_Several objections, made to the Theory of Concentric Spheres,
answered, particularly the one that it contravenes religious opinions;
demonstrating that the earth, and the other orbs of the universe, are
formed on the best possible plan for the maintenance and support of
organic life._
Some of the most prominent objections which I have heard advanced
against the theory of concentric spheres are the following:
1st. That if the earth be not a solid globe, but a hollow concentric
sphere, the quantity of matter being diminished, the attraction of
gravitation must be lessened so much that all moveable bodies resting
on the earth would be thrown off by centrifugal force, in the line of a
tangent from the surface of the sphere.
2d. That according to the established laws of gravity, a hollow sphere
could not exist in nature: that matter would be gravitated to the
centre, and particularly about the polar openings, so as to make it
collapse.
3d. That if the orbs were hollow spheres, the mutual influence of the
planets on each other would be so far destroyed, that they would cease
to revolve in regular orbits.
4th. That the interior of the sphere can never receive the light and
heat of the sun; is involved in perpetual darkness, and more suited to
the infliction of punishment on perverse and rebellious spirits, than
for the residence of beings, fitted and designed for the pursuit and
enjoyment of happiness.
5th. And finally, the adherents of the new theory have been charged
with atheism, deism, and such like epithets, as though they intended to
overturn the works of God, and thwart the laws of nature.
1st. As to the first objection, I would enquire, has it yet been
ascertained with mathematical certainty, in what exact proportion one
particle of matter attracts another? And may there not be some law of
nature with which we are not yet well acquainted? All the experiments,
hitherto made on the attractive power of gravity, were made on the
principle, and under the belief, that the earth is a solid globe;
and consequently the deductions were drawn accordingly. Suppose the
attraction of gravitation, inherent in matter, to be so much increased,
that a hollow sphere would possess the same attractive power, as if
it were a solid globe, would not all the results and consequences be
exactly the same? This being the case,――and I know no reason why we
should conclude differently,――the whole force of the objection appears
to fall to the ground. According to Newton's principle of gravity,
the matter of the sphere would attract all particles of matter placed
on the surface, as well upon the concave as convex, in nearly equal
proportions; and the centrifugal force, which, on the outer side of
the sphere, tends to throw bodies off, on the concave side, would have
an opposite effect. Hence, a person standing, or trees growing, on the
interior surface, would be in no more danger of being precipitated to
the next sphere, between them and the centre, than those on the outer
part of the sphere, when they should be _turned_ (what is familiarly
called) _down_.
The experiments made on the density of the globe, by observations with
the plum-line, at the foot of a mountain, are very ingenious; but
they must be subject to great uncertainty. The true deviation of the
plum-line, the exact quantity of matter in the mountain, or, indeed,
the quantity of matter between the plummet and the centre of gravity,
are points difficult, if not impossible, to be ascertained with
mathematical precision.
If the attraction of the sun is just sufficient to keep the earth in
its orbit, what can give the tendency to retain Jupiter and Saturn in
theirs, each of which, if solid, contains such a vast quantity more
than the earth, and removed to so great a distance from the sun, that
his influence upon either must be greatly lessened by both?
2d. As to the objections that a hollow sphere of the dimension of the
earth cannot exist in nature, I can discover no sound reason to warrant
such a conclusion. Many hollow cylinders and spherical figures, we know
do exist on the surface of the earth; and notwithstanding their own
gravity, which the different parts exert on each other, as well as the
gravity of the earth, they retain their shape and position; and had the
matter in the earth originally been thrown by a centrifugal force into
the form of a hollow sphere, or had the first creating power originally
given it that shape,――I can discover no good reason for a change;
neither should I entertain any apprehensions of the particles of matter
coalescing at the centre.
3d. The force of this objection I cannot appreciate; for if all the
planetary orbs in the universe are composed of hollow concentric
spheres, they must exert the same relative influence on each other,
which they would if they were solid orbs, as they would each contain
the same proportion of matter as respects each other. Hence no good
reason appears why a system of hollow concentric spheres might not do
just as well, and perform their revolutions with the same regularity,
as a system of solid ones.
4th. This great and alarming objection comes next:――that we are about
placing a world in eternal darkness, cut off from all the comforts
and pleasures of refined life, for the enjoyment of which we are so
eminently qualified. Let us examine the force of this objection; and
if we cannot show that the interior is, at least in some degree,
illuminated, we must then conclude that it is a very dreary abode, and
unfitted for the residence of beings so fond of light as we _profess to
be_.
