Plantary Orbits

Kepler and Bullialdus have, with great care (p. 388), determined the distances of the planets from the sun; and hence it is that their tables agree best with the heavens. And in all the planets, in Jupiter and Mars, in Saturn and the earth, as well as in Venus and Mercury, the cubes of their distances are as the squares of their periodic times; and therefore (by Cor. VI, Prop. IV) the centripetal circum-solar force throughout all the planetary regions decreases in the duplicate proportion of the distances from the sun. In examining this proportion, we are to use the mean distances, or the transverse semi-axes of the orbits (by Prop. XV), and to neglect those little fractions, which, in defining the orbits, may have arisen from the in sensible errors of observation, or may be ascribed to other causes which we shall afterwards explain. And thus we shall always find the said proportion to hold exactly; for the distances of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Earth, Venus, and Mercury, from the sun, drawn from the observations of astronomers, are, according to the computation of Kepler, as the numbers 951000, 519650, 152350, 100000, 72400, 38806; by the computation of Bullialdus, as the numbers 954198, 522520, 152350, 100000, 72398, 38585; and from the periodic times they come out 953806, 520116, 152399, 100000, 72333, 38710. Their distances, according to Kepler and Bullialdus, scarcely differ by any sensible quantity, and where they differ most the distances drawn from the periodic times, fall in between them.

That the circum-terrestrial force likewise decreases in the duplicate proportion of the distances, I infer thus.

The mean distance of the moon from the centre of the earth, is, in semi-diameters of the earth, according to Ptolemy, Kepler in his Ephemerides, Bullialdus, Hevelius, and Ricciolus, 59; according to Flamsted, 59⅓; according to Tycho, 56½; to Vendelin, 60; to Copernicus, 60⅓; to Kircher, 62½ ( p . 391, 392, 393).

But Tycho, and all that follow his tables of refraction, making the refractions of the sun and moon (altogether against the nature of light) to exceed those of the fixed stars, and that by about four or five minutes in the horizon, did thereby augment the horizontal parallax of the moon by about the like number of minutes; that is, by about the 12th or 15th part of the whole parallax. Correct this error, and the distance will be come 60 or 61 semi-diameters of the earth, nearly agreeing with what others have determined.

Let us, then, assume the mean distance of the moon 60 semi-diameters of the earth, and its periodic time in respect of the fixed stars 27d.7h.43′, as astronomers have determined it. And (by Cor. VI, Prop. IV) a body revolved in our air, near the surface of the earth supposed at rest, by means of a centripetal force which should be to the same force at the distance of the moon in the reciprocal duplicate proportion of the distances from the centre of the earth, that is, as 3600 to 1, would (secluding the resistance of the air) complete a revolution in 1h.24′ 27″.

Suppose the circumference of the earth to be 123249600 Paris feet, as has been determined by the late mensuration of the French (vide p. 406); then the same body, deprived of its circular motion, and falling by the impulse of the same centripetal force as before, would, in one second of time, describe 151⁄12 Paris feet.

This we infer by a calculus formed upon Prop. XXXVI, and it agrees with what we observe in all bodies about the earth. For by the experiments of pendulums, and a computation raised thereon, Mr. Huygens has demonstrated that bodies falling by all that centripetal force with which (of whatever nature it is) they are impelled near the surface of the earth, do, in one second of time, describe 151⁄12 Paris feet.

