CH.

D A M IE N ’S

FRENCH IN

THE

SYSTEM .

EARTH.

THREE MONTHS!

R E V IS E D

E D IT IO N ,

V ol.

1902.

Nos. 45 iK: 46.

W .

We have much pleasuie in recommending the above work.
M A N ’S

T h e booklet contains the three thousand words, and idioms,
which are m ost used in ordinary conversation ; sufficient toenable you to talk French all your life ; no fossil philologicalpeculiarities, b u t French as it is actually spoken in France.
Grammar underlies each group of examples, and we think
this a cleverly condensed m ethod of teaching the Frenchlanguage.
T h e A uthor of French in Three M onths also gives Lessons
in Conversational French to adults, at
128, C R O M W E L L R O A D , L O N D O N , S.W. ;
AND

64,

ROSSLYN

H IL L ,HAM PSTEAD,

N.W.

Friends of the Ed. of this Magazine can testify to his ability
and agreeable way of teaching.

The Magnetic Nerve Invigorator Co.,JO N A TH AN
23,

NICHOLSON,

Budge Row, Cannon Street,LONDON, B.C.

Price of Appliances £1 Is., £2 2s., & £3 3s.
Instalm ents may be appangedi

PLACE

IN

THE

UNIVERSE.

Therefore the idea of gra vita tio n (which truly belongs to
the regions of metaphysics, existing only in imaginationand not in fact) is falling into discredit, and one might
almost say into disrepute. Professor W allace’s book sheds
more than one ray of hope that the light of reason is dawning
upon the minds of some of the science-makers, the evidenceof which appears in one of his quotations from Professor
H u x le \-:—•“ that the results you get out of the ‘ mathematicalmill ’ depend entirely on what you put into it.”T ru e ! If you put o in you 11 get o out. A nd my advice
in seeking after truth is this : if you don ’t possess a realstandard unit to start your mill, don’t forge one ! It won’t pay
in the long run, because although the faith some have in the
Bible may be very weak in comparison to that which they
have placed in this world’s “ w isdo m ” yet honesty will everbe found “ the best policy.” But earnest Christians who arereal truth-seekers and truth-lovers will never relax theirfaith in the Bible, when they have proved it to be true, be­cause they “ know whom the)- have believed ” in too real a
sense e\ er possibly to be shaken by any mere man-madesystem, however cunningly it m a y b e constructed.
P rof Wallace has ingeniously endeavoured to make thevarious portions of the globular hj'pothesis do\ etail into eacho'.her, and thus present a glossed surface of apparent con­sistency ; that is, in the eyes of some, but not o f all. Because
personally I can perceive no true gloss of beaut}-. But
nevertheless the most carefully polished fallacy can only
present external and transient attractions, even to those
whose minds have been grossly fed upon that which will
not stand the searching test of the W ord of the Living God.
Moreover, the most cleverly framed Scripture-contradicting
m yths present no “ face value ” to the keen truth-seeker.
N o mere superficial glitter can hide from his penetrating gazeI!
M A N ’S I' LACE

IX

TI I KUXIVEKSK.

unsoundness which lies beneath. A nd in spite of adroit
burnishing performed with rare agates carefully prepared forthe purpose by the author of all lies, still he who rests inthe Word of the Lord know s assuredly that only “ Thefoundation o f God standeth sure,” and everything built onother foundation— however apparently smooth may be its
surface— m ust eventually come to nought, and f a l l to rise no
more !
P ro f Wallace has taken the globe theo iy for his basis,
therefore his primary assumptions remain unproved, and, atthe risk of offending the great upholders of “ T h e New
Astronom y,” I will venture to mention some things whichrefuse to “ fall into l i n e ” with ordinary common-sense d e ­ductions.
Take, for example, the theory about the origin of themoon, and the formation of the ocean beds. Professor D a r­
w in—who appears to be Dr. Wallace’s oracle—originated theformer notion, which is that the earth, at some remote date,(being still in a practically fluid condition.) was spinning
round at a rate variously estimated at from 2 to 4 hours
per turn ; it bulged out in the equatorial regions ; and m at­ters reached a critical climax when the centrifugal force
overcame the gravitational and cohesive powers of the rota­
ting ellipsoid. Two or more pieces were torn out of its
flanks, and ultimately coalesced— forming the moon.
W h a t a strange conception ! T h e pieces are sa id to have
kept at first in close proximity to the earth’s surface, though
gradually, the loosened masses were pushed outwards, fur­ther and further away fro m ‘the earth. H ere Dr. Wallace
has placed himself on the horns of a mechanical dilemma,
seeing that if the mass that was ultimately to make up themoon detached itself in separate pieces from the fast revolv­
ing earth (through excess of centrifugal force) the various
pieces m ust— according to the Law of M echanics—have been
flung outwards at a tangent normal to the radius drawn tothe point of separation ; though if the earth were in a moreor less fluid condition— as these professors m aintain— theseparation would not necessaril)' be an abrupt one. T h at
makes it more difficult for one to imagine how the separationof a fluid mass can be affected in separate portions.
W ithout carr3’ing this point as far as I should fairly beentitled to do, I will simply ask— if this is a fact— whether

MAN S PLACEIX T H E

UXI VER. S E. .

anything (apart from intelligence) could cause these portions
to be e?;actlj''balanced, and exactly on opposite sides? Ifthey were not so balanced, and on exactly opposite sides,with such a high S]jeed of rotation they would throw the mainbod}', ju st as a fast-running and ill-balanced pulley can shakea mill wall to pieces. T h e earth would not travel along its
orbit in a smooth line, but would describe a subsidiary small
orbit round the common centre of gravity formed b\- its own
mass, and that of the detached portions, independent of therotation on its axis (though how a globe, rushing throughspace, can rotate on its axis is inconceivable). If the unionof the various fragments took place suddenl}', aud while stillin close proximity to the earth, the throwing effect I havereferred to would be intensified.
But I again state that, apart from agreeing with Dr. W al­lace that the stars are not other inhabited worlds, and thatthe whole universe is so constructed as to be adapted to m an’sorganism and necessities, I look upon “ T h e New A stron ­omy,” from its foundation a s ' a pagan delusion and Goddenj-ing theor\-.
, ,I note that P ro f Wallaee state the mass of the rnoon to
be one-fiftieth of that of the earth ; but Sir R obert Ball, in,lu irth 's B eginning, put it at one-eightieth. W ho is correct,.Sir R obert Ball, or Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace ?
I am not interested to know which moon-theory the learned
doctor espouses—for I take the Bible and my own God-given
senses alone as my guide in the m atter ; but it seems rightto expose these fallacies in detail, wearying though it may be.
A m ong other things. Dr. Wallace makes out, in conjunc­tion with Mr. Ormond Fisher, that the pieces which detachedthemselves from the earth, to form the moon, left pits, which
served subsequently to become the basins of the seas. H ealways says that these ocean beds are placed in almost
complete sym m etr)'w ith regard to the equator. T his is not
so. H e further says (on p. 275), that “ the highest m oun­tains in every part of the globe \'er)' often exhibit on theirloftiest summits stratified rocks, which contain marine organisms, and were, therefore, originally laid down beneath thesea.” If this be so, what about the “ moon-prepared ocean
bed?”
Dr. Wallace tells us (on p. 234) that, it has been shownby means of the spectroscope, that double stars of short!!
MAX^S P L A C E

