being more easily compressed, it must, as we have shown, yield to the stem of the fork and not vibrate or tremble segmentally in response thereto as will the more incompressible iron, and therefore will not produce or send off the air-waves of greater amplitude as absolutely required by the theory! We have always insisted that the wave-theory is so inherently incongruous and self-destructive that, give its advocates rope enough, and they will hang themselves in any critical argument they may undertake. Now remember, in recapitulating the point established, as Sedley Taylor is forced to admit that the softer or more compressible wooden sound-board sends off a many-times greater volume of sound than the iron one, and with only "molecular vibrations" which can not act upon the outside air as will the "segmental vibrations" of the iron, we submit that the greater volume of sound produced by the soundboard of a musical instrument is not caused by air-waves at all, and consequently that Sedley Taylor, by his attempt to answer our argument, has tacitly and unwittingly broken down his theory. Should not this be sufficient to settle the matter, at least at Trinity College? But the foregoing is not by any means the worst dilemma into which Mr. Taylor has precipitated his theory in his frantic attempts to escape from our locust argument. We shall soon see the most lamentable and humiliating predicament of all. It will be remembered, by reference to our December article, that we took occasion to contrast the powerful vibrations of the tuningfork, producing almost no audible sound, with the almost imperceptible vibrations of the locust producing 80,000,000 times as much sound, thereby proving by the most conclusive argument ever known to science that the mechanical disturbance of the air by the sounding instrument had nothing to do with the sound it emits. In that connection we referred to the pitch-pipe through which a current of air is blown and which produces a loud sound with a very slight vibration of its reed. We asked Mr. Taylor where was the "large surface" in this little insect by which its " segmental vibrations" produced this mighty cyclone of "condensations and rarefactions" to fill four cubic miles of air; and why the airparticles did not "slip off laterally" from its little body, refusing to be condensed, as he claimed was the case with the tuning-fork as the cause of its trifling sound? What does he say, after due deliberation, in reply to. this crushing inquiry? Here it is: "You are considerate enough to 'give me' what you regard as an easier case' of the same problem, in the notes of a very small locust common in America which can be heard a mile or a mile and a half off. Assuming that its vocal apparatus is in principle a reed kept in motion by an air-column, the solution of this case is included in that of the pitch-pipe !" that this reed explanation was simply ridicu lous. Since the foregoing was written we have received a letter of correction from Mr. Taylor taking back what he said about the reed and the air-current by which our locust keeps up its sound so destructive to the wave-theory. As it is but fair, we give this letter verbatim as follows: To the Editor of the "MICROCOSM :" Sir, I find that in my letter to you of January 14th I was wrong in supposing that the vocal apparatus of a motion by an air-column. Darwin's account of the matlocust may be regarded as, in principle, a reed kept in ter ("Descent of Man," Vol. I., p. 352) is that the insect's left wing, which carries a finely serrated nervure, acts, like the bow of a fiddle, on the nervures of the right wing, which acts as the fiddle itself. In Hermann's "Handbuch der Physiologie der Bewegungsapparate," Leipzig, 1879, pp. 150, 151, it is further stated that the back and consisting of an elastic skinlike covering (“Chitin"), of the locust's body ("hinterleib "), being entirely empty is an excellent resonator. This flatly contradicts your statement that the locust's body does not serve as a soundboard ("MICROCOSM," December, 1890, p. 2), and assigns. on a hollow violin, should be relatively strong, rather a good reason why its note, like that of a string bowed than, like that of an isolatel tuning-fork, relatively weak. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Sedley Taylor. Trinity College, Cambridge, England, Feb. 10, 1891. Possibly after a little more reflection on the subject of our locust Mr. Taylor will conclude to write us another letter of correction giving it up altogether and acknowledging that this terrible insect has succeeded in killing the wave-theory. We trust for the sake of his own present and posthumous reputation as an investigator of physical science he will do this. rather than resort to such unmitigated nonsense as that set forth in this letter. Let us analyze it for a few moments. At the time we wrote the "Problem of Human Life," thirteen years ago, we had never seen one of these locusts, and taking Mr. Darwin as good authority, we gave his view of the method by which this locust produces its sound as an entomological fact. Since then we have examined thousands of these insects, and