Extracted text
Source-led transcription, lightly normalized from PDF pp. 6–7; historical claims remain those of The Flaming Sword. The article ends before the separately headed “Faith Versus Sight.”
The day of reckoning and of the swift execution of God's vengeance is upon us, and as the oppressor has heaped up treasure unto the day of wrath, vengeance will surely fall upon his own head. The truth and life of the Lord as these were exemplified by him, though it lead us, as it did the Christ, to martyrdom, is our standard of religious and moral excellence. It is claimed and maintained by the civil engineer, that there is a refraction of the atmosphere amounting to about three inches to the mile, and that this amount of allowance has to be made in running a line curvating with the surface of the earth, which he claims is convex.
Assuming such to be the case, and employing that principle of mathematics which is applied to the calculation of the curvation of the earth, namely, the law of inverse ratio to the square of the distance, the first mile of curvation would be three inches, the second nine inches, the third twenty-seven inches, etc. Suppose we embrace the assumption as an illustration applied to an astronomical observation.
In the diagram on the outside page of THE SWORD, aaa is a circle representing the earth's surface according to the Copernican system of astronomy; bbb is a circle representing the limitation of the atmosphere; c the line of observation conforming to the deviation of vision three inches to the mile, at a ratio inversely to the square of the distance,—the law generally applied to geodetic measurements; dd the tangent of this supposed curve of the earth; e is the point from which an astronomer observes a star just at the horizon. The supposed direction of the star is represented by the line dd; the apparent location of the star is at f. Now if the visual curve is three inches to the mile downward, what is the real direction of the star?
If the earth curvates eight inches to the mile, the first mile being eight inches, the second thirty-two, and the third seventy-two inches, or six feet—providing this is the true ratio—then the deviation of the earth's curve from the visual curve can be easily determined. Let us suppose the atmosphere to be forty-five miles deep according to the estimates of some physicists; the visual curve traversing an apparent horizontal line would approximate the line of the earth's surface in proportion to the ratio above given. Admitting the assumptions of the civil engineer—for the sake of argument—to be correct, the law applied by the eye and scope of the surveyor to geodetic mensuration must also apply to the eye and scope of the astronomer. Does the astronomer take into consideration the refraction of the atmosphere in his astral observations? He does not!
If the atmosphere refracts three inches to the mile for the civil engineer, it must necessarily do the same for the astronomer. If an observation is taken by an astronomer of a star near the horizon, the visual curve would embrace a distance of at least two thousand miles, which would be estimated at the inverse ratio of the square of the distance—three inches to the mile being the basis of calculation. What, then, would be the direction of the star? No astronomer would be able to determine the direction. If a line of vision curves in passing through a common and homogeneous atmosphere, why does it not curve in passing through the space beyond? We most emphatically declare that—to say nothing of the pretensions of the civil engineers as to atmospheric refraction—at the point where the ray meets the limit of the atmosphere there would be a refraction of the line of vision as at g, and it essentially follows that if the depth of the atmosphere is only approximately known, then the angle of refraction cannot be ascertained; and if the angle of refraction is undetermined, then the direction of the star is undetermined. If the direction of a star was calculated on the basis of the Copernican system, then the star at h would appear to be seen on the line of the horizon at f; and yet this could not be accurately determined because the angle of refraction at g could not be known.
Common sense, then, ought to teach any man that, because astronomers make accurate calculations so far as periodic recurrence pertains to solar, lunar, planetary, and stellar phenomena, the stars are within our own atmosphere, and the line of vision is not subject to incalculable distance. No telescope can be made so accurate that there is not a perceptible deflection of the optical line, causing an angle of deviation at the objective point of the visual axis of the instrument. If the astronomer does not estimate this angle of deviation, and also the further deviation of the optical line by the refraction of the atmosphere, which the physicist declares to obtain, then the great distances assumed to exist would constitute insurmountable obstacles to any correct astronomical estimate. The absurdities of the Copernican system become more palpable the more the system is subjected to rational criticism. Let us have “higher criticism” on modern physics—and criticise the critics.
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 11, No. 4 · Apr. 1897 · PDF pp. 6–7