According to the new theory, the northern polar opening is about four
thousand one hundred and fifty miles in diameter, and the axis of the
earth is at an angle of about twelve degrees with the axis of the plane
of the polar opening; consequently, as the sphere revolves on its axis,
one side of the verge of the polar opening will extend considerably
further north than the other. The verge of the north polar opening on
the low side, is laid down at about fifty degrees of latitude, and the
verge of the high side at about sixty-eight degrees.
Now, supposing the sun to be exactly of the same diameter as the earth,
and placed directly over the equator, when the low side of the verge
was turned towards the sun, the direct rays from his northern limb,
independent of refraction, would pass the edge of the lower part of the
verge, and fall on the inner part of the sphere, on the concave part of
the high side opposite, as far as eighteen degrees, or upwards. When
the sun would be on the tropic of Cancer, in June, he must then throw
the rays from his centre twenty-three and a half degrees further within
the sphere, or within twenty-six and a half degrees of the equator;
but the diameter of the sun being so much greater than the earth, the
rays from his northern limb, would fall about thirty-three minutes
further within the sphere, and leave not quite twenty-six degrees
between that and the equator to be excluded from his direct rays.
This relates to the northern polar opening; as to that of the south,
which is believed to be much larger, we will make a few remarks.
The lower side of the south polar opening, is laid in about latitude
thirty-four degrees, and the higher side, in about latitude forty-six
degrees. Were the sun of the same diameter with the earth, as above
premised, and placed on the equator, his direct rays would be thrown
into the south polar opening when the low side was towards him, about
twelve degrees, or to within thirty-four degrees of the equator, and
when on the tropic of Capricorn, in December, twenty-three and a half
degrees further, that is, the inner part of the southern hemisphere
of the sphere, on the high side, would be lighted thirty-five and a
half degrees within the verge; and the direct rays of the sun would
shine within ten and a half degrees of the inner centre of the sphere
or equator. These observations, you will observe, are made in the most
unfavourable point of view. It is well known, that the diameter of the
sun, is vastly greater than that of the earth; consequently, his rays
would pass into the polar opening so much further, in proportion as
the angle of his diameter, and that of the earth, differ, which would
be about thirty-three minutes further, bringing his direct rays in the
south, within less than ten degrees of the equator; and this would be
the case as the sphere revolved on its axis, once in every twenty-four
hours. When the sphere turned, with its high side towards the sun, it
would be night, or twilight, and when the low side was next the sun, it
would be day; at all events, the direct rays of the sun would fall on a
space of about thirty-six and a half degrees in breadth; the reflection
from which would light the whole of the remaining portion of the inner
part of the sphere, to a greater degree, than any moon-light with which
we are acquainted. But there is another circumstance which tends to
throw the rays of the sun much further into the concave than we have
yet got them; that is, the refractive power of the atmosphere. It is
a well known fact that the rays of light are very much refracted when
passing out of a rare into a denser medium; and about the poles of the
earth it is believed, (and this belief is confirmed by navigators) that
refraction increases very considerably, owing to the great density of
the atmosphere. We have good reason then to believe that refraction
throws the rays of the sun several degrees further within the sphere.
But let us take the known refraction of the horizontal ray, at or near
the equator (say one half of a degree) it would throw the rays of light
so much further into the concave, and not leave quite thirty-seven
degrees in the centre of the sphere deprived of the sun's rays. The
motion of the earth causes the apparent motion of the sun to be about
fifteen degrees in an hour, as the diurnal revolution of the earth
causes the sun to move apparently through three hundred and sixty
degrees in twenty-four hours. Now it is a well known fact to all that
the sun gives us light sufficient to be called day-light, for about
an hour after he descends below the horizon; consequently he must
afford us light when he is fifteen degrees obscured from our view.
Accordingly, the sun, though he might not be visible, would illuminate
the concave part of the sphere fifteen degrees further than his direct
rays fall, which reduces the space in the interior of the sphere to the
breadth of not quite seven degrees which would still remain unlighted.