have heard them sing while standing within a foot or so of where they were sitting. And to our surprise we found that Darwin's statement was pure fiction from beginning to end, and have so stated in previous volumes of the MICROCOSM. The sound, as a matter of fact, is produced without the slightest movement of a wing or leg,-a mere tremor of the body alone being all that is observed. In fact, we have removed both wings and legs and the locust will still keep up its sound nearly as loud as before! Another desperate effort of Mr. Taylor to save the wave-theory from the destructive effects of our locust is to make the body of this insect a "sound board or resonant case acting as an "excellent resonator !" Unfortun ately for the wave-theory, we have forestalled this shallow quibble, as appears in a previous volume of the MICROCOSM, by holding the stem of a delicate tuning-fork when sounding against all parts of the body of this locust both while it was alive and after it was dead, and not the slightest augmentation of the sound of the forkwas thereby produced! Well, advocates of Substantialism ought now to give it up! But if the locust has a "reed" in its little body, which the closest examination under a microscope after dissection fails to discover, will Sedley Taylor kindly suggest whence comes the current of air that must be blown through this insect to keep its "reed" in vibration for a full minute at a time, producing a vastly louder sound than that of any reed ever blown by a bellows? Surely wave-theorists must be at the end of their tether when driven into a corner like this. The truth is, Sedley Taylor finds himself in Positively Sedley Taylor must have known a hole, and is trying to pull the hole in after Yet according to this dying spasm of the wave-theory one wing is used as the "bow" and the other as the "fiddle itself," yet both wings are exactly alike! Was ever such a bow and fiddle before heard of? him. We are in all sincerity sorry for him, but can only help him by advising, without the loss of another month's time, that he announce publicly through the columns of the Musical Opinion, Musical Standard or some other musical journal of London, that the wavetheory is dead and is now only awaiting a decent burial; or perhaps cremation would be the appropriate ceremony. Let him do this and he will augment the respect of both his contemporaries and coming generations. P. S. This is the first case since the wavetheory was originally attacked in the "Problem of Human Life" where any author of a text-book on acoustics could be induced to step into the scientific arena and squarely measure lances with the arguments of Substantialism. This is the desideratum we have long desired, and have used all our diplomacy to bring about. Here we have it at last, and the reader sees the result. THE ANNULAR THEORY. No. 14. BY PROF. I. N. VAIL. In my last paper I dwelt chiefly on the primitive idea of a great "world tree" to be found in the mythology of all races, and showed how this overshadowing tree arose from the horizon of the world as the branchiform "world-stem" known to mythologists. I might continue the evidence of the primitive thought to great length, but it is not my design to present an exhaustive discourse thereon at this time. I have referred to the Babylonish name of the Euphrates and its intimate association with ophiolatry. In some ancient traditions, as is well known to the Eastern scholar, the Prath or Euphrates is made identical with the mythic Nilus which had its "head and source in the lofty heaven," and in both the Homeric and Hesiodic poems is called the "okeanos" that "encircled the earth," and which ancient man was taught to believe was the grand source of all waters and rivers and streams." Again and again it is called, in the oldest legends, the "fountain of the okeanos," or great deep, the birth place of Pegasus, the flying steed of heaven." 66 66 All of these allusions, and multitudes of others I might relate, show most emphatically that ancient Prath was a great celestial river that encompassed the earth as one of the great branches of the river that went out of Eden to water the whole earth, and of which the Mesopotamian Euphrates is but a memorial. But, as I have said, it was originally called the Serpent God of the Tree of Life," as shown by Assyrian tablets. Now, this very designation locates it inevitably in the upper deep, as I will now proceed to show. It would seem scarcely necessary for me to make the assertion to my readers that angels were, and have been in all time, looked upon as celestial beings, and yet when we read in the Apocalypæ of the "four angels bound in the Great River Euphrates," it does seem needful for me to point out that we have here a survival of annular ideas-a quotation from annular times under the ministration of these celestial river spirits, one-third of the whole earth and one-third of the race of men were affected, which no river but a celestial one could do. Again, it was the river through which, ac cording to Accadian and Egyptian myths, the dead had to pass on their way to Heaven. In short, all mankind believed the dead