liO

THE EARTHTHE

REVIEW .

a 8 L 0 B E -^ E Y IE W .

] . A t k i n s o n a n d O t h e r s . — Accept our hearty thanks for A t Home and Abroad.

W e can well understand and fully endorse its language respecting the greatloss of one of the honorary associates of the Y . W . C. I., Mrs. Irving.
D .V .— W e shall reproduce her verses “ G ive me to D rin k,” in our next issue ;also in the near future we may publish some of her private letters to ourselves.
W e trust that a ll Zetetics will follow her noble example for the advancementof one of the most important truths extant, and join the U. Z. Society.

EDITORIAL

When the inajestic form o f Truth stands before the bar o f justice,that hideous monster. E rror, hangs its head in nlence.

N OTICES.

^ 5 * Please to ask for “ T h e Earth— not a G lobe— R eview ,” at all Newsagents,
Reading Rooms, and Railway Bookstalls. T o be had direct from the Hon. Sec.
post free, to any address in the postal union for lod. per year, in advance.
A ll monies for the Society must be paid direct to the local Vice-Secretaries, ordirect to the Hon. Secretary and Treasurer, Jno. Williams. Post Office Orders
to be made payable at Sumner Street, S. E.
Owing to pressure in business matters we have been unable to notice thecriticisms on “ Bible A stronom y” in Z ion 's Watch Tower, or Mr. Hope’s
statements, but we hope to attend to them in our next issue.
“ The Earth not a G lobe,” by “ Parallax,” uncut, ij/ -A Sectional View of the W orld as a Plane.

No. 6 ( N e w S e r i e s ) .

“ UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION,A S S U M P T IO N .”W e trust "that friends will forward us all the information they possibly can fupon the subjects suited to this Journal.

I t is with deep regret that we announce the decease of our esteemed andinvaluable friend M r s . B E S S I E I R V I N G , of Belfast, who fell asleep inJesus, July 15th, 1895. Aged 50 Years.
She was a Zetetic o f no mean calibre, and her beautiful model o f theWorld, which can be seen at the Y .W .C .I ., Belfast, is proof positive ofher deep philosophical intelligence.
She was accomplished in Botany and other Sciences and learned in
the G reek and Latin tongues with an acquaintance of French and German.
Her Scriptural Knowledge was very great.
She was the First Hon. Sec. to the Prison G ata Mission in Belfast,and done a great deal to the Glory of God in that good cause.
Thank God we know that our loss is her gain, for to be :—^'■Absent from the body'' is to be "P resen t with the L o rd ."P r ic e

2 d ."A PUREB y L eo C a stle .

Address to Hon. Sec,

Zetetic’s desirous of obtaining books “ out of print,” (or in print either) should
communicate with the Hon. Sec., who is identified with a system o f enquiry for
obtaining the same.

J A N U A R Y , 1896.

.

'

No. II.

D e d ic a ted to th e E d it o r o f R kynoldi’s K'kwspapbb .

The E a rth — not a Globe— Keview, in order to convince us that the world isflat quotes some comments we made in these columns on the subject. The editor
begins a series of articles, in the first of which are some interesting, extracts withthe view o f’proving that there is no such thing as the law of gravitation. So far
he has not reached the point any further than by showing that gravitation ismerely a probability. O f course it is merely an assumption, which explains thelargest number of results, and science can go no further.— Reynolds's Newspaper,
October 6th, 1895!

W e are pleased to see that our friend— the Editor o f Reynolds's
Newspaper— has taken a step backward, viz., from “ the fact ofgravitation,” to the definite and undeniable groundwork of thattheory, viz., “ O F C O U R S E I T IS M E R E L Y A N A S S U M P ­T I O N .'’ O f course it is Sir, and nothing else ! A n d being “ merely
an assumption’' it cannot “ explain the largest number o f results,” infact it cannot explain any at all, for that which does not exist in fact,cannot explain results. Even the opponents o f Christianity declare,“ Agreement is only possible when the conclusions arrived at are theresult o f experience and observation, about whose v e r i f i c a t i o n there
is no doubt.”— Freethinker, O ct. i6th, i8g2. p. 659.
■But the E ditor o f Reynolds's Newspaper speaks again ;—t Mr. H . , Sims Writes tp me a letter on the Flat or Round Globe controversy, inwhich he contends, and quite correctly, that if the Bible can be believed theTH E EARTHR EVIEW .

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

world is quite flat. Everyone now knows that the Old Testament does teach thatthe world is flat.
Perhaps if Mr. Sims addresses, say, the Archljishop of
Canterbury— in that dignitary’s official, but not learned capacity— he will discover
why no State-Church parson believes the Bible in this respect.— Oct. 19th, 1895.

Y es, the Bible does “ teach that the world is flat ” approximately;
and consequently there is no need o f “ the law o f gravitation ” to“ draw everything to the centre.” B ut is this teaching o f the Bible\xv£.— absolutely true 1 Y es, and the scientists them selves tacitly
admit the fact when they declare that “ the upper surface o f a fluidat rest under the action o f gravity alone is a horizontal plane, sinceotherwise, if a part o f the surface were higher than the rest,"— don’t
you see it ? T h is is a tacit acknowledgm ent that the world is N O T A
G L O B E ! ! I f the W orld were a G lobe, then o f necessity “ a part ofthe surface ” M U S T be “ higher than the rest’’ for as they themselves
have owned, “ whichever way you go on a G lobe you must go dow n’’
therefore one part must be higher than the other, and that part isthe observer’s standpoint. But, be it remembered, that where there
is a “ dow n” there must also be an “ u p ’’ therefore the above state­ment is a “ dow n"-T\^t proof that the W orld is not a G lo b e— but tocontinue— “ those parts o f the fluid which were under it would exert
a greater pressure upon the surrounding parts than they received
from them, so that motion would take place amongst the particles
and continue until there were none at a higher level than the rest,
that is, until T H E U P P E R S U R F A C E O F T H E W H O L E
M A SS O F F L U I D B E C A M E A H O R I Z O N T A L P L A N E .”The F ir st Principles o f N a tu ra l Philosophy by Mr. W . T . Lynn,o f the R oyal Observatory, Greenwich, p. 51.
T his testimony is absolutely true to Nature and experimental f a c t ;therefore the assumptions o f convexity and concavity are relegated to
the lethe they cam e from by the savants o f the R oyal Observatory.
But let us continue our enquiry ;—IS T H E R E IN T H E U N I V E R S E A N Y S U C H“ FORCE”

O R “ L A W ,” A S T H E “ L A W O F G R A V I T A T I O N . ? ”
6th. “ The history of science {so-called. Ed.) shows that A L L the great lawsof mind and matter have been discovered, N O T B Y D E M O N S T R A T IO N but
b y I M A G I N A T I O N .”S c i e n c e S i f t i n g s , Vol. i. No. 15. p. 235.

T h at this is absolutely true is proven by the undeniable andacknowledged fact that K ep ler “ discovered ” his three “ Laws ofPlanetary M o tio n ” in that way. Listen to the testimony o f yourown schoolmen, ye, who believe in the “ earth’s sphericity,” surely
you will believe them won’t you ? even though you deny the evidenceo f your senses that they may be considered, “ T h e wise guides,
philosophers and friends, who do lay upon themselves the onerous.25

duty o f deciding these momentous problems for us.” — L o r d
S.^LISBURY. Morning Leader, June 23rd, 1894.
* Listen, I say, to Professor W. B. Carpenter, C .B ., F. R.S., etc.
7th. It was not until twelve years after the publication of his first two laws,that K epler was able to announce the discovery of the third. This, again, wasthe outcome of a long series of G U E S S E S , and what was remarkable as to theerror of the idea which suggested the second law to his mind, was still more
remarkable as to the third ; for not only, in his search for the ‘ harmony ’ of which
he felt assured, did he proceed on the erroneous notion of a whirling force
emanating from the Sun, which decreases with increase of distance, but he took
as his guide a . n o t h e r A S S U M P T IO N n o l e s s e r r o n e o u s , viz., that themasses o f the Planets increase with their distances from the Sun. In order tomake this last fit with the facts (?) he was driven to A S S U M E a relation of theirrespective
which we now know to be U T T E R L Y U N T R U E ; for, as
he himself says, ‘ unless we A S S U M E this proportion of the densities, the law of
the periodic times will not answer.
Thus, says his biographer, ‘ three out of thefour suppositions made by Kepler to explain the beautiful law he had detected
are now I N D I S P U T A B L Y K N O W N T O B E F A L S E ? what he considered
to be the proof of it, being only A M O D E O F F A L S E R E A S O N IN G bywhich ‘ any required result might be deduced from any given principles.” —Modern Review, Oct. 1880.

And these •* three laws ” are the basis o f Newtonian “ Universal
Gravitation,” O ! most glorious origin ! !
T h e most superficial scholar knows what is the received ex­
planation o f the movements o f the Planets round the Sun, viz.,that when the Planet is first hurled on its course from the hand of
its Maker, the M aker o f the Planets is the sun, its tendency is
to go in a straight lin e ; but this tendency is arrested by theattraction of gravitation, and the two forces acting in opposition toeach other cause the orb which they control to m ove in a curve. It
was supposed by K ep ler that this curve did not form a perfectcircle, but an ellipse, and that the Planet was accelerated in someparts o f its orbit when it was nearest the Sun. T h e cause o f thisdiscrepancy was attributed by Newton to the antagonistic action of
the centripetal and centrifugal forces : as the attraction o f gravitation,or centripetal force, gradually overcomes the centrifugal, the Planet
is drawn nearer the Sun, and its speed in its orbit accelerated.
But let us see what another eminent Professor o f Astronom y has
said about centrifugal force, and we shall find that the “ laws,” which
Professor Guillem in in The Heavens, edited by Professor Lockyer,
informs us that Newton “ extended to a ll the bodies o f our Solarsystem,” are no more to do with Natural Phenomena, than theravings o f a madman.
8th. C E N T R I F U G A L F O R C E IS A F I C T I O N ; T H E R E IS R E A L L Y
NO S U C H T H IN G A S C E N T R I F U G A L F O R C E .”P r o fe s s o r A ir y ,Mathematical Traits. Note on p. 140, 4th ed.

T H E E A R T H REVIEW .

G L O B E SCALIN G .

N o wonder that J u l i u s S i l v e r s m i t h , Esq., M .A ., said':—9th. “ So far as mathematical astronomy is based upon mathematics alone,and draws A L L IT S C O N C L U S IO N S from A S S U M E D data, such con-»elusions cannot be natural and true, but are simply artificial and delusive.
Newton was pre-eminent in his ability to decipher objects and IN V E N T ‘ laws ’that were not in existence^ and his followers have relied upon their seeming
accuracy, simply because they could be illustrated by lines and figures, byclockwork and machinery, by pictures and pasteboard. Such is really the casewith his theories of attraction and gravitation. ” — Earth No. 5, p. 34.

I should be sorry to violate Sydney Smith’ s injunction, and ‘ speak disrespect­fully of the equator,’ but I am compelled to speak very disrespectfully ofgravitation, and of its principal expounder, Sir Isaac Newton. He is popularly,
but erroneously, supposed to have been the discoverer of gravitation, but thefact is he was only its systematizer. His hypotheses or rather paradoxes are nolonger alive ; they may now be embalmed and buried in the consecrated groundof an Encyclopaedia.
T he attempt to perpetuate them can only be a stumblingIjlock in the path of ti ue science. I have already shewn— or striven to show— that
his system teems with fallacies; and must be exploded. It is no sufficient reply
to say that mathematicians of the highest eminence have accepted it anddemonstrated its verity. Mathematicians can demonstrate anything I F Y O U
g r a n t T H E M T H E D A T A W H IC H T H E Y R E Q U IR E , and fromwhich they must start ; in this case the question is, whether the Newtonian data
are correct
Mathematicians enjoy no immunity from error any more than any
other class of reasoners. Professor Thorold Rogers remarked of mathematicians,that ‘ they were generally dunces ; ’ and of one very distinguished mathematician
it was said that ‘ he had a very narrow escape of being an idiot.’ But the fact
is, mathematics has nothing to do with proving or disproving the Newtonian
theories, which are merely A N E R R O N E O U S M E T H O D O F E X P O U N D IN G
C E R T A IN P H E N O M E N A O F N A T U R E .”124

lO t h .
“ In elementary W orks on the motion of t h e Planets are given elaborate
diagrams borrowed from Newton’s P r j n c i p i a , for the purpose of demonstrating
the law of centripetal and centrifugal forces ; and any student who masters
these diagrams fancies' that they conclusively prove the truth of the theory.

[W e shall produce some of these diagrams to conclusively illustrate that thewhole theory is absolutely false, and prove that it is so by a direct appeal to the
known motions of the planets and comets].
Our student, however, acts under the same erroneous impression as that whichgoverned the mind of Sir Isaac Newton, as in his time there did not exist
sufficient scientific knowledge to expose the fallacies o f the data. Newton
asserted theoretically that which is practically impossible, viz., firstly , that there
could be centrifugal force developed by one body revolving round another when
the two bodies were not M E C H A N IC A L I^ \ U N IT E D ; and, secondly, that
this centrifugal force was so exactly a counterpoise to gravitation, that anincrease o f velocity in the revolving body towards the gravitating direction
was sufficient to prevent gravity (gravitation) becoming triumphant and thus
drawing the revolving body out o f its orbit altogether !
Centrifugal force can only be developed in a body revolving on its own centre
or round another body to which
zj M E C H A N I C A L L Y A T T A C H E D . . .
The problem with which Newton attempted to grapple was to discover the forces
and laws which govern the movements of the heavenly bodies. He signally
failed in solving the mystery. T o get his rotatory movement he was obliged
to resort to the clumsy invention of a centrifugal force, which under thecircumstances stated is an impossibility. In spite of N ewton’s demonstration,
it is quite certain that the f a l l i n g o f a stone to the earth is not a phenomenon
similar to the motion of the Moon in its orbit : the phenomena bear not theslightest resemblance to each other, nor can they in any true sense be attributed
to the same cause . . . The great ‘ disco very’ of Newton, viz., ‘ universal
gravitation,’ thus appears destined to share the fate of the large majority ofhuman inventions, and to take its place with other antiquated ideas in themuseum of the extinct system of a progressive science (so-called).
T he ridiculous Newtonian idea of the Sun being a fiery furnace; and thenotion that the movement of the heavenly bodies is caused by universal
gravitation modified by what is popularly known as centrifugal force, are part ofthe ignorance, almost monkish, of the age in which such teaching were accepted.
The time has surely come when we ought to discard our cant respecting thewonderful reputation of Sir Isaac Newton, and be content to regard him simply,
as a mathematician and scientist, scarcely as a philosopher. His treatment ofFlamstead and Leibnitz prove him to be morally a very sublunary mortal indeed ;and I am inclined to think that if his little pet dog had destroyed a great deal
more of his work, the animal would have done the world no disservice.

The New Principia, by N e w t o n

125

C r o s s la n d .

( To be continued).

GLOBE
By

SCALING.
IV. Carpenter.'T o prove that a “ m odel" globe is to a double scale, measure from
London to Philadelphia on the first globe you s e e ; the distance is
3.000 miles, the space may be 2, 3 or more inches, say 3 inches(perhaps a i foot globe), then the scale is 1,000 miles to the in c h ;let that answer for the “ Northern H em isphere” ; now turn to theSouthern, measure again from C . G. H ope to C . H o rn ; only afraction more space, but how great the distance ! ! Captains tell me
it is 9,500 miles, this is the least d ista n ce; I have heard as high as
12.000 miles ; call it 9,000 ; then the scale is j,o o o miles to the inch
(the journey in question being a certain number o f degrees out of
the 360°, it must be allowed that the balance o f the measure roundmust be the complement, and to the same scale), ergo. Northern
Hem isphere 1,000 miles to the inch, Southern, 3,000 miles to theinch ! Everything in the way as a m odel or a plan, made to a double
scale, is a folly and a fraud. T r y the plan o f a house and see foryourselves.

126

T H E EA R TH REVIEW .
A L I G H T O N T H E SU N .

A LIG H T

ON T H E

SUN.

Letters to the Editor o f the " E v en in g N ew s," Portsmouth.

