text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/217

V.] pony, and others—and, in the breaking up of the language into dialects, one of these synonymous appellations is liable to become the prevailing one in one dialect, another in another, to the neglect and loss of all but the one selected. Or, a new name is started in a single dialect, wins currency there, and crowds out of use its predecessors. The German, for instance, has, indeed, our word horse, in the form ross (earlier hros), but employs it more rarely, preferring to use instead pferd, a word of which we know nothing. The modern Romanic tongues, too, say in the same sense caballo, cheval, etc., words coming from the Latin caballus, 'nag,' and they have lost almost altogether the more usual and dignified Latin term equus. Thus, further, the modern French name for 'shoemaker' is cordonnier, literally 'worker in Cordovan leather;' for 'cheese,' fromage, properly 'pressed into a form, moulded;' for 'liver,' foie, originally 'cooked with figs'—that fruit having been, as it seems, at a certain period, the favourite garnish for dishes of liver: while the Latin appellations of these three objects have gone out of use and out of memory. But for the numerals and pronouns our languages have never shown any disposition to create a synonymy; it was, as we may truly say, no easy task for the linguistic faculty to arrive at a suitable sign for the ideas they convey; and, when the sign was once found, it maintained itself thenceforth in use everywhere, without danger of replacement by any other, of later coinage. Hence all the Indo-European nations, however widely they may be separated, and however discordant in manners and civilization, count with the same words, and use the same personal pronouns in individual address—the same, with the exception, of course, of the changes which phonetic corruption has wrought upon their forms.

For reasons not so easily explainable, the Indo-European languages show a hardly less noteworthy general accordance in regard to the terms by which, within the historical period, or down even to the present time, they indicate the degrees of near relationship, such as father, mother, daughter, brother, sister. Formed, as these words were, in the earliest period of history of the common mother-tongue, they have in nearly


text:
Davy and the Goblin/Chapter XIII

Chapter XIII. The Talking Waves, and the Old Sea-Dog. “I wonder why the ocean doesn’t keep still sometimes, and not be moving its edge about all the time,” said Davy, after watching the waves that constantly rolled up on the beach and then rolled back again, looking like creamy soap-suds.

“That wouldn’t do at all!” said a Wave that rolled almost up to his feet. “The beach gets mussed, you see, and we have to smooth it off again. The sea is always tidy;” and here the Wave broke with a little, murmuring laugh, and rolled back again, all in a foam.

Davy was so astonished that it almost took away his breath. A talking Wave was certainly the most marvellous thing he had met with, and in an instant he was lying flat on his face, trembling with eagerness, and waiting for the next Wave to roll up on the shore.

It came in a moment, and gently whispered, “If we didn’t wet the sand once in a while there wouldn’t be any nuts on the beach-trees,—no nuts on the trees, and no shells on the shore;” and here this Wave broke in its turn into foam, and ran back into the sea.

“This is perfectly delicious!” said Davy, joyfully, and as the next Wave rolled up to him he softly asked, “Do you know the Whale?”

“Know him!” cried the Wave, passionately; “I should think I did! Many a time I’ve been spanked by his horrid old tail. The nasty, blundering, floundering, walloping old”—and here the end of the sentence dribbled away in a sort of washy whisper.

“Such a mouth!” said the next Wave, taking up the story. “Like a fishing-smack lined with red morocco! And such a temper! I wouldn’t be so crusty for all”—but just here the Wave toppled over as usual, and the rest of the sentence ran back into the sea.

“Once,” said the next Wave, still scolding about the Whale,—“once he got so far up on the shore that he couldn’t get back into the water for a long time, and he blamed me for it, and called me names. He said I was a mean, low tide;” but just as Davy was eagerly listening for the rest of the story this Wave, like the rest, broke into foam and washed away.

“It’s really too ridiculous, the way they break off their sentences!” cried Davy, impatiently.

“Is it, indeed!” said a big Wave, coming in with a rush. “Perhaps you’d like to get acquainted with an angry sea!”

It was an angry sea, indeed; for, as the Wave said this, the ocean was suddenly lashed into fury, the water rose into huge, green billows that came tossing up on the shore, and Davy, scrambling to his feet, ran for his life. The air was filled with flying spray, and he could hear the roar of the water coming on behind him with a mighty rush as he ran across the beach, not daring to stop until he found himself out of reach of the angry ocean, on a high bluff of sand. Here he stopped, quite out of breath, and looked back.

The wind was blowing fiercely, and a cloud of spray was dashed in his face as he turned toward it, and presently the air was filled with lobsters, eels, and wriggling fishes that were being carried inshore by the gale. Suddenly, to Davy’s astonishment, a dog came sailing along. He was being helplessly blown about among the lobsters, uneasily jerking his tail from side to side to keep it out of reach of their great claws, and giving short, nervous barks from time to time, as though he were firing signal-guns of distress. In fact, he seemed to be having such a hard time of it that Davy caught him by the ear as he was going by, and landed him in safety on the beach. He proved to be a very shaggy, battered-looking animal, in an old pea-jacket, with a weather-beaten tarpaulin hat jammed on the side of his head, and a patch over one eye; altogether he was the most extraordinary-looking animal that could be imagined, and Davy stood staring at him, and wondering what sort of a dog he was.

Davy assists the old Sea-Dog.

“Are you a pointer?” he said at last, by way of opening conversation.

“Not I,” said the Dog, sulkily. “It’s rude to point. I’m an old Sea-Dog, come ashore in a gale.”

Here he stared doubtfully at Davy for a moment, and then said, in a husky voice:—

“What’s the difference between a dog-watch and a watch-dog? It’s a conundrum.”

“I don’t know,” said Davy, who would have laughed if he had not been a little afraid of the Dog.

“A dog-watch keeps a watching on a bark,” said the old Sea-Dog; “and a watch-dog keeps a barking on a watch.” Here he winked at Davy, and said, “What’s your name?” as if he had just mentioned his own.

“Davy”—began the little boy, but before he could say another word the old Sea-Dog growled, “Right you are!” and, handing him a folded paper, trotted gravely away, swaggering, as he went, like a seafaring man.

The paper was addressed to “Davy Jones,” and was headed inside, “Binnacle Bob: His werses;” and below these words Davy found the following story:—

To inactivity inclined Was Captain Parker Pitch’s mind; In point of fact, ’twas fitted for A sedentary life ashore.

His disposition, so to speak, Was nautically soft and weak; He feared the rolling ocean, and He very much preferred the land.

A stronger-minded man by far Was gallant Captain Thompson Tar; And (what was very wrong, I think) He marked himself with India ink.

He boldly sailed the “Soaking Sue” When angry gales and tempests blew, And even from the nor-nor-east He didn’t mind ’em in the least.

Now, Captain Parker Pitch’s sloop Was called the “Cozy Chickencoop,”— A truly comfortable craft, With ample state-rooms fore and aft.

No foolish customs of the deep, Like “watches,” robbed his crew of sleep; That estimable lot of men Were all in bed at half-past ten.

At seven bells, one stormy day, Bold Captain Tar came by that way, And in a voice extremely coarse He roared “Ahoy!” till he was hoarse.

Next morning, of his own accord, This able seaman came aboard, And made the following remark Concerning Captain Pitch’s bark:—

''“Avast!” says he, “Belay! What cheer!'' How comes this little wessel here? Come, tumble up your crew,” says he, “And navigate a bit with me!”

Says Captain Pitch, “I can’t refuse To join you on a friendly cruise; But you’ll oblige me, Captain Tar, By not a-taking of me far.”

At this reply from Captain Pitch, Bold Thompson gave himself a hitch, It cut him to the heart to find A seaman in this frame of mind.

“Avast!” says he; “we’ll bear away For Madagascar and Bombay, Then down the coast to Yucatan, Kamtschatka, Guinea, and Japan.”

“Stand off for Egypt, Turkey, Spain, Australia, and the Spanish Main, Then through the nor-west passage for Van Dieman’s Land and Labrador.”

Says Captain Pitch, “The ocean swell Makes me exceedingly unwell, And, Captain Tar, before we start, Pray join me in a friendly tart.”

And shall I go and take and hide The sneaking trick that Parker tried? ''Oh! no. I very much prefer'' To state his actions as they were:

With marmalade he first began To tempt that bluff seafaring man, Then fed him all the afternoon With custard in a table-spoon.

No mariner, however tough, Can thrive upon this kind of stuff; And Thompson soon appeared to be A feeble-minded child of three.

He cried for cakes and lollipops; He played with dolls and humming-tops; He even ceased to roar “I’m blowed!” And shook a rattle, laughed, and crowed.

When Parker saw the seamen gaze Upon the captain’s cunning ways, Base envy thrilled him through and through. And he became a child of two.

Now, Parker had in his employ A mate, two seamen, and a boy; The mate was fond as he could be Of babies, and he says, says he,—

“Why, messmates, as we’re all agreed Sea-bathing is the thing they need, Let’s drop these hinfants off the quarter!” (They did, in fourteen fathom water).

—and here the story came abruptly to an end.

Davy was quite distressed at this, particularly as the dreadful thought came into his mind that some babies do not know how to swim, and he was therefore very well satisfied when he saw that the old Sea-Dog had apparently changed his mind about going away, and was swaggering along toward him again.

“If you please,” said Davy, as the surly creature came within hearing distance,—“if you please, sir, were the two little captains drowned?”

“Well, sticking, as it were, to the truth, they were not,” replied the old Sea-Dog, very gruffly.

“Then, why don’t you say so in the story?” said Davy.

Now, this was pretty bold of him, for old Sea-Dogs don’t much like to have fault found with their verses, and this particular old Sea-Dog evidently did not like it at all, for, after staring at Davy for a moment, he began walking slowly around him in such a threatening manner that Davy, thinking that perhaps he meant to jump on him from behind, began also turning so as to keep his face always toward the Dog. Meanwhile, as you may well believe, he began to feel very sorry that he had said anything about the verses.

