New Lands

A Hypertext Edition of Charles Hoy Fort's Book

Edited and Annotated by Mr. X





THE three abstrusities:

The aberration of light, the annual parallax of the stars; and, the regular, annual shift of the lines of the stellar spectra.

By the aberration of light is meant a displacement of all stars, during a year's observation, by which stars near the pole of the ecliptic describe circles, stars are nearer the ecliptic describe ellipses, and the stars of the ecliptic, only little straight lines. It is supposed that light has velocity, and that these forms represent the ratio between the velocity of light and the supposed velocity of this earth in its orbit. In the year 1725, Bradley conceived of the present orthodox explanation of the aberration-forms of the stars: that they reflect or represent the path that this earth traverses around the sun, as it would look from the stars, appearing virtually circular from stars in the pole of the ecliptic, for instance.(1) In Bradley's day there were no definite delusions as to the traversing by this earth of another path in space, as part of a whole moving system, so Bradley felt simple and satisfied. About a century later by some of the most amusing reasoning that one could be entertained with, astronomers decided that the whole supposed solar system is moving, at a rate of about 13 miles per second from the region of Sirius to a point near Vega, all this occurring in northern skies, because southern astronomers had not very much to say at that time. Now, then, if at one time in the year, and in one part of its orbit, the earth is moving in the direction in which the whole solar system is moving, there we have this earth traversing a distance that is the sum of its own motion and the general motion; then when the earth rounds about and retraces, there we have its own velocity minus the general velocity. The first abstrusity, then, is knocked flat on its technicalities, because the aberration-forms, then, do not reflect the annual motion of this earth: if, in conventional terms, though the path of this earth is circular or elliptic relatively to the sun, [47/48] when compounding with solar motion it is not so formed relatively to stars; and there will have to be another explanation for the aberration-forms.(2)

The second supposed proof that this earth moves around the sun is in the parallax of the stars. In conventional terms, it is said that opposite points in this earth's orbit are 185,000,000 miles apart. It is said that stars, so differently viewed, are minutely displaced against their backgrounds. Again solar-motion — if, in conventional terms, this earth has been traveling, as part of the solar system, from Sirius, toward Vega, in 2,000 years this earth has traveled 819,936,000,000 miles. This distance is 4,500 times the distance that is the base line for orbital parallax. Then displacement of the stars by solar-motion parallax in 2,000 years, should be 4,500 times the displacement by orbital parallax, in one year.(3) Give to orbital parallax as minute a quantity as is consistent with the claims made for it, and 4,500 times that would dent the Great Dipper and nick the Sickle of Leo, and perhaps make the Dragon look like a dragon. But not a star in the heavens has changed more than doubtfully since the stars were catalogued by Hipparchus, 2,000 years ago. If, then, there be minute displacements of stars that are attributed to orbital parallax, they will have to be explained in some other way, if evidently the sun does not move from Sirius toward Vega, and if then, quite as reasonably, this earth may not move.

Prof. Young's third "proof" is spectroscopic.

To what degree can spectroscopy in astronomy be relied upon?

Bryant, A History of Astronomy, p. 206:(4)

That, according to Bélopolsky, Venus rotates in about 24 hours, as determined by the spectroscope; that, according to Dr. Slipher, Venus rotates in about 225 days, as determined by the spectroscope.

According to observations too numerous to make it necessary to cite any, the seeming motion of the stars, occulted by the moon, show that the moon has atmosphere. According to the spectroscope, there is no atmosphere upon the moon, (Pubs. Astro. Soc. Pacific, vol. 6, no. 37).(5)

The ring of light around Venus, during the transits of 1874 and 1882, indicated that Venus has atmosphere.(6) Most astronomers [48/49] say that Venus has an atmosphere of extreme density, obscuring the features of the planet. According to spectrum analysis, by Sir William Huggins, Venus has no atmosphere, (Eng. Mec., 4-22).(7)

In the English Mechanic, 89-439, are published results of spectroscopic examinations of Mars, by Director Campbell, of the Lick Observatory: that there is no oxygen, and that there is no water vapor on Mars.(8) In Monthly Notices, R.A.S., 27-178, are published results of spectroscopic examinations of Mars by Huggins: abundance of oxygen; same vapors as the vapors of this earth.(9) These are the amusements of our Pilgrim's Progress, which has new San Salvadors for its goals, or new Plymouth Rocks for its expectations — but the experiences of pilgrims have variety —

In 1895, at the Allegheny Observatory, Prof. Keeler undertook to determine the rotation-period of Saturn's rings, by spectroscopy. It is gravitational gospel that particles upon the outside of the rings move at a rate of 10.69 miles a second; particles upon the inner edge, 13.01 miles a second. Prof. Keeler's determinations were what Sir Robert Ball calls "brilliant confirmation of the mathematical deduction."(10) Prof. Keeler announced that according to the spectroscope, the outside particles of the rings of Saturn move at the rate of 10.1 miles a second, and that the inner particles move at a rate of 12.4 miles a second — "as they ought to," says Prof. Young, in his gospel, Elements of Astronomy.(11)

One reads of a miracle like this, the carrying out into decimals of different speeds of different particles in parts of a point of light, the parts of which cannot be seen at all without a telescope, whereby they seem to constitute a solid motionless structure, and one admires, or one worships, according to one's inexperience —

Or there comes upon one a sense of imposture and imposition that is not very bearable. Imposition or imposture or captivation — and it's as if we've been trapped and have been put into a revolving cage, some of the bars revolving at unthinkable speed, and other bars of it going around still faster, even though not conceivable. Disbelieve as we will, deride and accuse, and think of all the other false demonstrations that we have encountered, [49/50] as we will — there's a buzz of the bars that encircle us. The concoction that has caged us is one of the most brilliant harlots in modern prostitution: we're imprisoned at the pleasure of a favorite in the harem of the God of Gravitation. That's some relief: language always is — but how are we to "determine" that the rings of Saturn do not move as they "ought" to, and thereby add more to the discrediting of spectroscopy in astronomy?

A gleam on a planet that's like shine on a sword to deliver us —

The White Spot of Saturn —

A bright and shining deliverer.

There's a gleam that will shatter concoctions and stop velocities. There's a shining thing on the planet Saturn, and the blow that it shines is lightning. Thus far has gone a revolution of 10.1 miles a second, but it stops by magic against magic; no farther buzzes a revolution of 12.4 miles a second — that the rings of Saturn may not move as, to flatter one little god they "ought" to, because, by the handiwork of Universality, they may be motionless.

Often has a white spot been seen upon the rings of Saturn: by Schmidt, Bond, Seechi, Schroeter, Harding, Schwabe, De Vico — a host of astronomers.

It is stationary.

In the English Mechanic, 49-195, Thomas Gwyn Elger publishes a sketch of it as he saw it upon the nights of April 18 and 20, 1889.(12) It occupied a position partly upon one ring and partly upon the other, showing no distortion. Let Prof. Keeler straddle two concentric merry-go-rounds, whirling at different velocities: there will be distortion. See vol. 49, English Mechanic, for observation after observation by astronomers upon this appearance, when seen for several months in the year 1889, the observers agreeing that, no matter what are the demands of theory, this fixed spot did indicate that the rings of Saturn do not move.(13)

The White Spot on Saturn has blasted minor magic. He has little, black retainers who now function in the cause of completeness — the little, black spots of Saturn —

Nature, 53-109:(14)

That, in July and August, 1895, Prof. A. Mascari, of the Catania [50/51] Observatory, had seen dark spots upon the crepe ring of Saturn. The writer in Nature says that such duration is not easy to explain, if the rings of Saturn be formations of moving particles, because different parts of the discolored areas would have different velocities, so that soon would they distort and diffuse.

Certainly enough, relatively to my purpose, which is find out for myself, and to find out with anybody else who may be equally impressed with a necessity, a brilliant, criminal thing has been slain by a gleam of higher intensity. Certainly enough, then, with the execution of one of its foremost exponents, the whole subject of spectroscopy in astronomy has been cast into rout and disgrace, of course only to ourselves, and not in view of manufacturers of spectroscopes, for instance; but a phantom thing dies a phantom death, and must be slain over and over again.

I should say that just what is called the spectrum of a star is not commonly understood. It is one of the great uncertainties in science. The spectrum of a star is a ghost in the first place, but this ghost has to be further attenuated by a secondary process, and the whole appearance trembles so with the twinkling of a star that the stories told by spectra are gasps of palsied phantoms. So it is that, in one of the greatest indefinitenesses in science, an astronomer reads in a bewilderment that can be made to correspond with any desideratum. So it is our acceptance that when any faint, tremulous story told by a spectrum becomes standardized, the conventional astronomer is told, by the spectroscope, what he should be told, but that when anything new appears, for which there is no convention, the bewilderment of the astronomers is made apparent, and the worthlessness of spectroscopy in astronomy is shown to all except those who do not want to be shown. Upon the first of February, 1892, Dr. Thomas D. Anderson, of Edinburgh, discovered a new star that became known as Nova Aurigae.(15) Here was something as to which there was no dogmatic "determination." Each astronomer had to see, not what he should, but what he could. We shall see that the astronomers might as well have gone, for information, to some of Mrs. Piper's "controls" as to think of depending upon their own ghosts.

In Monthly Notices, Feb., 1893, it is said that probably for seven weeks, up to the time of calculation, one part of this new [51/52] star had been receding at a rate of 230 miles a second, and another part approaching at a rate of 320 miles a second, giving to these components a distance apart of 550 miles x 60 x 60 x 24 x 49, whatever that may be.(16)

But there was another séance. This time Dr. Vogel was the medium. The ghosts told Dr. Vogel that the new star had three parts: one approaching this earth at a rate of about 420 miles a second, another approaching at a rate of 22 miles a second, a third part receding at a rate of 300 miles a second. See Jour. B.A.A., 2-258.(17)

After that, the controls became hysterical. They flickered that they were six parts of this new star, according to Dr. Lowells' Evolution of Worlds, p. 9.(18) The faithful will be sorry to read that Lowell revolted. He says: "There is not room for so many on the stage of the cosmic drama." For other reasons for repudiating spectroscopy, or spiritualism, in astronomy, read what else Lowell says upon this subject.

Nova Aurigae became fainter. Accordingly, Prof. Klinkerfues "found" that two bodies had passed, and had inflamed each other, and that the light of their mutual disturbances would soon disappear (Jour. B.A.A., 2-365).(19)

Nova Aurigae became brighter. Accordingly, Dr. Campbell "determined" that it was approaching this earth at a rate of 128 miles a second (Jour. B.A.A., 2-504).(20)

Then Dr. Espin went into a trance. It was revealed to him that the object was a nebula (Eng. Mec., 56-61).(21) Communication from Dr. and Mrs. Huggins, to the Royal Society — not a nebula, but a star (Eng. Mec., 57-397).(22) See Nature, 47-352, 425 — that, according to M. Eugen Gothard the spectrum of N.A. agreed "perfectly" with the spectrum of a nebula: that, according to Dr. Huggins, no contrast could be more striking than the difference between the spectrum of N.A., and the spectrum of a nebula.(23)

For an account of the revelations at Stonyhurst Observatory, see Mems. R.A.S., 51-129 — that there never had been a composition of bodies moving at the rates that were so definitely announced, because N.A. was a single star.(24)


Though I have read some of the communications from "Rector" and "Dr. Phinuit" to Mrs. Piper, I cannot think that they ever mouthed sillier babble than was flickered by the star-ghosts to the astronomers in the year 1892. We noted Prof. Klinkerfues' "finding" that two stars had passed each other and that the illumination from their mutual perturbations would soon subside. There was no such disappearance. For observations upon N.A., ten years later, see Monthly Notices, 62-65.(25) For Prof. Barnard's observations twenty years later, see Sci. Amer. Sup., 76-154.(26)

The spectroscope is useful in a laboratory. Spoons are useful in a kitchen. If any other pilgrim should come across a group of engineers trying to dig a canal with spoons, his experience and his temptation to linger would be like ours as to the astronomers and their attempted application of the spectroscope. I don't know what of remotest acceptability may survive in the third supposed proof that this earth moves around the sun, though we have not found it necessary to go into the technicalities of the supposed proof. I think we have killed the phantom thing, but I hope we have not quite succeeded, because we are moved more by the æsthetics of slaughter than by plain murderousness: we shall find unity in disposing of the third "proof" by the means by which the two others were disposed of —

Regular Annual Shift of Spectral Lines versus Solar Motion —

That, if this earth moves around the sun, the shift might be found by scientific Mrs. Pipers so to indicate —

But that if part of the time this earth, as a part of one traveling system, moves at a rate of 19 plus 13 miles a second and then part of the time at a rate of 19 minus 13 miles a second, compounding with great complexities at transverse times, that is the end of the regular annual shift that is supposed to apply to orbital motion.(27)

We need not have admitted in the first place that the three abstrusities are resistances: however, we have a liking for revelations ourselves. Aberration and Parallax and Spectral Lines do not indicate that this earth moves relatively to the stars: quite as convincing they indicate that the stars in one composition gyrate relatively to a central and stationary earth, all of them [53/54] in one concavity around this earth, some of them showing faintest of parallax, if this earth be not quite central to the revolving whole.

Something that I did not mention before, though I referred to Lowell's statements, is that astronomers now admit, or state, that the shift of spectral lines, which they say indicates that this earth moves around the sun, also indicates any one of three other circumstances, or sets of circumstances. Some persons will ask why I didn't say so at first and quit the meaningless subject. May be it was a weakness of mine — something of a sporting instinct, I fear me, I have at times. I lingered, perhaps slightly intoxicated, with the deliciousness of Prof. Keeler and his decimals — like someone at a race track, determining that a horse is running at a rate of 2653 feet and 4 inches a minute, by a method that means no more than it means that the horse is brown, is making clattering sounds, or has a refreshing odor. For a study of a state of mind like that of many clergymen who try to believe in Moses, and in Darwin, too, see the works of Prof. Young, for instance.(28) This astronomer teaches the conventional spectroscopic doctrine, and also mentions the other circumstances that make the doctrine meaningless. Such inconsistencies are phenomena of all transitions from the old to the new.

Three giants have appeared against us. Their hearts are bubbles. Their bones wilt. They are weak Karyatides that uphold the phantom structure of Paleo-astronomy. By what miracle, we asked, could foundation be built subsequently under a baseless thing. But three ghosts can fit in anywhere.

Sometimes astronomers cite the Foucault pendulum-experiment as "proof" of the motions of this earth. The circumstances of this demonstration are not easily made clear: consequently one of normal suspiciousness is likely to let it impose upon him. But my practical and commonplace treatment is to disregard what the experiment and its complexities are, and to enquire whether it works out or not. It does not. See Amer. Jour. Sci., 2-12-402; Eng. Mec., 93-293, 306; Astro. Reg., 2-265.(29) Also we are told that experiments upon falling bodies have proved this earth's rotation. I get so tired of demonstrating that there never has [54/55] been any Evolution mentally, except as to ourselves, that, if I could, I'd be glad to say that these experiments work out beautifully. Maybe they do. See Proctor's Old and New Astronomy, p. 229.(30)


1. Bradley's measurements of Draconis (Gamma Draconis) began in December of 1725 and continued to the following December. As the seventy observations of this star did not differ from that expected by his hypothesis by more than 2", (except once by 3"), Bradley believed that the parallax, which he had originally been seeking, amounted to less than this amount. "A letter from the Reverend Mr. James Bradley...." Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 35 (no. 406; December 1728): 637-61. Harlow Shapley, and Helen E. Howarth. A Source Book in Astronomy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1929, 103-8.

2. In 1783, Wilhelm Herschel, (without any knowledge of the parallaxes of the stars, which he had failed to detect), decided that the solar system was travelling in the direction of the constellation Hercules. Macpherson states: "Modern astronomers, with more perfect data on which to work, have found that our Sun is moving towards the neighbouring constellation Lyra, carrying with it all the planets and comets, at the velocity of eleven miles per second." Hector Macpherson, Jr. Through the Depths of Space. London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1908, 90. Moulton indicates several changes in the "solar apex," (or the apparent direction in which the solar system is moving relative to the other stars): according to Lewis Boss, the apex is at R.A. 270.5 and declination +34.3; H.C. Wilson found the declination to be +27; F.W. Dyson and W.G. Thackeray found declinations ranging from +16 according to bright stars up to +43 according to stars with magnitudes of 8 and 9. Also, the declination of solar motion varies according to different spectral classes of stars; but, Moulton accepts the latest (1928) results by W.W. Campbell and J.H. Moore: "Evidently the motion of the sun with respect to the local star-cloud is approximately in the direction defined by right ascension 270 and declination +30, and its speed with respect to these stars is about 20 kilometers per second." While the solar system is thus said to be moving away from other stars in two different directions at the same time, only the circle, ellipses, and flat lines of the ideal "aberration" forms are usually shown in the astronomical texts. Moulton does admit to "a small aberration due to the earth's rotation, which, for a point on the earth equator, amounts at its maximum of 0.31"." Yet, he takes no notice of the relative motion of the earth within a moving solar system, as Fort does. Forest Ray Moulton. Astronomy. New York: Macmillan Company, 1931; 133, 496-7. Chambers also ignores the motion of the solar system: "We have hitherto considered aberration as a matter affecting the stars, but it affects also planets and comets. As, however, those bodies are themselves in motion, a complication is imported into the matter when aberration has to be worked out in nice detail for any astronomical purpose requiring strict accuracy." George Frederick Chambers. Astronomy for General Readers. New York: Whittaker & Co., 1908, 52.

3. Fort is correct in accounting for the distance over which the solar system would move each year is more than four times its orbital parallax; but, in terms of the effect upon the measure of parallax, this is an exaggerated simplification. For the nearest bright star, Sirius, the change in the parallax, as envisioned by Fort would amount to less than half a degree of change in its celestial position over a 2,000 year period; however, what should be considered is the proper motion of the star, as the stars may also move in different directions and at different rates of speed relative to the motions of our solar system. Even so, the proper motion of Sirius would still only produce a change in position that is less than a degree, over a 2,000 year period, which was noticed by Halley when he compared his measures of star positions with those of Hipparchus and Ptolemy; and, the motions of other constellation stars, which are at far greater distances, would scarcely be perceptible. Edmond Halley. "Considerations on the change of the latitudes of some of the principal fixt stars." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 30 (no. 355; Jan., Feb., March and April, 1718): 1-3.

4. Walter William Bryant. A History of Astronomy. London: Methuen & Co., 1907, 204-6. Bélopolsky made his observation in 1900, and Slipher made his observation in 1903. According to Slipher, using a spectroscope, in 1903, Venus could not have a rotational period as short as twenty-four hours. V.M. Slipher. "A spectrographic investigation on the rotation velocity of Venus." Bulletin of the Lowell Observatory, no. 3, 9-18. "Rotational velocity of Venus." Nature, 68 (October 29, 1903): 631.

5. W.W. Campbell. "The spectrum of Mars." Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 6 (no. 37; 1894): 228-36.

6. The ring of light seen about Venus is not only seen at the times of its transits. Mäedler, in 1849, and C.S. Lyman, in 1866, observed the ring of light extending about Venus during its inferior conjunction. The ring was noted by David Rittenhouse during the transit of Venus in 1769; but, according to Newcomb, this observation was not seriously entertained, until it was again seen during the transit in 1874. Simon Newcomb. Popular Astronomy. London: Macmillan and Co., 1883, 301-3. The ring of light was seen by Hirst, at Madras, in 1761, according to Talmage. "Transit of Venus." London Times, December 9, 1882, p. 4 c. 4. "The transit of Venus." Nature, 27 (December 14, 1882): 154-9, at 155.

7. William Huggins. "On the results of spectrum analysis applied to heavenly bodies." English Mechanic, 4 (September 28; October 5, 19, and 26, 1866): 10, 22-3, 53, 73-4, at 23.

8. "Scientific news." English Mechanic, 89 (June 11, 1909): 439-40.

9. William Huggins. "On the spectrum of Mars, with some remarks on the colour of that planet,". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 27 (March 1867): 178-81.

10. Robert Ball. The Story of the Heavens. Rev. ed. New York: Cassell and Co., 1905, 287-91. Correction to quote: "deductions," not deduction.

11. Charles Augustus Young. "361. Structure of the rings." The Elements of Astronomy. Boston: Ginn & Company, 1897. Rev. ed., 256-7. 1918, Rev. ed., 256-7.

12. Thomas Gwyn Elger. "Bright spot on rings of Saturn." English Mechanic, 49 (May 3, 1889): 195.

13. F. Terby. "Saturn." English Mechanic, 49 (April 19, 1889): 153. "Saturn," and, "The white spot on Saturn's Rings." English Mechanic, 49 (April 26, 1889): 176. G.T. Davis. "Saturn." English Mechanic, 49 (May 18, 1889): 218. G. Parry Jenkins. "The white spot on Saturn's rings." English Mechanic, 49 (May 18, 1889): 218. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 49 (May 17, 1889): 236-7, at 237. S. Maitland Baird Gemmill. "Venus — 34 Bootis — Coronae — U Orionis — The white spot on Saturn's ring." English Mechanic, 49 (May 17, 1889): 237-8. Edwin Holmes. "Astronomical." English Mechanic, 49 (May 17, 1889): 238. "White spot on Saturn's ring." English Mechanic, 49 (May 31, 1889): 281. F. Terby. "Saturn." English Mechanic, 9 (June 7, 1889): 301-2. Edwin Holmes. "Astronomical." English Mechanic, 49 (June 7, 1889): 302. W.R. Waugh. "Saturn's luminous spot." English Mechanic, 49 (June 14, 1889): 325. "White spot on Saturn's ring." English Mechanic, 49 (June 21, 1889): 349.

14. "Saturn's rings." Nature, 53 (December 5, 1895): 109-10.

15. Thomas D. Anderson. "The new star in Auriga." Nature, 45 (February 18, 1892): 365. Anderson sent a postcard to Ralph Copeland on February 1, 1892, to advise him of the nova; but, he had probably seen the nova on January 24 and "for two or three days," though it was not until the 31st that he satisfied himself that "it was a strange body," using Klein's Star Atlas and a small pocket telescope.

16. W.S. "Nova Aurigae." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 53 (February 1893): 269-72, at 272.

17. "Nova Aurigae." Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 2, 258-9.

18. Percival Lowell. The Evolution of Worlds. New York: Macmillan Co., 1909, 9-10. Lowell states other causes of shifts in the spectral lines include: great pressure (as claimed by Humphreys and Mohler), anomalous refraction (as claimed by Julius), and changes of density (as claimed by Michelson).

19. "The new star in Auriga." Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 2, 364-5. Klinkerfues "found" nothing; he simply speculated upon the cause of the observed phenomenon; and, Huggins suggested this speculation was a "reasonable explanation."

20. Henry Corder. "Reappearance of Nova Aurigae." Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 2, 504.

21. Henry Corder. "Reappearance of Nova Aurigae." English Mechanic, 56 (September 9, 1892): 61.

22. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 57 (June 23, 1893): 396-7, at 397.

23. "Spectra of planetary nebulae and Nova Aurigae." Nature, 47 (February 9, 1893): 352. Gothard's view was: "...the spectrum of the new star perfectly agrees with that of the planetary nebulæ." "Nova Aurigae." Nature, 47 (March 2, 1893): 425. Huggin's comparison was made with the "nebula of Orion," now known as the Andromeda galaxy. William Huggins. "Note on the spectrum of Nova Aurigae." Astronomische Nachrichten, no. 3153, 143-4.

24. W. Sidgleaves. "Spectrum of Nova Aurigae." Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, 51, 29-35.

25. E.E. Barnard. "Further observations of Nova Aurigae in 1901." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 62 (November 1901): 65.

26. E.E. Barnard. "The present appearance of some temporary stars." Scientific American Supplement, 76 (September 6, 1913): 153-5. E.E. Barnard. "The temporary stars. On the present appearance of some of these bodies." Astronomische Nachrichten, n. 4655 (May 20, 1913): 401-8.

27. This would be true only if the solar apex was on the ecliptic.

28. Charles Augustus Young. The Elements of Astronomy. 1890. Rev. ed. Boston: Ginn & Company, 1897. 1918. Manual of Astronomy. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1902. Sun. Rev. ed. 1897.

29. C.S. Lyman. "Observations on the pendulum experiment." American Journal of Science, s. 2, 12 (1851): 398-416, at 402. E.F. Fullford. "Foucault's pendulum," under "Queries." English Mechanic, 93 (April 28, 1911): 293. H.P. Hollis. "Letters to the editor." English Mechanic, 93 (May 5, 1911): 306. Also, not cited by Fort: Joseph Wood. "Oviform motion — Foucault pendulum." English Mechanic, 93 (May 12, 1911): 335-6. "The Foucault pendulum experiment." Astronomical Register, 2, 265. Fort noted afterwards, in Note SF-V-353: "NL. Foucault not as should be. Pop. Astro. 12-72." "Visible proof of the Earth's rotation." Popular Astronomy, 12 (1904): 71-3.

30. Richard Anthony Proctor. Old and New Astronomy. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1892, 229-32.

Next Chapter

Or, go to:


Part One 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12

Part Two 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Return to Mr. X's Fortean Web-Site Valid CSS!Valid HTML 3.2!

© X, 1998, 1999, 2004