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

24

A P R A C T IC A L M A N ON

A Member of the “ Mutual Admiration Society,” and an enthusiastic admirer ofProfessor Huxley, called on a friend to invite him to come and hear the Professor on
Protoplasm. He spoke so extravagantly about him that his friend finally became
curious, and asked— “ W ho in the world is this Huxley, anyway? ”

IiIa slobe-;^ E V IE W .

PROTOPLASM .

iV/ten the majestic form o f Truth stands before the bar o f justice,that hideous monster, E rro r, hangs its head in silence.

H u x l e y i t e . — “ You don’ t mean to say you have not heard about Professor Huxley,
the great scientist ? ’ ’
P r a c t i c a l M a n . — “ Yes I do though ; never heard his name before; what has

he done ? ”“ Parallax ” Experimentally Proving W ater to be Horizontal.

H .— “ W hy, man, Huxley made the important discovery about Protoplasm. ”
P. M .— “ About what?
is Protoplasm ? ’ ’

Protoplasm?

And what in the name of common sense

H .— •“ Now look here, you don’ t mean to sit there and tell me you don’ t knowwhat Protoplasm is ? ”
P. M .— “ T hat’s just it.

Can you tell me what is Protoplasm ? ”

N o . 2 ( N e w S e r i e s ).

THE

J A N U A R Y , 1895.

P r ic e

2 .^-P R E T E N S IO N S A N D P R E T E N C E S OF
MODERN ASTRONOMY.
B y Jam es Naylor.

H .— ^“ W ell, Protoplasm is— yes— is— well— what we call ‘ the life principle.”P. M .— “ O, I see ! It’ s something to do with life insurance societies, and Huxley
is a successful canvasser, eh ? ”
H .— •“ O, nonsense, if isvital action.”

the life principle in nature— the starting point of

P. M .— “ O ! he discovered that, did h e ? ”
H.'— “ Yes, he discovered it some years ago in England.”P. M .— “ And what good is it a going to do ? ”
H .— “ Good ? A great deal of good. It expands the circle of human knowledge,
and is valuable in bearing out the theory of Evolution. ■It is a noble and most imp­
ortant contribution to science, and it has made Huxley one of the few immortal namesthat were not born to die.”P. M .— “ So Huxley knows all about the life principle, does.he ? ”
H .— “ Yes, all about it.”
P. M .— ^“ And the starting point of vital action? ”
H .— “ Yes, all about it.”
P. M .— “ W ell, see here now : can he take some of that Protoplasm and make aman, or a horse, or an elephant with it ? ”
H .— “ O no, of course he couldn’t do that.”
P. M .— “ Can he take it and make anything at all of it— even a gnat or a fly ? ”
H .— “ O no, of course not.”P. M .— “ W ell then, Huxley may just go to Jerico with his Protoplasm. I don’t
believe its worth two cents a pound, anyhow. It appears to me those scientificfellows put on a big lot of airs about very little things. Protoplasm, eh ! Shouldn’t
wonder if Huxley came over here to get up a company to work it. I tell you what itis, my friend, its a swindle. Did you say the mine is in England ? ”
E x it H u x l e y it e .

Yankee Judy.

( Concluded.)
Now it is impossible not to see as these pretences are pointed out,that K epler’s first law is a palpable absurdity, and one is irresistibly
reminded of the definition o f the crab, said to have been given by the
French lexicographers “ as a large red fish, which walked backwards ! ”
This definition on being submitted to Cuvier was stated by him to be
P E R F E C T L Y C O R R E C T , except that the crab was not large, was not a fish,
was not red and did not walk b ack w ard ! So with K ep ler’s first law“ Ma/ the planets revolve in ellipitical orbits, the sun being situated in
one o f the fo ci.” This also is “ perfectly correct,” except that theplanets do not revolve, do not move in orbits, do not describe ellipses, anddo not have the sun occupying their common foci. T h e lexicographer’s
definition of the crab was absurd, and K ep ler’s first law is equally
so. O f course it can be replied to our position that the law holds good
IF T H E S U N IS S U P P O S E D T O B E S T A T I O N A R Y , and such a supposition itis alleged enables the planetary motions to be much more easily appre­
hended. But this argument practically gives itself away. It justifies
our charge to the letter, viz., that the commonly taught doctrines o f theplanetary motions are but a gigantic pretence, put for a set o f conditions
with which they have no common agreement. A simple illustration will
make the absurdity of the argument perfectly clear.
There are a number o f persons going along the road, and while one
in particular keeps straight forward, the rest proceed irregularly, being
sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left, then to the front, and yet
again to the rear o f him. These movements well illustrate the astron­omer’s teachings as to the motions o f the sun t n d the planets. Now

26

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W .

should we not deem a person as qualifying for a lunatic asylum, who
observing the movements o f these persons gravely informed us we could
much better understand their character if we supposed the persons as
not moving forward at all, but as marching around the particular indi­vidual whom we characterized as moving along straight in front of him.
Y e t this is precisely the kind o f argument under review, for in it we are
gravely told that continuous forward movement, in all but the case of
the sun, most erratic in character, can b e best understood by supposing
no forward m ovem ent at all, but a fixed point occupied by the sun, andthe planets m oving regularly round it. T ru ly absurdity could scarcely
go to greater length, and having pointed it out we may well leave theexposure o f further pretences to a future paper.
Before concluding the present one, however, it will be necessary todispose o f one or two refuges into which the perplexed Newtonian ■astronomer may betake himself. First, let us amply justify our state­m ent o f the sun’s alleged motion through space, for ordinarily thismatter is not brought prominently forth in the usual works on astronomy.
O ur first extract shall be from Beeton’s D ictionary o f Science, p. 1556 :“ T h e elder H erschel having exam ined the subject, announced that likethe stars, the sun and its attendant planets were also subject to transla­tion in space. H e announced that the solar system was m oving towards
a point in the heavens near the (a) star (in) Hercules. T hese views
have been confirmed by the subsequent researches of Sir William
H erschel, Strave, Arlegander and others, the very latest view o f thesubject gives the motion o f the sun and its planets as being at the rateof 150,000,000 miles yearly.” T h e foregoing extract clearly states theastronomical behef o f the sun’s motion through space in a right line
accom panied by the planets. T h e following extract from Bali’s E le­ments o f Astronomy, p. 329, arts. 133, shows what effect such motion
must have on the orbit o f the earth :— “ W e thus see that the real
motion o f the earth in space is o f a very complicated character, forthough it describes an ellipse about the sun in the focus, yet the sun isitself in constant inotion, and consequently the real motion o f the earth
is a composite movement, partly arising from its own proper motion
around the sun, and partly arising from the fact that as a member of thesolar system, the earth partakes o f the motions of the solar system inspace.” T h is extract shows, that so far from the orbit o f the earth being
similar to the neatly drawn ellipses that we see in astronomical works,
such orbit is adm ittedly both o f a composite and a complicated character.
T he next extract from Y o u n g’s General Astronomy, art. 804 and 806
p.p. 460, 461, still further elucidates the kind o f movement, and we may
also state here, that the figure referred to (p. 217) is nearly a fac simile
as regards the path fcf the earth to the one we have produced. Ther R E T E N S I O N S & P R E T E N C E S o f M O D E R N A STRO N O M Y .

27will also illustrate an astronomer’s easy way o f getting over adifficulty, viz., by calling opponents names, when reason and argument
are really the things required. “ T h e proper motion o f the stars are
due partly to their own real motion, and partly also to the motion of oursun, which is m oving swiftly through space, taking with it the earth andthe planets. T h e velocity o f the sun’s motion m space is about 16
miles per second, but this result must be considered as very uncertain. . It is to be noted that this sw ift motion o f the solar system,
while of course it affects the real motion of the planets in space convert­
ing them into a sort of corkscrew spiral (like the figure p. 217), does
not in the least affect the relative motion o f sun and planets, as someparadoxers have supposed it must.” W e trust to thoroughly expose
the professor’s opinions in our next paper as to not affecting the relative
motion o f sun and planets, meanwhile the following opinions o f Edward
C arp e n te r (who certainly cannot be called a paradoxer) taken from his' “ Civilization its Cause and C u r e ” p.p. 53 to 55, will be an excellent
foil to the Professor’s statement that only paradoxers differ from him on
this particular matter. “ O r to take an instance from astronomy. W e
are accustomed to say that the path o f the moon is an ellipse. But thisis a very loose statement. On enquiry we find that owing to pertubations supposed to be produced by the sun, the path deviates consider­ably from an ellipse. In fact in strict calculations it is taken as being acertain ellipse only f o r an instant— VaQ next moment it is supposed to
be a portion of another ellipse. W e might then call the path an irre­
gular curve somewhat resembling an ellipse. This is a new view. But
on further enquiry it appears that while the moon is going round theearth, the earth itself is speeding on through space about the sun inconsequence of which the actual path o f the moon does not in the least
resemble an ellipse. Finally the sun itself is in motion with regard to
the fixed stars, and t h e y are in movem ent too.
W hat then is the patho f the moon 1 N o one knows— we have not the faintest idea— the word
' itself ceases to have any assignable meaning. It is tjrue that if we agree
to ignore the pertubations produced by the sun— as in fact we d oignore pertubations produced by the planets and other bodies— and if
we agree to ignore the motion o f the earth and the flight o f the solar
sy stem through space, and even the movement o f any centre roundwhich that may be speeding, we may then s a y that the moon moves in
ellipse. But this has obviously nothing to do with actual facts.
The
moon does not move in an ellipse— not even relatively to the earthande x tra c t

probably never has done, and never will do so.

