392 



• KNOWLEDGE <» 



[Nov. 10, 1882. 



-(itinually proje»^-ting itself upon the sun ; while aii exact 



{uiralent of the projected and exploding prominence 

 matter will be left U'hind in the wake of tlie advancing 

 lumiu&ry, if not projocti-d too far for this. 



Now we come to the source of renewed energy. It is 

 simply a jx)rtion of the heat that has been radiated through 

 past ai,vs from all the suns of tlie universe, and which I 

 m&intttin is not exting\iislu-d, but is ditlused throughout 

 the interstellar matter. This is concentrated by the solar 

 iniipiration, and balances that which lias been lost by his 

 pn-vious radiations ; for the ejected gaseous matter of the 

 promin>'n«^ will, when fully expanded to the rarity of 

 interstellar atmospheric matter, bo colder than it originally 

 was, by exactly as much as it had radiated during its 

 compression, and by the Hawing of its recombination. 

 Thus, to quote my own summary at the end of Chap. YI. 

 of "The Fuel of the Sun," ''the lieat radiated into space 

 is received by the geniral atmospheric medium ; is gathered 

 again by the breathing of wandering suns, who in.spire as 

 they advance the breath of universal heat, and light, and 

 life ; then by impact, compression, and radiation they 

 <.-oncentrate and redistribute its vitalising power ; and 

 afUT its work is done, expose it in the broad wake of their 

 retreat, leaving a track of cool exhausted ether — the ash- 

 pits of the solar furnaces — to reabsorb the general radia- 

 tions, and thus maintain the eternal round of life." 



The primary agent which I describe as cflecting tliis is 

 the explosive projecting force of the prominences. Mr. 

 Proctor entirely omits this as regards its function in the 

 maintenance of solar energy. 



Knowing too well what an intoleralile bore a man may 

 become when ventilating his own theories, I refrain, at 

 present, from discu.ssing the other points raised by Mr. 

 Proctor, but will do so hereafter, if his other self, the 

 Editor of K.nowleuok, regards such discussion as likely to 

 interest his readers. W. Mattiei Williams. 



[I consider that, apart from the interest which every 

 discussion depending on important facts must needs have, 

 common jiistice requires that Mr. Williams should be 

 aCw-orde<l space to ex|ilain and defend his theory. Referring 

 to his j>re»ent remarks, I note that he is mistaken in sup- 

 posing I luive " taken as read " any part of his theory. 

 He may not mean it, but this is a truly painful accu.sation. 

 I must trj' to show him how unjust it is. I might content 

 myself by assuring him that I very carefully studied his 

 " Fuel of the Sun," throughout, when it first appeared, 

 and recently as carefully read the synopsis of th<! theory 

 in his "Science in Short Chapters;" but this may, 

 perhaps, not 1m; suilicient I would, therefore, invito liis 

 att<;ntion to the following passage in the former work 

 rep«-at«-<l in the latter, " My hypothesis supplies a 

 j«Tp<;tmil bombardment of ]C>'> millions of millions of 

 ton* of matter p<r s<;ciind, without in any degree altering 

 th<^ denjjty, the bulk, or any other element of the solar 

 conititution." If this dr>es not correspond to the per- 

 petual motion fallacy, when we remember that the 

 cfEcitnc}- of this l,<,mbardment must depend wholly on the 

 velocity with which the sun travels through space, then 

 <-ither word* are meaningless, or for many years past I 

 have U-<;n in errrjr alxjut the verj- axioms of mechanics. 

