Extracted text
Editorial transcription, mechanically normalized from the cited scan. The claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
So Called Proofs of Modern Astronomy. (9183) R. W. G. says: I am sincerely interested in knowing -the shape and mo tions of the earth. Please answer the following questions in Notes and Queries: 1. Have any surveys ever been made to determine whether the known curvature of the earth’s surface is convex or concave ? A. All surveys of any extended portion of the surface of the earth demonstrate that the surface of the earth is convex. No line a mile long run for a canal in which water is to flow can be run without taking into the measurement the convexity of the earth, which is almost exactly 8 inches in one mile. For two miles it is very nearly 32 inches. See any book upon leveling or geodetic surveying for the mathematics of this. The fact that the surface of still water is a convex surface shows that the surface of the earth is con vex, since water covers about three-quart ers of the earth’s surface. It is said that an Englishman a few years ago wagered that no one could prove that the surface of the earth was convex, and put the money in the hands of the editor of a a sporting paper. A surveyor took up the wager and set stakes of the same height in a lake a mile apart, and proved that the middle of the three stakes was eight inches above the two on either side of it. The editor decided that this was proof and paid over the money. 2. If so, who made the survey, and when? A. Every survey which runs a level for any number of miles demon strates the convexity of the earth’s sur face. The survey to establish the length of the meter in France about 1780 is such asurvey. All the work of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey is such work. The laying out of great irrigation canals in the West and the surveying of public lands of the United States are also examples. The pendulum method is also complete as a demonstration of the shape of the earth. 3. Are there any demonstrable proofs of the earth’s rotation upon its axis? A. The terrestrial proofs of the earth’s rota tion upon its axis are equally conclusive. The principal ones are the eastward de viation of bodies dropped from a great height, the Foucault experiment with a long pendulum, and the gyroscope. Be sides these may be mentioned the devia tion of projectiles to the height in the northern hemisphere, the trade winds, and the rotation of cyclones. All of these are discussed at considerable length in the work of Young referred to above. If our correspondent is not convinced by these demonstrations he would hardly be convinced “ though one rose from the dead. ’’ 4. Are there any demonstrable proofs that the earth moves around the sun? All the proofs given in Young’s, New comb’s, or Proctor’s works are astronom ical that must depend for their truth on something that is assumed, and as a proof founded on an assumption is no proof until the assumption is proven, I want a demonstrable proof that is not founded on an assumption, if there be such an one. A. From the nature of the case, there can be no terrestrial proofs of the earth’s revolution around the sun. This is an astronomical fact. The aber ration of light and the parallax of the stars are explicable only by the earth’s revolution around the sun. These have satisfied astronomers for nearly a century and will still be deemed satisfactory. They may be “ founded on an assump tion,’’ but an assumption is entirely le gitimate, and proof for the assumption will establish its truth as certainly as proof of fact from which a law may be deduced, will establish that law.—Notes and Queries Department, Scientific Ameri can, Sept. 26, 1903. In the above we have a collection of the most important so called proofs of the popular system of astronomy; and inasmuch as the Scientific American is one of the oldest and most widely cir culated scientific publications in Amer ica, if not in the world, we may con sider that the statements contain the best possible arguments in support of the usual conclusions concerning the earth’s form and motion. We there fore devote the Court of Inquiry De partment of this issue to consideration of these so called proofs— notw ith standing the fact that all of the points have been covered, one by one, many times in the past in the columns of this publication. The correspondent of the Scientific American asks four pertinent questions relative to geodesy and as tronomy— particularly concerning (a) whether surveys have been made to determine definitely the contour of the earth; (¿) and if so, when and where; (c) concerning proofs of the theory of the earth’s diurnal rotation; and (d) proofs of the earth’s motion about the sun. The strength of these proofs is in dicated in the remark, “ If our cor respondent is not convinced by these demonstrations, he would hardly be convinced ‘though one rose from the dead,’ ”— which means, in this case, that if one is not satisfied wfith the proofs as given above there are no more forceful arguments to use, no further proofs to present, no further facts to cite. As an example of how thoroughly the editor of the Notes and Queries department of the Scientific American Not only are canals laid out and con structed without taking the earth’s 12 may be mistaken in general, we refer particularly to his statements concern ing the Englishman and surveyor. We note that “ the surveyor set stakes of the same height in a lake a mile apart, and proved that the middle of the three stakes was eight inches above the two on either side of it. The editor de cided that this was proof, and paid over the money.” Would the writer of the above be surprised that the “ surveyor” was none other than Professor A. Russell Wallace; that the site of the experi ment was on the Old Bedford Canal northeast of London; that the distance viewed through the telescope was six miles, instead of two; that but one stake was used—and that one midway between two bridges six miles apart; that the stake in each of several obser vations was below the cross-hair of the leveled telescope; and that notwith standing the fact that the money was paid to Professor Wallace, the English man finally recovered his wager ? We are familiar with all the facts of the famous Wallace-Hampden wager, hav ing in our possession the literature published subsequent to the experi ment— the reports of the referees, diagrams, and arguments used by both sides. So likewise are such statements as the following inaccurate and untrue: “ All surveys of any extended portion of the earth demonstrate that the earth is convex. No line a mile long run for a canal in which water is to flow, can be run without taking into the measurement the convexity of the earth, which is almost exactly eight inches to the mile. ** The fact that the surface of still water is a convex surface shows that the surface of the earth is convex, since water covers about three-fourths of the earth’s surface.” We not only most emphatically deny that the surface of still water is con vex, but we authoritatively declare from the basis of known facts of actual demonstration, that the waters of all rivers, canals, lakes, bays, seas, and oceans the world over, are concave.
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 17, No. 47 · Oct 9, 1903 · PDF p. 10