{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/secret-doctrine/vol-1-cosmogenesis/37-v-the-theories-of-rotation-science-500.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "vol-1-cosmogenesis",
    "name": "Volume I — Cosmogenesis"
  },
  "parents": [
    {
      "slug": "secret-doctrine",
      "name": "The Secret Doctrine",
      "url": "/sources/secret-doctrine/"
    }
  ],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 35,
    "slug": "37-v-the-theories-of-rotation-science-500",
    "title": "V. THE THEORIES OF ROTATION SCIENCE ... 500",
    "of": 48,
    "words": 3379,
    "text": "## V. THE THEORIES OF ROTATION SCIENCE ... 500\n\n\nThe Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, vol 1, bk 3, ch 5\n\n###### The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky -- Vol.\n1\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 500 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\n##### V.\nTHE THEORIES OF ROTATION IN SCIENCE.\n\n**C**ONSIDERING that \"final cause is pronounced\na chimera, and the first Great Cause is remanded to the Sphere\nof the Unknown,\" as a reverend gentleman justly complains,\nthe number of hypotheses put forward, a nebula in itself, is most\nremarkable. The profane student is perplexed, and does not know\nin which of the theories of *exact *science he has to believe.\nHere we have hypotheses enough for every taste and power of brain.\nThey are all extracted from a number of scientific volumes.\n\n**C**URRENT **H**YPOTHESES EXPLAINING\nTHE **O**RIGIN OF **R**OTATION.\n\nRotation has originated either --\n\n(*a*)* *By the collision of nebular masses wandering\naimlessly in space; or by *attraction*,* *\"in\ncases where no actual impact takes place.\"\n\n(*b*)* *\"By the tangential action of currents\nof nebulous matter (in the case of an amorphous nebula) descending\nfrom higher to lower levels,* or* simply by the action of the\ncentral gravity of the mass.*\"****\n\n\"It is a fundamental principle in physics that *no rotation\ncould be generated in such a mass by the action of its own parts.\n*As well attempt to change the course of a steamer by pulling\nat the deck railing,\" remarks to this Prof. Winchell in \"World-Life.\"\n\n**H**YPOTHESES OF THE **O**RIGIN OF\nTHE **S**EVEN **P**LANETS AND **C**OMETS.\n\n(*a*) We owe the birth of the Planets (1) to an explosion\nof the Sun -- a parturition of its central mass;*** or (2) to\nsome kind of disruption of the nebular rings.\n\n(*b*) \"The Comets are strangers to our planetary system\"\n(*La Place*)*. *\"The Comets are undeniably\ngenerated in our Solar system\" (*Faye*)*.*\n\n(*c*) The* *\"*fixed* stars are motionless\"\nsays one authority. . . . \"All the stars are actually in\nmotion\" answers another authority. . . \"Undoubtedly\nevery star is in motion\" (*Wolf*)*.*\n\n(*d*) \"For over 350,000,000 years, the slow and majestic\nmovement of the Sun around its axis has never for a moment ceased\"\n(*Panorama des Mondes*,* Le Couturier.*)\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* The terms \"high\" and \"low\" being only relative\nto the position of the observer in Space, any use of those terms\ntending to convey the impression that they stand for abstract\nrealities, is necessarily fallacious.\n\n*** Jacob Ennis*,* *\"The Origin of the Stars,\"\np. 221 *et seq.*\n\n*** If such is the case, how does Science explain the comparatively\nsmall size of the planets nearest the Sun? The theory of meteoric\naggregation is only a step farther from truth than the nebular\nconception, and has not even the quality of the latter -- its\nmetaphysical element.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 501 CONTRADICTORY HYPOTHESES.\n\n(*e*) And \"the Sun having Alcyone in the Pleiades\nfor the centre of its orbit, consumes 180,000,000 of years in\ncompleting its revolution\" (*Maedler*)*. *And\nalso,\n\n(*f*) That, \"*the Sun has existed no more than\n15**,**000**,**000 of years*,*\n*and will emit heat for no longer *than 10**,**000**,**000\nyears more*\"* *(*Sir W. Thomson*'*s\nlecture on *\"*the latent dynamical theory regarding\nthe probable origin*,* total amount of heat*,* and\nduration of the Sun*,\"* *1887).\n\nA few years ago this eminent Scientist was telling the world that\nthe time required for the earth to cool from incipient incrustation\nto its present state, could not exceed 80,000,000 years***;*\n*(*Thomson and Tait*,* Natural Philosophy.