had to cross the River from Time to Eternity, and the sun, or the moon, or some other celestial being was believed to receive them upon their arrival in the unseen world. I say, then, the idea of celestial rivers was a natural, perhaps a universal one, and could scarcely have obtained if celestial rivers were not at one time the gazing stock of the whole earth. Now it is well known among Oriental scholars that the serpent was universally the symbol or emblem of flowing waters. In oldest graphics, as in Egypt and Assyria, the wavy form of the serpent was the hieroglyphic for water. And almost all the ancient writers, from Homer down, make it a universal practice to speak of the river-spirit, or fountain-spirit, as a serpent or dragon. Now, the physical tree of life was that world-tree that gave life to the earth! But no physical tree could possibly give life, except that environment tree that spread its sky-filling branches over the earth, and made it an Eden world and filled it with exuberant life, prolonged the life of the plant, and insured man a longevity of 800 or 900 years. Now, where was the "serpent-god" of this life-giving environment-tree? The tree being on high, its custodian spirit, the serpent, was there too! This tree was the same tree, renowned in mythology, as " bearing the golden apples" (the stars), and "guarded by the huge serpent which Hercules slew in order to bring those apples into view. The moment we attempt to explain this serpent deity as guarding any other kind of a tree, we come squarely in opposition to nature. The annular bands were known to be watery, and their designating hieroglyphic was the serpent. Again, an annular band or streamer had the form of a serpent, even if it were not known to be water. The two ends of a band, if I may be allowed the expression, in the hor izon, east and west, were vastly farther from the eye of the observer than that part immediately overhead, consequently it was large in the zenith and tapering, serpent-like, toward the horizon, and being in constant motion around the earth, I can no longer marvel at the expression met with in the world legends, such as the "world-enfolding serpent,' "the "serpent that coils nine times around Parnassus," the serpent-god of the tree of life," etc., etc. Let us for a moment turn our attention to Icelandic or Norsic annals, which above all others have maintained their original purity. Here we find the great "world-serpent," and the "great world-tree," and that, too, so inseparably interwoven with annular testimony that it is impossible to find one ray of light in the solution of the problem without annular aid. The most conspicuous feature in all Scandinavian literature is the world-tree. Ygdrassil, that "sends its roots down into the underworld and its branches all over the heavens." There, too, the "world enclosing snake," the "Mid-gard serpent" arches the home of the gods, and the "Nidhug serpent" nestles at the base of the tree. In whatever field of ancient thought my researches have taken me, I find this one all pervading memorial: The life prolonging tree, with its serpent custodian. Connected too, with this thought, is that other annular survival, the serpent that was originally a beneficent guardian-deity, and protecting He was worshiped as a god, and for many apspirit, finally became the genius of evil and the source of all earth's ills. The investigator will inevitably find this to be the case. All through the writings of Virgil, Obid and their compeers, the serpent or dragon is the genius of the altus, or high sea, and the question is in order, how did the term high sea originate among those ancient people, if there was not an actual sea on high? Among these ancient Latins too, the beneficent serpent became the source and agent of evil, so also among the Greeks and the old Iranian races. India too, had her primeval earth and its inhabitants under the protection of the great many-headed serpent that floated on the celestial deep, and which finally crushed the earth in its giant folds. 66 66 parent centuries the praises of priests and sacrifices and eulogies of Kings were centered upon that deity. For a long time previous to the time of the 18th dynasty, the monuments. were profusely dedicated to that god, and his hieroglyphic made a conspicuous feature thereon. Immediately subsequent to that time he began to lose prestige, and it was not long till he was no longer emblazoned on monument or temple, and in many places, says Rawlinson, his very name was mutilated or erased, and Osiris and Horus and Ra, all solar deities, submitted in his place. In connection with this and dovetailing, felicitously with this account, Egyptian history declares that the sun existed before the heavens were formed, which can only mean that the sun beEuripides tells us plainly the “brazen backed comes visible as the annular heavens passed serpent' guarded the "sacred tree" by away. Again, it has long been to Egyptolowinding his folds around the inaccessible gists a most puzzling difficulty to account for circle." What inaccessible circle, except the the well-known fact that the sun was long unapproachable