T H E E A R T H REVIE W.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

- T H E-All letters to the E ditor should be briefly and l e g i b l y written on one side o f th epaper only. They must be accompanied by the name and address of the writer, as aguarantee of good faith.
W here replies are requested by post, the postage must be
enclosed.
The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the opinions expressedby correspondents. All letters must be prepaid and addressed to
LE O CA STLE,
c /o M r J. w i l l i a m s ,32, Bankside, L ondon , S.E.

S i

I c o n o c l a s t . —Thanks for

The Latest Discoveries in Astronomy, also The SquareWorld. R ev. vii. i. teaches that the isarM— not the “ world ’— hath “ four cotners.” No man on that account should, or can logically assert that “ it must hesquare, or it would never have four corners.” H ath not a Rectangle, Rhombus
Rhomboid, Trapezoid, and a Diamond each four corners ? Draw them on paperand see.

A Sectional View of the W orld as a Plane.
V o l. I l l ,The assertion that Jesus could, on his bason-earth theory, see “ all the king,doms of the world ” is equally as false as it would be if he asserted that theglobular theory were true.
Is he conscious of that when he says, “ One could,
from the centre, see all the kingdoms of the world at once ” ? A person might or
he might not be able to see all the kingdoms of the world from the centre. Cer­
tainly he could not see them all at once even were it square ! W hat about those
kingdoms situated behind him ?
The fact is he has seized the plane earth facts, advanced, both by “ Parallax ”
and the late John Ham pden, to make his theory appear a feasible one ! He hasdone the same with L a d y B l o u n t ’s Nebular Hypothesis (Earth Review, May,
1894, p. 157), and has not been honest enough to acknowledge the persons or thesource of his information ! Those who live on a “ square world ” should acton
the square, but I suppose that while the round globe world can ,'oll on in space, thesquare world requites pushing I
C. H a r p u r . —Thanks for your “ comments ” they are always amusing, especiallywhen you “ cannot understand,” and plead “ not guilty.” Our space is so very
limited we must close the controversy between you and G. M,
The evidence for the Alleghanies having been seen from Teneriffe will l)efound in Tallis’s Literary Newspaper, June i it h , 1864.
We can quite understand why Professor G. H . Darwin, of Cambridge, “ re­fused to allow his answer to be sent to us.” The Professors know and realize as
no others do, the power o f the T ruth we wield against their suppositions.
Gladto see you own that ‘• Gravitation is a name and N O T H IN G M O R E .” But
would anyone save a fool attempt the idiotic feat of calling “ nothing” a “ law of
N ature,” and attribute to it the intelligence found only in living creatures?

M A Y , 1896.

P r ic e I d .

“ UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, A PURE
ASSUMPTION."
B y L p;o C .» s tle .
N o. IV .
D edicated to T h e E d i t o r o f R e in o ld s s MetmpaJ}er.

We have received the E arth (not a globe) Revitiu, a id monthly publication,
which may be obtained from John W illiams 32 Bankside, London, S.E .
It is m el­ancholy to think that at this time of the day e en a handful of people are wasting theirenergies upon an absurdity of this nature.—
Neiispaper, A-pt\\ 5th, 1896.

Is this all the otherwise outspoken Editor of Reynolds s Newspaper
can say ] Jt appears so ! .But what does he mean by “ an absurdity?”
Does he mean the globular theory 1 If e o we most heartily j ;in him in
his righteous denunciation, but if he means the teaching that the earth
is noi a globe, then we challenge him to prove his assertion. Seeingthat he owns to being in a melancholy state, we trust tliis challenge will
prove an effectual antidote.

