University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  

collapse section1. 
collapse section1. 
 1. 
 2. 
  
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
collapse section7. 
 1. 
  
collapse section8. 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
  
 9. 
 10. 
collapse section11. 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
collapse section2. 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
collapse section8. 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
 2. 
 2. 
 2. 
  
 9. 
collapse section10. 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
collapse section3. 
collapse section1. 
 1. 
 2. 
  
 3. 
  
  
  
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
collapse section2. 
 1. 
 2. 
RÉSUMÉ OF HYPOTHESES
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
  
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
 6. 
 7. 
 8. 
collapse section9. 
 1. 
  
collapse section10. 
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 

  
  

RÉSUMÉ OF HYPOTHESES

Kant's hypothesis had the great defect of trying to prove too much. It started from matter at rest, and came to grief in trying to give a motion of rotation to the entire mass through the operation of internal forces alone—an impossibility. Kant's idea of nuclei or centers of gravitational attraction, scattered here and there throughout the chaotic mass, which grew into the planets and their satellites, is very valuable.

Laplace's hypothesis had the great advantage of starting with an extended mass already in rotation, but it violated fatally the law of constancy of moment of momentum. We should expect this hypothesis to create a solar system free from irregularities, very much as if it were the product of an instrument-maker's precision lathe. The solar system as it exists is a combination of regularities and many surprising irregularities.

Chamberlin and Moulton's hypothesis has the advantage of a parent mass in rotation, practically in a common plane, and with the materials distributed at distances from the nucleus as nearly in harmony with the known distribution of matter in the solar system as we care to have them, except perhaps as to the comets. In effect it retains all the advantageous qualities of Kant's proposals. It seems to have the flexibility required in meeting the irregularities that we see in our system.