ZUbe Eartb 
 
 Stance 3faet 
 
 A Lecture by 
 PROFESSOR C. SCHOEPFFER. 
 
 Translated for and Edited by 
 J. WATTS DE PEYSTER. 
 
 With Notes and a Supplement by 
 FRANK ALLABEN. 
 
 ' He founded the Earth upon her bases that it should not be moved forever. 
 Psalm civ. 5 ; A. V. & R. V., both, margin. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 CHARLES H. LUDWIG, PRINTER, 90 WALKER STREET. 
 1900.
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 We conclude this interesting discussion by citing two authorities. The nature 
 of the " proof " we have of Newton's law has been stated as follows by Prof. Henry 
 A. Rowland, in his remarkable address as President of the Physical Society of 
 America, on "The Highest Aim of the Physicist," read at the meeting of that 
 society in New York, October 28, 189!, and printed in the American Journal of 
 Science, for December, 1W.> : 
 
 " Newton and the great array of astronomers who have succeeded him have 
 proved that, within planetary distances, matter attracts all others with a force 
 varying inversely as the square of the distance. But what sort of proof have we 
 of this law ? It is derived from astronomical observations on the planetary orbits. 
 It agrees very well within these immense spaces ; but where is the evidence that 
 the law holds for smaller distances? We measure the lunar distance and the size 
 of the earth and compare the force at that distance with the force of gravitation 
 on the earth's surface. But to do this we must compare the matter in the earth 
 with that in the sun. This we can only do by assuming the law to be proved. 
 Again, in descending from the earth's gravitation to that of two small bodies, as 
 in the Cavendish experiment, we assume the law to hold and deduce the mass of 
 the earth in terms of our unit of mass. Hence, when we say that the mass of the 
 earth is five and one-half times that of an equal volume of water we assume the 
 law of gravitation to be that of Newton. Thus a proof of the law from plane- 
 tary down to terrestrial distances is physically impossible. 
 
 "Again, that portion of the law which says that gravitational attraction is 
 proportional to the quantity of matter, which is the same as saying that the 
 attraction of one body by another is not affected by the presence of a third the 
 feeble proof that we give by weighing bodies in a balance in different positions 
 with respect to each other cannot be accepted on a larger scale. When we can 
 tear the sun into two portions and prove that either of the two halves attracts 
 half as much as the whole, then we shall have a proof worth mentioning. 
 
 "Then as to the relation of gravitation and time what can we say? Can we 
 for a moment suppose that two bodies moving through space with great velocities 
 have their gravitation unaltered I think not. Neither can we accept Laplace's 
 proof that the force of gravitation acts instantaneously through space, for we 
 can readily imagine some compensating features unthought of by Laplace. 
 
 " How little we know then of this law which has been under observation for 
 two hundred years !" 
 
 We may also cite Professor Rowland's caution against the supposition that 
 ability to work out a mathematical theory for an hypothesis adds a single grain of 
 real proof to that obtainable for the hypothesis from experimental observations 
 of nature alone. On this point he says, in the above address : 
 
 " A mathematical investigation always obeys the law of the conservation of 
 knowledge ; we never get out more from it than we put in. The knowledge may 
 be changed in form, it may be clearer and more exactly stated, but the total 
 amount of the knowledge of nature given out by the investigation is the same as 
 we started with." 
 
 It is not generally known that the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, 
 and not Copernicus, Kepler or Newton, was the pioneer of the true scientific 
 method in astronomical research, which observes Nature in order to understand 
 her laws, instead of seeking to force her phenomena to square with preconceived 
 theories. The contributions to astronomical science of this " father of modern 
 astronomy," as he was in truth, are briefly recounted by the late Prof. Richard 
 A. Proctor, in his treatise on " Astronomy," which occupies some eighty pages of 
 the " Encyclopedia Britannica," Ninth Edition (Vol. II., pp. 744-833). The follow- 
 ing is taken from page 752 of that article : 
 
 "Tycho Brahe stands next in' chronological order on the roll of those who 
 have contributed to the progress of astronomy. As an indefatigable and skillful 
 observer, he is justly considered as far superior to any astronomer who had pre- 
 ceded him since the revival of the science in Europe. His ample fortune gave 
 him the means of procuring the best instruments which the age could produce ; 
 and by his ingenuity and persevering application, he was admirably qualified to
 
 THE 
 
 EARTH STANDS FAST: 
 
 H %ecture 
 
 DELIVERED BY 
 
 PROFESSOR C. SCHOEPPFER, 
 
 Seventh Edition, published in Berlin, in 1868. 
 
 TRANSLATED FOR AND EDITED BY 
 
 J. WATTS DE PEYSTER, 
 
 BRIGADIER-GENERAL AND BREVET MAJOR-GENERAL, 
 M. A., LITT. D., PH. D., LL. D. 
 
 'He hath made the round world so sure that it cannot be moved.''' 
 PSALM (PSALTER.) xciii. 2. 
 
 WITH NOTES AND SUPPLEMENT BY 
 
 FRANK ALLABEN, 
 
 HISTORIOGRAPHER AND SCIENTIST. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 CHARLES H. LUDWIG, PRINTER, 90 WALKER STREET. 
 1900.
 
 JOHN WATTS DK PEVSTER. 
 Taken in 1888. 
 
 Copyright, lyoo, by John Watts de Peyster.
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 Four years ago I was riding with an investigating friend in the 
 country, discussing how it was that God should have selected 
 the earth as the theatre of his revelations to the Jews and to the 
 Christians. Then one of us suddenly remembered that a Ger- 
 man professor, Dr. C. Schoepffer, in a public lecture in Berlin, 
 had maintained the truth of the Tychonian theory, .founded on 
 the supposition that the earth stands still in space, that the sun 
 revolves around the earth, and that the planets and other members 
 of our solar system revolve about the sun. So far from being 
 ridiculed, this startling proposition of Tycho Brahe, suddenly 
 revived about three centuries after its announcement by the 
 famous Dane, received serious attention, and the facts on which 
 Dr. Schoepffer based his arguments were felt to be incontro- 
 vertible, whatever judgment may be passed upon his conclusions. 
 
 The laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and those on 
 which astronomical calculations have hitherto been founded, 
 were long considered unerringly certain and irrefutably fixed, 
 such as those of gravitation, the aberration of light and stellar 
 parallax, and were not deemed subjects of legitimate controversy; 
 but experts of the highest order are now by no means agreed as 
 to the actual forces or laws which govern the physical universe, 
 the postulate of which was hitherto considered infallible. 
 
 After discussing the matter one of us remarked : " If Schoepf- 
 fer is right that establishes the literal truth of the Bible." The 
 other replied: iii Rem acu teligisti ! ' vulgarly translated, 'You 
 have hit the nail on the head ! ' " 
 
 Without pretending to come forward as a Herschel or a 
 Laplace, any hypothesis which a professional scientist has the 
 courage to publish, in a country filled with learned men, and which 
 is there treated without ridicule, must have some force in it. 
 Consequently this German pamphlet, carefully translated, is pre- 
 sented to American readers with a simple request, that whoever 
 receives it will read it with attention and reflect upon its scienti- 
 fic arguments and presentation, before throwing it aside as "a 
 weak invention of the enemy." 
 
 J. WATTS DE PEYSTER (ANCHOR), 
 
 A. M., Litt. D., Ph. D., LL. D.
 
 V 
 
 s \ 
 
 s 
 
 References to pages 12 and 13.
 
 THE EARTH STANDS FAST. 
 
 PROOFS THAT THE EARTH REVOLVES NEITHER UPON 
 ITS OWN AXIS NOR YET ABOUT THE SUN. 
 
 [A Translation from the German of a Lecture delivered in Berlin, by Dr. C. 
 
 Schoepffer. Seventh edition. Berlin : A. Saco, Successors, 
 
 Publishers, Zimmerstrasse, No. 94. 1868.] 
 
 Compared with the Original and Edited by J. W. de P. 
 
 GENTLEMEN : 
 
 It requires not a little courage to stand before you here to demonstrate 
 the erroneousness of an opinion which you have thought the only true and 
 correct one since the years of your childhood. I believe I may judge of the 
 opinion you have of me this moment by that which I should have had my- 
 self three months ago of him who should assert to me that [|^~] the Earth 
 stands immovable and the Sun is revolving about it. Such a man I should 
 have considered either very ignorant or a lunatic ; and yet now I regard the 
 fact of the stability of the earth as a truth which cannot be shaken. More 
 over, I believe that those of you who are without prejudice and free from 
 prepossessions and will examine what I am going to lay before you will soon 
 share my opinion. 
 
 Not long ago we had an opportunity of seeing the tests with the pendu- 
 lum which, according to the theory of the widely-known physicist, Mr. Leon 
 Foucault, are said to furnish the proof of the daily rotation of the earth 
 upon its axis. I had well-nigh failed to take any notice of those Pendulum 
 tests. Although, when explaining to my pupils, boys and girls, in my geo- 
 graphical and physical lessons, the revolution of the earth about the sun, 
 I had always found one point (which you will learn in the course of my 
 lecture) very strange nay, incomprehensible yet I was so convinced of the 
 daily rotation of the earth, and its yearly course round the sun, as to deem 
 Mr. Foucault's pendulum-proof entirely superfluous. Nevertheless, I was 
 present at the experiment, and I will explain it in a few words, to make the 
 application clear. 
 
 If we imagine around the earth's sphere a limited or unlimited number 
 of circles, parallel with the equator, we call these circles, precisely on account 
 of their parallelism with the equator, parallel circles. It follows, from the 
 spherical form of the earth, that the circles become smaller the nearer we 
 place them to the poles ; and if we should imagine two parallel circles 
 drawn around the earth through this lecture-room, the northern one, even
 
 thus, would be somewhat smaller than the southern one. Let now the earth 
 revolve in twenty-four hours upon its axis, so that the two imaginary circles 
 laid through this room have made a complete rotation. As both have made 
 their circuit in equal time, and as the southern one is larger than the northern 
 one, the single parts of the one to the south must move with greater rapidity 
 than those of the one to the north. 
 
 Let us glance briefly at the instrument, so widely-known and yet in many 
 respects an enigma, which we will call the pendulum. It may be shown that 
 the even oscillation of the Pendulum is independent of the alterations (rota- 
 tions) of its point of suspension. This immutability of the even oscillation 
 was said by Mr. Foucault to prove the rotation of the earth upon its axis. 
 If, for example, we let a pendulum oscillate in a direction from north to 
 south, across the two parallel circles which we have in imagination drawn 
 through this room, then will its even oscillation, as Mr. Foucault assumes, 
 be unaffected by the rotation of the plane (or point of suspension), and 
 consequently will move in advance of the northern, more slowly rotating, 
 parallel circle, but will fall behind the southern, more rapidly rotating par- 
 allel circle. The path of the pendulum will, therefore, soon deviate from 
 the direction, north to south, the end formerly swinging to the north swing- 
 ing more and more towards the east, and the end swinging southward more 
 and more towards the west, until finally the pendulum swings entirely in the 
 direction from east to west. At this point the cause of deviation has ceased ; 
 for the pendulum swings no more across two unequally-rapid parallel circles, 
 but across a single circle. As the cause of deviation no longer exists, the 
 deviation ought to cease. But no, it continues ! the pendulum also leaves 
 the direction, east to west, to deviate to southeast and northwest, and thus 
 reaches conditions tinder which, according to Foucault, it must deviate again ! 
 
 Now, as the pendulum does not remain in the direction from east to 
 west, but also deviates from this, I think I am entitled to .the belief that the 
 deviation of the pendulum is caused by something other than the rotation of 
 the earth something, it is true, which is still unknown to us. Furthermore, 
 I have found, by careful experiments, that the deviation is not the same 
 with all pendulums. The heavier the bob, the slower becomes the deviation 
 of the pendulum ; the lighter the bob, the more rapidly the deviation takes 
 place. Since the rotation of the earth upon its axis, if existing, must be a 
 uniform one, necessarily with all pendulums the deviation should be uni- 
 form ; but this is not the case. 
 
 The conviction that the Foucault experiment with the pendulum was 
 erroneous made me examine more carefully the further reasons from which, 
 heretofore, the rotation of the earth upon its axis was inferred ; and thus I per- 
 ceived that there had been no demonstration whatever of suth a supposition. 
 
 Long ago the Indian, Brahmagypta, the Pythagorean, Philolaus, Niketns 
 of Syracuse, and Aristarch of Samos (who was born 267 15. C.), asserted 
 that the star-sphere is immovable, and that the earth, revolving upon its axis,
 
 causes the daily rise and set of the celestial bodies. These men, who were 
 all profound thinkers, accepted the opinion cited because they could not 
 comprehend the velocity with which the celestial bodies must fly to compass 
 their daily courses round the earth in twenty-four hours. But in our times 
 every one will concede that this objection is without force. Tell a country 
 lad, in a place where there is yet no railroad and only wagons are possessed, 
 that we can make a mile in five minutes, and he will think this utterly 
 impossible. And yet we know that light travels 40,000 miles a second, and 
 that the velocity of electricity is still greater.* Therefore, gentlemen, the 
 argument is rendered void, that celestial bodies (having their orbits in a space 
 which, according to our supposition, is either vacuous or filled with a very 
 thin matter of the nature of which we know nothing definite yet) could not 
 have such a velocity as to finish their course around the earth in twenty- 
 four hours. 
 
 Let us now dwell upon another argument which has been accepted, but 
 which is equally void. Measuring the meridians of the earth, we have found 
 that the earth is flattened towards the poles, and that a diameter of the 
 equator is larger than an axis from pole to pole. Man, who tries to pene- 
 trate all the secrets of nature, attempted, alas, to investigate the cause of 
 this flattening towards the poles, and Newton thought to find the cause in 
 the rotation of the earth. By this motion all particles of the globe, especi- 
 ally the bodies on the surface, are said to have an impulse to fly away from 
 the earth, and this opinion is, in agreement with Newton, accepted by all. 
 This tendency is called centrifugal force. At the poles, where the velocity 
 of rotation is zero, this force would be equal to zero, and would increase 
 thence to the equator in proportion to the size of the parallel circles ; for, as 
 I have already remarked, the greater the parallel circle the more rapidly each 
 point of it must move provided the earth actually rotates upon its axis. 
 It is said, therefore, that much more of the mass of the earth is pressed 
 toward the equator, and a much greater mass is accumulated around the 
 equator, for here the centrifugal tendency acts with the greatest force- 
 Hence, they assert, the earth must revolve, for without the rotation of the 
 earth the centrifugal tendency would not exist, and without the centrifugal 
 tendency there would be no accumulation of greater masses in the equa- 
 torial zones. 
 
 We have here another alleged proof of the rotation upon the axis which I 
 cannot accept, and which has been repudiated by others before me. 
 
 I am far from objecting anything to the correctness of the measurements 
 
 * These figures are quite as obsolete as is the idea of railway-speed. The lecture was 
 delivered in 1854. The velocity of light is now estimated at 186,000 miles per second 
 through the air, while the velocity of electricity, through the air as a medium, is said to 
 be about the same as that of light, suggesting a connection between the two things. The 
 discharge of electricity from a Leyden jar over a copper wire, Wheaton estimated at 288,- 
 ooo miles per second.
 
 of the degrees, although the measurements made on various occasions do not 
 in the least agree. We will take it for granted that a diameter of the equator is 
 larger than the length of the earth's axis. Are there, however, no other and 
 nearer-lying reasons which might have caused a larger accumulation of masses 
 at the equatorial latitudes? It is known that heat has an expanding, cold a 
 contracting force. Is it not possible that, during the unnumbered thousands 
 of years since our earth came into existence, the tropical heat has caused the 
 continuous expansion of the equatorial latitudes, while the cold of the poles 
 has caused the continuous contraction of the polar regions? 
 
 There is, however, still another and nearer reason why the larger accu- 
 mulation of masses in the equatorial latitudes has originated. The earth 
 seems to be in a state of continuous growth, and the flora and fauna add 
 very much to this growth. It is neither here the place, nor have we the time, 
 to speak of the immense coal strata which we find at considerable depths 
 (and still more of which we shall find as soon as we succeed in penetrating 
 deeper into the earth). Likewise, it would lead us too far if I undertook to 
 tell you of the animal remains, partly microscopic, which form whole moun- 
 tains and strata. I merely mention the fact that turf moors grow upon many 
 of our higher mountain-chains, and that our farmers produce a stratum of 
 humus upon rocky ground by laying out meadows, because they know that 
 a stratum of earth is generated by the growth of the sod. And now, let me 
 ask, where could this growth, by faunal and floral remains, go on with greater 
 effect: in the warmer regions, where fauna and flora abound, or in the 
 polar regions, where there only is a reduced life which constantly decreases 
 the nearer you approach the poles ? 
 
 Now, gentlemen, so long as simpler reasons are offered to us in explana- 
 tion of how the accumulation of masses in the warmer zones has taken place, 
 in the course of so many thousands of years, I cannot make up my mind to 
 accept this as a result of a centrifugal tendency caused by the rotation of the 
 earth upon its axis ; and this the less as, later on, I shall call your attention 
 to some contradictions in which this theory of centrifugal tendency would 
 entangle us. 
 
 I now go on to the fourth and last consideration by means of which the 
 rotation of the earth is thought to be demonstrated. The Frenchman, 
 Richer, observed in the year 1672 that a pendulum clock going normally in 
 Paris lost daily two and one-half minutes in Cayenne, i. e., five degrees north 
 of the equator, and he had to shorten the.pendulum by one-eighth of an inch 
 to make it go correctly. It is known that the velocity of a pendulum 
 increases with its shortness and decreases with its length. Later on it was 
 found that upon high mountains also a noticeable slackening of the oscilla- 
 tions of the pendulum took place. Now, since the oscillations of the pen- 
 dulum are based upon the Laws of Gravity that is to say, depend upon the 
 attraction of the earth the attraction under the equator and upon high 
 mountains must thus of necessity, it was argued, be less, since the pendulum
 
 9 
 
 there makes slower oscillations ; and it was concluded that the centrifugal 
 tendency caused by the motion of the earth upon its axis reduced the gravity, 
 and consequently made the movement of the pendulum slower. But this 
 conclusion also lacks infallibility, for we may just as well suppose that the 
 attraction of the earth diminishes with the distance from its centre, which is 
 at the same time the centre of attraction ; and this is an hypothesis which 
 has been accepted by quite a number of physicists. 
 
 But what if the slackening of the oscillations of the pendulum in middle 
 latitudes and upon high mountains has a cause which is quite the opposite 
 of that so far accepted ? What if it be true that the attraction is not dimin- 
 ished by the distance from the centre of the earth, nor by the centrifugal 
 tendency, but that an increased attraction, increased by the accumulation of 
 masses, is the cause of the slackening of the oscillations of the pendulum 
 by thus augmenting the weight of the bob of the pendulum ? For it is a 
 fact which seems to be unknown to many philosophers, although most of 
 the old village schoolmasters are aware of it that the quicker or slower 
 movements of the pendulum do not depend exclusively upon its length, but 
 also upon the weight of the bob. One might perhaps say that the velocity 
 of the oscillations of the pendulum depends exclusively upon the weight of 
 the bob, for when lengthening the pendulum I make the bob work on a 
 longer lever, and therefore increase its weight. Hence I may obtain the 
 same result by increasing the weight of the bob, instead of- lengthening the 
 rod of the pendulum. The village clock goes too fast, and the schoolmaster 
 attaches stones or pieces of iron to the bob of the pendulum in order to 
 slacken the oscillations of the pendulum. Laugier has made the most accu- 
 rate observations in this line. He found that one and the same pendulum, 
 with a bob of 2 kilograms weight, required 1,977 seconds for 2,000 oscilla- 
 tions ; with a bob of 4 kilograms, required 2,010.55 seconds ; with a bob of 
 6 kilograms, 2,020.04 seconds ; with a bob of 8 kilograms, 2,027.04 seconds 
 the number of oscillations in each case being the same. Hence the larger 
 the weight of the bob, the slower the oscillations of the pendulum. The 
 deductions from these observations carried out with the utmost care, and 
 published in the " Comptes Rendus de I'Academie Francaise" (t. xxi., pp. 
 .117-124) are as follows : (i) The laws of Galileo in regard to the oscillations 
 of the pendulum are not exactly correct ; (2) the decrease of the attraction 
 of the earth toward the equator, inferred from the decrease of the velocity 
 of the pendulum, is probably wrong ; (3) the laws of falling bodies, so far 
 universally accepted* are also probably not exact ; (4) calculations of physical 
 laws in general are always untrustworthy, as only experience can decide. 
 
 We have seen (from the two considerations last mentioned as advanced 
 to prove the rotation of the earth upon its axis) that an influence of this 
 rotation is conjectured, working as a centrifugal tendency caused by 
 this rotation. Currents of the ocean and of the atmosphere were also 
 thought to be consequences of this centrifugal tendency. Indeed, it is diffi-
 
 10 
 
 cult to comprehend how it is possible that air (this light body, moved by 
 the most diverse currents, seeking expansion, and so loose and volatile) 
 should not be affected by the rotation of the earth. After the greatest 
 philosophers have postulated an influence of the rotation of the earth upon 
 the solid mass of the body of the earth, surely I do not consider it too pre- 
 sumptuous if I assume that the rotation of the earth must of necessity influ- 
 ence the air ! It is not possible, as I conceive, that the lighter air of the 
 higher regions, especially, can follow the globe of the earth when it is 
 rotating with considerable rapidity. The earth, rotating towards the east, 
 would cause an air current toward the west. Were the universe, where the 
 earth is rotating with its air-belt, perfectly vacuous, we might perhaps I say, 
 perhaps accept the view of a rotation of the earth without influence upon 
 the air-belt ; but the nature of the air contradicts the thought of such a 
 vacuum-state. So far as we know, the air possesses such a tendency toward 
 expansion as partly to neutralize by it the laws of gravity. Did not the 
 extremely thin air find a body in the universe to preserve its equilibrium, 
 it would expand still further, the air-layers next would follow, and finally 
 also the entire body of water would have its part in this expansion and fly 
 out into the universe, exactly as we may produce like phenomena of expan- 
 sion under the air-pump. There must, therefore, be in existence a materia 
 which preserves the equilibrium of the outermost air-layers a materia 
 which, according to universal usage, we will call ether ; and it thus follows 
 that the air cannot escape into endless space nay, each layer must press 
 upon the next lower one, and by this gradually increased pressure is caused 
 the greater density of the air-layers next to us. 
 
 But if there is an ether (the existence of which also seems to be confirmed 
 by the meteorites), then with a rotation of the earth such well-known effects 
 must appear in the air-layers as always arise from the resistance of a moving 
 current of air. If now we set the earth in motion, the outermost air-layer 
 will hang back, through the opposition of the ether (provided the entire air- 
 belt is forced, by attraction, to partake of the rotation), and will appear to 
 move in the opposite direction. If this should take place, the outermost 
 air-layer would likewise exert a pressure upon the next lower air-layer, this 
 would share in the current contrary to the rotation of the earth, and in this 
 manner the contrary current would increase and gradually grow in such a 
 -degree that finally the entire air-belt, and likewise all the water of the globe, 
 would turn eastward. 
 
 Even suppose, however, that there is no ether, but that its existence ranks 
 among the numberless dreams in which man has been indulging while 
 attempting to explore the universal, without being able to apply another 
 measure in his researches than that of our earthly state, I should yet claim 
 that air cannot participate in the rotation of the earth. 
 
 How do our philosophers explain the fact of our not noticing anything 
 of the assumed rotation of the earth? or why, with this rotation, all things
 
 11 
 
 are not toppling over one another? They. explain it by the laws of commu- 
 nicated motion. Very well ! I will again turn their weapon against tliem- 
 selves. A motion may be communicated to solid bodies ; but to such, how- 
 ever, as have no connection in their parts, can only be communicated when 
 they are enclosed in a solid body ! But we know of no body the parts of 
 which have much less connection with each other than is the case with the 
 air. The air-layer next to the earth, really dragged along by the communi- 
 cated motion, would not be able to communicate its motion to the layers 
 above it, for the simple reason that it stands in no connection with them. 
 These upper layers must therefore remain in their place, or (which would 
 signify the same thing) would apparently flow westward with the same 
 rapidity with which the earth is said to rotate to the east. Now, since a 
 point on the equator (if the earth rotates on its axis in a day) must move 
 eastward at the rate of 1,250 feet a second, the air would similarly move 1,250 
 feet westward in a second, which would more than ten times surpass the 
 velocity of the most fearful hurricane. 
 
 It is not myself, however, who am the first to conceive the necessity of 
 this current of the air westward. All philosophers of the present time have 
 admitted the necessity, but have been unable to find any proofs of its exist- 
 ence. The Trade Winds, which for a while were looked upon as results of 
 the rotation of the earth, lack too much in regularity formerly so highly 
 praised and, like all other winds, are evidently caused by the differences of 
 temperature over the different regions of the earth's surface. Consider how 
 the air-belt of our globe produces weaker or stronger currents in the most 
 diverse directions, called by us winds or storms ; consider that even con- 
 trary winds flow one above the other and ask how, if it had besides to 
 obey the double motions of the earth, upon itself and around the sun, it 
 would be possible with such currents for our air-belt to remain in any wise a 
 faithful follower of our globe ! 
 
 We cannot perceive the rotation of the earth in any way. We cannot 
 demonstrate it ! There are no air-currents which we can justly regard as 
 or even suppose to be consequences of this rotation. These facts ought to 
 be proof enough against the existence of a rotation of the earth. Indeed 
 we wholly lack, as I remarked in the beginning, a consideration indicating 
 rotation which can be substantiated. Must it not appear almost absurd in 
 us, preoccupied by what they have taught >us in school, to accept a theory of 
 the rotation of the earth which neither is, nor can be, proven? Must we not 
 wonder at the readiness of the learned of nearly the entire world, from the 
 time of Copernicus and Kepler, to accept the conception of the rotation of 
 the earth and then search afterwards, now for nearly three and a half cen- 
 turies, for arguments to maintain it, but of course without being able to 
 find them? 
 
 M.ore easy will it be for me to prove to you the impossibility of an orbit 
 of the earth around the sun. I shall furnish a counter proof, ad oculos.
 
 12 
 
 The theory of the revolution of the earth around the sun the assertion 
 that it is kept in its course by the force of the sun's attraction contradicts 
 most positively the laws of gravitation we know ; for the direction of gravity 
 with each body must be perpendicular to the point from which the gravity of 
 a larger body works upon it. In the case of a small particle of dust which 
 lies against a smooth wall, the direction of gravity must be toward the wall, 
 or it would drop from it. Similarly, the direction of gravity of our earth should 
 be constantly toward the sun, on the supposition that there is an attraction 
 working from that orb upon it. Yet this is not the case, for if the earth 
 moves in an orbit around the sun, the direction of its gravity necessarily must 
 be changing each moment.* To prove this, let us cast a glance upon the 
 present theory of a yearly revolution of the earth around the sun, as it is 
 given in all the works known to me that treat of this subject. 
 
 To explain the change of the seasons, or in other words, the ecliptic 
 of the sun, it is necessary to assume that the axis of the earth has an inclina- 
 tion of 23*^ toward the plane of the earth's orbit, and preserves always the 
 same inclination during the entire revolution around the sun, or remains 
 parallel to itself in all points of its course. Let us materialize this theory by 
 taking a candle for the sun, and now lead a globe aronnd it just as the earth 
 would have to move around the sun, to make the change of the seasons 
 possible. 
 
 The axis of the earth (Fig. I, A see page 4) is neither turned toward nor 
 from the sun in March. The equator of the earth then revolves directly be- 
 neath the sun, which appears in the celestial equator. It shines now from one 
 pole to the other, and a meridian on each side defines the limit of illumination. 
 Everywhere, consequently, day and night are equal, while each place revolves 
 twelve hours in sunshine over the daily arc of its parallel circle, and twelve 
 
 * According to the Newtonian theory, every molecule of the earth's mass attracts and 
 is attracted by every molecule of the sun's mass. Thus the earth and sun should always 
 present the same faces toward one another, as if a network of taut wires connected all their 
 molecules. But in contradiction to this, the Copernican theory conceives of the earth as 
 performing a daily rotation on its own axis, thus constantly overcoming the force of gravi- 
 tation between the molecules of sun and earth. And what causes this axial rotation ? 
 The astronomers and philosophers will have some trouble in naming a force so powerful as 
 originally to have inaugurated, and since to have maintained, an axial revolution of a mass 
 of molecules which must needs continuously overcome the gravitational pull of each mole- 
 cule toward the sun. In the case of the earth and moon, where an attractive force is 
 evident as the power which holds the moon in its orbit, this contradiction does not exist 
 as Dr. Schoepffer notes, the moon ever presents the same face toward the earth as if all the 
 molecules of her mass were rigidly fixed to the earth by invisible rods. It is a remarkable 
 fact that, in the case of both Mercury and Venus, whose revolution about the sun is a 
 matter of ocular telescopic demonstration, the case is the same as with the moon. The 
 young American astronomer, Lowell, has in recent years confirmed the conclusion of the 
 Italian astronomer, Schiaparelli, some twelve years since, that both Venus and Mercury 
 
 hemispheres of each experiencing perpetual day and the other hemisphere perpetual 
 night. [F. A.]
 
 13 
 
 hours without sunshine over the nightly arc of its parallel circle. The 
 equator has summer, the northern hemisphere Spring, the southern Fall. 
 
 From March till June the north pole of the inclined axis of the earth is 
 gradually turning toward the sun. The entire northern hemisphere inclines 
 toward it until on June 21 (Fig. I, W) the longest day for the northern hemi- 
 sphere the sun stands directly above the Tropic of Cancer. The northern 
 hemisphere has Summer, the southern Winter. 
 
 From June to September the axis returns again to such a. position as 
 neither to be turned toward nor from the sun, wherefore' the earth is illu- 
 minated, September 23 (Fig. I, B), as on March 21. The sun again stands 
 directly above the equator, which has summer the second time, while Fall 
 begins again upon the northern hemisphere, Spring upon the southern. 
 
 From September to December the axis of the earth turns its south pole 
 more and more to the sun, which consequently stands directly above the 
 Tropic of Capricorn on December 21. Then an illumination occurs exactly 
 opposite to the one of June 21. The south pole is illuminated and the north 
 pole has its long night. The northern hemisphere has its Winter, the 
 southern its Summer. From December to March the axis of the earth 
 returns to its first position. 
 
 For the readers of this lecture a diagram is added see p. 4. In the middle, 
 at S, we see the sun. The dotted circle represents the orbit of the earth, and 
 the arrows indicate the direction of the revolution of the earth. We see the 
 earth in its various positions, at A, W, B, O. W represents at the same 
 time the western, O the eastern direction, while the arrows within the 
 spheres indicate the direction of the daily rotation of the earth from west to 
 east. Of the lines crossing the globes, aa represents the equator, kk the 
 northern tropic, ss the southern tropic, and ns the axis of the earth. At A 
 one sees the earth on March 21 : its axis is turned neither to nor from 
 the sun ; its half, turned toward the sun, is illuminated from the north 
 pole to the south pole. At W one sees the position of the earth on June 
 21 ; the north pole is turned to the sun, the south pole from it ; the north 
 pole circle is entirely in sunlight, the south pole circle entirely in darkness. 
 B shows the position of the earth on September 22 : one sees it half dark, 
 from north pole to south pole turned away from the sun. O represents the 
 position of the earth on December 21 : the south pole is turned to the sun, 
 the north pole from it. One sees how the axis of the earth always main- 
 tains the same direction, remaining parallel to itself, and how only thus can 
 the seasons be explained if it be supposed that the earth goes round the 
 sun in a year. 
 
 Thus far the theory of the modern is all right. But I now come to a 
 point, incomprehensible as yet, and left entirely out of consideration, as 
 mentioned by me in the beginning. This invariably appeared strange to me, 
 as often as I explained the revolution of the earth round the sun in teaching 
 geography or physics.
 
 14 
 
 As it is impossible to assume that the earth revolves in a year round the 
 sun, while at the same time throughout this orbit the sun revolves daily 
 round the earth, we are therefore bound to assume, in order to explain the 
 regular changes of day and night, that during its revolution around the sun 
 the earth also rotates daily upon its own axis, from west to east. These two 
 revolutions, however, can by no means be combined. From June 21 to Sep- 
 tember 22 both kinds of movement might be thought of as combined (Fig. I, 
 IV to B), hut from September 22 back to June 21, the combination of the 
 two movements becomes utterly absurd, because the earth would then rotate 
 daily in an eastern direction, and yet at the same time move forward in quite 
 varying directions ! But each rotating body which moves from its place 
 receives the direction of its movement from the kind of its rotation, and vice 
 versa, the direction of its rotation from the direction of its movement. 
 If the earth rotates toward the east, it must also move to the east. If at the 
 same time another force acts, enforcing another movement, perhaps to the 
 west, then the one of the two forces which is the stronger must neutralize 
 the other. 
 
 If we compare with each other the two halves of the supposed orbit of 
 the earth around the sun (i. e., the half of the orbit from ff through BO, 
 with the half orbit from O through A to IV), we find that from W to O 
 the direction of the rotation somewhat harmonizes with the direction of the 
 movement, whereas from O to W the direction of the rotation is absolutely 
 contrary to the direction of the movement. This may be seen by leading a 
 rotating globe about a light, as in Fig. I. To explain this striking point, 
 we must assume that the direction of the gravity is constantly changing 
 during the period of a revolution of the earth around the sun a thing which 
 is really too strange, and does not harmonize with the fact that we are bound 
 to assume that the direction of gravity is toward the sun, since the sun is 
 regarded as the body which keeps the earth in its course. Fig. 2 will explain 
 the matter. The sphere E, as the arrows indicate, must constantly rotate 
 towaijd 0, and run first from a to b, and then back from d to c. Hence 
 necessarily in its course to O it must have the direction of its gravity in the 
 line ali, while in its course to IV the direction of its gravity is in the line 
 cd, and therefore first downwards, then upwards. True enough, there is no 
 up and down in the universe, but the case remains the same. We shall later 
 on return to the fact that this constant changing of the direction of the 
 gravity of the earth contradicts all our experience. 
 
 According to the opinion now prevailing, the earth is kept in its course 
 by the power of the sun's attraction. But either this supposition contradicts 
 the supposed double motion of the earth, or else we must postulate physical 
 laws contradicting each and all our experiences. For it is out of the ques- 
 tion to suppose a double motion of the earth, about itself and around the 
 sun, which can be brought into harmony with the changes of the seasons and 
 the change of day and night, and in which at the same time the direction of
 
 15 
 
 gravity is invariably tending toward the sun which must necessarily be the 
 case if the earth is kept in its course by the attraction of the sun. 
 
 The theorists presume that two forces are operative in each circular motion. 
 If, e. g., we tie a ball to a thread and make it go around in a circle, the thread 
 always straightened, one force tends to drive the ball away from the centre 
 in a straight line, and for this reason is called the centrifugal or flying 
 force ; while the other, which here is represented by the thread, pulls the 
 ball always toward the centre, and therefore is called centripetal force. 
 Both forces being in operation, the ball can follow no line which is dictated 
 to it by either of the two forces, but will always take a diagonal direction ; 
 and out of the composition of these numberless small diagonals, the orbital 
 motion results. 
 
 Let us now more closely look into this circular motion, and we shall find 
 that it is a simple one. The point where the thread is tied on (where also, 
 therefore, the centripetal force coming from my hand works) is always directed 
 toward the centre of the motion, i. e., the hand. Should it have still another 
 motion around an axis, the pole of this axis would have to lie at the suspension 
 point, and to remain always in the direction of the hand. But what is law with 
 one body, must be the law with all other bodies under like circumstances. 
 
 The only oelestial body which is near enough to us to be observed with 
 accuracy is the Moon, and we see her making her revolution around the Earth 
 under the same conditions as the ball in our illustration. Take now the 
 Moon instead of the ball, the Earth instead of the hand, instead of the thread 
 the attraction of the Earth, which though invisible works in the same manner 
 as the thread. Then we see why, indeed, the Moon always turns the same 
 side toward the Earth for any turning, any changed direction of gravity, 
 is rendered impossible by the force of the attraction of the Earth. Why 
 should we not continue to draw our conclusions from the Moon, since this 
 is so near the Earth? If the Earth is revolving around the Sun, and kept in 
 its course by the attraction of the Sun, then by the constant operation of this 
 very attraction a rotation upon its axis, such as we have to accept with the 
 Copernican system, must be rendered as impossible as it is in the case of 
 the Moon. Then one-half of the Earth would be always illuminated by the 
 Sun, the other half always in darkness. That, again, is contrary to the truth. 
 Consequently, the simultaneous rotation of the Earth upon its axis and revo- 
 lution around the Sun, as heretofore assumed, are not possible. 
 
 Now we might, perhaps, assume that the earth is at the centre, rotating 
 in twenty-four hours upon itself, while the sun yearly makes the circle about 
 it which is called the ecliptic. Such an arrangement would come somewhat 
 nearer the possibility. Yet there is no reason for this assumption, so long as 
 it is not possible to prove the rotation of the earth upon its axis. As yet, 
 however, as we have seen, it is easier to show the contrary. 
 
 I have proven this contrary mainly by means of the absence of a constant 
 air-current from east to west. For the same reason, if the earth were to
 
 16 
 
 circle about the sun, the air-belt would stay back towards the side opposite 
 to the course, and the air would thus follow the earth like a long tail, as is 
 seen with comets. Let the tail of the comet consist of whatever it may, 
 we have to look upon it as an atmosphere of those puzzling bodies ; and their 
 atmosphere must stay back, tail-like, as they move on through the universe. 
 
 Finally, we desire to return once more to the consideration of attraction, 
 in order to prove that the combination of the rotation of the earth upon 
 itself and its revolution around the sun is an impossibility. When we spoke 
 of the now-accepted theory of a revolution of the earth, we demonstrated 
 that according to it the direction of gravity of the earth would have to change 
 every moment. Again, in order for the sun to keep our earth in its course 
 the direction of the gravity would each time have to go to the point of the 
 surface of the earth which was nearest to the sun, and upon which therefore 
 the centripetal force of the sun would work directly. Towards this point, 
 therefore, the gravity of the earth must necessarily press (just as the centre 
 of gravitation of the moon necessarily lies in the centre of the side which is 
 constantly facing us), and all loose bodies would inevitably hasten towards it. 
 But, according to our observations, this is not so. The centre of gravity of 
 the earth is evidently in its centre, and hence it depends upon its own mass, 
 without an outside force like the attraction of the sun working upon it. 
 Is this not a convincing argument : first, that the earth is not kept on its 
 course by an attraction of the sun, because this mighty attraction could not 
 take place without changing, the earth's centre of gravity ; and second, that 
 since the centre of the earth, untouched by any outside influence, is at the 
 same time its centre of gravity, on this account this centre of gravity must 
 be accepted as being the centre of the entire visible creation ? 
 
 I am far from denying absolutely that the sun, or the moon even, exerts 
 a certain attracting force upon the earth ; but I believe I may assume with 
 positiveness that this attracting force is too insignificant to exert any influence 
 upon the rigid portion of our earth, but is confined as to its effect to the 
 liquid bodies mainly the air. Now since the attractive force of the sun is 
 so inconsiderable that it can exert an influence only upon the liquid bodies, 
 and that always insignificant, it is evident that it is much too slight to keep 
 the earth in a circular course, if working as centripetal force, Such an im- 
 mense force of attraction as would be required to keep the earth in its course 
 around the sun, would long since have drawn the atmosphere away from the 
 earth to the sun as similarly, on the other hand, the earth would quickly 
 attract any atmosphere formed on the moon.* 
 
 Let us now consider what revolutions in the total realm of astronomy 
 would be created by acceptance of my assertion that the earth stands still 
 in the centre of the universe. Though radical, such revolutions are yet com- 
 paratively insignificant. They consist simply in accepting as real the 
 
 * Astronomers have long recognized that the Moon is devoid of an atmosphere.
 
 17 
 
 apparent movement of the celestial bodies which are to-day considered 
 fictitious. This was done by Tycho de Brahe who, in my opinion, was the 
 greatest of all astronomers. He claimed that the earth remains immovable 
 in the centre of the world, the entire heavens revolving around it in twenty- 
 four hours, with the moon, as well as the sun, by means of motions of their 
 own, describing separate circles around the earth, just as Mercury and the 
 other planets were describing epicycles. 
 
 Consequently, material points in astronomy are not altered, since it 
 remains the same with the different calculations, whether we explain the 
 local changes of the stars by a rotation of the earth, or by a rotation of the 
 starred firmament. But many immaterial theories are dissolved into dreams. 
 
 In the first place, we have to a-bandon the opinion that the so-called fixed 
 stars are suns, and the so-called planets bodies like our earth ; for the calcu- 
 lations by means of which the mass and size of the celestial bodies are 
 thought to be determined are erroneous, being based upon wrong principles. 
 For instance, the weight of the sun has been calculated by means of the force 
 of the attraction which it was thought to exert upon the planets. If now, 
 however, the sun is no longer the ruling star, but fettered instead by' the 
 force of attraction of the earth, turns about the latter, then naturally that 
 calculation must have been erroneous. , 
 
 Moreover, they started from a wrong principle in calculating the size 
 of the celestial bodies. It is a known phenomenon that the further off 
 bodies are, the smaller they look upon our globe. An object distant 5,ooo 
 times its own diameter can no longer be seen by the human eye. According 
 to this law the size of the celestial .bodies was calculated. From their apparent 
 size and their distance it was calculated how many times their real size must 
 surpass their apparent size. But one thing was forgotten namely, the im- 
 portant circumstance that the law according to which objects appear smaller 
 in proportion to their distance cannot be applied to shining bodies. The 
 stronger is the light of a shining body, the further it can be seen in 
 unchanged size. I have stated that a body becomes invisible if the distance 
 amounts to 5,000 times its diameter. If this law held good for the shining 
 bodies, then a light with a diameter of i-inch could no longer be seen at a 
 distance of 225 steps. But it may be seen, in unchanged size, a distance of 
 some odd thousand steps ! 
 
 The shining of the sun being very intense, the sun must also be visible 
 in its actual size at an immense distance, and it is very readily possible that 
 it is not much larger than it appears to our eyes ! Furthermore, it is not 
 only possible, but very probable, that the law according to which bodies 
 appear smaller the further distant they are, holds good only in our denser 
 atmosphere. If, during a clear cold night, the vapors of the air are precipi- 
 tated, and the sun rises and lights up the air, free from vapors, we then see 
 mountains, regions, places (which at other times we see only in the blue 
 distance) so greatly magnified as to appear nearer, while we are able to dis-
 
 18 
 
 tinguish them exactly. The laws of refraction are conspicuously altered. 
 What if they cannot be applied to the ether, or should we prefer, in place 
 of ether, to postulate empty space to that empty space? I know this much 
 from experience : the doctrine of visual angles is not at ail absolutely correct, 
 but the greater or lesser purity of the atmosphere must be taken into con- 
 sideration. 
 
 The calculations which have been based upon moon-eclipses I shall not 
 accept as correct so long as it cannot be demonstrated to me that the laws 
 of the refraction of the rays of light apply to space. In reference to the 
 fixed stars, it is not impossible that the calculations have been made erro- 
 neously. Moreover, the entire calculations of their distances are reduced 
 to nothing as soon as we look upon the earth as stationary. According to the 
 current theory, on December 21 the earth stands 40,000,000 of miles away 
 from the point where it stands on June 21, while yet a star which you have 
 seen through the telescope culminating on December 21, you will see through 
 the same telescope on June 21 culminating on the same spot of the firma- 
 ment ! That distance of 40,000,000 of miles would consequently be nothing 
 compared with the distance of the star observed. But this calculation of 
 distance becomes void as soon as we return to the belief in the stability 
 of the earth. 
 
 Permit me, gentlemen, to call your attention to another contradiction 
 which ought long ago to have shown the erroneousness of the astronomical 
 calculations. Calculating the supposed force of attraction exerted by the 
 sun, it was found that a body exhibiting a pressure of one pound on our 
 earth would exhibit a pressure of 27 pounds on the sun. If all bodies on 
 the sun exhibit a weight so much greater than on the earth, the entire mass 
 of the sun must be pressed together with commensurate force, and must con- 
 sist of much denser matter. And yet, upon comparing the calculated weight 
 of the sun with its calculated volume, it was found that the sun's matter was 
 surpassed four times in density by the matter the earth consists of ! According 
 to this, the bodies on the sun are 27 times heavier than they would be on the 
 earth, while yet this weight exhibits 108 times less energy than on the earth, 
 the sun's density being one-fourth the density of the earth ! I cannot under- 
 stand this. I can only look upon these figures as results of calculations 
 based upon false principles. 
 
 I must also deny that the planets have atmospheres. A celestial body, 
 rushing with immense velocity through space, cannot have an atmosphere 
 similar to that of our earth. The moon, the nature of which we know best, 
 here again gives us the answer, or rather confirms what I have reasoned out 
 from the general laws of nature : the moon has no atmosphere. Neither can 
 the other stars have any ; and the observations which are to demonstrate the 
 existence of atmospheres are surely based upon an error. To make observa- 
 tions of this kind with any degree of security we would have to first lift
 
 19 
 
 ourselves above our own atmosphere, and to erect our observatories at least 
 on the summit of the Dhawalagiri. 
 
 Furthermore, the bodies of the sun, the moon and the planets cannot 
 bear any resemblance to the earth in their surfaces, but must consist of 
 matters closely combined with each other, as we see also from the meteorites 
 now and then falling upon the earth. Loose matters, earth and stones on 
 their surfaces, would be attracted by the force of the attraction of the earth 
 and be dragged towards it. The hypothesis of a habitableness of these 
 bodies must be dumped into the realm of dreams, on account of the various 
 reasons given. 
 
 How we came to entertain the present astronomical ideas is now clearly 
 demonstrated. We naturally supposed that the Creator must have placed 
 the stars at a considerable distance in order to light up very large portions 
 of the earth's sphere at the same time. Man calculated the distances qf stars 
 which were most important to us, calculated the sizes of the stars frqm these 
 distances by wrongly-applied laws of reduction, stood astonished before 
 these sizes, and was compelled to look upon the numberless fixed stars as 
 just so many suns, and upon our earth as a minute particle of the universe. 
 It was a logical consequence that it should seem to him contrary to reason to 
 consider these mighty celestial bodies as circling around the earth, and as 
 having evidently to thank the earth for their existence. And thus man came 
 to the conclusion that the earth must be the rotating and revolving body, 
 moving around the sun. And man went on and on, building upon this con- 
 clusion, connecting correct calculations with fantastic dreams. 
 
 I close my lecture, although it would be very easy for me to point out 
 numerous other contradictions to be found in the present suppositions. 
 
 I wish that an astronomer, equipped with more perfect knowledge and 
 modern instruments, would continue developing the system of Tycho de 
 Brahe. The final result would certainly be grand, and many a thing would 
 appear simple and clear that became dark after the advent of the Copernican 
 system, contradicting all the laws of nature which we know. The esteemed 
 astronomer, Bandes, has already said of Tycho's system : "This system seems 
 to have more truth in itself nay, the single phenomena may be demonstrated 
 very easily with it." He means, however, that it contradicts the laws of 
 attraction. This objection, however, I believe I have done away with, and 
 have clearly shown that the Copernican system itself is in direct opposition 
 to the laws of attraction. 
 
 It has not been the author's intention to present a complete theory in 
 this lecture. He confesses his inability for it, and desired only to give 
 impulse to new investigations. But he thinks himself entitled to the hope 
 that some astronomer will at least free himself from cold superciliousness 
 and go on building upon the basis given. For such a sincere scholar I add 
 here a few out of the number of rich data which have been carelessly dis- 
 regarded.
 
 20 
 
 1. The forms of our continents contradict the hypothesis of the rotation 
 of the earth. Were there such a rotation, these formations would have been 
 built up in the main directions, from east to west ; whereas, in reality, we find 
 their longitudinal development from north to south. Again, the larger lati- 
 tudes of the north only point to the attractive force of the north [magnetic] 
 pole, the points looking southward indicating the repulsive power of the 
 south [magnetic] pole. 
 
 2. That there are no fixed stars proper has been demonstrated by the 
 peculiar orbital motions which those fixed stars have in addition to their 
 daily course about the earth. The astronomers have therefore sought in vain 
 for a central body, the attraction of which would keep those stars in their 
 course. But there must be such a central body, and it must be our earth. 
 It may also result from this that, corresponding to the greater formation of 
 continents upon the northern hemisphere, the greater number of stars is 
 found on the northern half of the heavens. 
 
 3. Various changes have been observed in many of the fixed stars, especi- 
 ally a change of colors and of intensity of light (a sudden coming, and 
 a going as sudden, of single stars), which cannot be brought into harmony 
 with the supposition that they are such large and independent bodies as has 
 hitherto been believed. 
 
 4. The uniformities of the parts of all meteorites i. e., of heavenly 
 bodies dragged to the earth by its attraction allows us a conclusion upon 
 the nature of celestial bodies in general, and demonstrates that they cannot 
 be habitable. The greatest meteorites of which we know had a diameter of 
 from 7 to 7% feet. 
 
 5. According to Wilhelm Mahlmann's careful calculation, there is an 
 air-current west-south-west, prevailing in the middle latitudes of the tern, 
 perate zone ; hence there are, after all, prevailing west winds, whereas east 
 winds should prevail, upon the theory of the rotation of the earth. 
 
 6. As my next treatise is to bring out the evidence that the Mosaic 
 version of the creation harmonizes with the truth, and as the only objection 
 made to me as yet respecting the rotation of the earth is the pretended 
 agreement of the learned, I therefore quote here in conclusion a few words 
 of Goethe. This poet, whose prophetic glances into nature were completely 
 disregarded during his lifetime, says : 
 
 " Be it as it may, it must be laid down that I curse the accursed lumber- 
 room of this modern conception ; and certainly some young, ingenious man 
 will arise who has the courage to oppose this universal, crazy nonsense. 
 The repeated assurance which all natural philosophers have had in this same 
 conviction is the most outrageous thing you can hear. He, however, who 
 knows men knows how this happens. Good, able, keen brains make up such 
 an opinion on the basis of probability ; they assembly proselytes and disci- 
 ples ; such a mass gains literary power ; one magnifies the opinion, exagger- 
 ates it, and carries it out with a certain passionate excitement ; hundreds and
 
 21 
 
 hundreds of well-thinking normal men, who are active in other branches and 
 also wish to see lively working in their surroundings, honored and respected 
 what can they do better and wiser than to give these ample scope, and to 
 consent to what is not their business? And this is then called general agree- 
 ment of scholars ! " 
 
 THE BIBLICAL-TYCHONIC 
 
 vs. 
 
 THE NEWTONIAN-COPERNICAN SYSTEM. 
 
 TVCHONIC SYSTEM OR THEORY. 
 
 General JOHN WATTS DE PEYSTER, 
 
 Rose Hill, Red Hook Township, Duchess Co. 
 
 Tivoli P. O., New York. 
 MY DEAR GENERAL: 
 
 The lecture of the German, Dr. Scheopffer, which you have obtained from 
 abroad and of which you propose to print an English translation, certainly is 
 remarkable. This assault upon the Copernican and Newtonian theories was 
 originally delivered and published in 1854. Since that time a small army of 
 astronomers diligently have prosecuted investigation to perfect the accepted 
 hypothesis. Therefore we naturally expect Dr. Schoepffer's arguments to 
 appear peurile in the light of present knowledge, even if they seemed plaus-
 
 22 
 
 ible half a century ago. But, strange to say, instead of a development of 
 facts which renders Dr. Schoepffer's position ridiculous, the new data in 
 nearly every instance tend to justify his skepticism. His main arguments, 
 formidable as they stand, and hitherto unanswered, may now be notably 
 fortified, while many new counts may be added to his strong indictment of 
 the current theory. 
 
 As you know, ere I had heard of Dr. Schoepffer, his lecture, or his views, 
 I had become a confirmed skeptic concerning the supposed infallibility of 
 Newton's demonstration of the Copernican theory, and indeed had lost all con- 
 fidence in the truth of the Copernican hypothesis. Having been transformed 
 from a religious agnostic of the hostile type into a believer in the verbal 
 inspiration of Scripture, I was led to examine astronomical theories by the 
 insinuation of certain rabid " scientists" on the one hand, and of certain 
 " higher critics " on the other, that the astronomical theories of the Bible 
 and of modern science were irreconcilable, while infallibility here certainly 
 lay with modern science, demonstrating the fallibility of Scripture as a guide 
 on such a point at least. 
 
 From a careful study of the Bible I ascertained the following facts : 
 (i) That the Old Testament and the New Testament alike teach by infer- 
 ence, with some dogmatic statements on the subject, a certain astronomical 
 scheme ; (2) That all Biblical references to astronomical facts are undeviat- 
 ingly consistent in implying this astronomical system and no other ; (3) That 
 any person left to gather his astronomical ideas from the Bible alone would 
 necessarily imbibe a belief in this particular scheme ; (4) That the Biblical 
 system treats the phenomenal, or apparent, movements of the heavenly 
 bodies as the actual movements of those bodies ; (5) That the Bible repre- 
 sents the physical universe as having been definitely designed by God as a 
 revelation of Himself and His ways by means of object-lessons ; and (6) That 
 in all instances of Scriptural reference to the heavenly bodies or the earth, 
 as physical types of moral truths, the object-lesson is ever found in the 
 phenomenal appearance of things. Scripture citing the phenomenal appear- 
 ance as the physical fact. 
 
