6o

T H E EA R T H REVIEW .

CONTENTS OF OUR LETTER BOX.
Halifax.
D e a k L e o C a s t l e , — I am glad to hear of
the American experiments proving " Paral­lax” right,as they must of necessity,for truthis unchangeable and P. was certainly rightin his determination of Earth’s position andwater level, i.e. horizontal. I can’t help
but feel regret that our old friend andchampion, Carpenter, has passed from our
midst. I shall ever respect his memory as
one who loved the truth as he found it in
the word of God and in Nature, l i t him
have a place- in our next issue, and our
sympathies as a society deeply expressed tothe bereaved widow and family. H e wasa practical, consistent, constant and en­thusiastic Zetetic.
Would to God there
were thousands like him. [Here, here, Ed.]
Kindest regards, from all to all, hoping
soon to see you.— Yours as ever,J o h n S m it h .

The American experiments referred towill appear in our columns as soon as
possible.— E d .
D e a r S i r ,— I was indeed most sorry tohear of M r Carpenter’s death. W e were
early friends of the Zetetic cause, and it
never had a more sterling or a cuter
critic than he.
H is book “ Common
Sense ” on Astronomy as a piece ofnegative criticism has never had, and pro­bably never will have, an equal much lessa superior.
Jam es N a ylo r .
D e a r S i r , — I sincerely hope the Earth
Review will continue to appear monthly.
The quotations in the Articles on Gravita
tion are very valuable.
The letters,“ declined with thanks,” & c., are also
very interesting. Newspaper editors areevidently afraid to assist in the exposureof the forlorn condition of modern astronomy by publishing them. How much
longer are our great “ Scientists ” goingto keep up the farce of pretending to beunited in opposing all anti-Newtonian
views ? “ Parallax ” refers to the “ smouldering scepticism ” which they have in.
duced in the hearts of Christian andJewish believers, but it may well be per­haps that, although not CiWBEgSED to'their opponents, or even to each other,
this same “ smouldering scepticism''
actually exists deep down in T h e i r Own
H e a r t . The damaging admissions andconfessions made by some of the morecandid and honest amongst those who are
considered to be in the front rank of“ Science,” which the RmUw so usefully
brings to the notice of the public fromtime to time, indicate the dry rot of longstanding which (because mostly hidden
from, and therefore not suspected by, thelatter) works silently and inevitably to thecoming great revolution in science which
is probably nearer than any have imagined,
when this lying and monstrous system ofastronomy, impudently labelled “ themost exact of the sciences,’’will collapse allalong the line— suddenly, and without
remedy ! T he sneers and defiance hurledby them at those who maintain thePlaneist truths are thus by no means to beconsidered as the measure of failurt of thework of the Zetetic Society in under­
mining the astronomical “ articles ” ofNewtonian “ faith.” How often doe»seeming failure and defeat turn out to be
victory— absolute and complete— A t t s u
A ll !

Joh n B r a d l e y .

EDITORIAL NOTICES.
tS" Please to ask for “ T he Earth— not a G lobe— Review,” at all Newsagents,
Reading Rooms, and Railway Bookstalls.
T o be had direct from the Hon. S e c .,post free, to any address in the postal union for is per year, in advance.
A ll monies for the Society must be paid direct to the local V ice Secretaries, ordirect to the Hon. Secretary and Treasurer, John Williams. Post Office Orders to be,made payable at Sumner Street, S .E .

-T H E -^ARTH™TAGLOBE-J^£YI£\\f
SIX

M IL E S .

“ Parallax” proving the Surface of Water to be Horizontal.

Vfl/.TYl

T a n . - A h tr c fi

HORIZONTALITY DISPROVES CONVEXITY.
The practical demonstrations of “ Parallax,” the founder ofZetetic Astronomy, were no hole and corner doings. Many similar
experiments have been made by others over canals, rivers, seas, etc., invarious parts of the world, and all confirm the fact, the surface of all
standing water, or water at rest, is horizontal.
ERG O .
The world is not a rotating globe and we living on the outside held
on by “ gravitation,” neither is it an “ hollow sphere ” and we live insideof it on a concave surface.
The various systems of theoretical science, viewed either from acommon sense, a practical, or a Scriptural standpoint of criticism, prove
themselves by their own self-stultifications and contradictions to beutterly untrue! And the only object of exponents appears to benothing more or less than self-aggrandizement. Their silence whenchallenged for proofs of their theories proves the fallaciousness of theirteaching and their consciousness of the fact.
Preachers, lecturers, and all intelligent and practical men in theworld should be interested in this discussion. Ignorance of real facts
is a disgrace to our pretended civilization and a slur upon our Chris­tianity, and can only be obliterated by an honest and candid yielding
through practical investigations to the claims of the voice of God in
Nature. This mode, and this alone, will, or can strictly accord withand confirm the utterances of Holy Writ, proving thereby that the God
of Nature is the God of the Bible, and that they are the voice of theLord our God speaking unto us, and teaching us His Truth.

T H E E A R T H R EVIEW .

THE OLD BEDFORD CANAL AND SOME THINGSTHAT CAN BE SEEN THERE.

'

!

li;
iii

We think that even the most ardent believer in a plane earth will
admit that the results of the Wallace-Hampden experiments, super­
ficially viewed, were unsatisfactory. However much, when examinedbeneath the surface, they proved standing water to be horizontal, on theface of it they appeared to prove otherwise. The distant signal un­
doubtedly seemed below the nearer one, and as this appearance in someform or other would be the case with a globular earth, evidence for thelatter appeared clearly to be established. Even we, who at the time
critically reviewed the experiments to prove the fallacy of the conclu­
sions arrived at, felt that the cause of the appearances was not a matterof certainty, but only one of conjecture and probability. It was there­
fore with readiness that we accepted a kind invitation in August, 1894,
to take part in some experiments on the Old Bedford Canal, of WallaceHampden fame. The experimental party was well provided with numer­
ous instruments,including a surveyors theodolite, Dumpy level,telescopes,&c. The results clearly established to all present that the surface of
the water in the Old Bedford Canal at any rate does not decline in any
part of its course from a right or horizontal line starting from the pointof observation, and therefore that standing water is not convex but
horizontal. With the general results of the experiments we are, how­ever, at present not so much concerned as with some particular ones inwhich we more intimately participated. It is a description of thesewhich we now propose to lay before the readers of the “ Earth Review.”
A t the time of the experiments it was unfortunate that the weather
during the whole of our four days’ stay was unsatisfactory. It was only
during brief spells of fairly bright weather that any experiments could bemade at all, and it was upon one of these occasions that the following
phenomena bearing upon the Wallace-Hampden experiments manifested
themselves. We had been using a terrestrial telescope, and found thatwhen truly levelled from the parapet of the Old Bedford Bridge, Welney
Bridge, six miles distant, always appeared in or near the centre of the
field of view. In fact it required a distinct variation from the level tomake Welney Bridge appear in the lower part of the field, and as would be
the case if the Old Bedford Canal was part of a globe of some 4000
miles radius. Having, by repeated experiments, verified the statement
just made, we turned our attention to the surveyor’s theodolite. This
was a truly grand instrument, possessing levels for both the transverseand longitudinal directions, together with vertical and horizontal crosshairs similar to the instrument used by Professor Alfred Bussell Wallace.

T H E OLD BEDFO RD CAN AL.

the theodolite in the direction o f Welney Bridge, and wefe
at once struck with the fact that the bridge appeared considerably below
th e horizontal cross-hair in the field of view, showing the same peculiarity,
in fact, as the instrument used by Professor Wallace. But this was notall, for we further noticed that different positions of the instrument gaveseemingly different distances of the bridge below the centre. In every
positio n the instrument was truly levelled in the direction o f Welney
Biidge, yet the seeming distance of the bridge below the centre con­stantly varied. While repeating our experiments, with a view to dis­c o v e rin g the cause of the variation, we were suddenly startled to findthat in a new position both the phenomenon and its several phasesv a n is h e d altogether, and Welney Bridge, instead of appearing below thec ro s s-h a ir, now appeared considerably above it, just as truly as the moste n t h u s ia s t ic Zetetic could wish ! We looked at our level, thinking we
had made some error, but no, that was all right, and yet the very con­trary of what was seen by Professor Wallace was manifest, namely,
Welney Bridge, which is 4 feet lower than the Old Bedford Bridge,
appeared above the cross-hair and not below it. O f course we repeated
our experiments, and found that no two positions ever gave the samer e s u l t s ; sometimes the bridge appeared above and sometimes below
the cross-hair, but the amount of the variation was never constant. Yet
the cause of this variation was a very simple one. Hitherto we had
confined our attention to merely levelling longitudinally— that is in the
direction of the view— and not transversely. But as soon as this latter
was attended to, the irregularities disappeared. Then tiie view o f Welney
Bridge, when the theodolite was truly levelled in both directions,appeared generally a little below the cross hair, and as, in fact, it ought
to do, being 4 feet lower. By very slight, indeed, almost imperceptible,
variations in the level, the apparent relationship of the bridge to thecross-hair could be very considerably altered, and the manner in which
the former, whether seemingly above or below the latter, darted to theother side as it approached it, was very striking. That this behaviour
should manifest itself was not to be wondered at, for as the cross-hairoccupied the actual centre of the telescopic axis, it is evident that raysfrom a distant object must seem to be deflected from their true positionby having to pass under or above the cross-hair, and form upon an axis
otherwise than the actual one. The apparent position, therefore, of all
objects that are at or near the true centre when viewed in a theodolite

