THE GEOLOGIST. 
JUNE 1864. 
THE PEIMARY TKANSLATION OF THE EAETH. 
By the Editoe. 
In reference to the correspoudence on my speculations in theoretical 
geology and astronomy which have been printed in this Journal, I wish 
to take this opportunity of saying, that if in the cases of the Kev. O. 
Eisher, p. 54 in this volume, and of Dr. Leslie, p. 295 in A^ol. YL, I 
have inserted such comments on any of the physical hypotheses to 
winch from time to time I have given expression without replying 
to those comments, that I do not therefore acknowledge my opponents 
to be right, nor, on the other hand, do I intend to pass them over 
slightingly as wrong, or as unworthy of attention. I simply thouglit 
it best not to get into controversy tchiJe my own ideas were being 
enunciated. I cannot, however, concur in the Rev. 0. Eisher's views 
as to the possibility of the earth's velocity, if initial primarily, being 
maintained, nor of a larger orbit for our planet being a result of any 
retardation of her motion. I am well aware of Kepler's law referred 
to, and I have my own opinion both of its value and its application. 
Mathematics may derive a result from a given basis, but mathematics 
never yet gave birth to a basis of facts. That two added to two 
make four may be mathematically demonstrated, but no amount of 
mathematical reasoning would prove four to be derived from two and 
two. It is evident it might have been derived from 3 + 1, or 1 + 1 + 
1 + 1. Just so if the orbital velocity of our earth had been imparted 
to it by explosion, by condensation, by any projectile force whatever, 
VOL. YTT. 2 D 
