|
[page 157, continued:]
|
|
|
I maintain, first, that only in the mode
described
is it conceivable that Matter could have been diffused so as to fulfil
at once the conditions of irradiation and of generally equable
distribution.
I maintain, secondly, that these conditions themselves have been
imposed
upon me, as necessities, in a train of ratiocination as rigorously
logical
as that which establishes any demonstration in Euclid; and I
maintain,
thirdly, that even if the charge of “hypothesis” were as fully
sustained
as it is, in fact, unsustained and untenable, still the validity and
indisputability
of my result would not, even in the slightest particular, be disturbed.
To explain: — The Newtonian Gravity — a law of
Nature
— a law whose existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions — a law
whose admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the
Universal
phænomena — a law which, merely because it does so enable us to
account
for these phænomena, we are perfectly willing, without reference
to any
other considerations, to admit, and cannot help admitting, as a law — a
law, nevertheless, of which neither the principle nor the modus
operandi of the principle, has ever yet been traced
by the human
analysis — a law, in short, which, neither in its detail nor in its
generality,
has been found [page 158:] susceptible of
explanation at all — is at length seen to be at every point
thoroughly
explicable,
provided we only yield our assent to —— what? To an hypothesis?
Why, if an hypothesis — if the merest hypothesis — if an
hypothesis
for
whose assumption — as in the case of that pure hypothesis the
Newtonian
law itself — no shadow of à priori reason could be
assigned — if
an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this implies, would enable us to
perceive a principle for the Newtonian law — would enable us to
understand
as satisfied, conditions so miraculously — so ineffably complex and
seemingly
irreconcileable as those involved in the relations of which Gravity
tells
us, — what rational being could so expose his fatuity as to
call
even this absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer — unless,
indeed,
he were to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did
so, simply for the sake of consistency in words?
But what is the true state of our present case?
What
is the fact? Not only that it is not an hypothesis
which
we are required to adopt, in order to admit the principle at
issue
explained, but that it is a logical conclusion which we are
requested not to adopt if we can avoid it — which we are
simply invited to deny if we can: — a conclusion of so accurate
a
logicality that to
dispute it would be the effort — to doubt its validity, beyond our
power: —
a conclusion from which we see no mode of escape, turn as we will; a
result
which confronts us either at the end of an inductive journey
from
the phænomena of the very Law discussed, or at the close of a deductive
career from the most rigorously simple of all conceivable assumptions —
the assumption, in a word, of Simplicity itself.
And if here, for the sake of cavilling, it be urged,
that although my
starting-point
is, as I assert, the assumption of absolute Simplicity, yet Simplicity,
considered merely in itself, is no axiom; and that only deductions from
axioms are indisputable — it is thus that I reply: —
Every other science than Logic is the science of
certain concrete relations. Arithmetic, for example, is the science of
the relations of number — Geometry, of the relations of form —
Mathematics
in general, of the relations of quantity in general — of whatever can
be
increased or diminished. Logic, however, is the science of [page
159:] Relation in the abstract — of absolute Relation — of
Relation
considered solely in itself. An axiom in any particular science other
than
Logic is, thus, merely a proposition announcing certain concrete
relations
which seem to be too obvious for dispute — as when we say, for
instance,
that the whole is greater than its part; — and, thus again, the
principle
of the Logical axiom — in other words, of an axiom in the
abstract — is, simply, obviousness of relation. Now, it is
clear,
not only that what is obvious to one mind at one epoch, may be anything
but
obvious, at another epoch, to the same mind. It is clear, moreover,
that
what to-day, is obvious even to the majority of mankind, or to the
majority
of the best intellects of mankind, may to-morrow be, to either
majority,
more or less obvious, or in no respect obvious at all. It is seen,
then,
that the axiomatic principle itself is susceptible of
variation,
and of course that axioms are susceptible of similar change. Being
mutable,
the “truths” which grow out of them are necessarily mutable too; or, in
other words, are never to be positively depended upon as truths at all
—
since Truth and Immutability are one.
