Page Content (OCR)
"No one who reads the above in the light of our theory can fail to see how it fits in. Only direct beams of light from a central sun could give that luminous effect above the surface of the planet and varying as the atmosphere in the interior or above it was clouded or clear. Had it been a mere ice cap, there would not have been this luminosity when the planet was covered with clouds, as Lockyer says it was. Furthermore, that luminosity is precisely what our aurora borealis would look like if our planet was viewed from a great distance. And the light is the same in both cases. By turning to the planet Venus we shall demonstrate absolutely that the polar circles are not snow, or ice, or even hoar-frost caps, but simply apertures leading to the inner and illumined surface of the planet." On Venus the extensive water vapor tends to equalize the temperature, so that its polar caps are not composed of ice and snow, as supposed in the case of Mars, but which Gardner doubts. Speaking of the polar caps of Venus, MacPherson, in his "Romance of Modern Astronomy," says: "Polar caps have been observed, supposed by some to be similar to those on our own planet and Mars. Some astronomers, however, do not regard them as snow." The French astronomer Trouvelet, in 1878, observed at the pole of Venus a confused mass of luminous points, which Gardner attributes to light from the central sun struggling through the clouds. Since the polar cap is not made of ice, these lights cannot be a reflection of the sun. He believes this is the same case with Mars. Similar lights are seen coming from Mercury. Richard Proctor, one of the best known astronomers of the nineteenth century, wrote: "One phenomenon of Mercury, if real, might fairly be regarded as indicating Vulcanian energies compared with which those of our own earth would be as the puny forces of a child compared with the energies of a giant. It has been supposed that a certain bright spot seen in the black disc of Mercury when the planet is in transit indicates some source of illumination either of the surface of the planet or in its atmosphere. In its atmosphere it could hardly be; nor could any auroral streamers on Mercury be supposed to possess the necessary intensity of lustre. If the surface of Mercury were glowing with the light thus supposed to have been seen, then it can readily be shown that over hundreds of thousands of square miles of that surface must glow with an intensity of lustre compared with which the brightness of the lime light would be as darkness. In fact, the lime light is absolute darkness compared with the intrinsic lustre of the sun's surface; and the bright spot supposed to belong to Mercury has been seen Gardner comments on the above observations: