liiT H E EA ETH R EV IEW .

Taround the s u n ! Then, and not till then, shall we find the Bible anopen Book in the churches, and we may go to the church of the people
without being T A X ED 1—From{Single) Tax yournal^ December
2oth, 1893.
NOT A GLOBE -ROMAN CATHOLIC REFUTATIONS OP GALILEO.
From th e mass of books which appeared under the auspices of thechurch immediately after the condemnation of Galileo, for the purposeof rooting out every vestige of the hated Copernican theory from theminds of the world, two may be taken as typical. The first of these wasa work by Scipio Chiaramonti, dedicated to Cardinal Barberini. Among
his arguments against the double motion of the earth may be cited thefollowing :—“ Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles ; the earth has nolimbs or muscles, therefore it does not move. It is angels who makeSaturn, Jupiter, the sun, etc. turn round. I f the earth revolves, it mustalso have an angel in the centre to set it in motion ; but only devils'
live th e re ; it would therefore be a devil who would impart motion to
the earth....................The planets, the sun, the fixed stars, all belong
to one species—namely, that of stars—they therefore all move or standstill. It seems, therefore, to be a grievous wrong to place the earth,which is a sink of impurity, among the heavenly bodies, which are pureand divine things.”
The next, which I selected from the mass of works, is the Jfi/iI t was intended to deal a finishingstroke at Galileo’s heresy. I n this it is declared ; “ T he scripture
always represents the earth as at rest, and the sun and moon as inmotion : or, if these latter bodies are ever represented as at rest, scrip­
ture represents this as the result of a great miracle. These writingsmust be prohibited, because they teach certain principles about theposition and motion of the terrestrial globe repugnant to holy scripture
and to the catholic interpretation of it, not as hypotheses but as estab­lished facts. . . . I t is possible to work with the hypotheses ofCopernicus so as to explain many phenomena. . . . Yet it is not
permitted to argue on his premises except to show their falsity.”— Dr.
Andrew D. Whitt, “ Pofiiclar Science Monthly.'’

Copernicus Catholicus of Polacco.

“ I leam t as my first great lesson iii the inquiry into these obscure fields ofknowledge never to accept the disbelief of great men, or their accusations ofimposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeatedobservation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole historyof science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age havedenied the facts of other investigators on a priori gi'ounds of absurdity or im­
possibility, the deniers have always been wrong.”—Prof. Alfred K. Wallace.

To H im that stretched out the E a rth above the W a te rs; f o r H is mercy
endureth fo r ever,”— P sa. 1 3 6 : 6 .

No. 7.

P r ic e 2 d .

MAY, 1894.

PROFESSORTOTTENANDJOSHUA’S LONG DAY.
^ " I N C E publishing our pamphlet on the The Sun Standing Still,a friend has lent us a copy of a larger pamphlet by Professor
I®
Totten, of New Haven, entitled Joshua’s Long Day. I t is aremarkable production, and serves generally to shew the wonderful ac­
curacy of Bible Chronology. I t is on the same lines as the writings of
Mr. Dimbleby in A ll Past Time, a gentleman whom the editor of The
Earth Reviem has had the pleasure of meeting more than once in Lon­don. But while these gentlemen both make good Chronologists, weare sorry to have to point out their inconsistency as Cosmologists andas Christian writers. They hold with modern Astronomers, infidels,and evolutionists of all kinds, that the earth on which we live, is a rota­
ting “ globe,” revolving about the sun, and dashing onwards through“ space” quicker than a flash of lightning. This is not only con­trary to natural appearances, but is also contrary to the Bible doctrinethat the earth rests upon “ foundations,” and is established so fast that“ it cannot be moved.” One or other of these views must be false.
What is the use of proving that Bible Chronology is correct if Bible
Cosmology is all wrong ? And where is the consistency of defending
one part of the Sacred Writings, while practically denying another ?
According to inspired writers, Bible Cosmogony is at the basis of all
God’s dealings with, and revelation to, his creatures. H ence it is placedin the forefront of the Holy Scriptures, in the very first chapter ofGenenis. And as Mr. Totten says;—“ I t is th e Bible th a t A theists and Infidels attack—th e Old Testam ent
chiefly—for th ey are logical, and perceive th a t if the foundation goes, thesuper-structure cannot stand, no matter how eloquently it can be clothed in
Agnostic sermons . . .
I t w ill n ot do to doubt th e universality of the
Flood, and ask m en to accept a Saviour who alludes to it.
.
.
If thestory of Eden and th e Deluge, of Jericho and Joshua are m yths or fables, and

lie

TH E

EA E T H

R EV IEW .
JO H SU A ’S LONG DAY.

not literal facts, then to the still rational mind aU that follows them is equallyso, and faith, lost in those who foretold his Advent, can never he savingly
and logically found again in Christ and h is apostles.”accomplished, but we will just point out to the professor and his follow­
ers where we think there may be some inaccuracy in respect to theabsolute date given for Joshua’s “ Long Day.” This, of course, will
not invalidate the fact that systematic Chronology proves a day
ffas actually lost in the calendar after the time of Joshua’s invasion of
the land. We only doubt whether Mr. T. has found the exact year and(Jay when the sun did stand still.

This is well said, but it applies to those who deny the fact that it
was the Sun, and not the earth, which stood still at Joshua’s command
as well as applying to those who deny the “ Longer” of Joshua.
As professor T otten has no doubt a logical mind we are sure he mustsee this, and we trust he may also have the grace to acknowledge it.
Referring to Smith’s Old Testam ent History, he says;

Professor Totten seems to assume that the moon was in conjunction^ith the sun on the day of the battle at Bethoron. This is contrary toto the general “ tenor of the record,” which evidently imphes that
Joshua saw the moon going down in the west over Ajalon, as well as
the sun “ in the midst of heaven,” over Gibeon. Mr. T. says ;—“ Dr. Sm ith does n ot seem to credit the chief even t of th is battle, since
he says, ‘ The miracle m ust he understood as phenomenal, nam ely, th a t thesun and moon appeared to th e Israelites to s t a n d s t i l l ’ (! ?) Now this ig
sim ply b eggin g th e question, and b eggin g w ith i t every other miracle men.
tioned in the B ible
. . . Upon the basis of the generally accepted‘ poetical version ’ of this incident we m ust prefer the out-and-out position o{K enan him self, as given in h is H istory of Israel (q .v,), and w ith it, were wehonestly convinced of th e reliability o fth a t m ethod of treating the Scriptures,
we would logically go to the fu ll extreme and reject its D ivine Inspiration in
toto. B ut the wise man cannot do i t ; and so to conserve h is reason, ho isforced to go down into th e depths of a ll th in gs u n til th e truth shines o u t convinced th a t i t is there, if bu t w ith patience i t be sought.”“ The moon was thereforce recorded (?) as about 8' w est of the sun, andhad the relative motion of th e three bodies’ (two ?) not been arrested, shewould have come into conjunction (i.e. become ‘ new ’) in about 13 m inutes oftame.”

Now, as Ajalon was some miles west of Gibeon the new moon could
possibly appear to a spectator further north at Bethoron as lying low“ in the valley of Ajalon,” while the sun at the same moment was seen'• in the midst of heaven ” upon Gibeon. In fact the moon could nothave been seen at all if the occurence took place at the time of her con­junction with the sun. “ Bathed in such a meridian sun-glare she would
have been invisible even to the Lick telescope.” T he moon was prob­
ably in her last quarter, low, but visibly setting in the west. If notseen, then why is she mentioned ? Speaking of the “ Sun Dial ” inci­
dent of Hezekiah’s reign Mr. Totten says ;This might have been written for the E a r t h (not-a-globe) R eview ,it applies so well to our contention that the earth has really no suchmotion as that which the astronomers ascribe to i t ; but, if the Bible is
not correct in attributing motion to the sun as well as to the moon thenthe professor is bound to give up his belief in the Divine Inspiration of
the Scriptures. There is no logical escape from this conclusion. He
must give up his belief either in the absurd theory of the earth’s rota­tion, or his faith in a Divinely revealed Cosmogony.

The moon though involved in th is incident could not be mentioned be­cause she was ju st short of her entrance into the 4th quarter, wherefore at th atmoment (i.e. absolutely), was below th e eastern horizon ” (!)

