It seems at first that the disorderly impacts of this innumerable dust can engender13 only an inextricable chaos14 before which analysis must recoil15. But the law of great numbers, that supreme16 law of chance, comes to our aid; in presence of a semi-disorder12, we must despair, but in extreme disorder, this statistical17 law reestablishes a sort of mean order where the mind can recover. It is the study of this mean order which constitutes the kinetic18 theory of gases; it shows us that the velocities19 of the molecules are equally distributed among all the directions, that the rapidity of these velocities varies from one molecule5 to another, but that even this variation is subject to a law called Maxwell’s law. This law tells us how many of the molecules move with such and such a velocity20. As soon as the gas departs from this law, the mutual impacts of the molecules, in modifying the rapidity and direction of their velocities, tend to bring it promptly21 back. Physicists have striven, not without success, to explain in this way the experimental properties of gases; for example Mariotte’s law.
Consider now the milky22 way; there also we see an innumerable dust; only the grains of this dust are not atoms, they are stars; these grains move also with high velocities; they act at a distance one upon another, but this action is so slight at great distance that their trajectories are straight; and yet, from time to time, two of them may approach near enough to be deviated23 from their path, like a comet which has passed too near Jupiter. In a word, to the eyes of a giant for whom our suns would be as for us our atoms, the milky way would seem only a bubble of gas.
Such was Lord Kelvin’s leading idea. What may be drawn from this comparison? In how far is it exact? This is what we are to investigate together; but before reaching a definite conclusion, and without wishing to prejudge it, we foresee that the kinetic theory of gases will be for the astronomer3 a model he should not follow blindly, but from which he may advantageously draw inspiration. Up to the present, celestial24 mechanics has attacked only the solar system or certain systems of double stars. Before the assemblage presented by the milky way, or the agglomeration25 of stars, or the resolvable nebulae it recoils27, because it sees therein only chaos. But the milky way is not more complicated than a gas; the statistical methods founded upon the calculus28 of probabilities applicable to a gas are also applicable to it. Before all, it is important to grasp the resemblance of the two cases, and their difference.
Lord Kelvin has striven to determine in this manner the dimensions of the milky way; for that we are reduced to counting the stars visible in our telescopes; but we are not sure that behind the stars we see, there are not others we do not see; so that what we should measure in this way would not be the size of the milky way, it would be the range of our instruments.
The new theory comes to offer us other resources. In fact, we know the motions of the stars nearest us, and we can form an idea of the rapidity and direction of their velocities. If the ideas above set forth29 are exact, these velocities should follow Maxwell’s law, and their mean value will tell us, so to speak, that which corresponds to the temperature of our fictitious30 gas. But this temperature depends itself upon the dimensions of our gas bubble. In fact, how will a gaseous31 mass let loose in the void act, if its elements attract one another according to Newton’s law? It will take a spherical32 form; moreover, because of gravitation, the density33 will be greater at the center, the pressure also will increase from the surface to the center because of the weight of the outer parts drawn toward the center; finally, the temperature will increase toward the center: the temperature and the pressure being connected by the law called adiabatic, as happens in the successive layers of our atmosphere. At the surface itself, the pressure will be null, and it will be the same with the absolute temperature, that is to say with the velocity of the molecules.
A question comes here: I have spoken of the adiabatic law, but this law is not the same for all gases, since it depends upon the ratio of their two specific heats; for the air and like gases, this ratio is 1.42; but is it to air that it is proper to liken the milky way? Evidently not, it should be regarded as a mono-atomic gas, like mercury vapor34, like argon, like helium, that is to say that the ratio of the specific heats should be taken equal to 1.66. And, in fact, one of our molecules would be for example the solar system; but the planets are very small personages, the sun alone counts, so that our molecule is indeed mono-atomic. And even if we take a double star, it is probable that the action of a strange star which might approach it would become sufficiently sensible to deviate the motion of general translation of the system much before being able to trouble the relative orbits of the two components35; the double star, in a word, would act like an indivisible atom.