IN

THE

UNIVERSE.

period do originate from a single star (as the moon originatedfrom the e a r t h ) ; “ but in these cases it seems probable thatthe parent star is in the gaseous state,” and thus we are told
new stars are made from old ones “ while we wait ” ! So
say these m odern science satellites !
U nder the heading, “ T h e sun a typical star,” readers aretreated to a short discourse upon “ sun-spots,” and that the
body of the sun is gaseous ; but, what we commonly term
the sun is really the bright spherical nucleus of a nebulous
body. “ This ” semi-liquid glowing surface is termed thephotosphere, since from it are given out the light and heat
which reach the earth.” Immediately above this surface is
the “ reversing layer, consisting of dense metallic vapours,
only a few hundred miles thick (!). Above the reversing
layer comes the chrom osphere— surrounding the sun to adepth of about 4,000 miles.
T h e chromosphere and its
quiescent prominences appear to be truly gaseous, consistingof hydrogen, helium, and coronium, while eruptive prom ­inences show the presence of metallic vapours, especiallycalcium........Beyond the red chromosphere and prominencesis the marvellous white glory of the corona which extends
to an enormous distance round the sun.”
Im m ensity insize and speed seems to be the acme of the astronom er’s
imagination.
Dr. Wallace states that the stars are suns, and on p. 143,
referring to the age of the sun, says : “ enormous epochs
during which our sun has supported life upon this earth—must have been incomparably less than its whole e.xistence
as a light giver— that the life of most stars must be counted
by hundreds, or perhaps by thousands of millions of years.”(O f course this includes the earth, from which the moon was
shot off!)
Now whether Dr. Wallace is correct regarding the natureof the sun’s component parts, I will refrain from e.\pressingm y opinion, further than to say that to some ex ten t at least
I doubt its accuracy. But I know that he is wrong regard­
ing the age of the sun and stars ; because in his statem ents
he has contradicted the Scriptures, wherein we read that
God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day ofCreation week— and the stars also (see Gen. i.)
R egarding motion, the author of this book says : “ Howthese motions originated and are regulated we do not know.

CELESTIALPIIEXOM-E\A.

•».-IJ Jb u t there they are ; ” and, speaking of the motions of thestars, he says : “ although they appear to move in straightlines, they may really be moving in curved orbits.”
T ru e Zetetics love facts and seek them, but nothing is afact which is contrary to the Creator’s Word.
Yet alas !
even as evil men denied and killed the Prince of Life, so dom any now deny, and seek to slay the W ord of Truth.
O ne of Prof. Wallace’s primary contentions is, that theearth is the only inhabited world. This, as I have alreadystated, on Bible lines ive endorse; but, apart from Holy Writ,
we think it impossible to come to such a conclusion fromthe professor’s standpoint ; because as he describes the])rinciples and physical conditions of all hum an life, and its
basis, to consist of the elements of oxygen, nitrogen, hydro­gen, and carbon, it does not follow God could not create
life upon a ph\-sical basis entirely different from ours, andcompletely be\’ond our conception.

c: L i-:.si' i a i .

r11 }•:n o m i <:n a .

A short time ago 1 [>ublished a pam phlet under the above
title, with a diagram on page 1 7, which also appeared in 7 hef o r October and November, 1903, Nos. 35 & 40, p.
275. T h e diagram was a representation of the globe withthe equator as a straight line, and the tropics of Cancer andCapricorn also were shown as straight lines at a distance of23.', degrees from the e q u a to r; the lines produced beyond
and outside the globe were to show the sun’s relative position
when in the tropics, and also to show that when in these
positions the direct ra)’S of the sun cannot reach the twopoles. Readers should refer to th at diagram, and compare
it with the diagrams which follow.
Two or three correspondents have been pleased to criticise
the diagram above referred to, as not exactl)’- represenUng
the globular theory. So it is necessary to write this article,
and to gi\'e a few further thoughts upon this subject.
M any of our readers have, perhaps, never realized how
very difficult it would be to represent the globular theory

C K L K S T I A L 1>U E liO.M E \ A.

CELESTIAL

exactly. It would be impossible for us to do so,Theastronomers themselves never do so. High-class works on
geography and map projection generally have the same
defect. W h y therefore should I be required to give what is
not found, either in works on astronom y or in recognized
standard atlases ? Plowever, I gave some approach to thetheory ; som ething which I think fairly represents the theory,
while at the same time comparing th at theory with someknown facts. I cannot yield to the globular theory, nor
accept all its wild hypotheses.

M ap

354

niENOMENA.

35;

P ro jectio x .

D JA GR AM

1

Now it has been tho u g h t by the correspondents abovereferred to, that I ought not to have made the lines in mydiagram, representing the tropics of Capricorn, Cancer, andthe equator, parallel straight lines, nor have produced the line
say representing the tropic of Cancer to A (see diagram
referred to). A nd it was th oug ht that the diagram in Celestial
Phenomena does not give the sun in its true position on theglobular theory.
It has been said that the sun should be placed on a line
drawn from the centre of the globe through the end of theline representing the tropic of Cancer as at E, and beyondin the following diagram I.
T his diagram I shall referto later on.
I*'veil then we shall find this would not be in exact accord­
ance with the globular theory, as I will show later on. But
it is tho ugh t that the line should be produced from centre
E through E^, and beyond, so that the observer at E^ Would
see the sun vertical at noon. And vertical to a globularist
means that an imaginary line should pass from the centreof the earth into “ space,” through the point where the obser\-er is said to stand.
This then fairly represents the globularist’s objection, withwhich I shall proceed to deal. But I have some remarks tomake first, u n d er heading of my new diagram I.

