lU 



KNOWLEDGE • 



[Dkc. 9, 1881. 



'II time, wu mny transmute them. I expect tlint there nro n gootl 

 many brsidcii myiiclf who feel thnt surh a, method of trailing upon 

 the pamdoxical |)roi'livltie>i of our ncifjhbours is not honest, nnd 

 must not fori* monioiil be indul^eil in. Uow, then, enn wo utilise 

 the interest stirred up hy such pnnidoxcs to spread n love of science, 

 nnd to bring to our nei^'hbuurs all the bcnclils which follow from a 

 patient scorch after truth ? 



It seems obviously unwitc to ignore the pamdoxers, or even un- 

 necessarily to hurt their feelings nnd snub them, as some oblc men 

 Boem inclined to do. I'uradoxing is an approach towards science, 

 nnd, nt nil events, is better, nnd more worthy of being spoken of 

 ■with respect, than purely selfish or uuintcllcctuni forms of enjoy- 

 ment. Most of us are, no doubt, jn-etty frecpiently thrown amongst 

 l)nradoxers. or with those whom we believe to bo pnradoxerp. I 

 would suggest that when we have mndo up our mind that our friend 

 is a parndoxcr, we should endeavour to put our objections to his 

 paradox in the form of questions which raise difficulties thnt he has 

 probably not yet considered. We may thus Iea<l him on, and at the 

 fame time exercise ourselves in the art of seizing the difficulties of 

 others. 



Let us take an example. Sir. Baxendell, in your number for 

 Nov. 18, says that ho has been led to believe " that the data which 

 formed the basis for the design of tho great pyramid wore the 

 diameters and distances of the sun, earth, and moon, combined 

 with the ratio tt of the circumference of a circle to its diameter." 

 He proceeds, let .■!= the diameter of the sun, c = the diameter of 

 the earth, m = the diameter of the moon. Then wc have 



(1). je ^ 1 ooO.OOOt. 

 «i 



(2). v''" T'=length of one side of the base of the IVramid. 

 And then follow thirty-one more such relations. I will not occupy 

 space by repeating them. We might commence by asking whether 

 the relationships discovered refer to the solar system at its present 

 temperature, or to the temperature which its various parts had at 

 the time when the Pyramid was designed. Let us sujipose our 

 imaginary pyramid paradoxer to answer that the relationships must 

 be true for the temperatures and magnitudes of the designer's 

 epoch. We might then proceed to inquire whether the probable 

 errors in the determinations of the quantities made use of in the 

 equations are sufficiently small to enable one to determine whether 

 there has been any change of magnitude in tho various parts of the 

 solar system since the Pyramid epoch. The answer to tliis question 

 will give an e.^ccllent opportunity for inquiring into the amount of 

 the probable errors in determining the height of the Pyramid — the 

 length of its base — and other pyramid magnitudes, compared with 

 the probable errors in determining astronomical magnitudes. If 

 we succeed in convincing him that the moon's distance can be de- 

 termined with greater accuracy than the height of the great 

 Pyramid, the rest is easy. It follows that there can be no advan- 

 tage in attempting to determine astronomical quantities from 

 )»yramid measures. 



But let us suppose that our companion is not sufficiently ac- 

 <|uainted with astronomical methods to understand such reasoning. 

 Wc can point out to him that the relationships he has found are 

 not homogeneous. His first equation iseijuivalcnt to the statement 

 that a length multiplied by a length is equal to a length multiplied 

 by a number. Such a relation between quantities can only be true 

 when a particular unit is used ; and we can point out that all 

 relationships in nature can be expressed so as to be true, whatever 

 unit is nsed. We may then show him that his different equations 

 involve different units ; for example, his second equation involves the 

 use of Pyramid miles on the one side, and Pyramid inches on the 

 other. 



In such a conversation, do not on any account refer to authority 

 or endeavour to crush your opponent with facts that he cannot 

 verify for himself, but patiently plod on, using your ingenuity to 

 ntilise the interest in the study of nature which has been begotten 

 in his mind by tho paradox, and, if possible, stir up his enthusiasm 

 for the further study of such things, and endeavour to leave him 

 with a sense of your perfect fairness and an appreciation of the 

 scientific method which you strive to apply in satisfying yourself as 

 to truth, A. C. iIaxvakd. 



y„i: 28, 1881. 



PYRAMID MEASURES. 



[80] — I do not profess to be nmster of the whole theory of pro- 

 babilities, and it is perhaps owing to this that I have failed iu my 

 ttcmpts to apply it in proving thnt tho coincidences given in my 

 paper arc merely nccidentnl. So fnr as I understand tho theory, 

 and have been able to ajiply it, the results indicate in a marked 

 manner thnt the coincidences nre not nccidental, and, therefore, till 

 the contrary can be sho^vn, I think I nm justified it my conclusion 

 " that eo far, at least, as the values of the distances and diameters 



of tho gun, earth, nnd moon nre concerned, modern science hua made 

 no real advance upon the science known to tho builder of the Great 

 Pyrnmid four thousand years ngo." 