Mr. T otten proceeds to verify the elements of the question, with aview of shewing that Joshua’s “ Long Day ” consisted of the 23 h. 20 m.
added to the regular day of 24 hours which marked the day of thewinter solstice of the year 2555 a.m., or year of the world, “ the autum­
nal equinoxial beginning of which year was 3333 solar years ago,
reckoning from Sunday, Sept. 22, 1889, a . d . ” Thus the “ Long D ay”
would consist of 47 hours and one-third, or nearly two full days, and weare informed that it was so reckoned in the calendars of the time, thatis as two days all but forty minutes. These forty minutes he proceeds 1
to shew were afterwards rectified or made up in the time of Hezekiah, |the twelfth king of Judah, a t “ the instant of the Autumnal Equinox, in I.
the year of the world 3293,” at high noon, just before 12 o’clock as we
reckon, when th e shadow went back ten degrees. This is very interest­
ing, and if accurate will serve to shew how the Chronology of the Bible may be as scientifically demonstrated as its Cosmogony, both being equal- 1
ly inspired. We cannot find space here to shew our readers how this is

f,\

147

Now when the moon is in her last quarter she is west of the sun,and if not being seen prevented her being mentioned in one instance,
the fact of her being mentioned in the other case shews she was visible.
And if the moon was visible as well as the sun, at the time of Joshua’s“ Long Day,” then the moon was not in “ conjunction ” with the sun atthat time, and so the professor has given us the wrong date for the
miracle. We do not question his figures proving that a conjunction
took place on the day ot the year named ; but we do question the con­clusion that this proves it to be the year of Joshua’s “ Long Day.”
We remember once having to question Mr. Dimbleby respecting oneof his dates in a similar manner, and a very important date too. One
affecting the true A.D. Mr. D. assumes that the Crucifiction occurred
on a Friday, what is popularly known as “ Good Friday,” at the wintersolstice of the Anno Mundi 3996. H e calculates, and doubtless rightlyiOUR EA R TH MOTIONLESS.
148

THE

EARTH

REVIEW .

calculates the year when the 14th of Nisan, the time of the Paschal
offering, fell upon this Friday ; but if the Messiah was not put to deathon a Friday it follows of course, that this could not be the year of the
crucifixion. T hat the Saviour was not crucified on a Friday is evident
from Matt. 12 : 40 ; for no calculator, not even an astronomer, can make“three days a n d three nights" from Friday afternoon, the sixth day of the \week, to the “ end of the Sabbath,” or Saturday, which was the seventhday. See Matt. 28 : i. H ence, to add on the age of the Messiah, when
he was cut off, to [the year when a “ Good F riday” fell on the 14th of
Nisan, would not give the true A.D. And if we have not the true A.D.
would it be correct to say that ‘‘ T he autumnal Equinox of 1889 was
the 5,888th since C reation” ? We recommend the professor to read a
pamphlet on the subject of the true day of the Crucifixion, entitled“ The Siqn o f the Messiah," hy the “ Rev." W. M. Jones, D.D., London.
Since reading this we have no doubt that the Saviour was crucified on a
Wednesday, as this day would reconcile Matt. 12 :40, with Matt. 28 ; i,and other passages. But we cannot enter further into this question
here. We only refer to these possible sources of error in otherwise ex­cellent chronological works, in order that our Bibical Chronologists may
clear them up, and prove to all Zetetics that the Bible is as worthy ofcredence in its systematic Chronology as we are striving to shew it isin its wonderful and natural Cosmogony.
Now, Mr. Totten, speaking of himself, says ;—“ The writer does not pretend to explain }iow the day was lengthened, but
accepts it as a literal fact fu lly corroborated by h istory.”

We will therefore inform this Bible student how it was done. “ ThtSun stood still 1 ” and if Mr. T. does not believe this, he may as well
give up his search for Joshua’s ‘‘ Long Day.” The inspired accountro t only tells us that the day was lengthened, but it also informs us hm
the day was lengthened. Yet our perplexed philosopher says ; “ How .
is was accomplished, God only knows.” H e might as truly say God
only knows whether there was ever such a “ Long Day,” for if the Bible
is not clear on one point it is not clear on the other. But it is clear on
both points. And if the Hebrew’s Writings are not sufficient authority,then it is useless calling in the corroborative testimony of the Grecian
Herdotus, the Egyptians, or the Chinese. Either the Bible accountis reliable in toto or it is not. Mr. Totten is not at liberty to accept one
part of the account and deny another. We believe it is all true ; and it
certainly has in its favour the fact which can be proved any day by com­
mon sense experiments and common observation, namely, that the solid
earth has not the awful motions attributed to it, and that the sun does
move daily around us. Why, we ask, why should we believe that themoon has proper motion and not believe the same of the sun ? Bothare seen to revolve around us from east to w est; but the moon, being

149

lower and nearer the earth revolves more slowly. Thus she gets left
behind daily some twelve degrees or more ; and so loses one complete
revolution in a moonth or month. On what authority, therefore, doesj^Ir. Totten say, “ T he Earth’s own rotation must be rigidly included in
the calculation.” Can he give us a single proof that the earth has any
such rotation ? H as he ever found himself wrong side up ? Hanging
head downwards ? H e may be upset by our asking such questions, andset them aside as “ absurd ” ; but we ask them in all seriousness. If thequestions are “ absurd,” what must the theory be which logically calls
them forth ? We will not here attem pt to shew the utter and practicalabsurdity of the globular theory, as there is much in Mr. T otten’s bookand belief with which we are in perfect harmony. But we will remind
him that the globular theory was no part of the belief of ancient Isra e l;
and being based on unproven assumptions, and as contrary to Inspired
Cosmogony as to Natural Science, it can only be viewed in the lightof a serious blot on the modern belief of “ Our Race. ” The globular
theory is a part of the evolution hypothesis, and both are founded uponan infidel “ science ” falsely so-called •, and both alike fostered by aschool of criticism that is antagonistic to the faith and hope of Israel.
As Mr. Totten nobly says, when thinking only of inspired Chronology,
and which we, in conclusion, repeat thinking both of this Chronology
and the Divinely revealed system of Cosmogony;—“ If, therefore, we are to resume our place among the noble army of those
who have already testified for Jesus Christ w ith their lives and works, wemust repudiate in toto th is iuiquitious school of criticism , and recapture some­how or other, the Ararat redoubt, replace the L ong D ay in our Scientific
Chronology, believe Moses rather than the Moabite stone, and the B ible
rather than a sun-burned brick dug up at Babylon.”

Bravo, professor 1 Add one word more and then you will be consis­
tent, and make a good Zetetic. Let us also believe the Creator rather
than the creature in the descriptions H e has given us of His own Crea­tion : and these descriptions will be found to be all in harmony with thefacts of Natural Astronomy.
With Israel’s greatest Teacher we pointedly ask; “ If ye
believe not his (Moses’) Writings, how shall ye believe
My Words ” ?

OUR EARTH MOTIONLESS.
DEFINITE CONCLUSIONS OF SCIENCE.
A popular lecture proving th a t our earth neither rotates upon its axis nor

around the sun.—Delivered a t B erlin by Db . S hosppbb.
G e n t l e m e n .—One should be endowed with unlimited courage todare come out before a large audience with proofs of the erroneousnessof a scientific formula which since our earliest youth we had been

150

t h e e a e t h r e v ie w .

OUR EARTH MOTIONLESS.

taught to regard as the only correct and unerring theory. I am pretty
certain that at this moment you have come to the same conclusion
about me as, four month’s ago, I would have entertained myself of any
man who should have asserted that it is not the earth which revolves
around the sun, but the sun which revolves around the 'earth. I would
have considered such a man either an ignoramus or a lunatic ; never­theless, I now consider the immobility of the earth an incontrovertible
fact, and even hope that my convictions will be shared by those who
without prejudice will reflect upon that which I will now impart to them.

then the arc of the vibration, as Foucault tells us will (not) change fromthe axial rotation of the emplacement, and will begin, in consequenceof this, to gain in rapidity on the northern and less rapidly moving par­allel, and will be out-stripped by the southern one, which moves quicker.
In such a case, the arc of the pendulum will soon diverge from its direc­
tion from north to south, and its point turned to the north will near theeast, and with the point turned south will begin more and more to near
the west, till, finally, the pendulum will change its motion in the direc­
tion from east to west.

Some time ago we had the opportunity of witnessing the series ofexperiments with a pendulum which, according to the theory of the cele­
brated physicist Leon Foucault, furnish proof of the diurnal rotation of
the earth around its axis. I had long neglected to acquaint myself withthese experiments, although, while explaining to my pupils the motionof the earth around the sun, I had always found very extraordinary
results—absurd, I ought to say— one circumstance pertaining to thismotion with which you will acquaint yourselves in my present lecture.
So firm was my conviction of the diurnal and annual revolutions of our
globe (earth ?) that I had accepted even Foucault’s experiments with thependulum as sufBciently demonstrative.

Now the reason for a deviation of the pendulum has ceased ; itvibrates no more across two parallels, but only across one. T he causeof its deviation from its first direction is rem oved ; it would then seemthat the deviation itself ought not to take place any longer, but neverthe­less it still continues. The pendulum abandons the east and west di­rection to approach with its points the southeast and northwest until itreaches its starting point, at which it must again deviate according toFoucault’s theory.

Meanwhile, I had been appointed to assist in the experiments, and,as they bear directly upon the subject in hand, I will briefly state in sub­stance the results.
If, choosing any given point in space near our globe, we imagine alimitless series of circles, then, in consequence of their parallel position
to the equator, we term such series of circles parallels.
From the exterior form of the earth we conclude that these circles
go on diminishing as they near the poles. If we fancy two such circumterraneous parallels as dividing this auditorium, then the northern par­allel will be shorter than the southern. In the rotation of the eartharound its axis in 24 hours both parallels will have to accomplish theirrotation in the same space of tim e ; and as they complete the circuit
simultaneously, but the southern parallel is longer than the northern,then, consequently, every point of the southern parallel must move withgreater velocity than the like points of the northern.
Let us now throw a glance on the apparatus called the pendulum,
which is well-known to every one, but in the particular case in point avery equivocal authority. I t is easy to demonstrate that the arc of thevibration of the pendulum does not depend upon the change (Drehung)of the point of suspension. This undisturbed regularity of the vibrationof the pendulum has served M. Leon Foucault as a proof of the rotationof the earth around its axis. I f we cause such a pendulum to vibrate
across the parallels which we are imagining to pass through our audience,161

As the pendulum does not preserve the direction from east to west,
but always gets farther and farther away, I conclude that the deviationof the pendulum is not caused by the axial motion of the earth, but isdue to some other motion yet unknown.
By a series of careful experiments I have found that all pendulums
are not liable to a deviation in the same degree ; the heavier the ball,the more rapidly it will deviate. And as the rotation of the eartharound its axis—if we admit its existence—ought to be manifested
everywhere equally, then its deviation also, for every kind of pendulum,
must be equal in tim e ; but this in reality is just what is not the case.
The conviction that Foucault’s arguments were erroneous forced me
to verify at the same time all other proofs which have hitherto been
regarded as demonstrating the rotation of the earth around its axis, andit was then I found that we had no evidence for such a theory.
Already in antiquity Aristarchus of Samos and other philosophers
several centuries before Christ affirmed that the stellar sphere is motion­less and that the daily rising and setting of the stars can only be accoun­ted for on the theory of the earth’s rotation around its axis. But allthese men, profound thinkers, had come to the above conclusion only
from the fact that otherwise such an incredible rapidity of the celestialbodies as would enable them to accomplish a diurnal circuit around theearth could never be accounted for. Of course every one must agreewith me that at the present moment such an argument would be re­garded as very small proof. Indeed, if we were able to take a little
peasant boy from a country in which railroads were unknown, and tellhim of the existence of carriages which are able to make a mile in fiveT H E EA R TH MOTIONLESS.
153

TH E

EARTH

153

REV IEW .

minutes, of course he could never believe us ; such rapidity would seem
incredible to him. H e is ignorant that light travels with a velocity of
40,000 miles a second, and that the rapidity of electricity is still moreconsiderable ! Thus, this argument with respect to the celestial bodies
whose nature in as yet so little understood, and the path of whose
motion is a vacuum or in a space filled with attenuated m atter is only
assumed or guessed at upon the strength of an hypothesis—that thesebodies cannot have such a velocity of motion as to be able in twentyfour hours to circumscribe the earth—such an argument, to make us
reject the possibility of the rotation of the celestial sphere, is certainly
weak and futile.
But the contrary position, the one commonly accepted, also proves
untenable when we look into it carefully.
It was found in the measurement of the earthly meridians that the
globe is flattened towards the poles, and that in consequence of this,the equatorial diameter is greater than the line which passes throughthe axis of the earth from one pole to the other. Man, who endeavours
to penetrate into all the mysteries of nature, tried to find the reason forsuch a flatness, and then comes Newton and explains it by the rotatory
motion of the globe. In consequence of such a rotation all the compo­
nent parts of the earth, and especially the bodies to be found upon its
surface, receive an impulse to abandon the earth. Such an impulse isthen named the centrifugal force.
At the poles, where the rapidity of motion is equal to O, that force
is also equal to O ; further from the poles to the equator that force mcreases in ratio with the increase of the parallels, so that the greater theparallel is, the more rapidly, as I have already said, must move each ofits points. In consequence of this, they say, the greater part of theearth’s mass is gravitating toward the equator; and for the same reason,
the centripetal force, acting on the equator with greater intensity, com­pels the concentration there of the greater portion of the mass. Hence
it is finally concluded that the earth must forcibly rotate around its axis,
because were there no such rotation there would be no centrifugal force,
and without such a force there would exist no gravitation toward theequatorial diameter or zone.
We have laid before you now one of the existing evidences of therotation of the earth. 1 do not accept such an argument, but reject itwith many other scientists who have discarded it before myself. . . . .
Therefore, gentlemen, until be have more weighty argument to ex­
plain satisfactorily the accumulation of the mass of the earthy matteron the warmer zones, I cannot undertake to accept as a reason for ita certain centrifugal force, appearing as a consequence of the motion of
the earth around its axis, and I will not allow the hypothesis, were it

but because I know beforehand to what inexplicable contradictions thisSome of these I will point out pre­sently.
We must now consider the fourth and last evidence of the rotary
movement of the terrestrial globe.
In 1867 M. Richer remarked that a clock of his, which kept goodtime in Paris, having been transferred to Cayenne, t.e. five degrees northof the equator, began to lose two and a half minutes daily. Richer had
to shorten the rod of the pendulum one and a quarter lines to make theclock go right. I t is well-known that the time of the vibration or rapid­
ity of a pendulum Increases with the diminution of its length, and isarrested proportionately with the elongation of the rod. Later it was
ascertained that such a retardation happens also when the clock is car­ried on a high mountain. As the vibration of the pendulum is basedon the laws of falling bodies, and the fall of the bodies itself depends ontheir weight, or otherwise, on the attraction of the earth (?) it was but
natural to conclude that if the vibration of the pendulum is not the same
everywhere, and the attraction of the earth varies, then this affords usconclusive evidence that the cause of the retardation of the vibrationsof the pendulum is a certain centrifugal force, which develops with the
motion of the earth around its ^xis, and that it is this force whicharrests the swing of the pendulum by decreasing its weight. But sucha conclusion is erroneous ; and we could far better admit the following
conclusion, at which many of our physicists now have arrived—theattraction of the earth dimishes with the recession of the body from its
centre, which serves at the same time as the centre for all the attractive
force of the globe. (That is if it were a globe !— E d .)And what if the cause of the retardation of the vibrations of thependulum at the equator and on high mountains should prove quite
different from what is now generally supposed ? W hat if the cause isis not at all the decrease of the force of attraction (whether from therecession of the object from the centre of the earth or centrifugal force),
but on the contrary, its increase, proceeding from the accumulation of
bulk at the equator, in which case the force of attraction increasing, in­creases at the same time the weight of the body, and in the pendulum
the weight of the ball ? There is one fact not known to all physicists,
I believe, namely, that the rapidity of the vibrations of a pendulum de­pends not only on the length of its rod, but also on the weight of theball itself. It might be even more correct to express it thus ; the velo­
city of the motion of the pendulum depends chiefly on the weight of its
ball. W hen I elongate the rod of the pendulum I force the ball tomove on a longer level, and increase thereby its own weight; I can also,
without elongating the rod, increase its weight by other m ean s; theresult will be the same. Thus, for instance, every one is aware that
centrifugal force would bring us.

154

THE

EARTH

r

REV IEW .

even people unacquainted with science, when their clocks are running
too fast, and they wish to make the pendulum vibrate slower, attach tothe ball either a stone or a small bit of iron, and thus attain their object.
The physicists have made very exact experiments in this direction.
They found that a pendulum having an uniform length of rod makes
20,000 vibrations—
W itli a ball attached to it w eighing 2 k.g. In
4 „
„
6 „
„
8 „
„

1,977 seconds.
2,010-55 „2,021-31 „2,027-04 „Therefore the greater weight of the ball the slower the vibration of
the pendulum. From these experiments, conducted with the greatest
precautions and published in the “ Comptes Rendus de P Academic Francaise,” tome xxi., p.p. 117-134, it appears : i. That the laws of Galileo
are not quite exact as to the vibrations of the pendulum ; 2, T hat the
explanation of the retardation of the pendulum on the equator by thedecrease of the force of attraction of the earth is evidently false ; 3, That
even the universally accepted laws of the gravitation of bodies are notsufficiently ex act; and 4, That, in general, the means employed toward
discovering the laws of nature with the help of calculations is not only
being proved unreliable, but it serves but the more to darken the truth.
You will have seen from the last two arguments, which have hither­to served as evidence of the rotation of the earth, that as the result ofsuch a rotation was assumed a centrifugal force. Its presence was vainly
sought for in the currents of the ocean, as well as in those of the air.
And, indeed, it is not easy to explain how or on what principle the air— this soft, yielding, incompressible body, agitated by various currents— could have remained unaflfected by the rotation of the terrestrial
globe. If the greatest physicists admit that hard bodies are influenced
by such a rotation, then it appears, it will not be too bold on my partto maintain that the rotation of the earth around its axis should inevi­
tably exert an influence on the air. This influence should be shown
first of all in that, during the rotation of the earth from west to east,
there would appear immediately an atmospheric current from east to
west.
Indeed, if the earth, together with its atmosphere, rotates in a com­pletely empty space, then in every case it might be possible to admitthat the earth rotates without producing any influence on the atmos­
pheric ocean. But against the theory of such a vacuum we have thevery quality of the air.
T he air, as much as we know of it, has such a great tendency toward
expansion that all the hitherto worked out laws of gravitation have re­mained foreign to it. Were the most exterior, the most rarefied layerof air not to encounter on its way any obstacle toward its expansion in

T H E EARTH MOTIONLESS.