T h e above diagram represents the general projection given
with the Map of the world, that is with one so-called henaisphere. T h e equator C E M is given as a straight line ; thetropic of Cancer— H i E^— as a curved line, curving
towards the North ; and R Ri as another curved line— theArctic Circle— also curving towards and around the North
c. PoleA. South of the equator we have the line 1 F.'as
the tropic of Capricorn, curved inwards towards the South,that is in a direction opposite to the northern tro p ic j andlastly, the curved line— L— round the so-called South“ Pole.” And we have been taught to receive this accountof globular projection without any questioning. But let us
examine it a little.

356

CELKSTIAI. P HE NO M EN A .

First ict us ask what (ietermines the points M and Ej forthe tropic of Cancer ?
It will I suppose be replied that the\- are 23! degrees
from tlie points C and M on the equator, measured along thecur\ e towards the N orth Pole.
T hen if the point Ei be
23A degrees from the equalor, measure along the curved
line i\I El A will th e point (1) also be the same number ofdegrees from the point
taken as being on the equator ?
If not, why not
If it be the same, then we have the fact
cropping out, that on all maps of the world the degrees
measured along a straight meridian from li to A are not aslarge as those measured along the curved meridian M E* A.
/Vnd if each degree measures, as we are told it does, 60
geographical miles, then the distance in such miles from M
to A, along the curve, would be 5,400 geographical miles ;while from E to A the line would be only about 3,436 such
miles, for anj’one can see that the distance from E to A isconsiderably less than the distance along M E i to A.
So that all our maps of the world are out of the truth,with respect to the size of countries measured from theequator, either tow’ards the N orth or towards the South, e\ enon the globular assumption. A nd the scale of miles is also
wrong in this direction, as given with such maps. Also as
the meridians recede from the centre to either side the scaleis always altering until we reach the outside circle. But if
we were to take E^^as the true scale for the 23I degrees, thenh'^eMvould represent the tropic of C a n c e r; that is the upper
curve of the two.
A nd the same may be said of the twolower curves— 1 1
and i2 i^. Which of these represents
the true tropic ? I leave readers to take their choice.
But notice what a difference it w'ould make to the sun’s
position North. In one case the globularist W'ould contend
that the sun should be seen along the line E E^, somewherein the direction of E “ ; and in the other case somewhere
along the line E ei, or about e^^
Readers may take their choice ; for both positions arefounded on globular assumptions ! A nd both tropics, which­ever we take N orth and South, are untrue to the lines ofperspective. In the North, the Arctic Circle R Ri w^ould
shoot off northwards into space ; and in the South the A n t­
arctic Circle, L
would also shoot off into space in an
opposite direction.
But I wall leave for the present globular
map projection, and ask my readers to notice diagram II.

C E 1. 1: ST IA L P I I E X OM E N A ,357“ P a r a l l e l s o f L a t i t u d e .’’DI A G A

M!iI

W e now have briefly to consider diagram II., which isbased on a more natural projection.
If the spectator be supposed to be in such a position that
he can see the Arctic Circle as a curve, and not a straight
line, then the other great circles should be shown in asimilar position as regards their curvature. In other words,
th e tropic of Cancer— H E^— should curvate towards the
N orth ; the equator— C E M — should do the same ; the tropicof Capricorn— I P — .should also curve in the same general
direction ; and the Antarctic Circle— L I J — the s a m e ; allof them traversing the earth in the same general direction
as the rest of th e parallels of latitude.
T h ese circles are know'n as “ parallels of latitude,” andtherefore they should a // be P A R A L L E L ! But this would
expose the position of geographers and astronomers inm aking the parallels north of the equator curvate in one
direction, while the so-called “ p a rallels” south curvate in

3 SS

i

C E L E S T !A L P H K N U M E N A .

1another and opposite direction ! I fear there is more trick­ery about th e globe and its delineations than most of ourreaders are yet aware !
L et us now notice the relative position of the sun in thetropics. W e will draw a line from E as the centre of the
supposed globe, and pass it through E ‘, towards the sun atfor the tropic of Cancer.
Similarly we will draw astraight line from E through P towards T, for the positionof the sun when in the tropic of Capricorn. How does thatsuit our opponents ?
If someone should suggest that th e diagram of the globe
should be tilted, and that the “ a x i s ” — A B— should be
inclined 23I degrees from the vertical, all they need do is
to tilt the paper just so much— or as much more as they like !
It is more convenient for printing as we have placed it.
But we should like to know why the globe should be sotilted ; and whether it is deemed more proper to tilt the“ axis ” 2 3 I degrees to the right, or to the left ? Perhaps
some astronom er m ight be able to enlighten us on this point,and give us reasons for his hypothesis. But I must pass on:these two diagrams are merely preliminary to what I haveto say in connection with diagram III.
D 1 A G R A r4

111

T ”

CELESTIAL

T rue

i'UENOAlENA.

P a r a i . i -e i .s

of

359

L atitu d e.

If we want one general view of the so-called •' globe,*’ u ilh
the Equator as a straight line, we must make all the lines
denoting latitude, both north and south, parallel to theequator. I have so placed the leading parallels of latitude
in diagram III.
T h e central line C E M represents theequator ; H E^ the tropic of Cancer ; and R Ri the .Arctic
Circle. South of the equator I P would represent the tropicof Capricorn ; and L IJ the Antarctic Circle. T h e line A B
would represent the supposed “ axis ” of the globe, as it
passes through the centre of the earth at E.
In a former article and diagram the sun was placed on acontinuation of the equatorial line as at S, so that a spectator
at M would see the sun on the 21st of March, directly over
his head in the direction of S. But when the sun arriv'es atth e tropic of Cancer, in the northern midsummer, it is said
to be 23^ degrees north of the equator. In other words,
the same spectator at M, on the equator, would see the sunat S^ 23^ degrees from his former vertical position at M S.
Therefore, to place the m idsumm er sun there correspondswith fact ; but it does not correspond with the astronomical
theory, so the objector says that the midsummer sun -should1;)C placed in the line E E ‘ E^‘.
That is the 33^, degrees, they say, should be measured
from the centre of the globe ! Y et no one in this world ever
saw the sun from th at position ; so th at I am required tosacrifice fact to fa n c y ; and instead of putting the sun at
SS where it is actually seen in summer, 1 am asked to place
it at E^\ as though it were seen from the centre of theearth !
T o please the objector I will place the sun there for argu­
m ents’ sake, and then let us notice what follows. W hen thesun is at E^^, the spectator on the equator, at M, would see
it at some angle nearer to 40 degrees from the vertical than23^ degrees. This angle would be greater or less great ac­
cording to th e various distances at which the sun m ight beplaced, but it would never some down to the required 2 3 idegrees. Besides Zetetics have on several occasions given
proof th at the sun is not at such a great distance from theearth. But we have have placed it as far ofil'as it was in theformer diagrams, and no objection has been raised to the360