W e le v e lle dcan neuer be the real one /But besides the appearances above stated, there were others which
we must not omit to mention.
Foremost of these is the appearance of the whole length o f the

T H E OLD BEDFORD CAN AL.
T H E EA R T H REVIEW .

canal from the point of observation to the distant object. Far from thecanal appearing to go down hill from the spectator, as would be the caseif the earth were a globe, it was just the reverse. It appeared to rise
towards the distant object as if the water was actually running uphill.
This peculiarity was even much more striking in the theodolite than in
the telescope. In the former it almost had the appearance of a wall ofwater fronting the spectator, and its effect was somewhat startling whenlooked at for the first time.
But far more important than this matter is the one we have now to
relate. In viewing Welney Bridge we had noticed a dark band of uni­
form breadth above the parapet or highest part of the bridge andseparated from it by a narrow streak of light.
Both the band and thelight appeared to be cut off by the objects on each side of the Canal.
What this dark band and streak of light betokened was for sometime amystery. On enquiry, however, the dark band proved to be the appear­
ance presented by a railway bridge belonging to the Great Eastern Rail­way Company that crosses the Canal some six miles beyond Welney
Bridge, or 12 from Old Bedford Bridge, the point of observation. The
streak of light simply represented that portion of space underneath therailway bridge that was not excluded from observation by the bridge at
Welney in the more immediate foreground.
The striking character ofthe phenomena, and the accuracy of the information imparted to us,
was greatly demonstrated when presently a train of carriages crossed thebridge. Then the band suddenly appeared to be more than double its
breadth, the upper part became broken and irregular, with its conforma­tion quickly changing as the varying heights of the carriages manifested
themselves.
Besides these features, vertical streaks of light anon ap­
peared, corresponding to the spaces between the carriages as these passed
rapidly over the bridge. It did not take long to estimate the importanceof what we had seen, for here were the Wallace-Hampden conditions
over again, only on a far better and more positive scale. Where we
stood was Old Bedford Bridge, the point of observation. Welney
Bridge in the intermediate distance corresponded to Wallace’s middle
signal, and the railway bridge at the further distance represented themore distant one. We only needed the heights of the various bridges
for a conclusive demonstration upon one side or the other. The high­est points of Old Bedford and Welney Bridges were found by us to be
17ft. and 13ft. respectively; whilst the Great Exstern Railway, in a
letter to us dated August 31st, 1894, kindly gave us the height of theirrailway bridge as 19ft. to the top of the girder, and 15ft. to the undeiside. Now, if the Old Bedford Canal represents comparatively a planesurface, we should expect that, when looking from the parapet of the

Old Bedford Bridge in the direction of the Great Eastern Railway Coy.’sbridge, Welney Bridge would appear lower than either of the former,
from the fict that it is lower really, its parapet being 4ft. lower than Old
B e d f o r d Bridge and 2ft. lower than the underside of the railway bridge.
It follows, therefore, when looking from the former to the latter, that
not only would the girder, 4ft. broad, be fully visible, but a clear spaceof light below it would also be apparent. And such was actually thecase. Given the necessary condition of a clear atmosphere, and there,
from Old Bedford bridge, can be seen the railway girder and the clear
space below it appearing distinctly above Welney Bridge in the middleof the field of view. But. if the earth were a globe of 4000 miles radiusthis would be impossible.
The utmost that would be included in thefield of view would be anything above a line prolonged from Old Bed­
ford Bridge over Welney and beyond. But this line at the latter bridge
would only be 28ft lower than a tangent from old Bedford, and s^ft.
lower if prolonged to the railway bridge. This line, however, would
then be still 21ft. above the highest point of the latter bridge, and, as anecessary consequence, place it entirely out of the field of view.
Wemust further add, that the case becomes much worse i f a lower point ofobservation is taken.
During these experiments the railway bridge wasdistinctly seen underneath the arch of Welney Bridge from a boat, theelevation of which was about 2ft. 6in. above the canal at Old Bedford.
Now, in this case, the lowest boundary of the field of view would touch
the water about two miles from the point of observation, and if pro­longed to the railway bridge, would be 47 ft. above the highest point of
the latter.
But cui bono t Why pursue the subject further ? There are only
two possible standpoints against the foregoing statements of fact— either
to deny them, or, admitting them, to boldly accept the necessary con­clusions. T o those who take up the first position we make no appeal,for knowing we have truly stated what we saw, we can only view those
who disbelieve us with pity for their scepticism. T o those, however,
who accept the second standpoint, we say— Never mind the sneers of
opponents, but boldly embrace the conclusion, and to the best of ycur
power proclaim them.
Jam es N aylo r .

[And, if possible, go and see the facts here recorded for your­selves.— E d .]“ W e say that we see stars (referring here to the observation of celestial bodies) ;but we do not see the stars iff'such a way as to distinguish whether they be round or
square, smooth-surfaced or ifregular. In fact, while we see them, we can know npfjij
ing of them visually, excepting that they exist.” — S c i e n c e S i f t i n g s , JuneT H E E A R T H R E V IE W .

T H E EA R i l l NOT CONVEX, NOR CONCAVE.

TH E EARTH NOT CONVEX, NOR CONCAVE.
A n A u t h e n t ic E x p e r im e n t P r o v in g M o d e r n A s t r o n o m y
K o r e s h a n it y

to

be

and

G ig a n t ic F a l l a c ie s .

“ Some endeavour to concede to us the non-convexity of inland
waters, while holding that the oceans are convex.
It is evident thatastronomers of recognized ability are not so illogical as that, for known
laws o f statics for still fluids compel them to admit that all waters would
necessarily be convex if the earth were rotund; and on the other hand, theenevitable conclusion is, if water is found to be not convex, then, we areliving upon some other form of earth than a convex globe. And this is theissue, as embraced in the law of hydrostatics, or the principles relating
to the pressure and balance of fluids. We do not deny these static laws,
for they are the basis of terrestrial science, and concerning these we quote
as follows from Wm. J. M. Rankine, Civil Engineer, F .R S.S.A. :—“ Pressure and Balance of Fluids.— The necessary consequence ofthat property (of liquids) is the following principles, which are the foun­dation of the whole science of hydrostatics, (i) In a perfect fluid whenstill, the pressure exerted at a given point is normal to the surface uponwhich it acts, r id of equal intensity for all positions of that surface.
(2) The surface of equal pressure in a still fluid mass is everywhereperpendicular to^the direction of gravity— that is, horizontal. Definitionof Horizontal— A H O R IZ O N T A L S U R F A C E IS A SU R FA CE
W H IC H IS E V E R Y W H E R E A T R IG H T A N G L E T O TH E
D IR E C T IO N O F T H E F O R C E OF G R A V IT Y . S U C H I S T H E
S U R F A C E O F A P I E C E O F S T I L L W A T E R :'Proctor evidently recognised that the issue rested here; and theway he consoled himself in referring to attacks upon the Copernicansystem, was in denying the testimony of experimentalists concerning thenon-convexity of the water’s surface. Hence, he said in his “ Myths andMarvels of Astronomy,” page 280.
“ O f course, if Parallax had, with his eyes a few inches from thesurface of the Bedford Canal, seen an object close to the surface six
miles from him, there manifestly would have been someth'ng wrong in
the accepted theory about the earth’s rotundity.”
Upon Proctor’s own admission it only remains, in order to convincehonest and consistent astronomers, to prove to them that water is notconvex. This we can do if they will condescend from peering skyward
concerning which they know nothing, to test the surface of water, con­cerning which they can know ! It has been demonstrated beyond doubt

by the sea horizon, by experiments on Bedford and Erie Canals and L a k egrie, a n d other waters, and by the datum lines adhered to in th e con­stru ction o f the Suez Canal in Egypt and the Manchester Ship Canal in
E n g la n d , as we' 1 as by the Standing Order of the English House of
L-irds and Commons forbidding allowance for calculated convexity ofthe earth in public works. . . .
There are those who are not satisfied with these proofs; they doubt
if experiments upon six or even ten miles’ distance is sufficient to demon­

strate the fallacy of modern astronomy. T o such, and to those who
may deny the evidence of competent experimentalists . . . we have tooffer an authoritative and noted experiment ovtr a. long stretch of 183
M ILE S. Had the experiment been made by a Zetetic his report would
have been laughed at and considered as unworthy of notice, but coming
as it does from the Signal Corps of the U. S. Army, and on record in
W a sh in g to n City, no sa n e man will dispute it. The particulars of thisexperiment were published and illustrated in Harper's Weekly of Oct.
20th, 1894, from which we take the “ profile” illustration below. The
experiment was conducted with the Glassford Flash-Light or Heliograph.
The signal stations were Mt. Uncompahgre in South-Western Colorado,and Mt. Ellen in Southern Utah ; the former 14,418 ft. above sea level,
the latter 11,410 ft.; the plateau lying between the two stations is 7,000
ft. higher than the sea. According to the calculated rate of curvation ofa spherical body 25,000 miles in circumference, a straight line (A B)
running at right angle with the perpendicular at the transmitting station.

so that in the distance of 183 miles, the curvation would place Mt. Ellen
downwards from the tangent line, below the line of vision, nearly 6 miles!
and yet the receiving station was seen on a level with the eye from Mt.
\JacoxD.'pahgre, on 2L\me coincident with the ^'tangent" line I Do you
know what the accepted law of perspective would demand in order that
Mt. Ellen be seen on a line of vision coincident with the horizontal
tangent from Mt. Uncompahgre ? It would require that the space of 6
miles be reduced to a vanishing point, which would place the pointof bi-sexion of the tangent A and B with the oblique (?) perpendicular
E, 3000 (diameters) x 6 = 18,000 miles from A ! It is difficult enoughfor us to demonstrate to some minds how Mt. Ellen (height 4,000 ft.

