diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/69892-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69892-0.txt | 5131 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 5131 deletions
diff --git a/old/69892-0.txt b/old/69892-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index d1ae988..0000000 --- a/old/69892-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5131 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Zetetic astronomy, by Samual Birley -Rowbotham - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Zetetic astronomy - Earth not a globe! An experimental inquiry into the true figure - of the earth etc. - -Author: Samual Birley Rowbotham - -Release Date: January 28, 2023 [eBook #69892] - -Language: English - -Produced by: deaurider, Harry Lamé and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was - produced from images generously made available by The - Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ZETETIC ASTRONOMY *** - - - - Transcriber’s Notes - - Texts printed in italics and blackletter have been transcribed - between _underscores_ and ~tildes~ respectively. Small capitals have - been replaced with ALL CAPITALS. - - More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the end of this text. - - - - - [_Entered at Stationer’s Hall._] - - - ZETETIC ASTRONOMY. - - EARTH NOT A GLOBE! - - AN EXPERIMENTAL INQUIRY - INTO THE - TRUE FIGURE OF THE EARTH: - PROVING IT A PLANE, - WITHOUT AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION; - AND THE - ONLY MATERIAL WORLD - IN - THE UNIVERSE! - - BY “PARALLAX.” - - ~London:~ - SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO., STATIONERS’ HALL COURT. - ~Bath:~ - S. HAYWARD, GREEN STREET. - 1865. - - [_The Right of Translation is Reserved by the Author._] - - - BATH: - PRINTED BY S. HAYWARD, GREEN STREET. - - - - -GENERAL CONTENTS. - - - SECTION I. - Introduction--Experiments proving the Earth to be a Plane. - - SECTION II. - The Earth no Axial or Orbital Motion. - - SECTION III. - The true distance of the Sun and Stars. - - SECTION IV. - The Sun moves in a Circle over the Earth, concentric with the North - Pole. - - SECTION V. - Diameter of Sun’s path constantly changing. - - SECTION VI. - Cause of Day and Night, Seasons, &c. - - SECTION VII. - Cause of “Sun rise” and “Sun set.” - - SECTION VIII. - Cause of Sun appearing larger when “Arising” and “Setting” than when - on the Meridian. - - SECTION IX. - Cause of Solar and Lunar Eclipses. - - SECTION X. - Cause of Tides. - - SECTION XI. - Constitution, Condition, and ultimate Destruction of the Earth by - Fire. - - SECTION XII. - Miscellanea--Moon’s Phases--Moon’s appearance--Planet Neptune-- - Pendulum Experiments as Proofs of Earth’s motion. - - SECTION XIII. - Perspective on the Sea. - - SECTION XIV. - General Summary--Application--“CUI BONO.” - - - - -ZETETIC ASTRONOMY. - - -The term “zetetic” is derived from the Greek verb _zeteo_; which -means to search or examine--to proceed only by inquiry. None can -doubt that by making special experiments and collecting manifest and -undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing -what is naturally and fairly deducible, the result will be far more -consistent and satisfactory than by framing a theory or system and -assuming the existence of causes for which there is no direct evidence, -and which can only be admitted “for the sake of argument.” All theories -are of this character--“supposing instead of inquiring, imagining -systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true -constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may -invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, -however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later -dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy, with -all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers. The real -state of things escapes our observation; or, if it presents itself -to us, we are apt either to reject it wholly as fiction, or, by new -efforts of a vain ingenuity to interweave it with our own conceits, -and labour to make it tally with our favourite schemes. Thus, by -blending together parts so ill-suited, the whole comes forth an absurd -composition of truth and error. * * These have not done near so much -harm as that pride and ambition which has led philosophers to think it -beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a complete and -finished system of nature; and, in order to obtain this at once, to -take the liberty of inventing certain principles and hypotheses, from -which they pretend to explain all her mysteries.”[1] - - [1] “An Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Discoveries.” By Professor - Maclaurin, M.A., F.R.S., of the Chair of Mathematics in the - University of Edinburgh. - -Copernicus admitted, “It is not necessary that hypotheses should be -true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results -of calculation which agree with calculations. * * Neither let any -one, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything _certain_ -from astronomy; since that science can afford nothing of the kind; -lest, in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another -purpose, he should leave this study more foolish than he came. * * The -hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was _nothing but an hypothesis_, -valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered -with reference to absolute truth or falsehood.” The Newtonian and all -other “systems of nature” are little better than the “hypothesis of -the terrestrial motion” of Copernicus. The foundations or premises are -always unproved; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is -denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions shall _seem_ -to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that one theory -supplants another; that system gives way to system as one failure after -another compels opinions to change. This will ever be so; there will -always exist in the mind a degree of uncertainty; a disposition to look -upon philosophy as a vain pretension; a something almost antagonistic -to the highest aspirations in which humanity can indulge, unless the -practice of theorising be given up, and the method of simple inquiry, -the “zetetic” process be adopted. “Nature speaks to us in a peculiar -language; in the language of phenomena, she answers at all times the -questions which are put to her; and such questions are experiments.”[2] -Not experiments only which corroborate what has previously been -_assumed_ to be true; but experiments in every form bearing on the -subject of inquiry, before a conclusion is drawn or premises affirmed. - - [2] “Liebig’s Agricultural Chemistry,” p. 39. - -We have an excellent example of zetetic reasoning in an arithmetical -operation; more especially so in what is called the “Golden Rule,” or -the “Rule-of-Three.” If one hundred weight of any article is worth a -given sum, what will some other weight of that article be worth? The -separate figures may be considered as the elements or facts of the -inquiry; the placing and working of these as the logical arrangement; -and the quotient or answer as the fair and natural deduction. Hence, -in every zetetic process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a -quotient, which, if the details be correct, must, of necessity, be true -beyond the reach or power of contradiction. - -In our courts of Justice we have also an example of the zetetic -process. A prisoner is placed at the bar; evidence for and against -him is advanced; it is carefully arranged and patiently considered; -and only such a verdict given as could not in justice be avoided. -Society would not tolerate any other procedure; it would brand with -infamy whoever should assume a prisoner to be guilty, and prohibit all -evidence but such as would corroborate the assumption. Yet such is the -character of theoretical philosophy! - -The zetetic process is also the natural method of investigation; nature -herself teaches it. Children invariably seek information by asking -questions--by earnestly inquiring from those around them. Question -after question in rapid and exciting succession will often proceed -from a child, until the most profound in learning and philosophy will -feel puzzled to reply. If then both nature and justice, as well as the -common sense and practical experience of mankind demand, and will not -be content with less or other than the zetetic process, why should it -be ignored and violated by the learned in philosophy? Let the practice -of theorising be cast aside as one fatal to the full development of -truth; oppressive to the reasoning power; and in every sense inimical -to the progress and permanent improvement of the human race. - -If then we adopt the zetetic process to ascertain the true figure -and condition of the Earth, we shall find that instead of its being -a globe, and moving in space, it is the directly contrary--A PLANE; -without motion, and unaccompanied by anything in the Firmament -analogous to itself. - -If the Earth is a globe, and 25,000 miles in circumference, the surface -of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every -part must be an arc of a circle, curvating from the summit at the -rate of 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. -That this may be sufficiently understood, the following quotation is -given from the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, art. “Levelling.” “If a -line which crosses the plumb-line at right angles be continued for -any considerable length it will rise above the Earth’s surface (the -Earth being globular); and this rising will be as the square of the -distance to which the said right line is produced; that is to say, it -is raised eight inches very nearly above the Earth’s surface at one -mile’s distance; four times as much, or 32 inches, at the distance -of two miles; nine times as much, or 72 inches, at the distance of -three miles. This is owing to the globular figure of the Earth, and -this rising is the difference between the true and apparent levels; -the curve of the Earth being the true level, and the tangent to it -the apparent level. So soon does the difference between the true and -apparent levels become perceptible that it is necessary to make an -allowance for it if the distance betwixt the two stations exceeds two -chains. - -[Illustration: FIG. 1.] - -Let B. D. be a small portion of the Earth’s circumference, whose centre -of curvature is A. and consequently all the points of this arc will be -on a level. But a tangent B. C. meeting the vertical line A. D. in C. -will be the apparent level at the point B. and therefore D. C. is the -difference between the apparent and the true level at the point B. - -The distance C. D. must be deducted from the observed height to have -the true difference of level; or the differences