CHAPTER XV.

Previous
Page
261 Construction of the solar system. Matter out of which it was formed
262 Domains of the sun out of which the matter was collected
263 Stars nearest to the sun. Table VII. showing distances
265 Remarks on Binary Stars. Table VIII. showing spheres of
??attraction between the sun and a very few
266 Sirius actually our nearest neighbour. Form of the sun's domains of a very jagged nature
267 Creation of matter for the nebulÆ, out of which the whole universe was
??elaborated. Beginning of construction
267 The law of attraction begins to operate through the agency of evolution
268 Form of the primitive solar nebula. The jagged peaks
??probably soon left behind in contraction
269 How the nebula contracted. Two views of the form it might take.
??Comparison of the two forms, solid or hollow
272 The hollow centre form adopted. The jagged peaks left behind
273 The nebula assuming a spherical form. Shreds, masses,
??crescents separated from one side
274 Probable form of interior of nebula. Compared with envelopes in heads of some comets
275 Reflections on the nebula being hollow. Opinions of others quoted
276 The matter of a sphere solid to the centre must be inert there
277 Further proofs of the nebula being hollow
278 How rotary motion was instituted
279 Such a nebula might take one of two forms
280 The form depending on the class of nebula. Planetary in the case of the solar system.
??A similar conception of how rotary motion could be instituted

In this chapter we proceed to consider how the original nebula was formed, and whether the solar system could be evolved therefrom in the manner shown in the analysis of Chapter V.

The usual way of treating the solar system has been to suppose it to have been formed out of a nebula extending far beyond the planet Neptune, generally in a vague way; although some writers have specified a limit to the distance, in order to give some definite idea of what must have been the density of the nebula at some particular period of its existence. In the first part of our work we have adopted the same plan and we mean to follow it out, because it gives us a greater degree of facility for expressing our ideas, and making them more intelligible, than by adopting a new method. But we shall previously endeavour to show where the nebula itself came from and how it was formed, which seems to us to be as necessary as to show how it was transformed into the solar system.

We understand Laplace to have supposed the nebula to have been formed out of cosmic matter in its simplest condition, and in its most primitive atomic state, collected from enormously distant regions of space by the power or law of attraction. In this we shall follow him, because we do not see the necessity for matter having to be created in the form of meteorites or meteors, or any other form, to be afterwards dissociated and reduced to the atomic state, by heat produced by collisions amongst the dissociated atoms. Surely it would show more prescience, more simplicity of work, and economy of labour, to create matter in this primitive state, than in one which required it to be passed through a mill of some kind, as it were, before it was manufactured into nebulous matter; in fact, to make brickbats in order that they should be afterwards ground down—dissociated—into impalpable powder, to render them fit to be worked up into bricks. But our first effort will be to attempt to define the collecting grounds of this cosmic matter, somewhat more particularly than has been done hitherto, as we believe that even a superficial study of them will assist us greatly in forming a more comprehensive idea of the whole solar system than anything we have met with in any of the books which we have had the opportunity of applying to for information.

The collecting grounds, then, are clearly the whole region of space to which the attractive power of the sun extends, or what astronomers would call within the sphere of his attraction. These domains, like those of any other proprietor, are limited by the domains of his neighbours. At first sight, it would seem that his neighbours are infinite in number, but a little thought will show that the number may be very limited indeed. On this small earth of ours, it is a very common thing for a landed proprietor to be able to look over the domains of his neighbours, and see those of proprietors more remote; even to look over the domains of his neighbours' neighbours, and see properties so remote that he does not even know to whom they belong nor how they are named. With much more reason, the same must be the case with the sun, more especially as he, from his own mansion-house, sees nothing of the domains, but only the mansion-houses of others, there being no landmarks, hills, fences or woods to cut off his view, as there are upon the earth; the only interruption possible to his view being that another mansion-house should come to be exactly between his and that of a farther-off neighbour. For our purposes, we will assume that his nearest neighbours are those the distances of whose mansion-houses have been measured, and will adopt the following list of them, taken from Mr. George Chambers's "Hand-Book of Astronomy," part 3, page 10, 5th edition, 1889, and forming Table VII. All that we can learn from this table is that the boundary between the sun and any one of the stars mentioned in it must be somewhere on a straight line connecting the two, but that does not furnish us with any information as to the extent of the sun's domains, although it does help to give us some idea of their form. For some knowledge of their extent, we require to know how far the lordship of each one of the proprietors extends from his mansion-house; which, very much the same as it does upon the earth, depends upon the power he has to take and keep it; it depends on the mass of each neighbour who actually marches with the sun when compared with his own mass. The list referred to does not help us in any way to determine this, as we have just said, but we have found in Professor Charles A. Young's "Lessons in Astronomy," of 1891, page 270, the masses of six binary stars whose distances, calculated from the parallaxes given in it, furnish us with data from which we can calculate the distance from the sun of the boundary between him and any one of them. The number is very small, but still from them we can gain some notion of what was the form of the domains from which the original nebula was collected; that is, always under the supposition that the sun and his system were evolved from a nebula. From these data, Table VIII. has been drawn up, which shows the distances of the six stars from the sun, and the limits of his sphere of attraction in relation to them expressed in terms of radii of the earth's orbit, and also in radii of Neptune's orbit, which gives numbers more easily comprehended by us.

