Chapter 20 of 40 · 2754 words · ~14 min read

CHAPTER I.

THE SOLAR SYSTEM AS A WHOLE.

The solar system consists of one supereminent body, with a train of miscellaneous attendants. By its immense gravitative power, their movements are so governed that they not only revolve round it as a common centre, but accompany its march through space; they are, in various degrees, warmed and enlightened by its copious emissions of heat and light; they are linked with it by origin and destiny. Some, indeed, much more closely than others. Planets, satellites, and asteroids belong to the immediate family of the sun; periodical comets and revolving meteoric rings have been adopted into it. The planets are eight in number; the six nearest the sun—Mercury, Venus, the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn—have been known immemorially; Uranus and Neptune were discovered respectively in 1781 and 1846. Mercury, Venus, and Mars form, with the Earth, a group of “terrestrial planets,” so-called because they differ not very greatly in scale from our globe, and are constructed on nearly the same lines. The outer quartette of planets are giants by comparison, and show obvious symptoms of being in a very different physical condition. And it is noteworthy that the zone of asteroids, lying between Mars and Jupiter, divides the planetary classes.

The asteroids are sometimes designated minor planets; but the former term is preferable, as accentuating their distinctive character. For they are not simply diminutive planets. A planet revolves in solitary state within its own broad domain. The asteroids traverse intercrossing and entangled paths, indefinitely numerous, ranging widely in celestial latitude, and covering with their network nearly the entire chasm of space between Mars and Jupiter. The small bodies moving in them have doubtless been formed in a manner totally different from that by which the single body they seem to replace would have taken shape.

Satellites bear in many respects the same relation to planets that planets bear to the sun. They are united with them into secondary systems, one of which is particularly well known to us, since it is constituted by the earth and the moon. The existence of twenty-one satellites has been ascertained, and many more possibly remain to be detected. Their apportionment is singularly unequal. Only three of the twenty one belong to the four small interior planets, while eighteen are attached to the four exterior giants. Moreover, both Mercury and Venus are solitary; so that the solar neighbourhood appears to be a region unpropitious to the development of subordinate systems.

Seventeen comets certainly, and many more probably, are domiciled in the solar kingdom. And even these preserve traces of an alien origin. They revolve round the sun in closed orbits, and are hence periodical in their apparitions; but their periodicity has to be qualified by a saving clause. They come up to time _barring accidents_. For their orbits, not being adjusted to stability, are liable to violent changes through the influence of the powerful masses, the tracks of which they intersect. In running up to, or back from perihelion, comets have to cross many railroads, so to speak, and do not always escape disturbing or destructive encounters with passing trains. Thus, many are entered in our astronomical visitor’s book as lost or strayed. Halley’s is the only well-secured cometary prisoner of the sun of imposing magnitude; the rest are of little spectacular, although of very high theoretic, interest. Comets are the only self-luminous members of the solar system.

Meteorites, besides being intrinsically obscure, reflect, owing to their minuteness, so little sunlight that they remain invisible until ignited in our atmosphere. They travel round the sun in annular systems, each mote-like component of which pursues its way, independently of the others, under the strict regimen of gravitational law. The number of these meteoric rings must be prodigious. Some hundreds have been brought to our acquaintance, which can only include such as cut the earth’s orbit; and these must be an insignificant fraction of the whole. The innumerable closely-related orbits grouped into each ring are ill-regulated for the safety of the bodies moving in them, since they conform in no way to the rules of planetary circulation. Hence the numerous encounters with the earth announced by the luminous trails of shooting stars.

Our system, as at present known, is 5,585 millions of miles in diameter. It is limited by the orbit of Neptune. But no less than three trans-Neptunian planets have been, on some show of evidence, alleged to exist. One of them, held by Professor Todd of Amherst College, U.S., to be responsible for some outstanding perturbations of Uranus, was placed by him in 1877 at a distance from the sun fifty-two times that of the earth (the radius of Neptune’s orbit being measured by thirty of the same units); the two others, called into existence by Professor Forbes of Edinburgh in 1880, to account for the formation of two groups of comets with aphelia respectively at one hundred, and three hundred astronomical units, were believed to occupy those enormously remote positions. Although none of the three, in spite of telescopic and photographic search, has yet been found, the possibility is not excluded that the appearance on a long-exposed sensitive plate of a line in lieu of a dot as the representative of a seeming star, may in the future announce the annexation by the sun of a further immense slice of territory out in the depths of space. The boundaries of our system are thus only provisionally fixed.

