Notes on the Kinematic Effects of Revolution and Rotation, with reference to the Motions of the Moon and of the earth. By Henry Perigal, Jun. Esq. London, 1846-1849, 8vo.
On the misuse of technical terms. Ambiguity of the terms _Rotation_ and _Revolution_, owing to the double meaning improperly {20} attributed to each of the words. (No date nor place, but by Mr. Perigal,[42] I have no doubt, and containing letters of 1849 and 1850.)
The moon controversy. Facts _v._ Definitions. By H. P., Jun. London, 1856, 8vo. (pp. 4.)
Mr. Henry Perigal helped me twenty years ago with the diagrams, direct from the lathe to the wood, for the article "Trochoidal Curves," in the _Penny Cyclopaedia_: these cuts add very greatly to the value of the article, which, indeed, could not have been made intelligible without them. He has had many years' experience, as an amateur turner, in combination of double and triple circular motions, and has published valuable diagrams in profusion. A person to whom the double circular motion is familiar in the lathe naturally looks upon one circle moving upon another as in _simple_ motion, if the second circle be fixed to the revolving radius, so that one and the same point of the moving circle travels upon the fixed circle. Mr. Perigal commenced his attack upon the moon for moving about her axis, in the first of the tracts above, ten years before Mr. Jellinger Symons;[43] but he did not think it necessary to make it a subject for the _Times_ newspaper. His familiarity with combined motions enabled him to handle his arguments much better than Mr. J. Symons could do: in fact, he is the clearest assailant of the lot which turned out with Mr. J. Symons. But he is as wrong as the rest. The assault is now, I suppose, abandoned, until it becomes epidemic again. This it will do: it is one of those fallacies which are very tempting. There was a dispute on the subject in 1748, between James Ferguson[44] and an anonymous opponent; and I think there have been others.
{21}
A poet appears in the field (July 19, 1863) who calls himself Cyclops, and writes four octavo pages. He makes a distinction between _rotation_ and _revolution_; and his doctrines and phrases are so like those of Mr. Perigal that he is a follower at least. One of his arguments has so often been used that it is worth while to cite it:
"Would Mathematicals--forsooth-- If true, have failed to prove its truth? Would not they--if they could--submit Some overwhelming proofs of it? But still it totters _proofless_! Hence There's strong presumptive evidence None do--or can--such proof profound Because _the dogma is unsound_. For, were there means of doing so, They would have proved it long ago."
This is only one of the alternatives. Proof requires a person who can give and a person who can receive. I feel inspired to add the following:
"A blind man said, As to the Sun, I'll take my Bible oath there's none; For if there had been one to show They would have shown it long ago. How came he such a goose to be? Did he not know he couldn't see? Not he!"
The absurdity of the verses is in the argument. The writer was not so ignorant or so dishonest as to affirm that nothing had been offered by the other side as proof; accordingly, his syllogism amounts to this: If your proposition were true, you could have given proof satisfactory to _me_; but this you have not done, therefore, your proposition is not true.
The echoes of the moon-controversy reached Benares in 1857, in which year was there published a pamphlet "Does the Moon Rotate?" in Sanskrit and English. The {22} arguments are much the same as those of the discussion at home.
