FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78  
79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   >>   >|  
nsation. If my views are tenable, we should be prepared to find the newer planets--that is to say, those nearer the Sun--more luminous than those older and more remote:--and the extreme brilliancy of Venus (on whose dark portions, during her phases, the Auroras are frequently visible) does not seem to be altogether accounted for by her mere proximity to the central orb. She is no doubt vividly self-luminous, although less so than Mercury: while the luminosity of Neptune may be comparatively nothing. Admitting what I have urged, it is clear that, from the moment of the Sun's discarding a ring, there must be a continuous diminution both of his heat and light, on account of the continuous encrustation of his surface; and that a period would arrive--the period immediately previous to a new discharge--when a _very material_ decrease of both light and heat, must become apparent. Now, we know that tokens of such changes are distinctly recognizable. On the Melville islands--to adduce merely one out of a hundred examples--we find traces of _ultra-tropical_ vegetation--of plants that never could have flourished without immensely more light and heat than are at present afforded by our Sun to any portion of the surface of the Earth. Is such vegetation referable to an epoch immediately subsequent to the whirling-off of Venus? At this epoch must have occurred to us our greatest access of solar influence; and, in fact, this influence must then have attained its maximum:--leaving out of view, of course, the period when the Earth itself was discarded--the period of its mere organization. Again:--we know that there exist _non-luminous suns_--that is to say, suns whose existence we determine through the movements of others, but whose luminosity is not sufficient to impress us. Are these suns invisible merely on account of the length of time elapsed since their discharge of a planet? And yet again:--may we not--at least in certain cases--account for the sudden appearances of suns where none had been previously suspected, by the hypothesis that, having rolled with encrusted surfaces throughout the few thousand years of our astronomical history, each of these suns, in whirling off a new secondary, has at length been enabled to display the glories of its still incandescent interior?--To the well-ascertained fact of the proportional increase of heat as we descend into the Earth, I need of course, do nothing more than refer:--it comes in
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78  
79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

period

 

account

 

luminous

 

continuous

 
length
 

influence

 

surface

 

whirling

 

luminosity

 

vegetation


immediately
 

discharge

 
invisible
 
impress
 

sufficient

 

movements

 
elapsed
 

planet

 
determine
 
maximum

leaving

 

attained

 

Mercury

 

prepared

 
tenable
 
existence
 

discarded

 

organization

 

sudden

 

incandescent


interior

 
glories
 

enabled

 

display

 

ascertained

 
proportional
 

increase

 

descend

 
secondary
 

previously


suspected

 

hypothesis

 

nsation

 
appearances
 

rolled

 

astronomical

 

history

 

thousand

 

encrusted

 

surfaces