"Parallax," the Founder of the Zetetic Philosophy, is dead; and it now
becomes the duty of those, especially, who knew him personally and
who labored with him in the cause of Truth against Error, to begin,
anew, the work which is left in their hands. Dr. Samuel B. Rowbotham
finished his earthly labours, in England, the country of his birth,
December 23, 1884, at the age of 89. He was, certainly, one of the
most gifted of men: and though his labours as a public lecturer were
confined within the limits of the British Islands his published work
is known all over the world and is destined to live and be republished
when books on the now popular system of philosophy will be considered
in no other light than as bundles of waste paper. For several years
did "Parallax" spread a knowledge of the facts which form the basis
of his system without the slightest recognition from the newspaper
press until, in January, 1849, the people were informed by the "Wilts
Independent" that lectures had been delivered by "a gentleman adopting
the name of 'Parallax,' to prove modern astronomy unreasonable and
contradictory," that "great skill" was shown by the lecturer, and that
he proved himself to be "thoroughly acquainted with the subject in all
its bearings." Such was the beginning--the end will not be so easily
described. The Truth will always find advocates--men who care not
a snap of their fingers for the mere opinion of the world, whatever
form it may take, whilst they know that they are the masters of the
situation and that Reason is King! In 1867, "Parallax" was described as
"a paragon of courtesy, good temper, and masterly skill in debate." The
author of the following hastily-gotten-up pages is proud of having
spent many a pleasant hour in the company of Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
A complete sketch of the "Zetetic Philosophy" is impossible in a small
pamphlet; and many things necessarily remain unsaid which, perhaps,
should have been touched upon, but which would to some extent have
interfered with the plan laid down--the bringing together, in a concise
form, "One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe." Much may
be gathered, indirectly, from the arguments in these pages, as to the
real nature of the Earth on which we live and of the heavenly bodies
which were created FOR US. The reader is requested to be patient in
this matter and not expect a whole flood of light to burst in upon him
at once, through the dense clouds of opposition and prejudice which
hang all around. Old ideas have to be gotten rid of, by some people,
before they can entertain the new; and this will especially be the case
in the matter of the Sun, about which we are taught, by Mr. Proctor,
as follows: "The globe of the Sun is so much larger than that of the
Earth that no less than 1,250,000 globes as large as the Earth would
be wanted to make up together a globe as large as the Sun." Whereas,
we know that, as it is demonstrated that the Sun moves round over the
Earth, its size is proportionately less. We can then easily understand
that Day and Night, and the Seasons are brought about by his daily
circuits round in a course concentric with the North, diminishing
in their extent to the end of June, and increasing until the end of
December, the equatorial region being the area covered by the Sun's
mean motion. If, then, these pages serve but to arouse the spirit of
enquiry, the author will be satisfied. The right hand of fellowship
in this good work is extended, in turn, to Mr. J. Lindgren, 90 South
First Street, Brooklyn, E. D., N. Y., Mr. M. C. Flanders, lecturer,
Kendall, Orleans County, N. Y., and to Mr. John Hampden, editor of
"Parallax" (a new journal), Cosmos House, Balham, Surrey, England.
ONE HUNDRED PROOFS
THAT
EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE.
If man uses the senses which God has given him, he gains knowledge;
if he uses them not, he remains ignorant. Mr. R. A. Proctor, who has
been called "the greatest astronomer of the age," says: "The Earth on
which we live and move seems to be flat." Now, he does not mean that it
seems to be flat to the man who shuts his eyes in the face of nature,
or, who is not in the full possession of his senses: no, but to the
average, common sense, wide-awake, thinking man. He continues: "that
is, though there are hills and valleys on its surface, yet it seems to
extend on all sides in one and the same general level." Again, he says:
"There seems nothing to prevent us from travelling as far as we please
in any direction towards the circle all round us, called the horizon,
where the sky seems to meet the level of the Earth." "The level of the
Earth!" Mr. Proctor knows right well what he is talking about, for the
book from which we take his words, "Lessons in Elementary Astronomy,"
was written, he tells us, "to guard the beginner against the captious
objections which have from time to time been urged against accepted
astronomical theories." The things which are to be defended, then,
are these "accepted astronomical theories!" It is not truth that is to
be defended against the assaults of error--Oh, no: simply "theories,"
right or wrong, because they have been "accepted!" Accepted! Why,
they have been accepted because it was not thought to be worth while
to look at them. Sir John Herschel says: "We shall take for granted,
from the outset, the Copernican system of the world." He did not
care whether it was the right system or a wrong one, or he would
not have done that: he would have looked into it. But, forsooth, the
theories are accepted, and, of course, the men who have accepted them
are the men who will naturally defend them if they can. So, Richard
A. Proctor tries his hand; and we shall see how it fails him. His book
was published without any date to it at all. But there is internal
evidence which will fix that matter closely enough. We read of the
carrying out of the experiments of the celebrated scientist, Alfred
R. Wallace, to prove the "convexity" of the surface of standing water,
which experiments were conducted in March, 1870, for the purpose
of winning Five Hundred Pounds from John Hampden, Esq., of Swindon,
England, who had wagered that sum upon the conviction that the said
surface is always a level one. Mr. Proctor says: "The experiment
was lately tried in a very amusing way." In or about the year 1870,
then, Mr. Proctor wrote his book; and, instead of being ignorant of
the details of the experiment, he knew all about them. And whether the
"amusing" part of the business was the fact that Mr. Wallace wrongfully
claimed the five-hundred pounds and got it, or that Mr. Hampden was
the victim of the false claim, it is hard to say. The "way" in which
the experiment was carried out is, to all intents and purposes, just
the way in which Mr. Proctor states that it "can be tried." He says,
however, that the distance involved in the experiment "should be three
or four miles." Now, Mr. Wallace took up six miles in his experiment,
and was unable to prove that there is any "curvature," though he
claimed the money and got it; surely it would be "amusing" for anyone
to expect to be able to show the "curvature of the earth" in three
or four miles, as Mr. Proctor suggests! Nay, it is ridiculous. But
"the greatest astronomer of the age" says the thing can be done! And
he gives a diagram: "Showing how the roundness of the Earth can be
proved by means of three boats on a large sheet of water." (Three
or four miles.) But, though the accepted astronomical theories be
scattered to the winds, we charge Mr. Proctor either that he has
never made the experiment with the three boats, or, that, if he has,
the experiment did NOT prove what he says it will. Accepted theories,
indeed! Are they to be bolstered up with absurdity and falsehood? Why,
if it were possible to show the two ends of a four-mile stretch of
water to be on a level, with the centre portion of that water bulged
up, the surface of the Earth would be a series of four-mile curves!
