June, 1903.] 



KNOWLEDGE 



121 



9^ 



ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINE 



Founded by RICHARD A. PROCTOR. 



Vol. XXVI.] LONDON : JUNE, 1903. [No. 212. 



CONTENTS. 



Man's Place in the Universe. I!y Camillk I'LAMjrABioN 

 The Palaeontological Case for Evolution. By R. 



Ltdekkee 

 The Rotations of the Sun, Jupiter, and the Earth, 



and their Effects. By Mrs. Walter Maunder 

 The Chemistry of the Stars III. — Stars of the Second 



Type. By A. Fowler, f.b.a.s. {Illustrated) ... 

 The Sunspots of 1903, March and April. By E. AValter 



Mainuer, p.r.a.s. (lUtistrated) ... 

 Photograph of the Sun, taken at the- Royal Observatory, 



Greenwich. (Plate. J 

 Letters : 



Man's Place ix the ITnivbrse. By Makcel Mote ... 



Is THE Universe Limited ? By W. II. S. Monck. 

 Note by B. Walter Maunder 



The Biblical " Mazzaroth." By James B. Bower. 

 Note by E. Wai.teu Maumder 



Notes 



British Ornithological Notes. Conducted by Harry P. 



WiTHERBr, F.Z.8., M.B.O.U. ... 



Notices of Books 



Books Received 



The Movements of the Mackerel. By L. N. Baubnoch 

 The Struggle for Existence in Sociology.— I. By 



J. Collier 

 Microscopy. Conducted by M. I. Cross {Illustrated) ... 

 Notes on Comets and Meteors. By W. F. Denning, 



F.U.A.9. ... ... ... 



The Face of the Sky for June. By W. 



Shackleton, p.e.a.s. (lUustratedJ 



Chess Column. By C. D. LooocK, b.a 



121 

 123 

 126 



128 

 130 



133 

 133 



134 

 135 

 136 

 136 



138 

 140 



142 

 143 



MAN'S PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE. 



By Camille Flammaeion. 



The pidhli'ius which the emiueut naturalist, Riissel 

 Walkwe, has just brou<i;ht under discussion are certainly 

 among those which may well engas^e the attention of 

 Ihiukers, uo matter to what school of philoso^ihy they 

 helonw. It would take too long to e.xauiine them in detail, 

 Imt we can, in a glance, easily take account of the weakness 

 and fragility of the fcnindatiou upon which he seeks to 

 raise his new anthrojiocentric theory. 



The funilamental astronomical thesis of the author may 

 be thus summarized : The number of the stars is not infinite ; 

 the entire universe is rei>resented by the agglomeration of 

 stars, of which the Milky Way marks the principal plane; 

 our siiu is ill the centre of tiie universe. 



We may at once grunt that the number of the stars is 

 not iutiniti'. Besides, there are here two contradictory 

 terms. Any /(»»i6er whatever cannot l)e infinite. On the 

 contraiA. we can easily imagine to our.selves another star 



placed here or there, or two stars, or ten, or a hundred- 

 But the infinite is that to which nothing can be added. 



But it is of consequence that we should not confound 

 the stars with space. Space cannot be otherwise than 

 infinite. It is boundless, illimitable. If we imagine any 

 confine to it whatever, immediately we pass in thought 

 beyond it. Doubtless we could criticise even the definition 

 of space Some (philosophers, and those by no means 

 minor ones, have defined space as that which separates 

 two bodies in such a manner that without matter there 

 would be no s|mce. On the other hand, theologians 

 refuse to admit the infinity of space, so as not to give to it 

 an attribute of God. They maintain that space is finite, 

 and assert that beyond its limits there is nothing. I 

 venture to think that here there is a mere sophism. If 

 matter did not exist there would still be space, that is to 

 say, a place* in which we might imagine matter to exist. 



One of the most curious arguments which Dr. Wallace 

 urges against the " infinite number " of the stars is, that 

 if it were so, there would be stars everywhere over the 

 entire sky, without any empty space, and since that every 

 star is a sun, all these contiguous points of light should 

 form a dazzling sphere, whose brightness should equal 

 that of the s\in. This objection to the infinitude of the 

 stars was the subject of long and learned discussions 

 during the course of the 18th century and up to the middle 

 of the lf>th. It would not be difficult to settle it to-day. 



In the first place there is nothing to prove that the 

 light of the stars does not suffer a diminution greater 

 than the square of the distance, owing to the imperfect 

 transparency of the cosmical medium. Space is not 

 empty. Why may not the ether exercise any absorption 

 on the luminous rays ? 



In the second place, why think only of the bright stars, 

 of the incandescent suns ? And the dead suns ? May not 

 as many or more dark stars exist as bright ones ? Might 

 not the milliards of dark stars interpose between us and 

 the most distant luminous ones ? 



In the third place there is nebulous matter. Space is 

 full of it; photography has discovered it evennvhere. 

 Why should nebulous matter be necessarily luminous ? 

 Originally it may have been obscure. 



In the fourth place we may not neglect the cosmical 

 dust to which we owe the Zodiacal Light (a reflection of the 

 solar light), the shooting stars, which the earth encounters 

 by hundreds of milliards in a year, as well as other inter- 

 stellar phenomena to which it gives rise. 



The agglomeration of stars of which our sun foi-ms one 

 is not infinite, it is limited ; it is very heterogeneous, as 

 we see it, coiuj)osed of thousands of clusters of stars of 

 diverse densities, and scattered at diverse distances. The 

 immensity which encompasses it is relatively void, and 

 our sidereal universe is composed of but a determinable 

 number of stars. 



It is this stellar agglomeration which Dr. Wallace con- 

 siders as representing the entire luiiverse, a position which 

 has not V>ecu proved. Moreover, in this agglomeration he 

 considers the sun as being central and prepondei-ant. Let 

 us see if it is so. 



We are within the Milky Way, since this encloses us 

 miller the form of a great circle, l>ut we are neither exactly 

 in its medial plane, uor exactly at its centre. Moreover, 

 the Milky Way is not a uniform and organised sidereal 



• Some object that this is tautological. Not so. But we make 

 use of words for speaking and writinq. Our conception of space is 

 bound up closely witU our sense of touch, our muscular sense. Our 

 ideas are derived from our impressions undoubtedly. But we must 

 not confuse the relative with the absolute unknowable to us in its 

 e.-^scnce. Tlie exterior world is not conditioned by our sense of it. 

 Without us the Sum, Sirius, and space would exiet. 



