Index Previous Next
We have now stated a theory of the constitution of the earth and of all the other planets, and this theory seems to account for every fact that scientists have recorded as a result of their observations. This theory either represents the truth of the matter or it does not. But if it does not represent the truth what is the truth? What the orthodox scientists have told us? Any time that the orthodox scientists will explain to us the following phenomena as fully as our theory explains them, we will be willing to abandon our theory. But until they can explain them in a consistent way--that is to say not merely explain one thing by an argument that is overthrown by some other thing, for instance not explain the polar cap of Mars by some explanation which has to be abandoned when they come to that of Venus--until they can do that we are fully justified in claiming that our theory is the only one that explains all the observed facts of the planetary universe.
And so any scientist who wishes to dispute our theory ought to be able to solve the following mysteries--for mysteries these things are and always have been to orthodox science.
First: Why does the hot planet Venus have polar caps like those of Mars if the Martian caps are really composed either of ice, snow or frozen carbon-dioxide? Also, why do the polar caps of Venus and Mercury not wax and wane as those of Mars are said to do? And why are the polar caps of Mars seen to throw a mass of light many miles above the surface of the planet when they are seen in a side view if they are only of ice? How could they be so luminous in the first place--more luminous than snow is when seen under similar circumstances? And how could Lowell see direct gleams of light from the caps if there were not beams from a direct light source?
Furthermore, how do scientists account for the fact, noted also by Professor Lowell, whose observations on Mars all seem to support our theory, that when the planet is viewed through the telescope at night that its light is yellow and not white, as the light from snow caps would be? The central sun is an incandescent mass, and just as the glowing of an incandescent electric light looks yellow when seen from a distance through darkness, so the direct light of the Martian sun would appear yellow--but if this light were reflected from a solid white surface it would certainly appear white. But it does not, and so it is up to the scientists to tell us just why it does not. But so far as we know they have not succeeded in doing this.
And why have scientists never really considered the problem of the shape of the planetary nebula? They know from actual observation and photographs that the planetary nebula takes the form of a hollow shell open at the poles and having a bright central nucleus or central sun at its center. Why have they never thought what that must imply? It is evidently one stage in the evolution of the nebula. Why have scientists never asked themselves what that conformation must logically lead to? Why do they ignore it altogether? Is it not because they cannot explain it without too great a disturbance of their own theories? But our theory shows how that stage in the evolution of a nebula is reached and how it is passed, we show what precedes it in the history of the nebula and what follows it. We show a continuous evolution passing through that stage to further stages in which those polar openings are fixed, the shell solidified, the nebula reduced to a planet. And it must be remembered that while the original nebula was incomparably greater than a planet in size, measuring even millions of miles across perhaps, at the same time that nebula is composed of gases so attenuated and so expanded by their immense heat that when they solidify they only make one planet.
Why have scientists never compared the facts of the light cap of Mars with the light that plays over
our own polar regions? Do they forget that the auroral display has been observed to take place without any reference to the changing of the magnetic needle? And if the aurora is shown to be independent of magnetic conditions what else can it be due to than a source of light? Is not the reflection of the aurora light from the higher reaches of the atmosphere comparable to the projection of the light of the Martian caps into the higher reaches of the Martian atmosphere? And how do scientists explain the fact that the aurora is only distinctly seen in the very far north and only seen in a fragmentary way when we get further south?
How do scientists explain the fact that when we go north it becomes colder up to a certain point and then begins to get warm? How do they explain the further fact that the source of this warmth is not any influence from the south but a series of currents of warm water and of warm winds from the north--supposed to be a land of solid ice? Where can these currents come from? How could they come from anything else but an open sea? And why should there be a warm open sea at the very place where scientists expect to find eternal ice? Where could this warm water possibly come from?
Why also should explorers find the inhospitable ice cliffs of the far north covered in large areas with
the red pollen of an unknown plant? And why should they find the seeds of tropical plants floating in these waters--when they are not found in more southern waters? How should logs and branches of trees, sometimes with fresh buds on them be found in these waters, all being borne down by the warm currents from the north?
Why should the northern parts of Greenland be the world's greatest habitat of the mosquito, an insect which is only found in warm countries? How could it have got to Greenland if it came from the south? Where do all the foxes and hares go which were seen traveling north in Greenland? Where did the bears go? Was it possible that such large creatures as bears could find sustenance on plains of eternal ice?
Scientists admit that the mammoth lived on the outside surface of the earth somewhere around 100,000 years ago. That being the case, why are mammoth carcasses found in Siberia which are perfectly fresh? If they were killed by their climate changing from semi-tropical to frigid 100,000 years ago, would not their freezing be so gradual that they would decompose before it took place? Is not the fact that fresh grass is found between their teeth proof positive that they were frozen immediately? Does it not prove that they were alive and eating one minute, precipitated into an ice cleft the next minute and
frozen just as fast as the ice could do it? And if these tropical animals were alive and in the neighborhood of ice crevasses does it not mean that they were traveling and that they had a base from which to travel, or a habitat, which was not itself icy but tropical, seeing that this animal is a tropical and not an arctic animal? Have scientists ever given any consideration of those facts, or have they been afraid of them?
