Translator’s
Note
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) published The Universal
Natural History and Theory of Heaven in 1755. This English text is based on
Georg Reimer’s edition of the complete works of Immanuel Kant (1905). The
translation was first completed and posted on the web in 1998. It has been
considerably revised for this September 2008 version, mainly to improve the
accuracy and fluency of the translation.
In the translated text, the Table of Contents has been
altered to include the Dedication and the Preface and moved to the front before
these sections. The endnotes (indicated with an asterisk link) come from Kant’s
original text except for those which are provided by the translator. The latter
are prefaced in the endnote by the comment [Translator’s Footnote]. All
endnotes without that initial phrase are in Kant’s original text.
In the English translation I have used the original
lines from the works of Alexander Pope and Addison in those places where Kant
quotes the often quite loose German versions of these English poets. The
translations of the von Haller quotations are my own.
There are also occasional references to two earlier
English versions of Kant's text: those by Stanley L. Jaki (Scottish Academic
Press, 1981) and by William Hastie (first published in 1900, reprinted by
University of Michigan Press, 1969). The translator of the present text would
like to acknowledge the great help he has received from these two earlier
translations. Anyone seeking a detailed contextual examination of Kant’s
scientific ideas in this essay should consult the Jaki edition, which is
outstanding in this respect.
Ian Johnston
Liberal Studies Department
Vancouver Island University
September 2008
Contents of the
Entire Work
Dedication
Preface
Short outline of the most essential basic principles
of Newtonian philosophy required for an understanding of the following theory.
Outline of a general systematic arrangement among the
fixed stars, derived from the phenomenon of the Milky Way. Similarity of this
system of fixed stars to the planetary system. Discovery of many such systems,
showing up in the expanse of the heavens in the form of elliptical shapes. New
idea about the systematic arrangement of the entire creation.
Conclusion. Probable assumption about more planets
beyond Saturn, deduced from the law according to which planetary eccentricity
increases with distance.
Grounds for the theory of a mechanical origin for the
world. Counterarguments. The only possible idea which satisfies both. First
condition of Nature. Scattering of the elements of all materials throughout the
entire extent of space. First movement because of the power of attraction.
Start of the development of a body at the point of the strongest attraction.
General sinking down of elements towards this central body. Power of repulsion
of the smallest particles in which the material stuff is diffused. Altered
direction of the downward movement through the combination of this force with
the first one. Uniform movement of all these motions in the same direction.
Impulse of all particles to bring themselves to a common plane and to
accumulate there. Slowing down of the velocity of their movement to an
equilibrium with the gravity at the distance from the sun at their locations.
Free movement of all particles around the central body in circular orbits.
Development of the planets from these moving elements. Free movement of the
planets put together from these elements in the same direction on a common
plane, with almost circular orbits for planets near the central point and with
increasing degrees of eccentricity for planets further away from this central
point.
Deals with the different densities of the planets and
the relationship of their masses. Reason why the closer planets are of a denser
type than the distant ones. Inadequacy of Newton’s explanation. Why the central
body is of a lighter sort than the closest spheres moving around it.
Relationship of the planetary masses according to the ratio of their distances.
Reason derived from their manner of development: why the central body has the
largest mass. Calculation of the spread out solution in which all the elements
of the cosmic matter were scattered. Probability and necessity of this thin
distribution. Important proof for the manner of the development of the heavenly
bodies derived from a remarkable analogy of M. de Buffon.
PART TWO
Section Three
Concerning the eccentricity of the planetary orbits
and the origin of comets. The eccentricity increases in stages with the
distances from the sun. Cause of this law derived from cosmogony. Why the
comets’ orbits freely deviate from the plane of the ecliptic. Proof that the
comets are made out of the lightest sort of material. Parenthetic observation
on the Northern Lights.
PART TWO
Section Four
Concerning the origin of the moons and the movements
of the planets around their axes. The material for the development of the moons
was contained in the sphere out of which the planet assembled the parts for its
own development. Cause of the movement of these moons with all their rules. Why
only the large planets have moons. Concerning the axial rotation of the
planets. Whether the moon previously had a faster rotation. Whether the
velocity of the earth’s axial rotation is decreasing. Concerning the position
of the planetary axes in relation to the plane of their orbits. Displacement of
their axes.
PART TWO
Section Five
Concerning the origin of Saturn’s ring and the
calculation of the planet’s daily rotation from the relationships with this
ring. First condition of Saturn compared to the composition of a comet.
Development of a ring from the particles of the planet’s atmosphere by means of
impressed movements from the impulse of its rotation. Computation of the time
of Saturn’s axial rotation according to this hypothesis. Observation on the
shape of Saturn. Concerning the flattening of the spheres of cosmic bodies in
general. A closer determination of the composition of this ring. Probable
assumption of new discoveries. Whether the earth had a ring before the Flood.
Concerning the light of the zodiac.
PART TWO
Section Seven
Concerning creation in its entire infinite extent,
both in space and time. Origin of a large system of the fixed stars. Central
body in the mid-point of the system of stars. Infinity of creation. General
systematic relationship in its entire being. The central body of all of nature.
Successive continuation of creation into all infinity of times and spaces
through the ceaseless development of new worlds. Observation on chaos in
undeveloped nature. Gradual decay and destruction of the cosmic structure.
Appropriateness of such a concept. Renewal of fallen nature.
PART TWO
Supplement to Section Seven
Universal theory and history of the sun in general.
Why the central body of a cosmic structure is a fiery body. Closer observation
of its nature. Thoughts on the alterations in the air surrounding the sun.
Extinguishing of suns. Closer glance at its shape. Mr. Wright’s opinion
concerning the mid-point of all of nature. An improvement on this opinion.
PART TWO
Section Eight
General proof of the correctness of a mechanical
theory for the arrangement of the cosmic structure in general, and particularly
for the certainty of the present theory. The fundamental capability in the
nature of things to raise themselves on their own to order and perfection is
the most beautiful proof of the existence of God. Defence against the charge of
naturalism.
The arrangement of the cosmic structure is simple and
not set beyond the forces of nature. Analogies which confirm the mechanical
origin of the world with certainty. The very same point proved from the
deviations. Citing an immediate order created by God does not deal
satisfactorily with these questions. Difficulty which made Newton give up the
mechanical theory. Solution to this difficulty. The proposed system is the only
possible way to deal satisfactorily with the basic principles of both sides.
Further proof from the relationship of the density of planets, their masses,
the space in between their locations from the sun, and the gradual interrelationships
of their determinants. The motivating principles of God’s choice do not
immediately determine these conditions. Justification with respect to religion.
Difficulties which present themselves with the theory of the immediate order
created by God.
Contains a comparison between the inhabitants of the
stars. Whether all the planets are inhabited. Reasons to doubt this. Basis of
the physical relationships between the inhabitants of the different planets. Observation
on human beings. Causes of the imperfections in human nature. Natural
relationship of the physical characteristics of living creatures according to
their different distances from the sun. Consequences of this relationship for
their spiritual capacities. Comparison of thinking beings on different
celestial bodies. Confirmation from certain circumstances in their dwelling
places. Further proof from the disposition of God’s providence, which is
created in their best interests. Short digression.
The conditions of human beings in the future life.
Universal
Natural History and Theory of the Heavens
or
An Essay on the Constitution and the Mechanical Origin of the Entire Structure
of the Universe
Based on Newtonian Principles
To the most serene, the mightiest king and master
Frederick
King of Prussia
Margrave of Brandenburg
Lord Chamberlain and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire
Sovereign and Highest Lord of Silesia, etc. etc.
My most all-honoured King and Master,
Most serene and mighty king,
Most All-honoured King and Master,
The feeling of my own lack of worth and the radiance
from the throne cannot make my foolishness so timid, when the honour which the
most gracious monarch dispenses with equal magnanimity among all his subjects
gives me grounds for hope that the boldness which I undertake will not be
looked upon with ungracious eyes. In most submissive respect I here lay at the
feet of your eternal kingly majesty one of the most trifling samples of that eager
spirit with which your highness’s schools, through the encouragement and the
protection of their illustrious sovereign, strive to emulate other nations in
the sciences. How happy I would be if the present endeavour could succeed in
making the efforts with which the humblest and most respectful subject
constantly tries to make himself in some way of service to the Fatherland win
the highest possible feeling of goodwill of his king. With the utmost devotion
until my dying day,
Your eternal majesty’s most humble servant
The author
Königsberg
14 March, 1755
Preface
I have selected a subject which, both in view of its
inherent difficulty and also with respect to religion, can right at the very start
elicit an unfavourable judgment from a large section of readers. To discover
the systematic arrangement linking large parts of creation in its entire
infinite extent and to bring out by means of mechanical principles the
development of the cosmic bodies themselves and the cause of their movements
from the first state of nature, such insights seem to overstep by a long way
the powers of human reason. From another perspective, religion threatens with a
solemn accusation about the presumption that one is allowed to be so bold as to
attribute to nature left to itself such consequences in which we rightly become
aware of the immediate hand of the Highest Being and worries about encountering
in the inquiry into such views a defence of the atheist. I do perceive all
these difficulties, and yet I do not become fainthearted. I feel all the power
of the obstacles ranged against me, and nevertheless I am not despondent. On
the basis of a slight assumption I have undertaken a dangerous journey, and I
already see the promontories of new lands. Those people who have the resolution
to set forth on the undertaking will set foot on these lands and have the
pleasure of designating them with their very own names.
I made no commitment to this endeavour until I
considered myself secure from the point of view of religious duties. My
enthusiasm has doubled as I witnessed at every step the dispersal of the clouds
which behind their obscurity seemed to hide monsters and which, after they
scattered, revealed the majesty of the Highest Being with the most vital
radiance. Since I know that these efforts are free of all reproach, I will
faithfully introduce what well-meaning or even weak-minded people could find
shocking in my proposal and am candidly ready to submit it to the strict
inspection of a council of true believers, which is the mark of an honest
disposition. The champion of the faith, therefore, may be allowed to let his
reasons be heard first.
If the planetary structure, with all its order and
beauty, is only an effect of the universal laws of motion in matter left to
itself, if the blind mechanism of natural forces knows how to develop itself
out of chaos in such a marvellous way and to reach such perfection on its own,
then the proof of the primordial Divine Author which we derive from a glance at
the beauty of the cosmic structure is wholly discredited, nature is
self-sufficient, the divine rule is unnecessary, Epicurus lives once again in
the midst of Christendom, and an unholy philosophy treads underfoot the faith
which proffers a bright light to illuminate it.
If I found this criticism had a firm basis, then the
conviction which I have of the infallibility of divine truths is for me so
empowering, that I would consider everything which contradicts it sufficiently
refuted by that fact and would reject it. But the very agreement which I
encounter between my system and religion raises my confidence in the face of
all difficulties to an unshakable composure.
I recognize all the value of those proofs which people
derive from the beauty and perfect organization of the cosmic structure to
confirm the most eminently wise Author. If we do not obstinately deny all
conviction, then we must agree with such incontrovertible reasons. But I
maintain that the people who defend religion in this way, by using these
reasons badly, perpetuate the conflict with the naturalists, because they
present an unnecessarily weak case.
People are accustomed to take note of and to point out
the harmonies, beauty, purposes, and a perfect interplay of means and ends in
nature. But while they, on the one hand, extol nature, on the other hand, they
seek to diminish it again. This fine arrangement, they say, is foreign to
nature. Left alone to its universal laws, it would bring forth nothing but
disorder. The harmonies demonstrate a foreign hand, which knew how to force
material left without any regularity into a wise design. But I answer that if
the universal efficient material laws were established equally as a result of
the highest design, then they could presumably have no purposes except to
strive to act on their own to fulfil the plan which the Highest Wisdom has set
out for Itself or, if this is not the case, should we not be drawn into the
temptation of believing that at least matter and its general laws were
independent and that the most eminently wise power, which knew how to
make use of them so splendidly, may indeed be great, but not infinite,
certainly powerful, but not totally self-sufficient?
The defender of religion fears that the harmony which
can be explained by a natural tendency of matter would demonstrate the
independence of nature from divine providence. He clearly confesses that if
people can discover natural reasons for all the order in the cosmic structure,
reasons which can bring this into existence from the most universal and
essential characteristics of matter, then it may be unnecessary to invoke a
highest Ruling Power. According to the natural scientist’s calculations, he
finds nothing to quarrel with in this claim. He acquires examples which
establish the fertility of general natural laws for perfectly beautiful
consequences and brings true believers into danger through reasons, which in
their hands could become invincible weapons. I wish to cite examples. People
have already often proposed, as one of the clearest proofs of a benevolent
providence solicitous of human welfare, that in the hottest parts of the earth
the sea winds, right at the very time when the heated soil most requires their
cooling, spread over the land and refresh it, as if they had been summoned. For
example, in the island of Jamaica, as soon as the sun has climbed sufficiently
high to heat the soil most strongly, just after 9 in the morning, a wind begins
to rise from the sea and blows from all sides over the land. Its strength
increases proportionally with the elevation of the sun. Around 1 in the
afternoon, when it naturally is the hottest, the wind is at its strongest. It
gradually decreases again with the setting of the sun, so that in the evening
the very same stillness reigns as at the start. Without this welcome
arrangement, the island would be uninhabitable. All coastal lands lying in the
hot places on the Earth enjoy this same benefit. Moreover, it is most essential
for them, because, since they are the lowest places on dry land, they also
suffer the greatest heat. For the higher regions in the country, which this sea
wind does not reach, are also in less need of it, because their higher location
places them in a region of cooler air. Is not all this beautiful? Are there not
clear purposes which have been realized by judiciously applied means? However,
by way of a counterargument the natural scientist must find the natural causes
of this in the most general characteristics of air, with no need to assume any
special arrangements for the phenomenon. He observes correctly that these sea
winds have to go through such periodic movements, even if no human beings lived
on the island, thanks to no property other than the elasticity of air and
gravity, without having any purposeful intention in the matter, even if it is
indispensibly necessary merely for the growth of plants. The sun’s heat upsets
the air’s equilibrium by thinning out the air over the land, thus allowing the
cooler sea air to rise from its position and take its place.
What benefits generally advantageous to our planet
Earth do the winds not possess? And what uses does the keen intelligence of
human beings not make of them? However, no other arrangements were necessary to
create them except these same general properties of air and heat, which also
had to occur on the Earth without reference to these purposes.
At this point the freethinker says: if you concede the
point that when people can derive useful and purposeful arrangements from the
most general and simplest natural laws, then we have no need for the special
rule of a Highest Wisdom and thus you see here proofs which will catch you by
your own admission. All nature, especially inorganic nature, is full of such
proofs, which permit us to recognize that matter, which organizes itself
through the mechanical operation of its own forces, has a certain correctness
in its effects and without compulsion satisfactorily acts by rules of what is
appropriate. When, in order to come to the rescue of the worthy cause of
religion, a well-meaning person wishes to contest this capacity of general
natural laws, then he will embarrass himself and by a poor defence give atheism
a chance to triumph.
However, let us see how these reasons, which we fear
in the hands of our opponents as injurious, are, by contrast, strong weapons to
use in the fight against them. Matter, which organizes itself according to its
most general laws, produces through its natural behaviour or, if we prefer,
through a blind mechanical process, good consequences, which appear to be the
design of a supremely High Wisdom. When we observe air, water, and heat left to
themselves, they produce wind and clouds, rain, streams which moisten the
lands, and all the useful consequences without which nature would have
had to remain sad, empty, and barren. However, they produce these results not
through mere chance or accident, which could just as readily have resulted in
something detrimental. But we see that these consequences are limited by its
natural laws so as to work only in this way. What should we then think of this
harmony? How would it really be possible that things with different natures
should strive to work in cooperation with one another for such perfect
coordination and beauty, even with purposes in such matters which are to a
certain extent beyond the range of lifeless material stuff, namely, for the
benefit of human beings and animals, unless they recognized a common origin,
that is, an Infinite Understanding, in which all things were designed with
reference to their essential properties? If their natures were necessarily
isolated and independent, what an astonishing contingency that would be, or
rather, how impossible it would be that with their natural efforts they should
mesh so exactly together, as if an overriding wise selection had united them.
Now, I confidently apply this concept to my present
enterprise. I summon up the material stuff of all worlds in a universal confusion
and create out of this a perfect chaos. According to the established laws of
attraction, I see matter developing and modifying its motion through repulsion.
Without the assistance of arbitrary fictions, I enjoy the pleasure of seeing a
well-ordered totality emerge under the influence of the established laws of
motion, something which looks so similar to the same planetary system which we
see in front of us, that I cannot prevent myself from believing that it is the
same. This unanticipated unfolding of the order of nature on a grand scale I
find at first suspicious, because it establishes such a well-coordinated and
correct system on such a meagre and simple foundation. Finally, on the basis of
the previously outlined observation, I advise myself that such a natural
development is not something unheard of in nature but that its fundamental
striving necessarily brings such things with it and that this is the most
marvellous evidence of its dependence on that Primordial Essence which has
within Itself the source of being and the first laws by which nature operates.
This insight doubles my trust in the proposal I have made. The confidence
increases with each step I take as I continue on, and my timidity disappears
completely.
But the defence of your system, it will be said, is at
the same time a defence of the opinions of Epicurus, to which it has the
closest similarity.* I will not completely deny all agreement with him. Many
people have become atheists through the apparent truth of such reasons which,
with a more scrupulous consideration, could have convinced them as forcibly as
possible of the certain existence of the Highest Being. The consequences which
a perverse understanding infers from innocent basic principles are often very
blameworthy. Although his theory was what one would expect from the keen
intelligence of a great spirit, Epicurus’s conclusions were also of this kind.
I will also not deny that the theory of Lucretius or
of his predecessors (Epicurus, Leucippus, and Democritus) has much similarity
to mine.* Like those philosophers, I set out the first condition of nature as that
state of the world consisting of a universal scattering of the primordial materials
of all planetary bodies, or atoms, as they were called by these writers.
Epicurus proposes a principle of heaviness which drives these elementary
particles downwards, and this appears not very different from Newton’s power of
attraction, which I assume. He also assigned to these particles a certain
deviation from the straight linear movement of their descent, although at the
same time he had an absurd picture of the cause and consequences of this
deviation. This deviation comes about to some extent with the alteration in the
straight linear descent, a change which we derive from the force of repulsion
of the particles. Finally, came the eddies, which arose from the confused
movement of the atoms, a major part of the theories of Leucippus and Democritus.
We will meet them also in our theory. But such a close affinity with a theory
which was the true theory of atheism in ancient times does not lead mine to be
grouped in the company of their errors. Even with the most foolish opinions
which can win popular applause, sometimes there is some truth to remark upon. A
false basic assumption or a pair of unexamined coordinating principles lead
people from the footpath of truth through unnoticed misdirections right into
the abyss. Nonetheless, there remains, in spite of the above-mentioned
similarity, a fundamental difference between the ancient cosmogony and the
present one, so that one can derive from the latter totally opposite
consequences.
The previously mentioned teachers of the mechanical
development of the cosmic structure derived all order which can be observed in
it from chance accident, which allowed the atoms to come together in such a
fortunate way that they created a well-ordered totality. Epicurus was even so
unconscionable that he demanded that the atoms swerved from their direct linear
movement without any cause, so that they could run into each other.
Collectively these writers pushed this absurdity so far, that they even
attributed the origin of all living creatures to this blind collision and, in
effect, derived reason from irrationality. In my theory, by contrast, I find
matter bound to certain necessary laws. I see a beautiful and orderly totality
developing quite naturally in its complete dissolution and scattering. This
does not happen through accident or chance. By contrast, we see that natural
characteristics necessarily bring this condition with them. Hence, will we not
be moved to inquire why matter had have just such laws which aim at order and
propriety? Was it really possible that many things, each of which has its own
nature independent of the others, should on their own constitute themselves in
such a way that a well-ordered totality thereby arises? And if they do this, is
there not an undeniable proof of the commonality of their first primordial
origin, which must be a self-sufficient Highest Reason, in which the natures of
things were designed for harmonious purposes?
The material which is the primordial stuff for all
things is thus bound to certain laws. Freely left subject to these laws, it
must necessarily bring forth beautiful combinations. It has no freedom to
deviate from this plan of perfection. Since it also finds itself subject to the
loftiest wise purpose, it must of necessity be set in such harmonious
relationships through a First Cause which rules over it. There is a God for
just this reason, that nature, even in a chaotic state, can develop only in an
orderly and rule-governed manner.
I have such a high opinion of the honest minds of
those people who confer upon this proposal the honour of testing it, that I
remain confident that, where the basic principles mentioned above will still
not be able to get rid of all worries about the deleterious consequences of my
system, nevertheless at least they place the sincerity of my intentions beyond
doubt. If, in spite of this, there are malicious zealots who consider it a duty
worthy of their holy calling to attach shameful explanations to the most
innocent opinions, then I am sure that their judgment will have precisely the
opposite effect among reasonable people. Besides, people will not deprive me of
the right which Descartes enjoyed in his time among disinterested critics when
he ventured to explain the development of world bodies from merely mechanical
laws.* I wish therefore to quote from the author of Universal
World History:* “Thus we can do
nothing other than believe that the attempt of this philosopher, who
endeavoured to explain the development of the world in a certain time from
confused matter simply through the continuation of a movement once impressed on
it using a few easy and universal laws of motion, or of others who
since then have, with more approval, attempted the same thing through the
primordial properties of matter, with which it was created, is far from being
worthy of punishment or demeaning to God, as many have imagined, since in this
way a higher idea of His infinite wisdom is far more likely to be brought about.”
I have sought to clear away the difficulties which
seem, from a religious point of view, to threaten my propositions. There are
some no less significant difficulties with respect to the subject matter
itself. Even if it is true, people will say, that God has set in the forces of
nature a hidden art of developing a perfect world order out of chaos on their
own, will human understanding, which is so stupid in the commonest
circumstances, be capable of investigating hidden properties in such a massive
enterprise? Such an undertaking amounts to much the same thing as when people
say: Give me only the material, and I will create a world out of it for you.
Can the weakness of your insights, which are shamed by the most insignificant
things, which come into your mind daily and close by, not teach you that it is
vain to discover the infinite and what was happening in nature even before
there was a world? I demolish this difficulty, for I clearly show that of all
the attempts which could be devised to learn about nature, this very endeavour
may be the one in which we can most easily and surely go right to the origin.
Just as among all problems of research into nature, none will be resolved more
correctly and certainly than the true constitution of the planetary structure
on a large scale, the laws of motions, and the inner workings which drive all
planetary orbits, in which Newtonian philosophy can provide such insights that
we find nothing like them in any other part of philosophy, in the same way I
maintain that among all the natural phenomena whose first cause we are
investigating, the origin of the planetary system and the production of the
heavenly bodies, together with the causes of their movements, is the one which
we may hope to consider reliably from first principles. The reason for this is
easy to perceive. The heavenly bodies are round masses with the simplest
development which a body whose origin we are exploring can ever have. Their
movements are equally clear. They are nothing other than a free continuation of
an impetus impressed upon them once, a motion which, combined with the force of
attraction of the body at the mid-point, becomes circular. Moreover, the space
in which they move is empty, the intermediate distances, which separate them
from each other, are exceptionally large, and thus everything is laid out for
undisturbed motion as well as for clear observation of them in as manifest a
way as possible. In my view, we could say here with certain understanding and
without presumption: Give me the material, and I will build a world out of it!
That is, give me the material, and I will show you how a world is to come into
being out of it. For if there is material present which is endowed with an
inherent power of attraction, then it is not difficult to establish those
causes which could have led to the arrangement of the planetary system,
considered on a large scale. We know what is involved for a body to acquire a
spherical shape. We grasp what is required for freely suspended spheres to take
on a circular movement around the middle point towards which they are
attracted. The position of the orbits relative to each other, the agreement in
the direction, the eccentricity, everything can arise from the simplest
mechanical causes, and we may hope with confidence to discover them, because
they can be established with the easiest and clearest reasons. However, can we
boast of such advantages for the smallest plants or insects? Are we in a
position to say, give me the material, and I will show you how a caterpillar
could have developed? Do we not remain here on the bottom rung because of our
ignorance of the true inner constitution of the object and of the development
inherent in its multiple elements? Thus, people must not let themselves be
disconcerted when I venture to say that we will be able to understand the
development of all the cosmic bodies, the causes of their movements, in short,
the origin of the entire present arrangement of the planetary system, before we
completely and clearly understand the development of a single plant or
caterpillar on mechanical principles.
These are the reasons on which I base my confidence
that the physical part of natural philosophy gives us hope that in future it
will indeed have the same perfection to which Newton raised the mathematical
part of the subject. Next to the laws according to which the arrangement of the
cosmic structure stands in its present state perhaps there are no others in the
entire study of nature so capable of such mathematical accuracy as those laws
by which it has developed, and without doubt the hand of an experienced
surveyor would find work in these fields unproductive.
Now that I have allowed myself to promote a favourable
reception for what I am proposing in my examination, I will be permitted briefly
to explain the way I have dealt with it. The first part is concerned with a new
system for the structure of the cosmos on a large scale. Mr. Wright from
Durham, whose essay I learned about in the Freie Urteile from Hamburg
for the year 1751, first gave me the occasion to consider the fixed stars, not
as a scattered teeming mass without perceptible order, but as one system with
the closest similarity to a planetary system.* Thus, just as in the latter the planets are located
very near to a common plane, the fixed stars in their positions are also
related as closely as possible to a certain plane which must be imagined drawn
through the entire heavens, and because of their densest accumulation toward
this same plane they project that band of light called the Milky Way. I have
become convinced that, since this zone illuminated by countless suns is very
precisely structured in the orientation of an extremely large circle, our sun
must similarly be located very near this large interconnecting plane. While I
was exploring the causes of this structure, I have found it very probable that
the so-called fixed or firm stars could really be slowly moving, wandering
stars of a higher order. To endorse what will be found about this concept later
in its own section, I wish only to cite here a passage from a text by Mr.
Bradley concerning the movement of the fixed stars:* “If we wish to judge the result of a comparison
between our best contemporary observations and earlier ones with tolerable
accuracy, then it seems clear that some fixed stars really have changed
position with respect to each other and, indeed, in such a way, that we see
this is not the result of some movement in our planetary system, but can be
ascribed only to a movement of the stars themselves. Arcturus readily provides
strong proof of this point. For when we compare the present declination of
Arcturus with its location as determined by Tycho as well as by Flamsteed, we
will find that the difference is greater than we can assume to have arisen from
the inaccuracy of their observations.* We have reason to suppose that other examples of a
similar phenomenon must occur among the large number of visible stars, because
their positions relative to each other could have altered for various reasons.
For if we imagine that our own solar system changes its position in celestial
space, then after a certain time has gone by, this will give rise to a
perceptible change in the angular distance of the fixed stars. And because in
such a case this would have a greater effect on the positions of the nearest
stars than on the positions of the ones far distant, then their positions would
appear to change, although the stars themselves really remain immovable. And
if, by contrast, our own planetary system stands still and some stars do, in
fact, move, these will similarly change their apparent position, and the
apparent movement will be greater the closer the stars are to us or the more
the direction of their motion is arranged so that we can perceive it. Now,
since the positions of the stars could thus be altered by so many different
causes, when we consider the astonishing distances at which some of them are
indubitably located, it will take the observations of several human lifetimes
to determine the laws for the perceptible alterations of even a single star.
Thus, it must be even more difficult to establish laws for all the most
remarkable stars.”
I cannot precisely determine the boundaries between
Mr. Wright’s system and my own, nor in what parts I have merely copied his
design or developed it further. However, I had very good reasons to expand one
aspect of the design considerably. I took into account the species of nebulous
stars, which M. de Maupertuis considers in his treatment of the shape of the
stars and which display more or less open elliptical shapes, and I easily
convinced myself that they could only be an accumulation of many fixed stars.* The fact that these shapes, when measured, were
always round taught me that here there must be arranged an unimaginably
numerous host of stars and, further, that they are around a common mid-point,
because, if that were not the case, their free positioning in relation to each
other would display wholly irregular shapes, not measurable figures. I also perceived that in the system in which
they are brought together they must be for the most part limited to a single
plane, because they are not circular but elliptical in shape, and that because
of their pale light they are located incredibly far away from us. What I have concluded from these analogies
the discussion will itself present for the unprejudiced reader’s evaluation.
In the second part, which contains the proposal most
germane to this treatise, I endeavour to develop the arrangement of the cosmic
structure from the simplest condition of nature merely by mechanical laws. If,
for those who are shocked at the daring of this undertaking, I may venture to
propose a certain order in the manner with which they honour my ideas by
testing them, I would request that they first read through the eighth section,
which, I hope, will prepare their judgment for a correct insight. Meanwhile,
when I invite the well-disposed reader to examine my opinions, I am justly
concerned that, since hypotheses of this sort commonly are considered no better
than philosophical dreams, it is a sour pleasure for a reader to resolve to
undertake a careful investigation on his own into the histories of nature and patiently
to follow the author through all the turns by which he moves around the
difficulties which he runs into, so that at the end the reader perhaps laughs
at his own credulity, like those who look at the London Market Crier.* However, I dare to promise that, if the reader will,
as I hope, be convinced by the preparatory chapter placed at the start to
undertake such a physical adventure based on such plausible assumptions, he
will not meet, as he continues on his way, as many crooked diversions and
impassable obstacles as he is perhaps worried about at the beginning.
In fact, I have rejected with the greatest care all
arbitrary fictions. After I place the world in the simplest chaos, I have
applied to it no forces other than the powers of attraction and repulsion, so
as to develop the great order of nature. These two forces are both equally
certain, equally simple, and at the same time equally primal and universal.
Both are taken from Newtonian philosophy. The first is now an incontestably
established law of nature. The second, which Newtonian science perhaps cannot
establish with as much clarity as the first, I here assume only in the sense
which no one disputes, that is, in connection with the smallest distributed
particles of matter, as, for example, in vapours. From such simple grounds as
these, I have produced the system which follows in a natural manner,
without imagining any consequences other than those which the reader’s
attentiveness must observe entirely on its own.
