48

THE

EARTH

R E V IE W

T H E
Answers to

Correspondents.

All letters to the Editor should be briefly and l e g i b l y written o'n one side of
the paper only. They must be accompanied by the name and address of thewriter, as a guarantee of good faith. Where replies are requested by ]x>st, thepostage must be enclosed, The Editor does not hold himself responsible for theopinions expressed by correspondents. All letters must be prepaid and addressedtoE j q R ’F P -N O T A GLOBE-I^EVIEW.
When the majestic form o f Truth stands before the bar o f justice,

L eo C a s t l e ,c/o Mr. J. W i l l i a m s ,32, Bankside, L o n d o n ', S. F.

W. M. R u n c i m a n asks, *• What do you think of Mr. Gillespie’s Theory ? ” Itreminds us of the young rascal who stole another boy’s box of bricks to ljuild
a house with. Mr. (iillespie has taken the rotating globe, the Hxed sun, andother essential globe-spinning accompaniments to elaljorate a system of hisown, and calls it ’ “ The True System of the Universe ; ” but what about thesystem from which he has taken the essentials to build his system with ? o fthat system he says ;— “ It is one of the most glaring and degraded falsehoods
ever laid before mankind,” (p. 6). “ A heathen system . . . as false as theblackest lie ever brought into existence,” (p. 66). Now if the present system
of Modem Astronomy is “ one of the most arrant, degraded, and debased liesthat the devil himself could ever have invented,” (p. 66), what is Mr.
Gillespie’s system which is based ujx)n the primary hypothesis of that system ?
“ Do we think that this system is the “ O N L Y theory which agrees with both
Bible and Stem Science?”No.
It does not agree with either, but con­tradicts both. Stern science has its basis in practical 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 of Scripture. For instance, the Bible
teaches that the sun returned ten degrees in the sun-dial of Ahaz. Now if thisis true, Mr. G .’s theory is utterly false. Mr. G .’s theory is, “ the sun isstatioiiary in space.” God says, “ thereturned,’ ' 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. If Mr. G .’s theory“ agrees with Stern Science and the Bible, ” that passage ought to read somewhat
as follows ;— “ The sea-earth-globe returned ten degrees backward before thefixed sun as shown by the earth-dial of Ahaz.” Joshua commanding the sun(not the globe) to stand still, should be sufficient proof to Mr. G., that his
theory is A B S O L U T E L Y F A L S E . No wonder that he does not claim to be “ aclear expounder.” Professor Huxley says, “ the cosmogony of 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 ofmodern theoretical astronomy, but the system which he has elaborated we areagainst, because it is absolutely false to every fact in Nature, and every state­ment in Scripture respecting NaUire. This is jiroven by the fact that he con­tradicts him self! On page 7 he says, the sun is fixed in space, but on page 16
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 fixed in space.” In the face of this contra­
diction and his bare assertions, what is the value of the “ opinions of the Press,and Extracts from letters of Eminent Men and others ? ” AVhy, they are not
worth the paper they are written upon ! P. S.— Our columns are open to Prof.
Huxley if he 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.” — Vide Echo, Oct., 29th, 1894.

A Sectional View of the World as a Plane.

A P R IL , 1895.

No. 3 (N ew S eries).

Z E T E T IC

P rice 2 d .

REFRACTION.

By Jaynes Naylor.
The bearing of 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 of someheavenly body, or fairly to localize some distant object on earth, re­fraction, as the late Professor Ding 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. Let 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 of the ascertained facts.
mThat 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.
We start then with light as a force, and whatever may be our theo­ries as to its method of propagation, whether corpuscular or undulatory, we may be sure that light as a force will conform to the known
laws which accompany the transmission of forces. Now of these laws,
there is none so certain as that all forces turn in the direction of theleast resistance- Upon this fundamental premiss the whole laws ofDynamic securely rest, and we feel assured that in watching the

so

THE

EARTH

REVIEW .

effect of this law upon the motion of light, we shall see our road tosuccess. For instance, let us take a piece of glass where we knowthat a ray of light striking the surface obliquely, will be refracted inwhat is termed the direction of the vertical. Now this statement is
far too empirical to be satisfactory. It merely expresses the relation­
ship of refraction to the vertical, but tells u s nothing as to w h y re­fraction takes place. The statement is indeed a parallel to that of theold philosophers, who explained the rising of water in a pump, as dueto the circumstance that “ nature abhored a vacuum.” And yet thecause of the refraction is self-evident, if we will but examine moreclosely, and is due to the fact, that light as a force, turns in the direc­
tion of the least resistance. We will illustrate this point, and takefor our purpose, the undulatory hypothesis as the mode in whichlight is propagated.

Let A Z represent a plate of glass upon which two rays of light are
impinging, one (B C) direct, and the other (D E) oblique. Now weknow that the progress of light is hindered when passing from one
medium into another, which is more compact or homogenous, as for
instance, from air into glass.
Indeed the plate A Z might be in­creased in thickness to such an extent as to prevent the passage oflight altogether. Such being the case, it is evident that each suc­cessive undulation will be unequally hindered as it reaches the glass,thus causing portions of the light to move with unequal velocity, andcreate in the ray a tendency to move from its parts and along the lineof least resistance. For instance, the undulation F G in the direct
ray B C, is hindered more at the F side of the ray when F first enters
the glass, than at the G side, which is still moving in air. The latter
therefore moves more rapidly than the former, and in the meantime
describes part of a circle, of which F may be considered the centre.

Z E T E T IC

R EFR A CTIO N .

51

This gives to the ray for the time being a change of direction along
the line of least resistance. As, however, the same process takes placewith the next undulation G H, when the G enters the glass, only inthe opposite direction, there is a regular compensation establishedwhich enables the direct ray of light B C, to pass through the glass
without change of path, and only with a diminished rate of movement.
But with the oblique ray D E, the case is totally different. There
we shall find that every undulation is always hindered on the sameside of the ray, and consequently gives to it a permanent bias fromthe paths it has been previously describing. T o illustrate this, wenote that the undulation F G in the oblique ray, would evidently befirst hindered at the F side of the ray, the same as in the former case.
But so would the next undulation G H, and every succeeding undu­
lation also. As a consequence the oblique ray is constantly turningfrom its path along a curve, of which F, as in the previous case, may
be considered the centre. In other words, while in the direct ray,the point of hindrance is alternately on the F & G side of the ray, inthe oblique ray, the point of hindrance is always on the F side,causing a permanent change of direction towards what current teach­ing calls the “ vertical,” but which, to speak more accurately, is along
the line of least resistance.
Having thus seen why a ray of light refracts on entering obliquely
into a dense from a rarer medium, let us now proceed to note its
behaviour under the opposite conditions, viz., on emerging from adense medium, into one less compact or homogenous. We will atpresent leave in abeyance the behaviour of the ray, on passing
obliquely through a medium of equal density. Let us turn again
to the supposed plate of glass A Z, and note the undulation F G, inthe direct ray B C. Now here we see the F end is moving in air,while the G end is still subject to the greater resistance o f the glass.
There will consequently be a tendency in the F end to turn along a
curve of which G is the centre, or, to use current language, a move­
ment is made in the direction of the horizontal. However, when G
emerges from the glass into the air, the same as F, there is the sametendency, only in the opposite direction, and there is manifestly there­
fore, no departure from its original path by a direct ray, either onentering or leaving a relatively denser medium. But not so with theoblique ray D E. There, not only is the F end of undulation F G
moving in air before the opposite end G, but also the corresponding
end to F in the next, and every succeeding undulation, causing all ofthem to move along a curve, of which the end of the undulation in
the glass may be considered a.s the constant centre.
We have hitherto assumed the undulatory theory as to the propa­
gation of light, but it makes no difference to our argument if we sup­

52

TH E

EARTH

R E V IE W .

