Extracted text
Editorial transcription, lightly normalized from the scan. Line-break hyphenation, spacing, capitalization, and unmistakable OCR errors have been repaired; small capitals follow the printed text and the claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
Printed under the department heading Editorial Discussions and Miscellany. — The Editor.
I have sent the CELLULAR COSMOGONY to an old friend, who is a first-rate astronomer and civil engineer, and asked him to give me his opinion concerning it. There are so many questions involved in the theory, on which we have positive information, that I should want to consider them before I cut loose from old ideas on the assumption of a straight line, which I consider impossible.
There is nothing in the book which calls for very careful reading. The writer simply claims to have forced an "absolutely straight line," and by that means to have proved the Concave Theory. He treats the subject of a straight line as a very simple question, whereas it is a most complex one, involving mechanical and optical illusions that are little understood.
There is nothing new in the possibility of seeing a ship's hull through a telescope after it has been lost to view. The perspective lines of vision converge so as to present what is called the horizon, which varies in distance with every individual's sight. A telescope extends these lines of vision, so that of course the hull becomes visible, and again disappearing, leaving only the mast and sail visible. If a stronger telescope is used, the hull again comes into view. That is a fact familiar to all opticians, and especially sea-faring men; but it proves nothing as to the shape of the earth, because on account of the effect of refraction of rays, whatever the shape of the earth, the line of vision conforms to it. The subject is so full of complications that few can afford to follow it to a satisfactory conclusion. Our Chicago friend is too easily convinced; but then, in Chicago they have a way of jumping at conclusions that other people have to puzzle over.—Extract from letter written by ABEL EASTON, N. J., to D. E. S., Santa Ana, Cal.
When a new and revolutionary idea is first presented to the world its originator is ridiculed; no one would be "foolish" enough to believe it. After a little while, it is said that "he is not the first man to teach that;" then, when the idea begins to make headway in the world and to threaten the safety of old positions, exclamations are heard every where: "Why, I always believed that"! Notwithstanding the fact that there are many things that are desired to be considered before cutting loose from old ideas, the writer of the above letter has succeeded in abandoning an old idea, and has spoiled the main "proof" of the earth's convexity; for the time has come for him to exclaim: "Why, I always believed that"! He has declared that the idea of the restoration of the ship's hull is nothing new!
It is not new to us; but it would prove to be a startling thing to the astronomical world if we could force the "scientists" to realize that it is true! They know that it would have something to do with the shape of the earth; for today, in all the standard works on astronomy, the phenomenon of the disappearing ship's hull is appealed to as an ocular demonstration of the convex form of the earth. We have been in the business of striking blows at the supposed proofs of the modern astronomical system long enough to know the "opinions" of scientific men regarding phenomena on and beyond the horizon.
Proctor, the great savant of modern science, emphatically denied the restoration of the disappearing vessel beyond the horizon. In his elaborate work, "New and Old Astronomy," he devotes two chapters to endeavoring to prove the earth's convexity by assuming that the visible horizon is the apex or summit of the earth's convex arc, and that the telescope could not possibly extend the horizon. But he admitted that if a vessel could be restored; if objects on the water could be seen with the eye and telescope near the water at a distance of several miles, there would be something manifestly wrong with the convex theory.
Astronomers do not know what the facts are; and opticians are as blind as bats. The prevailing fallacious ideas concerning this so called "proof" of the earth's convexity were used for 25 years against the Concave Theory; and the Founder resorted to both ocular and geodetic demonstrations of the truth of his System, and has compelled many minds to admit the weakness of the old system. It appears now that we shall have to contend with the disposition which seeks to find a loop-hole after admitting that the facts of observation are as we say. We shall at least have the consolation of seeing old and cherished "proofs" dropped, one by one, as worthless!
The writer of the above evidently has not considered what his admissions mean; they destroy the "positive information" which he presumes to possess concerning the things involved in the question of the earth's shape. He places the demonstration of the convex theory entirely in the sphere of impossibles, when he asserts that an accurate survey of a straight line cannot be made in test of the earth's contour. He must now turn about and fight it out with the surveyors. They know that the visual line does not run parallel with the water's surface. Their tables of refraction show a radical departure of the visual line from the earth; otherwise, why should they make so much over "allowance for the curvature of the earth;" and how could men at sea calculate the distance of a ship by estimating how much of a mast is hidden by the horizon? Why, the astronomers have made elaborate calculations as to the size of the earth, on the basis of the tangent and dip of the horizon!
Our friend is too easily convinced that a subterfuge is the easiest way out of the difficulties which confront him in the consideration of this question. He leaves the subject with the principles of geometry and well-known mechanics against him. His own inconsistency complicates, in his mind, the simplicity of a straight line; and he may now puzzle himself over his admissions of the truth of our observations, while he endeavors to continue to hold to the theory which they obviously overthrow!
- --
The source scans remain the record. This page preserves the quoted correspondence and the editorial reply without presenting the Koreshan System's conclusions as independently established results. The claims remain attributed to The Flaming Sword.
← Flaming Sword Archive
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 14, No. 16 · 9 Mar 1900 · PDF p. 11