style="font-size:15px;"> 7. The origin of the meteorites and the asteroids.
8. The meteorological phenomena of the planets.
9. The origin of the rings of Saturn.
10. The origin of the special structure of the nebulæ.
11. The source of terrestrial magnetism, and its connection with solar activity.
The first and second chapters are devoted to an examination of the limits of atmospheric expansibility. The experimental investigations of Dr. Andrews, Mr. Grove, Mr. Gassiot, and M. Geissler are cited to prove that the expansibility of the atmosphere is unlimited, and other cosmical evidence is adduced in support of this conclusion.
As this, which is really the foundation of the whole argument, is directly opposed to the views expressed by Dr. Wollaston, in his celebrated paper on “The Finite Extent of the Atmosphere,” published in 1822, and generally accepted as established science, this paper is reprinted in the second chapter, and carefully examined.
Dr. Wollaston says “that air has been rarefied so as to sustain 1–100th of an inch of barometrical pressure,” and further, that “beyond this limit we are left to conjectures founded on the supposed divisibility of matter; if this be infinite, so also must be the extent of our atmosphere.”
I contend that our knowledge of the whole subject is fundamentally altered since these words were written. We are no longer “left to conjectures founded on the supposed divisibility of matter” to determine the possibility of further expansibility than that indicated by 1–100th of an inch of barometrical pressure, as we now have means of obtaining ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times, or even an infinitely greater rarefaction than Wollaston’s supposed limit, an apparently absolute vacuum being now obtainable; and although the transmission of electricity affords a means of testing the existence of atmospheric matter with a degree of delicacy of which Wollaston had no conception, we are still unable to detect any indication of any limit to its expansibility.
The most remarkable part of Dr. Wollaston’s paper is the reductio ad absurdum by which he seeks to finally demonstrate the finite extent of our atmosphere. He maintains, as I do, that if the elasticity of our atmosphere is unlimited, its extension must be commensurate with the universe, that every orb in space will, by gravitation, gather around itself an atmosphere proportionate to its gravitating power, and that, by taking the known quantity of the earth’s atmosphere as our unit, we may calculate the amount of atmosphere possessed by any heavenly body of which the mass is known. On this basis Dr. Wollaston calculates the atmosphere of the sun, and concludes that its extent will be so great as to visibly affect the apparent motions of Mercury and Venus, when their declination makes its nearest approach to that of the sun. No such disturbance being actually observable, he concludes that such an atmosphere as he has calculated cannot exist. In like manner he calculates the atmosphere of Jupiter, and finds it to be so great, that its refraction would be sufficient “to render the fourth satellite visible to us when behind the centre of the planet, and consequently to make it appear on both (or all) sides at the same time.”
On examining these calculations, I have discovered the very curious error above referred to. As this is a matter of figures that cannot be abridged, I must refer the reader to the original calculations. I will here merely state that Wollaston’s method of calculating the solar gravitation atmosphere and that of Jupiter and the moon leads to the monstrous conclusion that, in ascending from the surface of the given orb, we always have the same limited amount of atmospheric matter above as that with which we started, although we are continually leaving a portion of it below.
Wollaston’s mistake is based on the assumption that, under the circumstances supposed, the atmospheric pressure and density, at any given distance from the centre of the given orb, will vary inversely with the square of that distance. As the area of the base upon which such pressure is exerted varies directly with the square of the distance, the total atmosphere above every imaginable starting-distance would thus be ever the same. That this assumption, so utterly at variance with the known laws of atmospheric distribution, should have remained unchallenged for half a century, and that the conclusions based upon it should be accepted by the whole scientific world, and repeated in standard treatises, such as those of the “Encyclopedia Britannica,” etc., etc., is, I think, one of the most remarkable curiosities presented by the history of science. If it were merely a little cobweb in some obscure corner of philosophy, there would be nothing surprising in its escape from the besom of scientific criticism; but this is so far from being the case, that it has hung, since 1822, like a dark veil obscuring another, a wider, and more interesting view of the universe which the idea of an universal atmosphere opens out. But I must now proceed to the next stage of the argument.
Starting from the conclusion reached in the previous chapters, that the atmosphere of our earth is but a portion of an universal elastic medium which it has attached to itself by its gravitation, and that all the other orbs of space must, in like manner, have obtained their proportion, I take the earth’s mass, and its known quantity of atmospheric envelope as units, and calculating by the simple rule I have laid down in opposition to Wollaston’s, I find that the total weight of the sun’s atmosphere should be at least 117,681,623 times that of the earth’s, and the pressure at its base equal, at least, to 15,233 atmospheres. What must be the results of such an atmospheric accumulation?
The experiment of compressing air in the condensing syringe, and thereby lighting a piece of German tinder, is familiar to all who have studied even the rudiments of physical science. Taking the formulæ of Leslie and Dalton, and applying them to the solar pressure of 15,233 atmospheres, we arrive according to Leslie, at the inconceivable temperature of 380,832° C., or 685,529° F., as that due to this amount of compression, or, according to Dalton, at 761,665° F. What will be the effects of such a degree of heat upon materials similar to those of which our earth is composed?
Let us first take the case of water, which, for reasons I have stated, should be regarded as atmospheric, or universally diffused matter.
This brings us to a subject of the highest and widest philosophical and practical importance. I refer to the antagonism between the force of heat and that of chemical combination, to which the French chemists have given the name “dissociation.” Having myself been unable to find any satisfactory English account of this subject at a time when it had already been well treated by French and German authors, in the form of published lectures and cyclopædia articles, I assume that others may have encountered a similar difficulty, and therefore dwell rather more fully upon this part of my present summary.
It appears that all chemical compounds may be decomposed by heat, and that, at a given pressure, there is a definite and special temperature at which the decomposition of each compound is effected. For the absolute and final establishment of the universality of this law further investigations are necessary, actual investigations having established it as far as they have gone, but these have not been exhaustive.
There appears to be a remarkable analogy between dissociation and evaporation. When a liquid is vaporized, a certain amount of heat is “rendered latent,” and this quantity varies with the liquid and with the pressure, but is definite and invariable for each liquid at a given pressure. In like manner, when a compound is dissociated, a certain amount of heat is “rendered latent,” or converted into dissociating force, and this varies with each compound and with the pressure, but is definite and invariable for each compound at a given pressure. Further, when condensation occurs, an amount of heat is evolved, as temperature, exactly equal to that which was rendered latent in the evaporation of the same substance under the same pressure; and, in like manner, when chemical re-combination of dissociated elements occurs, an amount of heat is evolved, as temperature, exactly equal to that which disappeared when the compound was dissociated by heat alone under the same pressure.
According
