Symmes's Theory supported by arguments drawn from the principles inherent in matter, and the consequences resulting from motion; tending to show that, from necessity, matter must form itself into concentric circles or spheres, such as Symmes describes the earth to be composed of.

It is a principle laid down by Sir Isaac Newton, the correctness of which is generally admitted, that "matter attracts matter in proportion to its quantity and the squares of its distances inversely." Captain Symmes contends that gravity consists in a certain expansive quality in the molecules which constitute the aerial fluid called Æther, which fills universal space, and creates a pushing, instead of a pulling power. However, let either be correct, I conceive it cannot materially affect the principles necessary to constitute concentric spheres: either principle, I apprehend, would lead us nearly to the same results. When matter was in chaos, or in a form not solid, promiscuously disseminated through universal space, suppose it then should at once receive the impression of those universal laws by which it is governed, and see what would be the consequence.

According to Sir Isaac Newton's principles of gravity, the particle of matter that happened to be the largest would attract the smaller in its neighbourhood, which would increase the power of attraction in proportion to the increase of matter, until all in the universe would be collected into one vast body in the centre of space, and there remain motionless and at rest forever. This, however, we find not to be the case; for innumerable bodies of matter, differing in magnitude, are known to exist throughout the universe, arranged at suitable distances from each other, and performing certain revolutions in obedience to certain fixed laws impressed on them.

Now suppose all the matter in our globe to be an extended liquid mass, the particles so disengaged from each other, as to take their positions according to the established laws of matter, and then see what would be the consequences resulting from motion and gravity. Taking the laws of Newton for our guide, the particles of matter in the centre would be operated on by the power of gravity equally on all sides and consequently be stationary. Suppose then a line struck through this globe of matter, so as to make a globe of half the diameter of the whole in the centre, it is plain that the inner globe would not contain more than one eighth part as much matter as the surrounding one; hence it would be attracted towards the surface more than to the centre, were it not for the attraction of the matter on the opposite side exerting an influence upon it—but this being removed to so much greater distance, would not be more than an equipoise to the other.

The diameter of our globe, according to the best observation, is believed to be about 7970 English miles, and its circumference 25,038: consequently, if it were solid, it would contain 265,078,559,622 cubic miles of matter; while a globe of only half the diameter, would contain only 33,134,819,952.[3]

Suppose our globe divided into parts of one square mile on the surface, bounded by straight lines converging to a point at the centre, as the subjoined figure represents:

and then suppose there were no other particles of matter in the universe but A and B, A containing 1,328 cubic miles of matter, and B only 166, A would attract B so as to make their centre of attraction at O, which point would become at once the common centre: but admitting the whole matter of the globe to exist, A would still exert its influence on B, but both would be operated upon by T and S and the surrounding matter, all perhaps, tending to one common centre. However, I imagine that the tending to the centre would not be so great as is contended for by the generally received theory, which alleges that matter at the centre of the earth is four times as hard as hammered iron. The Newtonian philosophy appears to contemplate a globe at rest, and not in such rapid motion as we know the earth and other planetary bodies to be in, communicating to them a centrifugal force, which tends to throw matter from the centre. The rotary motion of each planet is no doubt regulated by the quantity of matter it contains: so that at its surface centrifugal and centripetal forces are equally balanced—the rotary motion being adequate to communicate a force to counter-balance the force of gravity.

Newton ascertained by his investigations of the properties and principles of matter, the earth to be a globe flattened at the poles: and the French philosophers afterwards confirmed this fact by measuring a degree in different latitudes. This difference between the equatorial and polar diameters of the earth, and of the other planets which are also known to be of that shape, is ascribed by those philosophers who attempt to account for such a formation, to the projectile force of the globe at the equator occasioned by its rotary motion. This is admitting that the matter of our globe was once in so soft a state as to take its form from motion; for were the earth a compact solid body, and four times as hard as hammered iron at the centre, (as the Newtonian system alleges) this rotary motion round an imaginary axis could never give to the globe the form of an oblate spheroid, as is ascertained to be the fact; because a hard solid body moving in empty space, could not be supposed to yield into that shape by any law of action as yet unfolded by science.

But were the matter of this globe thrown into a confused, disorganized state, and then put into a quick rotary motion, such as it is known to have, it would throw off from the centre towards the surface, first the heaviest, and next the lighter substances, which is the very order in which they are found to be arranged, in the composition of the earth.

This principle, for it is simply the principle of projectile force, will account for mountains, hills, vallies, plains; and for nearly all the inequalities on the face of the earth. These circumstances depend on the density of substances composing the earth. Substances of the greatest specific gravity are susceptible of the greatest projectile force; and hence we find that mountains are composed of heavy masses of rock, mineral substances, and heavy earths; hills, or the next highest eminences, of earth of the next specific gravity; and plains, or level lands, of lighter substances. Had the earth originally been composed of one uniform substance, sand, for example, of equal fineness and weight, the whole surface of the globe would have presented one uniform level or unbroken plain. But, presuming that it was originally composed of, at least, earths of different densities, the heaviest masses would be first thrown out and raise their heads above the surface of the ocean: thus islands would be formed; and clusters of islands would form continents, rearing their lofty heads into the air; and, if the substances of which they were originally composed, were not as hard as the rocks which we now find on them, the sun and changing temperature of the climates, might convert certain kinds of earth into masses of stone, increasing in specific gravity by petrifaction, and other causes, until the towering peaks of the Alps and Andes assumed their present solid form. One continent having thus emerged, another would naturally be produced simultaneously on the opposite side of the sphere, as an equipoise to the first, to keep equal the earth's motion; until all the heavy substances should be thrown out and united in a compact sphere.