Sir,— W e have just discerned a most gigantic and im portant error
in modern astronomy, concerning the sun’s estimated diameter andits path along the ecliptic. Mr. R , A. Proctor, in his picture o f theseasons, gives a graphic plate o f the sun’s path through the twelve
signs o f the Zodiac for every month and day in the year. There
are thirty degrees allow ed for each sign ; a degree is sixty geo­
graphical miles. T h e ecliptic runs through the centre o f each sign,for which there is allowed sixteen degrees, with seven degrees eachside clear. N ow, 60 by 16 equals 960 geographical miles. T h e sun
is estimated at 882,000 miles in diam eter; then the query is : How
can a body like the sun be contained in a line or groove that is only
960 miles wide, when that ball or body is 882,000 miles in diam eter ?
In all cases there is required half the diameter o f the ball for
width o f groove. I f a ball is six inches in diameter, the groovemust be three inches in width, so that there would be required 7,250
degrees space for the sun to m ove through the ecliptic. Now, thisdisparagement alone, fully traced out, is sufficient to announce theoverthrow o f modern astronom y in its measurements and hypothesis.
W e challenge any astronomer to rectify the error, or reconcile thehypothesis. A s all measurements are reckoned from the sun as abasis, the sun can only be about five thousand miles in diameter, or
half the diam eter o f the earth. T h at would be found to be a far
more correct estim ate; and everything in astronom y should havebeen reckoned by thousands instead o f millions ; it would have beenmuch easier for all students, and far more correct for all natural
astronomy. T h e earth is no doubt ten thousand miles in diameter,as the Norwegian sailor stated at the late G eographical Congressthat he found South V ictoria a continent twice the size of Europe,and not a mere strip, as marked on the map. Certainly 16 degrees
for the ecliptic would only allow the sun to be about 3,000 miles.
W e are willing to allow it is S ,o o o , but no m ore— all other bodies inproportion. Breadth can be measured much better than height,
Yours truly,
Portsm outh, 12th Sept., 1895.
E xam .
Sir,— Y o u r correspondent, “ Exam .” who tells us that he has justdiscerned a gigantic and important error in modern astronomy,
appears to be labouring under the delusion that a degree is aninvariable quantity, instead o f being the 360th part o f a circle,

127

whether great or small. W hat he appears to have got into his headis the measure of a degree o f longitude at the equator. Now, themeasure o f a degree o f an arc o f a circle, whose radius is the mean
distance o f the sun from the earth, is 1,600,000 miles, about. Hencethe width o f the belt o f the ecliptic is, in round numbers, 13,200,000
miles, instead o f 960, as “ E xam .” has it.
It might interest some o f your readers to know that a degree of aheliocentric circle passing through the star V ega (not a remotestar), would be one billion five hundred thousand million miles
approximately.
Yours respectfully,-----------L. C. P.
Sir,— Allow me to inform your correspondent “ L. C. P .” that
“ Exam.” was quite aware of his definition o f a degree of a circle,
but the ecliptic happens to be a line drawn through the centre of
the circular signs o f the Zodiac. T h e late R . A. Proctor, in his
Zodiac il maps o f the seasons draws a straight line through each map.
Another well-known astronomer says that “ a degree is therefore
only a relative and not an absolute quantity, except when applied toa great circle, such as the equator ”— and such is the ecliptic— “ inwhich case it is 60 geographical miles, or 69-1 geographical miles.”Therefore it is ihe breadth o f a line, belt or groove through which aconcentrated body o f light, heat, and attraction like the sun is con­stantly travelling, not the circular signs o f the Zodiac. W ith regard
to the distance o f the star V ega, it reminds me o f Bessel, whoestimated the distance o f the star 61 C ygn i at 60 trillions o f miles,
but soon after cam e Struve’s measurement, making it move nearly
40 trillion miles, so the second measurer cut off 20 trillions as
though it was only so many dozens, without the least hesitation.
Sir W illiam H erschell was wise on that poin t; though he spent all
his life in trying to measure star distances, he acknowledged it to bea failure. From analogy, reason and experience, we know thatbodies for the supply o f light and heat are always placed as near thesurface to be enlightened as possible, not at an incalculable orimmeasurable distance. W hat would be the use o f placing theelectric light for Portsmouth on Portsdown H ill ? I question if thestars could ever be photographed if they were at such an immeasurable
distance.
T h e deductions o f mathematics must be eventuallydisplaced by the facts o f nature, analogy and reason. T h e fittest
must survive.
Yours truly,
Portsmouth, Sept. 17th, 1895.
E xam .
Our friend, “ Exam ,” before writing to the Portsm outh Paper,
wrote to S ir Robert B a ll, pointing out the important error and128

T H E E A R TH REVIEW .

FACTasked for a solution or reconciliation o f the same.
T h is is the
reply o f the Lowndean Professor o f Astronomy and Geometry in the
University o f Cambridge. “ See the A tla s o f Astronomy for yourdifficulty.” R. Ball.

FACT

V.

V.

FICTIO N .

129

FICTION.

(I .)I said a thing can only be in one place at a time. G .M . answers that
latitude is found in connection with the apparc7it direction of an object. True,
but beside the mark. For I suppose the apparent direction has something to dowith the real direction ; if not we should be lost entirely.

Evidently the Professor is more interested in the profit o f his 15/book than he is in vital questions affecting the teaching o f that ofwhich he is the representative and exponent.
Possibly he has a lively recollection o f one, Professor Woodhouse,
who, in or about the year 1840, occupied the same chair, and fromit declared :— “ W hen we consider that the advocates o f the Earth’s
stationary and central position can account for and explain thecelestial phenom ena as accurately as we can, in addition to which
they have the evidence o f the senses, and Scripture and facts in theirfavour, which we have not, it is not without some show o f reason
that they maintain the superiority o f their system. W hereas, wemust be content, at present to take f o r granted the truth o f the
hypothesis o f the Earth’s motion, for one thing. W e shall never,indeed, arrive at a time when we shall be able to pronounce it
absolutely proved to be true. T h e nature o f the subject excludes
such a possibility.”.2'. I am accused of supposing the eye at S. I didn’ t. I supposed the Sun
there. This is the second time G .M . has made this mistake, and the second time
I have corrected him.
131. G .M . challenges me to give the observed altitudes of the Sun at equinox
for lats 10°, 20°, 30°, 40=, etc., and to show that the lines of direction meet atthe same point. W hy ! that is the very thing I did in my leaflet, only on the flat
earth. I showed that the lines could not meet except at an infinite distance. G. M. ’ s
own figure shows the absurdity still better, for his lines cross each other like cobwebs.
Very aopropriate, too, for as the spider spins cobweb out of his own inside, sodoes the Zetetic spin his theories without any reference to the facts.
(4.) G. M. says observations of the sun do not enable us to determine thepositio.i, but only
latitude. (This latter admission is rather
funny from a member of the sect which constantly answers inconvenient southernhemisphere facts with the assertion that “ the movement of the heavenly bodies
have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.” ) But G .M . does not tell us why
ordinary trigonometry may not be applied to the .sun, just as well as to a light ona mountain top.
su n ’s“ H ow ever perfect our theory may appear, in our estimation, andhowever simply and satisfactorily the Newtonian hypothesis may
seem to us to account for all the celestial phenomena, yet we arehere com pelled to admit the astounding truth, that i f our premises
be disputed and our fa cts challenged, the whole range o f Astronomy
does not contain the p r o o f o f its own accuracy ! Startling as thisannouncement may appear, it is nevertheless tr u e ; and astronomy
would, indeed, be helpless were it not for the countenance given to
it by the im plied approval o f those whose authority is considered aguarantee o f its truth. Should this sole refuge fail us, all ourarguments, all our observations , all our boasted accuracy would be
useless, and the whole science of astronomy must fall to the ground.”(5). G .M . challenges me to show that the observed lines of direction of thesun meet at one point if drawn from a globe, or (which is the same thing) tointroduce parallax in his figure 4. I decline, for if I did not draw it to scale
G.M . would say it didn’ t agree with the, facts ; and if I did draw it to scale I
should n»ed a piece of paper 1050 meters long !
(6.) G .M . asks if I am ignorant that the same apparent variation in the sun’s
altitude will result upon variation in observer’ s latitude or sun’ s declination. No,
I am not and I took particular care to eliminate the sun’ s variation in declination
by only arguing from the results of simultaneons observations at the equinox (orrather from what both sides, .have hitherto admitted would be the result of such
simultaneous observations if made, for I must own I have not myself travelled up
and down the meridian with a sextant.)

