Produced by Thorsten Kontowski, Paul Clark and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)





[
  Transcriber's Note:

  Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as
  possible, including inconsistencies in spelling and hyphenation. Some
  corrections of spelling and punctuation have been made. They are
  listed at the end of the text.

  Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.
  Bold text has been marked with =equals signs=.
  Text marked ^{thus} was superscripted.
]

[Illustration]




 THE SUN

 changes its position in space, therefore
 it cannot be regarded as being
 "in a condition of rest."

 _Si concedimus, eos, qui corpora in mundi
 spatio moveri eademque non moveri
 posse dicunt, insulsa loqui, praesumere
 non licet hominem astronomum talem
 sententiam elocuturum utque eam demonstraret
 operam daturum esse._

 By
 August Tischner.

 Leipzig,
 Gustav Fock.
 1883.


 Dedicated
 to all friends of Rational Astronomy.


[Illustration: _Nicolaus Copernicus._

_Terrae motor, solis stator._]

     The system of Copernicus is the only possible system; it is the
     eternal base of all astronomical progress, with this system the
     science of Astronomy stands and falls, and without it we must give
     up all explication as well as every scientifically founded
     predication. Hence it is clear that an astronomer of the present
     day cannot enter upon any other system, even by way of trial.

            Dr. _J. H. Mädler_. Popul. Astr. 1861. p.p. 48. 54. 62.

     _An army of philosophers will not suffice to change the nature of
     an error and to convert it into truth. Ebn-Roshd (Averrhoës),
     Arabian philosopher of the XII^{th} century._


Astronomical science, at the present day insists upon the system of
Copernicus, which, as is well known, is based upon the theory _of a
fixed sun_, and remains convinced of the incontrovertible truth and
importance of this system, even after it has become an incontestable
fact, that the sun changes its position; endeavouring to explain away
this discrepancy by the sophism, that the sun may be considered as _in a
condition of rest_. But the smallest movement of the sun overthrows the
entire fabric of Copernicus. Unless we take into account the
observations, made for the last 3000 years, respecting the movement of
the sun in space, it is impossible to comprehend the solar system and
its movements. Theory must take notice of the phenomena of the sun's own
movement and dare not cloak it under imaginary causes; for so long as
the motion of the sun is ignored, it is impossible to know thoroughly
the motion of the earth which follows it, and if the motion of the earth
be not known, it is also impossible to know the motion of the other
heavenly bodies, belonging to the solar system, as seen from the earth.
In a word, the astronomical theory, as it is now generally accepted and
believed to be the only and doubtless true, is wholly untenable,
requiring _a total and essential_ reformation; astronomical authors
cling to J. H. Mädler's assertion, that every body will understand the
impossibility for an astronomer of our time to enter upon any other
system even by way of trial.

If this theory be converted into a _dogma_, stagnation must commence and
all progress becomes impossible. In the history of science and its
advance, we find that there have been at all times new theories
propounded, which had often to be changed later on, or even set aside by
others diametrically opposite. The principal circumstance which renders
the system of Copernicus impossible, is that the orbits of the planets
_are considered as closed curves around the sun_. This view has
frequently been attacked; but it is maintained by astronomers, as it is
requisite for the elucidation of the system. Still it is evident that if
the centre of attraction moves forward the bodies attracted by it
_cannot move around it_.

Let us examine the system of Copernicus. Ptolemæus first introduced his
system among the ancients. The earth was the fixed centre of the world
and around it moved the moon, the sun, the planets and the stars. This
system lasted for XV centuries.

The Ptolemaic system was modified by Copernicus, and the system of
Copernicus was simply the inversion of the Ptolemaic. The sun took the
place of the earth. In the centre was a fixed point (earth or sun),
around which the planets moved in larger or smaller orbits.

The main feature of both systems is that one of the heavenly bodies is
_stationary, in order that the others may travel round it_.

Copernicus makes the sun _to be motionless_, and the scientific world
bows before his authority. Then we have the recurrent curves, _closed
orbits_ (or ellipses) with their axes and their _invariable plains_; for
the planets _move round the centre of the fixed sun_.

Whilst however learned men were striving with feverish ardour to confirm
the system of Copernicus; whilst they were endeavouring to demonstrate
in every possible way and by various means clearly, _that the sun is
immoveable_: there came the discovery _that the sun moves_.