Intra-Mercurian planets have proved equally recalcitrant to prediction; and it may safely be said that no globe of the superficial dimensions of an English county lies concealed in the comparatively narrow space available for its circulation. The necessity for the presence of “Vulcan” was deduced by Leverrier from an unexplained displacement of Mercury’s perihelion, and a transit of the required body, supposed to have been observed March 26, 1859, was thereupon, in all good faith, brought forward by Dr. Lescarbault of Orgères. Another pseudo-discovery—this time of a pair of Vulcans—was made during the total eclipse of July 29, 1878; but neither on nor off the sun has the body needed to satisfy the French mathematician’s theory been genuinely seen, and few believe that it will ever be forthcoming.

Professor Titius of Wittenberg pointed out in 1772 that the relative distances of the planets from the sun could be expressed by adding 4 to the series 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, etc. Thus, if the distance of Mercury were called 4, those of Venus, the Earth, Mars, and so on, would severally be 7, 10, 16. The validity of this relation—known as “Bode’s Law”—was strengthened by the conformity to it of Uranus and Ceres, neither of which had been discovered when it was enunciated; Neptune, however, proved to be much nearer to the sun than he should have been, and the formula hence ranks as an empirical one, not grounded in the nature of things.

Yet the grand outlines of the solar system are traced on a visibly symmetrical plan. The larger bodies composing it move nearly in the same plane, in orbits nearly circular, and at regulated intervals, augmenting rapidly outward. All revolve from west to east, or “counter clockwise,” and this fundamental current of motion carries with it, besides the asteroids, all the periodical comets, save Halley’s. Among secondary systems only the Uranian and Neptunian escape from its sway; there being a visible tendency towards deviations from rule towards the confines of the solar domain. These deviations, however, are not of a subversive character.

The planetary machine may continue working forever without a hitch. Such irregularities as would be likely to throw it out of gear are found only in parts of almost evanescent mass and negligeable influence. Two modes of action which should, in the long run, bring about a collapse, are non-existent or insensible. These destructive agencies are a resisting medium, and the progressive transmission of gravity. The presence of either should prove fatal in the same ultimate fashion. Along slowly narrowing tracks, the planets would descend, one after the other, into the ample lap of the sun. Their circulation is, however, to the best of our present knowledge, unimpeded and undeflected; the disturbances affecting it are self-compensatory.

But while the mechanical stability of the system is assured, its physical state is continually changing. And the change is always in the same direction. A degradation of energy steadily progresses. The sun is, in fact, spending his capital, and even with a millionaire of his stamp this cannot last. The time must come, if science is to be believed, when his radiative powers will have become exhausted. Five millions of years hence they will, in all probability, be much less efficacious than they are now. Within twice or thrice that interval they may have become almost extinct.

Planetary globes, too, grow old through the wasting of their internal heat. The moon seems in a measure to prefigure the future condition of all, should their decay not be arrested. Possibly the lunar stage is not the last. Death may, in the long ages to come, be succeeded by disintegration, when a ring of rubbish will be substituted for our “wan-faced” companion. To what purpose, then, our readers will ask, the mechanical perfections of a system destined eventually to be involved in darkness and destruction? To what purpose its exquisite balance, the nicely-adjusted relations of its members, its self-righting faculty, its compensatory springs? We can reply only by recalling that the extreme conclusions of science are invariably pessimistic, because they are reached without taking any account of the intelligent control perpetually, though insensibly, overruling the workings of blind forces. If, in one sense, heaven and earth pass away, we still know that, in good time, “a new heaven and a new earth” shall inscrutably arise. Not “faintly,” then, but boldly and ardently, we “trust the larger hope” that renovation will succeed, or anticipate subversion.

Whatever _can_ have an end _must_ have had a beginning, and the origins of things have an especial fascination for our minds. As regards the history of the planetary world, we are not altogether in the dark. The problem of the maintenance of the sun’s heat was satisfactorily solved by Helmholtz in 1854. Its radiative supplies, as he showed all but conclusively, are derived from gravitative power. As they are diffused into space, the cooled particles from which they proceed, clash together, and their arrested motion is converted into a fresh thermal stock. This implies a steady diminution, although to a surprisingly slight extent, in the bulk of the solar globe. It has been computed that a shortening of the sun’s diameter by 380 feet yearly would suffice to keep this grand heat-producing machine in full working order; and at least ten thousand years should elapse before the contraction became measurable by any instrumental means at our command. Its progress should, nevertheless, eventually reduce our glowing luminary to an obscure, inert mass.

