To go further now: it is not true that the attraction of a hollow shell of a sphere for any particle within it, is the same "no matter whereabouts in the interior the particle may be." The only place where the attraction will be the same is when the particle is at the centre. In that position a particle would be in a state of very unstable equilibrium, and a little greater thickness of the shell on one side than the others, would pull it a little, perhaps a great, distance from the centre towards that side; and if we extend our ideas to a plurality of particles within the shell of a sphere, we are led to speculate on how they would be distributed, and to see the possibility of there not being any at all at the centre. This is a point which has never been mooted, as far as we have been able to learn, and we shall have to return to it when the proper time comes.
It is difficult to understand how any man could conceive the notion that a shell of a sphere, such as that shown at Fig. 1, could have no attraction for each separate one of all the particles which make up the mass of the whole solid sphere within it; for that is the truth of the matter if properly looked into, when it is asserted, as has been done by Messrs. Newcomb and Holden, that "the resultant attraction of the shell will therefore be zero." If such a notion could be carried out in a supposed formation of the earth, an infinity of particles would carry off the whole of the interior, and leave the earth as only a shell of 1260 feet thick, as per the Hartley Colliery experiment; only we are told, or left to understand, that that process could not go on for ever, but would have to come to an end somehow and somewhere; and then we are left to speculate on how the unattracted particles could come back to take part in the composition of the earth. Left to ourselves we can only liken the process to that followed by a man who peels off the outer layer of an onion, eats the interior part, and when he is satisfied throws down the outer layer and thinks no more of it; not even that he might be asked what had become of the interior part.
Curiously enough, there is a way of explaining how, or rather why, the notion was formed--not unlike the one just given--to be found in the third of Sir George B. Airy's lectures on Popular Astronomy, delivered at Ipswich several years before the final experiments were made at the Harton Colliery. In that lecture, while describing how the Greek Astronomers accounted for the motions of the sun and planets round the stationary earth, he says, "It does appear strange that any reasonable man could entertain such a theory as this. It is, however, certain that they did entertain such a notion; and there is one thing which seems to me to give something of a clue to it. In speaking to-day and yesterday of the faults of education, I said that we take things for granted without evidence; mankind in general adopts things instilled into them in early youth as truths, without sufficient examination; and I now add that philosophers are much influenced by the common belief of the common people."