between the distances -of two points from the surface of the Earth or from the centre of -curvature A. But we shall afterwards see how this correction may be -avoided altogether in certain cases. To find an expression for C. D. -we have Euclid, third book, 36 prop. which proves that B. C² = C. D. -(2 _A D_ × _C D_); but since in all cases of levelling C. D. is -exceedingly small compared with 2 A. D., we may safely neglect C. D² -and then B C² = 2 A. D × C. D. or - - B. C² - C. D = ------. - 2 A. D - -Hence the depression of the true level is equal to the square of the -distance divided by twice the radius of the curvature of the Earth. - -For example, taking a distance of four miles, the square of 4 = 16, -and putting down twice the radius of the Earth’s curvature as in round -figures about 8000 miles, we make the depression on four miles - - 16 16 × 1760 176 528 - = ---- of a mile = --------- yards = --- yards = --- feet, - 8000 8000 50 50 - -or rather better than 10¹⁄₂ feet. - -Or, if we take the mean radius of the Earth as the mean radius of its -curvature, and consequently 2 A. D = 7,912 miles, then 5,280 feet being -1 mile, we shall have C. D. the depression in inches - - 5280 × 12 × B C² - = ---------------- = 8008 B. C² inches. - 7912 - -The preceding remarks suppose the visual ray C. B. to be a straight -line, whereas on account of the unequal densities of the air at -different distances from the Earth, the rays of light are incurvated -by refraction. The effect of this is to lessen the difference between -the true and apparent levels, but in such an extremely variable and -uncertain manner that if any constant or fixed allowance is made for -it in formulæ or tables, it will often lead to a greater error than -what it was intended to obviate. For though the refraction may at a -mean compensate for about a seventh of the curvature of the earth, it -sometimes exceeds a fifth, and at other times does not amount to a -fifteenth. We have, therefore, made no allowance for refraction in the -foregone formulæ.” - -If the Earth is a globe, there cannot be a question that, however -irregular the _land_ may be in form, the _water_ must have a convex -surface. And as the difference between the true and apparent level, or -the degree of curvature would be 8 inches in one mile, and in every -succeeding mile 8 inches multiplied by the square of the distance, -there can be no difficulty in detecting either its actual existence -or proportion. Experiments made upon the sea have been objected to on -account of its constantly-changing altitude; and the existence of banks -and channels which produce a “a crowding” of the waters, currents, and -other irregularities. Standing water has therefore been selected, and -many important experiments have been made, the most simple of which -is the following:--In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial -river or canal, called the “Old Bedford.” It is upwards of twenty -miles long, and passes in a straight line through that part of the -fens called the “Bedford level” The water is nearly stationery--often -entirely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from -locks or water-gates; so that it is in every respect well adapted for -ascertaining whether any and what amount of convexity really exists. -A boat with a flag standing three feet above the water, was directed -to sail from a place called “Welney Bridge,” to another place called -“Welche’s Dam.” These two points are six statute miles apart. The -observer, with a good telescope, was seated in the water as a bather -(it being the summer season), with the eye not exceeding eight inches -above the surface. The flag and the boat down to the water’s edge were -clearly _visible throughout the whole distance!_ From this observation -it was concluded that the water did not decline to any degree from the -line of sight; whereas the water would be 6 feet higher in the centre -of the arc of 6 miles extent than at the two places Welney Bridge and -Welche’s Dam; but as the eye of the observer was only eight inches -above the water, the highest point of the surface would be at one mile -from the place of observation; below which point the surface of the -water at the end of the remaining five miles would be 16 feet 8 inches -(5² × 8 = 200 inches). This will be rendered clear by the following -diagram:-- - -[Illustration: FIG. 2.] - -Let A B represent the arc of water from Welney Bridge to Welche’s Dam, -six miles in length; and A L the line of sight, which is now a tangent -to the arc A B; the point of contact, T, is 1 mile from the eye of the -observer at A; and from T to the boat at B is 5 miles; the square of 5 -miles multiplied by 8 inches is 200 inches, or, in other words, that -the boat at B would have been 200 inches or above 16 feet below the -surface of the water at T; and the flag on the boat, which was 3 feet -high, would have been 13 feet below the line-of-sight, A T L!! - -From this experiment it follows that the surface of standing water is -_not convex_, and therefore _that the Earth_ IS NOT A GLOBE! On the -Contrary, this simple experiment is all-sufficient to prove that the -surface of the water is parallel to the line-of-sight, and is therefore -horizontal, and that the Earth _cannot_ be other than A PLANE! In -diagram Figure 3 this is perfectly illustrated. - -[Illustration: FIG. 3.] - -A B is the line-of-sight, and C D the surface of the water equidistant -from or parallel to it throughout the whole distance observed. - -Although, on account of the variable state of the water, objections -have been raised to experiments made upon the sea-shore to test the -convexity of the flood or ebb-tide level, none can be urged against -observations made from higher altitudes. For example,--the distance -across the Irish Sea between Douglas Harbour, in the Isle of Man, and -the Great Orm’s Head in North Wales is 60 miles. If the earth is a -globe, the surface of the water would form an arc 60 miles in length, -the centre of which would be 1,944 feet higher than the coast line -at either end, so that an observer would be obliged to attain this -altitude before he could see the Welsh coast from the Isle of Man: as -shown in the diagram, Figure 4. - -[Illustration: FIG. 4.] - -It is well known, however, that from an altitude not exceeding 100 feet -the Great Orm’s Head is visible in clear weather from Douglas Harbour. -The altitude of 100 feet could cause the line of sight to touch the -horizon at the distance of nearly 13 miles; and from the horizon to -Orm’s Head being 47 miles, the square of this number multiplied by 8 -inches gives 1472 feet as the distance which the Welsh coast line would -be below the line of sight B C.--A representing the Great Orm’s Head, -which, being 600 feet high, its summit would be 872 feet below the -horizon. - -Many similar experiments have been made across St. George’s Channel, -between points near Dublin and Holyhead, and always with results -entirely incompatible with the doctrine of rotundity. - -Again, it is known that the horizon at sea, whatever distance it may -extend to the right and left of the observer on land, always appears -as a straight line. The following experiment has been tried in various -parts of the country. At Brighton, on a rising ground near the race -course, two poles were fixed in the earth six yards apart, and directly -opposite the sea. Between these poles a line was tightly stretched -parallel to the distant horizon. From the centre of the line the view -embraced not less than 20 miles on each side, making a distance of 40 -miles. A vessel was observed sailing directly westwards; the line cut -the rigging a little above the bulwarks, which it did for several hours -or until the vessel had sailed the whole distance of 40 miles. This -will be understood by reference to the diagram, Figure 5. - -[Illustration: FIG. 5.] - -If the Earth were a globe, the appearance would be as represented in -Figure 6. - -[Illustration: FIG. 6.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 7.] - -The ship coming into view from the east would have to ascend an -inclined plane for 20 miles until it arrived at the centre of the arc -A B, whence it would have to descend for the same distance. The square -of 20 miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the -vessel would be below the line C D at the beginning and at the end of -the 40 miles. - -If we stand upon the deck of a ship, or mount to the mast head; or go -to the top of a mountain, or ascend above the Earth in a balloon, and -look over the sea, the surface appears as a vast inclined plane rising -up until in the distance it intercepts the line of sight. If a good -mirror be held in the opposite direction, the horizon will be reflected -as a well-defined mark or line across the centre, as represented in -diagram, Figure 7. - -Ascending or descending, the distant horizon does the same. It rises -and falls with the observer, and is always on a level with his eye. If -he takes a position where the water surrounds him--as at the mast-head -of a ship out of sight of land, or on the summit of a small island -far from the mainland, the surface of the sea appears to rise up on -all sides equally and to surround him like the walls of an immense -amphitheatre. He seems to be in the centre of a large concavity, -the edges of which expand or contract as he takes a higher or lower -position. This appearance is so well known to sea-going travellers that -nothing more need be said in its support. But the appearance from a -balloon is familiar only to a small number of observers, and therefore -it will be useful to quote from those who have written upon the subject. - - “_The Apparent Concavity of the Earth as seen from a Balloon._--A - perfectly-formed circle encompassed the visible planisphere beneath, - or rather the concavo-sphere it might now be called, for I had - attained a height from which the surface of the Earth assumed a - regularly hollowed or concave appearance--an optical illusion - which increases as you recede from it. At the greatest elevation I - attained, which was about a mile-and-a-half, the appearance of the - World around me assumed a shape or form like that which is made - by placing two watch-glasses together by their edges, the balloon - apparently in the central cavity all the time of its flight at that - elevation.”--_Wise’s Aeronautics._ - - “Another curious effect of the aerial ascent was, that the Earth, - when we were at our greatest altitude, positively appeared _concave_, - looking like a huge dark bowl, rather than the convex sphere such - as we naturally expect to see it. * * * The horizon always appears - to be on a level with our eye, and seems to rise as we rise, until - at length the elevation of the circular boundary line of the sight - becomes so marked that the Earth assumes the anomalous appearance as - we have said of a _concave_ rather than a _convex_ body.”