It will now be readily understood that no
axiomatic
idea — no idea founded in the fluctuating principle, obviousness of
relation
— can possibly be so secure — so reliable a basis for any structure
erected
by the Reason, as that idea — (whatever it is, wherever we can
find
it, or if it be practicable to find it anywhere) — which is irrelative
altogether — which not only presents to the understanding no obviousness
of relation, either greater or less, to be considered, but subjects the
intellect, not in the slightest degree, to the necessity of even
looking
at any relation at all. If such an idea be not what we
too
heedlessly term “an axiom,” it is at least preferable, as a Logical
basis,
to any axiom ever propounded, or to all imaginable axioms combined: —
and
such, precisely, is the idea with which my deductive process, so
thoroughly
corroborated by induction, commences. My particle proper is but
absolute Irrelation. To sum up what has been
advanced:
— As a
starting point
I have taken it for granted, simply, that the Beginning had nothing
behind
it or before it — that it was a Beginning in fact — that it was a
beginning
and nothing different from a beginning — [page 160:]
in short, that this Beginning was — that which it was. If this
be
a “mere assumption” then a “mere assumption” let it be.
To conclude this branch of the subject: — I am
fully
warranted in announcing that the Law which we have been in the
habit of calling Gravity exists
on
account of Matter’s having been irradiated, at its origin, atomically,
into
a limited* sphere of Space, from one,
individual,
unconditional,
irrelative, and absolute Particle Proper, by the sole process in which
it was possible to satisfy, at the same time, the two conditions —
irradiation,
and generally-equable distribution throughout the sphere — that
is to say,
by a force varying in direct proportion with the squares of the
distances
between the irradiated atoms, respectively, and the Particular centre
of
Irradiation.
I have already given my reasons for presuming
Matter
to have been diffused by a determinate rather than by a continuous or
infinitely
continued force. Supposing a continuous force, we should be unable, in
the first place, to comprehend a rëaction at all; and we should be
required,
in the second place, to entertain the impossible conception of an
infinite
extension of Matter. Not to dwell upon the impossibility of the
conception,
the infinite extension of Matter is an idea which, if not positively
disproved,
is at least not in any respect warranted by telescopic observation of
the
stars — a point to be explained more fully hereafter; and this
empirical
reason for believing in the original finity of Matter is unempirically
confirmed. For example: — Admitting, for the moment, the
possibility
of understanding Space filled with the irradiated atoms — that
is to say, admitting, as well as we can, for argument’s sake, that the
succession of the irradiated atoms had absolutely no end
—
then it is abundantly clear that, even when the Volition of God had
been
withdrawn
from them, and thus the tendency to return into Unity permitted
(abstractly)
to be satisfied, this permission would have been nugatory and invalid
— practically valueless and of no effect whatever. No Rëaction
could
have
taken place; no movement toward Unity could have been made; no Law of
Gravity
could have obtained. [page 161:]
To explain: — Grant the abstract tendency
of any one atom to any one other as the inevitable result of diffusion
from the normal Unity: — or, what is the same thing, admit any given
atom
as proposing to move in any given direction — it is clear
that,
since there is an infinity of atoms on all sides of the atom
proposing
to move, it never can actually move toward the satisfaction of its
tendency
in the direction given, on account of a precisely equal and
counter-balancing
tendency in the direction diametrically opposite. In other words,
exactly
as many tendencies to Unity are behind the hesitating atom as before
it;
for it is a mere sotticism to say that one infinite line is longer or
shorter
than another infinite line, or that one infinite number is greater or
less
than another number that is infinite. Thus the atom in question must
remain
stationary forever. Under the impossible circumstances which we have
been
merely endeavoring to conceive for argument’s sake, there could have
been
no aggregation of Matter — no stars — no worlds — nothing but a
perpetually
atomic and inconsequential Universe. In fact, view it as we will, the
whole
idea of unlimited Matter is not only untenable, but impossible and
preposterous.
With the understanding of a sphere of
atoms,
however, we perceive, at once, a satisfiable tendency to
union.
The general result of the tendency each to each, being a tendency of
all
to the centre, the general process of condensation, or
approximation,
commences immediately, by a common and simultaneous movement, on
withdrawal
of the Divine Volition; the individual approximations, or
coalescences — not cöalitions — of atom with atom, being
subject to almost infinite
variations
of time, degree, and condition, on account of the excessive
multiplicity
of relation, arising from the differences of form assumed as
characterizing
the atoms at the moment of their quitting the Particle Proper; as well
as from the subsequent particular inequidistance, each from each.