CELESTIAL PH E X OM EN A .

distance of the sun from the earth, but only to the angular
position given.
Now, as a m atter of fact, a spectator at the equator sees
the sun at 23-J degrees from the vertical ; therefore, the su n ’s
position at
is not its true position. T his may be seen bym aking at S M
an angle of 23J degrees ; and afterwards
drawing a line from M tomaking, with S M, an angle
nearly twice as great !
Again, if the sun be placed at E ‘^, and we draw a line
parallel to the equator across the so-called “ globe,” it would
about coincide with the line R R \ and so the tropic of C an­
cer would be super-imposed on the Arctic Circle ! W ould
this suit our globular friends ?
But why should the objector stop at E^^? W h y not go on
to E^^^ ? In this case we should have the tropic of Cancer, if
represented at all, outside the globe, a long way north of
the N orth Pole itself— say at T TM If we must take theglobular theor}" for our standard, we should find it imposs­ible to properlj^ represent it oh paper. W e should have tocontinue the line from the centre of the gL be, at E throughEl, on to E' 2 , on to E'’, on and on for 92 millions of miles !
T his would be the globular theory with a vengeance.
B ut who could represent it
Arid y et some have objected
because I have-not been true to the theory in every detail.
It is impossible to be true to it. T h e astronomers th em ­selves are never true to i t ; nor are the geographers andthose who bring out map projections. .Some of the diagramsin the best astronomical works outrageously misrepresent
their own theories, and the reader is thus deceived. I could
give instances, but it would m ake my article too long, andrequire too many diagrams.
W h a t 1 have already shown ought to be sufficient. But
I will point out another fact.
If the sun were a million
times larger than the globe, the globe would be a mere motein comparison to th e sun, and it would be impossible forone half of it to be darkness at any time ; the rays from one
side of the sun would overlap or go b ej’ond the north poleon the one hand, and the rays from the other side of thesun would overlap or go beyond the so-called south pole !
T ry reader for yourself. Make j'our diagra^Ti of th e globe
on a sheet of paper, and take the «-hole size of one wall ofybhf cham ber for th e sun ; then draw y our lines accordingl}-,that is if ^’ou can.

CEL E . S I I A l .

r i 1 E.\(J,\I E \ A .

T h is trem endous exaggeration of the sun’s size is a mere
theory of the astronomers, and is bound up with the whole
hypothetical system. T o make its reputed size at all h ar­monize with the theory, the astronomers have to push thesun away from the earth 92 millions of miles, or more, tn
make it look small enough ! This trem endous distance andsize is the basis of their theory about sun spots. “ Spots,"
indeed !
It is a gross misnomer, too, for the astronom ers to callth em sunspots, when they teach th a t th ey are thousands ofmiles wide. Holes so large, that as one of these scientists
declares “ the earth could easily drop in.” T his sameastronom er— Mr. Garrett P. Serviss— who has been writing
to The A m erican (New York), is reported to have said :“ ll ])cojj]e lijifl telescope oye.s, so liuil thev cuuld see at u
ihin^s nidden iVom all Init the f.sironoiners, they would leave theniosi exciiin" occupation of life, and stand gazing withvo/
with fe n r —ai the sirange sighf.q in the .sun.”Yes, they want us to look with “ telescope eyes ” at thesethings, and not with the eyes which God has given us. If
we were to look at a tiny insect with a telescope eye, orrather with a microscopic eye, we could IM A G IN E it bigger
than an elephant ; but the little thing would not alter its
actual size, would it?
It is this “ telescope eye which makes astronom ers seein the sun “ an immense globe of blazing gas,” swaying theearth and the distan t planets “ as resistlessly as th e ocean
sways a floating chip ” ! T h e spots break out “ on the dis­torted face of the solar gian t like black soot.’'“ Their
centres are \-awning holes, m any thousand miles in depth ” !
T h a t is to the “ telescope eye,” which magnifies depth as
W'ell as length and breadth.
Is it not wonderful ? If we on.lj- had been created with“ telescope eyes.” But I think that th e Creator of th e world
has done better for us, and given us natu'ral eyes, wherewith
we ipay see things in their natural proportions.
A nd yet a weekly paper, of Jan. 14th, 1904, which pro­fesses to honour the Creator, and advocates the Seventh
Day Sabbath as the m em orial of Creation, publishes theabove absurd sentence as “ a sign of the times,” and pu;hlishes it with signs of prophec\-.

STKAiNGE P K u O i 'S Ol- G l . O B U L A R l l V.

Doubtless such teachings are a sign of the times in which
we live; when men, and even professed Christians, are de­parting from the old paths which were found d up n laiihin t]ie D ivin e inspiration o f the Bible. If the Bible be inspired,— and we believe it is—how can Christians consistently be­lieve such extravagant astronomical theories, in the face ofthe first chapter of Genesis, the second and fourth C om ­mandm ents, and the many references to the order of Creation
which are interspersed in the W ord of God. But I mustdraw this article to a close.
W h a t I have tried to show is, that the globular theory is
not consistent with known facts. A nd I have shown thisespecially in the last diagram by placing the sun where ob­
jectors have thus put it. A nd even there we have shownth at this agrees neither with astronomical theories nor with
Zetetic facts. In short it is impossible to represent theglobular system of the universe on paper at all, for its as­
sumptions are so extravagant and outrageous that even theastronom ers themselves cannot represent them in their own
books. A nd what is more, it seems evident that they dare
not make the attempt, lest their diagrams strike their readers
as suspicious and preposterous.

.STRANG E

PR O O FS ” O F GLO B U LA RITV .