155

the shape of a new planet, it would scatter itself throughout the whole
universe, moving farther and farther into the infinite space •, the particlesof the air nearer to this layer would follow its example, and, finally, theseas and rivers of the terrestrial globe, all the water would take part insuch a process of expansion, to disappear at last from the face of theearth. (We produce first just such a phenomenon with the help of an
air pump). On the ground that such a thing does not exist in fact, wemust suppose that there is some retaining cause, which according tocustom, we will term Ether. Counteraction to the evaporation of the
air consists in this, that it forces every upper layer to press upon thenext lower, causing by such a progressive pressure the condensation ofthat layer of the atmospheric air which is next to us.
If such an ether exists in reality, then there must occur in the atmos­
phere those phenomena so familiar to us, which always take place incases when the air encounters obstacles to its free motion. Let theearth rotate, then all the atmospheric space, on the ground of the attrac­
tion of the earth, will be compelled to participate in the movement, andthe consequence will be that the upper layers of the air, finding a resis­
tance in the ether, will either be retarded, or— which would be thesame—assume a seeming current in a direction opposite to that of theearth’s motion. Such a current of the upper stratum of the air would
provoke a resistance in the next lower one, and this one, in its turn,
receiving the impulse communicated to it by the upper one, would offer
a resistance to its next lower neighbour, etc. Finally these two opposite
currents, intermingling in their onward impulse, would form two streams—one from east to west, in which would participate, first, the wholeatmospheric ocean world, and then the contents of all the waterybasins j the other from west to east, into which would be drawn the very
core of the terrestrial globe.
But let us make another supposition, and notwithstanding the im­possibility, let us admit that there is no e th e r; that ether is no more nor
less than the product of those endless hypotheses in which man has en­tangled himself from the first in his efforts to investigate nature ; evenin the latter case it will not be a difficult task to prove that the rotationof the earth must cause the current of the atmosphere to take an oppo­
site direction. On what ground did our physicists base their supposi­tions when telling us that we don’t feel the rotation of the earth ? How
do they explain the circumstance that objects on its surface are neither
upset nor fall ? They point to the laws of inertia. Very w ell! I agreewith th em ! I agree only the better to vanquish my adversaries with
their own weapons, as I have hitherto always done. You are probably
aware that motion can be imparted to any substance, but that a fluidor gaseous body can be made to move only when it is imprisoned in aa hard one. Air is a body which is more than any other disassociated as

156

THE

EA E T H

T H E NEBU LA R HYPOTHESIS.

EEV IE W .

to its component parts. Let us suppose that the earth has communi­cated its movement to the layer of air next to the surface, and thus
dragged it after her. This layer, perfectly separate and distinct fromthe next upper one unattached to it, is unable to communicate its
motion to the other and upper layers. H ence these upper layers re­main unaffected by the motion of the lower one, or what comes tothe same, begin to assume a seeming rush (or current) from east to west,
with a rapidity equal to the earth’s rotation. Every point of the equator
during the diurnal rotation of the earth crosses in the same lapse ofof time 1,250 feet, but in the direction opposite to that of the earth’s
rotation. But such a rapidity of the atmospheric currents is nowhere
to be seen, and it exceeds ten times the speed of the most terrible hur­ricanes.
I do not belong to those who accept their own conviction of an east
and west atmospheric current for a real and already demonstrated fact.
And yet all the modern physicists, scientifically convinced of the abso­lute necessity for the existence of such a current, have accepted it as afact, resulting from the earth’s rotation around its axis, although all theirefforts to find it anywhere in nature have been in vain. Even thepassates, explained for a certain time by the same rotatory motion of
our globe, deprived at the present moment of their once famous perio­dicity, are now being accounted for a great deal more simply, to wit, by
the different degree of heat in the upper envelope of the terrestrial globe.
We have but to represent to ourselves, in thought, all the various
atmospheric currents, at one time weakening, at another increasing, andmoving in every imaginable direction, called by us sometimes winds, some­times tempests \ we must imagine these winds running very often in
direct opposition to each other’s course, and then ask ourselves thequestion: Is there any possibility that such currents could exist when
the air is at the same time forced to passively follow the simultaneousrotation of the earth around the sun and its own axis ? Is it possible
to admit that in case such currents existed in nature, our atmospherewould at the same time continue the constant and faithful satellite of
our earth ?
Therefore the circumstance that the rotation of the earth arouud its
axis is not at all felt by us ; that other circumstance, that this rotation
has never been in any form or manner satisfactorily proved, and cannot
be proved; the absence, finally, in nature, of those atmospheric currents
which in all justice ought to be found as a consequence of the rotation—all this serves us as a refutation of the theory of the rotation of theearth around its axis, perfectly convincing, if it were only because we do
not possess a single evident proof in favour of the rotation.
Is it not a cause of wonder that the savants of the whole civilized
world, beginning with Copernicus and ending with Kepler, first of all

157

accept such a rotation of our planet, and then for three centuries and ahalf after that seek for it some proof? But, alas ! they seek, and as wasto be expected, find it not. All in vain ; all unsuccessful! From The

Scientific American.
(To be Continued).
fT tis very su ggestive lecture proves unm istakably that tlie earth, has none of
the terrible m otions attributed to it by th e Astronomers. W e should be sur­prised if Dr. ShcBpfer did not afterwards find out th a t the earth could not
possibly be a “ globe ” if it has none of th e motions necessary to th e globu­
lar theory. E d . E .K .]THE

NEBULARH Y PO T H E SIS.

B t L a dt B lount.

H ypothesis quoted,“ A ll m atter once floated
In atoms wide roam ing through space ” ;W hen a power, perhaps “ Nether,” ?
P ulled all down together.
How it happened no m ortal can trace !
B u t, dear m e ! however
Could there th en be a " N ether ” ?
Or an upward or downward at all ?
W ith “ atoms ” dis-severed.
Now gravity-tethered,And shooting through space like a ball.
T his power of such fam e," G ravitation” by name.
Pounced down on the atoms while str ew in g ;B u t further back gaze.
O’er eternity’s maze.
W hat before was good gravity doing ?
The gravity theory.
W hen started was clearly,
A fancy which N ew ton h ad .“ run ” ;Im agine the motion.
This world, m ostly ocean.
Once a cinder shot out from the sun !
Like Solar relation.
Inherent rotation,
Sent th e “ globe ” w h irlin g round, till fu ll soon—
Just picture th e view—
The sparks, how th ey flew !
And a beauty so bright made th e Moon !
The Sun, the great M aster,”
Sure ought to go faster.
Than the sparks it sent backwards review ing ;Y e t globe and Moon too.
K eep old Sol w ell in view .
And play all around w hile pursuing !
T he Globite avers,
I t took Millions o f Years,
For th e earth to develop and cool. Sir,
B u t he who w ill try
To give God th e lie ,Sha.11 yet prove him self but a “ f o o l/’ Sir.

158

T H E EARTH

CORRESPONDENCE NOTESR EV IEW .

159

|!f

CORRESPONDENCE.
(

A ll Letters sent to the E d ito r should he legibly w ritten on one
only o f the paper, a n d should have some direct bearing on i
before us.
They m ust be accompanied by the name a n d address o f thesender.
Stam ped addressed envelopes ought to he enclosed f o r replies.
Short p o in ted letters or articles 'preferred.
The E d ito r cannot, o f course, he held responsible f o r the various opinionso f his correspondents; nor can he enter into correspondence respecting articles,
4'C, held over or declined.
Letters m ust he prepaid, and addressed to“ Z E T E T E S ,"E d ito r o/ T h e E a r t h (not-a-Globe) R e v ie w ,P lu tus House, S t. S a vio u r’s Road,
Leicester, E ngland.

few) who remember th a t an editor cannot liv e entirely on air w hile giving
his tim e, energy, and skill to the truth, however m uch he may love thattruth.
J.S., Sootle.—The letter and poem of Mr. Brown is a bombastic piece of selfsufEciency. H e seems to be a pantheistic globularist. You should ask
him th e ancient question, “ Canst thou by searching find out God ? ”
G. T. B olt, Portsm outh.—Poem approved, but m ust stand over for th e present.
E. Shellam, W andsworth.— Thanks for useful Extracts from Q-laisher.
Shall be used as opportunity occurs.
B.C., Belfast.—Mr. G illispie’s book, notw ithstanding all his boasting, has one
serious defect. I t assumes th e earth is a “ globe ” j and he neither
attem pts to prove th is assumption nor to deal w ith the fact th a t thesurface of standing water is absolutely level.
J. Smith, H alifax.—L et us know how the Challenge progresses. B e very
careful how its terms are drawn up. B ut even if th e opposite party fails
to proceed, cannot Zetetics them selves get up some special experiments,
and then publish results ?
W.B., Toronto.—Pa-pei re Joshua’s Sun received.