The astronomers of the past century proved that the sun not only has the
apparent motion, which every one sees; but that it also has a motion
proper to itself. Herschel commenced defining the course and direction
of it, and now-a-days no one doubts the truth of this fact, it being the
general opinion that not only the sun moves itself, but that nothing at
all in the world is in a state of rest. Astronomers, however, are of
opinion that this discovery is of _no consequence whatever as regards
the system of Copernicus, which is still considered by them to be the
most correct of all and the only possible one_. For more than a century
there has not been found a single astronomer or scientific man, to whom
it has occurred _that the motion proper to the sun, might have, in some
way or another, an influence on the present state of theoretical
science_. They all seem to regard _this fact_ as an accident, involving
no consequences and quite incapable of distracting them from their
labours, which they continue to work in the same manner as is indicated
in the system of Copernicus.

If an advancing motion is admitted to be the motion proper to the sun,
_the orbits traversed by the planets cannot be closed_.

But the question may be asked: is it true that science contradicts
itself in this way? We reply: Yes! astronomical _observation has
overtaken theoretical or explicative science_. _Theory has stood
still._

In order to set their minds at rest, learned men explain what they wish
to explain, and just as heavenly phenomena were accounted for according
the systems of Ptolemæus, of Copernicus and of Tycho de Brahe, so too
there will be no lack of good reasons to account for the motion proper
to the sun; only history will tell us that the astronomers of the last
but one decennium of the XIX^{th} century have taught by writing and
speaking in their schools, that the sun is at the same time moving and
not moving.

A science which cannot make any use of this immense discovery, nor
deduce any application from it, does not possess any vital power; it is
a dead science, it is strangled by those whose duty is to keep it alive,
to lead it onwards to perfection.

Astronomers assert "_that the sun conducts its system with himself in
mundane space_," but in the same breath they add: "_with reference
however to the planets it may be regarded as in a state of rest_."

Hence astronomers have discovered _a motion which is at rest_.

If the sun is _not fixed_, the system of Copernicus falls to ground.
Either the sun moves, or does not; a moving sun in a condition of rest,
_is an impossibility_.

If the sun moves, there is _no fixed centre_, there are _no closed or
recurrent curves and no plains of orbits_. If these must be obtained at
any price, the sun must be definitively fixed, it cannot be permitted
_to move onwards and yet at the same time not to move_.

The fact that the sun moves, cannot now be altered and cannot be any
longer ignored; and if mathematicians and astronomers do notwithstanding
assert, that the sun may with reference to its own planetary system be
regarded as fixed, or in a condition of rest, in that the system moves
as a whole without any change taking place in the relative position of
the planets to each other, or in their relation to the sun; in fact
without any alteration taking place in the _configuration_ of the
system--we reply, this is one of those meaningless phrases, which should
find no place in a scientific discussion. _A body which is in motion
cannot be in any way regarded as being motionless_, it would be just as
reasonable to say that a locomotive, dragging a train of carriages full
of passengers, could with reference to the latter be regarded as
motionless.

The actual meaning of such an assertion is that the planets are attached
to the sun in such a manner, that they can neither approach to, nor
recede from it, but must follow it whithersoever it goes.

We may in thought pursue a train of hypotheses and suppositions, but
they do not thereby acquire reality; still, in a normal condition of the
human intellect, it is impossible to conceive that any thing can exist
and not exist at the same time.

From this confusion of ideas, it might seem as if theoretical astronomy
had got into an untenable position which is irreconcilable with science
and ought therefore to endeavour to enter upon a better state, as soon
as possible. _Theory ought therefore, either to have accepted as a fact,
the motion proper to the sun with all its inevitable consequences, or
else, to have denied this motion altogether._ But the astronomers ignore
this alternative, they have decided, once for all and irrevocably _that
the sun moves and that at the same time it shall be motionless_. In this
manner science loses its reputation and all learnedly technical
expressions and formulas are not sufficient to cover the weak part. _The
sun cannot be rendered motionless_, and if astronomers and men of
science of the present day continue to ignore this fact, they need not
be surprised at the inevitable consequences of their own acts.

The system of Copernicus presupposes the _fixity of the sun_, as a
"conditio sine qua non." The most abstruse investigations into the
"celestial mechanism" could not be made without this axiom be granted.
The mathematician must have a fixed point, a fixed central point of
action for his coordinates, he wants fixed invariable plains and closed
curves, a radius vector describing plains, he wants axes and poles for
the orbits, in order that they may describe certain figures in the
heaven, and that the plains of the orbits may move,--one of the other.