A CO M IXG GExNIUS ON T H E GLOBE.

pose the emission or corpuscular theory (or indeed any other) to be
the correct one. In the theory of emission it simply means, that in
an oblique, the atoms or corpuscles o f which it is composed, are re­sisted more on one side than the other of the ray, and must thereforeof necessity obey the law which compels all unequally balanced forces
to move in a direction of a resultant of all other forces acting uponthem.
Again our conclusion is not vitiated if we call to mind that thelength of an undulation is very small. We are not concerned withthe whole length of an undulation, but with the total number compo­
sing the ray. T o simplify our statement, we have only taken one
undulation, and the shorter this is, then the more there are in the
total area of the ray. All the difference is, that some undulations
will be more resisted than others, but the effect still remains
the same.
It will be noted that the greater the obliquity o f the ray, so muchthe greater will be the deflection from a given course. I f the original
path be near to the vertical, then there will be little or no refraction,
but if it be near to ihe horizontal then the refraction will become
very great, because the amount of force that is unbalanced is greatest.
This accords perfectly with the facts, and corroborates our conclusion ;that the refraction of light, when passing obliquely through different
mediae, is in obedience to the law of all forces, viz., moving along
the line of least resistance.
Instead of the conventional teaching, viz., that light when entering
obliquely a dense medium, refracts to the vertical, and when entering
a rare one. it refracts to the horizontal, we may state our conclusions
up to now, in words somewhat as follows : Light, when obliquelyentering media o f different density, is unequally acted upon by them,and turns in the direction o f the least resistance.
Up to the present, we have simply pointed out a tangible and selfevident cause for the refraction of light, when obliquely entering
different media, and have not disproved, but rather confirmed,
existing teaching. In future papers we hope to show that the opera­tion o f this law o f least resistance, in other directions, is not only
destructive of some prominent astronomical opinions, but also a demolisher of certain havens of refuge, into which the revolving-globe
believer too readily betakes himself.
Jo be continued.

A COMING

GENIUS ON T H E

S3

GLOBE.

By H. H, Scroggins.
The globe on wich the sientifik foolosifers sa we liv, iz lik anoringe thay sa, ownly not the same culler, an thare iz worter an
mud in sum plazes owtsid ware thare ort to be rine ; an erth, stonz,
an all sortz ov uthur things inside ware thare ort to be juse and pips ;the globe iz ski-rockitin awa throo spase thay sa, at abowc 19 miles
evere sekond, or 4 times kwiker than a flash ov litening moovz,
besides goin-it in 3 to 6 uther derekshons all at the same tim e; ukan chooz ow meny moshons u lik for yor-selv, az it dont mak a bit
ov difrunz to Theoretikel-Sienz, an the lernid-asstronomers wont kik
up a fuss with u abowt it. It iz funne no wun ever sor or even fell
it moove, iksept, wen thare iz an erthquake, for then thay do fe a l i t ;an ow thay mak traks sharp to get away u bet. Wei thay sa that
this wunderfool globe woz furst ov all oney gas or sumthing, or atine bit orf a sun or sumthing, thare iz ene amownt ov thez sunz
thay sa, an ov corse thay no, praps ! an then it began to stik to­gether sumhow, an waz pelted with meters (not gas meters) to mak
it bigger •, an then in the corse ov bilyuns ov yers, it got lik thik-ot
stif-peace-puddon ; an at larst it kooled on the owtside, but not all
throo, and so formd a cru st; this crust we liv on ware it iz dri
ennuf an we kan afford to pay wot iz kawld rent, wich iz poketed bi
wot iz kawld a lan-lord hoo thinks this globe waz wurkd-up for iz
pertikler benefit, an hoo wood let on lease all the ayr an worter if hekuud grab them az well. All this time this globe iz eld together withsumthing thay kail Gravy-tashon (the stikin part ov this stuf mus bein the tashon, az thare aint much stik in gravy, an (leastways not inthat we bois cum akrost) this gravy-tashon woz fownd owt bi a man
hoo woz sum part’ov iz life (at tennerate) a bit barme, or az sum sa
loone, or mad, that iz : iz name woz Izak Nootun an thay arfterwards cawld im Sur-Izak Nootun wich woz polite if nuthing elz; sinzthat time thay wurshup im lik ; wun thing thay dident arst im, ow
he noo all abowt it, so he dident trubbel much to iksplane, ikcept to
sa it woz ony wun mor ov iz suppozez, an sed he found it under anappel-tree, so that iz neer enuff for this wunderfool gravy tashon wichstiks all everything on to this globe an yet nun ov us or ennething
dont feal it stik at all, iksept we git wakz (cobberlers) on owr
bootz, an it aint-fare to wak us bois becorz we dont no all abowt i t ;if we arst owr skoolmarsters orkwurd questons ow this or that iz,
thay just shut us up with Gravy-tashon or 5 or 6 yarns thay kali
proofs ; thez proofs, mi big Unkel sez, are all'bosh, an kan be blown
to bits enne-day bi enne-wun hoo az got the tip from the rite sorse;
however, let me see, this iz wanderin from the subjic sum, as thaj'

ROUND OR F L A T IN 1895?
‘ •Arrah, thin, Pat, do yez railly think the wor-r-rld is as round as that? ” —pointing to a globe. “ Av coorse I do !” “ Thin phwat I can’t get t’rough myskull is phwy the folks on the unther soide don’t fall down into shpace. ” “ Vezmake me toired ! ” “ Well, but phwy is it, I a x y e z? ” “ Phwy, man aloive,
heaven has given thim common sinse, an’ they simply howld on ! ”

II

54

TH E

EARTH

REVIEW .

sa in Ameriker, as the globe thay sa, iz 25,000 miles rownd sumware,
but thay dont no ow far it is rownd wot thay kail the south pole, wotever and warever that iz, an it seems az i f thay dont want to neether.
This globe iz 10,000,000,000,000 tuns in wate (thare aint no od
ownces) or sumthing lik that, Mister Professor Proctor sez all abowt
it in iz book, an az he woz the gratist asstronomer on erth, ov corse
he new ; this jus reminds me, that this blessed globe az got 2 axes
(sum sa 3) not lik we chop wood with, but sumthing elz wot thay sa
this globe wurls on, or round, or sumthing; an it is a puzler to us
bois ow thez axes dont git ot an ware owt, or stik lik owr bike axels
wen we dont greese em ; an ware you wood think it wood git hottist,
it iz coldist an vice-versa (thatz Latin) az we hoo ar edjukated atskool sa. Mi cuzon wot az bin to Orstralyer (that iz a lump ov
grownd stikin o\vt ov the oshuns-sawlt-worter all upside-down) sez hedident no he woz upside-down wen he woz thare, an dident no wen
the upsidedownin tok plasz; but wun ov is mates swerd he woz
wunce, an allso new the globe woz wurlin wyel he woz borelin“ Dunno ware e a r ! ” but that woz ony arfter he ad ad the biggist
part ov a bottel ov wot thay kail whisky wun nite ; however now, thisslite degreshon aint sience ene-ow-atall; an wen the cumpass wurkd
all-rite all the way thare, and wen it wos thare, my cuzon sed herekond this globe job woz a regliar fake an reel gammon all throo,speshally arfter he ad tride to mak iz plum-bob fall up, down in that
Antipoodeez, az well az kaarfulle wotchin iz uther mates sperit-levels
wich all wurkd rite nuff wlthowt enne fakem ent; but ov corse thooz
chaps aint sientifik lik our skoolmarsters and the asstrpnomers, sothat settells it so far. An fance ow ekstrawdinary it iz, for all evry
body an evrything, an all the worter an oshuns an ships, an evrything, az well az all the sheep, big-otels, dust-yards, cherches anpublik-cowsz, az well az bois, owt-o-wurks, Bishops, Socialists, landprospeckters an gold-miners, an in fakt evrything in them Antipodeez
all to be allwoz upside-dywn, hangin just lik dubbel-stik-farsted-flies
on a seeling hed-down, an all wurlin orful. an never gittin the blud
all up in thare heds or gittin flung orf into------thare ! it maks yer
dizzy to think ov it, let ulone do it ; an yet the land-menoperlizeis
are bizzy dewin evrybody thay kan, an the Govinment iz umbuggin
an bamboozelin the peepel, an thay ar all movin abowt, an wen thay
git a charnz, cheet wun anuther (legully mind) just lik thay do overear, wich iz neerly on top ov the globe sumtimz, let alone them az iz
stikin owt orf the sidz in Africa, China, &c., cutting each others
throats, &c., an all a-wurling orful; wi it is reele asstonishin, aint it ?
an all owing to that stuff or wotever it iz— that gravy-tashon-fakementi m een; the-wot-goez-up-must-cum-down-fackt iz humbugged abowt
yer no, just to sute this foolish gravy-globey-tashon-theory i rekon.

