Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1916-09-02
05eBeesdA
s&MzRod1
Loon,is on Light and Heat.


Gibbon, Neb., Aug. 2s.-To the Ed
itor Of The Bee: | would IKE y sRace
In The Bee to reply to william
Smiths last article in The Bee OF the
23d inst. He stated in his pre-
yious article, In The Bee of the
sth inst, that the slanting rays OF the
sun were colder than the direct rays
because they had SO much longer
path through our atmosphere, wnich
made them colder. Now what tenn
perature could these rays have held
when they reached our atmosphere
after having passed through $4,000.
900 miles of interstellar space at 21a
degrees below zero? So it is plainly
the province Of our atmosphere TO
warm those rays instead of cooling
them. l am glad to see that he agrees
with me that there Is no difference in
temperature between our perihelion
and aphelion distances. He states
that our sun Is composed of gas lit
tie more dense than water, and that
other suns are composed Of gas about
the tenuity of our atmosphere. or
lighter. Now, cannot conceive OF
either LIQUID or gas of that consist
ence, whether composed Of atoms,
molecules or particles, that can be
made to produce heat by friction or
agitation. If 1t could be done. our
atmosphere composed of gases), as
well as the water in our lakes and
oceans, should be made hot when ag-
itated by violent storms. Scientists
formerly believed the suns heat was
produced by combination until COM
mon sense taught its absurdity, then,
like drowning man catching at
straw, they took up the theory OF
such intense heat by friction. but 1t is
like jumping out of the frying pan
into the fire."
| did not presume the sun was in
habitable, as 1t would have to supply
its own light and heat and would be
too hot under foot or too cold over
head to sustain life, either animal or
plant And the same rule would hold
good for the outer planets, which Mr..
Smith claims are self-heated. They
must have light and heat from out
side or else be uninhabitable. and,
therefore, useless.
Mr.. Smith states that the color OF
the different suns indicate their tenn
perature. Will he explain the rudy
appearance of the planet Mars, our
nearest outside naighbor and nearly
fifty million miles further from the
sun than we are, whose red light Is
plainly seen by the naked eye and
whose regular lines are supposed to
be canals, and whose white spots at
the poles, evidently snow and ice,
which increase to some IL degrees
across when winter conditions pre-
vail at either pole, and nearly or
quite disappear during the summer
solstice. 1t is evidently not q hot
planet, but has about the. same tenn
perature as we have. Probably the
same cause that gives Mars its red
color also gives color to the various
suns.
Probably, like many Of your read
ers / am not well enough posted in
spectrum analysis to discuss those
points intelligently, SO will pass them,
but think i can make my contentious
plain by the following illustration.
not considering the outside planets
at present: We may consider our
planet placed on the surface Of a
sphere OF space 1S6,000,000 miles in
diameter, with the sun at its center.
Now, according to Mr.. Smiths theory,
the whole surface of that vast sphere
must continually receive the same
degree of light and heat that we do.
and its whole interior space must also
receive the same degree of light and
heat at its surface, but must gradu-
ally increase in intensity as IT APP
proaches the sun, and when near the
sun must be hot enough to yaporizei
the most refractory metals.
Now, II our moon and Mercury,
and possibly Venus, are uninhabfta-
BILE on account of their long diurnal
revolution, all that vast store of light
and heat is wasted except the infini-
tisimal amount that our planet
uses But let us consider the outer
planet and extend the sphere in all
directions to the distance of the orbit
of Neptune, two and three-fourths
billion miles from the sun, and all
that great sphere to be lighted and
heated continually as above stated.
and / think the absurdity Of the
theory will be apparent to all. But
let us look at the other theory Now,
we all know that electricity is all
around us, and with proper appli-
ance can be called into instantaneous
use anywhere on earth. Now, what
is more reasonable than to suppose
that our planetary bodies, revolving
around the sun with the sun acting
as a great dynamo, are furnishing
light and heat Of uniform tempera-
ture to all the planetary bodies in our
solar system regardless Of their dis
lance from the sun or the tempera-
ture of intervening space, and with
out any waste of energy?
Now, thanking The Bee and Will
liam Smith Of Bellevue college for
the valuable assistance they have rem
dered me in getting this before the
public, l am willing to let the public
Judge as to which of the two theories
Is the more reasonable.