Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1916-08-15
Heat Of the Sun.

Gibbon, Neb., Aug. l4-To the Editor Of
The Bee: In reply to William Smiths ans
wer to my article, l would say that his first
contention is quite superhuous wherein he
reiterates what every 10-year-old school
child should know-that the direct rays Of
the sun give more heat in q given locality
than do shooting rays. He ignored the fact
that said "the world over" which means
the whole earth. Now, if he can show that
the whole earth, irrespective Of localities,
Is only warmer when we are at perihelion in
January than when we are at Aphelion IN
July. we will concede the point; otherwise
the objection Is ovsrruled.
He says the two inner planets are too hot
to be inhabited-hot as boiling water-snd
the four outside ones are too cold, 273 de-
grees below. Isn't 1t strange that in family
Of eight major planets-four of them from
100 to 1.200 times larger than our own
ours should be the only one suitable for
habitation, present or perspective? Why
such a stupendous waste of material and
energyf
He says the reason that fire, lamp or gas
light will not throw hot focus through
lens. like sun or electric arc light, is because
the sun or arc light is so much stronger
than fire. oil or gas heat. l beg leave to
differ with him. The suns heat may not be
more than 10 degrees where it strikes the
lens and down to 273 degrees below few
miles up and yet throw focus that will
ignite paper, while the lens may be held
where the Are heat runs to 273 degrees
above or more and still throw a cold focus.
the acetylene light may approach near
enough to the electric to give a trace Of
heat at the focus.
Physicists and scientists few centuries
h.lA L. a.
heavenly bodies revolved around 1t every
twenty -four hours. which was about as SEN
sible As the grinding process In the sun
producing such intense heat. Particles Of
matter hot enough to be in a state of fusion
or liquefaction can produce no friction by
rubbing together to produce more heat any
more than could melted lead or hot water.
In regard to relative strength of electric
energy In far out or nearby planets, used
the word approximately" which Mr.. Smith
seemed to have overlooked. OF course there
is some elimination in energy BY resistance
on long lines, whether by wire or through
space. But let Mr.. Smith try to send his
heat by radiation over the same line and he
would need a relay fire or booster about
every four rods to keep up any appreciable
degree of heat.
His theory of sun spots looks very un-
Eeasohapie anu, WITHOUT an intensely not sun,
impossible. In regard to the individuality
of other planets. he refers me to Simon
Newcomb's work, published some fifty years
ago. Mr.. Newcomb also taught the now
obsolete theory. promulgated by Laplace,
about century ago. that the planets were
formerly part of the sun and were thrown
off from that body by centrifugal force. The
sun rotates on its axis in twenty-five and
one-ffth Of our days too slow to throw off
anything. certainly not a lump as big as
Jupiter, 1900 times the size of our planet
l would refer him to very comprehensive
work. by Thomas J. J. See, Researches on
the Evolution of the Stellar Systems" pub
lished in 1910. He makes it very plain that
other planets are inhabited and shows how
worlds are built up by capture of matter
from surrounding space.
ELLIOTT LOOMS.