But Mr. Proctor says: "We can set three boats in a line on the water,
as at A, B, and C, (Fig. 7). Then, if equal masts are placed in
these boats, and we place a telescope, as shown, so that when we
look through it we see the tops of the masts of A and C, we find
the top of the mast B is above the line of sight." Now, here is the
point: Mr. Proctor either knows or he ought to know that we shall
NOT find anything of the sort! If he has ever tried the experiment,
he knows that the three masts will range in a straight line, just as
common sense tells us they will. If he has not tried the experiment,
he should have tried it, or have paid attention to the details of
experiments by those who have tried similar ones a score of times and
again. Mr. Proctor may take either horn of the dilemma he pleases: he
is just as wrong as a man can be, either way. He mentions no names,
but he says: "A person had written a book, in which he said that he
had tried such an experiment as the above, and had found that the
surface of the water was not curved." That person was "Parallax," the
founder of the Zetetic Philosophy. He continues: "Another person seems
to have believed the first, and became so certain that the Earth is
flat as to wager a large sum of money that if three boats were placed
as in Fig. 7, the middle one would not be above the line joining the
two others." That person was John Hampden. And, says Mr. Proctor,
"Unfortunately for him, some one who had more sense agreed to take
his wager, and, of course, won his money." Now, the "some one who
had more sense" was Mr. Wallace. And, says Proctor, in continuation:
"He [Hampden?] was rather angry; and it is a strange thing that he
was not angry with himself for being so foolish, or with the person
who said he had tried the experiment (and so led him astray), but with
the person who had won his money!" Here, then, we see that Mr. Proctor
knows better than to say that the experiments conducted by "Parallax"
were things of the imagination only, or that a wrong account had been
given of them; and it would be well if he knew better than to try to
make his readers believe that either one or the other of these things
is the fact: But, there is the Old Bedford Canal now; and there are ten
thousand places where the experiment may be tried! Who, then, are the
"foolish" people: those who "believe" the record of experiments made
by searchers after Truth, or those who shut their eyes to them, throw
a doubt upon the record, charge the conductors of the experiments
with dishonesty, never conduct similar experiments themselves, and
declare the result of such experiments to be so and so, when the
declaration can be proved to be false by any man, with a telescope,
in twenty-four hours?
Mr. Proctor:--The sphericity of the Earth CANNOT be proved in the
way in which you tell us it "can" be! We tell you to take back
your words and remodel them on the basis of Truth. Such careless
misrepresentations of facts are a disgrace to science--they are the
disgrace of theoretical science to-day! Mr. Blackie, in his work on
"Self Culture," says: "All flimsy, shallow, and superficial work,
in fact, is a lie, of which a man ought to be ashamed."
That the Earth is an extended plane, stretched out in all directions
away from the central North, over which hangs, for ever, the North
Star, is a fact which all the falsehoods that can be brought to bear
upon it with their dead weight will never overthrow: it is God's Truth
the face of which, however, man has the power to smirch all over
with his unclean hands. Mr. Proctor says: "We learn from astronomy
that all these ideas, natural though they seem, are mistaken." Man's
natural ideas and conclusions and experimental results are, then, to
be overthrown by--what! By "astronomy?" By a thing without a soul--a
mere theoretical abstraction, the outcome of the dreamer? Never! The
greatest astronomer of the age is not the man, even, who can so much
as attempt to manage the business. "We find," says Mr. Proctor,
"that the Earth is not flat, but a globe; not fixed, but in very
rapid motion; not much larger than the moon, and far smaller than
the Sun and the greater number of the stars."
First, then, Mr. Proctor, tell us HOW you find that the Earth is
not flat, but a globe! It does not matter that "we find" it so
put down in that conglomeration of suppositions which you seek to
defend: the question is, What is the evidence of it?--where can it
be obtained? "The Earth on which we live and move seems to be flat,"
you tell us: where, then, is the mistake? If the Earth seem to be what
it is not, how are we to trust our senses? And if it is said that we
cannot do so, are we to believe it, and consent to be put down lower
than the brutes? No, sir: we challenge you, as we have done many times
before, to produce the slightest evidence of the Earth's rotundity,
from the world of facts around you. You have given to us the statement
we have quoted, and we have the right to demand a proof; and if this
is not forthcoming, we have before us the duty of denouncing the
absurd dogma as worse than an absurdity--as a FRAUD--and as a fraud
that flies in the face of divine revelation! Well, then, Mr. Proctor,
in demanding a proof of the Earth's rotundity (or the frank admission
of your errors), we are tempted to taunt you as we tell you that it
is utterly out of your power to produce one; and we tell you that you
do not dare even to lift up your finger to point us to the so-called
proofs in the school-books of the day, for you know the measure of
absurdity of which they are composed, and how disgraceful it is to
allow them to remain as false guides of the youthful mind!
Mr. Proctor: we charge you that, whilst you teach the theory of
the Earth's rotundity and mobility, you KNOW that it is a plane;
and here is the ground of the charge. In page 7, in your book, you
give a diagram of the "surface on which we live," and the "supposed
globe"--the supposed "hollow globe"--of the heavens, arched over
the said surface. Now, Mr. Proctor, you picture the surface on which
we live in exact accordance with your verbal description. And what
is that description? We shall scarcely be believed when we say that
we give it just as it stands: "The level of the surface on which we
live." And, that there may be no mistake about the meaning of the word
"level," we remind you that your diagram proves that the level that
you mean is the level of the mechanic, a plane surface, and not the
"level" of the astronomer, which is a convex surface! In short, your
description of the Earth is exactly what you say it "seems to be,"
and, yet, what you say it is not: the very aim of your book being to
say so! And we call this the prostitution of the printing press. And
it is all the evidence that is necessary to bring the charge home
to you, since the words and the diagram are in page 7 of your own
book. You know, then, that Earth is a Plane--and so do we.
Now for the evidence of this grand fact, that other people may know
it as well as you: remembering, from first to last, that you have
not dared to bring forward a single item from the mass of evidence
which is to be found in the "Zetetic Philosophy," by "Parallax,"
a work the influence of which it was the avowed object of your own
book to crush!--except that of the three boats, an experiment which
you have never tried, and the result of which has never been known,
by anyone who has tried it, to be as you say it is!
1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The
appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has
ever attained, is that of a concave surface--this being exactly what
is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the
nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye
of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth
is not a globe.
2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing
water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth
were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This
is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe,
3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels,
or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made
for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance
is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not
a globe.
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the
level of the sea without falling more than a few feet--notably, the
Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse
of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's
"convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not
a globe.
5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by
navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the
supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many
hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For
instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40
miles) that, according to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet
higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to
be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature,"
on the surface of the sea--"the level of the sea,"--ridiculous though
it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is,
nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.
6. If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship
approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise"--to the
extent of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence,
the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective,
which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in
size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That
there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the
fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea,
the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always
on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen
by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a
ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary
downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill
such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-five miles away,
on a level with the eye--that is, twenty miles level distance beyond
the ship that we vainly imagined to be "rounding the curve," and
"coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
7. If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time,
we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a
vessel appears "hull down," as it is called, it is because the hull is
"behind the water:" for, vessels have been seen, and may often be seen
again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away--far away--beyond
those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its
accompanying complement of tall trees, towering up, in perspective,
over the heads of the "hull-down" ships! Since, then, the idea will not
stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece
of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business,
and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very
best--because the truest--thing for the navigator to take to sea
with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as
a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty! This is
a proof that Earth is not a globe.
9. As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though
the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to
the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear,
as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well--and only
tolerably well, for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of
which we speak--that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be,
whether the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe
or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of
"plane sailing," a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.
10. That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time
is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that
this would be impossible if the thing were placed on a globe with
"north" and "south" at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact
that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen:
and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a
pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.
11. As the mariners' compass points north and south at one time,
and as the North, to which it is attracted, is that part of the Earth
situate where the North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there
is no south "point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North,
a vast circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is a
proof that the Earth is not a globe.