But if the earth is supposed to move, the earth and moon together (by Cor. IV of the Laws of Motion, and Prop. LVII) will be revolved about their common centre of gravity. And the moon (by Prop. LX) will in the same periodic time, 27d.7h.43’, with the same circum-terrestrial force diminished in the duplicate proportion of the distance, describe an orbit whose semi-diameter is to the semi-diameter of the former orbit, that is, to 60 semi-diameters of the earth, as the sum of both the bodies of the earth and moon to the first of two mean proportionals between this sum and the body of the earth; that is if we suppose the moon (on account of its mean apparent diameter 31½’) to be about 1⁄42 of the earth, as 43 to ( 42 + 43 ) 2 3 {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\sqrt[{3}]{\left(42+43\right)^{2}}}}, or as about 128 to 127. And therefore the semi-diameter of the orbit, that is, the distance between the centres of the moon and earth, will in this case be 60½ semi-diameters of the earth, almost the same with that assigned by Copernicus, which the Tychonic observations by no means disprove; and, therefore, the duplicate proportion of the decrement of the force holds good in this distance. I have neglected the increment of the orbit which arises from the action of the sun as inconsiderable; but if that is subducted, the true distance will remain about 604⁄9 semi-diameters of the earth.

But farther (p. 390); this proportion of the decrement of the forces is confirmed from the eccentricity of the planets, and the very slow motion of their apses; for (by the Corollaries of Prop. XLV) in no other proportion could the circum-solar planets once in every revolution descend to their least and once ascend to their greatest distance from the sun, and the places of those distances remain immoveable. A small error from the duplicate proportion would produce a motion of the apses considerable in every revolution, but in many enormous.

But now, after innumerable revolutions, hardly any such motion has been perceived in the orbs of the circum-solar planets. Some astronomers affirm that there is no such motion; others reckon it no greater than what may easily arise from the causes hereafter to be assigned, and is of no moment in the present question.

We may even neglect the motion of the moon’s apsis (p. 390, 391), which is far greater than in the circum-solar planets, amounting in every revolution to three degrees; and from this motion it is demonstrable that the circum-terrestrial force decreases in no less than the duplicate, but far less than the triplicate proportion of the distance; for if the duplicate proportion was gradually changed into the triplicate, the motion of the apsis would thereby increase to infinity; and, therefore, by a very small mutation, would exceed the motion of the moon’s apsis. This slow motion arises from the action of the circum-solar force, as we shall afterwards explain. But, secluding this cause, the apsis or apogeon of the moon will be fixed, and the duplicate proportion of the decrease of the circum-terrestrial force in different distances from the earth will accurately take place.

Now that this proportion has been established, we may compare the forces of the several planets among themselves (p. 391).

In the mean distance of Jupiter from the earth, the greatest elongation of the outmost satellite from Jupiter’s centre (by the observations of Mr. Flamsted) is 8′ 13″; and therefore the distance of the satellite from the centre of Jupiter is to the mean distance of Jupiter from the centre of the sun as 124 to 52012, but to the mean distance of Venus from the centre of the sun as 124 to 7234; and their periodic times are 16¾d. and 224⅔d; and from hence (according to Cor. II, Prop. IV), dividing the distances by the squares of the times, we infer that the force by which the satellite is impelled towards Jupiter is to the force by which Venus is impelled towards the sun as 442 to 143; and if we diminish the force by which the satellite is impelled in the duplicate proportion of the distance 124 to 7234, we shall have the circum-jovial force in the distance of Venus from the sun to the circum-solar force by which Venus is impelled as 13⁄100 to 143, or as 1 to 1100; wherefore at equal distances the circum-solar force is 1100 times greater than the circum-jovial.

And, by the like computation, from the periodic time of the satellite of Saturn 15d.22h. and its greatest elongation from Saturn, while that planet is in its mean distance from us, 3′ 20″, it follows that the distance of this satellite from Saturn’s centre is to the distance of Venus from the sun as 922⁄5 to 7234; and from thence that the absolute circum-solar force is 2360 times greater than the absolute circum-saturnal.

From the regularity of the heliocentric and irregularity of the geocentric motions of Venus, of Jupiter, and the other planets, it is evident (by Cor. IV, Prop. III) that the circum-terrestrial force, compared with the circum-solar, is very small.

Ricciolus and Vendelin have severally tried to determine the sun’s parallax from the moon’s dichotomies observed by the telescope, and they agree that it does not exceed half a minute.