NOTES.
M. H . Seedley.— Tlianks for M illenial Dawn, and other papers received. Do
w hat you can to spread true view s of Creation Truth, for if B ible Cos­m ogony is not believed to be true the Scriptural H ope of Eternal Lifecannot logically or long survive.
H .U .8 ., B ayswater.— Science Siftings to hand. Too crowded to quote in thisissue. As you say in m arginal notes, som e of its “ Science ” is “ bosh.”I t appears th at even th e “ Siftings ” of “ Science ” need further sifting.
Thanks for your encouraging words re No. 6. Earth Review. W e try to
make each number " 22 Carat.”
H .V ., Santa Oruz.— (1). Thanks for Scientific American, and other literature
duly received. Ton w ill see th at we are m aking good use of th e former.
(2). No ! The Christmas No. of The Muses did not " contain anythingof importance re the P lane E arth.” B u t we w ill, if possible, print the
Editor’s letter promising it would, so th at our readers m ay see we were
justified in expecting som ething. (3). Yes. W e have asked our friends
in southern latitudes to collect facts for the E .E . respecting the sun andstars.
C.H., London.— C utting to hand from the P a ll M all Gazette. B ut it mis­represents Zeteticism.
W e have already shewn th a t “ the apparent
roLation (revolution p) of the stars round a south pole ” (m agnetic starcentre P) is no proof of the shape of the earth. And we are prepared toshew th e same even if you could prove th at the sun, in our winter,“ appeared ” to revolve around a southern celestial “ pole ” or starcentre. You m ust come down and study the Earth itse lf if you wish tofind out its shape.
J.A ., Bel/as4.—Thanks for various cuttings, as also for 2/6 for " free litera­ture ’’ to be sent to our earnest m issionary friend in Ceylon. W e havesent various parcels of papers and pam phlets from tim e to tim e, but wesent him a special parcel out on receipt of the above.
F.W .J., Ceylon.—K indly distribute literature sent as above where yon think it
w ill produce good fruit. H ave had no spare “ space ” y e t to print thelong correspondence w ith Mr. T. C. H illard. The work accumulates, but
our strength does not. W e fear we sh all ere long have to devote what is
le ft more exclusively to m eeting the increasing responsibilities of a large
fam ily. B ut if so, th e E .E . w ill still go on.
G. Bevell, If.Z.—W hat you kin dly sent has been forwarded to the Secretaryof the IJ.Z.S. Thanks^for " the balance.” You are one of the few (very

Cannot print at present.

T. Whittle, Groyden.— Letter and diagram received. Thanks. W e have givena report of th e Portsmouth Lecture as several besides yourself have ex­pressed a wish for it.

Letters to the E d ito r.
adulterated

geography.

Sir,— Some years ago it was reported
that “ Dr. L ivingstone refused to en­trust his dispatches to th e Royal
Geographers because th ey were in the
habit of altering them to su it their own
views.” I t appears evident from thefollowing extract th a t “ the h a b it” iskept up now, and by consequence thepeople do not know what th e actual
result obtained from any observation
is. Truly we live in an age of adulter­
ation, fraud and sham s.
“ Sir Benjam in Stone excused him ­self from givin g further details of theeclipse, on the ground th a t th e of&oialreport had not been published.”
Could you kindly inform me if th e
“ ofUcial report ” w ill be published on
the first day of April or on th e fifthof November ?
B a la a m ’ s A s s .
A M ATHEM ATICAL COBW EB
FO E SIL L Y F L IE S .
Dear Sir,—A Newtonian (w ith theinitials C.H.) has ju st added anotherto the m any m athem atical frauds
found in books on popular Astronomy.
Airy has " proved ” th at a degree of
latitude or longitude consists of 69
miles so th at th e .circumference of his
pagan globe m ay be 24,840 m iles, but

H erschel makes the degree 70 m iles, sothat th e entire circumference m ay be
25,200. Landner by m athem atics finds
the sun’s distance to be 100 m illion
m iles. H erschel 95 m illions ; Airy _92 Jm illions, &c., all by M athematics !
Again, Brewster and H erschel differ intheir calculations of th e nearest fixedstar’s distance by such a trifle as eigh t
hundred thousand m illion m iles ! D es­
pite their " in fa llib le m athem atics,”
th e diflloulty is in finding out one point
about which these Astronomers agree.
The globularist, C. Harpur, in a leaf­
le t gives th e follow ing figure, calling S
th e sun, E the equator, N the northpole, and B Bordeaux.

A t th e very outset he craftily begs
the whole question by assum ing without
proof a north-pole and an equator soessential to th e sea-earth globe.
Hen ext adds another supposition th at atnoon on March 20th, the sun as seenfrom the north pole is ju st on th e hori.

IGO

T H E EA.RTH REV IEW .
COEHESPONDENCE.

zon, w hilst at Bordeaux its altitude is
45°. B u t since, w itli th e altitude of 0 ° ,he could not form his triangle S E N ,he supposes him self about a mile southof th e im aginary pole so th a t h e may
suppose the sun with th e altitu de of one
m inute, th e altitude at Bordeax still
being 45°, w h ilst th e sun is perpendicu­
lar at th e equator.
H avin g thus
arranged, he informs us th at an angleof one m inute such as a t N m ust have“ th e line subtending it 3,450 tim es its
own len gth off,” so that E N is 3,450
tim es E S. B ut the angle E B S being
45° and th e angle E 90° th e angle
E S B is 45°; therefore the line S E
equals E B , and E N is 3,450 tim es
E B , that is, Bordeaux ought to be only
2 m iles or so from th e equator. N ow ,if we grant C.H’s suppositions as toaltitude and th a t th is is a mere questionof plane trian gles som ething Kke theresult he m entions m ust follow. But
Zetetics reject mere supposition, anddemand facts established by actual obser­
vation of altitude at th e places named,
w ith th e exclusion of a ll m athem aticaljugglery. Then since th e sun’s a lti­
tude is reckoned
on th e vault ofheaven, independently of terrestrial
globularity, and since Bordeaux is 45°
north of th e “ equator,” w ith an assum­
ed a ltitu d e of 45°, th e whole distance
betw een the equator and north-polebeing 90°, Bordeaux ought rather tobe precisely m idway between these twopoints so as to brush away C.H’S cob­web. Moreover, th e established facts
th at th e surface of water is level andth a t there is no terrestrial curvature,railways and canals being cut without
any allowance for convexity, the line
E N in th e figure m ust be straight, andgranting th is to be a question only ofplane trian gles, E B being equal to E S,
the h eig h t of the sun ou gh t accordingly
to equal th e distance between Bordeaux
and the equator. . , . The crafty
Newtonians would ha’^e us for the nonce
forget their assumptions of im mense
distances and sizes, and in m easuring
altitu des of su n and stars th e y virtually
reject their ath eistic supposition of
infinite space and confess the fact of anarched or vaulted blu e sk y overhead,w hich is as m anifest to our eyesigh t as
the ceilin g of a bedroom. However,th e y cunningly call i t a “ celestial
globe,” m aking i t a kind of envelope
for th e “ terrestrial ” one......................
Further, it is rather remarkable th at
Snowball in his " Trigonometry (p. 65)

gives th e very same figure as O.H.,
w ith a semi-circle described on E.N, asth e author considers th is a question
not of plane but spherical triangulation.
. . . . As regards C .H .'s seconj
figure, it is a fraud similar to the first,
and his remarks on Eefraction are not
worth answering.
A . M cIn n es,

