Consequences of the Electrical Theory of Matter. 167 



Thus any value o£ the solar motion which will account for 

 the perihelion of Mercury must introduce corrections either 

 to de or ed'ur (or compounded from both) amounting to 2"'3 

 in the case of Venus and 1"*2 for the Earth. A reference to 

 the table on p. 164 shows that such corrections are quite 

 inadmissible, being far outside the probable errors of 

 observation. The introduction by the theory of these new 

 large discordances leaves the position almost worse than it 

 was originally. 



To make the proof complete, we must consider the incli- 

 nations of the planes of the orbits. That of Mercury is 

 inclined 7° to the ecliptic, of Venus 3^°. Consequently, a 

 very large component of solar motion perpendicular to the 

 ecliptic would have an appreciable effect on Mercury, a much 

 reduced effect on Venus, and none at nil on the Earth. But 

 the perihelion of Mercury lies 29° from its node on the 

 ecliptic, and hence a component motion normal to the 

 ecliptic would affect ed'ur and de in the proportion cos 29° to 

 sin 29°, or 1 : 0'55. Thus if we wish to obtain a correction 

 of 8" to ed'us in this way, we cannot help getting a correction 

 of 4"*4 to de — which is out of the question. A small cor- 

 rection to de (0"'88) is suggested by observation, but it is 

 actually in the opposite direction. 



We have thus shown that a solar motion of the amount 

 necessary to produce the motion of the perihelion of Mercury 

 would make the elements of the Earth discordant if it were 

 in the ecliptic plane, and would make the eccentricity of 

 Mercury discordant if it were normal to the ecliptic. 

 And, since the effects of component velocities are additive, 

 it is easily seen that an intermediate direction has no better 

 success. 



It is disappointing to find that this interesting suggestion, 

 which gives a simple explanation of the most celebrated 

 discordance of gravitational theory, is apparently unable to 

 satisfy the more stringent test proposed. In the course of 

 correspondence with Sir Oliver Lodge, some unexpected 

 features have arisen with regard to the dynamics of the 

 problem, and a further note on the subject will appear in 

 October. 



