Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 963, 5 May 1930, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor,)

A DIRTY GRANDSTAND

Sir, — I do not know what body has the care of the showgrounds on its hands, but whichever one it is, it should take some steps to clean up the grandstand if it wishes to have big crowds there during the football season. On Saturday the stand was in a disgraceful condition. Apart from the paper and cigarette butts that littered the floor, the seats themselves were filthy. FOOTBALL FAN. UNITED PARTY’S POLICY Sir.—Fir. J. Ilea in Wednesday’s issue of The Sun stated Sir Joseph was quite right in substituting his own policy for the one drawn up by the conference of candidates. Sir Joseph was invited by the candidates to lead tile party, and put their policy to the people. He accepted on that understanding, and straightway put across a policy of his own. Mr. Rea knows quite well that it was not the poliev of Messrs. Davy and Company but the policy of the whole of the candidates who stood for the United Party including the present Cabinet. The real success of the United Party at the polls was due to the large dis'satislied Reform vote they received and this was due to the fact that the party was advertised as half Reform half Liberal. Without Mr. Law and the above vote I doubt whether Sir Joseph Ward would even have been member for Invercargill. EX-UNITED. RATIONALISM Sir,— . The Rov. L. L. Scott says that the definition of Rationalism he that of A. W. Benn. But surely Mr* fccott would not accept some definition of Christianity that I could produce as given by some individual Christian' Then why so with Rationalism? I H there not an “official” definition •> it is mentioned that science “outgrows its theories,” and that, like the Church, it is “compelled to use terms whose earlier meaning has been modified- But the similarity is only superficial, The outgrowing of theories by

, u of the essence of science Hseif—.he unprejudiced and welcome at ceptance of facts arising from its ™ et l‘, C ; dsi ? f activU - v - But with the Chuich this is not so. Its changes the result of abandoning its “own" h ' to ™ al attitude to new knowledge of forsaking its “own” methods of dealing with problems, and in their E'rd °rneth < a ant l !' y ad °r> tlTl S the attitude and methods of science. All the trrent from Ke the in ni' eliS i? US are* th<? . Church s own volition but and/i°c?e e n d ti^ a f n a S c e tors? mP£ ' ,!ed by alie " a ti on ahsm Ol is ll “Jimited”' l toTis own fellowship. But l,e will sav that th! Ly 0 »- people Rationalism that does not tn,„7 r f faCO “Rationalism.” h ° WeVer to PROFANUM VL'LGUS. forecasting Sir. — sa«sfied r wUh r on°e f ot'i Suf V misht be a°cte^° r u e p C oT nS BuTot y he7 s “^Hf d b™ause r ?t nS resr s n upon y &C f m abstru " e some scientists do, that I can asM-sras it nd h e ai ta tSLF£ feiormbie tCfryf ° r *£hailE>ihfirential. rotat i° n . the basis of it thl erward I,<Juld > and that in creation the amount of solid matter is (and .(Continued |n next column.^

WUI be> infinitesimal compared with that which is liquid or vaporous, vv e see a solid wheel rotating, lurains as in one piece, all its parts completes a rotation in the same period of J”** an d retaining the same relative positions. We assume that any rotating body must behave in the same way. Science has done so. The es< ? oi>e ' microscope, spectroscope. CvC., have made it more and more clear to us that everything in creation rotates. In tlie greatest of things we can contemplate the heavens have always declared it; in the smallest— the blood corpuscle and atom, etc.—Sir Ernest Rutherford and others have shown that the same condition exist*. And everywhere we see that rotation generally is not like that of the solid wheel. Science has long and vainly tried to find some special condition in each case to explain why nature dislegards our man-made theory- And as a result the origin, nature and purpose of all-pervading and all-import-ant rotation have remained mysteries to us. It was found that all sun-spots ftp* pear to move round the sun. Thb was rightly accepted as proof of tb® sun’s rotation; the fact that the apparently spherical sun had no equatorial protuberance such as this rotation would produce remained need' lessly a mystery. The positions o' the sun’s poles and equator vr€f* rightly judged from the courses taken by sun-spots. Rut, a greater was this—that each spot showed a different period of rotation. As ft rule, the rotation period was shortest on the line of the equator, and increased with latitude; but in any latitude U varied slightly. Science’s solution that puzzle is not creditable —the aver* age period of a number of spots on the equator was accepted as the ra*t of the sun’s rotation, and a rate slower than it actually is; and. as ‘° r all other sun-spots, well, science decided that each must have son** peculiarity that retarded its mo*** ment —any irregularity must be in *** sun and not in man’s theory- Associated w ith this, and on a par with is the remarkable method of rec'iOß* ing solar longitude—utterly unreliabj** unnecessary and complicating. clear evidence we have of different!** rotation in a million nebulae, in Jnpi* ter’s belts and zones, in our fj and our atmosphere—everywhere' 5 fact—has been disregarded, and scien* tiiic theory has remained an obstruj tion to progress. Yet, one has op** ' to investigate the forces in a rotating liquid or gaseous body to find that the rate of rotation must vary with I®*/* tudo, and with distance from it* and to find also much relating to srt wonderful origin and still more won* derful purpose of this different!* 1 rotation. r 4Tp be Continued.) K> B.