Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-08-10
TIE ORIGIN OF HEAT.
MEN MAY HONESTLY DIFFER FOR THE
GOOD OF SCIENCE.
Mr.. Spear Makes an Able Defense of His
Position in Regard to the Gener-
alton of Heat.

EDS. DONDA1 ONAON. tAduh NOQ lOI
inserting my former correspondence on
the "origin of the heat" that has action on
the surface of the earth. If my "views are
strange to you, it is only because they are
different than the views you now enjoy.
In all beliefs, among all people, the fellow
who is orthodox in popular convictions
invariably says of the man who is not or
thodox, 'his ideas are peculiar, lonesome,
strange, dreamy, ETC." Why is this
Only because ae,c idea has been enjoyed.
My ideas are strange" to you because you
either never heard them before, or else
yon do not believe them.
If you are a student of physics you have
heard arguments against the theory that
heat comes from the sun. 1t is belief of
all men that anything they do not be-
lieve is of necessity not true.
While this is conviction that
is universal it is a most dangerous fallacy.
l say | am right as to the origin of heat.
I am not "alone" nor lonesome" in this
conviction. There are millions of people
who enjoy my belief. There are hundreds
of as bright men and close investigators as
any who are acknowledged authority, who
do not believe the sun is the source of the
cdILu AGdt. CO L iCCl DCllCCti1 at
home when 1 deny land with the facts
as gained from experience and observation
to back me), that heat comes to the earth
from the sun. My mind cooled down
and lost its excitement some time ago,
after | waded through the theories and
experiments of the following illustrious
physicists
These men have experimental and the
orized until they virtually agree that they
know nothing, positively, about the origin
and extent of heat and light. They have
not yet proven whether light and heat are
substantial or waves in ether. They do
not know what heat is. have quite care
fully examined the experiments and the
ories of the following able men: Langley,
Pouillet, Wolfe, Mauchot, Ericsson,
Henry, Rosetti, Vicaire, Dulong, Petit,
Newton, Sporer, Lane, Young, ZoIlner,
Secchi, Tyndall, Hoeckel, Mayer, Helm
holtz, Lockyer, Peirce, Newcomb and
Rogers, besides thousands of others whose
works have not been tuned to public opin-
ion, hence did not gain for their authors a
place in the hearts of the people.
The above able men do not agree even
in theory. Newton, Rogers and others
declare that heat is substantial, while
Tyndall, Hoeckel and others declare
that it is mode Of motion. These men
do not agree on the basis from which they
must make their experiments. If they
are compelled to assume their basic fact it
follows that all the deductions are tinged
with this assumption; therefore, as their
base. is mushy assumption, it follows,
Z and logically, that all their deductions and
theories are Just as mushy.
Because these men assume or believe
and teach that heat comes to the earth
from the sun, does not prove the fact. 1t
is not even rational argument in favor
of the conviction. The history of the
past is full of instances where the ma
iority we're in error. There is more faith
exercised in so-called scientific teach
ings than is exercised in the religious
dogmas of the world The pretended sci
enlist fairly howls when the religious man
asks him to betieue, while he will turn TO
so-called science and fairly live on its wild
and woolly theories. For instance, the
average man believes the earth inside is
very hot. He believes that at a certain dis
tance down all rock is melted. He
does not know this is true. While the
average TtlISlOuc man ~ q NNAhttN
distance from the earth "God u.s." He
does not know this; he believes 1t. Both
men exercise faith. One admits 1t is faith /;
the other yells science. He does not know
that the interior of the earth is excessively
hot. There are able men who deny this.
notice, Mr.. Editor, that you speak OF
this internal heat; but Sir VIM. Thomp-
son and George Darwin affirm that "the
center of the earth is more rigid than
glass" Young enjoys the same opinion.
Over a million of men who accept the
zetetic theory of astronomers, and those
who accept the electric theory of forces,
teacn the same thing. So l find no real
good reason for believing that the center
of the earth is ''red hot and still a heat
ing" | could readily believe that the sun
might be an electric light formed in the
center of the space occupied by the solar
svstem, but cannot exercise faith enough
to believe the center of the earth Is made
of melted rock, ETC., nor can believe that
heat comes from the sun.
We will turn our attention to Pouillet's
''pyrheliometer" experiments. This IN
strument is constructed on the principle of
action and reaction. The same is true of
Violle's "actinometer" Neither of these
instruments prove solar radiation of heat.
They are Just such instruments as any
physicist would construct if he were GO
ing to prove that heat does not come from
the sun TO the earth. These two instru-
ments are so constructed that II hight
beams down on their bright and dark sides
the blades of the actinometer Will reyolve.
Each blade has black and polished sur
face. As light acts and reacts on these
surfaces it transmutes into heat; and the
heat which the attached thermometer reg
isters comes from said action of light. II
light passes through ice the same results
are observed. Heat is not there, nor can
II be found until the force Of light strikes
the blades and generates the heat.
The pyrheliometer is constructed on
nearly the same principle. 1t has differ
ent method Of getting at the same conclu-
sion. These instruments are supposed tc
prove lust how much heat certain sur
face receives in definite time from the
sun. 1t is considered positive proof that
the heat Of the earth's surface comes from
the sun. But is it proof? BY no means
If light comes in contact with these In
struments heat is generated and they
mark the amount.
We will note the experiment of Mr..
Pepper, to which you kindly directed my
attention in your note of reply. What are
the conditions of this experiment? "Place
red hot ball in the focus, etc" If the
ball is red hot, hold that light and not
heat emits from it, to be gathered again
somewhere. This light can be refocalized
from the surface of another concave specu-
lum. and in that focal point becomes heat
and sets fire to the bit of phosphorus. II
the ball is not hot enough to emit light,
know from experience that there will be
no refocalization from the second speculum
60 II depends on the rehabilitation OF the
lioht emitted, and not the heat emitted
n we place ice in such position that the
rays of light would pass through 1t to reach
the surface of the second speculum, or i
We place the ice so the reflected rays would
he compelled to pass through 1t alter ieav'
inc the surface OF the second spectrum be,
fnre s thew localized, heat would be generated
- tbat focal point. No heat went there
tbronch the ice, therefore we look for the
boat ia the focalization of the light. From
this Il is learned that Mr.. Peppers exper,
;ment positively proves my position tna' ina
heat does not and cannot come through -,
m;Il;ons Of miles (?) of cod space and stu
he heat I must repeat that light trans
D,,,,ss into heat in all points where 1t i
liusss r-to san,s is frtle of electricity