It must be evident to all men who think for themselves, that thewhole superstructure o f modern theoretical astronomy is based, firsto f all, on the S U P P O S E D stationary condition o f a centrally placedsun, which supposition was derived from another supposition, viz.,its supposed enormous bulk, this being deduced from a supposedparallax obtained by a pretended measurement o f a purely con­jectural base, from one side o f its imaginary orbit to the o th e r!
C ould professional device invent anything more glaringly fictitious ?
Alas ! that men can teach such glaring absurdities can only be
explained by the fact that there are in the world more gullible thanwise people.
Ed.

( I .) Mr. H arpur now introduces a fresh term— the real direction—
which he does not define, nor indicate how it is to be distinguishedfrom the apparent direction. I have never contended that “ a thingcan be in more than one place at a tim e.” I concede all he candesire, viz.. that the lines o f sight meet at the sun’s centre, as an
objective fact. H e has now to determine the actual position o f the
sun’s centre, as a mere point, considered mathematically. But thisactual position o f the point cannot be determined by the art ofmortal man.

i

>30

THE

EARTH

R EVIEW .

His “ real d ire ctio n ’' is a meaningless term, even though it betaken to represent the objective fa c t; for every line o f direction
derives its significance, subjectively, from its relativity to som e otherline with which it makes an angle.
In finding his latitude, the mariner deals with the apparent direction,
this results upon the observed altitude ; yet he is not lost upon the
trackless ocean because he cannot determine the sun’s actual position
in “ boundless space.” Mr, Harpur’s assertion is hasty, and isupset by practical navigation.
(2.) Mr. Harpur terms my humorous reference a mistake, which
he affects to have twice corrected. V ery well,— N ow the tngonometrical ratios vary according to the value o f an angle at the centre
of a c ir c le ; he has chosen, quite arbitrarily, the sun as the centre o f
his “ circle o f reference,” therefore, I say emphatically, that theangles o f his table of cotangents are angles at the sun, and are not
the angles o f the sun’s observed altitude above the horizon.
(3.) But as he still persists that his F ig 2 represents fairly the
sun’s observed altitudes ; and as he substitutes a very puerile attempt
at ridicule for solid argument with reference to my Fig. 3, it may bewell to exhibit the self-contradictory nature of his own paper.
So adapting the necessary portion o f his Fig. 2, we will illustrate
in F ig 5, by his own method, the logical results of his reasoning.

S, the sun as centre, E a point upon the eq u ator; S E radius equals
u n ity ; E B A a portion of the plane earth’s surface ; let angle
E S B equal 20°, then the distance E B substending the angle
equals 20° o f latitude, the com parative value being got from thetables, tan. 20° equals . 3639.

F A C T V. F IC T IO N .

131(Mr. Harpur copies “ Cotan. 20° equals . 3639; this is an error;
Cotan. 20° equals 2 . 7475 and is measured along the line R T atright angles to earth’s surface, i.e. from the heavens above to theabyss beneath— quite a novel direction for terrestrial latitude.
E B
is the cotan. o f the complementary angle B S R ; but Mr. Harpur’s
reasoning is concerning the angle o f 20° E S B o f which E B is
the tangent.)
W ith increase o f latitude, the tangent E B increases to E A ,sim ultaneously the contangent R T decreases to R A.
Obviously upon inspection, the line A S is a diagonal of thesquare E S R A upon the radius S E ; hence each o f its sides equals
unity, and each o f the acute angles at the points S and A made by
the diagonal with the sides, is an angle o f 45°. Therefore, to an
observer at A , the sun’s observed altitude (at equinox) is the angle
E A S equals 45°, hence his latitude is the angle E S A equals 45°;
its num erical value being that o f the tangent E A which equals unity,
which equals the sun’s vertical distance from earth, i.e. the orthodox
93,000,000 miles.
In his Fig. i Mr. H arpur instances B ordeaux as 45° latitude, by
the method o f the geographers, which he accepts as reasonable;
but by his method o f applying trigonometry he would have us accept
the distance o f Bordeaux from the equator as 93 millions o f miles,
instead o f about 2000 miles. Surely such a disparity in results must
lead even Mr. Harpur him self to see that he has utterly failed toestablish any connexion between the sun’s distance from earth andthe value o f the equatorial radius. O r again, the sun’s elevation of
45° indicates the station as the point which bisects the radius o f theequator, but by Mr. H arpur’s trigonometry it is the extremity o f theradius which is shown to be the point at which the sun’s observed
altitude o f 45° is obtained, although he is aware that the extremity of
the radius would give the sun’s altitude as o, at equinox.
Yetagain, the two lines o f direction to the sun, which make the equal
angles o f 45° with the same straight line o f the plane earth’s surface,at the points o f bisection and extrem ity o f the radius o f theequator— these two lines are parallel, therefore do not meet at the
sun’s centre as a point which can be indicated with the faintest
approximation to precision. Therefore his F ig 2 does not represent
the results o f actual observation, upon either the spherical or plane
earth theories.
A s to the spider simile— well, it may be supposed that the threefamous laws o f K ep ler which lie at the foundation o f modern
physical astronomy, also N ew ton’s Law o f Gravitation neither ofT^E; I 32EARTH

REVIEW .

which can be fairly dem onstrated to positiyely exist, w ere:th eproductions o f the authors’ “ in s id e s ;” with^what admiration then,should we not regard the quality o f that “ in sid e” which can educe
93. millions o f niiles as the y^lue o f earth’s radius! Clearly Mr.
H arpur should rank as Grand Master in this “ spin n in g ” business.
(4.) T h e reference to the southern hemisphere contains noargument relative to my statement as quoted by Mr. Harpur. Could
he but divine the simple cause which would be an effective reply to
his question— he would then understand how two lines o f sightmight meet at the sun’s centre, anc} yet that this caiinot be reduced
to construction as resulting upon actual observation. T h e simple
reason o f the inapplicability o f ordinary trigonometj-y to objects in
the heavens, as compared with a “ light on ,a mountain top ” may be
given in one word, thus, trigonometry, in its solution o f a triangle,
takes no cognizance o f perspective /, whereas every observation o f theheavens is affected by perspective. W e rnay, by our obliging Editor’s
permission, dilate a little on this subject in a subsequent paper.
(5.) Mr. Harpur has mistaken his vocation in assuming the ofBceo f Prophet. W ere he to present us with his gigantic' diagram, I
might probably quote his own m ethod of refutation.— “ H e hasm erely drawn it so.”T h e parallelism o f lines representing simultaneous observations of
the sun from various points o f latitude upon a globe is merely amatter o f the simplest geometry. L et Mr. H arpur illustrate bydiagram, but the proof o f his contrary contention must lie in his
reasoning, or demonstration.
(6). F or the sa ie o f simplicity, Mr. H arpur was right to confine
his attention in his paper to observations at the equinox. But
discussion has opened out the question.. W ell now, here is one
other test for him o f the simplest character.
N oon

at

the
Sun’s
observed
altitudes
being

equinox — simultaneous

observations — stations at

equator— lat 30° — 45° — 60° — ; go° ^ respectively theI
I^

Zenith60° — 45° ^ 30“ — 0°.

Mr. Harpur will be very clever if he can shoK reason why lines
drawn at these varying angles with the same straight line supposed
to represent a flat-earth, should m eet at the same point in theheavens.
G .M .

T H E W O N D E R F D L STONE.

THE

W ONDERFUL133

STONE.

