Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume LXI, Issue 9771, 31 July 1924, Page 6

THE LIGHT FROM THE MOON

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —From a boy upwards. I bare never been able to reconcile the theory advanced by astronomers with rny own convictions, in regard to the cause of the light from the moon. I have always believed the moon has a distinct and separate light from the sun, and, some two or three years a o-o when' a controversy upon this subject took .place through the columns of the Times, I was compelled to withdraw from tire discussion, net being able at that time to give a definite reason for my belief. Since then I have read much, and thought much over the matter, and gathered together all jthe imformation. Il could upon the subject. Hut I have found that astronomers, like doctors, diner verv much ,in their diagnosis, so I determined I would obtain my knowledge from the fountain head and would- visit the moon personally, so one night I made my journey up to the moon (in my mind) to get the true facts concerning this matter. On my wav to the moon, I met Bishop Leadbeater, Second-in-Command of the Society of Theosophy. He was on his wav to pay another visit to the God of War, Mars. He invited me to journey with him to Mars, but, as 1 have to work for my living, I was in a. hurrv to get hack, while he could afford to take his leisure, as he lives noon the credulity of the public. Therefore I had to decline his invitation, and continue my journey alone.

When I arrived at the moon, not seeing anyone about that I could question, 1 made as keen an observation as my limited time would allow, and with "the information so gained, I wended my way hack to Mother Earth. And, .sir, the following are the deductions I have made: A complete planetary vortex is a globe, or nearly so, and its manifested light.is like a complete magnet, while an immature vortex, as in the ease of ,a comet or other small vortex, will manifest light at both poles, and sometimes in the middle, if it hath attained to power to manufacture light of its own. In some cases the comet or the nebula is not sufficiently condensed to produce light of its own hut containeth vapor in a gaseous state which of itself may have infintesimal polarities refracting the normal light of the master vortex. In observing the new moon it will bo seen that the light portion shows a larger circle than the darker portion and the bulge of the light side of the moon is always pointed toward the sun, and it is wrong to say that light cometh from the . sun and striketh on the moon and is then reflected on the earth. There .is no such thing or substance as light, but that which is called the. vortex is comparatively all one light with a central foc-ns'. The reason one side of the moon is dark and the other side light, is because it hath a positive and negative manifestation of the vortexza. for the moon maunfacturetli its own fight. As the moon advanceth to the next quarter the same discrepancy in the two apparent sizes is manifest and this continueth until it is full moon. It is also wrong to say that dark bodies appear smaller, and light bodies larger because of absorption or refraction. The cause is not absorption or refraction', or reflection, but of manufacture. Light bodies (so called) manufacture light their own, even so infinitesimal, which i= as an envelope external to themselves. The eye of an observer seetli this as well as the corporeal hotly, and consequently it appeareth larger than it really is - . The same rule a.pplieth in regard to the sun and his photosphere, and to comets and to all bodies that manifest light. Shadow is usually divided into two expressions umbra ,as the shadow of a man standing in sunlight, and darkness as the shadow of the earth on a cloudy night. Nevertheless they are hut one and the same tiling but in different degrees, both of which are here included in the word shadow. In a clear night, Wilier, the full moon shineth, two conditions are manifest on the earth, first that a shadow is vertical to the moon and the light side is not as light as when the sun shineth at noon. The density of shadow from sunlight and the density of shadow from moonlight correspond exactly to the comparative difference between sunlight and moonlight. When it is full moon at midday the light of the sun (so called) is no greater because of the moon’s presence. Notice the difference however, on a given object if the. ray from a mirror facing the sun be added to the ordinary sunlight. Hence it is wrong to attribute the moon’s rays as being reflected from the sun to the earth.

