Mrs. B. We have no means of ascertaining the distance of the fixed stars. When, therefore, they are said to be in the zodiac, it is merely implied that they are situated in that direction, and that they shine upon us through that portion of the heavens, which we call the zodiac.
Emily. But are not those large bright stars, which are called stars of the first magnitude, nearer to us, than those small ones which we can scarcely discern?
Mrs. B. It may be so; or the difference of size and brilliancy of the stars may proceed from their difference of dimensions; this is a point which astronomers are not enabled to determine. Considering them as suns, I see no reason why different suns should not vary in dimensions, as well as the planets belonging to them.
Emily. What a wonderful and beautiful system this is, and how astonishing to think that every fixed star may probably be attended by a similar train of planets!
Caroline. You will accuse me of being very incredulous, but I cannot help still entertaining some doubts, and fearing that there is more beauty than truth in this system. It certainly may be so; but there does not appear to me to be sufficient evidence to prove it. It seems so plain and obvious that the earth is motionless, and that the sun and stars revolve round it;--your solar system, you must allow, is directly in opposition to the evidence of our senses.
Mrs. B. Our senses so often mislead us, that we should not place implicit reliance upon them.
Caroline. On what then can we rely, for do we not receive all our ideas through the medium of our senses?
Mrs. B. It is true that they are our primary source of knowledge; but the mind has the power of reflecting, judging, and deciding upon the ideas received by the organs of sense. This faculty, which we call reason, has frequently proved to us, that our senses are liable to err. If you have ever sailed on the water, with a very steady breeze, you must have seen the houses, trees, and every object on the shore move, while you were sailing.
Caroline. I remember thinking so, when I was very young; but I now know that their motion is only apparent. It is true that my reason, in this case, corrects the error of my sight.
Mrs. B. It teaches you, that the apparent motion of the objects on shore, proceeds from your being yourself moving, and that you are not sensible of your own motion, because you meet with no resistance. It is only when some obstacle impedes our motion, that we are conscious of moving; and if you were to close your eyes when you were sailing on calm water, with a steady wind, you would not perceive that you moved, for you could not feel it, and you could see it only by observing the change of place of the objects on shore. So it is with the motion of the earth: every thing on its surface, and the air that surrounds it, accompanies it in its revolution; it meets with no resistance: therefore, like the crew of a vessel sailing with a fair wind, in a calm sea, we are insensible of our motion.
Caroline. But the principal reason why the crew of a vessel in a calm sea do not perceive their motion, is, because they move exceedingly slow, while the earth, you say, revolves with great velocity.
Mrs. B. It is not because they move slowly, but because they move steadily, and meet with no irregular resistances, that the crew of a vessel do not perceive their motion; for they would be equally insensible to it, with the strongest wind, provided it were steady, that they sailed with it, and that it did not agitate the water; but this last condition, you know, is not possible, for the wind will always produce waves which offer more or less resistance to the vessel, and then the motion becomes sensible, because it is unequal.
Caroline. But, granting this, the crew of a vessel have a proof of their motion, which the inhabitants of the earth cannot have,--the apparent motion of the objects on shore, or their having passed from one place to another.
Mrs. B. Have we not a similar proof of the earth's motion, in the apparent motion of the sun and stars? Imagine the earth to be sailing round its axis, and successively passing by every star, which, like the objects on land, we suppose to be moving instead of ourselves. I have heard it observed by an aerial traveller in a balloon, that the earth appears to sink beneath the balloon, instead of the balloon rising above the earth.
It is a law which we discover throughout nature, and worthy of its great Author, that all its purposes are accomplished by the most simple means; and what reason have we to suppose this law infringed, in order that we may remain at rest, while the sun and stars move round us; their regular motions, which are explained by the laws of attraction, on the first supposition, would be unintelligible on the last, and the order and harmony of the universe be destroyed. Think what an immense circuit the sun and stars would make daily, were their apparent motions, real. We know many of them, to be bodies more considerable than our earth; for our eyes vainly endeavour to persuade us, that they are little brilliants sparkling in the heavens; while science teaches us that they are immense spheres, whose apparent dimensions are diminished by distance. Why then should these enormous globes daily traverse such a prodigious space, merely to prevent the necessity of our earth's revolving on its axis?
Caroline. I think I must now be convinced. But you will, I hope, allow me a little time to familiarise to myself, an idea so different from that which I have been accustomed to entertain. And pray, at what rate do we move?
Mrs. B. The motion produced by the revolution of the earth on its axis, is about seventeen miles a minute, to an inhabitant on the equator.
Emily. But does not every part of the earth move with the same velocity?
Mrs. B. A moment's reflection would convince you of the contrary: a person at the equator must move quicker than one situated near the poles, since they both perform a revolution in 24 hours.
Emily. True, the equator is farthest from the axis of motion. But in the earth's revolution round the sun, every part must move with equal velocity?
Mrs. B. Yes, about a thousand miles a minute.
Caroline. How astonishing!--and that it should be possible for us to be insensible of such a rapid motion. You would not tell me this sooner, Mrs. B., for fear of increasing my incredulity.
Before the time of Newton, was not the earth supposed to be in the centre of the system, and the sun, moon, and stars to revolve round it?
Mrs. B. This was the system of Ptolemy, in ancient times; but as long ago as the beginning of the sixteenth century it was generally discarded, and the solar system, such as I have shown you, was established by the celebrated astronomer Copernicus, and is hence called the Copernican system. But the theory of gravitation, the source from which this beautiful and harmonious arrangement flows, we owe to the powerful genius of Newton, who lived at a much later period, and who demonstrated its truth.
Emily. It appears, indeed, far less difficult to trace by observation the motion of the planets, than to divine by what power they are impelled and guided. I wonder how the idea of gravitation could first have occurred to sir Isaac Newton?
Mrs. B. It is said to have been occasioned by a circumstance from which one should little have expected so grand a theory to have arisen.
During the prevalence of the plague in the year 1665, Newton retired into the country to avoid the contagion: when sitting one day in an orchard, he observed an apple fall from a tree, and was led to consider what could be the cause which brought it to the ground.
Caroline. If I dared to confess it, Mrs. B., I should say that such an inquiry indicated rather a deficiency than a superiority of intellect. I do not understand how any one can wonder at what is so natural and so common.
Conversations on Natural Philosophy, in Which the Elements of That Science Are Familiarly Explained · The Wunder Library — complete classics, free to read, with narration.