Buffon's Natural History, Volume I (of 10)

In answer to this objection, it may be further observed, that the sun having been struck by the comet, received a degree of motion by the impulse, which displaced it from its former situation; and that although this motion of the sun is at present too little sensible for the notice of astronomers, nevertheless it may still exist, and the sun describe a curve round the centre of gravity of the whole system and if this is so, as I presume it is, we see perfectly that the planets, instead of returning near the sun at each revolution, will, on the contrary, have described orbits, the points of the perihelion of which will be as far distant from the sun, as it is itself from the place it originally occupied.

It may also be said, that if this acceleration of motion is made in the same direction, no change in the perihelion will be produced: but can it be thought that in a torrent, the particles of which succeed each other, there has been no change of direction; it is, on the contrary, very probable that a considerable change did take place, sufficient to cause the planets to move in the course they at present occupy.

It may be further urged, that if the sun had been displaced by the shock of a comet, it would move uniformly, and that hence this motion being common to the whole system, no alteration was necessary; but might not the sun before the shock have had a motion round the centre of the cometry system, to which primitive motion the stroke of the comet may have added or diminished? and would not that fully account for the actual motion of the planets?

If these suppositions are not admitted, may it not be presumed, that in the stroke of the comet against the sun, there was an elastic force which raised the torrent above the surface of the sun, instead of directly impelling it? which alone would be sufficient to remove the perihelion, and give the planets the motion they have retained. This supposition is not without probability, for the matter of the sun may possibly be very elastic, since light, the only part of it we are acquainted with, seems, by its effects, to be perfectly so. I own that I cannot say whether it is by the one or the other of these reasons, that the direction of the first motion of the impulse of the planets has changed, but they suffice to shew that such an alteration is not only possible but even probable, and that is sufficient for my purpose.

But, without dwelling any longer on the objections which might be made, I shall pursue the subject, and draw the fair conclusions on the proofs which analogies might furnish in favour of my hypothesis: let us, therefore, first see what might happen when these planets, and particularly the earth, received their impulsive motion, and in what state they were after having been separated from the sun. The comet having, by a single stroke, communicated a projectile motion to a quantity of matter equal to the 650th part of the sun's mass, the light particles would of course separate from the dense, and form, by their mutual attraction, globes of different densities: Saturn being composed of the most gross and light parts, would be the most remote from the sun: Jupiter being more dense than Saturn, would be less distant, and so on. The larger and least solid planets are the most remote, because they received an impulsive motion stronger than the smallest, and more dense: for, the force of impulsion communicating itself according to the surface, the same stroke would have moved the grosser and lighter parts of the matter of the sun with more velocity than the smallest and more weighty; a separation therefore will be made of the dense parts of different degrees, so that the density of the sun being equal to 100, that of Saturn will be equal to 67, that of Jupiter to 94-1/2, that of Mars to 200, that of the Earth to 400, that of Venus to 800, and that of Mercury to 2800. But the force of attraction not communicating like that of impulsion, according to the surface, but acting on the contrary on all parts of the mass, it will have checked the densest portions of matter; and it is for this reason that the densest planets are the nighest the sun, and turn round that planet with greater rapidity than the less dense planets, which are also the most remote.