In P ast a n d Ft-tlurc, for Feb., 1904, Mr. Dimbleby attacks
what he is pleased to call “ the fiat earth theory.” H e says :“ The distance between Holy H ead, in North Wales, and Kingston
Harbour, just below Dublin, is 60 miles, but because, when a steamer
is half-wav between these two places, the lighthoase of Holy H ead
conlci be seen iiiruiigh a lelescops, Lady Blount says that the earth
cannot be globular, insomuch as the top of the lighthouse should bealmost COO feet below tha level of the horiton. I3ut distances of 30
miles are seen in other places when a good elevation is secured. Fi;rexample a person standing on the highest land of Jersey, in the Chan­nel Islands, a height of 300 feet, can see the Cathedral at Containes,
in France, which is 30 miles distant.”

Now if Mr. Dim bleby had seriously set his mind uponshowing th at our position was untrue, he should have shownth at such long sights as the above could be seen on a glob­

Sl'kANGEP R O O F S OF O L O b U L A K n \ ' .

363ular earth. T h a t is, he ough t to have attem pted to sliouth a t the am ount of curvature on such a globe as “ our earth ”
is said to be is compatible with the above facts. But heconveniently ignores such a reasonable proceeding, andpractically says, that because in other places besides the
Irish Channel, distances of 30 miles can be seen, therefore
the earth must be a globe !
T his is a curious way of “ p ro v in g ” globularity, but it isquite according to the Dimbleby style of argument. H esimply asserts that “when a steamer is halfway between D u b ­lin and Holyhead it IS on the brow of an arc, formed by theglobular earth ” !
But we give the readers of P ast a n d Future credit lor
better perception than is implied in such a dictum ; especiallyas Mr. Dimbleby further adds that the “ telescope enlarges
the perspective arc of the laws of vision.” Yet this writer
rails at the “ pretentions of science,” for not adm itting “ thetruth of Biblical Chronology and speaks of the “ rigmaroleof fictitious systems on time.”W e think he should look to his own house. H e refuses
to believe the Bible doctrine that the earth is placed on“ foundations, so that it cannot be moved.” In fact heteaches the opposite, and says th at the “ earth ” travels
through all the heavenly signs of the Zodiac ! A nd contends
that this is taught in the holy S criptures; and he tries tomake them fit in with the idea that the earth is a whirlingglobe, flying through space like a shooting star. T his isshown in the concluding paragraph of the above quotation,
which reads as follows : “ the first chapter of Genesis con­tradicts the flat earth theory, otherwise how could the earth.
arrive at the autumnal equinox, which is more north thanthe equator, on the fourth d a y ? ’’I simply repeat the question Mr. Dim bleby raises, and I
ask him to answ'er it himself; “ How could the earth arri\eat the autumnal e q u i n o x ” at all?
How, in fact, can the earth “ a rriv e” at any place, muchless the place of the autumnal equino.x, when as the Bible
declares, “ it cannot be m o v e d ’’ ? Mr. Dim bleby not only
contradicts Bible teaching respecting the immovability ofthe earth, but he fails to write in a clear and sensible m an­
ner. For instance, he asks “ how could the earth arrive at
the autumnal equinox, which is more north than the equator.

364

STRANGEP KO O F S O F G L O H U L A R I T V .

on the fourth day ? ” T h a t is, the autum nal equinox, accord­
ing to this authority, is more north than the equator, on
the fourth day ! How the earth ever could arrive at theequator passes our comprehension, much more its postulated
arrival at the autumnal equinox, either on the fourth day, oran y other day. B ut Mr. Dim bleby tries to m ake his readersbelieve that the first chapter of Genesis is responsible forsuch unreasonable and extravagant statements.
It is the sun, according to the Bible and our senses, which
arrives at the autumnal equinox, and th at orb was createdon the fourth day of Creation week ; bu t to talk of the earth“ arriving ” there, is not only subversive of all Bible teaching,but is contrary to all sound reason, history, and experience.
Y et this writer professes that he accepts and supports Bible
inspiration and science !
T o be consistent men ought to give up either the Bibleor that science, falsely so-called, which is in opposition toit.
But, alas 1 m any minds are crippled by the spirit ofinconsistency ; and the absence of a true logical faculty is
strangely prevalent in all classes of minds.
W e cannot
account for this sad affliction.
But strangely charged with m ystery are many things bywhich we are closely surrounded is a truism that may at times
strike us with deep force ; this is the experience of thewriter, who has been led to exclaim :Ah I strange life’s conditions,■And strange men's reliance,
In “ priestly" phvsiciaiis
A nd nebular science ;And strange T ruth 2^\■\<^Kno^vlcdge,
In church, chapel, and college,
Are oft found with e n v r
And evil things mixed !
but, nevertheless, let us ever endeavour to remember that“ all things work together for good, to them th at love God.”A j r i ) l ) L E T 07\ - S

REPRKSENTATIVELANOF T H E

EARTI J ;Mkldleloii’s Representative .ian of the Earth

I

365

;66

STRETCHED

OUT

UPON

THE

WATERS.

“ STRETCHEDOUTUPON T H E
W A T E R S .”B y E. H. r i c h e s , L L .D ., F.R.A.S.,
M em ber o f the “ London M athem atical S o ciety’’late Cantab, etc.
{continued from p. 315.)
It may be found upon consideration, th at the argum ent
in favour of the rotundity of the earth, with respect tonavigators saihng in the direction due east, or due west,
returning in the opposite direction, will also apply, andequally well too in the case of the supposition that the earth ’s
surface is a plane. This can be easily understood and does
not require any explanation or illustration. Since, therefore,
this argum ent does apply in the case of the earth being aplane, does it follow that the argument, applying in the caseof it being a globe, proves th at it is a globe ?
I t has been noted by navigators that there is a certain
gain and loss of time in the m atter of sailing east and west.
This fact has been cited as a proof of the rotundity of theearth, It may be observed, however, that this gain andloss of time will also appear in the case of the earth s surface
being a plane. It is wrong, therefore, and unfair to affirm
th a t this effect can only\>& produced in the case of the earth
being a globe.
T h ere is a well known stor\- told b\- many in suppoi't of
the theory of the convexit}' of the earth ’s surface, that two
brothers, who were twins, when they arrived at a certain age
started in opposite directions with a view of circumnavigating
the earth. T h e y did so ; and upon their again meeting, it
was found th at one was older than the other by one day ! If
this story be a fact, it is still no less a fact that the samething m ight happen in the case of the earth being a plane.
H ence it is hardly right to cite this story as a proof of theearth’s rotundity.
O ne great argum ent in support of the rotundity of theearth, with respect to the North Star is often quoted. It
may be interesting briefly to notice this, and endeavour tosee if the argum ent be a strong one or not. T h e north polar
star (Polaris) is supposed to hang, so to speak, immediately
over the North Pole.
Navigators have obsen'ed th at thisstar appears gradually to approach the horizon, as theyTHEe a r t h ’s

Oi;SEk\'ATORV.