T h e . present day educated generation, appear by the current(so-called Scientific) literature, to find great and absorbing satisfac, tion in reading Fairy ta le s ; it may, therefore, be well that thefollowing should find a place in this Review, thus giving our readers
an opportunity o f judgin g whether the educated part o f the com­munity are justified in their selection, and also as a means of„ handing down to the future, a specimen of nineteenth century
romance.
Several years ago Sir W illiam Thom son (now styled L ord Kelvin),
professor of ‘-N atural Philosophy ” and an acknowledged leader of
Scientific thought, narrated to a society o f “ P h ysicists” ttie Story o f
a W onderful S to n e ; this story, though then looked on as m erely ajoke or gammon by his fellow “ Scientists” has at different times
been ladled out with very learned solemnity by various time-serving
and wonder-mongering magazines and newspapers to their gaping
and wonderstruck readers, as the story o f the most wonderfulscientific discovery in this most highly educated and scientific age.
Stripping this wonderful story o f its long-winded word.s in which
the learned professor arrayed it, let us tell it in plain English.
O nce on a time (this is usually how fairy-tales comm ence), Sir
W illiam announced, he had discovered a Stone that was neither
more nor less than “ T h e Foundation Stone o f the whole Creationand that it was the very stone, he proved by his professor’s gown, his
professional dignity and salary, by his university titles, also by his
being an eminent “ physicist,” and, therefore, he had the right todictate b yw o rd s o f learned length and thundering sound, and byother such arguments, all of which are considered unanswerable
much less refutable by this nineteenth century generation. . T heprofessor guessed, as only an eminent scientist or doctissimus
professor can or has the exclusive right to do, that a stone once fell
' from somewhere skywards how long ago he could not, and, therefore,
need not sa y ; but it was likely, and indeed he was positive, because
it suited his theory to say so, that it fell somehow, somewhere, many
many millions o f years ago (the exact number o f millions has beenguessed a t !)This stone fell, not in the A tlantic Ocean or theriver Tham es, as there were not such things at the period guessed
a t ; nor did it fa ll on anybody’s head, as there was, he supposed,
nobody or nothing in the shape of man, m onkey or beast. Insect or*34

T H E E A R T H REVIEW .

cabbage, to be damaged by the fall. Luckily, however, the stone
fell somewhere,— hard or soft, he could not really say, nor evenguess at, but it fell, and that was sufficient, especially as it fell in thevery place that fitted the professor”s scientific gospel o f Evolution,
to which we com e later on. H ow big the stone was he couldn’t say,because he or anybody else did not see it. and it would be very
unscientific (not to say presumptuous) to question such professional
dignity by asking such a thing. W hether the curiosity was o f thegrindstone, whinstone or cherry-stone order, he did not s a y ; but it
was bound to be big enough and able enough to hold a seed ofgrass or other plant, or in fact, anything that would grow according
to Evolution.
T h e professor, however, guessed the stone wascertainly a bit o f some exploded planet, but to dare ask how heknew, or what planet it was, also the time, cause, manner, etc., o f
the explosion, etc., would be most unscientific, seeing there were no
witnesses o f the said explosion ; in fact, the whole affair was a firstclass thorough-going supposition ; but mark, not the supposition ofsuch ignorant fellows as Jules Verne, Tom , D ick or H a rry ; so that,as sure as W illiam is Sir W illiam or (now correctly speaking) Lord
K elvin, this supposition must be dubbed scientific and, therefore,
ought to be called an hypothesis.
So much for the original
fairy-tale.
T h e mysterious stone indeed was all the more wonderfully mys­
terious, in that, though guessed by his Lordship to be meteoric,
therefore bound to be highly heated and consequently ill adapted
for carrying seed, nevertheless, he supposed it did a job which no
meteoric stone could do ; the professor calling it m eteoric for wanto f some or a better name. N ext what makes this stone all themore wonderful is the wonderful seed, which did what no seed has
ever been known to do, for it produced (after many millions o f years
to do the wonderful job) more than one hundred thousand kinds
o f plants with all their seeds, which are known and unknown tobotanists, which seeds have scattered themselves very conveniently
for Evolution’s sake over all continents and islands, and under rivers,
lakes, seas and oceans. Another wonderful thing is, how the won­
derful seed managed to grow at all on this wonderful-highly-heatedm eteoric sto n e ; but, so many suppositions, deserve this one also, as
the supposition, known by the name o f Evolution, could not do
without it at a ll ; and though “ the laws o f nature ” are said to be“ fixed and unalterable,” yet it appears they may be altered andgenerally unfixed at Sir W illiam ’s pleasure for the sake o f his
wonderful conjuring stone. G od and M oses (whom the eminent

T H E W O N D E R F U L STO N E.

>35

professor never once condescended to notice throughout his tale)
have said, that in the beginning was created by G od ’s command, all. the plants producing seed after their kind, hence, as the plant, so is
the s e e d ; and as the seed, so the p la n t; such being the fixed orderfor the past six thousand years, no fa c t to the c o n tra ry ; yet, since
the eminent professor is voted an eminent physicist, it follows,that this scientific age votes Moses unscientific, or in plain English a
lia r ; then what, O my Lord K elvin, o f Jesus Christ, who endorsed,
confirmed and spoke so well o f the writings o f Moses ?
However, we may still have more wonders said to be sticking tothis wonderful stone, one unnameable seed (by whom or how stuck,
let Sir William say) changed, by a wonderful change o f “ nature’s
eternal and unchangeable laws ” into a wonderful fish, so wonderful,that the like has never been seen since, for it became the papa or
mamma (Sir W illiam does not know or care which) o f all the whales,
minnows, sharks and other fish that ever swam in salt or fresh
water. What next does Sir W illiam suppose about the ten thousandkinds o f birds, the one hundred thousand kinds o f insects, the one
thousand kinds o f reptiles, the twelve hundred kinds o f lizards, theseventeen hundred kinds o f mammals, and M ankind too ? So thatthe enlightened nineteenth century may be led to believe, there is
no G od to have created all ! Sir W illiam must evolve, or as theword means, “ roll out,” w hat? — Supposition after supposition, until
his dupes are in many cases, evolved, befogged, presumptuous—
atheists. Must Sir W illiam believe, that he is whirling and spinning
round at brain-reeling-rates on a tremendous turnip-shaped globe ofearth and water in somewhere called space, and that the immense
oceans with their profound depths, besides all animate and inanimate
things, are held on to this whirling-rushing-monstrosity by an assumed
power called gravitation, which assumed power is not sufficiently
powerful to keep the seed o f a thistle, or a butterfly from flying up,
nor a grasshopper jum ping up, whenever so disposed, thus ignoring
this assumed gravitation’s tremendous pulling power. A n d must thetitled professor, with others o f his way o f supposing, believe he andthey are the progeny o f a gibbering-chattering ape, rather thanhuman beings, made after the image o f G od ? Was Thom as Carlyle
very far wrong when he expressed the opinion “ that the present
generation are mostly fools ? ”(Collated by Iconoclast, from the writings of Alexander Mclnnes, of
Glasgow University.)

136

T H E E A R T H REVIEW .

Z E T E T IC

REFRACTION.

N o. II I.
B y James Naylor.
When once it i.s seen that a ray o f light— whether com ing obliquelyfrom the upper regions of the atmosphere to the lower or fromlower to the upper— always bends towards the horizontal, manyplausible New'tonian explanations evidently becom e im possible; atthe same time also some important Zetetic difficulties^ cease toexist. L et us give a few illustrations to show what we mean. T ake
lighthouses for instance, where it is well known that the lights, as arule, are visible for a much greater distance than the theory ofrotundity would allow. N ow the ordinary explanation here tenderedis that refraction apparently raises the elevated light so as to makeit visible for a greater distance than would otherwise be, possible,
but this explanation is evidently inaccurate, for, as we have seen theeffect of refraction from an elevated object is to apparently depress
that object and not to raise it. This apparent depression, therefore,
shortens the extreme position of visibility and does not lengthen it
as the theory o f rotundity requ ires; siinilar reasoning applies toelevated objects, such as mountains and to the distances at whichships can be seen at sea. F o r instance, the Alleghany Mountains in
the U .S .A . have been observed from the Peak of Teneriffe in the
Canary Islands. Ships have al-o been seen at sea when 200 miles
from the observer at the Port of Aden. N ow to explain these facts
the Newtonians can only urge refraction which, by the way, quite
apart from our argument, seems scarcely sufficient in these cases,.seeing that, in the former, it would make the Alleghanies appear
more than 700 miles above their true position and, in the latter,
about 26,000 feet. But we have seen that refraction does not tend
to seem ingly raise relatively elevated objects, but rather to depress
thein, and the ordinary explanation, therefore, becom es inadequate,
and only makes confusion more confounded.
W ith celestial objects it is just the same, the Pole Star to wit, hasbeen seen many degrees south o f the Equator, at which pointaccording to theory it would cease to be visible. T h e Sun, Moonand Stars also all appear earlier and set later than the tim es thattheory assigns to th e m ; and again, in all these cases, refraction ismade to seemingly render friendly help. B ut alas, in this case the
Newtonian may well say, “ save nre from my frien d s” for we seethat the effect o f refraction is just to reverse the positions and to
make the celestial objects appear later and set earlier than theywould, but for its operation. So also in the case o f the P ole Star,ZETETICREFRACTION.

