Abstract

It is traditionally held that Mayer denied the existence of a solar motion while Herschel and Prévost, using much the same data, demonstrated its presence. The existence of such diverse conclusions has not, however, been satisfactorily explained. It is shown here that the supposed disagreement as to the existence of a solar motion is illusory. Mayer did not make the denial attributed to him; and the estimates of Herschel and Prévost do not represent responses to the factual question as to whether or not the Sun moved, but rather those to the heuristic question as to what value of the probable solar motion one should assume. The analyses behind these estimates are reported and shown to be well matched to the combination of question and available data. The conceptual context of Herschel's and Prévost's work is discussed. And a brief comparison is made with the later investigations into the systematic motions of the stars