SCIE N CE ’S Q U A R R E L W ITH T H E BIBLE.

55♦

Well this blessed globe az got oops rownd it thay sa, not same az
beer-tub-oops, but ony moor suppozez to wurk in lik with the globesuppoze, wich woz the furst suppoze, understan ? well, wun ov thezsuppozed oops iswled the Ekquatur an a nuther iz kawled the
Ekliptik, an thez suppozed oops------ wots that? jiggeid if it aint
ranein ! O i sharnt sa no moor abowt this bloomin subjik now, ishal go an av sum fishin in the levull-kannel, az they bite better inwet wether, but i kuud go on sain lotz moor abowt this suppozed
wunderfool globe if it woz better Ihen fishin, an woz not such confownded-brain-foggin-rot and gammon.

S C IE N C E’S QUARREL W IT H T H E BIBLE.
Extracts from Lectures by Walter Rowton, Esq.*
It is all very well for our philosophers to dismiss the Bible as
having nothing to do with the technicalities of Science, but they haveno right to take that course upon a merely superficial acquaintancewith the Book they dismiss. I say “ superficial acquaintance,” forhitherto our men of science have shewn only that. Which ot themat any time has learnedly grappled with the Bible case ? T h e fre­quent assertion, “ There is no case to grapple with,” simply proves
my point; our men of theoretical science are not accomplished onthat side of the subject, or they could not say so. Not one of themapparently has studied the Book with anything like method. Gro­tesque explanations o f isolated texts to square them with their theo­ries they obviously oppose— these are plentiful enough ; but exhaus­
tive treatises in refutation of Bible Science as a systematic whole—where are they? The subjects upon which the Bible is said tospeak incorrectly are four; The First Great Cause— the Origin of
Man— Geology— Astronomy. Upon these, it is confidently affirmedthat the Bible records are but traditional beliefs. But these four re­solve themselves into o n e ; for if the Cosmogony of the Bible, orOrigin of the Universe, be true, the great pivot principle upon which
turn the Philosopher’s First Cause, Darwinism, the “ periods” ofGeology, and the elaborate calculations of Astronomy, collapses likea burst soap-bubble.
This, of course, is very startling, and we may well pause ere we re­commit ourselves to the truth of the Bible Cosmogony. I say re­commit ourselves, for long ago, in deference to statements of thethen scientific philosophers, that Cosmogony was virtually given up ;and before reverting to it, not alone have we to dispose of Kepler'sand Galileo’s and Copernicus’s stated facts, consolidated by the spec­
ulations of Newton, Herschel, Tyndall and Proctor, but also we have
*These Lectures (out of print) were published in 1876.— E d . E. R.

56

TH E

EARTH

REVIEW .

to take into account the formidable difficulties, owing to the ways inwhich we stand pledged, of making a recantation. We are com­mitted to Astronomy at variance with the Scriptures: w^e have sur­rendered more than Bible dates at the bidding of the Geologists ;the theories of Herbert Spencer and Darwin have myriads of adhe­rents amongst the cleverest and most influential of the age’s teachers
and leaders ; and a recoil from these latest and loftiest results ofhuman reasoning and observation upon the old Bible Cosmogony,looks such a relapse from the zenith of civilization into almost abori­ginal barbarism, that we may well hesitate ere consenting it should
occur.
But here it is proper we should look for a little at the drift of thosetechnical teachings w'hich from time immemorial to this time have im­pugned the scientific accuracy of the Bible.
The most eminent living representative of the heathen philosophers,
and at the same time the most honoured spokesman in the name of
Science that England possesses, recently said— and his words, repro­
duced by all our newspapers, have been the well-learnt Science lessonof millions since ; “ Abandoning all disguise, the confession I feelbound to make is, that I prolong the vision backward across theboundary of the experimental evidence, and discern in that matter,
which we in our ignorance have hitherto covered with opprobrium,
the promise and potency of every form and quality of life,” Andagain : “ All religious theories, schemes, and systems which embrace
notions of comogony, or which otherwise reach into its domain, must,in so far as they do this, submit to the control of Science, and relin­quish all thought of controlling it.”This, of course, embraces the Bible Cosmogony, it therefore, must
submit to the control of such principles as these.
By that whichcalls itself Science, we are authoritatively directed to give up believing
in the personal Creator of the Scriptures; to own only a possible
First Cause : to accept the heathen atomic theory ; and to discernin “ matter— the promise and potency of every form and quality oflife ; ” which, if there be a God, inevitably includes the life of God
Himself. That the heavens declare the glory of God ; that the fir­mament showeth his handiwork ; that God made man ; that Creation,
as biblically described took place, nay, that Creation as a special
work occurred at a ll: all this we are summoned to surrender. And
for what ? For the dear sake of a materialism which, when we fail—for aught that has ever been taught us to the contrary— shall receive
us into as good as everlasting nothingness ! “ Survival of the fittest'— a blessed hope truly ! for, as their times come, “ the fittest” dii"as unavoidably as others. Everlasting dust and ashes, that appears
our promised end ; and who but is .speeding towards it ? As in thisSCIEN CE’ S Q U A R R E L W ITH T H E BIBLE.

57

life there is vastly more pain than pleasure, if there be indeed noafterwards, no day of reckoning, why does not science recommend
suicide ? Depriving us of our Bible hope, and giving us none other—by all means everiastmg dust and ashes ; and the sooner the better.
Science has no right to devise schemes for prolonging life ; with herviews, it is the refinement o f cruelty.
“ But it is not Science’s business,” I am reminded, “ to do morethan delay our arrival at mother earth ; at the grave’s mouth her
duties cease. T o provide for the Afterwards is Faith’s work.” Y es ;and to enable Faith to do it w^ell— she invalidates her B ible! “ Oh,but she means not to invalidate the Bible’s faith : she only invali­
dates its science.” Nay, but these are inseparable : the Bible scienceis the Bible faith’s platform : they stand or fall together.
Does that
require proof? it shall have proof, overwhelming proof in my next
lecture.
Meantime, let me show you that modern science really does her
utmost to invalidate the Bible Faith.
With reference to modern astronomy, The Daily Telegraph. July
6th, 1875, says :— “ Nothing has so changed the beliefs o f society as
the discoveries of astronomy ; ” and after naming approvingly ourlarger conceptions and widened theologies, it adds the amazing re­velation that “ All the ancient theologies were constructed upon the
Ptolemxan notion that the earth was the centre of the universe, andthat the sun, moon, and stars were hung in the void to lighten it,
and for signs and seasons.” With Claudius Ptolemy therefore, born
Anno Domini 70, originated this, the Genesis Cosm ogony! Did not
I rightly say, that in the cases of scientific men theological know­
ledge was not equal to technical ? But what is the drift of this ana­
chronism 1 Evidently to impute to one o f ourselves the scientificteachmg of the Scriptures, and so to destroy veneration for it.
The modern astronomy, beginning as a system with Galileo, to­gether with “ the moral sense in man,” according to the Telegraph,“ really furnish the foundations of a natural religion, to the vast andimperative demands of which the official teachers o f dogma must
advance.’’ “ A ll theories of Revelation and Divine Government,”
it continues, “ have, since the discoveries more especially of Newton,
had more or less to adapt themselves to the ideas of modern astron­omy,” by which, so to speak, “ the breath of theology has been taken
away.” So you see the Bible is not considered an actual Revelation,but only a theory of Revelation, with a mortal breath, “ which has
been taken away.” In effect dead, if its sentence is to be revoked,
it must worship science. Its teaching is so inferior to “ natural
religion ” based upon modern astronomy and moral intuitions, thatinstead o f natural religion advancing to Revelation, it is our theory