 And is this astronomical scheme of Scripture crude and primitive ? So 
 one would imagine from the cheap learning everywhere abounding which 
 sweeps the Bible aside, with a magnificent flourish of intellectual superiority 
 over Christian faith, on the ground that its fallibility is fully exposed in its 
 astronomy ! But what is the fact ? Even the Ptolemaic theory of the 
 universal mechanism has been justly commended for its ingenuity in explain- 
 ing observed phenomena, while the Biblical system is infinitely superior to 
 that perfected by Ptolemy and his followers, judged in the light of present 
 knowledge. I say " infinitely" superior because Ptolemy's scheme, ingenious 
 as it is, is absolutely inadmissible in the light of the facts now known, while 
 all astronomers are compelled to admit that the system implied in Scripture 
 accounts for all the observed phenomena as competently as does the Coper-
 
 nican hypothesis. In other words, Scripture assumes the truth of the so-called 
 Tychonic conception of the physical universe. 
 
 The scheme of Tycho Brahe rejects the postulates of the daily rotation 
 of the earth upon its axis and of its annual revolution about the sun, making 
 the earth the stationary centre of the physical universe. He accepted as real 
 the apparent daily revolutions of sun, moon and star-sphere about the earth, 
 the sun also having an annual movement in the heavens between the celestial 
 tropics, causing the changing seasons. The planetary movements were 
 accounted for as in the Copernican system the planets moving in orbits 
 about the sun, the orbits of Venus and Mercury passing between the sun 
 and earth, the orbits of the other planets passing outside the space between 
 the sun and the earth, the radii of the orbits of these outer planets much 
 exceeding the distance between the sun and the earth. 
 
 "All the observed movements, and all the peculiarities of the observed 
 relations, were fully explained by this system," wrote the late Prof. R. A. 
 Proctor, who was perhaps the most dogmatic champion of Newtonian-Coper- 
 nican orthodoxy among astronomers of standing, as well as the most virulent 
 in applying it to discredit the Bible.* In the same connection he further 
 wrote : "It is not too much to say that Tycho's system is ... fully equal to 
 the Copernican in its fitness to explain the observed relations."! And he 
 added that, until the probabilities in favor of the Copernican theory were 
 strengthened by Newton's hypothesis of universal attraction, "the arguments 
 for the Tychonic system, modified so as to correspond to Kepler's discovery 
 of the shapes of the different orbits, were almost equal in weight to those 
 used by the' disciples of Copernicus. The slight advantage of the Coper- 
 nican system in point of simplicity was counterbalanced by the difficulty of 
 accepting, in those days, the belief that the stars lie at so inconceivably vast 
 a distance that the motion of the earth in an enormous orbit around the sun 
 (for the sun was known even then to lie many millions of miles from us) 
 produces no perceptible change in the appearance and rotation of the star- 
 sphere. That the whole span of the earth's orbit [now computed as 186,- 
 000,000 miles] was as a mere point compared with the distance of the stars, 
 so that the earth on one side of the sun was, in effect, at the centre of the 
 star-sphere, while it was equally at the centre when on the opposite side, or 
 many millions of miles from the former position, was not unreasonably 
 regarded by Tycho Brahe as scarcely credible."! 
 
 In almost every reliable treatise on astronomy can be found a similar 
 acknowledgment of the adequacy of the Tychonic system, and hence of that 
 of the Bible. How fully "equal in weight" to the arguments for the Coper- 
 nican theory were those for the Tychonic theory is well demonstrated by the 
 fact that in the presence of the arguments on both sides the Copernican 
 
 * Article, " Astronomy." Encyclopaedia Britannica, gth ed., vol. ii., pp. 777-8. 
 t Ibid. % Ibid.
 
 24 
 
 theory had few supporters among the best intellects, down to the time 
 when the astronomical priestcraft dogmatically prohibited dissent, for all who 
 were unwilling to imperil their reputation for sanity, by the Newtonian 
 assumption of an infallible mathematical demonstration which neither ordi- 
 nary laymen nor even the majority of scholars were capable of testing for 
 themselves. 
 
 But, however this may be, we here have the virtual confession even of so 
 rabid a disciple of Copernicus as Professor Proctor, that it is Newton's postulate 
 of universal attraction which alone has given the Copernican theory a greatly 
 preponderating claim upon our credence. Hence, if it should finally transpire 
 that the Copernican theory must stand without the help of Newton's theory, if 
 at all, even so rabid a disciple of Copernicus as Professor Proctor would have 
 justified us in turning back to consider seriously the Tychonic theory, as one 
 in favor of which, on the confession even of its opponents, nearly as much 
 can be said as may be said for the Copernican theory ! And if a disciple of 
 Copernicus must admit so much in favor of the rival view at the outset, 
 what might not a disciple of Tycho, and still more a student of scripture, 
 discover in favor of the Biblical view ? But will it be said that there is little 
 likelihood that the Copernican theory will be forced to establish its claims on 
 some other basis than the postulate of universal gravitation ? In reply, 
 I present the following points : 
 
 I. Some of the best mathematical astronomers are beginning to deny 
 that Newton's law of gravitation is a real mathematical expression of the 
 attractive forces of nature. For example, G. W. Myers, of the University 
 of Illinois, contributes to Popular Astronomy (January, 1898) an English 
 translation of the interesting paper "On Newton's Law of Gravitation" by 
 Prof. H. Seeliger, of Munich, Germany, in which this fatal defect in 
 Newton's law is conceded. This paper was originally published in the 
 " Proceedings of the Bavarian Academy," November, 1897. The kernel of 
 Dr. Seeliger's criticism is found in the following extract from Mr. Myers' 
 translation : 
 
 "About two years ago [in ' Ueber das Newton'sche Gravitation-Gesetz '] 
 I drew attention to certain difficulties arising out of the attempt to extend 
 Newton's law of gravitation to infinite space. The considerations then 
 adduced showed the necessity of choosing between two hypotheses, viz. : 
 I. The sum total of the masses of the universe is infinitely great, in which 
 case Newton's law cannot be regarded as a mathematically exact expression 
 for the attractive forces in operation, z. The Newtonian law is rigorously 
 exact, in which case the infinite spaces of the universe cannot be filled with 
 matter of finite density. Inasmuch as I am wholly unable to find adequate 
 reasons for the second of these assumptions, I have, in another place, decided 
 in favor of the first. Since reaching this conclusion, it has come to my 
 knowledge that Carl Neumann [ ' Allgemeine Untersuchungen ueber das 
 Newton'sche Prinzip," &c., Leipzig, 1896, p. i] had called attention still
 
 25 
 
 earlier to difficulties of a similar kind which may be regarded, in a sense, 
 as special cases of the arguments I brought forward. The concurrence of 
 so prominent a scientist, as also the circumstance that the considerations 
 adduced by myself are expressible in another form without essential modi- 
 fication of their contents, may perhaps make a return to this subject seem 
 superfluous. But it appears to me the entire question is so fraught with 
 significance for the whole of theoretical astronomy as to merit thorough- 
 going and perspicuous treatment. 
 
 " The problen under treatment has some points of resemblance to another 
 well-known question. Cheseaux, and after him Olbers, propounded the 
 question as to why the average brightness of the celestial vault is so very 
 small, whereas it should be comparable with solar brightness, if the number 
 of luminous bodies in the universe be assumed infinitely large. It seems all 
 the more desirable to treat this problem more fundamentally than was for- 
 merly done, since, by so doing, it appears that Olbers' conclusions [in support 
 of current theory] are far from being entirely free from objection. Olbers 
 explains the seeming paradox, as is well known, by the extinction of light 
 in interstellar spaces. The permissibility of this assumption cannot of course 
 be contested [?] ; its necessity, however, does not by any means follow from 
 an unbiased study of the question." 
 
 II. Professor Seeliger, according to Mr. Myers' translation, gives Pro- 
 fessor Neumann's reduction of Newton's law to an absurdity in the premises 
 at issue, concluding with the remark : 
 
 "This is the example which Carl Neumann adduces. He correctly 
 designates the demonstrated consequence of Newton's law as absurd, and 
 concludes from it that the law of attraction leads to contradictions in the case 
 of an homogenous distribution of matter." 
 
 Thus, according to these authorities, Newton's law of gravitation is 
 irreconcilable with the theory of the existence of a substantial ether in space 
 and between the molecules of bodies an all-pervading ether consisting of 
 the ultimate atoms of matter. But a hopeless clash here necessitates the 
 abandonment of the doctrine of universal attraction, under the peril of 
 utterly wrecking the basis of theory underlying every ramification of the 
 existing structure of physical science. For example, how is the scientist to 
 conceive of radiant energy manifesting itself in space as heat, light, chem- 
 ical force and electrical force, if there be not an all-pervading substantial 
 medium to be operated upon? How are we to explain the now all-important 
 doctrine of the conservation of energy, if there be not everywhere the medium 
 to receive and transmit kinetic energy ? 
 
 III. The dynamical theory of matter (though I do not commit myself to 
 it, being an agnostic on most of these questions, where not an open sceptic) 
 certainly seems far more rational, as the basic explanation of physical 
 phenomena, than the theory of universal attraction, as lending itself equally 
 to the explanation of all the manifestations of radiant energy where these
 
 26 
 
 phenomena exist, and to the phenomenon of attraction where this exists ; 
 while to an unprejudiced mind the dynamical theory of matter, as formulated 
 by Lord Kelvin, seems utterly irreconcilable with the theory of universal 
 attraction. For can we conceive of the ultimate atoms as a vortex-move- 
 ment everywhere in space, with the freedom for this, and at the same time 
 conceive of this as the result of a universal law of mutual attraction ? 
 Or, if universal gravitation be not applied to the ultimate atoms, it were 
 more rational to throw this awkward hypothesis aside as useless lumber, 
 and substitute for it the theory of radiant energy, joining together the phe- 
 nomena of attraction and repulsion, with heat, light, chemical force and 
 electrical force, as all alike resultants of radiant energy. 
 
 IV. Spite of the herculean efforts in the domain of mathematical, or 
 theoretical astronomy, Professor Asaph Hall, the well-known American 
 astronomer, who enjoys the distinction of having discovered the two satel- 
 lites of Mars, also concedes the inability of astronomers at the present time 
 to account for all the observed phenomena on the basis of Newtonian hypo- 
 thesis. He further concedes that many of the problems which in the first 
 half of the present century were thought to have been mathematically solved 
 on the basis of Newton's postulate, are now proved not to have been so 
 which is a concession that the claim of the attainment of mathematical 
 infallibility, imposed upon the public by astronomers during the first half 
 of the century, was really an audacious assumption, raised upon foundations 
 many of which have already crumbled ! He says : 
 
 "Laplace devoted his life to the study of celestial mechanics. In his 
 great work on this subject he undertook the solution of all the problems con- 
 nected with the theory of the planets. Their motions are divided naturally 
 into two parts. Some of the changes are periodical, and the planets return 
 after a few years to their former positions. But others run through long 
 periods of time ; and these changes produce great alterations in the orbits. 
 Such are the great variations in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, and 
 obliquity of the ecliptic, which are thought by some to have been the cause 
 of the glacial epoch on the surface of the earth. These changes are very 
 important. They were carefully examined by Lagrange and Laplace, who 
 proved, as they thought, that our solar system is stable, and that the great 
 secular changes will come and go through very long intervals of time, 
 amounting to tens and even hundreds of thousands of years, but that the 
 orbits will again come back to their former shapes and positions. Seventy 
 years ago, when Laplace died in 1827, it was thought by many astronomers 
 that nothing remained to be done in celestial mechanics but to correct the 
 coefficients in the formulas of the ' Mechanique Celeste.' But the passing 
 years have changed all that, and parts of theory have to be worked over 
 anew. . . . 
 
 " Laplace undertook to show how the arrangement of the Creator might 
 be improved. He says : ' If at the origin the Moon had been placed in
 
 27 
 
 opposition to the Sun, and at nearly four times its present distance, and 
 the Earth and Moon had been started with parallel motions proportional to 
 their distances from the Sun, the Moon would always have remained a full 
 Moon, and thus would have replaced the light of the Sun.' Unfortunately 
 for Laplace the condition he has imagined is unstable, and at the slightest 
 disturbance we should have lost our Moon. We are tempted to apply to 
 Laplace one of his own mottoes : ' Opinionem commenta delet dies, natura: 
 jitdicia confirmat ' ' Time destroys the fictions of opinion, and confirms the 
 decisions of nature.' 
 
 "Time, in fact, which tests all things so severely, has shown that some 
 of the results of theoretical astronomy are erroneous, and that others must 
 be extended and completed. Thus the stability of our solar system was not 
 proved, as was supposed, and although it would be wrong to call it unstable, 
 yet the mathematical proofs given by Lagrange, Laplace and Poisson are 
 not complete. Also the very important part of the changes of our solar 
 system which are called secular, because they run through long periods of 
 time, need to be examined again. With our present formulas we can not 
 go backward or forward from our epoch with certainty for more than a few 
 centuries, and the improvement of these methods is an important and difficult 
 question. The Swedish astronomer, Hugo Glyden, who died a few months 
 ago, was engaged on this problem. 
 
 " But there is another source of difficulty in the planetary motions which 
 the lapse of time is developing. While the Newtonian law of universal 
 attraction represents the observations so well that it must be a real law of 
 nature, yet there are indications of small forces which cause deviations from 
 the principal force. Evidence of such a force is seen in the formation of the 
 tails of comets when they approach the sun, since the particles appear to be 
 thrown off by a repulsive force, and we have here a new condition. There 
 is also the question of a resisting medium in the planetary spaces. For many 
 years it was thought that the existence of such a medium was shown by the 
 motion of Encke's comet, but recent investigations have pretty much over- 
 thrown this idea, since the change in the orbit of the comet does not corre- 
 spond to an acceleration of the motion, such as would result from a resisting 
 medium. We are thrown back, therefore, on an unknown cause to account 
 for these changes. The motion of our moon has been the subject of some 
 of the most laborious researches ever urfdertaken in astronomy. The moon's 
 motion is so rapid that any inaccuracy in its theory will soon appear. A good 
 knowledge of this motion is closely connected with the art of navigation, and 
 the English government has expended large sums of money to perfect the 
 lunar tables. But the last tables, computed, by Hansen forty years ago, are 
 now so much in error that it is necessary to correct them by an empirical 
 method, since no defect has been found in theory. Delaunay devoted fifteen 
 years of steady work to the motion of the moon, and produced the best theory 
 we have ; but the puzzling thing is that he agrees remarkably well with Han-
 
 28 
 
 sen, who pursued a very different method, and is certainly wrong. There 
 is another theoretical mystery. Another disturbance of this kind was found 
 by Leverrier forty years ago in the motion of the planet Mercury, and his 
 result has been confirmed by the recent investigations of Professor Newcomb. 
 The major axis of this planet is moving faster than it ought from the action 
 of the known forces. In this case it is is very certain there is no defect in 
 the theory, and we are obliged to search for a force that can produce this 
 motion." * 
 
 V. The explanation of such remarkable language is involved in my next 
 count. Why is it that, in the presence of the discrepancies which he points 
 out, the best reason Professor Hall can give for still accepting the Newtonian 
 law is the surprisingly weak one that "the Newtonian law of universal 
 attraction represents the observations so well that it must be a real law of 
 nature ? " Because he is too well aware that this Newtonian representation 
 of the observations has been approximated on a basis which could not be 
 considered a mathematical demonstration of the operation of gravitation, 
 even were it a perfect success, and no discrepancies in sight ! In other 
 words, had Laplace been so permanently successful as he supposed and 
 hoped, the question would remain whether Newton's law had been adjusted 
 to the real facts of nature, or whether supposed conditions in nature had 
 not been in many cases "assumed" to fit the requirements of theory ; and, 
 if this last were not the case, the question would remain whether Newton's 
 law is the mathematical expression of gravitation or of some other force in 
 nature which actually performs the work in the solar system credited to 
 gravitation. 
 
 What was the situation when Newton undertook his solution of celestial 
 mechanics ? Tycho Brahe had amassed a record of observations which pre- 
 sented nearly all the main phenomena to lie accounted for, from which 
 Kepler had surmised the fact that the planetary orbits are elliptical, and had 
 deduced his three laws of planetary movement. Galileo had formulated his 
 two laws of motion, having investigated the phenomena of falling bodies at 
 the earth's surface. It now occurred to Newton that the attraction of the 
 earth might be a local manifestation of a universal phenomenon, which would 
 thus be the controlling principle of the solar system ; and he undertook to 
 demonstrate the possibility that the laws of falling bodies at the earth's sur- 
 face might explain the celestial phenomena. To this end he formulated his 
 very convenient law of motion that action and reaction are equal and in 
 opposite directions which to an ingenious mind would afford ways of escape 
 in the presence of almost any conceivable phenomena. The problem before 
 him was this : Could he, by assuming for the respective heavenly bodies any 
 distances, sizes, densities, masses and velocities convenient for his purpose, 
 that were not demonstrably inappropriate to the observed phenomena, show 
 
 * "A Sketch of Theoretical Astronomy." Popular Astronomy, May, 1897 (Vol. V., 
 No. I., pp. 9-16).
 
 29 
 
 that the application of the laws of falling bodies at the earth's surface would 
 approximately explain the planetary movements and similar celestial phe- 
 nomena? I do not mean to undervalue the difficulties of this problem. 
 Even with the privilege of adjusting so many elements of the problem to 
 suit the theory, the complicated elements of observed phenomena which 
 could not be so adjusted were so formidable that it remained a stupendous 
 undertaking in higher mathematics, so that the " Mechanique Celeste," in 
 which La Place systematized the results of the mathematical labors of him- 
 self and his predecessors, is perhaps the most remarkable monument which 
 the human reason has ever erected as an evidence of its powers. Still, the 
 fact remains that had time disclosed no discrepancies and inadequacies in 
 this solution, when compared with the present records of observations, it yet 
 would constitute only a possible solution, and not a mathematical demonstra- 
 tion, until such time as the assumptions of distances, sizes, densities, masses 
 and velocities in the solution could by some independent means be demon- 
 strated as really those of nature. And were this done, there would still be 
 a possibility that the mathematical formula was really that of some unknown 
 force, instead of gravitation. 
 
 But have astronomers made this plain to the general public? An exam- 
 ination of treatises rather exhibits a studious avoidance of frankness here, 
 while the intent to deceive the ignorant certainly appears to characterize 
 some works, which yet do not technically commit themselves. It is this fact 
 which justifies one in speaking of an astronomical priestcraft, which has 
 acquired a reputation for scientific infallibility and an authority over the 
 human mind which have no justification in actual achievements. As a matter 
 of fact, excepting mathematical astronomers themselves, even the most learned 
 among men for the most part necessarily rest their belief in the current astro- 
 nomical theory, together with whatever system of philosophy of life they build 
 up from this foundation, upon a confidence in the infallibility of professional 
 astronomers as blind and helpless as that of the most infatuated religious 
 devotee in the priestcraft which gives him a false religion. Indeed, one reason 
 why scientists now speak so plainly and unguardedly to one another of the 
 shortcomings of theory, through the medium of books and periodicals access- 
 ible to the general public, seems to be their sense of perfect security the 
 feeling that the battle has been won, with the popular submission to " science " 
 so far advanced that there is no fear of a revolt, even when the Quaker guns 
 which have won the victory are plainly unmasked ! Is such a remark unjust? 
 To justify it I need but marshal another extract from the very article of 
 Professor Asaph Hall just cited ; for his introductory remarks include the 
 following : 
 
 ' ' Theoretical astronomy has gained so secure a foundation, and its results 
 are so generally accepted, that the trials and tribulations of astronomers are 
 matters of the past. They can now look on in quietness, and with compla- 
 cency, while theologians charge each other with heresies. . . . This change
 
 30 
 
 has been firmly established by the discovery of the law which -governs the 
 motions of the heavenly bodies." * 
 
 Are these introductory remarks Professor Hall's justification to his fellow 
 astronomers, in view of his temerity in discussing the deficiencies of astro- 
 nomical orthodoxy in a tongue within the comprehension of laymen ? Yet 
 even if he does not fear, one would suppose he would at least blush for his 
 profession, in thus exposing to the public the weakness of astronomical pre- 
 tensions on the very point in virtue of which astronomers have lifted them- 
 selves into Moses' seat of authority and infallibility ! A similar temerity, 
 displayed in frank expression of weakness in the presence of the subdued 
 enemy, characterizes Professor Karl Pearson's well-known "Grammar of 
 Science." The passage is worth quoting here, and especially so as any 
 reader of the book can testify with what an animus its author recommends 
 for study, as examples of sophistry, famous books which argue the reason- 
 ableness of supernatural religion : 
 
 " No one who knows the author's views, or who reads, indeed, this book, 
 will believe that he holds the labor of the great scientists or the mission of 
 modern science to be of small account. If the reader finds the opinions of 
 physicists-of world-wide reputation, and the current definitions of physical 
 concepts called into question, he must not attribute this to a purely sceptical 
 spirit in the author. He accepts almost without reserve the great results of 
 modern physics ; it is the language in which these results are stated that he 
 believes needs reconsideration. This reconsideration is the more urgent 
 because the language of physics is widely used in all branches of biological 
 (including sociological) science. The obscurity which envelops the principia 
 of science is not only due to an historical evolution marked by the authority 
 of great names, but to the fact that science, as long as it had to carry on a 
 difficult warfare with metaphysics and dogma, like a skillful general con- 
 ceived it best to hide its own deficient organization. There can be small 
 doubt, however, that this deficient organization will not only in time be per- 
 ceived by the enemy, but that it has already had a very discouraging influence 
 both on scientific recruits and on intelligent laymen. Anything more hope- 
 lessly illogical than the statements with regard to force and matter current 
 in elementary text-books of science, it is difficult to imagine." f 
 
 If this amazing confession of scientific Jesuitism had come as a charge 
 from me, I suppose I should have been denounced as a rank traducer ! 
 
 At this point I will suspend the cataloguing of objections to the New- 
 tonian theory, in order to show the plausibility of the Biblical -Tychonic 
 theory, that the reader may realize how rational an alternative is offered him. 
 Already it is apparent, on the testimony of eminent disciples of Copernicus 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 t " Grammar of Science." New York : Charles Scribner's Sons. 1892. Pp. vii., viii.
 
 31 
 
 and Newton, that (l) the Tychonic theory is in itself as competent, and very 
 nearly as credible as the Copernican theory, in itself, or when considered apart 
 from the support of the Newtonian hypothesis ; while (2) there are the 
 gravest reasons for doubting whether the Newtonian postulate of universal 
 attraction can very much longer support itself not to speak of rendering 
 aid to the older hypothesis. Hence, on these grounds alone, without going 
 any further, it is evident that one might very rationally consider the authority 
 of the Bible preponderating evidence in so close a decision, and so reject 
 Newtonian-Copernican theory in favor of the Biblical-Tychonic system ; 
 while the branding of such a decision as preposterous or unscientific would 
 only be possible to the ignorant masses, blinded by popular error as to the 
 real facts of the case, and betrayed by an absurd confidence in the infalli- 
 bility of astronomical orthodoxy ! 
 
 But I shall also show that there are most positive and rational reasons 
 for embracing the Biblical-Tychonic theory. I will show that if the new 
 facts of science have been undermining and discrediting confidence in New- 
 tonian theory, as a competent explanation of the hypothetical Copernican 
 mechanism of the universe, at the very same time the new discoveries of 
 science have been placing in our hands the most perfect and competent 
 explanation of the Biblical-Tychonic mechanism of the universe, and one 
 too which embraces in its explanation, as one connected system, the entire 
 wide range of physical phenomena which has amazed modern scientists ! 
 Is this incredible ? Let us proceed to the demonstration ! 
 
 I mean by the Biblical-Tychonic system, the astronomical scheme 
 suggested by Scripture. The Bible, and not Tycho Brahe, is the authority 
 I believe in and have ventured to follow, while Tycho's merit for me lies in 
 the fact that his most rational and competent system is the one whose essen- 
 tial elements the Bible sustains. The Biblical scheme may be briefly outlined 
 as follows : 
 
 1. The physical heavens and earth stand in a relation which adumbrates 
 the moral relation subsisting between the scene of God's presence and the 
 scene of man's activities. This moral relation is summarized in the state- 
 ment : " The heavens are My throne, and the earth is My footstool" (Isa., 
 Ixvi. i) ; the first being characterized as the source of Creator-dominion and 
 government, as well as the source of blessings, goodness and mercy for the 
 creature ; while the earth is characteristically the theatre of God's display 
 of His attributes before all creation, and the scene of the execution of His 
 counsels in view of eternity the passive and unworthy recipient of heaven's 
 bounty. 
 
 2. The physical relation answering to this moral relation is announced 
 in the opening verse of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the 
 heavens and the earth." 
 
 3. Scripture indicates a considerable period between this original crea- 
 tion of the heavens and the earth, and the adjustment of the physical universe
 
 32 
 
 immediately prior to the creation of the first human inhabitant of earth. For, 
 in Gen. i. i, an original creation of the heavens and the earth is announced ; 
 in Isa. xlv. 18, Heb., we are told of "God Himself who formed the earth 
 and made it, He who established it," that "not as waste did He create 
 it;" while in Gen. i. 2, we find that the earth had become "waste and 
 empty," with "darkness on the face of the deep." Thus between this 
 original creation and this chaos occurred the geological ages, with we know 
 not what celestial phenomena ; while this long period (for such it was, unless 
 geological science utterly deceives us) was terminated by some cataclysm 
 which certainly embraced our present solar system. 
 
 4. Out of this chaos, by His fiat, God reconstructed in six days the solar 
 system substantially as known to us ; peopled earth, air and water with 
 terrestrial animal and vegetable life ; and created the first human pair. 
 On the first day He invoked light where there had been darkness ; on the 
 second day He separated atmospheric heavens from the floods ; on the third 
 day he caused portions of the submerged earth's surface to emerge from the 
 floods, and gathered the waters in sea-beds ; and on the fourth day He estab- 
 lished " light-bearers" in the expanse of the heavens sun, moon and stars. 
 
 5. Thus the earth is the centre of the physical universe the special 
 object of the offices of the various telestial bodies. 
 
 6. The earth is stationary, all thought of rotation on an axis or of annual 
 revolution being dismissed by the language of Scripture, if taken literally. 
 In fact, the earth is in Scripture everywhere the type and symbol of fixed- 
 ness and stability. (The following passages will be found to be character- 
 istic : I. Sam. ii. 8 ; Job ix. 6 ; xxvi. 7 ; xxxviii. 46 ; Ps. xlvi. 2 ; Ixxviii. 
 69 ; cii. 25 ; civ. 5 ; cxix. 89, 90 ; Prov. viii. 29 ; Isa. xiii. 13 ; xxiv. 18-20 ; 
 li. 13 ; Mic. vi. 2 ; Zach. xii. i ; Matt. xxiv. 35 ; Heb. i. 10-12.) 
 
 7. In point of size the heavenly bodies are divided into two classes ; 
 " The two great lights," or sun and moon, and " the stars" (Gen. i. 16). 
 