U N IV E R SA L G R A V IT A TIO N , A PU RE ASSUM PTION.

T H E EA RTH REVIEW .

above the plateau) is reduced almost to a vanishing point, and brought
up to an apparent level with the height of 7,000 ft. above plateau (as infigure in lower part of cut) without dipping Mt. Ellen downwards
6 miles below tht line o f vision ! Refraction ? Yes, but it would ap­
parently elevate Mt. Ellen only one-tenth, leaving 5 miles yet unac­
counted for.

“ UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, A PURE
ASSUMPTION.”
B y L eo C astle.

No. V III.
The following extracts are taken from “ A M illion t f Facts,"

By Sir Richardphillips

Take another view : I f we admit even that the two stations belooked upon as being connected by a straight line upon a sphericalbody (which could not be at right angle with the perpendicular of either
station \ and does the earth curvate vptvards and then downwards fromstarting point or downwards continually?), there would be (asin the following diagram reproduced from Harper^s Weekly, a
B U G L E O F S O L I D E A R T H N E A R L Y 70 M IL E S l.ONG
EXAGGERATED PRO FILE O F T H E COUNTRY,

Showing the two Peaks actually hidden from each other by the Curvatureof the Earth’s Surface.

A N D O V E R 5,000 FT. H I G H E R T H A N T H E T O P S OFT H E TW O M O U N T A IN S T O
RENDERT H E M IN V IS ­I B L E and '^ H I D D E N FR O M E A C H O T H E R .” The trans­mitting station was seen in clear sunset light, and the message wasflashed successfully from Mt. Uncompahgre to Mt. Ellen, and trans­mitted by telegraph from thence to Washington City ! How is this ?
Will you deny it ? It is substan'iated by the U. S. Signal Corps; thedistance, rate of curvation and height of mountains can be had from any
Stan Jard geographical work. W ill you explain it ? Then do so, taking
for a basis of exphnationfacts which can b j proven, and then harmonise
your configuration with the Bible. Until you do this you cannot saythat at least
proof is “ very silly nonsense, and utterly unworthy ofnotice! ’’This heliograph experiment speaks out in thunder-tones againit thefallacy of the modern scientific system, and utterly overthrows the
boasted accuracy of present day astronomy and geodesy ! The truthsof nature assert themselves in corroboration of the Bible cosmogony 1
The proofs offered by “ Parallax ” that the earth is not convex—
that vse do not live upon a rotund surface, are conclusive and irrefutable.
— Extracts from The Herald of Glad Tidings, No, 14.

“ I f the sun has any power, it must be derived from motion ; andif acting on bodies at a distance, like Jupiter on his moons, or the
Earth on its moon, T H E R E M U S T B E A N IN T E R V E N IN Gm e d i u m t o C O N D U C T IT S M O M E N TU M T H R O U G H IT S
SYSTEM .”“ It is a principle never to be lost sight of, that circular motion is anecessary result of equal action and reaction in contrary directions ; forthe harmony would be disturbed by variation of distance, if the motion
were rectilinear. The same action and reaction are therefore only to bepreserved by reciprocal circular motion. N O A T T R A C T IO N A N D
NO P R O J E C T IL E F O R C E A R E T H E R E F O R E N E C E S S A R Y .
T H E IR invention must he regarded AS B L U N D E R S O F A S U P E R ­ST ITIO U S A G E .”“ I f the bodies came near while moving T H E SA M E W A Y , there
would be no mutual R E A C T IO N , and they would go together for wantof reaction, and N O T O W IN G TO T H A T M E C H A N IC A L IM ­P O S S IB IL IT Y CALLED A T T R A C T IO N "“ T o accommodate T H E H Y P O T H E T I C A L L A W O F U N I­
V E R S A L G R A V IT A T IO N to the phenomena of the Planets, astrono­mers have preferred to change the mean density of matter itself; andthe Earth, for comparison, being taken at a density of 1000, toaccommodatj Mercury to T H E ASSU M ED LAW , it is taken as 2,585 ;Venus, 1,024; Mars, 656; Jupiter, 2or ; Saturn, r o j ; and Hersche),
218 Consequently, we have the paradox, that Jupiter, 1,290 times
larger than the Earth, contains but 323 times more atoms. Saturn 1,107
times larger, but 114 times more atoms. Even the Sun, according tothese theorists, is but one fourth the density of the Earth ! There may
be differences, but chemistry and all the laws that unite and compound
atoms, are utterly at variance with so rash and wild an hypothesis."“ It is waste of time to break a butterfly on a wheel, but asastronomy and all science (so-called or hypothetical,— Ed.) is beset withfancies about attraction and repulsion, it is necessary to eradicate them.
C
A f

O

1 -------------

—

-

o

B

10

T H E EA RTH REVIEW .

V A R IA B IL IT Y O F PENDULUM VIBRATIONS

If there are two bodies, and it is required to move A to C, theforce moving A to C must proceed from the side A. Either some
impact, or some involvement of a motion towards C, must act at A tocarry A to C. The modern schools, ho\vever, assert that B may move
A to C, and A move B to C ; aud this is mutual attraction f 1 Hence
it is necessary to believe that B acts on the side A, where B is not present;
and that A acts on B on the side B, where A is not present. In otherwords, A is required to be where it is not, and also be in force at A, so
as to move B to C ! all of which is absurd.”“ If in any case A and B approach, it is not because A moves B
towards itself, or B moves A towards itself, but owing to some causes
which affect the space in which A and B are situated; and which causes
act on A at A , and on B at B . . . the statement that A moves B, andB moves A, is ignorance, and is what is meant by attraction. It is also
worse than ignorance to justify idleness by asserting that the true cause
is indifferent; or to justify ignorance, by asserting that it is unknow­a b le !!”“ This reasoning applies to every species of Attraction, whatever
may be the pomposity o f equivocal terms in which it is described.
Universally, bodies cannot push other bodies towards themselves.”c --------------------- O

'"

'’ 0

-

“

—

“ If A and B are said to repel one another, and that B makes A
move to C, and A makes B move to D, we have to bear in mind, thatwhile A is moving to C it is in force only in that direction, and cannot
therefore be moving; B towards D. In like manner, while B is moving
to D, it is in force only in that direction, and cannot, therefore, be inforce in the contrary direction so as to move A to C.” Every species
and variety of Attraction and Repulsion are therefore absurd.
“ M A T T E R IS IN A L L C A SE S T H E C O N D U C T O R OF
M O TIO N .
If a body moveis, it is because it is the patient of somesufficient momentiim of body or matter acting ON the side FROM
which the body moves, and only in force in that direction." “ Some
adopters of attraction, itc., talk, by false analogy, of drawing, otheis ofpulling, lifting, &c. La Place IN V E N T S gravitating atoms, and gives
them a velocity of 6,000 times that of light, which in some way (known
only to himsell) performs the work of bringing the body i n ; others
IM A G IN E little hooks ! A s to drawing, pulling, &c., it behoves themto show the tackle— the levers, the ropes, <fec.”“ In spite of all the learning, ingenuity, and elaborations of men,confessedly very able, if there is not and cannot be any action of thenature of attraction, and if the phenomena ascribed to it are local effectsof palpable local causes, and if all the phenomena and involvement may
be clearly explained on different principles, then it may be to be lamented
that so much ability and character should have been wasted, while arespect for truth and sound reasoning demands that the whole should
be forgotten as a dream, or demolished as a card-house.”(T o be Continued.)

VARIABILITY OF PENDULUM VIBRATIONS.
Many contend that because a pendulum vibrates more rapidly inthe northern region than at the equator the earth is thereby proved not
only to be a globe, but to have axial motion, and because the variation in
the velocity is that of gradual increase as the North Pole is approached,
it is concluded that the earth’s true shape is that of an oblate spheroid— the diameter through the poles being less than that through theequator. The difference was calculated by Newton to be the 235th
part of the whole diameter; or, that the polar was to the equatorial
diameter as 680 to 692. Huygens gave the proportion as 577 to 875,
or a difference of about oue-third of the whole diameter.
Others havegiven different proportions; but the differences of opinion, each theresult of calculation, has become so great that many have concluded
that the earth is really, instead of an oblate, an oblong spheroid. It isargued that as the length of a pendulum vibrating seconds at the equatoris 32,027 inches and at the North Pole 39,197 inches that the earth, likean orange, has a globular form, but somewhat flattened at the “ poles.”This so-called argument proceeds and depends upon the A SSU M P T IO N
that the earth is a globe having a “ centre of attraction of gravitation,’
towards which all bodies gravitate or fall, and as a pendulum isessentially a falling body under certain restraint, the fact that whenof the same length it oscillates or fa lls more rapidly at the north than at
the equator is a proof that the northern surface is nearer to the “ centre
of attraction,” or centre o f the earth, than the equatorial surface; andof course if nearer the radius must be shorter, and therefore “ the earth
is a spheroid flattened at the poles.”The above is very ingenious and plausible, but unfortunately for
its character as an argument T H E E V ID E N C E IS W A N T IN G T H A T
T H E E A R T H IS A G L O B E A T A L L ; A N D U N T IL P R O O F O FC O N V E X IT Y IS G IV E N , A L L Q U E S T IO N S AS T O IT S B E IN GO B LA TE , O BLO N G , O R E N T IR E L Y S P H E R IC A L , A R E L O G I­
C A L L Y O U T O F P L A C E !!,■It is the duty of those who, from the behaviour of a pendulum at

V A R I A B I L I T Y O F P E N D U L U M V IB R A T IO N S .

