(New York Times.) “A grain of sand in each volume of space equal to the volume of the earth —such is the picture of cosmical emptiness that Dr. Hubble presented before the National Academy of Sciences. The best vacuum that man can produce is almost as dense lyread in comparison. How abjectly small seems the earth, how insignificant man! Once the solar system was a drop in a bucket, now it is a drop in an ocean. We accept the immensity of the cosmos, but can We accept its structures as now revealed to us? What if the outermost nebulae are apparently rush ing away with speeds of 15,000 miles a second? What if astronomers surmise that beyond these are others flying away with speeds that approach the velocity of light—the absolute maximum if relativity is true? What does “seeing” mean when we deal with vast distances, vast reaches of time? Even Edding ton, the staunchest advocate of an inflated universe, insists that there are no purely observational facts about the heavenly bodies. What we profess to “see” are events that occurred hundreds of billions of years ago—at a time when the solar system was not even in existence. And the seeing occurs in a terrestrial observatory. This being so, the universe is a mere hypothesis, like the atom. Two square inches of retina, a brain behind the retina—such as the apparatus with which We are endowed to form an estimate of myriads of stars. We heed hypothesis, for we cannot behold these galaxies and suns without wondering about their meaning. But we must also admit that the meaning is probably wrong. it was so with every cosmogony from primitive man to Newton. We have no reason to suppose that the expanding Universe of Lemaitre, De Sitter and Einstein is the last word. Dr. Hubbie's positivism is based on an acceptance of the wave theory of light. But We must also reckon with the quantum theory—which is based on the supposition that light is not a wave motion but a vain of bullets. According to that theory it is not difficult to account for the reddening of the outermost nebulae—the only evidence of their reces sion—on the supposition that they lose energy as they journey toward our eyes, grow weary, as it were, and change color. If this is so, the rushing away is an optical illusion. Twenty years ago no one would have thought of questioning evidence of the kind submitted In favor of expanding space. Now, with an Infinite number of possible universes to chose from, who can say that the one in which we momentarily believe, the one younger than its own stars, is right?