367

proceed towards the equator, receding from the north ; andbecause this star vanishes upon their arriving at the equator,
it is argued that the ea rth ’s surface must be convex.
It is a known fact in opties, that, as the space between theobserver, and the thing observed, increases, the thing ob­
served becomes smaller, and its height diminishes. This ma)'also be noticed at any time, by observing a tall tree, or
church spire, &c., the distance between the object and theobserver will be seen to vary. If any tall object be sighted
on a plane, it will be observed, that, as the observer recedesfrom it, its height will gradually diminish, and at a sufficientsly great distance the angle of sight,;^.no\v very small, will
ultimately vanish altogether.
By the same rule the apparent height of Polaris will dim ­inish, and, at a certain distance it will be lost to sight, by
this simple truism in optics. It may be seen, therefore, thatthough Polaris vanishes in the case of the surface over which
the observer is receding being convex, still it would also re­cede in the case of that same surface being a plane. But
we now arrive at a very interesting point with reference toto the observation of th e N o rth Star. If the N orth Star beplaced where we have supposed it to be, and the surface ofthe earth be of the exact convex form that we have supposed
it to be, then it would be an impossible thing for this star
to be seen from an\' place south of the equator ; for the lineof sight from any point sonth of the equator must of neces­sity go off at a tangent to the sphere, and, in th at case must
fail to reach the N orth Star. This seems evident, and mustbe acknowledged to be so. It is curious therefore to notethe several accounts that have come to us at different timesof this N orth Star having been seen from the south side ofthe equator. How it is possible seems difficult to say, if thesphericity of the earth exists, as the Copernician and Ne\\-tonian theor)' tells us that it does.

AH Cjmmunkatious and enquiries respecting this Magazine a n d the teaching it
upholds, and all questions a n d matter fo r in.sertion, should be addressed t i
E .A .M .B ., I I , Gloucester Road, Kingston H ill.

“ THE

E A R T H ’S ”

OBSERVATORY.

7'he E d. does not necessarily endorse s/aleinents made under the headings o f
E arfhh Oh^ei'valory,''^ Letters, etc., unless signed Ed. 7'he Earth.

7'h&

368

THE

E A R T H S OBSERVATORV.

TllKE A R T H S OBSERVATORY.

369

of 50 miles. W hen the height of an observer is 10 feet his line of sight would
be a tangent at a distance of about 4 miles. This gives about 1,411 feet for the
dip. T aking the height of the lower peak at 400 metres, or 1312 English feet,the peak of the m ountain would be below the horizon about 99 feet. And taking
the higher peak, 500 metres, or 1640 feet, and subtracting the dip for 46 miles,
namely 1,411, this mountain point would be above the line of sight about 229
feet. So that the lower peak would be about 2539 feet below the line of sight
if the earth were a globe ; and similarly the higher peak would be about 2,211
feet below the line of sight. But as both peaks have been seen and drawn by
my friend under the conditions named, this affords another clear proof that theearth is not a globe such as the astronomers hypothecate.

W HV

THE

EARTH

IS

NOT

A

GLOBE.

If the earth be a globe there can be no doubt that the air, or atmosphere,
must rotate with it.
W hen travelling by the train, at the rate of 40 or 50 miles an hour, we havedoubtless, on putting our head or hand out of the window of the carriage, felt
and been surprised at the force and resistance of the air, and wondered what
the force and resistance of the air would be if “ the earth’s swift and numerous
m otions,” were a fact.
Could any conceivable thing resist the tremendous force of these “ orbital
and axial motions ” ascribed to the earth ?
Could anything stay on the earth, light or heavy ; the mountains or hills ;the seas or oceans; even the air, and things floating in the air ? Nay. Nothing
could possibly abide nor find a resting place upon it, if the earth and air were in
opposition.
But notwithstanding all this, how can we account for the wind blowing in op­
position to the earth’s motion, and in every direction under heaven, carrying.smoke, and dust, even the air itself, and very light and heavy things, and sub­stances that can float or move with the air?
Of course, this is not all that could be said upon the su b je ct; many
proofs can be found, and various arguments can be produced. But there is
only one thing to account for such an anomaly, and that is that the earth is nota globe, and has no motion at all.
And the truth of G od’s W ord comes out clearly and unshaken, that God has
fixed the pillars of the earth, and established the earth that it cannot be moved—
and that it has foundations, and that its Builder and Maker is God.
Feb. 2nd, 1904.
“ T R U T H .”Extracts from an article, entitled
ASTRONOM V O F T H E B IB L E : by Prof. Lewis Swift, F.R .A .S.
A. rU A C T IG A L I’R O O F T H A T v T H E .E A R T H IS N O T A GLOBE.
The annexed drawing w.as made especially for The E arth by an artist wlio, in
1892. drew in pencil ti e view from nature.
The mountain represented is oneof the Andes, in Venezuela (S. America). The distance from the end of themountains to Ucuare is about 20 miles. The mountain referred to is 400 metresabove the level of the sea ; the highest point of the range is 500 metres. The
distance from Maiketia (which is less than 10 feet above the level of the sea) to
Ucuare is 100 miles). The mountains—which can be clearly seen from Maiketia
m ountain—are 80 miles distant at the Ucuare end. If the earth were a globe
the amount of curvature would pres'ent the mountain being seen at a dist.ance“ The Bible is not a work on astronomy.” [Bible astronomy is the onlytrue
astronom y.—E d.] The sun is one grei't reservoir of heat and light to the earth,and yet, strictly speaking, neither comes from there ; nothing in fact, but cold
dark waves of the all pervading ether. How can heat reach us from the sun,passing as it must through 93,000,000 miles of space, probably a hundred de­grees below zero ?
“ These waves pass through space w^ithout heating or lighting it, and plunge
into our atmosphere without heating or lighting that except slightly ; but when
they strike the earth and are reflected quicker, if possible, than a flash of light­