However that may be, the pressure, and consequently the temperature, at the center of the gaseous sphere would be by so much the greater as the sphere was larger since the pressure increases by the weight of all the superposed layers. We may suppose that we are nearly at the center of the milky way, and by observing the mean proper velocity of the stars, we shall know that which corresponds to the central temperature of our gaseous sphere and we shall determine its radius36.
We may get an idea of the result by the following considerations: make a simpler hypothesis: the milky way is spherical, and in it the masses are distributed in a homogeneous manner; thence results that the stars in it describe ellipses37 having the same center. If we suppose the velocity becomes nothing at the surface, we may calculate this velocity at the center by the equation of vis viva. Thus we find that this velocity is proportional to the radius of the sphere and to the square root of its density. If the mass of this sphere was that of the sun and its radius that of the terrestrial orbit, this velocity would be (it is easy to see) that of the earth in its orbit. But in the case we have supposed, the mass of the sun should be distributed in a sphere of radius 1,000,000 times greater, this radius being the distance of the nearest stars; the density is therefore 1018 times less; now, the velocities are of the same order, therefore it is necessary that the radius be 109 times greater, be 1,000 times the distance of the nearest stars, which would give about a thousand millions of stars in the milky way.
But you will say these hypothesis differ greatly from the reality; first, the milky way is not spherical and we shall soon return to this point, and again the kinetic theory of gases is not compatible with the hypothesis of a homogeneous sphere. But in making the exact calculation according to this theory, we should find a different result, doubtless, but of the same order of magnitude; now in such a problem the data are so uncertain that the order of magnitude is the sole end to be aimed at.
And here a first remark presents itself; Lord Kelvin’s result, which I have obtained again by an approximative calculation, agrees sensibly with the evaluations38 the observers have made with their telescopes; so that we must conclude we are very near to piercing through the milky way. But that enables us to answer another question. There are the stars we see because they shine; but may there not be dark stars circulating in the interstellar spaces whose existence might long remain unknown? But then, what Lord Kelvin’s method would give us would be the total number of stars, including the dark stars; as his figure is comparable to that the telescope gives, this means there is no dark matter, or at least not so much as of shining matter.
Before going further, we must look at the problem from another angle. Is the milky way thus constituted truly the image of a gas properly so called? You know Crookes has introduced the notion of a fourth state of matter, where gases having become too rarefied are no longer true gases and become what he calls radiant matter. Considering the slight density of the milky way, is it the image of gaseous matter or of radiant matter? The consideration of what is called the free path will furnish us the answer.
The trajectory40 of a gaseous molecule may be regarded as formed of straight segments united by very small arcs corresponding to the successive impacts. The length of each of these segments is what is called the free path; of course this length is not the same for all the segments and for all the molecules; but we may take a mean; this is what is called the mean path. This is the greater the less the density of the gas. The matter will be radiant if the mean path is greater than the dimensions of the receptacle wherein the gas is enclosed, so that a molecule has a chance to go across the whole receptacle without undergoing an impact; if the contrary be the case, it is gaseous. From this it follows that the same fluid may be radiant in a little receptacle and gaseous in a big one; this perhaps is why, in a Crookes tube, it is necessary to make the vacuum by so much the more complete as the tube is larger.
How is it then for the milky way? This is a mass of gas of which the density is very slight, but whose dimensions are very great; has a star chances of traversing it without undergoing an impact, that is to say without passing sufficiently near another star to be sensibly deviated from its route! What do we mean by sufficiently near? That is perforce a little arbitrary; take it as the distance from the sun to Neptune41, which would represent a deviation of a dozen degrees; suppose therefore each of our stars surrounded by a protective sphere of this radius; could a straight pass between these spheres? At the mean distance of the stars of the milky way, the radius of these spheres will be seen under an angle of about a tenth of a second; and we have a thousand millions of stars. Put upon the celestial sphere a thousand million little circles of a tenth of a second radius. Are the chances that these circles will cover a great number of times the celestial sphere? Far from it; they will cover only its sixteen thousandth part. So the milky way is not the image of gaseous matter, but of Crookes’ radiant matter. Nevertheless, as our foregoing conclusions are happily not at all precise, we need not sensibly modify them.