SC IE N CE ’ S Q U A R R E L W ITH TH E BIBLE,
THE

EARTH

R E V IE W ,of Revelation which mast advance to natural religion.
“ Not," adds the Telegraph, “ until the professors o f theology’
address fhenniselves in earnest to the vastly larger demands which theminds of men now make for d o c t r i n e s commensurate with scientificteaching, will religion and morality come up abreast of astronomical
truth.” So far from the Bible being the one truth-test to explode all
error, now it is modern astronomy which is the truth ; and the only
doctrines
commensurate ” therewith, are those of a “ natural reli­gion,” compounded of itself and “ the moral sense in man.” A s for
the Bible, its doctrines not being commensurate with scientific teach­
ing ; its religion not being natural; its respect for the moral sense in
man non-existent; it never could have been the truth ; obviously not,or it would be still. For many ages it has been a very good sub­stitute ; but now it is bygone, worn-out; it has been completely
superseded by modern science.
O f course, if our Bible is this superseded “ theory of Revelation,’'man’s guaranteed eternal life is not worth the page it is printed on :for how can a God whose promises were put into His mouth by thetheorists who invented Him either undertake or fulfil an-undertaking ?
“ ‘ T h u s s a i t h t h e L o r d ! ’ Out upon ye, Moses, David, Isaiah,
and the re st! Your God is your delusion ! He never spoke a word,either to you or any one else ! ” That is the legitimate outcome throughthe Bible “ a theory of Revelation.” And if that is not an invalida­tion of our Faith by modern science, what else to call it, I know not.
But modern science having neither proof that our Revelation is no
more than a theory, nor colourable pretext for supposing so, why
does she obtrude that statement ? Why ? because she has started
in opposition : and like some shabby tradesman, she puffs her own
article at her neighbour’s expense. “ I f you want true science, thegenuine article, deal with me. Next door not to be depended on.
The concern is a sham— its proprietor a m yth; and its pretended
science, not science at all ! ” Guilty of this meanness, does modern
science deserve support ? Our Bible a theory ! its revealed God a
non-entity ! I call upon .science to prove the scurrilous libel, or with­draw it.
Moden science has long had its advocates even in our pulpits; but
Christian ministers aware of its latest pretensions, and who hold with
it notwithstanding, have a diflScult task before them. Still Sunday
by Sunday, drawing for their analogies upon modern science, theymust now publicly reconcile what they themselves denounce as pois­
onous grapes with that producing stock they hitherto have maintained
a true vine.
I wonder if Dr. Tyndall foresaw that the legitimate recoil fromsuch teaching as he gave at Belfast w'ould assuredly be the re-con­

59

sideration by genuine Christendom of the whole of its relations w’ith
what is called science, with a view to their abrupt and final termina­tion ? H e might have done so ; he might easily have surmised thats o o n e r or later his denial of the Christian’s God would certainly befollowed by their denial of that science in whose name he was selectedto speak ; and not in part, but altogether : for science, consistent withherself— her past must be o f a piece with her present.
The most of us, in our innocence, have all along been believing in
the beautiful lady who calls herself science, as “ the handmaid of
religion ; ” so she at one time delighted in representing herself, andwe ever took her at her word.
Never dreaming of any unchristianmotives underlying her fair professions, we hitherto have listened toher counsels and been gradually guided by them. When she ex­plained that the Bible Astronomy, Geology, Geography, and so forth,
were not true, nor intended to be true, though the bulk of us were
not so educated as to be able to follow her through “ the experi­mental evidence,” yet, considering she spoke in the interest of that
religion whose service she professed, we implicitly believed her, and,
dupes as we were, gave them up. Having a wonderful opinion of hercleverness, and unbounded confidence in her rectitude, it never once
entered our minds she had a disguise to abandon. But how— now
she has succeeded as she thinks in committing us to theories we must
follow to where she herself stands; now, '• abandoning all disguise,”she exclaims, like Elihu of old, “ I am full of matter’’ (Job xxxii. i8) ;not Elihu’s, however, but a very inferior matter. Elihu reads forward— his matter is God : she backward— her God is matter.
So far as Christians are concerned. Professor Tyndall, whether heintended it or not, has re-opened the whole scientific question : andshould it be held a kind of Quixotism to tilt in these days against suchstone-wall conclusions as those of Galileo and Newton, pray as Dr.
Tyndall been guilty of a less Quixotism by his denial, in this the nine­
teenth century of Christianity, of the Bible’s God ?
The fashionable course, I am sure, is to doubt Scripture and be­lieve science : to her our perpetual cry is for more ; so far from ques­tioning the truth of the incredible tales she tells; so far from treating
her as she treats the Bible, we are agape for greater m arvels; andwe swallow them whole. But is this reasonable ? Why should Scrip­
ture, without'proper knowledge of it, be doubted ? and why should
science, with no knowledge of it, be b e l i e v e d T h e doubting spirit
is by no means a bad o n e ; yet when our spirit doubts according to its
prejudices— strains at a gnat and bolts camels by the dozen— then,its doubtings, like its similar beliefs, are both foolish and mischievous.
Instead of believing Scripture and doubting science, or believing
science and doubting Scripture, for the sake of fairness, let us begin

da'n i E EA R T H REVIEW .

de novo, by doubting both, reserving belief till doubt is satisfied.
“ But how is it possible,’’ you may ask, to doubt science’s proved
facts ? We would gladly accept the Bible cosmogony if we could, but
how can we ? The exact sciences shut us up to the conclusions thatthe Bible astronomy is wrong, that its geology is wrong, that the earth,so far from being the centre o f the universe, is a mere speck in i t ;that the earth is not flat but round, that it is not moveless but moving.
How is it possible to escape these impregnable facts ? ”
Our duty will be to inquire if these stated facts are impregnable.
But, meantime, this also we must consider ; if we continue one by
one to desert the Bible positions, as v e have been doing, if we asso­
ciate with the holders of these views whensoever they elect to takeanother step, as they say, in “ advance,” the alarming likelihood is,that beginning with the received astronomy, we shall get gradually
but surely on to Tyndallism, Spencerism, and Darwinism, and end by
not apprehending a creating and controlling First Cause.
Consent
with the philosophers that the Bible speaks unreliably from its pre­sumably Divine side upon scientific subjects, and what is in the wayof its similarly speaking upon all others ? Consent with the wisdomof this world, against which the Bible itself warns us, and your God
may eventually become, like his whose words have been quoted, a
may-be, rather than a must-be; a dim human possibility, rather thana divinely revealed fact.
“ A nd wherefore not, if that be really the tru th ?” Quite so ; but
is it ? The philosophers having raised that question, and given their
doubts in the form of beliefs ; now it devolves upon the other side togive facts and reasons for the contrary belief that is in them.
In the complicated quarrel before us, we indeed are deeply con­cerned, and had need be very careful lest direct personal interest in
the issue should bias our judgment of its merits. We have looked at
the no longer disguised leadings of what is called Science, as she her­self having invited, attention to them, it was fitting we should : let us
now give to them their proper place and influence. All they shouldcause is this : they should stimulate to extra carefulness in the search
we are making into the rights and wrongs of this contention. Thoseof us who are Christians must not remember we are so to the extent
of allowing our Christianity to blind our judgment; neither must
those who agree with science be men of already made-up minds.
If we should find that science, so called, has an unanswerable case,let us say so, and honestly cast in our lot with hers. But, on theother hand, if we should be of opinion that the Bible positions are
good, let us back to our allegiance, and, if necessary, defend themlike men.
Into the examination of these positions we cannot go now : thetask is a very arduous one, and must be reserved for my next lecture.
To be continued.

OUR

O B SE R V A T O R Y .

6i

OUR OBSERVATORY.
“ E R R O R IS A LW AYS IN C O H E R E N T .”O n the Figure o f the Earth and its supposed connexion wth theVibrations o f a Pendulum. By C a p t . W a l t e r F o r m a n , R.N.
Continued from our last.
This appears to me to be so self-evident, that I should hardly havethought it necessary to illustrate it by a figure, if experience had notconvinced me o f the difficulty of making even the wisest philosopherscomprehend the force of a proposition when their minds are set
against i t ; and that will always be the case, when they are called upon
to retract as error what they have formerly held to be sounddoctrine.

Let P E P E, in the annexed figure, represent the earth, as it was
created, a perfect sphere; and p M e the same earth depressed at
the poles and elevated at the equator in consequence of its centrifugal
force. Now, upon the principle that all bodies gravitate towards thecentre, it is clear that a star, which is in the zenith at M, would bejust 45° from the zeniths both of the pole and of the equator.* Theangle z p m is just equal to the angle z e m, and consequently there
must be just as many degrees of latitude between p and M as there
are between e and M ; but the measured distance between M and p
is a great deal less than it is between M and e. I f the earth had beena sphere, the distance between M, in the latitude o f 45“, and the polewould have been just equal to its distance from the equator ; but inthe present instance, the same number of degrees of latitude towards
the pole are so much shortened (in consequence of the sinking of thepoles) as the line M p is shorter than the line M P, while, towards the‘ It can hardly be necessary to inform the philosophical reader, that, as thestars have no sensible parallax, the direction of the star, both at the pole and theequator, must be parallel to the line M.Z.