*)\nIf the encrusted age of the world is only 40 millions, or the\nhalf of the duration once allowed, and the Sun's age only 15 millions,\nhave we to understand that the earth was at one time independent\nof the Sun?\n\nSince the ages of the Sun, planets, and the Earth, as stated in\nthe many scientific hypotheses of the astronomers and physicists,\nare given elsewhere (*infra*),* *we have said enough\nto show the disagreement between the ministers of modern Science.\nWhether we accept the *fifteen* million years of Sir W.\nThomson or the *thousand *millions of Mr. Huxley, for the\nrotational evolution of our solar system, it will always come\nto this; by accepting *self-generated *rotation for the\nheavenly bodies composed of *inert *matter and yet moved\nby *their own internal motion*,* *for* *millions\nof years, this teaching of Science amounts to --\n\n(*a*) An evident denial of that fundamental physical law,\nwhich states that \"a body *in motion tends constantly\nto inertia*,* *(*i.e.*,* *to continue\nin the same state of motion or rest), unless it is stimulated\ninto further action *by a superior active *force.\"\n\n(*b.*)* *To an original impulse, which culminates\nin an unalterable motion, within a *resisting *ether that\n**N**EWTON had declared *incompatible with that\nmotion.*\n\n(*c.*) Universal gravity, which, we are taught, always\ntends to a centre in* rectilinear *descent -- *alone\n*the cause of the revolution of the whole solar system, which\nis performing an eternal *double *gyration, each body around\nits axis and orbit. Another occasional version is: --\n\n(*d.*)* *A magnet in the Sun; or, the said revolution\ndue to a magnetic force, which acts, just as gravitation does,\nin a straight line -- varying inversely as the square of the distance.\n(Coulomb's Law.)\n\n(*e.*) The whole acting under *invariable *and changeless\nlaws, which are, nevertheless, often shown variable, as during\nsome well-known freaks\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* And even on these figures Bischof disagrees with Thomson, and\ncalculates that 350 million years would be required for the earth\nto cool from a temperature of 20,000 degrees to 200 degrees centigrade.\nThis is, also, the opinion of Helmholtz.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 502 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nof planets and other bodies, as also when the Comets approach\nto or recede from the Sun.\n\n(*f*.) **A** **M**OTOR **F**ORCE\nalways *proportionate *to the mass it is acting upon; but\n*independent of the *specific nature of that mass, to which\nit is proportionate; which amounts to saying, as Le Couturier\ndoes, that, \"without that Force independent from and of quite\nanother nature than the said mass, the latter, were it as huge\nas Saturn, or as tiny as Ceres, would always fall with the same\nrapidity\" (*Musee des Sciences*, 15 August, 1857).\nA mass, furthermore, which derives its weight from the body on\nwhich it weighs.\n\nThus neither Laplace's perceptions of a solar atmospheric fluid,\nwhich would extend beyond the orbits of the planets, nor Le Couturier's\nelectricity, nor Foucault's heat (*Panorama des Mondes*,*\n*p. 55), nor this, nor the other, can ever help any of the\nnumerous hypotheses about the origin and *permanency *of\nrotation to escape from this squirrel's wheel, any more than the\ntheory of gravity itself. This mystery is the Procrustean bed\nof physical Science. If matter is, as now taught, passive, the\nsimplest movement cannot be said to be an essential property of\nmatter -- if the latter is simply an inert mass. How, then, can\nsuch a complicated movement, compound and multiple, harmonious\nand equilibrated, lasting in the eternities for millions and millions\nof years, be attributed simply to its own inherent Force, unless\nthe latter is an *intelligence?* A* physical will *is\nsomething new -- a conception that the ancients would have never\nentertained, indeed!*\n\n\"We talk of the weight of the heavenly bodies,\" says\nan astronomer; \"but since it is recognised that weight decreases\nin proportion to the distance from the centre, it becomes evident\nthat, at a certain distance, that weight must be forcibly reduced\nto Zero? Were there any *attraction *there would be equilibrium\n. . . . And since the modern school recognizes neither a *beneath\n*nor an *above *in universal space, it is not clear\nwhat should cause the Earth to fall, were there even no gravitation,\nnor attraction.