12. As we have seen that there is, really, no south point (or pole)
but an infinity of points forming, together, a vast circumference--the
boundary of the known world, with its battlements of icebergs which bid
defiance to man's onward course in a southerly direction--so there can
be no east or west "points," just as there is no "yesterday," and no
"to-morrow." In fact, as there is one point that is fixed (the North),
it is impossible for any other point to be fixed likewise. East and
west are, therefore, merely directions at right angles with a north
and south line: and as the south point of the compass shifts round to
all parts of the circular boundary, (as it may be carried round the
central North), so the directions east and west, crossing this line,
continued, form a circle, at any latitude. A westerly circumnavigation,
therefore, is a going round with the North Star continually on the
right hand, and an easterly circumnavigation is performed only when
the reverse condition of things is maintained, the North Star being
on the left hand as the journey is made. These facts, taken together,
form a beautiful proof that the Earth is not a globe.
13. As the mariners' compass points north and south at one and the
same time, and a meridian is a north and south line, it follows that
meridians can be no other than straight lines. But, since all meridians
on a globe are semicircles, it is an incontrovertible proof that the
Earth is not a globe.
14. "Parallels of latitude" only--of all imaginary lines on the
surface of the Earth--are circles, which increase, progressively,
from the northern centre to the southern circumference. The mariner's
course in the direction of any one of these concentric circles is his
longitude, the degrees of which INCREASE to such an extent beyond the
equator (going southwards) that hundreds of vessels have been wrecked
because of the false idea created by the untruthfulness of the charts
and the globular theory together, causing the sailor to be continually
getting out of his reckoning. With a map of the Earth in its true form
all difficulty is done away with, and ships may be conducted anywhere
with perfect safety. This, then, is a very important practical proof
that the Earth is not a globe.
15. The idea that, instead of sailing horizontally round the Earth,
ships are taken down one side of a globe, then underneath, and
are brought up on the other side to get home again, is, except
as a mere dream, impossible and absurd! And, since there are
neither impossibilities nor absurdities in the simple matter of
circumnavigation, it stands, without argument, a proof that the Earth
is not a globe.
16. If the Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at,
say, 45 "degrees" south latitude, could not possibly be any greater
than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by
navigators to be twice the distance--to say the least of it--or,
double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory,
it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
17. Human beings require a surface on which to live that, in its
general character, shall be LEVEL; and since the Omniscient Creator
must have been perfectly acquainted with the requirements of His
creatures, it follows that, being an All-wise Creator, He has met them
thoroughly. This is a theological proof that the Earth is not a globe.
18. The best possessions of man are his senses; and, when he uses
them all, he will not be deceived in his survey of nature. It is
only when some one faculty or other is neglected or abused that
he is deluded. Every man in full command of his senses knows that
a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell
us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know
that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give him
one in name which is not one in fact! Since this is the best that
astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow
creatures--deceive them--it is clear that things are not as they say
they are; and, in short, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
19. Every man in his senses goes the most reasonable way to work to
do a thing. Now, astronomers (one after another--following a leader),
while they are telling us that Earth is a globe, are cutting off the
upper half of this supposititious globe in their books, and, in this
way, forming the level surface on which they describe man as living and
moving! Now, if the Earth were really a globe, this would be just the
most unreasonable and suicidal mode of endeavoring to show it. So that,
unless theoretical astronomers are all out of their senses together,
it is, clearly, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
20. The common sense of man tells him--if nothing else told him--that
there is an "up" and a "down" in nature, even as regards the heavens
and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the
conclusion that there is not: therefore, the theory of the astronomers
is opposed to common sense--yes, and to inspiration--and this is a
common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.
21. Man's experience tells him that he is not constructed like the
flies that can live and move upon the ceiling of a room with as much
safety as on the floor: and since the modern theory of a planetary
earth necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it,
and one of them is that men are really bound to the earth by a force
which fastens them to it "like needles round a spherical lodestone,"
a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all human experience,
it follows that, unless we can trample upon common sense and ignore
the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that the Earth
is not a globe.
22. God's Truth never--no, never--requires a falsehood to help it
along. Mr. Proctor, in his "Lessons," says: Men "have been able to go
round and round the Earth in several directions." Now, in this case,
the word "several" will imply more than two, unquestionably: whereas,
it is utterly impossible to circumnavigate the Earth in any other
than an easterly or a westerly direction; and the fact is perfectly
consistent and clear in its relation to Earth as a Plane. Now, since
astronomers would not be so foolish as to damage a good cause by
misrepresentation, it is presumptive evidence that their cause is a
bad one, and--a proof that Earth is not a globe.
23. If astronomical works be searched through and through, there
will not be found a single instance of a bold, unhesitating, or manly
statement respecting a proof of the Earth's "rotundity." Proctor speaks
of "proofs which serve to show ... that the Earth is not flat," and
says that man "finds reason to think that the Earth is not flat,"
and speaks of certain matters being "explained by supposing" that
the Earth is a globe; and says that people have "assured themselves
that it is a globe;" but he says, also, that there is a "most complete
proof that the Earth is a globe:" just as though anything in the world
could possibly be wanted but a proof--a proof that proves and settles
the whole question. This, however, all the money in the United States
Treasury would not buy; and, unless the astronomers are all so rich
that they don't want the cash, it is a sterling proof that the Earth
is not a globe.
24. When a man speaks of a "most complete" thing amongst several
other things which claim to be what that thing is, it is evident
that they must fall short of something which the "most complete"
thing possesses. And when it is known that the "most complete" thing
is an entire failure, it is plain that the others, all and sundry,
are worthless. Proctor's "most complete proof that the Earth is a
globe" lies in what he calls "the fact" that distances from place
to place agree with calculation. But, since the distance round the
Earth at 45 "degrees" south of the equator is twice the distance it
would be on a globe, it follows that what the greatest astronomer of
the age calls "a fact" is NOT a fact; that his "most complete proof"
is a most complete failure; and that he might as well have told us,
at once, that he has NO PROOF to give us at all. Now, since, if the
Earth be a globe, there would, necessarily, be piles of proofs of
it all round us, it follows that when astronomers, with all their
ingenuity, are utterly unable to point one out--to say nothing about
picking one up--that they give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
25. The surveyor's plans in relation to the laying of the first
Atlantic Telegraph cable, show that in 1665 miles--from Valentia,
Ireland, to St. John's, Newfoundland--the surface of the Atlantic
Ocean is a LEVEL surface--not the astronomers' "level," either! The
authoritative drawings, published at the time, are a standing evidence
of the fact, and form a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.
26. If the Earth were a globe, it would, if we take Valentia to
be the place of departure, curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles
across the Atlantic to Newfoundland, according to the astronomers'
own tables, more than three-hundred miles; but, as the surface of
the Atlantic does not do so--the fact of its levelness having been
clearly demonstrated by Telegraph Cable surveyors,--it follows that
we have a grand proof that Earth is not a globe.
27. Astronomers, in their consideration of the supposed "curvature"
of the Earth, have carefully avoided the taking of that view of
the question which--if anything were needed to do so--would show
its utter absurdity. It is this:--If, instead of taking our ideal
point of departure to be at Valentia, we consider ourselves at
St. John's, the 1665 miles of water between us and Valentia would
just as well "curvate" downwards as it did in the other case! Now,
since the direction in which the Earth is said to "curvate" is
interchangeable--depending, indeed, upon the position occupied by
a man upon its surface--the thing is utterly absurd; and it follows
that the theory is an outrage, and that the Earth does not "curvate"
at all:--an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.
28. Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the
Earth's surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that
lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section,
even though it be an ocean, as a vast "hill"--of water! The Atlantic
ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a "hill of water"
more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and
could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made
up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires
no argument to deduce, from such "science" as this, a satisfactory
proof that the Earth is not a globe.
29. If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the
same general characteristics--no matter its size--as a small globe
that may be stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom,
and sides, so must also the large one--no matter how large it be. But,
as the Earth, which is "supposed" to be a large globe, has no sides
or bottom as the small globe has, the conclusion is irresistible that
it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above
its surface would have to look downwards at the horizon (if it be
possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances)
even as astronomical diagrams indicate--at angles varying from ten to
nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just
as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full
in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in
the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so,
it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that
the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and
untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
31. If the Earth were a globe, it would certainly have to be as large
as it is said to be--twenty-five thousand miles in circumference. Now,
the thing which is called a "proof" of the Earth's roundness, and
which is presented to children at school, is, that if we stand on
the sea-shore we may see the ships, as they approach us, absolutely
"coming up," and that, as we are able to see the highest parts of
these ships first, it is because the lower parts are "behind the
earth's curve." Now, since, if this were the case--that is, if the
lower parts of these ships were behind a "hill of water" at all--the
size of the Earth, indicated by such a curve as this, would be so
small that it would only be big enough to hold the people of a parish,
if they could get all round it, instead of the nations of the world,
it follows that the idea is preposterous; that the appearance is due
to another and to some reasonable cause; and that, instead of being
a proof of the globular form of the Earth, it is a proof that Earth
is not a globe.
32. It is often said that, if the Earth were flat, we could see all
over it! This is the result of ignorance. If we stand on the level
surface of a plain or a prairie, and take notice, we shall find that
the horizon is formed at about three miles all around us: that is,
the ground appears to rise up until, at that distance, it seems on
a level with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently, objects no
higher than we stand--say, six feet--and which are at that distance
(three miles), have reached the "vanishing point," and are beyond
the sphere of our unaided vision. This is the reason why the hull
of a ship disappears (in going away from us) before the sails; and,
instead of there being about it the faintest shadow of evidence of
the Earth's rotundity, it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.
33. If the Earth were a globe, people--except those on the top--would,
certainly, have to be "fastened" to its surface by some means or
other, whether by the "attraction" of astronomers or by some other
undiscovered and undiscoverable process! But, as we know that we
simply walk on its surface without any other aid than that which is
necessary for locomotion on a plane, it follows that we have, herein,
a conclusive proof that Earth is not a globe.
34. If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be--if we could
imagine the thing to be peopled all round--"antipodes:" "people
who," says the dictionary, "living exactly on the opposite side of
the globe to ourselves, have their feet opposite to ours:"--people
who are hanging heads downwards whilst we are standing heads up! But,
since the theory allows us to travel to those parts of the Earth where
the people are said to be heads downwards, and still to fancy ourselves
to be heads upwards and our friends whom we have left behind us to be
heads downwards, it follows that the whole thing is a myth--a dream--a
delusion--and a snare; and, instead of there being any evidence at
all in this direction to substantiate the popular theory, it is a
plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
35. If we examine a true picture of the distant horizon, or the thing
itself, we shall find that it coincides exactly with a perfectly
straight and level line. Now, since there could be nothing of the
kind on a globe, and we find it to be the case all over the Earth,
it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
36. If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we
shall see the "light" exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour
before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the
deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with
the "light" and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the
whole journey the light will not vary in the slightest degree in its
apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been
traversed, the astronomers' theory of "curvature" demands a difference
(one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112
feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 112 hair's
breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay
is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
37. If the Earth were a globe, there would, very likely, be (for
nobody knows) six months day and six months night at the arctic and
antarctic regions, as astronomers dare to assert there is:--for their
theory demands it! But, as this fact--the six months day and six months
night--is nowhere found but in the arctic regions, it agrees perfectly
with everything else that we know about the Earth as a plane, and,
whilst it overthrows the "accepted theory," it furnishes a striking
proof that Earth is not a globe.
38. When the Sun crosses the equator, in March, and begins to circle
round the heavens in north latitude, the inhabitants of high northern
latitudes see him skimming round their horizon and forming the break of
their long day, in a horizontal course, not disappearing again for six
months, as he rises higher and higher in the heavens whilst he makes
his twenty-four hour circle until June, when he begins to descend and
goes on until he disappears beyond the horizon in September. Thus,
in the northern regions, they have that which the traveller calls the
"midnight Sun," as he sees that luminary at a time when, in his more
southern latitude, it is always midnight. If, then, for one-half the
year, we may see for ourselves the Sun making horizontal circles round
the heavens, it is presumptive evidence that, for the other half-year,
he is doing the same, although beyond the boundary of our vision. This,
being a proof that Earth is a plane, is, therefore, a proof that the
Earth is not a globe.
39. We have abundance of evidence that the Sun moves daily round and
over the Earth in circles concentric with the northern region over
which hangs the North Star; but, since the theory of the Earth being a
globe is necessarily connected with the theory of its motion round the
Sun in a yearly orbit, it falls to the ground when we bring forward
the evidence of which we speak, and, in so doing, forms a proof that
the Earth is not a globe.
40. The Suez Canal, which joins the Red Sea with the Mediterranean, is
about one hundred miles long; it forms a straight and level surface of
water from one end to the other; and no "allowance" for any supposed
"curvature" was made in its construction. It is a clear proof that
the Earth is not a globe.
41. When astronomers assert that it is "necessary" to make "allowance
for curvature" in canal construction, it is, of course, in order
that, in their idea, a level cutting may be had for the water. How
flagrantly, then, do they contradict themselves when they say that
the curved surface of the Earth is a "true level!" What more can they
want for a canal than a true level? Since they contradict themselves
in such an elementary point as this, it is an evidence that the whole
thing is a delusion, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
42. It is certain that the theory of the Earth's rotundity and that
of its mobility must stand or fall together. A proof, then, of its
immobility is virtually a proof of its non-rotundity. Now, that the
Earth does not move, either on an axis, or in an orbit round the Sun
or anything else, is easily proven. If the Earth went through space at
the rate of eleven-hundred miles in a minute of time, as astronomers
teach us, in a particular direction, there would unquestionably be a
difference in the result of firing off a projectile in that direction
and in a direction the opposite of that one. But as, in fact, there
is not the slightest difference in any such case, it is clear that
any alleged motion of the Earth is disproved, and that, therefore,
we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
43. The circumstances which attend bodies which are caused merely
to fall from a great height prove nothing as to the motion or
stability of the Earth, since the object, if it be on a thing that
is in motion, will participate in that motion; but, if an object be
thrown upwards from a body at rest, and, again, from a body in motion,
the circumstances attending its descent will be very different. In
the former case, it will fall, if thrown vertically upwards, at the
place from whence it was projected; in the latter case, it will fall
behind--the moving body from which it is thrown will leave it in the
rear. Now, fix a gun, muzzle upwards, accurately, in the ground; fire
off a projectile; and it will fall by the gun. If the Earth travelled
eleven-hundred miles a minute, the projectile would fall behind the
gun, in the opposite direction to that of the supposed motion. Since,
then, this is NOT the case, in fact, the Earth's fancied motion is
negatived, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
44. It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly
moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is
going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the
ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is
said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second of time, "from
west to east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun
were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is
not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done,
we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion
of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.