It m aybe a convenient

view, or fiction to say that it would do so under such and such circum ­stan ces — but it is only a fiction.

T o attempt to isolate a small portionof the phenomena from the rest in a universe o f which the u n i t y is one

TH E

EARTH

R E V IE W .

o f science’s most cherished convictions, is obviously self-stultifying anduseless.
But you say it can be proved by mathematics that the ellipse would
be the path under these conditions; to which I rep’ y that the mathe­
matical proof though no doubt cogent to the human mind (as at present
constituted in most people) is open to the same objection that it does
not deal with actual facts. It deals with a mental supposition, i.e., that
there are only two bodies acting on each oth er— a case which neverhas occurred and never can occur— and then assuming the law ofgravitation (w hich is ju s t the thing which has to be proved),
it arrives at a mental formula the ellipse. But to argue from this pro­
cess that the ellipse is really a thing in nature, and that the heavenly
bodies do move, or even tend to move, in ellipses, is obviously a mostunwarrantable leap in the dark. Finally you argue that the leap is war­
ranted, because, by assuming that the moon and planets move in
ellipses, you can actually foretell things that happen, as for instance theoccurrence o f eclipses, and in reply to that I can only say that Tycho
Brahe foretold eclipses almost as well by assuming that the heavenly
bodies m oved in epicycles, and that modern astronomers actually doapply the epicycle theory in their mathematical formulse. T h e epicycles
were an assumption made for a certain purpose, and the ellipses are anassumption made for the same purpose. In some respects the ellipse isa more convenient fiction than the epicycle, but it is no less a fiction.
Few words are needed after such a crushing condemnation of current
astronomical teaching as is given in the foregoing. It will only benecessary to point out that all the ordinary refuges o f the astronomical
devotee are disposed of. H e cannot plead that the motion o f thesolar system in space is a myth and not taught by the astronomers. It
is useless also to insist that the views we have put forth are mere Zetetic
misapprehensions. T h e quotations from Edw. Carpenter effectually dis­poses o f that. Neither can it be alleged that the diagram is a distorted
perversion o f the case, for in all its essential features, it is but a counter-,part o f Professor Y ou n g’s ! 'What other ways may be urged for mini­
mizing our position we will not attempt to point out.

IM A G IN A R Y

ASTRONOMY.

B y A lex . M chines.
The Readers o f the “ Arabian Nights ” and Baion Munchausen’s “ Voyage to the;\Ioon,” can, with ease and delight, turn to the romance of iMotlern Astronomy ; thepopular text book being that by Herschel.
After taking advantage of the universal ignorance of true perspective, so as to make“ students ” of astronomy believe that the surface of the sea is globular, and per­suading simpletons that they cannot judge of motion by the senses, he a s k s us to

IM A G IN A R Y

ASTRO N O M Y.

29

imagine those vast tracts of land called continents, adhering fast to oceans unfathom­able yet as rigid as steel, so as to make something like a little school-room globe.
Next, we are to imagine ourselves little flies, or midgets, crawling on the globe,
off which we cannot fall, though it whirls faster than lightning. But the children’s
toy needs an axis to whirl round, so that day and night may be accounted for, and so«e are accordingly told that there is an imaginary one, that is, there is an axis, but
it is inside our brains. Then the im aginary aj;»Vhastwo ends, called “ North andSouth Poles,” also imaginary. Now the word axis means axle, or axletree, andtherefore, the imaginary axis must be itself a pole. Thus, Herschel’s axis with two
ends are three poles, and yet no poles at all, being only imaginary. Whoever heardof a wheel turning on an imaginary axis, even though the axis v/eteimaginedhy thecoachmen to be three poles? Again, the globe must be imagined to turn round withthe greatest exactness in 24 hours, and so we must imagine it to stand on an
imaginaiy plane, viz : no plane at all I Yes, the plane must be im aginaiy, because
afterwards, when we are treated to an “ explanation” of the solar system, we must
imagine the globe no longer standing on a plane, but flashing round the sun much
faster than a thunderbolt along the sky. Now, as it flashes and wheels, we are asked
to imagine that the side turned away from the sun is as dark as night. But, howthen can we forget that at another time we are to imagine the earth only a motecompared to the sun (a million times larger), which floods it with light, streaming
many millions o f miles beyond, so that there can be no dark side?
The imagination being thus excited to vigorous exercise, Herschel proceeds to“ explain ” the cause of the cause of the four seasons. W e are, therefore, to imagine
the globe as not standing quite upright on an imaginary plane, but lurching always
over as much as 23^^ degrees, and we may also im agine the globe to have intelli­gence enough to keep its North Pole always at the said angle, as if a rigid fixture,
hy way of preserving the “ parallelism o f its axis.” So we imagine the globe tostand on its im aginary plan e in four different positions as it dashes along its
imaginary orbit 1000 times faster than any railway engine, so that the sunlight may
fall slantingly on one part of the globe and perpendicularly on another.
But since Herschel imagines the globe only a millionth of the sun in size, there­
fore, comparatively a mere mote, and 95 million miles off, reason would say that there
can be no difference between perpendicular and sloped rays, yet we must rememberthat the astronomer requires us not to reason but to imagine.
Still, after all, the “ North Pole ” is not a fixture.
T he im aginary pole, whileaccording to Herschel is “ nothing more than the vanishing point of the Earth’s axis ”
is imagined to describe an imaginary circle round another imaginary pole of animaginary circle called the ecliptic in 25,868 years. Then we are to irnagine stillmore. The pole, fixed at an angle of 2 3 ^ degrees, and yet not fixed, is imagined tohave a nodding motion, or “ nutation,” by which it describes a minute ellipsis (a kindof egg-shaped curve) among the stars in the course of 19 years. These two motionsof the no-pole-at-all we are to imagine, in order that the precession of the equinoxes,&c., may be accounted for.
Further demands are madeuix)n our imagination. T he school-boy globe so small
is again imagined to be of so many millions of millions tons weight thaj; we are utterly
dumb-founded, and it is imagined to be balanced and flashed about the sun by two
imaginary powers, called centripetal and tangential. The centripetal as the namesignifies, is imagined to pull the big globe away towards the sutl and the other power
to pull it away from the sun. Now, were Sir John to allow us here to reason, we
would say that in consequence of the two imaginary forces pulling in different direc.
tions, the globe ought to stand still. Not at a l l ! for we are requested to imagine

TH E

3°

EARTH

R E V IE W .

that the result of the pulling is that the big globe “ m oves” in not quite a circle, but.
nearly so, round ibe sun within about 365 clays, and at the rate o f 19 miles every tickof the clock. W onderful as is the imagineless weight of the big globe, more wonder­
ful still must be the centripetal and tangential powers to fksh at once so many million
miles, tons of rock round the sun, whilst keeping up the lightning speed for so many
thousand years. H ow wonderful too the brains out of which such wondrous powers
have come ! T alk no more of the wonders of steam, or laugh at the ravings oflunatics.
Then what o f the poor wretches being on the astronomer’ s globe o f such fearful
rapidity and horrible tossing ?
Thus the astronomer can “ a tale unfold, whose lightest word may bum up oursoul, freeze our human blood, make our two eyes like stars start from their spheres,”c&C.

Our tormentor is, however, not yet done with us.
W e must imagine more polesand globes, also an equator with circles large and small, longitudes, latitudes, so that
we may have a science o f navigation, and so imagine ships and sailors safe at sea,
though they are lost by thousands every year.
W e have been required to imagine the “ earth ” ball whirling and rushing roundthe sun ; but again, we are told that an imaginary circle in the heavens, called theecliptic, represents the apparent course of the sun round the earth. The word
“ apparent” is to remind us that the real motion o f the sun is not real, despite oureyesigh t; for, according to Herschel, our eyes are not for seeing, but im aginin g!
Then the imaginary ccliptic necessitates the im agining o i a celestial axis with twocelestial poles, also two equinoxes, two solstices, in short an entirely imaginary globe
which is to be called celestial, or heavenly. Then surely there is a heaven after all ?
But stop, ye mesmerised dupes of H ersch el! You are to remember that heaven is notheaven, but something else, that is, something imaginary ox nothing, yet something,notwithstanding. Thus we imagine the “ earth” globe encased within the celestial
one, like a letter within an envelope. Next, we are to imagine on the outside globe
circles of latitude and longtitude, right ascension, ar.d declination, so that we may
imagine 3\\ the stars fixed securely in their places. But stop ! we are to imagine thestars again as not fixed, but flashing through many millions of miles, faster than we
can wink, and not even are they stars, according to Herschel, but suns, except as manyas he pleases to name after the old heathen idols- Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Neptune,lie., which again are not stars, but big globes outflashing the thunderbolts. Nor will
this dictator allow us to believe our eyes, that stars are so near, or all in the sky, but
at various distances, varying by millions of miles ; the figures given only bewildering
our imagination.
Through the book the mystification is increased by cunning
diagrams, mathematical jargon, and Greek words almost unspellable,. W ith all thisexercise o f the imagination we ought to be heartily tired out. But the tender mercies
Ilf the wicked are cruel, and, so Herschel would further have us imagine infinite
space, infinite ether, and an infinite number of globes, almighty gravity and tangential
force ; and the bewitched fools are left in darkness to imagine that there is no infinite-Vlmighty God.

“ S O M E T H IN GON

G R A V IT A T IO N .”B y “ Zetetes”
A correspondent, interested in Zetetic Truth, asks me for “ Something
un G ravitation.” I propose, therefore, to give a few o f my thoughts
thereon in the E a rth Jieview, as others besides my missionary friend
may be interested in reading something on this subject.

S O M E T H IN GON

G R A V IT A T IO N .

3’

But a difficulty meets one at the outset.
H ow am I to write“ som ething” about nothing?
I cannot create, as some erroneously
suppose the world was made, out o f nothing. Paul says the things which
are seen were not made out o f “ phenomena,” or things which do appear ;but he nowhere teaches that they cam e out o f absolutely nothing, except
invisibility. Now, “ Gravitation ” has been created, not only out ofinvisibility, but out o f nothing, except the vain imaginations o f astron­
omical minds. It was not “ discovered,” but invented; and I shallproceed to prove that there is no such thing as the “ attraction ofGravitation ” in G o d ’s universe, and that the phenomena supposed tocountenance the theory are capable of other and more natural interpre­
tations. O f course, I speak o f “ Gravitation ” in the astronomical senseo f a universal power in all bodies, celestial and terrestrial, to attract, orpull one another together, with forces directly in proportion to theirmasses, and inversely as the squares of their distances. So that terrestrial
attraction and phenomena will be seen to be only a small part of thisquestion o f Universal Gravitation. T h e former we may explain byweight and currents ; but the latter we utterly deny. L et us try, in thefirst place, to realize what is meant by, and implied in the astronomical
Sheory o f gravitation, and its
U n iv e r s a l A t t r a c t io n .

According to this idea, every body in the universe, however large orsmall, has the power, by some means or other, to attract, or pull towards
itself, every other body in the universe, however near or distant. Yea,
not only is every body supposed to have this power, but the power issaid to be in actual operation every moment o f time for ever. So that,
if I hold an apple in my hand, it is connected with, and pulling at all
the apples in the world ; all the pears and plufns, all the trees, gardens,■walls, houses, all the stones, rocks, rivers, and m ountains; yea, and every
separate drop o f water in the ocean, and every grain o f sand on the sea
shore 1 A n d these are a ll p u llin g at the apple. Y e t it remains passively
on my hand, while I study gravitation, or decide whether I will eat theapple now, or leave it for further experimentation. This apple oughtto dance about, or at least to show some symptoms o f the awful internal
struggles going on within it. Perhaps it has learned the art o f appearing
passive, an art w hich some astronomers seem to acquire, and to keep aquiet and serene countenance, while internally tortured with ten thousand
doubts and pangs.
T en thousand ! Yea, ten thousand times ten
thousand gravitating cords or strings are pulling at i t !
F or we must
remember that sun, moon and stars, and supposed millions o f millions
o f “ other worlds than ours ” are each and all interested in that a p p le ;and they send out their innumerable long and filamentous fingers to
clutch it out o f my open hand. Y e t it remains outwardly unmoved in

32

TH E

EARTH

RE V IE W .

.serene and blushing pa.ssivity. 1 shall have to eat it, threads and all,with whatever tentacles, or other attractive matter may be attached to
i t ! W hat a p e r il! But there is such an attractive force, either in theapple, or in the natural taste G od has given us for common fiuit, as well,
as for common sense, that I take all risks and disappoint the sun andstars. I am glad that Newton was led to muse over an apple falling to
the ground by its own weight, when the stalk was rotten. H e would
have mused more had it “ fallen ” upwards.
But we, dear reader, can also muse over apples. W hile so musing, I
wonder why m y apple makes no tremulous motion towards the moon,which is rising as I write, especially as she is now between the two“ ponderous and superior” planets. Mars and Jupiter, which are approach­ing towards conjunction.
Y e t through the varying positions andrelationships of the heavenly bodies, as they roll around the world andmy apple, it remained on the shelf twenty-four hours perfectly stationary,as though no such tremendous forces were playing their mighty artillery
upon it. T h ey may try from their various vantage grounds, east or west,
north or south, mid-heaven or sideways, yet the apple will not move.
Y e t a breath would have caused it to roll.
T here is no proof for
Zetetics of universal attraction in this apple.
But perhaps mine isdifferent from Newton’s. It will not bow to fair Luna as she pulls it
sideways, assisted by the two powerful giants, one on each side, attending
her like guards, much less will it attempt to rise towards the mighty sun
as he pulls with all his meridian power and glory. Its weight is the same
throughout the twenty-four hours. N o ! friends. I must see an apple
fall ” upwards before I can believe in solar gravitation.
But a superficial thinker may object that the reason bodies only fall
downwards to the earth is, because the earth being nearer than the sun,its force of attraction is the greater o f the two. Is it ? L et us takeanother instance, which proves, not only that there is no such thing as
terrestrial gravitation, or attraction, but which shows that this supposed
power may be defied.
G r a v it a t i o n

D e f ie d .

In the science schools o f to-day our pupils are taught the atomic
theory, namely : that all bodies consist o f innumerable minute particles^so small that they are invisible and cannot be further divided, or cut up,
as their name, atoms, implies. T hese atoms, the gods o f the scientist
and evolutionist, may all be the same size, if we can attach size to such
infinitely small things, or potentialities, but they have not all the same
specific gravity or weight. H ydrogen, a kind of gas, is the lightest bodyknown. H ydrogen may be obtained by a combination o f sulphuric
acid, zinc clippings, and water. As the gas bubbles up through the water
we catch a little in a glass bottle, or a test-tube. W e may fix our mind’s
It

SO M E T H IN GON

G R A V IT A T IO N .

33

eye upon one molecule of hydrogen, and let all the others go free. -W ework this molecule safely inside a small glass tube.
It is the lightest
body known upon the earth, and it is easier to pull about light bodies
than heavy ones. Now, the theory o f gravitation is that all the atoms
in the earth and in the world are attracting, or pulling at this moleculeof hydrogen ; and that, being nearest to the earth, the latter will have themost power over it. W e will not pause to show further the absurdity ofthis theory, and the infinite number o f bonds and filaments our little
molecule must possess to be in pulling connection with all the atoms of
the universe; but we will proceed to liberate it from the bottle, not fromthe bonds, and watch, with mental vision, its behaviour, on being so far
set free. N ow what course ought the molecule to take, if the theory of
our astronomical friends be true ? C learly and rapidly downwards tothe earth, pulled down unm ercifully by ten thousand times ten million
threads or gravitating cords. W e turn the bottle neck downwards anddraw the cork. T h e m olecule o f hydrogen ascends in the glass, andrefuses to leave the bottle. Rem em ber, every atom in the so-called“ g lo b e” is pulling with all its might at our little molecule of h yd ro gen ;yet It refuses to leave the jar ! Turn the glass right side up, and now
our molecule, really liberated, mounts up above the highest clouds, incomplete defiance o f the com bined pull o f all the gravitating forces inthe “ globe.” T hat m olecule must be a Zetetic. It stands aloof fromall the nonsensical “ forces,” or theories, of the astronomers, and mounts
upwards and onwards in defiance of them. It defies, as we defy, alltheir metaphysical “ reasonings ” and jargon about gravitation.
Ifbodies falling to the earth prove gravitation, what do bodies ascending
from the earth prove ? I f the “ globe ” can pull at a distant body likethe moon and make it “ fall ” through sixteen feet per second, why canit not pull at air, smoke, clouds, gases, & a , close at hand, and makethem all lie down in layers upon its surface ? T h e conclusion is ev id en t;
a force that cannot overcome a little helpless m olecule o f hydrogen, is
no force at all. T h e apple was too much for it, and so is the molecule.
Bodies rise or fall, according to their inherent density, or weight, andthey remain at rest whenever and wherever they attain their equilibria.
This is reasonable, because it is n atu ral; yet at the same time it is utterly
opposed to the fanciful speculations of the scientists, who darken counsel
with words without knowledge. In the whole wide world there is nosuch thing as the astronomer’s “ attraction o f gravitation.” I challenge
any of them to prove it. I will, in conclusion, proceed to show that
their idea of
A t t r a c t i o n is a M y th 1

T h e attraction o f gravitation a myth ? Y e s ! a fabulous story, withno foundation in fact, though having an A P P A R E N T support in some

34

TH E

EARTH

R E V IE W .

terrestrial phenomena. M any people imagine that gravitation is a word
representing some discovered fact or force in N a tu r e ; but let themproceed to show us what fact or force, and they will discover their
mistake. Gravitation was an invention, not a d isco ve ry ; and a suppo­
sition necessitated by another hypothesis, v iz .; the globular theory. One
was invented to support the other.
W ithout gravitation the globular
theory falls ; and without the globular theory what would become ofgravitation ? It would becom e less and lighter than our little moleculeo f hydrogen, and fly away into unknown and uncivilized regions.
“ P arallax” proved the globular theory false, by the F A C T that thesurface o f water is horizontal; and “ Zetetes,” the investigator after
I'ruth, practically proves, that the theory o f gravitation is utterly false,
by a little m olecule o f hydrogen gas ! N o one can even tell us whatgravitation is, or how it acts. Now, although we may not know what
electricity is, or magnetism ; we do know how they act. As I showedin No. 2 E a r th Review, Newton did not know how gravitation acts, orwhether it really be attraction, or repulsion ; that is, he did not knowwhether there is such a thing as attraction or not.
W here Newton
failed to guess, what other tnathematician dare try ? I f the inventor did
not know, who amongst his pupils can tell ? But they should first provethat gravitation does act before they attem pt to explain how it acts.
T h e magnet is no proof o f gravitation. Its power is selective andlimited. It seems to attract steel and soft iron, but it will not draw
stones and wood ! G ravitation is supposed to attract a ll bodies, eventhe stars. T h ey are all supposed to be pulling hard at one another, yetthey never get any nearer together. It is strange ! But does the magnet
really attract steel ? T h e iron or steel goes towards the magnet, but is
its motion caused by the attraction or the repulsion o f some force ? It
may be carried by a magnetic current, not drawn by the magnet itself.
Newton confessed that the idea of bodies acting “ upon one another at
a distance,” and “ without the mediation o f anything else by and throughwhich Iheir action and force may be conveyed from one to the other,”is “ so great an absurdity, that,” says he, “ I believe no man, who has inphilosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall intoit.” Y e t many do fall into this error. T h ey are not Zetetics. I standon a bridge and I watch a log o f wood com ing down the stream towards
the bridge. Is the bridge attracting the log from a di.stance ? Yes, asmuch as ever the magnet attracts the soft iron ! I f there were a weir by
the bridge, the log would remain by it, as the iron remains attached tothe magnet. I f not, and if the arch under the bridge be sufficiently
wide, the log would pass under and follow the stream. T hen the bridge
would seem to be repelling the log, like one “ pole ” of the magnet will
repel the m agnetic needle. Y e t by such flimsey arguments and pre­Ul;i

TH EO RYV.

PR A C T IC E .

35texts is the theory o f attraction supported. N o man in the world candefine gravitation, nor tell how it acts ; it is a tissue o f philosophicalspeculations and falsehoods, unworthy o f honest men and thinker's,
perhaps the most ingenious theory o f gravitation ever proposed is thato f L e Sage. H e “ imagines,” says Mr, J. E. Gore,“ An infinite number of ultra mundane corpuscles of excessive minuteness, speeding
through space in all directions, and with enormous velocities. T w o bodies in thisocean of flying corpuscles screen each other from the molecular bombardment, andwould consequently move together with a force varying inversely as the square of the
distance.”

Upon which Professor T a it remarks :—“ It is necessary a.lso to su/i/iose that the particles and masses of matter have a cage­
like form, so that enormously more corpuscles pass through them than impinge uponthem ; else the gravitation action between two bodies would not be as the product of
their masses.”

Well might Sir John H erschel say : —“ The hypothesis of Le Sage, which assumes that every point o f space is penetrated
at every instant of time by material particles su i gene7-is, moving in right lines inevery possible direction, and impinging upon the material atoms of bodies, as amode of accounting for gravitation, is too grotesque to need serious consideration ! ”“ Too grotesque to need serious consid eration !” One o f thetheories o f gravitation “ grotesque ! ” A n d a clever astronomer says so,
not an humble ze te tic ! A n humble zetetic agrees with him though.
What then must the poorer theories be ? Readers, take your choice
between common sense and reason, and theories “ too grotesque toneed serious consideration.”

THEORYV.

P R A C T IC E .

C . H . R e p l i e s t o G. M.
G. M. ’s argument seems to be that lines drawn from the flat earth to the sun’ scentre need not meet at one point. This looks absurd at first sight, for they must
all meet at the sun ; the sun cannot have several different positions at the same time.
If it is at A ' (Fig. 3) and consequently 30° high to an observer at A , it cannot be at
the same time at C^, 22j° high to an observer at C. A thing can only be in one
place at one time, and this place must be where the various lines meet which repre­
sent the directions in which it is seen.
In fact G. M .’s “ utterly condemningfallacy ” seems to me to be rather more obviously true than the axioms of Euclid !
But G. M. tries to support his seemingly absurd assertion by saying that the lines
drawn from the supposed globular earth to the sun’s centre do not meet at one point
either, seeing they are all/rartsVo/Zj/parallel. But (i) if orthodox astronomy did
contain an absurdity, that would be no reason why Zetetic astronomy should containthe same. (2) I admit they are practically parallel, for they meet so far away thatthe angle at their meeting is less than 1 7 ” all but imperceptible to the naked eye.
C. H a r p Ur .

3^

TH E

EARTH

RE V IE W .

G. M.

R E P L IE S

TO

C. H.

OR

T H E P R O J E C T IO N O F L A T I T U D E U P O N A P L A N E E A R T H .
B y the above reply to m y criticism of Mr. Harpur’.s paper, it seems
necessary to remind him o f the data by which the latitude is found —which he quotes as authoritative— and which he himseli accepts asreasonable.
I m erely put them succinctly in the statement that“ latitude is a deduction from the observed altitude o f an object in the“ heavens whose declination is k n o w n ;” and further, “ that the“ observed altitude varies according to the latitude ; and in the case of“ an object when vertical to the equator, that the observed altitude and■t ►I

TH EO RYV.

P R A C TIC E .

37

become expanded into 93,000,000 of miles. But by my simple method;is shown in connexion w it h figure 3, the distances in latitude as foundby angular measure, are projected upon the plane in simple arithmeticalp r o p o r t io n o f 90° arc to the radius of 4,000 miles.
The attempted application o f trigonometry to the projection oflatitude, observing from the sun’s centre, is contradicted by both reason
and results !
Again, let Mr. Harpur proceed upon his accepted data, and deal witha c t u a l observations— confine him self to the above natural indications oflatitude, and then make clear the fallacy he supposes to be lurking
under figure 3, his will be the honour, ours the profit of his instruction.

