Part 9

The third assumption will, I think, be at once admitted, inasmuch as it is but the expression of a physical necessity.

According to this, the Earth, if it has cooled as the Moon is supposed to have done, should have displayed corresponding irregularities, and generally, the magnitude of mountains of solidified planets and satellites should be on a scale proportionate to their whole mass. In comparing the mountains of the Moon and Mercury with those of the Earth, a large error is commonly made by taking the customary measurements of terrestrial mountain-heights from the sea-level. As those portions of the Earth which rise above the waters are but its upper mountain slopes, and the ocean bottom forms its lower plains and valleys, we must add the greatest ocean depths to our customary measurements, in order to state the full height of what remains of the original mountains of the Earth. As all the stratified rocks have been formed by the wearing down of the original upper slopes and summits, we cannot expect to be able to recognize the original skeleton form of our water-washed globe.

If my calculation of the atmosphere of Mercury is correct, viz., that its pressure is equal to about one seventh of the Earth’s, or 4¼ inches of mercury, there can be no liquid water on that planet, excepting perhaps over a small amount of circumpolar area, and during the extremes of its aphelion winter. Thus the irregularities of the terminator, indicating mountain elevations calculated to reach to 1/253 of the diameter of the planet, are quite in accordance with the above-stated theoretical consideration.

There is one peculiar feature presented by the cones of the cooling cinder which is especially interesting. The flow of fused cinder from the little crater is at first copious and continuous; then it diminishes and becomes alternating, by a rising and falling of the fused mass within the cone. Ultimately the flow ceases, and then the inner liquid sinks, more or less, below the level of the orifice. In some cases, where much gas is evolved, this sinking is so considerable as to leave the cone as a mere hollow shell; the inner liquid having settled down and solidified with a flat or slightly rounded surface, at about the level of the base of the cone, or even lower. These hollow cones were remarkably displayed in some of the cinder of the Henderson iron, and their formation was obviously promoted by the abundant evolution of gas.

If such hollow cones were formed by the cooling of a mass like that of the Moon, they would ultimately and gradually subside by their own weight. But how would they yield? Obviously by a gradual hinge-like bending at the base towards the axis of the cone. This would occur with or without fracture, according to the degree of viscosity of the crust, and the amount of inclination. But the sides of the hollow-cone shell, in falling towards the axis, would be crushing into smaller circumferences. What would result from this? I think it must be the formation of fissures, extending, for the most part, radially from the crater towards the base, and a crumpling up of the shell of the cone by foldings in the same direction. Am I venturing too far in suggesting that in this manner may have been formed the mysterious rays and rills that extend so abundantly from several of the lunar craters?

The upturned edges or walls of the broken crust, and the chasms necessarily gaping between them, appear to satisfy the peculiar phenomena of reflection which these rays present. These edges of the fractured crust would lean towards each other, and form angular chasms; while the foldings of the crust itself would form long concave troughs, extending radially from the crater.

These, when illuminated by rays falling upon them in the direction of the line of vision, must reflect more light towards the spectator than does the general convex lunar surface, and thus they become especially visible at the full Moon.

Such foldings and fractures would occur after the subsidence and solidification of the lava-forming liquid—that is, when the formation of new craters had ceased in any given region; hence they would extend across the minor lateral craters formed by outbursts from the sides of the main cone, in the manner actually observed.

The fact that the bottoms of the great walled craters of the Moon are generally lower than the surrounding plains must not be forgotten in connection with this explanation.

I will not venture further with the speculations suggested by the above-described resemblances, as my knowledge of the details of the telescopic appearances of the Moon is but second-hand. I have little doubt, however, that observers who have the privilege of direct familiarity with such details, will find that the phenomena presented by the cooling of iron cinder, or other fused silicates, are worthy of further and more careful study.

NOTE ON THE DIRECT EFFECT OF SUN-SPOTS ON TERRESTRIAL CLIMATES.

Professor Langley determines quantitatively the effects respectively produced by the radiations from the solar spots, penumbra, and photosphere upon the face of a thermopile, and infers that these effects measure their relative influence on terrestrial climate.

In thus assuming that the heat communicated to the thermopile measures the solar contribution to terrestrial climate, Professor Langley omits an important factor, viz., the amount of heat absorbed in traversing the earth’s atmosphere; and in measuring the relative efficiency of the spots, penumbra, and photosphere, he has not taken into account the variations of diathermancy of the intervening atmospheric matter, which are due to the variations in the source of heat.

Speaking generally, it may be affirmed that the radiations of obscure heat are more largely absorbed by the gases and vapors of our atmosphere than those of luminous heat, and the great differences in the mere luminosity of the spots, penumbra, and photosphere justify the assumption that the radiations of a sun-spot will (to use the expressive simile of Tyndall) lose far more by atmospheric sifting than will those from the photosphere.

But the spot areas will be none the less effective on terrestrial climate on that account. A given amount of heat arrested by the earth’s atmosphere will have even greater climatic efficiency than if received upon its solid surface, inasmuch as the gases are worse radiators than the rocks, and will therefore, cæteris paribus, retain a larger proportion of the heat they receive.

I have long ago endeavored to show that the depth of the photosphere, from the solar surface inwards, is limited by dissociation; that the materials of the Sun within the photosphere exist in a dissociated, elementary condition; that at the photosphere they are, for the most part, combined. This view has since been adopted by many eminent solar physicists, and if correct, demands a much higher temperature within the depths revealed by that withdrawal of the photospheric veil which constitutes a sun-spot.

