The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-02-02
The SOLAR SYSTEM.

with That OF Laplace-Thc Meteor Sys-
tenn In Exhaustion when the Plane
tary Globes Were Fashioned.
CLEVELAND, Ohio. Jan. 2s, 1915
To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD
There are two or three points In your well writ
ten article ON my theory OF the solar system on
which should be glad. with your permission, to
make few remarks My leisure is short, as am
lecturing every night and travelling, on the aver
age, twelve hours day; but as hope to have an
opportunity to present my theory again to New
YORK audience shall only require to touch on the
considerations suggested by your criticisms.
would remark, first, that my theory is not
wholly antagon!stic to Laplace's Both theories
are based on evidence indicating think we may
say demonstrating, the evolution OF our solar
system. And this, after all, is a point of greater
popular interest than the indication Of the manner
OF such evolution.
II ID next to be noted tnat by the very require
ments OF my theory the meteor systems at present
existing should be utterly insignificant compared
with those existing millions OF years ago. The
process OF exhaustion must have gone far towards
completion when the planetary globes had been
fashioned. Taking our earth, we know that mil
lions OF years have passed since she began to be
peopled ana much longer time since she existed
as an intensely hot orb During all these years
she has been gathering up merely a few fragments
left unused during the formation OF the system-a
few chips scattered about the mighty workshop III
which the giant wOrkmen Attraction and Repul-
sion. had fashioned the solar system. Yet gOOdy
quantity OF chips must have been collected by her
in the interval. l have shown by very moderate
computation that the earth increases in mass each
year by more than 90 900 TONS Since she was first
fol med, then, she must have increased by millions
OF millions Of tons.
have nothing to say about the mass OF comets
tails. 1t may or may not be true that one horse
could cart of their whole weight, but meteor
trains attending on comets are no one horse af-
fairs. Taking even Professor Newton's estimate
OF one meteor to 900 900 cubic miles during the No.
vember shower OF 1867 1t is easily shown that dur
ing the continuance OF that shower the earth
gathered in at least ton OF matter; while, re-
membertng the enormous extension indicated by
the recurrence OF the display in 1866, 1867, 1863,
&C., we must ascrioe to the November cluster Of
meteors total mass Of many millions OF tons.
The fact is, the tail and the train OF a comet are
in no way TO be COMPOUNDED together. When q
comet is in perlhelion its tail lies at right angles
to its train may note, by the way, that Professor
Asaph Hall calculates the mass OF Encke's comet as
exceeding that of many asteroids)
You speak Of my theory as a "manHuvre in favor
of evolution, as opposed to and irreconciable
with the idea of creation" This Is not strictly
correct Evolution is irreconcilable with the idea
OF creation as respects the evolved object,
but not with the general idea of a crea-
ton. We know that a tree is developed
from the seed. not specially Created but We do not
consider the fact irreconcilable with the idea OF
creation. can see no reason why the evolution
of solar system, even of a siderial system,
should be more so. 1t was to show l thus viewed
the matter that introduced the Illustration OF the
NAV flies. and COmOarp1 n a w re.
gard as the universe with the ideas-not more i'm
perfect in my opnion-which so ephemeral Great
ures might entertain.
Lastly, must take exception to your remark
that "where speculation occupies the field science
vanishes." Rather, speculation is the seed whence
springs the tree OF theory, which, duly nourished
by observation and experiment, will bear as fruit
discovered scientific facts. Destroy specula
ton, and science dies; for there never
has been single scientific discovery
which had not its origin IN speculation
Nevertheless, l can say nothing in favor OF specu
lation, or, indeed, Of theorizing, unless to be
checked and guided by observation. But every
useful observation have ever heard OF has been
suggested by theory. The BacOnian method, Du,
ct simple, has never yet to my knowledge achieved
any noteworthy success, and I believe 1t Is one
chief secret OF American success in science that
the deductive rather than the inductive method
has been favored by them; or rather that they
have preferred combination OF the two methods
to that reliance the inductive method which has
been favored in England by all save few-amOng
whom, however, are oil the great leaders Of scien-
tihc progress in Great Britain.
Pray excuse this hastily written note, as have
had but few minutes in which to write, and
Believe me, faithfully yours.
RICHARD A, PROCTOR