TABLE VII.— List of Stars whose Distances from the Sun have been Measured, and which are assumed to be his nearest Neighbours.

Distance
Star. Magnitude. Proper
Motion.
( " )
Parallax
( " )
Sun's
Distance=1.
Timefor
Lightto
reachEarth.
Observers
a Centauri 1 3.67 0.75 275,000 4·34 Gill.
61 Cygni 6 5·14 0·50 412,500 6·51 O. Struve.
21185 Lalande 4·75 0·50 412,500 6·51 Winnecke.
Sirius 1 1·24 0·38 543,000 8·57 Gill.
CassiopeiÆ 0·34 606,000 9·57 O. Struve.
34 Groombridge 8 2·81 0·29 711,000 11·23 Auwers.
9352 Lacaille 6·95 0·28 737,000 11·62 Gill.
21258 Lalande 4·40 0·26 793,000 12·52 KrÜger.
Ö Arg. 17415 9 1·27 0·25 825,000 13·02 KrÜger.
s Draconis 5 1·87 0·25 825,000 13·02 Brunnow.
e Indi 4·68 0·22 938,000 14·80 Gill.
a LyrÆ 1 0·31 0·20 1,031,000 16·27 ——
?2 Eridani 4·10 0·17 1,213,000 19·15 Gill.
? Ophiuchi 1·00 0·17 1,213,000 19·15 KrÜger.
e Eridani 3·03 0·14 1,473,000 23·24 Elkin.
? UrsÆ Majoris 3 0·52 0·13 1,586,000 25·04 C.A.F. Peters.
a BoÖtis 1 2·43 0·13 1,586,000 25·04 C.A.F. Peters.
? Draconis 2 0·06 0·09 2,292,000 36·17 ——
1830 Groombridge 7 7·705 0·09 2,292,000 36·17 Brunnow.
Polaris 2 0·07 2,947,000 46·50 C.A.F. Peters.
3077 Bradley 6 2·09 0·07 2,947,000 46·00 Brunnow.
? Foucani 6 2·05 0·06 3,438,000 54·25 Elkin.
85 Pegasi 6 1·38 0·05 4,125,000 65·10 Brunnow.
a AurigÆ 1 0·43 0·04 5,157,000 81·37 C.A.F. Peters.
Canopus 1 0·03 6,875,000 108·50 Elkin.

TABLE VIII.— Masses of a few Binary Stars showing the Limit of the Sun's Sphere of Attraction with respect to them, in Radii of the Earth's Orbit, and Distances of their Boundaries with the Sun in the same Measure, and also in Neptune Distances.

Name of Star. Parallax
( " )
Mass
Sun's
Mass=1.
DistancefromSun
inEarthOrbitradii
(93,000,000)
Miles.

DistanceofLimit
ofSun'sSphereof
Attractionin
radiiofEarth's
Orbit=1.

Distanceof
Limitinradiiof
Neptune'sOrbit
=2,794,000,000
Miles.
a Centauri 0·75 2·14 275,000 128,505 4,277
61 Cygni 0·43 0·23 479,686 369,358 12,294
Sirius 0·38 4·26 543,000 127,465 4,243
a Geminorum 0·20 0·30 1,031,325 721,927 24,030
70 Ophiuchi 0·16 5·00 1,289,150 257,830 8,582
? CassiopeiÆ 0·15 3·00 1,375,100 458,366 15,257

