Extracted text
Hypothesis is Admittedly the Basis of Prevailing Conclusions ; the Scientific Methods of the Koreshan Universologist; a Practical Lesson on Perspective Foreshortening.
SAYS DARWIN, in “ Animals and Plants,” Vol. I, page i): “ In scientific investigations it is permitted to invent any hypothesis, and if it explains various large and independent classes of facts it rises to the rauk of a well-grounded theory.” It is to this absurd proposition that the most of our “scientific” theories, if not all of them, owe their existence. He further says, that “the undulations of ether and even its existence are hypothetical, yet every one now admits the undulatory theory of light.” We agree with Darwin, that the undulatory theory of light is a mere hypothesis; that is. a mere guess, but we deny his statement that “every one now admits the undulatory theory of light.” “ The principle of natural selection,” he says, “ may be looked at as a mere hypothesis, but rendered in some degree probable by what we positively know of the variability of organic beings in a state of nature,—by what we positively know of the struggle for existence, and the consequent almost inevitable preservation of favorable variations,—and from the analogical formation of domestic races.” Darwinism, as Darwin himself affirms, is predicated entirely upon “scientific” guesses; and these,he declares, constitute the basis of all scientific claims. Speaking of natural selection, he says: “ Now, this hy pothesis may be tested—and this seems to me to be the only fair and legitimate manner of considering the whole question—by trying whether it explains several large and independent classes of facts; such as the geo logical succession of organic beings, their distribution in past and present times, and their mutual affinities and homologies. If the principle of natural selection does explain these and other large bodies of facts, it ought to be received.” “Please accept my theories,” says the eminent “scientist,” “ because I can explain many things upon my hypothesis.” The Koreshan Scientist might beg the question and say, please accept our theory of Universology, because there is not one thing that we can not explain scientifically upon our premise. But we ask no man to accept anything on the basis of a mere hypothesis. A knowledge of the construction of the universe and its functions, with the laws and principles of life depending upon such knowledge, is too important a matter to be left to mere conjecture—mere hypothesis. No conclusion is certain which is not founded upon and grounded in a positively demonstrated premise. It is for this reason that the Koreshan System stands out distinct and unique. It predicates nothing upon guess work; its first step in the discussion of any proposi tion, is the correct establishment and proof of its prem ise. Darwinism is a fair sample of the processes by which modern scientific conclusions are invariably reached. When in conversation with Professor Dark ness, of the United States Naval Observatory, we asked him if the Copernican system was not predicated upon assumption, he replied : “ We have to assume some thing.” We maintain that if a premise be assumed, then the conclusion is equally an assumption.
Fact And Phenomenon Differentiated.
Let us take the principle of optics in its application to the definition of the phenomenon of the rotundity of the earth, as an illustration of correct reasoning from an established premise, as followed by the logician of the Koreshan School of Science. We herewith accom pany our argument with diagrammatic illustrations of the principles involved in the argument. Two lines may be extended parallel with each other, as in the case of the two rails of a railroad track. The diagrams repre sent certain known facts in optics, which we declare 3 4 shall not be overruled, set aside, nor ignored for the pur pose of sustaining an unwarrantable “ scientific” theory. If any man is too lazy to reason, or too mean to inves tigate another’s reasoning, we do not expect to make any impression; or if he is so wedded to a theory be cause his grandfather believed in it, that he will not change his opinion for the truth’s sake, he will natu rally pass this argument by; but for the honest man there is only one alternative.