Presently the old Sea-Dog broke into a clumsy canter, like a weary old circus horse, and as he went heavily around the circle he began to explain about the story. “You see there’s more of it,” said he, wheezing dreadfully as he galloped; “but then I haven’t had the time to put the rest of it in rhyme. It’s all about old Thompson’s crew as stayed aboard the ‘Soaking Sue,’ and saw the skippers floating by and hauled ’em out and got ’em dry, and when the little creeturs cried they gave ’em something warm inside, and being as they had no bed they stowed ’em in a bunk instead,”—but just at this moment the old Sea-Dog, who had been constantly increasing his speed, disappeared in a most extraordinary manner in a whirling cloud of sand, and Davy, who was by this time spinning around like a teetotum, discovered that he himself was rapidly boring his way, like a big screw, down into the beach. This was, of course, a very alarming state of things; but, before Davy could make an effort to free himself, the whirling cloud of sand burst upon him with a loud, roaring sound like the sea, and he felt himself going directly down through the beach, with the sand pouring in upon him as if he had been inside of a huge hour-glass. He had just time to notice that, instead of scraping him, the sand had a delightful ticklesome feeling about it, when he went completely through the beach, and landed, with a gentle thump, flat on his back, with tall grass waving about him.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Davy and the Goblin/Chapter XIII


text:
Davy and the Goblin/Chapter XIV

Chapter XIV. The End of the Believing Voyage. When Davy sat up and looked around him he found himself in a beautiful meadow, with the sun shining brightly on the grass and the wild flowers. The air was filled with dainty-colored insects, darting about in the warm sunshine, and chirping cheerily as they flew, and at a little distance the Goblin was sitting on the grass, attentively examining a great, struggling creature that he was holding down by its wings.

“I suppose,” said the Goblin, as if Davy’s sudden appearance was the most ordinary thing in the world,—“I suppose that this is about the funniest bug that flies.”

“What is it?” said Davy, cautiously edging away.

“It’s a Cricket-Bat,” said the Goblin, rapping familiarly with his knuckles on its hard shell. “His body is like a boot-jack, and his wings are like a pair of umbrellas.”

“But, you know, a Cricket-Bat is something to play with!” said Davy, surprised at the Goblin’s ignorance.

“Well, you may play with it if you like. I don’t want to,” said the Goblin, carelessly tossing the great creature over to Davy, and walking away.

The Cricket-Bat made a swoop at Davy, knocking him over like a feather, and then, with a loud snort, flew away across the meadow. It dashed here and there at flying things of every kind, and, turning on its side, knocked them, one after another, quite out of sight, until, to Davy’s delight, the Cockalorum came into view, flying across the meadow in his usual blundering fashion. At sight of him the Cricket-Bat gave another triumphant snort, and with a wild plunge at the great creature knocked him floundering into the tall grass, and with a loud, whirring sound disappeared in a distant wood.

Davy ran to the spot where the Cockalorum had fallen, and found him sitting helplessly in the grass, looking dreadfully rumpled, and staring about confusedly, as if wondering what had happened to him. As Davy came running up he murmured, in a reproachful way, “Oh! it’s you, is it? Well, then, I don’t want any more of it.”

“Upon my word I didn’t do it,” cried Davy, trying to keep from laughing. “It was the Cricket-Bat.”

“And what did he want?” murmured the Cockalorum, very sadly.

“Oh! he was only having a game of cricket with you,” said Davy, soothingly. “You were the ball, you know.”

The Cockalorum pondered over this for a moment, and then murmuring, “I prefer croquet,” floundered away through the waving grass. Davy, who for once felt sorry for the ridiculous old creature, was just setting off after him, when a voice cried, “Come on! Come on!” and Davy, looking across the meadow, saw the Goblin beckoning vigorously to him, apparently in great excitement.

“What’s the matter?” cried Davy, pushing his way through the thick grass.

“Oh, my! oh, my!” shrieked the Goblin, who was almost bursting with laughter. “Here’s that literary hack again!”

Davy peered through a clump of bushes, and discovered a large red animal, with white spots on its sides, clumsily rummaging about in the tall grass and weeds. Its appearance was so formidable that he was just about whispering to the Goblin, “Let’s run!” when the monster raised its head, and, after gazing about for an instant, gave a loud, triumphant whistle.

“Why, it’s Ribsy!” cried Davy, running forward. “It’s Ribsy, only he’s grown enormously fat.”

It was Ribsy, indeed, eating with all his might, and with his skin so stretched by his extreme fatness that the hair stood straight up all over it like a brush. The name on his side was twisted about beyond all hope of making it out, and his collar had quite disappeared in a deep crease about his neck. In fact, his whole appearance was so alarming that Davy anxiously inquired of him what he had been eating.

“Everything!” said Ribsy, enthusiastically,—“grass, nuts, bugs, birds, and berries! All of ’em taste good. I could eat both of you easily,” he added, glaring hungrily down upon Davy and the Goblin.

“Try that fellow first,” said the Goblin, pointing to a large, round insect that went flying by, humming like a top. Ribsy snapped at it, and swallowed it, and the next instant disappeared with a tremendous explosion in a great cloud of smoke.

“What was that?” said Davy, in a terrified whisper.

“A Hum Bug,” said the Goblin, calmly. “When a cab-horse on a vacation talks about eating you, a Hum Bug is a pretty good thing to take the conceit out of him. They’re loaded, you see, and they go booming along as innocently as you please; but if you touch ’em—why, ‘There you aren’t!’ as the Hole-keeper says.”

“The Hole-keeper isn’t himself any more,” said Davy, mournfully.

“Not altogether himself, but somewhat,” said a voice; and Davy, looking around, was astonished to find the Hole-keeper standing beside him. He was a most extraordinary-looking object, being nothing but Davy’s parcel marked, “,” with arms and legs and a head to it. At the sight of him the Goblin fell flat on his back, and covered his face with his hands.

“I’m quite aware that my appearance is not prepossessing,” said the Hole-keeper, with a scornful look at the Goblin. “In fact, I’m nothing but a quarter of a pound of ‘plain,’ and the price isn’t worth mentioning.”

“But how did you ever come to be alive again, at all?” said Davy.

“Well,” said the Hole-keeper, “the truth of the matter is, that after you went away the Cockalorum fell to reading the Vacuum; and, if you’ll believe it, there wasn’t a word in it about my going back into the raw material.”

“I do believe that,” said Davy; but the Hole-keeper, without noticing the interruption, went on:—

“Then, of course, I got up and came away. Meanwhile the Cockalorum is gorging himself with information.

“I saw him just now,” said Davy, laughing, “and he didn’t act as if he had learned anything very lately. I don’t think he’ll find much in your book;” and here he went off into another fit of laughter.

“Ah! but just think of the lots and lots of things he won’t find,” exclaimed the Hole-keeper. “Everything he doesn’t find in it is something worth knowing. By the way, your friend seems to be having some sort of a fit. Give him some dubbygrums;” and with this the Hole-keeper stalked pompously away.

“The smell of sugar always gives me the craw-craws,” said the Goblin, in a stifled voice, rolling on the ground and keeping his hands over his face. “Get me some water.”

“I haven’t anything to get it in,” said Davy, helplessly.

“There’s a buttercup behind you,” groaned the Goblin, and Davy, turning, saw a buttercup growing on a stem almost as tall as he was himself. He picked it, and hurried away across the meadow to look for water, the buttercup, meanwhile, growing in his hand in a surprising manner, until it became a full-sized teacup, with a handle conveniently growing on one side. Davy, however, had become so accustomed to this sort of thing that he would not have been greatly surprised if a saucer had also made its appearance.

 Davy falls into the elastic spring.

Presently he came upon a sparkling little spring, gently bubbling up in a marshy place, with high, sedgy grass growing about it, and being a very neat little boy he took off his shoes and stockings, and carefully picked his way over the oozy ground to the edge of the spring itself. He was just bending over to dip the cup into the spring, when the ground under his feet began trembling like jelly, and then, giving itself a convulsive shake, threw him head-foremost into the water.

For a moment Davy had a very curious sensation, as though his head and his arms and his legs were all trying to get inside of his jacket, and then he came sputtering to the top of the water and scrambled ashore. To his astonishment he saw that the spring had spread itself out into a little lake, and that the sedge-grass had grown to an enormous height, and was waving far above his head. Then he was startled by a tremendous roar of laughter, and, looking around, he saw the Goblin, who was now apparently at least twenty feet high, standing beside the spring.

“Oh, lor! Oh, lor!” cried the Goblin, in an uncontrollable fit of merriment. “Another minute and you wouldn’t have been bigger than a peanut!”

“What’s the matter with me?” said Davy, not knowing what to make of it all.

“Matter?” cried the Goblin. “Why, you’ve been and gone and fallen into an Elastic Spring, that’s all. If you’d got in at stretch tide, early in the morning, you’d have been a perfect giraffe; but you got in at shrink tide and—oh, my! oh, my!” and here he went off into another fit of laughter.

“I don’t think it’s anything to laugh at,” cried Davy, with the tears starting to his eyes, “and I’m sure I don’t know what I’m going to do.”

“Oh! don’t worry,” said the Goblin, good-naturedly. “I’ll take a dip myself, just to be companionable, and tomorrow morning we can get back to any size you like.”

“I wish you’d take these things in with you,” said Davy, pointing to his shoes and stockings. “They’re big enough now for Badorful.”

“All right!” cried the Goblin. “Here we go;” and, taking the shoes and stockings in his hand, he plunged into the spring, and a moment afterward scrambled out exactly Davy’s size.

“Now, that’s what I call a nice, tidy size,” said the Goblin, complacently, while Davy was squeezing his feet into his wet shoes. “What do you say to a ride on a field-mouse?”

“That will be glorious!” said Davy.

