Marshall B. Gardner - 29 July

DEDICATED TO THE CONTINUED PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND THE SERVICE THAT IT CAN RENDER TO HUMANITY

THE MAN whose acquaintance with cosmogony and physiography is confined to what he learned in school, and, perhaps, afterward read in popular publications, has certain very definite notions about the shape of the earth and the construction of its interior. These notions, he thinks, are based upon the proven discoveries, or the impregnable theories of the scientists, and so he accepts them in blind faith. But the scientists themselves do not rest under the impression that they have solved every mystery that is buried in the bowels of the earth. While they hold to a general theory about the shape and constitution of the earth, that it is a rigid solid--a theory which is now beginning to supersede the older theory that it was a shell with a liquid interior--they admit that there are many questions raised by recent observations of facts that cannot be explained by their present theory.

To the scientist then, and also to the layman whose interest and encouragement may do much for scientific advancement, when he sees in what direction it is tending and what results it may have, are the following pages addressed. In them will be found a recital of certain well known and fuly authenticated facts of geography, exploration, and astronomy which have not been satisfactorily explained by any of the theories of the shape and constitution of the earth so far held. Then, on the basis of these facts, a new theory is presented which I claim does explain them; does make them fit in with the accepted results of scientific investigation, and which does not conflict with any other relative facts in the world, but unites them all in an intelligible manner.

In any such attempt as this two tendencies have to be overcome before an author can secure a fair hearing. The first is the conservatism of scientists who do not care to revise their theories--and especially when that revision is made necessary by discoveries which are made independently of the great universities. I think, however, that the array of confirmatory evidence which I have brought to bear upon my position will be sufficient to counteract this conservatism and induce scientists to give my theory a respectful hearing and full discussion. The second adverse tendency which must be overcome is the erroneous notion of the general public that a scientific theory or hypothesis is, in reality, a final truth that must not be denied. The layman imagines that the scientists have some mysterious means of discovering the actual truth, and that once discovered it is final. In this matter of the composition and shape of the earth, for instance, he thinks that the scientists actually know that the earth is a ball of a certain density and composition. Only a short time ago, however, the scientists thought that the earth was a solid shell with a liquid interior--and any layman would have sworn this was true just because the scientists imagined it. Nov the real fact of the matter is--and any scientist will admit it that a scientific theory, such as either of the two just mentioned, does not represent an ultimate truth. It is simply an essay of the imagination to weld certain facts, which are not apparently related, into some sort of connection. For instance, we have the facts of gravitation, electricity and light, all acting thru great spaces--and all having what are apparently common properties. To explain their action the scientists build up theories of wave motion through the ether. Now the layman accepts the luminiferous ether as a finality. But the scientist might discover some fact tomorrow which could not be explained on that assumption of a universal ether, and so he would have to construct a new theory more comprehensive than his former one, and which would make room for the new fact. I do not imply that such a theory is either likely or possible, but I simply give this as a convenient example of the same thing which I have done in the domain of cosmogony. And my point is, that a theory is good so long as it gives us such a view of the matter as will enable us to discover new facts, but good for that purpose only.

The copernican system of astronomy was a step in advance of the Ptolemaic system just because it enabled scientists to discover many new facts about the solar system which the error of the old view had hidden from their gaze. My own theory adds to the valuable results gained by the Copernican system, not by subverting it--for I imagine that no sane person would now try to do that--but by accepting it fully, and adding to it a different theory of the evolution of the several planets from their nebula, and from this new theory of evolution deducting certain presumptions about the interior of the earth. These presumptions I have supported by a wealth of facts discovered by the telescopic observations of astronomers of nebul and our sister planets, Mars, Venus and Mercury, and made by explorers of the most fascinating parts of our own planet--the polar regions.

In conclusion I would ask the reader to remember that I do not write as a scientist or claim to be a scientist. I simply claim to have applied the lessons of common sense to these problems. I do claim to have studied all the material, to have gathered my facts carefully. But there is nothing in my book that the layman cannot understand. It is written by a layman for him. It is to his common sense that it appeals.

The .

Aurora, Illinois.

An author who puts forth a new idea must expect to meet with opposition and be ready to defend his idea vigorously. He knows that the great mass of people is very conservative, especially in its habits of thought and that it is inclined to take many things--the shape of the earth, for example--as proven once and for all. But he also knows that the great reading public even more than the specialist in science is open minded and willing to give a fair hearing. He will expect some opposition and some misunderstanding but he may also expect a slow, perhaps, but sure volunteering of support.

The author of the present work has set forth in it a theory which is not only new that in itself would not necessarily cause opposition in a world which is always hungering for some new thing--but it is a theory which involves the denial of a number of ideas which are old and widely held and often held by people who do not understand their bearing. These people will defend them with such weapons as ridicule or perhaps misrepresentation.

From trained scientists on the other hand the author expects to meet with greater prejudice than from the public, but he does expect that any criticism they may have to make upon this theory will be made from a purely scientific standpoint, that his idea will not be dismissed simply because he is not a professional explorer or astronomer. Unfortunately scientists often do this. They have their professional freemasonry. If you are not one of them they do not want to listen to your theories.

But to the man in the street the author wishes to say this: there is not in the whole course of this book a single statement that is not backed up by the actual experiments, observations, discoveries and reports of these same scientists. They cannot claim that the theory expounded in this book is an unscientific theory, for every bit of it is solidly based upon their own findings. Our theory may be untrue, but if it is, then the findings of Nansen and every other Arctic explorer, of Sir Robert Ball, Percival Lowell and every other astronomer, are wrong. For upon the work done by these men and upon no other considerations whatsoever than those of pure scientific knowledge are the ideas in this book built.