What I wish to impress upon the reader is the
certainty
of there arising, at once, (on withdrawal of the diffusive force, or
Divine
Volition,) out of the condition of the atoms as described, at
innumerable
points throughout the Universal sphere, innumerable agglomerations,
characterized
by innumerable specific differences of form, size, essential nature,
and
distance each from each. The [page 162:]
development
of Repulsion (Electricity) must have commenced, of course, with the
very
earliest particular efforts at Unity, and must have proceeded
constantly
in the ratio of Coalescence — that is to say, in that of Condensation,
or, again, of Heterogeneity.
Thus the two Principles Proper, Attraction and
Repulsion — the Material and the Spiritual —
accompany each
other,
in the strictest fellowship, forever. Thus The Body and The Soul
walk
hand in hand.
If now, in fancy, we select any one of
the
agglomerations considered as in their primary stages throughout the
Universal
sphere, and suppose this incipient agglomeration to be taking place at
that point where the centre of our Sun exists — or rather where it did
exist originally; for the Sun is perpetually shifting
his position
— we shall find ourselves met, and borne onward for a time at least, by
the most magnificent of theories — by the Nebular Cosmogony of Laplace:
— although “Cosmogony” is far too comprehensive a term for what he
really
discusses — which is the constitution of our solar system alone — of
one
among the myriad of similar systems which make up the Universe Proper —
that Universal sphere — that all-inclusive and absolute Kosmos
which
forms the subject of my present Discourse.
Confining himself to an obviously limited
region — that of our solar system with its comparatively immediate
vicinity —
and merely assuming — that is to say, assuming without any
basis
whatever either deductive or inductive — much of what I have
been just endeavoring to place
upon
a more stable basis than assumption; assuming, for example, matter as
diffused
(without pretending to account for the diffusion) throughout, and
somewhat
beyond, the space occupied by our system — diffused in a state of
heterogeneous
nebulosity and obedient to that omniprevalent law of Gravity at whose
principle
he ventured to make no guess; assuming all this (which is quite true,
although
he had no logical right to its assumption) Laplace has shown,
dynamically
and mathematically, that the results in such case necessarily ensuing,
are
those and those alone which we find manifested in the actually
existing
condition of the system itself.
To explain: — Let us conceive that particular
agglomeration of which we have just spoken — the one at the point
designated
by [page 163:] our Sun’s centre — to have so far
proceeded
that a vast quantity of nebulous matter has here assumed a roughly
globular
form; its centre being, of course, coincident with what is now, or
rather
was originally, the centre of our Sun; and its periphery extending out
beyond
the orbit of Neptune, the most remote of our planets: — in other words,
let
us suppose the diameter of this rough sphere to be some 6000
millions
of miles. For ages, this mass of matter has been undergoing
condensation,
until at length it has become reduced into the bulk we imagine; having
proceeded gradually, of course, from its atomic and imperceptible
state,
into what we understand of visible, palpable, or otherwise appreciable
nebulosity.
Now, the condition of this mass implies a
rotation
about an imaginary axis — a rotation which, commencing with the
absolute
incipiency of the aggregation, has been ever since acquiring
velocity.
The very first two atoms which met, approaching each other from points
not diametrically opposite, would, in rushing partially past each
other,
form a nucleus for the rotary movement described. How this would
increase
in velocity, is readily seen. The two atoms are joined by others: — an
aggregation is formed. The mass continues to rotate while condensing.
But
any atom at the circumference has, of course, a more rapid motion than
one nearer the centre. The outer atom, however, with its superior
velocity,
approaches the centre; carrying this superior velocity with it as it
goes.
Thus every atom, proceeding inwardly, and finally attaching itself to
the
condensed centre, adds something to the original velocity of that
centre
— that is to say, increases the rotary movement of the mass.
