Electrical repulsion keeps our earth and the planets from falling into the sun. Why? Because our earth and the planets, when they approach within a certain distance of the sun, may become similarly electrified to the sun, and are thrown back to their proper and balanced orbit. Electrical repulsion keeps all satellites from falling into their primary planets. Why? Because they have like polarities, and are positive or negative like their primaries, and repulse each other. Thus each and all the suns, planets and satellites continue in their orbits of balanced forces, and will always continue and are as eternal as the laws of electro-magnetism that created and upholds the universe. The same law applies to comets. Why does the comet, when it approaches just so near to the sun, dart away so quickly? Because it becomes alike electrified as the sun, and the law of repulsion strikes it like the blow of a mammoth triphammer and hurls it in the opposite direction. This is one reason; there may be others, for the laws of repulsion are as many and various as the laws of attraction. The scientists in all ages have been fascinated with fearful, grim and dismal pictures of the end of the world. Like the theologians who delighted to paint the tortures of the fiery tophet of their imagination, the scientists have exhausted their wildest fancy in picturing the sun consumed with fire, the earth melting with fervent heat and the final "wreck of matter and the crush of worlds." The latest display of dismal and excessive fancy on this subject is from the prolific pen of our most eminent and worthy astronomer, Prof. Simon Newcomb. It is to be found in McClure's Magazine of May, 1903, which I have just read, entitled "The End of the World." It is a well written, imaginative story or article, embracing his theory or hypothesis of the cause and manner of the world's destruction. I admire his scholarly style, his great learning, and splendid fancy, and if I believed in the scientific theories and traditions which he champions with such an able pen, I should say it was a masterly presentation of what would occur in sun and earth at some indefinite future time. But as I have discarded the old scientific traditions I cannot accept his theories or his fancy picture. It is too dismal for my optimistic conception of what has occurred or what will occur in this vast and mighty universe. He is a worthy successor of Newton and La Place, for he has a vigorous imagination, which easily scans the future and presents what I deem antiquated theories, sustained by traditional facts. Each person lives in a different world and sees a different universe, according to his knowledge and imagination.