Naturally astronomers and men of science have never asked themselves the
question, _how a heavenly body could be fixed in space_.

When an astronomer asserts that the Copernician system is the only
possible, he believes that it is impossible for the sun to have any
motion of its own; when he at the same time asserts that all astronomy
stands or falls with this system, he believes that no astronomical
knowledge existed before the discovery of the Copernician system, and
with the fall of the system all astronomical knowledge will cease to
exist; he believes moreover true astronomy to be _that_, which men of
science have imagined to be the truth regarding the heaven and the
causes of the phenomena we see.

If astronomers had merely presented their ideas and opinions to the
world as such, and no more, no one could raise any objection; but they
lay down their opinions in words and on paper as a _positive science_,
they give their view as _incontroversible truths_, and _this fact_
alters the situation, for we cannot admit that science is a mere barge
to be taken in tow by the imagination.

The fundamental axiom of astronomical theory, such as the Copernician
system, Kepler's and Newton's laws, _are not derived from a knowledge of
fact_, they are the opinions, views, ideas and suppositions of
individuals, which have been adapted to the heaven, and as they were
generally accepted, the question was never raised whether the opinions
of an organic creature--however intelligent it might be--are really and
truly that which we term penetrating behind the veil of nature and
compelling it to yield up its secrets. The fact of no other ideas being
at hand which seemed to be better, sufficed to transform these opinions
into rules and to cause them to be accepted as the only admissible and
correct truths.

The opinions set forth by Copernicus, Kepler and Newton are designed by
astronomers of the present day under the collective title of the
Copernician system, and they believe that these three dogmas, systems
and laws, distinct as they are from each other, proceed consequentially
one from the other, that they mutually supplement each the other, and
thus form a harmonious whole. That not one of these things rests upon
actual observation or even probable and perceptible facts, and finally,
that none of them can be observed or verified, but that they are all
three creations of the imagination, must be clearly evident to any one
who occupies himself at all with the study of nature and more especially
with the study of the heavenly phenomena.

When we say that astronomy is an earthly science, we mean to imply that
the heaven and the phenomena there apparent cannot be studied otherwise
than as seen from the earth. Therefore astronomy is not a heavenly
science, it consists solely of such ideas as we are able to form, that
which we see on the heaven.

It is not astronomy that is grand, compared with the vast objects with
which it deals it dwindles to insignificance, and we may say that to
speak of it as being a science of the "heavenly mechanism," nay more of
the "laws of the universe," is sheer nonsense. The _universe_ must be
for us a mere term, which does not convey any tangible idea to our
minds.

As only a very small portion of the heavenly space and its contents is
visible to our eyes, astronomy--whatever may be the magnifying power
placed at its disposal--must be confined within the limits of our vision
and can therefore be no more than a small fragment.

In the positive sense of the word, astronomy is more especially a
science of _observation_, which is its _only_, but real and successful
power. It may be said that astronomy has raised observation to a
science, and its immense importance becomes more and more prominent as
the explicative science loses in value; which is the more easily
accounted for by the fact that observation will finally bring about the
overthrow of all untenable theories.

We see the heaven as we fly along, the earth whirls us with itself
through space, hence astronomy cannot make any drawing room experiment,
it cannot reproduce any of the heavenly phenomena, it can do nothing but
_observe_. If therefore the science of astronomy be more especially an
observative science, that which it does not and cannot observe, must be
for it as good as not existent. But astronomy may, in addition, be
designated _the science of observation of the apparent things_, things
as they seem to be, for it is unable to see or regard the heavenly
phenomena otherwise than they present themselves to it. _Astronomy is
not permitted to observe realities._

If therefore _observation is itself a science_, it must necessarily _be
the basis of theory_; observation may be set aside--which is what is
actually done--in this way we may plod on, we may term our labour what
we please; but whatever is produced in this way is not astronomy.

But that glorious science whose sublime object is alone able to unfetter
the mind of poor humanity--Astronomy--has a future before it. Any such
as feel themselves called upon to study _seriously_ the phenomena of
nature, may set about the task. _The sun is a sure guide._

The great mass of astronomical observations are almost exclusively of
European origin, those which in later times have been made in other
parts of the earth, are of a special character--they refer for the most
part to the stars and are not numerous enough to furnish any general
view, but here the question is of establishing a universal astronomy
available for the whole earth, which, founded on the actual type of the
phenomena, will become the result of science.