To an observer of the earth the crust every where appears to indicate the emergence of land from water: almost the whole surface of the solid crust is alluvial, and by reasoning and reflecting, we are led to the conclusion, that the solid parts of our globe are nothing more than a crust, and formed into concentric spheres, in accordance with the principles of projectile force. I would ask, what proofs have we, that the sphere we inhabit is solid beyond the degree of thickness necessary to preserve it from injury by its rapid motion round the sun, by its diurnal motion round its own axis, and by its motion round its common centre of gravity with the moon? It has been ascertained with mathematical certainty, that the large planet Jupiter, is more than 1300 times the bulk of the earth, and Saturn independent of his double ring, is about 1000 times the size. If we apply to those prodigious bodies, the reasoning of Newton relative to plastic forms moving variously, there is no just grounds for concluding that they are solid substances to their centres. If they were, their vast weight and remote position would require much more attraction than probably even the sun could furnish, to keep them within their orbits.

The acknowledged and received laws of gravity, together with the measurements made on the same meridian, in different latitudes, have demonstrated to us that the greatest mathematicians have been mistaken as to the real figure of the earth. It is for schoolmen to make exact calculations, respecting the force of gravity, and centrifugal and centripetal forces; it is for them to determine with mathematical certainty where matter, left to its own laws, would settle; for such undertakings, I acknowledge my incompetency. But I have long had strong doubts, whether the laws of gravity are well understood; or whether the rules on which these calculations could be accurately made, are exactly known. However, I take the broad principles of nature, as presented to my view, for my guide; and draw my conclusions from what I have seen or what is well known to exist.

Observe the boy hurling a stone from a sling; he whirls it round his head for a minute to acquire a certain degree of centrifugal force, and although it is not whirled with half the velocity the earth revolves on its axis, yet as soon as it is released from confinement, notwithstanding the whole power of the earth is operating on it with all the force of gravity, the centrifugal force which the stone acquired by the whirling is sufficient to carry it off, at a tangent to the circle described by the sling, for a very considerable distance, before the gravity of the earth and atmospheric obstruction can force it to the ground.

If you will take the trouble to examine a mechanic grinding cutlery on a large stone that is smooth on the sides and has a quick motion, you may observe that if a certain portion of water be poured on the perpendicular side whilst the stone is turning, it does not settle or form itself into a body round the crank or axis; nor does the gravity of the earth draw it from the surface, but forms itself on the side of the stone into something resembling concentric circles, one within another. The surface of the earth, I apprehend, revolves with much greater velocity than any grindstone; and the substances composing the spheres are much firmer than water.

Most of us, I presume, have seen persons for amusement, in displaying feats of dexterity, place a full glass of wine or water on a hoop, and whirl it round their heads without spilling one drop. The centrifugal force it acquires by the revolutions overcomes the power of gravity, although nothing appears to support it but the common atmosphere.

Another experiment, producing a similar effect, might be made with a cup filled with fine sand. On the surface of the sand, describe a circle nearly in the centre; it will then be apparent, on observing the cup, that the sand within the circle, provided the particles attract one another as the planets do, is as much attracted towards one verge of the cup as the other; owing to its being equally surrounded by matter or sand, and therefore it can be but very little, if any, gravitated centrewise. Hence, being in a degree suspended, only a small horizontal rotary motion is required to whirl it towards the rim or sides of the cup into a circular form; and hence it follows, that those particles of sand lying equidistant from the inner side of the circle of sand thus formed, and the outer side would be in like manner balanced, or supported, by being equally gravitated in both directions. A disposition would thus be produced to form into concentric circles, and it would therefore follow, that successive similar dispositions to subdivision should occur, gradually lessening in force and quantity. This principle applied to the earth or other planets, would cause them to be formed into concentric spheres; and would throw the matter from the axis, as well at the poles, as at the centre, and thereby constitute open poles.

Another simple experiment might also be made, to illustrate that a disposition to concentric spheres does exist in nature. On a piece of paper sift a small quantity of very fine magnetic particles, such as steel or iron filings, under which hold a loadstone; and you will observe that the attractive power of the magnet will cause the filings on the paper to arrange themselves into various concentric circles, nearly regular and equidistant from each other. From what cause should this take place, rather than that the filings should be accumulated into one mass?

Various have been the conjectures relative to the cause and origin of the meteoric stones, or fire balls, which have been known to fall to the earth, in all ages, and in various parts of the world. Some have imagined them to be precipitated from a comet or some of the planets; others that they come from the moon; and Captain Symmes's opinion, I believe, is that they are formed isolated in space by spontaneous accumulations, as by attracting molecules of matter at first in a fluid state, which afterwards solidifies by heat or motion. But come from whence they may, they are said to be constituted of a substance unknown to our geologists; and in several instances the fragments have been ascertained to consist of pieces, some of which have concave and some convex surfaces, affording a certain proof that previous to their descent, they had been constituted of hollow spheres.