The subject is cmc of considerable interest nnd importance, nmi. 

 whether I nm right or wrong in my conclusions, I shall be glad ty 

 sec it fully and impartially discussed in K.nowi.kdge, and leave it to 

 bo decided from the results of such discu.ssion whether it is de.sirjible 

 to enter into the questions of inspiration nnd prophecy. At presml 

 the genernl feeling nppenrs to be decidedly against the coincidenci- 

 theor}', and the verj" few who object to the in.xpirntion theory argue 

 thnt in remote ages n high degree of civiIi«ition existed, nnd that 

 knowledge had been acquired which, when men afterwards rcl.ipRe<l 

 into a state of superstition and barbarism was almost entirely lost. 

 But on this theory the question again rises, In what way did men in 

 those early times acfiuirc this knowledge, and what evidence have 

 wo of its existence except that shown in the Great Pyramid ? 

 I am, dear sir, yours fathfully, 



Joseph U.^xexokll. 



[87] — I venture to offer an explanation of the remarkable nu- 

 merical relations between different parts of the (ireat Pyramid. 

 pointed out by Mr. Baxendell in your number of Nov. 18, more 

 probable, I think, tlmn the supposition that its ancicTit builders had 

 anticipated the discoveries of modem astronomy as to the distance 

 of the sun and moon and the size and shape of the earth, but 

 buried their marvellous attainments in a mass of stone-work, with 

 no explanation, till, thousands of years afterwards, they were 

 brought to light by the indefatigable zeal and scientific skill of 

 Professor Piazzi Smyth. 



The measures are, I believe, founded on astronomical observa- 

 tions, but observations of the most primitive character — the length 

 of the year, the length of the month, the length of the week, and, 

 what .-ippears to have symbolised tlie course of time, tho number 

 60, which meets us in the 360° of the zodiac, the 60 hours in India, 

 and, I believe, also in Egypt, of the day, 60 luinutes of tho hour, 

 CO seconds of the minute, &c. 



It seems to me impossible to reason with any assurance on this 

 matter unless we knew more certainly than we do what their cal- 

 culations were. We cannot ascertain this positively from the actual 

 measurements, unless we assume that the old builders measured 

 as accurately as Professor Piazzi Smyth, which is very improbable. 

 It is quite possible that if we had the plans of the architect before 

 us, wc should find relations simpler than those stated above. 



There is no necessity for attributing to the Egyptian builders any 

 preternatural knowledge of astronomical facts in order to account 

 for the peculiar relations subsisting between the measures of the 

 Great Pyramid. — Yours, Ac, G. Vansittart Nealr. 



[We have been obliged to omit the numerical relations indicated 

 by Mr. Neale. They correspond with the measurements as woll as 

 others which have been devised. One could explain tho proportion* 

 of the Pyramid in a dozen different ways. — [En.] 



POSSIBLE DAILY VARI.\TIOX OF PENDULUM. 



[88] — There is a question that I have long thought might be 

 worth trying respecting the earth's motion. In round numbers, 

 say, the centre of the earth travels round the sun at the rate of 

 1,000.000 miles ])er day, or say 10,000 miles per hour; and the 

 earth revolves at the rate of 1,000 miles per hour. One side of tlu- 

 earth will be going at the rate of 10,000 miles + 1,000; the other 

 side 10,000 miles — 1,000; difference of velocity to be imparted in 

 12 hours, 2,000 miles per hour. 



If a heavy and steady pendulum of great length were properly 

 suspended and protected, some daily motion might be discovered, 

 due to this varying velocity being communicated through the sus- 

 pending-rod. The direction of revolution round the sun and the 

 earth's revolution arc both known. Perhnjis some indication of 

 some other motion might be found. A long pendulum would be 

 essential. This, 1 ajiprehend, wotdd not be so nmch affected by 

 minute, rajiid tremors, but would more clearly show the action of 

 long duration. My own experience has been only with transits and 

 other instruments in engineering work. 



No. 1 of KxowLEDOK has been sent to me to-day, as a sample, I 

 presume. I shall take it. Receiving this has led me to trouble 

 you with these remarks.— I remain, yours truly, 



Hknry CvRR. 



DARWIN'S THEORY OV EVOLUTION. 



(.•16«(nKt, iiiucJi condensed.) 



[89] — Sir John Lubbock, in his able and luminous address 



delivered before the British Association at York, told us that »o 



ought to believe " that tho horse nnd tho ass, the sheep and tho 



cow proceeded from common ancestors." 1 cannot find a tittle of 



