Part 2

SIMON NEWCOMB.

MARS AND ITS MYSTERY

INTRODUCTION

Had some one asked, fifty years ago, Is the Sun composed of chemical elements with which we are familiar? Shall we ever know? the question would not have been deemed worthy of a second thought. Realizing what has been accomplished, not only regarding the constitution of the Sun, but of the most remote stars, we are encouraged to ask: Is Mars inhabited? Shall we ever know? To what groups of students are we to appeal for an answer? If we want to know the diameter of Mars, its weight, the form of its orbit, the inclination of its axis, the period of its revolution around the Sun, and its rotation period, its ephemeris and its albedo, we ask the astronomer, for he has the instruments with which to observe and measure, and the mathematical knowledge necessary to reduce the measurements. If Mars were incandescent, we should appeal to the astrophysicist for information regarding its chemical composition. If, however, we want to know the probability of Mars being the abode of life, we should appeal to one who is familiar with the conditions of life upon our own globe. If the question is asked as to the existence of intelligence on the planet, we endeavor to trace evidences of its surface markings, and their character, whether natural or artificial. Knowing how profoundly man has changed the appearance of the surface features of our own globe in the removal of vast forests, in the irrigation of enormous tracts of sterile plain, the filling up of certain areas, like Peking, Tokio, London, with material having a different reflecting surface, we are to scan the surface of Mars for similar modifications, and for an answer ask those who are familiar with physical geography, with meteorology, with geology, including the character of natural cracks or crannies, deep cañon, or range of mountains, or any of the great cataclysms which have scarred the face of the Earth. Taking the great mass of facts as they are presented to us by astronomers, to what class are we to appeal as to the probability of life in other worlds? What class will form the most rational conclusions? Will it be the circle-squarers, perpetual-motion cranks, spiritualists, survivals of a past who believe the world is flat, those who have "anthropomorphic conceptions of the Supreme" and Hebraic conceptions of the origin of things, or will it be those who value observation and experiment, who appreciate the importance of large numbers, and who are endowed with a tithe of imagination? Most certainly the latter class.

In approaching the interpretation of the markings of Mars we should first glance at a brief historical summary of what has already been done. We should examine the testimony of those who have seen and drawn the canals; we are then better prepared to examine the records of the latest observations and the explanation of their nature. In the meantime an inquiry must be made as to whether the mathematical astronomer, after all, is best fitted to judge of the surface features of a planet. Next we should take up in the following order the evidences, which are overwhelming, that a network of lines, geodetic in their character, mark the surface of Mars. It has been claimed that these lines show the result of irrigation, and, therefore, the irrigation features of our own planet should be examined. It has been objected that many astronomers have not been able to see the markings, and consequently their existence has been doubted. It will then be proper to point out that the difficulties of seeing are very great, and that the acutest eyesight, coupled with long practice, is necessary to recognize the markings. It has been objected that the drawings of the minuter details of Mars vary with different observers. It will be necessary to show that every kind of research employing graphic representation labors under the same difficulty, and none more so than astronomy. It has been objected that there is not sufficient moisture and atmosphere in Mars to sustain life, and this must be answered by those only who are familiar with conditions affecting life on our own planet.

Various theories have been advanced, some of them physical, to explain the markings of Mars, and these must be considered, and, if possible, answered. Comments and criticism are difficult to repress, as the discoveries of Schiaparelli and the additional discoveries and deductions of Lowell have evoked discussions, which, in some instances, have been harsh and unreasonable, and, in one case, positively ridiculous. Schiaparelli has been called an impostor, and Lowell has come in for his full share of vituperation and innuendo. If this portion of the discussion is considered unparliamentary, the attitude and language of certain astronomers have provoked it.

A brief account is presented of what the author was enabled to draw of the Martian details, with a transcript of his notes made at the time of observation, and finally a little imaginary sketch is given as to how the world would look from Mars; and if similar kinds of astronomers existed there, what comments and objections they might offer as to the inhabitability of the Earth.

Such flights of the imagination are justified in that it gives one a chance to appreciate the weakness of some of the arguments urged against the idea of intelligence in Mars.