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

different latitudes, contend that the earth is spherical to first prove thatN O O T H E R cause could operate besides greater proximity to a centreof gravity in producing the known differences in its oscillations. Thisnot having been done, nor attempted, the whole matter must he con­demned as L O G IC A L L Y IN S U F F IC IE N T , IR R E G U L A R , AN D
W O R T H L E SS F O R IT S IN T E N D E D P U R P O SE . M. M. Picart
and De la Hire, two celebrated French savans, as well as many otVer
scientific men, have attributed the variations o f the pendulum to differ
ences of temperature at different latitudes. It is certain that the averagechanges of temperature are more than sufficient to bring about thevariations which have been observed. The following quotation wilshow the P R A C T IC A L R E S U L T S of these changes :—“ All the solid bodies with which we are surrounded are constantly
undergoing changes of bulk, corresponding to the variations of tempera­
ture........................... The expansion and contraction of metals by heatand cold form subjects of serious and careful attention to chronometermakers, as will appear by the following statements;— The length of thependulum vibrating seconds, in vacuo, in the latitude of London(50° 31' 8" north) at the level of the sea, and at the temperature of 62°
Fahr. has been ascertained with the greatest precision to be 39'i3929
inches. Now, as the metal of which it is composed is constantly sub­ject to variations of temperature it cannot but happen that its length isconstantly varying, and when it is further stated that if the “ bob” be
let down i-io o of an inch, the clock will lose ten seconds in twenty-fourhours; that the elongation of I'lo o o of an inch will cause it to loose
one second per d a y ; and that a change of temperature equal to 30“Fahr. will alter its length i'5ooo part, and occasion an error in the rateof going of eight seconds per day, it will appear evident that some plan
must be devised for obviating so serious an inconvenience.”— N O A D ’S
Lectures on Chemistry, p. 41.

w“ The mean annual temperature of the whole earth at the level ofthe sea is 50° Fahr. For different latitudes it is as under :—Latitude (eqr.)))
5»„ London
)>
»
>>
»
„

Pole

0=84-2°.
10=82-6°.
2 o = 7 S ‘ i°.
30=71-1°.
40=62-6°.
50=53-6°.
60=45-0°.
70=38-1°.
80=33-6°.
go=oo-o°.

Length of pendulum
»
»
»
)}
J)
))
>J
}}
))
)}
1}

M ILLIO N OF FACTS,

39-072.
n
39 *i39 -39 ‘ i 97

13

From the above table it is seen that the temperature gradually
decreases from the equator towards the “ pole,” which would of necessity
contract the substance of the pendulum, or shorten it, and cause it tovibrate more rapidly. Besides the temperature of a given latitude, thedensity of the air must be taken into account. In numbers 294 and480 of the Philosophical Transactions, Dr Derham records a number ofexperiments with pendulums in the open air, and in the receiver of an
air-pump, which he summarises as follows :— “ The arches of vibrationin vacuo were larger than in the open-air, or in the receiver before it was
exhausted; the enlargement or diminution of the arches of vibration
were C O N S T A N T L Y P R O P O R T IO N A L T O T H E Q U A N T IT Y
OF A IR , or rarity, or density of it, which was left in the receiver of the
air-pump. And as the vibrations were longer or shorter, so the times
were accordingly, viz., two seconds in an hour when the vibrations werelongest, and less as the air was re-admitted, and the vibrations shortened.
Thus it is evident that two distinct and tangible causes necessarily
operate in practice to produce variability in the oscillations of a pendu­
lum at different latitudes, without having recourse to a “ F L A T T E N IN G
A T T H E P O L E S O F A N IM A G IN A R Y G L O B E .”First, thegradual diminution of temperature as the pendulum is carried from theequator to the polar region tends to shorten its length, and thus to in­crease its number of vibrations per hour or d a y ; and, secondly, as thepolar centre is approached, the air is colder, therefore denser, and there­
fore the ‘ arches of vibration ’ shorter, and the times of oscillation less, or,in other words, the number of vibrations greater in a given period.
It
has also been ascertained that the pendulum is influenced, other condi­
tions being the same, by electric and magnetic states of the atmosphere.
When intense electric conditions exist the arches and times of vibration
are less than during the existence of opposite conditions. Hence, if in
different latitudes pendulum experiments are made in vaco, at the same
temperature, and always at the level of the sea, different electric andmagnetic conditions prevailing, will induce variable results. T H E
A T T E N T IO N O F SO M E O F T H E M O ST A C C U R A T E A N D
P A T IE N T O B SE R V E R S H AS B E E N D IR E C T E D T O T H IS
M O D E O F P R O V IN G T H E O B L A T E S P H E R O ID A L FO R M
OF T H E E A R T H , B U T T H E R ESU LTS H A VE N E V E R
B E E N S A T IS F A C T O R Y , N O R SU C H A S W AS E X P E C T E D , O R
T H A T T H E T H E O R Y O F R O T U N D IT Y SH O U L D P R O ­D U CE .
Mr Bailey expresses (in Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical
Society, Vol. 7), the opinion “ that the vibrations of a pendulum arepowerfully affected, in many places, by the local attractions of the sub­

T H E E A K T ll R EVIEW .

T H E SU R F A C E OF W ATER.

stratum on which it is swung, or by some other direct influence at pre­sent unknown to us, and the effect of which far exceeds the errors o fobservation.”<}L0 BE. Have I been to sea ? Y e s ! Yes, for months at a time, andI fully believe the sea is flat; and that all water, motionless, or such as
is simply influenced by the action of heat and cold, or tide, must conformto the shape of a plane, and cannot by any possibility be convex. To
plainly present a convex surface, water must be running— not only
running, but boiling along the confined channel of a tiver, at a speed ofsome 12 or 15 miles an hour. The Jheelum is a river that runs out of
Cashmere— a deep, large river, and its course through the mountains isoften a very grard sight, and many a pleasant hour I have spent watchingat some noble sweep of the hurrying torrent, and as often I haveremarked that on such occasions the centre of the stream was raised atleast a foot, if not more, above the water on each side of the river. The
reason for this convexity is simply that the central stream rurs much
faster than the water at the sides, or that approEching the sides. Suchcentral stream running about twelve miles an hour has certainly a convex
sjirface. A real actual convexity is plainly visible to the raked eye inthe short distance of the width of a river; why, then, is the supposed
convexity (of the globular school) not apparent cn still water? Because
it does n o t e x i s t !
Now for a dilemma— a dilemma for the Globe— ites. Given stillwater, convex; when or in what position does it become level? For
clearly, if a pool in a river is convex, then the running stream must be
level. Where, Globe-ite, where ? “ Oh, just where its convexity is plainly
viable to the eye.” Snch is the answer they, the Globe-ites,— somewherewould have to give— remember, reader, I am only supposing a case—yes, have to give, by the law of opposites. Convex being opposed tolevel, the still water being convex (as they say), it stands to reason that
ihe utmost development in the other direction must be the level; but thenwe see distinctly that such is convex— convex to the naked eye; there­
fore the Globe-ite has perforce to state that the thing shall be exactly
the reverse of what it actually is !— ^Yours,
E. E. M.

“ General Sabine himself,” relates Captain Foster, “ was furnishedwith two invariable pendulums of precisely the same form and construc­tion as those which had been employed by Captain Kater and myself.
Both pendulums were vibrated at all the stations, but f r o m s o m e
CAUSE, which Mr Bailey was u n a b l e t o e x p l a i n , the observations with
one of them were so d i s c o r d a n t at South Shetland as to r e q u i r e
THEIR r e j e c t i o n .”F IG U R E O F T H E E A R T H : J. Von Gunpach.
From these remarks and quotations it is obvious that the
A SSU M P TIO N of Sir Isaac Newton that the earth is an oblate spheroid
is not confirmed by experiments made with the pendulum.
The Zetetic.
Extract from English Mechanic and Worid o f Science, Oct. 23rd, i 896 .
In the column headed “ Letters to the Editor,” the following reply
appears, signed by “ A Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.”—“ In reply to “ Foucault’s Pendulum ” (Query 89090, p. 192), theplane of oscillation of the pendulum in latitude 5“ would rotate in a retro­
grade direction at the rate of only i ’3o7336° per hour ; in other words,
it would take ii'4 7 3 7 days, or about iij^ d ays, to complete its rotation.
Hence, while it might theoretically be employed to show the earth’s
rotation, IN P R A C T I C E IT M V'ST F A IL TO DO SO.”JU ST W H A T T lJE " Flat-earthites” S A Y ! ! !

THE

SURFACEOF

Ed.

WATER.

By L i e u t e n a n t E. E. M i d d l e t o n , R.N.
A S E R IE S O F L E T T E R S W R IT T E N IN 1871.
No. I.
S ir,— Being delighted^— nay, more than delighted, charmed— nay,
more than charmeri, invigorated, galvanized, and thoroughly electrified
to find that even one journalist in London has the courage— nay, more—
the headlong, precipitous, plumb-live frenzy to approach, peer at, gazeupon, then fall— yes, actually fall to the other side of an unpopularsubject, and that subject the much-dreaded volcanic subject, theshape of the earth; I, being thus inspirited, have dared to enclose
you these ftw lines in hopes that I may in some way assist to buoy up
the sinking hearts of any who shall have whispered to himself or herself
the latest and most astounding/arf, that, after all— yes, after A L L , andI hope your readers will plunge to the full significance of the word A L L— the earth is really, actually, and undeniably a plane, and N O T A»S__ ________________ (To be Continued^___________________IN

M E M O R IA M .

