356 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



turns to section 171, where the celestial applications of the general 

 law are considered, he will find the Solar System alone instanced as 

 having progressed toward a moving equilibrium; and the moving 

 equilibrium even of this not compared as alleged. Neither in that 

 section nor in any subsequent section of the chapter, is any larger 

 celestial aggregate mentioned as progressing toward a moving equi- 

 librium. Contrariwise, in the succeeding chapter on " Dissolu- 

 tion," it is said that " the irregular distribution of our Sidereal 

 System " is " such as to render even a temporary moving equilib- 

 rium impossible " (p. 531). On pp. 533-4 it is contended that 

 even local aggregations of stars, still more the whole Sidereal Sys- 

 tem, must eventually reach a diffused state without passing through 

 any such stage. And had not conclusions respecting the changes 

 of the Universe been excluded as exceeding the bounds even of 

 speculation (p. 536), it is clear that still more of the Universe would 

 no moving equilibrium have been alleged; but, had anything been 

 alleged, it would have been the reverse. How, then, has it been 

 possible, the reader will ask, for Professor Ward to write the sen- 

 tence above quoted? If instead of vainly seeking through the sec- 

 tions devoted to " Equilibration " and " Dissolution " in relation to 

 celestial phenomena, he turns back to some introductory pages he 

 will find a clew. I have pointed out that in an aggregate having 

 compounded motions, one of the constituent motions may be dissi- 

 pated while the rest continue; and that in some such cases there 

 is established a moving equilibrium. In illustration I have taken 

 "the most familiar example" — "that of the spinning top"; and 

 to remind the reader of one of the movements thus dissipated while 

 the rest continue, I have used the word " wabbling " ; there being 

 no other descriptive word. What then has Professor Ward done? 

 That mode of establishing an equilibrium which the spinning top ex- 

 emplifies, he represents as extended by me to celestial phenomena, 

 though no such comparison is made nor any such word used. Nay, 

 he has done so notwithstanding my assertion that a moving equi- 

 librium of our sidereal system is negatived, and regardless of the 

 implied assertion that still more would be negatived a moving equi- 

 librium of the Universe, could we with any rationality speculate 

 about it. Actually in defiance of all this, he says I compare the 

 motion of the Universe to that of a " wabbling " top. Having con- 

 structed a grotesque fancy, he labels it " ridiculous " and then debits 

 me with it. 



I can not pursue further this examination of Professor Ward's 

 criticisms: other things have to be done. Whether what has been 

 said will lead readers to discount the laudatory expressions I quoted 

 at the outset, it is not for me to say. But T think I have said 



