| Mercury | 35 |
simply. The prestige of Sir Isaac Newton's name is responsible for the inertia which still carries the usual explanation rolling down the ages. He attempted to explain the tides statically, and the account he gave has been blindly copied and perpetuated. But the problem is not a static, but a kinematic one ; the body acted on is in motion at the time of the action, and this entirely changes the result. Let me give you an analogous instance of the impossibility of treating a problem of motion as if it were one of rest. The precession of the equinoxes is a case in point, and may be seen in a gyroscope. If a weight be hung on the axis of the wheel while the latter is at rest, the wheel instantly turns into the horizontal plane and stays there. This is a case of statics. If now the wheel be set in motion, however slightly, the wheel, instead of lying down in the plane of the pull once and for all, simply rotates in space without any change of inclination whatever. This is a case of kinematics. Kinematic questions always thus differ from static ones.
Nor can the motion be tacked on afterward, as simultaneity is of the essence of the problem. If the effect of the Earth's rotation was merely to carry forward the crest of the tide through friction, it is the deep-water tides,—those in water