W e deeply regret to announce the death on November 4th,
1896, of our friend, M r s . C a r p i n t e r , relict of William Car­penter, of Baltimore, U .S. America.
‘ Their precious dust the Lord w ill take, and freshly mould.’’ '

)•

i6

TH E EARTH REVIEW.

METEORIC SHOWERS-MISNAMEDM ETEO RIC SHOW ERS— M ISNAM ED CO M ETO ID S.

COMETOIDS.

Bv L a d y B l o u n t .

A recent issue of The Morning Post contained an article entitled“ Meteoric Showers,” in which it is stated that in spite of our forcfatheis’familiarity with these displays, it did not occur to them that they wereperiodical. Nor was the fact so discovered until the 19th century was
far advanced. Records of these phenomena go back many hundreds ofyears, and in China a long time B.C.
Humboldt recorded a wonderful display of “ shooting stars” in
Cumana, South America, on the night November ,jr -i2 , 1799.
Thousands of meteors were darting through the sky from north to south
for a period of four hours. The same meteoric display was seen also in
Guina, in the United States, in Labrador, and as far north as Green*land. But very little of it was witnessed on our side of the Atlantic.
This was unheeded until the night of November 12-13, 1833, when there
was a recurrence of meteoric shower.', which is believed to have been themost superb display ever witnessed. This again took place on theAmerican side of the ocean. Professor Olmsted remembered Hum­boldt’s hint that these meteoric showers were probably periodical; andthis led the Professor to watch attentively for the next display, whichappeared about the year 1866.
The writer of the above-quoted article says :— “ W hat may be theprecise meteorological influence of these meteoric showers is not known,
but it is perhaps hardly necessary to remind even the non-scientificreader that they are not what Holmsted describes as ‘ verie starres in
deed,’ otherwise the sky would long since have been left bare. The
explanation offered was that the meteors are particles of matter which
are distributed in myriads along the tracks of comets, and which
Schiaparelli mistaking calls cometoids.”
It is said that they are “ drawn ” with immense velocity into ouratmosphere, the resistance of which medium generates such an intenseheat in the wandering particles that they, igniting to white heat, become
visible to us for a second or two as luminous objects, or “ stars,’’ andsoon disappear, being burnt into powder or gas. But what is the powerthat “ draws ” them ? Gravitation has been shown to be a mere
hypothesis with no foundation in fact, and it is contrary to all our ex­perience to think that one body can draw or pull another without any
pulling tackle between them.
Things fall downward, by their own weight, and in reference to tlie
recent violent earth shocks which were felt in many parts of England^17

but principally in the West, on December the 17th last, it was suggekedthat there may be some connection bety^een meteors and earthquakes,
observers having remarked that this point (although not easy to deter­mine) is worthy of consideration.
Some think the earth periodically crosses the supposed track ofthese meteorites.
But proof has never been given that the earth has
any axial or orbital motion.
Another opinion is that these meteors
are similar in nature and substance to what are termed thunderbolts,
and merely chips of metallic substance from off the planets !! 1
How^ever, I think that this proposition has met with a cutting anda closing reply from one who showed that the theory must be erroneous,as our earth, which is supposed by Evolutionists to be a “ planet,” is not in
the habit of periodically having pieces chipped from off its surface throughany violent collision or otherwise. From the fact that these showers are
periodic as well as from many other reaso iS, we have evidence showingthat the fall of meteors in i S j j was n o t the signs foretold by Christ,
who said, “ Fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
And there shall be signs in the sun, and 'n the moon, and in Ihe stars’'(Luke xxi. 11-25).
Besides, H e said that the “ Stars should fall fromlieaven,” &c. (Matt. xxiv. 29). And, as has been shown, “ meteors”
are not stars. The stars and the planets still retain their God-appointed
place in the sky, as can be seen on any clear night. Asain, the displays
have been always local, as, for instance, those already referred t o ; andif these, the greatest displays recorded, were not world-wide, how much
more were the lesser displays confined to particular localities. Whereas
the signs prophesied by “ Him who created all things that are in heaven
and in earth, visible and invisible” (Col. i. 16) are evidently to beworld-wide, because the world has to be warned of His second coming,
which is drawing near.
These are the words of Christ with which I will close this shortarticle— “ The powers of heaven shall be shaken, and T H E N shall they
see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great gloiy.
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up
your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to thema parable, “ Behold the fig tree and all the trees ; when they shoot forth
ye see and know that summer is nigh at hand. So likewise ye, W H E N
Y E SE E T H E S E T H IN G S CO M E T O PASS, know ye that the King­dom of God is nigh at hand.
Heaven and earth shall pass away but
My words shall not pass away” (Luke xxi. 25-33).
These words bear
great import, and afford proof that the fall of meteors in 1833 was not
the sign predicted by Christ.

i8

T H E EA R T H REVIEW .

“ FLAT-EARTH-ITES ” v. GLOBE-EARTH-ITES.
“ Sir Robert B all is going to Portsmouth shortly to lecture upon “ Recent Re­
searches on the Sun,” and strangely enough something of a hostile reception is being
arranged for him in one quarter.
One would have thought that if there was a single subject which had escaped thetaint of heated controversy it was astronomy.
But Portsmouth boasts a local
astronomer, one Ebenezer Breach, who is getting some posers ready for Sir Robert.
According to Mr. Breach the sun is only 5,000 miles distant from the earth, and not
95,000,000. “ Is Sir Robert aware.” demands Mr. Breach, “ that it is decided in
Portsmouth that the teachers shall not teach such falsehoods in this enlightened age
to their scholars in the Board schools, and push 95,000,000 cartload of falsehoods
down the children’s throats to please ‘ red tape' in the Government ? Whitehall is
beginning to see the evils of such a system. . . . Therefore the 3 ,000,000
children of England shall not be taught falsehoods to please Sir R. Ball, General
Drayson, or all the star army put together. Portsmouth teems with intelligent young
people, and such intelligence shall not be misled and trampled upon by the absurdi­
ties of the universities that should at once^receive a national and universal cleansing.”—D aily M ail, N m tm ber 16th, lSg6.

To the Editor o f the Daily Mail.
S i r , — In your issue, Nov.

19th, you make a statement in your com­ments on Sir Robert Ball’s coming lecture at Portsmouth, which leads
me to think that you are in ignorance of the existence of the Universal
Zetetic Society, of which “ Parallax ” was the founder.
The statement I refer to is : “ One would have thought that if there
was a single subject which had escaped the taint of heated controversy
it was astronomy.”
May I ask, W H Y should modern astronomy escape from being
controverted ? Would you believe that modern astronomy is nothing
but a series of conjectures and contradictions ? I judge from what you
say that you believe the sun to be 95,000,000 of miles from the earth ?
May I ask you to remember that it was lately removed by Professor Gill
to close upon 3,000,000 of miles nearer to the globe than it waspreviously supposed to be ? How much more battleboard and shuttle­
cock work are these astronomers going to have with poor old “ Sol ? ’’I have said that modern astronomy is a series of contradictions.
Now, I will prove my assertion from their mvn statements. Then you
will see W H Y modern astronomy should be controverted.
Pythagoras, who asserted that he had been in hell for some time,taught that “ the sun is the centre of the universe, and that all theplanets revolve in ellipticil orbits round it.” (See Lempriere's Classical
Dictionary!) H e supposed the sun to be 44,000 miles distant from theearth-globe. Copernicus, the resuscitant of the philosophy of Pytha­
goras,
its distance to be 3,391,200 miles. Kepler 12,376,800
miles. He made another guess, and made it 26,000,000 miles !! Ricciola
27,360,000 miles. Sir Isaac Newton 28,000,000 miles.
H e madeanother guess, and made it 84,000,000 m iles!! Hind 91,000,000 miles.

FLA T-E A R TH -ITES v. G LO BE-EARTH -ITES.

19

H e made a second guess, and made it 95,298,260 miles.
Herschej^5,000,000. D ’Alembert 96,000,000 miles. Mayer 184,000,000 miles !!
P r o fe s s o r R. A. Proctor 91,500,000.
Sir Robert Ball 93,000,000 miles.
There are many other intermediate guesses by others, but those given
suffice to show the utter inability of our astronomers to ascerlain any­
thing like an approximate distance of the sun from the esrth. Professor
R. A. Proctor, speaking of the sun’s distance, says : “ Putting the matteras one of probabilities, as A L L S C IE N T IF IC S T A T E M E N T S M U ST
BE . . . the wonder is that they have any idea at all of the dis­
tance.” The fact is proved by their own statements that they have not
got any idea at all o f its distance " ! ! Sir Isaac Newton, in his Principia,
resuscitated the fundamental proposition of Pythagoras thus; “ Thesun is the centre of the solar system and immovable^
Since then Pro­
fessor Herschel found out that the sun was n o t imntffvable.
Thus it isindisputably proved that astronomers absolutely contradict each other byasserting, as Professor Proctor says, mere “ probabilities,” anc?, therefore,
they do not know anything about natural phenomena or its causes. No,
no': even the surface shape of the earth they walk about upon ! Is it
not patent to you that Professor Herschel, by his discovery of the sun's
motion, utt(.rly refutes the supposition that the sun is immovable, and,
therefore, it is not the centre of the solar system, or in fact any system
at all, unless it be the system of supposing things which they do notunderstand anything at all about, and indeed, in many instances, have no
existence? Consequently the “ eUiptical orbit ” business and the whole
foundation and vital propositions of modern theoretical astronomy, are,from astronomer’s showing, utterly false, having no basis in fact, nature,or natural phenomena.
No doubt Sir Robert Ball will inform his Portsmouth hearers that“ the heat of the sun is so intense that even the most refractory substarxes there present— such, for example, as iron, flint, or lime— whensubmitted to the awful solar temperature will be transformed into glow­
ing vapours.” But his admirers must remember that others haveasserted that “ there is no heat in the sun,” “heat does not come from thesun.” One has even gone so far as to assert that “ the sun is a frozen
mass eternal.” But no doubt Dr Ball knows best about the matter, see­ing that he has attained an age compared with which the age of
Methuselah is nothing ! The Doctor is reported to have said : “ Whenthe earth was young it went around so fast that the day was only threehours long. The earth was liquid then (in liquor ?) and it spun aroundand around at that fearful speed . . . it at last burst in two. The
smaller part became the moon, which has been going round the earth
ever since.” This puts fire-eating out of court altogether ! Sir Robertmust have been there at the time, and have seen the moon, in utter de­T H E EA RTH REVIEW .