But there is still something to be said with respect to the Binary Stars of Table VIII., and any others whose masses may be met with later on. If those forming a pair revolve around each other, or a common centre, in orbits, it must happen that they will be sometimes more or less in conjunction, opposition, and quadrature with regard to the sun; also the angles of the planes of their orbits to direct lines between them and the sun, whatever these angles may be, will cause variations in the separate and combined forces of attraction they exercise in the domains of the sun, at different periods of their revolutions; so that these powers of attraction will be constantly increasing and diminishing, and causing the boundaries of their domains to approach and recede from the sun; thus introducing between their domains and those of the sun a debatable land, which will reduce celestial to be very much like terrestrial affairs, where each proprietor, or power, takes the pull when an opportunity presents itself. No doubt all such invasions, or claims, between proprietors will be settled by the law of attraction, without lawsuit, arbitration or conflict; but as law gives right, and might is right—most emphatically in this case—we come back to the old seesaw of earthly matters. Well, therefore, many astronomers teach that the whole universe is formed out of the same kind of materials, and governed by the same laws that we are having good reason to know something about on this earth of ours.

Accustomed to look upon a Centauri as the star nearest to us, on account of its light-distance being so much smaller than any other noted in our text-books, we were not prepared to find that, when measured by his sphere-of-attraction distance, Sirius is actually a rather nearer neighbour to the sun than it; nor that his, apparently, next nearest neighbour, when measured in the same way, is twice as far away as either of them; and thus we have the conviction thrust upon us that they must have made deep hollows in the solar nebula when it was being formed. On the other hand, when we think of three of the other stars mentioned in the list of six, being practically from three to six times farther off than either of them, we come to the conclusion that the form of the nebula, when in its most primitive state, must have been of a very jagged character; a conclusion which is very considerably strengthened when we look at Table VII., and see that the stars noted in it run up to from twice to not far from thirty times more distant from the sun than a Centauri. And now, having got a somewhat definite idea of the form of the sun's domains, we may attempt the construction in them, first of a nebula and afterwards of a solar system, such as our text-books describe to us; introducing into the construction, as a matter of course, the variations from existing theories which, we believe, we have demonstrated to be necessary.

Perhaps we ought to confine our operations to these domains, and so we will almost exclusively; but the sun has been so long considered as one of many millions of stars, and as part of what is now looked upon as our universe, that we cannot help looking upon the whole as having been the result of one act of creation; more especially as we have no reason whatever for supposing it to have been built up piece by piece; and whatever ideas we may form of our own little part of it, we are bound to apply them to the whole. We may, therefore, lay the foundations of our undertaking in the following manner. By creation we mean only creation of nebulÆ.

We shall suppose all space—if we can comprehend what that means—to have been filled with the ether, and the law of attraction to have been in force previous to the time when our operations are supposed to have commenced. These we may consider to have been the first acts of creation, or to have existed from all eternity. Then, in that part of space occupied by our universe—even though it should extend infinitely beyond the reach of our most powerful telescopes—we shall suppose the work of creation to have begun by filling the whole of that space with what are known as the chemical elements, reduced to their atomic state. We do not want to have molecules or particles of matter, or meteorites or meteors; because they involve the idea of previous manipulation or agglomeration, but matter in its very simplest form, if there is any more simple than the atomic. At this stage the most natural idea is to suppose that the whole of this matter was at rest, without motion of any kind, because we cannot understand how motion could be an object of creation, but can very easily see how it might be of evolution; and because, under the law of attraction, matter had the elements of motion in itself. Under that law it is quite possible for us to comprehend that all the suns of our universe could have been formed just as they are, with all their movements of rotation, revolution in the cases of multiple stars, and translation or what is called proper motion. And it is within the bounds of possibility that future astronomers may be able to show how these movements have been brought about, should it ever be possible for them to find out and define with sufficient accuracy what the translatory, or proper, motions are. Then, as for the temperature of this newly created matter, we have no resource left but to suppose that it must have been that of space, whatever that may have been then, even as we have been obliged to say before.

Once created, the atoms of the cosmic matter would immediately begin to attract each other in all directions, and form themselves into groups. At first thought it might be supposed that these groups, and suns formed from them, ought to have been all of the same size, being formed from the same material under the same conditions, but nature, or evolution, seems never to be disposed to produce the same results in its manipulations of matter, whatever they may be. When the water is drawn off from a pond, and the mud left in the bottom of it allowed to dry in the sun, it breaks up into cakes of very various shapes and sizes. No doubt there are physical causes for this being the case, but, though perhaps not altogether impossible, it would be a hard task to find them out. Much more so would it be with originally created matter, and we have only to accept the fact. Moreover, there can be little doubt but that the universe was formed, evolved, according to some design—not at hap-hazard—and that the cosmic matter was created with the distribution necessary to carry out the plan. That the stars differ from each other in magnitude is the best proof of design; for no one can believe that inert matter could determine into what shapes and sizes it could arrange itself. But we have now nothing more to do with the universe, and will confine our operations to the domains of the sun.