“ the latitude are com plem entary.”
Now all that is involved in these statements is incontrovertible.
Consequently the methods o f finding the latitude are quite independento f any knowledge o f the sun’s a c t u a l position— the requirem ent being
the O B S E R V E D altitude, i.e., the observed angular elevation, and this ofUpon the tJieory o f a globular earth it is equally true that lines fromearth's surface do not meet at a point in the heavens I This shall beshown clearly enough when you, Mr. Editor, are able to admit a paper
upon “ Finding the Latitude.” T ill then let what was said upon thispoint under figure 3 suffice.

course gives merely the sun’s a p p a r e n t position.
M y claim is that my figure 3 represents a fair reduction to construc­tion of actual observation, upon the plane earth theory. Mr. Harpur
says the same o f his figure 2.
Y e t he does not even pretend to givethe a c t u a l l y o b s e r v e d altitude in any o f his triangles— but simply
presents us with a diagram o f what he s u p p o s e s would represent theearth’s surface— in latitude— if viewed by an observer stationed at the
sun’s c e n tre ; z.«., to observe the angular elevation of the sun above thehorizon of some point upon earth’s surface, he would observe earth’,ssurface from the sun— which o f course is simply to rem ove the discus­
sion from the region o f a c t u a l o b s e r v a t i o n into that o f p u r e
i m a g i n a t i o n which cannot be shown to have a n y c o n n e x i o n w i t ha s c e r t a in e dfact.
L et us waste no words in mere bald assertion;
but try our two methods by r e s u l t s . W e have in Nature clear indi­
cation of certain distances in latitude, with which every theorist mustnecessarily comply. First, that point, the Northern Centre, having in
its zenith the “ pole o f the heavens ” the point around which the wholestarry firmament a p p e a r s to revolve ; Secondly, the T orrid Zone, thebelt which receives the direct rays of the su n ; its boundaries being thetropics, the lines at which the sun /urns upon its return journey -;Thirdly, the bisection o f the Torrid Zone by an i m a g i n a r y l i n e — theei^uator. It is accepted that latitude at the equator is zero : that theNorthern C entre shall be 90° n o rth ; ascertain the numerical valueo f this distance, and we have a n a t u r a l m e a s u r i n g r o d . T ake it at
the easy round number of 4,000 miles, no one contends that the distanceexceeds this, but rather that it is a little less ; now apply Mr. Hurpur’s
method, and as we have already shown, 45° o f latitude, or 2,000 miles,

Just a word upon the subject o f parallax; it will be easy to show in a
separate paper that in spite o f all that is accepted upon this subject, nosuch angidar value c a n r e a l l y b e f o u n d i n a s t r o n o m y ! T h e fallacyof the astronomers is precisely analagous to that o f Mr. Harpur, they
recede fro m the region o f a c t u a l o b s e r v a t i o n into that o f a b s t r a c t
s p e c u la tio n .
N o orthodox writer upon parallax ever introduces thehorizon of the station o f observation upon his diagrams ! For him to
do so would be fatal to any attempt to find the required triangle 1
For the sake o f illustration, a triangle is a s s u m e d , and o f course allthat follows is simply of the nature it exercises in abstract mathematics.
If, upon the introduction o f the horizontal line, they could find any
angular value, that would be a direct proof o f some error connectedwith the observation, because of the incontrovertible fact, that latitude
and altitude vary directly.
But look at results here also. T h e distance o f the sun from earth isstated in numbers which vary from 1,525,000 to 135,304,805 miles, ad if f e r e n c ewhich exceeds the accepted value of nearly 95,000,000
miles. Rather a wide margin this for an “ e x a c t s c i e n c e ! ” T h ereason for such a margin is plain— t h e c o m p u t a t i o n s a r e b a s e d u p o n
h y p o t h e t ic a l d a t a .
It is considered that the most reliable method
is that by the “ transit o f Venus.” This stated in simplest language isbased upon the comparison o f two triangles, each having its apex at theplanet, the base o f the one being the line joining the two stations ofobservation upon earth, the other having its base upon the sun’s disc.
The weak points in this method are first, there is the same difficulty infinding the distance o f the planet from earth, as in the case of any other

38

THE

EARTH

OUR

R E V IE W .

object in the heavens— viz., the parallelism o f all such lines of direction :Secondly, the parallelism of lines from earth to sun cannot be affectedby the intervention o f the planet.
But Mr. Harpur denies such parallelism, saying that lines from earth“ nmst meet at the sun’s centre.”
L et us see ;—Figure 4.
PARALLELISM.

D
s '

t .

T h e equator when produced to the heavens is called the equinoctial.
T h e latitude o f a place is its distance from the equator ; the declinationo f sun, star or planet is its distance from the eq u in octial; in either casethe angle is made by the line which, cutting the plane of the equator at
the datum point o f earth’s centre, joins the centre with the place, orwith the object in the heavens.
L et the arc (Fig. 4) N Q be a quadrant of a plane— intersection
through the poles of a globular earth. N , the north pole, C the centre ;N C the sem i-axis; Q a point upon the equator ; C Q a radius on theplane o f the eq u a to r; produce C Q to the distant heavens, S, thenC Q S is the plane o f the equinoctial.
A t Q draw the tangent H Q R the horizon o f Q. L et T be a point
upon earth’s su rface; join T C , then the angle T C Q is the latitude ofT . Draw the tangent H ' T R ' the horizon o f T : produce C T to Z
the zenith o f T ; S is in the zenith of Q.

O B SE R V A T O R Y .

39i.e., by construction the angle S' T R ', and the sun’s zenith distancewould equal 20°, the angle Z T S'.
In the simple case o f the sun at equinox, latitude and observed
uieridian altitude are complementary.
From the right angle Z T R 'deduct the angle o f observed altitude S' T R ' equals 70°, then the re­maining angle Z T S 'e q u a ls 20°; but the latitude T C Q equals 20°,
therefore angles Z T S', T C Q are equal. But because the straightline Z T C meets the two straight lines T S' and C Q , making the angles
Z T S' and T C Q equal, therefore the lines T S' and C Q are parallel.
Now Q S being the plane o f C Q produced, then T . S' and Q S areparallel. But Q S and T S' are lines o f direction to the sun from thestations Q and T ; therefore the lines o f direction from two points oflatitude to the sun at equinox are parallel.
Again, let the sun have 20° N declination, the angle Z C Q ; then at
Q the sun’s observed altitude would equal 70°, angle H Q D , and the.sun’s zenith distance 20°, angle S Q D ; but the sun’s declination, angle
Z C Q equals 20°. Because the straight line S Q C m eeting the twostraight lines Q D and C T Z and making the angles o f zenith distanceS Q D and declination Q C Z equal, therefore the lines Q D and C T Z
are parallel. But the lines T Z and Q D are lines o f direction to thesun from the stations Q and T ; therefore the parallelism o f lines of
direction from two points o f latitude to the sun in declination is
maintained.
By similar reasoning it may be shown that the parallelism is main­tained between the lines o f direction fro m a ll points o f latitude to an
object having any given declination. (H ence upon the figment o f aspherical earth the angle— parallax— c a n n o t be found !)OUR OBSERVATORY.
‘ errorisa lw aysin c o h e r e n t .”On the Figure o f the Earth and its supposed connexion with theVibrations o f a Pendulum . B y C a p t . W a l t e r F o r m a n , R .N .

From zenith to horizon equals a right angle, therefore the angles
S Q R , S Q H , Z T R ', Z T H ' are all right angles.

It is the nature o f fluids to press equally on all sides, and whenever
there is a difference in the gravity of any two portions o f a fluid, there
must necessarily be a fall on one part and a rise on the other, until theweight o f the diminished quantity o f heavier particles be exactly balancedby the weight o f the increased quantity o f lighter particles.

L et S be the sun at equinox, vertical to Q , its observed altitude 90°.
B y the m ethod of finding the latitude, let T be 20° N ; then for thatstation, the sun’s observed meridian altitude at equinox would be 70°,

Upon this principle, if the earth had been wholly fluid, its “ centri­
fugal fo r c e ” would undoubtedly have produced a depression o f thepoles, and a small extension o f the equatorial d iam eter; but it is not

40

th e

earth

r e v ie w .

.suspected by philosophers that the ocean, in any part, extends to agreater depth than fifteen, or at the utmost, twenty miles ; and, as it iseasy to prove, by actual experiment, that solids are not subject to thislaw, so we have no warrant, either in Scripture or reason, to supposethat the solid parts o f the earth were ever in a fluid state.
Philosophers nevertheless have long entertained an opinion, that, inconsequence o f its centrifugal force, the earth has changed its figure
from a sphere to an oblate spheroid, depressed at the p o le s; and mydesign in writing this essay is to show that the premises upon which they
have founded this opinion, will not warrant any such conclusion.
It can hardly be necessary to go about to prove that solids are notaffected by pressure in the same manner as fluids, because, if they were,a clod o f earth would not stand upon a heap, but would sink down by
the pressure o f its own weight, in the same manner as water does ; andif the earth had been originally formed in a fluid state, it could not,without changing its nature, have becom e solid in the course o f a few
days. Those therefore who hold this opinion, if they mean to be con­sistent, are bound to maintain that the D eity was under the necessityo f creating the earth in a fluid state, in order to give it an oblate spher­
oidical form ; and then by a subsequent miracle, which is not recoj'dedin the works o f the creation, o f changing the nature of a great part of it
in order to make it fit for the purpose for which it was d esig n ed ; as if
the all-powerful Being who created matter, could not have given it whatform H e pleased, without having recourse to such circuitous means. I
am aware that some o f our geological writers, in order to reconcile
Scripture with their theories, have dexterou.sly contrived to lengthen thedays of creation by making the earth move slower upon its axis ; butthough this sophistry may serve for a while to prop up the system of
the geologists, it will not serve the purpose here, because the earth’.'icentrifugal force must have diniinishe'd in exact proportion with thediminution o f the velocity o f its motion on its axis ; and as, in con.se(juence, the loss o f gravity in the equatorial parts would have been all
but nugatory, the difference o f the pressure in the different parts of theearth would have been too trifling to have produced any sensible effect.
T h e difference which has been said to be observed in the vibrationso f a pendulum in different parts of the world is, I believe, the origin
and groundwork o f this hypothesis. I t is said that a pendulum vibrates
slower at the equator than it does in the tem perate latitudes,* and■*A difference in the centrifugal force must undoubtedly be a cause o f part o f fhis
e ffect; but I cannot help thinking that a difference in the den-sity of the atmosphereis an equally effectual cause ; and I am persuaded that if anyone who has the oppor­
tunity could count the vibrations o f a pendulum in a lighthouse, where the air ishighly rarified, he would find that it would vibrate nearly as slow as it does at theequator.

