When Laplace had calculated the extent of the change due to the cause he had detected, and when it was found that ancient eclipses were now satisfactorily accounted for, it may well be believed that there was triumph in the mathematical camp. But this was not all. Other mathematicians attacked the same problem, and their results agreed so closely that all were convinced that the difficulty was thoroughly vanquished.
A very noteworthy result followed from Laplace’s calculations. Amongst other solutions which had been suggested, was the supposition (supported by no less an authority than Sir Isaac Newton, who lived to see the commencement of the long conflict maintained by mathematicians with this difficulty), that it is not the moon travelling more quickly, but our earth rotating more slowly, which causes the observed discrepancy. Now it resulted from Laplace’s labours—as he was the first to announce—that the period of the earth’s rotation has not varied by one-tenth of a second per century in the last two thousand years.
The question thus satisfactorily settled, as was supposed, was shelved for more than a quarter of a century. The result, also, which seemed to flow from the discussion—the constancy of the earth’s rotation-movement—was accepted; and, as we have seen, our national system of measures was founded upon the assumed constancy of the day’s duration.
But mathematicians were premature in their rejoicings. The question has been brought, by the labours of Professor Adams—co-discoverer with Leverrier of the distant Neptune—almost exactly to the point which it occupied a century ago. We are face to face with the very difficulties—somewhat modified in extent, but not in character—which puzzled Halley, Euler, and Lagrange. It would be an injustice to the memory of Laplace to say that his labours were thrown away. The explanation offered by him is indeed a just one. But it is insufficient. Properly estimated it removes only half the difficulty which had perplexed mathematicians. It would be quite impossible to present in brief space, and in form suited to these pages, the views propounded by Adams. What, for instance, would most of our readers learn if we were to tell them that, ‘when the variability of the eccentricity is taken into account, in integrating the differential equations involved in the problem of the lunar motions—that is, when the eccentricity is made a function of the time—non-periodic or secular terms appear in the expression for the moon’s mean motion’—and so on? Let it suffice to say that Laplace had considered only the work of the sun in diminishing the earth’s _pull_ on the moon, supposing that the slow variation in the sun’s _direct_ influence on the moon’s motion in her orbit must be self-compensatory in long intervals of time. Adams has shown, on the contrary, that when this variation is closely examined, no such compensation is found to take place; and that the effect of this want of compensation is to diminish by more than one-half the effects due to the slow variation examined by Laplace.