'3 7

the effect is to shorten the extreme point o f visibility and not tolengthen it as appears to be the case.
T a ke also the matter o f H orizontal Eclipses where the Sun and
the M oon appear above the horizon together, and yet the latter isseen to be eclip se d ; here we have refraction again brought in to
explain the difficulty. But we now see that the explanation must be
perfectly useless and that refraction really adds to the difficulty
instead o f removing it. Indeed, we may say that as the phenomenon
stands without any explanation, the Newtonian is figuratively
chastised with whips, while, to drag in refraction, he is chastisedwith scorpions. In short, these illustrations clearly show that allalong the line Zetetic refraction puts an end to the seemingly
plausible Newtonians explanation o f phenomena that left unexplained
are irreconciable with and condem natory of, modern astronomical
theory.
W e will now see how it fares with some difficulties o f Zeteticism
and first as to why celestial objects do not always appear above aplane earth instead o f rising and setting as we know they do. Thisis a very common difficulty and one which P a ra lla x on pages 124 to
127 o f his book does not wholly remove.
Now, here Zetetic
refraction comes to render yeoman service for it shows that besides
the explanation o f the decrease in the visual angle which P a ra lla x
gives, there is also an apparent decrease o f elevation from refraction.
In short, that while the visual angle creates the impression of
decreased elevation, refraction com pletes that impression, by
apparently still further depressing the object under review. Unlessthen it can be shown, that the effect o f these com bined causes isinsufficient to explain the rising and setting o f celestial objects overa plane earth, the difficulty we have cited has no solid foundationand may be summarily dismissed.
Another difficulty closely allied to the preceding is the fact thatangles made by the Sun when viewed from different standpoints on
the same meridian, do not correspond with what geom etrically shouldbe the c a s e ; and here it may be freely conceded, that these angles
far more nearly correspond with the com mon theory than with
Zeteticism, though not so com pletely as some Newtonians would
have us believe.
But when Zetetic refraction is applied the
difficulty vanishes, for from it we see that the apparent angles cannever be geom etrical ones, but only accidental or emperical, and o fsuch a sort as cannot be determ ined by some a p rio ri rule, butmust be deduced from actual observation. W ith refraction playing
pranks amidst the real angles and substituting others o f its own

<38

T H E E A R TH REVIEW .

creation, whose relation to the real ones cannot be ascertained, it isevident that accuracy from angular measurement is scarcely to be
expected, and indeed is not conceivably possible. It was the neglecto f this consideration that made C . H a r p u r ’ s argument in a recent
number o f the Review to appear so formidable on paper and soabsurd away from it. Indeed, so long as refraction exists, the same
fate must fall upon all attem pts to disprove a plane earth, byshowing that some celestial phenomena in which refraction must
perforce be the all controlling, but unknown quantity is inconsistantwith the plane earth position. T h e same consideration also forbids
any positive statements as to the distance o f the heavenly bodies
above a plane, for, as these distances can only be determ ined by them easurement o f angles, and as the observed angles can in no sense
correspond with the real ones, all positive statements are evidently
rendered futile and the best results can only be considered as
approximate.
But, besides destroying Newtonian explanations and rem oving
Zetetic difficulties, refraction furnishes important corroborative
testimony to the fact that the Earth is a plane. F or instance itis well known that when the atmosphere is clear and free fromhumidity or any cause likely to retard the progress o f light that thenwe have objects seen at much greater distances than is normally thecase. A t those times the amount o f refraction o f necessity is less,and upon a plane* earth, objects would, therefore, naturally be seen
longer than usual. But not so with rotundity, for with it when theatmosphere was clear and refraction scarcely present, objects would
disappear at the stated distances, prescribed by theory. In otherwords, in clear weather and with refraction operating as we havedescribed, objects upon a plane earth would be visible longer than ■usual, ju st as we find to be the case. But with a globular earth thereverse would follow, for in clear weather objects would be seen
shorter than usual, a position which is demonstrably contrary to fact
and logically absurd. T hus the right view o f refraction furnishes
cum ulative evidence for a plane earth, by accurately accounting forphenomena whose peculiarities can only be reconciled with such afact.
T h e devastation caused by Z etetic refraction am ong Newtonian
havens o f refuge from difficulties, will naturally cause the stautest
opposition to be offered to the former. W e will, therefore, in our
next and concluding article com pel the acceptance o f our position,or else place the Newtonians upon the horns o f a form idable
dilemma.

( T o be continued).

T H E SUN -D IAL.

THE

*39

SUN-DIAL.

B Y “ Z E T E T E S .”“ H e hath founded the earth upon her bases, that it should npt be yemoved fo r
ever.” — Psa. civ, 5 (MarginI.

' E have been taught from childhood to believe that the world welive in is a large ball or globe, revolving on its axis, atid moving
through space at a terrific r a te ; and what is perhaps more to be
regretted, we have never been taught to investigate these things for our­selves, but to receive as infallible all that is taught us bv learned men
in the name o f science. But since much that is called “ science” isdirectly contrary to G od ’s W ord, and is leading men to doubt, toquestion, and to deny that W ord, it is quite time that Christians
should make a stand, and begin to question the other side. I f theworld be a revolving globe, as astronomers and infidels say it is, we
ought to have some dem onstrable proof o f it, But where is thisproof? And, on the other hand, i f the earth be a stationary and out­
stretched plane, as the Bible teaches it is, there is surely some simple
way o f proving this. Astronom y shrouds the question in figures andmystery, and pretends that it is above the conception o f ordinary
m inds; but the Bible again and again refers to the works ot theCreator as being understandable and sought out o f all them that havepleasure therein. Psa, cxi. 2, 4.
Let us take one instance. T h e B ible teaches that day and night arecaused by the motion o f the Sun over a stationary Earth ; whereas
Astronomy affirms that it is the earth which moves, and not the Sun,as the cause o f day and n i^ t . Gen. i, 1 6 ; Josh, x, t2, r3 ; Psa. xix,
4-6, and civ, 5 ; Matt, v, 45 ; L u ke iv, 5. N ow one o f these two
positions must be w ro n g; they cannot both be r ig h t! W hich is it,“ Science” or the B ible ? G enesis or the Principia ? T h e Prophetsor the Astronomers ? O ur own senses tell us it is the Sun whichmoves, and not the earth ; but the Astronom ers say that we must notbelieve our senses in this matter, as they only deceive us ! But can
we not find, some other impartial witness ? Y es ! T h e sun-dial shalltestify; or rather the sun itself, as it shines above us in the heaven.
Isa. xxxviii, 8.
Now if, as we contend, the Sun moves around the North
Centre, above a plane and stationary. Earth, it is evident that thegnomon (stile, pin, or colum n) o f the sun-dial will cast a shadow
which also moves in some part o f a circle, or ellipse. A t the northcentre the shadow will describe a semi circle in twelve hours, as the
sun circled about i t ; but in our latitude it would describe a semi­

T H E E A R T H REVIEW .