OUR

O B SER V A T O R Y .

4'

the Newtonian philosophers account for this by supposing that the equa­
torial parts are rem oved farther from the centre, where gravity mustnecessarily be diminished, while the gravity o f the poles, by beingbrought so much nearer the centre, must be proportionably increased.
Surely any thinking man who heard this argument, would naturally
infer that these philosophers believed that the power o f attraction
resided in some substance which was fixed in the earth’s c e n tre ; but
no such idea was ever entertained by them. A ccording to them, allmatter mutually attracts, and with equal power ; and yet they maintainthat the mere circumstances o f being rem oved further from the earth’s
centre,accumulation o f matter, will diminish the gravity o f theequatorial parts, although the power o f attraction in the centre is notstronger than it is in those substances with which they are immediately
in contact.
In what way do these philosophers account for all substances in a
sphere gravitating towards its centre ? N ot because the power o f attrac­
tion is fixed in the centre, for this they will not a llo w ; but because
there is a greater quantity o f matter, and consequently a greater powerof attraction in that direction than in any o th e r; and upon this prin­ciple, an accumulation o f matter in the equatorial parts, and a diminu­
tion o f matter in the polar axis, ought to increase the gravity o f theequator and diminish the gravity o f the poles. T he very groundworkof their hypothesis is, that, in consequence o f the centrifugal force
taking off a portion o f the gravity o f the equatorial parts, there mustnesessarily be a sinking of the poles and an elevation o f the equator inorder to restore the equilibrium ; and surely, when the equilibrium is re­stored, the gravity o f all parts o f the earth ought to be the same, so that,unless it can be shown that the difference in the vibrations o f a pendulum
is produced by a difference in the state o f the atmosphere, this very,
difference is a demonstrative p r o o f that the earth has not changed its
figure ; and consequently is a direct confutation o f this hypothesis.
I f we may credit the newspaper reports, Capt. Sabine is at thismoment (M ay 1823) em ployed in measuring the vibrations o f a pen­dulum in different parts o f the world, in order to furnish philosopherswith the necessary data to enable them to ascertain the true figure o f theearth; and I should be glad to learn, from any of these philosophers,
in what way they propose to distinguish between the effect, on thevibration o f a pendulum produced by a difference in the centrifugal
force, and that which they suppose is occasioned by a change in theearth’s figure ? T he only way by which we can possibly ascertain thequantum o f the centrifugal force, as compared with the power o f theearth’s attraction is by observing the difference in the vibrations o f apendulum in different parts o f the world ; and when two causes are

A

43

THE

E A .R T H

P O SE RFOR

N E W T O N IA N S .

43

R E V 'IE W .

A P O S E R F O R N E W T O N IA N S .
m ixed together, both o f which are supposed to produce precisely similareffects, though in different degree, I cannot imagine how it can be
possible to distinguish between the effects produced by each. T hequestion concerning the earth’s figure was formerly considered o f suchimportance, that it was thought advisable by the French Government
to send two companies o f philosophers to measure the length o f two
degrees o f latitude, one at the equator, and the other under the arctic
c irc le , and it appears by the reports o f these philosophers that a
degree o f latitude near the pole is longer than a degree o f latitude at
the equator.
From these data the Newtonian philosophers have drawn conclusions
which they consider as incontestibly proving that their hypothesis istrue ; but unfortunately, in com ing to these conclusions, they have com­pletely lost sight o f what ought to be esteemed one o f the main props
o f their philosophy, namely, a central attraction ; for if they will butallow that all bodies gravitate towards that point in which direction
there is the greatest quantity o f matter, they will immediately perceive
the necessity o f supposing, with St. Pierre, that the earth must be an
oblong spheroid lengthened at the poles, and not an oblate spheroidthat is flattened at the poles.
I f the earth had been a sphere, it is clear that the length o f a degreeo f latitude would have been the same all over the world, because, inthat case, equal angles, drawn from the centre, would always mark equal
distances on the circum ference ; and if the earth had subsequently be­come depressed at the poles and elevated at the equator, the distanceo f any one point from the nearest pole would have been considerably
lessened, whilst its distance from the equator would have been proportionably in crea sed ; so that, if the earth had been an oblate spheroid
depressed at the poles, the length of a degree o f latitude at the poles
would have been less than it is at the equator, and not greater, as
appears now to be the case.
*At least upon the principle adopted by the Newtonians, that the elevation of theequator is equal to the depression of the poles.

To be co7icluded in our next.
E D I T O R IA L N O T IC E S .
T he following is added to our list of publications, and can be had from theSecretary.
T he “ Herald of Glad T idin gs,’ ' id .
A t the request of several friends we desire to say that Photographs o f the Secretary
can be had, i/ i ; Cabinet size, 1/7, post free.
N .B .— T he Secretary will be glad to receive Subscriptions noiv due.

Works on Newtonian astronomy tell us that the planets, including
our earth, revolve round the sun and also rotate on their axes from west
to east, or from right to left.
T h e earth then, according to this theory, turns on its axis from west
to east and revolves round the sun in the same directioru
L et the following diagram illustrate this ;—Nos. I, 2, 3, 4, the earth travelling in its orbit around S the sun.
T h e earth is said to turn on its axis from right to left or from west toea st; that is, from A to B, (No. 2).
It also revolves round the sun from right to l e f t : that is, from 2 to 3.
Since the sun is seen to rise in the east and set in the west, it travels,
as viewed in this country, from left to right.
As the earth is supposed to rotate like a top in the direction from
A to B, an inhabitant on the other side o f the “ globe ” could not see
the sun until the earth turned round an d brought him to A. H e would
then, from his position at A , see the sun rising on his right, that is, inthe west; for, as we look at the sun, the west is on our right.
H ow is this, then ? W e know the sun rises in the east, that is, on ourl e f t ; but according to the Newtonian theory, as illustrated b y their own
diagram, the sun rises in tlu west and sets in the east.
Surely this i.s a poser for Newtonians.
this contradictory theory 1

W ho among them can explain
B eta .

A P R O F E S S O R ’S V I E W O F H I S O W N
T E A C H IN G .
“ T h e student o f science will do well to bear in mind
the words o f a very em inent lecturer o f p h ysiology,”
T h e statem ents I have made to you gentlem en I haveevery reason to believe to be wholly untrue, but you
must leain them, because if you do not, you will not beable to pass your exam inations.” The E ngineer, O ct.,
12th, 1894. O uery. Is the father o f lies, the father o f
the so-called sciences ?

44

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W .