 8. The sun is much larger than the moon, since of "the two great 
 lights," the sun is distinguished as " the great light," and the moon as "the 
 small light" (Gen. i. 16). This conception of relative sizes is also indicated 
 by the Apostle Paul in I. Cor. xv. 41. 
 
 9. The ' ' rising," ' ' setting " and ' ' going down " of the sun are constantly 
 mentioned in Scripture, in the Old Testament and the New, thus implying 
 the reality of the phenomenal appearance of the daily revolution of the sun 
 about the earth. A good concordance will show how common are such 
 phrases. Somewhat more definite reference to the daily movement of the 
 sun is found in Josh, x., 12, 13 ; Hab. iii. n ; Ps. xix. 4-6 ; Ecc. i. 5 ;* 
 
 *In Eccl. i. 5-7 we have the following: 
 
 "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it 
 ariseth. 
 
 "The wind goeth towards the south, and turneth about towards the north ; it turneth 
 about continually, and the wind returneth again to its circuits. 
 
 " All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full ; unto the place whence the
 
 33 
 
 Isa. xxxviii. 8. Thus, in the records of the two notable miracles (Josh. x. 
 12, 13 cp. Hab. iii. II, and Isa. xxxviii. 8), we have records of the actual 
 physical phenomena, sun and moon being restrained in their daily courses 
 about the earth in the one case, while in the other the sun was made to 
 recede on its course. Josh. x. 12, 13 affords evidence of the daily revolution 
 of the moon, as well as of that of the sun. The daily revolution of the star- 
 sphere about the earth is necessarily assumed in this system. 
 
 10. The special office of the sun, moon and stars is to minister to the 
 earth. These celestial bodies were ordained "to divide between the day 
 and the night," " for signs, and for seasons, and for days and for years," 
 and to "be for light-bearers in the expanse of the heavens to give light on 
 the earth" (Gen. i, 14, 15). Again we have the very definite statement: 
 " God set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth, and 
 to rule during the day and during the night, and to divide between the light 
 and the darkness" (Gen. i. 17, 18 ; compare Ps. civ. 19, Jer. xxxi. 35, and 
 many other passages). 
 
 11. The celestial bodies are physical types of the ministry of divine 
 goodness from the moral heavens to man and his world. 
 
 a. The sun is a type of God in relation to the universe (" God is light " 
 I. John i. 5 ; cp. Eph. v. 8 ; "dwelling in unapproachable light" I. Tim. 
 vi. 16; cp. Ps. civ. I, 2). It is especially a type of God the Son, Revealer 
 of the glory of the Godhead the Divine Person who has the office of visita- 
 tion and ministration to the earth in a special and literal sense ("The Sun 
 of righteousness shall arise, with healing in His wings" Mai. iv. 2 ; cp. Ps. 
 xix. 4-6; John i. 7-9; viii. 12; ix. 5; I. John ii. 8; Rev. xxi. 23). 
 
 b. I believe the moon is a type both of the nation of Israel and of the 
 Church of Christ, when either is viewed as a collective unit ; but this is not 
 so readily demonstrated by a mere reference to proof-texts. . It is in their 
 character as ordained mediums of God's communication of the light of reve- 
 lation to the earth, that Israel and the Church may each claim the moon as 
 their symbol. 
 
 c. The stars are sometimes types of angelic ministry (lleb. i. 7, 14 ; Rev. 
 i. 1 6, 20), including fallen angels, under whom the administration of the 
 affa'irs of this world has been left for a time (Dan. viii. 10; Rev. vi. 13; 
 viii. 10 12 ; xii. 4 ; II. Cor. xi. 14). The stars are also types of individual 
 saints, new-born from above, who are vessels of the communication of the 
 light of truth to the men of earth (Dan. xii. 3; Matt. v. 14-16; Phil. ii. 
 
 rivers come, thither they return again " fsee LXX.) 
 
 In verse 6 here we have exact science : the law of the trade-winds and counter-trade- 
 winds between north pole and equator, as accurately stated as they could have been by 
 the late Prof. M. F. Maury. In verse 7 we have exact science : a summary of the perpetual 
 
 in turn are fed by the sea, through the process of evaporation, cloud formation and showers. 
 May we interpret verse 5 as intended to convey something less reliable than the exact 
 science found in the accompanying verses ?
 
 34 
 
 15, i6). A star is also several times used metaphorically of Christ (Num. 
 xxiv. 17; Rev. ii. 28; xxii. 16 ; cp. Matt. ii. 2, 7, 9, 10). 
 
 This hurried review may convey a fair idea of the astronomical scheme 
 of the Bible. The careful tuition which has nursed us in Newtonian-Coper- 
 nican notions naturally inspires ridicule for this rival theory. But let us 
 remember that surrender to any tendency in this direction is but the symptom 
 that our minds are too narrow to appreciate the actual facts of the case the 
 testimony of the best experts that this Biblical scheme, which seems so crude 
 to our present prejudices, shares equally with the dominant theory the ability 
 to explain all the observed phenomena ! Moreover, the mechanism of the 
 Biblical-Tychonic system can now be explained on a most rational and plaus- 
 ible principle. 
 
 If a bar of soft iron be placed in the centre of a coil of wire and an 
 electric current be sent around the wire, the iron will be transformed into a 
 magnet, retaining its magnetism while the current passes. If steel is used 
 instead of iron, the passing of the current about it transforms the steel into 
 a permanent magnet. It is by means of electricity, thus applied, that the 
 most powerful magnets are obtained. Let the earth be the stationary iron 
 or steel bar in the centre, with the sun, by its daily and annual movements 
 creating about it a constant and powerful electric current, and we have a 
 principle which is remarkable for its simplicity, and yet seems capable of 
 explaining, not merely the Biblical-Tychonic mechanism, but all the observed 
 phenomena of the physical universe ! 
 
 I. This principle would explain the phenomenon of terrestrial gravita- 
 tion. It is a fact well known that the earth is literally a great magnet, with 
 magnetic poles. The north magnetic pole is situated about 1,000 miles from 
 the geographical or axial north pole, so-called the existence of the latter 
 being assumed by the postulate of the daily rotation of the earth upon its 
 axis. The tendency of a magnet to arrange itself in the line of the mag- 
 netic meridian, or nearly north and south, is the principle on which the 
 mariner's compass, with its magnetic needle, is constructed. On the assump- 
 tion which we have made, terrestrial gravitation is simply a phenomenon 
 of magnetism the attractive force of that great magnet, the earth. 
 
 The law of terrestrial gravitation (determined from the investigation of 
 falling bodies, joined with the assumption that we may regard the attractive 
 force of the earth as if concentrated at its centre) seems to be, that the 
 attraction of all bodies toward the earth varies as the product of their masses, 
 and inversely as the square of the distance from the centre of the earth. 
 Experiments with magnets are said to have disclosed the law that the mag- 
 netic force of attraction likewise varies inversely as the square of the distance. 
 So far the facts strikingly favor the solution here proposed. But it is said 
 that gravitation differs from magnetic attraction in virtue of the fact that 
 gravitation is directly as the masses, without reference to the nature of these 
 masses, whereas magnetic attraction takes into consideration the nature of
 
 35 
 
 the masses. To account for this, however, we need only resort to the 
 hypothesis of a primary and secondary effect (a favorite solution in modern 
 physics), under the primary effect grouping all the phenomena of so-called 
 gravitation, based on the fact that the earth is maintained as a stable magnet 
 by the sun's electrical ministry, while under the secondary effect we may 
 group the phenomena of ordinary magnetism and electricity, which vary 
 with varying conditions. 
 
 Thus we also account for the fact that all substances are not magnetic, 
 or attracted by a magnet, but that some are diamagnetic, being; repelled by 
 the magnet. The principle to be noted is that all bodies on the earth's 
 surface are either magnetic or diamagnetic : nothing is indifferent to the 
 magnet : whatever is not positively attracted by the magnet is positively 
 repelled by it. Probably there is some relation between this phenomenon 
 and the analogous one of the existence almost everywhere of either a positive 
 or negative electrical state, while a body positively electrified repels another 
 similarly charged, but attracts a body charged with negative electricity ; and 
 a body negatively electrified repels another similarly charged, but attracts a 
 body charged with positive electricity. On the basis of this solution we 
 would thus say, that the primary action of the earth as a magnet attracts all 
 bodies within raiige of its influence, according to the fixed law controlling 
 the action of falling bodies, while the secondary effects, exhibited in the 
 phenomena of electricity and magnetism on the earth's surface, vary according 
 to varying conditions and different substances, producing the phenomena of 
 positive and negative electricity and of magnetic and diamagnetic conditions. 
 
 II. This solution of the Biblical -Tychonic mechanism of the universe 
 also enables us to group together the phenomena of heat, light, actinic force 
 or chemical energy, electricity, and magnetism, as simply different manifest- 
 ations of the ultimate physical energy, which in view of its source and the 
 power of diffusion, we may designate as solar radiant energy. The close 
 relation between heat, light and chemical energy has been demonstrated. 
 The potentiality of a ray of sunshine embraces them all, and in the refrac- 
 tion of such a ray by its passage through a prism, the majority of heat-rays 
 are arranged below the light rays and the majority of actinic-rays are 
 arranged above the light-rays, so that the heating energy of the refracted 
 sunbeam is greatest below the color band and the chemical energy is greatest 
 above the color-band. Again, the heat-rays have been concentrated, this 
 increase of their refrangibility changing them into light ; while by taking 
 the chemical rays alone and passing them through certain solutions which 
 decrease their refrangibility, they are similarly changed into color rays. 
 Thus has apparently been established, not alone the intimate rejation of heat, 
 light and actinic energy, but their interconvertibility. 
 
 Again, the energy of a current of electricity may be converted into chem- 
 ical energy, into heat, into light and into magnetism. The art of electro- 
 plating embodies the principle of producing chemical energy by means t>f
 
 36 
 
 an electric current. The electric light, now so common, illustrates the con- 
 version of electrical energy into luminous energy, while the conversion of 
 electrical energy into heat is a necessary step in the more difficult process 
 of conversion into light. On the other hand, heat can be converted into an 
 electric current, as exemplified in the thermo-electric battery. We have 
 already noticed that electrical energy can be converted into magnetic energy, 
 a magnet being formed by passing a current of electricity about a piece of 
 steel. Machines constructed on this principle are employed in commercial 
 life. On the other hand, magnetic energy may be likewise converted into 
 electrical energy, this principle being utilized in the dynamo-electric machines 
 which generate the electric current for the production of the electric light 
 of commerce. 
 
 Thus not alone is the Biblical -Tychonic conception most rational in 
 making our sun the physical source of all energy in the physical universe 
 (for it is only a Copernican imagination which can feel sure, in the absence 
 of any real evidence, of the existence of energy beyond the range of the 
 sun's power), but we are thus able to explain in a scientific manner the 
 undoubted affinity existing between heat, light, actinic energy, electricity 
 and magnetism. Their interconvertibility demonstrates that these phenom- 
 ena are simply various manifestations of an ultimate energy : and what can 
 this ultimate energy be but solar energy ! 
 
 III. Tliis solution of the Biblical -Tychoak scheme is also in most per- 
 fect harmony with the all - important law of the conservation of energy. 
 The formulation of this law has been styled the greatest scientific achieve- 
 ment of the nineteenth century. The interconvertibility of physical forces, 
 of which we have spoken, has suggested to scientists the postulate of some 
 universal energy, of which these particular forces are but special conditions, 
 modes or manifestations. Taking the so-called physical forces in what seems 
 to be a convenient order of transformation, we have a circular chain which 
 returns into itself as follows : heat produces light, light produces chemical 
 action, chemical action produces electricity, electricity produces magnetism, 
 magnetism produces mechanical motion, mechanical motion produces heat. 
 Scientists have puzzled themselves over the postulate of some universal 
 energy behind this circle. The Biblical-Tychonic hypothesis puts a period 
 to this search by placing behind this circle of forces, as their source, one 
 well-known agency the sun. And all scientists must now concede that, 
 barring the anomaly of universal attraction, this solution is practically correct 
 for our own solar system ; although their troublesome postulate of many 
 solar systems forces them to search for some common unknown energy 
 behind these many imaginary suns. 
 
 Taking as a basis this relation of the physical forces, disclosed by tkeir 
 interconvertibility, the law of the conservation of energy recognizes that 
 the energy of the universe is never diminished, but is a constant quantity 
 which is constantly undergoing transformation from one form to another,
 
 37 
 
 performing in (he process all the various phenomena of the physical world. 
 This theory has the rational feature of necessitating the postulate of an 
 Infinite Creator of the physical universe ; for if the sum-total of energy in 
 the universe is ever the same, either this condition must have existed from 
 eternity, or else at some time the physical universe was launched by some 
 great Power who endowed it with the potential energy which has since been 
 in process of transformation into kinetic energy. But the physical universe 
 could not have existed from eternity, because its energy is not infinite ; for, 
 had such a universe existed from eternity, its finite, fixed quantity of potential 
 energy would long ago have assumed the kinetic form, and this would have 
 diffused as heat, causing all matter to have a uniform temperature and termi- 
 nating all motion and all life which is not the case. Hence, the physical 
 universe had a beginning ; and since it was launched with the full endowment 
 of its present energy as potential energy, it necessarily, had a Creator and 
 Endower, Who necessarily is greater and more powerful than His work- 
 manship. It follows that the potential energy with which the physical 
 universe was endowed, had existed as potential energy in the Person of this 
 Creator from all eternity. 
 
 But the Biblical-Tychonic theory has the merit of permitting us to con- 
 ceive of the law of the conservation of energy without the qualification of 
 the corollary of the dissipation of energy. Let me explain this for the 
 reader who may be unacquainted with the theory. By potential energy is 
 meant energy in a passive or stored-up state, which by some means may be 
 transformed into an active force. This becomes kinetic, actual, or active 
 energy, when it is liberated as an acting power which is accomplishing 
 results. Thus we have the potential energy of gravitation in a weight which 
 is raised and suspended, while this becomes the kinetic energy which carries 
 it to the earth when the weight is released. Potential chemical energy is 
 stored in explosives, and becomes kinetic energy when released in their 
 explosion. When a watch is wound up potential mechanical energy is stored 
 in its main-spring, while the mechanism which gradually releases it converts 
 it into kinetic energy, the watch "running down," as we say, when all the 
 potential energy has been so utilized. 
 
 According to theory, if the mechanism of the universe were like that of 
 a watch, and it had been wound up by the Creator, with the endowment 
 of so much potential energy in the main-spring, then when all this potential 
 energy had at last been' utilized in the kinetic energy which produces the 
 pulsations of nature, these pulsations would cease the watch would be run 
 down. But it is recognized that the universe is not, in fact, so constructed, 
 but has been devised by an Intelligence who makes the given potential 
 energy do much more work ; for in the laboratory of nature much of the 
 kinetic energy, after doing its work, is converted again into potential energy, 
 and is thus ready to do more work. Now if all the kine,tic energy could be 
 converted back into potential energy, after doing its work, we would thus
 
 have an endless circuit ; the mechanism of the universe would he adjusted 
 on the self-sufficient principle of perpetual motion, and the watch would 
 never run down, however its movements might change, like the phases of ' a 
 kaleidoscope. But, according to the current theory, neither is this the fact. 
 All experiments seem to show that in this process of transformation, so as to 
 make a continuous circuit of forces, there is a dissipation of energy into 
 forms from which it cannot be recovered for further utilization in doing 
 work. The experiments seem to show that if heat be converted into 
 mechanical motion, and this mechanical motion be converted back into heat, 
 the utilization of this heat to produce mechanical motion a second time will 
 not accomplish so much work as before, showing a dissipation of heat in the 
 process of transformation. 
 
 According to theory, therefore, the mechanism of the universe is actually 
 on the principle of two watches, so arranged that the running down of the 
 main-spring of one winds up the main-spring of the other, and vice versa. 
 But in the actual experiment with two watches, some of the energy is dissi- 
 pated through the friction of the machinery ; and while the mechanism can 
 be long kept going by this mutual process of transformation of one kind of 
 energy into the other, yet after each transformation the reservoir of potential 
 energy contains less than before, and presently the two watches must run 
 down. Since all man's experimental attempts to establish a perpetual trans- 
 formation of energy have been bafHed by this dissipation of energy, the 
 scientist has concluded that the dissipation of energy is a law of the universe, 
 and that in the course of millions of years the great physical clock-work must 
 run down despite the fact that the sum-total of energy is unchangeable, and 
 that nature is ingeniously contrived so as to utilize it for work over and over 
 again, during a very long period of time. 
 
 But is the dissipation of energy an inevitable deduction ? To show that 
 the Biblical -Tychonic theory avoids the necessity of making this deduction, 
 is to show that it is vastly superior to the Newtonian-Copernican system as a 
 basis of natural philosophy. Scientists have always felt that could the New- 
 tonian and Copernican hypotheses help us to formulate a rational conception 
 of how the physical universe might self-subsist indefinitely, this would go far 
 toward demonstrating their truth. La Place thought he had effected this, 
 for had he really demonstrated the stability of our solar system, it would be 
 ijatural to account for all solar systems, and the entire universe, on the same 
 basis. But time has demonstrated, instead, the failure of La Place, as well 
 as of his predecessors and successors, as Professor Hall concedes ; while 
 through the lack of such a demonstration physicists have been forced to the 
 other extreme of postulating the principle of the dissipation of energy, involv- 
 ing the ultimate relapse of the universe into passivity and immobility. 
 
 But when we accept the Biblical -Tychonic system, and conceive the sun 
 to be the grand reservoir of potential energy, which it is constantly giving 
 forth as kinetic energy to maintain the mechanism of the universe, it becomes
 
 39 
 
 perfectly rational to think of the sun as receiving again all the kinetic energy 
 which is dissipated in the process of doing work, and which is not stored as 
 potential energy in a practical form for use in some* part of the physical 
 mechanism of the universe. Those familiar with the fruits of the study of 
 the sun already reaped by the more rational " New Astronomy," will recog- 
 nize that the theory we have just propounded would seem to fit very well the 
 remarkable phenomena connected with the sun. Moreover, we have the 
 analogy for such a theory before us. 
 
 We have seen that the directing of a current of electricity about a bar of 
 soft iron will transform the latter into a magnet during this process. When 
 the current ceases the soft iron ceases to be a powerful magnet ; and yet it 
 is a fact that after the iron apparently ceases to be a magnet, it is possible 
 to utilize it to generate a current of electricity as strong as that which had 
 previously magnetized the iron. This is seen in the dynamo-electric machine, 
 which is frequently constructed by an arrangement of coiled wire which may 
 be made to revolve about soft iron which has been treated by electricity in 
 the way described. Though the iron has apparently ceased to be a magnet, 
 yet it is capable of generating a slight electrical current in the coils revolved 
 about it ; the current thus generated increases the magnetism of the iron, 
 which is in turn enabled to generate a stronger current in the coils, this 
 process continuing until the strength of the electrical current and of the 
 magnet alike equal the capacity of the machine. By such a process of 
 resurrection is power habitually generated, after the machine has been stopped 
 and electricity and magnetism have apparently disappeared. 
 
 In the huge mechanism of the universe which we have assumed, the 
 earth is the large central magnet, and has the virtue of acting as a perma- 
 nent magnet through the constant electrical ministry of the sun. The two 
 movements of the sun answer to the coil about the magnet. This will be 
 clear if we suppose that the sun in his course is wrapping an imaginary wire 
 about the earth, in the path of his vertical rays upon the earth's surface. 
 From March 21 to June 21 he is daily encircling the earth, while at the 
 same time gradually moving toward the north. Thus the imaginary coil laid 
 upon the earth's surface would be like the winding of a top-string from the 
 Equator to the Tropic of Cancer. From June 21 to September 22 the path 
 of his vertical rays would wind a similar coil from the tropic back to the 
 equator; while from September 22 to March 21 a similar coil would be laid 
 between the equator and the Tropic of Capricorn, with a return coil from the 
 latter to the equator. The coil is of course imaginary, but the movements 
 which it pictures according to the Biblical-Tychonic system are not. 
 On the contrary, there is the sun's annual journey and his exceedingly swift 
 daily motion about the earth, while during all this time his huge incandescent 
 bulk is revolving upon its own axis and radiating its energy in the vertical 
 rays which strike the earth in the line of our imaginary coil, and in the 
 slanting rays which strike the earth elsewhere, at varying angles, illuminating
 
 40 
 
 one-half of its surface continually ! This energy, lavished upon the earth, 
 we may assume to be the source of its primary magnetism, which theorists 
 have styled terrestrial gravitation, as well as the source of the terrestrial 
 phenomena of heat, light, chemical energy, electricity, (secondary) magnetism 
 and mechanical motion. And at the same time the great terrestrial magnet 
 reacts with equal effect upon the sun, on a principle analogous to the action 
 and reaction of electric current and magnet in our dynamo-electric machines. 
 Thus could we account in a rational way for the close connection between 
 special electrical phenomena on the earth, such as magnetic storms and the 
 Aurora borealis, and special activity at the sun, as revealed in the appearance 
 of many so-called spots. 
 
 The other features of the celestial mechanism would all seem to find 
 harmonious explanation on this basis. We would reverse the present theory 
 as to sun and earth, representing the sun as held in his orbit in an equilibrium 
 representing the balance between the attracting force exerted upon him by 
 the magnetism of the earth and the electrical or thermal repulsion exerted 
 by him against the earth. Will it be objected that we cannot.conceive of the 
 earth as exerting such a force upon the immense mass of the sun ? He who 
 reasons thus is simply preoccupied with the idea of gravitation, whereas we 
 are speaking of magnetism. It is not a question of the gravitation of the 
 earth grappling with the sun's mass, but of & magnet drawing an immense 
 but very magnetic body. This force of magnetism would be inversely as the 
 square of the distance, but would be otherwise determined by the power of 
 the magnet and the magnetic nature of the sun, so that however formidable 
 the other factors (the sun's mass, distance and radiant repulsion), these would 
 simply be the elements for measuring the power of the niagnet and the degree 
 in which the sun's mass is magnetic. 
 
 In the same way, the moon would be held in an orbit about the earth by 
 the magnetism of the latter, while being kept in equilibrium by radiant 
 repulsion. This radiant energy of the moon would of course be of a-secondary 
 nature received from the sun and projected against the earth. This might be 
 reinforced, however, by a secondary electrical current caused by the moon's 
 own motion about the earth, on the principle of the induction coil, or of a 
 secondary electrical current induced by a primary current that of the sun 
 in this case. 
 
 Nor is this solution less remarkable for the apparent ease with which it 
 explains the phenomena of the planets and of the sphere of fixed stars. 
 Here we must evidently distinguish between the inferior, or inner planets. 
 Mercury and Venus, and those whose orbits lie entirely outside the orbit 
 of the sun about the earth Eros, Mars, the Asteroids, Jupiter, Saturn, 
 Uranus and Neptune. There was general skepticism among astronomers 
 when Schiaparelli announced about twelve years ago that Mercury and Venus 
 were like our moon, revolving but once upon their respective axes in making
 
 41 
 
 the circuit of their respective orbits, and thus always keeping the same side 
 turned toward the sun, just as does the moon toward the earth, the attracting 
 power acting like a rigid rod soldered to the point on the surface of each 
 revolving globe which remains vertical to the imaginary line described on 
 the surface of the respective attracting body by the vertical rays of each 
 revolving globe as it makes the circuit of its orbit. But Schiaparelli's 
 observation's were confirmed by those of Perrotin, and in 1896 by those of 
 Percival Lowell, and astronomers have apparently concluded that this 
 anomaly must be grappled with. In the present solution, on the Biblical- 
 Tychonic basis, we accordingly assume that Mercury, Venus and the Moon 
 operate on a somewhat different principle than that which controls the great 
 exterior planets, each of which, the astronomers still assure us, rotates upon 
 its axis like the sun'. 
 
 For the electrical explanation of the relation existing between the sun 
 on the one hand, and the exterior planets and the revolving star-sphere on 
 the other, we resort to the analogy of the induction coil. Here the primary 
 current is produced in a coil of wire wrapped around a spool or bobbin which 
 will fit inside a larger bobbin, similarly wrapped and connected with a 
 galvanometer. A secondary electric current is induced in the coil about 
 the large hollow bobbin by placing inside of it the inner coil in which a cur- 
 rent has been produced. This induced current in the outer coil is made still 
 stronger by also making the inner bobbin hollow, and placing within it a core 
 of soft iron, or some other form of magnet. But this is precisely the prin- 
 ciple of the mechanism of the physical universe, according to the electrical 
 solution of the Biblical-Tychonic system ! The earth, a central magnet, 
 answers to the magnetic core ; the sun, outside of this, with the movements 
 we have described, answers to the coil on the inner bobbin which provides 
 the primary current of electricity ; the revolving star-sphere outside the sun, 
 with the exterior planets celestial bodies with whom both motion and 
 luminous phenomena are induced by the primary energy of the sun answer 
 to the outside coil, in which the secondary current is induced. 
 
 As we compare details, the analogy becomes only the more striking. 
 For example, although the secondary current is induced in the way described, 
 it will soon cease if the primary coil be left stationary inside the secondary coil, 
 but is maintained by the process of rapidly lifting the primary coil out of the 
 other and inserting it again. The intensity of the induced secondary cur- 
 rents is in proportion to the rapidity of this movement. In the commercial 
 application of the principle, the same effect is produced by mechanical means 
 which rapidly break the current which passes from the battery to the primary 
 coil ; and with the alternating currents obtained with the introduction of a 
 condenser, the most powerful electrical currents known to commerce or the 
 laboratory are secured. The intensity of the secondary currents which may 
 be obtained greatly exceeds that of the primary current ; and it is not too 
 much to say that on this principle we could conceive of our sun as the motive
 
 42 
 
 power of the entire universe, as well as of the solar system, even though the 
 universe should be postulated on the scale which the Copernican hypothesis 
 requires. In this case we would allow, for the sake of the demonstration, 
 that there are countless stars, as large or larger than the sun, as orthodox 
 astronomers now assert, but that all these receive their light and energy from 
 our sun, instead of being themselves independent suns. 
 
 In the electrical device we have taken as affording the analogy, the cur- 
 rent in the primary coil is furnished by a battery. In the celestial mechanism 
 this battery would be represented by the sum-total of potential energy with 
 which the Creator has endowed the physical universe. Hence in the case we 
 have supposed, the sun would have had as his original supply all the energy 
 now dispersed throughout the universe. And since it is an observed law of 
 the electrical arrangement referred to, that the intensity of the induced cur- 
 rent is proportional to the primary current, it is plain that an endowment 
 of the sun with the sum-total of energy in the physical universe would have 
 enabled him, on the principle we are considering, to have distributed the 
 energy now permeating the universe. 
 