Jupiter and Saturn, which are the largest and principal planets of the solar system, have retained the relation between their density and impulsive motions, in the most exact proportions; the density of Saturn is to that of Jupiter as 67 to 94-1/2 and their velocities are nearly as 88-2/3 to 120-1/72, or as 67 to 90-11/16; it is seldom that pure conjectures can draw such exact relations. It is true, that by following this relation between the velocity and density of planets, the density of the earth ought to be only as 206-7/18, and not 400, which is its real density; from hence it may be conceived, that our globe was formerly less dense than it is at present. With respect to the other planets, Mars, Venus, and Mercury, as their densities are known only by conjecture, we cannot be certain whether this circumstance will destroy or confirm our hypothesis. The opinion of Newton is, that density is so much the greater, as the heat to which the planet is exposed is the stronger; and it is on this idea that we have just said that Mars is one time less dense than the Earth, Venus one time, Mercury seven times, and the comet in 1680, 28,000 times denser than the earth: but this proportion between the density of the planets and the heat which they sustain, seems not well founded, when we consider Saturn and Jupiter, which are the principal objects; for, according to this relation between the density and heat, the density of Saturn would be about 4-7/18, and that of Jupiter as 14-17/22, instead of 67 and 94-1/2, a difference too great to be admitted, and must destroy the principles upon which it was founded. Thus, notwithstanding the confidence which the conjectures of Newton merit, I can but think that the density of the planets has more relation with their velocity than with the degree of heat to which they are exposed. This is only a final cause, and the other a physical relation, the preciseness of which is remarkable in Jupiter and Saturn: it is nevertheless true, that the density of the earth, instead of being 206-7/8, is found to be 400, and that consequently the terrestrial globe must be condensed in this ratio of 206-7/8 to 400.

But have not the condensations of the planets some relation with the quantity of the heat of the sun which they sustain? If so, Saturn, which is the most distant from that luminary, will have suffered little or no condensation; and Jupiter will be condensed from 90-11/16 to 94-1/2. Now the heat of the sun in Jupiter being to that of the sun upon the earth as 14-17/22 are to 400, the condensations ought to be in the same proportion. For instance, if Jupiter be condensed, as 90-11/16 to 94-1/2, and the earth had been placed in his orbit, it would have been condensed from 206-7/8 to 215-990/1451, but the earth being nearer the sun, and receiving a heat, whose relation to that which Jupiter receives is from 400 to 14-17/22, the quantity of condensation it would have experienced on the orbit of Jupiter by the proportion of 400 to 14-17/22, which gives nearly 234-1/3 for the quantity which the earth would be condensed. Its density was 206-7/8, by adding the quantity of its acquired condensation, we find 400-7/8 for its actual density, which nearly approaches the real density 400, determined to be so by the parallax of the moon. As to other planets, I do not here pretend to give exact proportions, but only approximations, to point out that their densities have a strong relation to their velocity in their respective orbits.

The comet, therefore, by its oblique fall upon the surface of the sun, having driven therefrom a quantity of matter equal to the 650th part of its whole mass; this matter, which must be considered in a liquid state, will at first have formed a torrent, the grosser and less dense parts of which will have been driven the farthest, and the smaller and more dense, having received only the like impulsion, will remain nearest its source; the force of the sun's attraction would inevitably act upon all the parts detached from him, and constrain them to circulate around his body, and at the same time the mutual attraction of the particles of matter would form themselves into globes at different distances from the sun, the nearest of which necessarily moving with greater rapidity in their orbits than those at a distance.

But another objection may be started, and it may be said, if the matter which composes the planets had been separated from the sun, they, like him, would have been burning and luminous bodies, not cold and opaque, for nothing resembles a globe of fire less than a globe of earth and water; and by comparison, the matter of the earth and planets is perfectly different from that of the sun?

To this it may be answered, that in the separation the matter changed its form, and the light or fire was extinguished by the stroke which caused this motion of impulsion. Besides, may it not be supposed that if the sun, or a burning star, moved with such velocity as the planet, that the fire would soon be extinguished; and that is the reason why all luminous stars are fixed, and that those stars which are called new, and which have probably changed places, are frequently extinguished and lost? This remark is somewhat confirmed by what has been observed in comets; they must burn to the centre when they pass to their perihelium: nevertheless they do not become luminous themselves, they only exhale burning vapours, of which they leave a considerable part behind them in their course.