25th. Feb.,

204, Dumbarton-road
1894.
Dear " Zetetes,” —H avin g formed oneof th e enthusiastic audience - at yourlate lecture, w hile on a visit to Ports­
m outh, m ust be m y excuse tor taking
the lib erty of addressing you. I havereached over half the years allotted toman, firmly believing the Earth to hea Globe rotating on its axis, and revolv­
ing through space, and I never heard
th is to be other than an acknowledged
fact un til you raised the question.
A lthough you handled the subject
from your point of view in a masterlymanner, striking at th e root of the
Grlobular theory, and have somewhat
weakened m y belief in it, still I must
beg you to bear w ith me as one not yet
fu lly persuaded.
A lthough I havesom e scholarly claim s (having lettersto m y name) I own I cannot myself
give you what you asked for, namely, anabsolute proof th a t th e earth is a
w hirling globe. A t the same time Im ust own. Sir, th at I cannot yet prove
it is not. I confess th a t there was a
striking contrast evinced at th e lecture
between your cool and tellin g replies
and your atheistical opponents bluster­in g oration, which self-possession ex­
cited admiration in the breasts of theappreciative and candid, and something
like awe in the agitators of the populartheory.
The lecture on the whole was im­pressive and at tim es th rillin gly inter­esting.
B a t if you w ill offer noobjection I w ill look up m y Astronomy
and ask you to answer a few questions
as to those m atters which j think re­quire settlin g. I enclose what I con­fess is a beggarly report from the
Evening N e w s; also one from the
Evening M ail which latter, I suppose,is as good as you can expect under thecircumstances.
Yours respectfully,
E . I. P.
Tuakau, Auckland, N.Z.
Dear Sir,—I received your parcel of
all righ t for January, 1894,

Iso a biggish parcel of some literaturefrom Mr. Squire by same m ail, which I

distributed right and left.
I
think it is a capital number, and augurs
well for the com ing year. M y letterg e e m s tohave caused a little commotion,ifiie facts I mentioned are patent to„nyone who watches the sky in N.Z.
g,nd cannot be contradicted. W hen theSouthern Cross is at its lowest altitude
it is of course reversed in position, thefoot s ta r of the Cross being uppermost.
I t also appears half as large again, as
when at its h igh est altitude. I t takes
twelve m onths to reach th e same posi­tion i i the sky th at it occupied on aeei'tain nigh t and hour tw elve m onths
p re v io u s .
I only w ish I nad the meansand opportunities to te st sheets ofwater here, as I feel positive theywould prove the same result as theBedford Canal gave.
A friend of mine has a brother here
who graduated in the N.Z. U niversity
with distinction, and a BA ., and heconfessed to m y friend th at there isreally no absolute proof of th e globular
shape of the Earth. In reading yourCorrespondence N otes I was glad tosee you acknowledge receipt of two
pamphlets on th e H igher Criticism.
You see that otir Churches out here
are honey-combed w ith doubt and un­
belief.
The Presbyterians are busy
just now w ith a so-called “ H eresy
Hunt ” against one of their m inisters
near Auckland, for giv in g th e righthand of fellowship to th e Theosophist
Society formed here, and com m itting
himself to some of their tenets.
I
have got you one subscriber to the
E.E. for 1894.
Your article on Star M otions I thinkstrikes at the root of the m atter. I
am told that N avigators in S. Latitudes
rely entirely on the Sun for their posi­tion in m aking land, and not by the
distance run at a l l ; and th at th e log
and chronometer never agree. I am
pleased to see the little E .E . publishedevery two m onths, contending so
earnestly for th e faith of the H oly
Scriptures which is assailed now frommany sides, and even by professed
Christians as weU, I t behoves us to beconstantly on our guard against all
forma of unbelief and error. I wish
you and your co-workers much success,wd pray th at your hands m ay be
Btren^hened, and the financial partprove prosperous. Yours faithfully,
Feb. 22, 1894.
G bo. EavBLi.

1^1

Birm ingham .
Sir,— I remember some years ago
when “ Parallax ” was lecturing in this
district th a t one or two questions wereasked by him on m y account aftersome of his lectures to which no reply^as attem pted. Perhaps some of youropponents can answer them , and so
help to se ttle th e m erits of th e “ plane’'or “ globular ” question.
1.—Axiom. Parallel lin es never m eet.
Tet, take the parallel lines of a railway
which in many instances run for a con­siderable distance in quite straightlines. Look at them from a given
standpoint. T hey w ill appear to ap­
proach closer and closer to each othertill they m eet apparently. Look till a
locom otive appears at the end of yourview . W h at p art of th e locom otive do
see first ? N ot th e wheels. I t is thesame, applied sim ilarly to a ship a t sea.
Is it so or no ?
I have stood on Dover Cliffs and seenth e W hite Cliffs of Prance over 20
m iles distant. How could I, if theearth w as globular ? W ill any oppo­
nent answer th is, and give thecorrect allowance for th e continuous
dip of th e curve in over 20 m iles ?
I quote a slip from “ The SheiEeld
W eekly Telegraph ” which says—" The bottom of the Pacific between
H aw aii and California is said to be
so level th a t a railroad could belaid for 100 m iles without altering
the grade anywhere. This fact was
discovered by the U n ited Statessurveying vessel engaged in m ak­
in g soundings w ith a view of layin ga cable.”WiU anyone explain to us, whether,on the globular hopothesis, the bottomof the sea is also globular ? and if so,
how th e Pacific can be so level th a t itruns for 100 m iles without altering th e
grade ? Does grading make any allow­
ance for curvature ? T hese queries arefor enlightenm ent.
To fin is h : I knew “ Parallax,’’ andhave heard him put to shame many
shrewd and clever men.
I am yours, obediently,
H. B E IT T A IN .
Belfast, 7 p.m.
Saturday, 24th March, 1894.
Dear Friend,—The sun rose thismorning a t 5.55 a little to th e South of
E ast and set at 6.18 a little North of

162

THE

EAR TH■West, B elfast tim e, whioh is 23 minutes
and 40 seconds beliind G-reenwioh.
Lat. 54° 36' Nortli.
Long. 5° 56' W est.
In haste, yoiirs,
J. A TK IN SO N.
Dear Sir,—W ould not a circular
chart of th e world be the most accurate
in principle, th e lines of latitude,parallel circles proportionately related,
60 m iles to a degree at th e equator, andgradually lessening toward the northcentre, so th at at 45 S. th e distance ofa degree would he 80 m ile s ; and in ­creasing toward th e antarctic regions
so th at at 45 S, the distance of a degree
weuld be three tim es as great, viz., 90
m iles, and still increasingly proportion­
ately southward.
T he m eridian lines of longitude,
straight, diverging from th e northcentre, 24 in number to represent the
24 hours of th e day and n ig h t; 15
degrees of the circle to an hour.
Now on a school globe it is known

R EV IEW .

th at every direction of latitude andlongitude is a curved line, while on achart of th e world according to thatdesigned by Mercator, which is still
used, all the lines of latitude and longitude are straight, the degrees of longi.
tude are the same len g th (all the lines
are drawn at rig h t angles) at thedifferent degrees of latitude both north­ward and southward of the equator.
The map of th e world designed by
Mr. J. Steer Christopher, of Morden
College, B lacth eath , near G-reenwich,
seems to me scientifically correct, andwell worthy to be studied by Naviga­
tors, Captains, and others.
One of the la st letters w ritten by thelate Lady Brassey, was from on board
the “ Sunbeam,” in which she expressed
her thanks for th e copy she had re­ceived, and her belief that th e study ofG-eography would be m uch simplified
by its general adoption.
Yours, &c.
Croyden.
T h o m a s W h it t ib

THE PORTSMOUTH LECTURE.
On Monday evening March 19th, the editor gave a Lecture at
Portsmouth entitled, “ Is the Earth a Whirling Globe ” ? Large hand­bills and larger posters had well advertised the lecture all over thetown, and the hall which is reckoned to hold six hundred people, wasnearly full. Great interest was manifested in the lecture by high andlow ] and on the part of some of the lower orders great excitement anda spirit of opposition. This, to some extent, was said to be due toprevious lectures given in the town by a zealous but not over prudent
advocate of the Plane truth ; but nothing could justify the boorish
behaviour of a few in the cheap seats who had come, as one confessed,
for “ amusement ” and not for instruction. The lecture was listened towith marked attention, but when the questions began, had it not been
for a restraining Power, general respect for the Chairman, the firmness
and self-possession of the Lecturer, and the presence of the ofificers of
the law, the boorish element present would have got the upper hand, as
on a former occasion. But as the bears could not bite, they wanted to
growl all the more ; and, at the close of the meeting, they doubtless
went back to their dens somewhat disappointed. They were the only
ones who were so disappointed ; the friends of truth and fair play weredelighted with the lecture. Several who would not yet avow themselves
as Zetetics came up to the platform afterwards to thank the lecturer,
and to express their regret at the unfairness of the Globularists.

TH E

PORTSM OUTH

LECTURE.

163

As discussion had been publicly invited, the following rules ofdebate were read out by the Chairman before the lecture began.
RULES

OP

DEBATE.

After th e address an opportunity w ill be given to anyone either to ask
relevant questions, or to debate the subject w ith th e lecturer, if any
gentlem an come forward for this purpose. If more than one offer todebate, th e m eeting shall decide which one.

The Subject to be, “ Is the Earth a Whirling Globe 2 ”
The opponent affirming, and the lecturer denying. Each speaker tooccupy not more than te n m inutes, and then to be subject to fivem inutes questioning by the opposite side.
Short and categoricalanswers to be given ; and the questions to be confined to the subject
and syllabus of the lecture.
The ruling of th e chairman as to tim e or relevancy to be decisive.
discussion to close at ten o’clock.