--_Mayhew’s - Great World of London._ - -Mr. Elliott, an American æronaut, in a letter giving an account of his -ascension from Baltimore, thus speaks of the appearance of the Earth -from a balloon:-- - - “I don’t know that I ever hinted heretofore that the æronaut may - well be the most sceptical man about the rotundity of the Earth. - Philosophy imposes the truth upon us; but the view of the Earth - from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial - basin, the deeper part of which is that directly under one’s feet. - As we ascend, the Earth beneath us seems to recede--actually to sink - away--while the horizon gradually and gracefully lifts a diversified - slope stretching away farther and farther to a line that, at the - highest elevation, seems to close with the sky. Thus upon a clear - day, the æronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance - between the vast blue oceanic concave above, and the equally expanded - terrestrial basin below.” - - “The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon, at a considerable - elevation, was the altitude of the horizon, which remained - practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles, - causing the surface of the Earth to appear _concave_ instead of - _convex_, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon - and the balloon seemed to be stationary.”--_London Journal_, July 18, - 1857. - -During the important balloon ascents recently made for scientific -purposes by Mr. Coxwell and Mr. Glaisher, of the Royal Greenwich -Observatory, the same phenomenon was observed-- - - “The horizon always appeared on a level with the car.”--Vide - “Glaisher’s Report.” - -The following diagram represents this appearance:-- - -[Illustration: FIG. 8.] - -The surface of the earth C D appears to rise to the line-of-sight from -the balloon, and “seems to close with the sky” at the points H H in -the same manner that the ceiling and the floor of a long room, or the -top and bottom of a tunnel appear to approach each other, and from the -same cause, viz.: that they are _parallel to the line-of-sight, and -therefore horizontal_. - -If the Earth’s surface were convex the observer, looking from a -balloon, instead of seeing it gradually ascend to the level of the eye, -would have to look downwards to the horizon H H, as represented in -figure 9, and the amount of dip in the line-of-sight C H would be the -greatest at the highest elevation. - -[Illustration: FIG. 9.] - -Many more experiments have been made than are here described, but the -selection now given is amply sufficient to prove that the surface of -water is horizontal, and that the Earth, taken as a whole, its land and -water together, is not a globe, has really no degree of sphericity; but -is “to all intents and purposes” A PLANE! - -If we now consider the fact that when we travel by land or sea, and -from any part of the known world, in a direction towards the North -polar star, we shall arrive at one and the same point, we are forced -to the conclusion that what has hitherto been called the North Polar -region, is really THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH. That from this northern -centre the land diverges and stretches out, of necessity, towards a -circumference, which must now be called THE SOUTHERN REGION: which is -a vast circle, and not a pole or centre. That there is ONE CENTRE--THE -NORTH, and ONE CIRCUMFERENCE--THE SOUTH. This language will be better -understood by reference to the diagram Figure 10. - -[Illustration: FIG. 10.] - -N represents the northern centre; and S S S the southern -circumference--both icy or frozen regions. That the south is an -immense ring, or glacial boundary, is evident from the fact, that -within the antarctic circle the most experienced, scientific, and -daring navigators have failed in their attempts to sail, in a direct -manner, completely round it. Lieut. Wilkes, of the American Navy, after -great and prolonged efforts, and much confusion in his reckoning, and -seeing no prospect of success, was obliged to give up his attempt and -return to the north. This he acknowledged in a letter to Captain Sir -James Clarke Ross, with whose intention to explore the south seas he -had become acquainted, in which the following words occur: “I hope -you intend to circumnavigate the antarctic circle. I made 70 degrees -of it.” Captain Ross, however, was himself greatly confused in his -attempts to navigate the southern region. In his account of the voyage -he says, at page 96--“We found ourselves every day from 12 to 16 miles -by observation in advance of our reckoning.” “By our observations -we found ourselves 58 miles to the eastward of our reckoning in two -days.” And in this and other ways all the great navigators have been -frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in -their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the antarctic -circle. But if the southern region is a pole or centre, like the -north, there would be little difficulty in circumnavigating it, for -the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that -the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one centre, the -north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the -difficulties experienced by circumnavigators can be easily understood. - -Having given a surface or bird’s-eye view of the Earth, the following -sectional representation will aid in completing the description. - -[Illustration: FIG. 11.] - -E E represents the Earth; W W the “great deep,” or the waters which -surround the land; N the northern centre; and S S sections of the -southern ice. As the present description is purely zetetic, and as -every fact must therefore have its fullest value assigned to it, and -its consequences represented, a peculiarity must be pointed out in the -foregoing diagram. It will be observed that from about the points E E -the surface of the water rises towards the south S S. It is clearly -ascertained that the altitude of the water in various parts of the -world is much influenced by the pressure of the atmosphere--however -this pressure is caused--and it is well known that the atmospheric -pressure in the south is constantly less than it is in the north, and -therefore the water in the southern region must always be considerably -higher than it is in the northern. Hence the peculiarity referred to -in the diagram. The following quotation from Sir James Ross’s voyages, -p. 483, will corroborate the above statements:--“Our barometrical -experiments appear to prove that a gradual diminution of atmospheric -pressure occurs as we proceed southwards from the tropic of Capricorn. -* * * It has hitherto been considered that the mean pressure of the -atmosphere at the level of the sea was nearly the same in all parts of -the world, as no material difference occurs between the equator and -the highest northern latitudes. * * * The causes of the atmospheric -pressure being so _very much less_ in the southern than in the northern -hemispheres remains to be determined.” - -Thus, putting all theories aside, we have seen that direct experiment -demonstrates the important truth, _that the Earth is an extended -Plane_. Literally, “Stretched out upon the waters;” “Founded on the -seas and established on the floods;” “Standing in the water and out -of the water.” How far the southern icy region extends horizontally, -or how deep the waters upon and in which the earth stands or is -supported are questions which cannot yet be answered. In Zetetic -philosophy the foundation must be well secured, progress must be made -step by step, making good the ground as we proceed; and whenever a -difficulty presents itself, or evidence fails to carry us farther, -we must promptly and candidly acknowledge it, and prepare for future -investigation; but never fill up the inquiry by theory and assumption. -In the present instance there is no practical evidence as to the extent -of the southern ice and the “great deep.” Who shall say whether the -depth and extent of the “mighty waters” _have_ a limit, or constitute -the “World without end?” - -Having advanced direct and special evidence that the surface of the -earth is not convex, but, on the contrary, a vast and irregular plane, -it now becomes important that the leading phenomena upon which the -doctrine of rotundity has been founded should be carefully examined. -First, it is contended that because the hull of an outward-bound vessel -disappears before the mast head, the water is convex, and therefore the -Earth is a globe. In this conclusion, however, there is an assumption -involved, viz., that such a phenomenon _can only_ result from a convex -surface. Inquiry will show that this is erroneous. If we select for -observation a few miles of straight and level railway, we shall -find that the rails, which are parallel, appear in the distance to -approach each other. But the two rails which are nearest together do -so more rapidly than those which are farthest asunder, as shown in the -following diagram, Figure 12. - -[Illustration: FIG. 12.] - -Let the observer stand at the point A, looking in the direction of the -arrows; and the rails 1.2.3.4. will appear to join at the point B, but -the rail 5.6 will appear to have converged only as far as C towards B. - -Again, let a train be watched from the point A in Figure 13. - -[Illustration: FIG. 13.] - -The observer looking from A, with his eye midway between the bottom -of the carriage and the rail, will see the diameter of the wheels -gradually diminish as they recede. The lines 1.2 and 1.4 will appear to -approach each other until at the point B they will come together, and -the space, including the wheels, between the bottom of the carriage -and the rail will there disappear. The floor of the carriage will seem -to be sliding without wheels upon the rail 1.2; but the lines 5.6 and -7.8 will yet have converged only to C and D. - -The same phenomenon may be observed with a long row of lamps, where the -ground is a straight line throughout its entire length as represented -in Figure 14. - -[Illustration: FIG. 14.] - -The lines 1.2 and A D will converge at the point D and the pedestal of -the lamp at D will seem to have disappeared, but the line 3.4, which -represents the true altitude of the lamps, will only have converged to -the point C. - -A narrow bank running along the side of a straight portion of railway, -upon which poles are placed for supporting the wires of the electric -telegraph will produce the same appearance, as shown in Figure 15. - -[Illustration: FIG. 15.] - -The bank having the altitude 1.3 and 2.4 will, in the distance of two -or three miles (according to its depth) disappear to the eye of an -observer placed at Figure 1; and the telegraph pole at Figure 2 will -seem not to stand upon a bank at all, but upon the actual railway. The -line 3.4 will merge into the line 1.2 