It will be objected that some of the names herein quoted are not recognized as astronomers. I can only say that in every instance I have found references to the writings and essays of those that might be objected to in the pages of the "Observatory," and other reputable astronomical journals, and in no instances accompanied by adverse comment or criticism. If astronomers--even the distinguished Schiaparelli--quote these names in scientific memoirs, I may venture to do the same in a book written for the general reader. The objection, however, has always presented itself with every controversy; it was conspicuously marked in the passionate discussions over Darwin's "Origin of Species." The intelligent laity recognized the truth of Darwin's proposition long before the zoölogist began to waver. Essays by the unprofessional supporting Darwin's contention were discredited because the writers were not trained naturalists. The history of invention is crowded with instances where devices and processes have been invented by men whose trades or professions were the least likely to enable them to originate such ideas.

IMMEASURABLE DISTANCES OF SPACE

It is therefore perfectly reasonable to suppose that beings not only animated but endowed with reason inhabit countless worlds in space.

SIMON NEWCOMB.

Until within recent centuries, man has not only believed that he and his kind were the only intelligent creatures in the universe, but that the little round ball on which he lived was the dominant part thereof. So rooted for ages was this conviction that it became fixed in man's mental structure, and hence the survival of the idea that still lingers in the minds of a few to-day. The conclusion was natural, however, for the behavior of the starry heavens and the Sun and the Moon seemed sufficient evidence that man, and the surface upon which he lived, was the centre of the universe. The stars were bright points of light, the Moon a silver disk, and the Sun a heat and light giving ball of fire, equally diminutive and not far away. Let one realize for a moment the experience of these early people. Everything aerial, with the exception of feathery birds, fluffy bats and flying insects, was composed of the lightest particles--cottony seeds, reluctantly falling snow-flakes, motes in the air, smoke and vaporous cloud, and, in contrast, the rock-foundationed and irregular surface upon which the people dwelt, and flat as far as man had reached. What wonder, then, that man viewed these brilliant points and dazzling disks as objects of no great size and not far away, hauled across the heavens by unseen spirits of some kind. The marvel of it all is, not that they believed as they did, but that any other views of cosmography could have been established. And yet the successive increments of astronomical knowledge, founded apparently on the soundest mathematics, were adopted in their turn. What more convincing than the epicyclic theory of Ptolemy, buttressed by figures so ingenious and convincing, that the theory might have lasted till now except for the truer understanding of planetary movements in relation to that of the Earth? All through this history are found traces of the barriers erected by prejudiced conservatives, of which the attitude of Tycho Brahe is a good example, though in this case it was probably his belief in the Hebraic conception of the universe which excited his opposition to Kepler's views, a conception which, unfortunately for the progress of astronomical research, still lingers among certain observers to-day and places them in precisely the same category with Tycho Brahe.

With the gradual accumulation of knowledge it was found that of all the innumerable illuminated bodies in the heavens, only one,--just one,--the Moon, revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth instead of being all dominant in the affairs of the universe, played a very minor part, and, instead of being master, was a very humble midget revolving around the Sun; that, indeed, with the exception of the Moon, there were visible to the naked eye only three bright points of light in the whole range of the heavens more insignificant in size,--Mercury, Venus, and Mars,--while the other planets were vastly larger, and had many more satellites revolving around them. Then it was found that, with the exception of the few planets, the myriad stars had no connection with the Sun whatsoever, that the Sun was no longer the centre of a great universe. Later it was discovered through spectroscopic analysis that all the myriad of stars were composed of chemical elements similar to our Sun. Here, then, was the startling revelation that our Sun was simply a star, and that the stars represented a "universe of Suns," and, if we could get near any one star of the millions that sparkle in the heavens telescopically, we should see it as a round ball emitting light and heat. It was perhaps humiliating to find that our Sun was so insignificant in size that from Sirius, for example, it could not be seen with the naked eye, so small indeed that in the close companionship of other stars it would be swallowed up by their greater size and brilliancy.