Notwithstanding the vagueness and dimness of the description we have been able to give of the part of space to which our work is now to be confined, we can conceive it to resemble in some degree—not a comparatively flat but—a round starfish, with arms more unequal in length, and irregular in position than the kind we are accustomed to see. In such an allotment of space we can easily conceive that the work of attraction and condensation, of the newly created cosmic matter, in forming itself into a nebula, would be most active in the main body; that in the arms, or projecting peaks as they may be called, it would go on more slowly in the direction towards the centre, the quantity being smaller; and that on account of the greater distance in each from the centre of attraction, and of its being more under the influence of the still existing counter-attraction of the matter in the domains of the sun's neighbours, they might become almost, or rather altogether, detached from the more rapidly contracting main body.

We shall, then, suppose that all this has taken place in our incipient nebula. The centre of attraction would at first be the centre of gravity of the whole region occupied by the cosmic matter, which would be ruled in due measure by the projecting peaks, and the indentations or hollows produced in it by the attractive force of the most powerful neighbours; which hollows would gradually disappear as the process of condensation went on, and the main mass would assume the figure of a nebula of some shape. From this stage we may reasonably conclude that, as it was contracting towards the common centre of gravity of all its parts, it would gradually assume a somewhat globular form, and we may now suppose it to have contracted to, say three times the diameter of the orbit of Neptune. Here, then, we may take into consideration what was the interior construction of the main mass which we may now look upon as a nebula; and we have only two states in which we can conceive it to have been. Either that the whole was condensing to the common centre of gravity, in which case its greatest density would be at the centre; or that it was condensing towards the region of greatest mass, in which case its greatest density would be at that region, and its least density at the exterior of the nebula, and also at, or at some distance from, its centre; that is, that the nebula was hollow and without any cosmic matter at all at its centre.

In the first case we must recognise that, from that period of time at least, the cosmic matter that was at, or even near, the centre of gravity then, must be there still all but inert, and being gradually compressed to a greater and greater degree of density. There would, no doubt, be attraction and collisions going on amongst the particles, with condensation towards the centre and production of heat—as long as the particles retained the gasiform condition—which might be increased in activity by the pressure, or superincumbent weight, of the whole exterior mass, but there would be no tendency in them to move outwards—provided their gravitation was always towards the centre; and any motion amongst them would be of the same kind as the vibration of the particles of air shut up in a cylinder and gradually compressed by a piston forced in upon them, and not allowed to escape owing to the sides of the cylinder exerting upon them a pressure increasing exactly in the same proportion as the pressure on the piston was increased. And if this was the case with the matter at or near the centre, it would be the same with that of the whole mass, with the exception, perhaps, of the outer layer, which might act the part of the piston in the cylinder. There could be no motions among the particles, except those of collisions and of falling down towards the centre. The outward impacts of collisions would be less strong than those inwards, on account of gravitation acting against them, and the general tendency of all matter would be to move towards the centre. Even were we to assume that the whole mass was endowed with a rotary motion, the result would be much the same, that is, increasing stagnation of the matter as it approached to the centre. The areolar law teaches us, however, that the increase of condensation at the centre would increase the rotation there; but in that case we have to acknowledge that this increase of rotation would have to be propagated from near the centre to the circumference, which would be by far the most difficult mode of propagation, and we are forced to think of what would be the rate of rotation at the centre, of a nebulous globe, of some sixteen thousand million miles in diameter, required to produce a rotation at the circumference of even once in four or five hundred years; and from that to think of what must be the speed of rotation at the centre of the sun, at the present day, to produce one rotation at the circumference of twenty-five to twenty-seven days. We should also have to think seriously of how the rotary motion was instituted, and we could only appeal either to simple assumption, or to the impact theory, which, applied to a mass of the dimensions of the one we are dealing with, would require more explanation than the whole formation of the nebula itself.