Let us now suppose this mass so far condensed
that
it occupies precisely the space circumscribed by the orbit of
Neptune,
and that the velocity with which the surface of the mass moves, in the
general rotation, is precisely that velocity with which Neptune now
revolves
about the Sun. At this epoch, then, we are to understand that the
constantly
increasing centrifugal force, having gotten the better of the
non-increasing
centripetal, loosened and separated the exterior and least condensed
stratum,
or a few of the exterior and least condensed strata, at the equator of
the sphere, where the tangential velocity predominated; so that these [page
164:] strata formed about the main body an independent ring
encircling the equatorial regions: — just as the exterior portion
thrown
off, by excessive velocity of rotation, from a grindstone, would form a
ring about the grindstone, but for the solidity of the superficial
material: were this caoutchouc, or anything similar in consistency,
precisely
the
phænomenon I describe would be presented.
The ring thus whirled from the nebulous mass, revolved,
of course, as a separate ring, with just that velocity with
which,
while the surface of the mass, it rotated. In the meantime,
condensation
still proceeding, the interval between the discharged ring and the main
body continued to increase, until the former was left at a vast
distance
from the latter.
Now, admitting the ring to have possessed, by
some
seemingly accidental arrangement of its heterogeneous materials, a
constitution
nearly uniform, then this ring, as such, would never have
ceased
revolving about its primary; but, as might have been anticipated, there
appears to have been enough irregularity in the disposition of the
materials,
to make them cluster about centres of superior solidity; and thus the
annular
form was destroyed.* No doubt, the band was soon
broken up into several
portions, and one of these portions, predominating in mass, absorbed
the
others into itself; the whole settling, spherically, into a planet.
That
this latter, as a planet, continued the revolutionary movement
which
characterized it while a ring, is sufficiently clear; and that it took
upon itself, also, an additional movement in its new condition of
sphere,
is readily explained. The ring being understood as yet unbroken, we see
that its exterior, while the whole revolves about the parent body,
moves
more rapidly than its interior. When the rupture occurred, then, some
portion
in each fragment must have been moving with greater velocity than the
others.
The superior movement prevailing, must have whirled each fragment round
— that is to say, have caused it to rotate; and the direction [page
165:] of the rotation must, of course, have been the
direction
of the revolution whence it arose. All the fragments having
become
subject
to the rotation described, must, in coalescing, have imparted it to the
one planet constituted by their coalescence. — This planet was Neptune.
Its
material continuing to undergo condensation, and the centrifugal force
generated in its rotation, getting, at length, the better of the
centripetal,
as before in the case of the parent orb, a ring was whirled also from
the
equatorial surface of this planet: this ring, having been uniform in
its
constitution, was broken up, and its several fragments, being absorbed
by the most massive, were collectively spherified into a moon.
Subsequently,
the operation was repeated, and a second moon was the result. We thus
account
for the planet Neptune, with the two satellites which accompany him.
In throwing off a ring from its
equator, the Sun
re-established
that equilibrium between its centripetal and centrifugal forces which
had
been disturbed in the process of condensation; but, as this
condensation
still proceeded, the equilibrium was again immediately disturbed,
through
the increase of rotation. By the time the mass had so far shrunk that
it
occupied a spherical space just that circumscribed by the orbit of
Uranus,
we are to understand that the centrifugal force had so far obtained the
ascendency that new relief was needed: a second equatorial band was,
consequently,
thrown off, which, proving ununiform, was broken up, as before in the
case of Neptune; the fragments settling into the planet Uranus; the
velocity
of whose actual revolution about the Sun indicates, of course, the
rotary
speed of that Sun’s equatorial surface at the moment of the separation.
Uranus, adopting a rotation from the collective rotations of the
fragments
composing it, as previously explained, now threw off ring after ring;
each
of which, becoming broken up, settled into a moon: — three moons, at
different
epochs, having been formed, in this manner, by the rupture and general
spherification of as many distinct ununiform rings.
By the time the Sun had shrunk until it occupied
a space just that circumscribed by the orbit of Saturn, the balance, we
are to suppose, between its centripetal and centrifugal forces had
again
become so far disturbed, through increase of rotary velocity, the
result
of condensation, that a third effort at equilibrium became [page
166:] necessary; and an annular band was therefore whirled
off,
as twice before; which, on rupture through ununiformity, became
consolidated
into the planet Saturn. This latter threw off, in the first place,
seven uniform bands, which, on rupture, were spherified respectively
into
as many moons; but, subsequently, it appears to have discharged, at
three
distinct but not very distant epochs, three rings whose equability of
constitution
was, by apparent accident, so considerable as to present no occasion
for
their rupture; thus they continue to revolve as rings. I use the phrase
“apparent accident;” for of accident in the ordinary sense there
was, of course, nothing: — the term is properly applied only to the
result
of indistinguishable or not immediately traceable law.