I own, that in a medium where there is very little or no resistance, fire may subsist and suffer a very great motion without being extinguished: I also own, that what I have just said extends only to the stars which totally disappear, and not to those which have periodical returns, and appear and disappear alternately without changing place in the heavens. The phenomena of these stars has been explained in a very satisfactory manner by M. de Maupertuis, in his discourse on the figures of the planets. But the stars which appear and afterwards disappear entirely, must certainly have been extinguished, either by the velocity of their motion, or some other cause. We have not a single example of one luminous star revolving round another; and among the number of planets which compose our system, and which move round the sun with more or less rapidity, there is not one luminous of itself.

It may also be added, that fire cannot subsist so long in the small as in large masses, and that the planets must have burnt for some time after they were separated from the sun, but were at length extinguished for want of combustible matter, as probably would be the sun itself, and for the same reason; but in a length of time as far beyond that which extinguished the planets, as it exceeds in quantity of matter. Be this as it may, the matter of which the planets are formed being separated from the sun, by the stroke of a comet, that appears a sufficient reason for the extinction of their fires.

The earth and planets at the time of their quitting the sun, were in a state of total liquid fire; in this state they remained only as long as the violence of the heat which had produced it; and which heat necessarily underwent a gradual decay: it was in this state of fluidity that they took their circular forms, and that their regular motions raised the parts of their equators, and lowered their poles. This figure, which agrees so perfectly with the laws of hydrostatics, I am of opinion with Leibnitz, necessarily supposes that the earth and planets have been in a state of fluidity, caused by fire, and that the internal part of the earth must be a vitrifiable matter, of which sand, granite, &c. are the fragments and scoria.

It may, therefore, with some probability, be thought that the planets appertained to the sun, that they were separated by a single stroke, which gave to them a motion of impulsion, and that their position at different distances from the sun proceeds only from their different densities. It now only remains, to complete this theory, to explain the diurnal motion of the planets, and the formation or the satellites; but this, far from adding difficulties to my hypothesis, seems, on the contrary, to confirm it.

For the diurnal motion, or rotation, depends solely on the obliquity of the stroke, an oblique impulse therefore on the surface of a body will necessarily give it a rotative motion; this motion will be equal and always the same, if the body which receives it is homogeneous, and it will be unequal if the body is composed of heterogeneous parts, or of different densities; hence we may conclude that in all the planets the matter is homogeneous, since their diurnal motions are equal, and regularly performed in the same period of time. Another proof that the separation of the dense or less dense parts were originally from the sun.

But the obliquity of the stroke might be such, as to separate from the body of the principal planet a small part of matter, which would of course continue to move in the same direction; these parts would be united, according to their densities, at different distances from the planet, by the force of their mutual attraction, and at the same time follow its course round the sun, by revolving about the body of the planet, nearly in the plane of its orbit. It is plain, that those small parts so separated are the satellites: thus the formation, position, and direction of the motions of the satellites perfectly agree with our theory; for they have all the same motion in concentrical circles round their principal planet; their motion is in the same direction, and that nearly in the plane of their orbits. All these effects, which are common to them, and which depend on an impulsive force, can proceed only from one common cause, which is, impulsive motion, communicated to them by one and the same oblique stroke.

What we have just said on the cause of the motion and formation of the satellites, will acquire more probability, if we consider all the circumstances of the phenomena. The planets which turn the swiftest on their axis, are those which have satellites. The earth turns quicker than Mars in the relation of about 24 to 15; the earth has a satellite, but Mars has none. Jupiter, whose rapidity round its axis is five to six hundred times greater than that of the earth, has four satellites, and there is a great appearance that Saturn, which has five, and a ring, turns still more quickly than Jupiter.

It may even be conjectured with some foundation, that the ring of Saturn is parallel to the equator of the planet, so that the plane of the equator of the ring, and that of Saturn, are nearly the same; for by supposing, according to the preceding theory, that the obliquity of the stroke by which Saturn has been set in motion was very great, the velocity around the axis will, at first, have been in proportion as the centrifugal force exceeds that of gravity, and there will be detached from its equator and neighbouring parts, a considerable quantity of matter, which will necessarily have taken the figure of a ring, whose plane must be nearly the same as that of the equator of the planet; and this quantity of matter having been detached from the vicinity of the equator of Saturn, must have lowered the equator of that planet, which causes that, notwithstanding its rapidity, the diameters of Saturn cannot be so unequal as those of Jupiter, which differ from each other more than an eleventh part.