Finally, may I be permitted to provide a short
explanation concerning the validity and the alleged value of those propositions
which will appear in the following theory and according to which I hope to be
assessed by reasonable judges. We evaluate an author fairly by the same stamp
which he impresses on his own work. Thus, I hope people will demand from the
different parts of this treatise no stronger validity for my opinions that what
I myself establish for them in the scale of values. Generally, the greatest geometrical
precision and mathematical certainty can never be demanded from a treatise of
this sort. If the system is based upon analogies and harmonies in accordance
with the rules of credibility and a correct way of thinking, then it has met
every demand raised by its object. I believe I have reached this level of
quality in some parts of this essay, as in the theory of the system of fixed
stars, in the hypothesis about the composition of the nebulous stars, in the
general design for the mechanical development of the cosmic structure, in the
theory of Saturn’s ring, and in some others. In some particular parts the
treatment will be somewhat less persuasive, as, for example, the determination
of the relationships of the eccentricity, the comparison of the masses of the
planets, the various deviations of comets, and some others.
Therefore, when in the seventh section I pursue the
consequences of this theory as far as possible, attracted by the fecundity of
the system and the pleasing nature of the greatest and most awesome subject
imaginable, always guided by analogy and a reasonable credibility, although
with a certain boldness, and when I propose to the power of imagination the
infinite nature of the entire creation, the development of new worlds and the destruction
of old ones, and the unlimited space of chaos, I hope that people will be
sufficiently indulgent to the attractive charm of the subject and the pleasure
which one has in witnessing the harmony in one’s theory pushed to its furthest
limit not to judge it according to the strictest geometrical precision,
which, in any case, does not occur in a theory of this sort. I await exactly
the same fairness with respect to the third part. There people will constantly
come across something more than merely arbitrary, although always something
less than certain.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Part One
Outline of a Systematic Arrangement of the Fixed Stars
and
of the Vast Number of Such Systems of Fixed Stars
Is the great chain, that draws all to agree,
And drawn
supports, upheld by God, or thee?
(Pope)*
Short Outline of the Necessary Fundamental Principles
of Newtonian Philosophy Required for an Understanding of the following Theory*
Six planets, including three with accompanying
satellites, Mercury, Venus, Earth with its moon, Mars, Jupiter with four
satellites, and Saturn with five, describe orbits around the sun as the
mid-point and, together with the comets, which do the same thing from
all sides in very long orbits, make up a system which we call the Solar System
or the planetary world structure. The
fact that the movement of all these bodies takes the form of a circle and
returns back on itself presupposes two forces which are equally necessary for
any sort of theory, namely, a projectile force, by which at every point of
their curved linear movement the bodies would continue on a straight line and
disappear into the infinite distance, unless another force, whatever it may be,
constantly required them to leave this path and move on a curved track around
the mid-point of the sun. This second
force, as geometry itself has established with certainty, always aims at the
sun and is therefore called the sinking force, the centripetal force, or
gravity.
If the orbits of the celestial bodies were exact circles,
then the very simplest breakdown of the compounded curved movements would
reveal that a continuous impulse towards the central point would be required
for the arrangement. However, although the movements of all planets and comets
are ellipses in which the sun is located at a common focal point, higher
geometry with the help of Kepler’s model (according to which the radius
vector or the line drawn from the planet to the sun always cuts out on its
elliptical path areas proportional to the times) similarly establishes with
unequivocal certainty that a force must constantly draw the planet throughout
its entire orbital path towards the mid point of the sun.* This sinking force, which governs throughout the whole
space of the planetary system and directs itself to the sun, is thus an
accepted natural phenomenon. Equally clearly demonstrated is the law according
to which this force extends from the mid-point of the sun into the far
distances. It always decreases inversely as the square roots of the distances
from the centre increase. This rule is derived in an equally infallible way
from the time which the planets need at different distances to complete their
orbits. These times are always in a ratio to the square root of the cubes of
their average distance from the sun. From this we deduce that the force which
pulls these cosmic bodies to the mid-point of their orbits must decrease
inversely as the square of the distance.
This very same law which governs among the planets in
their movements around the sun occurs also in connection with small systems,
namely, with those which are made up of moons moving about their main planet.
Their orbital times are in exactly the same way proportional to the distances
and establish a relationship of the force which causes sinking towards the
planet, which is exactly the same as the one by which the planet is pulled
towards the sun. All this, derived from the most infallible geometry and
uncontested observations, has been placed forever beyond contradiction. From
this arises now the idea that this sinking force may be exactly the same
impetus which is called heaviness on the surface of the planet and which
gradually diminishes with the distances from the surface according to the
above-mentioned law. We see this from the comparison of the quantity of
heaviness on the surface of the earth with the force which pulls the moon to
the mid-point of its orbit. These stand in relation to each other just as the
force of attraction in the entire planetary system, namely, in inverse
proportion to the square of the distances. Hence people also call this
frequently reported central force gravity.
Moreover, because there is the highest degree of
probability that if an effect occurs only in the presence of and in proportion
to the distance to a certain body and if the direction of this effect is
related as precisely as possible to this body, then it is credible that this
body is the cause of the effect, however it occurs. Therefore, we have sufficient
reason to think that this universal downward movement of the planets towards
the sun can be attributed to the power of attraction of the sun and to ascribe
the capacity for the power of attraction in general to all the celestial
bodies.
Hence, if a body is left free to the influence of this
impulse which drives it to sink toward the sun or some other planet, then it
will fall towards it with a constantly accelerating motion and soon will be
united with that same mass. However, if it gets a push directing it to the
side, then, if that push is not powerful enough to achieve an exact equilibrium
with the sinking force, the body will sink down to the central mass with a
curved movement. And if, before the sinking body touches the outer surface of
the central mass, the impulse impressed on it has grown at least strong enough
to shift it from the vertical line about half the thickness of the body at the
mid-point, then it will not touch this surface but, after it has swung closely
around it, will, thanks to the velocity achieved in its fall, be raised up high
again just as far as it fell, so as to continue its path in a constant circular
movement.
Thus, the difference between the orbital paths of the
comets and the planets consists in the sideways deviation in opposition to the
force which drives them to fall. The more these two forces approach an
equilibrium, the more the orbit will become circular in shape; the more unequal
they are, the weaker the projectile force in relation to the force pulling to
the centre, then the longer the orbit, or, as we say, the more eccentric the
orbit is, because the celestial body in one part of its path comes far closer
to the sun than in another.
Because nothing in all nature is exactly balanced, no
planet has an entirely circular motion. However, the comets deviate the most
from a circular orbit, because at their first distance from the sun the impetus
which was impressed on them towards the side was the least proportional to the
force pulling them to the centre.
In this treatise I will very often use the expression
a systematic arrangement of the cosmic structure. So that people will have no
difficulty clearly imagining what this term is to mean, I will explain it
briefly. Strictly speaking, all the planets and comets which belong to our
cosmic structure already form a system by the fact that they rotate around a
common central body. However, I take this term in an even narrower sense,
because I consider the more precise relationships which have united them with
each other in a regular and uniform way. The orbits of the planets are, in
relation to each other, as nearly as possible on a common plane, namely, on the
extended equatorial plane of the sun. The deviations from this rule occur only
in connection with the outermost borders of the system, where all movements
gradually cease. When therefore a certain number of cosmic bodies, ordered
around a common mid-point and moving around it are at the same time restricted
to a certain plane, so that they have minimal freedom to deviate on both sides
of this plane, and when the deviation occurs gradually only with those which
are furthest distant from the mid-point and participate less in the interconnections than the others, then I say
that these bodies are bound together in a systematic arrangement.
[Back to Table of Contents]
On the Systematic Arrangement of the Fixed Stars
The theory of the general arrangement of the cosmic
structure has not achieved any remarkable progress since the time of Huygens.* At this point we still know no more than we already
knew then, namely, that six planets with ten companions, all of which have the
circle of their orbit set almost on a single plane, and the eternal spheres of
the comets, which run riot on all sides, make up a single system, whose
mid-point is the sun, towards which everything sinks, around which their
movements run, and from which they all are illuminated, warmed, and kept alive,
and finally that the fixed stars are just so many suns, the mid-points of
similar systems, in which everything may be set up in just as large and orderly
a way as in our system and that infinite space teems with cosmic systems, whose
number and excellence have a relationship to the infinite nature of their
Creator.
The systematic arrangement which took place in the
union of the planets which move around the sun disappeared in the crowd of
fixed stars, and it seemed as if the rule-governed relationship encountered in
miniature does not hold sway on a large scale among the links of all the
worlds. The fixed stars were subject to no law, by which their positions were
confined relative to each other, and we saw all heaven and the heaven of all
heavens filled without order and without design. Since human curiosity limited
itself in this way, we did nothing further, other than to infer from this state
the immensity of the One who had revealed Himself in such inconceivably huge
works and to admire Him.
It was reserved for Mr. Wright, an Englishman from
Durham, to take a happy step to an observation which he himself does not seem
to have developed into anything insightful and whose useful application he did
not sufficiently note. He looked at the fixed stars not as a disorganized and
scattered swarm without purpose but found a systematic arrangement in their
totality and a general relationship of these stars with respect to a major
plane of the space which they occupy.
We wish to improve the idea which he presented and to
redirect it, so that it can generate important consequences. The complete
confirmation of these is something we leave for future ages.
Anyone who gazes at the starry heavens on a clear
night will notice that bright band which presents a steady light through the crowd
of stars which have accumulated there more than elsewhere and which perceptibly
lose themselves in the huge expanse. People have called this band the Milky
Way. Because of the structure of this recognizably distinct area in the sky, it
is remarkable that observers of the heavens were not long ago prompted to
derive from it strange conclusions about the locations of the fixed stars. For
we see that the band has an immense circular orientation and, indeed, in a
continuous arrangement taking up the entire heavens. These two factors possess
such a precise determination and characteristics so recognizably different from
uncertain approximations, that from them keen astronomers should long ago
naturally have been motivated attentively to investigate the explanation for
such a phenomenon.
The stars are not placed on the apparently hollow
sphere of the heavens, but from our point of view stand at some distance from
each other, some further than others, disappearing into the depths of the
heavens. From this phenomenon it follows that, at those distances where they
are located one behind the other in relation to us, they do not occur in an
equal scattering in every direction, but must be arranged in particular
relation to a certain plane which goes through our viewpoint and to which their
locations are fixed as closely as possible.
This relationship is such an unambiguous phenomenon
that even the remaining stars, which are not included in the white band of the
Milky Way, are themselves observed to be that much closer together and more
dense, the nearer they are located to the circle of the Milky Way, so that of
the 2000 stars which the naked eye perceives in the sky, we find the largest
number in a relatively narrow area, the middle of which is taken up by the Milky
Way.
Now, if we imagine a plane drawn through the starry
heavens and extending an unlimited distance and assume that all the fixed stars
and all the solar systems have a common spatial relationship to this plane, so
that they are closer to it than to any other areas, then the eye which is
located on this common plane, as it looks out into this field of stars, into
the hollow spherical surface of the firmament, will see the thickest
accumulation of stars in the direction of the drawn plane, in the form of an
area illuminated with more lights. This band of light will sweep out in the
direction of a huge circle, because the onlooker’s viewpoint is on the plane
itself. This area will be swarming with stars. Because of the undifferentiated
smallness of bright points, a single one of which escapes the eye, and because
of the apparent density of a uniform white gleam, it will look, in a word, like
a Milky Way. The rest of the heavenly host, whose relationship with the drawn
plane becomes less and less apparent or which are also located closer to the
observer’s position, will be seen as more scattered, although their
accumulation will be related to this same plane. From this, finally, it follows
that, because from our solar system we see this arrangement of fixed stars in
the orientation of a very large circle, our solar system is located in
precisely the same large plane and makes one system with the others.
In order that much better to penetrate the composition
of the common interrelationship governing this cosmic structure, we wish to try
to discover the cause which has arranged the locations of the fixed stars,
relating them to a single common plane.
The Sun does not limit the extent of its powers of
attraction to the narrow region of the planetary system. According to all
appearance, this power extends an infinite distance. The comets which go very
far above Saturn’s orbit are forced by the sun’s powers of attraction to turn
back again and to move in orbits. Whether it is more likely for the nature of a
force apparently incorporated into the essence of matter to act without limits
and whether, in addition, it will be really recognized as such by those who
assume Newton’s principles, we wish only to have it conceded that this power of
attraction of the sun extends approximately to the nearest fixed star and that
the fixed stars act on each other as just so many suns to the same extent.
Thus, it follows that the entire host of fixed stars strives to come closer
together through this power of attraction, so that all the world systems are in
a situation where sooner or later they fall into one clump, through this
reciprocal moving closer together, which is continuous and unhindered, unless
these systems are saved from this disaster by forces which pull away from the central
point, as with the spheres in our planetary system. These forces bend the
heavenly bodies away from falling in a straight line and, working together with
the forces of attraction, bring about the timeless orbits. Thus the structure
of creation is preserved from collapse and has been skilfully created to last
eternally.
Hence, all the suns in the firmament have orbiting
motions, either around one common central point or around many. But with them,
we can everywhere apply the analogy of what we observe about the orbital paths
of our solar system, namely, that just as that very cause which has imparted to
the planets a force moving them away from the centre, through which they
maintain their orbits, has directed their orbital paths so that they are all related
to a single plane, so also the cause, whatever it might be, which has given the
suns of the higher world as well as so many wandering stars of the higher world
structure the force of their orbit has at the same time brought their orbits as
much as possible into one plane and has worked to limit deviation from this
plane.
According to this conception, we can picture the
system of fixed stars to a certain extent by means of the planetary system, if
we magnify the latter infinitely. For if instead of six planets with their ten
satellites we assume many thousands of similar bodies, and instead of the
twenty-eight or thirty comets which we have observed, we assume a hundred or a
thousand times more of them, and if we think of these particular bodies as generating
their own light, then to the eye of the observer who looks out at them from the
Earth there would appear exactly the same light as appears from the fixed stars
of the Milky Way. For the planets we have imagined, because of their close
relationship to the same common plane in which we find ourselves with our
Earth, would display a densely lit area made up of countless stars,
whose direction went in a very large circle. This band of light would have a
sufficient number of stars everywhere, although, according to this hypothesis,
as moving stars, they are not fixed to a single spot. For, because of their
movement, there would always be enough stars on anyone side, even though other
stars had moved from that location.
The width of this illuminated zone, which projects a
sort of zodiac, will be set by the different levels of deviation of designated
erratic stars from their reference plane and by the inclination of their orbits
in relation to this same plane. Since most of them are near this plane, their
number will appear more scattered in relation to the extent they are distant
from it. However, the comets, which occupy all regions without distinction,
will cover the field of the heavens on both sides.
The shape of the heaven of fixed stars thus has no
cause other than the same systematic arrangement on a grand scale as the cosmic
structure of the planetary system on a small scale, since all the suns make up
one system, whose common interconnecting plane is the Milky Way. Those which
are the least related to this plane will be seen to the side; for that very
reason, however, they are less dense, more widely scattered, and less frequent.
They are, so to speak, comets among the suns.
This new theory, however, attributes a forward motion
to the suns, and yet everyone acknowledges that they are motionless and that
they have been fixed in their positions from the start. The name which the
fixed stars have acquired from this seems confirmed and unambiguous because of
all the centuries of observation. This difficulty, if soundly based, would
destroy the proposed theory. But this lack of movement, according to all
appearances, is only something apparent. It is either merely an exceeding
slowness, caused by the enormous distance of their orbits from the common mid-point
or the impossibility of perceiving them brought about by the distant location
of the observer. Let us estimate the plausibility of this notion by calculating
the movement which one of the fixed stars located close to our sun would have,
assuming that our sun is the mid-point of its orbit. If, following Huygens, we
assume that the distance of this star is more than 21000 times greater than the
distance of the sun from the Earth, it then follows from the established law of
the time of orbiting bodies, which is proportional to the square root of the
cube of the distances from the mid-point, that the time which this star must
take to complete its circle once around the sun would be more than one and a
half million years and that in 4000 years this would have established a shift
in its position of only about one degree. Now, because perhaps only a very few
fixed stars are as close to the sun as Huygens assumed for Sirius, and because
the distance of the rest of the heavenly host perhaps exceeds by far the distance
of Sirius, therefore they would require a far longer time for such periodic
orbits. Moreover, it is also more probable that the motion of the suns in the
celestial stars goes around a common mid-point whose distance away is
extraordinarily far, and the forward motion of the stars can hence be
exceedingly slow. Consequently, we can probably assume from this that all the
time since human beings have been keeping records of celestial observations has
perhaps still not been sufficient for them to notice the change which has taken
place in these stellar positions. We must meanwhile not yet give up hope that
we will discover this change in time. To achieve that will require subtle and
careful observers, together with a comparison of observations far distant from
each other. We must direct these observations especially at the stars of the
Milky Way, the main plane of all movement.* Mr. Bradley has observed the almost imperceptible
movement of the stars. The ancients
marked stars in particular places in the sky, and we see new ones in other
places. Who knows that these are not the
latter which have merely changed position?
The excellence of the instruments and the perfecting of our knowledge of
the stars give us ground to hope for the discovery of such remarkable and
important observations.* The
plausibility of the matter itself, based on nature and analogy, supports this
hope so well, that it can stimulate the attentive work of scientists to bring
it to completion.
The Milky Way is, so to speak, also the zodiac of new
stars, alternately appearing and disappearing in this region in a way hardly
matched in any other celestial region. If this alteration in their visibility
proceeds from their periodic moving further away and closer to us, it seems
clear from the proposed systematic arrangement of the stars that such a
phenomenon must mainly be seen only in the region of the Milky Way. For there
are stars in that location moving in very elongated orbits around other fixed
stars, as satellites move around their main planets. Thus, the analogy with our
planetary system, in which only heavenly bodies near the common plane of
movement have a companion moving around them, requires that only the stars in
the Milky Way will have suns orbiting around them.
I am coming to that part of the proposed theory which
makes it most particularly attractive because of the sublime picture it
presents of creation’s plan. The series of ideas which has led me to it is
short and natural. It consists of the following. If a system of fixed stars,
all spatially related to a common plane, just as we have sketched out the Milky
Way, is so far distant from us that all perception of individual stars making
up the system is no longer possible, even with a telescope, if the distance of
this system has exactly the same relationship to the distance of the stars in
the Milky Way as the latter have to the distance of the sun from us, in short,
if such a world of fixed stars is seen at such an immeasurable distance from
the eye of the observer located outside this world, then this world will appear
in a small angle as a tiny and weakly lit area, with a circular shape if its
plane is oriented directly in the line of sight and elliptical if it is viewed
from the side. The weakness of the light, the shape, and the recognizable
extent of its diameter will clearly distinguish such a phenomenon, when
present, from all the stars which are seen individually.
We do not need to search a long time for this phenomenon
among the observations of the astronomers. It has been clearly confirmed by
different observers. People have wondered about its strangeness, have made
assumptions, and have subscribed sometimes to odd imaginary images and
sometimes to plausible ideas, which, however, just like the former, had no
basis. We are talking about the nebulous stars or, rather, a type of them,
which M. de Maupertuis wrote about as follows:* “There are small places whose light is somewhat more than
the darkness of empty celestial space, which all are alike in the fact that
they display more or less open ellipses, but their light is much weaker than
any other that we are aware of in the heavens.”
The author of the Astrotheology imagined that these were openings
in the firmament through which he believed he saw heavenly fire.* A philosopher
of illuminating insights, the above-mentioned M. de Maupertuis, in thinking
about the shape and the recognizable diameter of these stars, considers that
they are astonishingly large celestial bodies which display an elliptical shape
because of the large flattening caused by the impetus of their rotation, when
viewed from the side.
It is easy to be convinced that this last explanation
also cannot hold. Because this kind of nebulous stars must undoubtedly be at
least as far away from us as the other fixed stars, not only would their size
be astonishing (for in this respect they would have to exceed by a factor of
many thousands even the largest stars), but the strangest point of all would be
that with this extraordinary size, made up of self-illuminating bodies and
suns, these stars should display the dimmest and weakest light.
Much more natural and comprehensible is the idea that
there are no such individual huge stars but systems of many stars, whose
distance makes them appear in such a narrow space, that the light, which cannot
be seen for each individual star, because of the countless crowd of them, comes
out in a uniform pale glow. The analogy with the system of stars in which we
find ourselves, their shape, which is exactly as it must be according to our
theory, the weakness of the light, which this previously mentioned infinite
distance requires, all these endorse perfectly the idea that these elliptical
figures should be taken as exactly the same world systems and, so to speak, as
Milky Ways, whose structure we have just gone through. And if suppositions in
which analogy and observation are in full agreement and support each other have
precisely the same value as formal proofs, then we must take the certainty of
this system as demonstrated.
Now the attentiveness of those who observe the heavens
has sufficient motivation to concern itself with this undertaking. The fixed
stars, as we know, are all connected to a common plane and thus create a
coordinated totality, a world of worlds. We see that in the immeasurable
distances there are more such star systems and that creation in the entirely of
its infinite extent is everywhere systematic and mutually interconnected.
We could further suppose that these particular higher
world orders are not unconnected to each other and through this mutual
relationship establish once again an even more immeasurably great system. In
fact, we see that the elliptical shapes of these sorts of nebulous stars, which
M. de Maupertuis mentions, have a very close relationship to the plane of the
Milky Way. Here a wide field stands open to discoveries, for which observation
must provide the key. The properly named nebulous stars and those about which
there is a dispute whether we should call them nebulous must be investigated
and tested according to the guidelines of this theory. If we view the parts of
nature according to a design and a plan we have discovered, then certain
characteristics reveal themselves which are otherwise overlooked and remain
hidden, when observation squanders its time on all objects without any
guidance.
The theory which we have proposed opens up for us a
view of the infinite field of creation and offers an idea of the work of God
appropriate to the infinite nature of the Great Master Builder. If the size of
a planetary system in which the Earth is hardly seen as a grain of sand fills
the understanding with astonishment, how delightfully astounded we will be when
we examine the infinite crowd of worlds and systems which fill the totality of
the Milky Way. But how much greater this wonder when we know that all these
immeasurable arrangements of stars once again create a numbered unity, whose end
we do not know and which is perhaps, like the previous one, inconceivably large
and yet, once again, only a unit in a new numbered system. We see the first
links of a progressive relationship of worlds and systems, and the first part
of this unending progression already allows us to recognize what we are to
assume about the totality. Here there is no end, but an abyss of a true
infinity, in which all capacity of human thought sinks, even when it is
uplifted with the help of mathematics. The wisdom, goodness, and power which
has revealed itself is limitless and, to exactly the same extent, fruitful and
busy. The plan of its revelation must, therefore, be, just like it, infinite
and without borders.
However, there are important discoveries to be made,
and not just in large things, which serve to expand the idea we can formulate
about the magnitude of creation. In smaller things there is no less
undiscovered, and we see even in our solar system the links of a system which
stand immeasurably far from one another and between which we have not yet found
the intermediate parts. Saturn is the outermost of the wandering stars which we
know about. Are there to be no more planets between Saturn and the least
eccentric comet which comes down to us from a distance perhaps ten or more
times removed, no planet whose orbit could approach more closely a comet’s
orbit than Saturn does? And should not other planets be gradually changing into
comets by means of a series of intermediate types approximating the composition
of comets and linking together the family of planets with the family of comets?
The law according to which the eccentricity of the
planetary orbits is directly related to their distance from the sun supports
this assumption.* The eccentricity in the movements of the
planets increases with the distance of the planet from the sun, and the
furthest planets, therefore, come closer to the condition of
comets. We can thus assume that there
are still other planets beyond Saturn which are even more eccentric and hence
even more closely akin to comets, thanks to a continual gradation which finally
turns planets into comets. The
eccentricity of Venus is 1/126th of the semi-axis of its elliptical orbit; in
the case of Earth, the eccentricity is 1/58th; in the case of Jupiter, it is
1/20th, and in the case of Saturn 1/17th.
Thus, the eccentricity evidently increases with the distances. It is true that Mercury and Mars are
exceptions to this law, because their eccentricity is much greater than the
measurement of their distance from the sun permits. But we will learn in what follows that the
very same cause which gave some planets in their development a small mass also
deprived them of the impulse required for a circular path, with the result that
they were pulled into an eccentric movement, thus leaving them incomplete in
two respects.
Is it not a probable consequence that the increase in
the eccentricity of the cosmic bodies located immediately beyond Saturn will be
approximately proportional to the ones beneath, and that the planets are
related to the family of comets through a less abrupt gap?* For it is
certain that this very eccentricity is the fundamental difference between the
comets and the planets. The comet’s tail
and its misty spheres are only consequences of eccentricity. Similarly, the particular cause, whatever it
may be, which has given the celestial bodies their orbital paths, because of
the greater distances not only was weaker in making the circular impulse equal
to the downward force, thereby allowing eccentric movements, but also for this
very reason was less capable of bringing the orbits of these spheres into the
common plane on which the lower bodies move.
Thus was produced the deviation of the comets to all regions.
According to this hypothesis, we would still perhaps
hope for the discovery of new planets beyond Saturn, which would be more
eccentric than Saturn and thus closer to the characteristic of comets. But for this
very reason we would be able to see them only for a short time, that is, when
they approach the sun. This factor, together with the smaller extent of their
approach and the weakness of their light, has hindered their discovery up to
now and must make that difficult in future. If we wanted, we could call the
last planet and the first comet the one whose eccentricity was so large that in
its approach to the sun it intersected the orbit of the nearest planet to it,
and perhaps Saturn’s, as well.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Part Two
Concerning the first condition of Nature, the
development of the celestial bodies, the causes of their movement and their systematic
interrelationship both with the structure of planets in particular and also
with the entire creation.
See plastic Nature
working to this end,
The
single atoms each to other tend,
Attract,
attracted to, the next in place
Form’d
and impell’d, its neighbour to embrace.
See
Matter next, with various life endu’d
Press
to one centre still, the gen’ral Good.
(Pope)*
Section One
Concerning the Origin of the Planetary World Structure
in General and the Causes of Its Movements
So far as concerns the reciprocal relationships which
the parts of the cosmic structure have among themselves and through which they
reveal the cause which brought them about, observation of this arrangement
displays two aspects, both of which are equally probable and worthy of
consideration. On the one hand, if we think of the fact that six planets with
ten companions describe orbits around the sun at their mid-point, that all move
in one direction, in fact, the same direction as the axial rotational of the
sun itself, which governs all their orbits though the power of attraction, that
their orbits do not deviate far from a common plane, namely, the extrapolated
equatorial plane of the sun, that among the furthest celestial bodies belonging
to the solar system, in the region where the common cause of movement was,
according to the hypothesis, not so strong as in the region close to the
mid-point, deviations from the precision of these conditions occur, which are
sufficiently related to the lack of impressed motion, if, I say, we consider
all this interconnection, then we will come to believe that one cause, whatever
it may be, had a pervasive influence throughout the entire extent of the system
and that the conformity in the direction and position of the planetary orbits
is a consequence of the coordinated agreement which they must have had with
that material cause through which they were set in motion.
On the other hand, if we consider the space in which
the planets of our system orbit, then we find it is completely empty and
deprived of all material stuff which could have subjected these celestial
bodies to a common set of influences and brought with it coordination among
their movements.* This fact has been established with more
perfect certainty and its probability is, where possible, greater than the
probability of the previous claim.
Swayed by this reason, Newton could not point to any material cause
which should maintain by its extension into the space of the planetary system
the commonality of movements. He
maintained that the immediate hand of God had set up this order without the use
of natural forces.
Considering the matter impartially, we see that the
reasons here on both sides are equally strong. And they have an equal value as
completely certain. However, it is also just as clear that there must be a
concept which could and should unite these two apparently conflicting reasons
and that in this concept we are to seek the true system. We wish briefly to
announce that concept. In the present arrangement of space, in which the
spheres of all the planetary worlds move around, there is no material cause
present which could impress itself on or direct their movements. This space is
completely empty, or at least as good as empty. Thus, it must have in earlier
times been differently constituted and full of matter sufficiently capable of
conferring movement on all the celestial bodies located there and of bringing
them into harmony with its motion and, as a consequence, into harmony with each
other. When the power of attraction unified the above-mentioned space and
collected all the scattered matter in particular clusters, the planets must
have from then on freely and unchangingly continued the orbital movement, once
impressed upon them, in an unresisting space. The reasons for the
first-mentioned probability absolutely require this notion. And since there is
no third possibility between the two, we look upon this idea with approval as
an excellent one, an approval which raises it above the plausibility of a
hypothesis. If we wished to be long winded, we could, with a series of
successive inferences in the manner of a mathematical demonstration, with all
the display which this involves and with an even greater plausibility than its
introduction in physical subjects customarily elicits, finally arrive at the
proposal itself, which I will set down, concerning the origin of the cosmic
structure. But I would rather present my opinions in the form of a hypothesis
and leave it to the reader’s insight to put its value to the test, than render
its validity suspect because of the appearance of a devious demonstration,
something which might thus captivate the ignorant but lose the approval of
those who understand.
I assume that all the matter making up the spheres
belonging to our solar system, all the planets and comets, at the origin of all
things was broken down into its elementary basic material and filled the entire
space of the cosmic structure in which these developed bodies now move around.
If we consider this state of nature in and of itself, without reference to a
system, it seems to be merely the simplest which can follow upon nothingness.