In the second case, that is, looking upon the nebula as a hollow sphere—when it was of the dimensions we have just supposed it to be—we get rid of all the difficulties, and we may add impossibilities, that we encountered in the first case. In such a formation there could be no particle of matter in a state approaching to inertness, not one that could not work its way, through force of attraction and collisions, from the outer to the inner surface of the hollow shell, or vice versÂ, or all through and round it and from pole to pole—if it had poles then; it might increase or decrease in density, according to the density of the particles with which it came into collision, as it moved from one place to another, but it would find no spot where it could stand still or be imprisoned. Even arrived at the region of greatest density, it could change places with its neighbours and move all over that region, if it were condemned to remain with one density once it had acquired it; if not, by acquiring or loosing a little density—i.e. by being compressed or allowed to expand a little—it could work its way outwards or inwards, as we have just said, and be as free as the law of attraction would admit of, and as active as that law would oblige it to be. It must be borne in mind that gravitation would act in two opposite directions depending on whether it was acting on the outside or inside of the region of greatest density. We do not go the length of supposing that it could escape altogether from the nebula were its progress outwards; because, as it approached the border, it would meet with plenty of other particles coming in, which would reduce its velocity and prevent its escape. Besides, the law of attraction would take good care to prevent it from passing over to a neighbour nebula or sun.

It may be argued that in the first case—i.e. condensation to the centre—the particles would have the same facilities for changing place, in so far as moving all round the interior of the nebula, or across it, on their way to quasi stagnation, as their densities and the superincumbent weight concentrated and increased; but there could be no motion outwards because the attraction of gravitation would not permit it; nothing could fall upwards, all must gravitate to the centre. Thus the power of motion in the particles would be limited to very much less than half what they would have in the case of the hollow sphere.

It will not do to argue that the increasing heat at the centre would create an upward current. It might create repulsion and prevent the farther-out particles from so soon reaching their final resting or vibrating place, but it could not create an upward convection current of any magnitude; because the colder particles falling down to replace those rising up—that is, if the warmer ones did rise up—being greater in number because occupying greater space, would soon cool down the centre and put an end to the upward current, that is, if it ever came to be set in motion. The greater weight of the greater number would be sure to keep the lesser number in their prison. If any one should say that those nearest the centre would be the heaviest, let him remember that the heaviest liquid or fluid does not rise to the surface. There could be no furnace at the centre to heat the cold particles as they came down to replace those that had just risen up; and if there was, it would be gradually cooled and extinguished. In fact, the centre region would become colder than that immediately outside of it, and so on until the greatest heat would be at the surface of the nebula. Should it be argued that the vastly greater number of particles in the outer regions would help those at the centre to rise up, we agree; but it would be because the attraction would be greater outwards than inwards, as we have shown all along, and not because the pressure forced them out—against itself. But, it must be added, this means that if there was still a plenum at the centre the particles that had once left the centre could never come back again, nor any others to replace them, and that no convection current could ever be formed for carrying heat or matter from the centre, or its immediate neighbourhood, outwards.

In view of the above comparison of the two cases—added as a complement to what we believe we have demonstrated in a former part of our work—we shall adopt the second as being most in harmony with the laws of attraction, and of nature in general, and shall endeavour to describe in some detail, the construction of the nebula out of the matter belonging to the domains of the sun, as we have marked them out.

We have already said that on account of being at the greatest distance from the main body, and at the same time nearer than all other parts of it, to the attractive force in the domains of the neighbouring stars or nebulÆ—which attraction continues to be exerted upon the solar system up to the present day—the matter in the high peaks which we have shown would form part of the sun's domains, would come to be completely separated from the rest of the nebulous matter. We shall now assume this to have come about, the detached pieces, somewhat in the shape of cones, occupying positions distant from the main body, in some sort of proportion to their altitudes and masses. This separation would naturally make some alteration on the centre of gravity of the remaining mass. It would come to be nearer to the deep hollows, made in the mass by the attraction of the most powerful of the nearest neighbouring stars; and as we have seen that the hollows made by Sirius and a Centauri would be the deepest, and also for greater simplicity in description, we shall suppose that the centre of gravity would come to be nearer to these hollows than it had been before. Then, as the condensation and contraction proceeded, the tendency would be to fill up these hollows, and, as a consequence, the matter at the opposite side of the nebula would at the same time tend to lag behind in approaching the centre—for the same reasons we have given in the case of the peaks—and might easily come to be detached from the main body altogether, first in the form of shreds, then in larger masses, and afterwards in concave segments of hollow spheres, as contraction advanced; and the whole seen from a sufficient distance, would have the appearance of a nebula with crescents, perhaps almost rings, of nebulous matter and detached masses on one side of it; all very much like what we know to be the figures presented by some nebulÆ.

