Nov. 24, 



KNOWLEDGE 



417 



68, I saj' " The gaseous matter would be lifted, or bulged, 

 or undulated, as a tide-wave, and dropped again, but the 

 solid (or more probably viscous nucleus) would be dragged 

 bodily about with an irregular reeling motion inside this 

 profound undulating gaseous ocean, which it would thus 

 stir into eddies, as the stroke of a fish's tail makes eddies 

 in a pool." 



On comparing this with our own water-tides, we must 

 remember that the depth of our ocean in relation to the 

 whole earth is but as the thickness of the paper pasted on 

 a 12-in. globe to the whole of that globe. I have 

 endeavoured to show reasons for concluding that the solar 

 nucleus within its fluid envelopes is comparable to a 

 peach-stone within its envelope of pulp. 



As regards the quotation of Carrington's figures, this 

 is simply a blundering transposition of figures on my part, 

 which I failed to observe until now that Mr. Proctor has 

 detected it. The 30-86 should have been on the upper 

 line, and the 28 -36 on the lower. The error was copied 

 mechanically in the parenthesis in my letter. All my 

 reasoning and thinking on this part of the subject are 

 based on the conception of greater equatorial angular 

 velocity of the solar envelope, which 1 regard as produced 

 mainly, if not entirely, by the inner reeling of the nucleus. 

 This explanation appears to me lietter than any of the 

 other theories that have hitherto been attempted, though 

 it is not altogether free from difScuIties. I prefer my 

 own expression "reeling" to Mr. Proctor's "swaying," 

 for reasons that I must not just now step aside to 

 state. 



Mr. Proctor says that he halted at the threshold of my 

 argument on account of the awful stumbling-block of the 

 " perpetual motion fallacy " which I have placed there. 



I perfectly understand this difficulty, and am well aware 

 that my theory -was originally weak at this point. In 18G8, 

 when writing this chapter, I was unable to see how the 

 retardation of stellar orbital motion or " star drift " is 

 compensated, and booked the problem for further con- 

 sideration ; but I diftered, and still difler diametrically 

 from Mr. Proctor in finding any " stumbling-block " in the 

 demand for perpetual motion. This was no bugbear to 

 me, but the contrary. I looked to the operation of this 

 universal principle for the solution of the problem. 



In my estimation, the greatest achievement of modern 

 physical philosophy is the demonstration that motion is 

 absolutely, necessarily, and universally perpetual ; that the 

 total quantity of motion, or force, or matter (which are 

 really convertible terms) in the universe, is precisely the 

 same now as it was at the beginning, and will be the same 

 evermore. 



My conviction of the fundamental necessity of this 

 principle con^^nced me that the mechanical motion thus 

 converted into heat-motion must be somehow or somewhere 

 restored. Broadly speaking, or briefly summarising my 

 theory, it amounts to stating that the motion produced by 

 gravitation or attractive force is converted into heat motion 

 or repulsive force, nothing added, nothing taken away ; 

 simply action and reaction, equal and contrary, operating 

 throughout the universe. How the reaction should obtain 

 the form of bodily i-epulsion of masses of matter of solar 

 magnitude I then had no idea, saw no clue to the solution 

 of this mighty problem. Subsequently, however, it has 

 becTi revealed by a series of researches, to the vast im- 

 portance of which our present-moment astronomers are 

 strangely blinded by the superstitions of transcendental 

 molecular mathematicians. 



The subject is too large for exposition here, but I have 

 treated it in a preliminary essay on " The Philosophy of 

 the Radiometer and its Cosmical Revelations," contributed 



to the "Quarterly Journal of Science," of October, 187G, 

 and reprinted lately in " Science in Short Chapters." 



I should add, however, that subsequent reflection has 

 induced me to make a very great reduction of )ny estimate 

 of the quantity of this atmospheric bomVjardment, and to 

 regard it as a comparatively trivial factor in the main- 

 tenance of solar heat. I am, in fact, inclined to withdraw 

 the term " bombardment " altogether. It was only used 

 as an expression quoted from the then prevailing theory 

 of meteoric bombardment, and does not fairly express my 

 meaning. The term " impact," used in other parts of the 

 1)ook, where there is no comparison made with the meteoric 

 " bombardment " theory, is better. 



On page 378, Mr. Proctor says that there is no evidence 

 of a lateral explosion of prominence matter with a velocity 

 of more than 240 miles per second, that " nothing of this 

 sort, or approaching anywhere near this, has ever been 

 seen." I have before me the third edition of his own book, 

 " The Sun Ruler of the Planetary System." I find there a 

 description and pictures of the lateral explosion of a pro- 

 minence 50,000 miles high flung out to a breadth exceeding 

 its height in a few minutes. On page 80 is a picture of its 

 appearance when first seen, and on page 81, of its lateral 

 ejections as they were seen twenty-five minutes later. These, 

 with the quoted description of Professor Young, and also 

 the observations and conclusions discussed on pages 300, 

 301, and 302, supply abundant evidence of lateral projec- 

 tions hugely exceeding " the lateral expansion of cumulus 

 clouds." Mr. Proctor evidently supposes that an enclosing 

 case, like our bomb rockets, is necessary for the exertion 

 of projectile results by explosion. Let him try the experi- 

 ment on the very gases to which I ascribe this projection, 

 i.e., dissociated water elements, enclosed in a soap bubble. 

 Having suttered bodily translation and overthrow by the re- 

 combination of about a quart of these gases only confined by 

 the membrane of abladder, I make a diflerentestimateof their 

 lateral projective power. In section 196, I quoted a well- 

 known instance of the direct observation of a lateral ejec- 

 tion across the solar surface at the rate of 116 miles per 

 second. This occurred in 18.59, before the spectroscope 

 came to our aid. Since that period a multitude of observa^ 

 tions of far greater velocity have been made — too manj^ 

 e\-en to name. I will, therefore, quote only one from tbd 

 last report of the Astronomer Eoyal at the annual visita-* 

 tion of 1882. After referring to several observations of 

 prominences " indicating very rapid motions of ajiproach 

 and recession," one example is given of a prominence 

 examined on May 13, 1882. It "was observed to rise 

 through a space of 30' in less than two minutes, being at 

 the rate of about 110 miles a second, whilst the line 

 showed a displacement towards the red, gradually in- 

 creasing from 1 ^ to 11 -4 tenth metres, corresponding to a 

 motion of recession, increasing in two minutes from 36 to 

 330 miles per second." 



This motion of recession seen on the limb of the sun is 

 the lateral motion which, if I am right, must occur when 

 the dissociated gases are flung up beyond the vaporous jacket 

 which prevented their recombination below ; and this ob- 

 served acceleration is precisely what I stated should occur, 

 as a result of progressive explosion, though at the time of 

 writing no such acceleration had been observed. 

 {Editor's Hejoinder neit iceek.) 



The Bell Telephone P.vtext. — An American paper 

 says :— " The Bell patent would, it is considered by those 

 competent to form an opinion, be cheap at 10,000,0i'0 dols. 

 TIjc consolidated telephone interests of the United States 

 arc estimated at from 100,000,000 dols. to 150,000,00l> 

 dols." 



