Even the cosmic theory is incomplete and full of anomalies. In the vortex theory there is nothing to show why some swirls of cosmic matter became suns and others planets. There are two theories regarding the solar system diametrically opposed to one another. There are similarly two theories regarding the Moon. The most recent theory is that the Moon acts as a brake upon the Earth by causing the tides, which run contrary to the axial rotation of the earth, thereby slowing down its rotation and causing a longer day than formerly. But the same theory requires that the Moon is gradually enlarging its own orbit and getting farther away from the Earth, which is inconsistent with our records of ancient observations of eclipses, etc., for in order to agree our calculations with the observed positions of the Moon at these ancient epochs, we have to augment the _present_ mean motion of the Moon in its orbit by a quantity equal to about 10´´t₂, which means ten seconds for the first century and the same quantity multiplied by the square of the centuries for times anterior. In other words, the Moon was moving quicker in a smaller orbit in former days. But this supplemental theory is wholly destructive of the first regarding the Moon’s tidal action. For if the Moon is getting farther away from us, its tidal influence is also decreasing, and the “brake” power being lessened, the Earth’s axial rotation must be increasing in velocity and the day must be getting shorter than formerly, which is the exact converse of what was argued in the first place. Hence we see how, in their efforts to explain observed facts, scientific men can put up two mutually destructive theories. Only recently, in the Solar eclipse of 17th April, 1912, we had an illustration of an exact science blundering in practice. The _Connaissance des Temps_, the official organ of the French astronomers, gave this eclipse as total, while the _Nautical Almanac_ gave it correctly as partial, the apparent diameter of the Moon, depending on its anomaly, being some 20´´ less than that of the Sun. The theory of what is called the attraction of gravitation is one of the scientific facts which have recently been abandoned as unsatisfactory. It is found that the theory of “attraction” does not answer to the facts as experimentally determined. Theories that are inelastic are apt to be negatived by the discovery of new facts or modified beyond recognition by extended observations. The Earth itself is a huge magnet whose radial influence extends some fourteen feet beyond its surface, and this fact has to be taken into account in all local magnetic observations.