Shrinking still farther, until it occupied just
the
space circumscribed by the orbit of Jupiter, the Sun now found need of
farther effort to restore the counterbalance of its two forces,
continually
disarranged in the still continued increase of rotation. Jupiter,
accordingly, was now thrown off; passing from the annular to the
planetary
condition; and, on attaining this latter, threw off in its turn, at
four
different epochs, four rings, which finally resolved themselves into so
many moons.
Still shrinking, until its sphere occupied just
the
space defined by the orbit of the Asteroids, the Sun now discarded a
ring
which appears to have had eight centres of superior solidity,
and, on
breaking
up, to have separated into eight fragments, no one of which so far
predominated
in mass as to absorb the others. All therefore, as distinct although
comparatively small
planets,
proceeded to revolve in orbits whose distances, each from each, may be
considered as in some degree the measure of the force which drove them
asunder: — all the orbits, nevertheless, being so closely coincident as
to
admit of our calling them one, in view of the other planetary
orbits.
Continuing to shrink, the Sun, on becoming so
small
as just to fill the orbit of Mars, now discharged this planet — of
course
by the process repeatedly described. Since he had no moon, however,
Mars
could have thrown off no ring. In fact, an epoch had now arrived in the
career of the parent body, the centre of the system. The decrease
of its nebulosity, which is the increase of its density, and
which
again is the decrease of its condensation, out of [page
167:] which latter arose the constant disturbance of
equilibrium
— must, by this period, have attained a point at which the efforts for
restoration would have been more and more ineffectual just in
proportion
as they were less frequently needed. Thus the processes of which we
have
been speaking would everywhere show signs of exhaustion — in the
planets,
first, and secondly, in the original mass. We must not fall into the
error
of supposing the decrease of interval observed among the planets as we
approach the Sun, to be in any respect indicative of an increase of
frequency
in the periods at which they were discarded. Exactly the converse is to
be understood. The longest interval of time must have occurred between
the discharges of the two interior; the shortest, between those of the
two exterior, planets. The decrease of the interval of space is,
nevertheless,
the measure of the density, and thus inversely of the condensation, of
the Sun, throughout the processes detailed.
Having shrunk, however, so far as to fill only
the
orbit of our Earth, the parent sphere whirled from itself still one
other
body — the Earth — in a condition so nebulous as to admit of this
body’s
discarding, in its turn, yet another, which is our Moon; — but here
terminated
the lunar formations.
Finally, subsiding to the orbits first of Venus
and
then of Mercury, the Sun discarded these two interior planets; neither
of which has given birth to any moon.
Thus from his original bulk — or, to speak more
accurately,
from the condition in which we first considered him — from a partially
spherified nebular mass, certainly much more than 5,600
millions of miles in diameter — the great central orb and
origin
of our solar-planetary-lunar system, has gradually descended, by
condensation,
in obedience to the law of Gravity, to a globe only 882,000 miles in
diameter; but it by no means follows, either that its
condensation is yet complete, or that it may not still possess the
capacity
of whirling from itself another planet.
I have here given — in outline, of course, but
still
with all the detail necessary for distinctness — a view of the Nebular
Theory as its author himself conceived it. From whatever point we
regard
it, we shall find it beautifully true. It is by far too
beautiful,
indeed, not to possess Truth as its essentiality — and here I am
[page 168:] very profoundly serious in
what I say.