 According to another principle of our mechanism, the intensity of the 
 secondary current is proportional to the rapidity with which the primary 
 current is broken. The nearly semi-annual journeys of the sun between 
 the celestial tropics, while at the same time daily whirling about the earth, 
 would produce a spiral movement within the star-sphere like the shifting of 
 the primary coil up and down within the secondary coil of our electrical 
 model. Yet this semi-annual movement up and down in space would 
 scarcely be considered swift enough of itself, so that we will assume that 
 the daily revolution about the earth is such as constantly to break the 
 current, while the strange rotation of the sun upon its axis might also serve 
 in some way to this end,* 
 
 Again it has been found that the intensity of the secondary currents are 
 proportional to the square of the resistance in the secondary coil ; and on 
 this principle, the greater the magnitude of the star-sphere, the greater 
 would be the intensity of the currents induced in it by the sun. Hence to 
 the electrical solution distance and masses present no difficulty, these factors 
 but increasing the power in proportion to their requirement of it. 
 
 Returning now to the question of the dissipation of energy. On the 
 basis of the electrical theory of the mechanism of the physical universe, we 
 have as little reason for conceding the ultimate termination or diminution of 
 kinetic energy as we have for conceding the doctrine of conservation of energy 
 in the way that Helmholtz taught it, confusing the phenomena of psychical 
 and spiritual life with what is but its type in inanimate nature physical 
 force. So far as the physical universe is concerned, the principle of action 
 
 * The strange fact that the sun's bulk appears to rotate on its axis in sections, some 
 parts making the revolution in less time than others, has so far remained inexplicable to 
 the most ingenious among Newtonian astronomers.
 
 43 
 
 and reaction, observed in the mutual response of electricity and magnetism, 
 leads the rational mind to assume that the sun, the reservoir of potential 
 energy for the entire universe according to the Biblical -Tychonic system, 
 eventually receives again all the energy radiated by him to propel the vast 
 machinery under his charge, thus providing the power for an endless com- 
 munion with the mechanical life which he everywhere creates.* I need 
 scarcely add that in this, in the Biblical-Tychonic system, he is merely the 
 type of his Creator, and of the relation of Creator and creature in the moral 
 and spiritual universe. 
 
 IV. Another striking testimony in favor of the Biblical-Tychonic theory 
 is given by the spectroscope, which indicates incandescent metals as the 
 chief constituents of the fixed stars. This is precisely what our present know- 
 ledge of electricity would lead us to expect, provided the Creator desired to 
 utilize the energy imparted to the sun so as to maintain an innumerable 
 array of electric lights in the firmament. Carbon is perhaps the most 
 economical conductor of high resistance ; and the incandescent electric 
 lights of commerce, which strikingly suggest miniature fixed -stars, are 
 obtained by raising to a white heat a thin strip of carbon arranged between 
 the poles of a voltaic battery which generates a strong current. Carbon 
 poles are used in the production of the arc-light. With the analogy of the 
 incandescent electric light before us, we may dismiss the inconceivable 
 sizes and distances which the Newtonian-Copernican hypothesis compels us 
 to assign to the fixed stars, and can at the same time understand why they 
 disclose no disks when observed through the telescope. On the basis of a 
 grand electrical plant we can also account in a rational way for the phe- 
 nomena extraordinary indeed on the present hypothesis of the extinction 
 of the light of fixed stars, to be reappear again in a short period a thing 
 which on the basis of current theory may very well induce Prof. S. P. Langley 
 to exclaim, "It is surely an amazing fact that suns as large or larger than 
 our sun should seem to dwindle almost to extinction, and regain their light 
 within a few days or even hours ; yet the fact has long been known, while 
 the cause has remained a mystery ! " f 
 
 The somewhat different phenomena of planetary Hlumination are equally 
 explicable on the electrical basis. With a large induction coil, such as we 
 have described, a display of lights which is varied and unique is possible. 
 By passing the induced currents through sealed tubes of different forms, 
 from which the air has been partially pumped, with the substitution of 
 different gases, effects have been produced analogous to nearly if not quite 
 all the planetary phenomena, including the rings of Saturn. When the 
 
 * Writes Prof. C. A. Young (The Sun, 1881, p. 277): "Neither is it wholly safe to 
 assume that there may not be ways, of which we yet have no conception, by which the 
 energy apparently lost in space may be returned, and burned-out suns and run-down 
 systems be restored." 
 
 t "The New Astronomy," 1880, pp. 227-8.
 
 44 
 
 tubes are rotated on axes, producing a movement corresponding to the axial 
 rotation of the superior planets, the effect is still more brilliant. 
 
 V. In favor of the Biblical-Tychonic theory is the undoubted fact that 
 the sun maintains the solar system, and sustains all physical energy on the 
 earth, in precisely the way required by this theory, in order to render him 
 a physical type of the moral relation which God sustains to his creation, 
 as well as a type of the work of redemption and new creation wrought by 
 Christ. Says Professor Langley : 
 
 " Within a comparatively few years a new branch of astronomy has arisen 
 which studies sun, moon and stars for what they are in themselves, and in 
 relation to ourselves. Its study of the sun, beginning with its external 
 features (and full of novelty and interest even as regards those), led to the 
 further inquiry as to what it was made of, and then to finding the unexpected 
 relations which it bore to the earth and our own daily lives on it, the con- 
 clusion being that, in a physical sense, it made and re-creates us, as it were, 
 daily, and that the knowledge of the intimate ties which unite man with it 
 brings results of the most practical and important kind, which a generation 
 ago' were unguessed at." * 
 
 To assign to the sun such an office as this, in relation to the earth and all 
 life upon it, is to vindicate the claim of the. Bible in a most remarkable way. 
 For Scripture especially directs us to the celestial phenomena for a testimony 
 of the Creator's relation to His creature : "The heavens declare the glory 
 of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork : day unto day uttereth 
 speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge" (Ps. xix. I, 2). More- 
 over, Scripture maintains that this testimony through nature leaves men 
 without excuse: " Because what is known of God is manifest among them, 
 for God has manifested it to them for from the world's creation the invis- 
 ible things of Him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through 
 the things that are made, both His eternal power and divinity so as to 
 render them inexcusable" (Rom. i. 19, 20). And it is God's goodness and 
 kindness toward His creature which is disclosed in the sun's service a kind- 
 ness to saint and sinner, the grateful and the ungrateful, since " He maketh 
 His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and 
 on the unjust" (Matt. v. 45). In the following, Prof. Langley shows how 
 the sun typifies the Creator, in His impartation to the various works of His 
 hand, through creation and the processes of life, of varying measures of His 
 own virtue and energy : 
 
 "Did the reader ever consider that, next to the mystery of gravitation, 
 which draws all things on the earth's surface down, comes that mystery not 
 seen to be one because so familiar of the occult force in the sunbeams which 
 lifts things up? The incomprehensible energy of the sunbeam brought the 
 carbon out of the air, put it together in the weed or plant, and lifted each
 
 45 
 
 tree-trunk above the soil. The soil did not lift it, any more than the soil in 
 Broadway lifted the spire of Trinity. Men brought stones there in wagons 
 to build the church, and the sun brought the materials in its own way, and 
 built up alike the slender shaft that sustains the grass blade and the column 
 of the pine. If the tree or the spire fell, it would require a certain amount 
 of work of men or horses or engines to set it up again. So much actual 
 work, at least, the sun did in the original building ; and if we consider the 
 number of trees in the forest, we see that this alone is something great. 
 But besides this, the sun locked up in each tree a store of energy thousands 
 of times greater than that which was spent in merely lifting its trunk from 
 the ground, as we see by unlocking it again, when we burn the tree under 
 the boiler of an engine ; for it will develop a power equal to the lifting of 
 thousands of its kind, if we choose to employ it in this way. This is so true 
 that the tree may fall, and turn to coal in the soil, and still keep this energy 
 imprisoned in it keep it for millions of years, till the black lump under the 
 furnace gives out, in the whirling spindles of the factory or the turning 
 wheel of the steamboat, the energy gathered in the sunshine of the primeval 
 world." * 
 
 And if He of whom the sun is but the type, dividing severally to His 
 creatures as it has seemed good to Him, has made some in His own image, 
 with intelligence, moral capacity and the energy of will-power to do either 
 good or ill, will not such be required to account to Him for their misuse of 
 this endowment? If in creating man a spirit, virtue and energy in a special 
 sense have gone forth from God, the Eternal Spirit, must not this spirit in 
 man return to Him who generated it? Surely, when dissolution shall have 
 come upon such a creature, "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it 
 was ; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it " (Ecc. xii. 7). 
 Helmholtz formulated the law of the conservation of energy in the interest 
 of the grossest materialism, as he supposed ; but since it is a true law of 
 nature, its testimony is very plainly against materialism. It helps not an 
 iota toward the unnatural and unscientific attempt to identify the life of soul 
 and spirit with physical energy ; while on the other hand it affords the most 
 striking intimation of the eternal indestructibility of soul and spirit, and of 
 the eternal accountability to God of the spiritual energy which He has 
 begotten in moral creatures ! Again, Professor Langley shows that the sun 
 affords a type of God's disposition and ability to take up anew, in new crea- 
 tion, the fallen creature which submits to His hand : 
 
 "The sunbeam does what our wisest chemistry cannot do: it takes the 
 burned out ashes and makes them anew into green wood ; it takes the close 
 and breathed-out air, and makes it fit to breathe by means of the plant, 
 whose food is the same as our poison." 
 
 In the sun that takes up the burned-out ashes to make again the green 
 
 * Ibid., pp. 72-3.
 
 46 
 
 wood, we may surely see a type of the God of resurrection of our Bible ! 
 We may also notice how plant-life, through communion with the sun, is able 
 to attain to a beautiful and fruitful development in a poisonous atmosphere. 
 Aided by the chemical energy of the sunbeam, the chlorophyl and proto- 
 plasm in the plant-leaf are able to break up and assimilate the carbon dioxide 
 thrown off by animal lungs, storing up energy in its own structure by building 
 up complex molecules. As food and fuel the plant affords the energy which 
 supports animal life and furnishes power for many of man's machines. 
 
 Says Professor Langley : 
 
 " With the aid of sunlight a lily would thrive on the deadly atmosphere of 
 the 'black hole of Calcutta'; for this bane to us, we repeat, is vital air to 
 the plant, which breathes it in through all its pores, bringing it into contact 
 with the chlorophyl, its green blood, which is to it what the red blood is to 
 us ; doing almost everything, however, by means of the sun ray, for if this 
 be lacking, the oxygen is no longer set free or the carbon retained, and the 
 plant dies." 
 
 Thus we have a picture of how the Christian, if born from above, may, 
 in the sunshine of communion with Christ, through God's Word, become 
 fruitful in a world the ways of which are but too faithfully suggested by the 
 animal kingdom, manifesting in such a scene, as Christ manifested here, the 
 fragrance, moral purity and lowly usefulness in self-sacrifice for others which 
 the plant suggests ! That "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from 
 above, and cometh down from the Father of lights" (Jas. i. 17), is also the 
 testimony of the sun, according to Professor Langley : 
 
 " The ox, the sheep, and the lamb feed on the vegetable, and we in turn 
 on them (and on vegetables too) ; so that, though we might eat our own 
 meals in darkness and still live, the meals themselves are provided literally 
 at the sun's expense, virtue having gone out of him to furnish eacli morsel 
 we put in our months." 
 
 Here we have the type of a Creator who is likewise " the Preserver of all 
 men" (I. Tim. iv. 10), giving over all nature into their hands. Nor is He 
 at the expense of all that man enjoys simply as Creator ; for He can not 
 righteously preserve the unrighteous and bestow gifts upon them, except as He 
 Himself pays the penalty for all the evil toward which he displays forbear- 
 ance. And so the sun is also the type of Him who for His creatures has 
 been at the expense of the Incarnation, and of the Atonement wrought by 
 suffering all the deserts of evil at the cross ! Indeed, in this way the Creator 
 has not merely provided nourishment for His creatures through creation and 
 providence, but has made Himself, and the moral display of His glory in 
 humiliation and atoning death, the spiritual food of the household of faith. 
 In John vi. 32-65 He presents Himself to men thus, as the Bread of God, 
 the Bread of life, the Bread Who came down from heaven in order that a 
 man might eat thereof, and not die ! In His meek and gentle Manhood, 
 as in a prism, the dazzling glory of Infinite Light has been graciously
 
 47 
 
 refracted, with all the beautiful moral glories of God spread out, side by 
 side, in the life and death of Jesus : a softened diffusion of the Light which 
 does not repel nor blind the poor sinner, but opens his eyes to behold the 
 glory of God, while there is shed abroad in his heart the love of God. Pro- 
 fessor Langley continues : 
 
 " But while He thus prepares the material for our own bodies, and while 
 it is plain that without Him we could not exist any more than the plant, the 
 processes by which he acts grow more intricate and more obscure in our own 
 higher organism, so that science as yet only half guesses how the sun makes 
 us. But the making is done in some way by the sun, and so almost exclus- 
 ively in every process of life. . . . To make even the reader's hand 
 which holds this page, or the eye which sees it, energy again went out from 
 the sun ; and in saying this I am to be understood in the plain and common 
 meaning of the words. ... Is there not a special interest for us in that 
 New Astronomy which considers these things, and studies the sun, not only 
 in the heavens as a star, but in its workings here, and so largely in its 
 relations to man ? " 
 
 Truly there is a special interest, and great profit, provided that our study 
 of the sun is to enable us to read aright deeper lessons than simply these 
 relations of creature to creature. But we must carefully avoid a construction 
 which might be put upon Professor Langley's language here as if the sun 
 could "make" the whole man, soul and spirit. It is man's body alone, 
 that which links him to the physical universe, which is manufactured and 
 replenished in the sun's laboratory: soul and spirit are beyond his chemistry, 
 though he can fashion for them a house of clay. If we study not the sun as 
 a type, we may also forget that he is after all but a blind agent, and that the 
 hand behind him is the hand of God, and so fall into the snare of being 
 unthankful, changing the truth of God into a lie, and reverencing and 
 serving the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever ! With 
 this qualification, we agree with the following: 
 
 " Since, then, we are the children of the sun, and our bodies a product 
 of its rays, as much as the ephemeral insects that its heat hatches from the 
 soil, it is a worthy problem to learn how things earthly depend upon this 
 material ruler of our days." 
 
 Thus not alone is the Biblical -Tychonic theory equal to the Copernican 
 hypothesis in its intrinsic competence to account for all the observed phe- 
 nomena, but in connection with it a rational solution at once appears which 
 also embraces all the phenomena of the physical universe in one homogen- 
 eous relation. 
 
 I will now mention some further objections to the Newtonian solution 
 of Copernican theory. Five points were made under this head as an intro- 
 duction to the consideration of the Biblical-Tychonic theory. The next 
 count will therefore be the sixth.
 
 48 
 
 VI. To a rational philosopher it must surely seem much against the recog- 
 nition of universal gravitation as a law of nature that it remains an anomaly 
 in the universe, with no affinity to any other known force. This objection 
 had little weight in Newton's day, because the correlation of natural forces 
 was not then a principle recognized by science. The character of the known 
 forces was then almost as inexplicable as that of gravitation itself, while it 
 remained to be seen whether the postulate of universal attraction would not 
 prove a key to reconcile all things. But now the close relation of all forces 
 (gravitation excepted, if we must indeed still postulate it) is so well estab- 
 lished, that were the hypothesis of universal gravitation introduced in these 
 days, instead of having the advantage of long occupation of the field in its 
 favor, and the powerful ally of universal prejudice, there can be little doubt 
 that its inharmony with the other and closely-related forces would bar it from 
 serious consideration. Gravitation is an anomaly in the presence of the 
 kindred group, including heat, light, actinic energy and electricity, while 
 magnetism is of this kindred. It appears to be an inadequate deduction which 
 has declared that terrestrial gravitation is not a phase of magnetism and 
 that in the face of the well-known fact that the earth is a magnet with 
 magnetic poles. Why is the whole earth electrical ? 
 
 VII. But not alone is the theory of universal attraction an anomaly: 
 it is and always has been contrary to reason, judged on the basis of the 
 scientific definition of reason as applied to the physical universe. The con- 
 tradiction here introduced into the very foundation of modern science (for 
 Newtonian-Copernican orthodoxy is its foundation) is most curious and most 
 significant, although scientists themselves either have mainly failed to face 
 the situation squarely in their own minds, or else have skillfully avoided 
 discussion of a tender subject before the public. For materialism is the badge 
 of that supreme aristocracy and inner priesthood whose members consider 
 themselves the only pure scientists, and in their zeal against the Bible and its 
 miracle-working God they have pronounced a general ban upon whatever does 
 not conform to known laws of nature, as being irrational and manifestly 
 false. And yet that corner-stone of scientific hypothesis, Newton's postulate 
 of attraction as a universal law of nature, requires of the mind a blind 
 credulity not at all required in order to credit all the miracles of Scripture ! 
 Kor the miracles of Scripture are the most credible things in nature to one 
 who accepts the only premise on which Scripture puts them forth the pos- 
 tulate of a personal God who loves man and wishes to make Himself known 
 to him, Who arranged the mechanism of the universe with the special pur- 
 pose of revealing Himself to man thereby, and Who proves to man that He 
 is nature's God by demonstrating His superiority to the mightiest laws which 
 lie has ordained for his creation ! , Does the Bible ask me to believe in 
 miracles? Very well, since it reveals to me a God who can work them ! 
 But the Bible does not demand of me to utterly outrage my reason, by 
 requiring me to believe in the miraculous, while at the same time suggesting 
 that there is no personal God to accomplish the wonder !
 
 49 
 
 But this is precisely the thing which modern science does, the hypothesis 
 of universal attraction requiring just such a prostitution of the human reason. 
 What is more, Newton's hypothesis has been embraced by men who were 
 perfectly aware that in accepting it as a working basis they must stultify their 
 reason, for it is well known that Newton himself conceded as much. After 
 exhausting every resource even of his ingenious mind to find at least some 
 rational basis for the conception of universal gravitation, since an analogy 
 in nature was out of the question, Newton finally presented his law on the 
 postulate of the miraculous, having conceded that to the finite mind the 
 action of universal gravitation is paradoxical, while the phenomenon itself 
 is absolutely inconceivable although, according to his theory, it must be 
 true ! Is it not a wonder that scientists have doubted the existence of a per- 
 sonal God in connection with a universe organized on such a principle ? 
 
 The fundamental absurdity of this dogma has been frequently set forth, 
 and can be concisely put. Either space contains a material medium or it 
 does not. If it does not, and yet every atom of matter in the universe at- 
 tracts every other, we have the absurdity of matter acting through vast 
 spaces where it is not, without the assistance of any intervening medium ! 
 The supposition outrages all we know of nature, making a plaything of the 
 human intellect ! But if space contains a material medium, and all matter 
 is mutually attractive, then the universe consists of matter which is pushing 
 and jamming itself together. This has been accepted in modern times as 
 the lesser of two evils, the scientist exerting his will-power to forget the 
 utter absurdities which it also necessitates. If the universe is full of matter, 
 and all this matter is pressing together, then of course the universe has been 
 an immovable mass since its creation ! But since the evidence everywhere 
 before our eyes refutes this, there is nothing for us except to postulate another 
 universal law, to the effect that all matter tends to separate ! It is perfectly 
 plain that if there is an inherent tendency in all matter to qome together, 
 and at the same time an inherent tendency to draw apart, the two laws will 
 explain almost everything, while in working out the details we may always 
 conveniently lose sight of the fundamental paradox ! But does the reader 
 the uninitiated lay-reader think it impossible that learned scientists should 
 arrive at such conclusions, as the result of all their profound cogitations over 
 the more-than-miracle of Newtonian attraction ! 
 
 Let such a reader consult Mr. William B. Taylor's treatise on " Kinetic 
 Theories of Gravitation," published in the Annual Report of the Smith- 
 sonian Institution for 1876. Indeed, this paper will repay study on the part 
 of anyone wishing to know more in detail the depths of the credulity of 
 scientific minds in accepting the postulate of universal attraction. Mr. Taylor 
 cites Newton's third letter to Bently, dated February 25, 1692-3, or about 
 ten years after Newton had propounded his famous hypothesis, in which he 
 says: "That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so 
 that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, with-
 
 50 
 
 out the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and 
 force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, 
 that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty 
 of thinking can ever fall into it." But Mr. Taylor, who is a devoted dis- 
 ciple of Newton, rebukes sceptics who would use this testimony against 
 this conception of gravitation, on the ground that Newton was himself com- 
 pelled, twenty-five years after penning this stricture, to embrace "so great 
 an absurdity ! " For after a quarter of a century of vain search for some 
 better conception, Newton "despairingly" asked: "Have not the small 
 particles of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which fhty act at a 
 distance? . . . What I call 'attraction' may be performed by impulse, 
 or by some other means unknown to me." But all this shows is that in his 
 old age, with a pet theory and a reputation to sustain, and in the desperation 
 born of utter failure to find a more rational alternative, Newton embraced 
 an "absurdity so great" that he himself had pronounced, ere he realized he 
 should be shut up to it, that "no man who has in philosophical matters a 
 competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it." Thus, according to the 
 Newton of 1693, who was in his prime, the Newton of twenty -five years 
 later had lost, through prejudice, the competent faculty of thinking in 
 philosophical matters ! And what a commentary upon all his devoted 
 followers since, whose faculty of thinking in philosophical matters has been 
 so incompetent that they, too, have fallen into the same great absurdity ! 
 
 The well-known astronomer, J. E. Gore, published in the National 
 Review (reprinted in LitteU's Living Age, No. 2489, March 12, 1892) 
 an article based upon that of Mr. Taylor, in which he concedes the logic of 
 the latter's conclusions. These conclusions are remarkable. Having defined 
 the elements absolutely essential in any explanation of gravitation, and having 
 tested by this standard the attempts at explanation made by the succession 
 of astronomers and physicists who have labored to reconcile the postulate 
 with human reason, only to find them all sadly inadmissible, Mr. Taylor 
 demonstrates that not an iota of progress has been made in two centuries 
 toward an explanation of gravitation as a kinetic force. In other words, 
 to conceive of gravitation as an active force lands us in all sorts of contra- 
 dictions. But to think of work being done by a passive force is perhaps even 
 more ridiculous. Hence Mr. Taylor declares that all that is left to us is to 
 conceive of an "occult" force of universal attraction! But even this, of 
 itself, is wholly inadequate to explain the phenomena, and so we must double 
 the wonder of a paradox already inconceivable. According to Mr. Taylor 
 we must conceive of an "occult" quality inherent in matter in virtue of 
 which the ultimate atoms attract one another whenever separate from one 
 another, and in virtue of which they repel one another whenever they are in 
 close proximity ! This is the conclusion of what is probably the most pro- 
 found and comprehensive investigation of this problem ever undertaken. 
 
 For myself, I must beg to decline it, even though I must stand as a
 
 51 
 
 minority of one, or in the company of a few simple Christians like President 
 Kruger, of the Transvaal. When it comes to a question of an "occult" 
 force which repels when it should most powerfully attract, and attracts when 
 it is most free to fly apart then I must prefer known forces like electricity 
 and magnetism and chemical energy, which are known to produce both 
 attractive and repulsive phenomena, together with the Biblical -Tychonic 
 system, which seems to be demonstrable on this basis without dethroning 
 the human reason in the process. 
 
 And I would remind Christians, who have not the faith to follow me in 
 the unreserved acceptance of the Biblical system of astronomy, that they 
 still have the best of the materialists, even when the latter have chosen their 
 own ground in the dogma of Newtonian infallibility. The Christian may. 
 say : " You tell me that I must concede the existence of an 'occult' quality 
 inherent in matter in virtue of which the ultimate atoms repel one another 
 when in close proximity and attract one another when not in close proximity, 
 since, however paradoxical the postulate may seem, the motions of the celes- 
 tial bodies are otherwise inexplicable. Very well ; only this force, which to 
 the unenlightened reason of the most profound scientists is 'occult,' is no 
 mystery whatever to the Christian, who from Revelation has learned that the 
 force which accomplishes results so remarkable is simply the fiat of the 
 Creator and Preserver of the universe, Who is ever ' upholding all things by 
 the word of His power' (Heb. i. 3)!" These prodigious labors of the 
 profoundest intellects for two centuries to show that the universe can dis- 
 pense with its Creator how small the mouse they have brought forth ! 
 
 VIII. Dr. Schoepffer is absolutely correct in saying that gravitation, 
 if consistent with the other laws of nature, would prevent the axial rotation 
 of any body which by gravity is maintained in equilibrium in an orbit of 
 revolution about an attractive centre, with the exception of a single rotation 
 during the orbital revolution, on an axis perpendicular to the plane of the 
 orbit. Were it true that attraction acted as if concentrated at the centre of 
 attracting bodies, there could also be rotation on an axis one of whose poles 
 was fixed at the point on the surface of the rotating body which is ever 
 directed toward the centre of the attracting body about which it performs its 
 orbital revolution. The only answer to Dr. Schoepffer is the one we have 
 considered : that gravitation is very strange in its ways, very " occult," and 
 makes no profession of consistency with the other laws of nature ! Tack a 
 string to a ball, hold the other end of the string in the fingers, and swing the 
 ball in a circle with sufficient velocity to keep the string taut : here you have 
 the resolution of attractive pull and centrifugal tendency known to nature. 
 Because the attracting pull is constant, throughout its orbit of revolution, 
 the ball ever presents one point on iff surface to the attracting power. 
 During its orbital revolution the ball rotates once on an axis perpendicular 
 to the line of attraction. But as the string twists, the ball may also rotate 
 many times on an axis one pole of which is the point where the string is
 
 52 
 
 attached. The latter form of rotation would not be possible with a celestial 
 body moving about an attracting centre, for according to theory the two 
 bodies would not be held as by a string from centre to centre, or from surface 
 to surface, but would be held by innumerable taut strings binding each 
 atom in each body to every atom in the other body. This would hold the 
 two bodies, hemisphere to hemisphere, as in a vise ; while if one described 
 an orbit of revolution, the attracting centre must also during this period 
 rotate once on its axis, so as to keep the same hemisphere toward the body 
 encircling it. But no celestial phenomenon conforms to this supposition. 
 If the earth so responded to the moon, the latter would always be vertical 
 to a certain point on the earth's surface ; from any given point on one-half 
 the earth's surface, would always, by day and by night, appear in the same 
 spot in the heavens ; and from all parts of the other hemisphere of the earth 
 would always be invisible. It is equally plain that if the sun responded thus 
 to one of the planets, he could not at the same time do so to any of the 
 others ; whereas, in fact, he responds thus to none, his axial rotation being 
 synchronous with no planetary revolution. 
 
