in the preceding chapter (we think he said 5217 grammes), but that it might contain only 3 grammes or even less. And adds that in such a medium, the small agglomerations of matter which would be formed all through it, would move as if they were in an absolute vacuum, and any changes in them would be produced extremely slowly.

(7) Then he goes on to say that the gyrating movements belonging to the chaotic mass, would have very little difficulty in transforming a part of a motion of that kind into a veritable rotation, if this last were compatible with the law of the internal gravitation; that it is the nature of that kind of masses to only permit, to the bodies moving in them, revolutions, elliptic or circular, concentric and of the same duration; that therefore notable portions of the gyrating matter could take the form and movements of a flat ring, turning around the centre with the same angular velocity, exactly as if this nebulous ring were a solid body; that all the particles which have the proper velocity in the plane of the gyrations, will arrange themselves under the influence of gravitation in a flat ring with a veritable rotation around the centre; that any other parts having velocities too great or too small, will move in the same plane, describing ellipses concentric to the ring; that if the ellipses are very elongated the materials composing them will approach the centre, where they will produce a progressive condensation, communicating to the central globe formed there a rotation in the same plane with the primitive gyrations; and finishes off the whole scheme by specifying the first results to be: (1) The formation of concentric rings turning in one piece, in the manner of a solid body, around a centre almost empty (d'abord vide); and (2) A rotation in the same direction, communicated to the condensation which would be produced, little by little, by means of matter coming in, partly, from regions affected by the internal eddyings (tourbillonnements).

(8) It is unnecessary to go any farther, and take note of his method of the formation of planets and satellites from rings, as it is much the same as what we have seen described by others who have written on the same subject; only interpreted by him in a way to suit his own purposes, and in which interpretation he does not do full justice to Laplace, through not having paid sufficient attention to his explanation of how planets could be formed out of rings. Except in so far as to note that all along he has considered that rings were formed, and even those nearest to the centre condensed into globes, long before the central condensation had attained any magnitude of importance, or assumed any distinctive shape, and that afterwards all the disposable matter of the rings and also all the exterior matter that had not formed part of what was separated from the original universal chaos, had fallen in towards the small central mass, and so completed the formation of the sun last of all.

We shall now proceed to make a few remarks with respect to this condensation of M. Faye's cosmogony, which we think we have made without adding to or omitting anything of importance that we have met with in his work, for which purpose we have numbered the paragraphs containing it, in the last six pages, in order to do away with the necessity of repeating the parts to which we refer.

No. 1. All those who believe that "the solar system did originate somehow, by the condensation of a primitive nebula," agree with M. Faye in considering that the density of the nebulous matter must have been extremely low, and some of them seem almost to vie with each other in showing how great must have been the degree of its tenuity; but M. Faye is one of the few who, paying due respect to the law of the interdependence of temperature and pressure in a gas or vapour, maintain that it must have been almost devoid of temperature, and we have to acknowledge that he is in the right. Then we believe that his assumption, that the whole universe of stars, including the sun, was created, humanly speaking, about the same time, is shared by the great majority of those who have thought at all seriously on the subject. Also, we agree with him firmly in his statement that each star—and we add planet, satellite, etc.—was originally supplied with an extremely limited quantity of heat, and that what it has expended and what it still retains has been derived entirely from the condensation of the original cosmic matter out of which it was made.

With regard to his theorem: we cannot follow him in his statement that the diverse movements caused by the mutual attractions of parts of the original universal mass of cosmic matter, have brought about its separation into myriads of fragments; nor how these fragments could carry with them a rapid movement of translation, unless the whole universal mass was endowed with a rapid movement of translation through space, in which case we think that such a motion would have had no greater particular effect in producing new forms of motion in the fragments, than if the whole had been created in a state of rest. Stray movements of translation might give rise to collisions among the multitude of fragments, and perhaps that was one of the modes of formation into suns through which they had to pass; but we cannot follow it out. Neither can we see clearly how translation could be effected of one mass into the space occupied by another mass—unless empty spaces were reserved for that purpose from the beginning. Without that, translation could not exist: it would be collision.