T h e C o n t e n t s of o u r L e tte r Box.
ing a picture of an actual volcano on the
Dear Sir,— I am very
moon— and then said that the volcano ofpleased to hear from you and thank you
the picture was not on the moon— it wa:-i
for papers sent. I m ay say that I have
Vesuvius ! W ell, well, the chagrin anti
always q u e s tio n e d some of the teachings ofdisappointment caused by that statementa.stronomers but had not the means at
plainly made it evident that— so far as I
hand to support any objection I wished to
could see— everybody but m yself believed
make. Now. however, the case is alteredthe volcano to be on the moon’s surface !
and I can see very clearly that a “ plane ”
This serves to show the gullibility ofearth and that alone is compatible withhuman nature. T he man of figures quietly
Bible teaching. I am especially thankful
smiled (at his dupes. I should think so !
that the means of proof are now within
But at a flat earth man, these men of
the reach o f every man who knows thefigures never smile. E d . E. R.)
multiplication table and uses his eyesightDuring the lecture he referred to the— that precious, though abused, God given
sense. W hat puzzles me more than every­“ flat earth ” people, and said that until
thing else is that common sense people
they could do what astronomers had done
have been so deluded as to believe in thesome spots on the sun) they would
fearful monstrosity that the earth is ahave lo be silent ! W onderful! exclaimed
whirling ball ! I went to a lecture here athe lady behind me.
few weeks ago, by a gentleman froin the
A fter the lecture I wrote to the learned
Royal Observatory (near here). His ad­
man and said, I was sorry he made refer­vertised address was on “ Glimpses of theence to the “ flat e a rth ” people without
Solar System ,” illustrated by limelightgiving-them a chance of replying, and thatviews. H e said he had had a good deal toif he would take the affirmative in the pixido with astronomy, having been employed
position “ that the earth is a revolving
at Greenwich when a boy in connection
globe,” I would gladly take the negativewith the Royal Observatory there. W ell,on the same platform as his lecture wasthis “ authoritative” lecture amused medelivered. In his reply, he said (iriUr
most of all for the “ blind credulity ” italia), “ I have neitheir the ambition nor
manifested the audience to be possessed o f
the leisure to join in such a discussion as
I simply smiled and sometimes laughed at
you suggest, especially as from previous
what I plainly saw were mere suppositions.
experience I well know its uselessness.”
T he lecturer fairly knocked the legs off his
Such a debate would have fairly roused
own theories by saying, “ we may
Capetown, but, o f course, a good situationA S S U M E .” “ we may S U P P O S E ,” &c.
is not to be so easily thrown away. If I
H e said, “ the accepted theory of astron­
had been allowed to ask a few questions
omy is true, at least, W E A.S.SUME I T
at the lecture, I think one.or two would
T O B E T R U E ! ” I just laughed' out­
have taken as long to answer as it would
right at such “ science.”
W ell, thetake a science lecturer ” to walk to hislearned man went on, being considerably
93.000, ooo-of-miles-away-sun.
helped by the pictures. H e said there
were places on the moon which appeared
Being an amateur navigator I am muchto be the same as old craters on the lops ofinterested in the truth of the earth’s
volcanoes, and showed a few of them.
planarity and would much like to get a“ H ow w o n d erfu l!” an old lady behindchart on the natural principle if there areme kept repeating. The next picture
any to be had. I am at present living
shown was a volcano with lots o f smokeright east of T able Mountain, and there­
issuing from its summit. T he man offore cannot determine where the Southern
figr’res paused just long enough to give his
Cross sets ; but should I go to live in theaudience time to hold their breath at see­C apetow n .

OUR

LETTER

city I shall have great pleasure in observ­
ing it and reporting to you.
Now I must close, wishing you God
speed in the propagation of truth.
Sincerely yours,
T. W .

Sir,— The idea of the universe presentedl,y “ P arallax” has long seemed to me
to be deficient in many respects ; there islacking about it a definiteness of concep­
tion necessary to forcible elucidation, andon the whole, he did not formulate asystem of astronomy, but of geography
and cosmograjihy of the earth. I accept(he basis of the earth’ s flatness and his
general view concerning the motion of thesun and moon ; but concerning the mo­
tions of the southern stars, his views are
failing sadly to account for them. These
austral phenomena have led me to reeonstrnct the system in accordance w ith
facts, and in accounting for the phenomenaof the south I believe I have been success­ful— the eclectic system incorporates thefacts of phenomena south of the eqifatorand relies upon thecircum folar
motion" o f the southern stars, in connec­
tion with the earth's fiatness, as a demon­
strated premise.
The scriptural “ firmament ” ensphering
the world or universe, assists in solving
the question. You know some o f ourZetetic friends advocate a solid shellarched overhead. I f above as a canopy,
it is beneath as a concavity, as the hollow
of his hand, holding and sustaining thewaters of the great deep. Parallax inti­
mates that water is eternal in horizontal
directions, with fire underneath and an in­
finity of space above. H e gives no defi­nite conclusion as to what the waters rest
upon— a ponderable fluid, susceptible toevaporation in the presence of heat ;neither does he offer any reason why the
air left uninclosed may not be quickly at­tenuated into space.
Questions havearisen as to whether the views of Parallax
are sufficient to account for a system of theworld having m utual adaptation one part

BOX.

45

with another. In connection witK this, if
the sun is a ponderable body, by what is it
supported and by what power does it makeits circuit in 24 hours, and what causes it
when on the southern tropic, the circum­
ference of which is nearly twice the circumference of the northern tropic, to re­volve in just the same time as when on thenorthern tropics. H ow can it travel twice
the distance in December that it does inJune in the same time ? Then the ques­tion of the sun’ s fuel arises. If the visible
sun is an independent body what supplies
it with fuel ? Must we not, by law oflogic, conclude that the sun receives forces
and fuel in proportion as it emits lightand heat ?
These thoughts, in connection with astudy o f alchemism, have led me to theconclusion that shape and form are neces­sary to existence, and that the universe
has centre
andcircumference,and
IN S I D E of which circumference are gene­
rated lalchemic, magnetic and electricforces, and in the universe there is no di­minution, but, on the contrary, a conser­
vation of cosmical forces. By law of gene­ration, the forces, substantial as they are,would be made lighter than the concretions
by which they are generated, and by equi­
librium would rise perpendicularly as far
as limited space would permit. This limit
is the top of the firmamental reflector,
from whence they are reflected to a focus
at half the radius of the hollow sphere.
Meeting at this focal point combustion
occurs. This transmutation would en­gender for a given radius about the focal
point a region of hydro-aboron, or firstgas, and through it reflect or transmit
forces of heat and light. W here there isreflection of brightness there must of neces­sity be a corresponding reflex of that re­flection, and hence a dark hemisphere of
the central sun. The law that causes thereflection of light and its reflex would also
cause it to revolve or rotate slowly. This
principle is thoroughly exhibited in thevacuum instrument called the radiometer.
T he light and heat of tbe central sun isrefocalized upon the earth’s air within
2,cxx> miles of the earth’s surface ; from

THE

46

1'

!

t h e

E A R l 'I l

Z E T E T I C ’S

OPEN

COLUM N .

R E V IE W .

posite direction from tlie southern point of
this refocalization (the visible sun), light
Africa ; if from South America, opposite
and heat are radiated downwards and out­
from western Australia. W hat is provenwards. T h e earth absorbs this substantial
by this m ultitude o f views o f the sanu
vitality and transforms it by use hito otherthings, looking south from every southern
qualities of the same forces, which are
p o in t. o f longitude ! I can zeteticallylevitated again, transmitted, and returned
solve it. If, by looking north we set
to the earth as Ijefore. Thus, in the con­
Polaris, and it is proven central by being
stant circulation o f the forces of this greatin the zenith o f the earth’s centre, so look­
universe of life, there is no waste and noin g soitth fro m every southern point ofloss o f cosmical forces. T he connection
longituite 7ve see the same constellations,of the visible sun with the central explains
proves the view circtim ferential, which
its constant daily revolution in exactly the
could only result from r e f l e c t i o n k r o msame time over circumferences having
A C E N T R A L P O I N T , and that central fioim
different diameters.
is the top o f the prim ary stellar system.
This would bring the stars into harmonious
But you ask me for proofs concerning
revolution, with projections upon the ele­
the central sun. I answer it is found inments beneath, the outer projections fromthe phenomena o f the south. T he circle
the top o f the aboron sphere being reflec­around the central sun in my diagram oftions against the circumferential firmament
the universe, represents the limit of ether
and from thence reflected downw'ard uponor h y d r o - a b o r o n . A t the circumference
the southern serial regions. I am able toof this sphere all around is .situated thedemonstrate this by a series of mirrors-^
Prim ary S tella r System, from which thea zetetic, proof. And this affords an ex­stars as we see them are projected uponplanation of austral phenomena in accord­
the air like a great dissolving view.
ance with the requirements of ParaUax,
Polaris is situated at the bottom of the“ to - observe and record the motions
sphere, directly over its secondary that weo f the wellknown
southern
con­see. Sigma Octantis is situated at the top
stellation, not in relation to a supposijof the sphere, and the sphere rotates once
south polar star, but to the meri.
in 24 hours, while the inner sun rotates
dian and latitude o f each position.” And
and throws its projection around in 23
thus, in accordance with your view,
hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. The
mttions o f lig h t are not identical with the“ p o le s” o f the aboron sphere are thebodies em itting the light.
But here,Primary Polaris and Sigma Octantis.
allow me to note, that those stars in theHence, the phenomena o f the stars northsouth that have apparent “ circumjx)kr
and south are explained by resolving the
motion,” passing a given meridian twice
Matter into the following
in twenty-four hours, in their superior
Looking north we see Polaris ; it is cen­and inferior culm inations, could not attral— all eyes looking north and seeing thethe same time be making their great cir­same star above the C E N T R E o f thecumferential orbit of 36,000 to 50,000
earth, proves that the star is central. T hemiles. So I believe I, too, have made astars about it have a “ circumpolar ”
discovery, relating to the behaviour andmotion, continuing to the equator. The
motion of light, as it comes down fromearth being a plane, the sotith is a cir­above and passes through the atmosphere,
cumference. The stars near the centre ofa medium of ever-increasing density.
the “ circumpolar motion ” are seen at
W e cannot see beyond the limit (.f thea ll times o f the night, in the southern
air or atmostrata (not atmosphere), I canregions, in every direction looking south.
demonstrate this to any one who will de­
T h e same stars are recognizable b y con­scend with me into a body o f clear water.
stellations, and the circumpolar view ob­
Objects and light within the water can betained from every southern point. I f fromdiscerned plainly, but nothing can be seer.
N ew Zealand, one would be looking in an op­

