308 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 



SOLAR DYNAMICS— SOME NEW ASTRONOMY. 



REV. JAMES W. HANNA. 



We hear of the "new astronomy" on every breeze. Can we have a finger in 

 the matter? The advice of Mrs. Jack Means is, " While you're gitten, git a 

 plenty." The builders of the new had better gather it all in. So here is our 

 offering. 



In an article on the forces of inorganic nature, published in the September 

 number of this Review, speaking of repulsion as a force co-ordinate with attrac- 

 tion, I said, " This drives volatile matter from the comets, thus making their tails. 

 This causes the diurnal revolution of the planets. This gives to the several planets 

 their distances from the Sun." To some this may have appeared a reckless 

 assertion. It was made, however, in the light of convincing proof. That proof 

 could not be presented then. It, and much else, had to be reserved for another 

 time. Having accepted the doctrines advanced in my former article; regarding 

 all the physical attractions in the realm of inorganic nature as of one origin, and 

 all the repulsions as of one origin, believing heat to be something else than motion, 

 that repulsion is from its self-repellence, and attraction from its affinity for matter, 

 and that heat is a factor in gravitation ; with these principles, wanting further 

 confirmation, I went into the realm of astronomy to see what answer we might 

 get from this quarter touching these matters. Here I got more than was expected; 

 much that was not expected. Some clearing of the decks was indulged in. Orig- 

 inal impulse as effecting any sort of planetary motion was discarded. Because 

 there is no perfect vacuum, and, therefore, always some resistance, and because 

 of counter attracting forces that would in time bring to an end the momentum 

 caused by an original impulse, we conceded that all planetary motion results 

 from forces in constant operation. The question then was how account for what 

 is called the centrifugal force? Next, what causes axial revolutions? 



On my theory of attraction and repulsion, there may be from the same at- 

 tracting source little attraction, more attraction and most attraction, owing to the 

 nature of the body affected. And so there may be from the same repelling source, 

 little repulsion, more repulsion, and most repulsion, owing to the nature of the 

 body repelled. By this theory, in the solar system, those planets in whose com- 

 position is the greatest proportion of heat will be farthest from the Sun ; and 

 those planets in whose composition is the least proportion of heat will be nearest 

 the Sun. So we have it. The hotter planets are more remote; those relatively 

 more material are nearer. To this Venus is no exception, though its case is 

 peculiar. Then, however it may be accounted for, we find the distances of the 

 planets determined as by a law growing out of these principles, and as though 

 one law reigned throughout the realm of nature. 



As to axial revolutions, if these result from forces in constant operation, but 