In the revolution of the satellites of Uranus, there does appear
something
seemingly inconsistent with the assumptions of Laplace; but that one
inconsistency can invalidate a theory constructed from a million of
intricate
consistencies, is a fancy fit only for the fantastic. In prophecying,
confidently,
that the apparent anomaly to which I refer, will, sooner or later, be
found
one of the strongest possible corroborations of the general hypothesis,
I pretend to no especial spirit of divination. It is a matter which the
only difficulty seems not to foresee.*
The bodies whirled off in the processes
described,
would exchange, it has been seen, the superficial rotation of
the
orbs whence they originated, for a revolution of equal velocity
about these orbs as distant centres; and the revolution thus engendered
must proceed, so long as the centripetal force, or that with which the
discarded body gravitates toward its parent, is neither greater nor
less
than that by which it was discarded; that is, than the centrifugal, or,
far more properly, than the tangential, velocity. From the unity,
however,
of the origin of these two forces, we might have expected to find them
as they are found — the one accurately counterbalancing the other. It
has
been shown, indeed, that the act of whirling-off is, in every case,
merely
an act for the preservation of the counterbalance.
After referring, however, the centripetal force
to
the omniprevalent law of Gravity, it has been the fashion with
astronomical
treatises, to seek beyond the limits of mere Nature — that is to say,
of Secondary Cause — a solution of the phænomenon of
tangential
velocity.
This latter they attribute directly to a First Cause — to God.
The
force which carries a stellar body around its primary they assert to
have
originated in an impulse given immediately by the finger — this is the
childish phraseology employed — by the finger of Deity itself. In this
view, the planets, fully formed, are conceived to have been hurled from
the Divine hand, to a position in the vicinity of the suns, with an
impetus
mathematically [page 169:] adapted to the masses,
or
attractive capacities, of the suns themselves. An idea so grossly
unphilosophical,
although so supinely adopted, could have arisen only from the
difficulty
of otherwise accounting for the absolutely accurate adaptation, each to
each, of two forces so seemingly independent, one of the other, as are
the gravitating and tangential. But it should be remembered that, for a
long time, the coincidence between the moon’s rotation and her sidereal
revolution — two matters seemingly far more independent than those now
considered — was looked upon as positively miraculous; and there was a
strong disposition, even among astronomers, to attribute the marvel to
the direct and continual agency of God — who, in this case, it was
said,
had found it necessary to interpose, specially, among his general laws,
a set of subsidiary regulations, for the purpose of forever concealing
from mortal eyes the glories, or perhaps the horrors, of the other side
of the Moon — of that mysterious hemisphere which has always avoided,
and
must perpetually avoid, the telescopic scrutiny of mankind. The advance
of Science, however, soon demonstrated — what to the philosophical
instinct
needed no demonstration — that the one movement is but a portion
— something more, even, than a consequence — of the other.
For my part, I have no patience with
fantasies at
once so timorous, so idle, and so awkward. They belong to the veriest
cowardice
of thought. That Nature and the God of Nature are distinct, no thinking
being can long doubt. By the former we imply merely the laws of the
latter.
But with the very idea of God, omnipotent, omniscient, we entertain,
also,
the idea of the infallibility of his laws. With Him there
being
neither Past nor Future — with Him all being Now — do we not
insult
him in supposing his laws so contrived as not to provide for every
possible
contingency? — or, rather, what idea can we have of any
possible
contingency, except that it is at once a result and a manifestation of
his laws? He who, divesting himself of prejudice, shall have the rare
courage
to think absolutely for himself, cannot fail to arrive, in the end, at
the condensation of laws into Law — cannot fail of
reaching
the conclusion that each law of Nature is dependent at all points
upon
all other laws, and that all are but consequences of one primary
exercise
of the Divine Volition. Such is the principle [page 170:]
of the Cosmogony which, with all necessary deference, I here venture to
suggest and to maintain.
In this view, it will be seen that, dismissing as
frivolous, and even impious, the fancy of the tangential force having
been
imparted to the planets immediately, by “the finger of God,” I consider
this force as originating in the rotation of the stars: — this rotation
as
brought about by the in-rushing of the primary atoms, towards their
respective
centres of aggregation: — this in-rushing as the consequence of the law
of
Gravity: — this law as but the mode in which is necessarily manifested
the
tendency of the atoms to return into imparticularity: — this tendency
to return as
but the inevitable rëaction of the first and most sublime of Acts
—
that
act by which a God, self-existing and alone existing, became all things
at once, through dint of his volition, while all things were thus
constituted
a portion of God. |
|
|
|
|
|