at the point B, while the line -5.6 will only have descended to the position C. - -[Illustration: FIG. 16.] - -Many other familiar instances could be given to show the true law of -perspective; which is, that parallel lines appear in the distance -to converge to one and the same datum line, but to reach it at -different distances if themselves dissimilarly distant. This law being -remembered, it is easy to understand how the hull of an outward-bound -ship, although sailing upon a plane surface disappears before the -mast-head. In Figure 16, let A B represent the surface of the water; -C H the line of sight; and E D the altitude of the mast-head. Then, -as A B and C H are nearer to each other than A B and E D, they will -converge and appear to meet at the point H, which is the practical, -or, as it would be better to call it, the _optical_ horizon. The hull -of the vessel being contained within the lines A B and C H, must -gradually diminish as these converge, until at H, or the horizon, -it enters the vanishing point and disappears; but the mast-head -represented by the line E D is still _above_ the horizon at H, and will -require to sail more or less, according to its altitude, beyond the -point H before it sinks to the line C H, or, in other words, before the -lines A B and E D form the same angle as A B and C H. - -It will be evident also that should the elevation of the observer be -greater than at C, the horizon or vanishing point would not be formed -at H, but at a greater distance; and therefore the hull of the vessel -would be longer visible. Or, if, when the hull has disappeared at H, -the observer ascends from the elevation at C to a higher position -nearer to E, it will again be seen. Thus all these phenomena which have -so long been considered as proofs of the Earth’s rotundity are really -optical sequences of the contrary doctrine. To argue that because the -lower part of an outward-bound ship disappears before the highest the -water must be round, is to _assume_ that a _round_ surface _only_ -can produce this effect! But it is now shown that a _plane_ surface -_necessarily_ produces this effect; and therefore the assumption is -not required, and the argument involved is fallacious! - -It may here be observed that no help can be given to this doctrine of -rotundity by quoting the prevailing theory of perspective. The law -represented in the foregoing diagrams is the “law of nature.” It may -be seen in every layer of a long wall, in every hedge and bank of the -roadside, and indeed in every direction where lines and objects run -parallel to each other; but no illustration of the contrary perspective -is ever to be seen! except in the distorted pictures, otherwise -cleverly and beautifully drawn as they are, which abound in our public -and private collections. - -The theory which affirms that parallel lines converge only to one and -the same point upon the eye-line is an error. It is true only of lines -equidistant from the eye-line. It is true that parallel lines converge -to one and the same _eye-line_, but _meet it at different distances -when more or less apart from each other_. This is the true law of -perspective as shown by Nature herself; any other idea is fallacious -and will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice. - -As it is of great importance that the difference should be clearly -understood, the following diagram is given. Let E L (Figure 17) -represent the eye-line and C the vanishing point of the lines, 1 C 2 -C; then the lines 3.4.5.6, although converging _somewhere_ to the line -E L, will not do so to the point C, but 3 and 4 will proceed to D and 5 -and 6 to H. It is repeated, that lines _equidistant_ from the _datum_ -will converge on the _same point_ and at the _same distance_; but lines -_not_ equidistant will converge on the same _datum_ but at _different -distances_! A very good illustration of the difference is given in -Figure 18. Theoretic perspective would bring the lines 1, 2, and 3 to -the same _datum_ line E L and to the _same point_ A. But the true -or natural law would bring the lines 2 and 3 to the point A because -equidistant from the eye-line E L; but the line 1 being farther from -E L than either 2 or 3, would be taken beyond the point A on towards C, -until it formed the _same angle_ upon the line E L as 2 and 3 form at -the point A. - -[Illustration: FIG. 17.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 18.] - -The subject of perspective will not be rendered sufficiently clear -unless an explanation be given of the cause and character of what is -technically called the “vanishing point.” Why do objects, even when -raised above the earth, vanish at a given distance? It is known, -and can easily be proved by experiment, that “the range of the eye, -or diameter of the field of vision is 110°; consequently this is -the _largest_ angle under which an object can be seen. The range of -vision is from 110° to 1°. * * The _smallest_ angle under which an -object can be seen is upon an average for different sights the 60th -part of a degree, or _one minute_ in space; so that when an object is -removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just -be distinguishable; consequently, the greatest distance at which we -can behold an object, like a shilling, of an inch in diameter is 3000 -inches or 250 feet.”[3] It may, therefore, be very easily understood -that a line passing over the hull of a ship, and continuing parallel -to the surface of the water, must converge to the vanishing point at -the distance of about 3000 times its own elevation; in other words, -if the surface of the hull be 10 feet above the water it will vanish -at 3,000 times 10 feet; or nearly six statute miles; but if the -mast-head be 30 feet above the water, it will be visible for 90,000 -feet or over 17 miles; so that it could be seen upon the horizon for -a distance of eleven miles _after the hull had entered the vanishing -point_! Hence the phenomenon of a receding ship’s hull being the -first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and relied -upon as proving the rotundity of the Earth is fairly and logically -a proof of the very contrary! It has been misapplied in consequence -of an erroneous view of the law of perspective, and the desire to -support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose has already -been shown; and that, even if there were no question of the Earth’s -form involved, it could not arise from the convexity of the water, is -proved by the following experiment:--Let an observer stand upon the -sea-shore with the eye at an elevation of about six feet above the -water, and watch a vessel until it is just “hull down.” If now a good -telescope be applied the hull will be distinctly _restored to sight_! -From which it must be concluded that it had disappeared through the -influence of perspective, and not from having sunk behind the summit -of a convex surface! Had it done so it would follow that the telescope -had either carried the line-of-sight through the mass of water, or over -its surface and down the other side! But the power of “looking round a -corner” or penetrating a dense and extensive medium has never yet been -attributed to such an instrument! If the elevation of the observer be -much greater than six feet the distance at which the vanishing point is -formed will be so great that the telescope may not have power enough to -magnify or enlarge the angle constituting it; when the experiment would -appear to fail. But the failure would only be apparent, for a telescope -of sufficient power to magnify at the horizon or vanishing point would -certainly restore the hull at the greater distance. - - [3] “Wonders of Science,” by Mayhew, p. 357. - -[Illustration: FIG. 19.] - -An illustration or proof of the Earth’s rotundity is also supposed to -be found in the fact that navigators by sailing due east or west return -in the opposite direction. Here, again, a supposition is involved, -viz., that upon a globe _only_ could this occur. But it is easy to -prove that it could take place as perfectly upon a circular plane -as upon a sphere. Let it first be clearly understood what is really -meant by sailing _due east and west_. Practically it is sailing at -right angles to north and south: this is determined ordinarily by the -mariners’ compass, but more accurately by the meridian lines which -converge to the northern centre of the Earth. Bearing this in mind, -let N in Figure 19 represent the northern centre; and the lines N. S. -the directions north and south. Then let the small arrow, Figure 1, -represent a vessel on the meridian of Greenwich, with its head W. at -right angles, or due west; and the stern E due east. It is evident that -in passing to the position of the arrow, Figure 2, which is still -due west or square to the meridian, the arc 1.2 must be described; -and in sailing still farther under the same condition, the arcs 2.3, -3.4, and 4.1 will be successively passed over until the meridian of -Greenwich, Figure 1, is arrived at, which was the point of departure. -Thus a mariner, by keeping the head of his vessel due west, or at right -angles to the north and south, practically circumnavigates a plane -surface; or, in other words, he describes a circle _upon a plane_, -at a greater or lesser distance from the centre N, and being at all -times square to the radii north and south, he is _compelled_ to do -so--_because_ the earth is a plane, having a central region, towards -which the compass and the meridian lines which guide him, converge. So -far, then, from the fact of a vessel sailing due west coming home from -the east, and _vice versa_, being a proof of the earth’s rotundity, it -is simply a phenomenon, consistent with and dependent upon its being -a plane! The subject may be perfectly illustrated by the following -simple experiment:--Take a round table, fix a pin in the centre; to -this attach a thread, and extend it to the edge. Call the centre the -north and the circumference the south; then, at any distance between -the centre and the circumference, a direction at right angles to the -thread will be due east and west; and a small object, as a pencil, -placed across or square to the thread, to represent a ship, may be -carried completely round the table without its right-angled position -being altered; or, the right-angled position firmly maintained, the -vessel must of necessity describe a circle on being moved from right -to left or left to right. Referring again to the diagram, Figure 19, -the vessel may sail from the north towards the south, upon the meridian -Figure 1, and there turning due west, may pass Cape Horn, represented -by D, and continue its westerly course until it passes the point C, or -the Cape of Good Hope, and again reaches the meridian, Figure 1, upon -which it may return to the north. Those, then, who hold that the earth -is a globe because it