How do scientists explain the Eskimo traditions of other strange animals in the Arctic, for instance, the animal which the Eskimos call the arcla, and which they described to Captain Hall? And how do they explain the remains, in good condition, of such a supposedly prehistoric animal as the mylodon which was found in the Antarctic by Nordenskiold, and which is known to be a type of animal that lives in a warm country?
And how do scientists explain the actual finding of human remains in the Antarctic? So far as we know they have not even tried to explain it, but the remains were found and no doubt has ever been cast upon the integrity of those who found them. And as we have shown in our chapter on the Antarctic, much of the fauna and flora of the southern islands comes originally from the Antarctic, and only on our theory can an original starting place be assigned to it.
How do scientists explain the fact that practically every competent explorer from the earlier days down to Nansen has admitted that when he got to the far North his theories of what he should find failed to work and his methods of finding his positions also failed to work? How do scientists explain those passages from Nansen which we have quoted, showing that he was absolutely lost in the Arctic regions?
How do scientists explain the migrations of those birds which appear in England and other northern countries one part of the year, in the tropics another part of the year, but disappear entirely in the winter? How do they explain the fact that neither Peary nor Cook was able to prove the claim of reaching the north pole? Even supposing both men to have acted in good faith is it not obvious that both were lost? How else explain the discrepancies in Peary's own narrative which we have exposed in a previous chapter?
And here is another puzzle which the scientists might well be asked to solve before they disdain the contributions of one who is not a member of their guild or union. Some scientists, for example, Proctor, say that the moon was originally a free planetesimal body which has been captured by the earth. Other scientists--among them Pickering--have claimed that the moon was thrown off from the earth's surface in an early stage of the history of the
planet. They point to the Pacific coast bed as the depression that was left. But as the mass of the moon is about one-eightieth of the mass of the earth and the total of all the ocean beds a mere infinitesimal fraction of the earth's mass it hardly looks as if this theory were correct. At any rate the scientists have not yet succeeded in settling the matter to their own satisfaction. One more example, we should say, of the fallibility of science.
In short, how do scientists explain the whole general situation put up to us by the discrepancies between actual findings in the polar regions and their theories? The answer is that they do not try to explain these things because they are quite unexplainable on their scientific basis.
And so the scientists cannot tell just what to do with our theory. One policy is to ridicule us. For instance one professor of geology said that our book was "a great joke." Perhaps it is, but the joke will be found to be on the scientists.
This does not mean, however, that our theory is not scientific, and that we do not believe in the work of scientists. On the contrary it is on scientific observation that our theory is built. The people whom we quote in substantiation of our theory are themselves scientists. Many scientists, as we have shown in another chapter, view our theory with sympathy. Our criticisms of the scientists, therefore, are confined to those among them who neither accept our theory on
the one hand nor give any real reason for not accepting it on the other hand. From these men who are no longer really scientists because they do not display that spirit of fair-minded openness to conviction that really makes the scientific spirit--from these men we appeal to those others who really deserve the name of scientists because they are still alert and open to conviction and able to change their minds whenever the evidence makes it necessary.
And so our last word to the scientists is this: We are not prejudiced against science and have not tried to make good our theory by any other way except that of collecting indubitable evidence--that is by the scientific method. Further, we are very anxious to have scientists of every shade of opinion try to upset our theory if they can or verify it if they can. But we do not want any scientists to make mere vague objections, simply saying, as some have done, "There are many reasons why this theory cannot be true." Perhaps there are, but what are those reasons? That is the question we want them to answer. We have asked for specific objections to our theory, we have tried hard to get at these reasons, and every scrap of objection that the scientists of the world--not of America only--have been able so far to advance against our theory, every scrap of such objection is to be found set down in this book--and answered. Let the reader turn again to the chapter in which we refer to these objections. Is it not surprising that they are so
few? Is it not amazing that the great intellects--at least we would suppose them to be such--which dominate our universities and teach our youth, and plan our explorations and turn telescopes upon the stars, is it not amazing, we repeat, that these people have not been able to muster up any stronger reply to us that that? And we have given them every facility, we have written them, showed them our arguments, and have had some of their replies for years, before publishing this book.
Well, they have had all that opportunity and this is the best that they have been able to do in reply.
So now let us suggest that they try to help our theory, since they cannot demolish it. Let us ask them to turn their arguments and make observations in support of our theory. For we wish to have the co-operation of science in discovering and opening up this great new world, and we are sure that public opinion will get behind us and aid us in calling upon the scientists to take a stand definitely upon our challenge--for it is a challenge that we throw down to the scientific world--a challenge to disprove our theory if it can, and failing that to admit frankly that this theory is a step in advance of the scientific conceptions of the present day. And such admission would not be a blow to the prestige of science. On the contrary it is the glory of true science ever to advance, ever to welcome new truths, and we have confidence that the publication of these arguments will cause some at least of the scientists of today to rally to our side.