Now, evidently, its shining in the past was sustained in the same way as at present. The globe that blazes in our summer skies is, accordingly, but the shrunken remnant of what it once was. It is shrunken in proportion to the vast quantity of its former emissions. Hence, the farther we look back into the ages, the more voluminous its dimensions. And, sounding the utmost profundities of time, we arrive at an epoch when all the planets were swallowed up in a sphere girdled by the present orbit of Neptune.

The tenuity of this distended body was unimaginable. At ninety miles of altitude, our air is one hundred million times rarer than it is at sea-level; yet the primitive solar “nebula” was considerably more attenuated still. This aerial mass had, doubtless, been in some way impressed with a slow movement of rotation, which, by mechanical necessity, quickened as condensation progressed. The planets represent a few fragments detached during the process; nearly the whole of its substance being compacted into the sun. How the fragments came to be detached is the crux of cosmogonists. According to Laplace’s famous hypothesis, equatorial rings of matter separated successively from the parent nebula at certain critical epochs when gravity was overcome by the gaining centrifugal tendency due to accelerating rotation. These rings drew together into planets, from which satellites were generated by a repetition of their own birth-process. Many incongruities are, however, involved in this _modus operandi_. Only two need here be mentioned. Reason and experience teach us that globes of small interior consistence easily break up into rings, while cosmic rings show not the slightest tendency to collect into globes. Again, Laplace supposed that the production of each planet relieved a long antecedent strain. But nebulous stuff is almost absolutely incoherent. Hence it _cannot be stretched or strained_. As the nebula condensed and whirled, it would, accordingly, have left behind innumerable disaggregated particles, but no massive rings.

M. Faye of the French Academy has attempted to remedy these defects. The planets, he considers, were not abandoned, but formed at centres of condensation within the nebular matrix. The order of their formation would thus have been quite different from that assigned by Laplace, in whose theory the exterior globes were necessarily the earliest to take shape. M. Faye, on the contrary, argues Uranus and Neptune, from their retrograde rotation, to be the _youngest_ instead of the _oldest_ members of the solar system, while the terrestrial group belong to the first era of planetary development.

Astronomers are now virtually agreed that “The world was once a fluid haze of light,” but by what precise means, in what succession, under what compulsion, its constituent bodies were set wheeling in the void, they are less ready to pronounce than were their predecessors, who, dazzled with the analytical triumphs of the eighteenth century, accepted unquestioningly the plan of creation it complacently transmitted to them. The complexities of world-making have, besides, been instructively illustrated by Professor G. H. Darwin’s discovery that tidal friction was essentially concerned in the process. By an able mathematical investigation, he showed, in 1879, that it was particularly effective in modelling the earth-moon system, owing to the fact that our satellite, comparatively to its primary, is by far the largest in the solar system.

Tidal friction may be regarded under a two-fold aspect. Its effect in grinding down the speed of rotation has been explained in Section II. (page 166). The energy, however, thus apparently destroyed is only transformed. The rotational momentum subtracted from the earth is added to the orbital momentum of the moon, which thus travels (setting aside other causes of change) along continually widening spires. This retreat from the earth is even now going on, although with elusive slowness, amid the rise and fall of secular change. Its effects in past ages, nevertheless, coupled with those due to the slackening of rotation by the friction of the tidal wave—the two forming, as it were, the obverse and reverse of one medal—must have been of overruling importance. Laying hold of the clue they offer, Professor Darwin succeeded in tracing back the history of the moon through a “corridor of time” nearly a hundred million years long. It was then spinning at a vertiginous rate, round, and nearly in contact with the earth, which must have been fluid or plastic, while of about its present size. The _month_ of that epoch was three or four hours in duration; the _day_ was shorter still. The actual existence of the moon convinces us of this latter fact. Otherwise, the huge tidal wave raised by the moon upon the earth should have lagged, however slightly. Its attraction would have pulled the moon backwards at the decisive moment of its emergence into separate being, and led infallibly to its re-engulfment.

The origin of the moon has been, by Professor Darwin’s analysis, made clearer than that of any other heavenly body. Certainty regarding such remote events is unattainable; but it is highly probable that our globe, at a late stage of its development, gave birth, amid the throes of disruption, to its solitary offspring. But the case is unique. The terrestrial system presents conditions not repeated elsewhere. Generalisations founded upon them are sure to be misleading. We have indeed gained, from all recent inquiries into cosmogony, the profound conviction that no single scheme will account for everything; that the utmost variety prevailed in the circumstances under which the heavenly bodies attained their present status; and that a rigidly constructed hypothesis can only misrepresent the boundless diversity of nature.