\" (*Cosmographie.*)\n\nMethinks the Count de Maistre was right in solving the question\nin his own theological way. He cuts the Gordian knot by saying:\n-- \"The\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* For over a century all distinction between body and force is\nmade away with. \"Force is but the property of a body in motion,\"\nsay the physicists; and \"*life* --* *the property\nof our *animal* *organs* --* *is but the\nresult of their molecular arrangement,\" answer the physiologists.\n\"In the bosom of that aggregate which is named planet,\"\nteaches Littre, \"are developed all the forces immanent to\nmatter . . . *i.e.*, that matter possesses *in itself\n*and* through itself *the forces that are proper to\nit . . . and which are *primary*, not* secondary. *Such\nforces are the property of weight, the property of electricity,\nof terrestrial magnetism, the property of life. . . . Every planet\ncan develop life . . . as earth, for instance, which had not always\nmankind on it, and now bears (*produit*) men\" . .\n*. *(*Revue des Deux Mondes*,* July *15,*\n*1860.)\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 503 SCIENTIFIC ABERRATIONS.\n\nplanets rotate because *they are made to rotate *. . .\n. . and the modern physical system of the universe is a *physical\nimpossibility.*\"* *(*Soirees.*)* *For\ndid not Herschell say the same thing when he remarked that there\nis a *will* needed to impart a circular motion, and *another\nwill *to restrain *it? *(*Discours*,* *165.)\nThis shows and explains how a *retarded *planet is cunning\nenough to calculate so well its time as to hit off its arrival\nat the fixed minute. For, if Science sometimes succeeds with its\ngreat ingenuity in explaining some of such stoppages, retrograde\nmotions, angles outside the orbits, &c., &c., by appearances\nresulting from the inequality of their progress and ours in the\ncourse of our mutual and respective orbits, we still know that\nthere are others, and \"very real and considerable deviations,\"\naccording to Herschell, \"which cannot be explained except\nby the mutual and irregular action of those planets and by the\n*perturbing *influence of the Sun.\"\n\nWe understand, however, that there are, besides those little and\naccidental perturbations, continuous perturbations called \"secular\"\n-- because of the extreme slowness with which the irregularity\nincreases and affects the relations of the elliptic movement --\nand that these perturbations *can be corrected. *From Newton,\nwho found that this world needed *repairing *very often,\ndown to Reynaud, all say the same. In his *Ciel et Terre *(*p.\n*28), the latter speaks of --\n\n\". . . . . The orbits described by the planets as being very\nfar from immutable; on the contrary, subject to a perpetual mutation\nin their position and form,\" -- all prove gravitation and\nthe peripatetic *laws *to* *be as negligent as they\nare quick to repair their mistakes. The charge as it stands seems\nto be that \"they (the orbits) are alternately widening and\nnarrowing, their great axis lengthens and diminishes, or oscillates\nat the same time from right to left around the Sun, the plane\nitself, in which they are situated, raising and lowering itself\nperiodically while pivoting around itself with a kind of tremor.\n. . .\"\n\nTo this, De Mirville, who believes in *intelligent *\"workmen\"\nruling invisibly the solar system -- as we do -- observes very\nwittily* . . . . . \"*Voila certes*,* *a voyage\nwhich has little in it of mechanical *rigour; *at the utmost,\none could compare it to a steamer, pulled to and fro and tossed\non the waves, retarded or accelerated, all and each of which impediments\nmight put off its arrival indefinitely, were there not the intelligences\nof a pilot and engineers to catch up the time lost, and to repair\nthe damages. . . . .\"\n\nThe law of gravity, however, seems to be becoming an *obsolete\n*law in starry heaven. At any rate those long-haired sidereal\n*radicals*,* *called* *comets, appear to\nbe very poor respecters of the majesty of that law,\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* *Deuxieme memoire*,* *\"*Manifestations\nHistoriques*,\"* *p. 272.