 JlTr ui a j'^rjiftital Wnl/ardnient, due to the sun's rush 

 through the int/r«t';llar atmosphere— so that his motion is 

 [»':rj»<-tual though doing all this work. If I s«-em to halt 

 at the threshold it is Ucause this awful stumblinj'-block 



lie. ther.-. 



ivj again, with the effect Mr. Williams ascribes to the 

 movement of the «un aliout the centre of gravity of the 

 •oUr *yit«in. He thinks I fail to grwip the significance of 



tliis point. He says he " maintains that tliis produces the 

 irregular angular or rotatory velocities of the diU'erent 

 portions of the solar photosphere." But, as I read his book, 

 he mistakes here : he does not maiiildtii this — he simply 

 tissirU it There is not e\en an attempt at proof. In his 

 reasoning about it there are palpable flaws. For instance, 

 lu' regards the disturbing ell'ect of Jupiter as about 

 13 times that of the earth, that of Venus 2i times, 

 that of Saturn a little above equal • — the truth 

 being that the tide-raising action (and the disturbance 

 in the solar atmosphere must be akin to this) of Jupiter 

 would be less than two-and-a-half times the earth's, that of 

 Venus a little more than twice, and that of Saturn about a 

 ninth of the earth's. I do not know, by-the-way, how Mr. 

 Williams was led to sui)pose that Carrington's researches 

 assigned to the solar equatorial regions a slower rotation 

 than to the regions in solar latitude .")0''. He now repiiats 

 this mistake, which he originally made in the " Fuel of 

 the Sun." A slower motion of the equatorial photosphere 

 may perhaps agree as well with his theory as a 

 more rapid motion. (Some theories are so fortunate !) 

 Still it checks a mere stranger, at the threshold, or 

 even in the vestibule, to find that an error taking ofT a 

 fifth of the equatorial velocity of the sun, and thus 

 ri'i-rrxtiif/ its relative motion, makes no difference in the 

 theory, and is not now, after near thirteen years, thought 

 worth correcting. I would venture, however, to slightly 

 change the metaphor, comparing myself rather to a 

 surveyor who desires concisely to describe the qualities of 

 a building, and who might well be content, though he had 

 surveyed the whole of it, to note only the unsoundness of 

 the foundation. 



I should be very sorry for ]\Ir. Williams to suppose I 

 ventured to criticise his book without having examined it 

 carefully. I hope the above remarks will show that I 

 have noted other points than those touched on in my 

 review. I can give further evidence in the samo direc- 

 tion if that will allbrd him any satisfaction ; but I must 

 ask permission to select my points. One cannot criticise 

 every line of a book. One can only take samples here 

 and there, unless the review is to surpass in bulk the work 

 reviewed. — R. A. P.] 



The Mississippi. — Some interesting and extraordinary 

 i/iif'i have just been compiled respecting the Mississippi. 

 It appears that it boasts no fewer than .55 tributary streams, 

 with a total length of navigation of Ifi,.')?] miles, or about 

 two thirds of the distance round the world. Even this, 

 however, represents but a small amount of the navigation 

 which will follow when the Federal (iovernment has made 

 the contemplated improvements in the Upper Mississippi, 

 in the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other rivers, in which it 

 is now engaged. But while the Mississippi has IGJ^ll miles 

 navigable to steamboats, it has 20,221 miles navigable to 

 barges. This navigation is divided between 22 states and 

 territories, in the following proportions : — Louisiana, 2,500 

 miler,; Arkansas, 2,100; Mississippi, 1,.'}80; Montana, 

 1,310; Dakota, 1,2H0; Illinois, 1,270; Tennessee, 1,200; 

 Kentucky, 1,2G0 ; Indiana, SIO; Iowa, 830; Indian 

 Tfjrritory, 720 ; Minnesota, OGO ; Wisconsin, 560 ; Ohio, 

 550 ; T<!xa8, 440 ; Nebraska, 400 ; West Virginia, 390 ; 

 Pennsylvania, 380 ; Kansas, 240 ; Alabama, 200 ; and New 

 York, 70. Nearly all sections of tlu'so states and terri- 

 tories can be reached with c^ase. Louisiana, Arkansas, 

 Mississippi, Montana, Dakota, and the Indian Territory 

 possess more miles of navigable stream than miles of rail- 

 road, all of which are open to (everybody who wishes to 

 engage in commerce. 