However great the probability of what I have advanced on the formation of the planets and their satellites may appear to me, yet, every man has his particular measurement, to estimate probabilities of this nature; and as this measurement depends on the strength of the understanding to combine more or less distant relations, I do not pretend to convince the incredulous. I have not only thought it my duty to offer these ideas, because they appear to me reasonable, and calculated to clear up a subject, on which, however important, nothing has hitherto been written, but because the impulsive motion in the planets enter at least as one half of the composition of the universe, which gravity alone cannot unfold. I shall only add the following questions to those who are inclined to deny the possibility of my system.

1. Is it not natural to imagine, that a body in motion has received that motion by the stroke of another body?

2. Is it not very probable, that when many bodies move in the same direction, that they have received this direction by one single stroke, or by many strokes directed in the same manner?

3. Is it not more probable that when many bodies have the same direction in their motion, and are placed in the same plane, that they received this direction and this position by one and the same stroke, rather than by a number?

4. At the time a body is put in motion by the force of impulsion, is it not probable that it receives it obliquely, and, consequently, is obliged to turn on its axis so much the quicker, as the obliquity of the stroke will have been greater? If these questions should not appear unreasonable, the theory, of which we have presented the outlines, will cease to appear an absurdity.

Let us now pass on to something which more nearly concerns us, and examine the figure of the earth, on which so many researches and such great observations have been made. The earth being, as it appears by the equality of its diurnal motion and the constancy of the inclination of its axis, composed of homogeneous parts, which attract each other in proportion to their quantity of matter, it would necessarily have taken the figure of a globe perfectly spherical, if the motion of impulsation had been given it in a perpendicular direction to the surface; but this stroke having been obliquely given, the earth turned on its axis at the moment it took its form; and from the combination of this impulsive force, the attraction of the parts, there has resulted a spheroid figure, more elevated under the great circle of rotation, and lower at the two extremities of the axis, and this because the action of the centrifugal force proceeding from the diurnal rotation must diminish the action of gravity. Thus, the earth being homogeneous, and having received a rotative motion, necessarily took a spheroidical figure, the two axes of which differ a 230th part from each other. This may be clearly demonstrated, and does not depend on any hypothesis whatever. The laws of gravity are perfectly known, and we cannot doubt that bodies attract each other in a direct ratio of their masses, and in an inverted ratio, at the squares of their distances; so likewise we cannot doubt, that the general action of any body is not composed of all the particular actions of its parts. Thus each part of matter mutually attracts in a direct ratio of its mass and an inverted ratio of its distance, and from all these attractions there results a sphere when there is no rotatory motion, and a spheroid when there is one. This spheroid is longer or shorter at the two extremities of the axis of rotation, in proportion to the velocity of its diurnal motion, and the earth has then, by virtue of its rotative velocity, and of the mutual attraction of all its parts, the figure of a spheroid, the two axes of which are as 229 to 230 to one another.

Thus, by its original constituent, by its homogeneousness, and independent of every hypothesis from the direction of gravity, the earth has taken this figure of a spheroid at its formation, and agreeable to mechanical laws: its equatorial diameter was raised about 6-1/2 leagues higher than under the poles.

I shall dwell on this article, because there are still geometricians who think that the figure of the earth depends upon theory, and this from a system of philosophy they have embraced, and from a supposed direction of gravity. The first thing we have to demonstrate is, the mutual attraction of every part of matter, and the second the homogeneousness of the terrestrial globe; if we clearly prove, that these two circumstances are really so, there will no longer be any hypothesis to be made on the direction of gravity: the earth will necessarily have the figure Newton decided in favour of, and every other figure given to it by virtue of vortexes or other hypotheses, will not be able to subsist.

