Page Content (OCR)
when the strongest darkening-glasses have been employed. But there can be no doubt that the bright spot is an optical phenomenon only." Commenting on Proctor's statement, Gardner writes: "Again we agree with the observation but not with the inference. Here is a spot of light on Mercury, plainly seen through a telescope, so bright that the observer compares it to the incandescence of a sun. It is a much brighter light than any reflection could possibly give. To Proctor such an appearance must have been shocking to the extreme. He was not expecting it and was utterly unprepared to see such a phenomenon. So he is utterly unable to explain it. So Proctor calls this light ‘an optical phenomenon only.' But we cannot believe that Proctor's eyes have played him a trick. He was a trained astronomical observer. So what he saw must have "It is obvious to us that what he saw was the central sun of Mercury beaming directly through the polar aperture, and as Mercury is a small planet, the interior sun would be rather near the aperture, and there would be no aqueous atmosphere with clouds to darken its beams, with the result that this sun would shine with extraordinary brightness. It may be noticed that its beams put Proctor in mind of the beams from the sun that shines upon all the planets. "What more could be wanted than this to show that Mercury, as well as the other planets, has a central sun, and that such a sun is to be met with universally? Is it not significant that beginning with observations on Mars, we are able to go on to Venus and Mercury, apply the same tests and get the same results? The tests are direct observation or photographic observation. The results are the invariable appearance of a central sun." In addition to the above astronomical evidence in favor of his theory, Gardner refers to the structure of the heads of comets, showing a hollow center, outer crust and central sun. In his book he presents a drawing of Donati's comet, detected from a Florence observatory in 1858. As can be seen it had a central nucleus or sun, which "shone with a brilliance equal to that of the Polar Star" and was 630 miles in diameter. Gardner believes that a comet is a planet which, came into the orbit of some other larger body, like our sun, which tore it from its own orbit, and possibly collided with another planet and the resulting heat transformed most of it into a gaseous tail that trails after it. Gardner claims that the fiery nucleus of the comet was once the central sun of the planet from which it was formed after it broke into fragments. Just as there are polar lights from Mars, Venus and Mercury, coming from their central suns shining through their polar openings, so Gardner claims, the same had some explanation or cause behind it. ORIGIN OF THE AURORA BOREALIS