EDITORIAL NOTICES.
Please to ask for “ The E arth—not a Globe—Review,” a t all Newsagents,
Readmg Rooms, and Railway Bookstalls. To be had direct from the Hon. Sec ,post free, to any address in the postal union for is 6d per year, in advance.
All monies for the Society must be paid direct to the local Vice Secretaries, ordirect to the Hon. Secretary and Treasurer, John Williams. Post Office Orders to bemade payable at Summer Street, S. E.
E r r a ta — \a our last issue, p. 143, from “ Cannock to W hiton,” read Cannock
to Wolverhampton ; from W hiton to Smethwick read W olverhampton to Smethwick.
W e have from time to time received many letters asking us to issue this journal
every month. W e have great pleasure in announcing that in future it will be issued
Monthly at its present price and size, and therefore ask the help needed to do so.
We gladly give time and labour free, but the printer must be paid, therefore we ask
the co-operation of all Zetetics to assist us to increase its circulation and so help us in
our testimony for God’s T ruth as found in Nature and taught in H is Word.

N o 2 ( M o n t h l y S k b ik s ).

1

11th— Continued. “ In ascending a hill we experience a hard
struggle, and feel more fatigued than when walking on level ground.
W hy is this? The Newtonian attributes this result to the attractionof gravitation of the earth, against the p u ll of which we have to c n tend ;but if he would be consistent w ith his theory that the ‘ attraction ofgravitation diminishes inversely as the square of the distance from thecentre of the earth,’ we ought, in defiancH of experience, to feel it to beless laborious to a cend a hill than to promenade the same distance onlevel ground, because as v e a-cend we recede from the centre of theearth; therefore the force (pull) of gravitation ought to diminish in acorresponding degree. The Newtonian can only get over this difficulty

T H E E A R T H R E V IE W .

U N IV E R S A L GRA V IT A T IO N , A P U R E ASSUM PTION .

by a species of scientific quibbling. According to the definition of•weight I have given, the solution of the problem is perfectly simple.
In a=cending a hill a man cornea in conflict with the law that thenatural tendency of any body is to seek the easiest and shortest route
to its level of stability. H e chooses the very reverse, and must
therefore endure the consequences of acting in opposition to this law.
A t every step he has to lift his own weight, and the higher he mounts
the more he feels the influence of the law which ho defies. H is easiest
and more direct-oours© to obey the law of weight is to remain where heis ; the next is to descend to a lower level.

distant planet in its orbit, we should be more immediately conscious ofits maiiterful presence and potency ; whereas this influence is so impotent
in the very spot where it is supposed lo be most dominant that we findan insurmountable difiiculty in accepting the idea of its existence.
Fortunately for our faculty of locomotion, the Newtonian hypothesis may
be rejected as a snare and a delusion.

14

The attraction of gravii'ation is said to be stronger at the surfaceof the earth than at a distance from it. Is it so? I f I spring upwards
perpendicularly I cannot with all my might ascend more than four feetfrom the ground ; but if I jump in a curve with a low trajectory,
keeping my highest elevation about three feet, I might clear at a bounda space above the earth of about eighteen fe e t; so that practically I
can overcome the so-called force (pull) at the distance of four feet, inthe proportion of 18 to 4, being the very reverse, of what I ought to beable to do according to the N ewtonian hypothesis.
Again, take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon. By theforce of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action ofgravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to theearth. H ere we may ask, why— if the forces are the same, viz., direct
impulse and gravitation— does not the shot form an orbic like that ofa planet, and revolve round the earth (globe) 1 The N ewtonian may
reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; andthe impulsei' which propelled the planet is permanent. Precisely s o :b u t why \^ the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving
round the sun ? W hat is th<i cause of this permanence 1
W e are asked by th e Newtonian to believe that the action ofgravitation, which we can easily overcome by the slightest exercise ofvolition in raising a hand or a foot, is so overwhelmingly violent when
we lose our balance and fall a distance of a few feet, that this force,
which is impercpptibla under usual conditions, may, under extraordinary
circumstances, cause the fracture of every lim b we possess ? Commonsense must reiect this interpretation, Gravitation does not furnish asatisfactory fxplanation of the phenomena here described, whereas thedefinition of weight already given does, for a body seeking in thereadiest manner its level of stability would produce precisely tLe results
experienced. I f the influence which kept us securely attached to thisearth were identical w ith 'th at which is powerful enough to disturb aIS