At that time nothing had yet developed. The incorporation of heavenly bodies
located separate from one another, their distance from each other controlled
according to the powers of attraction, and their shape, arising from the
equilibrium of the collected materials, are a later condition. Nature, on the
immediate edge of creation, was as raw and undeveloped as possible. Only in the
fundamental properties of the elements which make up the chaos can we perceive
the sign of that perfection which nature has from its origin, since its being
is a consequence arising from the eternal idea of the Divine Understanding. The
simplest, most universal characteristics, apparently designed without purpose,
the material, which seems merely passive and in need of forms and structures,
has in its simplest condition a tendency to build itself up by a natural
development to a more perfect arrangement. The difference in the types of
elements by itself was the most important factor contributing to the movement
of nature and to the development of chaos, so that the tranquillity which would
have ruled in a state of universal equality among the scattered elements would
be lifted, and the chaos begin to develop itself at points where the particles
have a stronger power of attraction. The types of this basic material are
undoubtedly infinitely different, to match the immensity which nature displays
in every respect. Given the equal distribution in planetary space, the
materials with the greatest specific density and power of attraction, which in
and of themselves take up less room and are also rarer, therefore become more
scattered than the lighter varieties of material. Elements with a specific
heaviness one thousand times greater are a thousand, perhaps a million, times more
scattered than those which are lighter in this proportion. And since these
differences must be imagined as infinite as possible, then, just as there can
be one sort of physical component which exceeds another in its measured
density, as a sphere drawn with the radius of the planetary system exceeds
another sphere with the diameter of the thousandth part of a line, so the
heavier type of scattered elements are separated from each other by a much
greater distance than the lighter kinds.
The universal tranquillity in space replete in this
way lasts only for an instant. The elements have essential forces which set
each other in motion and are, indeed, themselves an origin of life. The
material is under an immediate impulse to develop. The denser type of scattered
materials, thanks to the power of attraction, collect from a spherical area
around them all the material with a lesser specific weight. But they
themselves, together with the material which they have united with them,
converge in the points where the small pieces of an even denser type are
located, and these again to even denser points, and so on. When we think about
this idea of a self-developing nature throughout the entire extent of chaos, we
will easily see that all the consequences of this process will finally consist
of the assembling of different clusters, which, after the completion of their
development, would be calm and eternally motionless because of the equality in
the force of attraction.
But nature has still other forces in store, which manifest
themselves especially when the material is dispersed in fine particles, so that
these particles repel each other and by their conflict with the power of
attraction induce that movement, which is, as it were, an enduring life of
nature. Because of this force of repulsion, which reveals itself in the elastic
nature of fumes, in the diffusion from strong-smelling bodies, and the
spreading of all gaseous materials and which is an uncontested phenomenon of
nature, the elements sinking towards their points of attraction will shift each
other sideways from their vertical movement, and the straight linear descent
will end up in orbital movements which surround the mid-point towards which
they were sinking at the centre. In order clearly to grasp the development of
the cosmic structure, we want to limit our observation of the infinite essence
of nature to a particular system, like the one to which our sun belongs. Once
we have explored the development of this system, then we will be able to
proceed in a similar way to the origin of the higher world structures and bring
together into one theory the infinite nature of the entire creation.
Thus, if a point is found in a very large space where
the power of attraction of the elements located there exerts a stronger
influence than at any other points around it, then the basic material stuff of
elementary particles spread out in all the surrounding area will sink toward
this point. The first effect of this general sinking is the development of a
body at this mid-point of the attraction which, so to speak, proceeds to grow
from an infinitely small seed in rapid stages. But as this mass increases, it
will, in exactly the same proportion, with its more powerful force move the
surrounding particles to unite with it. When the mass of this central body has
grown so extensive that the velocity with which it draws the small particles to
itself from great distances is diverted sideways by the weak level of the force
of repulsion with which these particles interfere with one another, it produces
lateral movements, which, thanks to the centrifugal force [Centerfliehkraft],
are such that they can move in a circle around the central body. Thus, large
vortexes of small particles develop, each of which, because of the combination
of the force of attraction and the force leading to a sideways rotation
describes its own curving path. These sorts of circles all intersect each
other, something which their large scattering in this space leaves room for.
Meanwhile, these movements, in various ways in conflict with each other, strive
naturally to bring one another into equilibrium, that is, into a single state
where the movement of one hinders the movement of another as little as
possible. This occurs, first, because the particles restrict the movement
of other particles for as long as it takes until they all are moving forward in
one direction; and second, because the particles restrict their vertical
movement, thanks to which they approach the centre of the attraction, until the
time when they are all moving horizontally, that is, in circles running
parallel around the sun at their mid-point, no longer intersecting with one
another, and, thanks to the equilibrium between the centrifugal force [Schwungskraft]
and the force drawing them downwards, maintaining constant free circular orbits
at the heights where they are suspended, so that finally only those particles
remain suspended in the volume of space which have attained through their fall
a velocity and through the resistance of other particles a direction by means
of which they can continue a free circular movement. In this condition, where
all the particles run around the central body in one direction and in circles
arranged in parallel, namely, in free circular movements by means of the required
centrifugal force, the conflict and the collision of the elements disappear,
and everything is in the condition of the smallest reciprocal interaction. This
result always occurs naturally with materials subject to conflicting movements.
It is thus clear that from the scattered mass of particles a large number must,
on account of the resistance through which they seek to bring each other to
this state, succeed in attaining such an exact arrangement, although a much
greater number do not reach this condition and serve only to increase the
cluster of the central body, into which they sink, since they cannot hold their
position freely at the height where they are suspended, but intersect the
circles of the lower particles and eventually, because of the resistance, lose
all their movement. This body at the middle point of the force of attraction,
which, on account of of the large amount of its assembled material, has
accordingly become the main piece of the planetary structure, is the sun,
although at this time it does not yet immediately have that flaming glow, which
breaks out on its surface when its development is fully complete.
We must still note that while all the elements of
self-developing nature, as demonstrated, thus move in one direction around the
sun as the mid-point, in the case of such orbits which are set up in a single
direction and which occur, so to speak, around a common axis, the rotation of
fine material cannot remain in this way, because, according to the laws of
central motion, all orbital movements must intersect the mid-point of the force
of attraction with the plane of their rotation. Among all these orbits moving
in one direction around a common axis, however, there is only one which
intersects the mid-point of the sun. Therefore, all the material from both
sides of this imagined axis moves quickly to that circle which goes directly
through the axis of rotation right at the central point of the common downward
movement. This circle is the plane which establishes a relationship for all the
elements hovering around; as much as possible they accumulate around it and, by
contrast, leave the regions far away from this plane empty. For those elements
which cannot approach so closely to this plane towards which everything is
drawn will not be able to maintain themselves indefinitely in those places
where they are suspended, but, as they collide with the elements floating around, will bring about
their own final fall toward the sun.
Thus, if we consider this fundamental material of the
planets hovering around in a state where it develops itself through the power
of attraction and the mechanical consequence of the general law of repulsion,
then we see a region which is contained between two planes standing not far
from each other. In the middle of these two is located the common
interconnecting plane, extending from the mid-point of the sun out to an
unknown distance. All the particles we can think of carry out mathematically
precise circular movements in free orbits on this common plane, each proportional
to the extent of its distance and to the force of attraction which governs
there. Because in such an arrangement they interfere with each other as little
as possible, they would remain in this form for ever, if the force of
attraction of these particles of basic matter did not then start to exercise
its effect and in this way to cause new developments, the seeds of planets
which are to arise. For since the elements moving around the sun in parallel
circles and positioned where the distance from the sun is not very different,
because of the equality in the parallel movements, are almost calm relative to
each other, then the force of attraction of elements located there with an
excessive specific attraction initiates at once a significant effect, collecting the nearest particles to start the
development of a body. In proportion to the growth of its cluster, the power of
attraction of this body expands, and elements from a wide area move to combine
with it.*
In this system, the development of the planets has
this advantage over any other theoretical possibility: the cause of the masses
provides simultaneously the cause of the motions and the position of the
orbits. Indeed, even the deviations from
the greatest precision in this arrangement, as well as the harmonies
themselves, are illuminated in an instant.
The planets are developed out of particles, which, at the heights where
they are suspended, have precise movements in circular orbits. Thus, the masses formed by their combination
will continue exactly the same movements at precisely the same level and in
exactly the same direction. This is
sufficient to understand why the movement of the planets is approximately
circular and why their orbits are on a single plane. Moreover, they would be exactly circular if
the distance from which they gather the elements for their development were
very small and thus if the difference in their movements were very
insignificant.* But because the development of a thick
planetary cluster involves a wider surrounding area, throughout which the fine
basic stuff is scattered so much in celestial space, the difference in the
distances of these elements from the sun and thus also the difference in their
velocities are no longer insignificant.
As a result, given this difference in the movements, it would be
necessary, in order to maintain on the planet an equilibrium between the
central forces and the circular velocity, for the particles which collide with
the planet from different distances and with different motions to offset each
other’s aberrations exactly. Although
this, in fact, occurs fairly accurately, nonetheless, this compensation falls
somewhat short of perfection and brings the deviations from circular movement
and eccentricity with it.* It is just as easy to shed light on the fact that
although the orbits of all planets should properly be in one plane,
nevertheless in this part we also come across a small deviation, because, as already
discussed, the elementary particles which find themselves as close as possible
to the general plane of their movements nevertheless take up some space on
either side of it. It would be only too
fortunate a coincidence if all the planets were to begin to develop exactly in
the middle between these two sides on the plane connecting them, something
which would already cause some inclination of their orbits towards each other,
although the impulse of the particles from both sides would restrict this deviation
as much as possible, allowing it only within narrow limits. Thus, we must not
be surprised about the fact that here, too, we rarely come across the most
precise accuracy in the arrangements, as is the case with all things in nature,
because generally the multiplicity of circumstances involved in every natural
condition does not permit an exact regularity.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Part Two
Section Two
Concerning the Different Densities of the Planets and the
Relationship of Their Masses
We have shown that the particles of the elementary
basic material, distributed equally by themselves in cosmic space, through
their sinking downward towards the sun remain suspended in the places where the
velocity which they attained in their descent reaches a precise equilibrium in
relation to the force of attraction and that their direction would be altered
so as to be perpendicular to the radius of the circle, as should be the case
with circular movements. However, if we now think of the particles of different
specific density at the same distance from the sun, then the ones with a
greater specific heaviness drive more deeply through the resistance of the
other particles toward the sun and will not be diverted from their path as soon
as the lighter ones. Thus, their movement will form a circular orbit only at a
closer distance to the sun. On the other hand, the elements of the lighter type
are diverted from a straight vertical fall earlier and take on circular
movements before they are driven so deep toward the centre. Thus, they remain
suspended at greater distances away. Moreover, they are not able to drive so
deeply downward through the space filled with the elements, without the
resistance of these elements decreasing their motion, and they will not be able
to attain the high level of velocity required for a circular movement closer to
the mid-point. Hence, according to the required equilibrium in the movements,
the specifically lighter particles will orbit at distances further from the
sun; the heavier ones occur, however, at closer distances. The planets which
are built out of these elements will therefore be of a denser variety when they
are nearer the sun than when they are formed from the combination of these
atoms further away from the sun.
Thus, there is a sort of statistical law which
establishes for the material of cosmic space an inverse relationship between
its distance from the centre and its density. Nonetheless, it is just easy to
grasp that it is not essential that each distance contain only particles of the
same specific density. Of the particles of a certain specific type, some remain
hovering at greater distances from the sun and attain the permanent circular
motion appropriate to their fall at a greater distance. These have moved down
toward the sun from further away. On the other hand, those whose original
location in the universal distribution of the materials in chaos was nearer the
sun, regardless of the fact that their density is no greater than the former
group, will attain a circular orbit closer to the sun. Since the locations of the materials in
relation to the mid-point of their descent is determined not only by the
specific heaviness of the material but also by its original place in the first
calm state of nature, it is therefore easy to see that very different types of
material will combine at every distance from the sun, so as to remain suspended
there and that, nevertheless, generally we will find the denser material more
frequently closer to the mid-point than further away and thus that,
notwithstanding the fact that the planets will be a mixture of very different
materials, nonetheless, in general, their masses must be denser in proportion
to their closeness to the sun and less dense when their distances away are
greater.
In the matter of this law governing planetary
densities, our system manifests an advantageous comprehensiveness in comparison
with all those ideas which people have come up with or even could come up with
about its cause. Newton, who established the density of some planets by
calculation, thought that the cause of this relationship set according to the
distance was to be found in the appropriateness of God’s choice and in the
fundamental motives of His final purpose, since the planets closer to the sun
must endure more solar heat and those further away are to manage with a lower
level of heat, something which would not seem to be possible, unless the
planets near the sun were composed of a denser kind of material and those further
away of a lighter material. But to perceive the inadequacy of such an
explanation does not really require much reflection. A planet, for example, our
Earth, is composed of types of material very different from each other. Of
these, it was necessary only that the lighter varieties, which will be more
deeply penetrated and affected by the same solar working and whose composition
has a relationship to the heat through which the sun’s rays work, be spread out
on the planet’s outer surface. But the fact that the mixture of the remaining
material in the total cluster must have this relationship sheds light on
nothing at all, because the sun has no effect on the inside of the planets.
Newton was afraid that if the Earth had been in a lower position in the proximity
of Mercury, then in the sun’s rays it would have to burn up like a comet, and
the Earth’s materials would have insufficient protection against fire not to
become scattered by this heat. But, by contrast, it is the sun’s own material
stuff, which is four times lighter than the material making up the Earth, which
would have to be destroyed by this blazing heat. Or why is the Moon twice as
dense as the Earth, yet still suspended at the very same distance away from the
sun as the Earth? Thus, we cannot attribute the proportional densities to the
relationship with the sun’s heat, without entangling ourselves in the greatest
contradictions. Instead we recognize that a cause which allocates the locations
of the planets according to the density of their clusters must have had a
relationship to the inner material and not to the material on the surface. This
cause would have to determine this relationship with the density only according
to the total composition, still permitting a differentiation in the materials
in one and the same celestial body, without regard to the consequences which it
established. Whether some statistical law other than the one which is presented
in our theory can achieve this satisfactorily I leave to the insight of the
reader to judge.
The relationship of the planetary densities brings
with it one more circumstance which corroborates the validity of our theory by
completely endorsing the previously proposed explanation. The celestial body
standing at the mid-point of other spheres orbiting around it is commonly of a
lighter sort than the bodies orbiting most closely around it. The Earth with
respect to the Moon and the Sun with respect to the Earth manifest such a
relationship vis-à-vis their densities. According to the proposal which we have
laid out, such a relationship is necessary. For the lower planets were built up
mainly from the excess elementary material which, thanks to the advantage of
its density, could have driven with the required degree of velocity right to an
area close by the mid-point. By contrast, the body at the very mid-point was
put together out of the material of all varieties present, without distinction,
which did not attain the velocity required by the law. Since among these, the
lighter materials make up the greatest portion, it is easy to see that, because
the celestial body orbiting closest to the mid-point or the ones nearest to it
has within it, as it were, a selection of the denser forms of material, but the
central body has a mixture of all types, without differentiation, then the
former will be a substance of a denser sort than the latter. In fact, the moon
has twice the density of the Earth, and the Earth is four times denser than the
sun, which, according to all assumptions, will be exceeded by the planets even
closer to the sun, Venus and Mercury, with an even higher degree of density.
We now turn our attention to the relationship which,
according to our theory, the masses of the celestial bodies should have in
comparison to their distances from the sun, in order to test the results of our
system against Newton’s infallible calculations. It does not require many words
to make people understand that the central body must always be the major part
of its system and that, consequently, the sun must be preponderantly greater
than the planets collectively, just as the same point will hold for Jupiter and
Saturn in relation to their nearby planets. The central body is developed from
the downward sinking from the entire extent of the sphere of its power of
attraction of all particles incapable of attaining the most precisely
established circular movement and a close relationship to the common plane. The
number of these must undoubtedly be extraordinarily greater than the number of
those which attain orbital movement. To apply this observation in particular to
the sun: if we wish to estimate the spatial extent in which particles with a
circular orbit which have served as basic material for the planets have
deviated furthest from the common plane, then we can assume that it is, as an
approximation, somewhat larger than the width of the greatest deviation of the
planetary orbits from each other. Now, while they deviate from the common plane
on both sides, their greatest angular difference with respect to each other is
hardly 7.5 degrees. Thus, we can picture all the material out of which the
planets were developed as having been distributed in that space which we
imagine between two planes extending out from the mid-point of the sun and
enclosing an angle of 7.5 degrees. However, a zone 7.5 degrees wide extending
in the direction of the largest circle is a bit more than the seventeenth part
of the spherical surface. Thus, the physical space between the two planes,
which cut out a part of planetary space in the width of the above mentioned
angle, is somewhat more than a 17th part of the physical contents of the entire
sphere. Hence, according to this hypothesis, all material used for planetary
development would comprise approximately the seventeenth part of the material
which the sun assembled for its composition on both sides out as far as the
furthermost planet is located. But this cluster of the central body has a
preponderance over the combined content of all the planets which is not 17 to 1
but 650 to 1, as Newton’s calculations have established. However, it is easy to
see that in the higher regions beyond Saturn, where planetary development
either ceases or is rare, where only a few comet bodies have arisen, and
especially where the movements of the basic material, because in that location
it is not rapid enough to attain the equilibrium with the centripetal force as
required by law, as happens in the regions close to the centre, ended up in an
almost universal sinking toward the mid-point and increased the size of the sun
with all the material from such a vast expanse of space, it is easy, I say, to
see that for these reasons the sun would have to acquire such a preponderantly
large mass.
However, in order to compare the planets with each
other with respect to their masses, we first observe that, in accordance with
the method of development I have indicated, the quantity of material which
combines in the composition of a planet depends particularly on the extent of
its distance from the sun, for the following reasons: (1) Because of its power
of attraction, the sun limits the sphere of the planet’s power of attraction;
however, in the same circumstances, it does not restrict the more distant
planets so narrowly as the close ones. (2) The circle from which all the
particles have come together to make a more distant planet will be described
with a larger radius and thus contain more basic material than the smaller
circles. (3) For the very reasons just mentioned, the width between the two
planes of the greatest deviation at a constant angle is greater at a greater
distance than at a small distance. On the other hand, this advantage for the
more distant planets over the ones lower down will be limited by the fact that
the particles nearer the sun will be of a denser type and, everything
considered, will also be less scattered than at a greater distance away. But we
can easily estimate that for the development of large masses the first
advantage far exceeds the limitation just mentioned and that, in general, the
planets which develop far distant from the sun would have to acquire larger
masses than the ones close to the sun. This happens insofar as we imagine a
planet’s development with only the sun present. But if we admit the development
of several planets at different distances, then one planet will restrict the
extent of the power of attraction of another planet through the sphere of its
own force of attraction. This brings about an exception to the previous
principle. For the planet which is near another one of exception mass will lose
a very great deal from the sphere of its development and thus will become
unusually smaller than the relationship of its solar distance by itself
requires. On the whole, the planets have a greater mass as they are further from
the sun, just as Saturn and Jupiter, in general, the two main parts of our
system, are thus the biggest because they are furthest from the sun. However,
deviations from this analogy do occur. But in them the mark of their common
development is always manifest: the principle which we maintain concerning the
heavenly bodies, namely, that a planet of exceptional size takes away from the
nearest ones on both sides the mass appropriate to them, given their distance
from the sun. For it attracts to itself a portion of the material which should
go into the development of both of them. In fact, because of its location, Mars
should be bigger than the Earth. But Mars has a diminished mass because of the
force of attraction from Jupiter, which is so large and close by. And although
Saturn itself has an immediate advantage over Mars because of its distance from
the sun, nevertheless Saturn has not been entirely free from suffering a
considerable loss thanks to Jupiter’s power of attraction. And it seems to me
that Mercury owes its exceptionally small mass not only to the force of
attraction of the powerful sun, which is so close to it, but also to the fact
that Venus is a neighbouring planet. If we compare the presumed density of
Venus with its size, Venus must be a planet of considerable mass.
Everything agrees as splendidly as we might wish in
order to confirm the adequacy of a mechanical theory for the origin of the
cosmic structure and the celestial bodies. Now, as we estimate the space in
which the material stuff of the planets was distributed before their
development, we wish to consider how diffuse the material was which filled this
middle space at that time and how free or unrestricted the particles suspended
all around were to establish their rule-governed motions in it. If the space
holding in itself all the planetary material was contained in that part of the
sphere of Saturn which was between two
imaginary planes subtended at an angle of about 7 degrees to each other from
the mid-point of the sun out into the full reaches of space (and which
therefore comprised one seventeenth of the entire sphere which we can describe
with a radius equal to the distance of Saturn), then in order to calculate the
diffusion of the basic planetary material filling this space, we wish to set
the distance of Saturn at 100,000 Earth diameters. Thus, the entire sphere of
Saturn’s orbit will exceed the volume of Earth’s globe by a factor of 1000
billion.* If we take instead of
the seventeenth part only the twentieth part of the space in which the
elementary basic stuff was suspended, this still must exceed the volume of
Earth’s sphere by a factor of 50 billion. Now, if, following Newton, we set the
mass of all the planets along with their satellites at only 1/650 of the mass
of the cluster of the sun, then the Earth, which is only 1/169282 of this mass,
will be related to the collective mass of all the planetary material in the
ratio of 1 to 276.5. And if we then made all this material the
same specific density as the Earth, we would produce a body which would take up
a space 276.5 times greater than the Earth.* Assuming that the density of the entire
cluster of the Earth is not much greater than the density of the firm material which
we encounter under Earth’s outermost layer, as is required by the
characteristics of the shape of the Earth, and assuming that this outer
material is about 4 or 5 times denser than water and that water is 1000 time
heavier than air, then, if all the planetary material were expanded to the
density of air, it would take up a space almost 1,400,000 times larger than
Earth’s sphere. Comparing this space with the space in which, according to our
theory, all planetary material was spread out, it is 30 million times smaller.
Thus, the scattering of the planetary material in this space is much more
thinly distributed than the particles of our atmosphere. In fact, the thin
density of this scattered distribution, as inconceivable as it may appear, was
nonetheless neither unnecessary nor unnatural. It had to be as thin as possible, in order to permit
the suspended particles all freedom of movement, almost as in an empty space,
and infinitely to reduce the resistance which they could have created for each
other. They could, however, have assumed such a thinly distributed state on
their own. We cannot doubt this point if we know a little about the diffusion
which matter undergoes when it is transformed into vapour or when, to stay on
the subject of the heavens, we consider the thinning out of the material in the
tail of a comet, whose diameter, of an unheard of thickness, exceeds the
diameter of the earth by a factor of well over a hundred and yet it is so
transparent that the small stars can be seen through it, something which our
air, when it is illuminated by the sun at a height many thousand times smaller,
does not allow.
I conclude this section by bringing out an analogy
which in and of itself can raise the present theory of the mechanical development
of the celestial bodies above the probability of a hypothesis to a formal
certainty. If the sun is composed of particles of the same basic material from
which the planets have developed and if the difference between them consists
only in the fact that in the sun undifferentiated material of all sorts
accumulated, while in the planets the density of their types was distributed
according to the different distances, then if we consider the material of all
the planets as a collective unity, from their complete intermixing the result
would have to be a density almost equal to the density of the sun. Now, this
necessary consequence of our system finds happy confirmation in the comparison
which M. de Buffon, that justly celebrated philosopher, set out between the
densities of the total aggregate of planetary material and the material of the
sun.* He found a similarity
between the two in the ratio of 640 to 650. When unbiased and necessary
consequences of a theoretical conception encounter such happy confirmations in
true natural relationships, can we really then believe that mere contingency
has brought about this agreement between theory and observation?
[Back to Table of Contents]
Part Two
Section Three
Concerning the Eccentricity of the Planetary Orbits
and the Origin of Comets
We cannot make the comets a special class of celestial
bodies entirely different from the family of planets. Here, as elsewhere, nature
works by imperceptible stages, and while going through all the series of
changes, links together distant qualities with ones close at hand, thanks to a
chain of intermediate rungs. The eccentricity in the case of the planets is the
result of a lack of that impetus by which nature strives to make planetary
movement precisely circular, something which, however, she can never perfectly
attain because of the intervening influence of various causes. However, the
deviation from circular motion is greater at the larger distances from the sun
than close by.
This condition goes through a constant scale with all
possible levels of eccentricity from the planets right up finally to the
comets. True, this interconnection seems to be severed in the case of Saturn because
of a large gap which completely separates the family of comets from the
planets. But in the first part we have remarked that there may well be still
other planets beyond Saturn which are more like comets because of a greater
deviation from circularity in their orbital path and that it is only through a
lack of observations (or also the difficulty involved in such observations)
that this affinity was not long ago revealed as clearly to eye as to the
understanding.
In the first section of this part we have already
referred to a cause which can render eccentric the orbit of a cosmic body
developing out of the basic material suspended all around, if we also assume
that this body in all its locations has carefully balanced forces moving it
directly in a circular motion. Because the planet collects materials from
places at a considerable distance from each other, where the orbital velocities
are different, the materials collectively reach the planet with different
degrees of inherent orbital velocity. These deviate from the velocity
appropriate to the distance of the planet from the sun and thus induce an
eccentricity for the planet insofar as these different impressions of the
particles fail to offset each other’s deviation completely.
If the eccentricity had no other cause, it would be
moderate everywhere. Also it would be less significant with the small planets
far from the sun than with the closer and larger planets, that is, if we
assumed that previously the particles of the basic material really did have a
precise circular movement. Now, these estimates do not agree with observation,
since, as has already been mentioned, the eccentricity increases with the
distance from the sun, and the small size of the masses appears instead to
create an exception to an increase in eccentricity, as we see with Mars. Thus,
we are forced to limit the hypothesis about the precise circular movement of
the particulate basic materials, so that, while they very nearly attain the
determined precision in the regions near the sun, they nevertheless admit wider
deviations from that precision the further the elementary particles hovered
from the sun. Such an adjustment of the basic principle of the free circular
movement of the basic material is more naturally appropriate. For regardless of
the spatial diffusion, which seems to leave them free to limit each other at
the point of completely balanced equilibrium of the central forces, no less
considerable are the causes which hinder the attainment of this natural goal.
The further the dispersed parts of the original material are from the sun, the
weaker the force which induces them to sink down. The resistance of the
particles below, which should bend their
fall sideways and force them to assume a direction perpendicular to the radius
of the circle, is proportionally diminished as these particles sink downward
under it either to be incorporated into the sun or to assume an orbit in a
region closer to the sun. The fact that this more distant material has a
predominant specific lightness does not permit it to acquire the downward
movement, which is the basis for everything, with the force necessary to move
the resisting particles aside, and perhaps these distant particles still
restrict each other in order finally to attain this uniformity after a long
time. Thus, among these distant particles already small masses have developed
as the starting point of so many celestial bodies, which, because they are
assembled from weakly moving material, have only an eccentric movement with
which they sink toward the sun and on the way are increasingly diverted from a
perpendicular fall by taking on more quickly moving pieces. Finally, however,
they remain comets if those spaces in which they have developed have, through
the sinking down toward the sun or through the assembling in particular
clusters, become cleansed and empty. This is the reason why the eccentricity of
the planets and those celestial bodies called comets increases with the
distance from the sun. Comets have their name for the very reason that in this
characteristic they far exceed the planets.* There are, it is true, two exceptions which violate
the law concerning the increase in eccentricity with the increasing distance
from the sun. We see them in the two smallest planets of our system, Mars and
Mercury. But with the first the cause is presumably the vicinity of a planet as
large as Jupiter, which through its power of attraction on its side of Mars
deprives it of particles for its development and thus only allows Mars a
special area in the direction of the sun in which to extend itself. This brings
with it an excessive central force and eccentricity. So far as Mercury, the
lowest but also the most eccentric of the planets, is concerned, it is easy to
believe that, because the sun’s axial rotation does not yet by a long way equal
Mercury’s velocity, not only does the resistance which the sun presents to the
material in the space surrounding it deprive the nearest particles of their
central movement but also this resistance could easily extend right out to
Mercury, and its orbital velocity would on this account have been considerably
diminished.
Eccentricity is the most notable mark differentiating
the comets. Their atmosphere and tail, which expand through the heat of their
close approach to the sun, are only consequences of the eccentricity, although
they have always served in times of ignorance as uncommon images of horror,
announcing to the common folk imaginary destinies. Astronomers, who pay more
attention to the laws of motion than to the strangeness in the shape, notice a
second characteristic distinguishing the family of comets from planets, namely,
unlike planets, comets do not confine themselves to the zone of the zodiac, but
establish their orbits in all celestial regions without restriction. This
peculiarity has exactly the same cause as the eccentricity. The planets have
confined their orbits to the narrow region of the zodiac because the elementary
material in the vicinity of the sun acquires circular movements which in each
revolution try to intersect the interrelated plane and do not allow a body,
once developed, to deviate from this surface towards which all the material
from both sides presses. Thus, basic material from the spaces far from the mid-point,
which, weakly moved by the force of attraction, cannot attain free orbital
movement for the very reason which produces eccentricity, is not capable of
accumulating at this height on the plane interconnecting all planetary movement
so as to maintain the bodies developed there primarily on this track. Since it
is not limited to a particular region, as is the case with the lower planets,
the scattered basic material will instead develop on its own into celestial
bodies equally easily on both sides, far from the interconnecting plane just as
often as it will near to it. Therefore, comets will be fully free to descend
toward us from all regions. However, those which first developed in a place not
far above the planetary orbits will manifest less deviation from the
limitations of their paths as well as less eccentricity. With the increasing
distances from the mid-point of the system, this lawless freedom of the comets
in relation to their deviations increases and loses itself in the depths of the
heavens in a total lack of orbital movement. This leaves the bodies developing
in the outer regions free to fall toward the sun and establishes the last
frontiers of the systematic arrangement.
In this outline of the comet’s movements, I assume
that, so far as their direction is concerned, for the most part they have one
in common with the planets. It seems to me that in the case of the comets close
by this is undoubtedly true. Also this similarity of form cannot get lost in
the depths of the heavens before the point where the elementary basic stuff in
the least energetic state of motion establishes the rotation which arises in
all directions from the downward sinking. For, because of the commonality of
the movements lower down, the time required to align them in a common direction
is, on account of the large distance, too long for them to be able to extend
themselves far enough for the natural development in the lower region to take
place. Hence, there will perhaps be comets which will establish their orbits in
the opposite direction, namely, from east to west, although I might equally well
almost persuade myself, for reasons which I am reluctant to cite here, that of
the nineteen comets in which we have observed this peculiarity, in some of them
an optical illusion may have given rise to this observation.
