Immanuel Kant
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
Translated by Ian Johnston, Vancouver Island
University
Nanaimo, British Columbia
Canada
[Students, teachers, and members
of the general public may download and distribute this translation (or parts of
it) without permission and without cost; they may also edit the text to suit
their purposes. However, commercial publication and distribution of this text
is not allowed without the written permission of Ian Johnston]
To download a Rich Text Format
version of this text, please use the following link:
Universal
History RTF
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. The text was reformatted slightly in
February 2018.
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 hyperlink to endnotes is indicated in the text by an underlined
number in brackets: e.g. (23). These link to notes from Kant’s
original text and those provided by the translator. The latter are prefaced in
the endnote by the comment [Translator’s note], and the former
by the phrase [Kant’s note].
In the English translation I have used the original lines from the works
of Alexander Pope and Joseph 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
indispensably 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.(1) 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’ 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.(2) 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.(3) I wish therefore to quote
from the author of Universal World History:(4) “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.(5) 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:(6) “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.(7) 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.(8) 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.(9) 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.
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)(10)
SHORT OUTLINE OF THE NECESSARY FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF NEWTONIAN PHILOSOPHY REQUIRED FOR AN UNDERSTANDING
OF THE FOLLOWING THEORY(11)
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 midpoint of the sun.(12) 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.
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.(13) 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.(14) 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.(15) 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.” (16) The
author of the Astrotheology imagined
that these were openings in the firmament through which he
believed he saw heavenly fire.(17) 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.(18) 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?(19) 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.
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)(20)
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.(21) 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 types 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 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.(22)
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.(23) 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.(24) 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.
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.(25) 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.(26) 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.(27) 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?
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.(28) 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.(29) 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.
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 that 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.(30) 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.
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.(31) 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.(32) 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.(33) 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 as 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.(34) 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.(35) 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.
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.(36) 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.
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.(37) 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 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 infinite 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)(38)
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 an
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)(39)
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)(40)
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.(41) 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.(42)
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 an 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.(43) 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.
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.(44) 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 that 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.
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)(45)
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.(46) 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 freer 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.’”(47) 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?(48)
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.(49) 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)(50)
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)(51)
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.
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!
ENDNOTES
(1) [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]
(2) [Translator’s Note]: Lucretius (99 BC-55 BC) Roman
philosopher, author of On the Nature of Things, which presented the
philosophical thinking of Epicurus and 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]
(3) [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]
(4) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(5) [Translator’s Note]: Thomas Wright
(1711-1786), an English astronomer. Kant appears to have read a summary of
Wright’s book. [Back to Text]
(6) [Translator’s
Note]: James Bradley (1692-1762), professor of
Astronomy at Oxford and Astronomer Royal. Kant offers the quotation in
German. [Back to Text]
(7) [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]
(8) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(9) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(10) [Translator’s
Note]: The quotation comes from Alexander
Pope, Essay on Man, Epistle 1. Kant offers the quotation in German. [Back to Text]
(11) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(12) [Translator’s
Note]: Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), German
mathematician and astronomer who established the mathematic laws for planetary
motion. [Back to Text]
(13) [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]
(14) [Kant’s Note]: Especially at those accumulations of stars which occur in
great numbers together in a small area, as, for example, the seven stars [the
Pleiades] which perhaps among themselves make up a small system in the
midst of the greater one. [Back to Text]
(15) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(16) Treatise on the Shape of the Stars. [Back to Text]
(17) [Translator’s
Note]: Asterotheology was
written by the English cleric William Derham
(1657-1735). [Back to Text]
(18) [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]
(19) [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]
(20) [Translator’s
Note]: Alexander Pope, Essay on Man,
Epistle III. Kant quotes the German version. [Back to Text]
(21) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(22) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(23) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(24) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(25) [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]
(26) [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]
(27) [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]
(28) [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]
(29) [Kant’s Note]: These are the
Northern Lights. [Back to Text]
(30) [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]
(31) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(32) [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]
(33) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(34) [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]
(35) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(36) [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]
(37) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(38) [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]
(39) [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]
(40) [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]
(41) [Translator’s Note]: Stephen Hales
(1677-1761), an English natural scientist who in 1727 published an analysis of
the air. [Back to Text]
(42) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(43) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(44) [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]
(45) [Translator’s Note]: The quotation, which
Kant gives in German, comes from Alexander Pope’s Essay on Man,
Epistle I. [Back to Text]
(46) [Translator’s Note]: Kant’s text
has “if” rather than “unless,” which seems clearly wrong in the context of the
entire sentence. [Back to Text]
(47) [Translator’s Note]: Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle (1657-1757), French writer. [Back to Text]
(48) [Translator’s Note]: The “son of Philip”
referred to is Alexander the Great. [Back to Text]
(49) [Kant’s Note]: 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]
(50) [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]
(51) [Translator’s
Note]: the
quotation comes from Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, Epistle I. Kant
quotes the German version. [Back to
Text]
Ian Johnston is an Emeritus
Professor at Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, British Columbia. He is the
author of The Ironies of
War: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad and of Essays and Arguments: A Handbook for
Writing Student Essays. He also translated a number of works,
including the following:
Aeschylus, Oresteia (Agamemnon, Libation Bearers, Eumenides)
Aeschylus, Persians
Aeschylus, Prometheus
Bound
Aeschylus, Seven Against
Thebes
Aeschylus, Suppliant
Women
Aristophanes, Birds
Aristophanes, Clouds
Aristophanes, Frogs
Aristophanes, Knights
Aristophanes, Lysistrata
Aristophanes, Peace
Aristotle, Nicomachean
Ethics (Abridged)
Cuvier, Discourse on the Revolutionary
Upheavals on the Surface of the Earth
Descartes, Discourse on
Method
Descartes, Meditations on
First Philosophy
Diderot, A Conversation
Between D’Alembert and Diderot
Diderot, D’Alembert’s
Dream
Diderot, Rameau’s Nephew
Euripides, Bacchae
Euripides, Electra
Euripides, Hippolytus
Euripides, Medea
Euripides, Orestes
Homer, Iliad (Complete
and Abridged)
Homer, Odyssey (Complete
and Abridged)
Kafka, Metamorphosis
Kafka, Selected Shorter Writings
Kant, Universal History
of Nature and Theory of Heaven
Kant, On Perpetual Peace
Lamarck, Zoological
Philosophy, Volume I
Lucretius, On the Nature
of Things
Nietzsche, Birth of
Tragedy
Nietzsche, Beyond Good
and Evil
Nietzsche, Genealogy of
Morals
Nietzsche, On the Uses
and Abuses of History for Life
Ovid, Metamorphoses
Rousseau, Discourse on
the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men [Second
Discourse]
Rousseau, Discourse on
the Sciences and the Arts [First Discourse]
Rousseau, Social Contract
Sophocles, Antigone
Sophocles, Ajax
Sophocles, Electra
Sophocles, Oedipus at
Colonus
Sophocles, Oedipus the
King
Sophocles, Philoctetes
Wedekind, Castle
Wetterstein
Wedekind, Marquis
of Keith.
Most of these translations
have been published as books or audiobooks (or both)—by Richer Resources
Publications, Broadview Press, Naxos, Audible, and others.
Ian Johnston maintains a web
site where texts of these translations are freely available to students,
teachers, artists, and the general public. The site includes a number of Ian
Johnston’s lectures on these (and other) works, handbooks, curricular
materials, and essays, all freely available.
The addresses where these texts are available is as follows:
https://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/
http://johnstoniatexts.x10host.com/homepageindex.html