It is quite amu-sing to watca Ne.vtouiana and D.*rwinians flound­ering about in their attempts to expound the mysteries of creation.
Their theories are as ridiculous as the fashion which once prevailed forDells-Cruscan poetry, and they ought to be treated with equal severity.
I t seems quite possible that during the last two hundred years wehave b en living in a sort of soientifi fool’s paradise, and that universal
gravitation is a gigantic Newtonian mare’s nest.
A s a theoretical scientific guide we must give up Sir I aac Newton
as useleis and misleading, and allow his reputation to retire into private
life. (Hear, hear.— Ed. E .R .)In Kno^vledge of the 17th and 24th Feb,, 1882, there appeared a
discourse on The B irth o f the Moon by T id a l Evolution, by Dr. Ball, theAstronomer Royal for Ireland, which I should say is without exception,
ths most delusive and absurd contribution ever made to so-called science.
At one tim« I thought that “ Parallax,” who told us that the earth wasa flat plane like a plate, was the most misguided man in the kingdom
but I D*w believe that he is quite entitled to take rank in scientific w is­dom, and to sit down on an equality with the Astronomer Royal of
Dublin.”The N ew Principia, by N e w t o n C r o s s l a n d .
(To he Continued)

W H IC H PR O F E S S O R SPEA K S T H E T R U T H ?
“ Mr Norman Lockyer has been telling an interviewer that Mars is like us inmany respects.
IT H A S AN A T M O S P H E R E L IK E 0 \ 5K S .”— ChristianMillicn. San Jose, Aug. gth, 1894.
“ Professor Campbell, of the Lick Observatory, announces that he H A S D E ­M ONSTRATED that Mars presents NO E V ID E N C E O F H A V IN G AN
A T M O SPH ER E .”— r//e StanJard Aug. i8th, 1894.
A S C IE N T IS T SP E A K S T H E T R U T H .
“ The interesting chapter on solar theor'es is well fitted to serve as a lesson in
Modesty, so diverse and conflicting ?cte. the various hypotheses,
difficult, lo harmonize
ate the obs.ived f aus. ”—
Feb. 1895 (p. 35.)

I'.U T H AND SCIICNCE.

FAITH

AND

SCIENCE.

B y “ B a la a m ’s A ss .”No. II.

ki :

I'

I: I

The subject we intend to contend for in thete columns has beea
advocated foi many years past. I t is increasing in interest and secur­
ing more and more earnest attention every day. That subject is thecosmogony of H oly W rit and Nature. Also, we intend to show theutter falsity and unscientific character of the theories of modern astron­omy, geolegy, and evolution ; and that they are one and aP, not only
anti-scriptural, but irrational and unp\iilosophical. W e challenge tbe
ablest scientists of the day to defend their suppositions, and theT theor
ies built thereon, or to find a single flaw in the D ivine Cosmogony of
H oly W rit.
W e saw in our last issue that the teaching of science so-called
tends to infidelity, and in essence is the same teaching.
Let us now look at what is termed dissent, and contrast it withanother form of infidelity called Agnosticism.
First then, in a theological magazine called “ The Faith ” (March,
1896), we find the following“ I t may be well to dwell somewhat upon the Divine purpose referred to in the
Scriptures.”This is an excellent starting point, but, as we soon shall see
science (so-called) teaching soon mars it as dead flies do ointment.
“ A purpose carries along with it the thought of design (true), which again in­volves a series of processes.”

1:

17

T H E E A R T H R E V IE W

i6

W e reply, not necessarily so. The “ D ivine purpo:e referred to in
the Scriptures” knows no “ series of proces'es,” but distinctly and ab­
solutely teaches creation to have been instantaneous. The point that
divides error from truth is an exceedingly fine one, and this as-ertion
about a “ series of processes,” is the first step from the Scriptures of
Truth on the road of error and falsehood. N ot that the writer meant or
intended to teach error and falsehood. I do not impute intentions, hutwords have their own meaning, and when we use them we should be
exceedingly careful what we say. The writer continues :—“ And there have been in the distant epochs of the past, and slill are being worked
out through the principle of evolution, a gradual development through natural selection,
generic life being unfolded by successive acts of creation in a successively ascendingorder...............All these evolution.iry eras, these secular periods of time, are co related
to, and correspondent with the evolution of all organic types, including pre adawc
m a n ’’