fiance of Sir Isaac Newton’s " splendid law of universal gravitation,”run away from its parent! Then, sir, there is “ that fearful speed ” ofwhich Sir Robert speaks, which leaves us to conclude that at that time
all created intelligence was as senseless as lifeless matter.
A scientific fact should be as sacred as a moral principle, but the fact
is, Modern Astromony is utterly devoid of any facts as the resultant of
its OWN hypotheses.— Yours respectfully,
LEO . C A S T L E .
P.S.— By book post I forward you a copy of our journal for Sept.
1894, in which you will find the first part of a series of articles on The
Pretentions and Pretences o f Modern Astromony. This I would ask yourcareful perusal of. Also you will find a copy of One Hundred Proofs
the Earth is not a Globe.
L. C.
The Editor of the D.M. did not print our letter, but the following
editorial hocus-pocus appeared in the issue for November 27th :—TRIG O N O M ETR Y AND ASTRON OM IC DISTANCES.

TRIG O NO M ETR Y AND A STRONOM IC DISTANCES.
Trigonometry— the measurement of triangles— has been defined as “ the scienceof the numerical lelations between the sides and angles of triangles ” (Blackburn);
and teaches “ how from given values of some of the sides and angles to calculate, inthe most convenient way, all the others.” In presence of the Ordnance Survey ofthis country, there is no room to question the applicability o f this science to terrestriaj
distance, and the heights of objects upon earth’s surface. It is assumed by bothorthodoxist and paradoxist— spherist and pianist— to be equally applicable to theheavens. Such atsumption raises a question for examination.
Obviously, from the nature of the cas?, the first requirement is to find thetriangle.
The plane triangle upon earth’s surface need not detain us. The question is,whether, as the surveyor can determine the vertical distance or height of a light upona mountain side, can the astronomer determine within a reasonable margin, withcertainty, the vertical distances of objects in the heavens ?

“ F L A T -E A R T H ”-1TE S.
“ The agitation against the popular conception that the earth is round has justcome under new management, and henceforth ‘ the majestic form of Truth” is, ac­cording to the sentiments quoted in the organ of the Flatites, to be made to “ stand
before the bar of justice” in a manner that will makethat hideous monster, Error,
hang its head in silence” at a very pronounced angle.
T he D aily M a il reporter who set out to find why the m vement had come under
new management thought at first it was because the old management had neglected
to prove the flatness of the earth by a Hyde Park demonstration, or some such simple
and obvious plan of asserting the mighty truths of nature. But as events proved, theonly cause for the change was the ill-health of Mr. Albert Smith, which had causcd
him to hand over the editorship of The. Earth not-a Olobe Review to other hands.
The new editor appeals to all Zetetics to help “ to spread the truth that the earth isa vast irregular plane, stretched out upon and standing in and out of the waters ofthe mighty deep, as scripture, confirmed by practical facts and common sense, de­clares beyond refutation.’
And not content with this contract, the “ FIat-Earth” -ites are, in spare time,going to expose the glacial theory— which they hold to be a greater fraud than the
W orks Department of the County Council— and to make violent assaults upon the“ boasted accuracy of modern astronomy.”

Evidently the Editor of the Daily M ail had to hang his head insilence at a very pronounced angle !!! least this so-called “ most exact of
the sciences” should be manifested as a fraud. Why ! in the first six
words of his grandiloquent remarks he speaks the truth, and did notknow he had done so !!
“ The popular conception.” Yes, that is all
modern astronomy is from beginning to end ! A mere C O N C E P T IO N ,having no foundation in fact, reason, or common-sense ! Why, he did
not so much as perceive that when he proclaimed modern astronomy to
be “ the popular conception ” he exposed the basis upon which thatscience is founded to be a mere ignis fatuus, leading its followers into
tlje destructive cjuaguiire of contradiction.
LE O C A S T L E .

t'or the sake o f simplicity, let us imagine the v e r fc il secdoa of a mountain, in
which, Fig. 6, E Q is a portion of the base in the plane of flat earth’s surface ; let S
be a light upon the mountain side, and vertical to Q ; then for the station at E let
the observed altitude of S be the angle S E Q = 45°; join S Q ; we have thus theright angled triangle E Q S.
Draw S ' S S" parallel with E Q ; let that be the diameter and the plane of acircuit in which the light moves around the mountain. Join
E, S" E. Obviously
the angle S" E Q is less than the angle S E Q ; also that the angle S' E Q is greater

TRIG O N O M ETR Y A N D ASTRON OM IC DISTAN CES.

T H E EA RTH REVIEW .

23

than the angle S E Q. Let S' be vertical to T , a point in the base, and S" vertical to
T ', another point in the base. Let E S ' be produced to S ’ and to S*. Join S ' S
a l s o T 'S " S ‘ .
; Now by virtue of th i observed altitude only, we could not construct definite
triangles, because as seen from E the light might be at S', S ’ , S*, or at any point in
the same straight line, though infinitely produced— the angular ehvaiion being thesame for the apex of each of the triangles E S 'T , E S ’ Q, E S ‘ T ', though the verticaldistance varies in each. Hence the need for a knowledge either of the base line, or
the point in the line E T ' to which the light is vertical. With such knowledge wethen can construct the right-angled triangles E T S ', E Q S, E T ' S", the solution ofwhich by trigonometry would show the ver.'ical distance o f the light to be the samefor the different points S', S, S"^in its circuit, though the angular elevation varies ineach triangle.
W e purposely omit the solution of these triangles, as there would be no dispute
upon this point amongst the competent, in order that attention may be the moreemphatically directed to the logical aspect of the main question, this being out
immediate business.
From the foregoing it will be evident that in ascertaining the height of an object,
there is required a definite triangle, one side of wliich must be of known value. The
Surveyor obtains these conditions.

Utilising the same figure fo r astronomical purposes, then upon the theory o f a
fla t earth, let 15 be the northern centre, Q a point upon the equator ; then E Q is theequatorial radius. T , T ' the tropics ; Q S, the vertical direction of the sun at equinox ;S ', S" the solstices, the limits of the sun’s north and south declination. Now at thetime of the northern winter, when the sun is at its greatest south declination, the pointS", the observer at E could not obtain the line of direction E S" because the sun would
be 23^ ° below his horizon E Q ; at equinox he could not obtain the line of direction
E S, because the sun would then be upon his horizon E Q. In the northern summer,
when the sun is at its greatest north declination, the point S ', the observer at E could
not obtain the line of direction E S', for by observed meridian altitu le the angle of
23>^° elevation would be given by the line E N. Thus, instead of the observed
elevations as obtained by the Surveyor, and represented by the lines of direction E S',
E S, E S", the astronomer obtains respectively E N, E Q and invisibility. Th«twould be an exceedingly enlightening demonstration by which it could be shownthat ordinary plane trigonometry is equally applicable in these two cases; for it can­not be shown that the sun’s vertical distance varies with its declination. If any object
to observations at the assumed station E because of its practical inaccessibility, thenin our paper on Finding the latitude, we will show the same relative results for actual
observations at lat. 5i>^° N. (London).

Is T r i g o n o m e t r y

Let E P O be a plane intersection of earth through the poles ; C the centre, O
station uixjn earth’s surface, S object in the heavens; C S S ' the apparent
direction from the datum point of earth’s centre C ; O S S " its apparent direction toan observer at station O ; the angle C S O is the parallax. When subtended byearth’s radius C O , it is called horizontal, or diurnal parallax— C S being taken as thehorizon— the angle has then its greatest value ; as the object progresses towards Z,
Ihe angle contained between S C and S O diminishes ; upon its reaching the zenith Z
it vanishes, by the coincidence of the lines. Obviously the same result would happen
if O moved in the direction O P , S being stationary.
If we take C as the sun, around which the earth moves in the orbit O P E , tnen
C O is the radius of earth’s orbit, and is the sca'e of measurement for the diatances ol
the stars, and the angle at S is the annual parallax, if this angle equalled one secondof arc, (o i" ) . then C O being taken as 93,000,000 miles, the distance C S would benearly twenty billions of miles (i.e., multiplying C O by the ratio of the unit of circu­
lar measure to o ’l" of arc).
In examining this subject of parallax we must refer to some elementary teachingof orthodox astronomy, v iz.,—“ From pole to equator equals a right angle. ”“ From zenith to horizon equals a right angle.”“ The Rational or astronomical horizon is an imaginary line passing throughearth’s centre (parallel with the sensible horizon, and determines the rising andsetting of sun, stars, and planets.”

a p p lic a b leupon

th e th e o ry o f E a rth

a S p h ere?

