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:—Would the appearance of the sky and horizon be different if we lived on the convex instead of the concave surface? If so, what would be the difference in appearance?—A Subscriber, Ohio.
Application of the principles of optics demonstrates that the earth is concave—that the phenomena observed in relation to the earth's surface are the natural appearances of a surface curvating upward at the ratio of 8 inches to the mile; also that the phenomena of the sphere of the heavens, convex as it is to the surface on which we live, appearing like a dome arch overhead, are the natural phenomena obtaining within the great cell of the universe.
In the concave earth the horizon is the vanishing point of lateral vision, the vanishing point of space between the eye and the concave surface. We see out and beyond the apparent horizon, higher than the eye; but every foot of space in the actual limit of lateral vision, every foot in the great circle of the horizon, has foreshortened, and the size of the circle is correspondingly reduced in size and drawn down toward the eye in the direction of the curve, and apparently depressed below the horizontal extending from the eye.
Beyond the vanishing point there is no more surface visible to be subject to foreshortening; therefore the foreshortening must apply to the space above and beyond the vanishing point, and the ratio of increase of foreshortening beyond the vanishing point is as to the square of the distance. And a succession of vanishing points in this ratio, apart from consideration of any curvation of "lines" of vision, would extend to the limit of vision on the sides of the convex sphere of the heavens above us, vanishing the space between earth and sky; hence the apparent meeting point in the horizon. We see about 180° of the heavens in any one horizon in the earth.
The organ of sight is the eye; the pictures are implanted on the concave surface of the eye, and the impressions are received in the mind. The foreshortening, in fact, has not taken place in space, nor on the surface of the earth and sky; the foreshortening has taken place within the eye!
Now, what kind of an impression would a convex earth and concave sky make upon the retina of the eye? Suppose with the same kind of an eye we now possess, we look out over a convex earth. There is no concave surface in this view to be foreshortened and drawn down; the circle of the offing or bulge of the earth would, nevertheless, be reduced apparently in size, and drawn toward the eye, not downward, but upward. The convex surface becomes the ground-line for foreshortening. We begin the view with its curve or offing visible before the vanishing point is reached. We have a different kind of a horizon to deal with; and as the vanishing point is not reached, the perspective apparently raising the offing, would lack something of being reduced to the vanishing point, and hence would appear to be above the horizontal extending from the eye—as much above as the horizon in the concave earth appears to be below it.
The line of successive vanishing points from the offing, as applied to the rapidly vanishing space above the earth, would extend upward and outward at an accelerated ratio until, no matter how far away the celestial sphere or boundary of stars may be supposed to be, it would reach the arc at an altitude or angle of about 45° from the horizon of the observer; so that in reality we could see only about 90° of the circumference of the heavens in any one horizon, and the period of daylight caused by the sun passing over that 90° would be just one half that which obtains in the concave earth.
How any one can suppose that he can look out over the sea horizon and see a star just rising above the offing or bulge of water, with the star trillions of miles away, and claim it to be a fact that it is in a direct and straight line with the horizon, without consideration of the principles of foreshortening as applied to the space above the horizon, is more than we can conceive to be possible for the rational mind!
If, as physicists claim, the light of the sun is generated in the atmosphere after the rays enter it, the sun must appear to be at the upper stratum of our atmosphere, or not be visible at all as a sun. If visible only at an altitude of 50 miles, we would have a period of daylight of about a couple of hours, and the arc of the heavens would be limited to about 30°, and we would miss the grand stellar display in the scope of 180° of the arc in all directions. If the sun is not visible at the upper stratum of our air, neither the sun, moon, planets, nor stars would be visible as points of light, and the sky would be perfectly blank. Quite a difference, you see.
The source scans remain the record. This page preserves the article's argument without presenting its conclusions as independently established results.
- --
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. 22 · 14 Apr 1899 · PDF p. 12