It cannot be doubted, that it is the force of gravity which retains the planets in their orbits; the satellites of Saturn gravitate towards Saturn, those of Jupiter towards Jupiter, the Moon gravitates towards the Earth: and Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Earth, Venus, and Mercury, gravitate towards the Sun: so likewise Saturn and Jupiter gravitate towards their satellites, the Earth gravitates towards the Moon, and the Sun towards the whole of the planets. Gravitation is therefore general and mutual in all the planetary system, for action cannot be exercised without a re-action; all the planets, therefore, act mutually one on the other. This mutual attraction serves as a foundation to the laws of their motion, and is demonstrated to exist by its effects. When Saturn and Jupiter are in conjunction, they act one on the other, and this attraction produces an irregularity in their motion round the Sun. It is the same with the Earth and the Moon, they also mutually attract each other; but the irregularities of the motion of the Moon, proceeds from the attraction of the Sun, so that the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon, mutually act one on the other. Now this mutual attraction of the planets, when the distances are equal, is proportional to their quantity of matter, and the same force of gravity which causes heavy matter to fall on the surface of the Earth, and which extends to the Moon, is also proportional to the quantity of matter; therefore the total gravity of a planet is composed of the gravity of each of its parts; from whence all the parts of the matter, either in the Earth or in the planets, mutually attract each other and the Earth, by its rotation round its own axis, has necessarily taken the figure of a spheroid, the axes of which are as 229 to 230. The direction of the weight must be perpendicular to the Earth's surface; consequently no hypothesis, drawn from the direction of gravity, can be sustained, unless the general attraction of the parts of matter be denied; but the existence of this mutual attraction is demonstrated by observations, and the experiment of pendulums prove, that its extension is general; therefore we cannot support an hypothesis on the direction of gravity without going against experience and reason.

Let us now proceed to examine whether the matter of which the terrestrial globe is composed be homogeneous. I admit, that if it is supposed the globe is more dense in some parts than in others, the direction of gravity must be different from what we have just assigned, and that the figure of the Earth would also differ agreeable to those suppositions. But what reason have we to make these suppositions? Why, for example, should we suppose that the parts near the centre are denser than those which are more remote? Are not all the particles which compose the globe collected together by their mutual attraction? hence, each particle is a centre, and there is no reason to believe, that the parts which surround the centre are denser than those which are about any other point. Besides, if one considerable part of the globe was denser than another, the axis of rotation would be found near the dense parts, and an inequality would ensue in the diurnal revolution; we should remark an inequality in the apparent motion of the fixed stars; they would appear to move more quick or slow in the zenith, or horizon, according as we should be placed on the denser or lighter parts of the earth; and the axis of the globe no longer passing through the centre of gravity, would also very sensibly change its position: but nothing like this ever happens; on the contrary, the diurnal motion of the earth is equal and uniform. At all parts of the Earth's surface, the stars appear to move with the same velocity at all heights, and if there be any rotation in its axis, it is so trifling as to have escaped observation: it must therefore be concluded, that the globe is homogeneous, or nearly so in all its parts.

If the earth was a hollow and void globe, and the crust of which, for example, not more than two or three miles thick; it would produce these effects. 1. The mountains would be such considerable parts of the whole thickness of the crust, that great irregularities in the motions of the Earth would be occasioned by the attraction of the Moon and Sun: for when the highest parts of the globe, as the Cordeliers, should have the Moon at noon, the attraction would be much stronger on the whole globe than when she was in the meridian of the lowest parts. 2. The attraction of mountains would be much more considerable than it is in comparison with the attraction of the whole globe, and experiments made at the mountain of Chimboraco, in Peru, would in this case give more degrees than they have given seconds for the deviation of the plumb line. 3. The weight of bodies would be greater on the tops of high mountains than on the planes; so that we should feel ourselves considerably heavier, and should walk with more difficulty in high than in low places. These observations, with many others that might be added, must convince us, that the inner parts of the globe is not void, but filled with a dense matter.