This conception of Captain Symmes will probably be looked upon as the most absurd of the whole lot, but to us it seems to give evidence of more thought than any one of them. One would think that he must have formed some notion of how a hollow sphere, with an opening out to the surface at each one of its two poles, could be formed. We must note that he lived in, possibly after, the time of Laplace.
We doubt whether anyone has ever studied out thoroughly how even a solid sphere could be ultimately elaborated from a nebula. It has always been a very general idea that a condensing and contracting nebula would, under the areolar law, assume the form of a lens rather than of a sphere. If this be so in reality, we may ask: How can the law of attraction produce a sphere out of a lens-shaped mass of rotating vaporous or liquid matter? It seems evident that to bring about such a result attraction must cease to act altogether in the polar directions, and only continue to draw in the matter from the equatorial directions of the lens, till the desired sphere was formed; and, How were the action and inaction of the law of attraction to be regulated meanwhile? Or, when the time came that a sphere of a pre-arranged diameter could be formed, a goodly part of the lens must have been cut off and abandoned; in which case we have again to ask: What was done with the surplus, the cuttings? No doubt they could be used up in meteor swarms, comets, or something; but Captain Symmes's theory has opened up a field for a good deal of thought, and our present knowledge of polar matters prevents us from being sure that strange discoveries may not be made as to the condition of the earth at the poles, although there may not actually be holes into the hollow interior. With regard to the last sentence of the quotation, we fully agree and are doing our best to comply with it. And in so doing, we shall have to return to the formation of globes out of nebulæ, elaborated into something more advanced than even lens-shaped discs.
There is no doubt that the reasons assigned by most, if not all, of the authors of the notions above cited are very fanciful, but one can hardly believe that the true reason--why the earth must be hollow--has not occurred to some of them; and that they did not follow it out because it involved too much work, and they did not feel inclined to undertake it, or had not time. On the other hand, modern astronomers and physicists have been so fascinated by the discoveries they have made, and in following them up, that the temptation to go on in the same course has been too great to allow them to spend time on the investigation of sublunary and subterranean affairs. Some of them have indeed studied the interior of the earth for special purposes, such as the thickness of the crust, solidity or liquidity, stability, precession of the equinoxes, the action of volcanoes, etc., etc.; but they never, apparently, examined into any of these features to the very end, otherwise, we believe, they would have come long ago to the same conclusion as we have. And withal it seems wonderful how near some of them have come to it. To most people it would appear absurd to think that any part of the earth of any great magnitude can be hollow, if in order to make up its mass its average specific gravity must be 5·66--more especially, if we tell them that the greatest specific gravity at any place need hardly exceed 5·66--forgetting that weight or mass can be taken from the interior where the volume per mile in diameter is small, and be distributed near the exterior where the volume per mile in diameter is comparatively immensely greater. But in whatever light we look upon the conclusions we have arrived at, a change in the construction of the bodies in space from solid to hollow spheres must produce changes in our ideas of them, and have consequences of great importance, too numerous to be all taken account of; we shall, therefore, only take notice of the most prominent.