Extracted text
The Open Court of Inquiry. THE EDITOR. The Fam ous B edford C anal E xperim ents. “Please give your opinion in the Court of Inquiry concerning the subject of the enclosed clipping. If true, it knocks out the concave theory, in which I believe, since you have proved it by experiment. I doubt whether the results as recorded in the clipping were obtained. In your book, the Cellular Cosmogony, you have given account of experiments in the same Bedford canal, and they proved that no bulge or hill of water exists as stated in the clipping.” Thenewspapercutt in gsentus re fe rs to exper im en ts conduc te dbyPro f. A . R u s s e ll W a lla c e , u n d e r the fa m o u s Wa lla ce - Hampdenwager . A lt h o u g h th erea re in accurac ie s in th enewspaper s ta te men ts , the fa c ts are s ta te dpre tt y muchasactua lly obse rv ed . T h r e e s ta keswe re notp la ced in lin eover the Bed fo rdcana l. Therewe re tw obr id ges s ix m ile sapar t, andm id waybe tw een them th erewasones ta ke , th ehe ig ht ofwh ic hwasequal to th ea lt it udeof th eobse rv e rs ononebr id geandatar geton th eo th er . Theexper im ent was re pea te dunders im ila rcond itio ns fr om th eo th erbr id ge . P a r a lla x hadconduc te dnumerous exper im en ts on th eO ld Bed fo rd le vel o r c an a l. Toprove th atwa te r is not convex , hep la ced the te le s c o p e as near th ewa te rasposs ib le , v ie w in gtar ge ts touching the w ater s ix m ile sd is t an t . These ta rge ts hep la in ly sawat thatd is ta nce ; andwehaveconduc te d numerous exper im en ts o f a s im ila r charac te r , andknowthatheto ld the t r u t h . ButP ro fe ssorWa lla ced id not w is h to w itn e s s s u c h r e s u lts . H e wan te d to getth ir teen fe etabove the wa te r , andre la te po in ts in space . A t f ir sthep la ceds ix s ta kes in lin e , but obs tr uc tio nsa lo ng th ecanalpreven te d sa tis fa c to ryv ie ws . Thenv ie wswe re ta ken fr om th ebr id ges , asaboveno te d . N o w , b o th P ro fe ssorWa lla ceand h is opponen t, JohnHampden , acham p io nof the th eoryofPara lla x , met in th eexper im en ts muchmore th an th ey expec te d ; and th eywe re bo th m is ta ken . H a m p d e n con te nded that th ewa te r w a s fla t, an d that the th reepo in ts wou ld show to be in astra ig ht lin e . Wa lla cecon te nded that them id d le one wou ld be the “ highest. ” Butwhen the te le scopewas le ve le d , th epo in tof the obse rv erappea re d to be th eh ig hes t; the to pof th es ta ke lo wer th an the cross - ha ir ; and th etargeton th ebr id ge s ix m ile sd is ta n t, lo wer th an the to p of th es ta ke ; butit is obv io usthatif the te le scopehadbeen tr a in edon the target it se lf , byp la c in g the te le scope outof le ve l, the to pof th es ta kewou ld have appeared to be “ above ” th ec ro ss h a ir . N o w , the re c e n t exper im en ts o f P ro fe ssorO ld hamwe re ofas im ila rna tu re , butheuseda la rge te le scop ic c a m e ra . Sothat in s te adofmak in g draw in gsof the te le scop ic fie ld , the v ie wswe re recordedon th enega tiv e . Aga in th eresu lts we re hera ld ed to be in fa vorof th econvex id ea ,— because the appearance wasthat the ta rgeton th ebr id gewasmuch low er th an the to pof th es ta ke . But th osewhohave wr it tenup th epopu la rs id eof th eex per im en ts , havee ith er in tent io na lly or ig norant ly fa ile d to men tio n the fa ct thatw it h th esamecame ra usedby P ro fe ssorO ld ham , exper im en ts on the w ater s im ila r to th oseofPara lla x , be tw een th esamebr id ges , we re unm is ta