I must still note something about the masses of the
comets and about the density of their material. For the reasons mentioned in
the previous section, according to the rules the development of these celestial
bodies in the upper regions should proceed always according to the principle
that, as the distance increases, their masses get larger. And we can believe
that a few comets are larger than Saturn and Jupiter. But it is just not
credible that this quantity of the masses always increases in this manner. The
scattering of the basic materials and the specific lightness of their particles
make the development in the furthest region of cosmic space slow. The uncertain
diffusion of this material in the entire infinite expanse of this space without
any tendency to accumulate in the direction of a certain plane permits several
smaller developments in place of a single considerable one. And the lack of
central force draws the largest portion of the particles down to the sun, without
their having assembled themselves into masses.
The specific density of the stuff out of which the
comets develop is more worthy of attention than the size of their masses.
Presumably, since they develop in the uppermost reaches of the cosmic structure,
the particles which compose them are of the lightest sort. We cannot doubt that
this is the major cause of the vapour sphere and the tail, which distinguish
them from the other celestial bodies. We cannot attribute this dispersal of the
comet’s material in a vapour mainly to the effect of solar heat. A few comets
in their approach to the sun hardly reach the depth of the Earth’s orbit. Many
remain between the orbits of Earth and Venus and then turn back. If such a
moderate level of heat dissolves and thins out the material on the surface of
these bodies to this extent, then they would have to consist of the lightest
material which undergoes, under the influence of heat, more thinning out than
any material whatsoever in all nature.
Moreover, it is not possible to attribute the vapours
which arise so frequently from the comet to the heat which its body has left
over from the earlier approaches to the sun. For indeed we may suppose that at
the time of its development a comet has gone through quite a few orbits with
greater eccentricity and that these were reduced only gradually. But the other
planets, for which we could assume the very same, do not manifest this
phenomenon. However, they would inherently display it, if the varieties of the
lightest material included in the composition of the planets were present just
as much as they are with the comets.
The Earth has something in itself which we can compare
with the dispersal of the comet’s vapours and their tails.* The finest particles which the effect of the sun
draws from Earth’s outer surface pile up around one of the poles, when the sun
directs the semi-circle of its orbit into the opposite hemisphere. The finest
and most energetic particles, which arise in the hot equatorial regions, having
attained a certain atmospheric altitude, are compelled by the effect of the
sun’s rays to move away to and accumulate in those regions which at that period
are directed away from the sun and buried in a long night. These particles
compensate the inhabitants of the icy regions for the absence of the great
light, which even at this distance sends them the effects of its heat. Just
this same power of the sun’s rays, which creates the Northern Lights, would
bring out a vapour circle with a tail, if the finest and volatile particles on
the Earth were encountered just as frequently on the Earth as on the comets.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Part Two
Section Four
Concerning the Origin of Moons and the Axial Rotation of
the Planets
The attempt of a planet to develop from the range of
basic materials is at the same time the cause of its axial rotation and
produces the moons which are to orbit around it. What the sun with its planets
is on a large scale a planet with a sphere of attraction extending far out is
on a small scale, namely, the major part of a system whose pieces have been set
in motion through the force of attraction of the central body. Since the
developing planet activates for its development the particles of the basic
material from the total sphere of its power of attraction, it will produce from
all these sinking motions, thanks to their reciprocally interacting effects,
circular movements, and will, in fact, finally produce movements which settle
upon a single common direction. Some of these motions will get moderated
appropriately for free circular movement and in this limited area will be
located close to a common plane. In this space, as with the main planets around
the sun, the moons also will develop around the planets, when the extent of the
power of attraction of such cosmic bodies offers favourable conditions for
their production. Incidentally, what was said in connection with the origin of
the solar system can be applied equally well to the system of Jupiter and of
Saturn. The moons will have arranged their orbital circles in one direction
almost in a single plane and this, in fact, for the same reasons as those in
the large-scale analogy. But why do these satellites in their common
orientation move far more in the direction in which the planets move than in
any other? The moons’ orbits are not produced through the circular movements of
the planet. They acknowledge as cause only the power of attraction of the main
planet, and, so far as this force is concerned, all directions are equally
good. Mere contingency will select the direction out of all possible
directions, according to which the sinking movement of the material changes
into circles. In fact, the circular path of the main planet does nothing at all
to impress orbital motion around the planet upon the material out of which the
moons are to develop. All the particles surrounding the planet move with it in
the same motion around the sun and are thus, in relation to the planet,
respectively at rest. The power of attraction of the planet achieves everything
by itself. But since, as far as direction is concerned, this power is in and of
itself indifferent to them all, the orbital movement which is to arise out of
that requires only a small external stimulus to deflect it more to one side
than to the others. This small degree of steering the orbital movement acquires
from the forward movement of the elementary particles which run simultaneously
around the sun but at a higher velocity and reach the sphere of the planet’s
power of attraction. For this requires the particles closer to the sun, which
orbit at a faster momentum, to abandon the direction of their path when they
are already at a considerable distance and to move up over the planet in an extended
curve. Because these particles have a higher degree of velocity than the planet
itself has, when they are drawn down by the planet’s power of attraction, they
produce in their perpendicular descent and also in the descent of the other
particles a curved deviation from west to east. It requires only this slight
steering to see to it that the orbital movement in which the descent, initiated
by the power of attraction, finishes up takes on this direction rather than any
other. For this reason, all the moons will coordinate their direction with the
direction of the orbit of the main planets. However, the plane of their path
also cannot deviate far from the plane of the planetary orbits, because the
material out of which they develop, for the very reason which we have referred
to concerning orbital direction in general, is also guided according to this
most precise arrangement, namely, coordinating itself with the plane of the
principal orbits.
From all this we clearly see what the circumstances
are in which a planet may be able to acquire satellites. The power of
attraction of the planet must be large and, as a result, the extent of the
sphere in which this power is effective must extend far out, so that not only
are the particles which move to the planet through a long descent, without
regard to the effects of resistance, at length able to attain the velocity for
a free orbital momentum, but also there must be present sufficient material for
the development of moons in this region, something which cannot occur with a
slight power of attraction. Thus, only planets with large masses and at a great
distance from the sun are endowed with satellites. Jupiter and Saturn, the two
largest and also most distant of the planets have the most moons. The Earth,
much smaller than those planets, is assigned only one. And Mars, which on
account of its distance might have merited some share of this advantage, goes
without because its mass is so small.
We observe with pleasure how the same force of
attraction of the planet which brought the material for building moons and at
the same time determined its movement extends to the very body of the planet
itself, in giving it an axial rotation, by means of exactly the same action
through which the planet develops, in the common direction from west to east.
The particles of the descending basic material, which, as mentioned, acquire a
common rotational movement from west to east, fall for the most part onto the
surface of the planet and are mixed into its cluster, because they do not have
the appropriate velocity to maintain themselves in freely suspended orbital
motion. Since they now come into the composition of the planet, they must, as
parts of it, continue just the same rotational movement and in exactly the same
direction which they had before they were united with the planet. And because,
in general, we can see from the foregoing that the number of particles which
the lack of necessary movement drives down to the central body must be very
much greater than the number of those others capable of attaining the
appropriate degree of velocity, then we can easily grasp why this central body
will in its axial rotation be a long way from possessing the velocity to
achieve an equilibrium between the gravity on its surface and the centrifugal
force. Nevertheless, the axial rotation of planets with a larger mass and at a
considerable distance from the sun will be much faster than with the small ones
close to the sun. In fact, Jupiter has the fastest axial rotation that we are
aware of, and I do not know what system would enable us to reconcile this fact
with a body whose cluster exceeds all the others, unless we could see that its
movements are themselves the effect of that power of attraction which this
celestial body exerts in accordance with the mass of this very cluster. If the
axial rotation were an effect of an external cause, then Mars would have to
have a more rapid axial rotation than Jupiter, for the very same power of
movement affects a smaller body more than a larger one. We would quite
correctly be surprised at this, since all the orbital movements diminish with
distance from the mid-point, but the speeds of the rotations increase with the
distance. With Jupiter the rotational movement could be even three and a half
times faster than its annual motion around the sun.
Thus, we must recognize in the daily rotations of the
planets the very same cause which is, in general, the common origin of movement
in nature, namely, the force of attraction. This style of explanation,
therefore, will successfully prove its truth through the natural quality of its
basic concept and the natural consequences of that.
But if the development of a body itself produces the
axial rotation, then it is reasonable that all the spheres of the cosmic
structure must have it. Why, then, does the moon not have it? It does seem,
although the idea is false, to have reached a kind of rotation, because it
always has the same side turned towards the earth, but this comes far more from
a kind of overbalancing of one hemisphere than from a true rotating
momentum. Must the moon really have
rotated on its axis at an earlier period more quickly and through some unknown
cause or other have gradually reduced this movement until it was brought to
this slight and measured remainder? We need to resolve this question only in
connection with one of the planets. Then the application to all planets will
follow of itself. I am postponing this solution to another occasion, because it
has a necessary connection to the assignment which the Royal Academy of
Sciences in Berlin has established for the prize in the year 1754.
The theory which is to explain the cause of the axial
rotations must also be able to produce from exactly the same causes the
orientation of the planetary axes in relation to their orbital plane. We have
reason to be surprised why the equator of the daily rotation is not in the same
plane as the one in which the moons orbit as they move around the same planets.
For this same movement which directs the orbit of a satellite, through its
extension to the body of the planet, produced its axial rotation, and it should
give it exactly the same determinate direction and orientation. Celestial
bodies which have no planets orbiting closely around them, nevertheless,
because of exactly the same movement of the particles which served them as
material and the same law which limited each one to the plane of its periodic
orbit, settle into an axial rotation which, for the same reasons, had to
coincide with the direction of their orbital plane. As a result of this cause,
it is reasonable that the axes of all celestial bodies would have had to be
oriented perpendicular to the common interconnecting plane of the planetary
system, which does not deviate far from the ecliptic.* But the axes are perpendicular only with the two most
important parts of this cosmic structure, with Jupiter and the sun. With the
others whose rotation we know, the axes are at an angle in relation to the plane
of their orbits, Saturn more than the others, but the Earth more than Mars,
whose axis is also almost perpendicular to the ecliptic. The equator of Saturn
(insofar as we are able to ascertain it from the direction of its ring) is
inclined at an angle of 31 degrees to the plane of its orbit. However, the
Earth is inclined towards its plane at an angle of only 23.5 degrees. We can
perhaps attribute the cause of this deviation to the inequality in the
movements of the material which came together to build the planet. The
preponderant movement of the particles was around the planet’s mid-point in the
direction of the plane of its orbit. And there the interconnecting plane was in
place around which the elementary particles accumulated to make the movement there
circular, where possible, and to pile up material for the development of the
satellites, which for this reason never deviate far from the plane of the
planet’s orbit. If the planet developed for the most part only out of these
particles, then its axial rotation in its first growth would be as little
offset from that plane as the satellites which orbit around it. But the planet
develops, as the theory has established, more from particles which sank down on
both sides and whose number or velocity appears not to have been totally
balanced, so that one hemisphere would be able to acquire a small excess of
movement with respect to the other and thus cause some displacement of the
axis.
Setting these reasons aside, I consider this
explanation only as a supposition which I do not have the confidence to
establish. My true view is as follows. The axial rotation of the planets in the
original state of their first development was quite accurately aligned with the
plane of their annual rotation, and causes were present which pushed these axes
out of their first position. A celestial body which is moving out of its first
volatile condition into a firm condition undergoes, when it develops completely
in this way, a large change in the regularity of its outer surface. This
surface becomes firm and hardens while the deeper material has not yet
sufficiently sunk down according to the measure of its specific gravity. The
lighter types of material intermixed in its cluster, after separating out from
the rest, finally move under the outermost crust, which has become firm, and
create large holes. The largest and widest of these holes, for reasons which
would take too long to discuss here, occur under or near the equator. The above
mentioned crust finally sinks down into these depressions and produces various
inequalities, mountains and rifts. Now, since in something like this manner, as
must apparently have happened with the Earth, the Moon, and Venus, the outer
crust became uneven, the planet could not achieve an equilibrium any more on
all sides in the circle of its axial rotation. A few prominent sections of
considerable mass, which had nothing equal to them on the opposite side, which
could act as an effective counterweight to the momentum, must have then shifted
the axial rotation and sought to place it in a position around which the
material was equally poised. Thus, exactly the same cause as in the complete
development of the celestial body changes its outer crust from a horizontal
state into broken up inequalities. This general cause has made it necessary to
change somewhat the original orientation of the planet’s axis. We perceive this
to be the case with all the celestial bodies which the telescope can reveal
sufficiently clearly. But this change has its limits, so that the deviation is
not excessive. The inequalities, as already mentioned, show up more near the
equator of an orbiting celestial body than at a distance from it. In the region
of the poles they disappear almost entirely. The discussion of the causes of
this I am reserving for another time. Thus, the most prominent masses rising
above the even surface will be found near the equatorial circle. Since the
masses strive to bring themselves close to this circle because of the major
influence of their momentum, they will be able to raise the axis of the
celestial body at the most only a few degrees out of its perpendicular
orientation with its orbital plane. As a consequence, a celestial body which
has not yet fully developed will still have this orientation of its axis
perpendicular to its orbital path. The angle will perhaps be altered only with
the long succession of centuries. Jupiter appears to be still in this
condition. The preponderance of its mass and size and the lightness of its
material meant that it had to assume a firm and calm condition a few centuries
later than other celestial bodies. Perhaps the inside of its cluster is still
in motion, as the parts composing it sink toward the centre according to the
determination of their heaviness, and through the separation of the thinner
varieties from the heavy ones it is developing a firm state. According to such
an account, Jupiter cannot yet appear calm on its outer surface. Collapses and
ruin govern there. The telescope itself has confirmed that for us. The shape of
this planet is constantly changing, while the Moon, Venus, and the Earth remain
unaltered. Indeed, we can also with justice estimate that the completion of the
developmental period is several centuries later in the case of a celestial body
which exceeds our Earth in size by a factor of more than twenty thousand and
which has a smaller density by a factor of four. When its outer surface reaches
a tranquil composition, then undoubtedly much larger inequalities, like the
ones which cover the surface of the Earth, combined with the velocity of its
rotational impulse, will in a relatively short period give its axial rotation
the constant orientation which the equilibrium of its forces will require.
Saturn, which is three times smaller than Jupiter,
because of its greater distance from the sun can perhaps have the advantage of
a faster development than Jupiter. At least Saturn’s much quicker axial
rotation and the large ratio of its centrifugal force to the gravity on its
outer surface (which is to be presented in the following section) see to it
that the inequalities which have thus presumably developed there have very
quickly given it a shift toward the side of the excess weight through a
displacement of the axis. I freely concede that this part of my system
concerning the position of the planetary axes is still incomplete and quite far
from being subject to geometrical calculation. I preferred to reveal this
candidly rather than through all sorts of devious but apparently competent
reasons damage the rest of the theory and give it a weak part. The section
which follows can provide confirmation of the credibility of the entire
hypothesis. There we wish to explain the movements of the cosmic structure.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Part Two
Section Five
Concerning the Origin of Saturn’s Ring and the
Calculation of the Daily Rotation of the Planet from the Relationships to this
Ring
Thanks to the systematic arrangement in the cosmic
structure, its parts are linked together by a ladder of alterations in their
characteristics, and we can assume that a planet located in the remotest region
of the world will have approximately the same characteristics which the nearest
comet would take on, if through a diminution of its eccentricity, it were
raised into the family of planets. With this in mind, we wish to examine Saturn
as if it had gone through several orbits with a greater eccentricity, in a
manner similar to the motion of a comet, and had been gradually brought into a
path more similar to a circle.* The heat which the planet incorporated in its
approach to the sun raised the light material from its outer surface. As we
know from previous sections, this material, in the case of the most distant
celestial bodies, is excessively thinly distributed and with low levels of heat
undergoes diffusion. Meanwhile, after the planet was brought in several orbits
to the distance where it is now suspended, in such a moderate climate it
gradually lost the heat it had absorbed, and the vapours, which still
constantly spread around it from its outer layer, gradually stopped moving up
into tails. New materials did not move upward any longer with the same
frequency to supplement the old ones. In short, the vapours already going around
Saturn remained, for reasons which we will refer to presently, suspended in a
permanent ring around the planet and kept the reminder of its previous
comet-like nature, while Saturn’s body exuded the heat and finally became a
calm and cleansed planet. Now we wish to point out the secret which in this
celestial body could have held the vapours which had come up from it in free
suspension, indeed, which changed these vapours from an atmosphere spread out
around the planet into the form of a ring standing completely apart from it
everywhere. I assume that Saturn had an axial rotation. Nothing more than this
is necessary to reveal the entire secret. No mechanism other than this single
one produced for the planet the phenomenon mentioned above, as an immediate
mechanical result. I am sufficiently confident to assert that in all of nature
only a few things can be brought to such a comprehensible origin as this
special feature of the heavens can be derived from the raw state of the
planet’s first development.
The vapours rising up from Saturn had their own
inherent movement and established themselves freely at the altitude to which
they rose. This motion they acquired as parts of the planet from its axial
rotation. The particles which moved up from close to the equator of the planet
must have had the fastest motions, and those further away right up to the poles
that much slower motions, according to the higher latitude of the place from
which they arose. The relationship to the specific heaviness established the
different altitudes to which the particles rose. But the only particles which
could maintain their locations at their distance away in a constant free
circular momentum were the ones set at those distances which demanded a central
force similar to the velocity which these particles had made their own thanks
to the axial rotation. The remaining particles, to the extent that the
interaction with the others could not bring them this precise velocity, must
either through their excess motion leave the planetary sphere or through their
lack of motion necessarily sink back onto the planet. The particles scattered
throughout the total extent of the vapour sphere, thanks to the very same
central law, in the motion of their curved momentum, would strive to intersect the
extended equatorial plane of the planet from both sides. And in coming together
on this plane from both hemispheres, they would stop each other and accumulate
there. Since I assume that the above-mentioned vapours are the very ones which
the planet in its cooling last sent back up, all the scattered vapour material
will collect close to this plane in a space not particularly wide and leave the
space on both sides empty. In this new and changed orientation, however, the
materials will nonetheless continue exactly the same movement which they
maintained while suspended in free concentric circular orbits. In such a
manner, the circle of vapour now alters its shape, which was a full sphere,
into the form of an extended surface coinciding precisely with Saturn’s
equator. But this surface must also, for exactly the same mechanical reasons,
finally assume the form of a ring, whose outer edge will be determined by the
effect of the sun’s rays, which, by means of their force, scatter and disperse
those particles which have distanced themselves a certain way from the
mid-point of the planet, as they do with comets, and in this way designate the
outer limit of their circle of vapours. The inner edge of this emerging ring
will be determined by the relationship to the velocity of the planet under its
equator. For that distance away from its mid-point where this velocity attains
an equilibrium with the power of attraction for that location is the closest
approach to the planet where the particles which have arisen from its body are
able to describe circular orbits thanks to their own movement acquired from the
planet’s axial rotation. Because the particles closer than that require a
higher velocity for such an orbit, which they cannot have because the movement
even on the equator of the planet is not faster, they will maintain eccentric
orbits which intersect each other, weaken each other’s motions, and finally
will all fall back down onto the planet from which they arose. Now, there we
see an amazingly strange phenomenon, the sight of which since its discovery has
always astonished astronomers and whose cause we could not ever entertain even
a probable hope of discovering, come about in an easy mechanical way, free of
all hypotheses. What happened to Saturn, as can easily be seen from this, would
happen just as regularly to any comet with a sufficient axial rotation, if it
were set at a constant height in which its body could gradually cool down.
Nature, left to its own forces, is fertile in excellent results, even in chaos,
and the development following from this produces such wonderful relationships
and harmonies for a creature’s common needs that it even enables us to
recognize with unanimous certainty in the eternal and unchanging laws of their
fundamental characteristics that Great Being in whom they are all united,
thanks to their common dependency in a collective harmony. Saturn derives
important advantages from its ring. It lengthens its day and under so many
moons illuminates its night to such an extent, that the absence of the sun is
easily forgotten. But must we then, on that account, deny that the common
development of material through mechanical laws, without the need for anything
other than their universal regulations, could have produced relationships which
create advantages for reasoning creatures? All beings have a common dependency
on a single cause: the Divine Understanding. They can therefore produce no
other consequences after them except those which bring with them an image of
the perfection of exactly the same Divine Idea.
Now we wish to calculate the time of the axial
rotation of this celestial body from the relationships of its ring, according
to the hypothesis of its development mentioned above. Because all the movement
of the ring’s particles is a motion absorbed from the axial rotation of Saturn,
on whose outer surface they were located, the fastest movement which these
particles possess among themselves will be the same as the fastest rotation
which occurs on Saturn’s outer surface. In other words, the velocity at which
the particles of the ring orbit on its inner edge is equal to the velocity of
the planet at its equator. But we can easily find that when we look for it in
the velocity of one of Saturn’s satellites, for we assume that it is
proportional to the square root of the distances from the mid-point of the
planet. From the velocity we have discovered, the time of Saturn’s axial
rotation is immediately given: it is six hours, twenty-three minutes, and
fifty-three seconds. This mathematical calculation of an unknown movement for a
celestial body, which is perhaps the only prediction of its kind in the real
theory of nature, awaits confirmation from the observations of future ages. The
telescopes known up to this time do not enlarge Saturn sufficiently, so that we
can discover the spots (which we can assume are on its outer surface) in order
to be able to perceive its axial rotation through their forward displacement.
But the telescopes have perhaps not yet reached that perfection which we can
hope from them and which the hard work and skill of the craftsmen seem to
promise us. If we once succeed in providing visible confirmation of our
conjectures, how certain the theory of Saturn would be and what an overwhelming
credibility the entire system which is built upon the same principles would
derive from that. The time of Saturn’s daily rotation establishes the
relationship of the centrifugal force away from the mid-point at its equator to
the force of gravity on its outer layer. The former is to the latter as 20 is
to 32. Thus, the force of gravity is only around 3/5 greater than the
centrifugal force. Such a large proportion as this brings about necessarily a
very observable difference in the diameters of this planet. And we could
anticipate that this difference must have developed to such an extent that the
observation of this planet, although it is only enlarged a little by the
telescopes, would have to make it all too clearly visible. But in truth this
does not happen, and the theory could thus suffer a disadvantageous blow. A
thorough proof completely removes this difficulty. According to Huygens’
hypothesis, which assumes that the gravitational force inside a planet is the
same throughout, the difference in the diameters is proportional to the
diameter at the equator in a ratio twice as small as the proportion of the
centrifugal force to the gravitational force at the poles.* For example, in the case of the Earth, the force
moving away from the mid-point at the equator is 1/289 of the gravitational
force at the poles. Thus, in Huygens’ hypothesis, the diameter of the
equatorial plane is 1/578th greater than the earth’s axis. The cause is as
follows: the gravitational force, according to what has been assumed, inside
the Earth’s cluster in all regions close to the mid-point is as great as it is
on the outer surface, but the centrifugal force diminishes as one moves close
to the mid-point. Thus, the centrifugal force is not always 1/289th of the
gravitational force. For these reasons, the entire loss in weight of a liquid
column on the plane of the equator amounts, not to 1/289th but to half of that,
i.e., to 1/578th. On the other hand, according to Newton’s hypothesis, the
centrifugal force, which initiated the axial rotation, has the same
relationship to the gravitational force at a specific location on the entire
equatorial plane right to the mid-point, because the gravitational force inside
the planet, assuming the planet has the same density throughout, decreases with
the distance from the mid-point in the same proportion as the centrifugal force
decreases, so that the latter is always 1/289th of the former. This creates a
lightening of the liquid column at the equatorial plane and also a rise in it of
1/289. This difference of the diameters in this theory is increased even more
by the fact that the shortening of the axis involves bringing the parts closer
to the mid-point, and with that an increase in the gravitational force; but the
increase in length of the equatorial diameter involves moving parts further
from the very same mid-point and thus lessening the gravitational force. For
this reason, the flattening of the Newtonian spheroid increases to the point
where the difference in the diameters increases from 1/289 to 1/230.
According to these reasons, the diameters of Saturn
would have to be in an even larger ratio to each other than 20 to 32. They
would have to reach a proportion almost equal to 1 to 2, a difference which is
so large that the slightest attentiveness would not miss it, no matter how
small Saturn might appear through the telescopes. But from this one can only
conclude that the assumption of the uniform density, which seems to be quite
correctly applied to the case of the Earth’s body, in the case of Saturn
deviates far too widely from the reality. This is already inherently probable in the case of a planet
whose cluster consists, for the greatest part of its content, of the lightest
materials and which leaves the heavier sorts of materials much freer to settle
down toward the mid-point, according to their gravitational make up, than do
those celestial bodies whose much denser stuff delays the settling down of the
material and allows it to harden before this settling can occur. When we also
assume in the case of Saturn that the density of its material in the interior
increases as one moves closer to the centre, then the gravitational force no
longer declines in this ratio, but the growing density compensates for the
deficiency in those parts which are set at heights above the point located in
the planet and which contribute nothing by their power of attraction to the
planet’s gravitational power there.* When this preponderant density of the deepest
material is very large, thanks to the laws of attraction, the density changes
the gravitational force which in the interior declines toward the centre into
something almost uniform and establishes the ratio of the diameters close to
Huygens’ proportion, which is always half the ratio between the centrifugal
force and the gravitational force. Thus, since with respect to each other,
these were as 2 is to 3, then the difference in the diameters of Saturn will
not be 1/3, but 1/6 of the equatorial diameter. Finally, this difference will
still be concealed because Saturn, whose axis makes a constant angle of 31
degrees with its orbital plane, never orients the position of its axis
perpendicular to its equator, as happens with Jupiter, something which
diminishes the appearance of the
previous difference by almost one third. Under such circumstances, and
especially considering Saturn’s great distance away, we can easily believe that
the flattened shape of its body will not be so readily visible as we would
think. However, astronomy, whose progress depends particularly on the
perfecting of the instruments, with their help will perhaps be in a position to
discover such a remarkable characteristic, if I do not flatter myself
excessively.
What I say about the shape of Saturn can, to some
extent, serve as a general remark about the natural theory of the heavens.
According to an exact calculation, Jupiter has a ratio of the gravitational
force to the centrifugal force at its equator of at least 9.25 to 1. If its
cluster were of uniform density throughout, in accordance with Newton’s
theories, this planet should show a difference between its axis and the
equatorial diameter even greater than 1/9. But Cassini found it to be only
1/16, Pound 1/12 and sometimes 1/14.* At least all these different observations, which in
their difference confirm the difficulty of this measurement, agree in that they
establish the difference as much smaller than it should be in Newton’s system, or
rather, according to his hypothesis of uniform density. And if we therefore
change the assumption about the uniform density, which permits such a wide
discrepancy between theory and observation, into the much more probably
assumption that the density of the planetary cluster is arranged so that it
increases towards the centre of the planet, then we will validate the
observations not only of Jupiter but also of Saturn, a planet much harder to
measure, so as to be able to understand clearly the cause of the smaller
flattening of its spherical body.
From the development of Saturn’s ring, we have taken
the opportunity to venture on the bold step of determining through calculation
the time of its axial rotation, something which the telescopes are not capable of
discovering. Let us add to this attempt at a physical prediction yet another
concerning the very same planet, a claim whose validity we can expect to be
witnessed by more perfect instruments of future ages.
According to our assumption that Saturn’s ring is an
accumulation of particles which, after they arose as vapours from the outer
surface of this celestial body, thanks to the momentum which they receive and
continue from the planet’s axial rotation, maintain themselves at the altitude
of their distance away in free circular movement, these particles do not have
the same periodic orbital times at all their distances from the mid-point. The
times are, by contrast, determined according to the square root of the cube of
their distance from the planet, if the particles are to keep themselves
suspended according to the laws of the central forces. Now, the time in which,
according to this hypothesis, the particles of the inner edge complete their
orbit is about ten hours, and the orbital time for the particles on the outer
edge is, according to the appropriate calculations, fifteen hours. Thus, when
the lowest parts of the ring have completed three orbits, the furthest parts
have completed only two. Even if we estimate that the interference which the
particles create for each other in the plane of the ring through their great
dispersal is as insignificant as we like, it is nevertheless probable that the
slower movement of the particles further away in each of their orbits gradually
delays and retards the more quickly moving lower parts. On the other hand, the
lower parts would have to impart to the upper parts some of their motion, so as
to create a more rapid rotation. If this reciprocal interaction were not
finally interrupted, this process would last until such a time as all the
particles in the ring, both the low ones and those further away, were brought
to rotate in the same time, in which state they would be at rest relative to
each other and would have no effect in displacing one another. But such a condition,
if the movement of the ring ended up like this, would destroy it completely.
For if we take the middle of the plane of the ring and establish that the
movement there remain what it was before and what it must be to be capable of
achieving free orbital movement, the lower particles would not hold themselves
suspended at their altitude, because they would be held back considerably, but
would intersect each other in oblique and eccentric motions. The more distant
particles, however, through the impulse of a motion greater than it should be
for the central force at their distance from the planet, would move away from
Saturn further than the outer boundary of the ring set by the effect of the sun
and would, of necessity, be scattered behind the planet by the sun’s effect and
carried away.
But we need not fear all this disorder. The mechanism
of the developing motion of the ring involves an arrangement which, thanks to
the very causes which should destroy it, establish it in a secure state by
means of which it is divided up into several concentric circular bands which,
because of the intervening gaps which separate them, have no more common
interaction with each other. For while the particles orbiting on the inner edge
of the ring with their faster motion push forward the particles above somewhat
and accelerate their orbit, the higher
level in velocity provides these particles with an excess of centrifugal force
and moves them further away from the place where they were suspended. But if we
assume that while these particles strive to separate themselves from the lower
ones, they have to overcome a certain interconnection which, whether it is
because they are scattered vapours, nevertheless appears to be not entirely
insignificant for them, then this increased level of momentum seeks to overcome
the interrelationship mentioned above, but will not do so by itself, so long as
the excess in the centrifugal force causing them to move around in the same
orbital time as the lowest particles does not exceed the central force of their
position and their interconnectedness. And for this reason the
interconnectedness must remain in a stripe of a certain breadth of this ring,
although because its parts perform their orbits in the same time, the upper
particles must make an effort to pull themselves away from the lower ones, but
not in a larger width, because, while the velocity of these particles orbiting
in equal times increases with the distances more than it should according to
the central laws, when it has gone beyond the level which can sustain the
interconnection of the vapour particles, they must tear themselves away from it
and take up a distance away from the planet appropriate to the excess momentum
of the orbital forces over the centripetal force at that location. In this way,
the intervening space will be set up, which keeps the first band of the ring
away from the rest. And in the same way, the accelerated motion of the
particles above, through the rapid rotation of those below, and their
interconnection with them, which seeks to hinder the separation, will make a
second concentric ring, from which the third arises around a moderate
intervening gap. We could calculate the number of these circular bands and the
width of the intervals between them, if we knew the extent of the
interconnection linking the particles to each other. But we can be satisfied
that we have, in general, found out with a good degree of probability the
composition of Saturn’s ring, which prevents its destruction and keeps it
suspended through free movements.
