Extracted text
PRIVATE EDITORIAL WORKING DRAFT — lightly normalized transcription. Historical claims below are attributed to The Flaming Sword and are not independently verified.
EDITOR FLAMING SWORD:—I notice your article, “Recent Scientific Experiments on Lake Michigan,” and am surprised at the conclusion you draw from the fact that the telescope brought the target into the field of vision again. From this, you drew the entirely unwarrantable conclusion that the earth’s surface is concave instead of convex. You say that if the earth’s crust is convex, it would be “physically impossible” for the telescope to bring objects hidden by the earth’s convexity into view again.
I beg to differ with you on this point. You say, “The telescopic view reveals the fact that the greater visual power has projected the horizon still farther out on the Lake.” This statement is correct; and every Copernican who knows anything, knows that all the telescope does is to project the radius of vision, until it is as though the observer stood upon the summit of the bulge caused by curvature; when, of course, the objects “down the hill” come into view again.
The telescope carried the sight to the top of the bulge, and of course the target came into view again. This could not happen if the light rays were straight; But you Koreshans argue that they curve, and consequently support the Copernican explanation of the simple phenomenon you have tried to explain, as supporting the Koreshan hypothesis.
Your conclusion, that “If it is true (the earth’s convexity) when we view the lighthouse through the telescope from the same elevation as with the naked eye, no part of the objects apparently below the horizon can be seen; it would be physically impossible for it to be otherwise,” is false. You admit that the light rays curve; you admit that the telescope projects the horizon; so you are bound to admit the fact that what the telescope really does, is to project the physical vision according to the strength of its focus, until the range of the vision of the eye through the telescope is the same as though the beholder stood at that point to which his vision is projected.—R. J. B., Pueblo, Colo.
In the last issue of THE FLAMING SWORD, we referred to the fact that minds not familiar with the claims and methods of the astronomer were wont to make many ridiculous claims for the telescope, upon coming in contact with the Koreshan evidences of the concavity of the earth’s surface. We have found in our experience in promulgating the Koreshan System, that it is a common thing for the unscientific mind to invent shifts with which to evade the facts we announce to the world. The writer of the above letter does well to admit the facts of our observations, but neutralizes the admission by undertaking to evade the rational conclusions from the premise of the facts. We have met such subterfuges before, and have demonstrated their inconsistency.
We have the published statements of prominent astronomers of the world, that objects invisible to the naked eye beyond the sea horizon cannot be made visible by means of a telescope. They take this position because the theory of the earth’s convexity demands it; they know perfectly well that if the earth is convex, it would be impossible to restore such objects to view. Every astronomer who undertakes to maintain the theory that the water’s surface is convex, will stand upon the ground of his assertions until it is swept away by tests of actual observation.
We quote from a few astronomical authors. Prof. Peabody says, after referring to the usual phenomenon of the disappearance of the ship’s hull: “If the ship moved on any other than a convex surface, it would appear again in the telescope.” Proctor said that if experimenters have, with the eyes but a few inches from the surface of water, “seen an object close to the surface six miles distant, there is manifestly something wrong with the accepted theory of the earth’s convexity.” He declined to believe it. Again he asserts: “We finally lose sight of every part of the vessel, not from fact of distance (if it were so, the telescope would bring the ship into view again), but by the obvious interposition of the rounded or dome surface of the sea between us and the ship.” So it is obvious that every one who knows anything about the Copernican theory and physics, does not agree with the writer of the above subterfuge. It is evident that telescopes are not in use on the planet Venus, else the “man from Venus” would not have made so palpable a blunder as to suppose that the telescope “carries the vision” out over the water, and at the same time takes the man to the apex of the bulge. Why, in our observations, both the man and the telescope remained at the observing station!
We hold that we were strictly correct in our conclusions from the recent experiments on Lake Michigan. We know something about the telescope, and what it accomplishes as an aid to vision. It has no function beyond the object-glass; the only effect it produces is in the eye. The rays of light from distant objects are transmitted to the object-glass, in exactly the same direction and with the same refraction as they do when passing directly to the naked eye. From the subjective lens in the telescope, the rays enter the pupil of the eye at greater angles than they do when the telescope is removed, causing the object viewed to subtend a greater angle in the eye. The images of objects formed on the retina are two-dimensional; and the only difference between a telescopic view and a view with the naked eye, is that telescopic images cover more of the retinal surface. The telescope has no effect whatever upon the transmission of rays of light, until the rays enter the tube itself. If an actual bulge of water existed between the eye and the object viewed with the naked eye, the same bulge would be seen in the telescopic field. This is obvious from the fact that the telescope is powerless to change the direction of the rays of light beyond the object-glass. For how should the light rays know when one applied the telescope to the eye, so as to curve differently to produce a different view through the telescope? You see, such a difference of curvature to suit a view over a convex bulge, is only a refraction in the mind of the inventor of the subterfuge; it is only in the imagination!
The statement is made that the telescope projects the radius of vision until it is as though the observer stood upon the “summit of the bulge caused by the convexity.” The bulge is at a specific distance from the eye. If the telescope has a power of 50 diameters, and produces a view to conform to the above absurd proposition, what would a telescope with a power of 100 diameters accomplish? Would it take the observer to the same summit as the telescope with half the power? The inconsistency of such a statement is obvious, and needs no further comment.
If sufficient refraction obtained in the atmosphere to cause objects to appear in the telescope far below where they should in normal atmospheric conditions, it is evident that the same refraction would be operative when the same visual field is impressed upon the retina of the naked eye! Surveyors have tables of refraction. Refraction is not excessive; the ratio would be the same no matter what the aid to vision might be. The above letter is not a Copernican explanation; no Copernican ever thought of it, and the “man from Venus” did not, until he read the report of our observations! The professional astronomer would emphatically deny the facts to be as we observed them to be; his theory demands such a denial. If the astronomer were to admit our facts, he would be compelled to admit our conclusions; for then the principal phenomenon that is thought to support convexity would be destroyed. We know that the telescope enlarges the area of visual impression on the retina of the eye, and extends the vanishing point; and we know that because it does so, there is no intervening bulge to occult targets, piers, and ships’ hulls to the naked eye. There is no other rational conclusion from the basis of observed facts. The “man from Venus” has a great deal to learn yet, concerning both physical and mental science, before he can comprehend the true solution of the problems of the universe.
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 13, No. 45 · 29 Sep. 1899 · PDF pp. 11–12