45. The Astronomer Royal, of England, George B. Airy, in his celebrated
work on Astronomy, the "Ipswich Lectures," says: "Jupiter is a large
planet that turns on his axis, and why do not we turn?" Of course,
the common sense reply is: Because the Earth is not a planet! When,
therefore, an astronomer royal puts words into our mouth wherewith
we may overthrow the supposed planetary nature of the Earth, we have
not far to go to pick up a proof that Earth is not a globe.
46. It has been shown that an easterly or a westerly motion is
necessarily a circular course round the central North. The only north
point or centre of motion of the heavenly bodies known to man is that
formed by the North Star, which is over the central portion of the
outstretched Earth. When, therefore, astronomers tell us of a planet
taking a westerly course round the Sun, the thing is as meaningless to
them as it is to us, unless they make the Sun the northern centre of
the motion, which they cannot do! Since, then, the motion which they
tell us the planets have is, on the face of it, absurd; and since,
as a matter of fact, the Earth can have no absurd motion at all,
it is clear that it cannot be what astronomers say it is--a planet;
and, if not a planet, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
47. In consequence of the fact being so plainly seen, by everyone
who visits the sea-shore, that the line of the horizon is a perfectly
straight line, it becomes impossible for astronomers, when they attempt
to convey, pictorially, an idea of the Earth's "convexity," to do
so with even a shadow of consistency: for they dare not represent
this horizon as a curved line, so well known is it that it is a
straight one! The greatest astronomer of the age, in page 15 of his
"Lessons," gives an illustration of a ship sailing away, "as though
she were rounding the top of a great hill of water;" and there--of a
truth--is the straight and level line of the horizon clear along the
top of the "hill" from one side of the picture to the other! Now,
if this picture were true in all its parts--and it is outrageously
false in several--it would show that Earth is a cylinder; for the
"hill" shown is simply up one side of the level, horizontal line, and,
we are led to suppose, down the other! Since, then, we have such high
authority as Professor Richard A. Proctor that the Earth is a cylinder,
it is, certainly, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
48. In Mr. Proctor's "Lessons in Astronomy," page 15, a ship is
represented as sailing away from the observer, and it is given in
five positions or distances away on its journey. Now, in its first
position, its mast appears above the horizon, and, consequently,
higher than the observer's line of vision. But, in its second
and third positions, representing the ship as further and further
away, it is drawn higher and still higher up above the line of the
horizon! Now, it is utterly impossible for a ship to sail away from
an observer, under the conditions indicated, and to appear as given
in the picture. Consequently, the picture is a misrepresentation, a
fraud, and a disgrace. A ship starting to sail away from an observer
with her masts above his line of sight would appear, indisputably, to
go down and still lower down towards the horizon line, and could not
possibly appear--to anyone with his vision undistorted--as going in any
other direction, curved or straight. Since, then, the design of the
astronomer-artist is to show the Earth to be a globe, and the points
in the picture, which would only prove the Earth to be cylindrical if
true, are NOT true, it follows that the astronomer-artist fails to
prove, pictorially, either that the Earth is a globe or a cylinder,
and that we have, therefore, a reasonable proof that the Earth is
not a globe.
49. It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in
all manner of directions--yes, and frequently, in different directions
at the same time--from west to east being as frequent a direction as
any other. Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from
west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds
appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker
than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which
appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity
to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than
sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common
sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear
to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless. We have, then,
a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
50. We read in the inspired book, or collection of books, called The
Bible, nothing at all about the Earth being a globe or a planet, from
beginning to end, but hundreds of allusions there are in its pages
which could not be made if the Earth were a globe, and which are,
therefore, said by the astronomer to be absurd and contrary to what
he knows to be true! This is the groundwork of modern infidelity. But,
since every one of many, many allusions to the Earth and the heavenly
bodies in the Scriptures can be demonstrated to be absolutely true
to nature, and we read of the Earth being "stretched out" "above the
waters," as "standing in the water and out of the water," of its being
"established that it cannot be moved," we have a store from which to
take all the proofs we need, but we will just put down one proof--the
Scriptural proof--that Earth is not a globe.
51. A "Standing Order" exists in the English Houses of Parliament
that, in the cutting of canals, &c., the datum line employed shall
be a "horizontal line, which shall be the same throughout the whole
length of the work." Now, if the Earth were a globe, this "Order"
could not be carried out: but, it is carried out: therefore, it is
a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
52. It is a well-known and indisputable fact that there is a far
greater accumulation of ice south of the equator than is to be
found at an equal latitude north: and it is said that at Kerguelen,
50 degrees south, 18 kinds of plants exist, whilst, in Iceland, 15
degrees nearer the northern centre, there are 870 species; and, indeed,
all the facts in the case show that the Sun's power is less intense at
places in the southern region than it is in corresponding latitudes
north. Now, on the Newtonian hypothesis, all this is inexplicable,
whilst it is strictly in accordance with the facts brought to light by
the carrying out of the principles involved in the Zetetic Philosophy
of "Parallax." This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
53. Every year the Sun is as long south of the equator as he is north;
and if the Earth were not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but
turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests, it would certainly
get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the
Southern region being, in consequence of the fact stated, far more
extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his
journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes
further south, from September to December, and his influence has
less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then,
the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is
a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
54. The aeronaut is able to start in his balloon and remain for hours
in the air, at an elevation of several miles, and come down again
in the same county or parish from which he ascended. Now, unless the
Earth drag the balloon along with it in its nineteen-miles-a-second
motion, it must be left far behind, in space: but, since balloons
have never been known thus to be left, it is a proof that the Earth,
does not move, and, therefore, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
55. The Newtonian theory of astronomy requires that the Moon "borrow"
her light from the Sun. Now, since the Sun's rays are hot and the
Moon's light sends with it no heat at all, it follows that the Sun and
Moon are "two great lights," as we somewhere read; that the Newtonian
theory is a mistake; and that, therefore, we have a proof that the
Earth is not a globe.
56. The Sun and Moon may often be seen high in the heavens at the
same time--the Sun rising in the east and the Moon setting in the
west--the Sun's light positively putting the Moon's light out by sheer
contrast! If the accepted Newtonian theory were correct, and the Moon
had her light from the Sun, she ought to be getting more of it when
face to face with that luminary--if it were possible for a sphere
to act as a reflector all over its face! But as the Moon's light
pales before the rising Sun, it is a proof that the theory fails;
and this gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
57. The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of the Sun, in
the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular
earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon
have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon,
it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses
the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less
than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
58. Astronomers have never agreed amongst themselves about a rotating
Moon revolving round a rotating and revolving Earth--this Earth,
Moon, planets and their satellites all, at the same time dashing
through space, around the rotating and revolving Sun, towards the
constellation Hercules, at the rate of four millions of miles a
day! And they never will: agreement is impossible! With the Earth a
plane and without motion, the whole thing is clear. And if a straw
will show which way the wind blows, this may be taken as a pretty
strong proof that the Earth is not a globe.
