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.
- --
The Open Court of Inquiry
THE EDITOR.
The Optical Factor in Astronomy.
"Will you please explain as clearly and thoroughly as space in the Inquiry Department of The Flaming Sword will admit, the phenomena manifest in the rising and setting of the sun? The first impression in our eye when the sun is rising is what appears to be the top portion coming up from behind the earth, as though the earth were a convex sphere. In setting, what appears to be the lower portion disappears first—seeming to emphasize the conclusion of many that the earth is a convex globe. I have seen explanations of these phenomena, but nothing satisfactory to my mind as yet."
The phenomena of the heavens seem to many minds to accord with the conclusions of the Copernican system, for the reason that the system itself is founded, not upon fact, but upon the phenomena, which are nothing else nor less than appearances. A prominent writer on scientific subjects says: "In nothing perhaps is the human mind more liable to deception if its judgment be formed from appearances only, than in its estimation of those subjects which come properly within the sphere of astronomical science." There is essentially an optical factor in astronomy; and if the mind is ignorant of all the processes by which the existence of objects in the heavens are cognized by the mind, erroneous conclusions will necessarily be formed.
The simplest factor operative in the apparent rising and setting of the sun, is that of perspective foreshortening. Standing under an electric light tower, we may behold the light directly in the zenith of our field of vision. We may move considerable distance from the tower, and observe the light, though without actual change in altitude, apparently lowered toward the horizon; and if we go far enough from the base of the tower, the light will seem to touch the horizon. This would be so on the flattest plane imaginable. The supposed convexity of the surface over which we might move would have nothing to do with the apparent decline of the light as we receded.
Now, if there is such a thing as perspective foreshortening in the case of the light it must be also operative in the case of the universal luminary. But we are bold to affirm that if the Copernican system were true, perspective could not be a factor in sunrise and sunset, neither a factor in the case of the electric light. In other words, if the Copernican system were true there would be no use for perspective foreshortening as applied to surveying and the study of astronomy. There is such a thing as perspective; therefore, it is applicable in every manifestation of objects to the human eye; and the modern astronomy is false.
A second factor in the case of the apparent rising and setting of the sun, in the fact that we are looking along curved lines of light, instead of straight lines. Modern astronomy is founded in accord with the idea that lines of light and vision are rectilinear. It is a mere assumption that radiations are in straight lines. The propagation of light is in accord with definite laws of transmission of substance, which in atmospheres, must necessarily be in curves, since the mediums of transmission are themselves spherical, and the strata of different degrees or planes of density are curved. The propagation of light is therefore curvilinear.
Combine the factors of perspective foreshortening and the curvilinear propagation of light and vision, and we have a perfect explanation of the phenomena of the rising and setting of the sun, when the mind follows a definite line of logic from the basis of demonstrated facts. There must be a definite premise to begin with. Eliminate unknown factors and quantities from the basis of reasoning, and there will be no assumptions in the conclusion.
The circle of the horizon is of definite boundary for the eye at a given altitude. On a level plane or on the sea, the horizon is where the lateral vision ceases to cognize impressions of the geolinear extense, the visual angles for successive mile spaces being too small to make an impression on the retinal surface. The vision leaves the earth at the horizon, and extends upward and outward in curves toward the rising or setting sun. When just coming into our view, the sun can do naught else than appear to the eye as coming up from behind the earth, and in setting, to descend below what appears to be a material bulge—for a curved line may sustain the same geometrical relations to a concave surface, that a supposed straight line may sustain to a convex surface.
The distant surface of the concave earth itself, on which the horizon is formed, presents as effectual a barrier to vision of the sun, because of curved lines, as the supposed convex bulge of the earth is supposed to intercept the oncoming light of the morning sun and to cut off the light of the disappearing orb at evening. From the Koreshan point of view these phenomena are simple and easily explained—provided the subject be viewed from the Koreshan premise—that is, provided one possesses the mind with the entities of scientific truth, instead of the spirits of fallacy which befog the intellect.
The Sweep of Day and Night.
"Please answer in the Open Court of Inquiry: Will you kindly explain the movements of the sun in relation to night and day. Why is it night a part of 24 hours, and day a part of the time? Why is the sun visible to us in northern latitudes at a certain part of the year, 15½ hours out of 24, and only 8½ in another part of the year?"
As simple as the problem of sunrise and sunset is the question of the cause of the succession of day and night in the cellular cosmos. At the center of the great universal cavity or cell, is the central sun, through the activities of which light and darkness are continually divided into solar hemispheres and radiated from opposite sides of the central orb. In other words, the central sun has light and dark sides. Between the center and the circumference three great atmospheres exist. In each atmosphere there is a projection or refocalization of light emitted from the center; and there is also on the opposite side of the cell, a refocalization of darkness. Now, the diurnal revolution of the central sun causes the revolution of the projections and the consequent sweep of day and night.
The area of daylight constitutes a hemisphere, and day at all times equals in area the hemisphere of darkness. If one understands the explanation of the succession of day and night from the standpoint of the earth's convexity, there should be no difficulty in comprehending the real cause of the succession of day and night in the Koreshan Astronomy.
It is obvious that when the sun is in the zenith of the earth's equator, with the heavens revolving in the plane of the equator, day and night are equal in length from pole to pole, because the dividing line between the hemispheres of light and darkness is due north and south. The sun is in such position twice a year—on March 21 and September 22, at the time of the vernal and autumnal equinoxes.
But the projected or visible sun has a yearly orbit along the line of the ecliptic, and consequently its path is oblique to the equator 23½°. So when the sun is 23½° north of the equator, the dividing line between the hemispheres of light and darkness is oblique to the meridians at the same angle, and the area of daylight extends 23½° beyond the north pole. The reverse is true for northern latitudes when the sun is south of the equator at the winter solstice. Then the arc of the hemisphere of daylight lacks 23½° reaching the north pole, and there are short days at such points as Chicago, London and St. Petersburg, because short segments of the arc pass those points.
Just reverse the Copernican explanation of the cause of difference in length of day and night, considering the illumination on the inside instead of on the outside of the earth—and the subject becomes clear enough, we think. In order to produce night it is not necessary to suppose that some solid body casts a shadow. Darkness is as substantial as light. Darkness is not the mere absence of light; it is something in itself, a potent force necessary in the economy of the universe.
- --
The source scans remain the record. This page preserves the article's argument without presenting its conclusions as independently established results.
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 18, No. 42 · March 28, 1905 · PDF pp. 12–13
← Flaming Sword Archive
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 18, No. 42 · March 28, 1905 · PDF pp. 12-13