\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 504 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nand to beard it quite impudently. Nevertheless, and though presenting\nin nearly every respect \"phenomena *not yet fully understood*,\"*\n*comets and meteors are credited by the believers in modern\nScience with *obeying the same laws and consisting of the same\nmatter*,* *\"as the Suns, stars and nebulae,\"\nand even \"the earth and its inhabitants.\" (*Laing*'*s\n*\"*Modern Science and Modern Thought.*\")\n\nThis is what one might call taking things on trust, aye, even\nto *blind faith. *But* exact *Science is not to\nbe questioned, and he who rejects the hypotheses imagined by her\nstudents -- gravitation, for instance -- would be regarded as\nan ignorant fool for it; yet we are told by the just cited author\na queer legend from the scientific annals. \"The comet of\n1811 had a tail 120 millions of miles in length and 25 millions\nof miles in diameter at the widest part, while the diameter of\nthe nucleus was about 127,000 miles, more than ten times that\nof the earth.\" He tells us, \"in order that bodies of\nthis magnitude, passing near the earth, *should not affect\nits *motion or change the length of the year by even a single\nsecond, their actual substance must be inconceivably rare. . .\n.\" It must be so indeed, yet: --\n\n\". . . . . The extreme tenuity of a comet's mass is also\nproved by the phenomenon of the tail, which, as the comet approaches\nthe sun, is thrown out sometimes to a length of 90 millions of\nmiles in a few hours. And what is remarkable, THIS TAIL IS THROWN\nOUT AGAINST THE FORCE OF GRAVITY *by some repulsive force*,*\n*probably electrical, so that it always points away from the\nSun (!!!) And yet, thin as the matter of comets must be, ***IT\nOBEYS THE COMMON LAW OF GRAVITY** *(*!?*), and whether\nthe comet revolves in an orbit within that of the outer planets,\nor shoots off into the abysses of Space, and returns only after\nhundreds of years, its path is, at each instant, regulated *by\nthe same force as that which causes an apple to fall to the ground.*\"*\n*(*Ibid*,* *p. 17.)\n\nScience is like Caesar's wife, and must not be suspected -- this\nis evident. But it can be respectfully criticised, nevertheless.\nAt all events, it may be reminded that \"the apple\" is\na dangerous fruit. For the second time in the history of mankind,\nit may become the cause of the ***FALL***** **--*\n*this time, of \"exact\" Science. A comet whose tail\ndefies the law of gravity right in the Sun's face can hardly be\ncredited with obeying that law.\n\nIn a series of scientific works on Astronomy and the nebular theory,\nwritten between 1865 and 1866, the present writer, a poor tyro\nin Science, has counted in a few hours, no less *than thirty-nine\ncontradictory hypotheses *offered as explanations for the\nself-generated, primitive rotatory motion of the heavenly bodies.\nThe writer is no astronomer, no mathematician, no scientist; but\nwas obliged to examine these errors in defence of Occultism, in\ngeneral, and what is still more\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 505 THE PARADOXES OF SCIENCE.\n\nimportant, in order to support the occult teachings concerning\nastronomy and Cosmology. Occultists were threatened with terrible\npenalties for questioning scientific truths. But now they feel\nbraver -- Science is less secure in its \"impregnable\"\nposition than they were led to expect, and many of its strongholds\nare built on very shifting sands.\n\nThus, even this poor and unscientific examination of it was useful,\nand it was certainly very instructive. We have learned a good\nmany things, in fact, having studied with particular care especially\nthose astronomical data that would be the most likely to clash\nwith our heterodox and \"superstitious\" beliefs.\n\nSo, for instance, we have found there, concerning gravitation,\nthe axial and orbital motions, that synchronous movement having\nbeen once overcome, in the early stage -- it was enough to originate\na rotatory motion till the end of Manvantara. We have also come\nto know in all the aforesaid combinations of possibilities with\nregard to incipient rotation -- most complicated in every case,\n-- some of the causes *to which it may have been due*,*\n*as well as some others to which it *ought *and*\nshould *have been due, but, in some way or other, was not.