can be circumnavigated, have an argument which -is logically incomplete and fallacious. This will be seen at once by -putting it in the syllogistic form:-- - - A globe _only_ can be circumnavigated: - - The Earth has been circumnavigated: - - Therefore the Earth is a globe. - -It has been shown that a _plane_ can be circumnavigated, and therefore -the first or major proposition is false; and, being so, the conclusion -is false. This portion of the subject furnishes a striking instance -of the necessity of, at all times, proving a proposition by direct -and immediate evidence, instead of quoting a natural phenomenon as a -proof of what has previously been assumed. But a theory will not admit -of this method, and therefore the zetetic process, or inquiry before -conclusion, entirely eschewing assumption, is the only course which -can lead to simple and unalterable truth. Whoever creates or upholds a -theory, adopts a monster which will sooner or later betray and enslave -him, or make him ridiculous in the eyes of practical observers. - -Closely following the subject of circumnavigation, the gain and loss -of time discovered on sailing east and west is referred to as another -proof of rotundity. But this illustration is equally fallacious with -the last, and from the same cause, viz., the assumption that a _globe -only_ could produce the effect observed. It will be seen, by reference -to diagram, Figure 19, that the effect must take place equally upon a -plane as upon a globe. Let the ship, W E, upon the meridian, Figure 1, -at 12 at noon, begin to sail towards the position, Figure 2, which it -will reach the next day at 12, or in 24 hours: the sun during the same -24 hours will have returned only to Figure 1, and will require to move -for another hour or more until it reaches the ship at Figure 2, making -25 hours instead of 24, in which the sun would have returned to the -ship, if it had remained at Figure 1. In this way, the sun is more and -more behind the meridian time of the ship, as it proceeds day after day -upon its westerly course, so that on completing the circumnavigation -the ship’s time is a day later than the solar time, reckoning to and -from the meridian of Greenwich. But the contrary follows if the ship -sails from Figure 1 towards Figure 4, or the east, because it will meet -the sun one hour earlier than the 24 hours which would be required for -it to pass on to Figure 1. Hence, on completing the circle 1.4.3.2.1, -the time at the ship would be one day in advance of the time at -Greenwich, or the position Figure 1. Captain Sir J. C. Ross, at page -132, vol. 2, says--“November 25, having by sailing to the eastward -gained 12 hours, it became necessary, on crossing the 180th degree and -entering upon west longitude, in order to have our time correspond with -that of England, to have two days following of the same date, and by -this means lose the time we had gained, and still were gaining, as we -sailed to the eastward.” - -In further illustration of this matter, and to impress the mind of the -readers with its importance as an evidence in support of the theory -of the earth’s sphericity, several authors have given the following -story:--Two brothers, twins, born within a few minutes of each other, -and therefore of the same age, on growing to manhood went to sea. They -both circumnavigated the earth, but in opposite directions; and when -they again met, one was a day older than the other! - -Whatever truth there may be in this account, it is here shown to be no -more favourable to the idea of rotundity than it is to the opposite -fact that the earth is a plane; as both forms will permit of the same -effect. - -Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is found in the fact -that Polaris, or the north polar star, gradually sinks to the horizon -as the mariner approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes -invisible. First, it is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object -to appear lower and lower as the observer recedes. Let any one try -the experiment of looking at a lighthouse, church spire, monument, -gas-lamp, or other elevated object, from the distance of a few yards, -and notice the angle at which it is observed: on going farther away, -the angle will diminish and the object appear lower, until, if the -distance be sufficiently great, the line-of-sight to the object, and -the apparently ascending surface of the Earth upon which it stands -will converge to the angle which constitutes the vanishing point; at -a single yard beyond which it will be invisible. This, then, is the -necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating -between the eye-line and the plane surface upon which the object -stands; and has no relation whatever to rotundity. - -It is not denied that a similar depression of a distant object would -take place upon a globe; it is simply contended that it would not occur -upon a globe exclusively. But if the Earth is a sphere and the pole -star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for -a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The -line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently -several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the -pole-star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star -being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of -Capricorn. In the _Times_ newspaper of May 13, 1862, under the head of -“Naval and Military Intelligence,” it is stated that Captain Wilkins -distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the polar star at midnight in -23·53 degrees of latitude, and longitude 35·46. - -[Illustration: FIG. 20.] - -This would be utterly impossible if the Earth were a globe, as shown -in the diagram, Figure 20. Let N represent the north pole, E E the -equator, C C the tropic of Capricorn, and P the polar star. It will -be evident that the line-of-sight C D being a tangent to the Earth -beyond the equator E must diverge from the axis N and could not by any -known possibility cause the star P to be visible to an observer at C. -No matter how distant the star P, the line C D being divergent from -the direction N P could never come in contact with it. The fact, then, -that the polar star has often been seen from many degrees beyond the -equator, is really an important argument against the doctrine of the -Earth’s rotundity. - -It has been thought that because a pendulum vibrates more rapidly in -the northern region than at the equator, the Earth is thereby proved to -be a globe; and because the variation in the velocity is not exactly as -it should be if all the surface of the Earth were equidistant from the -centre, it has been concluded that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, or -that its diameter is rather less through the poles than it is through -the equator. 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 689 to 692. Huygens gave the proportion as 577 to 875 or -a difference of about one-third of the whole diameter. Others have -given still different proportions; but recently the difference of -opinion has become so great that many have concluded that the Earth -is really instead of oblate an _oblong_ spheroid. It is certain that -the question when attempted to be answered by measuring arcs of the -meridian, is less satisfactory than was expected. This will be evident -from the following quotation from the account of the ordnance survey -of Great Britain, which was conducted by the Duke of Richmond, Col. -Mudge, General Roy, Mr. Dalby, and others, who measured base lines on -Hounslow Heath and Salisbury Plain with glass rods and steel chains: -“when these were connected by a chain of triangles and the length -computed the result did not differ more than one inch from the actual -measurements--a convincing proof of the accuracy with which all the -operations had been conducted. - -The two stations, of Beachy Head in Sussex and Dunnose in the Isle of -Wight, are visible from each other, and more than 64 miles asunder, -nearly in a direction from east to west; their exact distance was found -by the geodetical operations to be 339,397 feet (64 miles and 1477 -feet). The azimuth, or bearing of the line between them with respect -to the meridian, and also the latitude of Beachy Head, were determined -by astronomical observations. From these data the length of a degree -perpendicular to the meridian was computed; and this, compared with the -length of a meridional degree in the same latitude, gave the proportion -of the polar to the equatorial axis. The result thus obtained, however, -differed considerably from that obtained by meridional degrees. It -has been found impossible to explain the want of agreement in a -satisfactory way. * * By comparing the celestial with the terrestrial -arcs, the length of degrees in various parallels was determined as in -the following table:-- - - Latitude of - middle point. Fathoms. - ° ′ ″ - Arbury Hill and Clifton 52 50 29·8 60,766 - Blenheim and Clifton 52 38 56·1 60,769 - Greenwich and Clifton 52 28 5·7 60,794 - Dunnose and Clifton 52 2 19·8 60,820 - Arbury Hill and Greenwich 51 51 4·1 60,849 - Dunnose and Arbury Hill 51 35 18·2 60,864 - Blenheim and Dunnose 51 13 18·2 60,890 - Dunnose and Greenwich 51 2 54·2 60,884 - -This table presents a singular deviation from the common rule; for -instead of the degrees _increasing_ as we proceed from north to south, -they appear to _decrease_, as if the Earth were an _oblong_ instead -of an _oblate_ spheroid. * * The measurements of small arcs of the -meridian in other countries have presented similar instances.”