But this is making calculations on the most unfavorable premises
possible. Considering the form of the earth, and the power of
refraction, I have no doubt but the direct rays of the sun would fall
on every part of the inner sphere. However, I have proceeded on such
premises as, I conclude, the most sceptical must admit. Light, we
know, is reflected from solid bodies on which it falls, and also from
the atmosphere: the rays of the sun, then, which would pass the lower
part of the verge and fall on the opposite concave surface, would be
reflected back in all directions, and most probably light the whole
of the interior of the sphere sufficient for the ordinary purposes of
life. By way of further illustration, suppose a perpendicular wall
were raised on a plain, one mile high, does any person believe that
there would be no light on the side of the wall opposite to the sun;
although his rays would have to form an angle of one hundred and forty,
or one hundred and fifty degrees, to reach the earth on that side of
the wall? No axiom is more evident than that the rays of light are
communicated to other places than those on which the rays of the sun
fall directly; for example, we all know that a close room, however
large, with a north window, will be sufficiently lighted by refraction
and reflection from the atmosphere, provided there is no obstruction
opposite the window, although the rays of the sun would have to form an
angle of one hundred and fifty degrees to enter it, and why might not
the whole interior of the sphere be lighted in the same manner, even
supposing the rays of the sun should never enter directly. The north
polar opening being about four thousand one hundred and fifty miles in
diameter, and the southern six thousand three hundred and fifty, with
the whole force of the direct rays of the sun falling on and passing
through the atmosphere at either polar opening, it would not require
refraction, or reflection, to make an angle of ninety degrees to light
the whole of the interior concave; and certainly the polar openings are
sufficiently large for the purpose, when we compare a common window
with the dimensions of an ordinary sized room.
It is believed, by the adherents of the new theory, that the
atmosphere, within the concave, and about the polar openings, is much
denser than our atmosphere; which appears inevitably to be the case,
as the centrifugal force on the convex has the tendency to throw the
atmosphere _from_ the surface, and on the concave to force it from
the centre of motion, and nearer _to_ the surface. This admitted, the
rays of the sun passing out of a rare medium into a denser, would be
refracted much further into the sphere; and the sun-shine on the
surface of one sphere would be reflected obliquely, according to the
angle of incidence, to the next sphere, and in this manner might be
extended even beyond the centre of the concave. It is also believed,
that near the verges of the polar openings, and perhaps in many other
parts of the unfathomable ocean, the spheres are water quite through,
(at least all except the _mid-plane-spaces_, or cavities) which being
the case, light would probably be transmitted between the spheres.
The apparent elevation of celestial bodies above their true altitude,
is greatest when the body is on the horizon, which is ascertained to
be a little more than half a degree; hence, in our climate, the sun
appears three minutes sooner, and sets three minutes later than is
really the case, which increases the length of our day six minutes, by
refraction. This gradually increases in proceeding from the equator
to the frigid zones; and at the poles, were the earth entire, the
day should become thirty-six hours longer, by refraction alone, than
it would otherwise be.[38] It was doubtless owing to some peculiar
refractive power in the northern regions, that caused the Dutch, who
wintered on Nova-Zembla, (which is in latitude between seventy and
seventy-eight degrees,) on the approach of summer, to see the sun
about two weeks sooner than he should have appeared in that latitude,
according to astronomical calculation.[39] This tends to show that
there is more refraction in the northern regions than is observable in
the south.[40]
From an attentive examination of these considerations, I am induced to
conclude, that the interior of the sphere may be as well lighted as the
exterior; or at all events, if not favoured with so great a degree of
light at all times, it has a more regular and constant supply. But,
admitting every thing on this subject that the opponents of the theory
can suggest, I still discover no substantial reason why the earth
may not be a hollow sphere. I can see no substantial reason why the
inhabitants of that portion of the earth, (if any exist there) should
be furnished with as great a degree of light, and as intense a heat,
as we have upon the convex part of the sphere. Must it of necessity
follow, that it cannot be inhabited, or if inhabited, that the beings
who people its surface, are less happy than we? Certainly not. Is
it not well known to us, that every grade and species of animals,
under every variety of circumstance, whether inhabiting the air, the
earth, or the water, are fitted by an all-wise Providence to their
several conditions, and mediums, in which they reside? As well might
we conclude, that the immense planet Jupiter, situated so far from
the sun as he is, can be nothing but a dark, cold, and barren waste,
unfitted for the residence of intelligent beings. It is ascertained
by calculation, that the light and heat which Jupiter receives from
the sun, is only the one twenty-seventh part of what the earth
receives.[41] The light and heat which Saturn receives from the sun
is estimated at only the one hundredth part of that of the earth;[42]
and the planet Georgium Sidus, revolving such an immense distance
