Appletons' Popular Science Monthly, January 1900: Vol. 56, November, 1899 to April, 1900Various
Science
Appletons' Popular Science Monthly, January 1900: Vol. 56, November, 1899 to April, 1900
Various
Science -- Periodicals; Technology -- Periodicals
“Here, indeed, we arrive at a barrier to our reasonings; since we
can not know whether this condition is or is not fulfilled. If the
ether which fills the interspaces of our Sidereal system has a
limit somewhere beyond the outermost stars, then it is inferable
that motion is not lost by radiation beyond this limit; and if
so, the original degree of diffusion may be resumed. Or supposing
the ethereal medium to have no such limit, yet, on the hypothesis
of an unlimited space, containing, at certain intervals, Sidereal
Systems like our own, it may be that the quantity of molecular
motion radiated into the region occupied by our Sidereal System,
is equal to that which our Sidereal System radiates; in which case
the quantity of motion possessed by it, remaining undiminished, it
may continue during unlimited time its alternate concentrations and
diffusions. But if, on the other hand, throughout boundless space
filled with ether, there exist no other Sidereal Systems subject
to like changes, or if such other Sidereal Systems exist at more
than a certain average distance from one another; then it seems an
unavoidable conclusion that the quantity of motion possessed, must
diminish by radiation; and that so, on each successive resumption
of the nebulous form, the matter of our Sidereal System will
occupy a less space; until it reaches either a state in which its
concentrations and diffusions are relatively small, or a state
of complete aggregation and rest. Since, however, we have no
evidence showing the existence or non-existence of Sidereal Systems
throughout remote space; and since, even had we such evidence, a
legitimate conclusion could not be drawn from premises of which
one element (unlimited space) is inconceivable; we must be forever
without answer to this transcendent question.” (_First Principles_,
§ 182, pp. 535-6.)
See, then, how the case stands. After urging against me the argument
of “two eminent physicists” as fatal to my conclusions, he thereupon
expresses dissent from the premises of that argument; and the reasons
he gives for dissenting are like those given by me before he was out of
his teens!
* * * * *
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account