When contraction had continued till the hollows caused by Sirius and a Centauri were filled up, we might suppose that the nebula had come to be somewhat of a spherical form, although far from being very pronounced, and we have now to consider what its internal structure might be and most probably was.

In describing the construction of the earth-nebula we showed that particles of matter placed at different parts of its interior, even not very far from the surface, would be drawn out, in the first place by the greater number coming in from a greater distance from the centre, and that when they met they would all be drawn in towards the centre by the conjoint attraction of the whole mass; and now we can apply this fact to the larger solar nebula, and consider what might be the result. Let us fix upon a certain number of equidistant zones in a sphere of cosmic matter, extending from the centre at a to b, c, d and e, at the surface. We know that, according to our former reasoning on particles, and the law of attraction, part of the matter of the zone at a will be drawn outwards by that at b, while part of that at b will be drawn inwards by that at a, and that the same will take place with all the other zones out to the surface at e; and thus there might come to be congested layers between these equidistant places, and there might even be formed hollow spheres within hollow spheres, independent of each other, all through the nebula from near the centre to the surface. This idea is by no means fanciful, as is witnessed by the accounts given in Chambers's "Handbook of Astronomy," already referred to, Vol. I., and the Figs. 215, 222 and 223, showing the form and appearance of the remarkable comets of 1874 and 1882. If different, almost concentric, zones or layers of cosmic matter can be constituted in the hemisphere forming the head of a comet, there is no reason why concentric layers of the same matter should not be formed in a nearly spherical nebula. In fact, we can appeal to what is seen in the heads of the two comets cited, Donati's also represented in the same work, Figs. 199-203, as convincing proof of the correctness of our contention and demonstration that all satellites, planets, suns, and stars are hollow bodies. Even the tails of comets, at least of the larger ones, are acknowledged to be hollow bodies.

When steadily looked into we find the notion that all fluid bodies are hollow to be much more common than is perhaps generally believed. Beginning with the smallest, we find what follows in the Rev. Dr. Samuel Kinn's work, entitled "Moses and Geology," Edition 1889, page 86:

"A mist, whether in the form of a cloud or fog, is composed of small bodies of water obeying the laws of universal gravitation by forming themselves into spherules, which Halley and other eminent philosophers thought to be hollow. As water is heavier than air, scientists were for a long time seeking for a good reason to account for clouds floating. It may be that Kratzenstein has somewhat solved the problem. He was examining in the sunshine some of the vesicles of steam through a magnifying glass when he observed upon their surface coloured rings like those of soap-bubbles, and some of the rays of light were reflected by the outside surface, others penetrated through and were reflected by the inner surface; he concluded, therefore, that the envelope of the sphere must be excessively thin to admit of this taking place. We may, therefore, suppose that these vesicles are filled in some way with rarefied air, and are so many little balloons whose height in the atmosphere varies in proportion to the density of the air they contain. How this enclosed air should become rarefied on the formation of the tiny globule is a problem still to be solved."

Dr. Kinn says nothing of how the spherules of cloud or fog were formed by the laws of universal gravitation, nor why Halley and the other eminent philosophers thought them to be hollow, and only states the fact that Kratzenstein found the vesicles of steam to be hollow; and only one cause can be assigned for such being the case, namely, the manner in which we have shown how hollow spheres can alone be formed. That the vesicles of steam examined in the sunshine were hollow it would seem there can be no doubt; and if so, there can be as little that Halley and the others were right in thinking the spherules of clouds to be hollow. The steam vesicles could not come into existence at once in the air, in form large enough to be examined through a magnifying glass, but must have been built up out of a multitude of the very smallest atoms of water turned into vapour; and would follow the same law as the atoms of cosmic matter and so form the little balloons. In their formation the hollow space would be filled with air, which would expand when heated and contract when cooled, and so regulate their height in the atmosphere. And thus the problem of the last sentence of the quotation is solved.