“Well, there goes the sun,” said the Goblin; “it will be moonlight presently, and moonlight is the time for mouse-back riding;” and as he spoke, the sun went down with a boom like a distant gun, and left them in the dark. The next moment the moon rose above the trees and beamed down pleasantly upon them, and the Goblin, taking Davy by the hand, led him into the wood.

“Freckles,” said the Goblin, “what time is it?”

“Freckles,” said the goblin, “What time is it?”

They were now in the densest part of the wood, where the moon was shining brightly on a little pool with rushes growing about it, and the Goblin was speaking to a large Toad.

“Forty croaks,” said the Toad, in a husky whisper; and then, as a frog croaked in the pool, he added, “That makes it forty-one. The Snoopers have come in, and Thimbletoes is shaking in his boots.” And with these words the Toad coughed, and then hopped heavily away.

“What does he mean?” whispered Davy.

“He means that the fairies are here, and that means that we won’t get our ride,” said the Goblin, rather sulkily.

“And who is Thimbletoes?” said Davy.

“He’s the Prime Minister,” said the Goblin. “You see, if any one of the Snoopers finds out something the Queen didn’t know before, out goes the Prime Minister, and the Snooper pops into his boots. Thimbletoes doesn’t fancy that, you know, because the Prime Minister has all the honey he wants, by way of a salary. Now, here’s the mouse-stable, and don’t you speak a word—mind!”

As the Goblin said this they came upon a little thatched building, about the size of a baby-house, standing just beyond the pool; and the Goblin, cautiously pushing open the door, stole noiselessly in, with Davy following at his heels, trembling with excitement.

The little building was curiously lighted up by a vast number of fire-flies, hung from the ceiling by loops of cobweb; and Davy could see several spiders hurrying about among them and stirring them up when the light grew dim. The field-mice were stabled in little stalls on either side, each one with his tail neatly tied in a bow-knot to a ring at one side; and, at the farther end of the stable was a buzzing throng of fairies, with their shining clothes and gauzy wings sparkling beautifully in the soft light. Just beyond them Davy saw the Queen sitting on a raised throne, with a little mullen-stalk for a sceptre, and beside her was the Prime Minister, in a terrible state of agitation.

“Now, here’s this Bandybug,” the Prime Minister was saying. “What does he know about untying the knots in a cord of wood?”

“Nothing!” said the Queen, positively. “Absolutely nothing!”

“And then,” continued the Prime Minister, “the idea of his presuming to tell your Gossamer Majesty that he can hear the bark of the dogwood trees”—

“Bosh!” cried the Queen. “Paint him with raspberry jam, and put him to bed in a bee-hive. That’ll make him smart, at all events.”

Here the Prime Minister began dancing about in an ecstasy, until the Queen knocked him over with the mullen-stalk, and shouted, “Silence! and plenty of it, too. Bring in Berrylegs.”

Berrylegs, who proved to be a wiry little Fairy, with a silver coat and tight, cherry-colored trousers, was immediately brought in. His little wings fairly bristled with defiance, and his manner, as he stood before the Queen, was so impudent, that Davy felt morally certain there was going to be a scene.

Davy felt morally certain there was going to be a scene.

“May it please your Transparent Highness,”—began Berrylegs.

“Skip all that!” interrupted the Queen, flourishing her mullen-stalk.

“Skip, yourself!” said Berrylegs, boldly, in reply. “Don’t you suppose I know how to talk to a Queen?”

The Queen turned very pale, and, after a hurried consultation with the Prime Minister, said faintly, “Have it your own way;” and Berrylegs began again.

“May it please your Transparent Highness, I’ve found out how the needles get into the haystacks.”

As Berrylegs said this a terrible commotion arose at once among the fairies. The Prime Minister cried out, “Oh, come, I say! That’s not fair, you know,” and the Queen became so agitated that she began taking great bites off the end of the mullen-stalk in a dazed sort of way; and Davy noticed that the Goblin, in his excitement, was trying to climb up on one of the mouse-stalls, so as to get a better view of what was going on. At last the Queen, whose mouth was now quite filled with bits of the mullen-stalk, mumbled, “Get to the point.”

“It ought to be a sharp one, being about needles,” said the Prime Minister, attempting a joke, with a feeble laugh, but no one paid the slightest attention to him; and Berrylegs, who was now positively swelling with importance, called out, in a loud voice, “It comes from using sewing-machines when they sow the hay-seed!”

The Prime Minister gave a shriek, and fell flat on his face, and the Queen began jumping frantically up and down, and beating about on all sides of her with the end of the mullen-stalk, when suddenly a large Cat walked into the stable, and the fairies fled in all directions. There was no mistaking the Cat, and Davy, forgetting entirely the Goblin’s caution, exclaimed, “Why! it’s Solomon!”

The next instant the lights disappeared, and Davy found himself in total darkness, with Solomon’s eyes shining at him like two balls of fire. There was a confused sound of sobs and cries and the squeaking of mice, among which could be heard the Goblin’s voice, crying, “Davy! Davy!” in a reproachful way; then the eyes disappeared, and a moment afterward the stable was lifted off the ground and violently shaken.

“That’s Solomon, trying to get at the mice,” thought Davy. “I wish the old thing had stayed away,” he added aloud, and as he said this the little stable was broken all to bits, and he found himself sitting on the ground in the forest.

The moon had disappeared, and snow was falling rapidly, and the sound of distant chimes reminded Davy that it must be past midnight, and that Christmas-day had come. Solomon’s eyes were shining in the darkness like a pair of coach-lamps, and, as Davy sat looking at them, a ruddy light began to glow between them, and presently the figure of the Goblin appeared, dressed in scarlet, as when he had first come. The reddish light was shining through his stomach again, as though the coals had been fanned into life once more, and as Davy gazed at him it grew brighter and stronger, and finally burst into a blaze. Then Solomon’s eyes gradually took the form of great brass balls, and presently the figure of the long-lost Colonel came into view just above them, affectionately hugging his clock. He was gazing mournfully down upon the poor Goblin, who was now blazing like a dry chip, and as the light of the fire grew brighter and stronger the trees about slowly took the shape of an old-fashioned fireplace with a high mantel-shelf above it, and then Davy found himself curled up in the big easy-chair, with his dear old grandmother bending over him, and saying gently, “Davy! Davy! Come and have some dinner, my dear!”

In fact, the Believing Voyage was ended.

title: Davy and the Goblin/Chapter XIV


text: Talk:Davy and the Goblin

title: Talk:Davy and the Goblin


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/218

196 all its branches escaped being superseded by expressions of later growth, although there is hardly one of them which does not here and there exhibit a modern substitute.

The following table will set forth, it is believed, in a plain and apprehensible manner some of the correspondences of which we have been speaking. For the sake of placing their value in a clearer light, I add under each word its equivalents in three of the languages—namely Arabic, Turkish, and Hungarian—which, though neighbours of the Indo-European tongues, or enveloped by them, are of wholly different kindred.

I have selected, of course, for inclusion in this table, those words of the several classes represented which exhibit most clearly their actual unity of descent: in others, it would require some detailed discussion of phonetic relations to make the same unity appear. Thus, the Sanskrit panca, the Greek pente, the Latin quinque, and the Gothic fimf, all meaning 'five,' are as demonstrably the later metamorphoses of a single original word as are the varying forms of the primitive tri, 'three,' given above: each of their phonetic changes being supported by numerous analogies in the respective languages. The whole scheme of numeral and pronominal forms and of terms of relationship is substantially one and the same in all the tongues ranked as Indo-European.

These facts, of themselves, would go far toward proving the original unity of the languages in question. To look


text:
Author:Carleton Noyes

Works

 * "Poetry: General Introduction" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)
 * "The English Anthology" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)

title: Author:Carleton Noyes


text:
Author talk:Carleton Noyes

Image
There are photographs of Noyes on passport applications

though of poor quality, especially contrast and not worth reproducing. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Passport Applications, January 2, 1906 - March 31, 1925 (M1490) > 1921 > Roll 1788 - Certificates: 102000-102375, 02 Dec 1921-03 Dec 1921 > 415
 * Passport Applications, January 2, 1906 - March 31, 1925 (M1490) > 1924 > Roll 2524 - Certificates: 419350-419849, 17 May 1924-19 May 1924 > 713

title: Author talk:Carleton Noyes


text:
Author:Charles Burton Gulick

Works

 * "Homer and the Epic" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)
 * "Greek Tragedy" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)

title: Author:Charles Burton Gulick


text:
Author talk:Charles Burton Gulick

Name: Charles Burton Gulick

Birth - Death: 1868-1962

Source Citation:
 * Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 6: September, 1961-August, 1964. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1965. (BioIn 6)
 * Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 7: September, 1964-August, 1967. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1968. (BioIn 7)
 * The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Volume 49. New York: James T. White & Co., 1966. Use the Index to locate biographies. (NatCAB 49)
 * Who Was Who in America. A component volume of Who's Who in American History. Volume 4, 1961-1968. Chicago: Marquis Who's Who, 1968. (WhAm 4)

title: Author talk:Charles Burton Gulick


text:
Cooley v. Port of Philadelphia/Dissent McLean

Mr. Justice McLEAN.

It is with regret that I feel myself obliged to dissent from the opinion of a majority of my brethren in this case.

As expressing my views on the question involved, I will copy a few sentences from the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in the opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden. 'It has been said,' says that illustrious judge, 'that the act of August 7th, 1789, acknowledges a concurrent power in the states to regulate the conduct of pilots, and hence is inferred an admission of their concurrent right with Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and amongst the states.' But this inference is not, we think, justified by the fact.

'Although Congress,' he continues, 'cannot enable a state to legislate, Congress may adopt the provisions of a state on any subject. When the government of the Union was brought into existence, it found a system for the regulation of its pilots in full force in every state. The act which has been mentioned, adopts this system, and gives it the same validity as if its provisions had been specially made by Congress. But the act, it may be said, is prospective also, and the adoption of laws to be in future presupposes the right in the maker to legislate on the subject.'