above the water. This has been the ex­perience of divers into the s e a ; reeds,^hip masts, &c., protruding through thewater and above the surface could be seen
^nly to the surface but no farther. Light,
as light, is confined to the air, and thevisible sun, moon and stars are all within
the air, and none higher than 2,000 miles.
By zetetic proof we evolve the following :W e cannot see out of a given medium intoa lighter one, as from water into air ;hence, we cannot see beyond the air’s
surface. W e see the visible sun ; byplane triangulation it is proven to be
2,000 miles from the earth’s surface ; it iswithin the air, or at the top of the upper
stratum ; hence air extends upward 2,000
miles.
Other distinctives o f the eclectic systempresent, such as the moon’s
phases, and the full moon being seen mnorthern and southern latitudes at thtneesame time ; the solar system, the planets,
SiC., but time forbids until a future time.
In the meantime I shall be glad to havefrom you an exchange o f views concerning
austral phenomena. I f there are points inthis letter you would like to publish in con­nection with my name or system, you may
Jo so.
U lysses G . M orrow .
I could47

L ondon.
Dear Mr, Editor,— Having
carefully read through the new number ofthe E arth Review, the conclusion arrived
at is, that it will require a great deal of
beating. The cover at first struck me asrather a risky departure, (I’m rather astickler for original book covers) but after
having had the matter pointed out andweighing it carefully. I ’m inclined to thinkwith others, that many w ill be more in­clined to scan, and perhaps digest, thecontents now, than they were when thework was presented in its more scientificlooking jacket, as appearance at first sightvery often has the effect of scareing timid in­quirers who jump to the conclusion that thecontents will partake of the dry-as-dustorder o f literature. I f thinkers can be in­duced to just glance, by the aid of therosy cover, that glance may lead to a
fixed look at the matter inside, and so be
led to further investigate the subject which
this strange body o f individuals callingthemselves Zetetics or Planeists wish tobring clearly before them, thus giving solidand lasting information on their part, aiid
thereby strengthening the bundle of rods
which will at some future time beat thechaff of modern theoretical science topowder. W ishing you success,B i r m i n g h a m . I like the new series o f
the Review No. very much, especially thecover, and all who have seen
’ 'igree with me that it is a great
improvement.
J. N.

I remain yours faithfully,
D ’A r c h y A d a m s .

The Zetetic’s Open Column.
T he questions in this column are open for Zetetics to reply to.
Questions unanswered, No. 2.
Q u e s t i o n (3).
“ Anaxagoras said, that, lower than the moon, and between it andthe earth, there move yet other dark bodies which may occasion eclipses o f the moon.”
May they not be the cause o f an eclipse o f the sun ? W hat practical proof has ever been
given, that the moon coming between the earth and sun is the cause of an eclipse of thesun? T, H . H o w e s .
Q u e s t i o n (4).
W h y is it, that the horizon is exactly level with the eye whether
from the deck of a ship, an elevated position on land, or from the car o f a balloon ?
James G r a y .

th e

A n sw e rs

i; '

earth

to

r e v ie w

C o r r e s p o n d e n ts .

All letters to the Editor should be briefly and l e g i b l y written on one side of
the paper only. T h ey must be accompanied by the name and address o f thewriter, as a guarantee of good faith. W here replies are requested by post, thepostage must be enclosed. T he Editor does not hold himself responsible for th«
opinions expressed by correspondents. A ll letteri must be prepaid and addressetl

THEE ^ ^ T P - n o t a globe-I^ E Y IE W .
the majestic form o f Truth stands before the bar o f justice,that hideous monster, E rror, ha?igs its head in silence.

to
L eo C astle ,c/o Mr. J. W i l l i a m s ,32, B a n k s id e , L o n d o n , S . E’ .

lli

M, R u n c i m a n asks, *■W hat do you think of Mr. G illespie’ s Theory ? ” It
W. reminds us o f the young rascal who stole another boy’ s box of bricks to Ixiilil
a house with. Mr. (iillespie has taken the rotating globe, the Hxed sun, ami
other essential globe-spinning accompaniments to elaborate a system of hisown, and calls it
T he True System of the Universe ; ” but what about the•system from which he has taken the essentials to build his system with ? Of
that system he says :— “ It is one of the most glaring and degraded falsehoods
ever laid before mankind,” ip. 6). “ A heathen system . . . as false as theblackest lie ever brought into existence, ” (p. 66). Now if the present systemo f M odem Astronom y is “ one o f the most arrant, degraded, and debased liesthat the devil himself could ever have invented,” (p. 66), what is Mr.
G illespie’s system which is based upon the primary hypothesis of that system ?
“ D o we think that this system is the “ O N L Y theory which agrees with both
Bible and Stem S cie n ce ? ”
No.
It does not agree with either, but con­tradicts both. Stern science has its basis in /ruir//«/ facts. Mr. G .’ s system
as we have seen, is based in the Pythagorean “ idiot system ,” and therefore
has neither part nor lot in the Science o f .Scripture. F or instance, the Bible
teaches that the sun returned ten degrees in the sun-dial o f Ahaz.
N ow if thisis true, Mr. G .’s theory is tttterly false. Mr. G .’s theory is, “ the sun isstationary in space.” Goc! says, “ the sun rcttirned," therefore the sun is n o t“ stationary in space,” but rules the day by its God appointed movements in
the heavens, over a stationary dial plate, the earth. I f Mr. G .’s theory“ agrees m th Stern Science and the B ible,” that passageought to read somewhat
as follows ;— “ T h e sea-earth-globe returned ten degrees backward before thefixed sun as shown by the earth-dial o f Ahaz. ” Joshua commanding the smi(not the globe) to stand still, should be sufficient proof to Mr. G ., that his
theory is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. No wonder that he does not claim to be “ aclear expounder.” Professor Huxley says, “ the cosmogony o f the semibarborous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher, and the opprobrium of theorthodox.” That at least is manly as defining his actual position, but for any
man to assert the truth of the Scriptures and yet to contradict them by a systemo f so-called Science, is neither manly nor Christian, but absolute folly. We
respect Mr. G. and endorse many of his statements respecting the system ofmodem theoretical astronomy, but the system which he has elaborated we areagainst, liecause it is absolutely false to every fact in Nature, and every state­ment in Scripture respecting Nature. This is proven by the fact that he con­tradicts h im se lf! On [Mge 7 he says, the sun is fix e d in space, but on page i6
you will find him showing “ the orbit line of the sun ! ” An “ orbit line ” is“ the path described by a heavenly body,” that body must move to describe its
orbit, and therefore cannot be fix e d in space.” In the face of this contra­
diction and bis bare assertions, what is the value of the “ opinions of the Press,and Extracts from letters of Eminent Men and others ? ” W hy, they are not
worth the paper they are written upon ! P .S .— Our columns are open to Prof.
H uxley i f h e cares to prove his assertions, and we will show him who it is thatwill be “ forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed, if not annihi­
lated.” — V id e
O ct., 29th, 1894.

A Sectional View of the World as a Plane.

A P R I L , 1895.

N o. 3 (N ew S e r ie s ).

Z E T E T IC

P r ic e 2 d -R E F R A C T IO N .

B y James Naylor.
T h e bearing o f refraction upon both celestial and terrestrial phe­nomena, is too well known to need emphasizing. It matters notwhether we wish to approximate the size or the distance o f someheavenly body, or fairly to localize some distant object on earth, re­fraction, as the late Professor D ing said, “ baulks us at every turn ; ”
yet this circumstance should not hinder us from an attempt to solve
existing difficulties, but should rather spur us on to renewed energy.
It may be that the difficulties are only of our own creating, or arise
from some imperfect or insufficient generalization. I f so, then ofcourse we cannot hope for success. L et us then, casting aside all
pre-conceived notions, endeavour to Zetetically meet with a solution,that shall be in all respects satisfactory, and also harmonize with thewhole o f the ascertained facts.
That light is a force is practically self-evident, for setting aside themany evidences that could be set forth in proof, the experience ofevery person who has suddenly come from a darkened into a bril­liantly lighted room is sufficient testimony.
W e start then with light as a force, and whatever may be our theo­ries as to its m ethod o f propagation, whether corpuscular or undulatory, we may be sure that light as a force will conform to the known
laws which accompany the transmission o f forces. N ow of these laws,
there is none so certain as that all forces turn in the direction o f theleast resistance. U pon this fundamental premiss the whole laws ofDynamic securely rest, and we feel assured that in watching the