The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-12-24
The Nebuiar Hypothesis.

New York Tribune.
 Prof. T c. Chamberlain, who fills the Chair of Geology in the University Of Chicago, does not believe in the neb- ular hypothesis; and he outlined before an association of teachers In mathe- matics last week a theory which com mends Itself more srongly than this to his judgment. Laplace, it will be remembered, held that at some period in the remote past there existed an acquired a whirling movement. By degrees it grew fiatter and fiatter. and then one ring after another was de- tached from what was its outer edge. The rings broke up and consolidated into the planets, he thought. and tha central period,, greatly condensed formed the sun. Prof. Chamberlain does not doubt that the planets are true children of that body. The spec troscope shows that the latter contains more than half of the chemical ele ments found in and on the earth. Tho presumption that the whole solar sys- tenn has the same composition. there fore, seems warrantable. How the material came to be transferred from the parental mass to the progeny, though. is the question in dispute. Tn" Chicago geologist believes that it was elected by eruptive action, which was excited by a near approach of another sun, and that, by a process of "accre- tion," what were widely separated and very numerous fragments became as- sociated into eight or more spheres.
 Astronomers have long felt that the nebular hypothesis was vulnerable. It does not fully explain observed phe- nomena. Modern scientists can see, for instance, ho wsuch rings as La place describes could be formed, but they cannot imagine what force could cause them to break up and change their shape and many of them are par ticularly skeptical about the possibility that the product of any such accident would become sphere. Then, the behavior of the satellites of some of the outer planets Is not in harmony with the doctrine of Laplace. To these and further objections which have long been recognized. Prof. Chamberlain adds at least one more. He does not believe that the rotary power of the sun was ever equal to throwing off the planets and causing them to re- volve around it. Perhaps he has not allowed sufficiently for the various re- tarding influences which have operated upon the velocity of the suns rotation: but at any rate the suggestion deserves consideration. It is for experts to say how far the case against Laplace is re- inforced by the argument here adduc- ed; and they may conclude that Mir. Chamherlain's plea is not unreasona- ble
 Still, when it comes to a choice be- tween the nebular hypothesis and the accretion theory we believe that the majority of astronomers will find the former the more satisfactory, defective as 1t Is. There are eight planets nov ing about the sun and revolving on their own axis. They will travel in the same direction, and both move ments correspond to the direction of the suns own rotation. Finally the paths of the planets lie in practically the same plane. and this plane inter sects the sun nearly at It's equator. These phenomena are so familiar that their significance Is likely to be un- derestimated. Taken together they certainly constitute a most weighty ar gument in favor of the correctness of Laplace's conception. simon New comb has shown that the chance of such a combination having been brought about in any other way than that here alluded to Is only one In many thousands. Urof. Chamberlain's teachings should not be rejected with out examination. and he should have an opportunity to state his case as completely as he likes. When he does. the astronomer will ask himselfdf the marvellous unity of the planetary movement can be explained by the &C., cretion theory easily. If t can, then the theory should be considered moro carefully. If 1t cannot. the alterna- native hypothesis should still be held tentatively until something better can ha fnnnd