No. 2. We have nothing to object to what is said in this paragraph; except that a rotating sphere might have been postulated at once, in imitation of Laplace, instead of trying like Descartes to join fragments together, endowed with movements so adjusted that, among the whole of them, they would produce in the whole mass, when united, the kind of movement that was wanted.

No. 3. To the ideal case of the formation of an isolated sun from a homogeneous mass without interior movement of any kind, we cannot agree in any way. The molecules of matter would not, could not, fall in towards the centre in straight lines. Their mutual collisions would drive them generally in curved lines in all directions as they fell in, which would create new internal movements; and these movements would prevent the possibility of the formation of an immovable incandescent sphere such as is described. There could be no immobility in the interior of a sun, as long as its temperature was sufficient to keep the surface incandescent. But we cannot give our reasons here for this assertion—to most people they will, we think, occur at once—because we have a long road to travel before we can do so.

When M. Faye abandons the isolated case, he leaves us without giving us any help, to conceive for ourselves how the mass would possess and carry with it a considerable velocity of rotation, and still retain the internal movements it had acquired from the attraction of the other masses—of the universal chaos—with which it had been in contact; and also how the molecules drawn towards the centre would not fall in straight lines but in concentric ellipses. And this last we have to do without his giving us any reason why the molecules should fall in towards the centre at all; or rather in spite of the fact that one of his principal ideas would lead us to expect exactly the contrary, as we shall see presently.

No. 4. Here he places before us again, two cases in one of which the molecules might resolve themselves into a multitude of small masses, without the centre acquiring any preponderating increase; and the other where the central condensation might greatly exceed the others, and there would be formed a central star accompanied by a crowd of small dark bodies, now become satellites, describing ellipses around the central preponderating mass. This second case he seems, for the time being, to accept as the most probable; but it is strangely at variance with what he sets forth afterwards. He does not give us the least hint as to why or how the satellites acquired their various times of revolution, but only assumes that they did so; and we are very sure that it was not the third law of Kepler that was the agent in the case, however much it might suit his purpose.

No. 5. Although this part of his exposition is dedicated to the formation of the solar system, all that M. Faye says is that it is of little importance whether the movements of bodies around the sun be very eccentric or almost circular; and that among the initial conditions of the chaotic mass, all that we require is that one should be found which would prevent the gyrations from degenerating into elliptic movements, and which had first put right and afterwards firmly preserved the form, more or less circular, in all its changes. But he does not make any attempt to show what that one condition is, and allows us to find it out for ourselves.

No. 6. What M. Faye says about the formation of circular rings is more or less a repetition of what he has adduced, to explain all the other movements which he has derived from the universal chaos; and which he seems to think sufficient to account for such movements being nearly circular. For our part we do not think they are sufficient, and he does not show us how they influence each other to bring about the final movements he wants to present to us.

We duly take note of the tenuity of the cosmic matter on which he operates, which at 3 grammes in weight to 1 cubic miriamÈtre would correspond to one grain in weight to 771,947,719,300 cubic feet of space, or 1 grain to a cube of 9173 feet—more than 3000 yards—to the side. We do this in order to remind him of what he says at page 151 of his work, when dealing with the rotation of the Kant-Laplace nebula—namely, that it is impossible to comprehend how an immense chaos, of almost inconceivable tenuity, could possess such a rotation from the beginning, and that for want of that inadmissible supposition nothing remains to fall back upon but the mouvements tourbillonnaires of Descartes. Thus he wants us to believe that his tourbillons could move in straight or curved lines, have motions of translation, could attract, restrain, and drive each other into all sorts of movements with the tenuity he has indicated; but that Laplace's nebula, with a density of 1 grain to a cube of 90 feet—or at most 150 feet—to the side, could not be conceived to have the single movement of rotation. And lastly, we repeat that if the centre of the chaos was almost empty, we do not see what induced the cosmic matter to fall into it in elliptic orbits.

