296 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
VIS INERTI/E IN AIR AND OCEAN.* 
. JORDAN’S last two works afford melancholy evidence of the fatuity 
of paradoxism. In volume vii. we had occasion, now some nine 
years since, to discuss his Vis Inertia, 11 a book nicely bound, well printed 
on good paper, abounding in maps, diagrams, and charts, yet — what Sterne 
would have called hobby -horsical.” Nine years have not sufficed to show 
him how utterly without foundation is his system of the world, for like 
every true paradoxist, he proposes to run his hobby-horse full tilt at the 
centre of all things ; and in the later of the two works now in our hands, 
announces his 11 System of the World,” price one guinea. The basis of his 
system is easily explained. The solid earth turning on its axis from west 
to east leaves the water somewhat behind, which therefore has a relative 
motion towards the west. Hence the great equatorial currents. The air is 
left still more in the lurch, and thus has a westerly motion, even relatively 
to the water. Hence the trade winds. The planets nearest the sun are in 
like manner left behind in consequence of vis inertia. Hence they do not 
complete a circuit in the same time as the sun rotates. The remoter planets 
are left behind in greater degree, and hence the planetary periods grow 
longer and longer as the distances from the sun increase. 
A reviewer unfamiliar with the ways of paradoxists might hope to indi- 
cate the error underlying this reasoning. For instance, he might hope to 
explain that even supposing that a solid earth could be set rotating within 
a fluid envelope at rest, this, which would at first lag, must eventually ac- 
quire the rotational movement in full degree, since otherwise an infinite 
effect would accrue from a finite cause ; viz., never-ceasing friction from the 
original rotational impulse. And again, he might hope to show that what 
Mr. Jordan calls astral gravitation could not affect the fluid envelope with- 
out affecting in equal degree the solid mass within. Assuming him to pos- 
sess the benevolence of a De Morgan, a reviewer might endeavour, even 
without hope, to explain a few of the elementary laws of physics to Mr. 
Jordan. We possess, however, neither hope to set a paradoxist right, nor 
infinite benevolence. Mr. Jordan’s answer to any attempt to show that he 
does not rightly understand the laws of physics would simply be, as in his 
preface to “ The Winds,” u I rightly apprehend the fundamental principles 
of physics to be wrong.” One point only do we care to controvert. He 
represents himself as in controversy with Dr. Carpenter and Professor Huxley 
respecting his theory of vis inertia. It is barely conceivable that a paper of 
Mr. Jordan’s, read before the Geographical Society, was there and then 
replied to by Huxley. But we do not believe that there has been any 
subsequent controversy with Mr. Jordan ; and we are quite certain that any 
discussion of his theory would be the most complete waste of time. No 
amount of reasoning would convince Mr. Jordan of its absurdity ; nor can 
we conceive it possible that any besides himself has the least faith in it. 
* u The Winds and their Story of the World,” and “Remarks on the 
recent Oceanic Explorations and the current-creating action of vis inertia 
in the Ocean.” Both by W. L. Jordan, F.R.G.S. 8vo. London: Hard- 
wicke and Bogue. 1877. 