The conjecture gives me no little satisfaction thanks
to the hope of seeing it confirmed some day through effective observations. A
few years ago there was a report from London that when people observed Saturn
with a new Newtonian telescope, an improved model by Mr. Bradley, its ring
seemed to be essentially a combination of many concentric rings, separated by
intervening spaces. This report has not been taken further since that time.* The observational instruments have opened up for our
understanding the knowledge of the most distant boundaries of the cosmic
structure. If now it is particularly up to them to undertake new steps in this
business, from the attentiveness of our time to all those things which can
expand human ideas we really can have probable grounds for hoping that they
will turn particularly in a direction which presents them with the greatest
expectation of important discoveries.
However, if Saturn has been so fortunate as to make a
ring for itself, why then has no other planet shared this advantage? The reason
is clear. The ring is to arise from the ascending vapours of a planet, which it
gives off in its raw condition, and the planet’s axial rotation must give these
vapours their impetus which they only have to continue when they have reached
the altitude where they can attain an exact equilibrium between the planet’s
gravitational power and the motion imparted to them. Thus, we can easily
determine by calculation the altitude to which the vapours from a planet must
rise, if they are to maintain themselves in a free circular movement by means
of the motions which they had at the planet’s equator, provided we know the
diameter of the planet, the period of its axial rotation, and the gravitational
force on its outer surface. According to the law of central movement, the
distance of a body which can go freely in circles around a planet at a velocity
equal to the planet’s axial rotation is in exactly the same ratio to the
semi-diameter of the planet as the centrifugal force away from the centre at
the equator is to the gravitational force. Given these reasons, the distance of
the inner edge of Saturn’s ring is equal to 8, when we assume that the
half-diameter of the planet is 5. These two numbers are in the same ratio as 32
to 20, which, as we have previously noted, expresses the ratio of the
gravitational force to the centrifugal force at the equator. For the same
reasons, if we establish that Jupiter is to have a ring developed in this way,
its smallest half-diameter would exceed the half-diameter of Jupiter by a
factor of 10. That would exactly match the distance where its most remote
satellite orbits around it. For these reasons and also because the vapours
rising up from a planet cannot expand so far out from it, it is impossible for
Jupiter to develop a ring. If we wanted to know why the Earth has acquired no
ring, we will find the answer in the size of the half diameter, which the inner
edge of the ring alone would have to have had. This would have to have been 289
Earth semi-diameters. With the slower moving planets the possibility for the
development of a ring gets even more remote. Thus, there is no example left
where a planet could have acquired a ring in the manner which we have
explained, other than the example of the planet which really has one. This is
not an insignificant confirmation of the plausibility of our manner of
explanation.
But what makes me almost certain that the ring going
around Saturn has not come about in the common way and was not built up through
the universal laws of development governing throughout the entire system of
planets, which also produced Saturn’s satellites, and certain, I say, that no
external material provided the material for this ring, but that it is a
creation of the planet itself, which moved its most volatile parts upward up by
heat and gave them a rotational momentum from its own axial rotation, is this
fact: unlike the other satellites of this planet and, in general, all orbiting
bodies which accompany a main planet, the ring is not oriented on the common
interrelated plane of planetary motions, but deviates from it considerably.
This is a certain proof that it did not develop from the common basic material
and acquire its motion from the sinking down of this material, but arose from
the planet long after its complete development and, through the orbital force
implanted in it, as the planet’s separated part, acquired from the planet’s
axial rotation a related motion and direction.
The pleasure of having grasped one of the strangest
peculiarities of the heavens in the full extent of its nature and development
has involved us in an extensive discussion. With the permission of our
indulgent readers, let us keep going wherever we like, all the way to excess,
so that after we have permitted ourselves a pleasant sort of arbitrary opinion
with a kind of freedom from restraint, we will turn back to the truth once more
with that much more caution and care.
Could we not imagine that the Earth, exactly like
Saturn, once had a ring? It might have arisen from its outer layer precisely as
Saturn’s did and have maintained itself a long time, since the Earth had gone
from a much faster rotation than the present one to the existing rate, for who
knows what reasons. Or we could attribute the building of it to the common
basic material sinking down according to the rules which we explained above,
which we must not take so strictly if we want to indulge in our liking for the
unusual. But what a supply of beautiful explanations and consequences such an
idea offers us! A ring around the Earth! How beautiful the sight for those who
were made to live on Earth as a paradise. How much comfort for those whom
nature was to greet with a smile on all sides! But this is still nothing in
comparison to the confirmation which such a hypothesis can derive from the
ancient lore of the creation story, no small recommendation for approval among
those people who believe they are not dishonouring revelation but endorsing it
when they use it to ennoble the excess displays of their wit. The waters of the
firmament, which the Mosaic account talks of, have already caused interpreters
no small problem. Would it not be possible for us to use this ring to assist
ourselves out of this difficulty? This ring undoubtedly consisted of vapours
rich in water. And in addition to the advantage which it could provide for the
first inhabitants on the earth, we have the fact that it was, when necessary,
capable of breaking apart in order to punish the world, which had made itself
unworthy of such beauty, with deluges. Either a comet, whose power of
attraction brought the rule-bound movements of ring’s parts into total
confusion, or the cooling in the region where it was positioned united its
scattered vapour particles and hurled them down upon the ground in the most
horrifying of all inundations. We understand readily what the consequences of
this were. The whole world went under water and absorbed, in addition to the
foreign and volatile vapours of this unnatural rain, that slow poison which
brought all creatures closer to death and destruction. From now on the shape of
a pale light bow vanished from the horizon, and the new world, which could
never remember what this looked like without experiencing terror before this
fearful instrument of the divine revenge, saw perhaps with no less dismay in
the first rainfall that coloured bow which seems to develop its shape like the
first one, but which through the covenant of a forgiving heaven was to be a
sign of grace and a memorial to the lasting establishment of the now changed
surface of the Earth. The similarity in the form of this memorial sign to the
event I have described could make such a hypothesis appealing for those people
who follow the prevailing inclination to bring the wonders of revelation into
one system with the orderly laws of nature. I find it more advisable completely
to sacrifice the transitory approval which such agreement can arouse for the
true pleasure which comes from the perception of regular interconnections when
physical analogies reinforce each other in the designation of physical truths.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Part Two
Section Six
Concerning the Lights of the Zodiac
The sun is surrounded by a subtle and vaporous
essence, going around it at the level of its equatorial plane up to a great
altitude, with only a small extension on both sides. So far as this is
concerned, we cannot be certain whether, as M. de Mairan pictures it, it
touches the outer surface of the sun in the shape of an uneven polished lens (figura
lenticulari) or, like Saturn’s ring, is always located at a distance away.* It may be either of these. But sufficient similarity
remains to establish a comparison of this phenomenon with Saturn’s ring and to
infer a common origin. If this spread out material is something flowing out
from the sun, and it is most probable to consider it in that manner, then we
cannot miss the cause which has brought it to the common plane of the sun’s
equator. The lightest and most volatile material, which the sun’s fire raises
and has for a long time already raised from its outer surface will through the
same process expand far over it and remain suspended at a distance, according
to how light it is, where the forward driving effect of its rays comes into an
equilibrium with the gravitational power of these vapour particles, or they
will be reinforced by the stream of newer particles which continuously come up
to them from below. Now, because the sun, as it rotates on its axis, imparts to
these vapours torn away from its outer surface their regular motion, the latter
maintain a certain orbital momentum by which, in accordance with the central
laws, they are driven from both sides in their circular motion to intersect the
sun’s extrapolated equatorial plane. And thus, because they are driven down to
this in equal quantities from both hemi-spheres, they pile up there with equal
forces and form an extended flat surface on the designated solar equatorial
plane.
But regardless of this similarity with Saturn’s ring,
there remains a fundamental difference, which causes the phenomenon of the
zodiac light to differ considerably from Saturn’s ring. The particles of
Saturn’s ring maintain themselves in freely suspended circular orbits through
the implanted rotating motion; but the particles of the zodiacal light are kept
at their altitude by the power of the sun’s rays, without which their inherent
motion from the axial rotation of the sun would be far from sufficient to hold
them in free orbits and to prevent their falling down. For since the
centrifugal force of the axial rotation on the surface of the sun is not even
1/40000 of the power of attraction, these vapours which have moved upward would
have to be 40000 semi-solar diameters away from it in order to find at such a
distance a power of gravitation which could for the first time achieve an
equilibrium with their allotted motion. Thus, we are certain that this solar
phenomenon is not given to it in the same way as Saturn’s ring.
Nevertheless, there remains a not insignificant
probability that this solar necklace perhaps acknowledges the same cause which
nature collectively acknowledges, namely, the development out of the universal
basic material, whose parts, since they were suspended all around the highest
regions of the solar world, first moved down to the sun in a late descent only
after the full and complete development of the entire system, with weaker
curved motion, but still from west to east, and, thanks to this type of orbital
path, intersected the extrapolated solar equatorial plane. By their
accumulation there on both sides, once this motion stopped, they occupied a
plane stretching out in this location, where they now maintain themselves
always at the same altitude, in part through the power of repulsion of the
sun’s rays, in part through the real orbital motion they have attained. The
present explanation has no value other than what one gives to an assumption and
makes no demand other than for an arbitrary acceptance. The judgment of the
reader may direct itself to that option which seems to him most worthy of
adopting.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Part Two
Section Seven
Concerning Creation in the Total Extent of its Infinity
Both in Space and Time
With its immeasurable size and its infinite
multiplicity and beauty radiating out in all directions around it, the cosmic
structure presents a silent wonder. If the picture of all this perfection now
stirs the imaginative power, from a different perspective the understanding
derives another type of delight, when it observes how so much splendour, such
an enormous greatness, flows out from one single universal rule in an eternal
and justified order. The planetary structure in which the sun at the centre
makes the spheres found in its system orbit in eternal circles by means of its
powerful force of attraction is entirely developed, as we have seen, from the
originally distributed basic stuff of all planetary material. All the fixed
stars which the eye discovers in the high recesses of the heavens and which
appear to display a kind of extravagance are suns and central points of similar
systems. The analogy permits us here no doubt that these were built and
developed in the same manner as the one in which we find ourselves, from the
smallest particles of elementary materials which filled empty space, this
infinite extension of the Divine Presence.
Now, if all planets and planetary systems acknowledge
the same sort of origin, if the power of attraction is unlimited and universal,
if the power of repulsion of the elements is similarly continuously at work,
and if, in comparison with the Infinite, the large and the small are both
small, should not the cosmic structures have acquired in a like manner an
interconnecting relationship and a systematic coordination among themselves, as
the celestial bodies of our solar system have on a small scale, like Saturn,
Jupiter, and the Earth, which are special systems on their own and yet are linked
together amongst themselves as parts in an even greater system? If we take one
point in the infinite space in which all the suns of the Milky Way were
developed, a point around which, for some unknown reason, the first development
of nature out of chaos began, then at that location the largest mass and a body
of the most exceptional power of attraction will have arisen, which thus would
have become capable of forcing everything in a huge sphere around it in the
process of developing systems to move down towards it as their
central point and to build around it on a large scale a system like the one
which the same elementary basic material which developed the planets created
around the sun on a small scale. Observation makes this supposition almost
indubitable. The army of stars, through its orientation in relation to a common
plane, makes up a system just as much as the planets of our solar system do
around the sun. The Milky Way is the zodiac of these higher world orders, which
deviate from its zone as little as possible. Its band is always illuminated by
their lights, just as the zodiac of planets is illuminated here and there by
the shining of these spheres, although only in a very few points. Each one of
these suns, along with its orbiting planets, makes up a particular system of
its own, but this does not prevent them from being parts of an even greater
system, just as Jupiter or Saturn, in spite of their own satellites, are
confined in the systematic arrangement of an even greater cosmic structure. Can
we not acknowledge with such a precise harmony in the arrangement the same
cause and manner of production?
Now, if the fixed stars make up a system whose extent
is determined by the sphere of attraction of the body located at the centre,
will not more solar systems and, so to speak, more Milky Ways have arisen,
which were produced in the limitless field of space? With astonishment we have
seen figures in the heavens which are nothing other than such systems of fixed
stars restricted to a common plane, such Milky Ways, if I may express myself in
this way, which present themselves to our eyes in different positions with a
weakly glimmering elliptical shape appropriate to their infinite distance away.
They are systems, so to speak, of infinitely more infinite diameter than the
diameter of our solar system, but without doubt they arose in the same way, are
organized and arranged by the same causes, and maintain themselves by the same
dynamics as our system in its arrangement.
If we see these systems of stars once more as links on
collective nature’s great chain, we have just as many reasons as before to
think of them in a mutual relationship and in combinations which, thanks to the
laws governing throughout all nature, constitute the first development of a new
and even greater system, controlled by the force of attraction of a body with
incomparably more forceful attractive power than were all former systems, from
the centre of their rule-bound positions. The force of attraction, the cause of
the systematic arrangement among the fixed stars of the Milky Way, still works
even at the distance of these very cosmic structures to bring them out of their
positions and to bury the world in an unavoidable impending chaos, if the
allotted rule-bound forces of motion did not develop a counterweight to the
force of attraction and produce from the combination of the two of them that
relationship which is the basis of the systematic arrangement. The force of
attraction is without doubt a characteristic of matter as widely extensive as
the coexistence which creates space, because it unites substances through a
mutual dependency, or, to speak more precisely, the power of attraction is just
this common relationship which unites the parts of nature in space. Thus, it
expands through the total extent of space right into all its infinite
distances. If the light from these remote systems, which is only an impressed
movement, reaches us, must not the power of attraction, this primordial origin
of motion, which antedates all motion, which requires no foreign cause and
cannot be halted by any barrier, because it works in the innermost core of
matter in the universal calm of nature without any external impulse, must not
the force of attraction, I say, have set in motion these systems of fixed stars
with their material in an undeveloped scattering in the first movements of
nature, regardless of their immeasurable distances away, a motion which, as we
have seen on a small scale, is the very origin of the systematic union and the
enduring permanence of its links, the factor which keeps them secure from
collapse?
But then what will finally be the end of the
systematic arrangements? Where will creation itself cease? We well note that to
think of creation in relation to the power of the Infinite Being means it must
have no boundaries at all. We come no nearer to the infinity of the creative
power of God if we enclose the space of its revelation in a sphere described
with the radius of the Milky Way than if we enclose it in a ball with a
diameter an inch long. Everything finite which has its limits and a determined
relationship to unity is equally far away way from infinity. Now, it would be
absurd to set the Divine into effective action with an infinitely small part of
His creative capacity and to imagine His infinite power, the treasure house of
a true infinity of natures and worlds, incapacitated and locked into an eternal
deficiency in practice. Is it not much more appropriate or, to express the
matter better, is it not necessary to present the embodiment of creation as
something which cannot be measured by any standard, which is how it must be, in
order to bear witness to that power? For this reason the field of the
revelation of divine properties is just as infinite as these properties
themselves.* Eternity is not
sufficient to bear witness to the Highest Essence where it is not united with
spatial infinity. It is true that attraction, shape, beauty, and perfection are
relationships of the basic elements and of substance making up the material of
the cosmic structure. And we notice it in the arrangement which the wisdom of
God still effects at all times. It is also most appropriate to the wisdom of
God that these develop themselves as an unforced consequence out of the universal
laws implanted in them. And therefore we can with good reason establish that
the order and arrangement of the cosmic structure take place gradually from the
supply of created natural matter in a temporal succession. But the basic
material itself, whose properties and forces form the basis for all changes, is
an immediate result of the Diving Being and itself must be simultaneously so
rich and so perfect that the development of its compositions could in the flow
of eternity extend over a plan enclosing in itself everything which can be, a
plan which has no dimensions, which is, in short, infinite.
Now, if creation is spatially infinite or at least was
really already that from the beginning as far as its material is concerned or
according to its form or development is prepared to become so, cosmic space
will become active with worlds without number and without end. Will that
systematic union, which we have previously mentioned in particular among all
the particles, now extend to the totality and the universe collectively, the
All of nature, be tied together in a single system through the union of the
power of attraction and the centrifugal force? I say yes. If nothing but
separate cosmic structures without having among themselves any unifying
relationship to a totality were the only things present, then, if we were to
assume this chain of links as truly endless, we could imagine that a precise
equality in the power of attraction in its parts on all sides could keep this
system secure from destruction which the inner reciprocal force of attraction
threatens them with. But this condition needs to be determined with such
precise measurement of the distances carefully weighed against the power of
attraction that the slightest displacement would bring destruction to the
universe and would deliver it over to collapse. The time would be long, but
finally it would have to come to an end. A cosmic arrangement which did not
keep itself going in the absence of a miracle does not have the mark of
permanence which is the sign of God’s choice. Thus, we find it much more
appropriate if we make of creation collectively a single system creating all
worlds and world structures, which fill all infinite space and which are made
with reference to to a single central point. A scattered confusion of cosmic
structures, which might be separated from each other by distances as great as
you like, would have an unhindered tendency to rush to dissolution and
destruction, unless there were in place a certain arrangement in relation to a common
mid-point, the centre of the power of attraction in the universe and, because
of systematic movements, the foundation point of all nature.
Around this universal central point of downward
movement in all nature, both developed and raw, at which is undoubtedly located
the cluster with the most extensive power of attraction, encompassing in its
sphere of attraction all worlds and ordered systems which time has produced and
eternity will produce, we can probably assume that nature initiated its
development and also that there the systems have accumulated in the greatest
density but that further away from that mid-point, the systems are lost in ever
increasing stages of disorder in the infinity of space. We could assume this
principle from the analogy to our solar system, and this arrangement can, in
any case, serve to show that at great distances not only the common central
body but also all the systems moving in close proximity to it collectively
combine their power of attraction and, so to speak, out of a single cluster
exercise their effect on systems even further away. This will then help us to
grasp all nature in the entire infinity of its extent in one single system.
Now, in order to trace the foundation of this
universal system of nature from the mechanical laws of matter striving to
develop, in the endless space of the dispersed elementary basic material some
point or other of this matter must have accumulated with the greatest density,
so as to have assembled through the development going on there more than
anywhere else a mass which serves as the foundation point. It is indeed the
case that in an infinite space no point can really justifiably be called the
centre. But thanks to a certain relationship based upon the inherent levels of
density of the primordial stuff, according to which at the time of creation
this material had accumulated more densely particularly at one certain location
and its density had grown increasingly scattered with the distance away from
this point, such a place can have the privilege of being called the centre. And
it truly does become that through the development of the central mass because
of the strongest power of attraction in it. It becomes the point to which all
the remaining basic material incorporated in particular developments moves
down, and thus, no matter how far unfolding nature may extend, it creates out
of the entire totality only a single system in the infinite sphere of creation.
However, what is important and what, provided that it
wins approval, is worthy of the greatest attention is the fact that, as a
consequence of the ordering of nature in this system of ours, creation or,
rather, the development of nature, first begins with this central point and
with constantly progressive steps extends itself gradually out into all the
further distances, in order to fill limitless space with worlds and order in
the progress of eternity. Let us contemplate this picture with quiet pleasure
for a moment. I find nothing which can elevate the human spirit to a more noble
astonishment than this part of the theory concerning the successive completion
of creation, as it opens up for humanity a glimpse into the unending field of
the Almighty. If people grant me that the matter which is the building stuff of
all worlds is not homogeneous in the entire infinite space of the Divine
Presence but was distributed in accordance with a certain law which perhaps
concerned itself with the density of the particles and according to which with
the increasing distance from a certain point, like the location of the densest
accumulation, the scattering in this primordial material increases, then in the
original movement of nature the development will have started in the region
next to this centre and then, in a progressive temporal sequence, the more
remote space will have gradually developed worlds and planetary structures in a
systematic arrangement linked to this centre. Any one finite period, whose
duration is connected to the magnitude of the completed work, will, in its
development, always produce a sphere only a finite distance from this central
point. The remaining infinite part will meanwhile still be combating confusion
and chaos and will be that much further from a condition of complete
development, the further away it is located from the sphere of already
developed nature. As a consequence of this, although from the place where we
reside we have a view into, as it seems, a fully completed world and, so to
speak, into an infinite host of planetary structures which are systematically
united, nevertheless we find ourselves in reality only in proximity to the
mid-point of all nature, where it has already developed out of chaos and
attained its appropriate completion. If we could step over to a certain sphere,
we would there witness chaos and the scattering of the elements, which, in
proportion to their proximity to the central point partly leave their raw
condition and are closer to the completion of their development. But with the degrees of distance
away they gradually are lost in a total scattering. We would see how the
limitless space of the Divine Presence, in which we find the store of all
possible natural developments, buried in a quiet night, full of matter to serve
as the stuff of worlds to be produced in the future and full of the initiating
energies to bring it into motion. With a weak stimulus these begin those
movements with which immeasurable nature of this barren space is still to be
activated in the future. Perhaps a succession of millions of years and
centuries is to flow by before the sphere of developed nature in which we find
ourselves grows to the perfection now inherent in it. And perhaps an even
longer period will elapse before nature will take such a wide step into chaos.
But the sphere of developed nature is ceaselessly occupied with expanding
itself. Creation is not the work of a moment. After creation made a beginning
by producing an infinity of substances and materials, it is efficacious with
constantly increasing degrees of fecundity throughout the total succession of
eternity. Millions and whole mountains of millions of centuries will pass,
during which new worlds and new world systems will constantly develop and reach
completion, one after the other, in the expanses far from the central point of
nature. Regardless of the systematic arrangement among their parts, they will
have a common relationship to the central point, which became the first point
of development and the centre of creation through the capacity of the power of
attraction of its preponderant mass. The infinity of the future temporal
succession, for which eternity is inexhaustible, will thoroughly activate all
the spaces of God’s presence and gradually set it into rule-bound regularity,
appropriate to the excellence of its design. And if, in a daring picture, we
could, so to speak, sum up all eternity in a single idea, then we would be able
to see the entire infinite space filled with world systems and a completed
creation. However, because, in fact, in the temporal sequence of eternity the
part to come is always infinite and the part gone by is finite, the sphere of
developed nature is always only an infinitely small part of that being which
has in it the seeds of future worlds and strives to develop itself out of the
raw condition of chaos in long or short periods of time. Creation is never complete. True, it once
began, but it will never cease. It is always busy bringing forth new natural
phenomena, new things, and new worlds. The work which it brings into being has
a relationship to the time nature expends on it. It needs no less than an
eternity to bring the entire limitless extent of infinite spaces alive with
numberless worlds without end. We can say about creation what the noblest of
the German poets writes about eternity.
Eternity! Who knows you?
For you worlds are days and
humans moments.
Perhaps the thousandth sun is
now turning
And thousands still remain
behind.
Like a clock animated by a
weight,
A sun rushes by, moved by the
power of God.
Its impulse comes to an end,
and another throbs.
But you remain and do not count
them.
(von Haller)*
There is no small pleasure in letting one’s
imagination roam over the limits of completed creation into the space of chaos
and to see half raw nature in the vicinity of the sphere of the developed world
losing itself gradually through all the stages and shades of incompleteness in
the whole of undeveloped space. But is that not a culpable daring, people will
say, to throw down a hypothesis and to praise it as a design for the delight of
the understanding, a plan which is perhaps merely too arbitrary when we claim
that nature is only developed to an infinitely small extent and limitless
spaces are still at strife with chaos, so that they will display in the
succession of future times entire hosts of worlds and world systems in all
appropriate order and beauty? I am not so devoted to the consequences which my
theory offers that I should not acknowledge how the conjecture about the
successive expansion of creation through endless spaces containing material for
that purpose cannot fully counter the objection that it is beyond proof.
Meanwhile, however, I hope from those who are in a position to appreciate
levels of probability, that such a map of infinity, although it touches on a
plan that seems destined to be concealed forever from human understanding, will
not for that reason immediately be seen as a fantasy, especially when we take
the analogy as an aid which must always show us the way in such cases where the
understanding lacks the guiding threads of indubitable proofs.
However, we can still support the analogy with reasons
worthy of consideration. The insight of the reader who, I may flatter myself,
will approve will perhaps be able to multiply these reasons with even more
important ones. For when we consider that creation does not bring with it a
characteristic stability, insofar as it does not establish for the common
striving of the power of attraction, which works through all its parts, such a
precise universal modification which can sufficiently withstand the tendency of
this power to bring destruction and disorder, unless creation allotted the orbital
forces which, in combination with the central tendency, fixes in place a
systematic arrangement, then we will be required to assume a common central
point for the entire totality of worlds, a point which holds all the parts of
this totality together in a united relationship and makes only one system out
of the entire essence of nature. If, in addition to this, we pursue the idea of
the development of world bodies out of scattered elementary matter, as we have
outlined the subject previously, but do not limit the idea here to one
particular system, and instead extend it to all nature, then we will have to
imagine such a distribution of the basic matter in the space of primordial
chaos which naturally involves a central point of all creation, so that in the
latter the effective mass which encompasses all nature collectively in its
sphere of attraction brings the material
together and makes the general relationship work, so that all worlds make up
only one single structure. However, in limitless space a sort of distribution
of the primordial basic material can hardly be imagined which is to establish a
true central point towards which collective nature is to sink down, other than
one in which the distribution is arranged according to a law of increasing disorder
from this point out into all the far distances. This law, however, at the same
time establishes a difference in the time which a system requires in the
different regions of limitless space to come to its mature development. This
period is shorter, the closer the location of the development of a world system
is to the centre of creation, because in the closer region the elements of
matter have accumulated more thickly; by contrast, the further the distance
away from this centre, the longer the time required, because the particles
there are more scattered and are later in coming together in order to develop.
If people consider the entire hypothesis that I have
drawn up to the full extent of what I have said, as well as what I will still
actually present, they will at least not think that the boldness of its claims
cannot be excused. We can estimate the inevitable tendency which each world
system brought to completion has to move gradually towards its destruction
among the reasons which can establish that the universe, in contrast to that
destruction, will be fertile with worlds in other regions, to make up for the
deficiency which it has suffered in one location. Although the entire part of
nature that we know about is only equivalent to an atom in comparison with what
remains hidden above or below our horizons, it nevertheless confirms this
fertility of nature, which is without limit, because it is nothing other than
the working out of the Divine Omnipotence itself. Numberless animals and plants
are destroyed every day and are a sacrifice to mortality. But nature, with its
inexhaustible productive capacity, creates just as many over again in other
places and fills up the emptiness. Considerable parts of the earth’s surface
which we inhabit are being buried once again in the sea out of which they were
pulled at a favourable time. But in other places, nature makes up for the loss
and produces other areas which were hidden deep under water, in order to extend
over these areas new riches from her fertile store. In the same way, worlds and
world systems go under and are swallowed up in the abyss of eternity. But, on
the other hand, creation is always busy organizing new developments in other
regions of the heavens and making up for the loss with advantage.
We should not be amazed to admit mortality even in the
greatness of God’s works. Everything finite, with a starting point and a cause,
has within itself the mark of its limited nature. It must die and have an end.
On account of the excellence of its arrangements, the duration of a world
system has a inherent permanence which, according to our ideas, comes close to
a limitless time span. Perhaps a thousand, perhaps millions of centuries will
not destroy it. But because vanity, which adheres to finite natures, works
continuously for their destruction, so eternity will hold in itself all
possible periods, in order finally to bring about through a gradual decay the
moment of its collapse. Newton, this great admirer of the attributes of God in
the perfection of His works, the one who with the deepest insight into the
excellence of nature combined the greatest devotion for the revelation of
Divine Omnipotence, saw himself compelled to predict the decay of nature
through the natural tendency which the mechanics of movement had to bring it
about. If a systematic arrangement comes close to a state of confusion as the
essential result of its fallibility over a long period of time, even in the
very smallest part that we can imagine, then in the endless current of eternity
there must be a moment in time when this gradual diminution exhausts all
movement.
However, we must not lament the destruction of a
cosmic structure as a real loss for nature. It demonstrates its richness with a
kind of dissipation which, while a few parts pay tribute to mortality,
maintains it undamaged in the full extent of nature’s perfection with
numberless new productions. What a countless number of flowers and insects a
single cold day destroys. But how little we miss them, regardless of the fact
that they are beautifully natural works of art and proofs of Divine
Omnipotence! In another place, this death will be made up once again with
excess. Humanity, which appears to be the masterpiece of creation, is itself no
exception to this law. Nature shows that it is just as rich and just as
inexhaustible in the production of the most excellent of creatures as it is of
the most insignificant and that even their destruction is a necessary shadow
amid the multiplicity of its suns, because producing humanity cost nature
nothing. The harmful effects of infected air, earthquakes, and inundations wipe
out entire peoples from the surface of the earth, but it does not appear that
nature has suffered any damage because of this. In the same way, entire worlds
and systems leave the stage when they have played out their roles. The infinite
nature of creation is large enough that it looks upon a world or a Milky Way of
worlds in comparison with it as we look upon a flower or an insect in
comparison with the Earth. In the meantime, while nature beautifies eternity
with changing scenes, God remains busy with a ceaseless creation, forming
material for the development of even greater worlds.
Who
sees with equal eye, as God of all,
A hero perish, or a sparrow fall,
Atoms or systems into ruin
hurl’d,
And now a bubble burst, and now
a world.