But there is another difficulty: the milky way is not spherical, and we have reasoned hitherto as if it were, since this is the form of equilibrium42 a gas isolated43 in space would take. To make amends44, agglomerations45 of stars exist whose form is globular and to which would better apply what we have hitherto said. Herschel has already endeavored to explain their remarkable46 appearances. He supposed the stars of the aggregates48 uniformly distributed, so that an assemblage is a homogeneous sphere; each star would then describe an ellipse and all these orbits would be passed over in the same time, so that at the end of a period the aggregate47 would take again its primitive49 configuration50 and this configuration would be stable. Unluckily, the aggregates do not appear to be homogeneous; we see a condensation51 at the center, we should observe it even were the sphere homogeneous, since it is thicker at the center; but it would not be so accentuated53. We may therefore rather compare an aggregate to a gas in adiabatic equilibrium, which takes the spherical form because this is the figure of equilibrium of a gaseous mass.
But, you will say, these aggregates are much smaller than the milky way, of which they even in probability make part, and even though they be more dense54, they will rather present something analogous55 to radiant matter; now, gases attain56 their adiabatic equilibrium only through innumerable impacts of the molecules. That might perhaps be adjusted. Suppose the stars of the aggregate have just enough energy for their velocity to become null when they reach the surface; then they may traverse the aggregate without impact, but arrived at the surface they will go back and will traverse it anew; after a great number of crossings, they will at last be deviated by an impact; under these conditions, we should still have a matter which might be regarded as gaseous; if perchance there had been in the aggregate stars whose velocity was greater, they have long gone away out of it, they have left it never to return. For all these reasons, it would be interesting to examine the known aggregates, to seek to account for the law of the densities57, and to see if it is the adiabatic law of gases.
But to return to the milky way; it is not spherical and would rather be represented as a flattened58 disc. It is clear then that a mass starting without velocity from the surface will reach the center with different velocities, according as it starts from the surface in the neighborhood of the middle of the disc or just on the border of the disc; the velocity would be notably59 greater in the latter case. Now, up to the present, we have supposed that the proper velocities of the stars, those we observe, must be comparable to those which like masses would attain; this involves a certain difficulty. We have given above a value for the dimensions of the milky way, and we have deduced it from the observed proper velocities which are of the same order of magnitude as that of the earth in its orbit; but which is the dimension we have thus measured? Is it the thickness? Is it the radius of the disc? It is doubtless something intermediate; but what can we say then of the thickness itself, or of the radius of the disc? Data are lacking to make the calculation; I shall confine myself to giving a glimpse of the possibility of basing an evaluation39 at least approximate upon a deeper discussion of the proper motions.
And then we find ourselves facing two hypotheses: either the stars of the milky way are impelled60 by velocities for the most part parallel to the galactic plane, but otherwise distributed uniformly in all directions parallel to this plane. If this be so, observation of the proper motions should show a preponderance of components parallel to the milky way; this is to be determined61, because I do not know whether a systematic62 discussion has ever been made from this view-point. On the other hand, such an equilibrium could only be provisory, since because of impacts the molecules, I mean the stars, would in the long run acquire notable velocities in the sense perpendicular63 to the milky way and would end by swerving64 from its plane, so that the system would tend toward the spherical form, the only figure of equilibrium of an isolated gaseous mass.
Or else the whole system is impelled by a common rotation65, and for that reason is flattened like the earth, like Jupiter, like all bodies that twirl. Only, as the flattening66 is considerable, the rotation must be rapid; rapid doubtless, but it must be understood in what sense this word is used. The density of the milky way is 1023 times less than that of the sun; a velocity of rotation √1025 times less than that of the sun, for it would, therefore, be the equivalent so far as concerns flattening; a velocity 1012 times slower than that of the earth, say a thirtieth of a second of arc in a century, would be a very rapid rotation, almost too rapid for stable equilibrium to be possible.
In this hypothesis, the observable proper motions would appear to us uniformly distributed, and there would no longer be a preponderance of components parallel to the galactic plane.