[4] - - [4] Encyclopedia of Geography, by Hugh Murray and several Professors - in the University of Edinburgh. - -A number of French Academicians who measured above three degrees of -the meridian in Peru, gave as the result of their labours the first -degree of the meridian from the equator as 56,653 toises; whilst -another company of Academicians, who proceeded to Bothnia in Lapland, -gave as the result of their calculation 57,422 toises for the length -of a degree cutting the polar circle. But a more recent measurement -made by the Swedish Astronomers in Bothnia shows the French to have -been incorrect, having given the degree there 196 toises more than -the true length. Other observations have been made, but as no two sets -of experiments agree in result, it would be very unsatisfactory to -conclude from them that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. - -Returning to the pendulum, it will be found to be equally -unsatisfactory as a proof of this peculiar rotundity of the Earth. It -is argued that as the length of a seconds pendulum at the equator is -39,027 inches, and 39,197 inches at the north pole, that the Earth -must be a globe, having a less diameter through its axis than through -its equator. But this proceeds upon the _assumption_ that the Earth -_is_ a globe having a “centre of attraction of gravitation,” towards -which all bodies gravitate or fall; and as the pendulum is a falling -body under certain restraint, the fact that it oscillates or falls -more rapidly at the north than it does at the equator, is a proof that -the north is nearer to the centre of attraction, or the centre of -the Earth, than is the equatorial region; and, of course, if nearer, -the radius must be shorter; and therefore the “Earth is a spheroid -flattened at the poles.” This is very ingenious and very plausible, -but, unfortunately for its character as an argument, the essential -evidence is wanting that the Earth is a globe at all! whether oblate -or oblong, or truly spherical, are questions logically misplaced. -It should also be first proved that _no other_ cause could operate -besides greater proximity to the centre of gravity, to produce the -variable oscillations of a pendulum. This not being attempted, the -whole subject must be condemned as logically insufficient, irregular, -and worthless for its intended purpose. Many philosophers have ascribed -the alterations in the oscillations of a pendulum to the diminished -temperature of the northern centre. That the heat gradually and almost -uniformly diminishes on passing from the equator to the north is well -ascertained. “The mean annual temperature of the whole Earth at the -level of the sea is 50° Fah. For different latitudes it is as under:-- - - Degrees. Inches. - Latitude (Equator) 0 84·2 Length of Pendulum 39,027 - „ „ 10 82·6 „ „ „ - „ „ 20 78·1 „ „ „ - „ „ 30 71·1 „ „ „ - „ „ 40 62·6 „ „ „ - „ (London) 50 53·6 „ „ 39,139 - „ „ 60 45·0 „ „ „ - „ „ 70 38·1 „ „ „ - „ „ 80 33·6 „ „ „ - „ (Pole) 90 00·0 „ „ 39,197[5]” - - [5] “Million of Facts,” by Sir Richard Phillips, p. 475. - -“All the solid bodies with which we are surrounded are constantly -undergoing changes of bulk corresponding to the variations of -temperature. * * The expansion and contraction of metals by heat and -cold form subjects of serious and careful attention to chronometer -makers, as will appear by the following statements:--The length of the -pendulum vibrating seconds, in vacuo, in the latitude of London (51° -31′ 8″ north), at the level of the sea, and at the temperature of 62°, -has been ascertained with the greatest precision to be 39·13929 inches: -now, as the metal of which it is composed is constantly subject to -variation of temperature, it cannot but happen that its _length_ is -constantly varying; and when it is further stated that if the “bob” -be let down ¹⁄₁₀₀th of an inch, the clock will lose 10 seconds in 24 -hours; that the elongation of ¹⁄₁₀₀₀th of an inch will cause it to lose -one second per day; and that a change of temperature equal to 30° Fah. -will alter its length ¹⁄₅₀₀₀th part and occasion an error in the rate -of going of 8 seconds per day, it will appear evident that some plan -must be devised for obviating so serious an inconvenience.”[6] - - [6] “Noad’s Lectures on Chemistry,” p. 41. - -From these data it is readily seen that the variations in the rate -of a pendulum as it is carried from the equator towards the north -are sufficiently explained, without supposing that they arise from a -peculiar spheroidal form of the Earth. - -Others have attributed the variable motions of the pendulum to -increased density of the air on going northwards. That the condition -of the air must have some influence in this respect will be seen -from the following extract from experiments on pendulums by Dr. -Derham, recorded in numbers 294 and 480 of the _Philosophical -Transactions_:--“The arches of vibration _in 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 _constantly -proportional_ to the _quantity of air_, 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 were longest, and less and -less as the air was re-admitted, and the vibrations shortened.” - -Thus there are two distinct and tangible causes which necessarily -operate to produce the variable oscillations of a pendulum, without -supposing any distortion in the supposed rotundity of the Earth. First, -if the pendulum vibrates in the air, which is colder and therefore -denser in the north than at the equator, it must be more or less -resisted in its passage through it; and, secondly, if it vibrates _in -vacuo_, the temperature being less, the length must be less, the arcs -of vibration less, and the velocity greater. In going towards the -equator, the temperature increases, the length becomes greater, the -arcs increase, and the times of vibration diminish. - -Another argument for the globular form of the Earth is the -following:--The degrees of longitude radiating from the north pole -gradually increase in extent as they approach the equator; beyond which -they again converge towards the south. To this it is replied that no -actual measurement of a degree of longitude has ever been made south of -the equator! If it be said that mariners have sailed round the world -in the southern region and have _computed_ the length of the degrees, -it is again replied that such evidence is unfavourable to the doctrine -of rotundity. It will be seen from the following table of what the -degrees of longitude would be if the earth were a globe of 25,000 -miles circumference, and comparing these with the results of practical -navigation, that the diminution of degrees of longitude beyond the -equator is purely imaginary. - -Latitudes at different longitudes:-- - - Latitude 1 = 59·99 nautical miles. - 10 = 59·09 „ „ - 20 = 56·38 „ „ - 30 = 51·96 „ „ - 34 = 49·74 (Cape Town) - 40 = 45·96 „ „ - 45 = 42·45 (Port Jackson, Sydney) - 50 = 38·57 „ „ - 56 = 33·55 (Cape Horn) - 60 = 30·00 „ „ - 65 = 25·36 „ „ - 70 = 20·52 „ „ - 75 = 15·53 „ „ - 80 = 10·42 „ „ - 85 = 5·53 „ „ - 86 = 4·19 „ „ - 87 = 3·14 „ „ - 88 = 2·09 „ „ - 89 = 1·05 „ „ - 90 = 0·00 „ „ - -According to the above table (which is copied from a large Mercator’s -chart in the library of the Mechanics’ Institute, Royal Hill, -Greenwich), the distance round the Earth at the Antarctic circle would -only be about 9,000 miles. But practical navigators give the distance -from the Cape of Good Hope to Port Jackson as 8,000 miles; from Port -Jackson to Cape Horn as 8,000 miles; and from Cape Horn to the Cape -of Good Hope, 6,000 miles, making together 22,000 miles. The average -longitude of these places is 45°, at which parallel the circuit of -the Earth, if it be a globe, should only be 14,282 miles. Here, then, -is an error between the theory of rotundity and practical sailing of -7,718 miles. But there are several statements made by Sir James Clarke -Ross which tend to make the disparity even greater: at page 236, vol. -2, of “South Sea Voyages,” it is said “From near Cape Horn to Port -Philip (in Melbourne, Australia) the distance is 9,000 miles.” These -two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore -the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical -question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance -made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The -answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8,357 miles more than the theory of -rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the -above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, -gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude -as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest -circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator. - -But actual measurement of a degree of longitude in Australia or some -other land far south of the equator can alone place this matter beyond -dispute. The problem to be solved might be given as the following:--A -degree of longitude in England at the latitude of 50° N. is 38·57 -nautical or 45 statute miles; at the latitude of Port Jackson in -Australia, which is 45° S., a degree of longitude, if the Earth is a -globe, should be 42·45 nautical or 49·52 statute miles. But if the -Earth is a plane, and the distances above referred to as given by -nautical men are correct, a degree of longitude on the parallel of Port -Jackson will be 69·44 statute miles, being a difference of 19·92 or -nearly 20 statute miles. In other words, a degree of longitude along -the southern part of Australia ought to be, _if the Earth is a plane_, -nearly 20 miles greater than a degree of longitude on the southern -coast of England. This is the point which has yet to be settled. The -day is surely not far distant when the scientific world will demand -that the question be decided by proper geodetical operations! And -this not altogether for the sake of determining the true figure of -the Earth, but also for the purpose of ascertaining, if possible, the -cause of the many anomalies observed in navigating the southern region. -These anomalies have led to the loss of many vessels and the sacrifice -of a fearful amount of life and property. “In the southern hemisphere, -navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when -still West, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which -according to their reckoning lay behind them. This misfortune happened -to a fine frigate, the “Challenger,” in 1845.”[7] “Assuredly there are -many shipwrecks from alleged errors in reckoning which _may_ arise -from a somewhat false idea of the general form and measurement of the -Earth’s surface. Such a subject, therefore, ought to be candidly and -boldly discussed.”