Kepler, from Tycho’s observations and his own, found the parallax of Mars insensible, even in opposition to the sun, when that parallax is some thing greater than the sun’s.

Flamsted attempted the same parallax with the micrometer in the perigeon position of Mars, but never found it above 25″; and thence concluded the sun’s parallax at most 10″.

Whence it follows that the distance of the moon from the earth bears no greater proportion to the distance of the earth from the sun than 29 to 1 0000; nor to the distance of Venus from the sun than 29 to 7233.

From which distances, together with the periodic times, by the method above explained, it is easy to infer that the absolute circum-solar force is greater than the absolute circum-terrestrial force at least 229400 times.

And though we were only certain, from the observations of Ricciolus and Vendelin, that the sun’s parallax was less than half a minute, yet from this it will follow that the absolute circum-solar force exceeds the absolute circum-terrestrial force 8500 times.

By the like computations I happened to discover an analogy, that is observed between the forces and the bodies of the planets; but, before I explain this analogy, the apparent diameters of the planets in their mean distances from the earth must be first determined.

Mr. Flamsted (p. 387), by the micrometer, measured the diameter of Jupiter 40″ or 41″; the diameter of Saturn’s ring 50″; and the diameter of the sun about 32′ 13″ (p. 387).

But the diameter of Saturn is to the diameter of the ring, according to Mr. Huygens and Dr. Halley, as 4 to 9; according to Galletius, as 4 to 10; and according to Hooke (by a telescope of 60 feet), as 5 to 12. And from the mean proportion, 5 to 12, the diameter of Saturn’s body is inferred about 21″.

Such as we have said are the apparent magnitudes; but, because of the unequal refrangibility of light, all lucid points are dilated by the telescope, and in the focus of the object-glass possess a circular space whose breadth is about the 50th part of the aperture of the glass.

It is true, that towards the circumference the light is so rare as hardly to move the sense; but towards the middle, where it is of greater density, and is sensible enough, it makes a small lucid circle, whose breadth varies according to the splendor of the lucid point, but is generally about the 3d, or 4th, or 5th part of the breadth of the whole.

Let ABD represent the circle of the whole light; PQ the small circle of the denser and clearer light; C the centre of both; CA, CB, semi-diameters of the greater circle containing a right angle at C; ACBE the square comprehended under these semi-diameters; AB the diagonal of that square; EGH an hyperbola with the centre C and asymptotes CA, CB, PG a perpendicular erected from any point P of the line BC, and meeting the hyperbola in G, and the right lines AB, AE, in K and F: and the density of the light in any place P, will, by my computation, be as the line FG, and therefore at the centre infinite, but near the circumference very small. And the whole light within the small circle PQ is to the without as the area of the quadrilateral figure CAKP to the triangle

PKB. And we are to understand the small circle PQ to be there terminated, where FG, the density of the light, begins to be less than what is required to move the sense.