They will tell us nothing about the rotation itself, since we belong to the turning system. If the spiral nebul? are other milky ways, foreign to ours, they are not borne along in this rotation, and we might study their proper motions. It is true they are very far away; if a nebula26 has the dimensions of the milky way and if its apparent radius is for example 20′′, its distance is 10,000 times the radius of the milky way.
But that makes no difference, since it is not about the translation of our system that we ask information from them, but about its rotation. The fixed68 stars, by their apparent motion, reveal to us the diurnal69 rotation of the earth, though their distance is immense. Unluckily, the possible rotation of the milky way, however rapid it may be relatively70, is very slow viewed absolutely, and besides the pointings on nebul? can not be very precise; therefore thousands of years of observations would be necessary to learn anything.
However that may be, in this second hypothesis, the figure of the milky way would be a figure of final equilibrium.
I shall not further discuss the relative value of these two hypotheses since there is a third which is perhaps more probable. We know that among the irresolvable nebul?, several kinds may be distinguished71: the irregular nebul? like that of Orion, the planetary and annular72 nebul?, the spiral nebul?. The spectra73 of the first two families have been determined, they are discontinuous; these nebul? are therefore not formed of stars; besides, their distribution on the heavens seems to depend upon the milky way; whether they have a tendency to go away from it, or on the contrary to approach it, they make therefore a part of the system. On the other hand, the spiral nebul? are generally considered as independent of the milky way; it is supposed that they, like it, are formed of a multitude of stars, that they are, in a word, other milky ways very far away from ours. The recent investigations74 of Stratonoff tend to make us regard the milky way itself as a spiral nebula, and this is the third hypothesis of which I wish to speak.
How can we explain the very singular appearances presented by the spiral nebul?, which are too regular and too constant to be due to chance? First of all, to take a look at one of these representations is enough to see that the mass is in rotation; we may even see what the sense of the rotation is; all the spiral radii75 are curved in the same sense; it is evident that the moving wing lags behind the pivot76 and that fixes the sense of the rotation. But this is not all; it is evident that these nebul? can not be likened to a gas at rest, nor even to a gas in relative equilibrium under the sway of a uniform rotation; they are to be compared to a gas in permanent motion in which internal currents prevail.
Suppose, for example, that the rotation of the central nucleus77 is rapid (you know what I mean by this word), too rapid for stable equilibrium; then at the equator the centrifugal force will drive it away over the attraction, and the stars will tend to break away at the equator and will form divergent currents; but in going away, as their moment of rotation remains78 constant, while the radius vector augments79, their angular velocity will diminish, and this is why the moving wing seems to lag back.
From this point of view, there would not be a real permanent motion, the central nucleus would constantly lose matter which would go out of it never to return, and would drain away progressively. But we may modify the hypothesis. In proportion as it goes away, the star loses its velocity and ends by stopping; at this moment attraction regains80 possession of it and leads it back toward the nucleus; so there will be centripetal81 currents. We must suppose the centripetal currents are the first rank and the centrifugal currents the second rank, if we adopt the comparison with a troop in battle executing a change of front; and, in fact, it is necessary that the composite centrifugal force be compensated82 by the attraction exercised by the central layers of the swarm83 upon the extreme layers.
Besides, at the end of a certain time a permanent régime establishes itself; the swarm being curved, the attraction exercised upon the pivot by the moving wing tends to slow up the pivot and that of the pivot upon the moving wing tends to accelerate the advance of this wing which no longer augments its lag, so that finally all the radii end by turning with a uniform velocity. We may still suppose that the rotation of the nucleus is quicker than that of the radii.
A question remains; why do these centripetal and centrifugal swarms84 tend to concentrate themselves in radii instead of disseminating85 themselves a little everywhere? Why do these rays distribute themselves regularly? If the swarms concentrate themselves, it is because of the attraction exercised by the already existing swarms upon the stars which go out from the nucleus in their neighborhood. After an inequality is produced, it tends to accentuate52 itself in this way.
Why do the rays distribute themselves regularly? That is less obvious. Suppose there is no rotation, that all the stars are in two planes at right angles, in such a way that their distribution is symmetric with regard to these two planes.