 But it seems legitimate to conceive that large attracting centres, though 
 practically controlling smaller encircling bodies, would not themselves be 
 controlled by these smaller bodies. But it would still hold true that the smaller 
 body would beheld as in a vise, with one hemisphere ever toward the attract- 
 ing centre of its orbit, for the power which held it in its orbit, according to 
 theory, would be exerting all this power rigidly on each of the atoms of the 
 revolving body throughout its orbit. The result would be that the smaller 
 body would perform its orbital revolution with one hemisphere ever toward 
 the attracting centre. This should be true alike of Newtonian-Copernican 
 gravitation, and of Biblical-Tychonic electro-magnetism. As Dr. Schoepffer 
 pointed out, this is what we find in the case of the moon, whose attracting 
 centre is the earth. His argument is now notably emphasized by the con- 
 clusion of Schiaparelli, Lowell and others, attesting the like phenomena in 
 the orbital revolutions of Mercury and Venus about the sun. Thus if the 
 Moon, Venus and Mercury conform in this particular to the theory that all 
 the atoms of each are attracted by all the atoms of sun and earth, then it is 
 certain that the axial rotation of the earth and of the superior planets is in 
 direct violation to Newtonian theory. 
 
 IX. A special point should be made of the fact that Newton's postulate 
 contradicts observed phenomena, unless we agree to think of the attracting 
 force of each body as acting as if concentrated at its centre ; while (i) the 
 very terms of the hypothesis of universal attraction make this assumption a 
 confessed fiction, so that (2) the physical explanation of axial rotation on 
 this basis is absolutely fraudulent. The first of these propositions we may 
 state thus : either the hypothesis, that every atom in the universe attracts 
 every other atom, is true, in which case it cannot be mathematically correct 
 to consider the attracting power of spherical masses containing many atoms
 
 53 
 
 as if concentrated in one atom at their centre ; or, if the last proposition is 
 mathematically correct, then every atom in the universe does not attract 
 every other atom, and the entire structure of Newtonian philosophy falls to 
 the ground. But theoretical astronomers ask us to conceive of the attracting 
 power of spherical masses as if concentrated at their centres simply as a con- 
 venient approximate of the truth, to facilitate mathematical demonstration ; 
 for it is plain that the celestial bodies must be dealt with as if mere points, 
 in order that mathematical astronomy may secure the terms on which its 
 conclusions are based. To this I object, (i) that this concession cannot 
 properly be asked of one who does not concede in advance the truth of the 
 Copernican postulate of immense distances, and (2) even of one who does 
 concede the postulate of immense distances, the concession that the 
 attracting power is concentrated at the centre of spherical bodies cannot 
 properly be asked when the relations of our solar system are the subject of 
 investigation. For if we concede the inconceivable distances assigned to 
 the fixed stars, in dealing mathematically with bodies at such distances no 
 very appreciable error would result from regarding them as mere points. 
 But in the solar system it is not quite so. Shall we build up theory on the 
 fiction that the sun's attracting power is concentrated at his centre, when we 
 reflect that his estimated diameter is so immense that within its space the 
 moon could describe her present orbit about the earth,' and could still do so 
 were her orbit if times its present size, or when we reflect that the sun's 
 estimated diameter is about i-ioSth of its estimated distance from the earth? 
 Still this is comparatively trivial and may be allowed for in results. The 
 serious and fraudulent feature consists in inducing us to concede, for the 
 convenience of mathematicians, that the attracting force of spherical bodies 
 is concentrated at their centres, while on the basis of this concession they 
 then go on to assume an axial rotation for the earth and planets which would 
 only be possible in case the convenient fiction, of the concentration of the 
 resultant of gravitation at the centres of bodies, were a physical fact. Let 
 us take the case of the earth. The axial rotation assumed for the earth, in 
 order to explain the phenomenon of day and night, is mechanically possible 
 only on one of two suppositions : (i) in case it is a physical fact that the 
 attracting power of the sun is concentrated in a pull upon the atom at the 
 earth's centre, and affects no other atom in the earth's mass ; (2) in case the 
 rotation of the earth is caused by some constant force which is more powerful 
 than the sun's attracting power exerted upon the earth ; for if this attracting 
 power of the sun is concentrated upon each and every atom in the earth's 
 mass (as theory requires), and yet these atoms, so acted upon, can be moved 
 in a direction opposite to that of the sun's pull by some force which causes 
 the earth's axial rotation, then this rotating force must be capable of con- 
 stantly overcoming the attracting force which holds the earth in her orbit ! 
 But if this be so, what then holds the earth in her orbit? Thus it has only 
 been by means of the fiction that the power of the sun, which holds the earth
 
 54 
 
 in the orbit assigned to her by theory, is concentrated in a pull upon the 
 earth's centre, that astronomers and physicists have been able to conceive for 
 the earth a daily rotation on an axis nearly perpendicular to the plane of her 
 orbit. Yet Newton's postulate of universal attraction is fundamentally false 
 unless every atom of the earth's mass is attracted by the sun's mass ; while if 
 the sun attracts all fhe atoms in the earth's mass, then instead of speaking 
 so frequently of centrifugal force as a product of the earth's rotation, as if 
 the earth could rotate under these circumstances without the agency of tre- 
 mendous energy, our philosophers must seek some powerful, independent 
 ("occult"?) force to produce the rotation one powerful enough to induce 
 a rotation of the earth which can only be obtained by the overcoming of the 
 attracting force ! Thus the two motions which Copernican hypothesis neces- 
 sarily postulates for the earth, are mutually destructive when explained on 
 the hypothesis of universal attraction. Mathematical astronomers have always 
 avoided the difficulty by a glaring sophistry : the invention of a fiction as the 
 very first step in their so-called "solution," while this fiction involves the 
 positive contradiction of the fundamental hypothesis employed in the 
 " solution" ! 
 
 X. Since the postulate of axial rotation (except as exhibited by the moon, 
 and probably by Venus and Mercury) is irreconcilable with Newton's postu- 
 late of universal attraction, it follows that much of accepted astronomical 
 theory contradicts Newton's postulate. The evolutionary nebular theory of the 
 universe, in vogue since Laplace gave it currency, makes axial rotation its 
 basic principle. Moreover, the theory of tidal friction, suggested by Kant 
 and developed by Lord Kelvin and Prof. G. H. Darwin, is now quite popu- 
 lar, and requires axial rotation of the celestial bodies as its basis. Axial 
 rotation generates centrifugal force, while the latter tends to hold back the 
 liquid matters on the surface of the rotating body, thus causing a tidal fric- 
 tion which gradually retards the rotation. Prof. G. H. Darwin solemnly 
 proclaims a time when the Moon, thrown off by the centrifugal force of the 
 earth's swiftly-rotating mass, was very close to the earth, each of these bodies 
 then making a revolution on its axis in about two hours ! Tidal friction 
 has slackened the rotation of the earth until an axial revolution now requires 
 about twenty-four hours, while the same agency has entirely overcome the 
 rotating energy of the Moon ! Prof. J. J. See has extended the application 
 to the fixed stars, explaining the development of so-called " double stars" on 
 the hypothesis of tidal friction, while he and others naturally apply the same 
 solution to the new discovery respecting Mercury and Venus. In fact, 
 astronomers would not know how to account for the spherical form of the 
 celestial bodies, on an evolutionary basis (which is very dear to them), except 
 on the hypothesis of axial rotation. Yet none of these gentlemen have yet 
 explained how the heavenly bodies may be controlled by universal attraction, 
 while at the same time an axial rotation which necessarily annuls the attract- 
 ing force, is constantly at work ! It is also true that to concede the princi-
 
 pie of tidal friction is to concede the force of the arguments against axial 
 rotation advanced by Tycho Brahe, and by many since. 
 
 XI. A very serious objection to Newton's postulate of universal attraction 
 is the fact that its best friends are becoming sceptical concerning its truth. 
 We have cited Professor Hall, Dr. Carl Neumann and Professor Seeliger on 
 this subject. I may also mention an article by Kurt Laves, which he opens 
 as follows : 
 
 "Certain phenomena in the motions of some of our planets have led astron- 
 omers to question the correctness of Newton's law of gravitation as a general 
 law of nature. It is the purpose of this paper, first to point out those phe- 
 nomena which cannot be explained from Newton's law, and second to give a 
 short outline of the nature of those laws which have been proposed to replace 
 that of Newton." * 
 
 The first of the inexplicable phenomena mentioned by Mr. Laves is the 
 well-known difficulty in connection with Mercury. He declares that the dis- 
 crepancy in the motion of this planet "of 41 " between theory and observa- 
 tion cannot be explained in any way when we start from Newton's law of 
 general attraction." 
 
 He continues : 
 
 "The other differences of the same nature which have been brought to 
 light are those in the longitude of the perihelion of Mars, the longitude of 
 the nodes of Venus and the famous secular acceleration of the motion of the 
 Moon." 
 
 His statement of the laws proposed in substitution for that of Newton is 
 technical, and so will not be reproduced here. He rejects that proposed by 
 Professor Asaph Hall, on the following grounds : 
 
 " In the theory of the Moon the agreement between theory and observation 
 would be spoiled. Besides there is no doubt that astronomers and physicists 
 would be extremely slow in accepting a law which is made just to fit our 
 present knowledge of existing discrepancies for a general law of gravitation 
 in the manner indicated." 
 
 lie continues : 
 
 " The other laws that have been proposed deserve more attention. They 
 all have this in common that they consist of two parts, of which the first is 
 the expression of Newton's law ; the second, an additional term depending 
 upon the time. These laws have been constructed in electro-dynamical 
 theories and bear the name of their inventors. They are the laws of Gauss, 
 Weber, Riemann and Clausius." 
 
 His discussion of them is too technical for any one not familiar with the 
 mathematical expression of Newton's law. I will add his reference to Pro- 
 fessor Seeliger's demonstration, and comment upon it : 
 
 " It is of interest to notice that Professor Seeliger has discussed the question 
 
 * " On Some Modern Attempts to Replace Newton's Law of Attraction by Other 
 Laws," Popular Astronomy, February, 1898, pp. 513-18.
 
 56 
 
 whether Newton's law of attraction can be regarded as a universal law of 
 gravitation in a series of papers published in the Astronomische Nachrichten 
 (Numbers 3287, 3292 and 3304), starting from an entirely different point of 
 view than that outlined before. 
 
 " Professor Seeliger makes the assumption that the total mass of all the 
 matter in the universe is infinite and then proves that if we apply Newton's 
 law to the infinite universe we shall be led to contradictions. We have thus 
 .to assume either the one or the other of the following assumptions: 
 
 " I. The total mass of the universe is infinite and then we cannot regard 
 Newton's law to be the rigorously exact expression for the attracting forces 
 acting in it ; or, 
 
 " 2. Newton's law is rigorously correct and then we must conclude that 
 infinite parts of the space cannot be filled with mass of finite density. 
 
 " It is certainly more logical to assume the first and regard Newton's law 
 as an approximative formula which needs supplementary terms, the nature 
 of which has not yet been ascertained.' 1 
 
 XII. I cite another witness, Professor Simon Newcomb, one of the most 
 eminent of mathematical astronomers now living. On the subject of the 
 discrepancies between observed phenomena and Newtonian theory, he has 
 recently written as follows : 
 
 " One of these deviations is in the rotation of the earth. Sometimes, for 
 several years at a time, it seems to revolve a little faster, and then again a 
 little slower. The changes are very slight ; they can be detected only by 
 the most laborious and refined methods ; yet they must have a cause, and we 
 should like to know what that cause is. The moon shows a similar irregu- 
 larity of motion. For half a century, perhaps through a whole century, she 
 will go around the earth a little ahead of her regular rate, and then for 
 another half century or more she will fall behind. The changes are very 
 small ; they would never have been seen with the naked eye, yet they exist. 
 What is their cause ? Mathematicians have vainly spent years of study in 
 trying to answer this question. The orbit of Mercury is found by observa- 
 tion to have a slight motion which mathematicians have vainly tried to 
 explain." * 
 
 XIII. I believe the secret of the approximate fitness of Newton's law to 
 express mathematically the observed relations of the solar system is due to a 
 fact which indicates that it is not a true law of nature : namely, that it is a 
 hybrid between empiricism and a guess which will be pronounced fortunate 
 or unfortunate, according to the point of view. That is to say, the guess 
 was fortunate if we so esteem Newton's success in leaving a name which has 
 since been upon every tongue, though at the cost of the propagation of error ; 
 
 * Article, " The Unsolved Problems of Astronomy," McClure's Magazine, July, 
 1899. Some of the points discussed in this article were also touched upon in an address by 
 Professor Newcomb, entitled, " The Problems of Astronomy," and printed in the Annual 
 Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1896.
 
 57 
 
 while it was most unfortunate in view of the prosperity of this error, retard- 
 ing the progress of more worthy investigation, and instilling false conceptions 
 on moral questions of the greatest moment. The fact that Newton's law 
 evidently expresses the equations of the solar mechanism with approximate 
 accuracy is the reason given by Professor Newcomb, Professor Hall, and 
 most others, for still believing that the postulate of universal attraction can- 
 not be fundamentally false. But there is an explanation which appears to 
 me to reconcile every fact in the case. 
 
 We must remember that Newton had Kepler's empirical laws before 
 him laws deduced from the well-nigh daily observations of Tycho Brahe, 
 which had been carried on with remarkabk accuracy through many years, 
 and therefore gave a very close approximation to a true mathematical state- 
 ment of the planetary motions about the sun. Were it not so, could Kepler's 
 three laws have remained the practical basis of astronomical calculation to 
 the present time ? 
 
 For the sake of argument, let us assume that the electro-magnetic theory 
 of heat, light and solar radiation is now demonstrated, and that now we all 
 recognize electro-magnetism as the force which performs the offices in the 
 solar system formerly assigned to universal attraction. The genesis of Newton's 
 close guess at once becomes apparent. 
 
 In seeking a solution in the attraction the earth exerts upon all bodies on 
 its surface, Newton was on the right track, for this terrestrial attraction is 
 simply a manifestation of the electro-magnetism which we now assume to be 
 the great force of nature. In extending the application of this attraction to 
 the moon in his hypothesis, Newton made jaiother correct deduction. But 
 in failing to identify the earth's attraction af'^a form of magnetism, Newton 
 missed his clue. For had he identified terrestrial attraction with magnetism, 
 he could have experimented with magnets, would probably have discovered 
 that their attraction is exerted inversely as the square of the distance, and so 
 would have obtained this factor for his test with the Moon. But having 
 missed this clue in a legitimate search, he unfortunately obtained the identi- 
 cal factor in an empirical way, which worked the mischief of enabling him to 
 approximate the mathematical expression of the mechanical effect of the real 
 force which controls the solar system, but in the interest of the postulate of 
 a force which had no existence outside his imagination, which even to his 
 own mind appeared to be a great absurdity, the postulate of which no rational 
 philosopher could be guilty of falling into, and which is utterly irreconcilable 
 with the observed mechanics of nature. The observations of Tycho Brahe, 
 embodied in Kepler's laws, had revealed the fact that the velocities of the 
 planets are not uniform throughout their orbits, but are rapidly accelerated 
 as the planets approach the sun, while they diminish as the planets recede 
 from the sun. Newton saw that this acceleration appeared to result from some 
 influence of the sun, the power of which was about inversely as the square 
 of the distance between sun and planet. Since he was to make a test to learn
 
 58 
 
 whether the earth's attraction extended to the Moon, and since he also sus- 
 pected that the secret of the relation of earth and Moon was also the secret 
 of the relation between sun and planets, he applied this deduction from the 
 acceleration of the velocities of the planets to his test with the moon. Thus 
 Newton obtained a factor, based on actual observation of the mechanical 
 operations of the electro-magnetism by means of which the sun controls the 
 planets, as recorded by Tycho Brahe and formulated into laws by Kepler, 
 and utilized this factor to give currency to a false and irrational postulate of 
 an inconceivable force. 
 
 XIV. That Newton's law of gravitation is an empirical formula which is 
 only approximately correct, has been evidenced from Newton's time to the 
 present, in the fact that this formula has proven inaccurate in those cases 
 where it can be most rigorously tested. If theory and observation cannot 
 be shown to exactly coincide in the case of the Moon, then we cannot trust 
 the appearance of coincidence in the case of the celestial bodies further 
 removed. The Moon is the only celestial body whose distance can be meas- 
 ured by means of a base line drawn on the earth's surface, giving such a basis 
 for the estimation of her size, volume and mass. Hence if discrepancy be- 
 tween theory and observation is found in the case of the Moon, where our 
 observations are the most exact possible, it requires a strong bias in favor of 
 theory to inspire confidence in the apparent harmony between theory and 
 observation in the case of more remote bodies, since this appearance of har- 
 mony is probably due to the necessary imperfection of the testimony of the 
 observations under such circumstances. We would be justified in this con- 
 clusion, even if the Moon affqjded all the discrepancies. But what shall we 
 say, when we reflect that tbJfclhree celestial bodies, whose respective dis- 
 tances from us make them the most competent, after the Moon, to bear 
 witness, namely, Mars, Venus and Mercury, are the very ones which also 
 disclose discrepancies, while our own earth likewise fails to respond to 
 theory in certain respects? Certainly great "faith" is required of the 
 astronomers who in the face of such facts still esteem Newton's formula to 
 be the exact mathematical expression of a great natural force ! 
 
 XV. Granting that Newton's formula is an approximate expression of the 
 action of electro-magnetism through space, and thus eliminating the "occult " 
 paradox of gravitation, is it yet clear why Newton's formula is only an approxi- 
 mation ? Perhaps not entirely ; but it seems now certain that the omission 
 of a time-element in Newton's formula is one source of error. Faraday long 
 ago thought it inconceivable that a force like gravitation "acts without 
 occupying time." To this was objected the mathematical demonstrations of 
 Laplace and others, that gravitation must act instantaneously .^since otherwise 
 irregularities would occur which observation would readily detect. But the 
 moment we substitute electro-magnetism for gravitation this objection appears 
 to fall to the ground ; for in this case the celestial bodies are controlled by a 
 constant succession of wave-pulses from the sun, and since there is no inter-
 
 59 
 
 mission in this succession, the effect produced is the same as would be that 
 of instantaneously-acting gravitation, could we conceive of such a thing. 
 
 Hence the true solution of this problem would certainly seem to be in the 
 line of the investigations of Faraday, Maxwell, Helmholtz, Hertz, Heavi- 
 side, Boltzmann and their fellow-laborers. As is well known, Hertz suc- 
 ceeded in producing electrical waves in the laboratory in 1888, at once 
 demonstrating their finite velocity of propagation, and affording a powerful 
 argument in favor of Maxwell's theory that light is simply one phase of 
 electro-magnetic action. In view of this, Mr. Kurt Laves seems perfectly 
 justified in saying that careful attention is due to attempts to reform 
 Newton's formula by supplying a time-element deduced from electro- 
 dynamical investigations. If it is possible to ascertain the velocity of 
 electrical wave-propagation by means of experiments on the earth, this 
 may solve the problem, and at the same time afford a new means of esti- 
 mating the distances, sizes, volumes and masses in the solar system. 
 
 XVI. Yet not alone is Newtonian theory found wanting, but it is an 
 undoubted fact that astronomers as a class have abandoned the Copernican 
 hypothesis of the universe, as it was conceived by Copernicus, Gallileo, 
 Kepler and Newton. The unrest long felt by astronomers on this score is 
 perhaps illustrated by the following account of interviews with German 
 astronomers : 
 
 " One who doubted the possibility of the Copernican system desired to be 
 enlightened about it, and went to Alexander v. Humboldt, who was indeed 
 ever the first refuge of those seeking information, and was, too, so com- 
 plaisant that he sent nobody away, that he even conscientiously answered 
 each letter. The visitor was friendly [sic] received by Alexander v. Hum- 
 boldt, and when he laid before him his doubt about the Copernican system, 
 got for answer the memorable words : ' I have known, too, for a long time, 
 that we have no arguments for the Copernican system, but I shall never 
 dare to be the first to attack it. Don't rush into the wasps' nest. You 
 will but bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude. If 
 once a famous astronomer arises against the present conception, I will 
 communicate, too, my observations ; but to come forth as the first against 
 opinions which the world has become fond of I don't feel the courage.' 
 
 " P'rom Humboldt our doubter went to Encke. Here, indeed, he was 
 not friendly received. In a surly manner Encke declared that astrono- 
 mers had something better to do than to meddle with hypotheses ; he had 
 no time to teach every one who had any doubts ; there were books enough 
 about astronomy these he should read. The doubter replied that he had 
 already read the books written for the general public by Littrow and 
 Mudler, but he had found in them no reliable information. ' Encke re- 
 marked on that, that 'if these books did not satisfy him, he, too, could 
 not give him further advice. 
 
 " In 1854 our doubter visited Carl v. Raumer at Erlangen, who avowed
 
 60 
 
 to him openly that he, too, was not fond of the Copernican hypothesis, 
 but had never dared do more than utter vague objections against it. Thus 
 in his ' Croisades,' p. 119, where he writes: 'Now, indeed, each school- 
 master, according to hearsay, teaches that the earth moves round the sun, 
 without thinking in the least about exerting himself and his scholars to 
 perceive the planetary movement.' When the doubter left Raumer, the 
 latter congratulated him on his purpose of helping truth to her rights ; he 
 was, however, doubtful whether it would in a short time be possible to 
 vanquish the fanaticism of the world. 
 
 "At Munich our doubter visited Lamont, director of the observatory. 
 Lamont said to him : ' You and the world in general are in error ; never 
 yet has any real astronomer spoken of a Copernican system ; we only 
 know a Copernican hypothesis. Whether this may be true or erroneous 
 does not matter at all for each genuine astronomer.' The doubter replied 
 that he knew very well, but then surely one should not abandon lay peo- 
 ple to the presumption that astronomy takes the Copernican hypothesis 
 for a truth. ' I have never meddled with lay astronomy,' said Lamont, 
 ' if Littrow and Miidler instil superstition into the people by selling 
 hypothesis for truth, that is their affair.' 
 
 "At Gottingen our doubter made the acquaintance of the astronomer 
 Gauss, who met him in the most friendly manner, aided him with books 
 and allowed him to apply to him at each time when he thought himself 
 to have need of his counsel. The doubter communicated to Gauss the 
 course of his investigations made hitherto ; he told him of his having found 
 that all the great thinkers, such as Schelling and Hegel, had criticised the 
 transcendenta suppositions of the Copernicans, while only little spirits and 
 uneducated folk claimed the right of not only scorning as a fool, but even 
 persecuting with wild fanaticism, him who did not agree with the chorus of 
 general opinion. Gauss avowed to the doubter that every new discovery in 
 astronomy filled him with new doubts about the dominant system. When 
 our doubter communicated to him that Alexander v. Humboldt had de- 
 clared he would likewise arise immediately against the present conception, 
 if some famous astronomer would declare himself against the dominant 
 system, Gauss answered: ' Aye, if I were twenty years younger ! ' 
 
 " The astronomers of our days [1885] say: Everybody will understand 
 that an astronomer of the present time cannot take up any other system 
 than that of Copernicus, though it were but by way of trial. They assert 
 that the system of Copernicus is the only possible one, the eternal foun- 
 dation of all further progress of astronomy, that with the system of Coper- 
 nicus the whole of astronomy stands or falls, and that without it we must 
 renounce all explanation, all scientifically founded prediction." * 
 
 XVII. Although orthodox astronomers now generally concede the main 
 
 * " The Fixed Idea of Astronomical Theory," by August Tischner. Leipzig, 1885, 
 PP- 33-35-
 
 61 
 
 point advanced by Mr. Tischner against the Copernican hypothesis, the 
 statement of the case by Mr. Tischner may help any one who is not familiar 
 with the nature of the difficulty to a better conception. In the "Intro- 
 duction " to the tract from which we have cited, he says : 
 
 "It was as an explanation of the phenomena of heaven that the theory 
 of a fixed earth in the centre of the universe was stated ; this theory was 
 found to be untenable, when the movement of the earth was recognized, 
 and now theory based itself on a fixed sun. But afterwards it was dis- 
 covered that even the sun is not fixed, but transposes himself in space. 
 The conviction, too, was arrived at that not only the sun moves in mundane 
 space, but also that the stars, too, are not fixed, but in motion. In short, 
 in the universe there is no immovable thing, neither a fixed earth, nor a 
 fixed sun, nor fixed stars. Now, instead of stating or seeking some theory 
 based upon the general movement of all the heavenly bodies, mankind 
 has become so enamored of the idea of a fixed sun, that no astronomer has 
 the courage to come forward in order to demonstrate that the present 
 conception of the universe is no longer tenable. They have even dared 
 to affirm, that it is quite irrelevant to theory whether the sun is considered 
 as fixed or as in motion ; for astronomers say, ' we may consider the sun 
 as being at rest.' " 
 
 If Mr. Tischner can be justified in criticising astronomers for clinging 
 to a hypothesis which they have themselves ceased to credit, he certainly 
 cannot be for insinuating that "mankind has become so enanjored" of this 
 conception that astronomers have not had the courage to expose the error. 
 Where did the "little spirits and uneducated folk," of whom Mr. Tischner 
 complains, obtain the basis for "the chorus of general opinion" as to the 
 system of the physical universe? From the astronomical priestcraft, who 
 industriously have inculcated the opinion that astronomical orthodoxy was 
 long ago established on a basis of mathematical infallibility, so that the 
 Bible, or any other venerable authority which should seem to conflict with 
 astronomical dogma, is necessarily impeached ! It is a very pretty tale 
 that fear of mankind of the "little spirits and uneducated folk" has 
 withheld astronomers from the exposure of the groundlessness of the 
 popular belief in astronomical infallibility ! Astronomers have been slow to 
 expose themselves and their boasted "science"! They have been re- 
 luctant to resign the honor of their undisputed occupancy of Moses' seat, 
 and have not made haste in making plain that they have secured this 
 authoritative sway over the popular mind by an assumption of infallibility 
 which is as great an imposture as any practiced by religious priestcraft in 
 its worst phases ! 
 
 Again, Mr. Tischner does not recognize that the failure of Copernican 
 hypothesis may indicate that a return to the theory of a "fixed earth," 
 on the Biblical-Tychonic basis, is far more rational than the unproven 
 postulate of the translation of our solar system through space, which he
 
 G2 
 
 maintains, with the modern astronomers. His account of that translation, 
 on the basis of an enormous orbit, is that which the astronomers were inclined 
 to give until recently. Mr. Tischner says > 
 
 " The sun, eternally moving in the universe, carries with him his system, 
 the planets, &c. ; none of the appertaining bodies can remain behind, all 
 must follow the sun with the same velocity, without regard to their circula- 
 tion [orbital revolution], without regard to their own movement. While the 
 planets are following the sun, they make curves of revolution. The sun 
 advancing, no planet can precede or move in front of him in his path or 
 orbit. If the sun is moving, there are no closed orbits re-entering into 
 themselves, nor planes of orbits. The moving sun changes the orbits 
 (curves of revolution) of the planets following him into spirals ; the ring 
 of the spiral is therefore the true curve of revolution of the celestial body, 
 which it .describes by its own velocity ; the curve centrally seen is a circle ; 
 the consecutive rings will therefore exhibit a series of revolutions as a 
 cylindrical spiral. 
 
