Extracted text
Editorial transcription, lightly normalized from the scan. Line-break hyphenation and unmistakable OCR errors have been repaired; the claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
Koreshanity Versus Mongrelism.
Among the many periodicals that come to our desk is a little bi-monthly called The Herald of Glad Tidings. It hails from Allegheny, Pa., and attempts to demonstrate a theory—the modification of the Zetetic philosophy originally propounded by "Parallax," of London. The arguments are the same as those used by "Parallax," and conclusively demonstrate the fallacy of the convex theory of the earth; but after a thorough examination of every argument employed, we may assert conclusively, and without a show of refutation, that there never has been offered one proof that the earth is flat, as "Parallax" contends. The fact that the convex theory is false, does not preclude the possibility of there being some other form than that of the plane, which the Zetetic astronomers assume in opposition to the convex theory, and in contradistinction to that of the earth being a plane, we promulgate the concave theory.
The first great and general argument is derived from the law of analogy; namely, that all life develops from the egg or shell; that the cell, egg or ovum is the natural form of the unincubated universe and that there are no relations of the rectilinear and curved lines in the incubated form that do not demonstrate the concavo-cubic phase of geometrical proportion and ratios.
We maintain that the perfect mathematical proportion—as pertaining to the rectilinear and angular relations—is the cube, lying four square, the length, height, and breadth being equal, with six equal sides; and that, consequently, the New Jerusalem is declared to be in just such a geometrical proportion. We maintain also that the counterpart of these proportions is the perfect sphere, and that, co-ordinately, they incubate in the modified and compounded form of the two counterpartal proportions. The male and the female man are two modified microcosmic manifestations of the physical (alchemico-organic) universe; that one of these modifications (the male or masculoid man), in the reproductive spermatozoan, ultimates in the fundo-cauda ellipsoid, the elongated cellular form, while the tendency of the female (the feminoid) man is to reproduce the spherical cell, as the beginning of the recreative form—the perfect spherical ovum.
There does not exist the first quality of form in the microcosm, indicative of the plano-circular fallacy. "Parallax" and his advocates have given abundant proof of the fact that the earth is not convex, but they do not present one statement in proof of its being an extended plane or a flat surface. Before such proof is given, the claim has no right to be made that the astronomical theory attempted to be palmed off upon the world by the Zetetic philosophers is the correct one. Give to the world one proof in demonstration of the flat theory; it will then be time to consider it. If the earth were flat, and observation be taken along the line of its surface, the line of the surface would disappear from view at a specific distance; if it curved upward or were concave its surface could be observed at a greater distance, and for the following reason: Visual radii, over a given geolinear perspective, will embrace a greater extent of geolinear surface on a concave than on a rectiline, and still less on a convex.
If we could suppose the earth's surface to be a plane, in looking over that plane from a given height, say ten feet, the first mile would make a long picture upon the retina, the second mile would make a shorter one, and the third mile a still shorter picture. This visual phenomenon would continue till the perspective portion of the fourth mile would fail to make the picture. The earth at that point would seem to drop out of sight, apparently through convexity of surface, but really through perspective foreshortening or contraction of space. In proportion to the degree of concavity, the perspective line would elongate.
We come to a simple geometrical proposition. Run a straight rail—one or two miles long—in any direction, elevated from the ground sufficiently to render a side view accessible. Place by the side of this rail a small tube twelve or fourteen inches long, with its visual axis parallel with the rail. Through a pin hole at the visual end, look over a hair-line placed perpendicularly across the objective end of the tube. The visual line will be parallel with the side of the straight rail. What is the actual fact as pertaining to optical phenomena? The visual direction parallel with the rail will strike the rail at a certain distance from the point of vision. The reason is as follows: The perspective area contracts (this we call perspective foreshortening) and brings the rail apparently toward the central visual line. The part of the rail in the distance, beyond the point where the visual line and track appear to converge to an apex, seems to curve away from the visual line, out of sight. If the rail should be replaced by one which concaved eight inches to the mile, toward the visual line, as observed through the aforesaid instrument, the point where the concave rail and the visual line touched would be a greater distance in the perspective. Each distance could be strictly and mathematically defined, and a geometrical ratio determined which would be absolute for practical geometrical use.
If we should take a canal two or three miles long, using this surface for our rail or track, and place an optical instrument as far above this surface as the instrument was placed from the side of the rail in the other experiment, and the apparent visual line should meet the water at the same distance at which it met the concave rail, it would prove that the surface of the earth has the same concavity as that of the rail. If it should meet the water at the same distance that it met the straight rail, it would prove that the surface of the earth is flat.
We know that the facts and phenomena in the experiment with the canal will agree with the concave and not with the straight rail. This demonstration will not only prove the concavity of the earth's surface, but it will absolutely determine the extent of the concavity, and will throw both the Zetetic philosophy and its mongrel offspring into the shade.
- --
The source scans remain the record. This page preserves the periodical's claims without presenting its conclusions as independently established results.
Source: The Flaming Sword · Vol. 8, No. 3 · September 1894 · Physical PDF p. 5
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 8, No. 3 · Sep 1894 · PDF p. 5