further from the sun, than either of them, must enjoy still less light
and heat; according to which, we would conclude, (if we adopt the
belief, that the degree of light and heat, to which we are accustomed,
is necessary for the support of life,) that those vast planets are
not fitted by the God of nature for the residence of intelligent
beings; however, I am inclined to believe that both light and heat are
communicated to them, in some way not well known to us, sufficient for
the purpose. The true principles of light and heat, and the manner in
which they are generated and transmitted, are not perhaps yet well
understood and defined.[43]
5th. Others, when the new theory is mentioned, cry Atheist, Deist,
blasphemy! as if its advocates proposed to make a new world, and
support it without the intervention of Divine Providence: such
opponents scarcely deserve an answer. It is believed by all, that
the earth, the sun, the moon and stars, are the work of an Almighty
power. Whether solid globes or hollow spheres, they equally owe
their existence to the great first cause, that spoke matter into
existence, that arranged it in whatever form and order infinite
wisdom dictated; and that still supports and governs the whole by
universal and unvarying laws. But it is as well known, that the
Almighty Disposer, interposes no miracles for the accomplishment of his
designs, but makes use of means that are uniform in their application,
to effect the intended purpose; hence Geologists, Philosophers, and
Astronomers, attempt to account for the existence of all matter, and
for the formation of planets, according to what is believed to be the
established laws of matter. In so doing, we do not disparage the wisdom
of the Creator, nor controvert the truth of that divine record, which
Providence, in his goodness, has given us for our rule of life. True it
is, the sacred scriptures give us very little information relative to
the structure and formation of the earth and the other planets. They
were not intended to teach mankind Geology, Geography, or Astronomy;
yet where assertions are clearly and distinctly made respecting
these things, we have reason to believe them literally correct: as
for instance, when the Psalmist informs us, that God hung the earth
upon nothing; that He balanced it in empty space, we are to look for
corresponding facts; though it was at variance with the opinion of
the world at that time, modern astronomy now teaches that such is the
fact. In like manner, when we meet with assertions, such as that "the
fountains of the great deep were broken up," (והארץ היתה תהו ובהו,
chapter 1, verse 2,[44]) we must acknowledge their correctness; and I
think it will be admitted, that they are at least as much in favour of
this new theory as the old.
The skilful and attentive observer of nature, whether examining the
most minute or the most sublime, will discover that infinite wisdom,
judgment, and ingenuity, equally prevail throughout. The principal
aims of the great author of all things, appear to have been animation,
diversity, and usefulness; the air we breathe, the water we drink, the
vegetables on which we feed; indeed every leaf and plant of the forest
and field――all teem with animal life. Why then should we believe, or
even presume to think, that the Almighty Fiat, which spoke matter
into existence, for the support and maintenance of living creatures,
innumerable, and endless in the variety of their organization, their
colours, their passions, and their pursuits――why, I say, should we
then presume, that the omnifick word would create even the smallest
particle of any of the immense, the innumerable orbs in the universe,
of inert or useless matter, devoid of activity and design? This earth,
when compared with the magnitude and number of other planets we know,
is but as a point; yet we can hardly conceive, small as she appears
by comparison, that she was only designed to have animate life on
her surface, and all the rest to remain useless! Such an idea seems
unworthy of the Divine Being, whose essence is all perfection. Can
we for a moment suppose, that the interior parts of the earth, have
received less attention from the Creator, than the objects which are
under our immediate inspection? On the contrary, may it not be more
rationally inferred, that, for the object of more widely disseminating
animation, spheres are formed within spheres, concentric with each
other, each revolving on its own axis, and thus multiplying the
habitable superfices?
Great and sublime as our conceptions of the Deity must be, when we
contemplate the earth and its inhabitants――if we turn our attention
to the solar system, our world dwindles into a little insignificant
ball. Yet if we cast our eyes still beyond, and contemplate the eighty
millions of fixed stars, which a good telescope brings to our view,
each the centre of a mighty system of revolving worlds; and then
reflect that all this is only one little dark corner of creation, we
are lost in the magnitude of the contemplation. But when we come to
consider each of these fixed stars, with their planets, and they with
their satellites, all consisting of concentric spheres, revolving
within each other, in due order, and adapted to the support and
comforts of life, for countless millions of beings; we are struck with
ten-fold astonishment and admiration, and bow with reverential awe,
before Him who sits at the head of the universe, and governs the whole
by unvarying laws. It would seem to me, that in contemplating this new
order of creation, the imagination must break through and soar beyond
its old boundaries. It would seem that on embracing this doctrine, the
spirit must expand with increased devotion, and be entirely absorbed in
the infinite wisdom and power of Him, who was competent to devise, and
able to execute, such a beautiful arrangement of matter.