_A triangle is ajserted to be found by virtue of observations from which
there can be deduced an angular value— parallax.
Parallax is defined as thedifference in the apparent position of an object in the heavens when viewed from two
stations— the one being the datu n point of earth’s centre, the other, that of the observer
upon earth’s surface: the angle measuring this apparent difference is the parallax of theobject. It may be illustrated by half-a-dozen diagrams; in Fig. 7 we give the simplest.

“ The Sensible Horizon bounds the spectator’s view .” Now, logical consistency
requires that as observed altitudes are measured from the plane o f the sensible horizon^
the astronomer ought to insert the line H 0 R when illustrating paraUax. If theobject S be theoretically upon the Rational horizon C St but by actual observation
upon the Sensible horizon O H , and these horizons be parallel, how can angulardifference be obtained from two parallel lines? Or how ts.n m imaginary line

24

T H E EA R T H REVIEW .

passing through earth’s centre C - a point to which///e whole lu.avens are equally optn
avail to determine the rising and setting of sun, &c. ? The True or Rational horizon
is but a theoretical figment serving for exercise in abstract mathematics.
The equator E C O when produced to the distant heavens Z is called the equi,noctial, from which declination is measured. Suppose an object at A , join C A , theangle Z C A is the declination of A , say 25°. T o an observer at O the object would
be seen at a zenilh distance, of 25°, i.e., the angle Z O A ' ; now the two lines C A , O A 'which make the equal angles of 25° with, the same straight line C O Z are indispu­
tably parallel.
If it be true that the zenith distance of 25“ by obse>-va.lioH and the declination of
25° are properly illustrated by the lines O A and C A meeting at the point A , and somaking the angle C A O — it follows that 25' of the smaller circle described with theradius O Z would equal 25" of the larger circle described with the radius C Z in the
numerical value of arc— a fallacy too glaringly obvious for contention; hence there is
no readable angle as C A O.
Again the angl e—woul d be a residual am ount,hshic obtaining which,allowances would have to be nude for errors of various kinds and for unknown quan­tities, such as error in observer’s latitude, of lens, in manipulation, aberration, refrac­tion, &c , & c , and then when found what is its value? the breadth of a spider's threadas the base line of a triangle, its sides being 2% inches in length, in the case of thesun ; or the same base-line with one yard as the length of the sides of the triangle inthe case of a star.
In “ The Story of the Heavens,” now issuing in monthly parts by Cassell & Co.,
(p 482) it is plainly stated by Sir Robert Ball that “ the parallax o f the star is in thegreat majority o f cases an absolutely insensible quantity." Advocates of diverse
theories would assign different causes for “ no readable angle ; ” but no parallax is
the inevitable result, geometrically, upon a sphere— observed altitudes being measured
from the sensible horizon, the plane of which varies with the latitude.
Let it be noted also (as stated in connexion with Fig. 3) that the variation in theapparent position of an object in the heavens is equivalent to the variation in ob­
server’s latitude, and is the same for both sphere and plane, being limited to the valueof one side of a square upon the equatorical radius— upon the plane theory this dis­placement appears as varying altitudes; upon the spherical theory the amount ofapparent displacement is marked off upon the axis of rotation which is cut at rig t
ang’es by the plane of the observer’s circle of latitude.
N ow angular elevation \oAes with declination— i.«., with the object’s positionin the line S' S S" (fig 6), or with the observer’s latitude in the line E T ' separately
or conjointly, though the vertical distance S Q remains constant.
Now if there be no parallax for a fixed star upon the horizon, neither can there be
any parallax for sun, moon, or planet; because, the two horizons being parallel, these
two lines of direction cannot meet at an angle.
From all the preceding some simple logical conclusions are unavoidable, viz :—Observed altitudes afford no data for finding vertical distances, but merely from the
known declination to deduce the latitude, and from the known latitude to deduce thedeclination— applying equally to sphere and plane ; that upon the plane a common
apex cannot be found for two or more triangles obtained by observation from different
stations, N and S latitudes being considered separately ; upon the sphere the paral­
lelism of all lines to any given point in declination, which necessarily includes the
position of all objects in the heavens, precludes the possibility of obtaining the neces­sary triangles.

T R IG O N O M E TR Y AND ASTRON OM IC D ISTAN CES.

25

Hence we are able to state emphatically that ordinary plane trigonometry isutterly inapplicable for finding any astronomic distances.
The cause of the apparent displacement of an object in the heavens is a matter ofdistinct interest. Possibly it may result upon the operation of the law of the visual
anglCi by virtue of which magnitudes decrease as their distances increase; this incombination with the law of perspective which is based on the similarity of given
triangles. So that the apparent elevation of an object in the heavens above earth’ss u r f a c e may be regarded as magnitude; as the observer recedes from the point towhich the object is vertical, so its height seems to diminish ; when he has receded toa distance equal to the equatorial radius, as in F ig 6, from Q to E , then the object S
appears as touching earth’s surface—that is. upon the horizon E Q.

Then as to perspective, if a landscape be viewed through a window pane that isviewing nature under certain limitations - the view would be enlarged or contracted
according to the distance of the eye from the pane ; but the distance of the eye once
fixed, then all that is seen within the limits of E C (Fig. 8) is reduced to the limits of
D B. Here we have two triangles which are similar, because as the ratio of A B is to
B D. so is the ratio of A C to C E ; that is simple arithmetical proportion.
Bat letus note a distinction here : the artist in reducing his view to canvas is not concernedwith the ratio of A B to A C, that would involve the scale of the picture to the dimen­
sions of nature ; the requirement is that all that is seen in nature in the triangle A C E
shall be represented in the same propoitions in the miniature triangle A B D
Now
our view of Creation is limited by the bounding line of the sensible horizon. Where
does the plane of the sensible horizon Intersect the heavens? By Fig, 6 we have seenthat the sun as S" is invisible to an observer at E ; when at S it appears in the direc­
tion E Q ; when at S' it appears in the direction E N. Now excepting the zenith andhorizontal directions— i.«, Q S and E Q, every observation of the sun at equinox for sta­tions between E an d Q would bring the line of direction within the distances Q . which
obviously is one side of a square upon the radius E Q. T o an observer at E objec's
between S and S" are invisible; between S and P they have elevation; S is the vanis' ing
point; and the plane of the sensible horizon takes the direction of a diagonal of asquare upon the radius of the equator. Hence this radius is the measuring rod of thevisible portion of the heavens, and this in the direction of their breadth only ; and thisdiagonal line, iri connexion with the ellipse resulting upon observer’s eccentric posi­tion, enables us to show by geometrical diagram the length of day and night. But
this is a distinct subject, and cannot be dwelt upon here ; it is thus referred to now
because every now and again enquiries are made upon this point as though the lengthof day could not be determined upon the plane theory.

G. M.

26

T H E E A R T H REVIEW ,ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.
A ll letters to the Editor must be briefly and l e g i b l y written on one side of thepaper only.
They must be accompanied by the name and address of the writer, as aguarantee of good faith.
Where replies are requested by post, the postage must be
enclosed. A ll letters must be prepaid and addressed toM r

T. w i l l i a m s ,.
3 2 , Bankside, L o n d o n , S.E .

Thank you, Mr. Harpur, for your “ remarks on the E .R . for Sep. D ec., 1896.”
In reply I would say that I have read somewhere, and it is sound advice. “ Wisdom
is the principal th in g: therefore get wisdom : and with all thy getting get U N D E R
S T A N D IN G .”(1.) If Blair chooses to contradict himself that is no business of ours.
(2.) “ C l the moon is a brightly-lit body'’ is it ! Professor Fowler said it “ is a dark
body.” Ah ! well, proceed. I suppose you will inform us if you ever saw “ a dark globu­
lar body brightly lit, and whether or no it in any way resembled the moon. “ And owing
to the dazzling of the eye.” Ahem ! which “ eye ’ please ? Ah ! 1 see you give rtsults !”“ Such a body always looks a little bigger than it is.” Yes, I see, but my eyes are
not dazzling, so go on. “ So that Us edge encroaches on the surrounding space.” I
suDDOse that is the astronomer’s “ infinite space?” W ell, what n ext? T H R O U G H
T H IS U N R E A L E D G E O F C O U R S E A S T A R C A N B E S E E N .”How veryclever! B it there, go on, ‘ -Toproveyourcase” — doyoum ean “ ^o«rcase.” W ;haveno case. We ask Professor Fowler, not what you say we asked him— viz., “ Plow was
Jupiter seen through a dark body,” but *• If the moon is a dark body how was it thatin the occultation of Jupiter by the moon, Jupiter was seen through this ‘ dark body,’
positively seen through the mountains, crates, rivers, seas &c. ?” H ow is it thatthese Professors, these Oracles of Modern, Theoretical, Mathematical, Geometrical
Astronomy answer not? I ’ll tell you. The horizontality of water baa shaven themof their locks and their strength has gone from them and they can do nothing saveit be laugh at you for being so foolish as to attempt to put a wig on them to frighten
us with. No, no, sir. We K N O W what their next action, will be, for their strength
shall r e t u r n u n t o them for that purpose, and that purpose only— viz., the utter de­
struction of the globular theory. But proceed, please. “ To prove your case you
must produce an instance of a star being seen either through some part of the mooa
far from the edge,” Which edge, please, “ its edge,” or the unreal edge?” Pro­
ceed please. “ Or through the dark part of the moon.” Then Professor Fowler iswrong in saying “ the moon is a dark body,” eh? You contradict him and say “ thedark part of the moon.” Then the moon is only partially dark.
O , you are a
H arp er! W ell, how is this “ f r being far from the edge ?'’a\Is it far enough, or is it too near the centre ? T hat is not “ poetic licence,” but
F A C T , for it’s a correct illustration of Jupiter as seen through the moon. Permit me
to suggest that you write on this subject, as you have on others, to General Drayson,
Sir Robert Ball, or even the Cambridge Profes or you once mentioned, and ask themto answer this question direct to us and it shall appear in our columns.
I am glad you notice our “ very absurd argument” to the Rev. D . Nield about
the immovablt sun moving, for it proves you are as far from a discernment of what
logic and truth is as you were six years ago ! T o prove that an immovable sun moves,
you say you were “ travelling from London to Birmingham, and you and your friends
were trying to see the monument at Tring, when one of them said, “ Those trees will

ANSW ERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

27

m o v e o u t of the way in a moment.”
Then you add, “ S o they did.” D ID they?
1^0, they did N O T .
The train moved, not the trees.
It is an illogical and falses ta te m e n t, the results of scientific teaching through school and college cramming whichc a u se s men to stultify the meaning of words and sentences to explain and understand (?)
a false so-called science. T ell your friends they should have said, “ W e shall passthose trees in a moment.”

