"Well, here he is."
"You Professor Newcomb?"
"Yes."
"Professor, I have called to tell you that I don"t believe in Sir Isaac Newton"s theory of gravitation!"
"Don"t believe in gravitation! Suppose you jump out of that window and see whether there is any gravitation or not."
"But I don"t mean that. I mean"--
"But that is all there is in the theory of gravitation; if you jump out of the window you"ll fall to the ground."
"I don"t mean that. What I mean is I don"t believe in the Newtonian theory that gravitation goes up to the moon. It does n"t extend above the air."
"Have you ever been up there to see?"
There was an embarra.s.sing pause, during which the visitor began to look a little sheepish.
"N-no-o," he at length replied.
"Well, I have n"t been there either, and until one of us can get up there to try the experiment, I don"t believe we shall ever agree on the subject."
He took his leave without another word.
The idea that the facts of nature are to be brought out by observation is one which is singularly foreign not only to people of this cla.s.s, but even to many sensible men. When the great comet of 1882 was discovered in the neighborhood of the sun, the fact was telegraphed that it might be seen with the naked eye, even in the sun"s neighborhood. A news reporter came to my office with this statement, and wanted to know if it was really true that a comet could be seen with the naked eye right alongside the sun.
"I don"t know," I replied; "suppose you go out and look for yourself; that is the best way to settle the question."
The idea seemed to him to be equally amusing and strange, and on the basis of that and a few other insipid remarks, he got up an interview for the "National Republican" of about a column in length.
I think there still exists somewhere in the Northwest a communistic society presided over by a genius whose official name is Koresh, and of which the religious creed has quite a scientific turn.
Its fundamental doctrine is that the surface of the earth on which we live is the inside of a hollow sphere, and therefore concave, instead of convex, as generally supposed. The oddest feature of the doctrine is that Koresh professes to have proved it by a method which, so far as the geometry of it goes, is more rigorous than any other that science has ever applied. The usual argument by which we prove to our children the earth"s rotundity is not purely geometric.
When, standing on the seash.o.r.e, we see the sails of a ship on the sea horizon, her hull being hidden because it is below, the inference that this is due to the convexity of the surface is based on the idea that light moves in a straight line. If a ray of light is curved toward the surface, we should have the same appearance, although the earth might be perfectly flat. So the Koresh people professed to have determined the figure of the earth"s surface by the purely geometric method of taking long, broad planks, perfectly squared at the two ends, and using them as a geodicist uses his base apparatus. They were mounted on wooden supports and placed end to end, so as to join perfectly. Then, geometrically, the two would be in a straight line. Then the first plank was picked up, carried forward, and its end so placed against that of the second as to fit perfectly; thus the continuation of a straight line was a.s.sured.
So the operation was repeated by continually alternating the planks.
Recognizing the fact that the ends might not be perfectly square, the planks were turned upside down in alternate settings, so that any defect of this sort would be neutralized. The result was that, after they had measured along a mile or two, the plank was found to be gradually approaching the sea sand until it touched the ground.
This quasi-geometric proof was to the mind of Koresh positive.
A horizontal straight line continued does not leave the earth"s surface, but gradually approaches it. It does not seem that the measurers were psychologists enough to guard against the effect of preconceived notions in the process of applying their method.
It is rather odd that pure geometry has its full share of paradoxers.
Runkle"s "Mathematical Monthly" received a very fine octavo volume, the printing of which must have been expensive, by Mr. James Smith, a respectable merchant of Liverpool. This gentleman maintained that the circ.u.mference of a circle was exactly 3 1/5 times its diameter.
He had pestered the British a.s.sociation with his theory, and come into collision with an eminent mathematician whose name he did not give, but who was very likely Professor DeMorgan. The latter undertook the desperate task of explaining to Mr. Smith his error, but the other evaded him at every point, much as a supple lad might avoid the blows of a prize-fighter. As in many cases of this kind, the reasoning was enveloped in a ma.s.s of verbiage which it was very difficult to strip off so as to see the real framework of the logic.
When this was done, the syllogism would be found to take this very simple form:--
The ratio of the circ.u.mference to the diameter is the same in all circles. Now, take a diameter of 1 and draw round it a circ.u.mference of 3 1/5. In that circle the ratio is 3 1/5; therefore, by the major premise, that is the ratio for all circles.
The three famous problems of antiquity, the duplication of the cube, the quadrature of the circle, and the trisection of the angle, have all been proved by modern mathematics to be insoluble by the rule and compa.s.s, which are the instruments a.s.sumed in the postulates of Euclid. Yet the problem of the trisection is frequently attacked by men of some mathematical education. I think it was about 1870 that I received from Professor Henry a communication coming from some inst.i.tution of learning in Louisiana or Texas. The writer was sure he had solved the problem, and asked that it might receive the prize supposed to be awarded by governments for the solution.