'The act unquestionably manifests an intention to leave this subject entirely to the states, until Congress should think proper to interpose; but the very enactment of such a law indicates an opinion that it was necessary; that the existing system would not be applicable to the new state of things, unless expressly applied to it by Congress. But this section is confined to pilots within the bays, inlets, rivers, harbors, and ports of the United States, which are, of course, in whole or in part, also within the limits of some particular state. The acknowledged power of a state to regulate its police, its domestic trade, and to govern its own citizens, may enable it to legislate on this subject, to a considerable extent; and the adoption of its system by Congress, and the application of it to the whole subject of commerce, does not seem to the court to imply a right in the states so to apply it of their own authority. But the adoption of the state system being temporary, being only, 'until further legislative provision shall be made by Congress,' shows conclusively, an opinion that Congress could control the whole subject, and might adopt the system of the states or provide one of its own.'

Why did Congress pass the act of 1789, adopting the pilot-laws of the respective states? Laws they unquestionably were, having been enacted by the states before the adoption of the Constitution. But were they laws under the Constitution? If they had been so considered by Congress, they would not have been adopted by a special act. There is believed to be no instance in the legislation of Congress, where a state law has been adopted, which, before its adoption, applied to federal powers. To suppose such a case, would be an imputation of ignorance as to federal powers, least of all chargeable against the men who formed the Constitution and who best understood it.

Congress adopted the pilot-laws of the states, because it was well understood, they could have had no force, as regulations of foreign commerce or of commerce among the states, if not so adopted. By their adoption they were made acts of Congress, and ever since they have been so considered and enforced.

Each state regulates the commerce within its limits; which is not within the range of federal powers. So far, and no farther could effect have been given to the pilot laws of the states, under the Constitution. But those laws were only adopted 'until further legislative provisions shall be made by Congress.'

This shows that Congress claimed the whole commercial power on this subject, by adopting the pilot laws of the states, making them acts of Congress; and also by declaring that the adoption was only until some further legislative provision could be made by Congress.

Can Congress annul the acts of a state passed within its admitted sovereignty? No one, I suppose, could sustain such a proposition. State sovereignty can neither be enlarged nor diminished by an act of Congress. It is not known that Congress has ever claimed such a power.

If the states had not the power to enact pilot laws, as connected with foreign commerce, in 1789, when did they get it? It is an exercise of sovereign power to legislate. In this respect the Constitution is the same now as in 1789, and also the power of a state is the same. Whence, then, this enlargement of state power. Is it derived from the act of 1789, that pilots shall continue to be regulated 'in conformity with such laws as the states may respectively hereafter enact?' In the opinion of the Chief Justice, above cited, it is said, Congress may adopt the laws of a state, but it cannot enable a state to legislate. In other words, it cannot transfer to a state legislative powers. And the court also say that the states cannot apply the pilot laws of their own authority. We have here, then, the deliberate action of Congress, showing that the states have no inherent power to pass these laws, which is affirmed by the opinion of this court.

Ought not this to be considered as settling this question? What more of authority can be brought to bear upon it? But it is said that Congress is incompetent to legislate on this subject. Is this so? Did not Congress, in 1789, legislate on the subject by adopting the state laws, and may it not do so again? Was not that a wise and politic act of legislation? This is admitted. But it is said that Congress cannot legislate on this matter in detail. The act of 1789 shows that it is unnecessary for Congress so to legislate. A single section covers the whole legislation of the states, in regard to pilots. Where, then, is the necessity of recognizing this power to exist in the states? There is no such necessity; and if there were, it would not make the act of the state constitutional; for it is admitted that the power is in Congress.

That a state may regulate foreign commerce, or commerce among the states, is a doctrine which has been advanced by individual judges of this court; but never before, I believe, has such a power been sanctioned by the decision of this court. In this case, the power to regulate pilots is admitted to belong to the commercial power of Congress; and yet it is held, that a state, by virtue of its inherent power, may regulate the subject, until such regulation shall be annulled by Congress. This is the principle established by this decision. Its language is guarded, in order to apply the decision only to the case before the court. But such restriction can never operate, so as to render the principle inapplicable to other cases. And it is in this light that the decision is chiefly to be regretted. The power is recognised in the state, because the subject is more appropriate for state than federal action; and consequently, it must be presumed the Constitution cannot have intended to inhibit state action. This is not a rule by which the Constitution is to be construed. It can receive but little support from the discussions which took place on the adoption of the Constitution, and none at all from the earlier decisions of this court.

It will be found that the principle in this case, if carried out, will deeply affect the commercial prosperity of the country. If a state has power to regulate foreign commerce, such regulation must be held valid, until Congress shall repeal or annul it. But the present case goes further than this. Congress regulated pilots by the act of 1789, which made the acts of the state, on that subject, the acts of Congress. In 1803, Pennsylvania passed the law in question, which materially modified the act adopted by Congress; and this act of 1803 is held to be constitutional. This, then, asserts the right of a state, not only to regulate foreign commerce, but to modify, and, consequently, to repeal a prior regulation of Congress. Is there a mistake in this statement? There is none, if an adopted act of a state is thereby made an act of Congress, and if the regulation of pilots, in regard to foreign commerce, be a regulation of commerce. The latter position is admitted in the opinion of the court, and no one will controvert the former. I speak of the principle of the opinion, and not of the restricted application given to it by the learned judge who delivered it.

The noted Blackbird Creek case shows what little influence the facts and circumstances of a case can have in restraining the principle it is supposed to embody.

How can the unconstitutional acts of Louisiana, or of any other state which has ports on the Mississippi, or the Ohio, or on any of our other rivers, be corrected, without the action of Congress? And when Congress shall act, the state has only to change its ground, in order to enact and enforce its regulations. Louisiana now imposes a duty upon vessels for mooring in the river opposite the city of New Orleans, which is called a levee tax, and which, on some boats performing weekly trips to that city, amounts to from $3000 to $4000 annually. What is there to prevent the thirteen or fourteen states bordering upon the two rivers first-named, from regulating navigation on those rivers, although Congress may have regulated the same at some prior period? I speak not of the effect of this doctrine theoretically in this matter, but practically. And if the doctrine be true, how can this court say that such regulations of commerce are invalid? If this doctrine be sound, the passenger cases were erroneously decided. In those cases there was no direct conflict between the acts of the states taxing passengers and the acts of Congress.

From this race of legislation between Congress and the states, and between the states, if this principle be maintained, will arise a conflict similar to that which existed before the adoption of the Constitution. The states favorably situated, as Louisiana, may levy a contribution upon the commerce of other states which shall be sufficient to meet the expenditures of the states.

The application of the money exacted under this act of Pennsylvania, it is said, shows that it is not raised for revenue. The application of the money cannot be relied on as showing an act of a state to be constitutional. If the state has power to pass the act it may apply the money raised in its discretion.

I think the charge of half-pilotage is correct under the circumstances, and I only object to the power of the state to pass the law. Congress, to whom the subject peculiarly belongs, should have been applied to, and no doubt it would have adopted the act of the state.


text:
Rich v. Lambert/Dissent Daniel

Mr. Justice DANIEL dissented.

This case is one of a class over which, according to my opinion, heretofore repeatedly expressed, the admiralty courts of the United States have no jurisdiction under the Constitution. It is the case of a contract entered into upon land, that is, in the city of Liverpool, to be fulfilled, partly, nay, chiefly on land; that is, by the delivery of merchandise in the city of Charleston. The remedy for the infraction of this undertaking, if any had in reality existed, would have been an action in a court of common law, upon the bill of lading, the written evidence of the undertaking of the carrier. In the exposition made by the court, of the evidence, as explaining the origin and character of the injury complained of by the libellants, I entirely concur.

title: Rich v. Lambert/Dissent Daniel


text:
Kelsey v. Fitzhug/Concurrence Daniel

Mr. Justice DANIEL.

From so much of the opinion just announced as claims jurisdiction in this case, and especially from the ground (for the first time assumed in this court) as the principal foundation of that jurisdiction, I find myself constrained to declare my dissent. It is not may purpose here to reiterate my views of the extent of the admiralty powers vested by the Constitution in the courts of the United States, nor of the sources from which those powers were conceived by the framers of the Constitution to have been derived. Those views have, on former occasions, been fully developed, particularly in the case of the New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. The Merchants Bank, in 6 How., 344, in my concurrence with the opinion of the late Justice Woodbury, in the case of Waring v. Clark, 5 How., 441, and in my opinion in the case of Newton v. Stebbins, 10 How., 586.

