Some close observers
have even ventured to account for her craters by saying they were due to
pelting showers of meteoric rain. Then again as to her atmosphere--why
should she have lost her atmosphere? Why should it sink into craters?
Atmosphere is gas, great in volume, small in matter; where would there
be room for it? Solidified by the intense cold? Possibly in the night
time. But would not the heat of the long day be great enough to thaw it
back again? The same trouble attends the alleged disappearance of the
water. Swallowed up in the cavernous cracks, it is said. But why are
there cracks? Cooling is not always attended by cracking. Water cools
without cracking; cannon balls cool without cracking. Too much stress
has been laid on the great difference between the _nucleus_ and the
_crust_: it is really impossible to say where one ends and the other
begins. In fact, no theory explains satisfactorily anything regarding
the present state of the Moon's surface. In fact, from the day that
Galileo compared her clustering craters to 'eyes on a peacock's tail' to
the present time, we must acknowledge that we know nothing more than we
can actually see, not one particle more of the Moon's history than our
telescopes reveal to our corporal eyes!"
"In the lucid opinion of the honorable and learned gentleman who spoke
last," said Ardan, "the Chair is compelled to concur.
Pages:
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356