To assume, then, that our Sun, so identical to the stars in heat and light emitting properties, was the only Sun that had revolving around it a few minute balls, would be as absurd as if one should go on a pebbly beach, extending from Labrador to Florida for example, and picking up a single pebble, should have the hardihood to assert that this pebble was the only one, among the millions of pebbles, upon which would be found the bits of seaweed and little snails which it might support. The overwhelming vastness of the universe is entirely beyond the grasp of the human mind. The mere statement that it requires so many years for the light to reach us from a certain star, the parallax of which has been rudely established, affords one only a faint glimmer of the truth. The swing of our Earth about the Sun gives us a base line of 186,000,000 of miles, and yet, with this enormous base from which to subtend an angle, only a very few of the myriad of stars show the slightest displacement; the others exhibit no more signs of divergence than if while looking at them we had simply moved our heads from one side to the other! Fixed stars they appear to be, and are so called, though we are told they are all drifting in various directions, as our star-Sun is.

Only by reducing all these vast distances and dimensions to a minute scale can the mind realize the futility of ever comprehending the illimitable distances of space.

In order to consider the attitude of the Earth in relation to the Sun and the nearest fixed star, we will reduce the Sun's diameter of 866,000 miles to the dimensions of a ball one inch in diameter; the Earth reduced to the same scale would be a minute speck less than one one-hundredth of an inch in diameter; a perforation in paper made by the finest cambric needle would represent the size of this minute speck, the Earth. Following this scale we should place this speck nine feet from the inch ball, this distance representing 93,000,000 of miles, the Earth's distance from the Sun; Mars would be a still smaller speck a step farther off. Let us now proceed to Boston Common, for example, and on the smooth playground place our inch ball representing the Sun; taking three good steps we should place our minute speck, representing the Earth, upon the ground where it would be immediately lost in the fine gravel; another step and we would place a still smaller particle, representing Mars. How big a circle on the Earth's surface, using the inch ball as a centre, should we have to describe in order to include the nearest fixed star? Such a circle would reach to Detroit, Michigan, and Columbus, Ohio, or Wilmington, North Carolina! To find a circle which would include eight other fixed stars next in distance, and only eight of the thousands which render the heavens so beautiful on a clear winter's night--we should run such a circle through the centre of Hudson Bay, the waters of southern Greenland, Lake Winnipeg, and New Orleans!

In this broad way only can we form a dim conception of the overwhelming distances of space, and, in this absolutely unthinkable space, our little Sun, with its constant rain of meteoric dust, an occasional comet, and its microscopic planets are literally bunched together. To admit, as we must then, that one of these motes has had irrigating canals on various parts of its surface since prehistoric times, and the other mote has nothing of the sort despite the geodetic lines that are seen marking its surface, is simply preposterous. Their disposition, their visibility coincident with the Martian summer, becoming apparent only when the snow caps melt, their convergence towards centres of distribution, all go to prove by the simplest analogy an identity of structure. Certainly the overwhelming force of Lowell's observations and arguments baffles any other reasonable explanation of the character and purpose of these markings. Here are the lines, some following the arcs of great circles, all appearing precisely when they should appear, and in progressive strength from the north when the vivifying water from the melting snow cap first starts the vegetation. Why certain parallels or doublings are observed in some of the canals is about as puzzling to us as the checkerboard townships of the West would appear to a Martian, where some would be yellow with the ripening grain while others, uncultivated, would appear of a different color.

III

OTHER WORLDS INHABITED

Whether the other fixed stars have similar planetary companions or not is to us a matter of pure conjecture, which may or may not enter into our conception of the universe. But probably every thoughtful person believes with regard to those distant suns that there is in space something besides our system on which they shine.

TYNDALL.

It would be a waste of time to attempt an interpretation of the markings of Mars as a result of intelligent effort, if it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that our globe was not only unique among the bodies which probably accompany the innumerable suns, but was the only body, among them all, sustaining creatures of intelligence. If life exists in other planets of a nature with which we are familiar, then the physical conditions must be similar to those of our own planet. Later we shall point out the infinite variety of conditions under which life--even man--exists on this globe, and it will be shown that the question of higher or lower temperature, more or less humidity, higher or lower atmospheric pressure, greater or less force of gravity, can have but little weight in discussing the probability of life in other worlds.