Hence it was, that, at the distance of 191382 feet, a fire of 3 feet in diameter, through a telescope of 3 feet, appeared to Mr. Picart of 8″ in breadth, when it should have appeared only of 3″ 14‴; and hence it is that the brighter fixed stars appear through the telescope as of 5″ or 6″ in diameter, and that with a good full light; but with a fainter light they appear to run out to a greater breadth. Hence, likewise, it was that Hevelius, by diminishing the aperture of the telescope, did cut off a great part of the light towards the circumference, and brought the disk of the star to be more distinctly defined, which, though hereby diminished, did yet appear as of 5″ or 6″ in diameter. But Mr. Huygens, only by clouding the eye-glass with a little smoke, did so effectually extinguish this scattered light, that the fixed stars appeared as mere points, void of all sensible breadth. Hence also it was that Mr. Huygens, from the breadth of bodies interposed to intercept the whole light of the planets, reckoned their diameters greater than others have measured them by the micrometer; for the scattered light, which could not be seen before for the stronger light of the planet, when the planet is hid, appears every way farther spread. Lastly, from hence it is that the planets appear so small in the disk of the sun, being lessened by the dilated light. For to Hevelius, Galletius, and Dr. Halley, Mercury did not seem to exceed 12″ or 15″; and Venus appeared to Mr. Crabtrie only 1′ 3″; to Horrox but 1′ 12″; though by the mensurations of Hevelius and Hugenius without the sun’s disk, it ought to have been seen at least 1′ 24″. Thus the apparent diameter of the moon, which in 1684, a few days both before and after the sun’s eclipse, was measured at the observatory of Paris 31′ 30″, in the eclipse itself did not seem to exceed 30′ or 30′ 05″; and therefore the diameters of the planets are to be diminished when without the sun, and to be augmented when within it, by some seconds. But the errors seem to be less than usual in the mensurations that are made by the micrometer. So from the diameter of the shadow, determined by the eclipses of the satellites, Mr. Flamsted found that the semi-diameter of Jupiter was to the greatest elongation of the outmost satellite as 1 to 24,903. Wherefore since that elongation is 8′ 13″, the diameter of Jupiter will be 39½″; and, rejecting the scattered light, the diameter found by the micrometer 40″ or 41″ will be reduced to 39½″; and the diameter of Saturn 21″ is to be diminished by the like correction, and to be reckoned 20″, or something less. But (if I am not mistaken) the diameter of the sun, because of its stronger light, is to be diminished something more, and to be reckoned about 32′, or 3′ 6″.

That bodies so different in magnitude should come so near to an analogy with their forces, is not without some mystery (p. 400).

It may be that the remoter planets, for want of heat, have not those metallic substances and ponderous minerals with which our earth abounds; and that the bodies of Venus and Mercury, as they are more exposed to the sun’s heat, are also harder baked, and more compact.

For, from the experiment of the burning-glass, we see that the heat increases with the density of light; and this density increases in the reciprocal duplicate proportion of the distance from the sun; from whence the sun’s heat in Mercury is proved to be sevenfold its heat in our summer seasons. But with this heat our water boils; and those heavy fluids, quick silver and the spirit of vitriol, gently evaporate, as I have tried by the thermometer; and therefore there can be no fluids in Mercury but what are heavy, and able to bear a great heat, and from which substances of great density may be nourished.

And why not, if God has placed different bodies at different distances from the sun, so as the denser bodies always possess the nearer places, and each body enjoys a degree of heat suitable to its condition, and proper for its nourishment? From this consideration it will best appear that the weights of all the planets are one to another as their forces.

But I should be glad the diameters of the planets were more accurately measured; and that may be done, if a lamp, set at a great distance, is made to shine through a circular hole, and both the hole and the light of the lamp are so diminished that the spectrum may appear through the telescope just like the planet, and may be defined by the same measure: then the diameter of the hole will be to its distance from the objective glass as the true diameter of the planet to its distance from us. The light of the lamp may be diminished by the interposition either of pieces of cloth, or of smoked glass.

Of kin to the analogy we have been describing, there is another observed between the forces and the bodies attracted (p. 395, 396, 397). Since the action of the centripetal force upon the planets decreases in the duplicate proportion of the distance, and the periodic time increases in the sesquiplicate thereof, it is evident that the actions of the centripetal force, and therefore the periodic times, would be equal in equal planets at equal distances from the sun; and in equal distances of unequal planets the total actions of the centripetal force would be as the bodies of the planets; for if the actions were not proportional to the bodies to be moved, they could not equally retract these bodies from the tangents of their orbs in equal times: nor could the motions of the satellites of Jupiter be so regular, if it was not that the circum-solar force was equally exerted upon Jupiter and all its satellites in proportion of their several weights. And the same thing is to be said of Saturn in respect of its satellites, and of our earth in respect of the moon, as appears from Cor. II and III, Prop. LXV. And, therefore, at equal distances, the actions of the centripetal force are equal upon all the planets in proportion of their bodies, or of the quantities of matter in their several bodies; and for the same reason must be the same upon all the particles of the same size of which the planet is composed; for if the action was greater upon some sort of particles than upon others than in proportion to their quantity of matter, it would be also greater or less upon the whole planets not in proportion to the quantity only, but like wise of the sort of the matter more copiously found in one and more sparingly in another.