The decisions of this tribunal heretofore made, will, upon a correct examination of them, be found to rest the admiralty powers of the federal courts, not solely upon the known and established principles and limitations of the powers and jurisdiction of the admiralty in England, principles and limitations settled in that country at the time of the adoption of the federal Constitution, and rigidly adhered to there until altered by some recent legislative provisions; but they have professed to place those powers upon some supposed enlargement of the admiralty jurisdiction, said to have sprung from the practice of the vice-admiralty courts in the British colonies; a practice which, whilst it has been alleged as a justification of each instance in support of which it has been invoked, no case, no investigation has ever been able to place upon any clear and indisputable authority. It is against this undefined and undefinable warrant for the exercise of power that the objections urged by me on former occasions have been levelled. Moreover it has always seemed to me to imply a palpable contradiction, that there should be ascribed (and that by mere implication) to the vice-admiralty courts, (the creatures of the high admiralty) powers which the latter confessedly never possessed. But the doctrine at present promulged by this court, is based upon assumptions still more irregular in my view, still more dangerous than that above adverted to, because it claims for this court, wholly irrespective either of the Constitution or the legislation of Congress, powers to be assumed and carried into execution by some rule which in the judgment of this court is to be applied according to its own opinions of convenience or necessity. Thus it is admitted that by the decisions in England, the jurisdiction of the admiralty did not reach infra corpus comitatus, and was limited to the ebb and flow of the tide; and it is admitted that by the previous decisions of this court the like limitations were imposed on the jurisdiction of the admiralty in this country; and even this limitation, imposed by former decisions of this tribunal, it is obvious, allowed of some encroachment upon the common-law jurisdiction, in so far as the ebb and flow of the tide might bring the asserted power of the court infra fauces terrae, or infra corpus commitatus. But even this encroachment is not sufficient to satisfy the aspirations of the jurisdiction, now for the first time asserted; for now it is insisted that any waters, however they may be within the body of a state or county, are the peculiar province of the admiralty power; and although it is admitted that the power was once clearly understood as being limited to the ebb and flow of the tide, yet now, without there having been engrafted any new provision on the Constitution, without the alteration of one letter of that instrument, designed to be the charter of all federal power, the jurisdiction of the admiralty is to be measured by miles, and by the extent of territory which may have been subsequently acquired; a much less natural standard surely, than the nature and character of the element to which the admiralty is peculiarly adapted, and to which it owes its origin; that the Constitution may, nay must be altered by the same process, and must be enlarged not by amendment in the modes provided, but according to the opinions of the judiciary, entertained upon their views of expediency and necessity. My opinions may be deemed to be contracted and antiquated, unsuited to the day in which we live; but they are founded upon deliberate conviction as to the nature and objects of limited government, and by myself at least cannot be disregarded; and I have at least the consolation-no small one it must be admitted-of the support of Marshall, Kent, and Story in any error I may have committed. I cannot construe the Constitution either by mere geographical considerations; cannot stretch nor contract it in order to adapt it to such limits, but must interpret it by my solemn convictions of the meaning of its terms, and by what is believed to have been the understanding of those by whom it has been formed. In the view taken by the court of the evidence in this case, I entirely concur.

title: Kelsey v. Fitzhug/Concurrence Daniel


text:
USAMGIK Ordinance 66

 * HEADQUARTERS
 * UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY
 * GOVERNMENT IN KOREA
 * Seoul, Korea

ORDINANCE NUMBER 66 10 April 1946

3em a. Creation. When and as directed by the Provincial Governors of each Province south of 38° North Latitude and not later than 30 April 1946: (1) Operation and control of Fire Departments by the Department of Police of the Governor of Korea will cause; (2) Independent Fire Departments will be established under the direct supervision, administration and control of the authorities in cities, towns and villages; and (3) All duties, functions, records, property and civilian personnel of the Department of Police concerned with the operation and control of Fire Departments will be allocated and transferred to city, town and village Fire Departments. b. Inventory. To assint in accomplishing the foregoing allocation and transfer, the Director of the National Department of Police will furnish by 20 April 1946 to the Provincial Governor, a complete inventory of all property, equipment, funds, records, and personnel of the National Department of Police devoted primarily to the operation or control of Fire Departments in their respective provinces.

3em a. Creation The National Board of Fire Commissioners is hereby created within the Public Works Bureau of the Department of Commerce. The Board shall consist of seven (7) members, one (1) of whom shall be the Recording Secretary. Members shall be appointed by Appointment Order signed by the Military Governor, as far as possible from among persons who possess expert knowledge of fire. protection and prevention and shall hold office during his pleasure. Members shall serve for such part of their time as the Chairman of the Board may require. They shall be compensated at civil service rates for services rendered, except that paid officials of the Government shall receive no additional compensation. b. Duties of the Board. (1) The Board of National Fire Commissioners shall prepare, in coordination with provincial affairs the National Fire Budget and recommend allocation of funds to cities towns and village for the operation of their fire departments. (2) The Board shall make a studies and prepare standards and regulations on the following matters and such other matters as are deemed essential to fire Protection and fire prevention:

(a) Standardization of specifications for fire-fighting equipment and appliances. (b) Organizational plans for city, town and village Fire Departments (c) Water supply and distribution for fire-fighting (d) Fire alarms and communications systems. When approved by the Military Governor of Korea such regulations shall be published in the Official Gazette. c. Technical Assistants ans Staff. The Director of the Department of Commerce is authorized to appoint, compensate, suspend and remove technical assistants and personnel for the staff of the Board.

3em a. Creation. A Provincial Board of Fire Commissioners is hereby established as an agency of each province in Korea south of 38° North Latitude. It shall consist of five members appointed by Appointment Order signed by the Provincial Governor as far as possible from among persons who possess expert Recording Secretary, Members shall serve for such part of their time as the Provincial Governor may require and shall be compensated at civil service rates for services rendered, except that paid officials of the Government shall receive no additional compensation. b. Duties of the Board. The Provincial Boards of Fire Commissioners shall make studies of fire losses and fire hazards, and shall assist cities, towns and villages in developing adequate plans for protection and fire prevention. They shall assist the National Board of Fire Commissioners in matters of policy planning reports and budget. c. Technical Assistants and Staff. Each Provincial Governor is authorized to appoint, compensate, suspend and remove technical assistants and personnel for the staff of the Board. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the tenth day after the late appearing hereon.

 * ARCHER L. LERCH

 * Major General, United States Army

 * Military Governor of Korea.

군정법령 제66호

title: USAMGIK Ordinance 66


text: Index:Types of Australian weather.djvu

title: Index:Types of Australian weather.djvu


text: Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/1

title: Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/1


text: Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/2

title: Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/2


text:
Author:Ernest Bernbaum

Works

 * "The Poems of John Milton" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)
 * "The Composition of A Criticism" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)
 * "Francis Bacon" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)
 * "The Modern English Drama" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)

title: Author:Ernest Bernbaum


text:
Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/3

TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN WEATHER.

By ,

Second Meteorological Assistant, Sydney Observatory.

[With Forty Diagrams.]

title: Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/3


text: Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/4

title: Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/4


text:
Author talk:Ernest Bernbaum

Image
There is an image of author and wife on passport application 1923, unfortunately of poor quality reproduction from copy of source. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Passport Applications, January 2, 1906 - March 31, 1925 (M1490) > 1923 > Roll 2329 - Certificates: 321850-322349, 11 Jul 1923-12 Jul 1923 > 40

title: Author talk:Ernest Bernbaum


text:
Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/5

 TYPES OF AUSTRALIAN WEATHER.

By ,

Second Meteorological Assistant, Sydney Observatory.

[With Forty Diagrams.]

continuation of the valuable work on Australian Meteorology which the Hon. Ralph Abercromby initiated several years since, by offering a money prize for the best essay on Southerly Bursters; he has recently selected the phases of Australian Weather which are treated in the following twenty studies of "Types of Australian Weather." Many of these appear to be peculiar to Australia, and at the same time connected with Equatorial and other weather. That they throw much new light upon the source of the greater part of Australian rain, and show how these rain storms develop out of ordinary weather conditions is certain; at the same time they form an important contribution to the study of weather in the Southern Hemisphere generally. The work has been done by Mr. H. A. Hunt, at Mr. Abercromby's expense, and Mr. H. C. Russell, has edited the work.

As a general rule, weather is set fine when anticyclones move rapidly, and in a straight line across Australia, i.e., at a rate exceeding five hundred miles per day. And weather is unsettled when they move slowly, and not in a straight line, i.e., in a zigzag line, especially if they show no appreciable forward motion for a day or two. When anticyclones move in low latitudes the conditions favour dry weather, in high latitudes, wet weather, especially if they rest for a time south of South Australia.

All the examples of weather phases which follow have been selected from the Sydney Weather Charts, and illustrate each type. The originals were carefully traced, and then reduced from 22" x 17" to the size used in this essay by means of the camera.

Gg—Dec. 4, 1895.

title: Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/5


text:
Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/6

 Ordinary symbols have been used, except the circle half filled for thunderstorms, and the straight line shading; parallel lines indicate the area of rainfall under one inch, crossed shading over one inch.

TYPE I.—MOVING ANTICYCLONES.

One of the best marked features of Australian weather is the steady easterly progression of all the types, and the governing type, that in fact about which all the other types seem to congregate, is the anticyclone; it has therefore been placed first in the series, with three charts to show the progress made by a quick moving one in forty-eight hours. The average daily progress of anticyclones is four hundred miles per day, but the speed at times rises to one thousand miles.

Investigation so far leaves no room to doubt that in these latitudes a series of anticyclones surround the globe; the latitude of the average one varies with the season, being farther south in summer than in winter. The normal circulation about an anticyclone brings southerly winds in front of them, and northerly winds in the rear, hence our cold and our hot winds.

Chart No. 1 shows the position, on 15th August, 1893, of the eastern half of an incoming anticyclone; it rests over Western Australia, while the departing one is seen over the Tasman Sea; between these is seen the usual depression, which is of average intensity, and a dormant tropical low pressure to the north. In Chart No. 2 the anticyclone has moved nearly nine hundred miles in the twenty-four hours, the centre being located near Fowler's Bay, north of the Australian Bight; the antarctic depression is well across the Tasman Sea, while the tropical or monsoonal isobar depicted in the previous chart has apparently merged into the high pressure system, a curious and not unusual kink being formed to the north-east of it, following the contour of the Gulf of Carpentaria. On Chart No. 3 the anticyclone is shown to have moved a further seven hundred and fifty miles, or a total of

title: Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/6


text:
Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/7

Rh

one thousand six hundred and fifty miles in forty-eight hours; the monsoonal dip is still noticeable south of the Gulf, while the antarctic Λ depression has its centre to the east of New Zealand.

title: Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/7


text:
Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/15

Rh thunderstorms is the narrowness of the col and somewhat congested state of isobars in the high pressures west and east of it, resulting in opposing winds. Those of the tropical tongues are hot and charged with moisture, while those of the Λ depressions are strong and dry. This type is met with during the monsoonal season. The rains resulting from this feature are not generally heavy, and though thunderstorms may be experienced over extensive areas of Queensland, New South Wales, and Northern Territory, a number of them may occur without any rain falling.