The two lines, a f, extending the length of diagram 1, may be taken to represent the tracks of a railroad, five feet apart. In the major premise of this proposition are involved the facts as they are, n ot as they appear. The measurement of the space at both ends of the track shows that the rails at each end are just five feet apart. There is no element of assumption in this part of the premise. We wish to thoroughly impress upon the student the fact, that so far we have not/ had to “ assume something.” The rails are straight and parallel, and five feet apart. These are facts of practical and certain measurement. From B to c in either direction the track indicates one mile (the entire length of the diagram representing two miles); in ob serving the distance from B to c, either way, the track appears to narrow down to a vanishing point at c. This they appear to be at c. We are to distinguish the facts of reality from the facts of appearance, and show the character of the appearances, and how these appearances have led the short-sighted “scientists” into their aggregate of errors, which they delight to call by the title of science. Thus far there is no element of assump tion ; we assume nothing. We have shown that space is annihilated in appearance, by the law of distal perspective; that foreshortening is an inevitable law of optics, and we hold that these laws are totally ignored by every so called scientific astronomer. The pseudo scientists shall not continue to foist their fallacious systems of astronomy upon a deluded public, without a perpetual protest.
It will be remembered that diagram 1 represents the point of observation at B, from which the objective point is seen as at c, but which in reality is at F F. The line D 1) D, extending to c, is not what it appears to be from the outlook or visual point at B. The apparent line at c, which appears to be only a line, is the entire breadth of five feet—the distance across the track at F F. If a middle rail extend midway between the two rails of the track, it will be seen the entire length of the line, or nearly so, aud seem to blend with the two other rails at c; the five feet have vanished to a mere appearance is the minor premise. Let it be remembered that the minor premise involves a fact, but that fact is an appearance involved in which are certain optical laws which we will apply logically in another part of this argument. Do not forget the fact that we are arguing from premises that are proven to be true, and that we differ from the ordinary “ scientific” logician, in that we work from a demonstrated premise—not from an assumption.
Principles Of Perspective And The Vanishing Point.
The purpose of this part of the argument is to show the reason for an appearance, which is in direct oppo sition to the fact. Why does the space five feet wide at F F, appear as a point at c? Note the dotted lines begin ning at S S, and extending to the arrow; they make a comparatively long picture upon the surface indicated by the arrow. Now, note the dotted lines beginning at F F, and extending to the surface marked retina. These lines vanish at the point upon the surface thus marked ; for this reason they appear to come to a point at <:.
If we take this appearance as a fact, we are led into an interminable labyrinth of difficulties. The “scientist” establishes his assumptions upon these appearances, ignoring the facts and laws of optics. The objects e d are in fact at e d, as represented in diagram 1, but point, at c, therefore a space five feet wide appears like a mere line. The broader the space in perspective, the more rapidly it vanishes by distal extense, as shown in comparison with the middle rail; and the narrower the space, the less rapidly it vanishes by distal extense. This principle belongs more exclusively to the effect on the retina itself. A balloon in passing out of visual range, appears to diminish rapidly for the first few miles, after which it remains in view for a long time as a mere speck. These facts will have their application during the course of this argument.
Perspective And Geodetic Observations.
We subjoin a second diagram. Here we have two lines as in diagram 1, but we will employ them to repre sent parallel lines, one above the other instead of side by side, as in the first instance. The line A A appears to rise to B B, and the line C C appears to drop to B B, if viewed from the point I). The points A A and C C are visible, but they are seen as if at B B. Now, is there any man capable of thinking, who will be such an obsti nate ass as to take this appearance as the fact, after the phenomenon has been pointed out to him? We have studied the phenomena of appearance in these principles of optics, and will now proceed to make an application of them to geodetic observation, keeping logically to the premise, never swerving from the estab lished law of Koreshanity; namely, that assumption is no basis for the establishment of truth.