arches of heaven? He also worshiped as a "concealed god." Amon Ra tells us that Hercules killed this serpent by means the "concealed sun. And now if it penetrating the recesses of the Okeanos, un- can be shown that Typhan was a serpent, this der the central seat of Heaven." The same dovetailing of facts would seem to be suffiwriter tells us that "the caves of the serpent ciently complete to excuse this digression were the celestial heights and observatories of from the Eden narrative in order to throw the Gods." I need not push this thought more light upon it. I will attend to this featfurther, though I could fill a volume to prove, ure in my next. from many sources, that in remote antiguity the serpent was the one great central object of the world's adoration, and this, simply because it was regarded as the spirit or genius of the world enshrouding vapors. And that genius, so long as it was a protecting canopy, was worshiped as the guardian deity of the known universe, the spirit of the life-imparting tree. It is not needful for me to point out how this protecting canopy, in the deified personation of the serpent became the agent of evil; the ravager and destroyer of mankind; for, I say the unimpeachable testimony of a world of immortal witnesses proclaim that such was the case. First, a beneficent god, worshiped all over the earth, as the serpent images found in every continent in almost every land abundantly prove, demands this great uni-bridge and the fork were the poles of a voltaic versal cause, and the serpent vapors seen by battery, which placed the wire within the cir every tongue and tribe under heaven could cuit and would be heated to a redness when alone supply this cause. Second, the trans- the current was sufficiently strong. formation from the beneficent to the evil agency, demands a removal of this cause. Now the cause was removed, and that too, as I have abundantly shown, at the very time the conquering sun began his march to victory, in the Eden world. Now as dovetailing testimony, sun-worship should be found to have planted itself on the ruins of serpent-worship; for, the advent of the sun simply and inevitably banished the serpent. Well, what are the facts? Witnesses rescued from the dust, crowd to answer, and the response comes from the whole circuit of the earth: Heliolatry was planted on the ashes of Ophiolatry! A transition, I say, that can receive no satisfactory explanation outside of the final disappearance of the serpent canopy, and the universal conquest of the solar orb. As a simple example of the testimony given by the cold but eloquent monuments of the earth, I will close this article with a voice from Egypt. Typhan was the name of the good and protecting genius of ancient Egyptian thought. Elsinore, San Diego Co., Cal. ONE OF PROF. TYNDALL'S EXPERIMENTS EXAMINED. BY PROF. ALONZO HALL. Professor Tyndall in his third lecture on sound has recourse to a beautiful experiment, intended to render visible to his audience the nodes and ventral segments into which a string divides itself when made to respond to a musical tone. He used a fine platinum wire heated to redness by means of an electric current. The wire was stretched from the prong of a tuningfork and over a bridge of copper to a peg by which to change its tension. The copper The experiment began when the wire showed a bright red heat. I can do no better than to quote the professor's words describing the experiment: "I draw my bow across the fork; the wire vibrates as a whole; its two ends are brilliant, while the middle is dark, being chilled by its rapid passage through the air." [It might be well to remind Mr. Sedley Taylor et. al. in England that the word "rapid" just quoted does not mean "slow," neither does it mean "frequent."] "Thus you have a shading off of incandescence from the ends to the center of the wire. I relax the tension, the wire divides itself into two ventral segments, I relax still further and now you have the wire divided into four ventral segments separated by these three brilliant nodes.”—“Lectures on Sound," p. 110. Here we have involved in one experiment four different so-called modes of motion, namely, electricity, heat, light and sound. The professor finds it very necessary to explain why the temperature of the ventral segments is lowered and that of the nodes raised "almost to fusion." I accept his statement that the wire will separate itself into ventral segments and nodes, but I am not satisfied with his explanation of the incidental phenomenon of the nodes nearly melting, and the vibrating segments cooling off from the red heat to a lower temperature. He says on the same page: "You notice also when the wire settles into a steady vibration, that the nodes shine out with greater brilliancy than did the wire before the vibrations commenced. The reason is this, electricity passes more freely along a cold wire than along a hot one. When, therefore, the vibrating segments are chilled by their swift passage through the air, their conductivity is improved, more electricity passing through the vibrating than through the motionless wire and hence the augmented glow of the