Extracted text
Editorial transcription, lightly normalized from the scan. Line-break hyphenation, spacing, capitalization, and unmistakable OCR errors have been repaired; the claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
Printed under the department heading Editorial Discussions and Miscellany.
EDITOR FLAMING SWORD:—Phenomena in connection with concave curvature observed in mid-Atlantic, Nov. 21, 1886: In the above-named year I sailed from England to Portland, Ore., via Cape Horn, in a sailing vessel for purposes of research and experiment. For several days we had been sailing through sea-weed so thick that at times the water was scarcely visible. While on this part of the ocean, I observed that a vessel, instead of disappearing hull first, disappeared masts first, leaving the hull in view as a dark speck against the horizon line. I asked the seaman the question: "What's the matter with that sail just heaving in sight; has she no masts?" "Why, you fool," he replied, "don't you know you are in a hole?"
Explanation showed that on this part of the ocean there is a superficial concavity, caused by the action of electro-magnetic currents in the crust of the earth, and this is what causes the sea-weed to accumulate there. I determined the ratio of concave curvature, and found it to be 3.09 inches to the mile, as nearly as I could calculate at the time. Now the peculiarity was, that the hull did not enter the vertical vanished space, which you maintain is the cause of its disappearance before the masts, but remained in sight after the masts had disappeared. If your theory were true, and the earth's surface concave, and the hull entered the vanished vertical space, then there could be no apparent bulge between the eye and the masts, which would appear to hang in the air, and not to be reared above an apparent arc of convex curvature.
I am convinced that had the ratio of curvature of this superficial concavity been 8.09 inches instead of 3.09 (provided, of course, that your theory of vertical vanishment is true), then the apparent bulge between the eye and the masts would not have been apparent, but the masts would have appeared as though aerially suspended, because your theory demands this conclusion. You say the hull is vanished by entering the vertical vanished space; then, if so, there could be no apparent bulge between the eye and the object, because if concavity is a fact, there is no bulge.
Now, in my observation on an actual concave surface, the bulge was not apparent to the eye, and the hull was perched as it were, on the horizon line, as a black speck until it finally passed beyond the radius of vision.—K. J. B., Pueblo, Colo.
The idea meant to be conveyed in the above is that if the earth is concave, vessels would disappear, not "hull down," but "sail down;" and the phenomenon in the above "observation" was due to the fact that the sails were down, and the masts gone. Perhaps it was a derelict! Where was the hull visible? On the horizon, and not beyond it. A vessel must get beyond the vanishing point of the space the hull occupies before the hull disappears.
THE EDITOR.
In the above, we have another admission of a concavity existing on the water's surface. In a recent letter, it was admitted that a concavity exists along the west coast of Florida, as demonstrated by the Koreshan Geodetic Survey in 1897, and there were no sea-weeds there, either!
In the above there is a peculiar thing manifest: A man stands on the deck of a vessel, and observes a dark point on the horizon; he concludes that the vessel from which the observation is made, is in the center of a concavity, the limit of which is the horizon; or if otherwise, it must be admitted that if the concavity extends beyond the horizon, that a horizon line can become apparent on a concavity. He presumes to be able to ascertain the ratio of concave curvature by simple observation, and calculates it to be 3.09 inches to the mile! He does not disclose the process employed. The jugglery of figures without definite data of measurements would certainly be a curiosity!
We made a hundred specific observations at the very point where the writer of the above has admitted that the water is concave 8 inches to the mile. Within and beyond the horizon of our Operating Station, vessels appeared and disappeared in the same way that they appear and disappear on seas in all parts of the world. If other observations and other phenomena are taken as proof of convexity, while others indicate a concavity, we assert that the different phenomena over the same surface of any body of water, under different meteorological conditions, would prove the earth to possess different shapes at different times!
The horizon is the summit of the apparent bulge of any body of water. If in the observation referred to above, the hull was perched on the horizon, the apparent bulge was there, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Our correspondent destroys his own point by admitting that a horizon was visible! A horizon would be apparent on a flat surface, or a convex surface. If the earth were to change from a concave to a flat surface, and from a flat surface to a convex surface in a single day, the phenomenon of the horizon would be nearly the same on each surface; and without the aid of instruments for definite test, the horizon depression could not be detected. The visible surface of water is not convex and concave at the same time; it is concave everywhere, and has been so eternally!
The source scans remain the record. This page preserves the article's argument without presenting its conclusions as independently established results.
- --
The source scans remain the record. This page preserves the periodical's argument and reported observations without presenting its conclusions as independently established results. The claims remain attributed to The Flaming Sword.
← Flaming Sword Archive
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 14, No. 4 · 15 Dec 1899 · PDF p. 11