[8] - - [7] “Tour through Creation,” by the Rev. Thomas Milner, M.A. - - [8] “The Builder,” Sept. 20, 1862, in a “review” of a - recently-published work on Astronomy. - -It is commonly believed that surveyors when laying out railways -and canals, are obliged to allow 8 inches per mile for the Earth’s -curvature; and that if this were not done in the latter case the water -would not be stationary, but would flow on until at the end of one -mile in each direction, although the canal should have the same depth -throughout, the surface would stand 8 inches higher in the middle than -at the ends. In other words, that the bottom of a canal in which the -allowance of 8 inches per mile had not been made, would be a chord -to the surface of the contained water, which would be an arc of a -circle. To this it is replied, that both in regard to railways and -canals, wherever an allowance has been attempted the work has not -been satisfactory; and so irregular were the results in the earlier -days of railway, canal, and other surveying, that, the most eminent -engineers abandoned the practice of the old “forward levelling” and -allowing for convexity; and adopted what is now called the “double -sight” or “back-and-fore sight” method. It was considered that whether -the surface were convex or horizontal, or whether the convexity were -more or less than the supposed degree, would be of no consequence in -practice if the spirit level or theodolite were employed to read both -backwards and forwards; for whatever degree of convexity existed, -one “sight” would compensate for the other; and if the surface were -horizontal, the same mode of levelling would apply. So important did -the ordnance department of the Government consider this matter, that it -was deemed necessary to make the abandonment of all ideas of rotundity -compulsory, and in a standing order (No. 6) of the House of Lords as to -the preparation of sections for railways, &c., the following language -is used, “That the section be drawn to the same _horizontal_ scale as -the plan; and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every -one hundred feet; and shall show the surface of the ground marked on -the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every -embankment, and the depth of every cutting; and a _datum_ HORIZONTAL -LINE, which shall be _the same throughout the whole length of the -work_, or any branch thereof respectively; and shall be referred to -some fixed point stated in writing on the section, near some portion of -such work; and in the case of a canal, cut, navigation, turnpike, or -other carriage road, or railway, near either of the termini.” No. 44 -of the standing orders of the House of Commons is similar to the above -order (No. 6) of the House of Lords. - -Thus it is evident that the doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity cannot -be mixed up with the practical operations of civil engineers and -surveyors, and to prevent the waste of time and the destruction of -property which necessarily followed the doings of some who were -determined to involve the convexity of the Earth’s surface in their -calculations, the very Government of the country has been obliged to -interfere! Every survey of this and other countries, whether ordnance -or otherwise, is now carried out in connection with a horizontal datum, -and therefore, as no other method proves satisfactory, it is virtually -an admission by all the most practical scientific men of the day that -the Earth _cannot be other than a plane_! - -An argument for the Earth’s convexity is thought by many to be found -in the following facts:--“Fluid or semi-fluid substances in a state -of motion invariably assume the globular form, as rain, hail, dew, -mercury, and melted lead, which, poured from a great height becomes -divided into spherical masses, as in the manufacture of small shot, -&c.” “There is abundant evidence from geology that the Earth has been -a fluid or semi-fluid mass, and it could not, therefore, continue in -a state of motion through space without becoming spherical.” Without -denying that the Earth has been, at some former period, in a pulpy or -semi-fluid state, it is requisite to prove beyond all doubt that it -has a motion upon axes and through space, or the conclusion that it -is therefore spherical is premature and illogical. It will be shown -in a subsequent part of this work, that such axial and orbital motion -does not exist, and therefore any argument founded upon and including -it as a fact is necessarily fallacious. In addition to this, it may -be remarked that the tendency in falling fluids to become globular is -owing to what has been called “attraction of cohesion” (not “attraction -of gravitation”), which is very limited in its operation. It is -confined to small quantities of matter. If, in the manufacture of -small shot, the melted metal is allowed to fall in masses of several -ounces or pounds, instead of being divided into particles weighing -only a few grains, it will never take a spherical form, and shot of -an inch in diameter could not be made by this process. Bullets of -even half-an-inch diameter can only be made by casting the metal into -spherical moulds. In tropical countries, the rain instead of falling in -drops or small globules, often comes down in large irregular masses, -which have no approximation whatever to sphericity. So that it is -manifestly unjust to affirm of large masses of matter like the Earth -that which only belongs to minute portions or a few grains in weight. -The whole matter taken together entirely fails as an argument for the -Earth’s rotundity. - -Those who hold that the Earth is a globe will often affirm, with -visible enthusiasm, that in an eclipse of the Moon there is proof -positive of rotundity. That the shadow of the Earth upon the Moon is -always round; and that nothing but a globe could, in all positions, -cast a circular shadow. Here again the essential requirements of an -argument are wanting. It is _not proved_ that the Moon is eclipsed _by -a shadow_. It is _not proved_ that the _Earth moves_ in an orbit, and -therefore takes _different positions_. It is _not proved_ that the Moon -receives her light from the Sun, and that therefore her surface is -darkened by the Earth intercepting the Sun’s light. It will be shown -in the proper place that the Earth has no motion in space or on axes; -that it is not a shadow which eclipses the Moon; that the Moon is not -a reflector of the Sun’s light, but is _self-luminous_; and therefore -could not possibly be obscured by _a shadow_ from any object whatever. -The subject is only introduced here because it forms one of the -category of supposed evidences of the Earth’s rotundity. But to call -that an argument where every necessary proposition is assumed, is to -stultify both the judgment and the reasoning powers! - -Many place great reliance upon what is called the “spherical excess” -observed in levelling, as a proof of the Earth’s rotundity. In -Castle’s Treatise on Levelling it is stated that “the angles taken -between any three points on the surface of the Earth by the theodolite, -are, strictly speaking, spherical angles, and their sum must exceed 180 -degrees; and the lines bounding them are not the chords as they should -be, but the tangents to the Earth. This excess is inappreciable in -common cases, but in the larger triangles it becomes necessary to allow -for it, and to diminish each of the angles of the observed triangle by -one-third of the spherical excess. To calculate this excess, divide the -area of the triangle in feet by the radius of the Earth in seconds and -the quotient is the excess.” - -The following observation as made by surveyors, also bears upon the -subject:--If a spirit-level or theodolite be “levelled,” and a given -point be read upon a graduated staff at the distance of about or -more than 100 chains, this point will have an altitude slightly in -excess of the altitude of the cross-hair of the theodolite; and if the -theodolite be removed to the position of the graduated staff and again -levelled, and a backward sight taken to the distance of 100 chains, -another excess of altitude will be observed; and this excess will -go on increasing as often as the experiment or backward and forward -observation is repeated. From this it is argued that the line of sight -from the spirit-level or theodolite is a tangent, and that the surface -of the Earth is therefore spherical. - -Of a similar character is the following observation:--If a theodolite -or spirit-level be placed upon the sea-shore, and “levelled,” and -directed towards the sea, the line of the horizon will be observed to -be a given amount below the cross-hair of the instrument, to which a -certain dip, or inclination from the level will have to be given to -bring the cross-hair and the sea horizon together. It is concluded that -as the sea horizon is always observed to be below the cross-hair of the -“levelled” theodolite, the line of sight is a tangent, the surface of -the water convex, and therefore the Earth is a globe. - -[Illustration: FIG. 21.] - -The conclusion derived from the last three observations is exceedingly -plausible, and would completely satisfy the minds of scientific men -as to the Earth’s sphericity if a perfect explanation could not be -given. The whole matter has been specially and carefully examined; -and one very simple experiment will show that the effects observed do -not arise from rotundity in the Earth’s surface, but from a certain -peculiarity in the instruments employed. Take a convex lens or a -magnifying glass and hold it over a straight line drawn across a -sheet of paper. If the glass be so held that a part of the straight -line can be seen _through_ it, and another part seen _outside_ it, a -difference in the _direction_ of the line will be observed, as shown -in the diagram Figure 21. Let A B C represent a straight line. If a -lens is now held an inch, or more, according to its focal length, -over the part of the line A B, and the slightest amount out of its -centre, that part of the line A B which passes under the lens will -be seen in the direction of the figures 1.2; but if the lens be now -moved a little out of its central position in the opposite direction, -the line B C will be observed at 3.4, or below B C. A lens is a -magnifying glass because it _dilates_ or spreads out from its centre -the objects observed through it Therefore whatever is magnified by it -is seen a little out of its axis or centre. This is again necessitated -by the fact that the axis or actual centre is always occupied by the -cross-hair. Thus the line-of-sight in the theodolite or spirit-level -not being axial or absolutely central, reads upon a graduated staff -a position which is necessarily slightly divergent from the axis of -vision; and this is the source of that “spherical excess” which has so -long been considered by surveyors as an important proof of the Earth’s -rotundity. In this instance, as, indeed, in all the others given as -evidence that the Earth is a globe, the premises do not fully warrant -the conclusion--which is premature,--drawn before the whole subject is -fairly examined; and when other causes are amply sufficient to explain -the effects observed. - - - - -SECTION 2. - -THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION. - - -If a ball be allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship _at rest_, it -will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment -be tried with a ship _in motion_, the same result will be observed. -Because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by -two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it -by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion, and the other -the force of gravity, the direction of which is square to that of the -momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together will not -go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as -shown in the following diagram, Figure 22. - -[Illustration: FIG. 22.