 "What immense space of time is required to determine the motion of 
 the sun and stars ! Already observations are showing us these motions ; 
 they seem, upon the whole, to indicate a general movement of all bodies 
 belonging to the solar system towards the constellation of Hercules ; but 
 they seem to demonstrate, too, that the apparent motion of the stars is a 
 combination of their own movement with that of the sun. 
 
 "The factjs that the planets do not revolve round the sun, but follow 
 him. It is evident that the revolution is related to the sun and his centre ; 
 but in truth they proceed round the orbit of the sun. The moon, for 
 example, moves with the earth in the same direction. 
 
 " While the planets describe their original curve, they are drawn forward 
 by the sun ; the consequence of which is the inevitable necessity for the 
 spiral as the definitive curve of orbit or moving line of double curvature, 
 which results from the combination of two velocities (forces), one of which 
 belongs to the planets, being their originally received velocity which they 
 themselves cannot change ; the other belongs to the sun. It is this move- 
 ment of the sun which is communicated to the planets by attraction ; their 
 own velocity receives by it an increment which may be called leading or con- 
 ducting velocity. The sum of both movements is the absolute velocity of 
 the planet in space. What is understood of the sun and planets, may. be said 
 likewise of the planets and their satellites. It is, therefore, the original cir- 
 cular motion of the planets, modified by the motion of the sun, which may 
 be taken to be the path of their orbit, and the figure of which we have con- 
 sidered as a ring changed into an endless spiral. 
 
 " The first consequence of the movement of the sun delivers astronomi- 
 cal theory from a great burden ; it no longer needs centrifugal force. 
 
 "After the sun, who is like the nucleus of a comet preceding it. there 
 come, ranged one after another, the planets, the curves of revolution of which
 
 enlarge more and more according to their distance, as if they represented so 
 many' centrifugal pendula, the threads of which proceed from the centre of 
 the sun. If all these are in revolution and the sun is, for a moment, con- 
 sidered as immovable, the threads {radii vectores) form regular cones, the 
 base of which is perpendicular to their axis. The circumference of this base 
 of the cone is what we have called the original curve of revolution. If these 
 cones are situated in the same angle, they seem to make but a single one, the 
 planets revolving on the surface of it. To judge from observation, it seems 
 indeed that the cones are situated nearly in the same angle. . . . Now, 
 if the sun moves, the direction of his movement is the common axis of the 
 cone, that is to say, the planets revolve round the line described by the sun, 
 which we may call his orbit ; this line is the very equator of heaven. 
 
 " It is clear in itself, that the sun moves in a curve. . . . According 
 to this view, the cone, the figure of the system, will require a slight curva- 
 ture and give an image which reminds us of the figure of the horn of 
 plenty." * 
 
 XVIII. This explanation of the translation of the solar system through 
 space involves the postulate that the sun is carrying his system through the 
 heavens along the circuit of some immense orbit, " the very equator of 
 heaven," about the real centre of the physical universe. The inference is 
 that the other suns, the fixed stars, with their systems, are moving in enor- 
 mous orbits about the same centre of the universe. This dream has been 
 nursed by Kant, Swedenborg, and other visionaries. But the observations 
 which have forced astronomers, imbued with Copernican notions, to postu- 
 late the translation of our solar system through space, now lead them to 
 conceive of this movement as one element of a general anarchy which pre- 
 vails among the celestial bodies, whereby the innumerable systems are flying 
 from one another in straight lines, the ultimate result being that our solar 
 system will be left alone, moving through a starless sky ! Professor Simon 
 Newcomb has very recently expressed this view, as follows: 
 
 " Now, the greatest fact which modern science has brought to light is 
 that our whole solar system, including the sun, is on a journey toward the 
 constellation Lyra. . . . The speed has recently been determined with 
 a- fair degree of certainty, though not with entire exactness ; it is about ten 
 miles a second, and therefore not far from three hundred millions of miles a 
 year. . . . 
 
 " So far as we can yet see, each star is going straight ahead on its own 
 journey, without regard to its neighbors, if other stars can be so called. Is 
 each describing some vast orbit which, though looking like a straight line 
 during the short period of our observation, will really be seen to curve after 
 ten thousand or a hundred thousand years, or will it go straight on forever ? 
 If the laws of motion are true for all space and all time, as we are forced to 
 believe, then each moving star will go on in an unbending line forever unless 
 
 * Ibid., pp. 15-22.
 
 64 
 
 hindered by the attraction of other stars. If they go on thus, they must, 
 after countless years, scatter in all directions, so that the inhabitants of 
 each shall see only a black, starless sky. . . . 
 
 " Mathematical science can throw only a few glimmers of light on the 
 questions thus suggested. From what little we know of the masses, dis- 
 tances and numbers of the stars, we see a possibility that the more slow-moving 
 ones may, in long ages, be stopped in their onward courses or brought 
 into orbits of some sort by the attraction of their millions of fellows. But 
 it is hard to admit even this possibility in the case of the swift-moving 
 ones. Attraction, varying inversely as the square of the distance, dimin- 
 ishes so rapidly that, at the distances which separate the stars, it is small 
 indeed. We could not, with the most delicate balance that science has 
 yet invented, even show the attraction of the greatest known star. So 
 far as we know, the two swiftest-moving stars are, first, Arcturus, and 
 second, one known in astronomy as 1830 Groombridge, the latter so called 
 because it was first observed by the astronomer Groombridge, and is num- 
 bered 1830 in his catalogue of stars. If our determinations of the dis- 
 tances of these bodies are to be relied on, the velocity of their motion 
 cannot be much less than 200 m'iles a second. They would make the 
 circuit of the earth every two or three minutes. A body massive enough 
 to control this motion would throw a large part of the universe into dis- 
 order. Thus the problem where these stars came from and where they 
 are going is for us insoluble, and is all the more so from the fact that 
 they are moving in different directions and seem to have no connection 
 with each other or with any known star." * 
 
 XIX. Thus Professor Newcomb's explanation of the solar system plainly 
 concedes the main contention of Mr. Tischner, except that Professor New- 
 comb thinks probability favors a straight line as the direction of the sun's 
 course, in place of the slightly curved orbit suggested by Mr. Tischner. 
 But all such conclusions, whatever may be their minor differences, involve 
 weighty corollaries which our astronomers seem slow to recognize, probably 
 because their minds are wholly pre-occupied with the prejudiced view of 
 things engendered by education in Newtonian-Copernican doctrine. He 
 who cannot free his mind absolutely from this bias, will remain under a 
 serious handicap in surveying the present nebulous condition of theoreti- 
 cal astronomy. And on this account it may very readily happen that the 
 most valuable suggestions toward a more rational reconstruction of astro- 
 nomical theory will come from those who are not professional astronomers, 
 independence of mind and freedom from bias more than compensating 
 for expert technical knowledge. In the same way, the attempted discus- 
 sion of these subjects even by a tyro like myself, since it is done in a 
 thoroughly skeptical spirit, may serve to call attention to the completeness 
 
 * " The Unsolved Problems of Astronomy," McCluris Magazine, July, 1899.
 
 65 
 
 of the collapse of the entire theoretical branch of astronomical science, 
 inducing some independent minds to meditate upon the subject. Astrono- 
 mers themselves certainly seem as helpless as they have often declared 
 theologians to be. 
 
 It requires a little care to realize the quandary in which the modern 
 astronomer is placed. The problem before him is that of steering a course 
 between Scylla and Charybdis. It seems absurd, on the one hand, to 
 apply to the mechanism of a system, whose controlling sun is conducting 
 his planetary satellites swiftly through space, the explanations framed for 
 a system whose controlling sun was considered practically fixed in space, 
 holding his satellites in elliptical orbits, one outside the other, about him- 
 self as their common centre. Every one knows that the laws of Kepler 
 and the hypothesis- of Newton, with the mathematical solutions developed 
 by Newton, Lagrange, Laplace, Adams and Leverrier, are all in explana- 
 tion of the mechanism which would result from a fixed sun, holding in 
 equilibrium about himself planets moving in elliptical orbits which practi- 
 cally re-enter themselves with every revolution of the respective planets. 
 To pretend that we would expect this result were the sun speeding through 
 space with a velocity ranging from three to eighteen miles per second, is 
 the Scylla which every astronomer must necessarily avoid. On the other 
 hand, if the laws of Kepler are quite false, representing appearances but 
 not facts, and if Newton's law is out of the question as applicable to the 
 actual mechanism of the solar system, how comes it that coincidence be- 
 tween theory and observation has been so closely approximated on this 
 basis, while the current formulas have served as a basis for prediction which 
 is approximately correct, so far as our present means of observation permit 
 us to judge? Granting that the postulate of gravitation is untenable, and 
 that Newton's law is empirical, having been formed by a guess based on 
 observations, yet if the solar system be not controlled by some force which 
 maintains order and equilibrium, and if Newton's law does not very 
 closely approximate the mathematical expression of the operations of this 
 force, how comes it that observations of Uranus, compared with this law, 
 indicated the existence of another planet, and that this disturbance of 
 Uranus, accounted for on the basis of Newton's law, enabled Adams and 
 Leverrier to tell astronomers about where to turn their telescopes in order to 
 find the planet Neptune? Of course this famous case of prediction did not 
 establish the postulate of gravitation, as even some astronomers have care- 
 lessly asserted ; nor yet demonstrate that Newton's law is the exact mathe- 
 matical expression of the great force of nature operating the celestial 
 mechanism. But can the empiricism which yields such a result be out of all 
 proportion to the actual facts of nature? This is the Charybdis which 
 threatens with shipwreck any astronomer who despises the empirical conclu- 
 sions based on the hypothesis of a fixed sun ! If it can be shown that the 
 Biblical-Tychonic system apparently reconciles all the factors in this strange
 
 problem, will it not be admitted that this fact alone entitles that system to 
 serious consideration, despite its seeming absurdity to the Copernican pre- 
 possession which is so accustomed to soar into infinity, and despite the 
 fact that consideration of this system might tend to restore that confidence 
 in the Bible which astronomers as a class have labored so zealously to 
 destroy? That the Biblical-Tychonic system would render a rational ex- 
 planation in the premises, I will undertake to show in a moment. Here 
 we may briefly state the problem. 
 
 Observations which have been carefully registered for many years shpw 
 that the fixed stars, so-called, seem gradually moving apart in one part of 
 the heavens, while in the opposite part they seem gradually to be coming 
 together. On the Copernican postulate, this would certainly seem to indi- 
 cate a swift movement of our solar system toward the part of the heavens 
 where the stars appear to be moving apart. Some assert that this trans- 
 lation through space is directly towards the constellation of Hercules, 
 others that it is toward the constellation of Lyra. Professor Vogel has 
 variously estimated the velocity of this motion as between three and ten 
 miles per second. Professor Newcomb, as we have seen, estimates it at 
 ten miles per second. Weighing different opinions, Mr. Fison thinks it is 
 " probably between twelve and eighteen miles per second." * 
 
 The orbital velocity assigned to the earth during her annual revolution 
 about the sun, on the Newtonian-Copernican hypothesis of a fixed sun, is 
 about nineteen miles per second ; while in addition to this motion, and to 
 her daily rotation, we are now to credit her with a forward velocity through 
 space which is one-half her orbital velocity, or more. In the case of the 
 Moon, this translation through space is to be taken into account, together 
 with the Moon's velocity in her own orbit about the earth, and her much 
 greater velocity in moving with the earth in the orbital revolution about the 
 sun. Now if the planets are controlled by the attraction of the sun, as 
 astronomers suppose, and the translation through space be a fact, it seems 
 irrational to conceive of the solar system on any other basis than the 
 conical-spiral formation suggested by Mr. Tischner. Yet to conceive of it 
 on this basis involves, (i) the complete collapse of nearly all the current 
 estimates of astronomy, and (2) the contradiction of observations. 
 
 The sun has been estimated to be about 853,000 miles in diameter, while 
 its mean distance from the earth is about 93,000,000 miles. These esti- 
 mates are based upon observations of the opposition of Mars and of the 
 transit of Venus. The method employed in the case of Mars is not de- 
 cisive for one who questions the truth of the Copernican hypothesis and 
 doubts the reality of the earth's alleged diurnal rotation ; while astronomers 
 concede that observations of the transit of Venus have so far yielded no 
 reliable result. But granting that the distance between the sun and the 
 
 " Recent Advances in Astronomy," by Alfred H. Fison. London, 1898, p. 47.
 
 67 
 
 earth is known to be about 93,000,000 miles, what is involved in the conical- 
 spiral conception of the solar system ? The present estimate of the earth's 
 orbit of revolution becomes worthless ! This estimate is very simply ob- 
 tained by doubling the distance between earth and sun, which gives 186,- 
 000,000 miles as the mean diameter of the earth's orbit. But the moment 
 we consider the conical-spiral formation, we at once see that the distance 
 between earth and sun is not the radius of a closed orbit about a fixed sun, 
 but the slant height of a cone, the base of which may be conveniently but 
 not accurately considered as circumscribed by the orbit of the earth. (In 
 truth, the orbit would be an endless spiral; but the diameter of the base of 
 the cone would give the diameter of the spiral thus formed, and suffices for 
 illustration.) On this supposition, it is absolutely useless to speculate as to' 
 the orbit of the earth, unless astronomers can find some means of determin- 
 ing the altitude of the cone thus described. To make the conception more 
 simple, let us consider the cone as cut in two, from apex to base, and deal 
 with the plane surface thus exposed to view. We thus have an isosceles 
 triangle, the sun being at its apex, its two equal sides being each measured 
 by the distance between the sun and the earth, while its base would be the 
 diameter of the spiral described by the earth's orbit. The natural idea of 
 the effect of the sun's swift sweep through space with his planets trailing 
 behind, reinforced perhaps by the appearance of the tails of comets and 
 meteorites, would lead us to conceive of the base of our triangle, represent- 
 ing the approximate diameter of the earth's orbit, as much shorter than 
 the equal sides, representing the distance between the sun and the earth. 
 Instead of estimating the radius of the earth's orbit at 93,000,000 rniles, 
 we would consider that too much even for the diameter of the earth's 
 orbit ! And down would go all the estimates hanging upon the present 
 postulate of aberration of light and the supposed velocity of light, meas- 
 ured on the assumption that the mean diameter of the earth's orbit is 
 about 186,000,000 miles! Down would fall all the estimates based upon 
 planetary parallax and stellar parallax all our conception of sizes, dis- 
 tances and velocities, as applied to the so-called fixed stars, dwindling 
 materially ! We could no longer estimate the various planetary relations as 
 if all the planetary orbits lay in practically the same plane, one outside the 
 other, but must estimate all the relations on the conical-spiral hypothesis, 
 the distance between the sun and each planet being the slant height of a 
 cone the diameter of whose base would be the approximate diameter of 
 the planetary orbit, instead of the distance between the sun and planet giving 
 the mere radius of an elliptical orbit ! 
 
 But on the other hand, what astronomer dares allow this natural and 
 rational effect of the sun's conveyance swiftly through space of a band of 
 satellites? At the first glance, the conical-spiral postulate appears to fall 
 into the same condemnation as Ptolemy's hypothesis, as hopelessly contra- 
 dicting our observations of Venus and Mercury. On the postulate he pre-
 
 sents, how would Mr. Tischner explain the eclipse of these planets by 
 the sun ? 
 
 If astronomers retain their Copernican ideas, and seek to adjust a modi- 
 fication of the Copernican hypothesis to the postulate of solar translation 
 through space, I can conceive of but one formation which could be 
 thought less irrational than that taught in the books, while equally repre- 
 senting the observed phenomena and accounting for the approximate success 
 of prediction on the basis of Kepler's laws and Newton's formula. We 
 must consider all the planets as moving about the sun in what would be ellip- 
 tical orbits, one outside the other, in nearly one plane as in present theory 
 were there no translation through space, and all moving through space with- 
 out trailing behind the sun, forming spiral orbits with one diameter per- 
 pendicular to the line of the sun's path through space. With this conception, 
 we would no longer speak of the planets as moving sometimes above and 
 sometimes below the plane of the ecliptic, but as moving sometimes before 
 and sometimes behind it. Were space a vacuum, on the basis of Galileo's 
 laws of motion we might perhaps conceive of such a solar-planetary vortex, 
 projecting itself through space and revolving about the centre of its path 
 as the axis of the system. But the postulate of a resisting medium, now 
 entertained by scientists, would seem to render this conception as absurd as 
 that of the sun sweeping through space accompanied by satellites moving 
 about him in orbits in the plane of his path, and thus passing in front of 
 him. Even on the basis of a fixed sun it has been considered probable that 
 a resisting medium in space is gradually diminishing the velocity of the 
 planets, so that they yield more and more to the attracting force of the sun, 
 are slowly approaching him in gradually-narrowing orbits, and must eventu- 
 ally fall into the sun. But with modifications of the Copernican hypothesis 
 to meet the postulate of translation through space, whether we consider the 
 plane of the ecliptic to lie in the plane of the path of the system through 
 space, or adopt the other alternative, we must postulate an additional action 
 of the resisting medium upon the planets, tending to make them trail behind 
 the sun, as the comet's tail trails behind the nucleus. Observation, however, 
 shows the contrary of this the planets sometimes preceding the sun; 
 revealing no effect of a resisting medium, providing there is translation 
 through space. 
 
 In addition to the five points under this head already made, I add a few 
 other arguments in favor of the Biblical-Tychonic theory, 
 
 VI. The Biblical-Tychonic theory avoids all the difficulties attendant upon 
 a postulate of the translation of the solar system through space. According to 
 this hypothesis, the celestial sphere is a related whole, as it phenomenally 
 appears to be, with a daily rotation about the earth ; hence the appearance 
 of stars drawing apart in one section of the heavens and drawing together in
 
 the opposite section is to be referred wholly to a very slight movement of 
 the star-relations, and neither indicates a translation of the solar system 
 through space, nor a general condition of celestial anarchy.* 
 
 VII. While the inconceivable distances required by the Copernican pos- 
 tulate, projected by the imagination to help out the hypothesis, were deemed 
 the best of reasons for rejecting a conception making demands so lavish upon 
 pure fancy, by men of intellect like Tycho Brahe, Sir Francis Bacon, Shake- 
 speare and Milton, together with the concensus of popular opinion in their 
 day, in the present day the educational bias is so different that the true sys- 
 tem of the physical universe (whatever it may be) would inevitably appear 
 grotesque, if it failed to appeal to the imagination on some immense 
 scale. What are the elements which describe the most rational astronomical 
 hypothesis, per se? Let us suppose that the jury to whom we put this ques- 
 tion embraces both the generation of Bacon's day and that of the present day, 
 while we have induced the one to carefully guard against the influence .of 
 prejudices engendered by educational bias favoring Ptolemaic theory, and 
 have induced the other to guard against prejudices engendered by educational 
 bias favoring the Copernican theory. What would be the answer to the ques- 
 tion ? Perhaps something like the following : The most rational astronomical 
 hypothesis, per se, is that which embraces the observed relations the most 
 comprehensively and explains them most simply, on the basis of the me- 
 chanics of nature known to us on the earth, requiring the least amount of 
 inventions unsuggested by the observed phenomena and contrived to meet 
 the exigencies of theory, and making the least demand upon us to credit the 
 marvellous. Let us compare the Copernican and Biblical-Tychonic hypo- 
 theses by this rule. 
 
 If the postulate of universal attraction be true, then we must concede 
 that the Copernican hypothesis, with one great centre of attraction, is even 
 more simple than th.e Biblical-Tychonic hypothesis, with two great centres 
 of attraction. 
 
 If we call in question the postulate of universal attraction, the advan- 
 tage is with the other side. And to believe in gravitation, we must postu- 
 late the mysterious, the marvellous, the absurd an anomaly in nature ; 
 
 * We must not forget that the displacements among the fixed stars are scarcely discern- 
 able after centuries of observation. It is only the Copernican conception of vast distances 
 which compels us to interpret these exceedingly minute displacements as evidences of swift 
 translations through space. Thus in the article from which we cited, and when speaking 
 of the two stars whose velocities appear to be the greatest, Prof. Newcomb says : " It must 
 not be supposed that these enormous velocities seem so to us. Not one of them, even the 
 greatest, would be visible to the naked eye until after years of watching ... To the 
 oldest Assyrian priests Lyra looked much as it does to us to-day. Among the bright and 
 well-known stars Arcturus has the most rapid apparent motion, yet Job himself would not 
 to-day see that its position had changed, unless he had noted it with more exactness than 
 any astronomer of his time." On the Biblical-Tychonic basis, these displacements may be 
 themselves trivial, and their significance equally so.
 
 70 
 
 while, on the other hand, we no longer recognize the device of two attracting 
 centres where one would do, but perceive the arrangement for a huge celestial 
 electro-dynamic machine, which produces the related phenomena of heat, 
 light, chemical energy, electricity and magnetism. 
 
 In ability to account for the essential observed phenomena, each hypo- 
 thesis is the peer of the other. If we accept terrestrial gravitation as a sample 
 of universal attraction, we must also concede that both hypotheses are on 
 an equality in ability to explain the observed relations "on the basis of the 
 mechanics of nature known to us on the earth." 
 
 The Biblical-Tychonic theory, explained on the electro-magnetic basis, 
 has a remarkable advantage over the other in point of simplicity and ability 
 to explain more of the phenomena of the solar system ; for while gravita- 
 tion accounts for the relations between the members of the solar system, 
 and for the phenomena of falling bodies, electro -magnetism not only 
 accounts for both these things, but enables us to recognize that the same 
 force which holds the orbs together supplies light, heat, actinic energy and 
 electrical energy throughout the system. 
 
 The hypotheses are on a par in extending to the entire physical universe 
 the operation of the respective forces assigned to control the solar system ; 
 but the Biblical-Tychonic theory here retains its advantage, by being also 
 able to extend to the entire physical universe its ability to explain the 
 most phenomena by the postulate of a single force. 
 
 The Biblical-Tychonic theory has a great advantage in simplicity and 
 credibility in virtue of explaining the entire physical universe as one closely- 
 related and orderly system ; whereas the Copernican hypothesis represents 
 the solar system as isolated, in independence of the rest of the phyical uni- 
 verse, with the suggestion of many other independent systems. 
 
 The Copernican hypothesis requires the pure assumption that the so- 
 called fixed stars are great suns, launched in space, at an almost incon- 
 ceivable distance from us. This supposition, as is well known, is wholly 
 gratuitous ; was not suggested by observations ; but is simply a marvellous 
 invention of the imagination, compelled by the exigencies of the hypothesis. 
 The fact that the necessity of making this assumption was long the most 
 serious obstacle in the way of the acceptance of the Copernican hypothesis, 
 shows how contrary the assumption is to the natural inference from observa- 
 tions. The Biblical-Tychonic theory does not tax credulity and pure im- 
 agination with any such invention, leaving the question of distances here to 
 be independently determined by scientific investigation. 
 
 Finally, the Copernican hypothesis is now laden with the marvellous pos- 
 tulate that immense systems, at inconceivable distances, are rushing through 
 unthinkable spaces, with incredible velocity, and without apparent law or 
 order ! The Biblical-Tychonic theory makes no such demand upon human 
 " faith" and imagination ! 
 
 Hence if the Copernican hypothesis is the more rational, then Hume's
 
 71 
 
 philosophy breaks down, and instead of requiring faith to believe in mira- 
 cles, the miracles in the Bible are the very thing which ought to recommend 
 it to the human reason just as the miracles and marvels of Copernican 
 hypothesis are marks of superiority over a system which requires us to pos- 
 tulate nothing concerning which we have no evidence ! How logical and 
 consistent are the mental processes of materialistic scientists ! 
 
 Is it any thing but educational bias which could think it a point against 
 the credibility of a system, instead of a point in its favor, that it should con- 
 ceive of the physical universe, however vast, as yet finite ? If so, even the 
 Copernican system is now likely to come under this reproach, as witness these 
 words of Professor Simon Newcomb : 
 
 "Another unsolved problem among the greatest which present themselves 
 to the astronomer is that of the size of the universe of stars. In other words, 
 has the universe a boundary? . . . It is a great encouragement to the 
 astronomer that, although he cannot yet set any exact boundary to this uni- 
 verse of ours, he is gathering faint indications that it has a boundary, which 
 his successors not many generations hence may locate so that th'e astonomer 
 shall include creation itself within his mental grasp. It can be shown mathe- 
 matically that an infinitely extended system of stars would fill the heavens 
 with a blaze of light like that of the noonday sun. As no such effect is pro- 
 duced, it may be concluded that the universe has a boundary." * 
 
 Evidently this last is Professor Newcomb's deduction from the problem of 
 Professor Seeliger, referred to above. But granting that the universe is finite, 
 the darkness of the interstellar spaces remains one of the best of reasons 
 for doubting that the stars are suns, and for believing that they are smaller 
 bodies raised to incandescence by the electrical wave-pulses from our sun. 
 
 VIII. The Biblical-Tychonic theory is strengthened by the fact that, 
 spite of the current hypothesis, observations certainly show our earth to be 
 situated apparently at the centre of the physical universe. Before intro- 
 ducing testimony to this effect, let us note the following, as an example 
 of the arguments against the probability that God would really reveal Him- 
 self to the earth, as Scripture teaches, which are frequently founded upon 
 the assumption of the infallibility of Copernican theory : 
 
 " Before the powerful mind of Copernicus ventured to question it, our 
 earth was held to be the centre of the universe, and about it all the rest 
 of the heavenly bodies revolved. There was but one 'world,' and that 
 was our earth;, the whole firmament, infinitely, was the fitting frame to 
 the picture, upon which man, as the most perfect being, held a position 
 which was truly sublime. ... It was an elevating thought that you 
 were on the centre, the only fixed point amidst countless revolving orbs ! 
 The narrations in the Bible, and the character of the Christian religion as 
 a whole, fitted this conception exceedingly well ; or, more properly speak- 
 
 McCluris Magazine, July, 1899.
 