With respect to astronomical knowledge and its dissemination, the
discovery and proving of this type of the phenomena is of the greatest
importance, they must be found out not by calculation, but _by actual
observation_. When discovered, a large number of important and still
undecided problems will be advanced towards solution.

It may be asked: how and where shall we however find this _original
type_? and the earth itself supplies the answer by means of
its--=Equator=. No observer, placed either north or south the equator,
can see the two poles of the heaven at once, he cannot see the _whole
heavenly sphere_; at the equator the entire splendour of the firmament
passes before his eyes during the space of--12 hours.

The _equator of the earth_ is always turned towards the sun, and it thus
indicates the direction taken by our planet; therefore we must be able
to find this type _at the equator_. Either it is there, or it is nowhere
else, and it is indispensably necessary that astronomical observations
made elsewhere should be repeated at the equator thus as it were
confirmed.

The erection of small, simple and detached observations along the line
of the earth's equator, at certain distances from each other, and the
subdivision of the work amongst the various observers, according the
objects, would be of incalculable consequence, and would in the course
of a few years shed more light upon astronomical knowledge than all that
has hitherto been done at hap-hazard and without any plan. An
international scientific society could take the matter in hand.
Instruments of the most excellent kind are to be had in plenty, and
there is no lack of young and intelligent men. Moreover, ever since 1874
there has been established at Quito, the "Observatorio de Collegio
Nacional," the director of which Mr. G. B. Menton might superintend the
preliminary operations until such time as the work could be prosecuted
with greater resources and according to a well considered plan. Such men
as _Lick_, _Bischoffsheim_, _Remeis_ _etc._, who are willing to make
sufficient sacrifices in order to establish this glorious science upon
more solid foundations, which do not rest on an imaginary and untenable
theory, _but on actual observation_, will surely be found. Success
cannot be doubtful. Would not the Americans, who appreciate every
thing on a grand scale and are not afraid of any expense in their
undertakings, do all in their power to further and promote this splendid
work?[1]

If--as is well known--matters are not as they are assumed to be, to what
purpose have been and are these laborious works prosecuted and the
undying works written? If the imaginary is preferred to reality, we set
up an imaginary science, without knowing anything about the heaven, and
the science thus set up will become the plaything of fancy.

If they inquire, why theory denies reality--_the motion of the sun_--we
shall find that it is because it prefers the imaginary. _The sun in
motion_ destroys the found illusions of the astronomers, this they will
not submit to, their _untenable theory_ must continue to be looked upon
as unadulteratest truth, and the consequence is that the manifestations
of the grand and sublime Nature are put down as lies.

This idea _of a fixed sun_ has taken such a firm hold of men's minds
that there is no force in nature capable of exercising sufficient power
to eradicate it, the sun may move as it pleases, and whilst the whither
and rapidity of its motion are diligently studied, men's minds are
occupied _with its fixity_, and these "investigations and inquiries" are
prosecuted without any consequences being therefrom deduced. Directly a
theory or a law is to be set up, the sun is at once _very firmly fixed_
on--=ether=. Astronomical writers consider that they have done quite
enough, when they have accorded honorable mention to the motion of the
sun, _but their deductions, conclusions, theories, proofs and laws are
all based on the immobility of the sun, according the system of
Copernicus_.

The idea _that the motion of the sun_ does not necessitate any
alteration in the system of Copernicus leads us to the utmost absurdity.
If the earth is to move in the _invariable plain of its recurrent and
closed ellipse_, it stands to reason, it cannot follow the sun, and the
"circulation around the centre" at once falls to the ground.

It is a very remarkable fact, that the astronomers of the by-gone
century could, and those of the present century can believe, such as
Copernicus, Kepler and Newton, had they been aware of the motion of the
sun, would have set up the same system, the same laws and theories, _as
they based exclusively on the theory of its being immoveable_. This fact
is one of which we are right to be ashamed.

The astronomers hug themselves, with great complacency, with the
idea--which gradually becomes a delicious certainly--that they have
mapped out the heaven very well, and that any change in the arrangement
is a thing not to be thought of. If therefore any one of their fellows
should get up--which has sometimes occurred--and say: "it is high time
that we should clear up the science and subject this untenable theory to
a strict examination and test," the immense majority of facultists and
authorities proclaim unanimously "=non possumus=," which is after all
but a lingual verification of the first law of the nature[2].