FOOTNOTES:
[38] Physical World, p. 105.
[39] Barrington and Beaufoy, p. 106, and Purchas, v. 3, pp. 499, 500.
[40] The late George Adams, in his Philosophy, treating of refraction,
states, that "at the horizon, in this climate, (England) it is found
to be about thirty-three minutes. In climates near the equator, where
the air is pure, the refraction is less; and in the colder climates,
nearer the pole, it increases exceedingly, and is a happy provision
for lengthening the appearance of the light at those regions so remote
from the sun. Gassendees relates, that some Hollanders, who wintered in
Nova-Zembla, in latitude seventy-five degrees, were agreeably surprised
with a sight of the sun seventeen days before they expected him in the
horizon. This difference was owing to the refraction of the atmosphere
in that latitude."――Adams' Philosophy, v. 4, p. 112, Philadelphia, 1807.
[41] Keith on Globes, p. 144.――
[42] Ibid, p. 149.
[43] Sir Isaac Newton, in his Principia, under prop. 16, book 3, lays
down the following proposition, viz: that "_the heat of the sun is as
the density of his rays, that is reciprocally as the squares of the
distances from the sun_." From this principle, it has been assumed
by some of our modern astronomers, that but few of the planets can
be inhabited, as if the effect of light and heat are reciprocally
proportionate to the squares of the distances from the centre of their
propagation; and if you divide the square of the earth's distance from
the sun, the quotient will show, that the light and heat, which Mercury
receives, are about seven times greater, making it more than twice as
hot as boiling water. The light and heat communicated to Saturn, being
only the one hundredth part of that of the earth, the difference is
more than seven times as great as that between our summer heat and
red hot iron, if the light and heat of the sun are only in proportion
to the density of his rays. Such extremes of heat and cold, we would
naturally conclude must totally preclude all material being, if in the
least degree resembling those we are acquainted with; nor could any of
the vegetable world, known to us, germinate in either extreme; nay,
even the matter of our globe would scarcely withstand it, our oceans
would be dissipated in vapour, on Mercury, and frozen to the bottom
on Saturn. Considerations like these must induce us to conclude, that
light and heat cannot be communicated exactly on the plan laid down
by Newton, viz: that the heat of the sun is simply as the density of
his rays: for though the sun's rays may be the _sine qua non_, without
which no light or heat would be communicated, yet the _quantum_ of heat
may depend on the density and co-operation of the medium through which
it passes, or upon some other circumstance not known to us, and perhaps
impossible for us to know.
[44] I am indebted to an excellent Hebrew scholar for the following:
NOTE. The words תהו ובהו _Theoo_ and _Beoo_, (Genesis, chapter 1,
verse 2,) which has been rendered by the translators of our bible,
"Without form and void," might perhaps, with equal propriety, have been
translated "without form and hollow."
1. _Theoo_, the root, agreeably to the Hebrew grammar, is found as a
noun תה or תהה _The_ or _Thee_, and, is rendered _confusion_, loose,
unconnected, without form, order, or the like; and so well understood.
2. _Be-oo_, the root, is, according to the same rule, found in
בה――_Be_, (_Bethhey_) _hollow_; it occurs not only in this form but――
1. As a noun בהו Beoo――Hollow, empty, having nothing in it but air,
filled only _vacuo aere_, with empty air, as Lucan calls it, Lib. 5,
line 94.
2. As a noun fem: in reg: בת, בת עין Bet, Bethoin, the apparent
hollow, or pupil of the eye, &c. Comp. בבת Bebath, under, בב Beb.
3. As a noun fem: תבה _Thebe_ in Reg: תבת Thebeth, an ark, a hollow
vessel, under 2d head of בב Beb. occurs not as a verb in kab, but
1. As a _participial_ noun, or participle in Nipth נבוב Neboob, hollow,
made hollow, &c.
2. It is applied spiritually, hollow, empty, vain.
3. To the sight, or pupil of the eye; that part of the eye which
appears hollow, and admits the light. See Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon.
Had the learned translators of our bible possessed a knowledge of the
theory of concentric spheres, it is probable they would have given
the English reader the most correct meaning of the words, תהו ובהו
"_without form and hollow_," or "_shapeless and hollow_."