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 spherical form of the earth is proved every time there is a total eclipse of the moon, to all who see it. The moon enters the earth's shadow, and the section of the shadow is always round. Only a sphere, or a spherical body, can cast such a shadow. The fact that the editor sailed from New York some years ago, and sailing always towards an easterly point of compass, reached San Francisco, and by rail still traveling east came to New York again, convinces him beyond any argument of any one else that the earth is convex in exterior form. If this is 'dogmatic' we must confess to dogmatism. Things that are settled might as well stay so. Further than this, all surveying on a large scale must take into account the curvature of the earth or else go wrong. The work of the Coast Survey is the grandest example of this. Again, if the earth were flat, the local time of all places would be the same. Other proofs there are. See Todd's New Astronomy, and Young's General Astronomy for these. We do not see any proof in the optical experience you claim, seeing a ship which seemed hull down better through a glass, since our experience at sea many times has been quite the reverse. You will excuse our positiveness, but we have had much experience, both in astronomy and navigation, and feel quite sure on this point."
The above was written by the editor of the Scientific American in reply to a letter sent to him by one of our readers and correspondents, concerning the subject of restoration by means of the telescope, of the hull-down ship beyond the horizon; and asking when, how, and by whom was the convexity of the earth proved. A principal question submitted is as follows: "How do you account for the fact that on a perfectly clear day, when the horizon is as distinct as if a line were drawn between sea and sky, a vessel with topsails only showing above the horizon, can with a glass be brought fully into view. Again, I ask, how do you account for this on a convex basis, when the accepted ratio is taken into consideration?"
The reply is submitted to us with the following comment: "There are some statements made upon which I shall be pleased to see your comments, if you consider it worth while, and think it fair to do so—the reply being of a personal nature." Under the circumstances, we do not consider it unfair to publish the letter, because we think its writer would freely say the same things through the pages of his publication. Under date of April 3, we discussed in the Editorial Department, the subject of the restoration of ships' hulls, previously commented upon by the Scientific American, in which was given a surmised explanation of the causes of the claim that the disappearing portions of a vessel may be apparently restored by means of the telescope. In this connection, let the reader refer to the editorial in that issue of THE FLAMING SWORD.
The editor of the Scientific American asks to be excused for his positiveness. In contrast with his positiveness, we place a superlative; we are more positive than he—we are most positive, ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that the facts of our years of observation are as we have set them forth. May no proof of the earth's non-convexity be seen in the fact that we may see a ship hull down, better with a telescope than without? If indeed, the actual fact of the restoration of the ships' hulls does not constitute a proof that the earth is not convex, how can it be said that the apparent obscuration of the hull by the horizon line and water's surface be put forth as a proof that the waters of the sea are convex?
When doubt is thrown upon the theory of the earth's convexity, is it consistent to assume, after all that has been said in the text-books of astronomy and geography, that the facts of comparative observation of ships' hulls present indefinite and uncertain phases? Proctor freely admitted that if a target on the water could be seen through a telescope on the water at a distance of several miles, or if a ship's hull should be restored by means of the telescope, there would be something manifestly wrong with the accepted theory of the earth's convexity. He asserted that such experiments as referred to could not possibly be explained; he simply denied that they were true as reported.
Koreshan Universology has for thirty-five years explained the phenomena of the horizon and disappearing objects at sea, on the basis of the principles of perspective and geolinear foreshortening. In the two articles referred to, by the editor of the Scientific American, it is virtually admitted that the factor of perspective enters to apparently occult the hull: "The telescope makes distinctly visible the edge of the water and the details of the ship near the water, which are not distinctly seen by the unaided eye at such a distance, several miles at least." Let the opposition assert that the test of comparative observation of ships' hulls is not a satisfactory proof of the earth's non-convexity, and we will force them to the position that the disappearance of the ships' hulls is not a satisfactory proof of the theory that the earth's habitable surface is convex!
The modern mind seems to be satisfied on the question of the shape of the earth, if only it can be shown that the earth is not flat. The letter above quoted assumes that because it is apparent that the earth is not flat, it is settled that it is convex, and that it might as well stay settled. It used to be thought that matter was indestructible, and chemists were wont to say that the question of the eternity of the atom is a settled question, and that that which is settled might as well stay so. But chemistry has recently been rudely disturbed and overthrown, on the lines of the nature and character of the atom. Modern astronomy is destined to share a worse fate.
Koreshan Universology positively teaches the sphericity of the earth. There is no other explanation of the geographical relations obtaining in the world. Surveys on large scales do indeed take into consideration the spherical form of the earth; and modern geodetic work has attained that degree of accuracy that puts beyond all cavil and dispute, the subject of the earth's sphericity.
But it does not follow that because the earth is spherical; that because its surface is known to possess the area of a globe about 7,920 miles in diameter; that because navigation shows positively that latitude and longitude obtain in a world possessing polar points for converging meridians, and an equator about midway between, on which meridians reached their greatest convergence; that because even the ratio of the earth's curvature is known—we say, it does not follow because all the facts of astronomy, geodesy, geography, and physics prove that the form of the earth is spherical, that the earth is convex.
We assert positively that every fact in those departments of research and investigation and test as related to the earth's form, constitutes an aggregation of demonstrations and proofs that the earth is spherical, and that its habitable surface is concave and not convex. The conception of the earth's concavity does not rest upon a guess, as does the idea of the convex surface of the earth; but upon positive demonstration, by actual and accurate test of its tangible and unchangeable contour.
- --
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. 19, No. 49 · · PDF pp. 12-13