Extracted text
Printed form: correspondence followed by the editor’s reply. The reply continues onto PDF p. 13.
Editorial transcription, lightly normalized from the cited scan pages. Historical claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
EDITOR OF THE FLAMING SWORD:—Since no evidence has been presented either against the Copernican system or for the Cellular Cosmogony, the case might as well rest at that; but a few thoughts on "appearances" may not be uninteresting.
It is true that the geocentric system of Ptolemy was based on appearances, but only on part of them—the most prominent and readily observed. It was soon discovered, however, that the movements of the planets among the stars, eastward for the most part, but sometimes stationary, then retrograde, were inexplicable under geocentricism, which fact led Copernicus to evolve his system, which clearly explained these apparently erratic movements. They were due to the continually shifting standpoint of the observer. Thus it is that while appearances, superficially observed, are often deceptive, if taken in their totality and properly co-ordinated by scientific methods, they become in the highest degree reliable. So treated, appearances point with overwhelming force to heliocentrism as developed by Copernicus. And in any case, they are all we have. By "we," I mean those of us not favored with anything in the nature of supernatural revelation, a channel, by the way, through which no exact scientific knowledge has ever yet come. Yet you claim to know the earth to be concave, but will not tell us how you know it. Evidently, you must claim some such source of knowledge as above indicated; but such claims being unprovable, cannot be considered in a scientific discussion.
And the same may be said of your instrument. It must be rigidly cross-questioned before its evidence can be admitted, especially since it is an interested witness. I am not forgetting, however, that you challenge such cross-examination; but as the case now stands, those competent to conduct it will, one and all, treat the claim with silent contempt, 'the only way that you can call them out is to make so many proselytes, including a fair proportion of intelligent men, that steps are likely to be taken with prospects of success, to introduce your cosmogony into the schools to the exclusion of the Copernican system; then you will hear from them.
By the way, cannot you publish cuts of your rectilineator, showing its principles of operation? That instrument must be your main reliance with people who cannot be psychologically converted, but must be rationally convinced if at all influenced. In default of cuts, will you not briefly describe it? Is it optical or mechanical? Also, is "aboron" as shown in your chart, transparent or opaque?—Prof. J. W. T., Salem, O.
Answering the unimportant questions first, we would say (i) that the means by which the fact of the earth's concavity became known was the simple involution of scientific sense,—the knowledge of simple laws of optics and comparative anatomy, which has served the mind better than that which must be substituted in its place by those who do not know— hypothesis, or premise guessed at. The source of information of the Founder of Koreshanity is natural, and belongs right here in the human world; and has nothing whatever to do with the usual idea of inspiration from a myth in the sky. (2) Illustrations and complete explanation of the Koreshan Geodetic Apparatus and its method of use are given in detail in the Cellular Cosmogony, our scientific work soon to be issued. (3) The eye cannot see beyond the junction of our atmosphere and hydrogen. The "sphere of the heavens" is the limit of perpendicular vision.
The above letter presents nothing new to us, except in the statement that no evidence has been presented against the Copernican system or for the Cellular Cosmogony. This to us, after all that has been published in THE FLAMING SWORD in past years, and after two years of special experimentation on the water's surface and geodetic survey, is certainly startling information! In our replies to the Professor's questions, we did not go over the ground of proof, familiar to our readers; and why should we republish a volume for the benefit of one inquirer? He has our statements that a line projected in two directions from the vertical point of a perpendicular will extend into the water at a distance proportionate to the altitude of the perpendicular. This is our proof, and WE DEFY THE WORLD TO TOUCH IT!
We not only say that no proof has been presented by our friend in his series of letters in favor of the Copernican system, but that no such proof has ever been presented at any time by any one; no fact ever observed is a point in demonstration of the earth's convexity. We are substantiated in this by the Professor's own admission that the mere appearances in the physical heavens, are all he has; to which he can refer the question which he considers under discussion. Are they all he has? Are there no proofs on the earth? Is it possible that no evidences can be found in connection with land or water, level or plumb, geodetic survey, circumnavigation, disappearance of ships' hulls, the horizon arc—no proofs whatever that the earth is convex? If he has none, and knows of none, we think it is time he was informing the scientific world that it would be well to make a few special observations here on the tangible surface of the earth, and to reach a few conclusions from a premise, instead of employing the empirical method of reaching conclusions from hypotheses. The Professor corroborates the words of Copernicus, who said of his system centuries ago: "Neither let any one, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."
We are publishing a 200-page illustrated work, containing details of the facts of demonstration of the Cellular Cosmogony, covering the ground of observations made upon the surface of water in proof of the fact that it is not convex; details of the methods employed in the Geodetic Survey on the Florida coast, the principles on which the apparatus was constructed, and the principles involved in its use. In this work, we make a direct demonstration of the Koreshan premise; this work is in preparation, and will contain enough for the so-called scientific men to work upon until they are ready to surrender the field to those who have proved themselves competent to demonstrate their claims!
In the meantime, if Prof. T. can think up some little fact that would seem to demonstrate the supposition that the earth is convex, we are ready to examine it for him; but as the case now stands, according to his own admissions, he has no proof, and the case may as well rest there so far as he is concerned. We are well aware of all that we have to do in the promulgation of the Koreshan System in the world; it is not left for the modern mind to inform us of what difficulties we have before us! We are familiar with the fact that when any new truth comes to the world it meets with the "silent contempt" of the so-called teachers, until by sheer force of argument and facts, the common people recognize it and turn away from the effete ideas previously held and taught. We know that the modern scientists will ignore the facts that can be easily observed, as long as possible. We have said so over and over again; but many people have believed that of all persons, the astronomer should be the first to accept, or disprove if possible, the Koreshan System; and they have consequently been skeptical of our assertions that the opposite would be true. We now thank the Professor for his frank admission that the usual astronomer would constitute himself a bar to progress by waiting until a demonstrated fact should be promulgated in the world, sufficient to obtain a large following before he will condescend to notice it!
But perhaps our friend, who has looked into the matter a little, may be induced to witness some facts which we have in store for the "scientific" world. Does the Professor desire to commit himself to a few propositions concerning phenomena in connection with the surface of water of Lake Michigan, the Drainage Canal, Lake Erie or Erie canal, or any other body of water whose surface is convenient to test? We challenge him to do so; or, in other words, we challenge him to disprove the facts of observation made and reported by our Staff, or to meet us at the surface of any body of water for the purpose of testing its actual contour. If he wishes a settlement of the question beyond all doubt or denial, in a way more tangible and satisfactory than by pen or paper, let him signify his willingness, and we may make terms with him at an early date. The acceptance or rejection of this offer may perhaps obviate any further insinuations as to independent use of psychology, to the exclusion of any scientific facts in the making of converts!
Source boundary: Begins under “The Basis of Modern Astronomy” in the Query, Chat, and News Department; includes Prof. J. W. T.’s letter and the editorial reply; ends before “The Flaming-Sword Warmly Welcomed.”
Vol. 12, No. 39 · PDF pages 12, 13
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 12, No. 39 · Aug 1898 · PDF pp. 12–13