In such bodies as are found on our earth of very different sorts, I examined this analogy with great accuracy (p. 343, 344).

If the action of the circum-terrestrial force is proportional to the bodies to be moved, it will (by the Second Law of Motion) move them with equal velocity in equal times, and will make all bodies let fall to descend through equal spaces in equal times, and all bodies hung by equal threads to vibrate in equal times. If the action of the force was greater, the times would be less; if that was less, these would be greater.

But it has been long ago observed by others, that (allowance being made for the small resistance of the air) all bodies descend through equal spaces in equal times; and, by the help of pendulums, that equality of times may be distinguished to great exactness.

I tried the thing in gold, silver, lead, glass, sand, common salt, wood, water, and wheat. I provided two equal wooden boxes. I filled the one with wood, and suspended an equal weight of gold (as exactly as I could) in the centre of oscillation of the other. The boxes, hung by equal threads of 11 feet, made a couple of pendulums perfectly equal in weight and figure, and equally exposed to the resistance of the air: and, placing the one by the other, I observed them to play together forwards and backwards for a long while, with equal vibrations. And therefore (by Cor. 1 and VI, Prop. XXIV. Book II) the quantity of matter in the gold was to the quantity of matter in the wood as the action of the motive force upon all the gold to the action of the same upon all the wood; that is, as the weight of the one to the weight of the other.

And by these experiments, in bodies of the same weight, could have discovered a difference of matter less than the thousandth part of the whole.

Since the action of the centripetal force upon the bodies attracted is, at equal distances, proportional to the quantities of matter in those bodies, reason requires that it should be also proportional to the quantity of matter in the body attracting.

For all action is mutual, and (p. 83, 93. by the Third Law of Motion) makes the bodies mutually to approach one to the other, and therefore must be the same in both bodies. It is true that we may consider one body at attracting, another as attracted; but this distinction is more mathematical than natural. The attraction is really common of either to other, and therefore of the same kind in both.

And hence it is that the attractive force is found in both. The sun attracts Jupiter and the other planets; Jupiter attracts its satellites; and, for the same reason, the satellites act as well one upon another as upon Jupiter, and all the planets mutually one upon another.

Though the mutual actions of two planets may be distinguished and considered as two, by which each attracts the other, yet, as those actions are intermediate, they do not make two but one operation between two terms.

Two bodies may be mutually attracted each to the other by the contraction of a cord interposed. There is a double cause of action, to wit, the disposition of both bodies, as well as a double action in so far as the action is considered as upon two bodies; but as betwixt two bodies it is but one single one. It is not one action by which the sun attracts Jupiter, and another by which Jupiter attracts the sun; but it is one action by which the sun and Jupiter mutually endeavour to approach each the other. By the action with which the sun attracts Jupiter, Jupiter and the sun endeavours to come nearer together (by the Third Law of Motion); and by the action with which Jupiter attracts the sun, likewise Jupiter and the sun endeavor to come nearer together. But the sun is not attracted towards Jupiter by a twofold action, nor Jupiter by a twofold action towards the sun; but it is one single intermediate action, by which both approach nearer together.

Thus iron draws the load-stone (p. 93), as well as the load-stone draws the iron: for all iron in the neighbourhood of the load-stone draws other iron. But the action betwixt the load-stone and iron is single, and is considered as single by the philosophers. The action of iron upon the load-stone, is, indeed, the action of the load-stone betwixt itself and the iron, by which both endeavour to come nearer together: and so it manifestly appears; for if you remove the load-stone, the whole force of the iron almost ceases.