If I am right in this, and also in supposing the spot-radiations to be so much more abundantly absorbed than those of the photosphere, and if in spite of this higher temperature of the spots, the surface of the earth receives from them the lower degree of heat measured by Professor Langley, another interesting consequence must follow. The excess of spot-heat directly absorbed by the atmosphere, and mainly by the water dissolved or suspended in its upper regions, must be especially effective in dissipating clouds and checking or modifying their formation. The meteorological results of this may be important, and are worthy of careful study.

In thus venturing to question some of Professor Langley’s inferences I am far from underrating the interest and importance of his researches. On the contrary, I regard the quantitative results he has obtained as especially valuable and opportune, in affording means of testing the above-named and other speculations in solar physics. Similar observations repeated at different elevations would decide, so far as the lower regions are concerned, whether or not there is any difference in the quantity of heat imparted by the bright and obscure portions of the Sun to our atmosphere. If the differences already observed by Professor Langley vary in ascending, a new means will be afforded of studying the constitution of the interior of the Sun and its relations to the photosphere. Direct evidence of selective absorption by our atmosphere may thus be obtained, which would go far towards solving one of the crucial solar problems, viz., whether the darker regions are hotter or cooler than the photosphere.

The obscure radiations from the moon must be absorbed by our atmosphere like those from the sun-spot, and may be sufficiently effective to account for the alleged dissipation of clouds by the full moon.

In both cases the climatic influence is greatly heightened by the fact that all the heat thus absorbed is directly effective in raising the temperature of the air. The action of the absorbed heat in reference to cloud-formation is directly opposite to that of the transmitted solar heat, as this reaching the surface of the earth evaporates the superficial water, and thereby produces the material of clouds. On the other hand, the heat which is absorbed by the air increases its vapor-holding capacity, and thus prevents the formation of clouds, or even effects the dissolution of clouds already formed.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE RADIOMETER AND ITS COSMICAL REVELATIONS.

So much speculation, and not a little extravagant speculation, has been devoted to the dynamics of the radiometer, that I feel some compunction in adding another stone to the heap, my only apology and justification for so doing being that I propose to regard the subject from a very unsophisticated point of view, and with somewhat heretical directness of vision—i.e., quite irrespective of atoms, molecules, or ether, or any other specific preconceptions concerning the essential kinetics of radiant forces, beyond that of regarding such forces as affections or conditions of matter which are transmitted radially in constant quantity, and therefore obey the necessary law of radial diffusion or inverse squares.

The primary difficulty which appears to have generally been suggested by the movements of the radiometer, is the case which it seems to present of mechanical action without any visible basis of corresponding reaction: a visible tangible object pushed forward, without any visible pushing agent or resisting fulcrum against which the moving body reacts.

This difficulty has been met by the invocation of obedient and vivacious molecules of residual atmospheric matter, which have been called upon to bound and rebound between the vanes and the inner surfaces of the glass envelope of the instrument.

How is it that the advocates of these activities have not sought to verify their speculations by modifying the shape and dimensions of the exhausted glass bulb or receiver? If the motion of the radiometer is due to such excursions and collisions, the length of excursion and the angles of collision must modify its motions; and such modification under given conditions would form a fine subject for the exercise of the ingenuity of molecular mathematicians. If their hypothetical data are sound, they should be able to predict the relative velocities or torsion-force of a series of radiometers of similar construction in all other respects, but with variable shapes and diameters of enclosing vessels.

If we divest our minds of all visions of hypothetical atoms, molecules, ethers, etc., and simply look at the facts of radiation with the same humility of intellect as we usually regard gravitation, this primary difficulty of the radiometer at once vanishes. The force of gravitation is a radiant force acting somehow between, or upon, or by distant bodies; and these bodies, however far apart, act and react upon each other with mutual forces, precisely equal and exactly contrary. We conceive the sun pulling the earth in a certain direction, and receiving from the earth an equal pull in a precisely contrary direction, and we have hitherto demanded no ethereal or molecular link for the transmission of these mutually attractive forces. Why, then, should we not regard radiant repulsive energy in the same simple manner?

If we do this there is no difficulty in finding the ultimate reaction fulcrum of the radiometer vanes. It is simply the radiating body, the match, the candle, the lamp, the sun, or whatever else may be the source of the impelling radiations. According to this view, the radiant source must be repelled with precisely the same energy as the arms or pendulum of the radiometer; and it would move backward or in opposite direction if equally free to move. If, by any means, we cause the glass envelope of the radiometer to become the radiant source, it should be repelled, and may even rotate in opposite direction to the vanes, or vice versâ. This has been done with floating radiometers.

Viewed thus as simple matter of fact, irrespective of any preconceived kinetics of intervening media, the net result of Mr. Crookes’s researches become nothing less than the discovery of a new law of nature of great magnitude and the broadest possible generality, viz., that the sun and all other radiant bodies—i.e., all the materials of the universe—exert a mechanical repulsive force, in addition to the calorific, luminous, actinic, and electrical forces with which they have hitherto been credited. He has shown that this force is refrangible and dispersible, that it is outspread with the spectrum, but is most concentrated, or active, in the region of the ultra-red rays, and progressively feeblest in the violet; or, otherwise stated, it exists in closer companionship with heat than with light, and closer with light than with actinism.