When considering the orbit inclination, we also do not find obvious confirmation, since highly inclined orbits occur in smaller planetoids, apparently, not in greater proportion than others. But further discussion of this issue shows that there are two ways, likely to lead to the incorrectness of this last comparison is that inclination measured from the Ecliptic plane instead to be measured from the plane of the orbit of the supposed planet's Other, more important is that the search for planetoids, of course, was made in that comparatively narrow zone within which is most of their orbits, and that, consequently, those whose orbits have the greatest inclination, could easily go unnoticed, especially if they moreover, among the smallest of the planetoids in addition, bearing in the attention of the General attitude that exists between the inclination of planetoid orbits and their eccentricities, it seems probable that among the orbits of these have not open planetoids a extremely eccentric. Aware of the lack of evidence, I nevertheless think that it a lot speaks in favor of the correctness of the hypothesis of Olbers, and absolutely not consistent with the hypothesis of Laplace. I must not overlook another remarkable fact relative to the planetoid, outdoor D Arrestor, namely "If present imagine their orbits as the rings of a solid substance, the ring these would be so confused among themselves that it would be possible, raising the one of them, raise all the others", this fact is in agreement with the hypothesis of Laplace, which involves more or less concentration, but is in full agreement with the hypothesis of the exploded planet. Then consider the phenomena, for which the parse the question we have is almost not taken into account, I'm talking about meteorites and falling stars. The nature and distribution of these phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis blown of the planet and, I think, is not consistent with any other. The theory of the volcanic origin of meteorites and falling stars, is based on the well-known fact that in the Sun there are such explosions that throw these meteorites at an appropriate rate are completely unacceptable. Falling to the Ground meteorites, positively do not make assumptions about their solar origin.
1 comment:
When considering the orbit inclination, we also do not find
obvious confirmation, since highly inclined orbits occur in
smaller planetoids, apparently, not in greater proportion than others. But
further discussion of this issue shows that there are two ways,
likely to lead to the incorrectness of this last comparison is
that inclination measured from the Ecliptic plane instead
to be measured from the plane of the orbit of the supposed planet's Other, more
important is that the search for planetoids, of course,
was made in that comparatively narrow zone within which is
most of their orbits, and that, consequently, those whose orbits have
the greatest inclination, could easily go unnoticed, especially if they
moreover, among the smallest of the planetoids in addition, bearing in
the attention of the General attitude that exists between the inclination of planetoid orbits and
their eccentricities, it seems probable that among the orbits of these have not
open planetoids a extremely eccentric. Aware of
the lack of evidence, I nevertheless think that it a lot
speaks in favor of the correctness of the hypothesis of Olbers, and absolutely not consistent with
the hypothesis of Laplace. I must not overlook another remarkable fact
relative to the planetoid, outdoor D Arrestor, namely "If present
imagine their orbits as the rings of a solid substance, the ring
these would be so confused among themselves that it would be possible, raising the
one of them, raise all the others", this fact is in agreement with
the hypothesis of Laplace, which involves more or less concentration, but
is in full agreement with the hypothesis of the exploded planet.
Then consider the phenomena, for which the parse
the question we have is almost not taken into account, I'm talking about meteorites and falling
stars. The nature and distribution of these phenomena are consistent with the hypothesis
blown of the planet and, I think, is not consistent with any other.
The theory of the volcanic origin of meteorites and falling stars, is based
on the well-known fact that in the Sun there are such explosions that
throw these meteorites at an appropriate rate are completely unacceptable.
Falling to the Ground meteorites, positively do not make assumptions about their
solar origin.
Post a Comment