The absurdity of supposing the Earth at rest.
For, if the Sun moves about the Earth, the Earth’s attractive power must draw the Sun towards it from the line of projection so, as to bend it’s motion into a curve; and the Earth being at least 169 thousand times lighter than the Sun, by being so much less as to it’s quantity of matter, must move 169 thousand times faster toward the Sun than the Sun does toward the Earth; and consequently would fall to the Sun in a short time if it had not a very strong projectile motion to carry it off. The Earth therefore, as well as every other Planet in the System, must have a rectilineal impulse to prevent its falling into the Sun. To say, that gravitation retains all the other Planets in their Orbits without affecting the Earth, which is placed between the Orbits of Mars and Venus, is as absurd as to suppose that six cannon bullets might be projected upwards to different heights in the Air, and that five of them should fall down to the ground; but the sixth, which is neither the highest nor the lowest, should remain suspended in the Air without falling; and the Earth move round about it.
109. There is no such thing in nature as a heavy body moving round a light one as its centre of motion. A pebble fastened to a mill-stone by a string, may by an easy impulse be made to circulate round the mill-stone: but no impulse can make a mill-stone circulate round a loose pebble, for the heaviest would undoubtedly carry the lightest along with it wherever it goes.
110. The Sun is so immensely bigger and heavier than the Earth[[18]], that if he was moved out of his place, not only the Earth, but all the other Planets if they were united into one mass, would be carried along with the Sun as the pebble would be with the mill-stone.
The harmony of the celestial motions.
The absurdity of supposing the Stars and Planets to move round
the Earth.
111. By considering the law of gravitation, which takes place throughout the Solar System, in another light, it will be evident that the Earth moves round the Sun in a year; and not the Sun round the Earth. It has been shewn (§ [106]) that the power of gravity decreases as the square of the distance increases: and from this it follows with mathematical certainty, that when two or more bodies move round another as their centre of motion, the squares of their periodic times will be to one another in the same proportion as the cubes of their distances from the central body. This holds precisely with regard to the Planets round the Sun, and the Satellites round the Planets; the relative distances of all which, are well known. But, if we suppose the Sun to move round the Earth, and compare its period with the Moon’s by the above rule, it will be found that the Sun would take no less than 173,510 days to move round the Earth, in which case our year would be 475 times as long as it now is. To this we may add, that the aspects of increase and decrease of the Planets, the times of their seeming to stand still, and to move direct and retrograde, answer precisely to the Earth’s motion; but not at all to the Sun’s without introducing the most absurd and monstrous suppositions, which would destroy all harmony, order, and simplicity in the System. Moreover, if the Earth is supposed to stand still, and the Stars to revolve in free spaces about the Earth in 24 hours, it is certain that the forces by which the Stars revolve in their Orbits are not directed to the Earth, but to the centres of the several Orbits: that is, of the several parallel Circles which the Stars on different sides of the Equator describe every day: and the like inferences may be drawn from the supposed diurnal motion of the Planets, since they are never in the Equinoctial but twice, in their courses with regard to the starry Heavens. But, that forces should be directed to no central body, on which they physically depend, but to innumerable imaginary points in the axe of the Earth produced to the Poles of the Heavens, is an hypothesis too absurd to be allowed of by any rational creature. And it is still more absurd to imagine that these forces should increase exactly in proportion to the distances from this axe; for this is an indication of an increase to infinity: whereas the force of attraction is found to decrease in receding from the fountain from whence it flows. But, the farther that any Star is from the quiescent Pole the greater must be the Orbit which it describes; and yet it appears to go round in the same time as the nearest Star to the Pole does. And if we take into consideration the two-fold motion observed in the Stars, one diurnal round the Axis of the Earth in 24 hours, and the other round the Axis of the Ecliptic in 25920 years § [251], it would require an explication of such a perplexed composition of forces, as could by no means be reconciled with any physical Theory.
Objections against the Earth’s motion answered.
112. There is but one objection of any weight that can be made to the Earth’s motion round the Sun; which is, that in opposite points of the Earth’s Orbit, it’s Axis which always keeps a parallel direction would point to different fixed Stars; which is not found to be fact. But this objection is easily removed by considering the immense distance of the Stars in respect of the diameter of the Earth’s Orbit; the latter being no more than a point when compared to the former. If we lay a ruler on the side of a table, and along the edge of the ruler view the top of a spire at ten miles distance; then lay the ruler on the opposite side of the table in a parallel situation to what it had before, and the spire will still appear along the edge of the ruler; because our eyes, even when assisted by the best instruments are incapable of distinguishing so small a change.
113. Dr. Bradley, our present Astronomer Royal, has found by a long series of the most accurate observations, that there is a small apparent motion of the fixed Stars, occasioned by the aberration of their light, and so exactly answering to an annual motion of the Earth, as evinces the same, even to a mathematical demonstration. Those who are qualified to read the Doctor’s modest Account of this great discovery may consult the Philosophical Transactions, No 406. Or they may find it treated of at large by Drs. Smith[[19]], Long[[20]], Desaguliers[[21]], Rutherfurth, Mr. Maclaurin[[22]], and M. de la Caille[[23]].
Why the Sun appears to change his place.