This reminds me of a gentleman who once called on me, and in the course of
conversation upon the same subject said, “ O f course you believe in passive motion ?”No, I replied, I do not, neither do I believe in so-called “ retrogressive motion.”B u t ' said he, “ T hey are facts, known facts.”
I should like to know who proved
them to be facts. Oh, said he, that is easily done. Can you do it, I asked ? Oh,
yes, he replied, and rising from his chair he took from the table a book, placed it on
his hand, a n ! with outstretched arm said, “ There, sir, the book is now passive.
T h a t is a fact, is it not?”Yes, I said, that is a demonstrated fact. Now, said he,moving his arm at full length backward and forward,” ^ It moves, and that is passive
motion.” Then I replied, “ passive motion” is made out of a fact and a falsehood,and consequently the whole is absolutely false, for nothing is so dangerous and likely
to mis'ead as error and truth mixed.
Vide Gen. ii, “ Y e shall N O T surely die.”“ Not” is a very small word, but it changed the truth of God into a lie.” “ I t" is avery small word, but it changed a fact or th jt which was absolutely true into a false­
hood ! But, said the gentleman, I showed you two facts, and you say they constituteone falsehood ! It is useless talking to you, sir, or trying to convince you of the factsof astronomy.” “ No sir, not in the least,” I replied, “ if they are what you call facts.
But perhaps you will allow me to explain ” “ W ell, I must really be going,” he said.
But before you go allow me to ask you to think this matter over.
You said ‘ it,’the book, ‘ moves.’ The book did not move, the book cannot move, for it is devoidof life or power to do so, hence the truth is you movid the booh, therefore to speakcorrectly or logically you should have said the book is being moved.”
We reproduce the cutting you sent us, as Hawkins is an apt illustration of theintellectual intoxication caused b y science falsely so-called. The only way “ a fellow
c-caan’t help getting carried ofFsh feet,” is by standing upon the vast non revolving,
non-rotating plane earth.
F i z z i c a l J o g r a p h y . — Autocratic Policem an : “ Strikes me, sir, there’s some­thing physically the matter with you .” Hawkins (who is just getting home frombusiness at 1.30 a.m .): “ Quite right, pleeshman.
ShoflFerin’ from an attack ofyfzzical yoffraphy.” Autocratic Policeman: “ Physical geography, sir! What way
like?” H awkins; “ W ell, ye see, pleeshman, th’ earth trave'sh thro’ sp ash ’t such »fearful ve'osity, that a fellow c-caan’t help gettin’ carried off'sh feet now’n agam.'aj
Both lose their gravity completely.

H. S p a r t a x .— W e are well informed upon the points mentioned in your ever-welcome letter. ( 1.) Lady Blount is no more “ in favour ofthe science of Koreshanity” than
you are yourself. She says, “ I do not yet understand Koresh’s cosmical teaching, andtherefore cannot give any opinion on it.” Doubtless she has great respect for Mr M or­row, and corresponded with him before he became a Koreshanite. (2 .) Respecting “ herletter in “ F. S .” for January, from which you quote, “ W e —i.e., Mr Morrow andKoresh— are grateful for her kind words .
. and commendation ol.the works andwritings o f Koresh.” She informs ut that she “ wrote to Mr Morrow in reply to his
invitation to ask any questions that she wished to.” and adds, “ H e has quotedof sentences (connectmg them) from my private letter. In course of my letter I recol­
lect mentioning to Mr Morrow that I was not yet prepared to endorse (especially
openly) Koreshanity. What I meant for publication were my questions, and Mr
Morrow has kindly promised these shall be inserted ! ! I also said he could print(if desired) that I p “rceived that the teaching of Koresh was in some things good, andeven better than I had ever heard. But I was particular in reference to his educa­
tional system and social reform. ” Both these appear to me very excellent. (3.) Yes,
we are well aware that we are termed by them “ the mongrel offspring of the Zetetic
philosophy.” One of the “ mongrels ” will have something to say on this subject before
long. (4. “ What do we think of the ‘ Geodetic Rectilineator. ’ W ill it prove us
wrong ?” First, we think it is the last trump card of the great adversary of mankind, butnever fear, we hold the ace and king— the Word of God, the horizontality of water.

28

T H E E A R T H REVIEW .

N o, it will not prove us
made a gentleman exclaim
curvature of the earth.” jmade to prove a foregone supposition. The Koreshan “ Rectilineator" is madefor the same purpose. They assume by a “ geometrical proposition’’ that the earth
is concave, and then talk about “ a rail, one or two miles long, concaved eight inches
to the mile.” W ho made these rails, and who looked along them ? W e know thatthey do hig things in America, but we are inclined to think that the rail 2, or even imile long, is too long even for a “ cute Yankee.” (5.) Suffice it for the present that
we quote their own statements, “ H e (Koresh) comesas the Son of man . . . as theShepperd, the Stone of Israel . . . as the W O R D O F G O D . . . th e . Messenger of
the Covenant, the High Priest and Mediator of the age of light and life.” And th e n
it is asktd, “ W hat will you do with him ? ” For the present, “ curtain.”-T H E --{-N O T A G L 0 B E - ] ^ £ V I
M IL E S.

" Parallax ” proving the Surface of Water to be Horizontal.

-Jiiy,-e J^SZiyZETETIC NOTIFICATIONS.
iS " Please to ask for “ The Earth— not a Globe— Review,” at all Newsagents,
Reading Rooms, and Railway Bookstalls.
T o be had direct from the Hon. Sec ,post free, to any address in the postal union for is per year, in advance.

‘‘ UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, A PURE
ASSUMPTION.”
B y L eo C a stle .

A ll monies for the Society must be paid direct to the Hon. Secretary and Trea­surer, Johu Williams. Post Office Orders to be made payable at Sumner Street,
London, S .E .

No. IX.

W e must request correspondents to be careful in addressing letters to the Secre­tary, as several letters have been delivered opened by other Mr W illiam s’ living on
Bankside.
JO H N W IL L IA M S , 3 2 Bankside, London, S .E ., will insure safedelivery.

'■T h e great majority of scientific writers and teachers commonly referto the “ time-honoured and universally-accepted law of gravitation ” asif they were quite u n a w a r e that that law leaves many very serious dif­ficulties still unsurmounted, and that, even among men of science
themselves, it is by no means so universally accepted as it once was.
................ It is absurd to hold that it universally applies to all pheno­mena which it is held to govern. It cannot be denied that, in thewords of Samuel Laing, “ The universe contains many forms of motion
and many manifestations of energy, which cannot be explained by thelaws of gravity. For instance, the runaway stars, the world of meteor­
ites, the proper motions of molecules and altoms, and the requsite dura­tion of solar heat to account for the undoubted facts of geolog)’.”T H E R E C E I P T O F A C O P Y O F T H IS J O U R N A L F R O M O U R SEC­R E T A R Y , IS A N I N V I T A T I O N T O S U B S C R IB E .
W ill friends please notice that if this space ^ contains a B L U E P E N C IL
C R O S S , it is an indication that Y O U R S U B S C R IP T IO N IS D U E .
A RED
P E N C I L C R O S S indicates that your subscription w ill be due before the next issue.
W e regret that it was not stated in our last issue that this Journal would beenlarged to 28 p.p., hence the 'pnce,poit free, is placed at 3d.
T he Map we have been publishing at 2/, is at present “ out of print.”W^ill friends in ordering books please notice that those only which are quoted on
the cover of the last issued Journal are those only in stock, others having been soldout.

What is gravity? We are accustomed to speak of it as the one
well-known and established fact of the universe; and yet of IT S R E A L
E SSE N CE AN D M ODE O F O P E R A T IO N W E K N O W A BSO ­L U T E L Y N O T H IN G .
Nay, worse! its nature appears to be so
inscrutable to us, so far, that our accepted views and theories regard­
ing it are either essentially self-contradictory, or are directly contra­
dictory of the well-known and fundamental principles of physics. And,
still worse! the blinding influence of prestige has so far prevented thegreat army of teachers and students of the subject from perceiving thesevital and almost glaringly apparent contradictions.
What, then, is gravity? How does one mass of matter act uponanother mass without connection and apparently without requiring
time for the transmission of the impulse, however great the distanceat which it acts? Is it a pushing or a pulling force? How is it so