59. Mr. Proctor says: "The Sun is so far off that even moving from
one side of the Earth to the other does not cause him to be seen
in a different direction--at least the difference is too small to
be measured." Now, since we know that north of the equator, say 45
degrees, we see the Sun at mid-day to the south, and that at the same
distance south of the equator we see the Sun at mid-day to the north,
our very shadows on the ground cry aloud against the delusion of the
day and give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
60. There is no problem more important to the astronomer than that
of the Sun's distance from the Earth. Every change in the estimate
changes everything. Now, since modern astronomers, in their estimates
of this distance, have gone all the way along the line of figures
from three millions of miles to a hundred and four millions--to-day,
the distance being something over 91,000,000; it matters not how much:
for, not many years ago, Mr. Hind gave the distance, "accurately,"
as 95,370,000!--it follows that they don't know, and that it is
foolish for anyone to expect that they ever will know, the Sun's
distance! And since all this speculation and absurdity is caused by
the primary assumption that Earth is a wandering, heavenly body, and
is all swept away by a knowledge of the fact that Earth is a plane,
it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.
61. It is plain that a theory of measurements without a measuring-rod
is like a ship without a rudder; that a measure that is not fixed, not
likely to be fixed, and never has been fixed, forms no measuring-rod at
all; and that as modern theoretical astronomy depends upon the Sun's
distance from the Earth as its measuring-rod, and the distance is
not known, it is a system of measurements without a measuring-rod--a
ship without a rudder. Now, since it is not difficult to foresee the
dashing of this thing upon the rock on which Zetetic astronomy is
founded, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
62. It is commonly asserted that "the Earth must be a globe because
people have sailed round it." Now, since this implies that we can sail
round nothing unless it be a globe, and the fact is well known that
we can sail round the Earth as a plane, the assertion is ridiculous,
and we have another proof that Earth is not a globe.
63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a
ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her
hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to
our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not
made to enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear
that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can
be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This
is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
64. Mr. Glaisher, in speaking of his balloon ascends, says: "The
horizon always appeared on a level with the car." Now, since we may
search amongst the laws of optics in vain for any principle that
would cause the surface of a globe to turn its face upwards instead
of downwards, it is a clear proof that the Earth is not a globe.
65. The Rev. D. Olmsted, in describing a diagram which is supposed to
represent the Earth as a globe, with a figure of a man sticking out
at each side and one hanging head downwards, says: "We should dwell
on this point until it appears to us as truly up,"--in the direction
given to these figures as it does with regard to a figure which he has
placed on the top! Now, a system of philosophy which requires us to
do something which is, really, the going out of our minds, by dwelling
on an absurdity until we think it is a fact, cannot be a system based
on God's truth, which never requires anything of the kind. Since,
then, the popular theoretical astronomy of the day requires this,
it is evident that it is the wrong thing, and that this conclusion
furnishes us with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
66. It is often said that the predictions of eclipses prove astronomers
to be right in their theories. But it is not seen that this proves too
much. It is well known that Ptolemy predicted eclipses for six-hundred
years, on the basis of a plane Earth, with as much accuracy as they
are predicted by modern observers. If, then, the predictions prove
the truth of the particular theories current at the time, they just
as well prove one side of the question as the other, and enable us
to lay claim to a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
67. Seven-hundred miles is said to be the length of the great Canal, in
China. Certain it is that, when this canal was formed, no "allowance"
was made for "curvature." Yet the canal is a fact without it. This
is a Chinese proof that the Earth is not a globe.
68. Mr. J. N. Lockyer says: "Because the Sun seems to rise in the east
and set in the west, the Earth really spins in the opposite direction;
that is, from west to east." Now, this is no better than though we were
to say--Because a man seems to be coming up the street, the street
really goes down to the man! And since true science would contain
no such nonsense as this, it follows that the so-called science of
theoretical astronomy is not true, and, therefore, we have a proof
that the Earth is not a globe.
69. Mr. Lockyer says: "The appearances connected with the rising and
setting of the Sun and stars may be due either to our earth being at
rest and the Sun and stars travelling round it, or the earth itself
turning round, while the Sun and stars are at rest." Now, since true
science does not allow of any such beggarly alternatives as these,
it is plain that modern theoretical astronomy is not true science,
and that its leading dogma is a fallacy. We have, then, a plain proof
that the Earth is not a globe.
70. Mr. Lockyer, in describing his picture of the supposed proof of
the Earth's rotundity by means of ships rounding a "hill of water,"
uses these words:--"Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is
round, we explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do." This
is utterly unworthy of the name of Science! A science that begins by
supposing, and ends by explaining the supposition, is, from beginning
to end, a mere farce. The men who can do nothing better than amuse
themselves in this way must be denounced as dreamers only, and their
leading dogma a delusion. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
71. The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the
conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North
Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been
seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of
the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory
to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
72. Astronomers tell us that, in consequence of the Earth's
"rotundity," the perpendicular walls of buildings are, nowhere,
parallel, and that even the walls of houses on opposite sides of
a street are not strictly so! But, since all observation fails to
find any evidence of this want of parallelism which theory demands,
the idea must be renounced as being absurd and in opposition to all
well-known facts. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
73. Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been
suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted
over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on
its "axis," by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a
prepared table underneath--asserting that the table moved round under
the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in
different directions over the table! But, since it has been found
that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for
the "rotation" theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation,
and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts
to substantiate their theory, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is
not a globe.
74. As to the supposed "motion of the whole Solar system in space,"
the Astronomer Royal of England once said: "The matter is left in
a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I shall be very glad if
anyone can help us out of it." But, since the whole Newtonian scheme
is, to-day, in a most deplorable state of uncertainty--for, whether
the Moon goes round the Earth or the Earth round the Moon has, for
years, been a matter of "raging" controversy--it follows that, root
and branch, the whole thing, is wrong; and, all hot from the raging
furnace of philosophical phrensy, we find a glowing proof that Earth
is not a globe.
75. Considerably more than a million Earths would be required to
make up a body like the Sun--the astronomers tell us: and more than
53,000 suns would be wanted to equal the cubic contents of the star
Vega. And Vega is a "small star!" And there are countless millions of
these stars! And it takes 30,000,000 years for the light of some of
these stars to reach us at 12,000,000 miles in a minute! And, says
Mr. Proctor, "I think a moderate estimate of the age of the Earth
would be 500,000,000 years!" "Its weight," says the same individual,
"is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons!" Now, since no human being
is able to comprehend these things, the giving of them to the world
is an insult--an outrage. And though they have all arisen from the
one assumption that Earth is a planet, instead of upholding the
assumption, they drag it down by the weight of their own absurdity,
and leave it lying in the dust--a proof that Earth is not a globe.
76. Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says: "Although the
path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent
the length of the path by a straight line on a plane surface." (And
plane sailing is the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to
"represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the
attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line
and not a curved one. And, since it is the surface of the waters
of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that
this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young,
a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
77. "Oh, but if the Earth is a plane, we could go to the edge and
tumble over!" is a very common assertion. This is a conclusion that
is formed too hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is,
just what man by his observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor
himself says it "seems" to be--flat; and we cannot cross the icy
barrier which surrounds it. This is a complete answer to the objection,
and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a globe.
78. "Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough," is
often said--by those who don't know. The British Ship Challenger
recently completed the circuit of the Southern region--indirectly,
to be sure--but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly
69,000 miles--a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round
on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
79. The remark is common enough that we can see the circle of the Earth
if we cross the ocean, and that this proves it to be round. Now, if we
tie a donkey to a stake on a level common, and he eats the grass all
around him, it is only a circular disc that he has to do with, not a
spherical mass. Since, then, circular discs may be seen anywhere--as
well from a balloon in the air as from the deck of a ship, or from
the standpoint of the donkey, it is a proof that the surface of the
Earth is a plane surface, and, therefore, a proof that the Earth is
not a globe.
80. It is "supposed," in the regular course of the Newtonian theory,
that the Earth is, in June, about 190 millions of miles (190,000,000)
away from its position in December. Now, since we can, (in middle north
latitudes), see the North Star, on looking out of a window that faces
it--and out of the very same corner of the very same pane of glass in
the very same window--all the year round, it is proof enough for any
man in his senses that we have made no motion at all. It is a proof
that the Earth is not a globe.
81. Newtonian philosophers teach us that the Moon goes round the
Earth from west to east. But observation--man's most certain mode
of gaining knowledge--shows us that the Moon never ceases to move in
the opposite direction--from east to west. Since, then, we know that
nothing can possibly move in two, opposite directions at the same
time, it is a proof that the thing is a big blunder; and, in short,
it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
82. Astronomers tell us that the Moon goes round the Earth in about
28 days. Well, we may see her making her journey round, every day,
if we make use of our eyes--and these are about the best things we
have to use. The Moon falls behind in her daily motion as compared
with that of the Sun to the extent of one revolution in the time
specified; but that is not making a revolution. Failing to go as fast
as other bodies go in one direction does not constitute a going round
in the opposite one--as the astronomers would have us believe! And,
since all this absurdity has been rendered necessary for no other
purpose than to help other absurdities along, it is clear that the
astronomers are on the wrong track; and it needs no long train of
reasoning to show that we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
83. It has been shown that meridians are, necessarily, straight lines;
and that it is impossible to travel round the Earth in a north or
south direction: from which it follows that, in the general acceptation
of the word "degree,"--the 360th part of a circle--meridians have no
degrees: for no one knows anything of a meridian circle or semicircle,
to be thus divided. But astronomers speak of degrees of latitude in
the same sense as those of longitude. This, then, is done by assuming
that to be true which is not true. Zetetic philosophy does not involve
this necessity. This proves that the basis of this philosophy is a
sound one, and, in short, is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
84. If we move away from an elevated object on or over a plain or
a prairie, the height of the object will apparently diminish as we
do so. Now, that which is sufficient to produce this effect on a
small scale is sufficient on a large one; and travelling away from an
elevated object, no matter how high, over a level surface, no matter
how far, will cause the appearance in question--the lowering of the
object. Our modern theoretical astronomers, however, in the case
of the apparent lowering of the North Star as we travel southward,
assert that it is evidence that the Earth is globular! But, as it is
clear that an appearance which is fully accounted for on the basis of
known facts cannot be permitted to figure as evidence in favor of that
which is only a supposition, it follows that we rightfully order it
to stand down, and make way for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
85. There are rivers which flow east, west, north, and south--that
is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth's surface,
and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these
rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down, taking it for a fact
that there really is an "up" and a "down" in nature, whatever form she
assumes. But, since rivers do not flow up-hill, and the globular theory
requires that they should, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
86. If the Earth were a globe, rolling and dashing through "space"
at the rate of "a hundred miles in five seconds of time," the
waters of seas and oceans could not, by any known law, be kept
on its surface--the assertion that they could be retained under
these circumstances being an outrage upon human understanding and
credulity! But as the Earth--that is, the habitable world of dry
land--is found to be "standing out of the water and in the water"
of the "mighty deep," whose circumferential boundary is ice, we
may throw the statement back into the teeth of those who make it
and flaunt before their faces the flag of reason and common sense,
inscribed with--a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
87. The theory of a rotating and revolving earth demands a theory
to keep the water on its surface; but, as the theory which is given
for this purpose is as much opposed to all human experience as the
one which it is intended to uphold, it is an illustration of the
miserable makeshifts to which astronomers are compelled to resort,
and affords a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
88. If we could--after our minds had once been opened to the light of
Truth--conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings
could exist, the power--no matter by what name it be called--that would
hold them on would, then, necessarily, have to be so constraining
and cogent that they could not live; the waters of the oceans would
have to be as a solid mass, for motion would be impossible. But we
not only exist, but live and move; and the water of the ocean skips
and dances like a thing of life and beauty! This is a proof that the
Earth is not a globe.
89. It is well known that the law regulating the apparent decrease
in the size of objects as we leave them in the distance (or as they
leave us) is very different with luminous bodies from what it is in
the case of those which are non-luminous. Sail past the light of a
small lamp in a row-boat on a dark night, and it will seem to be no
smaller when a mile off than it was when close to it. Proctor says, in
speaking of the Sun: "his apparent size does not change,"--far off or
near. And then he forgets the fact! Mr. Proctor tells us, subsequently,
that, if the traveller goes so far south that the North Star appears
on the horizon, "the Sun should therefore look much larger"--if the
Earth were a plane! Therefore, he argues, "the path followed cannot
have been the straight course,"--but a curved one. Now, since it
is nothing but common scientific trickery to bring forward, as an
objection to stand in the way of a plane Earth, the non-appearance of
a thing which has never been known to appear at all, it follows that,
unless that which appears to be trickery were an accident, it was the
only course open to the objector--to trick. (Mr. Proctor, in a letter
to the "English Mechanic" for Oct. 20, 1871, boasts of having turned
a recent convert to the Zetetic philosophy by telling him that his
arguments were all very good, but that "it seems as though [mark the
language!] the sun ought to look nine times larger in summer." And
Mr. Proctor concludes thus: "He saw, indeed, that, in his faith in
'Parallax,' he had 'written himself down an ass.'") Well, then:
trickery or no trickery on the part of the objector, the objection
is a counterfeit--a fraud--no valid objection at all; and it follows
that the system which does not purge itself of these things is a
rotten system, and the system which its advocates, with Mr. Proctor
at their head, would crush if they could find a weapon to use--the
Zetetic philosophy of "Parallax"--is destined to live! This is a
proof that the Earth is not a globe.
90. "Is water level, or is it not?" was a question once asked of an
astronomer. "Practically, yes; theoretically, no," was the reply. Now,
when theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to
do is to drop the theory. (It is getting too late, now, to say "So
much the worse for the facts!") To drop the theory which supposes a
curved surface to standing water is to acknowledge the facts which
form the basis of Zetetic philosophy. And since this will have to be
done--sooner or later,--it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
91. "By actual observation," says Schoedler, in his "Book of Nature,"
"we know that the other heavenly bodies are spherical, hence we
unhesitatingly assert that the earth is so also." This is a fair sample
of all astronomical reasoning. When a thing is classed amongst "other"
things, the likeness between them must first be proven. It does not
take a Schoedler to tell us that "heavenly bodies" are spherical, but
"the greatest astronomer of the age" will not, now, dare to tell us
that The Earth is--and attempt to prove it. Now, since no likeness
has ever been proven to exist between the Earth and the heavenly
bodies, the classification of the Earth with the heavenly bodies is
premature--unscientific--false! This is a proof that Earth is not
a globe.
92. "There is no inconsistency in supposing that the earth does move
round the sun," says the Astronomer Royal of England. Certainly
not, when theoretical astronomy is all supposition together! The
inconsistency is in teaching the world that the thing supposed
is a fact. Since, then, the "motion" of the Earth is supposition
only--since, indeed, it is necessary to suppose it at all--it is
plain that it is a fiction and not a fact; and, since "mobility" and
"sphericity" stand or fall together, we have before us a proof that
Earth is not a globe.
93. We have seen that astronomers--to give us a level surface on which
to live--have cut off one-half of the "globe" in a certain picture in
their books. [See page 6.] Now, astronomers having done this, one-half
of the substance of their "spherical theory" is given up! Since, then,
the theory must stand or fall in its entirety, it has really fallen
when the half is gone. Nothing remains, then, but a plane Earth,
which is, of course, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
94. In "Cornell's Geography" there is an "Illustrated proof of the Form
of the Earth." A curved line on which is represented a ship in four
positions, as she sails away from an observer, is an arc of 72 degrees,
or one-fifth of the supposed circumference of the "globe"--about 5,000
miles. Ten such ships as those which are given in the picture would
reach the full length of the "arc," making 500 miles as the length
of the ship. The man, in the picture, who is watching the ship as she
sails away, is about 200 miles high; and the tower, from which he takes
an elevated view, at least 500 miles high. These are the proportions,
then, of men, towers, and ships which are necessary in order to see
a ship, in her different positions, as she "rounds the curve" of the
"great hill of water" over which she is supposed to be sailing: for,
it must be remembered that this supposed "proof" depends upon lines
and angles of vision which, if enlarged, would still retain their
characteristics. Now, since ships are not built 500 miles long,
with masts in proportion, and men are not quite 200 miles high,
it is not what it is said to be--a proof of rotundity--but, either
an ignorant farce or a cruel piece of deception. In short, it is a
proof that the Earth is not a globe.
95. In "Cornell's Intermediate Geography," (1881) page 12, is an
"Illustration of the Natural Divisions of Land and Water." This
illustration is so nicely drawn that it affords, at once, a striking
proof that Earth is a plane. It is true to nature, and bears the
stamp of no astronomer-artist. It is a pictorial proof that Earth is
not a globe.
96. If we refer to the diagram in "Cornell's Geography," page 4, and
notice the ship in its position the most remote from the observer, we
shall find that, though it is about 4,000 miles away, it is the same
size as the ship that is nearest to him, distant about 700 miles! This
is an illustration of the way in which astronomers ignore the laws
of perspective. This course is necessary, or they would be compelled
to lay bare the fallacy of their dogmas. In short, there is, in this
matter, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
97. Mr. Hind, the English astronomer, says: "The simplicity with
which the seasons are explained by the revolution of the Earth in her
orbit and the obliquity of the ecliptic, may certainly be adduced as a
strong presumptive proof of the correctness"--of the Newtonian theory;
"for on no other rational suppositions with respect to the relations
of the Earth and Sun, can these and other as well-known phenomena,
be accounted for." But, as true philosophy has no "suppositions"
at all--and has nothing to do with "suppositions"--and the phenomena
spoken of are thoroughly explained by facts, the "presumptive proof"
falls to the ground, covered with the ridicule it so richly deserves;
and out of the dust of Mr. Hind's "rational suppositions" we see
standing before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
98. Mr. Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is "carried
across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth." Now,
this is nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could
possibly carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the
star is carried across anything at all, it is the star that moves,
not the thing across which it is carried! Besides, the idea that the
Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of nearly
600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in
a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over
a star "millions of millions" of miles away is simply monstrous;
whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the
stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer
supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, "the further
away they are, the less they will seem to shift." Why, in the name of
common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid
stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, if the
Earth on which they fix them move at the rate of nineteen miles in a
second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor's mass of "six thousand
million million million tons" is "rolling, surging, flying, darting
on through space for ever" with a velocity compared with which a shot
from a cannon is a "very slow coach," with such unerring accuracy
that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not
enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward
motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a
miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together
would sink into utter insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late
compiler of "Zadkeil's Almanac," says: "We declare that this 'motion'
is all mere 'bosh'; and that the arguments which uphold it are,
when examined with an eye that seeks for TRUTH only, mere nonsense,
and childish absurdity." Since, then, these absurd theories are of
no use to men in their senses, and since there is no necessity for
anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a "strong presumptive
proof"--as Mr. Hind would say--that the Zetetic philosophy is true,
and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.
99. Mr. Hind speaks of two great mathematicians differing only
fifty-five yards in their estimate of the Earth's diameter. Why,
Sir John Herschel, in his celebrated work, cuts off 480 miles of
the same thing to get "round numbers!" This is like splitting a
hair on one side of the head and shaving all the hair off on the
other! Oh, "science!" Can there be any truth in a science like
this? All the exactitude in astronomy is in Practical astronomy--not
Theoretical. Centuries of observation have made practical astronomy a
noble art and science, based--as we have a thousand times proved it
to be--on a fixed Earth; and we denounce this pretended exactitude
on one side and the reckless indifference to figures on the other
as the basest trash, and take from it a proof that the "science"
which tolerates it is a false--instead of being an "exact"--science,
and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
100. The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings
"noon" to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses:
his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the
Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the
Sun's position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly,
we arrive at those parts of the Earth where "time" is more advanced,
the watch in our pocket has to be "put on," or we may be said to
"gain time." If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at
places where it is still "morning," the watch has to be "put back,"
and it may be said that we "lose time." But, if we travel easterly
so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day,
which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if
we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the
gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete
circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time
in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the
Earth's "rotundity," as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical
exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.
"And what then?" What then! No intelligent man will ask the question;
and he who may be called an intellectual man will know that the
demonstration of the fact that the Earth is not a globe is the grandest
snapping of the chains of slavery that ever took place in the world of
literature or science. The floodgates of human knowledge are opened
afresh and an impetus is given to investigation and discovery where
all was stagnation, bewilderment and dreams! Is it nothing to know
that infidelity cannot stand against the mighty rush of the living
water of Truth that must flow on and on until the world shall look "up"
once more "to Him that stretched out the earth above the waters"--"to
Him that made great lights:--the Sun to rule by day--the Moon and
Stars to rule by night?" Is it nothing to know and to feel that the
heavenly bodies were made for man, and that the monstrous dogma of
an infinity of worlds is overthrown for ever? The old-time English
"Family Herald," for July 25, 1885, says, in its editorial, that
"The earth's revolution on its own axis was denied, against Galileo
and Copernicus, by the whole weight of the Church of Rome." And, in
an article on "The Pride of Ignorance," too!--the editor not knowing
that if the Earth had an axis to call its "own"--which the Church
well knew it had not, and, therefore, could not admit--it would not
"revolve" on it; and that the theoretical motion on an axis is that of
rotation, and not revolution! Is it nothing to know that "the whole
weight of the Church of Rome" was thrown in the right direction,
although it has swayed back again like a gigantic pendulum that will
regain its old position before long? Is it nothing to know that the
"pride of ignorance" is on the other side? Is it nothing to know
that, with all the Bradlaughs and Ingersolls of the world telling
us to the contrary--Biblical science is true? Is it nothing to know
that we are living on a body at rest, and not upon a heavenly body
whirling and dashing through space in every conceivable way and with
a velocity utterly inconceivable? Is it nothing to know that we can
look stedfastly up to Heaven instead of having no heaven to look
up to at all? Is it nothing, indeed, to be in the broad daylight of
Truth and to be able to go on towards a possible perfection, instead
of being wrapped in the darkness of error on the rough ocean of Life,
and finding ourselves stranded at last--God alone knows where?
Baltimore, Maryland, U. S. A., August, 1885.