I conclude this little volume by summing up in a few statements the arguments I have presented. In the first place, I have endeavored to acquaint my readers with the fact that scientists have not followed their own rigid principles in that they have left entirely out of their considerations one of the three great possibilities of the earth's form. As long as such possibilities exist in any problem we are bound by the laws of science to investigate them. For example, if a straight line is not equal to another straight line, we cannot ignore the fact that there are still two possibilities to consider; it may be shorter, or it may be longer. Likewise, if scientists are definitely persuaded, as I believe they are beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the earth's surface is not flat, there are still two conceptions to consider: namely, it may be convex, or it may be concave. Whether it is one or the other does not release us from considering both conceptions with equal thoroughness. I have shown, therefore, that in this one respect, at least, scientific investigators have been seriously at fault. My great desire is that scientists will investigate the claims of a concave earth with as much thoroughness as they are supposed to have employed in ascertaining its convexity.
Then I have called attention to the fact that one of the so-called "proofs" of the earth's convexity usually found in our text-books on geography and astronomy is incompatible with the observed phenomenon. The diagrams used to explain the gradual disappearance of vessels over the horizon are decidedly inaccurate, as any careful observer must have seen if he had made more than a superficial examination of the phenomenon itself. The tell-tale space—for one thing—which is always seen between the partly submerged vessel and the apparent horizon definitely settles this illusion.
Light travels in straight lines; but in order to accommodate itself to the convex theory it must travel in curved lines following the convex curvature of the earth (making a small allowance for refraction); else how account for the ability to see distant objects over the intervening bulge which in many observed cases was as much as eighty or a hundred feet high?
Ether waves of the wireless telegraph also radiate in straight lines, but nevertheless they seem to have no difficulty in travelling over the imaginary "hump" between points on the earth's surface in some cases five or six thousand miles apart, or about a quarter of the earth's circumference!
They tell us that the images seen in a mirage are due to atmospheric refraction, and that the real objects themselves are several feet—200 or 300 it may be—below the observer's horizon. We are to believe, from this, that the atmospheric layer from which the rays of light from these distant objects are reflected has in some miraculous manner—it can be nothing else—become a perfect mirror, over a surface of several miles, it may be, on which there are no irregularities or distortion of vision whatsoever! I think I have shown clearly the absurdity of such an explanation; I marvel that scientists themselves have not reflected on the inconsistencies involved, but of course we must remember that they have been blind, seemingly, to anything but the necessity of retaining the old convex theory at any cost, despite all observed phenomena to the contrary.
I have shown that the distance of a heavenly body, such as the moon, is found to be greatly diminished if the trigonometrical calculations are based on plumb lines that converge upwards instead of downwards. In order to refute this evidence, it will be necessary for scientists to test the convergence of plumb lines by actual experiments; and it is manifoldly more necessary—for their own information, at least, and ultimately for the public in general—that such a test should be made, in view of the fact that the rigid experiments already made a few years ago by the Chicago School of Mines at Calumet, Michigan, showed that the plumb lines do converge upwards.
If any one has the idea that I have overlooked some of the supposedly conclusive "proofs" maintained in support of the prevailing theory, simply because I have not mentioned them or treated them more fully in this book, he will find by looking over the list of seventy-five questions in Appendix C that the material on this subject has been pretty well exhausted in the research work that I have been carrying on for the past three or four months.
I should like to emphasize two or three points here with regard to the necessity of each reader's considering this matter with more than a passing interest; indeed, for my part, I cannot conceive how any one who has any interest at all in the wonderful works of Nature and in the marvellous truths of Nature that from time to time are revealed to the intellect and soul of mankind—I say I cannot conceive how such an one can show a spirit of indifference in the face of the evidence presented in this book. Yet it is surprising what a vast amount of indifference one meets, as I have already experienced in my endeavour to show the untenableness of the commonly accepted theory of the universe. We are told, in one instance, by modern scientists that vessels disappear over the horizon in a certain way, and we accept the statement for granted as conclusive proof of the earth's convexity. But when a careful examination of the phenomenon reveals the fact that vessels do not disappear in this way, thus directly refuting the commonly accepted teaching, we find people still attempting to modify and retain the old belief despite the inconsistencies which it entails. I happen to be so constituted by nature that when I discover such inconsistencies as really do exist in the present theory of the earth's form, it is impossible for me to maintain an attitude of lukewarmness. There can be but one explanation of the earth's form. It certainly cannot be both convex and concave at the same time. The evidence against the convex theory is too great for us to regard it any longer as tenable, despite the vast amount of theoretical "evidence" accumulated during the past three centuries. We need only to remind ourselves of the words of Dr. Woodhouse, quoted in the Introduction, that "if our premise be disputed and our facts challenged, the whole range of astronomy does not contain the proofs of its own accuracy." Now any one of the following observed facts is sufficient to destroy the "premise" on which the modern system of astronomy has been constructed. I feel that these facts cannot be too strongly emphasized, and therefore reiterate them once more.