Chart No. 11, January 17th, 1893, shows an extended and narrow tongue lying between two relatively high pressures, a Λ depression similarly situated also exists in the south, this col or area of low pressure separating these two depressions is very small, and opposing currents of wind are noted there as blowing within close limits. Thunderstorms were occurring or had occurred in Northern Territory generally, over a great part of Queensland and in central parts of New South Wales, the rains upon this occasion, as is often the case, were not heavy, though they fell over an extensive and generally unfavoured area.


text:
Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/16

12 On Chart No. 12, the following day, though a few storms were recorded, shows a great diminution in number. The col has widened and the monsoonal tongue has lost to some extent its thundery characteristics, having widened at the end. The accompanying barometric systems show no motion since the previous day, but the high pressures have intensified.

TYPE VI.—CYCLONIC THUNDERSTORMS.

This also, like the preceding one, is allied to the tropical low pressures, but in this case a defined cyclonic circulation develops in the lower extension of the tongue without the usual intensification of grades. From this source the thunderstorms radiate in easterly and southerly directions, and at times, as in the instance presented, a vast area is affected.

Chart No. 13, December 12th, 1893. As on the previous set the monsoonal tongue lies over much the same country, though with its axis more east and west; the high pressure to the west is very small, and the systems are somewhat fragmentary.


text:
Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/24

20 for the generation of these storms. The winds are generally blowing any way, and excepting those of the eastern high pressure have apparently no circulating power.

These were the conditions at 9 a.m., but as the day advanced the col area advanced with its arid heat, and this acting upon the precipitated moisture of the previous two days, resulted in the tornado which we are about to describe, and which occured at Bourke on the morning of March 21st, being one of the most terrific ever witnessed in that district. It struck the town at 10 o'clock, but could be seen approaching for some time from a north-westerly direction. It only lasted six minutes, but during that period thirty-nine points of rain fell, and several hundred pounds' worth of damage was done to houses. Chimneys, verandahs, trees, etc., suffered and general consternation prevailed. Many narrow escapes occurred, as the cyclone came across the common from the direction of Fort Bourke. The theatre was unroofed and a quantity of beams and iron was deposited in an adjoining yard. Pleasure boats on the river were sunk, and a steam-boat was considerably damaged by the falling of a large gum tree.

TYPE X. CYCLONES FROM NORTH-EAST.

A comparatively small number of these storms reach the coast of Australia, and owing to the almost complete absence of observing stations, New Caledonia excepted, and the small number of vessels passing their tracks, it is usually impossible to trace their course before they reach Australia, but there seems to be no reason to doubt that they are more or less spent tropical cyclones, which reach Australia in the act of recurving. The majority reach the coast of Queensland between latitudes 20° and 26°; some farther north and south; only one has been traced from the coast inland, and then recurving there to south-east. It reached the coast in the neighbourhood of Brisbane in January 1893, passed inland over the mountains, gradually curving to south past Mudgee and Dubbo, thence curving easterly it left the mainland about latitude 35° S. Its course was marked by violent cyclonic wind and rain.


text:
Page:The Kinematics of Machinery.djvu/553

 KINEMA TIC SYNTHESIS. . Diagram of the Synthetic Processes. The importance of this part of the subject is so great that I have thought it worth while to add the accompanying diagram (Fig. 362) in the hope that it may make the connection between the different synthetic methods somewhat more clear to the reader. Kinematic synthesis as a whole divides itself into direct and indirect, and each of these classes again subdivides into general and Pairs of elements Knovjn pairs of elements. Known Kinematic chains FIG. 362. special. The direct synthesis should combine the kinematic elements at its command into the required pairs or chains according to the laws of pair- or chain-formation. In part it strikes upon insoluble difficulties, in part it furnishes results which have no practical value. The indirect synthesis first (as special M M 2


text:
Page:Types of Australian weather.djvu/25

Rh Picton reported 4•76" rain. It has not been possible to present this as an example, because one of the days was a Sunday when very few observations are recorded.

As a rule these north-east cyclones recurve at the coast line. Charts 22 and 23 show the weather conditions on March 10th and 11th, 1891.

On March 10th there was a sudden fall of pressure on the coast of Queensland, about latitude 24° (Chart 22), and an accession

of wind and sea which clearly heralded the coming storm. This was intensified on March 11th, (Chart 23) by a further fall of three-tenths of an inch, and three more isobars of the cyclone were marked on the coast south to south-east; gales prevailed in its neighbourhood with very heavy rains.

On March 12th, (Chart 24) the anticyclone had retreated to New Zealand, and the cyclone travelled to the south along the coast intensifying as it came. The barometer curve at Brisbane was exactly of the cyclone type and dropped to 29•5. In the southern part of Queensland and northern of New South Wales heavy southerly to easterly gales were experienced. On the 13th the storm had disappeared to the eastward.


text:
Author:Lawrence Joseph Henderson

Works

 * "Natural Science: General Introduction in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)
 * "Astronomy" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)
 * "Physics and Chemistry" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)
 * "The Biological Sciences" in The Harvard Classics, Vol. 51 (1914)

title: Author:Lawrence Joseph Henderson


text: Template:Anchor+/sandbox

title: Template:Anchor+/sandbox


title: Index:DeSitterConstancy1.djvu


text:
Page:DeSitterConstancy1.djvu/1

 In the theory of  light emitted by a source moving with velocity u is propagated through space in the direction of the motion of the source with the velocity c+u, c being the velocity of light emitted by a motionless source. In other theories (,  ) the velocity of light is always c, independent of the motion of the source. Now it is easily seen that the hypothesis of leads to results which are absolutely inadmissible.

Consider one of the components of a double star, and an observer situated at a great distance Δ. Let at the time t, the projection of

title: Page:DeSitterConstancy1.djvu/1


text:
Page:DeSitterConstancy1.djvu/2

 the star's velocity in the direction towards the observer be u. Then from the law of motion of the star we can derive an equation:

The light emitted by the star at the time t reaches the observer at the time $$\tau=t+\Delta/c-au$$. In 's theory we have, neglecting the second and higher powers of $$u/c,\ a=\Delta/c^{2}$$. In other theories we have a=0. If now we put $$\tau_{0}=t_{0}+\Delta/c$$, we have

The function φ will differ from f, unless au be immeasurably small. Therefore if one of the two equations (1) and (2) is in agreement with the laws of mechanics, the other is not. Now a is far from small. In the case of spectroscopic doubles u is not small, and consequently au can reach considerable amounts. Taking e.g. $$u=100\frac{KM}{sec}$$, and assuming a parallax of 0",1, from which $$\Delta/c=33$$ years, we find approximately au=4 days., i.e. entirely of the order of magnitude of the periodic time of the best known spectroscopic doubles.

Now the observed velocities of spectroscopic doubles, i. e. the equation (2), are as a matter of fact satisfactorily represented by a Keplerian motion. Moreover in many cases the orbit derived from the radial velocities is confirmed by visual observations (as for δ Equulei, ζ Herculis, etc.) or by eclipse-observations (as in Algol-variables). We can thus not avoid the conclusion that a=0, i.e. the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the source.  theory would force us to assume that the motion of the double stars is governed not by Newton's law, but by a much more complicated law, depending on the star's distance from the earth, which is evidently absurd.

title: Page:DeSitterConstancy1.djvu/2


title: Index:DeSitterConstancy2.djvu


text:
Page:DeSitterConstancy2.djvu/1

 In my communication to the meeting of February of this year (see these Proceedings, Vol 15, page 1297) I pointed out that the existence of spectroscopic doubles whose motion obeys the laws of Kepler, is incompatible with the theory of Ritz, while in agreement with that of Lorentz.

Since then Messr. P. Guthnick and E. Freundlich have brought forward the hypothesis that the velocity of light might depend on the velocity of the source in a manner differing from the simple addition postulated by the theory of Ritz. The most simple hypothesis would be

where v is the velocity of light emitted by a source having the velocity u. The problem then is no longer to decide whether $$\varkappa=0$$ or $$\varkappa=1$$, intermediate values being excluded, but to assign an upper limit to $$\varkappa$$.

We have then, using the notations of my former paper

If the true orbit is a circle, then the equation (1) becomes:

If $$\varkappa$$ is very small we find for the equation (2) the following approximate expression

title: Page:DeSitterConstancy2.djvu/1


text:
Page:DeSitterConstancy2.djvu/2

where naturally u, u0, c, Δ, τ and T must all be expressed in the same units (km. and sec.) The observed velocities will thus show a spurious excentricity, of the amount

$$e=\varkappa\frac{\pi}{T}\frac{u_{0}\Delta}{c^{2}}.$$

This unites with the true excentricity and cannot be separated from it by observations.

Now it is easy to derive an upper limit for $$\varkappa$$. Take a well known star like β Aurigae. The observations give

As the largest values which are still compatible with the observations we can take

p < 0".05, or Δ > 65 lightyears,

e < 0.015.

We find then

$$\varkappa < 0.002$$.

Quite possibly other stars will give smaller values of $$\varkappa$$. The smallest values, of course, are found from the stars having the smallest parallaxes. Unfortunately the parallax of most spectroscopic doubles is still unknown, and it is thus impossible to give numerical values. We can however assume as certain that for the majority of these stars a value would be found which is still smaller than that given above.