(Pope)*
Let us therefore get our eyes used to these terrifying
collapses as the customary methods of providence and look at them with even a
kind of pleasure. In fact, nothing is more appropriate to the richness of
nature than this. For when a world system in the long sequence of its duration
exhausts all the multiplicity which its organization can contain, when it has
now become an expendable link in the chain of being, then nothing is more
fitting than that it play the last role in the drama of the passing changes of
the universe, which is part of every finite thing, namely, it gives up what it
owes to mortality. Nature demonstrates, as mentioned, even in the small parts
of its being this rule of its processes, which eternal fate has prescribed for
it on a large scale. And I repeat that the magnitude of what is to pass away is
in this matter not the slightest obstacle, for everything large becomes small.
Yes, it becomes, so to speak, just a point, if we compare it with the infinity
which creation will present throughout the succession of eternity in limitless
space.
It appears that for worlds, as for all natural things,
this fatal ending is subject to a certain law whose consideration gives the
theory a new appropriate feature. According to this principle, the fatal ending
originates among those celestial bodies located closest to the central point of
the universe, just as the production and development first began close to this
mid-point. From there the decay and destruction gradually work their way
outward into the further distances, in order to bury all the world which has
gone through its time, by means of a gradual decline in its motions, finally in
a single chaos. On the other hand, nature is ceaselessly busy on the borders
opposite to the developed world producing worlds from the raw material of the
scattered elements, and while nature on one side close to the mid-point is
aging, so on the other side it is young and fertile in new generations. The
developed world, according to this, finds itself in a limited space in the
middle, between the ruins of what has been destroyed and the chaos of
undeveloped nature. And if we imagine, as is probable, that a world already
growing to completion could last a longer time than it required to become
developed, then the extent of the universe will in general increase, regardless
of all the destruction which mortality ceaselessly brings about.
However, if we are still willing to allow an idea
which is just as probable as the arrangement of the divine works is
appropriate, then the satisfaction aroused by such a description of nature’s
changes will be raised to the highest level of delight. Can we not believe that
nature, which was capable of setting itself up out of chaos into a rule-bound
order and a finely tuned system, is equally in a position just as easily to
organize itself once more out of the new chaos, into which the diminution of
its motions has lowered it, and to renew the first unity? Might the springs
which brought the scattered material stuff into motion and order not be able
once more to be made effective by extended forces after the motionlessness of
the machine has rendered them inert and, through the very same universal
principles, be harmoniously restricted in the way in which the original
development was produced? We will not examine the matter very long before conceding
this, if we consider that, after the final exhaustion of the orbital motions in
the cosmic structure has thrown the planets and comets together down onto the
sun, the sun’s fire must increase immeasurably through the mixing of so many
large bodies, especially since the distant spheres of the solar system, as a
consequence of the theory we have previously established, contain the lightest
and most effective fuel in all nature. This fire, given the highest intensity
by the new fuel and the most volatile materials, will without doubt not only
break down everything into the smallest elements once more but will also in
this way spread them out with an expansive force appropriate to the heat and at
a velocity which is not weakened by any resistance in the middle region. It
will scatter and spread them out once again in the same wide space which they
occupied before the first development of nature, so that, after the intensity
of the central fire is damped down by the almost total destruction of the sun’s
mass, through the combination of the forces of attraction and repulsion the old
generations, together with their systematically interrelated movements, will be
repeated with no less regularity and will present a new cosmic structure. Thus,
when a particular planetary system suffers destruction in this way and has been
re-established by the fundamental forces, when indeed this play repeats itself
again as before, then finally the period approaches when, in the same manner,
the large system of which the fixed stars are links will collectively
experience chaos through the lessening of it motions. We will have even fewer
doubts here that the uniting of such an endless number of rich fiery
storehouses as these burning suns, together with their attendant planets, will
scatter the material making up their masses, which has been dissolved by the
indescribable inferno, in the old space of the sphere in which they developed,
and there the materials will provide for new developments through the same
mechanical laws. As a result of this, the barren space can become active with
worlds and systems once more. When we follow this phoenix of nature, which is
only burned up in order to live again, renewed once more from its ashes,
through all infinity of times and spaces, when we see how it progresses, even
in the region where it decays and grows old, inexhaustible in new phenomena
and, on another border of creation, in the space of undeveloped raw matter,
with constant strides to unfold the plans of the divine revelation in order to
fill eternity as well as all spaces with its wonders, then the spirit thinking
about all this is lost in deep astonishment. But still dissatisfied with such
great events as these, whose mortality cannot adequately satisfy the soul, he
wishes to learn at close hand about that Being whose understanding and whose
greatness are the fountain of that light which extends itself over all nature,
as it were, from a central point. With what kind of awe must the soul not
contemplate its very own essence, when it observes that it is to survive even
all these changes. It can say to itself what the philosophical poet says
concerning eternity:
When then a second night
will bury this world,
When from everything nothing
remains but the place,
When still many other heavens bright with
other stars
Will have completed their
course,
You will be as young as now,
just as far from death
As eternally alive as now.
(von Haller)
O how happy the soul, when among the tumult of the
elements and the ruins of nature, it is at any time set on a height from which
it can see rushing past, as it were, below its feet the devastation which the
frailty of worldly things brings about! A blessedness which the understanding
is never permitted to dare to expect teaches us to hope with conviction for the
revelation. For when the bindings which keep us tied to the vanity of living
creatures fall away in the moment established for the transformation of our
being, then the immortal soul, freed from its dependency on finite things, will
find in the companionship with the infinite essence the enjoyment of true
blessedness. All nature, which has a universal harmonious relationship to the
pleasure of the Deity, can fill that reasoning creature with nothing but
eternal satisfaction, which finds itself united with this original fountain of
all perfection. Nature seen from this central point will show on all side
nothing but security, nothing but propriety. The changing natural scenes are
not able to upset the calm bliss of a soul which has once been lifted up to
such a height. While it already tastes in advance this condition with a sweet
hope, it can set its mouth to work on those hymns of praise with which in
future all eternity will resound.
When
Nature fails, and day and night
Divide thy works no more,
My ever grateful heart, O Lord,
Thy mercy shall adore.
Through all Eternity to Thee
A joyful song I’ll raise;
For, oh! Eternity’s too short
To utter all Thy praise.
(Addison)*
[Back to Table of Contents]
Part Two
Supplement to Section Seven
Universal Theory and History of the Sun in General
There is still a major question the answer to which is
essential in the natural theory of the heavens and in a complete cosmogony,
namely, why will the middle point of every system consist of a burning body?
Our planetary system has the sun as the central body, and the fixed stars
visible to us are, all things considered, mid-points of similar systems.
In order to grasp why in the development of a
planetary structure the body serving as the mid-point of the power of
attraction must have a fiery body, while the other circular structures in the
sphere of its power of attraction remain dark and cold world bodies, we need
only remember the way in which a planetary system is produced, something we
have outlined in detail in the previous parts. In the greatly expanded space in
which the spread out elementary basic material prepares developments and
systematic movements, the planets and comets are built up only out of those
parts of the elementary basic matter moving downward towards the central point
of the force of attraction which, through their fall and the reciprocal
interaction of the particles collectively, were precisely adjusted for the
velocity and direction required for orbital motion. This portion is, as has
been established above, the smallest part of the total amount of matter moving
downward and, in fact, is only what is left over of the denser varieties, which
have been able to attain the degree of precision from the resistance of the
other parts. In this mixture there are particularly light types of matter
floating around, which, hindered by the resistance of space, do not in their
descent push on through to the velocity appropriate to periodic orbits and
which therefore, given the weakness of their orbital impetus, will all
collectively fall down to the central body. Now, because these lighter and
volatile parts are also the most effective at maintaining a fire, we see that,
with their addition the body at the central point of the system has the
distinction of becoming a flaming sphere, in a word, a sun. By contrast, the
heavier and inert materials and those particles which are poor fuel for a fire
will make planets which are robbed of these properties merely cold and dead clusters.
This addition of such light materials is also the
reason why the sun ends up with a smaller specific density, so that it is even
four times less dense than our Earth, the third planet away from the sun,
although it is natural to think that in this central point of the planetary
structure, as its lowest point, the heaviest and densest sorts of material are
to be found and that without the addition of such a large amount of the
lightest matter its density would exceed that of all planets.
The intermixing of the denser and heavier types of
elements with these lightest and most volatile ones serves also to make the
central body suitable for the most intense blaze which is to burn and maintain
itself on its outer surface. For we know that the fire in whose nourishing fuel
dense materials are found mixed in with volatile matter has the advantage of a
greater intensity than those flames which are sustained only by the light
varieties of matter. However, this mixture of some heavier sorts among the
lighter types is a necessary consequence of our theory about the development of
world bodies. It even benefits from the fact that the force of the heat does
not immediately scatter the burning material on the outer surface and that the
fire will be gradually and constantly fed by the fuel supply within the planet.
Now that we have resolved the question why the central
body of a large system of stars is a flaming sphere, that is, a sun, it appears
not irrelevant to concern ourselves with this subject some more and to
investigate the state of such a celestial body in a careful examination,
especially since the assumptions can here be derived from more effective
reasons than are commonly used where investigations into the composition of
distant celestial bodies are concerned.
To begin with, I firmly maintain that we can have no
doubt that the sun is truly a flaming body and not a mass of smouldering and
glowing material heated to the highest degree, as a few people have wished to
infer from certain difficulties they claim to find in connection with the
former view. For when we consider that a flaming fire has this fundamental
distinction over and above every other form of heat, that it, so to speak,
works on its own, instead of being diminished or exhausting itself by sharing
its heat and that through this it rather acquires even more strength and
intensity and thus requires only material and fuel to maintain itself so as to
keep going continuously, whereas, by contrast, the glow of a mass heated to the
highest degree is in a merely passive condition, which by the common
interaction with the material in contact with it constantly diminishes and has
no forces of its own to expand from a small beginning or to revive itself again
should it diminish, when we consider this, I say, (and I am not mentioning the
other reasons) then we will already be sufficiently capable of seeing that that
property must, in all probability, be attributed to the sun, the fountain of
light and heat in every planetary system.
Now, if the sun, or rather suns in general, are
flaming spheres, then the first requirement of their outer surfaces, which we
can deduce from this point, is that air must be found on them, because without
air no fire burns. This condition gives rise to remarkable consequences. For,
first of all, if we first establish the atmosphere of the sun and its weight in
relationship to the sun’s cluster, how compressed will this air be and how
capable will it become on account of this very compression to maintain the most
intense level of fire through its elasticity [Federkraft]? According to
all assumptions, in this atmosphere, the clouds of smoke from the materials
broken up by the flames (which, we cannot doubt, have a mixture of coarse and
lighter particles in them), once they have risen up to an altitude which keeps
the air cooler for them, fall down with heavy rains of pitch and sulphur and
provide new fuel for the flames. This very atmosphere is also, for the same
reasons as on our Earth, not free from the motions of the winds, which,
however, according to this view, must far exceed in intensity everything that
the power of the imagination can merely picture. When some region or other on
the surface of the sun, either through the suffocating force of the vapours
pouring out or because of the limited supply of combustible material, sees the
eruption of flames diminish, then the air above cools to some extent, and since
it is contracting, makes room for the air in the immediate vicinity to rush
into its space with a force proportional to its expansion and to re-ignite the
extinguished flames.
However, all flames always consume a great deal of
air, and there is no doubt that the elasticity of the volatile elements of the
air which encircle the sun must, in this way, over time suffer not
insignificant damage. If we apply here on a large scale what Mr. Hales has,
through careful research, proven in this matter with respect to the effect of
flames in our atmosphere, then we can see the ceaseless striving of the
particles of smoke coming out of the flames to destroy the elasticity [Elasticität]
of the sun’s atmosphere as a serious problem, the solution to which is
associated with difficulties.* Because the flames which burn over the entire surface
of the sun themselves consume the air essential for their combustion, the sun
is in danger of going out entirely when the largest portion of its atmosphere
has been consumed. True, from the dissolution of certain materials fire also
produces air. But the experiments demonstrate that more is always consumed than
produced. In fact, when a part of the sun’s fire under the suffocating vapours
is deprived of the air which serves to maintain it, then, as we have already
noted, violent storms destroy the vapours and work to carry them away. But on a
large scale we will be able to make the replacement of this necessary element
understandable in the following manner, if we bear in mind that in the case of
a flaming fire the heat acts almost exclusively above it and only a little underneath
it. When it has suffocated for reasons we have cited, its intensity turns to
the inside of the sun’s body and forces the deep hollow places to let the air
enclosed in their depths break out and renew the fire once more. If, using that
freedom permitted in dealing with such unknown circumstances, we assume there
are in these depths special materials which, like saltpetre, are inexhaustibly
rich with elastic air, then the sun’s fire will not be able to suffer easily
from a deficiency for an extremely long period, because the supply of air is
constantly renewed.
However, we do see the clear marks of mortality also
in this inestimably valuable fire which nature sets up as the world’s torch.
There comes a time when it will be extinguished. The dispersal of the most
volatile and finest materials, which, scattered by the intensity of the heat,
never turn back again, and add to the stuff of
the zodiacal light, the accumulation of incombustible and burned out
materials, for example the ashes on the surface, and finally the lack of air
will establish an end point when the sun’s flames at some point in the future
go out and eternal darkness will take over in its place, now the central point
of light and life of the entire planetary structure. The alternating impulse of
its fires by which it opens new caverns to become vital again and through which
it renews itself perhaps several times before being overcome could provide an
explanation for the disappearance and renewed illumination of a few fixed
stars. There would be suns which are close to being extinguished and which
still strive a number of times to live on from their debris. This explanation
may win approval or not, but we will certainly let this idea serve for us to
recognize that since, in one way or another, an unavoidable decay threatens the
perfection of all planetary systems, we will find no difficulty with the laws
referred to previously concerning their collapse through the tendency of the
mechanical arrangement, which will, nonetheless, be particularly worthy of
acceptance, since it brings with it the seeds of a renewal in the interaction
with chaos.
Finally, let us use the power of our imaginations to
picture such an amazingly strange object as a burning sun, as it were, at close
hand. We see at a glance wide seas of fire, raising their flames towards the
heavens, frantic storms, whose fury doubles the intensity of the burning seas,
while they themselves make the fiery seas overflow their banks, sometimes
covering the higher regions of this world body, sometimes allowing them to sink
back down within their borders. Burned out rocks extend their frightening peaks
up above the flaming chasms, whose inundation or exposure by the seething fiery
element causes the alternating appearance and disappearance of the sun spots.
Thick vapours which suffocate the fire, lifted up by the power of the winds,
make dark clouds, which in fiery downpours crash back down again and as burning
streams flow from the heights of firm land of the sun into the flaming valleys,
the cracking of the elements, the debris of burned up material and nature
wrestling with destruction—these bring about, along with the most awful
condition of their disorder, the beauty of the world and the benefits for its
creatures.*
If, then, the mid-points of all large planetary
systems are burning bodies, then we can assume that this is most particularly
the case with the central body of that immeasurable system which comprises the
fixed stars. Now, if this body, whose mass must be proportional to the
magnitude of its system, were a self-illuminating body or a sun, will it not be
visible with a exceptional illumination and size? However, we do not see
anything like such a predominantly different fixed star shining out among the
host in the heavens. In fact, we must not think it strange if such a thing does
not occur. If the mass of such a sun was equivalent to a mass 10000 times
greater than our sun, nevertheless, if we assume its distance away was 100
times greater than the distance of Sirius, it could appear no larger or
brighter than Sirius.
However, perhaps it is reserved for future ages to
discover at some later date at least the region where the central point of the
system of fixed stars to which our sun belongs is located or perhaps really to
determine where we must place the central body of the universe towards which
all its parts aim with a common downward motion.* As for what the composition of this fundamental part
of the entire creation may be and what may be found on it, we wish to leave it
to Mr. Wright from Durham to determine. With a fantastic enthusiasm, in this
happy place he elevates, so to speak, on a throne of nature collectively a
powerful being of the divine variety, with spiritual forces of attraction and
repulsion, which, effective in an infinite sphere around it, draws all virtue
to it but pushes back all vice. We do not wish to allow the daring of our
conjectures, which we have permitted perhaps too much, to slip the reins into
arbitrary poetical fictions. The Godhead is equally present in the infinity of
the entire cosmic space everywhere. Wherever there are natures capable of
rising above creature dependency into the company of the Highest Essence, that
Essence will be immediately close at hand. The entire creation is permeated by
His forces, but only that person who knows how to liberate himself from the
living creature, the person who is noble enough to appreciate that only in the
enjoyment of this original fountain of perfection is the highest level of
blessedness to be sought alone and by himself, only that person is capable of
finding himself closer to this true point interconnecting all excellence than
to any other place in all nature. Meanwhile, if I, without sharing the Englishman’s
enthusiastic picture, am to offer my conjectures about the different levels of
the spiritual world from the physical relationship of their dwelling places in
relation to the mid-point of creation, then I would seek with more probability
the most perfect classes of reasoning beings further from this mid-point rather
than close to it. The perfection of creatures endowed with reason, insofar as
they are dependent on material composition, in connection with which they are
limited, depends a very great deal on the fineness of the material stuff whose
influence determines these creatures in their perception of the world and in
their response to it. The inertia and resistance in matter excessively restrict
the freedom of the spiritual beings in their work and in the clarity of their
sensations of external things. It dulls the edge of their capabilities, since
they cannot obey their movements with appropriate facility. For when we assume,
as is likely, that the densest and heaviest sorts of materials are close to the
mid-point of nature and, by contrast, that the increasing degrees of fineness
and lightness are at the greater distances in the same proportion as in the
analogy which governs our planetary structure, then the result is
understandable. The reasoning beings whose place for development and habitation
is located closer to the mid-point of creation are sunk in a stiff and immobile
matter, which keeps their powers enclosed in an invincible inertia and is
equally incapable of transmitting and reporting on the impressions of the
universe with the necessary clarity and ease. Thus, we will have to count these
thinking beings in the low group. By contrast, with the distances away from the
common centre, this perfection in the spiritual world, which rests on the
reciprocal dependency of it on matter, will grow as if on a constant scale. At
the lowest depths toward the sinking point, therefore, we have to place the
poorest and least perfect groups of thinking creatures and below this is the
place where in all shades of diminution the excellence of beings finally loses
itself in the utter lack of thought and reflection. In fact, if we consider
that the central point of nature marks simultaneously the start of its
development out of raw matter and its frontier with chaos, if we establish in
addition that the perfection of spiritual beings, which really have an
outermost border marking their beginning, where their capabilities jostle back
and forth with unreason, but which have no limit to going forward over which they
cannot be raised and instead discover in that direction a complete infinity in
front of them, then, if indeed there is to be a law according to which dwelling
places are distributed for reasoning creatures in accordance with the order of
their relationship to the common mid-point, we will have to put the lowest and
least perfect types, which, as it were, make up the beginning of the family of
the spiritual world, in that place designated the start of the entire universe,
in order at the same time as this to fill in the same forward movement all
infinity of time and space with endlessly growing levels of perfection of the
thinking capacity and, as it were, gradually to come closer to the goal of the
highest excellence, namely, to the Godhead, but without ever being able to
attain that.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Part Two
Section Eight
General Proof of the Correctness of a Mechanical
Theory, of the General Arrangement of the Planetary Structure, in particular of
the Correctness of the Present Theory
We cannot look at the planetary structure without
recognizing the supremely excellent order in its arrangement and the sure marks
of God’s hand in the perfection of its interrelationships. After reason has
considered and wondered at so much beauty and excellence, it rightly grows
indignant at the daring foolishness which permits itself to ascribe all this to
chance and a happy contingency. There must have been a Highest Wisdom to make
the design, and an Infinite Power must have produced it. Otherwise it would be
impossible to encounter in the planetary structure so many purposes cooperating
in a single intention. It comes down only to deciding whether the plan for the
structure of the universe is already set in the fundamental composition of
eternal natures by the Highest Understanding and implanted in the eternal laws
of motion, so that they develop themselves freely from them in a manner
appropriate to the most perfect order or whether the general characteristics of
the component parts of the world are completely incapable of harmony and have
not the slightest united relationship and it must have absolutely required an
alien hand to produce that restriction and coordination which permit us to see
the perfection and beauty in it. An almost universal judgment has made most
philosophers oppose the capability of nature to produce something ordered
through its universal laws, just as if it meant that we were challenging God’s
rule over the world, when we seek the primordial developments in the forces of
nature, as if these forces were a principle independent of the Godhead and were
an eternally blind fate.
However, if we consider that nature and the eternal
laws prescribed for substances in their reciprocal relationships are not a
self-sufficient, necessary principle with no connection to God, and, for that
very reason, we see that because nature demonstrates so much harmony and order
in what it produces by universal laws, the essential natures of all things must
have their common origin in one particular Original Essence, and that for this
reason nature must reveal nothing but mutual interrelationships and harmony,
because its properties originate in one single Highest Intelligence, whose wise
idea has planned it with universal interconnections and has planted in it that
capability, whereby, left alone in its own state to do its work, it brings
forth nothing but beauty, nothing but order; when we, I say, consider this,
then nature will seem more worthy to us than it commonly appears, and we will
expect nothing from natural developments but harmony, nothing but order. If we,
by contrast, permit an ungrounded judgment that the universal natural laws in
and of themselves produce nothing but disorder, and that all the coordination for
useful purposes shining forth in relation to natural arrangements reveals the
immediate hand of God, then we will be forced to transform all nature into
miracles. We will have to account for the beautifully coloured bow appearing
amid the rain drops, when it separates the colours of the sun’s light, on the
basis of its beauty, the rain on the basis of its benefits, the winds on the
basis of the indispensable advantages which they bring in countless ways in
answer to human needs, in short, we must not explain all the changes of the
world which bring delight and order with them on the basis of implanted natural
forces of matter. The natural scientist who begins by surrendering to such a
philosophy will have to make a solemn apology before the judgment seat of
religion. In fact, there will then be no more nature. There will be only a God
in the machine who produces the world’s changes. But what then will this
curious method of demonstrating the certain existence of a Highest Being out of
the fundamental incapacity of nature prove by way of an effectively counter to
Epicurus? If the natures of things bring forth by the eternal laws of their
being nothing but disorder and absurdity, then they will show in that very
manner the nature of their independence from God. What sort of an idea will we
be able to create for ourselves of a divinity whom the universal natural laws
obey only through some sort of compulsion and in and of themselves act against
the wisest designs of the Divinity? Will the enemy of providence not win just
as many victories from these false basic principles, when he can point to
harmonies which the universally effective natural laws produce without any
special limitations? And is it possible that he would really lack examples of
such things? By contrast, let us with greater propriety and correctness
conclude the following: nature left to its general properties is fertile in
nothing but beautiful and perfect fruits, which not only display in themselves
harmony and excellence, but also are in harmony to the total extent of their
being with benefits for humanity and with the glorification of the properties
of God. From this it follows that its fundamental characteristics can have no
independent necessity but that they must have their origin in a Single Intelligence,
the basis and the fountain of all being, in which they are designed according
to common interrelationships. All things connected together in a reciprocal
harmony must be united among themselves in a single being on which they
collectively depend. Thus, there is present a Being of all beings, an Infinite
Intelligence and Self-sufficient Wisdom, from which nature, even in its
potentiality, draws its origin according to the whole embodiment of its
purposes. From now on we must not deny the capacity of nature, claiming it is
disadvantageous to the existence of a Highest Being. The more perfect nature is
in its developments, the better its universal laws lead to order and harmony,
then the more certain the proof of the Godhead from which nature derives these
relationships. Its productions are no longer effects of contingency and results
of accidents. Everything flows from it according to unchanging laws which thus
must display nothing other than nature’s skill, because they are exclusively
features of the wisest of all designs from which disorder is prohibited. The
chance collisions of the atoms of Lucretius did not develop the world.
Implanted forces and laws which have their source in the Wisest Intelligence
were an unchanging origin of that order inevitably flowing out from nature, not
by chance, but by necessity.
If we can thus dispense with an old and ungrounded
judgment and the shoddy philosophy which seeks to hide under a pious appearance
an indolent lack of wisdom, then I hope to base a sure conviction on
incontrovertible reasons that the world gives evidence of a mechanical
development from the general natural laws as the origin of its arrangement and,
secondly, that the manner of the mechanical development which we have presented
is the true one. If we wish to render judgment whether nature is
sufficiently capable of bringing into existence the ordering of the planetary
structure through a mechanical sequence of its laws of motion, then we must
first consider how simple the movements are which the celestial bodies observe:
they have nothing inherently in them which requires a more precise
determination than what the universal rules of natural forces bring with them.
The orbital movements arise from the combination of the force moving downward, which
is a certain consequence of the properties of matter, and the projectile
movement, which can be seen as the effect of the first, as a velocity attained
through the fall downward in which only a certain cause was necessary to
deflect the vertical fall sideways. After once attaining the required
determination of these movements, nothing else is necessary to maintain the
orbital motions permanently. They arise in empty space through the combination
of the projectile force, once impressed, with the power of attraction flowing
from fundamental natural forces, and from that point on they suffer no change.
The analogies in the harmony of this movement themselves demonstrate the
reality of a mechanical origin so clearly that we can entertain no doubts about
it, for the following reasons:
1. These movements have a continuous shared direction:
of the six main planets and the ten satellites, not a single one moves, either
in its forward motion or in its axial rotation, in any other direction than
from west to east. Moreover, these directions are so precisely coordinated that
they deviate only a little from a common plane, and this plane, to which
everything is related, is the equatorial plane of the body which rotates on its
axis at the central point of the entire system in exactly the same direction
and which has become, through its predominant power of attraction, the
reference point for all motions and thus necessarily participates in them as
precisely as possible. This is proof that the collective movements arose and
were determined in a mechanical way in accordance with general natural laws,
that the cause which either impressed or guided the sideways movements governed
all the space of the planetary structure and there obeyed the laws which
materials located and moving in a common space observe, and that all the
different movements finally assume a single direction to align themselves as
precisely as possible with a single plane.
2. The velocities are constituted as they must be in a
space where the force of movement is at the central point, namely, they
decrease in steady degrees with the distances from this point and are lost in
the remotest distances with a total exhaustion of movement, which displaces the
vertical fall to the side only very slightly. Beyond Mercury, which has the
greatest orbital force, we see these velocities diminish in stages and in the
outermost comets they are as insignificant as they can be without falling
straight down toward the sun. We cannot object that the rules of the central movements
in circular orbits require that the closer to the mid-point of the general
downward motion, the faster the orbital velocity must be. For why must the particular celestial bodies near to
this centre have circular orbits? Why are the closest ones not very eccentric
and the ones further away not orbiting in circles? Or rather, since they all
deviate from this measured geometric precision, why does this deviation
increase with the distances? Do these relationships not indicate a point to
which all movement originally was directed and, according to the measure of its
proximity to this point, attained a greater level of precision, before other
determining factors changed its directions into what they are now?
If, however, we now wish to exclude the planetary
structure and the origin of movements from the general natural laws in order to
ascribe them to the immediate hand of God, then we immediately realize that the
analogies referred to openly contradict such an idea. For, firstly, with
reference to the general harmony in direction, it is clear that here there is
no reason why the celestial bodies must organize their orbits precisely in one
single direction, unless the mechanics of their development had determined the
matter. For the space in which they move provides an infinitely small
resistance and limits their movements as little in one direction as in another.
Thus, God’s choice would not have the slightest motive for tying them to one
single arrangement, but would reveal itself with a greater freedom in all sorts
of deviations and difference. There is still more. Why are the planetary orbits
so exactly related to a common plane, namely, to the equatorial plane of that
large body which rules their orbits in the mid-point of all motion? This
analogy of the immediate hand of God, instead of showing a reason for its
inherent propriety, is rather the cause of a certain confusion, which would be
removed through a free deviation in the planetary orbits. For the forces of
attraction of the planets now disturb to a certain extent the similarity in the
form of their movements, and they would not obstruct one another at all, if
they were not so precisely moved to a common plane.
Even more than all these analogies, the clearest mark
of the hand of nature is revealed in the lack of the most precise determination
in those relationships which it has striven to attain. If it were for the best
that the planetary orbits were oriented almost on a common plane, why are they
not oriented with extreme precision? And why has a portion of that deviation
remained in place, when it should be avoided? If, therefore, the orbits of
planets near the sun have received a large enough orbital momentum to maintain
an equilibrium with the force of attraction, why is there still something
lacking for a complete equilibrium? And why are their orbits not perfectly
circular, if only the Wisest Intention, reinforced with the greatest
capability, worked to produce this arrangement? Is it not clear to see that the
cause which set up the orbital paths of the celestial bodies, while striving on
its own to bring them to a common plane, could not achieve that completely and
that, in the same way, the force which governed celestial space when all
matter, now developed into spheres, received its orbital velocities, really
worked to bring the spheres near the mid-point into an equilibrium with the
force pulling downward, but was unable to achieve complete precision. Can we
not here recognize the general method of nature, which, because of the
interference of the different interactions, is always made to deviate from
exactly determined measurements? And will we really find the reasons for this
way of constructing things only in the end purposes of such an immediately
commanding Highest Will? We cannot, without demonstrating stubbornness, deny
that the estimable way of explaining the characteristics of nature through a
recitation of their benefits does not in this instance contain the hoped for
proof to demonstrate a basis for it. Certainly, with respect to benefits for
the world, it was entirely irrelevant whether the planetary orbits were fully
circular or a little eccentric, or whether they fully coincided with the common
interrelating plane or should still deviate somewhat from it. Rather, if it was
indeed necessary to be restricted with this sort of harmony, then it would be
best for them to have it completely in themselves. If what the philosopher said
is true, that God constantly practices geometry, and if this is reflected in
the methods of the general natural laws, then certainly this principle of the
immediate work of the Omnipotent Will would be perfectly traceable and the
latter would reveal in itself all the perfection of geometrical precision. The
comets belong among these natural deficiencies. We cannot deny that, with
respect to their paths and the changes they thereby undergo, we should see them
as imperfect links in creation, which can neither serve to provide comfortable
dwelling places for reasoning beings nor to become useful for the greatest good
of the entire system, in that they, as has been conjectured, could at some
point have served the sun as nourishment. For it is certain that most comets
would not achieve this purpose before the collapse of the entire planetary
system had been reached. In the theory of the immediate highest organizing of
the world without a natural development from universal natural laws such an
observation would be objectionable, although at the same time it is certain. But
in a mechanical form of explanation, the beauty of the world and the revelation
of omnipotence of the Almighty are glorified by this in no small way. Since
nature contains in itself all possible stages of heterogeneous variety, it
extends its circumference over all types from perfection to nothingness, and
even the deficiencies are a sign of the excess for which its essence is
inexhaustible.