(1) The mirage, in which objects (or their images, according to the convex theory) are seen above the apparent horizon. The commonly accepted explanation that the atmosphere is transformed into a perfectly reflecting mirror is unreasonable and decidedly untenable.
(2) Partly submerged vessels and other objects, with their reflections, seen in the mirror-like space above the apparent horizon; and the space between the unsubmerged part and the apparent horizon.
(3) Ability to see along an eleven-mile straight-edge over water.
(4) Wireless ether rays are propagated rectilineally, yet are received on the earth's surface several thousand miles away.
(5) Plumb lines converge upwards, not downwards.
(6) A perpendicular extended from a vertical plumb line strikes the upward curve of the earth's surface.
(7) Vessels supposed to have passed out of visibility beyond and below the horizon may, with a large telescope, be brought into full view again.
As additional stimulus to reflection I will leave with the reader some typical text-book thoughts which are supposed to be the "last word" of modern astronomers on the vital subject we have had before us. The first article entitled "The Structure of the Universe" is taken from Harmsworth's Self-Educator, published in 1914; the second one, entitled "The Future of the Visible Universe," is the concluding article to Professor Howe's Elements of Descriptive Astronomy, published in 1909.
"The Structure of the Universe—Improvements in the methods of measuring parallax (that is, the annual displacement of stars) caused astronomers to revise their somewhat exaggerated notions as to the distance of the faintest visible stars. They have, in consequence, mostly given up the theory of innumerable universes in which the fancy of an earlier generation was pleased to run riot, and have formed a fairly coherent though still somewhat vague idea of the actual structure of the universe."
"The Future of the Visible Universe—As the sun is continually radiating its heat away, with boundless prodigality, it is reasonable to suppose that the stars, which are but distant suns, are doing likewise. We know of no way in which this expenditure is to be repaid. We can look forward to the time when the sun will become a cold cinder, feeling its way by the starlight through the darkness of infinite space. But will there be starlight then? Many of the stars are larger and hotter than the sun, and, though much diminished in radiance, will yet be able to shed a kindly though feeble light upon his pathway. But the time will come when even the brightest and hottest, having radiated its heat away, will roll a cold corse among its dead compeers. Such is the gloomy teaching of our philosophy."
"Once there lived a race of ephemerans, whose dwelling place was upon a thermometer. The span of life of one of them was but a second. Being of a scientific turn of mind they made records of the readings of the instrument. After observations had been made for ten generations they promulgated the theory that the mercury was rising one hundredth of a degree every second. After the lapse of ten generations more the theory was confirmed, and was then called a law. When one hundred generations had passed away, the law was considered so firmly established that no reasonable ephemeran could doubt it. It was the grand and inexorable law of nature: one might question everything, but never this. During the next ten generations they executed a laborious triangulation, determining the distance over which the mercury must still travel before it reached the top of the thermometer, and burst the glass tube. Then it was an easy matter to calculate that the utter ruin of their beautiful dwelling place could not be delayed beyond the ten thousandth generation.
Great was the humiliation of their scientists but still greater the joy of the ephemerans at large, when it was found, after the lapse of two thousand generations, that the mercury was actually going the other way. Even the scientists were constrained to admit that there were more things in heaven and earth than were dreamed of in their philosophy."
It is enough for me to state, therefore, as a final comprehensive announcement that "The mercury has now begun to go the other way."
- --
← Chapter 10 — The New Cosmology | Appendix A — Day and Night →
- -- Source: O. F. Barcus, A New World Discovered (1917).