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.
EDITOR FLAMING SWORD:—My attention is called by a friend to Prof. Dolbear's statement in the August Coming Age, page 141, in which he says that "With the telescope we determine the distance to the stars more remote than the members of the solar system," etc. Please explain in THE FLAMING SWORD, for my friend's benefit, the fallacy of Prof. Dolbear's argument. How can one determine the distance of any object by means of a telescope, if one does not know the size of that object? Or, how can one determine the size if one does not know the distance?—D. E. S., Santa Ana, Cal.
No well informed advocate of the Copernican system will for a moment assert that the usual conclusions concerning the distance to the stars are reached through simple observation through the telescope. The intricate factors involved are those of hypotheses or assumptions, which furnish the basis of all modern astronomical calculations. The astronomer has visual orbs just like those of other people, and all that he sees in observing a star is a point which appears very much smaller than to the naked eye. He sees the circle of his telescopic field dotted with thousands of points, which are irregularly strewn in two-dimensional form upon the retina of his eye.
Stars do not have to be remote in order to appear small. It is admitted by every one that they are points upon the small area of the retina. Thousands of stars can be imaged on the retinal surface; and the same effect can be produced by arranging, in the form of constellations, electric lights at a distance of only a few miles. The stars appear small because they are small. Herschel concluded that the stars were all about the same size; and from their different magnitudes, concluded that the universe is in the shape of a flattened oval body.
When a telescopic view of a star and the measurement of its parallax are linked with a system of previous conclusions, or unproven premises, the intricate triangulations are made to produce the usual results in trillions of miles!
What are the assumptions which constitute the hypothetical basis of modern astronomical calculations? Let us begin with measuring the distance to the moon. Observations are made from two remote points on the earth; the moon appears to be in two different positions as related to the stars of a given constellation. The apparent shift constitutes the parallax of the moon. It is supposed that the earth is convex, and that the perpendiculars extending radially from the center of the earth diverge continually in space. From the basis of triangulation, after assuming that the observations are made on a convex arc, the distance to the moon is calculated to be about 240,000 miles. If the earth were flat, the same facts of observation, taken in connection with a new hypothesis, with a new base line, would give entirely different results. On the concave basis, using exactly the same facts of lunar parallax, we find the mean distance to the moon to be about 800 miles.
How are calculations made of the distance to the sun? Horizontal parallax of the sun is too small to be accurately measured; so a different method from that of calculating the distance to the moon must be employed.
Let us notice the processes to which the astronomer subjects his mind. The assumption that the earth is convex is not sufficient; an hypothesis of another character, taken in connection with the first, must be resorted to. The relation of the sun to the earth must be determined: Does the sun revolve about the earth diurnally, or does the earth revolve about the sun annually? If the affirmative to the former be accepted, the distance to the sun is but little more than that of the moon; if the latter, about 92,000,000 miles would be required. It is concluded that the earth is in motion; it is thought that it is more reasonable to conclude that the earth moves about the sun once a year, than to have the sun and all the stars revolve about the earth in 24 hours. If the earth moves about the sun, the solar parallax (about 8.86″) gives a distance to the sun, without changing its apparent size, and without omitting any of the facts of measurement of solar parallax, about 350 times greater than would be obtained if the earth were convex, but stationary.
After assuming that the earth is convex, and measuring the distance to the moon; after assuming without a shadow of a proof that the earth revolves about the sun, and calculating the distance to the sun to be about 92,000,000 miles, the astronomers are ready to take that distance as the "yard-stick" with which to measure the distance to the stars. How do they do it? They double the distance, and make it the diameter of the earth's orbit. The assumed diameter of the earth's orbit is taken as the base of great triangles, in connection with the further assumption that rays of light through the vast abyss of Copernican space are rectilinear. The shift of a star in six months is supposed to be due to the change in the earth's position in space; the annual parallax of a single star, taken in connection with the assumed base line of 184,000,000 miles, indicates to the modern astronomer that the lines connecting the star and the earth at opposite points in its orbit converge at a distance inconceivably greater than the calculated distance to the sun—in some cases running up to quintillions of miles. The parallax of but few stars has been observed, about a score only; and in all these cases, the parallax is but a mere fraction of a second of arc.
Without the intricate factors which we have noted, no astronomer in the universe would pretend to measure the distance to the so called heavenly bodies; and without the assumptions we point out, no such inconceivable distances would be calculated. Astronomers speculate as to the size of the stars, after they have guessed at their distance.
The Koreshan System does not deny the facts of astronomical observations; it only changes the base—the concave arc, instead of the convex surface. We determine by calculation that the visible stars are from 900 to 1,000 miles distant. It is simply a question of the premise; for the calculations cannot be made independently of the premise. If the premise of the old astronomy be admitted to be false, all its calculations are wrong. The elements of modern astronomy are mere values of hypotheses, and are not claimed to be proofs.
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. 13, No. 41 · · PDF pp. 11-12