By symmetry, there would be no reason for their going out of these planes, nor for the symmetry changing. This configuration would give us therefore equilibrium, but this would be an unstable86 equilibrium.
If on the contrary, there is rotation, we shall find an analogous configuration of equilibrium with four curved rays, equal to each other and intersecting at 90°, and if the rotation is sufficiently rapid, this equilibrium is stable.
I am not in position to make this more precise: enough if you see that these spiral forms may perhaps some day be explained by only the law of gravitation and statistical consideration recalling those of the theory of gases.
What has been said of internal currents shows it is of interest to discuss systematically87 the aggregate of proper motions; this may be done in a hundred years, when the second edition is issued of the chart of the heavens and compared with the first, that we now are making.
But, in conclusion, I wish to call your attention to a question, that of the age of the milky way or the nebul?. If what we think we see is confirmed, we can get an idea of it. That sort of statistical equilibrium of which gases give us the model is established only in consequence of a great number of impacts. If these impacts are rare, it can come about only after a very long time; if really the milky way (or at least the agglomerations which are contained in it), if the nebul? have attained88 this equilibrium, this means they are very old, and we shall have an inferior limit of their age. Likewise we should have of it a superior limit; this equilibrium is not final and can not last always. Our spiral nebul? would be comparable to gases impelled by permanent motions; but gases in motion are viscous89 and their velocities end by wearing out. What here corresponds to the viscosity90 (and which depends upon the chances of impact of the molecules) is excessively slight, so that the present régime may persist during an extremely long time, yet not forever, so that our milky ways can not live eternally nor become infinitely91 old.
And this is not all. Consider our atmosphere: at the surface must reign67 a temperature infinitely small and the velocity of the molecules there is near zero. But this is a question only of the mean velocity; as a consequence of impacts, one of these molecules may acquire (rarely, it is true) an enormous velocity, and then it will rush out of the atmosphere, and once out, it will never return; therefore our atmosphere drains off thus with extreme slowness. The milky way also from time to time loses a star by the same mechanism92, and that likewise limits its duration.
Well, it is certain that if we compute93 in this manner the age of the milky way, we shall get enormous figures. But here a difficulty presents itself. Certain physicists, relying upon other considerations, reckon that suns can have only an ephemeral existence, about fifty million years; our minimum would be much greater than that. Must we believe that the evolution of the milky way began when the matter was still dark? But how have the stars composing it reached all at the same time adult age, an age so briefly94 to endure? Or must they reach there all successively, and are those we see only a feeble minority compared with those extinguished or which shall one day light up? But how reconcile that with what we have said above on the absence of a noteworthy proportion of dark matter? Should we abandon one of the two hypotheses, and which? I confine myself to pointing out the difficulty without pretending to solve it; I shall end therefore with a big interrogation point.