62

THE

EARTflREVTEW.

OUR

equator, they are so much lengthened as the line M e is longer thun

'.I

1 '

the line M E.
The Newtonian philosophers, in direct op]X)sition to the principles
which at all other times they acknowledge, have conceived the sin­gular notion that the zenith of every place is directly perpendicular
to the earth’s surface, but they might, with equal propriety, have sup­posed that the zenith, on the side of a hill, was also perpendicular toits surface. A plummet suspended by a line will always show thedirection of the zenith, and, if this must necessarily be perpendicular
to the surface, why is it not so at the side of a hill? Upon their own
principle of universal gravitation, the zenith of every place is directly
opposite the point where the power of the earth’s attraction is strong­est, and if that point be not in the centre, it is at least in that direc­
tion where the greatest quantity of matter is to be found. Now, as
there is .more matter in the direction M C N than there is in the
direction M n, which is perpendicular to the surface, it evidently
follows that the zenith M must be at Z, and not at k ; and conse­
quently, if the admeasurements of these philosophers can be depended
upon, the earth’s figure must be directly the reverse of what has here­
tofore been supposed.
I shall here take the liberty of making a few observations upon theprinciple, by which these philosophers have endeavoured to ascertain
the exact length of a degree of latitude in different parts of the world.
For my own part, I readily allow that it may be sufficient to enable
us to give a near guess at the number of miles comprised within theearth’s circumference ; but when so nice a calculation is required as
the difference in the length of any two degrees of latitude, 1 do notthink that the least dependence can be placed upon so uncertain aprinciple. It is acknowledged in a paper lately sent forth by the
Astronomical Society, that our tables of refraction are not to be de­pended upon in very low altitudes ; and how a correct trigonometricalsurvey can be performed, without making allowance for refraction, isbeyond my comprehension. The spirit level can be of no service,unless we know what to allow for refraction, and we are informed by
the highest philosophical authority, that our tables of refraction are
not to be depended upon 1 Those philosophers, that were sent out
to measure the degrees of latitude, either did make allowance for re­fraction, or they did not. I f they did not, their calculations, in both
places, must have been erroneous ; if they did, as they could only
have guessed at the proper quantity, they may not have allowed
enough; and, in both cases, as the refraction is always greater inhigh latitudes than at the equator, a mistake must necessarily haveproduced a greater error in a high than in a low latitude. I f they

O BSER VA TO R Y.

63

were right, they could only have been right by chance, and chance is
not to b e admitted into a mathmatical demonstration.
My own opinion is, that the earth is a sphere, because, as thatfigure appears to me to be most convenient, it is most likely that it
was so formed at the creation; and the supposed differences in thelength of the degrees of latitude may fairly be attributed to a mi itakein the above-mentioned calculations, owing to the want of a correcttable of refractions. I give this, however, merely as an opinion, forI have no means of proving i t ; and, as the discovery of truth is thesole object I have in view, I shall not attempt to conceal, that, i f thefact 7iiay be depended upon, the speroidical appearance of Jupiter, fur­nishes a powerful argument in opposition to this opinion.
I f it can be satisfactorily made out that the spheroidical appearanceof Jupiter is real, and not the defect of some optical deception,
analogy will certainly be in favour of the Newtonian theory ; but I
contend that all the other premises of these philosophers either prove
nothing of the kind, or directly prove the contrary.
By their own
principles, a change in the earth’.s figure, from a sphere to a spheroid
depressed at the poles, instead of increasing, ought to diminish thedifferences, in the vibrations of a pendulum, that must neces-sarily be
produced by the centrifugal fo rce; and the length of the degrees oflatitude, instead of increasing as these philosophers have reported,
would have decreased all the way from the equator to the poles.
As I have never had an opportunity of measuring the preportions
in Jupiter’s figure, I shall not presume to give an opinion on the sub­ject, but I know, by my own experience, that, without intending any
deceit, we are all very apt to fancy facts which have no existence,
whenever these facts are necessary to prop up our hypothesis. Let
the figure of Jupiter however be what it may, it does not necessarily
follow that the solid parts of the earth must therefore have beencreated in a fluid state ; and if not, the centrifugal force could have
had nothing to do with the effect.* I f it had been necessary that the*In the bi(.graphical sketch of the late Sir William Herschel, which has lately
appeared in the “ Edinburgh Philosophical Journal,” it is stated that that eminent
philosopher ascertained that the proportion which the polar axis of Mars bore toits equatorial diameter was as 15 to 16. Now the velocity of the centrifugal force
in Mars is not more than half what it is in the earth, and yet we are told that thedifference in the proportions of our polar and equatorial diameter is only as 289 to
290 ! Every one surely will allow, that effects are always proportioned to thepower that produces them, and, in that case, I shall be glad to be informed inwhat way a minor power can produce a greater effect? One of two things then isevidently certain, either this supposed spheroidical appearance of Mars is deceptive,
and, in that case, we have a right to infer the same in Jupiter’s appearance, or
their centrifugal forces have nothing to do with the formation of their figures.
Again, if w'e may trust to appearances, Saturn is more flattened at the poles thanJupiter, and yet its centrifugal force is not near so great: but what is still more
extraordinary, the late Sir William Herschel discovered that there is a great dissi­
milarity in the figures of these two planets, which certainly proves, either that theseappearances are altogether deceptive, or else that their centrifugal forces havenothing to do with their production, for it is morally impossible that the samecause could produce dissimilar effects.

04

TH E

EARTH

REVIEW .

earth should have taken the form of an oblate spheroid, the allpowerful Being, who created matter out of nothing, had only to havewilled, and it would have taken that or any other form he pleased.
The Newtonian philosophers however are determined that the eartli
shall be indebted for its form to natural means alone, and thus, inorder to get rid of a seeming difficulty, they run into a real absurdity.
I f the solid parts o f the earth had ever been in a fluid state, theheaviest substances would naturally have sunk nearest the centre,
and yet we always find that lead, gold, and all the heaviest metals,
are resting upon substances that are lighter than themselves.
Here
no doubt I shall be referred to the systems of the geologists, andtold of violent irruptions that have torn the earth up even from its
centre. But in spite of all that has been said by the geologists uponthis subject, the appearance of the different strata, even as they repre­
sent them in their treatises, indicate none of these commotions withwhich they are so fond of astonishing their readers. Where are thechasms reaching down even to the centre, which must have been thenecessary consequences of these commotions ? Why do the strata,
for the most part, always incline in one direction, as if they had been
gently lifted up by design, and not torn up by violence ? These
effects, if necessary, might possibly have been produced by earth­quakes ; but the same violent commotion that would have been rec^uisite to lift the metals out of their beds, and toss them over those
substances, which, in the order of things, must have been so muchhigher than themselves, would have broke these strata and scatteredthem in all sorts of directions, and it certainly is not in the nature ofthings that the chasms in all parts of the world, have been closed up.
The question concerning, the true figure of the earth is of very
great importance, especially to the Newtonian philosophers; for not
only is it interesting in itself, but another of their hypotheses, bywhich they account for the precession of the equinoxes, solely de­pends upon this supposed change in the earth’s figure. The New­tonian philosophers account for the precession of the equinoxes, by
supposing that the accumulation of matter about the equator, whichis occasioned by the earth’s rotatory motion, is somehow or other,(for none of their hypotheses is intelligible), acted upon by the sun’sand moon’s attraction, by which means the equator is brougln“ sooner under them ” than would otherwise have been the case.
*■It has already been observed,” says Ferguson, “ that, by theearth’s motion on its axis, there is more matter accumulated all aroundthe equatorial parts than anywhere else on the earth. T h e sun andmoon, by attracting this redundancy of matter, bring the equatorsooner under them,* in every return towards it, than if there was nosuch accumulation.”* Dr. Brewster, in his Supplement to this work, has attempted to explain inwhat way this is brought about, but I confess that I am unable to compre­
hend him.