The

These rules, if followed, were calculated to give each side a fairchance, and to bring out what could be said on both sides for or against
the globular theory. But at the close of the address, which lasted
nearly an hour, on the question being put by the chairman whether the
meeting would have Questions, or Debate ? the globites vociferously
demanded, “ Both.” As no one then offered himself for debate, agreat many questions were asked, and answered ; some of the questions
being relevant and courteous, and others utterly irrelevant and purposely
discourteous.
After about forty minutes questioning, a well-known local gentleman
was prevailed upon to come on the platform to “ debate ” the question.
The lecturer shook hands with him as he came up and gave him an
encouraging welcome. This champion of the globular theory spoke forabout ten minutes in a loud, excited and desultory manner, avowing his
belief in the nebular hypothesis as accounting for the origin of the“ globe,” and in the evolutionary theories of Darwin as applied to theorigin of man and species. This proves our contention that “ Scientific ”
Infidelity is ranged on one side of this question, and Zeteticism andBible Christianity on the other. Only let these forces grapple underfair and orderly conditions, and Truth must prevail. The lecturer
replied in a quiet and confident manner that no one in the audience wasany better able to prove the earth a globe after the excited speech justlistened to than he was before it. That no proof had been given of
globularity, or whirling motion ; and in fact, none attempted, unless mere
assertion were proof We had been assured, on the authority of ourevolutionary friend, that the earth did move ; that it carried theatmosphere round with it, and so prevented anyone either feeling or
seeing the motion (then how are they to know of it ?) ; that the moon
“ pulled ” the ocean away from the earth and so caused one tide, whileit “ pulled ” the earth away from the water and so caused the opposite

164

1.

THE

EA R TH

R EV IE W .

tide (yet we got no nearer the moon !); that the sun rotated upon its
axis, and that therefore the earth rotates upon Us axis (“ Imaginary ” ofcourse !); that as Mars was “ cooling down ” so also “ our planet ” hadcooled down (although some of the people on it were still quite in agreat h e a t!) j and that the Manchester ship canal had a hill of water on
it, in the middle, “ owing to the convexity of the globe,” although proof
had been given that the Engineer had made no allowance for curvature,
and was practically forbidden to do so by the Standing Orders of theHouse of Commons, which were read. The lecturer having occupied
ten minutes in analysing the previous speech, our Darwinian friend wasagain invited to speak, although it was past the time for concluding ;but he had had enough of it ; and he descended from the platform in amuch quieter m anner than he had ascended it. In fact, like Mars, he
had “ cooled down
considerably in the meantime. Let us hope
therefore that he was a wiser man for his temerity. But if globularisra
cannot be supported by more courteous methods and better “ argu­
ments ” than those adopted at Portsmouth, then wise and reflecting
people will draw their own conclusions. Even the reporters have shewn
on this as on former occasions a lack of candour and impartiality, andthey seemed more inclined to pander to the lower tastes and prejudicesof their readers, than to try to educate and elevate them. We shouldhave thought that the press had a higher and a nobler mission than this.
However we give two extracts below from the reports sent us. As the
cuttings were neither dated nor named, we cannot give the titles of thepapers. Our friends should always label and date their cuttings withpen and ink in the margin or on the back, so that extracts may beverified.
A N O TH ER ATTEM PT AT EA R TH FLA T T E N IN G .
Y et another person—from Leicester on tliis occasion—lias come amongst us
to advocate and advance th e flat earth theory. Portsm outh produced azealous exponent of th is theory in the person of Mr. Ebenezer Breach, butsince the evening when he beat a precipitate retreat from th e platform of
the Albert H all, notw ithstanding a promise to speak again, he has remained■perdu. W hether this is owing to Mr. Breach faiUug to bring his courage
to the sticking point, or that a lengthened period was necessary to renovate
his models, we are not aware. H is m antle was donned la st n ig h t by Mr.
A lbert Sm ith, of Leicester, an advocate of what is term ed th e m odem
Zetetic School of P hilosophy, who addressed a large audience at the
Speedw ell H all on “ Is the earth a w hirling globe.” The chair .was again
taken by Mr. G-. J. M erritt, T.C.—Mr. Sm ith m aintained it was not. The
globular theory was a popular one, and a man was looked upon as somewhat
deficient in his m ental powers if he had the tem erity to question it. The
belief th at th e earth was a whirling globe was an assuniiption, an hypothesis,
a conjecture. The evidence of the senses was opposed to it. Its globularity
was not seen or its motion felt. I f it were a globe its curvature would beseen, and its fearful velocity would give them some tremendous sensation ofits motion. Let them fancy a mass like the earth attached to spokes 25,000r

THE

PORTSMOTJXH

LECTURE.

165

m iles high going round at th e rate of 1,000 miles per m inute. W ould they
not be susceptible to such a fearful motion ?— A voice : “ N o.”— The
Chairman (Mr. M erritt), addressing th e person who interrupted, “ Youannoyed us last tim e.” — Mr. S m ith : I shall throw m yself on the good senseof the audience. W e have offered fair conditions; if they are complied w ith
I proceed, but I shall not w ithout order. (Applause.) I did not come here
to shout any man down (interruption), and I shall not allow any man toshout me down. (Cries of " Go on,” and uproar.) Continuing, Mr. Smith
remarked th at nature did not play its students false, and the testim ony of
nature was th a t the earth was n ot a globe ; in fact aeronauts had asserted
that no dipping curvature was noticed at any altitude, but th at the earth
looked like one vast plain. W ith regard to th e theory of gravitation, he
contended th a t it was invented to support the other theory th at th e earth
was a globe. I f the universe was a sphere m oving in space, there wassom ething w anting to keep it in position, and the theory of gravitation wasinvented to support the previous hypothesis. The fact th a t bodies returnedto th e earth was no proof of gravitation. W hat was th e connecting link
between th e sun and th e moon ? W hat was the kind of m atter they con­jured w ith called " gravitation ? ”

From another paper ;—IS T H E E A R T H A GLOBE ?
At the Speedwell H all, on Monday evening, there was a numerous company
to hear a lecture by Mr. Albert Sm ith (Zetetes), of Leicester, in support of
the theory th at the earth is flat. The exact title of the address was : “ Is
the Earth a W hirling Globe ? ” and the significant title “ Truth versus
Fiction ” headed the b ill announcing th e lecture.
I t was under thepatronage of Lady Blount, Count Antonie Amerina, Mr. T. Shaw P hillips,
J.P., and Mrs. Phillips, and Colonel St. Vincent. The Chairman was Mr.
Councillor G. J. Merritt. Mr. Sm ith traversed the beaten track followedby the believers in the plane theory, and dealt w ith th e arguments
advanced in favour of the world being a globe. H e examined th e “ proofs ”
of those opposed to him, touched on the disappearance from sig h t of ships
at sea ; gave an illustration of perspective as opposed to the globularists ;alluded to th e altitude of th e fixed stars ; and discussed th e “ supposed ”
terrific motion of the globe, the law of gravitation, water level, &c. The
lecture was illustrated by means of diagrams j and at th e conclusion
questions were invited. On th e whole th e Lecturer had a very fair hearing,
though m any of his remarks were received w ith ridicule and irony ; andthe m ajority of the audience were not in sym pathy w ith his view s. Several
questions were asked. One was how it was th a t a vessel sailin g due west
would come round again to th e same place ?— The Lecturer replied thatmany people believed that due east or west were straight lin es ; but thesewere im possible on a globe. The mariner's compass always pointed to thenorth ; and he maintained th a t w ith a vessel m oving round a plane, theinstrum ent would still point in th e same direction (and lie horizontal).
. . . A fter further questions, Mr. Sw eeney m ounted the platform todebate w ith the Lecturer ; and in a 10 m inutes’ speech of great volubility,
he asked, if the earth were not a globe, would the Lecturer explain on wha
this mass of matter rested ? E verything (he urged) was in favour of the
globe being a body rotating on its own axis. Mars was a body th at hadcooled as the earth had cooled ; and it had been proved to demonstration

16G

THE

EARTH

REV IEW .

th at it was a rotating body. U niversal gravitation was accepted by all
scientists. . . . The Lecturer said th e globe theory was connected with
the nebular theory. H e asked what was gravitation doing (originally) to
le t these atoms be flying about in th e manner as accepted ? Astronomers
built assum ption on assum ption, and could prove but little. I t was affirmedthat the earth w hirling along carried the atmosphere w ith it ; but thistheory had not been proved. H e pointed out th at a balloon filled withhydrogen could ascend, and all the atoms (in th e “ globe ” ) could not pull
it down. (“ No, no.” )—The Lecturer : W ell, have it so, m y friends.
(Laughter.)—The Chairman said th at as it was 10 o'clock, th e m eeting
m ust close.

