Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1886-10-16
HOW IS THIS, Mr.. RUSH 4!
pROFEssOK HsRsHssR ATTACKS THE
ssW THEORY or OKBITs.


weeks ago we noticed a somewhat strange
| sight Sinos aud yorsod sines Ia daily
paper are rather uncommon 80 far ~ We
know thom, aud wo therefore naturally
turned to that part OF tho paper in order to
| sec what now thing had come to pass that re-
qulred a display oi 80 much rigid mathena-
| tics On reading tho article II was found to
be a demonstration Of a new theory, nothing
very startling, but on reading little farther
wo find that II IL ono which demonstrates
| that Sir Isaac Newton IL all wrong. This
latter assertion did make US feel a little un-
| comfortable; since as far ~ we know, Sir
Isaac Newton II very generally regarded as
good authority. Particularly 40 on questions
involving laws ofmotion.
We are only brought 10 make few 0bser-
vatIons on the new demonstration, for 1t IL
now in more ways than one, since the writer
OF this and n colleague of the faculty OF the
college were somewhat innocently drawn
into "A controversy with the author OF this
demonstration. / we pass by this public
announcement right in tho shadows Of tho
college, ii might appear as II our silence gave
consent to tho conclusions there reached.
This II certainly is not intended to do, and,
since neither of us knew what the new theory
was going to bo nor what was the bearing of
tho questions which were publicly asked
through tho columns of the elNTEBLIGENCER
both OF ny preferred To remain silent until
We could learn something more OF this new
theory.
The readers Ot this paper will perhaps more
fully appreciate our reasons for not at once
rushing into print on account OF anew theory
when they come to know that the writer Of
this paper has had his attention called by
circulars or letters, 10 at least four new the
ories ON cCsmical physics In one form or
another in one single week. All may there
fore be quite sure that the writer was not
moved very much 10y tue mere announce
ment of now theory, or even by being asked
a fUw questions about one, even If he we're
by the announcement that Newton was all
wrong.
STATING THE CASH AGAINST RUSH.
We will now pass on to a statement of a
few difficulties which We found in reading
the demonstration OF Prop. viii OF new
book that il to appear. Tho first and chief
difficulty Is to SEQ what would be gained even
II the published proposition were correct II
tho law that the PARTICLES OF matter which
CON pose the heavenly bodies was also found
TO be true Tor body moving in a circle acted
ON 10y another body anywhere within the
circle; 1t would not then follow that the
eccentric circle was the true orbit. Neither
would the demonstration that Newton was
wrong in his corresponding proposition help
1t any. Nor would tue correctness of New.
toms proposition showing that in the circle
with the centre of attraction out of the centre
Of the circle a different law of attracti on pre-
walls prevent It from being useu as an orbit
II mature were 30 constituted. That is the
law OF attraction Ia not OF any importance for
IN Is question since II Is theoretical ConClu.
sion from known or measured forms OF orbits
The question ought To be now, rs 1t was with
Kepler, what form Of orbit will best repre-
sent the places of the planets and comets. The
answer is that one of the comic sections, the
cllipse the parabOla or the hyperbola, with
the centre OF attraction in the focus, will do
50 and then Newton took up the induCtive
conclusion OF hepler and demonstrated that
there must he something oithe nature OF an
attraction varying directly ~ the product OF
the masses and iuyersely as the square the
distances between the particles of the bodies.
II kepler or any other man had shown the
iaHj that planets or comets describe circles
with tho centre Of attTartiOn anywhere within
the circle, theu NewtOn'S conclusion is that
the force uf attraction varies as the cube of a
certain chord In the circle aud inYersely as
square ot the radius vectOr. IT it had been
found that the path was an ellipse with the
centre Of attraction in the centre the law of
force would ba directly as the distance. If
the form OF tho orbit were what is called the
oquianguiar sWrai the law would he inverse
'
wero tho l.tuuIsraiC OF BprnOuili, then the
Jaw wuuII he luversely aS tue seventh power
Of the dI-lanCo aud so on down the scale. In
word the mathematiCians have fOretOld
what the laws Oi attraction would have to he
ifthe creator had chosen different curves
along which to send the worlds around the
sun.
WHAT MUST RE SHOWN.
1t therefore seems Ia us that the proper
thing to do is 10 show that the circular orbit
with the sun out OF tho centre, represents the
places of the planets or comets better than the
comic sections II this could be conClusively
shown then the circle would take the place
OF the comic sections regardless of the conse-
quent law of attraction. 1t Is true there may
be direct verliication of the law of the in
verse square derived from tho tOrsion bal
ance experiment of CAveudish, or possibly by
means Of pendulum experiments but if all
the astronomical observation are not trust
worthy, these physical measurements may
De equally doubtful and the law might as
well be the inverse cube OF the distance, or
almost anything else, as tho inverse square.
Taking things rs they are we cannot SEQ why
1t should be necessary to conclude from a
fallaCy in NewtOn's work, If there was one,
or the discovery of a new proposition that the
orbits are circular when all measurements
have shown them TO be one OF the comic sec
tons. The argument runs the other way.
Measurements show that tho comic sections
are the true orbits and with this fact before
them mathematicians have concluded that
tho law OF attraction Of the inverse square
follows theoretically. Therefore the first
thing necessary TO show that these old
masters were all wrong is to prove by CON-
pilatiOn OF observations that the predicted
places OF the heavenly bodies will coincide
more nearly with the apparent places ac-
cOrding to the new theory than according to
the old. This kind OF work will do more to
establish a new form OF orbit than thousands
OF pages of theory old or new.
ANOTHER DIFFICULTY ABOUT THE NEW
THEORY.
Then comGs another difficulty about the
position taken 10y tho advocate OF the new
orbit If the measurements of all kinds are
wrong, or at best not sufficiently exact what
ther is to be used tn verify the correctness of
the circular orbit with the sun out of the CEN
tre2 Neither docs il help the matter to say
that astronomers cannot decide between the
thousandth part OF a degree of the parabolic
aud circular arc. What If they cannot do so
They have even in the orbit of comets at
times as many as hundred degrees of orbit
to decide upon and take their measurements
aud in the case Of tho planets the whole cir
Gle. Then comes the quotation from Burritt,
hurled at Us III "A former issue about astrono-
mers not being always able to decide between
| the very long ellipse, the parabola or the by.
perbola. This Is nothing new, but what
does 1t hel tho circular orbit The fact that
astronomers cannot always decide between