ellipse, or elongated curve. On the other hand, if the earth turn on
its axis before a relatively stationary Sun, directly above or near theequator, the end of the shadow on the sun-dial would describe astraight line, on or parallel to the equator. This, can be tested by asim ple experim ent or two.
P lace a small upright column (a narrow bottle, or a piece of wood)in, or near, the centre o f a stationary table in a darkened room ; thencarry a lighted candle close around and a little above the table, so as
to cast a shadow on the table. It will be seen that the end o f the
shadow cast by the column will describe a curve more or less cir­cular. N ext take a paste-board globe and fasten on to it a piece o fwood, as a gnomon, pe>-pendicular to its surface, and somewhere northof, or near to, the equator. Then, holding your candle quite still some­where opposite, or nearly opposite, to the equator, turn your globe on
its axis perpendicularly, and you will find that the end of the shadowo f the gnom on will describe a straight line. I f the gnomon be placedon the equator, while the sun or light is also opposite to the equator it isevident that the .shadow must fall on the equator somewhere the wholeo f the twelve hours, and so it would describe a straight line ; and if
the gnom on be placed north o f the equator, while the sun is on, or
opposite to, the equator, it is also evident that, as the sun apparently
traverses the line o f the equator during the day, the end o f the shadowof the gnomon would also describe a straight line north of, but parallelto the equator ! T hus, all our shadows ought to m ove in straight lines ■on horizontal planes if the common theory were true.
But again, take an upright rod, or pole, and fix it perpendicularly inyour garden, somewhere so as to catch the rays o f the sun all day, andthen watch the shadow' of the rod for about twelve hours or more.
E very quarter of an hour place a small stone, or better still, fix a small
stake at the extrem ity of the shadow ; and then at the end of the day
you will have the line described by the shadow.
Y o u will find it to
be a curve ! In London, about the beginning o f May, the curve formedin twelve hours is the h alf o f an ellipse, the greater diam eter o f which
is about three times longer than the shorter diameter. T est it indifferent places, or in the same place at different tim e s; and you will
have the data for proving the Sun’s own peculiar motion above a
stationary E arth ! T h e same data also go to prove the distance o f
the Sun from the Earth, and that the Sun is never more than three orfour ttiousand miles o f f ! T his may be shown by plane triangulation ;just as we measure the height o f a tree, or a church steeple, etc. T hus
the shadows of the Sun faithfully and silently testify that the B ible isright, and that “ science ” has, in this m atter at least, been “ falsely
so-called.’

I. Tim . iv, 20.

T H E E A R T H REVIEW .

141

T ruly the heavens declare the glory of God, if we only know how
to read them aright. T h e shadows, like the handwriting and words
o f the angel, are indeed written upon the w 'all; but cannot the wise
men o f Babylon, the astronomers, the stargazers, and the soothsayers,
make known the interpretation thereof unto the king? By the shadowo f a column in a square, by the shadows o f the lamps in the streets,by the shadows of the trees in the fields, and in a hundred otherways, does the Sun (and the moon), like a faithful witness in heaven,silently and daily gives evidence o f the truth o f God, and the lie :if
the Serpent. Psa. Ixxxix, 37. I t testifies to its own proper motion,and to the im m ovability o f the earth. Psa. xix, 6 ; I Sam, ii, 8. Natureand the Word o f G od have one voice ; and they both speak the Truth.
T hey both alike testify that the “ lights” o f Heaven
circle aroundan “ outstretched ” and stationary Earth beneath ; and that this Earth(or “ dry land”) again rests, like a great float, upon the waters o f thegreat deep, or “ abyss,” below the Earth. T h e fact that the surface of
these waters is level also proves it. .“MI the ancients believed it, theprophets, and wise men o f o ld ; the Apostles, and early Christian
writers ; our own forefathers ; in short it has been the belief o f all thebest men in the world for over five thousand years ! See Gen. i, 2, 10 ;and xlix, 25 ; Ex. xx, 4 ; Psa. xxiv, 2 ; and civ, 6 ; Luke viii, 31 (Rev.
V e r .); and Rev. xx, 3.
“ I f it shall turn out that Joshua was superior to Laplace, that
Moses knew more about geology than Hum bolt, that Job as a scientist
was the superior o f Kepler, that Isaiah knew more than Copernicus. . . . then 1 w ill admit that infidelity must become speechless f o r ever."
Ingersoll’s T ilt with Talmage.

THE

CONTENTSOF

Dear Leo C astle,— Thank you foryour encouragement. It is helpful at
all times when we encounter so muchopposition. My meeting was a success,but we did not have as much opposition
as I could wish for. I enclose 7/6 as athank-offering for your kindness to us.
This small amount represents the good­
will, the kindly sympathy, and thehumble efforts of some of the working
men in South Shields, who attend ouropen-air meetings.

OUR

LETTERBOX.

It is with heartfelt thanks that we
acknowledge receipt of above ‘ ‘ thankoffering ” from the open-air Church,Market Place, S. Shields. Such con­tributions are exceedingly encouraging
as it is practical evidence that theirhearts are in the work, and not merely
their Ups.— [E d .]Dear Sir,— The “ Earth R e v ie w ” i^better than ever this quarter.
The
article on “ Universal G ravitation ” isa bomb in the globular camp that theyT H E E A R TH REVIEW .
142

>43

T H E E A R T H REVIEW .

cannot extinguish! W hen shall wehave our “ R e v ie w ” m onthly? It is
most urgently needed, I will do myvery best to m ake it better known.
The astounding admissions made bya man of such ' “ scientific ” eminence as
Professor W. B. Carpenter, respecting
the fundamental basis of Newtonian
astronomy which he and others havecarefully educated the Public into be­lieving to be a verified and demonstrated
law o f nature, is crushing evidence
against the globular theory. This mustcertainly contribute to a wholesome
reaction, and cause a little more respectfor Biblical astronomy and cosmography
which is at all points irreconcilably
opposed to modern astronomy— and islike a dash of cold Abater in the face ofthat “ public opinion ” which they havecarefully manufactured. “ T he mills of
God grind slowly— but they G R IN D ! ”

Sir,— In the latest text book on “ TheMovements and Shape of the E arth,”by J. Norman Lockyer, F .R . S., &c., &c.
cuilib-, I find chap. III. headed “ The
Earth is a sphere,” and this without theslightest attempt of proof in the two
preceding chapters,— this method isknown as begging the question, in themost beggarly manner too— however,the Professor proceeds to quietly trotout the “ Vanishing Ship T rick ,” which
is idubbed a fa m ilia r fa c t in proof of
sphericity, and then cites the disappear­
ance of the constellations The Pole Starand The Great Bear, on sailing south ;lastly, the “ A nalogy J u g g le ” is per­formed, viz., as the sun, moon, and all
the known planets are round (spherical)
therefore the earth must be also ; thissurely may be called “ A scientificphysiographical-climb-do wn, ” f or where
and oh where are the other so-called
proofs of the schools ? echo answers,
gone where the above mentioned threemust eventually g o !— to the lumber
heap.
Further on in the same enlightening
primer, the supposed movements of this
supposed sphere are assumed to be provedby sundry humming-top arrangements
called “ Gyroscopes,” pretty illustrationsof which are given, and then follows
Mons. Foucault’ s smashed-up “ pendu­
lum business,’ just to attempt to put
some sort of face of reality on the fraud,and still more entangle the dupes whoare compelled to cram themselves withsuch husks, to procure Government andClerical appointments, whereby to se­cure an existence ; meanwhile the pro­fessors who ladle out such stuff andnonsense, complacently pocket the fees,
and adorn each other with long sounding
titles, such as, F .R .A .S ., F .M .S ., and
A.S. 3.
Yours respectfully,
H. H. S i m s .

mean levels. In reply Sir W . Denison
said, he was assured by the Frenchengineers on the works, that the M EAN
L E V E L O F T H E T W O S E A S W AS
T H E S A M E . [Mediterranean and Red
Sea]. In the Echo of June 6th 1887,
I read, “ In the report on the Panama
Canal submitted to the Academy of
Sciences by Mr. Bouguet de la Grye,
who is, says the Times Paris Corespon­
dent, “ the highest authority in suchquestions,” he states that it would bequite useless to construct locks. HE
R E M A R K S T H A T N O D IF F E R ­E N C E O F L E V E L C A N E X IS T
B E T W E E N T H E A T L A N T IC AND
T H E P A C IF IC .