We subjoin the third diagram. In this we take the lower line of the second diagram, A A; we observe the points A A from the point D, but the principle of perspective or distal foreshortening causes the objects to appear at the points B B. This is not due to refraction, but it is due to distal foreshortening; the space from A to K has contracted and foreshortened to the point B. This law is operative, and applies to all space whether in the atmosphere, ethereal, or on the surface of the earth, terrestrial. If the line A A in diagram 3 repre sented a flat surface, a convex surface, or a concave sur face, the phenomenon would be practically the same; a 8 tionate to their distance from each other and length of perspective. Let the surface of the earth be taken as one of these surfaces, and extend a line over this surface, that is, a visual or optical line. If we stand twenty feet above the surface of the earth and look toward the horizon, the horizon is seen on a level with the eye. If a roof could be extended parallel to the surface of the earth twenty feet above our lookout (forty feet above the earth), the two surfaces would appear to approach each other; the lower surface would seem to rise to a level with the eye, and the upper surface would appear to drop to a level with the eye,—that is, providing the two planes are extended the necessary distance. Now, if we remove the upper surface or plane, the lower plane will appear to rise to a level with the eye, just the convexity or concavity of only eight inches to the mile would not appreciably affect the optical illusion. If the so called scientist is asked the question, Why does the earth viewed from a balloon look like a bowl? he will tell you it is because of atmospheric refraction.
If the laws of refraction will operate in an atmosphere of a uniform density, to distort the vision, what may we not expect regarding phenomena related to objects claimed to be outside our atmosphere? If the point D, in diagram 3, is two feet above the line A A, at the distance of less than a mile the object at A on the lower line will be seen at B, in either direction. The law is the same whether the altitude be two feet and a half, five hundred feet, three miles, or any distance. A less or greater altitude could not change the principle nor alter the character of the phenomenon. The cross piece at P is seen at A, but appears to be at B, because the standard, A P, is foreshortened down the two feet and a half. AVe have thus far shown certain facts, and optical phenomena connected with these facts. AVe have assumed nothing regarding the facts or the phenomena. AA^e have interpreted the phenomena by defining the laws upon which they depend, and we challenge all the scientific men in the world to point out one inaccuracy either in the facts as presented and pertaining to the reality of the relation of the lines, or the facts of the optical phenomena.
Specific Statement Of Minor Proposition.
We are now prepared to state a minor proposition. Lines or surfaces separated by narrow or broad spaces, —extended parallel with each other and viewed in perspective,—will appear to approach each other propor- same as when the upper plane occupied its position. It would not be occasioned either by refraction or convexity, but would be due to the operation of the prin ciple of foreshortening. How a man can observe this phenomenon and attribute it to anything but its true cause, and call himself scientific, is one of the enigmas of this so called enlightened age.
We have practically shown that the apparent ro tundity or convexity of the earth is due to the optical illusion created by foreshortening. When it is assumed that the earth is convex, and in this assumption the simplest laws of optics are set aside and ignored, shall we quietly submit to the imposition and allow the world to continue in ignorance of the laws of cosmo gonic form, or shall we place the facts in opposition to the assumptions as they obtain and are made to con stitute the basis of scientific conclusions?
If a man stands by the side of one of the rails of a railroad track, say two feet from the rail, his line of vision will meet the rail at a point determined by the distance in perspective. This we need only state, for it is a well-known fact. No man will pretend to deny this, unless he be an absolute ignoramus. Then why should anyone deny the phenomenon as applied to the extense of any other line or plane? If the earth were concave, eight inches to the mile, which would be a practical level and an apparent straight plane, and we should apply the law of optics as described, in looking along a geolinear surface the earth would appear to rise in perspec tive much more rapidly than the eight inches to the mile would indicate. If we were twenty feet above the surface of the earth, the earth would rise to meet the 0 line of vision and would appear to be convex. The scientific and honest man, before he projects a theory on the basis of appearance, would submit the appear ance to a rigid analysis; he would prove his premise by the facts, and not ignore the most common princi ples and laws of optics as applied to geodesy. Let us demonstrate our premise, then reason logically, and we are certain of the truth. Let us assume our premise from mere appearance and then make our theory fit the premise, and we have just what the scientific world is attempting to cram down the throats of the credulous and unthinking public.
Geolinear Foreshortening And Mathematical Application.