We can believe that the analogies cited could well
prevail over prejudice to make the mechanical origin of the planetary system
worthy of adopting, if certain reasons derived from the very nature of the
subject did not still seem to contradict this theory completely. Celestial
space, as has already been mentioned several times, is empty, or at least
filled with infinitely sparse material, which, as a result, can provide no
means of impressing the common motions on celestial bodies. This difficulty is
so significant and valid that Newton, who had reason to trust the insights of
his philosophy as much as any other mortal, saw himself compelled here to
abandon the hope of resolving through natural law and material forces the
transmission of the orbital forces present in the planets, in spite of all the
harmony which pointed to a mechanical origin.* It is a troubling decision for a
philosopher to give up the effort of an investigation in the case of a compound
phenomenon which is still remote from the simple basic laws and to be satisfied
with the reference to the immediate hand of God. Nevertheless, Newton
acknowledged here the dividing line separating
nature and the finger of God from each other, the pattern of set laws of
the former and the nod of the latter. After the doubt of such a great
philosopher, it may appear presumptuous still to hope for some fortunate
progress in a matter of such difficulty.
But this very difficulty which deprived Newton of the
hope of understanding on the basis of natural forces the orbital forces
allotted to the heavenly bodies, whose direction and arrangements make up the
system of the planetary structure, was the origin of the theory which we have
presented in the previous sections. It sets up a mechanical theory, but one
which is far from the one which Newton found unsatisfactory and on account of
which he rejected all basic causes, because, if I may be so bold as to say it,
he made a mistake in maintaining that his doctrine was the only possible one of
its kind. It is quite easy and natural, with the help of Newton’s difficulty,
from a short and basic conclusion to reach certainty about the mechanical style
of explanation which we have set down in this treatise. If we presuppose (and
we cannot do otherwise than acknowledge the fact) that the previous analogies
establish with the greatest certainty that the harmonious and well-ordered
interrelated movements and orbits of the celestial bodies point to a natural
cause as their origin, then this cause cannot be the same material which now
fills celestial space. Thus, the material which earlier filled these expanses
and whose movement was the reason for the present orbiting of the heavenly
bodies, after it had collected on these spheres and thus cleaned out the spaces
which we now see as empty, or, what flows directly from this, the materials
themselves out of which the planets, the comets, even the sun are made up, must
at the start have been spread out in the space of the planetary system and, in
this condition, have set themselves in the motions which they maintained when
they united in particular clusters and developed the celestial bodies, which
contain in themselves all the previously scattered matter making up the worlds.
We have little difficulty seeing in this idea the mechanical impulse which
might have set in motion this material of self-developing nature. The very impulse
which brought about the union of the masses, the force of attraction, which is
inherently present in matter and which thus, with the first stirring of nature,
is really suitable to consider the first cause of motion, was the source of
that mechanical impulse. The direction which, through the effects of this
force, always aims right at the mid-point,
here creates no problems. For it is certain that the fine material of
the scattered elements in its vertical motion downward must have developed
motion in different directions both through the heterogeneity of the points of
attraction and through the obstacles which their vectors create by intersecting
with each other. Among these motions the certain natural law which causes all
materials restricting each other through reciprocal interaction finally to be
brought to a condition where they induce change in each other as little as
possible produces both the uniformity in the direction and the appropriate
levels of velocity, which are carefully balanced at each distance according to
the centripetal force. Through the combination of these, the elements do not
strive to deviate either above or below, for all the elements thus have been
made to run, not just in one direction, but also in almost parallel free circles
around the common point of downward motion in the sparse celestial space. These
movements of the particles must have kept going from this time on, once the
planetary spheres had developed out of them, and remain in place now, through
the combination of the sideways momentum implanted once and the centripetal
force, for an unrestricted future period. On this basic principle, so easy to
grasp, rest the uniformity in the directions of the planetary orbits, the
precise relationship to a common plane, the amount of the projectile impetus
appropriate to the power of attraction at a location, the decreasing precision
of these analogies over distance, and the free deviation of the outermost
celestial bodies on both sides as well as in the opposite direction. If these
indications of the reciprocal dependency in the requirements for development
point with more obvious certainty to a material in motion originally
distributed through all space, then the total lack of all materials in this now
empty celestial space, except for what the bodies of the planets, the sun, and
the comets are composed of, proves that this very material would have had to
have been at the start in a condition of being spread out. The ease and
correctness with which all the phenomena of the planetary structure have been
derived from the assumption of this basic principle in the previous sections is
the completion of such a conjecture and gives it a value which is no longer
arbitrary.
The certainty of a mechanical theory for the origin of
the planetary structure, particularly of ours, will be elevated to the highest
peak of conviction, if we consider the development of the celestial bodies
themselves, the importance and size of their masses, according to the
relationship which they have with respect to their distance from the central
point of gravitation. For in the first place, the density of their material,
when we consider them as a total cluster, decreases in constant stages with
distances from the sun, a fixed condition which points so clearly to the
mechanical arrangements of the initial development that we can demand no more.
They are put together out of materials in such a way that those of the heavier
sort have reached a deeper position in relation to the common point of downward
motion and, by contrast, the lighter sort a distance further away. This
condition is necessary in all sorts of natural development. But with an
arrangement issuing from the immediate Divine Will, there is not the slightest
reason to encounter the relationships mentioned above. For although it might
immediately seem that spheres further away must consist of lighter materials so
that they could not notice the necessary effect of the diminished force of the
sun’s rays, this purpose pertains only to the composition of the material
located on the outer surface and not to the deeper varieties on the inside of
its cluster. The heat of the sun never has any effect on these inner materials,
which serve only to make effective the planet’s power of attraction, which is
to make the bodies moving around it sink down towards it. Therefore, they
cannot have the slightest relationship to the strength or weakness of the sun’s
rays. If we then ask why the densities of the Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, as
determined by the correct calculations of Newton, stand in relation to each
other as 400 to 94.5 to 64, then it would be absurd to attribute the cause to
God’s intention, which adjusted the densities according to the degrees of solar
heat, for then our Earth can serve as a counterexample. In the case of the
Earth, the sun only affects such a small part under the outer layer with its
rays, that the part of the Earth’s cluster which must have some relationship
with these rays does not by a long way make up the millionth part of the total
planet. And the remaining part is entirely indifferent in this matter. Thus, if
the material of which the celestial bodies consist has a well-ordered
relationship in mutual harmony with the distances and if the planets cannot now
restrict each other, separated as they are from each other in empty space, then
their matter must have previously been in a condition where they were able to
bring about a common effect on one another in order to limit them to locations
proportional to their specific gravity. This could have happened only if their
parts before development had been spread out in the entire space of the system
and if they took up locations appropriate to their densities, in accordance
with the general laws of motion.
The relationship among the sizes of the planetary
masses, which increases with distances, is the second reason by which the
mechanical development of the celestial bodies, and especially our theory of
that, is clearly demonstrated. Why do the masses of the celestial bodies
approximately increase with the distances? If we subscribe to a theory which
assigns everything to God’s choice, then no purpose can be imagined why the
further planets have to have larger masses other than the fact that because of
the preponderant strength within their sphere of attraction they would be able
to hold onto one or several moons, which are to serve the inhabitants destined
for the planets by making their stay comfortable. But this purpose could have
been achieved just as well by a preponderant density in the interior of their
clusters. And why then would the lightness in the material flowing from special
grounds, something which goes against this relationship, have had to remain and
be so overwhelmed by the preponderance of the volume that the mass of the higher
planets became more significant than the mass of the lower ones? When we do not
take into account the manner of the natural development of these bodies, then
we have difficulty being able to provide a reason for this relationship. But in
the light of mechanical theory nothing is easier to grasp than this
arrangement. When the material of all planetary bodies was still spread out in
the space of the planetary system, the power of attraction developed spheres
out of these particles. Undoubtedly the spheres must have been bigger the
further the location of their developing globe was away from that common
central body, which from the mid-point of the entire space limited and hindered
this combining as much as it could by means of its powerful force of attraction.
We will notice with satisfaction the features of this
development of the celestial bodies from basic material spread out at the start
in the width of the intervening spaces separating their orbits from each other.
These, according to this concept, must be deemed empty compartments from which
the planets have appropriated the materials for their development. We perceive
how these intervening spaces between the orbits have a relationship to the size
of the masses which developed out of them. The width between the orbits of
Jupiter and Mars is so large that the space enclosed in it exceeds the area of
all the lower planetary orbits taken together. But it is worthy of the largest
of all the planets, the one which has more mass than all the others collectively.
We cannot attribute this distance of Jupiter from Mars to the intention that
their powers of attraction were to interfere with each other as little as
possible. For according to such a reason, the planet between two orbits would
always find itself closest to the planet whose power of attraction combined
with its own could disturb their dual orbits around the sun as little as
possible; as a result, the planet would be closer to the one with the smallest
mass. Now, according to the correct calculations of Newton, the force with
which Jupiter can affect the orbit of Mars is related to the force which it
exercises on Saturn through their combined forces of attraction is as 1/12512
to 1/200. So we can easily calculate by how much Jupiter would have had to be closer
to the orbit of Mars than to that of Saturn, if their distance away had been
determined with their external relationship in mind and not through the
mechanism of their development. However, this phenomenon is quite different.
For in relation to the two orbits above and below it, a planetary orbit often
stands further away from the one in which a smaller planet runs than from the
path of the larger mass of the two. However, the extent of the space around the
orbit of each planet always has a correct relationship to its mass. Thus, it is
clear that the manner of their development must have established these
relationships and that, because these arrangements seem to be bound up with
this development, as their causes and effects, we will in reality estimate it
most correctly if we consider the space included between the orbits as the
container of that material out of which the planets were built. From this it
immediately follows that the size of these spaces must be proportional to
masses of the planets. However, this relationship will be augmented with the
further planets because of the greater scattering of the basic material in
their first state in these regions. Therefore, of two planets which are almost
equal to each other in mass, the one further away must have a larger space in
which to develop, that is, a greater distance to the two nearest orbits, both
because the material there was inherently of a specifically lighter variety and
because it was more widely scattered than in the case of the planet which
developed closer to the sun. Thus, although the Earth together with the moon
still does not appear to be equal to Venus in its physical contents,
nevertheless, it required for itself a greater room for development, because it
had to be built out of a more scattered material than this lower planet. For
these reasons, we can assume, so far as Saturn is concerned, that its sphere of
development stretched much further on the distant side than on the side of the
central point (as this holds true for almost all planets). Consequently, the
intervening space between Saturn’s orbit and the path of the higher celestial
body next to Saturn, which we can assume is above it, will be much wider than
the space between Saturn and Jupiter.
Thus, everything in the planetary structure proceeds
in stages out into all limitless distances with accurate relationships to the
first force of development, which was more effective near the central point
than far away. The diminution of the impressed projectile motion, the deviation
from the most precise agreement in the direction and the orientation of the
orbits, the densities of the celestial bodies, the scarcity of nature in
relation to the space where they developed, everything diminishes stage by
stage from the centre into the far distances. Everything shows that the first
cause was bound up with the mechanical rules of movement and did not take place
through a free choice.
But what illustrates as clearly as anything else the
natural development of the celestial bodies out of the basic material
originally spread out in the now empty celestial space is the agreement, which
I take from M. de Buffon (which, however, in his theory does not by a long way
have the benefit it does in ours). For, according to his observation, if we add
up together the planets whose masses we can determine by calculation, namely,
Saturn, Jupiter, Earth, and the Moon, they give a cluster whose density stands
in relation to the density of the body of the sun as 640 to 650. In this
comparison, since these are the major parts of the planetary system, the
remaining planets (Mars, Venus, and Mercury) hardly merit counting. Thus, we
will with good reason be astonished at the remarkable equality which governs
between the materials of the planetary structure collectively, if we consider it as a single united cluster, and
the mass of the sun. It would be an irresponsible foolishness to ascribe this
analogy to chance, that materials, among a variety so infinitely different that
there are a few encountered even on our Earth which are fifteen thousand times
more dense than others, nevertheless comes so near a ratio of 1 to 1 in the
total. And we must concede that, if we consider the sun as a mixture of all
types of matter, which in the structure of the planets are separated from each
other, all of them together seem to have developed in one space, originally
full of material uniformly spread out. These materials were collected on the
central body without distinction. For the development of the planets, however,
they were divided up in proportion to the altitudes. I leave it to those who
cannot subscribe to the mechanical development of the celestial bodies to
explain from the motives of God’s choice such a remarkable arrangement as this,
if they can. I will finally stop establishing more proofs for a matter of such
convincing clarity as the development of the planetary structure out of the
forces of nature. If people are in a position to remain unmoved in the midst of
so many convincing details, then they must either lie far too deep in the bonds
of prejudice or be entirely incapable of rising above the jumble of received
opinions to the observation of the purest truth of all. Meanwhile, we can
believe that nobody except the very foolish, on whose approval we may not count,
can deny the correctness of this theory, if the harmonies which the planetary
structure has in all its links to the benefits of reasoning creatures did not
appear to have something more than general natural laws as its basis. We
believe correctly that skilful arrangements which point to a worthy purpose
must have as their originator a Wise Intelligence, and we will become
completely satisfied when we consider that, since the natures of things
acknowledge no other original source than just this, their fundamental and
universal arrangements must have a natural inclination to proper and really
mutual harmonious consequences. We will thus not allow ourselves to feel
strange if we become aware of the arrangements of the planetary structure rich
in mutual advantages for creatures and attribute these to a natural consequence
arising out of the general laws of nature. For what issues from these is not
the effect of blind accident or of unreasoning necessity. It is, in the last
analysis, based upon the Highest Wisdom from which the universal arrangements
derive their harmony. One conclusion is entirely correct: If, in the
arrangement of the world, order and beauty shine forth, then a God exists. But
another is no less well established: If this order could have emerged from the
general natural laws, then all of nature is necessarily the effect of the
Highest Wisdom.
If people nevertheless let themselves at their own
discretion acknowledge the immediate application of the Divine Wisdom in all
the ordering of nature, which includes in itself harmony and beneficial
purposes, while they do not credit the development out of general laws of
motion with any harmonious consequences, then I would like to advise them in
their contemplation of the planetary structure to direct their eyes not to a
single celestial body but to the totality, in order to tear themselves for once
away from this delusion. If the steep inclination of the Earth’s axis in
relation to the plane of its annual orbit is to be a proof of the immediate
hand of God because of the well loved changes in the seasons, then people
should insist on this relationship in connection with the other celestial
bodies. Then they will become aware that it is different in each one and that
in this difference there are even some planets that do not have this feature at
all, as, for example, Jupiter, whose axis is perpendicular to the plane of its
orbit, and Mars, whose axis is almost perpendicular. Both of these enjoy no
difference in the seasons and are, nonetheless, as much works of the Highest
Wisdom as the others are. The moon satellites of Saturn, Jupiter, and the Earth
would seem to be special configurations of the Highest Being, if the free
departure from this purpose throughout the entire planetary system did not
illustrate that nature produced these arrangements without being disturbed by
an extraordinary constraint in its free actions. Jupiter has four moons, Saturn
five, the Earth one, and the other planets none at all, although it immediately
seems that the other planets were in greater need of moons than the former
group because of their longer nights. If we admire the proportional equilibrium
of the projectile force impressed on the planets with the centripetal force at
their distance as the reason why they run almost in circles around the sun and
are adapted to be residences for reasoning creatures because of the uniformity
in the heat distributed in this way and look upon that as the immediate finger
of the Almighty, then we will be led back at once to the general laws of
nature, when we consider that this planetary arrangement loses itself gradually
with all grades of diminution in the depths of the heavens and that even the
Highest Wisdom, which derived satisfaction from the regularity of planetary
motion, did not exclude the deficiency with which the system ends, since it
runs out in complete irregularity and disorder. Regardless of the fact that it
is essentially established for perfection and order, nature includes in itself
in the range of its multiplicity all possible changes, even deficiency and
deviation. Just this unlimited fecundity of nature has produced the inhabited
celestial globes, as well as the comets, the useful mountains and the harmful
cliffs, the habitable landscapes and barren deserts, the virtues and vices.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Universal History of Nature and Theory of Heaven
Part Three
which contains in it an attempt, based on natural
analogies, to establish a comparison between the inhabitants of different
planets.
He, who through vast immensity can pierce,
See
worlds on worlds compose one universe,
Observe
how system into system runs,
What
other planets circle other suns,
What
varied Being peoples every star,
May tell
why Heaven has made us as we are.
(Pope)*
Appendix
In my view it is a disgrace to the nature of
philosophy when we use it to maintain with a kind of flippancy free-wheeling witty
displays having some apparent truth, unless we are immediately willing to
explain that we are doing this only as an amusement.* Thus, in the present essay I will not introduce any propositions
except those which can really expand our understanding and which are at the
same time so plausibly established that we can scarcely deny their validity.
It may appear that in this sort of project the freedom
to be poetical has no real limits, that in judging the make-up of those who
live in distant worlds we could allow unbridled fantasy much more free rein
than a painter in an illustration of the flora and fauna of undiscovered lands,
and that these very ideas could not be proved right or wrong. Nevertheless, we
must admit that the distances of the celestial bodies from the sun involve
certain relationships which bring with them a vital influence on the different
characteristics of the thinking natures found on these very bodies. Their way of
working and suffering is associated with the composition of the material to
which they are bound and depends upon the quantity of impressions which the
world arouses in them, according to the relationship of their living
environment with the centre of the power of attraction and heat.
I am of the opinion that it is not particularly
necessary to assert that all planets must be inhabited. However, at the same
time it would be absurd to deny this claim with respect to all or even to most
of them. Given the richness of nature, where worlds and systems are only sunny
dust specks compared to the totality of creation, there could, in fact, also be
deserted and uninhabited regions without the slightest function in nature’s
purpose, namely, the contemplation by sensible beings. It would be conceded,
even if one wished to consider things on the basis of God’s wisdom, that sandy
and uninhabited deserts make up large stretches of the earth’s surface and that
there are in the earth’s oceans abandoned islands where no human being is
found. Meanwhile, a planet is far less in relation to the totality of creation
than is a desert or an island in relation to the earth’s surface.
Perhaps all the celestial bodies have not yet
completely developed. Hundreds and maybe thousands of years are necessary for a
large celestial body to reach a stable material condition. Jupiter still
appears to be in this state of disharmony. The remarkable changes in its form
at different times have already led astronomers for a long time to assume that
the planet must be experiencing large upheavals and is a long way from having a
calm outer surface, a condition which must pertain for a planet to be
inhabited. If Jupiter is uninhabited and even if it is never to have any
inhabitants, would that not be an infinitely small natural expenditure compared
to the immeasurable size of the total creation? And if nature were carefully to
display all her richness in every point of space, would that not be much more a
sign of nature’s poverty than of her abundance?
But it is more satisfying for us still to assume that
if Jupiter is uninhabited right now, nonetheless the planet will be inhabited
in the future, when it has had time to develop completely. Our Earth perhaps
existed for a thousand years or more before it was in a condition to be able to
support human beings, animals, and plants. The fact that a planet reaches this
complete state only after a few thousand years does nothing to detract from the
reason for its existence. For this very reason the planet will be around for a
longer time in the future in its state of complete development, once it has
attained it. For there is a certain natural principle that everything which has
a beginning gets steadily closer to its dissolution and that much closer to
destruction the further it is from its origin.
One can only approve of the satirical portrayal by
that witty person from the Hague who, after quoting the general news from the
scientific world, could humorously present the imaginary picture of the
necessary habitation of all planets. “Those creatures who live in the forests
of a beggar’s head,” he says, “had for a long time thought of their dwelling
place as an immeasurably large ball and themselves as the masterworks of
creation. Then one of them, whom Heaven had endowed with a more refined soul, a
small Fontenelle of his species, unexpectedly learned about a nobleman’s head.
Immediately he called all the witty creatures of his district together and told
them with delight: ‘We are not the only living beings in all nature. Look here
at this new land. More lice live here.’”* If
the final part of this conclusion provokes laughter, that happens not because
it is far removed from the way human beings judge things, but because that very
same mistake, which among human beings has basically a similar cause, seems
more excusable in our case.
Let us judge in an unprejudiced manner. This insect,
which in its way of living as well as in its lack of worth expresses very well
the condition of most human beings, can be used for such a comparison with good
results. Since, according to the louse’s imagination, nature is endlessly well
suited to its existence, it considers irrelevant all the rest of creation which
does not have a precise goal related to its species as the central point of
nature’s purposes. The human being, who similarly stands infinitely far from
the highest stages of being, is sufficiently bold to flatter himself with the
same imaginative picture of his existence as essential. The limitlessness of
creation contains within itself, with equal necessity, all natures which its
superbly fecund richness produces. From the most refined classes of thinking
beings right down to the most despicable insect, no link is irrelevant to
nature. And not a single one can fail to appear without in the process
fracturing the beauty of the whole, which consists in the interrelatedness.
Meanwhile, everything is determined by universal laws which nature effects
through the combination of forces originally planted in it. Because nature’s
process produces only what is appropriate and ordered, no particular purpose is
permitted to disturb and break her results. In its initial development a
planet’s creation was only an infinitely small consequence of nature’s fertility,
and it would now be somewhat absurd that nature’s well-grounded laws should
defer to the specific purposes of this atom. If the composition of a celestial
body establishes natural barriers against its becoming inhabited, then it will
not have inhabitants, even though in and of itself the planet would be more
beautiful if it had its own population. The excellence of creation loses
nothing in such a case, for among all large quantities the infinite is the one
which is not diminished by the subtraction of a finite part. It would be as if
one wished to complain that the space between Jupiter and Mars is unnecessarily
empty and that there are comets which are not populated. In fact, however, that
insect may appear as unworthy to us as we wish, but to nature it is certainly
more appropriate to maintaining its entire class than a small number of more
excellent creatures, of which there would nevertheless be infinitely many, even
if one region or locale should lack them. Because nature is endlessly fertile
in producing both species, in their preservation and their destruction we
really see both equally abandoned disinterestedly to the universal laws.
Indeed, has the possessor of those inhabited forests on the beggar’s head ever
created greater disasters among the races of this colony than the son of Philip
brought about among the race of his fellow citizens, when his wicked genius
gave him the idea that the world was created only for his sake?*
However, most of the planets are certainly inhabited,
and those that are not will be in the future. Now, what sort of
interconnections will be brought about among the different types of these
inhabitants through the relationship between their place in the cosmic
structure and the central point from which the warmth which gives life to
everything extends outwards? For it is certain that, with the materials of
these celestial bodies this heat will bring with it certain relationships in
their compositions proportional to the distance from the centre. In this
comparison, the human being, who is, among all sensible beings, the one we know
most clearly, although at the same time his inner composition is still an
unexplored problem, must serve as the foundation and common reference point. We
do not wish here to comment on his moral characteristics or even on the
physical arrangement of his structure. We want only to explore how the capacity
to think sensibly and the movement of
his body, which obeys that, suffer restrictions because of the material
composition to which he is linked, proportional to the distance from the sun.
Regardless of the infinite distance encountered between the power of thought
and the movement of matter, between the reasoning spirit and the body, it is
nevertheless certain that a human being, who receives all his ideas and
conceptions from impressions which the universe awakens in his soul by means of
the body, both with respect to their clarity and to the skill of combining and
comparing them, which we call the capacity for thought, is totally dependent on
the composition of this material stuff to which the Creator has bound him.
The human being is created to take in the impressions
and emotions which the world is to arouse in him through that very body, which
is the perceptible part of his being. The body’s material serves not only to
impress on the imperceptible spirit which lives inside him the first ideas of
the external world but also is indispensable in its inner working for repeating
these impressions and linking them together, in short, for thinking.* As a person’s body grows, his intellectual
capabilities also proportionally attain the appropriate stage of full
development and first acquire a staid and soberly mature capacity when the
fibres of his corporeal machine have gained the strength and endurance which
mark the completion of their development. Those capabilities develop early
enough within him, thanks to which he can cope sufficiently with the
necessities of life to which he is bound by dependence on external things. Some
people’s development remains at this level. The ability to combine abstract
ideas and, through a free use of one’s understanding, to gain control over
passionate tendencies comes late. Some never reach this state during their entire
lives. However, in all people this ability is weak; it serves the more
primitive forces which it should nonetheless govern. In the control of these
lower forces consists the good quality of a person’s nature. When we consider
the life of most people, it seems that this creature has been created to absorb
liquids, like a plant, to grow, to propagate the species, and finally to grow
old and die. Among all living things, human beings are the poorest at realizing
the purpose of their existence, because they exhaust their excellent
capabilities in those pursuits which other creatures, with far less capability,
nonetheless attain more confidently and conveniently. The human being would
even be the creature most worthy of contempt among all of them, at least from
the point of view of true wisdom, if the hope for the future did not elevate
him and if the time for a full development of the powers closed up inside him
did not lie in store.
When we look for the cause of the obstacles which keep
human nature so debased, we find it in the coarseness of the material stuff in
which his spiritual component is buried, in the stiffness of the fibres and the
sluggishness and immobility of the fluids which should obey the movements of
his spirit. The cerebral nerves and fluids provide him only crude and unclear
ideas, and because he cannot offset the provocation of sensory stimulations in
the inner workings of his thought process by means of sufficiently powerful
ideas, he is taken over by his passions and dulled and disturbed by the turmoil
of elements which maintain his machine. The attempts of reason to stand up
against this and to drive away the confusion with light from the power of
judgment are like moments of sunshine when thick clouds constantly interrupt
and darken their serenity.
This coarseness in the stuff and fabric of the
constitution of human nature is the cause of that lethargy which keeps the
soul’s capabilities continually weak and powerless. Coping with reflections and
ideas clarified by reason is an exhausting condition. The soul cannot be placed
in it without resistance. And because of a natural tendency the physical
machine soon falls out of that state back into a condition of suffering, since
sensory stimulations have a determining influence on and govern all its
behaviour.
This lethargy in his power to think, a consequence of
the dependence on a crude and awkward material, is the source not only of vice
but also of error. The soul is held back because of the difficulty involved in
the effort to scatter the clouds of confused notions and to distinguish
universal knowledge, which arises from comparing ideas, from sense impressions,
and prefers to bestow a quick approval on and is content with the possession of
an opinion which the sluggishness of its nature and the resistance of the
material scarcely allow it to see in perspective.
In this dependency, the spiritual capabilities
disappear at the same time as the vitality of the body. When, on account of the
weakened circulation of the fluids, extreme old age keeps warm in the body only
thick juices, when the flexibility of the fibres and the agility in all
movements decrease, then the powers of the spirit congeal in a similar fatigue.
Rapidity of thought, clarity of ideas, liveliness of wit, and the capacity of
memory grow feeble and cold. The ideas which, through long experience, have
become ingrained still compensate to some extent for the departure of these
powers, and the understanding would betray its incapacity even more clearly, if
the intensity of passions, which require its rein, did not decline at the same
time and even earlier.
From all this it is clear that the powers of the human
soul are limited and hemmed in by the obstacles of a coarse material stuff to
which they are most intimately tied. But there is still something all the more
worth remarking: the fact that this specific composition of the stuff has an
essential relationship to the degree of influence with which the sun enlivens
it and makes carrying out the animal functions efficient, an influence
proportional to its distance away. This necessary connection with the fire
which spreads out from the mid-point of the planetary system so as to maintain
the required motion in the material stuff is the basis for an analogy which
will be firmly established here between the different inhabitants of the
planets. Thanks to this relationship, every single class of these inhabitants
is bound by the necessity of its nature to the place which has been allocated
to it in the universe.
The inhabitants of Earth and Venus would not be able
to exchange their living environments without the mutual destruction of both.
The material out of which the inhabitants of Earth are made is proportional to
the degree of heat for their distance from the sun. Thus, it is too light and
volatile for an even greater heat, and in a hotter sphere it would suffer from
violent movements and a breakdown of its nature, arising from the scattering
and drying up of the fluids and a violent tension in its elastic fibres. The
inhabitants of Venus, whose cruder structure and sluggishness in the elements
of their formation require a stronger solar influence, would in a cooler
celestial region freeze and die from a lack of vitality. In the same way, the
body of an inhabitant of Jupiter would have to consist of far lighter and more
volatile material, so that the very small motion which the sun can induce at
this distance away could move these machines just as powerfully as it does in
the lower regions. I summarize all this in one general idea: the material
stuff out of which the inhabitants of different planets, including even the
animals and plants, are made must, in general, be of a lighter and finer type,
and the elasticity of the fibres as well as the advantageous construction of
their design must be more perfect in proportion to their distance away from the
sun.
This relationship is so natural and well grounded that
not only do the fundamental motives of higher purpose, which in the study of
nature are normally considered merely weak reasons, lead to it, but also at the
same time the proportions of the specific composition of the materials making
up the planets confirm it. These are derived from Newton’s calculations as well
as from the basic principles of cosmogony, which endorse the same principle
according to which the material stuff out of which the celestial bodies are
built is always of a lighter type in the more distant ones than in those closer
to the sun. This point must necessarily bring with it a similar relationship
for the creatures which develop and maintain themselves on them.
We have established a comparison between the material
composition which sensible creatures on the planets essentially have in common.
