24th April 1866.
Bra—It occurs to an humble questioner, that the moon controversy will not be perfectly profitless ; and the hope suggests a few more questions.
1. -1%, ill not astronomers henceforth revise the language in which they describe the motion' calculated as the word " rotation ' is to raise erroneous conceptions even in the minds of those who " know " that we have not ascertained a revolving motion independent of the translatory ? 2. As it is true that the motion of the moon is not the same with that of a body fixed to the earth, although it is equally untrue of both that they " rotate," have we yet had a description of that motion in perfectly suitable terms ?
3. Are we able to assert that there is "no resistance" in space ? 4. Have we sufficiently definite ideas of such forces as "gravitation," "attraction ," and the like, in order to "explain" the relative motions of " inorganic" bodies, whether in stellar and planetary systems or in " Brown's dance " ?
6. Have we not assented the distinction between "organic" and "inor- ganic " bodies, connected as they are by electricity and similar agents ?
6. In short, is not the language of the observant sciences prematurely
dogmatical, and consequently incorrect ? Asroiso. [Is not enough said for the present, on a question that approaches no end, but, on the showing of our correspondents, opens into ulterior questions ?— En.] .
Previous page