370

THE

R A R T H ’ri O B S E R V A T O K V .

ning, they are transformed into both heat and light. L ight is the most rapid
moving principle in nature, equal to 186,300 miles a second, or, while a person
ivould say the words ‘ Christian H erald,’ it would revolve seven-and-a-half timesarouiid the earth.
“ I advise the reader to stop a moment, and reflect on vphat is involved in
the mighty idea of a circuit of seven limes and-a-half in one second. L ight
reaches us from the moon in one-and-three-fonrth seconds ; from tl e sun in eightminutes ; from the nearest star in four j-ears ; from the Pole Star in forty-eight
years ; and from ihe most distant stars, that our great telescopes can see likeatoms of diamond dust floating in the sunbeams, the light must have been many
thousand years on its journey.
There are other waves which are a blessing to the human race ; w'aves of
sensation, which move very slowly, only about 100 feet in a second, producing
pain, and taste, and smell, and pleasure, and hatred, and love, &c , but no taste
or pain is felt till the waves reach the brain. If a babe, in its cradle, had an arm
93,000,000 miles long, and should insert its finger in the snn it would not knowthat its finger was burned until afcer the lapse of 140 \ears.”[This “ babe ” illustration—after Sir R. Ball’s style—is too babyish ! My spaceis too predoiib for me to insert any more of this fallacious rubbish. Never­theless, I am grateful to Mr. H . Murray Bing for his kindness in cop_ ing out
the article and sending it from Am erica.—E d.]

SO U T H

A .\I>N O R TH .

i . H. A. querie.s tile statem ent made in The Earih for December and Januarr,
p. 307, respecting the shining of the sun at places south of the equator; andhe informs me that a friend of his—the captrin of a steamer loading at Rosario,
in the Argentine Republic—had been observing the different limes of the d a y ;and he writes under date, January 26th, 1904 :“ I can’t say I bave seen the sun shine on the south side of the houses ; infact, I can’t see how it is possible in t! is latitude, for the sun rises E S E, due
North at noon, and sets about W S W. On Midsummer day one could almost
say it shines all round ; for the sun is nearly right above you in this latitude,
so that the houses throw no shadow wbate.ier.”
Though this is apparently neutral evidence in respect to the sun shining on
the south side of buildings, yet T .H .A . says the writer seems to confirm what
Mr. Cook, of Perth Obseruatory, W. Australia, writes, viz : “ that in the earlymorning, and late afternoon, the sun shines upon the south side of building’s
between September 23rd and March 21st, at places more than 23^ degrees southof the equator ; the sun never shines on the south side at mid-day. At places
between the equator and latitude 23i degrees S, the sun sbines on the south
wall throughout the day at tnidsummer (December).”
T .H .A . says his friend's statement appears to be at variance with the words
printed on p. 301 in The Earih, viz: “ The sun, without doubt, sets aw^ay to
the northward, and not southerly, nor due west, as it would do on a globe,” etc.
This is an excerpt taken from an article on the “ A n'arctic Expedition,” andis in keeping with the context,., and with, what actuallv occurs. The evidenceof our senses tells us that the motion of the sim is a visible reality—for if it beobserved f ora any latitude a few degrees i oith of the tropic of Cancer, and forany period before or after the time of southing, i.e.,passing the meridian, it will
be seen to describe an arc of a circle. By way of illustration : if I watch the
sun’s progress on any day during the summer months, say at the head of the
new pier at Brighton, the sun’s first appearance above the horizon will be ob­served to be at a point considerably to the north of East, or a line drawn at

1

THE

E A R T H ’S O H S E k V A T O R V .

3/1

right angles to north and south, and it will he seen to ascend in a curve south­
wards until it reaches the meridian, thence descending in a westerly curve until
it arri%'es at the horizon, setting considerably to the north of West, not southerlyor due west, as it would do on a globe.
T. H. A. is exercised in his mind with reference to the remark on p. 19 of myjiamphlet, Celestial Phenomena. He does not see how the stars characteristic of
the southern and northern parts of the earth can revolve round their respeetive
centres, and yet that the Southern Cross should be visible from every known ,and habitable point of the southern hemisphere.
Mr. Cook, writing from the Government Observatory, Perth, W .A., says :“ there is a point in our sky round which all stars appear to revolve. There is
not any star in this exact spot ; but there is a small star (Sigma Octantis) situ­
ated very close to this spot, closer, in fact, than your Polaris is to your North
Celestial Pole. The .sun and moon always appear to revolve round this point
the whole year through. Of course some allow'ance must be made for theirgradual change in declination : i.e., their motion is more in the form of a spiral.”T. H. A. asks : “ If the constellation called the Southern Cross revolves round
its own centre, and that not the satne as the northern centre, how can the south­
ern Cross be seen, say at the opposite side of the plane e a rth ? ”
Mr. Cooksays that three stars of the Southern Cross never s e t ; the fourth just goes below
the southern horizon for a short time each day. The altitude of the South Poleis exactly the same as the latitude of the observer’s locality, and if the distanceof a star from the Pole exceeds this, the star will be below the horizon at its
lowest transit. Thus in Cossack, lat. 20 deg. 40 min. S., the whole of the Cross
will disappear as it swings round below the pole. The circum-polar constella­tions (meaning those which never set) depend upon the latitude of the observer.
Octans, the constellation in which the Pole is situated, is truly circumpolar to
US in Perth ; i.e., all its stars are constantly above the horizon, or in sight atnight time ; each star describing a circle daily round the pole.” But Mr. Cookmakes this admission : “ I do not know where the south magnetic pole is situ­
ated. VVe hope to find this out upon the return of the Antarctic Expedition.”
Mr. Cook writes from a globularist standpoint; at the same time I believe
in his honesty of purpose ; and I am much indebted to him for photos of instru­
ments used in making plain the astronomical instructions given in the supple­
m ent to the Education Circular ; when he tells us how to find the sun’s pathin the sky for a particular day, and how to find a point in the sky which is thecentre of the circle, it appears to me that he is describing a moving sun—not anearth moving round the sun— for to speak of the sun’s path implies that tlie
sun moves in that path ; in fact he heads paragraph 16 with these words :SU N ’S

ANNUALM O VEM ENT.