Postscript. During the discussions at the meeting the remark was made (by Prof. Korteweg) that the star β Aurigae might have a true excentricity of such amount as exactly to cancel the spurious excentricity produced by the motion. This is, of course, entirely correct. If this true excentricity were e=0.90 we should find $$\varkappa=0.12$$, [taking again p=0".05 and using the same approximate formula as above, though this is not correct for such large excentricities]. Thus if we knew only this one star, we should have to adopt as upper limit for $$\varkappa$$ this value 0.12. There are however a considerable number of stars with large values of u0, whose observed excentricity is very small or zero. Several of these certainly have very small parallaxes. It would evidently be absurd to assume that all of these possessed exactly that true excentricity and position of the periastron which would cancel the apparent excentricity for an observer on our earth.

title: Page:DeSitterConstancy2.djvu/2


text: Index:ComstockRelativity.djvu

title: Index:ComstockRelativity.djvu


text:
Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/1

 At the recent Boston meeting of the American Physical Society there was so much general interest in the principle of relativity and so many questions were asked me personally by those who had given the subject very little attention, that it seems timely to give a brief introduction to the subject on a somewhat simpler basis than I think has yet been attempted. The method employs several of the "non-mathematical" conceptions first introduced by Lewis and Tolman, but I think the demonstrations will be found even simpler than theirs.

The principle of relativity is one attempt, and by far the most successful attempt as yet, to explain the failure of all experiments designed to detect the earth's motion through space, by its effect on terrestrial phenomena. It generalizes this universal negative result into its first postulate, which is, the uniform translatory motion of any system can not be detected by an observer traveling with the system and making observations on it alone.

The second postulate is that the velocity of light is independent of the relative velocity of the source of light and observer.

At the very outset, it is important to realize that we have no long-standing experience with systems moving with velocities comparable with that of light, and therefore that primitive intuition may not be the very best guide in first introducing us to them. We might easily imagine a peasant scorning the suggestion that the dimensions of a rigid body changed with the temperature, and declaring, on being

title: Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/1


text:
Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/2

 pressed that such an idea was clearly against common sense.

The whole principle of relativity may be based on an answer to the question: "When are two events which happen at some distance from each other to be considered simultaneous? The answer, "When they happen at the same time," only shifts the problem. The question is, how can we make two events happen at the same time when there is a considerable distance between them.

Most people will, I think, agree that one of the very best practical and simple ways would be to send a signal to each point from a point half-way between them. The velocity with which signals travel through space is of course the characteristic "space velocity," the velocity of light.

Two clocks, one at A and the other at B, can therefore be set running in unison by means of a light signal sent to each from a place midway between them.

Now suppose both clock A and clock B are on a kind of sidewalk or platform moving uniformly past us with velocity v. In Fig. 1 (2) is the moving platform and (1) is the fixed one, on which we consider ourselves placed. Since the observer on platform (2) is moving uniformly he can have no reason to consider himself moving at all, and he will use just the method we have indicated to set his two clocks A and B in unison. He will, that is,

send a light flash from C, the point midway between A and B, and when this flash reaches the two clocks he will start them with the same reading.

To us on the fixed platform, however, it will of course be evident that the clock B is really a little behind clock A, for, since the whole system is moving in the direction of the arrow, light will take longer to go from C to B than from C to A. Thus the clock on the moving platform which leads the other will be behind in time.

Now it is very important to see that the two clocks are in unison for the observer moving with them (in the only sense in which the word "unison" has any meaning for him), for if we adopt the first postulate of relativity, there is no way in which he can know that he is moving. In other words, he has just as much fundamental right to consider himself stationary as we have to consider ourselves stationary, and therefore just as much right to apply the midway signal method to set his clocks in unison as we have in the setting of our "stationary clocks." "Stationary" is, therefore, a relative term and anything which we can say about the moving system dependent on its motion, can with absolutely equal right be said by the moving observer about our system.

We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that, unless we discard one of the two relativity postulates, the simultaneity of two distant events means a different thing to two different observers if they are moving with respect to each other.

The fact that the moving observer disagrees with us as to the reading of his two clocks as well as to the reading of two similar clocks on our "stationary" platform, gives us a complete basis for all other differences due to point of view.

A very simple calculation will show that the difference in time between the two moving clocks is

title: Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/2


text:
Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/3

where

The way in which this difference of opinion with regard to time between the moving observer and ourselves leads to a difference of opinion with regard to length also may very easily be indicated as follows:

Suppose the moving observer desires to let us know the distance between his clocks and says he will have an assistant stationed at each clock and each of these, at a given instant, is to make a black line on our platform. He will, therefore, he says, be able to leave marked on our platform an exact measure of the length between his clocks and we can then compare it at leisure with any standard we choose to apply.

We, however, object to this measure left with us, on the ground that the two assistants did not make their marks simultaneously and hence the marks left on our platform do not, we say, represent truly the distance between his clocks. The difference is readily shown in Fig. 2, where M represents the black mark made on our platform at a certain time by the assistant at A, and N that made by the assistant at B at a later time. The latter assistant waited, we say, until his clock read the same as clock A, waited, that is, until B was at B' ; and then made the mark N. The moving observer declares, therefore, that the distance MN is equal to the distance AB, while we say that MN is greater than AB.

Again it must be emphasized that, because of the first fundamental postulate, there is no universal standard to be applied in settling such a difference of opinion. Neither the standpoint of the "moving" observer nor our standpoint is wrong. The two merely represent two different sides of reality. Any one could ask: "What is the "true" length of a metal rod? Two observers working at different temperatures come to different conclusions as to the "true length." Both are right. It depends on what is meant by "true." Again, asking a question which might have been asked centuries ago, is a man walking toward the stern of an eastbound ship really moving west! "We must answer "that depends" and we must have knowledge of the questioner's view-point before we can answer yes or no.

A similar distinction emerges from the principle of relativity. What is the distance between the two clocks? Answer: that depends. Are we to consider ourselves with the clock system when we answer, or passing the clocks with a hundredth the velocity of light or passing the clocks with a tenth the velocity of light? The answer in each case must be different, but in each case may be true.

It must be remembered that the results of the principle of relativity are as true and no truer than its postulates. If future experience bears out these postulates then the length of the body, even of a geometrical line, in fact the very meaning of "length," depends on the point of view, that is, an the relative motion of the observer and the object measured. The reason this conclusion seems at first contrary to common sense is doubtless because we, as a race, have never had occasion to observe directly velocities high enough to

title: Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/3


text:
Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/4

 make such effects sensible. The velocities which occur in some of the newly investigated domains of physics are just as new and outside our former experience as the fifth dimension.

Returning now to the magnitude of this difference of opinion as to the distance between the clocks, it is easy to show that, from our point of view, the moving observer overestimates the distance in the ratio

l/(1-β²).

So that it may be said in general that lengths in the direction of motion, which he says are equal, we say are unequal in this same ratio.

On lengths perpendicular to the direction of motion our estimates agree.

Now let us ask ourselves: What are corresponding lengths in the two systems? Corresponding lengths may with propriety be given the same name, "meter" for instance. The condition that two lengths should be "corresponding" is simply that each observer comes to the same conclusion with respect to the other length.

The lengths AB and MN are not "corresponding," for the moving observer says that MN is equal to AB, while we say AB is less than MN, in the ratio (1—β²). If, however, we mark off on our platform a length which is a mean proportion between our estimate of the length AB and the length MN, this length, say ME, will "correspond" to the length AB, for we shall then say, that AB is less than ME in the ratio √(1—β²), while the moving observer will say that ME is less than AB in the same ratio.

Thus any length, in the direction of motion, on a moving system is estimated less in the ratio √(1—β²) by a "stationary" observer.

Or, put in a better way, an observer viewing a system which is moving with respect to him, sees all lengths, in the direction of motion, shrunken in the proportion √(1—β²), where β is velocity with which the system is passing him in terms of the velocity of light.

We have now reached two results, which we may summarize thus; first, clocks which a moving observer calls in unison do not appear in unison to a "stationary" observer, the clock in advance as regards motion appearing behind the other in time, and second, distances in the moving system appear shortened in the direction of motion in the ratio √(1—β²). In the above we can, of course, interchange the words "moving" and "stationary."

Next let us turn our attention to the unit of time in each system. It is not hard to show that the unit of time in the moving system will appear to us greater than ours in the ratio √(1—β²). This is due to the fact that in the moving system forward clocks are behind in time.

In the measurement of time we assume a certain standard motion to be taking place at a constant rate and then take as a measure of time the total displacement which this motion has caused. Time measurement with an ordinary clock is obviously a special case of this general rule.

The moving observer can adopt as his unit of time the time it takes light, moving with the characteristic space velocity V, to travel a certain distance d and return to him.

Suppose d is in the direction of motion, and the light after traveling a certain distance in the direction of motion is reflected back to the observer. He will then write

t=d/V.

We, however, "know" that he is overestimating the distance d in the ratio √(1—β²)

title: Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/4


text:
Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/5

 and overestimating also the average velocity with which his signal travels through his system in the ratio 1/√(1—β²), thus he is underestimating his time in the ratio √(1—β²). A certain time interval, that is, appears less to him than to us and hence his unit of time appears to us greater than ours in the ratio 1/√(1—β²).

This paper has become long enough without an attempt to discuss the units of mass and force. It has been my purpose merely to answer a number of questions which the experience of the Boston meeting led me to believe were in the minds of many who had not given the subject enough thought to understand easily the more profound discussions.

The apparent transverse mass is, I think, best derived by Lewis and Tolman in their excellent paper on the principle of relativity, and the relation between transverse and longitudinal mass is shown in the most direct and simple way by Bumstead making use of the torsion pendulum. Any one interested in the subject should read these two papers.

It is, of course, true that the principle of relativity has a much deeper logical significance than the simple, more or less concrete conceptions on which it is based in the present paper would lead one to suppose, but in an introduction to such a subject concreteness may not be a fault.

It should be restated that the results of the principle for uniform translation are simply as true as its two postulates. If either of these postulates be proved false in the future, then the structure erected can not be true in its present form. The question is, therefore, an experimental one.