Thus, following the introduction of this concept, it is easy to consider that
these relationships will also lead to a result which, so far as their spiritual
capacities are concerned, has a necessary dependence on the material of the
machine which they inhabit. Thus, we can conclude with more than probable
assurance that the excellence of thinking natures, the speed of their
imaginations, the clarity and vivacity of their ideas, which come to them from
external stimuli, together with the ability to combine ideas, and finally, too,
the rapidity in actual performance, in short, the entire extent of their
perfection, is governed by a particular rule according to which these
characteristics will always be more excellent and more complete in proportion
to the distance of their dwelling places from the sun.
Since this relationship is so plausible that it is
almost a demonstrated certainty, we have an open field for pleasant
speculations arising from the comparison of the characteristics of these
different inhabitants. Human nature, which in the scale of being holds, as it
were, the middle rung, is located between the two absolute outer limits of
perfection, equidistant from both. If the idea of the most sublime classes of
sensible creatures living on Jupiter or Saturn provokes the jealousy of human
beings and discourages them with the knowledge of their own humble position, a
glance at the lower stages brings content and calms them again. The beings on
the planets Venus and Mercury are reduced far below the perfection of human
nature. What a view worthy of our astonishment! On one side we saw thinking
creatures among whom a Greenlander or a Hottentot would be a Newton; on the
other side we saw people who would admire Newton as if he were an ape.
Superior beings, when of late they saw
A moral Man unfold all Nature’s
law,
Admir’d such wisdom in an
earthly shape,
And shew’d a NEWTON as we
shew an Ape.
(Pope)*
What an advance in knowledge will the insight of those
blissful beings of the highest celestial spheres not attain! What beautiful
results will this illumination of knowledge not have for their moral
constitution! When intellectual insights have the appropriate level of
perfection and clarity, they have in themselves far more vital charms than the
attractions of sense and are able to govern these successfully and tread them
underfoot. How beautifully will the very Godhead, who pictures Himself in all
creatures, present His own portrait in these thinking beings; like a sea
unmoved by storms of passion, they will calmly receive and shine back His
image! We will not extrapolate these assumptions beyond the limits prescribed
for a physical treatise; only we do once again take note of the above mentioned
analogy that the perfection of the spiritual as well as the material worlds
in the planets from Mercury right up to Saturn, or perhaps beyond Saturn
(insofar as there are still other planets), grows and advances in an
appropriate sequence of stages proportional to their distance from the sun.
Since this principle flows, in part, naturally from
the consequences of the physical interrelationship between the dwelling places
and the centre of the system, it is, to that extent, appropriately acceptable.
On the other hand, a real look at the most excellent habitations prepared for
the superb perfection of these natures in the higher regions confirms this rule
so clearly that it should almost demand complete assent. The active speed
associated with the merits of a lofty nature is better fitted to the rapidly
changing time periods of the higher spheres than the slowness of lethargic and
more imperfect creatures.
Telescopes teach us that the changes in day and night
on Jupiter occur in ten hours. What would an inhabitant of Earth really do with
this division of time, if he were placed on this planet? The ten hours would
scarcely be sufficient for the rest this crude machine requires to recuperate
in sleep. What would the preparation for going through waking up, getting
dressed, and the time taken up with eating demand as a share of the available
time? And how would a creature whose activities occur so slowly not be rendered
confused and incapable of anything effective when his five hours of business
would be suddenly interrupted by an intervening period of darkness of exactly
the same duration? However, if Jupiter is inhabited by more perfect beings who
combine more elastic forces and a greater agility in practice with a more refined
development, then we can believe that these five hours are for them exactly
equivalent to and more than the twelve hours of the day for the humble class of
human beings. We know temporal demands are somewhat relative. This cannot be
known and understood except from a comparison of the size of the task which is
to be performed and the quickness with which it is carried out. Thus, the very
same time which for one type of creature is, as it were, merely an instant can
for another creature be a long period in which a large sequence of changes
develops because of its speed and efficiency. According to plausible
calculation of the axial rotation of Saturn, which we have dealt with above,
the planet has a very much shorter division of day and night. It therefore
allows us to assume even more advantageous capabilities in the nature of its
inhabitants.
Finally, everything comes together to confirm the
proposed principle. Nature has visibly distributed her goods as richly as
possible to the far regions of the world. The moons, which compensate the
active beings of these blissful regions for the loss of daylight with a
sufficient substitute, are placed in that area in the greatest number, and
nature appears to have taken care to make them effective with its full
assistance, so that there is be scarcely any time when the moons are prevented
from using it. So far as moons are concerned, Jupiter has an obvious advantage
over all the lower planets, and Saturn once again has the advantage over
Jupiter. The arrangement whereby Saturn has the beautiful and useful ring going
around it probably creates even greater advantages for its composition. By
contrast, the lower planets, for whom this advantageous feature would be a
useless waste and whose class approaches much more closely the borders of irrationality, either do not share such an
advantage at all or only very little.
However (and here I anticipate an objection which
could destroy all the harmony I have mentioned) we cannot consider the greater
distance from the sun, this source of light and life, as nothing but a drawback
for which the spaciousness of the dwelling places in the further planets would
serve as only a partially useful remedy, making the objection that in fact the higher planets
have a less advantageous situation in the cosmic structure, a position which
would be injurious to the perfection of those abodes, because they receive a
weaker influence from the sun. For we know that the effects of light and heat
are determined, not by their absolute intensity, but by the capacity of the
material stuff which absorbs them and, to a greater or lesser extent, resists
their impetus and that, therefore, the very same distance at which we could
designate a moderate climate for a coarser type of material would destroy more
subtle liquids and would be a damaging intensity for them. Thus, only a more
refined material stuff composed of more mobile elements is appropriate to make
the distances of Jupiter or Saturn from the sun a fortunate location.
Finally, because of a physical connection, the
excellence of the natures in these higher regions of the heavens seems to be
connected with an ability to last which is appropriate to it. Decay and death
can afflict these excellent beings less than they do our low natures. Exactly the
same torpor in the material and coarseness of the stuff, the specific principle
in the degradation in the lower echelons, are the cause of the tendency which
they have to decay. When the juices which nourish the animal or human being and
make it grow, as they are assimilated among the small fibres and increase its
bulk, can no longer expand the spatial dimensions of their vessels and canals,
when growth is already complete, then these nourishing liquids which add to the
body’s mass must, through the mechanical impulse which is used to feed the
animal, constrict and block up the hollow sections of their vessels and destroy
the structure of the entire machine with a gradually increasing paralysis. We
can believe that, although mortality also eats away at the most perfect beings,
nevertheless there is an advantage in the refined quality of the material
stuff, in the elasticity of the vessels, and in the lightness and efficacy of
the fluids which make up those more perfect entities living in the distant planets.
This benefit checks for a much longer time the frailty which results from the
inertia of a coarse material and gives these creatures a durability whose
length is proportional to their perfection. Thus, the fragility of human life
is appropriately linked to human baseness.
I cannot leave these observations without anticipating
a doubt about it, which could naturally arise from a comparison of these
opinions with our previous principles. In dealing with the dwelling places in
the planetary structure, we have acknowledged the wisdom of God in the number
of satellites which illuminate the planets with the most distant orbits, in the
velocity of their axial rotation, and in the composition of their material
stuff, which is proportional to the effects of the sun. This Divine Wisdom has
organized everything so beneficially for the advantage of sensible beings who
inhabit the planets. But how would we now reconcile the concept of
intentionality with a mechanical theory, so that what the Highest Wisdom itself
devised is assigned to raw material stuff and the rule of providence is turned
over to nature left to act on its own? Is the first not rather a confession
that the organizing of the cosmic structure is not developed through the
general laws of the latter?
We will soon dispose of this doubt if we only think
back to what was cited previously in a similar case. Must not the mechanism of
all natural movements have an essential tendency towards only such consequences
as those which really coincide with the project of the Highest Reason in the
full context of interrelationships? How can they have erratic inclinations and
an independent scattering originally, when all their characteristics, from
which these consequences develop, are themselves regulated by the eternal idea
of the Divine Understanding, in which all things must necessarily interconnect
with each other and fit together? When we think correctly, how can we justify
the kind of judgment where we see nature as a rebellious subject, which can be
kept on a regular track and in communal harmony only through some kind of
compulsion which sets limits to her free conduct, unless we maintain something
to the effect that nature is a self-sufficient principle, whose characteristics
acknowledge no cause and which God seeks to force according to His purposeful
plan, to the extent that this is possible? The closer we come to getting to
know nature, the more we will realize that the universal ways in which things
are made are not strange and separate from each other. We will be sufficiently
convinced that they have essential connections, through which they are
coordinated, to support each other in providing a more perfect state, in the
reciprocal effects of the elements on the beauty of material things and at the
same time for the benefit of the spiritual realm and that, in general, the
single natures of things in the field of universal truths already make up
amongst themselves, so to speak, a system, in which one is related to another.
We will also immediately realize that the connection between them in their
common origin is unique to them and that from this they, as a totality, have
created their fundamental properties.
And now to apply this repeated observation to the
proposed goal: the very same universal laws of motion which have allocated to
the highest planets a location far from the mid-point of the power of
attraction and inertia in the planetary system, have at the same time in this
way set them in the most advantageous condition to develop themselves as far as
possible from the point where they are connected to the coarse material and,
indeed, with greater freedom. However, these laws have also simultaneously set
the distant planets in a rule-bound relationship to the influence of the heat
which, in accordance with the same law, extends out from this mid-point. Now,
it is these very requirements which have removed obstructions from the
development of the cosmic bodies in these distant regions and made the
production of movements, which is dependent upon this development, faster and,
in brief, created a more properly established system. Since finally the
spiritual beings necessarily depend upon the material stuff to which they are
personally bound, it is no wonder that the perfection of nature is shaped by
both points into a single coordinated system of causes and on the same
foundations. In a more precise view, this harmony is also not something sudden
or unanticipated. Because through a similar principle the latter beings have
been infused into the universal constitution of matter, the spiritual world is
more perfect in the distant spheres for exactly the same reasons that the
physical world is.
Thus, everything in the total extent of nature holds
together in an uninterrupted series of stages through the eternal harmony which
makes all the steps related to each other. The perfections of God have clearly
revealed themselves at our levels and are no less beautiful in the lowest
classes than in the more lofty ones.
Vast
Chain of Being! Which from God began,
Natures ethereal, human, angel, man,
Beast, bird, fish, insect, what
no eye can see,
No glass can reach! From
Infinite to thee,
From thee to nothing.
(Pope)*
We have continued the earlier conjectures, being
faithful to the main idea of physical relationships. This has kept them on the
path of a reasonable credibility. Should we permit ourselves one more digression
from this track into the field of fantasy? Who indicates to us the border where
grounded probability stops and arbitrary fictions begin? Who is so bold as to
dare an answer to the question whether sin exercises its sway also in the other
spheres of the cosmic structure or whether virtue alone has established her
control there?
The
stars perhaps enthrone the exalted soul
As here vice rules, there
virtue has control.
(von Haller)
Does not a certain middle position between wisdom and
irrationality belong to the unfortunate capacity to sin? Who knows whether the
inhabitants of those distant celestial bodies are not too refined and too wise
to allow themselves to fall into the foolishness inherent in sin; whereas, the
others who live in the lower planets adhere too firmly to material stuff and
are provided with far too little spiritual capacity to have to drag the
responsibility for their actions before the judgment seat of justice? With this
in mind, would the Earth and perhaps even Mars (so that the painful consolation
of having fellow sufferers in misfortune would not be taken from us) be alone
in the dangerous middle path, where the experience of sensual charms has a
powerful ability to divert from the ruling mastery of the spirit. The spirit,
however, cannot deny its ability to resist, unless its inertia prefers instead
to allow itself to be carried away by these charms. Thus, here is the dangerous
transition point between weakness and the capacity to resist, for the very same
advantages which raise the spirit above the lower classes, set it up at a
height from which it can again sink down infinitely deeper under them. In fact,
both planets, Earth and Mars, are the most central rungs of the planetary
system, and for their inhabitants we can assume perhaps with some probability a
physical condition as well as a moral constitution half way between the two end
points. But I prefer to leave this thought to those who find in themselves more
reassurance in dealing with unprovable knowledge and more motivation to set
down an answer.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Conclusion
We do not really know what the human being truly is
today, although our awareness and understanding should instruct us in this
matter. How much less would we be able to guess what a human being is to become
in future! However, the curiosity of the human soul grasps with great eagerness
for this far distant subject and strives to put some light on such
unilluminated knowledge.
Is the everlasting soul for the full eternity of its
future existence, which the grave itself does not destroy but only changes,
always to remain fixed at this point of the cosmos, on our Earth? Is it never
to share a closer look at the rest of creation’s miracles? Who knows whether it
is not determined that in future the soul will get to know at close quarters
those distant spheres of the cosmic structure and the excellence of their
dwelling places, which already attract its curiosity from far away? Perhaps
that is why some spheres of the planetary system are already developing, in
order to prepare for us in other heavens new places to live after the
completion of the time prescribed for our stay here on Earth. Who knows whether
those satellites do not circle around Jupiter so as to provide light for us in
the future?
It is permissible and appropriate to entertain
ourselves with ideas of this kind. But no one will ground future hope on such
uncertain imaginary pictures. When vanity has demanded its share of human
nature, then the immortal spirit will, with a swift leap, raise itself up above
everything finite and further develop its existence in a new relationship with
the totality of nature, which arises out of closer ties with the Highest Being.
From then on, this lofty nature, which in itself contains the source of
blissful happiness, will no longer be scattered among external objects in order
to seek out a calming effect among them. The collective essence of creatures,
which has a necessary harmony with the pleasure of the Highest Original Being,
must also have this harmony for its own pleasure and will light upon it only in
perpetual contentment.
In fact, when we have completely filled our dispositions
with such observations and with what has been brought out previously, then the
sight of a starry heaven on a clear night gives a kind of pleasure which only
noble souls experience. In the universal stillness of nature and the
tranquillity of the mind, the immortal soul’s hidden capacity to know speaks an
unnamable language and provides inchoate ideas which are certainly felt but are
incapable of being described. If among thinking creatures of this planet there
are malicious beings who, regardless of all incitements which such a great
subject can offer, are nevertheless in the condition of being stuck firmly in
the service of vanity, how unfortunate this sphere is that it could produce
such miserable creatures! But, on the other hand, how fortunate this sphere is
that a way lies open, under conditions which are the worthiest of all to
accept, to reach a blissful happiness and nobility, something infinitely far
above the advantages which the most beneficial of all nature’s arrangements in
all planetary bodies can attain!
The End
[Back to Table of Contents]
Notes
*Translator’s Note: Epicurus (341 BC-270 BC), Greek philosopher, founder
of the school of Epicureanism, who taught that natural phenomena are based on the
motions and interactions of atoms in empty space. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Lucretius (99
BC-55 BC) Roman philosopher, author of On the Nature of Things, which
developed the philosophical thinking of Epicurus and which attempted to combat
superstition; Leucippus (c. 450 BC), Greek philosopher who promoted the idea
that everything is made up of various indivisible elements called atoms;
Democritus (460 BC-370 BC), Greek philosopher, who taught that all matter is
made up of indivisible atoms. [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Rene Descartes
(1596-1650), extremely important French philosopher who helped lay the
foundations of modern science. As Jaki points out (p. 249) Descartes was
sufficiently worried about what happened to Galileo to curtail his writings on
mechanical theory. [Back to
Text]
*Part Section 88.
[Translator’s Note: Jaki indicates (p. 249) that Kant is quoting from An
Universal History from the Earliest Time to the Present . . ., by George
Sale and others (London 1736) and that the italics were added by Kant. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s Note: Thomas Wright (1711-1786), an English astronomer. Kant
appears to have read a summary of Wright’s book. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: James Bradley
(1692-1762), professor of Astronomy at Oxford and Astronomer Royal. Kant offers
the quotation in German. [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Tycho Brahe
(1546-1601), Danish astronomer famous for his accurate celestial observations
made without a telescope; John Flamsteed (1646-1719), first Astronomer Royal. [Back to Text]
*Because
I do not have available the treatise mentioned above I will here include what
is relevant to this matter in a quotation from the Ouvrages diverses of
M. de Maupertuis in Actis Erud. 1745: The first phenomena are those
bright stars in the heavens which are called nebulous stars and which are
considered a dense crowd of small fixed stars. But the astronomers, with the
help of excellent telescopes, saw them only as large oval areas which were
somewhat more luminous than the other part of the heavens. Huygens first came
across one in Orion. In the Anglical. Trans. Halley recalls six such
small areas: 1. in the sword of Orion, 2. in Sagittarius, 3. in the Centaur, 4.
in front of the right foot of Antinous, 5. in Hercules, 6. in the girdle of
Andromeda. Observing through an 8-foot reflecting telescope, people saw that
only one fourth part of these can be considered a collection of stars. The
remainder displayed only small white areas without significant difference,
other than the fact that one is more circular in shape, another, by contrast,
is more elongated. It also seems that in the first group the small stars
visible through the telescope could not cause the white glow. Halley believes
that from this appearance we can explain just what we meet at the start of the Mosaic
creation story, namely, that light was created before the sun. Derham compares
them to openings through which shines another immeasurable region and perhaps
the fire of heaven. He maintains he has been able to observe that the stars
seen near these small regions would be much closer to us than these bright
stars. To this the author adds a catalogue of the nebulous stars taken from
Hevelius. He thinks of these phenomena as huge bright masses, which through a
powerful rotating motion have been flattened. If they were to have the same
power of illumination as the remaining stars, the material which makes them up
would have to have a massive size, so that when they are seen from a much
greater distance than that of the stars, they could still appear through the
telescope with a distinct shape and size. However, if they were approximately
the same size as the rest of the fixed stars, they would have to be not only
much closer to us, but also at the same time have a much weaker light, because
at such a close distance and with such a discernible size they nevertheless
display such a pale glow. It would be worth the trouble to discover their
parallax, to the extent that they have one. For those who say they have no
parallax perhaps came to that conclusion about all of them from only some of
them. The small stars which we come across in the middle of these limited
areas, as in Orion (or even more beautifully in the area in front of the right
foot of Antinous, which looks just like a fixed star surrounded with a mist)
would, if they were closer to us, be seen either as a sort of projection onto
the area or would appear through that mass of stars, exactly as they do through
the tail of a comet.
Translator’s note: Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, French mathematician,
astronomer, and philosopher, who wrote extensively on the stars and the solar
system; Edmond Halley (1656-1742), English astronomer and mathematician and
Astronomer Royal; William Derham
(1657-1735), English clergyman and natural philosopher, who investigated
astronomy to defend religious doctrine; Johannes Hevelius (1611-1687), Polish
astronomer, whose a catalogue of stars was published in 1690. [Back to Text]
*See
Gellert’s fable , Hans Nord. [Translator’s Note: Hans Nord was a
fictional confidence trickster who collected money for a public display only to
abscond with the cash. [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s Note: The quotation comes from Alexander Pope, Essay on
Man, Epistle 1. Kant offers the quotation in German. [Back to Text]
*This
short introduction, perhaps unnecessary for most readers, I wanted to set down
first for those who are in some way insufficiently knowledgeable about
Newtonian principles as a preparation to understand the following theory. [Translator’s
Note: As Hastie’s footnote at this point reminds the reader, Uranus was
discovered in 1781, Neptune in 1846, the moons of Mars in 1877, all subsequent
to the time of Kant’s essay. [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Johannes Kepler
(1571-1630), German mathematician and astronomer who established the mathematic
laws for planetary motion. [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Christiaan
Huygens (1629-1695) Dutch mathematician and astronomer, who discovered one of
Saturn’s moons and wrote about Saturn’s ring. [Back to Text]
*Especially
at those accumulations of stars which occur in great numbers together in a
small area, as, for example, the seven stars [Translator’s Note: the
Pleiades] which perhaps among themselves make up a small system in the midst of
the greater one. [Back to
Text]
*De
La Hire observes in the Memoires of the Paris Academy for the year 1693,
that he has confirmed from his own observations as well as from a comparison of
them with those of Ricciolus a significant change in the positions of the stars
in the Pleiades. [Translator’s Note: Philippe de la Hire (1640-1718),
French mathematician and astronomer; Baptista Ricciolus (1598-1671), Italian
astronomer. [Back to
Text]
*Treatise
on the Shape of the Stars. [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s Note: Asterotheology was written
by the English cleric William Derham (1657-1735). [Back to Text]
*Translator’s Note: Kant’s text reads “inverse relationship” (Gegenhaltung).
This seems a careless error, since from the sentence it is clear that the
relationship is a direct proportion rather than an inverse one. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Kant’s text has
“decrease” (Abnahme) rather than “increase.” Here again (as in the
previous note) there seems to be a careless error in the wording describing the
relationship of distance from the sun and eccentricity. [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s Note: Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, Epistle III.
Kant quotes the German version. [Back
to Text]
*I
am not investigating here whether this space can, strictly speaking, be called
empty. For at this point it is sufficient to observe that all the material
which one might come across in this space is much too incapable of exercising
an influence with respect to the masses in motion which are the concern here. [Back to Text]
*The
start of the self-developing planets is not to be looked for only in the
Newtonian power of attraction. In the case of a small particle of such
exceptional fineness, this force would be just too slow and weak. We would
rather say that in this space the first development happens through the
collision of some elements which unite through the normal laws of combination,
until those clusters which develop out of the process gradually grow
sufficiently large that the Newtonian power of attraction becomes capable of
constantly increasing the size of the cluster through its effect at a distance.
[Back to Text]
*This
measured circular movement is essentially relevant only to the planets near the
sun. For where great distances are concerned, where only the furthest planets
or even the comets have developed, it is easy to assume that because the
sinking movement of the basic material there is much weaker and the spatial
expanse where they are scattered is also larger, the elements in and of
themselves already deviate from circular movement and thus must be the cause of
the bodies which develop from them. [Back to Text]
*For
the particles from the regions near the sun, which have a larger orbital
velocity than is required for circular movement in the place where they collect
together on the planet offset the deficiency in velocity of the particles from
a longer distance away from the sun, which are incorporated into the very same
body, so as to run in a circular orbit at the distance of the planet from the
sun. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Jaki points out
(p. 262) that Kant is referring to an English billion, that is, 1012,
rather than to a North American billion, 109. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Kant’s original text states 277.5 times greater than the Earth, a figure,
which, as Jaki notes, indicates Kant’s carelessness in checking his
manuscript.. [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Georges-Louis
Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), one of France’s best known, greatest, and
most influential natural scientists in the eighteenth century. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Jaki observes
(p. 263) that Kant seems to overlook that the word comet comes from the Greek kome,
meaning hair, a clear reference to the tail of the comet, its best-known
distinguishing feature. [Back
to Text]
*These
are the Northern Lights. [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: The ecliptic is
the large circle described by the sun’s apparent movement during the year. As
Jaki notes (p. 266), the common plane of reference, which is perpendicular to
the sun’s axial rotation, makes an angle of about 7 degrees with the ecliptic].
[Back to Text]
*Or,
what is more probable, with its comet-like nature, which still has its inherent
eccentricity, before the lightest material of its outer layer has been
completely scattered, the planet had an extended a comet-like atmosphere. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: the “difference
in the diameters” Kant refers to is the difference between the diameter at the
equator and the diameter at the poles. If the latter is smaller than the
former, then the planet will resemble a squashed sphere. [Back to Text]
*For,
according to the Newtonian laws of attraction, a body located inside a sphere
will be attracted only by that part of the ball which can be drawn in a sphere
around it with a radius equal to the distance which that body stands from the
centre. The concentric part located beyond this distance, because of the
equilibrium of its forces of attraction, which cancel each other out, has no
effect on this, not moving the part either towards or away from the centre. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Jean Dominique
Cassini (1625-1712), a prominent French astronomer; James Pound, an English
cleric and member of the Royal Society. [Back to Text]
*After
I set down this remark, I found in the Reports of the Royal Academy of
Sciences in Paris for the year 1705, in a discussion by M. Cassini of
Saturn’s satellites and its ring (on page 571 of the second part in the von Steinwehr
translation) a confirmation of this conjecture, which leaves hardly a doubt any
more about its validity. M Cassini presents an idea which could have been to
some extent a small approximation of the
truth which we have produced, although at the same time that is inherently
unlikely, namely, that perhaps this ring might be a swarm of small satellites,
which from Saturn appear just as the Milky Way does from the Earth. This idea
can stand if we take for these small satellites the vapour particles which move
around the planet with exactly the same motion. Then he goes on to say the
following: “This idea was confirmed by the observations which people have made
in the years when Saturn’s ring appeared wider and more open. For people saw
the width of the ring divided into two parts by a dark elliptical line. The
part closest to the sphere was brighter than the part furthest away. This line
marked, so to speak, a small intervening space between the two parts, just as
the width of the space between the sphere and the ring is shown by the greatest
darkness between the two.” [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Jean Jacques de
Mairan (1678-1771), French scientist and author of a book on the Aurora
Borealis. The phrase figura lenticulari, Jaki notes, means in the
shape of a lentil. [Back
to Text]
*The
idea of an infinite extension of the world has opponents among those who know
something about metaphysics and has recently found one in Mr. M. Weitenkampf.
If, because of the alleged impossibility of a crowd without number and limits,
these gentlemen cannot feel comfortable with this idea, then for the time being
I wish merely to ask whether the future consequence of eternity will not
contain with it a real infinity of multiple options and changes and whether
this endless sequence is not entirely present once and for all in the Divine
Understanding. Now, if it was possible that God can effectively create the idea
of infinity, which to His mind actually presents everything at once in a
successive series, why should He not be able to present the idea of another
infinity in a spatially united interconnection and thus make the extent of the
world limitless? Since people will seek out an answer to this question, I will
avail myself of the opportunity which will present itself to remove the alleged
difficulty through an explanation taken from the nature of numbers, where we
can perceive with a more precise consideration the following still as a
question in need of discussion: whether something which a power accompanied by
the Highest Wisdom has produced to reveal itself, is related as a differential
amount to something it could have produced.
Translator’s Note: Johann Weitenkampf (1726-1758), German theologian
who defended the idea of a finite universe. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: This quotation,
like the later ones from von Haller, is from the poem “Unvollkommene Ode über
die Ewigkeit” by Albrecht von Haller (1708-1777), a German physiologist and
poet. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
note: The quotation
comes from Alexander Pope’s Essay on Man, Epistle I. Kant quotes the
German and comments in the bracket that it comes from Brocke’s translation. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
note: Joseph Addison
(1672-1719) in Spectator 453.
Kant quotes the German and notes in the bracket that the translation is
by Gottsched. [Back to
Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Stephen Hales (1677-1761),
an English natural scientist who in 1727 published an analysis of the air. [Back to Text]
*I
ascribe to the sun, not without reason, all the inequalities of the firm lands,
the mountains and valleys, which we come across on our Earth and on other world
bodies. The development of a planetary sphere which changes from a volatile
condition into a firm one necessarily brings about such inequalities on the
outer surface. When the outer surface solidifies while in the volatile interior
parts of such masses the materials are still sinking down to the mid-point in
accordance with their gravitational pull, then the particles of the elements of
elastic air or fire, intermingled with these materials, are forced out and
accumulate under the outer layer which has meanwhile solidified. Under this,
they produce large and, in proportion to the sun’s cluster, gigantic cavities.
The outermost layer just mentioned finally falls into these cavities with
various folding patterns and in this way creates, not only elevated regions and
mountains, but also valleys and flood beds for more seas of fire. [Back to Text]
*I
have a conjecture according to which it strikes me as very probable that Sirius
or the Dog Star is the central body in that system of stars making up the Milky
Way and occupies the central point towards which all of them are related. If we
consider this system according to the design in the first part of this
treatise, as a teeming mass of suns which have accumulated on a common plane
and which are scattered on all sides of its middle point and yet make a
certain, so to speak, circular space, which because of the slight deviations of
it from the interrelated plane extends out somewhat in width on both sides,
then the sun which is similarly located near this plane will view the
appearance of this circularly shaped zone with a shimmering white light as
widest on that side where the sun is located nearest to the outermost edge of
the system. For it is easy to assume that it is not positioned exactly at the
central point. Now, the band of the Milky Way is widest in the part between the
sign of the Swan and the sign of the Archer. Thus, this will be the side where
the location of our sun is closest to the outermost periphery of the circular
system. And in this section we will consider the place where the constellations
of the Eagle and the Fox stand with that of the Goose, to be the particular
location closest to them all, because there in the intervening space, where the
Milky Way divides, the greatest visible scattering of stars shines out. If we
then draw a line approximately from the place near the tail of the Eagle
through the middle of the plane of the Milky Way right to the spot on the
opposite side, this line must meet the mid-point of the system. And in fact it
does meet Sirius with great precision. Sirius is the brightest star in the entire heavens. Because of the happy and harmonious
combination of this and its preponderant shape, Sirius appears to merit being
considered that central body itself. According to this idea, Sirius would
appear directly in the band of the Milky Way, if the location of our sun,
which, with respect to the tail of the Eagle, deviates somewhat from its plane,
did not cause the visual displacement of the mid-point toward the other side of
such a zone. [Back to
Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Newton had
declared that his laws could not explain the development of the planetary
system and that it had been given its present structure by God. In other words,
he had denied that his system was capable of determining a mechanical history
for the development of the present structure of celestial bodies. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: The quotation,
which Kant gives in German, comes from Alexander Pope’s Essay on Man,
Epistle I. [Back to
Text]
*Translator’s
footnote: Kant’s text has
“if” rather than “unless,” which seems clearly wrong in the context of the
entire sentence. [Back to
Text]
*Translator’s
Note: Bernard le
Bovier de Fontenelle (1657-1757), French writer. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
note: The “son of
Philip” referred to is Alexander the Great. [Back to Text]
*Psychological
principles have established that, thanks to the present arrangement by which
creation has made soul and body mutually interdependent, not only does the soul
have to arrive at all ideas of the universe through the association with and
the influence of the body but the practice of its power of thinking also
depends upon the body’s condition, and it borrows the essential capability for
thought with the body’s help. [Back
to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: The quotation
comes from Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, Epistle II. Kant quotes the
German and adds the italics to the last line. [Back to Text]
*Translator’s
Note: the quotation
comes from Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, Epistle I. Kant quotes the
German version. [Back
to Text]
[johnstonia home page]
18,226,218
View
Stats