Then in the quotation by you fromThe Age, o f Aug. 5th, 1893, respecting
the Baltic and North Sea Canal, we areinformed that T H E S U R F A C E OFT H E TW O SEAS A R E LEVEL.
N ext we have a report of recent levelling
R. B r a d l e y .
operations carried on in Russia. See
D a ily Chronicle, Feb. 12th, 1895, inD ear Sir,— T he proceedings of our which we read, “ T he deadly flatness ofrotundity friends, from time to time,
the great plain of Russia is remarkably
reminds me very forcibly of an old say­ shown by the levelling operations now
ing which I have heard repeated many com pleted.” Accurate observations weretimes, viz.— “ Let them have plenty of made at 1,090 stations, yet the highestrope, and Ithey will hang them selves.”
point noted was 1,086 ft.
A moreThe proceedings to which I allude are important, though less expected, result
the levelling operations of which we was T H E E S T A B L IS H M E N T OF
frequently hear. In looking over the T H E I D E N T I T Y O F L E V E L B E­
Parliamentary reports of a discussion in T W E E N T H E B A L T I C , B L A C K ,1867, on the Suez Canal question; I find A N D A Z O F F S E A S . W ell, if thethat after a long discussion they con­ Mediterranean,
the Red Sea, thecluded that there was not a difference of Atlantic, the Pacific, the Baltic, North
30 ft. but only 2 ft. 6 in. between the Sea, Black Sea, and the Sea o f Azoff
level of the two seas. But the Astronomer are level ; we may soon have to ask
Royal said that he was tolerably familiar where we are to find rotundity. We
with the work in French which was may have to wait for an answer as not­drawn up by the joint commission of withstanding these surprising discoveries
Engineers of which the late Mr. Steven­ of level surfaces, no doubt ships will
still follow the natural order of things,
son was one, and his impression was,that after correcting the enormous errors and on these level surfaces disappear as
in previous surveys, he found no per­ heretofore, viz., “ H ull first.”
ceptible difference in the mean level ofYours truly,
the two seas ! H e would be glad to becertified whether there was, in fact, aR. A l f r e y .
difference of 2 ft. 6 in. between the

Dear Sir,— Herewith by this post I
send back M SS. and cuttings for theuse of which I am extremely obliged.
The information on the dipping needle
is very good and will be useful, I findpeople often ask questions about things
they do not understand anything about.

1

The article on Gravitation in last issue
is the very thing required, and provesthat they have exploded their own globe !
In levelling, I work from ordinancemarks or canal levels t.) get the height
above s e a l e v e l .
I nearly always use canal levels, know­
ing that within six inches the levels arealways the same
I work sometimes
from what is known as the Wolverhamp­
ton Level, this is said to be 473 ■19 ft.
above the s e a l e v e l ; sometimes I workfrom the Birmingham l e v e l , this is said
to be 453 -04ft. above the S E A L E V E L .
Sometimes I work from the W alsall
L E V E L , this is said to be 407 ■89 ft. above
the S E A L E V E L . The puzzle to me
used to be, that though each extends
several miles each level was and is treated
T H R O U G H O U T its whole length as t h e
SA M E .L E V E L F R O M E N D T O E N D ; notthe least allowance being made fo r cur­vature, although if the earth be a globe,
112 feet ought to be allowed.
In the following levels I give distancesin miles ignoring fractional parts. Eachlevel is connected by locks to the others,
but there is no lock from end to end on
the levels. I do not take any notice ofbends, but take straight lines from point
to point. Let us take the highest level
first:— The Wolverhampton Level, viz—473 ■>9 ft- fro™ the end of the
first
Cannock extension to Smethwick
line
is 13 miles. 13 X 13 = 1 6 9 x 8 =648 = 1 12 feet,secondCannock to Whiton, 9 miles
fall = 54 feet,third
Whiton to Smethwick, 9 miles
fall = 54 feet
Let us now take the Middle Level,
viz.— T he Birmingham Level453 • 04 feet,first
Birmington to Tipton, 7 miles
fall = 3 2 - 8 feet,second Tipton to Selly Oak, 8 miles
fall = 42 ■8 feet.
Let us now take the Lowest Level,
W alsall.
This is 407 • 89 feet above the
Sea L E V E L ,first
W'alsall to Great Bridge, 5 miles
fall = 16 • 8 feetsecond Clarke’ s Lane to Perry Bar Stop,
6 miles fall = 2 4 - 0 feet.

T

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

144

N o matter vvhat part of, the level isused in each, the same figure is used asgiven above for each separate level,
whether the ends or the middle, noallowance for the “ curvature” said toexist is ever thought o f let alone made.
The study of “ Earth not a Globe ” .,by
“ Parallax ” , sets the matter in its
projer light, In a conversation withANSWERSTO

one of the Civil Engineers in this district,after some amount o f argument on each .
side as to the reason why no allowancefor curvature was allowed, he said, he
did not believe anybody would know the
shape of the earth in this life.
''

3 A R T H ’NOT A G L0B E -}^£ Y

I

Yours faithfully,!

T. W estw o o d .

CORRESPONOENTS.

.\I1 letters 10 the Editor should be- briefly and l e g i b l y written on one sideof the paper only. T hey must l)e accompanied by the name and address o f thewriter, as a guarantee o f good faith! W here replies are requested by post, thepostage must be enclosed. The Editor does not hold hiiiiself responsible for theopinions expressed by corresp6ndents. A ll letters must be prepaid and addressedto-T H E -

■

' ■
■ ■ .
LEO

CASTLE,
c/o M r . J.

w il l ia m s ,32, Bankside, L o n d o n , S. E.

C . H A R PtJK .— T h a n k s fo r y o u r le t te r , w h ic h w e c a n n o t in se rt.

11. V e ' I t e r l i n g , and others writing on the same subject.— Wlien absolu tely,
practical measurements South o f the Equator are made, we are sure that they
will be in confirmation o f the fa c t that th e,‘ ‘ Earth ” is a vast irregular Plane.
It is an utter impossibility for one fact to contradict or set aside another fact.
Zetetics South of the Equator are seeking the desired information.
We
accept Truth from anyone. May we suggest that your question ; in fact A L L .
questions relating to the subject, “ In what direction did Mr. C . E.
Bprchgrevink see the Southern Midnight Sun,” be sent direct to that gentle­
man, and his answer sent direct to us for publication. His answer should be
confirmed by the signature of the whole of the crew, for the cabin-boy’ s ;statement on such a matter is equ ally: as good as any Professor’s. Thanks
for papers sent.
J, B r a d l e y . — Hearty thanks for your promised help. T he quotation, “ W eshall take for granted from the outset the Copernican system of the W orld,”
etc., will be found in H ei schel's Astronomy, p. 4, 5.
G. H. C o w P E R . — Thanks for your kind letter and cutting. W e have no reasons
to believe that the statements made by Mr. Borchgrevink are either true or
false, anyway they do not afifect ; the fact that the surface shape o fwater everywhere is L E V E L .
e d i t o r i a l ; N OTICES.

tSsf* Please to ask for “ T he Earth— not a Globe— R eview .” at all Newsagents,
Reading Rooms, and Railway Bookstalls.! T o be had direct from the Hon Sec.,
post free, to any address in the postal union for lod. per year, in advance.
A ll monies for the Society must be paid direct to the local Vice-Secretaries,
or direct to the Hon. Secretary and Treasurer, Jno, W illiam s. Post Office
Orders to be made payable at Sumner Street, S .E .

V o l. L

N o.

1 ( M o n t h ly S e r ie s ).

APRIL, 1896.

“ UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION,
ASSUMPTION.”P r ic e I d .

A PUREB y L eo C a s t l e .

No. III.
Dedicated to T h e E d it o r of Reynolds's Newspaper.

The silent admission of the impregnable position of Zeteticism leads us to believethat the Editor of Reynolda'i Neiv-^aper has read the following or similar extracts:—“ W e have any quantity of hypotheses thrust upon us as discoveries, which are
merely false knowledge that later science will have to unlearn !
A s a matter o f fact
the fashionable notions which are paraded as Science stand only because theiradvocates shut their eyes to realities, make assertions with little or no fact to startfrom, ignore the facts which do not suit them, refuse to meet objections, and ignore
any really scientific (that is provable) explanations which do not agree with thespecialistic facts.” — S ig m a , English Mechanic, Oct. 5th, 1894.

“ The repetition of a blunder is impertinent and ridiculous.
Toliberate oneself from an error is difficult, sometimes indeed impossible
for even the strongest and most gifted minds. But to take up theerror of another, and persist in it with stifif-necked obstinacy, is a proofof poor qualities.
The obstinacy of a man of originality when he errs
may make us angry, but the stupidity of the copyist irritates andrenders us miserable.
And if, in our strife with (Sir Isaac) Newton,
we have sometimes passed the bounds of moderation, the whole blameis to be laid upon the school of which Newton was the head, whose
incompetence is proportional to its arrogance, whose laziness is pro­portional to its self-sufficiency, and whose virulence and love of
persecution hold each other in perfect equilibrium.” “ Through thewhole of Newton’s experiments (?) there runs a display of pedantic
accuracy, but how the matter really stands, with Newton’s gift ofobservation, and with his experimental aptitudes, every man possessing
eyes and senses may make himself aware. It may be boldly asked,
where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of