We shall now go to the opposite extreme of matter, and see what Mr. Proctor says when treating of the formation of a Stellar System; but we must state that it is not very clear to us, whether he is exposing MÄdler's ideas or his own, although we think they are his own or, at least, adopted. He says in "The Universe of Stars" at page 112:

"He (MÄdler) argues that if a galaxy has a centre within the range of the visible stars, a certain peculiarity must mark the motions of the stars which lie nearer to the centre than our sun does. As has already been mentioned, the neighbourhood of the centre of a stellar system is a scene of comparative rest. In the solar system we see the planets travelling faster and faster, the nearer they are to the great ruling centre of the scheme; and the reason is obvious. a. The nearer a body is to a great centre of attraction like the sun, the greater is the attraction to which it is subject, and the more rapid must its motion be to enable it to maintain itself, so to speak, against the increased attraction; but in a vast scheme of stars tolerably uniform in magnitude and distribution, the outside of the scheme is the region of greatest attraction, for there the mass of all the stars is operative in one general direction. (The italics are ours.) As we leave the outskirts of the scheme, the attraction towards the centre becomes counterbalanced by the attractions towards the circumference; and at the centre there is a perfect balance of force, so that a body placed there would remain in absolute rest. It is clear, then, that the nearer a body is to the centre, the more slowly will it move."

(Compare this last sentence with the one beginning at a above.)

Here we have recognised, the principle that in a star system the immensely greater number of stars at the outside of the scheme would produce a perfect balance of force, and that a body placed at the centre would remain in absolute rest. This agrees wonderfully well with what we have been arguing, a few pages back, with respect to a sun solid to the centre. Matter at the centre would be at absolute rest, dead, that nearest to it would be nearest to dead, and so on through a sun or planet, gradually coming to life as it came nearer to the surface; exactly as we have shown it would be, having in it little more than rotary motion. When once acknowledging the immense superiority of attractive force of the stars at the outskirts of the system, over the very few there could be at its centre, Mr. Proctor seems to have stopped short with the idea and to have contented himself with one body at the centre in absolute rest. Had he gone one step further he must have seen that one, or even a very few, could not maintain themselves near the centre with such an immense number pulling them away in every direction. There could be no perfect balance of force. And had he applied the same idea to the earth, and followed it out to the end, he could not have written as he has done, in "The Poetry of Astronomy," at page 354, "that the frame of the earth is demonstrably not the hollow shell formerly imagined, but even denser at its core than near the surface." He would have found some difficulty in fixing his first dead particle at the centre, when there were such infinite hosts of near and far-off neighbours endeavouring to annex it. He would have found that the absolute rest was neither more nor less than absolute vacuum. It is utterly impossible to show how any body could be built up out of a nebula of cosmic matter, or even meteorites, from a solid centre, under the law of attraction. We repeat that any foundation laid there would be in a state of unstable equilibrium, and would be hauled away out of its place never to return; unless the cosmic matter around it were so perfectly arranged on all sides that its attraction on the foundation would be absolutely equal in all directions; a condition which cannot be imagined by any one who takes the trouble to think of it. And we think we may add, that no body could be established at the centre of a system of any kind unless it were of sufficient magnitude to control the whole matter within range of it, exactly as we see in the solar system; and that the central body could be no other than a hollow sphere. Thus we have either to look upon the sun with his planets and their satellites as hollow bodies or to conclude that the solar system was not formed out of a nebula.

Coming back to our nebula after the hollows in it, caused by the attraction of Sirius and a Centauri, were filled up, and when we showed that it might have had the interior form of a series of hollow spheres one within the other, and also might be accompanied by crescents and shreds of cosmic matter on the opposite side to the hollows—a supposition we put forward more in explanation of what is to be seen in some nebulÆ and comets, than as in any way necessary for our purposes—then, even although it had been separated interiorly into different layers or concentric shells of spheres, these layers continuing to attract each other, would finally come to form one hollow sphere with its greatest density at the region where the inwards and outwards attractions came to balance each other. Long previous to this stage—even from the very beginning—the atoms gradually coalescing into larger bodies, would be attracting, colliding with, repelling and revolving around each other, sometimes increasing in dimensions, at others knocking each other to atoms again; but there would be a tendency in them to combine into larger masses as they approached the region of greater density, where the attraction was greatest.

Now, if the collisions and encounters amongst the masses, great and small, always exactly balanced each other, the whole mass of the nebula would gradually contract towards the region of greatest density, and the whole would ever remain without any other kind of motion in it than what can be seen in a mity cheese—a kind of congeries of particles heaving in every, and at the same time in no, direction. But as an absolute balance of collisions could not be maintained for ever, especially where they would be constantly varying in force and direction, a time would come when movements of translation, as well as of collision, would be instituted on a large scale, in many directions, which, if they also did not manage to balance each other—an affair equally as impossible as in the other case—would ultimately resolve themselves into motion in one predominating direction through the whole nebula.