In a planet devoid of atmosphere, or a sphere glowing with its own heat, we may decide without question that life does not exist. Even in a globe in many respects like our own it would be hazardous to conjecture the kinds of organic forms in which it is manifested. Reasoning from analogy, if life exists in Mars, or other spheres in infinite space, it must have originated under much the same conditions as it originated here; at the outset the most primitive bits of protoplasm. But has life appeared in Mars? Tyndall, in graphic words, pictures the rounding of worlds from nebulous haze, and then says, "For eons, the immensity of which overwhelms man's conception, the Earth was unfit to maintain what we call life. It is now covered with visible living things. They are not formed of matter different from that around them. They are, on the contrary, bone of its bone and flesh of its flesh." Mars must come in the same category. It is a part of the original nidus from which our world was condensed, and however life originated in the past, the conditions for its origin, at least, must have been as favorable on the surface of Mars, as on the surface of the Earth, and, so far as we know to the contrary, even more favorable. In the beginning, Mars cooled and hardened with all those behaviors of contraction, condensation of vapor on its surface, erosion, etc., and it is impossible to avoid the conviction that life, as on our Earth, arose under the same physical conditions. Recalling the resemblance which Mars bears to the Earth, and the data which have already been established, we behold a world in many respects like ours, with its sunsets and sunrises, winds that sweep over its surface, the dust storms from the deserts, its snow-storms and snow-drifts, its dazzling fields of white in the north, with an occasional snow-storm that whitens the planet far down in latitude; the seasonal changes, and, most important of all, the melting ice caps, with rivulets and torrents, temporary arctic seas and frozen pools, its great expanses of vegetation and sterile plains. We have in Mars the variety of conditions under which life has assumed its infinite variety of aspects on the Earth, and which, by analogy, should have passed through similar stages in Mars. Life at the outset must have been protoplasmic; then came contractile tissue, muscular bundles, hardened structures within and without for their support, nerves to animate the muscles, and protection for nerve-trunk, either rigid or flexible. Hard parts might vary under a different force of gravity, though there might appear types of structure that could be classified with our own.

All such conditions, however, are mere surmises, for about such matters we can reason only from analogy. The first proposition to establish is that the conception of the plurality of worlds is not unreasonable, and second, that many of the most eminent astronomers have believed in the inhabitability of other worlds, and this justifies a reasonable man to follow the inquiry. The belief is based upon legitimate analogies which have thus far guided man in every generalization, in the establishment of principles, and are continually appealed to in the details of every day's experience.

From remote times it has been taken for granted by the best minds that other worlds besides ours sustain life. The early belief in the plurality of worlds was based on the idea that since spheres like ours had been fashioned by the Almighty they must have been made for the same purpose for which our globe seemed intended, to sustain life, and Scripture was freely quoted in support of the idea.

Sir David Brewster, in his book "More Worlds Than One," says that the doctrine of the plurality of worlds was maintained by almost all the distinguished astronomers and writers who have flourished since the true figure of the Earth was determined: "Giordano Bruno of Nola, Kepler, and Tycho believed in it; and Cardinal Cusa and Bruno, before the discovery of binary systems among the stars, believed also that the stars were inhabited. Sir Isaac Newton likewise adopted it, and Dr. Bentley, Master of Trinity College, in his eighth sermon on the Confutation of Atheism from the origin and frame of the world, has ably maintained the same doctrine. In our own day we may number among its supporters the distinguished names of Laplace, Sir William and Sir John Herschel, Dr. Chalmers, Isaac Taylor, and M. Arago."

The attitude of the intelligent world to-day is well shown in a recent number of London "Nature," where in a review of a book by Wallace, endeavoring to show that this world alone sustains life, the reviewer ends by saying: "To consider this Earth as the only inhabited body in the stellar universe, a reversion to prehistoric ideas, may or may not be an advance, but it will require very strong arguments before we can be brought to consider that its isolation in the Cosmos is indeed a fact." Until the discovery by Schiaparelli of the network of lines in Mars, laid out with seemingly intelligent precision, the arguments for the inhabitability of other worlds were based entirely upon analogy. Sir Richard Owen, the great comparative anatomist, in supporting the contention that life existed in other planets, said: "The grounds of belief vary with the probability of a proposition; if nothing better than analogy can be had--on analogy will belief be based."