D o estheT e a c h in gofE v o l u t io n

m ake

G od

a

L ia r ^First. I f these extracts are true, as referring to “ the D ivine pur­pose taught in Scripture" will the writer of the article state where suchis taught that we may read about it for ourselves? Secondly. W erespectfully request him to tell us where and when he saw, or where
and when we can see any “ gradual development through natural selec­tion,” or “ series of processes,” which are “ STILL B E IN G W O R K E D
OUT through the principle of evoultion ? ” When he has done this, weshall also require to know when and where Involution, the absolute
essential and fundamental prerequisite of evolution, took place ?
Thirdly. God, the Creator, in H is Word declares that “ TH E
FIRST M A N A D A M was made a living soul.” 1 Cor. xv. 45. Now
as Adam was
F IR ST M A N ,” and we are his descendants
a f t e r he had sinned, where, according to the “ Divine purpose re­ferred to in Scripture,” is there any room for a “ pre-Adamic man,” or,“ pre-Adamite ages ? ” If it be porsible to have a monkey before a man(and it is according to the “ Divine purpose in Scripture,” Gen. i. 24-25),
surely it is not possible to have a man before “ the f ir s t man 1 ” If thedivinely inspired statements in the Epistle to the Corinthians are notabsolutely historical and literally true then Genesis is not true, conse­
quently the resurrection of Christ is not true, and therefore our resur­
rection unto eternal life is not true either, and by consequence it isperfectly immaterial whether man has an “ immdrtil soul ” or n o !
Burn the Bible as a parcel of lies, our science of evolution has taught
us that man was not created in the image and likeness of God and pro^nounced very good, i.e., the acme of perfection according to the Divine
Mind and Purpose, than which there is no greater— but we were evolved
from—slime— a jelly fish !
The writer says he “ can illustrate upon unimpeachabls evidence
that God has from the Beginning ”— which Beginning 1 the Adamic, or
the Pre-Adamic one ?— “ been working up from primal germs and simple
types to modern developments and expansions.” W ell, what about
ancient developments ? A re they all played out that the “ modern ’’ones m ayb e the “ survival of the fittest ? ” Now wo must be honest
and say that we do not for a moment doubt the writer’s ability to“ illustrate ” the matter, but we do certainly doubt his ability to prove
what he says 1 To prove a thing is one thing, but to illustrate it is quite
another. W e trust he knows the difference.
A nd now, dear Christian reader, please compare the extracts given
from The Faith with the following from the Agnostic Journal, Jan, 5th,
1889, and tell us are they not the same in fact and principle 1

i8

THE

E A R T H R E V IE W .

“ The account of creation in Genesis is obiiously inconsistent withthe real facts, both as regards the relations of the earth to the sun,moon, and stars ; the crystal vault separating the waters ; the mannerand order of succession of vegetable and animal life, and numerom
other points. I t can be defended only on the plea that the inspired
Revelation was not intended to teach ordinary facts, such as those ofastronomy and geology, but only the religious facts of the existence of
God and of man’s relation to Him. Taken in this sense, we may con­sider it as a poetical and sublime version ot the older Chaldean cosmog­
ony, which it closely re»emble«, revised in a Monotheistic sense, andwriting “ God ” for “ Gods,” and as an interesting record of the ideas
floating in the East at an early period.”“ The account of a universal deluge and the destruction of all life^
except that of a few pairs of animals preserved and living together fora year in an ark ot limited dimensions, from which the earth was re­peopled, involves not only physical impossibilities, but is directly opposedto th« most certain conclusion* of geological and zoological science.”“ The origin of man is, however, the point upom which the radical
opposition of the Orthodox and Scientific creeds comes out most sharply,
I t cannot be true both that man ha* fallen and that he has risen ; that
ho was miraculously created, quite recently in the world’s history, inGod’s own imagp, and in a state of high moral perfection, from wkich
he fell by an act of disobedience, introducing sin and death into thew orld ; and, on the other hand, that he has been evolved, during animmense period of time, from semi-animal pa'feolithic ancestors, ruder
than the rudest savages. The evidence of perhaps 1,000,000 of human
implements, found in strata of great geological antiquity in all qmartsrsof the globe, proves to demonstration that man’s cause has been up­
wards, and not downwards, and that the true history of the human rsca
has been the direct contrary of that given by the Bible.”“ W hether man, like other mammals, was evolved through millionsof years from primitive forms may be as yet uncertain, though every
fresh discovery points th»t way. B ut this much is absolutely certain!
that ke existed on tarth at the least 50,000, and more probably 300,000
or 300,000 years ago, in a state low*r than that of th* lowest savages,
but already spread over the four continents, and therefore far from hii
first origin; ignorant of all arts except fire and tke rude chipping ofstones ; and that, as ages rolled on, his progress may be traced, step bystep, from rude to finer chipping; to the hafted celt, the arrow, andfjavelin; the barbed harpoon, the eyed needle, the art of drawing, andF I G U R A T I V E A N D A L L E G O R IC A L VERSKS.

19

finally to polished stone, pottery, bronze, iron, and the other arts ofcivilisation as we find them in full force at the dawn of history 6,000
yeir* ago in Egypt and Chaldea.”“ Read L y tll’s “A ntiquity of Man,” Geikie’s “ Pre-historic Europe,”or almost any recent work on the subject, and then go to the British
Museum and look at the collection of stone and other human implements,
and you will see the answer to the question which perplexes you, why
Modern Science and Evolution should be considered as hostile to Genesis
and orthodox geology. How can these facts be reconciled with the
Biblical theory of Adam’s creation and fall, with its logical consequenceof the A tonem ent and Redemption 1”
There was an ape in the days that were earlier :Centuries passed, and his hair became c urlier;Centuries more gave a thumb to his wrist,T h e n , he was a man, an Erolutionist.

{To be Continued.)

FIGURATIVE AND ALLEGORICAL VERSES.
B y L ady B lo u n t.

From her Serious Operetta, entitled “A strea,” or “ The Witness o f S tars.”[Portraying converse betw ixt two evil spirits, who are visiting
Earth, to appear at a sSance in the early centuries : A .D .]Describe thy plan*, detail each stage.
For snaring man in Christian age.
The S piritJester— First wide and far shall rise division.
To fog men’s sensss, cause derision.
Then strong conceit shall fast increase,
A trap that seldom gives release ;This spirit holding Christians— neat.
W ill raise a sect in every street.
Prince— A h ! yes I see (fine policy !)And through Time’s telescope
In the 17th century a germ —A rare “blue stocking,” and real “book worm,”
Alas ! half crushed, and by a Pope !
Still lives the learned blossom-saar

T H E E A K T H R E V IE W .
Z E T E T IC R E FR A C TIO N .

In wisdom “ worldly ”— not too clear—
To satisfy the ^fool’s demands,
And nullify God’s Word, commands !
A gainst their Maker men shall turn.
And strong “ Delusion ” Truth shall spurnFor this well focussed, and compact,
Impresses lies as solid f a c t !
Spirits prepared throughout the ages,
Shall do our will at fitting stages ;Man’s word ’gainst God’s, shall be acceptcd,
And false cosmogony erected.
That earth’s a tiny whirling globe,
Shall men set forth in righteous robe !
Above concern that Moses erred,
The’ Jesus verified his word,
Denying Earth’s Creator !

ZETETIC REFRACTION.
B y J amks N a y l o r .

No. IV .
Of all the ordinary phenomena of nature there are few more beauti­
ful than that of the rising sun first tipping with light the hill-tops, andthen gradually descending to the valley beneath.
The only approachto (this beauty is the corresponding phenomena of the light of thesetting sun as it first quits the valley, and then slowly rises up thehill sides, and finally leaves the lops bathed in twilight. Now, boththese phenomena, namely, the manner in which the sun appears anddisappears, and the phenomena of the twilight, are entirely inexplicableby the current teaching about the refraction of light. To prove thislet us turn to the following diagram ;fester— Stay, Prince ! Observe, before Time’s clos’J,
Our giant will shall be opposed.
Sneer not at the Zetetic band,
Goliath fell by David’s hand !
I see a stone ! it tik e th aim ( The E .R . ) !
Adds to its numbers, swells the train,(Truth seekers are but deemed fanatics—
For at “ the Truth ” the masses laugh !
Three fourths of these are idiots (per Carlyle’s statics),
And truly fools will bluster, shout and chaff.)
Prince— W hy, Jester laughing still as ever t
fester— I ’m mimicking mankind so clever !
Prince— I hate them for their power of will
To change their minds, or hold them still.
Jester— “ Power of will— as well to lose it— as not to use i t !
G rand Chorus— Hear how they sh o u t! with addled brain.
I t’s nought to me if Earth’s a planei—
Or “ whirliBg globe ”— it’s all the same—
So long as I my grub can get,
Fol-lol-de-ridd le-diddle-digo.
'I
-I

II,

June, ’94.

W ritten for the E a rth Review.
* “ The fool hath said there is no God.”

where we will suppose the arc A B C to represent a portion of
the supposed globular earth, and the line E F G the upper limitsof the atmosphere; let the line X Y Z be an imaginary ray oflight coming from the sun and refracted towards the perpendicularin accordance with the current teaching. Now, it is evident that
this ray is the last one by which the slowly setting sun will berendered visible to the spectator upon the earth.
Evidently all
the rays beyond the limits of the atmosphere would be lost in space
and would not reach the earth at all, whilst all the rays which reachthe earth before X Y Z need not be taken into consideration. A ll theseparts of the atmosphere, then, which are beyond this ray as seen fromthe earth, would evidently be devoid of light in a manner indicated by
the shaded parts of our diagram.
I t is also further evident that as theearth made its supposed motion from west to east (indicated by thearrow I) the hill H would first have the sun at its summit and lastly
at its base in a manner the very. reves se of what we see in nature. The
figures 1 2 3 will make this argument quite clear, for we will suppo.se

T H E EARTH

'( I

\i

REVIEW.

these figures to repre»ent successive positions assumed by the hill as aconsequence of the supposed motion of the earth. In position 1 thesunlight is just about to quit the hill-top, in position 2 it is half-way
down the side, w hilst in the third and last position the valley is finallyleft to the evening’s gloom. I t will also be further noted that long
before position 1 is reached the upper regions of the atmosphpte aredevoid of light, making the phenomena of twilight as seen in nature
absolutely impossible. In nature we know these upper regions are
illuminated with sunlight long after the sun has set to the earth below.
If, however, the ordinary teaching of refraction be true the very reverseof this would be the case, for, as our diagram conclusively shows theupper atmosphere would be in gloom and darkness, whilst the earth was
still flooded with solar rays. This position, however, is of course absurd,
and, therefore, in contrast with it, let us now see the effect ot a ray oflight refracted towards the horzontal in the manner for which we havebeen contending.
This ray we indicate by the line J K L, and an
examination of it shows at once that the phenomena of the appearance
and disappearance of the sun, and ot twilight as we see them in nature,
could and would actually ensue.
Take the former phenomena for
instance, where in position 1 of the hill H the sun is seen just setting
to the valley, while the whole hill side is still illum iDated. In position
2 the disappearing sunlight has reached half way up the hill side, whilst
in posiiion 3 the sun has final'y set even t i the top of the hill. But
though from the (op the sun is now no longer visible the upper regionsof the atmosphere are still illuminated, and w'ould produce that beauti­
ful twil'ght for which all northern latitudes are famous. A ll the shadedpart of our diagram, in fact between F Y and L M, would now be
suffused with light. I t is thus clear that the Zetetic mode of refraction
thoroughly accounts for the phenomena of the setting sun, and of twi­light. Finally to see that our reasoning also applies to the morning
tw ilig h t and the rising sun, we have only to suppose the earth moving
in the opposite direction to that indicated by the arrow I, and we shallat once note that by refraction, as we have Zetetically shown it, boththe phenomena of the rising sun and the morning twilight are perfectly
explicable, whiUt by refraction as ordinarily taught they are absolutely
impossible.
From what has been now demonstrated in these papers it is cleirthat Newtonian astronomers, and all other upholders of current tecching
about refraction, are place J in a most serious dilemma. To account forthe sun setting later than according to theory it should do, refraction (?)
is assumed to teed towards the vertical. B u t to assume this mode ofrefraction is absolutely fatal to any satisfactory explanation of theZ E T E T IC R E FR A C T IO N .

23rising or setting sun, or of twilight. On the other hand, if to accountfor these last named phenomena refraction is assumed to tend towards
the horzontal, then that assumption is clearly fatal to the previously
n a m e d explanation of why the sun is seen longer than theory permits.
On the horns of this very interesting dilemma we may therefore safely
leave Newtonian astronomers to reflect and repent a t their leisure.
In, conclusion it only remaims to summary, the results of Zetetic
refraction and state them in formal language, so that their simplicity
and accuracy may be contrasted with the loose and empirical expressionsof current teaching.
L aw sofR e f r a c t io n .

1st.— A ray of light is a force, and, agreeably with the law of forces
moves along a path which presents the least resistance.
2nd.— W hen the resistance ispath described is a straight one.

against each side of the ray the

3rd.— W hen the resistance against each side of the ray is unequal
the path described is concave upon the side which meets with the greatest
resistance.
Contrast with these three simple rules (which will be found to
explain all the phenomena of refraction) the following unsatisfactory
statements of current teaching .— “ W hen light passes out of a ra>er
into a denser medium it is drawn to the perpendicular. . . . But
when a ray passes from a denser into a rarer it moves in a direction
further from the perpendicular.” In these statements, which are takenfrom that popular book, “ Joyce’s Scientific Dialogues,” page 219, there
is no attempt to give a reason why a ray of light behaves in the mannerstated. Bare assertions only are made, which, if one cares to investigate
them, will be found to not even cover the whole case, to say nothing of
the fact that they are entirely erroneous, or at any rate only partiallytrue as we have in these papers conclusively proved.
If, therefore, wehave succeeded in exposing the errors of current teaching upon refraction
and prevented for the future their being used in bolstering up popular
astronomical theories, our labours have certainly not been in vain.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.
All letters to the Editor should be briefly and l e g i b l y , written on one side of t h epaper only. They must be accompanied by the name and address of the writer, as aguarantee of good faith.
Where replies are requested by post, the postage must be
enclosed
The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the opinions expressedby correspondents. All letters must be prepaid and addressed to
LEO CA STLE,
c/o M rj . w il l ia m s ,32, Bankside, L o n d o n , S .E .

24

T H E E A R T H REATEW.

-T H E -CONTENTS OF OUR LETTER BOX
Dear Sir,—’Tis said, “ discretion is thebetter part of valour.” evidently so thinks
the most courageous editor of any English
newspaper.
I alluded to Reynolds's on
many previous occasions, but particularly
on January ist, 1896. A copy of our
Review was submitted to that gent’eman
for review, Zetetics naturally thinking
he would show fight of some sort, as partof a powerful opposition article on the“ M ythot Astronomical Gravitation” dedi­
cated to him, w.ns included in this par­ticular n um ber: we were however dis­appointed in the prowess of this Goliath ;the pluck usually shown on most subjects
had evidently oo/.ed away when confronted
with ours. The onlv visible effect pro­
duced was this modest n o tic e .— “ Wehave also received the F.arUi - nut. a Globe— Revie^ll. which is a journal of the ZeteticSociety edited by I^eo Castle t>rice 2d :published at 32 Bankside T,ondon.”which amounts to us being as usual, left
complete masters of the field of journalism
on our Grand Fact.

is brought to bear against our bulwark ofGeographical truth W hat do you think
about Nansen reaching the “ North Pole?''I think it very doubtful. l ie may haveadvanced nearer to the northern centre
than any other explorer, but its question­
able as to his reaching the “ Pole 'However, I hope he has ; so that thefallacy of the belief in an actual Northand South Pole may the sooner be exposed.
Where alas will they find them ?

Is there any wonder they cannot standour fire ? the wonder would be if they
could !
Yours etc.,
I co n o cla st.

Dear Sir,—I am glad to see the Review
still maintainsits characterand is pushingits
way on against all adverse criticism which

A Sectional View of the W orld as a Plane.
V o l.

III.

No. 3 ( M o n t h l y S e r i e s ) .

JU N E , 1896.

P r ic e I d .

J . L ack

Echo answers where
Text Books ell
us that the North and South GeographicaPoles are the extremities of the IVI AG t
NA RY L IN E , passing through the centreof the globe T he idea of a sane man
attempting to reach that which does note x is t! People are beginning to see thatthe teaching of so called Astionomy andGeography is nothing but the outcome of
supposition and not demonstrated facts
as they have falsely been led to believe they
were. See the following : —T he N orth

Our chicken hearted opponents cannot
accuse us of cowardice ; the difficulty has
always been and still exists, in getting socalled educated people and lenrned Societies?
to even attem pt to face our batteries
T he truth of the matter is. our opponents
powder is no good.
Their gun's (those
we *-ave not turned against themselves)
are all spiked and their imposing fortifi­
cations, on examination, turn out to benothing more than pasteboard, held to ­gether with sophistical assertions andassumptions —what fabrics ! !

EART H - not A g lo b e -r e V I EW.

Pole

at

L ast.

W e are electrified by the statement in thedaily press that Dr Nansen has informed
his agent, a Siberian trader named Kouc 'nareflf, who has informed the Prefect ofKolymsk, who has likewise promptly in­formed the p iblic that Dr. Nansen hasreached the North Pole. W e supp se hehas merely hung up his hat on the apex ofthat geographical point for we learn fromthe same source that he is now on his
way back, in spite of having found land.
—Invention, February 22nd, 1896. No.
875, p 117.
Dear Sir,—Your continuation of gravi­
tation is admirable. 'Surely all lovers oftruth must feel satisfied and pleasedjwith
the style of the treatm ent of the subject.
It has been favourably commented upon
bere by several, and enthusiasticallyapplauded by others.
J . A t k in s o n .

“ UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, A PURE
ASSUMPTION.”
B y L eo Ci^sTLK.
N o. IV .
“ Zetetics seem to have a kind of idea th at we set up gravitation as a substitutefor God. This is a m istake.” So writes C H arpur, from the Oriental
Bank, Old Bioad Street, London.

We are always ready to confess our “ mistakes,” and, therefore^ takethis opportunity of doing so by quoting from an authority on modern
theoretical astronomy.
“ While, however, T H E ID E A OF ‘ G O V E R N M E N T ’ BY A
GOD IS NOW EX C LU D ED BY G EN ER A L CO N SEN T FROMT H E DOM AIN O F SCIEN CE, the notion of ‘ G o v e r n m e n t ' b y“ Law ” HAS T A K E N ITS PLACE, not only in popular thought, but
in the minds of many who claim the right to lead i t ; and it is the validityof this notion which I have now to call in q u e s t i o n ...............................
PH IL O SO PH Y F IN D IN G NO GOD IN N A TU RE, NO R SEEIN G
T H E W ANT OF ANY. The advanced Philosophy of the present
time goes still further; asserting that as the progress of Science now
places it beyond doubt that all the phenomena of nature—physicalbiological and mental—are but manifestations of certain fundamental‘ properties of matter,’ acting in accordance with fixed Laws, T H E R E
IS NO ROOM FO R A GOD IN N A TU RE, and Scientific thinkers(you Mr. Harpur claim to be one of them, I presume?) who do «(?^accept
this as the conclusion obviously deducible from their recognition of theuniversality of the ‘ Reign of Law,’ are branded as either illogicalthinkers, or as cowardly adherents of a bygone superstition—men whoare either deficient in the power to reason out the conclusions to w'hichtheir own premises necessarily lead, or have not the courage to face them