 72 
 
 ing, were made to fit it. The creation of man, his fall, the flood, and our 
 second venerable ancestor, Noah, with his ark in which the continuation of 
 races was provided for, the foundation of the Christian religion, the work 
 of redemption ; all this could only lay claim to universal importance so long 
 as the earth was the centre of the universe, the only world. Then all at 
 once a learned man makes the annihilating assertion that our world was not 
 the centre of the universe." * 
 
 Even the Christian who concedes the Copernican conception as the true 
 one, may justly reply to such an argument, as has been done : 
 
 " C'.od has been pleased to connect Himself in a special way with man in 
 all these things; marvellous privilege of His feeble creature ! Philosophy 
 senseless, narrow-minded, and even essentially stupid in its arguments would 
 have it that the world is too small for God thus to expend Himself on an 
 impotent being like man, on that which is but a mere point in an immense 
 universe. Contemptible folly ! As if the material extent of the theatre 
 were the measure of the moral manifestations wrought upon it, and of the 
 war of principles which is there brought to an issue. That which takes 
 place in this world is the spectacle that unfolds to all the intelligences of 
 the Universe the ways, and the character, and the will of God." f 
 
 Yet, whatever may be the scale of sizes and distances in the physical 
 universe, it is perfectly plain that the Mosaic account of creation, as creation 
 was finally prepared for the advent of man, represents sun, moon and stars as 
 placed in the firmament with special reference to the earth, as witnesses 
 of God's glory and goodness to man. And spite of the fertile imagination 
 of modern star-gazers, the stubborn fact remains that our insignificant earth 
 appears to be the centre even of the vast infinity of starry space which Coper- 
 nican theorists postulate. Here again I cite Professor Newcomb's recent 
 article : 
 
 " The number of new stars brought out with our greatest power, is vastly 
 greater in the Milky Way than in the rest of the sky. . . . What is 
 yet more curious, spectroscopic research has shown that a particular kind of 
 stars, those formed of heated gas, are yet more condensed in the central 
 circle of this band ; if they were visible to the naked eye, we should see 
 them encircling the heavens as a narrow girdle, forming perhaps the base of 
 our whole system of stars. ... A most curious fact is that our solar 
 system seems to be in the centre of this galactic universe, because the Milky 
 Way divides the heavens into two equal parts, and seems equally broad at 
 all points." \ 
 
 IX. Geology suggests what may be a powerful argument in favor of the 
 
 * " Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia," by Karl von Gebler (Eng. trans.) London, 
 1879, p. 14. 
 
 t " Synopsis of the Books of the Bible," by J. N. Darby (new edition). New York : 
 Loizeaux Bros., vol. iii., p. 15. 
 
 % McClurSs Magazine, July, 1899.
 
 73 
 
 Biblical-Tychonic theory, in predicating extensive glacial phenomena on the 
 earth's surface at a recent geological period. The nebular hypothesis of 
 astronomy supposes that all matter in the solar system was once a lumin- 
 ous cloud, rotating about its centre of gravity, toward which there was a 
 slow condensation of the mass. In this process, successive rings were 
 thrown off, which concentrated into globes, forming the planets and their 
 satellites, these masses becoming solidified as they cooled. But this hypo- 
 thesis necessitates the postulate that the heat of the sun was much more 
 intense formerly than now, that it is gradually diminishing, and that the 
 great solar furnace which heats and lights our planetary system will event- 
 ually become extinct. Yet in the recent article from which we have several 
 times quoted, Professor Newcomb declares: " What we can say with con- 
 fidence is that observations of temperature in various countries for the last 
 two or three hundred years do not show any change in climate which can be 
 attributed to a variation in the amount of.heat received from the sun." 
 
 Thus tlie current astronomical conception requires the supposition that 
 there has been a gradual diminution of light and heat throughout the solar 
 system, from the nebulous period to the present time ; whereas observa- 
 tions during the time that man has recorded them give no countenance 
 to the theory. On the other hand, geological science requires another 
 hypothesis : (i) The prolific animal and vegetable life during the early 
 geological ages would seem to indicate a solar energy in the primeval 
 ages greater than that displayed within the memory of man ; (2) the ter- 
 mination of the early prolific period by catastrophe is apparently indicated, 
 involving the submergence of the earth beneath waterand ice ; (3) from these 
 conditions the earth emerged practically as since known to man. Therefore 
 the Biblical-Tychonic theory has the great advantage over the nebular theory 
 of exact agreement with the testimony of the geological formations. 
 
 According to this theory, the original creation of the heavens and the 
 earth, mentioned in Gen. i. I, gives the origin of the earliest geological age. 
 Whether the long pre-glacial ages which followed were intended by God as 
 a series of object-lessons for angelic intelligences, we cannot say. In Gen. 
 i. 2 we have the recognition of the cataclysmic condition which followed 
 these periods. All forms of life had become extinct, since the earth had 
 become "waste and empty." That the earth was submerged, is shown by 
 the reference to " the face of the deep" in this verse, and to the fact that 
 verse 9 records that the dry land of earth was subsequently made to emerge 
 from the waters. That the catastrophe had also deranged the great electro- 
 magnetic engine of the celestial vault, is indicated by the statement in verse 
 2 that "darkness was upon the face of the deep," by the fact that light had 
 subsequently to be invoked by God's fiat, as recorded in verse 3, and by the 
 fact that God's fiat re-established sun, moon and stars as light-bearers (Gen. 
 i. 14-18). Since the withdrawal of light from the solar system during this 
 catastrophe involved the withdrawal of heat, the glacial phenomena are
 
 74 
 
 rationally explained. Following this catastrophe, we have the six days' work 
 mentioned in Gen. i. 3-31, by means of which the physical universe was re- 
 constructed substantially as it has since appeared to man. 
 
 X. As a final argument under this head I submit another citation from 
 Professor Newcomb's article, to show that the electro-magnetic theory of 
 solar energy agrees well with observations, so far as our present methods 
 enable astronomers to judge. Speaking of the sun, Professor Newcomb 
 says : 
 
 " There are several mysteries which ingenious men have tried to explain, 
 but they cannot prove their explanations to be correct. One is the cause 
 and nature of the spots. Another is that the shining surface of the sun, 
 the 'photosphere,' as it is technically called, seems so calm and quiet while 
 forces are acting within it of a magnitude quite ^beyond our conception. 
 Flames in which our earth and everything on it would be engulfed like a 
 boy's marble in a blacksmith's forge are continually shooting up to a height 
 of tens of thousands of miles. One would suppose that internal forces 
 capable of doing this would break the surface up into billows of fire a thousand 
 miles high ; but we see nothing of the kind. The surface of the sun seems 
 almost as placid as a lake. Yet another mystery is the corona of the sun. 
 This is something we should never have known to exist if the sun were 
 not sometimes totally eclipsed by the dark body of the moon. On these 
 rare occasions the sun is seen to be surrounded by a halo of soft white 
 light, sending out rays in various directions to great distances. This halo 
 is called the corona, and has been most industriously studied and photo- 
 graphed during nearly every total eclipse for thirty years. ... It has 
 a fibrous, woolly structure, a little like the loose end of a much worn 
 hempen rope. A certain resemblance has been seen between the form of 
 these seeming fibres and that of the lines in which iron filings arrange 
 themselves when sprinkled on paper over a magnet. It has hence been 
 inferred that the sun has magnetic properties, a conclusion which, in a gene- 
 ral way, is supported by many other facts." 
 
 I may add that my interest in this subject is not at all that of one who 
 has a pet astronomical hypothesis to promote, but of one who prefers the 
 Bible to the dictum of peccable scientists on any and every subject to which 
 Scripture refers, and where it can be shown that the current scientific 
 orthodoxy impeaches the Bible, if its conclusions be allowed. I am as sceptical 
 respecting the inerrancy of scientific dogma, wherever it conflicts with Scrip- 
 ture, as any scientist can well be respecting Scriptural dogma. To show how 
 justifiable my position is, I have attacked, with a few poorly-digested points, 
 not the weakest point in current scientific theory, but the hypothesis consid- 
 ered impregnable. It is the notorious fact that astronomical theory, with its 
 claim of infallibility on the basis of alleged mathematical demonstration, has
 
 75 
 
 been the great weapon wherewith the scientist, during the last two centuries, 
 has ousted theology from Moses' seat, usurping the reins of authority over 
 the human mind. So complete has been the surrender to the scientific priest- 
 hood and hierarchy, that Protestants (from whom, at least, we might have ex- 
 pected better things) have characteristically abandoned confidence in Scrip- 
 ture, as a divinely inspired and infallible revelation, to take up with abject 
 confidence in scientific pretension, so that with many, even among those who 
 still cling to a profession of Christianity, the Scriptures are no longer credi- 
 ble in so far as they venture to conflict with even the most ephemeral scien- 
 tific assertion in any quarter ! Yet I have not a doubt that the Christian who 
 takes Scripture as an infallible guide (studying it carefully and prayerfully, 
 and seeking to avoid the mistake of rejecting scientific postulates hastily, 
 where the seeming contradiction is not real), will find his Bible to be the true 
 "royal road to learning" in all branches of science, enabling him to take 
 forth the precious from the vile, and to detect irrational hypotheses and un- 
 natural deductions. The necessity for some such touchstone, in testing the 
 immense mass of ore thrown up by modern scientists, is indicated by the 
 following remarks of Dr. Karl Pearson : 
 
 " It might be supposed that science has made such strides in the last two 
 centuries, and notably in the last fifty years, that we might look forward to 
 a day when its work would be practically accomplished. At the beginning 
 of this century it was possible for an Alexander von Humboldt to take a 
 survey in the entire domain of then extant science. Such a survey would be 
 impossible for any scientist now, even if gifted with more than Humboldt's 
 powers. Scarcely any specialist of to-day is really master of all the work 
 which has been done in his own comparatively small field. Facts and their 
 classification have been accumulating at such a rate, that nobody seems to 
 have leisure to recognize the relations of sub-groups to the whole. It is as 
 if both in Europe and America individual workers were bringing their stones 
 to one great building and piling them on and fastening them down without 
 regard to any general plan or to their individual neighbor's work ; only where 
 some one has placed a great corner-stone, is it regarded, and the building 
 then rises on this firmer foundation more rapidly than at other points, till it 
 reaches a height at which it is stopped for want of side support. Yet this 
 great structure, the portions of which are beyond the ken of any individual 
 man, possesses a symmetry and unity of its own, notwithstanding its hap- 
 hazard mode of construction. This symmetry and unity lies in scientific 
 method. The smallest group of facts, if properly classified and logically 
 dealt with, will form a stone which has its proper place in the great building 
 of knowledge, wholly independent of the individual workman who has shaped 
 it. Even when two men work unwittingly at the same stone they will but 
 modify and correct each other's angles." * 
 
 of Science," 1892, pp. 15, 16.
 
 76 
 
 Any one who realizes how completely the animus of scientists is materi- 
 alistic, and how constantly appears the sneer against all that is called God 
 or that is worshipped, will recognize in Dr. Pearson's great building a modern 
 tower of Babel, and in the disorder, independence and cross-purposes among 
 scientists, where he yet thinks there is symmetry, will recognize a most for- 
 midable confusion of tongues. Already it is quite apparent, to one who 
 investigates with a suspicion of the fact, that wherever one branch of science 
 has upreared its hypothesis against the Bible, all this part can be easily ex- 
 posed, simply by bringing against it scientific truths which have been worked out 
 in some other departments. And this is simply what any real believer in the 
 Bible, as God's voice to man, will anticipate. If the book of nature is but 
 another witness from the same God, why not expect that a more complete 
 investigation of natural phenomena, in all lines, will afford the data for 
 demolishing the immature anti-Scriptural deductions in any particular line? 
 But the Christian must step in and make the exposure ; he cannot hope that 
 those who have built up lofty personal reputations on such erroneous deduc- 
 tions will take pains to expose themselves ! And let no Christian deceive 
 himself in thinking that modern science is willing to make a permanent 
 truce, divide up the territory, and leave the Christian in undisputed 
 possession of a small section. The arrogant egotism of the materialistic 
 scientist is well set forth in concrete example by Dr. Pearson, in the 
 following passage : 
 
 "Science stands now with regard to the problems of life and mind in 
 much the same position as it stood with regard to cosmical problems in the 
 seventeenth century. Then the system-mongers were the theologians, who 
 declared that cosmical problems were not the 'legitimate problems of science.' 
 It was vain for Galilei to assert that the theologians' classification of facts 
 was hopelessly inadequate. ... It took nearly two hundred years to 
 convince the whole theological world that cosmical problems were the legiti- 
 mate problems of science and science alone. 
 
 " We must here investigate a little more closely what the man of science 
 means when he says: 'Here I am ignorant' ... If the ignorance 
 really arises from the inadequacy of the scientific method, then we may be 
 quite sure that no other method whatsoever will reach the truth. The ignor- 
 ance of science means the enforced ignorance of mankind. 
 
 " If I have put the case of science at all correctly, the reader will have 
 recognized that modern science does much more than demand that it shall 
 be left in undisturbed possession of what the theologian and metaphysician 
 please to term its 'legitimate field.' It claims that the whole range of 
 phenomena, mental as well as physical the entire universe is its field. 
 It asserts that the scientific method is the sole gateway to the whole region 
 of knowledge. . . . The touchstone of science is the universal validity 
 of its results for all normally constituted and duly instructed minds. Because 
 the glitter of the great metaphysical systems becomes dross when tried by this
 
 77 
 
 touchstone, we are compelled to classify them as interesting works of the 
 imagination, and not as solid contributions to human knowledge." * 
 
 When he wrote this book Dr. Pearson no doubt thought it perfectly safe 
 to select Newton's law of gravitation as an example of the difference 
 between scientific infallibility and these "works of the imagination." 
 Indeed, if the law of gravitation could not be trusted, where should he hope 
 to find an absolutely impregnable scientific pedestal from which to look down 
 in lofty and frosty superiority upon the religious world ? But time has its 
 revenges ! The following crushing argument of Dr. Pearson is an example : 
 "The philosopher who propounds a new system, or the prophet who 
 proclaims a new religion, may be absolutely convinced of the truth of his 
 statement ; but it is the result of experience from time immemorial that he 
 cannot demonstrate that truth so that conviction is produced in the mind of 
 every rational being. . . . On the other hand, a formula like that which 
 Newton propounded for the motion' of the planetary system, will be accepted 
 by every rational mind which has once understood its terms and clearly 
 analyzed the facts which it resumes. One system of planetary gravitation 
 is accepted throughout the civilized world, but more than a dozen distinct 
 theological systems and almost as many philosophical schools hardly suffice 
 even for our own country. This is sufficient to indicate that there must be 
 some wide difference between theological and scientific formulae." f 
 
 It never occurred to this philosopher that in a very few years after thus 
 delivering himself, even orthodox astronomers and mathematicians would be 
 forced to look askance at Newton's law ! And mark the keen logic of Dr. 
 Pearson, in proving that gravitation is an eternal truth, because "accepted 
 throughout the civilized world !" He thus very ably shows that the Ptolemaic 
 system was also an undoubted eternal truth during all the period when it 
 was likewise "accepted throughout the civilized world !." Hence we agree 
 with Dr. Pearson that " the study of fallacy in concrete examples ought to 
 play a greater part in our educational curriculum," and respectfully suggest 
 that his own volume be given a place as a leading text-book ! 
 
 If in so brief a space it is possible to show the fallibility of astronomical 
 theory, or that its foundation is still mere hypothesis, and that largely by 
 collating the confessions of astronomers themselves, it can scarcely be 
 doubted that the same exertions would make an even more gaping breach 
 in the anti-Scriptural assumptions found in any other branch of science. 
 
 Geology ranks next to astronomy in the appeal made to it against the 
 credibility of the Bible. We have already seen, incidentally, that the great 
 features of testimony rendered by the strata of the earth's crust are really 
 striking in their confirmation of the Biblical account of a double creation, 
 instead of being antagonistic to it. And the moment we have called into 
 
 */^W.,pp. 24,25,29,30. 
 
 t Ibid., pp. 93-4, with foot-note.
 
 78 
 
 question astronomical theory, we deliver ourselves from imposition at the 
 hands of materialistic geologists, who often seek to reinforce by an appeal to 
 astronomy their unscientific wresting of the geological facts, to serve a strong 
 anti-Scriptural bias. 
 
 After astronomy and geology, Darwinian evolution is the scientific 
 weapon now most used against the Bible. But he who challenges the truth 
 of all the anti-Scriptural elements in astronomical and geological science, 
 throws back upon the evolutionist, with a demand for their proof, the two 
 preliminary assumptions which afford the only plausible arguments ever 
 marshalled for his anti-naturalistic postulate. The nebular hypothesis of 
 astronomy is the parent of the absurd dogma of evolution ; while the latter 
 also seemed confirmed by geological science, in the general indication that 
 vegetable life preceded animal life in the prehistoric ages, while lower forms 
 of animal life preceded the advent of man. But the nebular hypothesis of 
 astronomy is itself in sad need of rational confirmation. Again, geological 
 science utterly fails the evolutionist in the striking testimony, in agreement 
 with Scripture, of a complete break in continuity between the geological 
 ages and the age-times of human history. In seeking arguments within the 
 historic period, the evolutionist is confronted with the astonishing fact that 
 every one of the fundamental points are against his postulate, (i) Weis- 
 mann's maintenance of the continuity of the germ-plasm from generation 
 to generation, so that the seed-germ propagated by the first parents of a 
 species is exactly reproduced in each successive fertilization and transmitted 
 intact to the end of the line, cuts down at the root Darwin's fundamental 
 postulate of the transmission of acquired variations. This is in strict accord 
 with the account of Gen. i., where each species of animal is recorded as 
 created "after his kind," with each vegetable species similarly created, 
 " whose seed was in itself, after his kind" (v. 12). (2) Nature every where 
 sets her seal to this by the well-known facts, that when species of flowers or 
 animals are crossed the hybrid is generally without power to propagate its 
 kind, that animals carefully cultivated to change their characteristics tend 
 rapidly to relapse, and that cultivated or engrafted vines and trees give seeds 
 which perpetuate the original stock. Thus nature abhors a confusion of spe- 
 cies, as she is said to abhor a vacuum. Such an arraignment of an hypothesis 
 in its foundation would suffice an unbiased truth-seeker would suffice any- 
 one except a "scientist"! (3) Vegetation, animal life and man, instead of 
 development toward perfection, show a marked degeneration in size from 
 early times to the present, man having suffered similarly in the matter of 
 longevity. The animals known to man are pigmies beside the prehistoric 
 species whose skeletons are found. (4) The history of all the nations of the 
 earth raised up in God's providence, corrupting themselves, and rotting 
 away or cut down through providential judgments demonstrates that the 
 law of human development is a law of tendency toward degeneration, and 
 not of capacity for permanent self -improvement. The nation of Israel, 
 launched on its course even with the great advantage of special light from
 
 79 
 
 God, soon brought itself under condemnation. Under still greater favor of 
 God the dominion passed to the Gentile nations of Christendom, who have 
 been thoroughly tested in the supreme light of the life of Christ, and with 
 the revelation of God's love and goodness. What is the result ? National 
 bloodthirstiness, with the blight of infidelity rapidly casting its pall over the 
 so-called "Christian" nations, and which apparently is the precursor of those 
 judgments of outraged Love which the New Testament predicts the doom 
 of Christendom foretold as to occur just prior to the advent of the long- 
 predicted Messianic kingdom in the earth ! 
 
 Again, just as evolutionists have built upon no better foundation than the 
 assumption of the nebular hypothesis, and of the continuity between the 
 geological ages and the age of man, so is the present phase of " higher criti- 
 cism" of the Bible built upon nothing better than the assumption of Lamarck - 
 ian-Darwinian evolution. It is a case of one airy superstructure projected 
 by the fertile imagination upon another ! The dominant style of criticism 
 of the De Wette- Reuss-Vatke - Keunen -Welhausen school, with Cheyne- 
 Driver-Briggs echoes, and numerous other variations, in England and 
 America represents the third somersault of "higher criticism," and its 
 fourth contradictory phase ! (And I take no account in this remark of the 
 perpetual contradictions in detail, among the numerous infallibilities of each 
 school.) The philosophy of the present school is very simple : We assume 
 that modern science has shown that the law of upward development under- 
 lies human history; but the Hebrew Scriptures perversely contradict this 
 dogma, claiming that Israel started with a perfect law and departed from it, 
 plunging into idolatry, instead of starting as nomad idolaters and evolving 
 the Mosaic law out of their inner consciousness. The Hebrew Scriptures 
 thus teach the heresy of degeneration, in place of evolution ; therefore the 
 testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures is incredible on its face, and the scienti- 
 fic way to arrive at the truth is to pronounce the records "pious frauds," 
 always believing the opposite of what is written ! Q. E. D. ! 
 
 My reply to each of these curious theologians is as follows : My learned 
 friend, you are too superstitious, and have been led away by your simplicity 
 and childish faith in scientific infallibility ! Are you so unskilled in human 
 nature as to believe all the scientists tell you ? Pray, do not assume so 
 much, but try and establish your fundamental premise. First prove the 
 doctrine of evolution, since no evolutionist has been able to demonstrate it 
 for you ; prove your assumption of geological continuity, since no geologist 
 is able to do so ; try and establish the tenets of astronomy, since the astron- 
 omers are in such sore need of assistance, instead of being able to lay a 
 foundation for anyone else ; and when you have done this, then we will be 
 ready to look at the Scriptures on the ground of your premise, to see whether 
 they confirm it, or expose it and you ! 
 
 When that learned critic, Dr. Sanday, assures me from his printed page 
 that the word of Christ is not sufficient authority for a Christian, since it is 
 plain our Saviour was not always accurate, He having been guilty of "imper-
 
 80 
 
 feet science" in saying that God " maketh the sun to rise," I must be 
 permitted to reply : My dear Doctor, perhaps I should not blame you for 
 taking this little question about the sun for granted, since all the world does 
 so ; yet since you profess to believe that the One you criticise for ' imperfect 
 science' is and then was the God who had made the sun and whose word 
 was then maintaining its operations, before positively asserting that He made 
 a mistake in this case, even in the way of accommodation or condescen- 
 sion [!], ought you not to have abandoned theology for a few years and have 
 first settled, beyond the possibility of doubt, this little question about the 
 sun and the earth, which astronomers have for so many generations quarreled 
 over? Just conceive for a moment as possible, what you may consider but 
 the one chance out of ten million, that the sun does actually rise after all ; 
 and suppose that the day has arrived when you are standing before the throne 
 of Immanuel Himself, and that you are reminded of these words, and are 
 shown all the fruit they hare produced in the world, in aiding and abetting 
 and engendering unbelief in God's people and in lost souls, some of whom 
 had your help in their determination to go down to death without a Saviour ! 
 
 It is on such grounds as these, my dear General, that I commend the 
 publication of the translation of the lecture of Dr. Schoepffer. If it enables 
 even a single soul to throw off the shackles of mere superstitious reverence 
 for scientific dogma, and of blind subserviency to a priestcraft which abuses 
 its authority as shamelessly as does that which dons the religious frock, the 
 consequence for good may be incalculable. What I now esteem as the most 
 precious truth, I once spurned under the inspiration of scientific negation ; 
 and, having been delivered from the thralldom of the latter, I consider my- 
 self in this like some poor bird which has been released from the net of the 
 fowler, and permitted to soar into the blue depths of the heavens ! 
 
 Very truly, FRANK ALLABEN. 
 
 NEW YORK, December 5, 1899. 
 
 While I fully endorse all the scientific views, and the deduc- 
 tions therefrom, expressed in the foregoing Supplement, yet it 
 also contains what I must term theological abstractions to which 
 I cannot subscribe. This remark is made because while I re- 
 spect, honor aud esteem the author, and believe him to be the 
 most conscientious man in religious matters I have ever met 
 we do not always coincide. In such cases I am willing to con- 
 cede that his judgment is thoroughly honest; but I am not pre- 
 pared, nor do I dare, to agree with him. As to his scientific 
 attainments, they are unusual ; and in most matters we do agree, 
 but not in all. Therefore, as I read the proofs, this note is due 
 to my feelings of responsibility. 
 
 ANCHOR (J. W. DE P.)
 
 employ them to the best advantage. He computed the first table of refractions, 
 and if it extended only to 45, the reason was, that the effects of refraction, at a 
 higher altitude, were altogether insensible to his instruments. His solar tables 
 were brought to so great a degree of exactness, that he affirms he could never 
 detect an error in them exceeding a quarter of a minute ; but there is reason to 
 suspect some exaggeration in this statement, particularly as Cassini, a century 
 after, with much better means, could scarcely answer for errors of a whole min- 
 ute. He (Tycho Brahe) contributed greatly to the improvement of the lunar 
 tables, and detected a considerable inequality in the moon's motion in longitude, 
 to which he gave the name of the Variation, by which it has ever since been dis- 
 tinguished. He also discovered an equation in latitude similar to the evection 
 which had been observed by Hipparchus, and fixed its amount with great accu- 
 racy. He remarked the fourth inequality of the moon in longitude, although he 
 failed in his attempt to ascertain its amount, or assign its law. He represented 
 the inequalities of the motions of the nodes, and in the inclination of the lunar 
 orbit, by the motion of the pole of that orbit in a small circle round the pole of 
 the ecliptic. He demonstrated that the region of the comets is far beyond the 
 orbit of the moon, and determined the relative and absolute positions of 777 fixed 
 stars with scrupulous exactness, which gave his catalogue an immense superi- 
 ority over those of Hipparchus and Vlugh Begh ; and he left to his successors a 
 regular series of observations of the planets, amass'ed for the purpose of estab- 
 lishing the truth of his, own system, but of which Kepler made a better [?] use by 
 employing them to establish the system of Copernicus. . . . The great mass 
 of accurate observations accumulated by Tycho furnished the materials out of 
 which his disciple Kepler may.be said to have constructed the edifice of the 
 universe." * 
 
 In the same treatise, Professor Proctor himself one of the most zealous of 
 the disciples of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton furnishes us with his remarkable 
 admission that Tycho Brake's hypothesis in explanation of the movements of the 
 heavenly bodies is quite as rational as the Copernican system, in its capacity to 
 explain all the observed phenomena. Mr. Allaben has cited this in part : it is 
 here given more in detail. Professor Proctor's remarks on the subject, with the 
 accompanying diagram, illustrating the system of Tycho Brahe, are here repro- 
 duced (" Encyclopedia Britannica," Ninth Edition, Vol. II., pp. 777-8) : 
 
 "Far more reasonable [than the Ptolemaic system] was the ancient Egyptian 
 system, by some described as identical with, but in any case closely resembling 
 in essentials, the system of Tycho Brahe, shown in Fig. 19 [See illustration]. 
 
 Fig. 19. (Tychonian System) referred to by Prof. Proctor. 
 
 * "Shortly before his death he had been joined by Kepler, who owes his fame 
 to the lesson 'of careful observation and cautious inference impressed on him by 
 Tvcho " Article, "Tycho Brahe,'' "Encyclopedia Britannica," Ninth Edition, 
 Vol. IV., p. 200.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 3 c 
 1957 
 
 el- 
 
 its 
 he 
 
 id, 
 Form L9-42m-8,'49(B5573)444 
 
 aDie symmetry oi tne universe, an narmomous disposition ot the orbits. For who 
 could assign to the lamp of this beautiful temple a better position than the cen- 
 tre, whence alone it can illuminate all parts at once? Here the sun, as from a 
 kingly throne, sways the family of orbs that circle around him ! ' It is hardly 
 necessary to point out that the arrangement suggested by Copernicus explains 
 the motions of the sun and rtioon as readily as the [Tychonic] system which 
 presents both these bodies as moving around the earth." 
 
 When a modern astronomer, like the late Professor Proctor, pleads for the 
 Copernican system on the ground that it is the equal of the Tychonic system, in 
 capacity to explain observed phenomena, it is plain that the Tychonic system is 
 worthy of profound respect, and that any plea in its favor deserves serious atten- 
 tion from unbiased minds. ANCHOR (J. W. de P.) 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES