50 



KNOWLEDGE 



[Nov. 18, 1881. 



^Rrbiftosf. 



IN Mr. Prttcrsoii's " Stiulics in Life," • ho presents a 

 series of lectures delivered to the niemljcrs of a 

 Young Men's Christian As.sociation. His suliject is full 

 of interest, and his hook is interesting, and, on the whole, 

 Well writtt'n ; V)ut it would have been much more inte- 

 resting, and, as a literary work, it would have been far 

 lietter, if he had forgotten that he was addressing a reli- 

 gious body, or (which conies to much the same thing) if 

 he had rcmemljercd that he was speaking about sciences 

 Mr. Paterson seems to think that he must .state nothing 

 which he cannot prove to be in exact " accordance with 

 what we read in the Book, and what we might expect from 

 the narrative we have there." It is true that, after 

 starting on this principle, which for a student of science is 

 an illogical one, he is careful to discover an accordance 

 on a plan of his own, and then to say that it is not 

 because such and such theories oppose the Bible, but 

 because tliey are inconsistent with facts, that he rejects 

 them ; but he only makes his position more illogical still 

 by this most transparent device. The science writers of 

 a hundred years ago were wiser ii\ their generation. They 

 said (we (juote from the "Encyclopa'dia Britannica," 

 1778): "This opinion, however plausible, we are not 

 permitted to adopt, being taught a different lesson 

 by Revelation .... we cannot doubt of the au- 

 thority of Moses." If Mr. Paterson were content to 

 do this, his position would be as logical as theirs. But, 

 after expressing in effect the same opinion, he proceeds to 

 argue the matter out, as though he were in doubt of liis 

 position. All the space thus occupied is simply wasted ; 

 and the reasoning can hardly fail to be as offensive to 

 those who accept the authority of the Bible unquestion- 

 inglj-, as it is to those who cannot see what place Bible 

 references can possibly have in scientific treatises. Mr. 

 Paterson should know, every real student of science should 

 remember, that science is of no creed as it is of no countr}'. 

 A writer of science has no more occasion to show that the 

 science he teaches accords with his or any one else's inter- 

 pretation of any religious book, than the tailor has to show 

 that the clothes he makes are on a pattern accordant with 

 Christian, with Mussulman, or with Buddhist doctrines. 



Hence we must limit our praise of Mr. Paterson's work 

 to the remark that if one-fourth were removed and the 

 price propoi-tionately reduced, it would be a work which 

 students of biology would find worth getting and reading. 

 With the fourth referred to would go much false science. 

 We venture, too, to say that the interests of religion are, to 

 say the least, not advanced by such passages as we refer to. 

 It cannot conduce, for example, to the reverential spirit 

 Mr. Paterson inculcates, to read a paragraph, — beginning 

 ■with the statement that Darwin's theory is essentially 

 atheistic, going on to refer to what Mr. Paterson knows 

 " in his inmost soul by the revelation of the Holy Ghost" ; 

 and closing with the statement that, even if the Bible does 

 not forbid, hybridity sets up an impassable barrier. 



In " Health Studies " f and " The Human Body," } Mr. 

 Paterson appears to better advantage, though he loses even 

 here no opportunity of making science and religion simul- 

 taneousl}' ridiculous. 



Yet all three works are full of interesting and, for the 

 most part, instructive matter j and but for the serious 



defect wc have pointed out, they might all three l>e strongly 

 recommended. Ailxtit, there is another fault — to wit, an 

 affectation of simplicity, a very different thing from real 

 simplicity. No one could write more simply than Faraday, 

 yi't his siniphfst words never wanted dignity, and never 

 ofl'ended his reader's sense of self-respect : when we find 

 our author speaking of the features of the face as Mouth 

 gate, Nosegate, and so forth, and gravely telling us tliut 

 the nose is useful, " even though it may also beomament;il, ' 

 and the like, we cannot accord the same praise to him. 



"The Fiji Islands."— We omitted to notify in the foot 

 note to our review of Mr. Home's work on "The Fiji 

 Islands," that it is published by Mr. Edward Stanford, 

 Charing Cross. 



• " Stadieu in Life," by H. Sinclair Paterson, M.D. 

 Uodclcr & Stoughton.) 



t " Health Studies," by the Bamo author. 

 % " The Uuraan 13ody," by the eanie author. 



(London : 



THE GREAT PYRAMID MEASURES, AND THE 



DIAMETERS AND DISTANCES OF THE SUN, 



EARTH, AND MOON. 



By Joseph Baxendell, F.R..\.S. 



[It must not be understood that we accept our estccmod con- 

 tributor's views. They illustrate well the whole theory of pyramid 

 coincidences, but these coincidences disprove, in our opinion, what 

 Mr. Baxendell considers that they prove.^ED.] 



A FEW months ago the results of a partial discussion of the 

 Great Pyiamid measures, given by Professor C. Piazzi Smyth, 

 in the fonrth edition of his work entitled " Onr Inheritance in the 

 Great Pyiamid," led mo to believe that the data which had formed 

 the basis of tho design for the Pyramid were the diameters and 

 distances of the sun, earth, and moon, combined with tho ratio 

 (it) of the circumference of a circle to its diameter — a quantity 

 which forms an important feature in the relations of the Pyramid 

 measures ; and, also, that in order to reduce the results of tho 

 astronomical data to magnitudes suitable for the design 

 and construction of the Pj-ramid, a scale of one pj-ramid inch 

 to a length, one -thousandth part greater than the present 

 English mile, or 63,360 pyramid inches, liad been used by the 

 architect ; but as I found that the values of the diameters and 

 distances given in various astronomical woi-ks, especially those for 

 the diameter and distance of the sun, would not yield results 

 agreeing exaclJii with the Pyramid measures, although they were 

 generally remarkably close a|iproximations, I was induced to under- 

 take a more extended discussion and analysis of the measures, with 

 a view to ascertain, if possible, tho exact values which had been 

 employed bj- the architect in his reductions, and it thus became 

 necessary to attempt a solution of the following problem. Given 

 approximate values of the diameters and distances of the sun, earth, 

 and moon to find the values which in simple combinations will give, 

 with .sdiVt exactness, the various Pyramid measures and numbers, 

 the scale for the reductions being one Pyramid inch for a Pyramid 

 mile of 63,360 Pj-ramid inches. For some time 1 had conside: able 

 ditficulty in forming the requisite number of suitable equations for 

 the complete solution of this problem, but ultimately succeeded, and 

 obtained the following values : — 



Fvramid mil(*s. English miles. 



Diameter of the Sun '855,938 856,793 



Equatorial diameter of the Earth 7,917'7 7,9256 



Diameter of the Moon 2,157'2 2,159-3 



Mean distance of the Sun 91,758,800 91,850,558 



Mean distance of the Moon 238,483 238,721 



Let S = distance of the sun; i1f= distance of the moon; s = 

 diameter of the sun; c = equatorial diameter of tho earth; «i = 

 diameter of the moon. Then the following equations, in whicl* 

 pyramid miles and inches are adopted, will show the relations 

 between these numbers and the pyramid measures : — 



1. — = l,00O,000)r. 



It is probably owing to the remarkable relation in the magnitudes 

 of tho throe bodies shown by this equation that tho quantity x 

 forms so prominent a foatui-e in the relations of tho Pyramid 

 measures. 



2. v's7r'^=9,13103= length of one side of tho base sf tho Pyramid. 



3. ^^82^ = 5,81301 = height of tho Pyramid. 



4. "'^.'^Qj ^ = l,S81-59 = length of Grand Galler)-. 



5. t±!!l^ = 41213 = length of King's Chamber. 



25 