       *       *       *       *       *

Why is it that the astronomers of the present day are unwilling to take
into consideration and to study the consequences arising from the motion
proper to the sun, with reference to its own system?

Why is it that they are unwilling to recognise or rather to grasp
properly and to explain the apperceivable phenomena, which the motion
proper to the sun, as seen from the surface of the earth, must produce
on the apparently hollow sphere of the heaven?

     Monter d'une échoppe à un palais, c'est rare et beau; monter de
     l'erreur à la vérité, c'est plus rare et c'est plus beau.

                                                _Victor Hugo._

     Il arrive fréquemment que la croyance universelle d'un siècle,
     croyance dont il n'était donné à personne de s'affranchir à moins
     d'un effort extraordinaire de génie et de courage, devient pour un
     autre siècle une absurdité si palpable qu'on n'a plus qu'à
     s'étonner qu'elle ait pu jamais prévaloir.

                                                _N. Tschernychewsky._




Litterature.


  1. =Sta, sol, ne moveare.= _August Tischner._ Leipzig 1881-1882.
     Gustav Fock.

  2. =Grösse, Entfernung und Masse der Sonne.= _August Tischner._
     Leipzig 1882. Gustav Fock.

  3. =Die Sonne und die Astronomie.= _K. Nagy._ Leipzig 1866. F. A.
     Brockhaus.

  4. =Memoire sur le système solaire et sur l'explication des phénomènes
     célestes.= _Charles Nagy._ Paris 1862. Leibner.

  5. =Considération sur les comètes, éléments de Cométologie.= _Charles
     Nagy._ Paris 1862. Leibner.

  6. =Système solaire d'après la marche réelle du Soleil.= _E. G.
     Fahrner._ Paris 2^{me} éd. 1869.

  7. =Das wahre Sonnensystem.= Bewegung und Bahnen der Gestirne nach
     einer neuen Auffassung über dieselben im Himmelsraume, und zwar
     welche nicht in Ellipsen statt hat. _James Hermann Milberg._
     München 1862.

  8. =Die wahre Gestalt der Planeten- und Kometenbahnen.= _Friedrick
     Carl Gustav Stieber._ Dresden 1864.

  9. =Die Sonne bewegt sich.= Folgerungen aus dieser Lehre in Bezug auf
     die Fixsterne und Planeten. _C. R.(ohrbach)._ Berlin 1852.

 10. =Ueber Veranschaulichungsmittel für mathematische Geographie.=
     Erläuternde Beigabe zu neu construirten Veranschaulichungsapparaten
     für Volksschulen und höhere Unterrichtsanstalten. _F. A.
     Püschmann_, Seminaroberlehrer, Grimma.

 11. =Der Himmels-Mechanik gänzliche Reform auf Grund der inductiven
     Logik= mit der strengberechtigten philosophischen und mathematischen
     Nachweisung. _V. P. Kluk-Kluczycky._ 1880.

  G. KREYSING, LEIPZIG.

[Illustration]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Moreover, other, smaller detached observatories, might be erected on
the east and west coasts of America and Africa, on the islands of
Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes and Gilolo, on one of the islands of Gilbert's
archipelago and upon one of the Gallopagos islands, if it be considered
worth the effort to acquire some real knowledge as to the movement in
space of the leader of our planetary system and the bodies pertaining to
it.

[2] Inertia is the most simple and most natural (sic) law of nature
which can be imagined. Laplace I p. 4.




[
  The following is a list of changes made to the original.
  The first line is the original line, the second the changed one.

  Copernicus makes the sun _to be motienless_,
  Copernicus makes the sun _to be motionless_,

  mauner as is indicated in the system of
  manner as is indicated in the system of

  ideas being at hand which seemed be to better,
  ideas being at hand which seemed to be better,

  power. If may be said that astronomy has
  power. It may be said that astronomy has

  upon to sludy _seriously_ the phenomena of
  upon to study _seriously_ the phenomena of

  for the whole earth, which, founded of the
  for the whole earth, which, founded on the

  and the subdivision of the work amangst the
  and the subdivision of the work amongst the

  If the imaginary is prefered to reality, we
  If the imaginary is preferred to reality, we

  Celebes and Gilolo, on one of the islands ol Gilbert's
  Celebes and Gilolo, on one of the islands of Gilbert's

  or rather to graph propery and to explain
  or rather to grasp properly and to explain
]