Our sub-major proposition is, that a rigid mathe matical calculation, founded upon the mathematical determination of the amount of foreshortening of the space between any two given parallel lines or planes in perspective, when applied to the surface of the earth, will determine the amount and direction of deviation which the surface of the earth describes, from a line ex tended from the point of observation to the vanishing point. Let two lines be separated by a definite space, and extended parallel to a distance sufficient to obliter ate the space by distal foreshortening. Extend these lines one mile parallel, a definite space intervening, then apply the same distance in length with the same space to any other two lines, and the same results would obtain. The truth of this statement is obvious to any candid person. If we make an observation along the side of a line which we suppose to deviate a few inches one way or the other, from a rectiline, and calculate the difference between the definite foreshorten ing of the known lines and space, and the space of the indefinite line, the difference is the amount of the devia tion of the unknown line. This will also determine its direction. Let this principle be applied to the surface of the earth, and the demonstration will determine whether the earth is fiat, convex, or concave; also the amount of deviation, if any, from a plane. The claim that the earth is convex, is made upon the mere appear ance from optical effects, without any consideration of the laws of foreshortening, and the whole system of cosmogony is made to fit this absurdity.
Optics Wholly Ignored By The Astronomer.
We have pursued this argument from a known fact, and have applied a knowledge of the laws of optics as re lated to these facts, to the appearance of the surface of the earth as under the operation of these laws. We have shown that the laws of optics prevail and operate in the one case as in the other. We have shown that the laws of optics are totally ignored by the “scientist” in his con sideration, and that he attributes an appearance to the application of an imaginary and impossible operation. It is also demonstrated in this discussion, that the prin ciple of refraction is used as an argument by the so called scientist, where the principle of refraction does not enter into the proposition. We have accounted for the appearance of rotundity on the basis of the known principles of foreshortening in perspective, which every sensible and conscientious man will admit to be obvi ously true. We have shown, then, that if the earth were an extended plane for ten thousand miles, a view from any altitude would give the earth the appearance of a rotund form, in dimension proportionate to the altitude; the greater the altitude, the larger the appearance. We haveshown what every honest “scientist” admits; name ly, that the whole system of the Copernican astronomy is predicated upon an assumption which has no tenable foundation; therefore we are justified in our challenge of the accuracy of the system of astronomy which now flourishes under the title of “science.” We also assure our readers that the time has come which the eminent astronomer, Professor Woodhouse, of Cambridge, Eng land, feared would meet the so called astronomical pro fession. He said: “However p erfect our theory may appear, in our estimation, and however satisfactorily the Newtonian hypothesis may seem to account for all celestial phenomena, yet we are compelled to admit the astounding truth, that if our premise be disputed and our facts challenged, the whole range of astronomy does not contain the proofs of its own accuracy. Start ling as this announcement may appear, it is neverthe less true; and astronomy would indeed be helpless, were it not for the implied approval of those whose author ity is considered a guarantee of its truth. Should this sole refuge fail us, all our arguments, all our observa tions, all our boasted accuracy would be useless, aud the whole science of modern astronomy must fall to the ground.” We have shown that the principles of optics have been left entirely out of consideration in the estab lishment of the Copernican hypothesis, and that there fore it is not worth one thought as constituting a basis for cosmogonic conviction.
We now state our general proposition: The astrono mers of note admit that the whole fabric of hypothesis called astronomy, is built upon an assumed premise of appearance. When a premise is assumed, the conclusion is necessarily an assumption. It is easy to fit a large ag gregation of facts to any hypothesis; but this does not prove any proposition. An “ hypothesis does not rise to the rank of a well-grounded theory,” and never can so long as that hypothesis is predicated upon a premise that is itself not proven. The earth is of some definite form; this form is absolute, but it has never been fixed in the mind of the thinker, for the reason that, up to the present time, the “scientific” world is looking for some positive proof of the earth’s rotundity, its revolu tion on its axis, and its orbital motion. These have never, so far, been regarded as settled facts. Because of this uncertainty we claim the right to demand some better reasons than have ever been adduced, for the acceptation of the Copernican system of astronomy, and an examination into the reasons we have promulgated for a disavowal of present “scientific” claims.
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 15, No. 19 · March 1901 · PDF pp. 3-6