The construction was very complicated, and I went over the whole demonstration without being able at first to detect any error.
So it was necessary to examine it yet more completely and take it up point by point. At length I found the fallacy to be that three lines which, as drawn, intersected in what was to the eye the same point on the paper, were a.s.sumed to intersect mathematically in one and the same point. Except for the complexity of the work, the supposed construction would have been worthy of preservation.
Some years later I received, from a teacher, I think, a supposed construction, with the statement that he had gone over it very carefully and could find no error. He therefore requested me to examine it and see whether there was anything wrong. I told him in reply that his work showed that he was quite capable of appreciating a geometric demonstration; that there was surely something wrong in it, because the problem was known to be insoluble, and I would like him to try again to see if he could not find his error. As I never again heard from him, I suppose he succeeded.
One of the most curious of these cases was that of a student, I am not sure but a graduate, of the University of Virginia, who claimed that geometers were in error in a.s.suming that a line had no thickness.
He published a school geometry based on his views, which received the endors.e.m.e.nt of a well-known New York school official and, on the basis of this, was actually endorsed, or came very near being endorsed, as a text-book in the public schools of New York.
From my correspondence, I judge that every civilized country has its share of these paradoxers. I am almost constantly in receipt of letters not only from America, but from Europe and Asia, setting forth their views. The following are a few of these productions which arrived in the course of a single season.
Baltimore, Sept. 29, 1897.
104 Collington Ave.
Prof. Simon Newcomb:
_Dear Sir_,--Though a stranger to you, Sir, I take the liberty to enlist your interest in a Cause,--so grand, so beautiful, as to eclipse anything ever presented to the highest tribunal of human intellect and intuition.
Trusting you to be of liberal mind, Sir, I have mailed you specimen copy of the "Banner of Light," which will prove somewhat explanatory of my previous remarks.
Being a student of Nature and her wonderful laws, as they operate in that subtle realm of human life,--the soul, for some years, I feel well prepared to answer inquiries pertaining to this almost unknown field of scientific research, and would do so with much pleasure, as I am desirous to contribute my mite to the enlightenment of mankind upon this most important of all subjects.
Yours very truly, ------ ------
P. S.--Would be pleased to hear from you, Sir.
Mexico, 16 Oct. 1897.
Dear Sir,--I beg to inform you that I have forwarded by to days mail to your adress a copy of my 20th Century planetary spectacle with a clipping of a german newspaper here.
Thirty hours for 3000 years is to day better accepted than it was 6 years ago when I wrote it, although it called even then for some newspaper comment, especially after President Cleveland"s election, whose likeness has been recognized on the back cover, so has been my comet, which was duly anounced by an Italian astronomer 48 hours before said election.
A hint of Jupiters fifth satelite and Mars satelites is also to be found in my planetary spectacle but the most striking feature of such a profetic play is undoubtedly the Allegory of the Paris fire my entire Mercury scene and next to it is the Mars scene with the wholesale retreat of the greecs that is just now puzzling some advanced minds.
Of cours the musical satelites represent at the same time the european concert with the disgusted halfuroons face in one corner and Egypt next to it and there can be no doubt that the world is now about getting ready to applaud such a grand realistic play on the stage after even the school children of Chicago adopted a great part of my moral scuol-club (act II) as I see from the Times Herald Oct. 3d. and they did certainly better than the Mars Fools did in N. Y. 4 years ago with that Dire play, A trip to Mars. The only question now is to find an enterprising scientist to not only recomend my play but put some 1500$ up for to stage it at once perhaps you would be able to do so.
Yours truly G. A. Kastelic, Hotel Buenavista.
In the following Dr. Diaforus of the _Malade Imaginaire_ seems to have a formidable rival.
Chicago, Oct. 31, 1897.
Mr. Newcombe:
_Dear Sir_,--I forwarded you photographs of several designs which demonstrate by ill.u.s.trations in physics, metaphysics, phrenology, mechanics, Theology, Law magnetism Astronomy etc--the only true form and principles of universal government, and the greatest life sustaining forces in this universe, I would like to explain to you and to some of the expert government detectives every thing in connection with those ill.u.s.trations since 1881; I have traveled over this continent; for many years I have been persecuted. my object in sending you those ill.u.s.trations is to see if you could influence some Journalist in this City, or in Washington to ill.u.s.trate and write up the interpretation of those designs, and present them to the public through the press.
You know that very few men can grasp or comprehend in what relation a plumb line stands to the sciences, or to the nations of this earth, at the present time, by giving the correct interpretation of Christian, Hebrew, & Mohammedian prophesy, this work presents a system of international law which is destined to create harmony peace and prosperity.
sincerely yours ------ ------ 1035 Monadnock Bld Chicago Ill
C/o L. L. Smith.