Professor Silliman, of Yale college, has preserved some of the fragments of one of these fire balls; and in his valuable journal, has given the public an able description of the facts which occurred, when they fell. This fire ball fell in the state of Connecticut, in the year 1807, producing three distinct reports, like a cannon, making three convulsive leaps or throes in its course, which were simultaneous no doubt with the explosions, becoming less luminous after each, and being quite extinguished at the third. Three showers of stones fell to the earth in a line with its course; the second shower fell five miles distant from the first, and the last three or four miles from the second. Some of the fragments were found to be concave, others convex, and especially on those sides of the fragments which were glazed with sooty crusted surface, as if vitrified.

These phenomena are precisely such as would occur, supposing the fire ball to have been a small satellite, or erratic planet, at first fluid, which had become so condensed by the increased action of terrestrial gravity, occasioned by its sudden approach, as to cause its fluid parts to chrystalize and form into, at least, three concentric spheres; and the latent heat and light set free by such rapid condensation as to produce the meteoric flame; which in this case was almost equal in light to that of the sun at mid-day. As soon as the spheres became sufficiently solidified to prevent the heated aerial fluid, contained in the mid-plane cavities of the spheres, from passing out with freedom, when expanded by the heat; or let the atmospheric air pass in, in case a condensation within afforded a vacuum; the solid crusts of the spheres would be disruptured successively one after the other; lose their regular rotation, and fall in fragments to the earth. The fall of this body is not a solitary instance of the kind: others have fallen in many parts of the earth, attended with phenomena more or less the same.

On the 16th of January, 1818, in Florida, near Mobile bay, a fire ball bursted with a considerable report. Immediately before the explosion, it was observed to project a cone of fire from each pole horizontally and at right angles with its course. Its bursting like a bomb-shell, indicated that it must have been hollow; and the two cones of light which appeared, beside its train, showed that it was open at the poles.

Turn your attention to the general economy of nature throughout her works, and you will perceive in various and almost innumerable substances that she forms hollow cylinders or spheres in the room of solid ones. Enquire of the botanist, and he will tell you that the plants which spring up spontaneously, agreeable to the established laws of nature, are hollow cylinders. If a hollow globe would answer the ends of supporting organic life as well as a solid one—why not be hollow, as well as a stalk of wheat? or by what laws is the stalk of wheat governed, that it should always grow hollow? What law in nature causes the quills and feathers of a bird to be hollow cylinders? Why are they not solid? I presume it is for this plain reason, that nature, throughout all her works, has wisely assigned to every thing just matter enough for strength and usefulness; and has in no case overburthened it with unnecessary and cumbrous weight.

Enquire of the anatomist, and he will tell you that the large bones of all animals are hollow, and particularly that the bones of birds are more than ordinarily so: even the minutest hairs of our heads are hollow.

Go to the mineralist, and he will inform you that the stone called Ærolites, and many other mineral bodies, are composed of hollow concentric circles; and, that strata of different kinds abound in various mineral substances. Even the earth itself is composed, as geologists tell us, of various strata, composed of different substances, and varying from one degree of density to another. If every part of our globe be regulated according to the received laws of gravity, and the relative density of matter, why do we find almost all over the world, light alluvial soil in the vallies and plains; and on the tops of the highest mountains, the more heavy granite, and some of the heaviest substances that nature knows? We can hardly indulge the thought that all this is the work of volcanic eruptions or some dread throe of nature.

However, if we direct our attention alone to those general laws which are known, and which are believed to govern matter, I apprehend it would be very difficult to account for the creation of worlds, and the admirable arrangement which subsists throughout the universe. To account for every thing, either according to the old or new theory, would be attempting too much. It would be placing the Deity in some corner of the universe an idle spectator, whilst matter governed by its own laws, was forming itself into worlds and systems; the bare thought of which is irreverent. Is the existence of matter owing to some other first cause, or did matter create itself, and impress upon itself the laws which govern it? Such an idea is absurd. We might as well imagine that matter created God, as itself. By attempting to trace every effect to some natural cause, is attempting to do more than we shall ever be able to accomplish. Such a course of reasoning must lead us to the conclusion that there is no God, or first cause; or, at least, to what would be nearly the same thing, that there is no need of one.

But in reasoning upon this subject, I take it for granted, that there is a God, and that he is the first cause of all things, the creator of all the orbs in the universe, be they either solid globes or concentric spheres; and I hope such is the reader's belief. And I cannot discover in this any thing derogatory from His infinite power, wisdom, or divine economy, in the formation of a hollow world and concentric spheres, any more than in that of solid ones. I should rather be of opinion, that a construction of all the orbs in creation, on a plan corresponding with Symmes's theory, would display the highest possible degree of perfection, wisdom, and goodness—the most perfect system of creative economy—and, (as Dr. Mitchill expresses it) a great saving of stuff.