However, it is interesting to set problems, even when their solution seems very far away.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
astronomers
|
|
| n.天文学者，天文学家( astronomer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
astronomer
|
|
| n.天文学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
physicists
|
|
| 物理学家( physicist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
molecule
|
|
| n.分子，克分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
molecules
|
|
| 分子( molecule的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
trajectories
|
|
| n.弹道( trajectory的名词复数 )；轨道；轨线；常角轨道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
deviate
|
|
| v.(from)背离，偏离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
deviation
|
|
| n.背离，偏离；偏差，偏向；离题 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
engender
|
|
| v.产生，引起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
chaos
|
|
| n.混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
recoil
|
|
| vi.退却，退缩，畏缩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
statistical
|
|
| adj.统计的，统计学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
kinetic
|
|
| adj.运动的；动力学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
velocities
|
|
| n.速度( velocity的名词复数 )；高速，快速 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
velocity
|
|
| n.速度，速率 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
promptly
|
|
| adv.及时地，敏捷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
milky
|
|
| adj.牛奶的，多奶的；乳白色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
deviated
|
|
| v.偏离，越轨( deviate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
celestial
|
|
| adj.天体的；天上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
agglomeration
|
|
| n.结聚，一堆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
nebula
|
|
| n.星云，喷雾剂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
recoils
|
|
| n.（尤指枪炮的）反冲，后坐力( recoil的名词复数 )v.畏缩( recoil的第三人称单数 )；退缩；报应；返回 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
calculus
|
|
| n.微积分；结石 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
fictitious
|
|
| adj.虚构的，假设的；空头的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
gaseous
|
|
| adj.气体的，气态的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
spherical
|
|
| adj.球形的；球面的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
density
|
|
| n.密集，密度，浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
vapor
|
|
| n.蒸汽，雾气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
components
|
|
| （机器、设备等的）构成要素，零件，成分； 成分( component的名词复数 )； [物理化学]组分； [数学]分量； （混合物的）组成部分 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
radius
|
|
| n.半径，半径范围；有效航程，范围，界限 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
ellipses
|
|
| n.椭园，省略号；椭圆( ellipse的名词复数 )；（语法结构上的）省略( ellipsis的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
evaluations
|
|
| 估价( evaluation的名词复数 )； 赋值； 估计价值； [医学]诊断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
evaluation
|
|
| n.估价，评价；赋值 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
trajectory
|
|
| n.弹道，轨道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
Neptune
|
|
| n.海王星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
isolated
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
amends
|
|
| n. 赔偿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
agglomerations
|
|
| n.成团，结块（agglomeration的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
aggregates
|
|
| 数( aggregate的名词复数 )； 总计； 骨料； 集料（可成混凝土或修路等用的） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
configuration
|
|
| n.结构，布局，形态，(计算机)配置 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
condensation
|
|
| n.压缩，浓缩；凝结的水珠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
accentuate
|
|
| v.着重，强调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
accentuated
|
|
| v.重读( accentuate的过去式和过去分词 )；使突出；使恶化；加重音符号于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
dense
|
|
| a.密集的，稠密的，浓密的；密度大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
analogous
|
|
| adj.相似的；类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
densities
|
|
| 密集( density的名词复数 )； 稠密； 密度（固体、液体或气体单位体积的质量）； 密度（磁盘存贮数据的可用空间） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
flattened
|
|
| [医]（水）平扁的，弄平的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
notably
|
|
| adv.值得注意地，显著地，尤其地，特别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
impelled
|
|
| v.推动、推进或敦促某人做某事( impel的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
systematic
|
|
| adj.有系统的，有计划的，有方法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
perpendicular
|
|
| adj.垂直的，直立的；n.垂直线，垂直的位置 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
swerving
|
|
| v.（使）改变方向，改变目的( swerve的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
rotation
|
|
| n.旋转；循环，轮流 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
flattening
|
|
| n. 修平 动词flatten的现在分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
diurnal
|
|
| adj.白天的，每日的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
annular
|
|
| adj.环状的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
spectra
|
|
| n.光谱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
investigations
|
|
| （正式的）调查( investigation的名词复数 )； 侦查； 科学研究； 学术研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
radii
|
|
| n.半径；半径（距离）( radius的名词复数 )；用半径度量的圆形面积；半径范围；桡骨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
pivot
|
|
| v.在枢轴上转动；装枢轴，枢轴；adj.枢轴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
nucleus
|
|
| n.核，核心，原子核 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
augments
|
|
| 增加，提高，扩大( augment的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
regains
|
|
| 复得( regain的第三人称单数 )； 赢回； 重回； 复至某地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
centripetal
|
|
| adj.向心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
compensated
|
|
| 补偿，报酬( compensate的过去式和过去分词 )； 给（某人）赔偿（或赔款） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
swarm
|
|
| n.(昆虫)等一大群；vi.成群飞舞；蜂拥而入 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
swarms
|
|
| 蜂群，一大群( swarm的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
disseminating
|
|
| 散布，传播( disseminate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
unstable
|
|
| adj.不稳定的，易变的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
systematically
|
|
| adv.有系统地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
viscous
|
|
| adj.粘滞的，粘性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
viscosity
|
|
| n.粘度，粘性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
compute
|
|
| v./n.计算，估计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |