IS6THE

e a r t h ’s

r o t a t io n .

can give us proof that they do we will examine it, and report accordingly.
(2) The proportional lengths of the day and night do not vary when thesun is on the equator, neither would they as “ we approach the equator at thattime of the year. But when the sun approaches the north the days of course
become longer and the nights shorter in these parts ; and in the south the nights
of course becpme longer and the days shorter, because the sun is further awayfrom them.
(3) The difference of time in difterent places is owing to the facc that thesun comes to those places at different times in its journey round above the earth.
The sun moves in one hour 15°, therefore when it is 12 (noon) at Greenwich
it will be one o’clock at Naples, not 11.

THE
VOL. III.

N os.

'( ,
i'

(1) If the earth is a plane how can you account for day and night, as the sundisappears at one point and re-appears at the opposite point ? (2) How do you
account for time differences, as when it is 12 (mid-day) here it is 9 p.m. inAustralia ? If as you said, water under the earth, how can the sun pass underand re-appear at the opposite point to its disappearance?— E.P.
A ns.— (1) The sun is not large enough to light all of the earth at once, be­cause the atmosphere resists the rays when the s.in gets too far away over any
particular part. But when the sun comes round again to the East we see it
once more, and it brings morning light. (2) The sun never passes “ under theearth,” but goes round above the earth. But when it get» away too far from us
its rays cannot reach us because of the perspective of the distance, and theatmosphere. The reason why the time is out in Australia from our time is be­cause Australia lies on the opposite side of the plane earth, and the sun does
not reach those parts until about ten hours after it has been over England.
T H E E A R T H ’S OBSERVATORY.

''r.

T

(1) The fact that the sun and moon have both been seen above the horizon at
the tirii^ when' a lun)>r- *;lipse occiitred,that '>[/ zA not tl'te shadow of fhe 'earth \vlti4h‘cihisesMhg mdon’s ftclipse. :(2 ) Parall.lv”'thought thaf i semi? 'opaque or dark moon coming between our moon and an observer on the earthso caused: the eclipse. . Astrono,mer.s' have- ever adini'tted tlie existence of dark
bodies in the skies. “ Zetetes ” suggests in his teaching that the moon’s eclipse
may .be cov^sd-bi- its getting into, a, t^iassvof tliifji; dafKness which, revolved
around and over the earth in opposition to the sun. But in any case we cannot
admit that it is the shadow of the eartlr because .we do not admit that the earth
is a lieavenly^body rushing througli space', l>ecause it is contrary to the teachingo f the H.dly :Scriptures andi lilpq ta the evidenfe jof oijr serisesi and dehionsltatedfacts.,
.. .
■
.

Y

» 1.

. I

I'' '

: ■
'

If you saii ler,,000 miles .east in ofie p'articuiar lati^iide the game Stars hold thesame posilitto to you-exactly a's they did at Storting Ifiit if you start Ibwer ^ow n. 'thejaspect, qf the h e a v e n s ,to ta lly different'.,. ■This^ ^ifS. becaujse- tjie^ starsi mov^; jround the earth from east to'we.st.; but the star^'do'not move n'brth and south’’' "■ I'.:

33 & 3 4 .

A PR IL A N D MAY.

THE
E xtracts

What causes the moon’s half, quarter, and full appearances from our standjroint?—A. Y. R.
If you get an indiarubber ball and paint over one halfof it some kind of phosphorus paint, then take it in a dark room, and turn it
round you will see all the phases of the moon as the ball turns.

EARTH.

fro m

ROMANCEA d d r essesOF
g iv e n

SC IE N C E :byL ady B lount.

T R U T H is a certain sound, divinely garnished,
B u t p ction ever is w ith falsehood tarnished.
“ The truth of the Religion o f any people m ay be tested by its'
Cosmogony ; w hatever it m ay be, the system o f Religion asso­
ciated w ith it m ust sta n d or f a l l." —-Lord Macaulay (L ives o f
the Popes.)
Science is simply the Latin word Scientia, which means
Knowledge reduced to system under general facts or principles
F act we know is solid, and is the very essence of veracity.
But Romance is not Truth. It is the very opposite to it ; itis fiction.
Now we maintain that no system, however elaborated, canbe placed on the high pedestal described as “ Science” unless^it be uncontrovertibly based and founded upon Fact.
Therefore all things, w hether they be methods, or systems,
or mere calculations, without a true factor or foundation tostart upon, are really only superficially erected upon hy po­thesis : and being without true origin or foundation we know
are not only unproven in themselves, but when such things
are in contradiction to the Holy Scriptures they cannot be
more graphically described than as the Scriptures describe
them, viz. ; “ Science falsely so-called.”
A nd this so-called “ scien c e” is not true knowledge, it is
opposite to Truth.
Nevertheless truth undivided is essential to every individ­
ual upon the face of the earth, and not merely a part of i t ;and so far as we are bound in error we are held in bondage.
If we are thus bound unwittinly, or even unwillingly, we
may not suffer condemnation.
But in any case we shallsuffer loss— and it may be great loss.

T H E ROMANCE OF SCIENCE.

T H E ROMANCE OF SCIENCE.

It is a disadvantage from an argum entative standpoint,
when dealing with atheistic opponents to the Bible and its
inspiration, if we are not equipped so as to be able to defend
it from every possible point of view.
But alas ! the world of children, in all sorts of schools, aretaugh t to regard the M odern Scripture-Contradicting“ Science” as infallible ; while the Bible is set down as being
very fallible !
Some men assert that they have “ more evidence in favourof their so-called science th an the teachings of Moses.”A n d infidels assume th at “ Moses can be shown to be caught
red-handed in ignorance and error.”A nd they ask de­risively “ what shall we think of the Christ who quoted andreferred to Moses as an authority ? ”
But Jesus, the Christ, who stated when he was before His
earthly ju d g e Pontius Pilate, that he had come forth fromthe Father-God to bear witness to the truth said : “ had yebelieved Moses, ye would have believed me ; for he wrote ofme. But if ye believe not his writings how shall ye believe
my words ? ”—John v. 46, 47.
Therefore, there can be no variation in replying to thequestion. W h a t is Truth.?
God’s W ord is T ruth, i.e., T h e Creator’s Word.
A nd Jesus Christ is the em bodim ent of th at Word.
“ A nd the W ord was made flesh.
It is an unimpeachable fact that th e Bible is as scientificallyaccurate in its description of Creation, as it is in setting forthR edem ption in and through our dear Redeemer.
A well known infidel has said that “ Christians are fo o ls”
because th ey place their faith in the Bible in some things
while they own it to be fallacious in others. For instance,
they accept its offer of “ salvation,” and rest upon its prom ­ises on these lines ; but, at the same time, they accept theteaching of man vvdth regard to M odern Science, as being
more reliable than the Bible which it flatly contradicts as tothe facts of Creation.
W e endorse this statement, therefore let us trace the ori­
gin of this Scripture-contradicting “ Science,” and let us
analyze its nature and bearings.
T h e origin of the Globular theory may be traced and shown
to be Pagan. It was introduced into E g y p t by th e Greek
Pythagoras, about 600 B.C. H e was a native of Samos, and agreat traveller in his early days. H e travelled much in theEast. A nd he imbibed the fallacious idea that the earthand sea together formed a whirling globe ; and th at theheavenly bodies were other worlds (inhabited). H e also acaccepted the false doctrine of the transmigration of souls,frompagan magicians and Eastern inventors ofromance and fiction.
Pythagoras returned to Eu rope and introduced these serious
errors into his own country ; but after a time his party wasdispersed, probably through dissent, and he left his nativeland. H e went to Italy, where he met with a warm reception ;and there, with a few followers, he collected many disciples
and founded a College, and a sect which took the name of
Pythagoreans. But ultimately an opposing division besieged
and set fire to his Colleg®, and many of the Pythagorean
students and disciples th us’met with an untimely end. And
whether Pythagoras escaped himself has never been as­
certained.
But the mythical pagan doctrines which he had broughtfrom the E ast were sown in the two European countries,
Greece and Italy ; and faith in these pagan fables became
widely spread ; until Ptolemy, who lived contemporaneouslywith the early Christians, so scouted and denounced these
false ideas, th at all belief in the E a rth ’s motions, and thetransmigration of souls was wholly abandoned for 1^600 years,
i.e., until 1,600 A.D., when Copernicus revived the whirlingglobe theory.
But Copernicus’ followers were too hasty in publishing
his writings— even before he was himself fully satisfied that
the Pythagorean basis on which he had built his calculations
rested on a solid foundation. It is stated that his misgivings,
caused by dread of censure, were so great,that they hastened,
if not caused his death. His most prom inent works were
published on the very day he died !
Kepler and Galileo took up the hypothesis, followed by oneof the greatest, if not the greatest mathematician the world
has ever produced— namely. Sir Isaac Newton.
However, the wisdom of mortals is no standard measuringrod of infallibility and Truth. Newton was no logician, andlogic formed no part of his composition. Nor did he professto possess this quality which is absolutely essential to adiscerner and founder of true Science.
But, nevertheless, Newton was deficient in this particular.
For he spent his whole life in inventing and formulating anelaboration which he called the Solar System , building, upon

ISS

[it:
Mi.f:

159

T H E ROMANCE O F 'S C IE N C E .

T H E ROMANCE OF SCIENCE,

the mythical fallacies which Pythagoras had brought from theE ast in the first instance ; and which had been handed down
by Copernicus Kepler, and Galileo. W ithout testing thenature of his foundations he accepted the whole fabrication,and took Copernicus’ hypothesis all “ for granted.”
But K epler was his ideal fancy, or oracle of wisdom !
T h us we may clearly perceive the origin, and m anner of
establishment of the globular theory ; and it is a fact th at it
is based upon pagan myths, and the nature of its foundations
are purely hypothetical, as even Copernicus’ own confessions
will testify.
H e owned that the Pythagorean teaching was founded
upon hypothesis, and that it was not “ necessary that hj-pothesis should be true, or even probable.”A nd again, that “ the hypothesis of terrestrial motion wasnothing bu t an hypothesis.”T h e supporters of modern
astronomy either forget or ignore the self-condemning con­fessions of the founders of the globe theory, and they also
close their eyes to its fabulous nature.
O f course it is highly probably that Copernicus knew
where Pythagorus had learned this Arabian Night-like storyof the globe theory and kindred fallacies, which were simply
the outcome of the wildest and most ungodly imaginationsof ungodly men. A nd it appears that, but too late, he, tosome extent realized that his writings were based merely
upon falsehoods invented in the far E ast by mystically dis­
eased heathen minds and inventors of magic.
Lord Macaulay’s pronounced words, at the head of thischapter, are true : “ T h e truth of the religion of any people
may be tested by its cosmogony.” W e go further and saythat the veracity of the Bible may be tested by its cosmogony.
L e t us therefore apply this test, and let us settle the question
whether we shall have to write at the end of these pages,“ T h e Rom ance of the Bible,” or “ T h e Romance of Science.”
H aving traced the origin of the whirling globe theory, let
us now analyze its nature and its bearings by the dictatesof Reason, governed b j’ the unimpeachable claims of theHoly Scriptures.
If we only allow our reason and observation to act apartfrom the prejudices of our early training there is not a single
fact in all Nature which goes in opposition to the teachingof the Bible, but, on the contrary, all the practical experi­ments th at have ever been made, go unmistakably to provethat the Bible is as scientifically accurate when it states that
God “ hath fixed the earth on its basis that it shall not be
removed for ever,” as it is in setting forth the promise of
E ternal Life and Re-Creation in and through our Lord,
Jesus the Christ.
In connection with the Newtonian theory the first thing of
which we are informed is that the Earth is a “ planet,” andth at it is one of a group of orbs which circle round the sun,and hence are called the “ Solar System .” If a reason forsuch a conclusion is asked for, the only attem pt ever madeto satisfy the enquirer is entiiely unsatisfactory and unenlightening. T h ey tell us that as the sun, the moon, andthe planets are globular, therefore the E arth must be globu­
lar. But this is contrary to the teaching of the Bible, whichstates that the E arth is “ fixed,” and that the heavenly
bodies were made to give light to our Earth, and to divide
the light from the darkness, and to rule over the day andover the night. Also the true order of Creation is given in
the Second Commandment,which states that Heaven is above,
the E arth beneath, and water under the Earth.
T hese statements from Holy Writ, which agree with the evi­
dence of our God-given senses, and by which we behold thefact th at the Bible account of Creation is true, precludes thepossibility of our acceptance of the unscriptural and wildly
romantic teaching presented to us by modern scientists.
Again, we used to be told that ships having sailed roundthe world proved it to be globe, but, as it has already beenshown, this circumnavigation “ p ro o f” has been exploded.
It also seems that, the “ shadow of the E arth upon theMoon ” proof, is on its last legs ; and we hope ere long to see
the open admission that the periodical lunar eclipse (even as
it has been admitted regarding circular sailing) is “ no proofof the E a rth ’s globularity ” printed in books for instructing
the young.
For at last our opponents are beginning torealize that the fact of the sun and the moon having beenboth seen above the horizon at the time when a lunar eclipse
occurred proves, even from their own standpoint, that it is«<?/the shadow of the earth which causes the so-called eclipseof the moon.
T h e fact that both sun and moon have been seen above
the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse entirely demolishes
the possibility of the shadow of the E arth being thrown upon

i6 o

fi

!•).

ll r,

l6 l

I 62

T H E ROMANCE OF , SCIENCE.
T H E ROM ANCE OF SCIENCE.

the moon, even from the globular standpoint, as the following
diagram will show.

of which being its “ a x i a l ” and “ rotatary ” movements ; andyet, not a single fact or proof is ever offered in support ofsuch far-fetched and unreasonable suppositions save thatwhich the cult term “ the pendulum proof,” which although
no proof at all we must here discuss.
T he

If the sun and moon have ever been seen above the hori­
zon at th e same time during an eclipse ot th e moon, it is a
proof that it is not the shadow of the Earth which eclipses
the moon. L e t A be the E arth and its horizon, and let B
be the moon and C the sun.
Now it is evident that any
shadow cast by A could not fall upon B but would fall uponD, because shadows always fall directly opposite to th e light,
and as the light comes from C to A the shadow from A could
not fall upon B but must be cast towards D. Therefore an
eclipse of the moon under such condition proves that theE arth cannot be a globe.
We, pianists, cannot for a m o m en t adm it th a t it is th e
shadow of the E arth which is cast upon the moon, for wedeny that th e E arth is a heavenly body. W e may not be able
to say what this shadow is with certainty— further than thatit may be caused by a dark body coming between the moon
and an observer on th e E arth, or by th e moon being involvedin a mass of thick vapour revolving around and above theE arth in opposition to the sun, as tau ght distinctly by“ Zetetes.”
But we are not above saying that “ how ”
or “ w h y ” God darkens or eclipses the moon may be as“ inexplicable a mystery to us as is th e growth of a blade ofgrass or, as our Lord said regarding His H oly Spirit, we“ cannot tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth, and so
is every one that is born of the Spirit.”
T o proceed with our cursory glance at the nature andbearings of th e Rom ance of M odern S cience: regarding th e
E a rth ’s supposed motions, we cannot enquire into the proofsof these motions for the simple reason that no real proofs are
ever offered. W e are required by our fellow mortals to be­lieve, in contradiction to the evidence of our senses (underth e penalty of being jeered at, and called cranks) th a t th e
Earth has a num ber of different motions, the two principal

163
—f--

Pendulum

P roofis a romance of science.
T his penduluvi, m odern scientists tell us, affords a visible
proof th at we are living on a whirling globe which, according
to a “ W ork on S c ie n c e ” now before me, is spinning upon
its so-called axis at the rate of over i ,000, miles an hour at theE qu ato r ; and, in addition other motions, is rushing on aneverlasting tour round the sun (the diam eter of which is said
to be 883,000 miles, and its weight 354,936 times greaterthan the E arth from which it is said to be about 93,000,000
miles distant,) at the rate of over i ,000 miles per minute.
Now to prove that the E arth really has all these m otions apendulum is suspended at the show ; the showman sets it in .
motion, and bids the g ap in g world of thoughtless men andwomen to “ behold a p ro o f” that we are living on^a whirlingglobe which is rushing away through space !

T H E ROMANCE OF SCIENCE.

T H E ROMANCE OF SCIENCE.

W e believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, andits proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of
the inventor of it ; and we describe the show and showman
as deceptions.
A thing so childish as this “ pendulum
p ro o f” is one of the most simple and ridiculous attem pts togull the public that could be conceived.
W e will quote a recent newspaper report concerning thependulum, as follows : “ T h e great pendulum which had beenhung by the Astronomical Society of France to dem onstrateby its oscillations the rotation of the globe, was to-day set
in movement at an inaugural ceremony, presided over b}'
M. Chaumie, Minister of Public Instruction. T h e Presidentof the Republic was represented by C om m andant Roulet,
and delegations from the Polytechnic and Normal Schools
were also present. T h e official personages were received by
M. Poincare, m em ber of the Institute and of the Bureau ofLongitudes, and M. Camille Flammarion, President of the
Astronomical Society. T h e y were supported by numerous
other savants, mathematicians, astronomers, &c.
“ M. Camille Flammarion, after rem inding his hearers that
it w'as in 1661 that the dem onstration was first made in
Florence by Galileo ; referred, at considerable length, to thememorable experim ent made in France by Foucault half acentury ago, and of which the present was a repetition.
M. Chaumie com m ented on the technical explanations givenby the astronom er ; and then, by b u rning with a match thestring which held it, freed the pendulum, which commenced
its majestic oscillations, the stylet m arking clearly its pass­
age over the sand.”It has been said th at the pendulum experim ent proves
the rotation of the Earth, but this is quite impossible, for one
pendulum turns one w’ay ; and sometimes, another pendulum
turns in the opposite direction. Now we ask does the E arthrotate in opposite directions at different places at one andthe same time ? W e should like to know.
Perhaps theexperim entors will kindly enlighten us on this point.
T h e ea rth ’s alleged motion became a leading topic am ong
scientists in the year of the Great Exhibition (1851). T h e
L iterary Gazette in that year referred to the averment that
Galileo had experim ented with a pendulum in its simplest
form : a weight hanging by a thread to a fixed point. H e
is said to have discovered the law of isochronous (i.e., equalin time) vibrations. Foucault was induced, by certain re­flections, to repeat Galileo’s experim ents in the cellar of hism other’s house in Paris ; and was said to have p roved an
immediate and visible demonstration of the earth’s rotation.
Suppose the pendulum be set moving in a vertical plane fromN to S, the plane in which it vibrates would appear to bestationary ; however, it is said that M. Foucault, the physicist,showed that the plane is itself slowly moving round thefixed point as a centre in a direction contrary to the earth's
rotation, i.e., with the apparent heavens E to W. If a “pointer”
be attached to the weight of a pendulum suspended by a longand fine wire, capable of turning round in all directions andnearly in contact with the floor of a room, the line which
this pointer appears to trace on the ground, and which may
easily be followed by a chalk mark, will be found to be slowly,
but visibly, turning round like the hand of a watch dial.
As the result oi the foregoing averments it was suggested
th at further observations should be carried out, and accord­
ingly we note t h a t :“ A number of prom inent scientists and literateurs of
Paris were invited to see the earth revolve ; but w h a t theysa w w as the pendulum move."“ T here is an actual, observable, and measureable d e ­viation of the plane of oscillation ; the pendulum (not thefloor)— not the earth — moves. But a diurnal revolution
does produce the deviation ; it is the revolution o f theheavens."“ T h e solar sweep completes the cycle of vibration of
the pendulum in 24 hours.”
W e have no faith in the general tenets of the paper fromwhich we have taken the above.
However, it was forwarded
to us, and we would now remind our readers (as we are apt
to remind our hearers) that at times we find truth asserting
itself where we least expected it to exist.
Y et thetruth comes out sometimes, and (as the writer owns) what
the people saw was the movement of the pendulum ; butwhat the astronomers wished them to see was the movementof the earth.
It is a forlorn hope !
T h e pendulum experim ent was attem pted some years ago
with most unique apparatus by an uncle of the present
V iscount Cross, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., at his residence on the

164

I6=;

T H E ROMANCE OF SCIENCE.

T H E ROMANCE OF SCIENCE.

Quantock Hills, near the spot where Julius Caesar pitched
his camp after he began his invasion of Britain 55 years B.C.,
m aking use of a Latin exclamation, signifying : “ How muchcan be seen from this spot ! ” T h e abbreviated Latijiism,“ O aun tum abhoc,” in after years suggested the place-name,“ Q uantock.”
Here, when electricity as an illuminant had not beenutilized, Mr. Cross_ encircled his orchard with electric wires
and electrified the fruit trees in such a way that the produce
was raised 50 per cent, in value. T ho u g h Mr. Cross was inadvance of the age he could not accept the theory that theE arth moves at th e rate of 19 miles per second.
Before accepting the Foucault pendulum deduction hedeterm ined to carry out the experim ent for himself— choosthe closing days of the year when (according to what wehave been taught) the yearly cycle and the earth’s “ turno v e r” are completed and another annual cycle and “ turnover ” begin again. T h e period of watching and taking notesof the olDservations extended over a week, and the only
result was a slight declination from the exact horizontal
position towards the pointer.*In the last named experim ent a gravimeter was used forascertaining what scientists designate specific gravity— theglobe pendulum being attached thereto by means of thehorizontal and attachm ent bar.
A trocheam eter was used for the purpose of registeringand determ ining the direction of the circuit in which thependulum m ight move ; the combined prismatic compass andclinometer being used in connection with the spirit-level, thearrangm ent being so requisitioned in order to accentuate adesiderated tremulous motion of the earth.
W ith all the apparati referred to in the foregoing, it wasevident that if the E a rth rotates 19 miles in a second a very
perceptible agitation would have been observable, insteadof a tem porary declination in all probability caused by thecross-bar arrangem ent being hu ng slightly out of the per­pendicular. A t the close of the experim ent Mr. Cross said :“ I have found no proof, by actual observation, that the E arth
moves round the sun. I have not seen the earth move.”
T h e astronom ers would give a great deal to be able toexhibit th e motion of the Earth. T h e y know they cannot
prove such motion ; and so they try to make the unwary

believe they see that motion indirectly in the motion of aswinging pendulum. It shows that they are hard pressed
for convincing evidence when they resort to fallacious proofs.
T h e pendulum performance m ight fitly be named, “ T h elive lion stuffed with straw.”
If the E arth had the terrible motions attributed to it, there
would be some sensible effects of such motions. But weneither feel the motion, see it, nor hear it. A n d how
people can stand watching the pendulum vibrate, and think
th at they are seeing a proof of the motion of the E arth al­
most passes comprehension. T h e y are, however, brought
up to believe it, and it is tho ugh t to be “ scientific’' to b e ­lieve what the astronomers teach. This kind of belief is welldefined by Mark Twain’s school-boy, who said, “ Faith isbelieving what you know ain’t so.” But when men professing
to be Christians believe such fallacies, which they know to be
not only contrary to the testimony of our senses, but contrary
to the W ord of God, we cannot but grieve to think how they
have been misled to put more faith in what is called “ science ”
than in the statem ents of God’s Word and the evidence of
their God-given senses.
It is all the more sad when a writer like the Editor of
P as/ a n d Future, ('who in some things upholds Bible teaching,goes out of his way to tell us that his astronomy is not thatof the Bible, but that of the astronomers, which contradicts
H oly Writ. I pray that the time is not far distant when all
Christians will learn the unreasonableness of not believing
in the evidence of their own God-given senses, and in the
W ord of God the Creator regarding His own account of His
own Creation.
T h e Jews a ll ought also to believe in the Mosaic account ofCreation and the W ord of the Lord,delivered to them throughMoses. W e regret th at they have not the additional evid­
ence through Jesus the Christ, who endorsed the teachingof Moses and the Prophets. For alas ! they have not yet
nationally accepted the Lord of Life as their Redeemer.
Therefore, earnestly beseeching both Christians and Jews
to discard The Romance o f Science, I will, before leaving
this part of the subject, ask : If the E arth moves, How is it
th at the motion cannot start a pendulum swinging— if it isstationary to begin with ? T h ere surely ought to be no suchth in g anywhere as a stationary pendulum.

16 6

'it,.

*A diagram to have been printed here was not ready at time of going to press.

16 7

1 68

THE

“ T H R E E POLES ’

TRICK.

169

T H E ROMANCE OF SCIENCE.

T h e fallacy of the globular idea is brought into bold relief
and made vividly palpable if we picture a man having taken
a journey upon this supposed “ globe ” from N to E, whichis estimated to be a distance of about 6,250 miles. Accord­
ing to the hypothecated globular theory it will be seen thatthe voyager will have fallen over 3,900 miles— the fall beingfrom N orth to East. This, on a perfect sphere, represents
about | - t h s of the quoted distance. From N to S this hugefall would be further accentuated, and would thus illustrate ina deeper sense the fallacious nature of the globular supposition(to be continued D. V.)

N

THE“ THREEA

C analPOLES”T R IC K :E x p e r im e n t .

As the very foundation of m odern astronom y rests on theassumption th at we are living on a whirling globe, all sorts
of devices are resorted to to support the idea of the earth ’s
sphericity.
After having demolished some of the best “ proofs ” it issurely not necessary to examine and review every statem ent
offered in support of this modern and absurd fallacy. But
we will briefly refer to one or two others before going on to
examine the question of the E a r th ’s supposed motions.
W e are informed th at the E a r th ’s curvature could be“ proved ” by three poles placed in a straight line ; and suchan experim ent was tried in a noted instance upon th e B ed­
ford Canal, Cambridgeshire.
O ur examination of this“ p r o o f ” may throw some light upon the “ t r i c k ” which wasthen supposed to win a wager.
W e shall, however, quote again from Mr. G regory’s book,published in 1892, p. i i o .
“ If thire poles of exacih- the same height be placed in a line themiddle one always appears higher than the other two outer ones. Let.
three poles be fixed in line with their tops cut oif at exactly the sameheight above some level surface (level mind you !), such as the surface
of a canal, then, if a telescope is sighted along the first to the third pole
the top of the middle pole w ill appear above the line joining the tops ofthe two outer ones. The cause of this is the curvature of the Earth’s
surface, and if tlie experiment can be repeated (w'hy cannot it ?) in various
parts of the Earth, and (“ if ”) it was found that the curvature was every­
where the same, this w ould prove that the Earth’s form is globular, andan approximate determination of its size could be obtained. It is foundthat the middle pole rises 8 inches above the line joining the two outerwhen the distance between each pole is a mile.”

T/ie preceding article by the E d., a n d the one folloiving by“ Zetetes," are taken jro n i M .S S . w hich they arc preparing
as jo in t authors of a book. The articles are pri7ited here tog ive our readers some idea of the contents o f the book, which
we sh a ll shortly have published, incorporating w ith it somearticles fr o m “ The E a r th '’ which deserve p rin tin g in a moreperm afient fo rm .
JVe sh a ll be g la d to receive orders f o r thebook as soon as we get it in the press, which ive trust w ill bevery, shortly.

This is a v'ery specious paragraph. It reads well, and anunsuspecting reader m ight easily be misled by it. But let
us examine it a little, and it will be “ found to be wholly
hypothetical.”T h e writer of the paragraph quoted does not say th at suchan experim ent h a d been tried and that the result w as foundto be what he said it “ would ” be if so tried. But in thestyle of most modern astronomers he jum ps from the sub­

T H E “ T H R E E P O L E S ” TRICK.

T H E “ T H R E E POLES ” TRICK.

junctive, or h).-pothetical, mood to the positive, or indicativemood, and sa y s : “ I f ” three equal poles “ be placed in aline,” m eaning I suppose in straight line, “ the middle one
alw ays appears higher than the other two o uter ones.” O fcourse, “ if th e m iddle pole is higher, and if it be left in its
position, it “ always ” will appear so ; but this is not what
Mr. G. m eant to say. W e may guess his m eaning though
his words do not express it. B ut were he to condescend to
give particulars as to time and place others m ight try thesame experim ent, and the trick m ight be found out. But
we think we can expose it as it is.
T hree poles have to be “ fixed in line with their tops cut
off at ex a ctly the same height above some level surface.”
Now, m in d ! their tops must be “ cut off.”
G o od!
Itis, therefore, self-evident that if the equal poles are
fixed on a “ level surface ” at “ exactly the same height,”
one pole cannot be higher than another ; not even 8 inches.
If they appear otherwise the poles could not have been
fixed at “ exactly the same h eigh t ” ! Yet the writer says :“ If a telescope is sighted along the first to th e third,” them iddle pole “ will ” appear higher. T h e language is vague.
T h e question is, does it appear higher, or does it not ? Our
scientist says it “ will.” Well, we shall see soon whether
it “ will ” or no ; though 8 inches in a mile cannot appear
much.
In the meantim e we ask, what does he m ean by placing
th e telescope “ along th e first ” pole } T h is pole like theothers, is u prig ht and perpendicular to th e horizon ; howthen can the telescope be sighted “ along ” the top of it ?
T his is where the trick comes in ! If you remove the firstpole and put th e telescope in its place, so as to “ sight ” onlyth e other two, or if you re st th e telescope on the top of
the first pole, the middle one may appear higher th an thethird ; because the third being further away, looks perspectively less fhan the middle one which is a mile nearer.
W ith o u t asking how there can be a middle pole of two,
if you remove the telescope some distance away from thefirst pole, and look over or along the tops of all the threepoles then they will be “ fo u n d ” to be in the same straightline. A n d if the telescope be properly adjusted so as toprevent the “ error of collimation ” the middle pole will not
be found 8 inches hig h er than th e other two. T his can betested by e x p e rim e n t; b ut we shall proceed to prove it by
the following diagram.

170

D ia g r a m

171

V III.

L et A, B, C, represent three equal poles placed at any
convenient and equal distances apart, in a direct line upon
the E a r th ’s supposed curved surface— A D. Then, according
to the theory of our astronomical friend the top of the middle
pole (B) will be “ found ” to be high er than either of thepoles at A an d C, as in diagram 8.
L et us suppose for arg um ent’s sake th at the pole B has
been “ found ” to be higher than the pole C. Now without
removing any of the three poles A, B, C, let us add anotherpole— D — at exactly the same distance as the others. I g ­noring pole A, let the telescope be removed to th e pole B,
and let it be placed in the same relative position to B as it
was to A. Join the tops of B and D to represent their false
line of sight. I t will now be seen th a t C is th e m iddle pole ofthe three, B, C, D ; and by the same “ line of re aso n in g ” thetop of the middle pole— C— will be “ found ” to be higher
than either of the poles D and B.
But by this “ line ofreasoning ” we have already “ proved ” th at the pole B was
higher than the pole C, and now we “ prove,” in the sameway, that pole C is higher than pole B ! T h a t is, the pole
B— the middle pole experim ented upon, at the same time isboth higher and lower than th e outer pole (C), which is ab­
surd ! W herefore the pole B is n o t higher than the poleC, b u t exactly the same height above the same level surface
and therefore this experim ent does not “ prove th a t theE a r th ’s form is globular.”So th a t our astronomical friend has made at least twogross mis-statements here— one as to a fact, and the otheras to the conclusion to be drawn from that supposed fact.

172

tt' ■

T H E “ T H R E E POLES( i ) “ T h e middle pole will (not) appear above the line join ­ing the tops of the two outer ones,” if the experim ent be
properly conducted ; and, (2) “ the cause of this is (not) the
curvature of the E a rth ’s surface,” for the mere assumptionof the E a r th ’s curvature cannot be the “ cause ” of anything,that is of anything found in Nature.
But stop ! I t may b e —yes, it is— the “ cause ” of other­wise intelligent men m aking mis-statements, false state­ments, and misrepresentations in support of an absurd
theory, which its founder confessed was “ feigned ” for quite
another purpose than for strict tru th and integrity ; for as
we have now abundantly shown, the effort to support thissuperstitious system causes its advocates to depart alike fromboth.
D ia g r a m

FALSE

A DEFEN XE OF PH IL O SO P H IC DOUBT.

TRICK.

scending at once the awful decline.
But then thiswould be to expose the “ trick,” of which no doubt thebetter class of astronom ers are fully aware ; yet none of themhitherto have had the courage to denounce the deception
practised by their supporters. This is left for others.
T h a t it may be seen we are not alone in speaking thus
plainly, we will quote, from T hings to Come, part of an ad­
dress by Mr. Thom as A. Edison, originally printed in S u g ­gestive Therapeutics, he says :“ There are more frauds in modern science than anywhere else.......
Take a whole pile of them that I could name, and you will find L in c ertaint)', if not imposition, in half of what they stare as scientific truth.
They have time and again set down experiments as done by them, curious
out of the way experiments that they never did, and upon which they
have founded so-called scientific truths.
I have been thrown off mytrack often by them, and for months at a time. Try the experiment
3'ourself and you will find the result altogetlier different.”IX .

PERSPECTIVE^ Copied ^rom RdvhlReaderSUndsrdYl^

173

Such is the testimony of a practical scientist and experi­
menter, and we know his testimony is true as regards
theoretical astronomy. W e could quote other testimonies,
but as we have already given proof th at such “ fr a u d s ” arepractised, we think it unnecessary to do so here.
ZETETES.

Copi'eJ from

Scoifs ASTR0N0 H Y (^ 5 l ) t x 5 2 ,T his is further illustrated by their diagrams of ships atsea, and the way they make them climb over a supposed
hill of water.
T h e foregoing diagrams are specimens of the false p er­
spective given in astronomical works and school books.
T h ey are so flagrant as to need no refutation. T h e first ship
is seldom placed on the “ t o p ” of the diagram, b ut a little toone side, so that it will appear to rise first before it is madeto descend on the other side of the “ offing.”
T h e first
ship, like the first pole should be placed on the “ top ” oft h e diagram, and the line of sight should be tangential
to the place of observation ; th en instead of a rise over a
convex surface we should see the next pole, or ship, de­A

DEFENCEOF
By

PI-IIL O S O P H IC
Rectangle."

DOUBT:{continued fro m p. 143.)
In concluding this part of our researches, we quote thefollowing from the D a ily Chronicle of 14th January, 1893.
“ A G e o l o g i c a l B l u n d e r . ’’
“ There is in N a tu re an article by a French writer on
Sir Archibald Geikie, Director-General of the Geological
Survey, which is just now causing a good deal of talkamongst English men of science.
O f course nobody issurprised at the fulsomeness of M. de L ap p a ren t’s eulogy.
As N a tu re seetns to exist for pushing the great official

174

A DEFEN CE OF PH IL OSO PHIC DOUBT.

scientific syndicate of Huxley, Hooker, Geikie and Co.,
L im ited—^very strictly limited— which may be said to ‘run ’science in England, M. de Lap parent would not probably
have been perm itted to write anything about a m em ber of
it unless it was fulsome. W h a t has really amazed people
is the audacity with which a famous historic bungle on
the part of the Geological Survey is glossed over, and the
Director-General not only credited with the work of those
who exposed and corrected it, to his utter discomforture,
but actually covered with laurels for thus winning one of
the most glorious scientific conquests of the century. T h ewhole thing is delightfully characteristic of State-endowed
science in England. If you are one of the official syn­dicate who ‘ run ’ it, you may blunder with im punity andmake your country ridiculous at the taxpayer’s expense.
Scientific men who can correct you shrink from the task.
T h ey know that the syndicate can boycott them, and b}^ in ­trigue keep them out of every honour and profit, and thatthe syndicate’s satellites can write and shout down every­
where independent non-official critics. T h ey also knowthat if, perchance, some particular intrepid person does
succeed in exposing one of this syndicate, they can always,by the same m eans— after the public has forgotten theincident— suppress him, and boldly appropriate to th em ­selves the credit of his work.
“ T h e geological secret of the Highlands, with the un­locking of which Sir Archibald Geikie is now credited,
was really made a puzzle by the blundering of the Geo­graphical Survey and Director-General Sir Roderick
M urchison— and famous courtier and ‘ so c ie ty ’ geologistof the last generation. In the H ighlands he saw gneisses
and ordinary crystalline schists resting on Silurian strata,
and he foolishly held the sequence to be quite normal.
T h e schists, he would have it, were not archaic formations,but only meta-morphosed Silurian deposits.
H e also
held that primitive gneiss was not part of the molten crusto f the globe, but only sediments of sand and mud alteredby intense pressure and heat. Murchison, not to put too
fine a point on it, ‘ bounced ’ everybody into accepting thisabsurd theory, and the whole forces of the Geological
Survey, with its official and social influence, together withthe unscrupulous power of the official syndicate which

A D EF E N C E OF PH ILOSO PHIC DOUBT.

175

then, as now jo b b ed science wherever it had a state e n ­dowment, were spent in perpetuating the blunder andblasting the scientific reputation of whoever scoffed at it.
T h e late Dr. Nicol, Professor of Natural H istory in A b er­
deen, proved that Murchison and the Survey were w hollv
wrong, his proof being as complete as the existing stateof science allowed. W hen he died. Dr. Alleyne Nicholson
took the same side, and for years, in relation to this grandproblem, it was A berdeen University against the world.
........In shouting the last word no voice has been louder
than Sir Archibald Geikie's. It is therefore diverting tofind his official biographer stating in N a tu re that all thetime he was wrestling in foro conscientice with doubts as
to the soundness of the official position, and th at finally‘ his love of truth ’ prom pted him to order a re-surveyof the whole H ighland region.
In plain English, thetaxpayer, having had to pay for M urchison’s bungling
survey, was, because of his successor’s ‘ love of truth,’ toenjoy the luxury of paying over again to correct it.
“ T h e real truth, however, is thisW hen it was sup­posed that the Aberdonians were finally crushed, there
arose in E ngland a young geologist called Lapworth, who
had the courage to revise the whole controversy and takesides with the A berdeen school.
As he developed an
extraordinary genius for stratigraphy he not only broke
to pieces the official work of the Geographical Survey inthe Highlands, but by revealing the true secret of thestructure of that perplexing region, he played havoc with
the Murchisons and the Geikies and all their satellites,
convicting them of bungling and covering them withridicule.......
“ Nature, in fact, in these parts had suffered from a much
more powerful emetic than Murchison imagined, andwhen Isits of the primitive crust of the GLOBE were thrown
up and pushed on the top of more recent deposits, M ur­
chison ju m p e d to the conclusion that they were of later
date than what th ey lay on.
It was a terrible bhinder,
as the Aberdeen men persistently held, and we do not
w onder that Sir Archibald Geikie, who rose to place andpower by defending it, is anxious to have his connection
with it veiled by a friendly hand. But it is rather out­
rageous for the friendly hand to give him the credit of

176

13

T H E CURVATURE OF T H E EARTH.

A D E F E N C E OF PH IL O SO P H IC DOUBT.

177

conceding the very error which he defended to the lastgasp, and deprive Professor Lapworth of the honour of
having banished it from science. O ne of the most di­verting things, however, in the article in N ature is that
Sir Archibald Geikie is belauded because, when frightenedby the stir Professor Lapworth m ade in 1883, he wasfain to send his surveyors to go over the H ighlands again— he, as their official chief, ordered them “ to divest
themselves of any preposses?,ion in fa v o u r o f published views,
and to map out the actual facts.’ Old Colin Campbell,
when he objected to the institution of the Victoria Cross,said it was as absurd to decorate a soldier for being brave
as a woman for being virtuous.
H e did not foresee a
still greater absurdity— that of eulogizing a man of science
because he instructed his assistants to tell the truth when
conducting an investigation into his own blunders.” {Italics
ours.)— From the D aily Chronicle, Saturday, Jan. 14, 1893.

T h e letters that have been appearing in the Tim es makesome funny revelations about the way the Royal Societyis ‘ worked.’ S ir Archibald Geikie’s defence suggests that
if the Tim es only followed up the game.it scented it would
show its readers plenty of sport.
W e ourselves would
make no objection to a vote of money in aid of researches
into th e ‘ frank ’ and ‘ practical ’ manner in which, a n d theterms on which, the official gang of science frequently‘ acknowledge ’ th e achievements of young outsiders.” —D a ily Chronicle, Feb. 2, 1893.
(to be contitiued.)A n d in a further issue the same paper s a y s :“ Sir Archibald Geikie, Director-General of the Geo­
logical Survey, has at last taken notice— in N ature, weneed hardly say— of our article condem ning the attem pt
to give the Survey the credit of some of the most remark­able discoveries of the age which have really been madeby men unaided by the State, and toiling for daily breadas teachers of science.
W e had heard something thatcaused us to expose this scandal. T h e fact is the official
ring of State-endowed science not content with job b in g
the Royal Society and its distinctions, as their critics havebeen showing in the Tim es, are m editating a raid upon
the taxpayer. T h ey want more money, and as a prelim­
inary step their official organ N a tu re of course begins to‘ boom ’ their work and reputations. This is a good old
game. T h e only novelty in the situation is that a daily
newspaper, for the first time in history ventured to show
it up. VVe do not desire to be harsh to the illustrious
scientists who edit N ature. It is the duty of all officialorgans to make big men out of small material. But when
they begin to do this by coolly confiscating the achieve­
ments of private and independent workers for one of them anaging partners in the great firm of Huxley, Geikie,
Dyer & Co., limited, we thou gh t it time to p ro te s t........

All things that are moving away from us, or that we areleaving behind, begin to get less, and are lost to sight,
when they reach a distance from us of 2,000 times their own
height.
W atch a railway train and see it diminish until it becomes
the size of a m an’s hat, and probably not a mile away, andcertainly by the time it is two miles away it will be lostto sight, although a telescopewill restore it. T his we are
told is from the well known principle m entioned above.
T h e other day I watched a large bird flying, and when it
got about a quarter of a mile away it became the size of acommon house fly which was upon the pane of the window
through which I was looking, and in a few seconds it was
entirely lost to view.
Again, I saw a ship at sea— it was sailing close to theshore, which was as near as possible the same height as theship (say one h undred feet)— and I watched and noticed thatboth the ship and the shore were reduced in height to theex tent of one third.
T h e hull of the vessel was entirely
gone from sight, and of course one third of the coast could
not be seen— the portion th at was gone was, of necessity,
the lower part.
On looking again I found that two-thirdsof the height, both of the ship and shore, had gone, and,still watching, saw both disappear at exactly the same time.

THE

CURVATURE

OF

THE

EARTH.

'"'i.

•lie

H E ONLY SAW T H E PLANE.

Now vve know what the astronom ers say, on losing sightof the ship’s hull, bu t can they say about the shore, “ thatthe curvature of the earth hid i t ” ? Well, I will leave themto say it again, for they have said m any things quite asfoolish and untrue.
I f any person desires to know the truth as to whether
there is any curvature or not, he has only to fix his eye
upon two vessels at sea— ten or twelve miles apart— between
those two vessels there ought to be a curvature of many
yards, but with a good telescope and spirit level he will not
be able to detect an inch.
T h e n again, the datum line on railways ought to convince
every searcher for the truth that the earth has no curvature.
W ithout a datum line no railway has been laid, and railways
have been made thousands of miles in extent without tracing
an inch of curvature.
In Great Britain no plans for erecting buildings in con­nection with railways, nor for the construction of railways,that allows for the E a rth ’s curvature will be accepted by
Parliam entary Committees.
A nd it is a fact generally known th at th e river Nile, forseveral thousand miles, has no fall beyond that of a foot or
six inches,“ T R U T H .”appeared to be like a huge bowl, with the edges (horizon)
200 miles away on every hand, and on a dead level with the
car of the balloon. In another part of the record he states:“ all perception of comparative altitudes of objects, on ornear the ground is lost ; houses, trees, the undulations of
the country, etc., are all reduced to one level ; everything,in fact, seems to be on the same level ; and the whole has
the appearance of a plane. Everything seen looking down­wards from a balloon, including the clouds, seems projected
upon one visible plane beneath.”
Again, he states : “ Always, however great the height ofthe balloon, when I have seen the horizon, it has appeared
to be on the level of the car.” Also, “ I have never seen
any part of the surface of the E a r th — from a balloon— otherthan as a plane.”Corroborative accounts by all other aeronauts, without
exception, of the above P L A N E F A C T could be referred
to if necessary, but the extracts given should be quite
sufficient to convince any honest thinker, th at balloonists
have the best possible grounds for doubting the assumed
sphericity of the w'orld of land and water ; yet they have not
the honesty or courage to admit they have been misled, andth at that which they see, not only seems and appears so,but IS part of the vast P l a n e o f T h e W o r l d .
T h e magnificent distant horizon, and the 6-mile depth
under the car, observed by Mr. Glaisher, should convince
anj'one outside a lunatic asylum, that if the World be a
globe, the observer, under the conditions at such an altitude,
m ust have h a d to look down to his horizon ; but as anything
so absurd was not and cannot be done by anyone at any
elevation when looking across the sea, or any large expanseof land, the only conclusion to be arrived at is that theW orld is N O T a globe.
W ith out doubt, had Mr, Glaisher been nearer 20 than 66
years of age, and had he possessed the telescopic eyes of a
S outh African Boer, or a Bedouin, he would have seen nearly
as far again as he did ; in fact his view was only limited by
the strength of his vision, as the other conditions recorded
were favourable.
T o the lasting disgrace of the so-called scientific world
they allowed some deluded person or persons to attem pt toi■|ii
I-:'-*

Js
i;l>

1

179

H E ONLY SAW T H E P LA N E.

3 78

HE

ONLY

SAW

THE

PLANE.

On P’ebruary ; th , 1903, at the age of 93 years, died Mr.
Jam es Glaisher, F.R.S., the meteorologist, who once held
many im portant positions in scientific circles.
For avowed scientific purposes he m ade 28 ascents in bal­loons between the 17th July, 1862, and 26th May, 1866,
the most memorable of which was that of the 5th Septem ber,
1862, in company with the skilful aeronaut Mr. Coxwell,when an altitude of 37,000 feet— or seven miles— was reached.
T his voyage nearly cost both gentlem en their lives.
In Mr. Glaisher’s original record of this premier ascent,he, in effect, stated that at the altitude of 6 miles the E arthi8 o

H E ONLY SAW T H E PLANE.

garble and modify Mr. Glaisher’s original straight-forward
account some time after p u b licatio n ; they seeing no doubtthat such did not square with the globular th e o ry ; b u t as
this is on a par with the ostrich burying its head in th e
sand it need not trouble truth-seekers.
Before concluding this notice it may be well to rem em ber
th at every observer makes his own horizon, which on being
approached continuously r e c e d e s , and the limit to which thisimaginary line may be seen varies as much under certain
air and other conditions as most people’s eyes vary instrength. T h e school-men infer th at this varying line is a
fixture, or as if it were an apex to a following downward
curve ; this we know by innumerable dem onstrations madefrom beaches, vessels, cliffs, and other elevations, and bal­loons, is absolutely false. A nd yet the vanishing ship trickis still chattered about, not only by children at school but
by grown-up people who think they are educated.
W e are certain th at if any globe-deluded observers, fromany position, could see a portion of the supposed globe, by
having to look down to their horizon in the slightest degree,
the world would soon hear of it, and the professors would
rip their gowns for joy, and hug each other. But the poor
creatures will never have this satisfaction ; so it is uselessfor them to save up their strength and gowns in anticipationof such an impossibility.
VVe know it is impossible to see th at which is non-existent,
and the evidence of our senses is against such rubbish as
the W orld being a planet ; against it being a globe ; against
its supposed various fearful motions ; against its vast oceansbeing anything so unnatural as convex ; in fact, dead against
all the whimsical, sophistical, and God-dishonouring ideas
and inventions, by which Modern Elem entary Theoretical
Science attem pts to establish all such scatter-brain ab­surdities.
And now, Mr, Glaisher, with due respect, you are wishedfarewell bv
H. H. D ’A R C Y A D A M S.

L EC TUR E AT SHORNCLIFFE.

I8 l

LECTURE
At

I

E ddy

W ood

I n s t i t u t e , S it o r n c l if e e .

Is the solar system the clock of the Bible ?

T he question before you may be somewhat startling tosome, and I dare say I am right in thinking th at there are
only a few present who would give an unhesitating answer ;nevertheless, there are a growing number of persons scatteredthroughout the various denominations of the world, who, if
asked the question, would at once give a definite answer,
and that in the afifirmative.
In my rambles in the E ast I have come across stone mon, uments and sundials, some of which are crumbling to decay,
I showing th at in days long gone by, ,the knowledge of the' constellations and the movements of the sun, moon, and' planets was of a very high order.
In common with some here, I have also had the sadness
to see crowds, num bering m any thousands, who would plunge
into the rivers, or perform some other act of worship, on
I the signal from a leading priest who would be watching for
I the first indication of an expected
eclipse, or rising of thesun, moon, oi' some particular star or planet.
While heathenism has debased the use and knowledge ofastronomy, Christianity at large has lost its value as a supportof God’s Word, His glory, and His power.
I Genesis i. i, 2 (idiomatic translation).—^You notice the
I marked difference between the tex t of the A .V ., which, grandI as it is, has lost much of the original th o u g h t with which it
I was invested. H e re we have revealed to us the conditionof things when God commenced to bring order out of dis­order, and make the E a rth habitable for man and the lower
organisms.
H ere are the proofs of a common start of the motion, as
we see it to-day, of the solar system. W e shall enlarge ona few of them as time permits.
I hese rings, of various sizes, represent the lines of time
which never can meet, but which can be positively traced
back to a common starting point. All are methods that can
I

I8 2

LECTURE AT SHORNCLIFFE.

be used to dem onstrate that the present age commenced
5,901 years ago.
Does the sun celebrate its birthday ? Yes, and keeps it
up four days. It commenced its present course by obser­
ving a perfect sideral day, which is repeated every 20th of
September, the exact com m encem ent of each year. On the
23rd the sun enters Libra at the autumnal equinox ; thenthe E arth has day and night equal everywhere. I may here
say that the sideral day is not one of 24 hours as it is in
the solar day, but 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds ; the latterbeing the time it takes for any star to leave and return tothe same place overhead the next night. T h e difference
being that the sun has progressed about one degree on its
journey round the Earth. T h e sun’s starting point is alsoa beautiful geometrical as well as an astronomical figure.
Now who was the prime mover in all this wondrous per­fection ? W e have seen how Elohim brooded on the faceof the deep. Are we left in doubt as to who is intended ?
No, certainl}' not.
This is what we received by rev^elation 4,000 years afterth e event. This wonderful being, Jesus Christ, W ho in thesecret councils of the Godhead planned this age with all its
wonders, and with the power of the absolute and Almighty
God in six literal days created the world, and at the sametime called into being everything necessary for the blessing
and welfare of mankind. This is the wondrous person who
claims our allegiance ; is H e not entitled to it ? Can weshow our love sufficiently ? A nd y et impotent man has the
audacity to leave Him out of his arguments, as if H e were
not ; as if H e had not laid down His life for us.
T h e cosmogony which contradicts the writings of Moses
and does not take into consideration the presence of God’s
Son at Creation, or rather organization of the present age,is learning gone mad, and cannot possibly stand the testof practical science.
T h e term science is a word which scientific men sometimes
use rightly, but it is at the same time a juggling word withwhich imaginative speculators label their effervescence, as
we well know it means “ known facts ” and nothing more.
If the traducers of Moses remained in the ranks of the
speculators we should not have so much case for alarm, but

LECTURE AT SH ORNCLIFFE.

183

the very greatest enemies of revelation have been and arein the fortress they should be defending ; where would theinfidels of to-day have been but for the essays and reviewsof 1862 ? T h e y had the system of Voltaire to work upon.
Infidelity was then (1862) provided with shot and shell,
which have been hurled against the Pentateuch with unceas­
ing energy. If we who love our king, our cohstitution, andour country, were posted in a fortress and we discovered
one of our comrades drawing the explosive charges out of
the shells, or sending messages to the enemy, giving in­formation as to what he considered to be weak spots in our
position, would’nt we rush him off and have him placed inirons at once ?
T h e statem ent of Moses, which I believe to have been
given directly by the inspiration of the H oly Spirit, not only
states that the lights of heaven were for years, days, andseasons, but also for evidences (which is a better word thansigns) ; what a great pity that their value as evidences has
been somewhat obscured.
Josephus tells us (b. i., p. 23)
th at the children of Seth, on being told by A dam that theE arth was to be destroyed both by fire and water, made twopillars, one of stone and one of brick, on which they d e ­scribed their knowledge of the heavenly bodies. I noticed
th at one of his translators, however, while adm itting poss­ibilities, tries to nullify the effect of the original statement,
and such editing has been going on from the beginning
until now.
W h en the A jr k H ig h er CnVz'c had not got his hands quite
so full in early days, he conducted his business in person,
using the body of the serpent as his medium. As time wenton he em ployed emissaries both inside and outside thefortress. Jannes and Jam bress were pretty active outside
the fortress with Pharaoh, but the criticisms of those inside— Korah, Dathan, and Abiram — culminated in a frightful
catastrophe.
A week ago yesterday I was referring to the “ helps ” atthe end of a Bible I have recently bought, and dropped
across these words ; ' “T h e history of E g y p t has been traced
back to more than 4,000 years B.C.” If it is not out offashion to call a spade a spade, then that must be called adistortion of the truth ; for the object of such writers is to1 84

LECTURE AT S IIO R N C L IF F E .

LECTURE AT SH OR NC LIFFE.

belittle the sacred records ; for lack of knowledge it goes on
to say th at this is gathered from the writings of Manetho.
Now we definitely know that if this E gyptian cat wor­
shipper is correctly reproduced, he had very little knowledgeof the truth of chronology or very little regard for it, for
Eratosthenes, who lived at the same time, had charge of thegreat A lexandrian library and a far greater opportunity ofknowing the truth, computed the length of the dynasties at
3,000 years less than does Manetho, who it is known had
no connected records to rely on and placed all the different
dynasties consecutively instead of contemporaneously, assome of them are known to have been.
Our m odern critics repeat the old cry with changed names
and it has become “ Away with Moses ! Give us M anetho.”A ny would be chronologist who tries to make this age
appear more than 5901 years must have a very prolific im­agination, for neither connected history nor the science ofastronom y will support it.
It will be well to state here th at all planetary motion
proves that that prince of chronologists. Archbishop Ussher,is perfectly correct, except for about eight years near thebirth of Christ, and it seems almost a miracle that he was so
wonderfully c o r r e c t ; one thing is certain he loved his Bible
and was faithful to its teaching.
T o show that light can be quickly brought into existence,
intensified, or removed as occasion requires, we have only
to remem ber how easily we can control our artificial lights,
w hether they are stored in a solid, liquid, or gaseous form.
Are we wise in doubting God’s ability to do what we our­selves can so easily do ? Can H e who made the eye see
not, or He that made the ear hear not?
God has not only honoured the E arth in an astronomical
sense but also by sending His Son to die for our salvation,and having accomplished this work H e is now seated at
the right hand of the F ath er in heaven, in th e glorified
body which H e took from this earth, leaving only His blood
crying for vengeance on the one hand, and pointing to G od’s
love and forgiveness on the other.
T h e eclipse cycle shows that three months must havepreceded the first winter solstice. T h e first eclipse was asolar one, and occurred on the i s t January-, o, A.M. T h elife history of this solar eclipse, or the period of its recur­
rence, is 1293 years.
H ere we have solar eclipses by progression, each one ob­
scuring the sun less until the moon passes above the planeof the sun.
A total solar eclipse can only be seen in a limited spaceof the E a r th ’s surface ; the one here represented would beseen above the e q u a t o r ; the moon’s shadow will touch theequator and extend a little to the north of it.
T h e Eclipse Cycle.— Every eclipse term lasts 18 years
and II or 10 days, after which it repeats itself. This is not
the one called the M e t o n i c C y c l e which was so well known
to the ancients, who did good work with it.
T h en w'e have the brightest star of the heavens, called
Sirus or the flaming dog star, which we now see rising early
every evening and following the great constellation, Orion.
T his is a marvellous time-keeper. Every 162 years it risesa few minutes before the sun, every other star having dis­appeared before the rays of the sun almost half an hour
before. T h e rising of Sirus synchronises with the rising of
the Nile. W e want no b etter chronological proof of the lengthof the present age th an this wonderful star furnishes.
Now we will consider the positions ot the planets as th ey
were recently situated for the first time since the Flood.
T h e influence which we know they exert on each other pro­bably had som ething to do with the recent cataclysms andseismic phenomena.
,
Antediluvian Patriarchs.— W e now come to one of themost startling chronological discoveries of modern times,
viz. : that the record of our seven days has never been broken
and has always existed since Creation. If all the wit andwisdom of all the sceptics could be concentrated into one
representative he could not overturn or even touch with aninsinuation the L unar Solar Cycle and the way it proves theearly writings of Moses. T h e records th at are given of the
Antediluvian Patriarchs gives the age of each when his son
was born, this added to the age of Noah, 600, gives the yearof the world when the Flood came. This we see was 1656
A.M.
L unar Cycle (7 years of 354 days).— T h e nine famous
occurences of the Flood year, took place on the seventh,

I8S

rii‘
: i:'
' i‘ .

I::

186

UNDERSTANDING.

or S abbath D ay (the day vvc now call Saturday), and thetables of figures in the above cycle are what anyone with theordinary am ount of intelligence may make out for himself.
This subject is open for anyone to study, and I hope thatsom ething which has been said may cause you to think that
it is possible after all that th e “ Solar System is the Clockof the Bible.”
Discussion followed, with some objections along the linesof the old bone and dust-heap theories.
T h e audience were so well pleased that the speaker was
invited to continue the subject in a fortnight’s time. This
invitation was accepted. Some figures, by way of proof, willthen be dealt with, and some lively discussion is promised.
Colonial & Yry. Dep6t,
J. M A R R IO T T ,Shorncliffe.
Sergt.-Maj.

U N D E R S T A N D IN G .
T h e F atherhead of all truth and knowledge has given man
an unerring law as a guide to understanding ;“ T ry all things : hold fast that which is good.”
But man has given up G od’s Word, which he considers
is a time-worn old fashioned book, Unsuited to our advanced
civilized era, and asks the question, how would it be possi­
ble for a man to prove all things when it takes the wholeof a life-time to thoroughly understand a small branch ofmodern science ?
But surely if he would use reason he must perceive thatupon all subjects there must be two sides ; and if we judgeof these without looking into them for ourselves we neglect
God’s greatest gift— our understanding.
W'hen we areordered to “ prove all t h i n g s ” it is not required that weshould plunge into the various deep studies which man
interests himself in, but that we should not take up any de­finite standpoint until we have thoroughly thrashed out them atter for ourselves.

U NDERSTANDING.

1 87

Nevertheless, it is the custom to read a book embracing
certain theories, and instantly, haphazard to either, become
partisans or violent opponents of the ideas set forth, and by
so doing they level themselves to the animals who have nounderstanding.
Locke says : “ L et no man, therefore, th at would have asight of what everyone pretends to be desirous of having asight of— truth in its full ex ten t— narrow and blind theirown prospects. L et no man think there is truth but in thesciences that they study.” A no ther writer says ; “ Man isa bigger fool than an animal on account of his greater
cleverness.” A nd sometimes you will find th at the cleverer
the man the greater the bigot, which is accounted for by thesubstitution of cramming for education, and of hypothesisfor proof.
Again, Locke says : “ W e take our principles haphazard
upon trust, and without ever having exam ined them, andthen believe a whole system upon a presumption th at they
are true and solid, and what is all this but childish, shameful,senseless credulity ? ”
Again, we must not let the theories which have beenta u g h t us in early youth have too much weight— which is acommon error, even am ong men who have been exception­
ally well educated, and who seem to look upon dogmas
tau g h t them in infancy as almost divinely revealed facts.
Nor should we allow reverence, nor any prejudice soever,to give beauty to any opinions.
I have m et men holding
beliefs so tenaciously who, on finding they could not m ain­tain their principles, so taken up and rested in, have castaway all belief (or pretended to do so) and called themselvesagnostics.
Therefore let us search for truth reasonably, and ne\ erhold an opinion so blindly that we are not willing to hear
any fresh ideas which may help us to throw away error and“ hold fast th at which is good.”
W. A. B.

18 8

m a n ’s

M A N ’S

place

PLACE

in

IN

the

u n iv e r se .

THE

U N IV E R SE .

T h e Forinightly R eview of March 1st, 1903, contained anarticle, with the above heading, by Alfred R. Wallace, which
we have been requested to exam ine in T he E arth. T h e
article is ra th er l o n g ; so if the reply to it be equally long,and the Ed. of The E a rth cannot find room for it in one
issue, I suppose it will have to appear in two.
Mr. Wallace is a scientist of no mean repute, and his nameis familiar to Zetetics in connection with an experim ent triedon the Old Bedford Level. This experim ent was fully d e ­scribed at the time by the referee for Joh n H am pden, Esq.,
Mr. William Carpenter, especially in two pamphlets publishedby him, entitled respectively W allace's W onderful Water,and W ater N o t C onvex; the E a rth N o t a Globe; dem on­
strated by A lfr e d R. Wallace, F .R .G .S . W e need not now
refer further to these pamphlets, except to say that they
were well received, and reviewed at th e time ; and th a t thewriter o f this article will be glad if any of our readers canspare a copy, especially of the latter, as they are both nowout of print. It would be for the interest of the Plane T ru th
if these tren ch ant pam phlets were both reprinted. W ith
these preliminary remarks we will now turn to th e article
u nder review.
In his opening remarks Mr. Wallace says:“ To the early asU-onomers llie earth was the centre of the visible
universe, sun, moon, planets, and stars all alike revolving around ii inmore or less eccentric and complex orbits ; and all were thouf^ht to exist
as appendages to our globe, and for the .sole use and enjoyment of man— ‘ the sun to rule by day, and the m( o 1 and stars to rule by night.’
But when it was found that our earth was not specially distinguishedfrom other planets by any superiority of size or position, it was seenthat our pride of place must be given up.”This Opening paragraph seems to be the key to the writer’s
position ; for, while it contains a .confession of the ancientbelief and truth, it is m ixed up with modern underlying as­
sumptions which, until proved, vitiate not only th e “ NewA stronom y ” upon which the writer leans for support, but
the whole of his carefully elaborated argument. It will be
noted he (a) calls the “ e a r t h ” " our globe,” not to be dis­tinguished in this respect from the o th er planets ” ; (b) thatm a n ’s

place

in

the

u n iv e r s e .

,1 8 9this was “ found ” by the establishm ent of the “ Copernicans y s t e m ” ; and ('cj that ancient writers only “ thou gh t,” al­though they “ naturally ” thought, th at the sun and moon
were intended “ for the sole use and enjoym ent of man.”T h u s there are three assumptions underlying his position at
the very outset ; the first and most important, because it is
the assumption which underlies all astronomical theories andconclusions, namely, that the earth is a “ globe,” and a“ planet ” am ongst “ other planets,’’ being “ our globe ” ; andsecond, that Bible and other ancient writers only “.th ou ght,”
though they very " naturally ” thought, there was only one
sun to rule the day, while modern scientists believe there
are “ millions of suns and systems, m any of which were(are ?) probably far grander and more im portant than ours
and, third, that all this was “ found ” out “ when the Coper­nican system became established.”
Now we should like to ask what was the year of our Lord
when the Copernican system “ became established ” ; andwho established it ? I t was certainly not established by
Copernicus, for he honestly confesses that the system wasbased on hypotheses, or suppositions. H e adm itted evenmore ; for he wrote .
“ It is not necessary that the hypotheses should be true, or even probable ; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agreewith calculation....... Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are con­cerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science canaftord nothing of the ki..d.”Yet, knowing this, Mr. W. quietly assumes that the Co­
pernican system was “ established ” ; and that it was “ found ”
th at our earth was a “ p l a n e t ” ! Until we are informed bywhom, how and when, this system was “ found ” to be true,
and thus “ established,” we must beg leave to accept theCopernican Confession before the statem ents of the writerunder consideration.
As I have already shown in the pages of The E arth,“ Gravitation ” is another tremendous but unproven assum p­tion underlying the “ New A s tro n o m y ” ; and it equally
underlies M. W .’s belief and article.
But I m ention thisnot merely to show what hypotheses underlie this question,b u t for the sake of a short quotation from Sir Isaac Newton

190

MAN’S PLACE IN T H E UNIVERSE.

respecting these suppositions.

TO T H E EDITOR.

191

H e says :TO“ But the reason of these properties of gravity I could never hitherto
deduce from phenomena, and I am unvvfilling to frame hypotheses about
them ; for whatever is not deduced from phenomena ought to be called
hypothesis, and no sort of hypotheses are allowable in experimental
philosophy. ”

Yet writers on astronomy pile on supposition after sup­position as th oug h they would, by the num ber and subtletyof their guesses, make up for their lack of foundation facts,
and certainties. But in the interests alike of religion andof logic we cannot allow these unfounded speculations topass unchallenged. A nd that th ey have a direct bearing
upon im portant religious questions and doctrines th e writerof the article in the F. R . himself ably shows. H e says :“ The tendency of all recent astronomical research has been to give us
wider views of the vastness, the variety, and the marvellous complexityof the stellar universe, and proportionally to reduce the importance of
our little speck of earth almost to the vanishing p oin t; and this has been
made use of by the more aggressive among modern sceptics to hold up
religious creeds and dogmas to scorn and contempt. They point out
the irrationality and absurdity of supposing that the Creator of all thisunimaginable vastness of suns and systems, filling, for all we know,
endless space, should have any special interest in so pitiful a creature asman, the degraded or imperfectly developed inhabitant of one of thesmaller planets attached to a second or third rate sun; while that Heshould have selected this little world for the scene of the tremendous andunique sacrifice of His Son, in order to save a portion of these ‘ miserable
sinners ’ from the natural consequences of their sins was, in their view,a crowning absurdity too incredible to be believed by any rational being.
And it must be confessed that the theologians had no adequate reply
to this rude attack ; while many of them have felt their position to beuntenable, and have renounced the idea of a special revelation and asupreme Saviour for the exclusive benefit of so minute and insignificant
a speck in the universe.”

This paragraph shows the importance of the Zetetic con­tention from a religious standpoint, for we readily admit
th at if the astronomical guesses be true relative to “ all thisunim aginable vastness of suns and systems,” then the above
infidel objections are founded upon good reasons ; but if
these suppositions are not true, according to the Zetetic
contention, then the sceptic is unreasonable in taking for
granted the truth of acknowledged hypotheses, and thetheologian highly culpable in giving up historical and re­vealed truth for mere speculative and unproved assumptions.
(to be continued D. F.JTHE

ED ITO R .

I had a copy of the Christmas N um ber of Present T ruth
lent me, and in an article for little children, called Christm as
Candles, it says ; “ T h e moon and the planets have no lightof their own any more than our earth h as— it is the reflectionof the rays of the sun, which, though it has passed for atime out of our sight, is still shining in the heavens, andgiving us light by night as well as by d a y ........T h e moon isbut a bearer of the su n ’s light.”
Now when people are trying to teach children Scripture
truths, why do they turn aside to the theories of heath en
philosophers, and the teachings of men whose one aim is todeny the Bible and the need of a Creator or Saviour?
Genesis i. plainly teaches th at the Lord made two great lights,
and innumerable smaller ones ; the g reater— the sun— to rulethe day, and the lesser— the mopn, and, stars— to rule thenight.
1 he revelation of God is plain ; not delivered in mysterious
language, and, when understood, corresponds with rightreason. So why try to muddle our children’s heads with a
lot of trash, that the very propounders do not rightly u nd er­stand, and cannot substantiate ? No scientist has ever given
proof that the moon receives its light from the sun, buttrue science teaches th at they are indepen dent lights, be­cause being lights of such different, character one could not
be a reflector of the other, as a reflector must necessarilyreflect what it receives ; so instead of our earth having nolight of its own, Scripture teaches we have two lights all ourown, for they were set to minister to our earth, to divide
day from n i g h t ; to be for signs and seasons ; and for daysand )’ears.
And further, the writer tries to teach that Christian religion
is moonshine, by saying, “ Ju s t as the moon reflects thesu n ’s rays, so the Christian should catch the rays of the Sun
of R ighteousness and shed them over the world.” W ith
all due reverence to the writer’s object, I trust that Christians
will do their utmost to shed abroad th e rays of the Sun ofRighteousness exactly as th ey receive them, unm ixed withthe traditions and fables of men, .which, like the moon is
supposed to do, would turn all the warmth of Love into

1 92

TO T H E e d i t o r .

TO T H E EDITOR.

coldness of heart, and make God a God to be feared insteadof a God to be loved and trusted, and a God to whom we
can unburden our inmost soul and ask for guidance in timesof need ; and to whom we can take our highest hopes andgreatest trium phs and know th at he feels alike our joys andsorrows.
If Christians were to study their Bibles more, and act
according to the Divine teachings, they would soon takeaway the tau nt of Christianity being moonshine.

I will here take the opportunity to reply to your corres­
pondent, Mr. H. J. Young, on
L e v e l l in gandT h e o d o l it e

W ork.

I have been engaged in building operations, large andsmall, for the past nineteen years, and have always levelledwork in the m anner described by him, but I contend they
are points in a true level, not points of a great circle ; andI should very much like to know by what m ethod a spirit
level describes a circle. H e says th at the lengths of levelline used in building operations are not long enough to dis­tinguish between level and horizontal lines. I should liketo know the difference, as I have always found the horizon
line at sea perfectly le v e l; so 1 fear he will be unable to give
us a practical proof of the difference.
If the lengths of building lines do not satisfy him, perhaps
the evidence of a practical engineer may interest him. Mr.
W. Winckler, M.I.C.E., sa y s : “ As an engineer of many
years standing, I say that this absurd allowance is only per­mitted in school b o o k s ........I have projected m any miles ofrailway, and m any more of canals, and the allowance has noteven been tho u g h t of, much less allowed for.”This allowance for curvature means this : that it is 8-ins.
for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by
the square of the distance in miles, and thus a small navi­
gable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have by theabove rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. T h ink ofth at and then please credit engineers as not being quite suchfools. N othing of the sort is allowed.

193

H e asks how do I know two plummets would hang par­allel ? Practical proof—why do we plumb the walls of abuilding ? His reference to the pendulum has already beenanswered.
Crockham Hill.
C. R H Y S E V A N S .

IS

THE

EARTH

ROUND?

“ Lady E. A. M. Blount, editor of The E a rth , held adrawing room m eeting at i, Q ueen’s Gardens, Richmond,on Thursday, March 12th, which was well attended. A m ong st
those present were the M ayor (Mr. A. Chancellor), theMisses Davies, Miss Wilkinson, Mrs. Ferguson, Miss Behren,
Mrs. and Miss Howey, Mrs. Priestman, Mrs. Barnett, theMisses Dixon, Mrs. Claridge, and others. T h e Chair was
taken by Lieutenant-Colonel Wintle. H e r ladyship gave aninteresting and instructive address, in which she prom ulgated
the theory that the earth was flat and motionless. A m ongst
those who took part in the discussion th at followed were thechairman and Dr. Berks Hutchinson, of Capetown.

W'e have received a letter from Mr. Sydney Holland,
Chairman of the L ondon Hospital, asking us to insert in
The E a rth an appeal for funds for that institution. W e arevery much pressed for space ju st now, and so we are sorry
we cannot at present insert the whole of his earnest appeal.
W e believe the hospital is doing good work as far as we havebeen able to enquire, and that it is worthy of the support ofZetetics who have any to spare in that direction. Speaking
for myself, personally, my whole time, means, and energy
are taken up with the work in which we are engaged.— Ed.

::
'V .

T H E E A R T H ’S OBSERVATORY.

194

T H E E A R T H ’S OBSERVATORY.

A ll cummunications and enquiries respecting this Magazine a n d the teaching it
upholds, a n d a ll questions a n d m atter f o r insertion, should be addressed to
E . A. M . B ., I I , Gloucester Road, Kingston H ill.

“ THE

E A R T H ’S ”

O BSERVATORY.

T h e E d . does not necessarily endorse statements made under the headings o fEarth's Ohservator}',” Letters, etc., unless signed E d. The Earth.

195

WHY MEN DO NOT GO TO CH UR CH .— “ My opinion is that mostmen want a religion and a public worship, but the religion they seek must
follow the lines of scientific enquiry, abandoning error when discovered, andretaining only what is rationally true.”“ The reason why men have ceased to go to church is because tliey haveceased to believe in the myths of the Bible—the creation of the world, the fallof man, original sin, and the atonement.”“ The cause is simply the progress of science.”
From The M orning Leader.

The

IS TH E EARTH A GLOBE ?—REPRINTS FROM NEW SPAPERS—“ Lady Blount will chiefly devote herself, I understand, to the question,‘ Are we living on a level and immovable earth, or on a globe revolving at therate of about 1,000 miles an hour, and travelling through space about 1,500,000
a day?’ The greatest scientists, and the oldest and newest geographies, tellus that we are on a globe, but Lady Blount will seek to show that that is im ­possible, and to hear her lecture ‘ all thinking people ’ are cordially invited, theadmission being free. The first thought that will arise in the minds of mostpeople on this subject as a proof of the globular theory is the teaching about
the ship at sea, whose masts are seen before the hull as it approaches the shore;.
1 mentioned this matter to a surveyor who apparently believes that the earthand sea ari a plane, and he replied that it was no proof that the earth is a
globe, but that it was explainable by the laws of perspective, and that after aship has entirely disappeared from the vision of the naked eye it can often be
restored by a telescope. He himself had seen the whole of the Gunfleet light­
ship off Walton-on-the-Naze by the aid of a glass, whereas, according to the
supposed curvature of the earth, it would be 43 feet bflovv the level of the line.
The same gentleman also told me that the datum line from which surveys are
made is always a horizontal line, and that no allowance for curvatu'e is made 'in cutting canals. It will doubtless be highly interesting to hear Lady Blount’s
description of how. as the Psalmist said, ‘ The w’orld also is established that it
cannot he moved.’ ”— Essex County Chronicle. .

MARCONI A N D HIS GRE.AT IN VENTIO N .
British Government’s
Caution.— Mr. Marconi was the guest at the house dinner of the Savage Clubin London on Saturday, and made a speech upon wireless telegraphy. The
results attained, he said, had greatly increased all over the world the great in­terest taken in so fascinating a subject. His system of wireless telegraphy was
now used on twenty-five transatlantic liners ; it had established communication
with stations on both sides of the Atlantic, which communication was valuable
not only to passengers, but in some instances had been serviceable to the safetyof ships. (Cheers). The.se land stations on both sides of the Atlantic could
be spoken for a distance of 200 miles, but he confidently hoped to increase that
distance very considerably shortly. He felt bound to acknowledge the great
encouragement King Edward had already given him. As early as 1898 H is
Majesty, as Prince of Wales, had lent him the Royal yacht Osborne for three
w'eeks at a time for his experiments. The British Government had to be very
rar.tious what .“^teps they took, as this subject was one afiecting the whole
empire. He sympathised with that caution, but as half a Britisher himself—(cheers)—he should be sorry if the result of that policy was that every contin­
ental nation should reap the advantages of this system of wireless communication
be''ore England. (Cheers).— Northern D aily Telegraph, 23/2/03.

LETTERS.

FOUR LIN ES FRO.M D R V D EN .—Dryden wrote :“ Jiy education all have been misled
They so believe because they so were bred.'
The priest continue.^ wliere the mirse began,
And thus the child imposes on the man.”

St. M ICHAEL’S LITER.ARV SOCIETY.—The meeting was held on the!)lhinst.,in the-Men’s Institute. Rev. T. W. Henry, B.A., occupied the chair.
A lecture on “ The Flat Earth,” was delivered by Mr. Atkinson, and proved
both interesting and instructive.
Several questions were asked by different
members, and Mr. Atkinson having replied, a vole of thanks was passed to thee.ss.ayist, and the meeting was brought to a close by pronouncing the betieA\cx\un. ~ R e/fast E vening Telegraph, 1O/2/0S.

RAPID ROTATING. To the Editor.—In an astronomical work I have been
studying there is the figure of a circle representing the orbit of the Earth, inwhich two horizontal lines are drawn, the lower line dividing the circle into
two equal portions, the upper line representing the Ecliptic, on which a figureof the sun is placed—said to be 2, 000,000 miles above the line which divides
the Earth’s orbit into two equal portions. The Earth is represented as startingon its annual rotation from the centre of the orbit on September 20th, and on
September 23rd reaches the plane of the Ecliptic. That is very rapid travelling—two million miles in three days. It is very , well that we do not go at thatspeed all through the year, as another figure shows the months when the earth
moves slower; the globist whistles “ Brakes down,” and when it gets to 20th
September they open wide the “ throttle valve.”
We had better be on the look out when September comes and give a wide
berth to the tall chimneys, and it will be as well to do as they do out West,that is dig a hole near our dwelling to flee into when it becomes unsafe on the

T H E E A R T H ’S OBSERVATORY.

T H E e a r t h ’s o b s e r v a t o r y .

surface of the earth. This kind of philosophy reminds me of a practice I, withother boys, had of frequenting the barracks to hear the old soldiers tell of foreigncountries ; and though they usually told us facts, they sometimes tried to see
how much they could get us to take down. I compare this 2,000,000 miles in threedays to the old soldiers’ stories, and decline to swallow it.
PHILOM ATHESEAN.

vestigation ; but I think it has been proved conclusively that the direction of aray of light travelling through a homogeneous medium will, until reflected, bein a straight line—(this is not the question, as you show in the next line.—Ed.)
Of course the atmosphere is not homogeneous, but the density varies withthe height, so that the direction of light rays would not be affected laterally.
All experiments prove that light is radiated equally in all directions ; and theCreator being so strong on the point of uniformity and order, is it reasonable
to suppose that the sun which is a source of light, should act so contrary to allother lights ? (Do you know any experiments that have been tried with thiso iject in view, and, if so, under what conditions were they made ?—Ed.)
Do not think that I am a believer in extreme ‘'scientific” statements, for I
maintain that the authors of such have stepped out of the depth of legitimate
reasoning, and are floundering in the ocean of baseless conclusions. (You are
doubJess right. — Ed.)
Believe me, yours very sincerely,
HAROLD A. WATKINS.

196[We do not wonder you cannot swallow such stories. The great mistake in such
writings is in attributing the motion of the sun to the earth. The earth has
no such motion, and yet in works which professedly uphold Bible teaching
we are again and again treated to these fabulous stories of the earth’s career
through space on an everlasting tour round the sun, and moving so many
thousands, and in this case so many millions, of miles, as described above.
Mr. Dimbleby’s works are of this class.
H is books contain many goodthings on time and Bible chronology, though all that he says he cannot
verify ; but his greatest mistake, as we have said, is in contradiciiiig the Bible
and Reason by insisting the earth is rushing through spice at an awful rate,
while the Creator and our own senses tell us “ that it is fi.\ed ” so firmly on‘ foundations ’ that it cannot be moved at any time.”— Ed.]I

I'am interested in the article appearing in the current number of The. E arth,and which deals with the subject of the tides. I am pleased to see an attempt
to account for the opposing influences of moon and earth, but 1 think the theor»'advanced is fantasiic and wrong in that it overlooks the fact that the elevatedportion of water, though in a state of expansion, as per theory, would still
have weight, and water finds its own level.
My own belief is that a wave o f intensifiedgram tation i-i continually traver.-;ing
the interior of the earth, and that the w^aters of the sea are attracted to that
portion of the earth’s surface immediately under the influence of this w<ive, butof course I do not dogmatize on this.—J. H.
[As gravitation is only a theory whicli has never been proved. Zetetics cannot
admit the assumption of any hypothetical power to explain the cause ol thetides.—Ed.]■2, King Edward Terrace, Beehive Road, Baddovv Road,
Chelmsford.
Dear Madam,Feb. 24th, 1903.
I thank you for the pacl<age of literature, which I have read and returnas requested. I noted the articles on Sunset and Sunrise, and of course agreewith you as to the effects of Perspective. As to Refraction—I think that theso-called “ E ther” must be less dense than the atmosphere, or it would not
remain above it. This reasoning from everyday observation.s—(Is reason fromanalogy, not Irom observation.—Ed.)—^and, as in the majority of cases, light
passing from a rarer to a denser medium is refracted toward the normal, it is
only reasonable to suppose, (!) that this is the case with the rays of sunlight.
Of course I do not see how we can actually prove this to be the case; mirages
seem—(“ s e e m ;” saying they seem to do is not proving they do.— Ed.)—toconfirm our conclusion in regard to the behaviour of light in an atmosphere ofvarying density ; neither do I see how it can Ije disproved, nor the reverse proved— (by first learning that the earth is a plaiie from the fact that water is level—Ed.)
If light does not travel in straight lines, the matter is worthy of thorough in­

197

Sliorncliffe.
26/2/03.
Dear L-;dy Blount,— I write to thank you for your kind letter of the 14th
inst., and now forward some of the results of my observations, which have been
as exhaustive as time would permit. We have recently been very fortunate inhaving several days on which the atmosphere was perfectly clear, and, as I think
I have previously told you, tl.e spur of the hill on which we live is, perhaps, oneof the best places on the earth for making such observations, remembering that
there are objects in'-ight, and at such convenient and approximate known dis­
tances ; and also that the great commercial route below us comprises a greaterpart of the London, North Sea, Baltic, and North European traflic which pro­ceed; west, large nuuibers of ships are always in sight.
1 intended sending you a list of questions of a general character, and which
do not appear to square with your views; but seeing several statements, by“ Zetetes,” reprinted in the current Earth, on what he terms the “ hull-down
proof,” I venture to forward my contribution on the same subject, (as the prop­
osition that water is flit seems to be the one on which “ Zetetes” stakes every­
thing), and will merely ask you one astronomical question : “ Why, instead of
travelling along the horizon, do the most southern constellations appear lo revolvein one sideral day round Octans.
It will, perhaps, be well, before I proceed with my observations, to say thatmy position here is similar to that of a superintending accountant and confidential
clerk of a large office. The staff is composed of men of broad experience andwho have travelled over most of the known world. One has resided some years
in Central America, and tells me that among his acquaintances there was a sea
captain who was a strong pianist, and of whose ideas he has imbibed. Twoothers in the office declaied that water was fiat; several are globists,and olhers had open minds.
It seemed necessary to tell you this to enable
you to see that our investigation was not a one-sided affair. Should any of yourfriends doubt my statements, or wish for further in*brmation, I shall have no
difficulty in obtaining and forwarding the statements of others, or if preferable
the addresses of my co investigators.
Iwill, as briefly as possible, relate a few of the chief tests which may
for convenience be described under four heads.
Observations were madefrom an elevation of 250 feet, o.ur strongest telescope having a power of 160
diameters, and several observers compared notes at each position. Humanly
speaking, the conditions were perfect. Vessels were seen to rise into clear view
as if they were coming up over a bend ; although the distance was considerable
there was no mistaking the manner of these appearances and disappearances,which agreed with the descriptions given in the ordinary text books.
The
vessels went out of sight at precisely the same time to all the observers, whether

r
19&

THE

e a r t h ’s

OBSERVATORY.

they had glasses of high or low power. The slightest haze would, of course
have altered these conditions, but v/e were fortunate in having it clear.
(2) Two points were selected—Cape Giez Nez on the French coast, andDungeness on our own coast. All the vessels and portions of vessels seen above
the horizon within these points were counted from our elevation, and also, aminute or two after, from an elevation of 10 feet. From the former position
32 were seen, from the latter only 10 were seen. On another occasion 40 wereseen from the higher and 12 from the lower position. The same persons, with
their own glasses, observed in each position, and the horizon was so closely
searched and notes compared that I am satisfied nothing escaped.
(3) At 10 feet, processions of masts and rigging were watched going up anddown the channel (straight across the front of our position) ; now and then avessel would come nearer in to the shore than the majority, when more of its
masts and perhaps its hull could be seen. Quite a number passed with only
their pennants and two or three feet of their topmasis in sight, the cordage andother details being plainly seen through strong glasses. Some steamed at sucha distance that only portions of the funnels showed above the water, others werepassing but their smoke only could be seen above the horizon, and, whether itrose in thick volumes or in lesser quantities, it was as plainly seen that the speed
and direction of the vessel was clearly indicated, and it could at times be followedwith the naked eye. Such s-ights can be seen here every day.
(4) This test is a modification of number two, and carried out more leisurely.
At a good elevation a group of vessels at a convenient distance would be selected,
and as we descended the disappearance would be closelv watched; on retracing
our steps the vessels would be seen to gradually re-appe,"r.
This test showed that a vessel which was distinctly visible to the naked eye
disappeared in proportion to the speed that the hill was descended, and viie
versa, clearly demonstrating that it was not the distance (according to the lawof perspective) which prevented it from being seen, and that “ a telescope can­not pierce a segment of water,” to quote a most caustic Zetetic.
(5) This test was made on a dark night when the atmosphere was quite freefrom fog. Various lights along the French coast could be seen quite distinctly,
but one in particular gives a sweeping flash of snch remarkable brilliance thatit attracts everybody’s notice for miles along our coast. This was selected as
our point of observation. The distance from the edge of the Sandgate promen­
ade to the water’s edge was just 50 yards, and the beach descends fairly rapidly.
For the first 20 yards the light was distinctly seen, each flash ; but as one ad­vanced another pace it entirely disappeared, and for the 30 yards to the water’sedge no light of any sort could be seen on the French coast.
If any of your contributors are able to explain away these facts or show thatsomething or other has not been taken into account in these experiments I shallbe pleased to hear them ; but at present I must go a little further than one
Zetetic writer, who says that water is flat or thereabouts, and confess that to me
the surface of the sea appears to be convex. The law of perspective, used in
the most liberal manner possible, utterly fails to account for the phenomena
which I have witnessed and described.
My earnest and prayerful desire has been to obtain the truth, and I hope you
will see that the retention of my opinions is not due to senseless perverseness.
I assure you that these opinions would at once have been given up if the evidenceof my senses had been against them. It will be seen by the two enclosed copies
of lectures, given by me recently, lhat the accepted view of the earth’s shape
does not in way lead one to disbelieve in the revelation of God to mar, or that
one word of the Mosaic Cosmogony is incorrect.
Allow me to thank you very heartily for your kindness, and the very consid­
erate way in which you have treated one who, in a sense, belongs to the opposing
camp. With very best wishes, believe me, yours sincerely,
J. MARRIOTT, Sergt.-Major.

THEe a r t h ’s o b s e r v a t o r y .

