The Camden weekly journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1853-1861, 1854-09-05
Are the stars Inhabited;

Are the Stars Inhabited.
IL is positive, and notvery creditable TACT
to many men Of scientific. ability and rePuta-
ton, that they devote more time to contfoyer.
sy and speculation on subjects of no practicsi
benefit whatever-and respecting which they
never can arrive at any correct conclusions,
than to subjects Of real utility in which every
person has an interest In ne instance has this
been so clearly manifested as in the controyef.
sizes respecting the question embraced ia the
above caption. A short time since aibook by
an anonymous author was published 10 Lon.
don lsinee republished by Gould and Lincoln
of BOSTON, entitled "the plurality of Worlds,
in which it is assumed that oar earth, SOLITARY
and alone, of all the starry host is 10 all proba
.bility, the only planet that is inhabited: The
author displays much learning and fine imagi-
nation, but SO far as the question is a scientit.
ic ole, it appears to US thatit really makes no
matter what the opinion of one or ten thou.
sand men may be, as it can neither be settled
By argument nor science, in its present state.
If we possessed telescopes of sufficient power
to survey the surface Of any Of the planets
the same az we can that Of our own, and where
by we can observe objects of life, moving un-
constrained at distances far beyond the scope
of common vision, then no argument would be
required to prove or disprove the question OF
the planets being inhabited, any more than it
requires controversy to prove that drop OF
water teens with life, when examining it with
a microscope. And since we have not instru.
ments to accomplish this, the best thing for
astronomers and opticians to do in the premises
instead of quarreling upon the subject, is to
endeavor to construct such instruments as will
settle the question beyond the shadow Of q
doubt. This advice we tender especially to
Sir. David Brewster, that eminent philosopher
who has Just replied to,the author Of the work
in question in keen and cutting article 10 the
last number of the North British Review"
The author of the Plurality of Worlds" con-
cludes that the planet Jupiter is nothing better
than huge pasty mass of mud andlwater, on
which no inhabitants can dwell. Sir David
Brewster considers that although the gravity of
Jupiter in proportion to its size, sno greater
than that sof an equal volume of water, yet, it
may be hollow, and its surface as inhabitable
as our own globe. If there are inhabitants in
Jupiter, the anonymous author concludes that
according to its mass, the men are required to
be l64 lbs. weight each, while according to
the reviewer, who takes the radius of Jupiter
not its mass--as his line of measurement they
are not required to be over 23-4 times as heas
wy as the men on our mother earth. This ques
ton could be far better determined were We.
informed of the particular food Of Jupiter's
sons, and the abundance or scantiness Of its
supply, whether il was bread and beef or tea
and toast, as we find that these things have q
wonderful effect on the gravity Of both alder
men and common. citizens on our little planet.
Herschel has suggested that the sun may be-
inhabited, and that between its luminous at
mospherea and It's surface, there may be inter
posed screen Of clouds whereby its inhabi
tants may no more suffer from intense heat
than those who live in our tropical regions
This may be SO, as we all know how much the
heat of the suns rays, in the hottest days Of
summer, are modified by an interposing cloud,
or swift passing breeze" We also know
that on the extensive table lands Of high noun.
tsins in the tropics, the glacier and ice field
reign as supreme as in the arctic regions, and
all this although they are nearer the sun than
the adjacent burning plains. The depth of the
atmosphere, and its pressure upon the surface
of the earth, affects its temperature as much as
its relative distance from the sun, and thus it
is that many simple questions must enter into
the calculation, to determine by reasoning, the
complex question of the. probability Of the
stars being inhabited. We believe that neither
the sun nor5the moon is inhabited. q The moon
has been found to be destitute of any atmos
phere. consequently no living thing can dwell
there-at least none possessing. the same fano-
tions necessary to life, asthe oxygen breathing
creatures of the earth. As the sun has not an
atmosphere like ours, we also conclude that
there are no inhabitants there. These two orbs
appear to perform, according to science, NJ
other duties than those described in the frs,
chapter Of Genesis: (" Let the sun and the
moon be in the frtnament to divide the day
and the night, to be for times, and seasons
days and years, and to give light upon the
earth." ~ II
It is our belief that some of the planets, and
thousands Of other heavenly bodies in other
systems are inha bited, but we can present no
scientific proof in favor of this belief being
positively correct, neitbersean any person pre-
sent proof that tits untrue. All we can say
about it is, that probabilities are in its favor,
for we Judge that flour planet teens with
life, SO may others. It is reasonable infer
ence, from what we see around us, that other
worlds may be furnished as luxurianay with
life and beauty as ours. We cannot believe
that:our planet is the only theatre Of life in the
universe that here alone, among the. starry
host, the great Creator has designed to display
his manifold power. wisdom and goodness. -
We cannot believe that our sun, and the Guns