If it lie promised that the light face of the moon is not a mirror hut is opaque, observe the following result from the moon when it is half full. The half of the moon is equivalent to half a globe. If that light of the sun fell on the bulge, the rays thus landed on the moon would cause that part of the moon to he a trifle more than four times lighter or brighter than on the slopes. In an observation of this kind and if the light were borrowed from the. sun, two kinds of rays would result, the bulge of the moon would afford a centre for rays to emanate in every direction and the slope rays would refract at the same angle, as received from the sun. The fact is however, there is no intense centre light manifested on the moon’s surface, in the place where it directly faeeth the sun. Hence there is no possibility of the light of the moon being produced by light from the sun or from the sun’s centre. But the latter is not the cause thereof. The cause is in the emissions of positive and negative currents from the moon’s vortex, and they manifest in the m’vortexza of the master, and the same rules apply to all planets whose vortices are negative.—l am, Yours, etc., A. HAWES.

THE HARBOR PROBLEM

(To the Editor.) Sir, —You are to be highly commended for the way you keep hammering away at our harbor muddlernent. But, Sir, I am afraid you are only beating the air, as it will take more than the proverbial charge of rynamit'o to wake up the Gisborne public to a sense of their responsibilities and I am like you, Sir, 1 think when they do wake up it will be too late as tho damage will be done and much of the loan money squandered. Why do not tho members of the Board have the plans of the proposed harbor published, also an estimate of what it is likely to cost? Is the Engineer to he allowed a free hand :o do what he likes, no matter what the cost? I notice, at the meeting on Monday, it was stated that the accepted tenders were about the Engineer’s estimates. It would be interesting to know how those estimates were arrived at, as any ordinary business firm could tell without an estimate what cement, sand, shingle, timber, etc., should cost landed in Gisborne.

It is reported that tho Board is negotiating for tho purchase at fancy prices of all the properties on the Haiti waterfront. Is this not being a little bit too optimistic, because these properties can be taken at any time under the Public Works Act. I think the ratepayers are entitled' to know more of the . transaction with the Napier Board about the sale of the Maui. Who authorised the letter from the. local Board which .our deputations had to so humbly;apologise for? l’f tho Board arc determined to get rid of the Maui; let them purchase a powerful suction dredge with the

xac.ue-y and put her on to deepen the river and reclaim land, the same they are now doing in Auckland. This will not cost £750,000 and will be much more efficient than trying to divert the river at a cost which no one seems to ’ know or cares, ana which is going to be a very expensive engineering experiment for the Gisborne ratepayers. It is generally understood that the proposed new harbor will never accommodate the Home liners ana that the depth of water aimed at is 12 feet. Surely threequarters of a million is a big sum to pay for this f No, Sir, let the Board get to work and lengthen the western groyne and deepen the river with a suction dredge and wo -would soon have 12 feet of watdr at a very small cost, and the passenger boats, . coasters, colliers etc., could then, tie up at our town wharves without any trouble and thus cheapen the cost of living for the public. But the proposed outer harbor will never do this for Gisborne.—l am, Yours etc., LIFE BLOW

TEPID BATH FUND

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Your re the delay of commencing the public baths should ho highly appreciated by the swimming community generally. Although it is understood that the lion, secretary and hon. treasurer are at present out of the district, this should not deter the main executive in convening a meeting to. go into the points raised by you. A swimming hath is an urgent need in this district and one can but wonder that the snort is not as well patronised as it should be. Although a swimming hath is for the public generally, it behoves the local swimming clubs, who foster swimming, to use every endeavour to secure a pool, in that idle rumor has it that the privileges extended re use of the School htilths mar be further curtailed this coming season. Your suggestion that work could he found for the unemployed is of topical interest, in that at present strong representation is being made to the Minister of. Public Works to relieve such a position in this district. May I suggest that if the Tepid Bath Committee have the interest of swimming at heart, they should immediately call a general meeting, to hear public comment, or, on the other hand, the citizens of this town should send a deputation to await on the Borough Council next Tuesday and ask them to proceed with the scheme, ignoring the constitutional method of requesting a committoo who have held office for o\ er two vears to awake from theii dormancy In conclusion, mni I state that " the Tepid Batli Committee should endeavour to adopt the initiative and untiring effort sliou n them ivy members of their old sub-commit-tee the Art Union Committee?--! " M > Yom ' s etc - Advance.”