[9^[Perhaps some of our readers who have made similar investigations will be able
to reply to this letter. We should have liked it better had it been moredefinite as to the distances of the vessels, etc., but we print it as it is, believing
the writer to be honest. He should, however, examine the proofs we haveoften given in The E arth that water is absolutely level. We note that ourcorrespondent believes the Bible to be scientifically correct in its Chronology ;to be consistent he should also believe the Bible to be correct in its statements
on Cosmogony, or the shape and form of the earth.— Ed.]We take this opportunity of informing our readers that “ Zetetes ” is writing assries of articles on Chronology in The Sabbath o f Creation.

REPLY TO LETTER FROM NORTHAM , W EST AUSTRALIA.
A correspondent has sent us a lengthy letter from Northam, West Australia,
dated January 25th, 1903. His letter is an arrogant attack on Pianists, anddrags us back to the ABC of the question, whilst most of his assumed corrections
are really nothing but assertions of his own imagining.
He commences his onslaught by saying that he “ really cannot understand."So far so good ; this is really his state of mind— he really cannot understand—and this keynote explains not only his frame of mind, but also that of his classof partly fledged astronomers.
Our correspondent continues,after the word understand, and adds “ how intelli­gent men can go the lengths they do on the Plane Earth Theory.” In thesewords it is difficult to be quite sure whether Mr. F. attempts to compli­
ment corr-spondents to The Earth as persons who may be intelligent, or whether,on the other hand, he means to imply deficiency of intellect as the mainspringof the Flat Earth School.
The religious element is of course not even hinted at, as religion is by nomeans a leading mark with the astronomer whose aim is, and always was,atheism pure and simple, or, to put it kindly, an attempt to deliver the worldfrom the ridiculous and, to them, insane fad of believing in a future existence
and a Divine Creator, together with a Divine origin in all things.
This inherent propensity in the astronomer accounts for his monstrous per­versions, and his denial of Biblical evidence.
He objects also on the grounds that the Flat Earth Theory is ancient.
He cannot bear this, and likes everything modern and in its place. He likes
the modern Globe Theory and wireless telegraphy to Mars.
Nevertheless,the modern application of wireless telegraphy on this earth itself he never will
relish, as that clearly proves that the earth is not a globe ; and the generaltendency of it is certainly to prove that it is flat.
To continue : this Australian writer ventures on two questions in perspective.
He makes two statements, one of which is clearly absurd, whilst the second
proves that he is acquainted with the more correct explanation of the Educative
action of perspective. Why then his questions ? Why does he propound two
totally difterent views of perspective, und ask the editor of an advanced maga­zine to state which is correct?
This is the singular feature of his enquiry. We are actually called upon to
say of two simple matters which one is right, as if, indeed, he was setting a
trap for our editorial judgment, and was hoping that we would fall into it, andof course uphold the impossible and ridiculous teaching that perspective enlarges
objects. Really it is too much to expect that the editor of a high-class magazine
should stoop to decide between a black ball and a white one—as to which isblack ! Of a line of lamp posts, each 100 feet high, he really wishes us to explain
whether they disappear by the bottoms being sum marily ctU off, or by the tops
collapsing, or, lastly, by the gradual process of being lost to sight.

200

TH E

TH E

e a r t h ’s o b s e r v a t o r v .

And now to return to this awful letter, which I have not got far into'as yet,having only just reached the eleventh line of this amazing dociiment.
The next query is “ do we not see the sun rise bit by b it? ” Well, yes, I
conclude that I may say we do, but it does not require a scientific magazine totell the world this. However, more follows. Having got the sun up, he says:“ is it not bigger than when at 12 mid-day ? ” This staggering question shews
the mental status of the average astronomical pretender. Clearly he is quite
oblivious to atmospheric effect. And here I may add that he has a companion
in a recent writer who set to work to measure the diameter of the sun by thetime it took to rise or set.
The result in this case was very disastrous, as the experimenter made the dia­meter of the sun some 240 miles by timing its rising or setting when refracted
by the atmosphere, instead of the correct measurement of 32 miles—which latterdistance is found from the sun’s movement at 12 o’clock mid-day, at which hour
no refra nion is caused by the atmosphere.
Mr. F.’s next query has to do with distances found in given latitudes, and his
measurements are all behind the times as regards fiat.earth maps of_the latest(1902-3) patterns. He has evidently seen some abandoned publications of many
years standing, and knows little or nothing of the modern distances found by
steam-boats, and on which later plans have been framed. His letter, however,gives us one distance which may be of value—and is of considerable value if
correct—namely, 2,118 miles between Bunbury and Brisbane, Australia.
P'rom this more or less valuable distance he passes on to conjectures about
the rising of the sun, and which might be worth examination only that further
on in liis letter it is found that these conjectures are really based on paltry dia­grams of his own construction.
This is the crying sin of all astronomers. They construct small figures, often
about the size o f iialf-a-crown, and from these small figures they con.^truct theirwhole theory of the earth and the stars. Anyone who examines one of tliese
diagrams cannot fail to perceive, when his attention is drawn to this marvellou.sfact, that the astronomers use one and the same horizon for every place or position,and this horizon is in reality the central inside plane of a sphere, and is actually
the very plane which we Pianists contend for as the earth itself.
They take our earih for iheir horizon, whereas w e, on the other hand, teaclithat each locality has its own horizon ; and it has long been pointed out that
this would be the case even on a globe. Even on a globe the horizon must be
local to the individual. This one crucial fact disposes of the whole scicnce ofastronom)-, and brings it down like a house of cards.
Speaking of his sunrises, this writer’s words are, “ This being calculated on aplanisphere which is very small.
Here then are the tv>o crying sms of astrono­mers in the words of one of them.
They calculate on a planisphere (insteadof a glol>e) and it—the planisphere—is very small.
Half-a-Crown size is theusual thing.
Finally, this penman, is for a midnight sun down South, and the late Ant­arctic Expedition should be able to de ide this point, which practical navigators
are opposed to, in that when running between Cape Good Hope and Melbourne,in latitude 60 S, they carry the midday sun on the port hand, but wl e i in lat­itude 43 S the sun is carried to starboard, and is never seen a t night, so they say.
Let the Antarctics s eak out a, the matter is important ; but in no case can it
make the earth a globe. It will simply alter late 1903 plans of the earth. The
main objection to the land outside is that the countries are out of all proportion
to each other, i ) O t h Russia and China being very vast.
Spea'dng of his sunrises, this correspondent uses the language of conjectureand says “ //“ the sim ri.ses 30 deg. South of East it sets 30 deg. South of Westand the latitude wouUl be 40 deg.” But why has this conjecture been hazarded ?
He resides at Perth, in latitude 31 deg., why then has he set to work to con­jecture for latitude 40 deg., instead o f stating w hat actually occurs at Perth itself?
This of course throws discredit on all his statements. From latitude 40 deg.

E A R T H ’S OBSERVATORY.

he ventures to latitude 51 deg., and, among other statements, he happily saysthat the sun is due south.
In this latter conjecture he- is contradicted by practical Navigation, whichroves beyond question that the sun often bears A'i)?-//;,even in Southern latitudes,
In support of this most valuable fa c t I am able to quote Nories' Epitome o f
Navigation, p. 188, example No. 2 ; “ On September 21, 1874, Longitude 90
deg. E, the meridian altitude of the sun’s lower limb was 58 deg. 12 min. 10 secs.
bearing North : Index error, 2-10, height of the eye 14 feet : required the lati­tude.”
m. s.
Sun’s declination (Table x).■...............
0 40 North
Correction for Longitude 90 East (Table 12)
6■Correct declination

0 46 North

Observed Sun’s lower limb
Index error

58

Correct observed altitude lower limb
Correction table I x plus 11m. 7 s.

58

12 North

2
10
12

58 22
911 (1
Meridian Zenith distanceCorrect declination

31

38 South
46 North■' Latitude........................................ .
30 ................
52 South , _____
Perth, West Australia, almost to a minute. Here then, in the very latitude ofPerth itself, from whence this person dates his letter, we have the clearest refu­tation of his nonsensical conjectures—which, of course, have no application at
Perth, nor anywhere else in the various latitudes he has thought projier to select,instead of confining himself to actual observations at Perth. I need say no more.
, March, 1903.
E. E. M IDDLETON.

A SPECIAL LECTURE was given at the New Assembly Hall, Union St.,
Coventry, on Monday, March 23rd, 1903, by Lady Blount, entitled “ Is the
Earth a G lobe?” The Band of tne 2nd V. B. Roy. War. Regt., conducted by
Mr. T. J. Marshall, (by kind permission of Col. H. Nutt and the Officers o'' t'-e
Regiment, played Selections, and Songs were sung liy Messrs. A. U.
.auAiij,..^and A. Longbottom (accompanied by Mr. A. Mealand). The whole of themusic and songs given during the evening were composed by the lecturer.
Reserved Seats were charged for.
Regarding the above lecture, Mrs. Longbottom writes, March g 7 th ;J ‘ We
are .seeing the results of the Lecture already, as two or three were fully convincedthat the Plane Earth Theory is true, and a few more are wavering. It has also
given Archie the opportunity of speaking to several who would not hear a woril
about it before.”, The Ed. also held a meeting at Lewes Mansions, on March 21th; and at the
Clifton Hall, Selhurst, on the 26th.
Dr. E. Haughton took the chair on thelatter occasion. A collectiou was made after this meeting, when the friends
present gave liberally ; and our highly esteemed, Mr. Arthur West, who arranged
the meeting, handed the proceeds to a poor Christian friend. Fuller accounts
and newspaper reports of these meetings will be printed in our next issue, if
space allow s; but in any case Dr. E. Haughton’s able opening address willf > l > P - a r( n . v . )

!i;

CH.

FRENCHD A M IE N ’S

SYSTEM .

IN

THREE

R E V IS E D

E D IT IO N ,THEMONTHS!
V o l.

1902.

EARTH.

HI.

Nos. 35 & 3 6 .
JU N E A N D JU LY .

We have much pleasw e in recommending the above work.
T h e booklet contains the three thousand words, and idioms,
which are most used in ordinary conversation ; sufficient toenable you to talk French all your life ; no fossil philological ‘peculiarities, but French as it is actually spoken in France.
Grammar underlies each group of examples, and w e-think
this a cleverly condensed m ethod of teaching the Frenchlanguage.
T h e A uthor of French in Three M onths also gives Lessons
in Conversational French to adults, at
128, C R O M W E L L

R O A D , L O N D O N , S.W. ;
AND

64,

ROSSLYN

H IL L ,HAMPSTEAD,

N.W.

Friends of the Ed. of this Magazine can testify to his ability
and agreeable way of teaching.

The Magnetic Nerve Invigorator Co.,JO N A TH AN
32 ,NICHOLSON,

Budge Row, Cannon Street,LONDON, E.C.

Price of Appliances £1 Is., £ 2 2s., & £ 3 3s.
In s ta lm e n ts m ay be a rra n g e d .

THE

R O T A T IO N O F T H E E A R T H
H O W TO O B S E R V E IT!

E xtracts fr o m an A d d ress given by L a d y B l o u n t , at
H am pton Place, Brighton, on A p r il ig th , i g o j .
An article with a similar heading to th e above appears in
the March num ber of P ast a n d Future.
This journal isdescribed, on its title page, as “ a m onthly journal of theSecond Advent, and investigations concerning Biblical
Chronological, Astronomical, and Historical subjects.”
W ith the hope of the Second A dvent we entirely agree,
and with the investigation of the other subjects mentioned
we are also in harmony. But we want these subjects in ­vestigated in a reasonable and Scriptural manner.
T heeditor of the paper professes to uphold Bible teaching, andfor the greater part he does so on Chronology and historicalsubjects. But on astronomical subjects and Bible Cosmogony
we believe he is entirely astray, and leading others astrayin helping to support the infidel science of the day.
He
upholds the doctrine of a whirling globe, flying throughso-called “ space ” faster than a flash of lightning.
How the Lord will return to such a flying ball the editor
does not trouble to explain, much less how the holy city—th e New Jerusalem —will “ come down from heaven ” to rest
upon any particular locality of such a madly whirling sphere !
But these things he perhaps regards as trifles compared withth e question of the time it takes this cannon-like ball to go
throug h its various evolutions, flying now east and then,without any adequate cause, turning back in its so-called
orbit, and shooting west.
It is not often th at first-rate astronomers try to prove theea rth ’s motions ; but occasionally some of their disciples will
try their hands at it.
Mr. Dimbleby goes a point further
and tells his readers “ how to observe the rotation of the