OUR

O B SE R V A T O R Y ,65

Now I have already shown that, with the exception of one anal­ogous case, all the premises upon which the Newtonian philosophers
have grounded their hypothesis, directly prove the contrary position ;but admitting, for the sake of argument, that there may be an accu­
mulation of matter about the equatorial parts, that fact will not at alla s s is t them in accounting for the precession of the equinoxes.
Let
any one turn to the foregoing figure, and suppose the sun or moon
to be placed in any direction he may think proper, and he will imme­
diately perceive that, in the same proportion that any portion ofmatter in the earth is brought nearer either of these bodies, a sinailar
portion will be carried further off. The loss of attraction on one side
will just equal the increase on the other; the sum of both w'ill be pre­cisely the same, the centre of gravity in the earth will be in the sameplace, and how, in the name of common sense, can such a change
produce any change in the power of the sun or moon’s attraction ?
The only effect that could be produced by a change in the earth’s
figure, would be a diminution of the angle which the equator rnakeswith the ecleptic, but that would not produce any change either inthe places or the times of the equinoxes ; which any one may con­vince himself of, if he will take the pains to represent it on paper by
a figure ; and consequently the Newtonian philosophers have endeav­
oured to account for this phenomenon by a cause, the existence of
which is very doubtful, and which is altogether inadequate, evto if it
do exist.
The Newtonian philosophers, I have no doubt, will, as usual,effect to treat these obsers'ations with contem pt; and I acknowledge
that, though this is not the most honourable way, it is certainly thecheapest mode of putting down an adversary. It saves the expenseof intellect, and, so long as the public prejudice shall be on theirside, it will serve their purpose a great deal better than badarguments.
W a l t e r F o rm a n .
Bath, May 6 th.

P L A N E FA CTS.
The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the gates of theBaltic and North Sea Canal in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Holtenau,
on the north side of Kiel Bay, and joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth. It is
61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at bottom, the depth being
28 feet. N O L O C K S a r e r e q u i r e d , a s t h e s u r f a c e o f t h e t w o s e a s I?
S.E V E L . — The Age, Aug. 5th, 1893.
proves the World to be a Plane.

A Q U ESTIO N F O R ASTRONOM ERS.
Does looking at the “ maid in the moon” through a telescojx?, constitute an
mpertinent observation ?

66

TH E

NO THING

EARTH

R EVIEW .

PRODUCESN O TH IN G !

B y Lady Blount.
There is nothing in Scripture showing that there are other worlds,
but the contrarj, for God made the Sun, Moon, and Stars to serve
this Earth, “ and God made T W O great lights ; the greater light torule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. H e made thestars also.” And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to
give light upon the earth, “ and to rule the day, and the night, andto divide the light from the darkness : and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.” Now note
— “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”(Gen. i. i)- After this Moses gives account of what God created on
the first, second, and third days of creation ; but not until the fourth
day were the Sun, Moon, and Stars created : and the Maker’s purposein creating them is given, (viz.), to divide the day from the night;—
for signs, for seasons, for days and years ; and to give light upon theearth.— Therefore, I would ask the unprejudiced and candid reader
to answer to him, or herself the following question ; —It perfectly unacquainted with the teaching o f modern astronomy,
would such far fetched and preposterous notions ever enter the mind
that the earth is a whirling globe, consisting of less than one-third
Iflnd, and over two-thirds of water— tearing away through space at a
thousand miles per minute (which contrary to all reason and expe­
riences, water being level and not convex— and contrary to the Bible
which tells me that the earth is outstretched like a plane— having
foundations— and that it should “ not be moved for ever,”) ? See
Isa. xlii., 5 ; Jer. xxxi., 3 7; and Psa. civ., 5. In the days of myyouth my father used to tell me much about the heavenly bodies, as
he took great interest in them and sometimes lectured on astronomy.
He taught me that our earth was a “ planet” moving and rotatinground the sun with its attendant the moon, at the rate o f about i,roo
miles a minute, which orbit it completed once in the course of 365
days. The sun being one million three hundred and eighty thousand
times larger than the earth, and that it was calculated that we areabout ninety-five millions of miles distant therefrom (different astron­omers differing from time to time, and disagreeing one from anotherin the matter of just a few million of miles !) But I cannot forgetthat with all due respect to my dear father, (whom I loved very
dearly), I never felt to believe it at all. And the words lingered in
my mind it is calculated; and the thought came (if not in so many
words), how is it possible to start a numerical calculation upon o, or
without a root and real fact and number, and I wondered as a child

N O T H IN G

PR OD UCESN O TH IN G .

67

will wonder where they got their starting point. The unit I knew
was requisite before tens, hundreds and thousands could be reached— let alone millions and billions— -and not being able to put mythoughts into words, I got tired of wondering, and gave it up. But
now I have come to middle age, my attention is again drawn to thesame subject, and I find that these calculatists have no true basis forfinding the root number for their prodigious calculations, f o r neither
the Bible nor Nature supplies them any one fa ct as a basis fo r their
speculating. Nor is there one word in the Scriptures upholding the
Globular theory— its alone support being “ Science,” which an in­spired writer says is “ falsely so-called.” The root word o f science—
scio— means I know. But God’s word sjiys that they (the pro­fessors of science) do not know (Rom. i. 2 2 , 2 5 ) , which is further
proved by their teaching being contrary to His written word— fromwhich word we may learn (Gen. i. 7— 9) that the Creator made a fir­mament which he called H eaven; and divided the waters thereby.
And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered to­gether unto one place, and let dry land appear : ” therefore thefirmament, heavenly bodies, and dry land or earth, are most certainly
placed between the divided “ waters.”
Isaiah xi. 22 ( r . v .) gives the shape of the earth as a circle— the de­scription of the heavens as a stretched out curtain— a tent. Job
xxvi. 1 0 ( r . v .) describes the outer circle of the world, as being
beyond reach of the sun’s light and in the 136th Psahn 7— 9, we read“ To Him that made great lights— the sun to rule the day— the moonand stars to rule the night— thus showing that they were created toserve this earth alone in comparison with which they probably arevery small— but this— together Avith their distance from the earth—
who can accurately decide?— No one could, either by rule or calcu­
lation, or in any way— unless God reveals it. (See Jer. xxxi, 37.)
So I am led to fall back again upon my early conclusions that nothingtan be produced out of nothing, and to regard orthodox astronomy
as erroneous, being the outcome of human invention, and themythical production of those (after the fashion of the spirit possessedby the builders of the Tower of Babel) desirous of going beyond
their seach— who only were the authors, and promoters in startingthese theories, in setting them forth as mere problems, and sugges­
tions. But years are supposed to have rolled them into acceptedand solid “ facts ” which all truth seekers and Christians would dowell to reject; and accept nothing that differs from the Bible accountof Creation— to the glory and honour of Jehovah our God.
Quite lately, I have received letters from two correspondents,
in which they ask me what the shape of the earth has to do withsalvation? To the first enquirer, who had been himself dwelling

6S

THE

EARTH

REVIEW .

upon the subject in preaching, I answered— / know of nothing ofgreater importance than bringing to light error which upsets thetruth of the Bible (as does the popular and orthodox teaching inastronomy), but if you do not think it advisable to bring it forward,
why
you do so ? T o my second enquirer who had introduced theearth as a globe in an article which he had written for publication, I
quoted my letter in answer to my ffrst correspondent, adding, that it
was quite natural that Christian globe theorists should be desirous of
avoiding this subject when they come in contact with Christian
opponents, the former having not one word of scripture to upholdthem,; their argument must fall through.

FANCIES ANDI!

FACTS.