In this paragra|)h we are informed that when the sun’s position in respect tothe stars is measured by special instruments, it is found that the sun issteadily moving eastward "among the stars, taking exactly a year to complete one
revolution. I accept this statem ent as the statem ent of a m atter of fact. If thesun appears to move, as astronomers confess it does so appear, why should we
not believe that it does actually move ? Some reasons ought to he given.

A greatly esteemed friend much desires that the kind account of myself (TheE d.) and 'my work in connection with The Earth, which appealed, with myportrait, in Home Chat and other papers, shall be reprinted in The Earth. Anda great many others have made the same re q u est; but I regret that [ must dis­appoint my kind friends, as lack of space alone would preclude the possibilityof doing so.

A mining engineer, just lioine froni Columbia, S. Aniericii, aiimngst ullier
things told me, that the cutting through Panama for the canal revealed the factj / 2 that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were on precisely the same level, and that------no locks were required for the canal. H e also told me that he had travelled
800 miles down a river in Colombia in an open boat, and that there was no
danger from cataracts—but only from Alligators. H e says that he has travelled
all over the world, and . that the countries are smaller than represented on theK. F, M.

vt :Dear Lady B luuiit,— The Earth to hand yesterday. 1 have greedily devoured
its contents with much pleasure on the one hand and disgust on the other ; forthe quotations from “ scientific w ritings” cause me indigestion accompaniedwith nausea.
The heading of your review of the Rev. G. T. Manley’s pamphlet struck achord in my breast, for it is so closely allied to what I have been thinking about
this past week—viz : Intelleciiialism—that I feel I must give vent to my thoughts
in a letter to your esteemed self.
The worship of Scripture-contradicting“ science” by professed Christians, is a repulsive malady comparable to gan­
grene in living tissues, spoken of in “ The Scriptures of T ruth ” as “ theplague of leprosy.”—Lev. xiii.
W hat an array of names is given us in this February Earth. I notice that all
those names represent many gods of speculative science so-called. But God has
decreed thatevery knee shall bow, and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is
L ord.” Have the persons represented by those names, and who have immor­
talized them on the pages of “ the history of s c i e n c e , ” e v e r thought that thisliteral statem ent by the Holy Spirit applies to them as much as it doesto all other men ? And when the time comes, as come it will, that an
account of the things done and said in this mortal earth-body shall be presented ;what will these “ great men of the e a r t ', ” the “ mighty men of in te lle ct” sayto that M aster-minded Zetetic, to whom God has committed all things?— Johnv. 22 ; Rev. vi. 15-17.
Now as to Mr. J. B. Dim bleby’s statem ents respecting “ the earth’s rotation
before a fixed sun,” and his attempted justification of that specuhJiou by anappeal to the first chapter of Genesis, I should like to ask, is it possible that
he is absolutely blind to facts? Ls he so far unacquainted with the weighingof evidence that he does not perceive the illogical dilemma he places himself in ?
If, as Sir Isaac Newton affirmed, “ the sun is the (entre of the solar system,
and immovable,” how could the day and i ight be formed, or caused, by earthrotation before it, when it was not made ? How, then, in the name of comrnon
sense can earth rotation be found either actually, tacitly, or implied in Gen. i.
5 ? The Bible was not written to teach or support in any way the phantasm alastronomy taught in our schools to-day. Modern astronomy is only a baby inlong clothes, and I am sure it will not live much longer, seeing that “ the Judgestandeth at the door.”
I notice that he prefaces his rigmarole bv saying, “ there are several astron­
omical facts, known to Uii, which are not m entioned in the Bible.” But v h a t
is an “ astronomical fa c t” ? It is only “ a supposition put forth to explain
phenomena as best m tn can ! ”
Mr. Dimbleby says he is of opiiiion that the revolution and rotation of theearth are clearly taught in the first chapter of Genesis. I defy his statem ents,
and challenge his power {or any other’s) to prove his assertion by any logicalprocess whatever. In Gen. i. 4, it is written that, “ God divided the lightfrom the darkness.” T hat was evidently daylight, for the sun was not madethen. Modern astronomy dares to give God the lie by asserting that the “ sunis the source of a ll ligki. The Beavefis, by Guillemin, edited by Professor J.
Norman Lockyer. F .R .A .S ., p. 13.
The man (I rare not who he be) that
believes that “ astronomical fact ” to be true, cannot believe the first chapter ofGenesis to be true.
J. W ILL IA M S.

THE

EARTH.

V o l . I V.

THE

x\os. 47 & 4 S.

E.V R TII :

IS

IT

A

GLOP.E ?

“ T h e planetary system,’’ said IIuiTiboldt, in its relation ofabsolute magnitude, relative position of the axis, densit)-,time of rotation, and different degrees of eccentricit}- of theorbits, “ has, to our apprehension, nothing more of naturalnecessity than the relative distribution of land and water on
the surface of our globe, the configuration of continents, orthe elevation of mountain chains.” No general law in theserespects, is discoverable either in the regions of space or in
the irregularities of the crust of the earth.
T h e foregoing describes, in H u m b o ld t’s language, thecondition of the orthodox planetary system of his da)-.
T hese remarks applj- with equal force to the teachings of]3resent-day astronomers of the globular school who callthemselves scientists (from scio : “ I know,” ) science {sciens :“ k n o w le d g e ” ). But orthodox astronom y is adm ittedly ai/iefl/y, founded upon speculation ; and the ixiotTient specu­
lation becomes knowledge then speculation ceases. T h e re ­fore, it is a misnomer to designate such theoretical astron­omers “ scientists.” On the other hand “ plane-earthists ”
denom inate themselves “ Zetetics,” from the Greek zeii’o ;“ 1 seek, search for, investigate, inquire into ” ; zeteies:“ scarcher, inquirer.” Zetetics are, consequentl)-, those who
do n )t take for granted the theories which may be offeredto them, but make investigations to see whether these things
be true or not, and, if not, to endeavour to arrive at the truth.
I'h e y therefore investigate the common statem ent that “ theearth is round or spherical, like a ball or an orange, becauseshi])s have actuallj' and re]Deatedl3' made the circuit of the
globe!'
They naturally a s k ; “ Are these deductions inaccordance with facts ? ” Vessels and steamers continually■go round the Isle o fW ig h t and the Isle of Man ; therefore,
i j the earth be a “ g l o b e ” “ because vessels and steamers go
round it,” then (by the same line of reasoning) the Isle of