We do not forget that we are dealing with the shell of a hollow sphere, not with a ring, or section of a cylinder, and we can conceive that there would be, from the first, partial motions of translation in multitudes of directions, radial, angular, transverse, etc. etc., constantly changing, even being sometimes reversed, but also constantly combining with each other, and gradually leading on to decided, though partial, uniformity in one direction. As a matter of course this motion of translation would be controlled by its own constituent parts attracting each other to some extent, and thus a rotary motion would be established in the interior of the nebula in the region of greatest density. We can also conceive that when the motions of translation had become nearly uniform, the plane of that uniform motion might be in any direction through the whole mass of the nebula, and might be continually varying until final uniformity was attained, when the greater part of the mass was moving in combination, and the rotation was thereby firmly established in one direction, though still not embracing the whole.

We have to take into account also that when the rotary movement had settled down into one plane, it would be most active at the distance of the region of greatest density of the nebula from its centre; in fact it would be instituted at that region and be, therefore, most active there; and then the most active part of the matter would be in the form of a rotating ring, still surrounded by an immense mass of nebulous matter, both inwards and outwards, to which it would gradually communicate its own motion, until the whole mass would rotate, in one direction, on an axis. But it is evident that in the whole rotating mass there would be different degrees of velocity of rotation at different places, decreasing from the supposed ring inwards towards the centre, and outwards to the surface at what would thus become the equatorial region; and also decreasing from the equatorial plane to the poles. Following up this idea, we have a more reasonable manner of accounting for the different velocities of rotation observed on the surface of the sun, between the equator and the poles, than we have seen suggested in any speculations on the cause that have come under our observation. Until rotation was fully instituted, the areolar law could have no power over the multitudinous movements going on in the nebula, but from that time it would begin to act, and condensation would increase it at the region where it began; and as all increase had to be propagated from there, inwards, outwards, and in all directions, the differences in velocity of rotation throughout the sun must endure as long as he continues to contract. In this we find an immense field for producing heat in the sun, from the eternal churning which must be going on in the interior.

A rotary motion produced in this way might have two different results: in one case the rotation might be continued until the matter at the polar regions had all fallen in towards the centre, and had been thrown out afterwards by centrifugal force and the whole mass converted into a nebular ring, in the form of the annular nebula in Lyra. In the other case we could conceive that, in a smaller nebula, the centrifugal force of rotation caused zones to be abandoned at the equatorial surface, in the manner set forth by Laplace in his hypothesis, and that the matter from the polar regions fell in more or less rapidly for the formation of the different members of a system like the sun's; and that the dimensions of the planets would be determined by the rapidity with which the matter fell in as the process went on. Such a conception would help to account for the outer planets of the solar system being so much larger than the inner ones, because there would be more matter falling in; and make us think that the nebula in Lyra is destined to form a system of multiple stars.

Some years after this mode of instituting rotary motion in a nebula was thought and written out, and also an extension of it to which we may refer later on, we came upon a kind of confirmation of the correctness of our views in an article in "Science Gossip" of January 1890, on the nebular hypothesis, where it is said:

"We have established, then, the existence of irregular nebulÆ which are variable—that is, the various parts of which are in motion.... Now, with the parts of the nebula in motion, whether the motion is in the form of currents determined hither and thither according to local circumstances, or in any other conceivable way, such motions bearing some reference to a common centre, unless the currents exactly balanced each other—a supposition against which the chances are as infinity to one—one set must eventually prevail over the other, and the mass must at last inevitably assume the form peculiar to rotating bodies in which the particles move freely upon each other. It must have become an oblate spheroid flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator, rotating faster and faster as it contracted. In some such manner has our solar system acquired its definite rotation from west to east."

The writer in "Science Gossip" has taken the irregular motions in the nebula as made to his hand, and has come to the same conclusion as we have, namely, that they would all resolve themselves into motion in one direction only, always subject to the general attraction towards the centre of gravity of the nebula, which means motion round a centre, perhaps not necessarily rotary motion. However, the only difference between his ideas and ours is that we deal with a hollow nebular shell, in which, it will be acknowledged, it would be much more easy for the law of attraction to produce marked and distinct motions of any kind, and which would lead to one motion in one direction throughout, than in a nebula homogeneous, or nearly so, from the surface to the centre. Whether it would lead to the formation of an oblate spheroid is another question, as that might depend on a variety of circumstances, one or more of which we shall have to touch later on; in fact, we have already shown how the very reverse might be the case.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page