I think it may be said with fairness, however, that the principle is already in harmony with so many phenomena that the burden of proof lies with those who object to it. Besides the negative result of experiments to detect the earth's motion the principle is supported directly by the recent experiment of Bucherer, and by the still more recent experiment of Hupka, Indirect support is also given by Lewis's independently derived theory of non-Newtonian mechanics, which agrees exactly with relativity results, and by Comstock's deductions from orthodox electromagnet theory which lead to conclusions so nearly coincident with those of relativity as to be very suggestive.

In closing, a word should be said with regard to the "addition of velocities" according to relativity rules. It will be evident on a little thought that if the moving platform of Fig. 1, which is passing us with velocity v, has on it a body traveling over it in the direction of its motion with velocity v (that is, with a velocity which the observer on the moving platform calls v), then our estimate of the velocity of the body will not be v+v1. The reason is of course that v+v1 is the sum of two quantities, one of which is estimated by us and the other by the moving observer. We should, therefore, be inconsistent because we should have mixed view-points. Our estimate of the platform's velocity plus our estimate of the body's velocity with respect to the platform equals our estimate of the

title: Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/5


text:
Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/6

 body's velocity. In this last case we have stuck to one point of view and obtained a correct result.

This feature connected with the so-called "addition of velocities" is what Professor Michelson and others so strongly object to in the relativity principle, but the result is a perfectly natural one as soon as we have seen the admissibility of more than one point of view and the difference in estimates caused thereby.

D. F. Comstock
 * Massachusetts Institute
 * of Technology

title: Page:ComstockRelativity.djvu/6


text: Index:ComstockNeglected.png

title: Index:ComstockNeglected.png


text:
Page:ComstockNeglected.png

.

THE negative result of all experiments to detect the earth's motion through space by its effect on terrestrial phenomena positively requires explanation, and the modern principle of relativity is generally conceded to be the most successful attempt to explain so far made. The principle has, however, led to great complexity in detail and its implications have not yet been completely worked out.

It does not seem to have been generally noticed in this connection that if the velocity of light is assumed to depend on the velocity of the source, in the same way in which the velocity of a bullet depends upon the velocity of the gun, then we have a simple type of relativity which in many ways presents a striking contrast to the principle now in vogue.

Such a light-velocity is not obviously consistent with the conception of light as a wave motion in a semi-material medium, but if there is anything that modern discoveries in fundamental physics have shown, it is that we must not reason too much from analogy or expect to find the most fundamental of all transformations of energy to resemble those transformations which we are familiar with in complex material systems.

The assumption that the velocity of light depends on that of the source has, so far as the author is aware, never been properly examined. This is strange, but is probably explainable as a natural result of the complete trust which has been put for years in the conception of an ether.

In the paper of which this is an abstract, the astronomical consequences of the assumption that the velocity of light depends on the source-velocity, in the same way that the velocity of a bullet depends on that of the gun, has been partially developed. It is found that a change in the line-of-sight-component of a star's velocity causes the time interval between any two events which happen on the star to be different from the apparent time interval between the same events as observed from the earth. If the star is very distant and changes its velocity as in the case of a binary star, it is even possible that two events may appear to happen in their reverse order.

In the case of spectroscopic binaries certain characteristic peculiarities should appear in the spectrum, peculiarities which apparently do not exist. The investigation is only just begun but so far the indications are rather against the existence of the effect.

title: Page:ComstockNeglected.png


text: Index:TolmanPostulate.djvu

title: Index:TolmanPostulate.djvu


text:
Page:TolmanPostulate.djvu/1

 In a recent article by Lewis and Tolman a non-analytical method was developed for obtaining the more important conclusions which can be drawn from the principle of relativity. Our reasoning was based only upon the first and second postulates of relativity, and those fundamental conservation laws of mass, energy and momentum which science has never in a single instance been forced to abandon. Since the method of attack avoided any use of involved mathematical analysis, restricting itself to the simplest processes of logical reasoning, and, further, made no use of the assumptions of electromagnetic theory, it may be concluded that the unexpected nature of the results of the theory of relativity is due to something unusual in the two postulates of relativity themselves.

No objections have ever been made to the first postulate of relativity, as stated in its original form by Newton, that it is impossible to measure or detect absolute translatory motion through space. In the development of the theory of relativity, this postulate has been modified to include the impossibility of detecting translatory motion through any ether or medium which might be assumed to pervade space. In support of this principle is the general fact that no "ether drift" has ever been detected, but,

title: Page:TolmanPostulate.djvu/1


text:
Page:TolmanPostulate.djvu/2

 especially, the conclusive experiments of Michelson and Morley, and Trouton and Noble, in which, a motion through the ether, of the earth in its path around the sun would certainly have been detected. For the purposes of this article we shall consider that the first postulate of relativity needs no further proof.

It is Einstein (to whom, indeed we owe the development of relativity along its present broad lines) who first stated the second postulate of relativity in a general form, namely, that the velocity of light in free space appears the same to all observers, regardless of the relative motion of the source of light and the observer. This is the assumption which has forced the theory of relativity to its

strange conclusions, and it is for its further consideration that this paper is designed.

A simple example will make the extraordinary nature of the second postulate evident.

S is a source of light and A and B two moving systems. A is moving towards the source S, and B away from it. Observers on the systems mark off equal distances aa' and bb' along the path of the light and determine the time taken for light to pass from a to a'  and b to b'  respectively. Contrary to what seem the simple conclusions of common sense, the second postulate requires that the time taken for the light to pass from a to a' shall measure the same as the time for the light to go from b to b'. Such a consideration makes the path obvious by which the theory of relativity has been led to strange conclusions as to the units of length and time in a moving system.

The second postulate of relativity is obtained by a combination of the first postulate with a principle which has long been familiar in the theory of light. This principle states that the velocity of light is unaffected by a motion of the emitting source, in other words, that the velocity with which light travels past any observer

title: Page:TolmanPostulate.djvu/2


text:
Page:TolmanPostulate.djvu/3

 is not increased by a motion of the source of light towards the observer. The first postulate of relativity adds the idea that a motion of the source of light towards the observer is identical with a motion of the observer towards the source. The second postulate of relativity is seen to be merely the combination of these two principles, since it states that the velocity of light in free space appears the same to all observers regardless both of the motion of the source of light and of the observer. Since the first postulate of relativity has already been considered as sufficiently proved, we shall proceed at once to present certain evidence in favor of the assumption that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the source. In the latter part of the paper, we shall also consider an entirely independent proof of the second postulate based on the Kaufmann-Bucherer experiment.

The principle that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source has hitherto lacked experimental justification. It was obtained, however, as a direct consequence of the ether theory of light, which makes the velocity depend only upon the properties (i. e., elasticity or electrical nature) of a stationary transmitting medium, and therefore, as with sound or other wave motions, independent of the velocity of the source. Until within a few years the ether theory had been so extraordinarily successful in explaining even the most complicated phenomena of optics, that we should have accepted any of its experimentally unproved conclusions without hesitation. At the present time, however, since the experiments of Michelson and Morley and of Trouton and Noble stand in such direct contradiction to the predictions of the ether theory, we have no hesitation in considering any other assumption as to the velocity of light, which, although not in accord with the ether theory, would free us from the complications introduced by the theory of relativity.

Such an alternative assumption, as to the velocity of light, which

title: Page:TolmanPostulate.djvu/3


text:
Page:TolmanPostulate.djvu/4

 would cause none of the complications introduced by the second postulate, is possible. The velocity of light and other electromagnetic propagations might not be independent of the motion of the source, but their velocity and that of the source might be additive. This assumption would be very simple, would be no contradiction to the first postulate of relativity, and would directly explain all our failures to detect an ether drift. It is not difficult, for example, to see that this assumption does directly explain the Michelson-Morley experiment. If O is a source of light and A and B are mirrors placed a meter away from O, the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the time taken for light to travel to A and back is the same as for the light to travel to B and back, in spite of the fact that the whole apparatus is moving through space in the direction of O—B, due to the earth's motion around the sun.

The above assumption, however, would require exactly this result, since it says that light travels out from O with a constant velocity in all directions with respect to O, and not with respect to some ether through which O is supposed to be moving. It is in fact obvious, in general, that this principal if true would lead to the simplest kind of relativity. For, if light or any electromagnetic disturbance which is being emitted from a source, partakes in the motion of that source in such a way that the velocity of the source is added to the velocity of emission, then a system consisting of the source and its surrounding disturbances acts as a whole and suffers no change in configuration when the velocity of the source is changed. The possibility of such an assumption has already been pointed out in various places. Nevertheless, in spite of the apparent

title: Page:TolmanPostulate.djvu/4


text:
Page:TolmanPostulate.djvu/5

 relief which would follow the adoption of this idea, the evidence which we are about to present is all in favor of the older idea of the velocity of light which has led to the second postulate and the complicated theory of relativity.

The Doppler Effect.
The Doppler effect, that is the influence which a motion of the source of light has upon the frequency of the emitted ray, has been the subject of much refined experimental work. It is natural to consider what relation this effect bears to our own problem, concerning the influence which a motion of the source of light has upon the velocity of the emitted ray.

If we have a body which is emitting the periodic disturbance which we call light, and then start the body in motion towards an observer, it is evident that the frequency with which the disturbances will reach the observer will be increased, since, in order to get to him, each successive disturbance has to travel a less distance than the one preceding it. As we shall see, this change, in the frequency of the light, will be produced in nearly the same amount, whether or not the velocity with which the light travels towards the observer is affected by the motion of the source. We shall find, however, that, with regard to the actual distance in space between successive disturbances (i. e., wave-length) the two hypotheses as to the velocity of light lead to quite different conclusions. This difference presents a method of deciding between the two rival hypotheses.

We shall proceed to an actual derivation of the effect which a motion of the emitting source has upon the wave-length of light, first, assuming that the velocity of the light is independent of the motion of the source, and then that the velocities of the light and source are additive.

It is evident that we must make no use of arguments based on preconceived notions as to the nature of light, but must restrict ourselves to purely kinematic considerations which would be equally

title: Page:TolmanPostulate.djvu/5