\nAmong other things, we were informed that *incipient *rotation\nmay be provoked with equal ease in a mass *in igneous fusion*,*\n*and in one that is characterised by *glacial opacity *(\"*Heaven\nand Earth*\")*. *That gravitation is a law which\n*nothing can overcome*,* *but which, nevertheless,\nis overcome in and out of season by the most ordinary celestial\nor terrestrial bodies -- the tails of impudent comets, for instance.\nThat we owe the universe to the holy creative Trinity, called\n*Inert Matter*,* Senseless Force *and *Blind\nChance. *Of the real essence and nature of any of these three,\nScience knows nothing, but this is a trifling detail. *Ergo*,*\n*we are told that, when a mass of cosmic or nebular matter\n-- whose nature *is unknown *(entirely so), and which may\nbe in a state of fusion (Laplace), or *dark and cold *(Thomson),\nfor \"this intervention of heat is itself a *pure hypothesis*\"*\n*(Faye) -- decides to exhibit its mechanical energy under\nthe form of rotation, it acts in this wise. It (the mass) either\nbursts into spontaneous conflagration, or it remains inert, tenebrous,\nand frigid, both states being equally capable of sending it, without\n*any adequate cause*,* *spinning through space for\nmillions of years. Its movements may be retrograde and they may\nbe direct, about a hundred various reasons being offered for both\nmotions, in about as many hypotheses. Anyhow, joining the maze\nof stars, whose origin belongs to the same miraculous and spontaneous\norder -- for \"the *nebular theory does not profess to\ndiscover the origin of things*,* *but only a *stadium\n*in material history\" (*Winchell: World-Life*)\n--* *those millions of suns, planets, and satellites, composed\nof inert matter, will whirl on in most impressive and majestic\nsymmetry around the firmament, moved\n\n####### [[Vol. 1, Page]] 506 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.\n\nand guided only, their inertia notwithstanding, \"*by their\nown internal motion.*\"\n\nShall we wonder after this if learned mystics, pious Roman Catholics,\nand even such learned astronomers as were Chaubard and Godefroy,*\nhave preferred the Kabala and the ancient systems to the modern\ndreary and contradictory exposition of the Universe? The *Zohar\n*makes a distinction, at any rate, between \"the *hajaschar\n*(\"the light Forces\"), the *hachoser *(\"Reflected\nLights\"), and the simple *phenomenal exteriority of *their\nspiritual types.\" (*See Kabala Denudata*, II, 67.)\n\nThe question of \"gravity\" may now be dismissed, and\nother hypotheses examined. That physical Science knows nothing\nof \"Forces\" is clear. We may close the argument, however,\nby calling to our help one more man of Science -- Professor Jaumes,\nMember of the Academy of Medicine at Montpellier. Says this learned\nman, speaking of Forces: --\n\n\"A cause is that which is essentially acting in the genealogy\nof phenomena, in every production as in every modification. I\nsaid that activity (or Force) was invisible. . . . To suppose\nit corporeal and *residing in the properties of matter *would\nbe a gratuitous hypothesis. . . To reduce all the causes to God.\n. . . would amount to embarrassing oneself with a hypothesis hostile\nto many verities. But to speak of *a plurality of forces *proceeding\nfrom the Deity and possessing inherent powers of their own, is\nnot unreasonable. . . . and I am disposed to admit phenomena produced\nby intermediate agents called Forces or Secondary Agents. The\n*distinction *of Forces is the principle of the division\nof Sciences; so many real and separate forces, so many mother-Sciences.\n. . . No: Forces are not suppositions and abstractions, but realities,\nand the only acting realities whose attributes can be determined\nwith the help of direct observation and induction.\" (\"*Sur\nla distinction des Forces*,\"* *published in the\n*Memoires de l*'*Academie des Sciences de Montpellier*,*\n*Vol. II., fasc. I., 1854.)\n\n--------------\n\n[[This page continued in next section]]\n\n####### [[Footnote(s)]] -------------------------------------------------\n\n* *L*'*Univers explique par la Reveation*,* and\nCosmogonie de la Revelation. *But see De Mirville's Deuxieme\nMemoire. The author, a terrible enemy of Occultism, was yet one\nwho wrote great truths.\n\nNext Section\n\nContents",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}