SOME SMALL PARADOXERS.

Vis inertiae victa,[317] or Fallacies affecting science. By James

Reddie.[318] London, 1862, 8vo.

{184}

An attack on the Newtonian mechanics; revolution by gravitation

demonstrably impossible; much to be said for the earth being the immovable

center. A good analysis of contents at the beginning, a thing seldom found.

The author has followed up his attack in a paper submitted to the British

Association, but which it appears the Association declined to consider. It

is entitled--

_Victoria Toto Coelo_; or, Modern Astronomy recast. London, 1863, 8vo.

At the end is a criticism of Sir G. Lewis's _History of Ancient Astronomy_.

On the definition and nature of the Science of Political Economy. By H.

Dunning Macleod,[319] Esq. Cambridge, 1862, 8vo.

A paper read--but, according to the report, not understood--at the British

Association. There is a notion that political economy is entirely

mathematical; and its negative quantity is strongly recommended for study:

it contains "the whole of the Funds, Credit, 32 parts out of 33 of the

value of Land...." The mathematics are described as consisting of--first,

number, or Arithmetic; secondly, the theory of dependent quantities,

subdivided into dependence by cause and effect, and dependence by

simultaneous variations; thirdly, "independent quantities or unconnected

events, which is the theory of probabilities." I am not ashamed, having the

British Association as a co-non-intelligent, to say I do not understand

this: there is a paradox in it, and the author should give further

explanation, especially of his negative quantity. Mr. Macleod has gained

{185} praise from great names for his political economy; but this, I

suspect, must have been for other parts of his system.

On the principles and practice of just Intonation, with a view to the

abolition of temperament.... By General Perronet Thompson.[320] Sixth

Edition. London, 1862, 8vo.

Here is General Thompson again, with another paradox: but always master of

the subject, always well up in what his predecessors have done, and always

aiming at a useful end. He desires to abolish temperament by additional

keys, and has constructed an enharmonic organ with forty sounds in the

octave. If this can be introduced, I, for one, shall delight to hear it:

but there are very great difficulties in the way, greater than stood even

in the way of the repeal of the bread-tax.

In a paper on the beats of organ-pipes and on temperament published some

years ago, I said that equal temperament appeared to me insipid, and not so

agreeable as the effect of the instrument when in progress towards being

what is called out of tune, before it becomes offensively wrong. There is

throughout that period unequal temperament, determined by accident. General

Thompson, taking me one way, says I have launched a declaration which is

likely to make an epoch in musical practice; a public musical critic,

taking me another way, quizzes me for preferring music _out of tune_. I do

not think I deserve either one remark or the other. My opponent critic, I

suspect, takes _equally tempered_ and _in tune_ to be phrases of one

meaning. But by equal temperament is meant equal distribution among all the

keys of the error which an instrument _must_ have, which, with twelve

sounds only in the octave, professes to be fit for all the keys. I am

reminded of the equal temperament which was once applied to the postmen's

jackets. The coats were all made for the average man: the {186} consequence

was that all the tall men had their tails too short; all the short men had

them too long. Some one innocently asked why the tall men did not change

coats with the short ones.

A diagram illustrating a discovery in the relation of circles to

right-lined geometrical figures. London, 1863, 12mo.

The circle is divided into equal sectors, which are joined head and tail:

but a property is supposed which is not true.

An attempt to assign the square roots of negative powers; or what is

[sqrt] -1? By F.H. Laing.[321] London, 1863, 8vo.

If I understand the author, -a and +a are the square roots of -a^2, as

proved by multiplying them together. The author seems quite unaware of what

has been done in the last fifty years.

A Budget of Paradoxes, Volume II · 第 69 / 123 题