C.H. “ I said nothing about observing the earth from the sun. G.M.'s“ simple method ” involves the idea that the sun fs in several places at once ! Is
this “ actual observation ” “ avoidance o f suppositions,'’ etc..? Zetetics habit­ually quote two-cenlury-ojd estimates of the distance of the sun. They might aswell compare a rough sketch with a photo and then say, “ photography is evi­
dently uncertain. ” G.M. draws his figure so as to exclude parallax, and thensays there is no parallax there ! The sun’s parallax is so small that it is generally
omitted in ordinary arguments abotit latitude. G.M. omits it, and then argues as
if his omission altered the facts ! ”
G.M. In Mr. Harpur’s fig. 2 (Sept. 1894, p. 7), his lines of direction from thevarious points of latitude meet at the point S—-the sun. My fig. 3 (p. 8, same No.)is in direct contradiction. In reply he treats us to his ipse dixit, that “ a thing“ can only be in one place at a time, and this place must be where the various“ lines meet which represent the directions in which it is seen.”
He will ignore the truth universally accepted that latitude is found in connexion
with the apparent direction of an observed object— and which he himself postu­
lates in his own paper (quoted in last paragraph p. 8, Sept. 1894.)
W e will ignore the truth that the apparent direction of the observed object
varies according to the latitude of the station of observation. His attempted
application of Trigonometry necessitates the supposition of the eye at the point S.
Now I challenge him to give us the observed altitude of the sun at equinox for the
points of latitude 10° 20° 30^ 40°, &c., and by the unavoidable sequential con­struction to show that the lines of direction meet at the same point, whether upon
the plane or spherical theories. He has laid bare no fallacy in either the con­struction of my figures, or my reasoning.
My “ simple method ” involves the unavoidable conclusion that the apparent,
position of the sun, even for any number of simultaneous observations, varies
according to the observer’s latitude. I have stated plainly that such observations
do not enable us to determine the sun’s position, but merely to deduce the ob­server’s latitude. No astronomer or navigator would dispute this— the very foun­dation of their finding their way over “ earth’s ” surface. Again let it be said,
if at equinox the sun be vertical to the equator, and simultaneously upon thehorizon of the pole— directions which are at right angles— now let Mr. Harpur
distinguish himself in showing by construction, in accordance with his own
accepted postulate, that the sun’s centre as a point, occupies the same position
resulting upon these two observations ; and better still let him add another ob­

F A N C IE S

AND

FACTS.

59

server at latitude 45°. That is for the plane , now let him take the sphere , a line
vertical to the equator, also a line on the plane of the horizon of the pole— the two
directions on which the sun is seen at equinox— are both at right angles to earth’ saxis, and therefore are parallel— can he show that parallel lines make an angle bymeeting at a point ?
My various lines of direction are not suppositions, but are in accord with acttial
diservation. Any intelligent person who can observe the meridian sun, and will
do so, can prove this by observing at the equinox and the solstices. As the sun’ s
declination increases or decreases, so does the observed altitude vary.
But decli­
nation and latitude correspond ; and it will be seen that, supposing the sun’s ver­tical distance from the earth to be constant, yet the observed altitude will not show
this vertical distance to be maintained.
Therefore the same apparent variation in the sun’s position will result, uponvariation in observer’s latitude, or variation in the sun’s declination. How shallo n e forbear asking if it be ignorance of these i n c o n t e s t i b l e t r u t h s which
prompts Mr. Hurpur's b a s e l e s s c o n t e n t i o n s ?
“ Two century old estimates of the sun’s distance.”
Well done Mr. Ilarpur !
Btavo ! ! He has the truth at \3.%\.~estimatc is a fitting word— seeing that thedata are most purely hypothetical. Now he must become a Zetetic, which merely
involves accepting what one really finds (and that is very little, except our own
ignorance.) But principles m aybe eternal, that which was true geometricallyo r mathematically 2,000 years ago (or 2,000,000,000 years ago, Ed.) is equallytrue to-day. Tis but the h y p o t h e s i s which will have to give place.
My geometrical figures are used like all such figures are, NOT a s t h e p r o o f ,but merely TO i l l u s t r a t e the reasoning. As perfection in instruments is ap­
proximated, parallax becomes less ; it is fair therefore to conclude that attained
perfection would annihilate parallax, which would accord perfectly with the geo­
metry of the question. I challenge Mr. Harpur to introduce parallax in con­nexion with my figure 4.
E D IT O R IA L NO TICES.
__Please to ask for “ The Earth— not a Globe— Review,” at all newsagents,
reading rooms, and railway book stalls. To be had direct from the Hon. Sec.,
post free, to any address in the postal union for lod. per year in advance.
All monies for the Society must be paid direct to the local vice-secretaries, ordirect to the Hon. Secretary and Treasurer, Jno. Williams. Post office orders to
be made payable at Sumner Street, S.E.
We propose that those who are desirous of having a good Map of the World
as a Plane, should remit a subscription or donation for the purchase of a block to
produce one, the cost of which will be about ;C^5- A ll subscriptions will beacknowledged in the Earth Revieio, and subscribers, if desirous, will receive
copies to the value of their subscription.
SU B SCR IPT IO N LIST.
£ s. d.
Edward D ’Arcy Adams, Esq.,
2 o oJames Humble, Esq.
O 10 oEditor Earth Revieio
...
...
...
u
O lu
10 o
Subscriptions now due should be forwarded to the Hon. Secretary.
Lectures have been delivered by Mr. A. Perry, at Ashton-u-Lyne, on “ The
Surface of Water , ” the Press reports that “ some of his revelations caused sur­prise.” Mr. J. Naylor, of Birmingham, on “ Two Views of the Universe Ex­
plained and Contrasted.” “ Several were convinced of the truth that the earth isa plane, and all were greatly impressed.”

TH E

EARTH

R EVIEW .
A N SW ERS

AnswerstoAll lettera to1 ithe Editor should be briefly and l e g i b l y written on one side of' only. They must be accompanied by the name and address of thewriter, as a guarantee of good faith. Where replies are requested by post, thenust be enclosed. The Editor does not hold himself responsible for thel X ) S t a g e must be enclosed,
opinions expressed by correspondents. All letters must be prepaid and addressedtoE ko C a s t l e ,c/o Mr. J, W i l l i a m s ,32, Bankside,

L ondon,S.E.

H akpur .— Y our strictures upon G. M .’s reply is answered. B u t:
W ia t do you want to knock the man about for ?
What’s Capt. Foreman done he should’nt do ?
l i e ’s got angles, curves and straight strokes.
Letters, globes and fine pokes,
Is’nt he every bit as good as you ?
Will you tell us why your brother theorist (Capt. Foreman) draws his lines
M .P.Z.M .M .E./arai'/e/? Observe: each line is directed to a star in the
wny douo
direction C ^^ Z. ; and his dia. is true to the globular tneory.
theory. Why---these line^nieet at the' same point, eh ? Your brother theorist
anticipated
you, see liis opening remarks in this issue. Do you think that a man’scommon sense would lead him to expect that when the catise is removed, theeffect will not cease ? If not, why compare the action of hydrogen in a
vacuum, to its action not in a vacuum ? Do you remember that you told the*lesideis of the Birmingham fVeei^y Mercu>y]ast September, that “ heavinesscauses a body set free near the earth to move towards the earth ? ” Then
why does hydrogen gas, which has “ heaviness,” not “ move towards theearth ” as you assert ? You will do well to study to be consistent and logical.
See our reply to Scroggins.
V achtsm an .— Hearty thanks for your “ proofs.” They shall apjiear as spacepermits. Continue to investigate, and send us all the practical evidence you
can. The columns of our Membership Book is not yet full, so there is plentyof room for your name.
C. R. E.— Thanks for you letter and suggestions. See our open column. I hopeto .see your name on our Membership Book. Your third question has beenanswered, see Review, October, 1893, Scientific Falsehoods.
S. C. G ould .— Hearty thanks for your Classical Magazine. Its aim and tone
should secure a wide circulation for it. Thanks also for mentioning our
Review.
T h e E d i t o r — The Torch.— Thanks for your offer to place our literature on yourbookstall where you lecture. We have sent you on a supply, and wish you
success in your fight against error.
A.

P e r r y . — No,

the teaching of ^no7v/ea!j/-e is not “ according to the Word ofGod.” Observe their language and you will see at once that they are in
total ignorance about anything of God’s Univeise. It is the universe (globe)of their own fanciful forming that they are occupied with, hence the writer of
the article referred to, speaks of “ the past conditions of O U R OWN
W ORLD:”TO

CO R R ESPO N D EN TS.

Correspondents.

