Extracted text
‘‘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.”’
The newspaper cutting sent us refers to experiments conducted by Prof. A. Russell Wallace, under the famous Wallace-Hampden wager. Although there are inaccuracies in the newspaper statements, the facts are stated pretty much as actually observed. Three stakes were not placed in line over the Bedford canal. There were two bridges six miles apart, and midway between them there was one stake, the height of which was equal to the altitude of the observers on one bridge and a target on the other. The experiment was repeated under similar conditions from the other bridge.
Parallax had conducted numerous experiments on the Old Bedford level or canal. To prove that water is not convex, he placed the telescope as near the water as possible, viewing targets touching the water six miles distant. These targets he plainly saw at that distance; and we have conducted numerous experiments of a similar character, and know that he told the truth. But Professor Wallace did not wish to witness such results. He wanted to get thirteen feet above the water, and relate points in space. At first he placed six stakes in line, but obstructions along the canal prevented satisfactory views. Then views were taken from the bridges, as above noted.
Now, both Professor Wallace and his opponent, John Hampden, a champion of the theory of Parallax, met in the experiments much more than they expected; and they were both mistaken. Hampden contended that the water was flat, and that the three points would show to be in a straight line. Wallace contended that the middle one would be the ‘‘highest.’’ But when the telescope was leveled, the point of the observer appeared to be the highest; the top of the stake lower than the cross-hair; and the target on the bridge six miles distant, lower than the top of the stake; but it is obvious that if the telescope had been trained on the target itself, by placing the telescope out of level, the top of the stake would have appeared to be ‘‘above’’ the crosshair.
Now, the recent experiments of Professor Oldham were of a similar nature, but he used a large telescopic camera. So that instead of making drawings of the telescopic field, the views were recorded on the negative. Again the results were heralded to be in favor of the convex idea,—because the appearance was that the target on the bridge was much lower than the top of the stake. But those who have written up the popular side of the experiments, have either intentionally or ignorantly failed to mention the fact that with the same camera used by Professor Oldham, experiments on the water similar to those of Parallax, between the same bridges, were unmistakably recorded—that is, targets touching the water were photographed with the telescopic camera (also placed near the water), at the distance of six miles.
We accept the facts of both classes of experiments without question. We know from the basis of experience in experimentation, that the general statements are statements of facts, as referable to both classes of experiments. The facts are not in conflict: The Zetetics hold that because the targets are visible under such conditions, over the space of six or more miles, the earth is flat. The other class of experimenters, observing a target and stake at some distance above the water, conclude that the water of the canal is convex. The water of Bedford canal is neither convex nor flat, but concave.
If over the concavely curved water of Bedford canal, or any other canal, three or more points of equal distance above the water, be observed, it follows as an inevitable result, from the basis of the operation of the laws and principles of perspective foreshortening, that the appearance will be that of convexity. If the stakes were on a flat surface, there would be a similar appearance. We contend that neither the Zetetic nor the advocate of the convex earth takes into consideration, in relation to these experiments, a single factor of perspective foreshortening; and so long as men are in ignorance of how we perceive objects in the distance, they will arrive at absolutely erroneous conclusions concerning the contour of the surface on which we live.
So far from knocking out the Cellular Cosmogony, we contend that the facts of both classes of experiments referred to above, are as they should be from the basis of the earth’s concavity, in comprehension of the optical factors involved.
Editorial transcription checked against the cited scans; historical claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 19, No. 42 · Mar 27, 1906 · PDF p. 12