k a b ly recorded — that is , ta r g e ts touching the w ater we re pho to graphed w it h the te le scop ic came ra ( a ls op la ced near th ewater ) , at th ed is ta nceofs ix m ile s . Weaccept the fa c ts ofbo th c la sses ofexper im en ts w it houtques tio n . W e know fr om th ebas is ofexpe rie nce in exper im en ta t io n , t h a t the g e n e r a l s ta te men ts are s ta te men ts of fa c ts , as re fe rab le to b o th c la ssesofexper i m e n ts . The fa c ts are not in con flic t; TheZe te tic sho ld thatbecause th etar ge ts are v is ib le undersuchcond itio ns , over th espaceofs ix ormorem ile s , th eear this fla t. Theo th erc la ssof exper im en te rs , observ in ga ta rgetand s ta keatsomed is ta nceabove th ewa te r , conc lu dethat th ewa te rof th ecanal is c o n v e x . Thewa te rofBed fo rdcanal is ne it herconvexnor fla t , but concave. Ifover the concavely curved w ater of B e d for d c an a l, o r anyo th ercana l, th reeormo re po in ts ofequald is ta nce above th ewa te r , beobse rv ed , itfo l lo ws as an in ev ita b le resu lt , fr om the bas is of th eopera tio nof the la wsand pr in c ip le sofperspec tiv e fo reshor te n in g , that the appearance will be that o: convex ity . If th es ta kes were on i f la tsu rfa ce , th erewou ld be a similar appea ra nce . Wecon te nd that neither th eZe te tic nor th eadvo ca te of the con vexear th ta kes in to consideration, it re la tio n to th eseexpe rim en ts , a single fa c t o r ofpe rs pec tiv e foreshortening; andso lo ng as mena re in ignorance of howweperce iv eob je c ts in the distance, th eywillarr iv eatabso lu te ly erroneous conc lu s io nsconcern in g the contour c: th esu rfa ceonwh ic hwe liv e . Sofar fr omknock in gout the Cellu la rCosmogony , wecon te nd that the fa c ts ofbo th c la ss esof experiment! re fe rred to above , are as th ey should k fr om th ebas is of the earth's concaM in comprehens io nof the optical factors in v o lv e d . <p <f> The Mystery of the Meteors “ If worthy of an answer in the Court of Inquiry, will you please comment 01 the following from the Koreshan point of view: Sometime ago I read in the Pip- tar Science M agazine, an article on the fall of meteors, in which the author whose name I do not now recall, claimsd that in certain parts of the earth meteoi of a certain composition invariably idl while in certain other parts they were always of a different composition. Tini author could not explain why they should be so, and thought it would proba bly never be explained. I think thatl myself could answer it in a general to from the Koreshan view point, and aa anxious to have your explanation." Thebas is of th eheavens is the earth ju st as th ephys ic albody and brain of mancons titu te th ebas is of the human m in d . Consequen tly , the Koresha v ie w - po in t is rad ic a lly different iron thatof th eord in aryas tro nom y, whick cons id e rs that th eun iv e rs e consists of sphe re sandpar tic le sofm atter flying th roughspace . Pe rio d ic a lly , it is sup posed , th eear th flie s th ro ugha sward ofme te o rs , and th ea tm o sp he re is boa- b a r d e d w it h the fly in g particles T h u s i t wou ld fo llo w that meteors wou ld fall in to th ea ir a ll over the wor ld ; and th eme te o rs be in g (accord in g to th eo ld v ie w ) of som e common or ig in , wou ld bea ll p ra tic a lly alike sc farase le men ts are co n ce rn ed . Themostno te dd is p la ys of meteors are th oseproceed in g from the Leonid 12
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 19, No. 42 · Mar 27, 1906 · PDF p. 12