What are the proofs of science? The solar spots (a misnomer, like much
of the rest)? But these do not prove the solidity of the "central
mass," any more than the storm-clouds prove the solid mass of the
atmosphere behind them. Is it the non-coextensiveness of the sun's
body with its apparent luminous dimensions, the said "body" appearing
"a solid mass, a dark sphere of matter confined within a fiery
prison-house, a robe of fiercest flames?" We say that there is indeed a
"prisoner" behind, but that having never yet been seen by any physical,
mortal eye, what he allows to be seen of him is merely a gigantic
reflection, an illusive phantasma of "solar appendages of some sort," as
Mr. Proctor honestly calls it. Before saying anything further, we will
consider the next interrogatory.
Question II.--Is the Sun merely a cooling mass?
Such is the accepted theory of modern science: it is not what the
"Adepts" teach. The former says--the sun "derives no important
accession of heat from without:"--the latter answer--"the sun needs it
not.
Pages:
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345