nodes. If, previous to the agitation of the fork, the wire be at a bright red heat, when it vibrates its nodes are raised to the temperature of fusion.” Professor Tyndall may actually have done what he describes so graphically, but I am sure he would not jeopardize his reputation as an investigator of physical phenomena by repeating the experiment described, to be followed by such an explanation as, "Electricity passes more freely along a cold substance than along a hot one.' It is admitted by electricians generally that the most pronounced non-conductors of electricity, such as glass, the gases, magnesia, etc., are converted into good conductors by means of heat. Glass for instance, when heated to a cherry red, allows the electric current to pass very freely. The question thus arises, if the phenomenon really occurred in the course of the professor's experiment, can physicists of the mode-ofmotion school explain it satisfactorily? Even granting that the rapid motion of the ventral segments through the air cooled those parts of the wire, there can still be no scientific reason -from their point of view-why the nodes or motionless parts of the wire should show an augmented glow above the normal red heat of the wire when it is not in motion. I will offer an explanation from a Substantialist's point of view, though I should much prefer to have the experiment repeated, and be assured that the "nodes" do show augmented heat almost to fusion." back into the neighboring nodes, which heat, in addition to the red heat already present, augments the glow of the nodes probably “almost to fusion." If Professor Tyndall's explanation of the phenomenon, namely, that "the ventral segments are cooled by their swift passage through the air," should still be regarded as correct, it increases the difficulties for the wave-theorists. For instance, the ventral segments must now, when cooled, be considered as poorer conductors than when hot; the nodes should retain their normal conductivity unimpaired, and the result should be that the electric current should-by the changed condition of the ventral segment-heat it to a greater degree than is observed. In fact, no explanation based on improved or impaired conductivity of the wire can account for the fusion of the nodes and cooling of the ventral segments. In assuming that heat can be driven from one part of a substance to another part of it, I am reminded of the manner in which the tinsmith re-heats the point of the soldering copper without returning it to the fire-pot. When the solder ceases to flow along the seam, he knows the copper has cooled. He raises it to a vertical position, point up, for a few seconds, and resumes his work, when the solder flows as freely as before. The point of the copper seems really hotter than at first. The heat from the body of the copper passed to the point, and I imagine that, if it could be dropped from a great height, the heat would lag behind and be all crowded into the upper end, and instead of the normal temperature at the beginning of the fall the point would be as many degrees hotter as the lower end is colder. If a red-hot conical shell be fired from a cannon, no doubt the whole surface of the ball when it leaves the gun is of equal temperature; but after the shot has traveled a thousand yards, will the forward part of the shot still have a red heat? I am sure it will have cooled perceptibly, but not, as Tyndall would say, by reason of its rapid passage through the air. Again, after the shot has traveled the thousand yards, will the temperature of the rear part of the shot be the same as when it left the gun? I am as sure that it will be very much hotter, because the heat from the forward part falls back to the rear part, and, if Heat is a substance, though not material, the speed is great enough, the temperature and when another immaterial substance, elec- might become incandescent, though the algetricity, is forced through the fine platinum braic sum of the degrees of heat in the whole wire, the friction evolves heat sufficient to of the shot will not appreciably have changed raise the temperature of the wire to a red heat. save a slight increase by atmospheric friction. If the current from the battery is constant, A meteor in its wild dash through our atmosthen the red heat only is the effect of the cur- phere is heated to fusion. The heat is probrent's passage, and the changes of tempera-ably generated in the forward part, where it ture in the nodes and the vibrating segments have nothing to do with the constant current from the battery, but depend wholly on the mechanical effect of the vibration. comes in contact with the air, and as fast as it is generated it falls to the rear and accumulates in such intensity that the meteor begins to melt from the rear, leaving a trail of incandescent sparks, and finally is consumed by this accumulation of heat. THE LIVE FROG PROBLEM ONCE MORE. BY REV. JOHN MCCONNELL. When the prong vibrates in such a way as to cause the wire to arrange itself into nodes and ventral segments, there is no greater degree of heat evolved in the wire than before the fork was agitated. That is to