We court the most learned opposition of reasonable men, but whena stupid and ignorant spirit of opposition manifests itself, we should
advise our Portsmouth friends to go to work privately and quietly.
Why not start a class for mutual instruction and discussion, and thenform a branch of the U.Z.S. ?

THE OLD BEDFORD LEVEL.
In the year 1870, the “Old Bedford” Canal, Near Downham Market,
Norfolk, was flat—level—horizontal. It was proven to be so by Alfred
Russel Wallace, Esq., F.R.G.S., &c. T he one witness is the writer.
H e was with Mr. Wallace the whole week of preparation for the final
experiment—differing from those first contemplated— on the fifth day ofMarch, 1870. T he supposed winner of the ;^Soo, staked by Mr.
H am pden knows he won the money, but no^ the wager ! H e would
not permit his referee. Dr. Coulcher, to argue the matter with Mr.
H am pden’s referee, the w riter; and the meeting of the two referees,
who, by the terms of the engagement, had to come to an agreement
concerning the residt of the experiment, was brought to a close by thewriter being pushed out of Dr. Coulcher’s house by a policeman who
had been called in by the doctor (an astronomer), with the words “Go,or I ’ll take you ! ” No argument could be used— no decision arrived at.
In London, the evidence was referred to Mr. Solomon, optician;but this gentleman had nothing to do with i t : he entrusted it to his
a ssistan t! This assistant, when appealed to by the writer, informed
him that he had had the papers “ for an hour or two ” ; that he didn’t
sit up all night over themand that, “ taking into consideration thetheory of the earth’s rotundity, he certainly did give it as his opinion
that, if anything had been proved, it was that the water was curved.”
But this gentleman was soon convinced that he had made a mistake. He
went to Mr. Walsh, the umpire, and begged him to defer the printing of
his decision in his paper, Tht Field, until he gave a better report. But
the editor would n o t! The decision was published; and a moreglaringly inaccurate statement it is hard to conceive possible for an

r

THE

OLD

BEDFORDLEV EL.

167

editor to make. The very locality of the experiment was stated as aplace six miles away from the scene of action ! The money staked—^ 5 0 0 aside—was handed over to Mr. Wallace on the is t of April,
1870. And justice was outraged! Can Mr..Wallace deny this? Is
the Bedford Canal curved up in the middle of six miles to the extent of
5ft. to-day. If not to-day, then not in 1870 1

It was the night before the final experiment that Mr. Wallace, at the
Crown Hotel, Downham Market, produced a paper he had had forseveral days—a diagram of the proposed undertaking on his part, toprove the curvature ! And it was handed to the writer and has beenin his possession ever since. And he wrote upon it these words :—'• Friday, March 4th, 1870. Mr. Wallace’s diagram in the presence of
Mr. Coulcher, Mr. H am pden and self.” There are the seven six-footposts (signals) one mile apart, the centre-one being above the others as
as they are arranged around a section of the earth’s curve I And to theextent of 5 ft. too 1 What a blunder I To fancy the earth so small athing that its rotundity could be made visible in six miles ! It is
impossible that a thinking man can be found to-day, to believe
this ? And that, looking through a telescope, the water appeared to rise
and to fa ll to the other end of the six miles—the view taken in bothways ? Why, the spectator must have been three miles from the very
summit of his little globe ! T he thing is too preposterous for calm dis­cussion ! If men really believe such nonsense as this, we can only say,
God help such men and make thinkers of them ! The view appearing
exactly the same from each end was proof enough for Mr. Wallace thatthe canal was le v e l! See him at the Crown Hotel, on the Sunday—the
day after the experiment—H e say s:— “ I can’t think what this ticking
is ; I ’ve heard it all day long—^just like a death-watch ! there ; don’t you
hear it ?—at perfectly regular intervals— tick, tick, tick 1 ” And then weall heard it.— Mr. Coulcher, Mr. H ampden, Mr. Wallace and the writer—“ Tick, tick, tick, tick ! ” “ I t’s the stove cracking ! ” says Mr. Coul­cher. What does Mr. Wallace, the spiritualist, think about the cracking
stove by this time ? How could a winner of ;^5oo sit all day brooding
over his loss 1
The reports of the experiment—made with two signals and the cross­hair of the telescope as a third—were accompanied with drawingsof the views, by Mr. Carpenter and Dr. Coulcher, strange that the un­attested drawings of the doctor should have been fixed upon by theauthor of “ Zetetic Astronomy,” as suitable for the pages of his grandwork, while those of his old pupil were ignored !
But a volume could be written showing by incontestible evidence,that the three signals were in a straight line, and that a curved surface

168

THE

EARTH

T

REVIEW .

of the Old Bedford Canal, instead of being shown to exist, was as posi­
tively disproved as anything could possibly be in this w orld!
W il l ia m

Baltimore, M arylandj U.S A.,

C a rpen ter.

Marcli 26th, 1894.

[W e should have been glad, if, apart from all personal matters, Mr. Carpenterhad described the experim ent itself more fully, and shew n where i t failed
to support Mr. W allace’s contention. Older Zetetics understand it, but
our younger members may not. Perhaps to enlighten these, our friend,
Mr. 0 . w ill oblige us w ith a further article ? Ed. E .R ^LECTURES.
have been given by Mr. Chilton at Cheslyn, Hay, andBrewood, near Wolverhampton. T he local press report says, he“ gave a lucid and interesting lecture, and replied well to his
critics, and defended himself in an admirable manner.”L e c t u r e was also delivered in Highbury, London, by Mr. Isaac
Smith, of Halifax, followed by a “ Debate ” in which the Editor
defended the Zetetic positions.

EA1?Tff■

VI £To H im that stretched out the E a r th above the W a te rs; f o r H is mercy
endureth fo r e v e r " — P sa. 1 3 6 : 6.
No. 8.

JU LY , 1894.

P r ic e 2 d .

L ectures

MAP PROJECTIONS.

.

'■“ T he maps of this atlas (Public Schools Atlas of Modern
Geography— Longmans & Co.,) are of course drawn like those of allother atlases, on the projections which were employed two centuries
ago, which served very well at a time when men had very vague ideasof the true outlines of continents and countries. Spain as it appears in
the map of Africa is quite another Spain from Spain in the map ofEurope, and so with many other cases. But probably in three or four
centuries more truthful projections will come into use.”—From
Knowledge, March 1887 , by R. A. P r o c t o r .
What a lovely thing the word “ science ” is ! There was an oldlady who, in times of trouble and anxiety, always found comfort andpeace in “ that blessed word, Mesopotamia.” But that aged person is
not in it with the old women who find a solace in that blessed word
“ science.” T he latest thing in “ science ” is the “ Interstellar Medium.”Space is not void, we are to believe as commanded by “ science,” but it
is filled with a kind of stuff called ether. It conveys lights from thestars at, say, the rate of 186,300 miles per second. Light comes inwaves. T he waves have a mean value of 50,000 to the inch. Thus lightcomes 60,000,000,000,000,000 waves in one second of time. Somestars, according to Hershel, take 300,000 years to send their light to ourearth ! Go on, work it out 1 ! When found, make a note of it, and thensay “science” doesn’t want about 1,000 times more faith than Christian­ity, if you can 1 From Z tix, Jan. 13th, 1894.

OUR EARTH MOTIONLESS.
d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s io n s o f s c ie n c e .

A popular lecture proving that our earth neither rotates upon its axis nor
around the sun.— D elivered at B e b l i n by D r . S h c e p f e b .
(Continued.)

To prove the impossibility of the second proposition, i.e., the revo­
lution of the earth around the sun, will present no difficulty. We canbring self-evident proof to the contrary. The earth revolves around thesun and is retained in its orbit by the strength o f the solar attraction, andthese propositions contradict, point blank, the fundamental law of gravi­
tation itself. It is known to everyone that the direction of the weightis perpendicular to the wall, otherwise the grain of dust would fall. In
the same way the direction of the weight of our planet must be perpen­
dicular to the sun, as to the centre of its attraction. But such, in fact,
is not the case at all. The direction of the earth’s weight is not only
not perpendicular, but even changes with every moment.
In order to prove the correctness of my observation, we will now
examine more carefully the modern theory of the annual rotation of theearth around the sun, and we will examine it under the aspect in which
it is treated in the scientific works that discuss this subject. T o explain
the change of seasons, in other words to demonstrate the solar ecliptic,
the scientists have asstcmed the following position : The earth’s axis in­clines to its orbit at an angle of 66^ degrees; this angle is preserved by
the earth during the whole time of its rotation around the sun i.e., theaxis of the earth is parallel to itself at every point of its transit. We
can make this theory approximately clear to ourselves by the following
illustration : Taking this candle for the sun, we will now revolve aroundit this little globe, so that, by a simple practical experiment, we may
form for ourselves an idea how the four seasons take place......................
[diagram i omitted].
H ere on the diagram we can plainly see thatthe axis of the earth does not change its position with relation