Nos. 7 & 8. In these paragraphs, the main features are repetitions of the simple assertions made in all the others, that certain movements possessed by matter in one state would produce other movements in another state, without attempting to show how they all came to so far coincide with each other and form one harmonious whole, with movements in almost one single direction. It is clear that one side of the separated chaos might have acquired motion in one direction from the universal chaos with which it had been in contact, and that the opposite side might have acquired motion in exactly the opposite direction from the original chaos with which it had been in contact; and we are left to find out how these came to agree with each other in the end. And, going back to the beginning, we are left to find out where the mass, out of which he constructs his solar system, was stowed away, after it was separated from the original universal chaos. We can conceive of its being separated by condensation, in obedience to the law of attraction, from the surrounding chaos, in which case it might fall towards a centre, or that some parts of it might come to revolve round each other, and that finally the whole of these parts might come to rotate about a common centre; but that is evidently very different from the mode of formation of the solar system which M. Faye has advocated. It comes to be by far too like the nebula which Laplace supposed to be endowed with rotary motion from the beginning, probably because he did not see, or did not take the trouble to see, how such a motion could be produced. In any case, Laplace did not consider that the primary motion of rotation was the most important part of his hypothesis; neither was it, as it seems to have been in the case we have been considering. And he did not go much further than M. Faye in postulating primary motion, only he did it in a more effectual and business-like manner. He drew on the bank at once for all the funds he required, instead of having to draw afresh every time he found himself in difficulties, as has been the lot of his critic and successor.

Finally, M. Faye tries to show that after all his rings, flat or otherwise, converted or not converted into globes, had been formed according to his ideas, the greater mass by far of the chaos had fallen into the centre, and had formed the sun there last of all. Now, if the preponderating mass of the chaos had been outside of the field of his operations, up to the period when all his planets, satellites, etc. were formed, or at least laid out, it is more natural to suppose that the matter inside of his structure, if there was any, would be drawn outwards by the attraction of the greatly preponderating mass outside, than that any portion of it should have fallen in, in elongated ellipses, towards the insignificant mass that he supposes to have been inside his structure. This, of course, would be nearly exactly the reverse of the mode of formation he was trying to demonstrate, and clearly shows that he was working on unsound principles from the beginning to the end of his cosmogony. It had never occurred to him that matter could be attracted outwards as well as inwards, most probably because it would seem to him ridiculous to imagine that anything in the universe could gravitate upwards.

There are other theories of the formation of the solar system from meteorites and meteors, giving us the idea of its being made out of manufactured articles instead of originally created raw material, which does not in any way simplify the process. In some of them, the inrush of meteor swarms is invoked as the cause of gyratory motion, which places them in much the same category as impact theories. We know that broadcloth is made out of woollen yarn, but we also know how the yarn is made out of wool, and how it is woven into the cloth, whereas we are not told by what process, or even out of what the meteors and meteorites are made, although some of them are said to have thumb-marks upon them.

All these theories and cosmogonies may be very appropriately classified as variations of the nebula hypothesis, and like variations in another science, may be very brilliant, scientific, imaginative, grand, but after all the flights of fancy exhibited by them are set before us, we feel in a measure relieved when a return is made to the original air. They all assume original motion, varied, accidental, opportune, more dependent upon the will of the cosmogonist than on the laws of nature, which tend to confound rather than enlighten any one who tries to understand and bring them, mentally, into actual operation. Laplace assumed rotary motion for the whole of his nebula, and was thus able to account at once for the relation which exists among the planets in respect of distance from, and period of revolution around the sun—arising from the original rotation of the whole mass in one piece—a result which, in any impact theory, has to be accounted for separately, and, in plain truth, empirically in each case, and at each step.

Seeing, then, that we have not been able to find any cosmogony, or speculation, that gives us a more plausible idea of how the solar system has been formed, we shall try whether from the original nebula as imagined by Laplace, it is possible to separate the various members, and form the system in the manner described in his celebrated hypothesis. In other words, we shall endeavour to analyse the hypothesis.