say, the alge- A Toad in Solid Rock—And Frog in Solid Wood. braic sum of the degrees of heat in the whole length of the still wire, when only showing a red heat, is equal to the algebraic sum of the degrees of heat in both nodes and ventral segments of the same wire when vibrating. The heat that was apparent in the part of the wire that becomes the vibrating segment has simply not moved with the segment, but is crowded On page 76, Vol. VI., of the MICROCOSM, Wm. Cairne states, under the sweeping caption, "The live frog question settled. The whole mystery knocked out," that he knows that all the live toads and frogs ever found in rocks, etc., were exhumed from material so soft that a "toad could dig him a nest into it over Sunday-that none have ever been found in original ledges of solid rock," etc. Near West Lebanon, Armstrong Co., Pa., a stone was taken from a sandstone rock, about eight or ten feet from all parts of the outside of the rock. I did not see the rock myself, but the men quarrying the stone said that there was no split or crevice from the top or the side of the rock to the place where the stone was blasted off. The stone I, myself, saw. It was about five feet long and eighteen inches square. This stone the masons split lengthwise in two halves, after it had been brought to the place of building. When the two halves tell apart there was found about eighteen inches from the one end and not quite in the center of the breadth of the stone a live toad. The sun was very hot. The toad hopped about for some time, and in about one hour died. I examined the stone and could find no difference in solidity at any point. The masons did the same with hammer and chisel, with like result. Did that toad work its way for nine inches through solid rock, dig a hole seven inches long and over two in diameter, and fill up its passageway as solidly as any other part of the rock whilst the workmen were resting over Sunday? In York County, Pa., I saw a chestnut log 11 feet long, two feet in diameter. The tree had been felled several days. The log was sawed off at both ends before dinner, and split open an hour later. The log was without crack, split or crevice. In the heart, four feet from one end, we found a live frog. Did that frog work its way from the end of the log and then turn round and fill its passageway with chestnut wood so solidly that no difference could be detected, during the time we were away for dinner? Or, did it work its way for twelve inches from the side of the log, then fix up the hole-wood, bark and all-so cunningly as to leave no trace of its skill behind? Is the question settled-the whole mystery knocked -out?! Salina, Pa. EDITORIAL REMARKS. If the facts here given be authentic, which we have no right to doubt, then the solution of the problem by Mr. Cairne, as referred to by Mr. McConnell, must be abandoned as inadequate. The facts here given surely again opens this question so full of profound mystery and so fruitful of scientific research. If an animal can live thus confined in solid rock, shut out from all air or moisture for ages, as must have been the case since that sandstone settled and solidified from its plastic condition, then vital force must be something vastly more enduring than hitherto conceived of by scientific men. The question is still open to our readers for new facts and new light bearing thereon. A GOOD SUGGESTION. At a hint by Rev. Father P. F. Karel, a Catholic priest of Peekskill, N. Y., and, by the way, a good friend of the cause of Substantialism, we commence with this number giving a monthly table of contents at the bottom of the last page. Thanks for the suggestion. THOMAS CHATER ON THE WAVETHEORY. By reference to our second reply to Sedley Taylor in this number it will be seen that our December argument based on a comparison of the effects of a wood and of an iron sound board for augmenting the tone of strings, tuning forks, etc., has struck the wave-theory of sound in its very vitals. Not only does Sedley Taylor recognize this fact by his desperate effort to escape it, but Mr. Thomas Chater, a most critical acoustical expert of London, also feels that our novel argument has made the case absolutely desperate against the wave-theory, as he shows by an original explanation in the Musical Opinion of the action of the sound-board in augmenting tone. Mr. Chater evidently saw that the game was up with wave-theorists unless the effects of our comparison could be wiped out. Hence his novel "explanation." wipe out Mr. Chater, even worse than in the case of Mr. Taylor, as seen, page 73, which we commend to every reader who still thinks the wave-theory tenable. Next month we shall (From the Norristown, Pa., Review.) "During the past year the drug business of the United States has fallen off $980,000, or about 25 per cent., largely due, as believed, to the quite general adoption of the method of treating diseased conditions without medicine, first discovered and published by the distinguished scientist, Dr. Wilford Hall, editor of the MICROCOSM, who, on request by postal card to 23 Park Row, New York, will send free information concerning this remedy." |