71

H. V .— Thanks for the Flaming Sword. We are glad to see that the Editor owns
that “ Parallax and his advocates have given abundant proof of the fact thatthe earth is N O T convex." He evidently does not posses a logical mind, or
he would not in the very next breath contradict himself by asserting that we" d o 7iot present one statement in proof of its being an extended plane, or fiat
surface!” Why, every proof recorded by “ Parallax is 2. practical demon­
stration that the earth is a vast irregular plane, and it is those proofs thatprove that Dr. Teed’s “ perspective foreshortening ” is nothing but assumed
data, on which to build an house of conjuring cards. If the experiments ofParallax are not proofs that the earth is a plane, they are no proofs at all,and therefore do not “ conclusively demonstrate the fallacy of the convex
theory of the earth,” as Dr. Teed says they do. We observe that he says
on p. 40, “ however skilfully the lion’s skin may be adjusted, the ass’s ears
will sooner or later obtrude.”
L H ic k lin g .— Your letter is,telum imhelte sine i c t u ! " If the expression“ bewitched fools,” demonstrates our cause to be “ rotten to the core,” what
does the following expressions from your own school demonstrate your own
cause to be ? The society of screaming idiots— great fat savants— flat earth
prevaricators— longitudinal lunatics— wild-mannered meredional maniacs—
Balaam’s war-horses— rhinoceros hided, high pressure human bombs— parall­actic maniacs, &c.,&c. If Mr. Mclnnesis “ an inflated bombast,” what is Prof.
Alfred Russell Wallace, F .R .G .S ., who in a letter to Mr. Brough, dated
January 6th, 1872, called Zetetics “ incapable fools?” Take heed to thegood old proverb found in Matt. vii., 5.
L ady B l o u n t , J. L. K ., A. P., and others.— Thanks for your encouraging andesteemed remarks. We shall try and keep the E. R. up to the tone of
No. 2 (N.S.)
H. H. S c r o g g i n s . — Yes, an ounce of fact is worth 10,000 tons of theory. To
your questions we beg to say :— ( I ) Mr. Morrow’s theory (at least so far as theenspberical part goes), was taught by the oldest Greek school of philosophy—
the Ionian , of which Thales was the founder. (2) He does not advance any
proof that we “ live inside of a globe.” You will observe that he says, “ IF
Ia n expression implying doubt) above as a canopy, it IS (a positive expres-.
sion) beneath as a concavity.” True “ Parallax” “ does not give any defi­nite conclusion as to what the waters rest upon.” But we ask with you,W H O C A N ? O f course we mean Zetetically, not speculatively. (3) Yes,
the expression “ central sun” implies that “ other suns” exist, and “ visiblesun,” the existence of an invisible sun.” (4) Yes, the statement that “ thevisible sun, moon, and stars are within the air,” is anti-scriptural, for God
declares that He “ set them in the firmament o f the heaven to give lightupon the earth.” Truly as you say, “ who can know more than they can see
in this matter, and what God tells them in the Scriptures of Truth ? ” (5) No,
it cannot be demonstrated by “ descending into a body of clear water,” thatwe “ cannot see beyond the limit of the air, or atmostrata.”
To Zeteticallj’
demonstrate any fact of Nature, the conditions must, in every sense, be T H E
SAME. Light can be seen under water, but the depth at which it can beseen, depends upon the condition the water is in. I know from personal ex­perience and experiment, that light can be seen from under clear water, at a dis­
tance of 50 yards. What have fishes got eyes for ? Eyes are useless without
light. Hence we conclude that light is not confined to the air. Thanks foryour satire which will appear in this issue. We trust to hear fromyou again.
]. T. B. D i n e s . — ^Thanks for your letters, shall appear in our next i f spacepermit.
A. M c I n n e s . — Thanks for yours to hand.
for this issue.

Shall appear in our next.

Too late

th e

72

earth

T h e Zetetic's

Open

Column.

The questions in this coltimn are open for Zetetics to rejjly to.
Our line o f sight is always half way up
Questions unanswered, Kos, 2 and 3.
our circle o f vision, and in projxirtion to
A n s w e r (4). Because by the opera­
the height of the line of sight, so is thetion of the natural law of perspective, distance greater to the horizon. Whenassociated with the peculiar construction ships and other objects are beyond theof the eye, objects ie/ow the line of sight observer’s horizon, the lower parts areascend to the level of the eye line, while hidden, therefore to see them, it requires
olijects ahove appear to descend to the a higher line of sight, obtained by as­eye line. A t the junction of the lines an cending to a greater elevation from where
acute angle is formed, beyond which we also obtain a more distant horizon.
objects cannot be further discerned with­ In perspective, receding lines appear toout a greater optica! power, or an in­ converge to the point o f sight, which iscrease of altitude which gives a propor­
level with the eye of the observer.
tionate increase o f angle.
See E. R.,
T h o m a s W h it t l e ,No. 4, p. 1 to 4.
J. A t k i n s o n .
Q u e s t i o n (5 ).
How is it that when
, A n sw e r (4). When a person goes up there is a lunar eclipse the shadow isa mountain, or up in a balloon, the line always round ?
of sight really rises, but the horizon, orQ u b s t I o n (6).
How is day and nightboundary line, only seems io rise higher formed if the world is not a globe ?
and higher, and as the height increases,
C. R. E.
the horizon becomes more distant.

\i

P R A C T IC A L F A C T S v. MODERN ASTRO N O M Y.
Evidently we have not got at the bottom of the matter yet ! In August, 1890,■
the C Manoeuvre Fleet signalled with search lights to colliers seventy miles away.
This was some 500 miles south of the Azores, and on a fairly clear night; and theinformation comes from Mr. F. T. Jane, the artist who was on board at the tuue.
Pearson's Weekly, December 29, 1894.
A

L U R C H IN G

Q U ESTIO N .

Does the leaving of the Globe in the lurch ofcause it to be in .1 difficult
position. If not, what hinders it from lurching over to 90®?

H IS F A T H E R H ELPED .
Whilst walking down a street the other day, I overheard the following conversation
between two urchins :“ I tell yer Bill, yer dttnno nothin’ about it,” said the first; the world goes rovmd
and round on its axle just like the wheels of a cart, and it’s worked by the blokes iii
the prisons where they have to tread big wheels to make it go round. ”‘ ‘ Garn! Who yer getting at ? ” cried the second,“ I tell yer it’s truth,” repUed the first, in a virtuously indignant tone at havinjJ
his testimony disbelieved. “ I reckon I ougiit to know when my father’s been
there.”I

T H E

l^EVIEW.

E/I1^TP-not a globe.^ E Y IE W .
When the majestic form o f Truth stands before the bar o f justice,that hideous monster, Error, hangs its head in silence.

A Sectional View of the World as a Plane.
N o. 4 (N e w S e r i e s ).

J U L Y , 1895.

P r ic e

2^'

T H E EARTH AN IRREGULAR PLANE.
By W IL L IA M TH O M AS W ISEM A N , F .R .G .S ., etc.
The surface of all water, when not agitated by natural causes, such as winds,
tides, earthquakes, etc., is perfectly level. The sense of sight proves this to
every unprejudiced and reasonable mind. Can any so-called scientist, who teaches
that the Earth is a whirling globe, take a heap of liquid water, whirl it round,and so make rotundity ? He cannot. Therefore it is utterly impossible to provethat an Ocean is a whirling rotund section of a globular earth, rushing through“ space” at the lying-given-rate of false philosophers.
When a youth, I stood upon the Dover shore of the English Channel, andwas told to watch a departing ship. “ Seel There she goes; down, down,
down ! The hull has disappeared ! She is out of sight! Now, my boy, youhave had an occular demonstration that the world is round (meaning globular
in shape) A N D S E E IN G IS B E L IE V IN G .” I walked up to an “ old salt”
who had a telescope, and said : “ Can you see that big ship through your glass
that’s gone down the Channel, and is now out’ of sight?” “ Yes, my son,I^ook !” The big ship immediately came into view again, as I peered throughthe old sailor’ s glass ! “ Why ! my -----told me the Earth was round, becausethat ship I can now see had turned down over the horizon!’’ “ A ha! aha!
sonny, I know they all says it ! Now, I have been all over the world, but I
never believed it. But, then, I have no learning, only my senses to rely upon,and I says SE EIN G IS B E L IE V IN G .”I now, after many years, endorse the old sailor’s e.xperience, that the world is
not a globe, and I have never found the man who could prove by any practicaldemonstration that he, or I, are living on a whirling ball of Earth and water !
How is it that the atmosphere goes round with it ? By what law does the detise
Earth and the rare air rush around together? Declare, ye scientists, IF YOU
KN O W ! The Scriptures of God’s inspired Prophets contradicts the unreason­
able, illogical, unscientific delusion, and false philosophy, that the jixed Earthis a hollow fireball with several motions !
There is an old adage, hy which you can Jix them,
There i^ not one lie true, no, not i f yoit pick them.^^