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 23.] - -The ball passing from A to C by the force of gravity, and having at -the moment of its liberation received a momentum from the ship in the -direction A B, will by the conjoint action of the two forces, take the -direction A D, falling at D, just as it would have fallen at C had the -vessel remained at rest. In this way, it is contended by those who -hold that the Earth is a moving sphere, a ball allowed to fall from -the mouth of a deep mine reaches the bottom in an apparently vertical -direction, the same as it would if the Earth were motionless. So far, -there need be no discussion--the explanation is granted. But now let -the experiment be modified in the following way:--Let the ball be -thrown _upwards from_ the mast-head of a moving vessel; it will partake -as before of two motions, the upward and the horizontal, and will take -a diagonal course upwards and with the vessel until the two forces -expend themselves, when it will begin to fall by the force of gravity -only, and drop into the water far behind the ship, which is still -moving horizontally. Diagram Figure 23 will illustrate this effect. The -ball being thrown upwards in the direction A C, and the vessel moving -from A to B, will cause it to pass in the direction A D, arriving at D -when the vessel reaches B; the two forces having expended themselves -when the ball arrives at D, it will begin to descend by the force of -gravity in the direction D B H, but during its fall the vessel will -have reached the position S, so that the ball will drop far behind -it at the point H. To bring the ball from D to S _two forces_ would -be required, as D H and D W; but as D W does not exist, the force of -gravity operates _alone_, and the ball necessarily falls behind the -vessel at a distance proportionate to the altitude attained at D, and -the time occupied in falling from D to H. - -The same result will be observed on throwing a ball directly upwards -from a railway carriage when in rapid motion, as shown in the following -Figure 24. While the carriage or tender passes from A to B, the ball -thrown from A to C will reach the position D, but while the ball then -comes down by the force of gravity, _operating alone_, to the point H, -the carriage will have advanced to W, so that the ball will always drop -more or less behind the carriage, according to the force first given -to it in the direction A C and the time occupied in ascending to D, -and thence descending to H. It is therefore demanded that if the Earth -had a motion upon axes from west to east, and a ball, instead of being -dropped down a mine or allowed to fall from the mast head of a ship, -be _shot upwards_ into the air; from the moment of its beginning to -descend the surface of the Earth would turn from under its direction, -and it would fall behind or to the west of its line of descent. On -making the experiment _no such effect is observed_, and therefore the -conclusion is unavoidable, that the Earth DOES NOT MOVE UPON AXES! - -[Illustration: FIG. 24.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 25.] - -The following experiment has been tried, with the object of obtaining -definite results. If the Earth is a globe, having a circumference of -25,000 miles at the equator, the circumference at the latitude of -London (51°) will be about 16,000 statute miles; so that the motion of -the Earth’s surface, if 25,000 miles in 24 hours at the equator, in -England would be more than 700 feet per second. An air-gun was firmly -fixed to a strong post, as shown at A in Figure 25, and carefully -adjusted by a plumb-line, so that it was perfectly vertical. On -discharging the gun, the ball ascended in the direction A C, and -invariably (during several trials) descended within a few inches of -the gun at A; twice it fell back upon the very mouth of the barrel. -The average time that the ball was in the atmosphere was 16 seconds; -and, as half the time would be required for the ascent and half for the -descent, it is evident that if the Earth had a motion once round its -axis in 24 hours, the ball would have passed in 8 seconds to the point -D, while the air-gun would have reached the position B H. The ball -then commencing its descent, requiring also 8 seconds, would in that -time have fallen to the point H, while the Earth and the gun would -have advanced as far as W. The time occupied being 8 seconds, and the -Earth’s velocity being 700 feet per second, the progress of the Earth -and the air-gun to W, in advance of the ball at H, would be 5,600 feet! -In other words, in these experiments, the ball, which always fell back -to the place of its detachment, should have fallen 5,600 feet, or -considerably more than one statute mile to the west of the air-gun! -Proving beyond all doubt that the supposed axial motion of the Earth -DOES NOT EXIST! - -The same experiment ought to suffice as evidence against the -assumed motion of the Earth in an orbit; for it is difficult, if -not impossible, to understand how the behaviour of the ball thrown -from a vertical air-gun should be other in relation to the Earth’s -forward motion in space than it is in regard to its motion upon axes. -Besides, if it is proved _not_ to move upon axes, the assumption -that it moves in an orbit round the Sun is useless for theoretical -purposes, and there is no necessity for either denying or in any -way giving it farther consideration. But that no point may be taken -without direct evidence, let the following experiment be tried:--Take -two carefully-bored iron tubes, about two yards in length, and place -them, one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or -a solid block of wood or masonry; so adjust them that their axes of -vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other, and direct them to -the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its -meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube; and the -moment the star appears in the first tube, let a knock or other signal -be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he -first sees the star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the -signals given, showing that the same star is not visible at the same -moment by two lines of sight parallel to each other and only one yard -asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first -would be required for the star to be seen at the same moment. If now -the tubes be left in their position for six months, the same star will -be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration -being required in the direction of the tubes. From which result it -is concluded that if the Earth had moved _a single yard_ in an orbit -through space there would at least be the difference of time indicated -by the signals, and the slight inclination of the tube which the -difference in position of one yard required. But as no such difference -in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable -that in six months a given meridian upon the Earth has not moved a -single yard, and that therefore the Earth has not the slightest degree -of orbital motion--or motion at right angles to the meridian of a given -star! It will be useless to say in explanation that the stars are so -infinitely distant that a difference in the angle of inclination of the -tube in six months could not be expected, as it will be proved in a -subsequent section that _all_ the stars are within a few thousand miles -from the Earth’s surface! - - - - -SECTION 3. - -THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN AND STARS. - - -As it is now demonstrated that the Earth is a plane, the distance of -the Sun and Stars may readily be measured by plane trigonometry. The -base line in any operation being horizontal and always a carefully -measured one, the process becomes exceedingly simple. Let the altitude -of the Sun be taken on a given day at 12 o’clock at the high-water -mark on the sea shore at Brighton, in Sussex; and at the same hour -at the high-water mark of the River Thames, near London Bridge; the -difference in the Sun’s altitude taken simultaneously from two stations -upon the same meridian, and the distance between the stations, or the -length of the base line ascertained, are all the elements required for -calculating the exact distance of the Sun from London or Brighton; -but as this distance is the hypothenuse of a triangle, whose base is -the Earth’s surface, and vertical side the zenith distance of the -Sun, it follows that the distance of the Sun from that part of Earth -to which it is vertical is less than the distance from London. In the -Diagram, Figure 26, let L B represent the base line from London to -Brighton, a distance of 51 statute miles. The altitude at L and at B -taken at the same moment of time will give the distance L S or B S. -The angle of altitude at L or B, with the length of L S or B S, will -then give the vertical distance of the Sun S from E, or the place which -is immediately underneath it. This distance will be thus found to be -considerably less than 4,000 miles. - -[Illustration: FIG. 26.] - -The following are the particulars of an observation made, a few years -ago, by the officers engaged in the Ordnance survey. Altitude of the -Sun at London 55° 13′; altitude taken at the same time, on the grounds -of a public school, at Ackworth, in Yorkshire, 53° 2′; the distance -between the two places in a direct line, as measured by triangulation, -is 151 statute miles. From these elements the true distance of the Sun -may be readily computed; and proved to be under 4,000 miles! - -Since the above was written, an officer of the Royal Engineers, in the -head-quarters of the Ordnance Survey, at Southampton, has furnished the -following elements of observations recently made:-- - - Southern Station, Sun’s altitude, 45° - Northern ditto, „ „ 38° - Distance between the two stations, 800 statute miles. - -The calculation made from these elements gives the same result, viz., -that the actual distance of the Sun from the Earth is less than 4,000 -miles. - -The same method of measuring distances applies equally to the Stars; -and it is easy to demonstrate, beyond the possibility of doubt, so long -as assumed premises are excluded, that all the visible objects in the -firmament are contained within the distance of 6,000 miles! - -From these demonstrable distances it follows unavoidably that the -_magnitude_ of the Sun, Moon, Stars, &c., is very small--much smaller -than the Earth from which they are measured; and to which therefore -they cannot possibly be other than secondary, and subservient. - - - - -SECTION 4. - -THE SUN MOVES IN A CIRCLE OVER THE EARTH, CONCENTRIC WITH THE NORTH -POLE. - - -As the Earth has been shown to be fixed, the motion of the Sun is a -visible reality; and if it be observed from any northern latitude, and -for any period before and after the time of southing, or passing the -meridian, it will be seen to describe an arc of a circle; an object -moving in an arc cannot return to the centre of such arc without having -completed a circle. This the Sun does visibly and daily. To place the -matter beyond doubt, the observation of the Arctic navigators may be -referred to. Captain Parry, and several of his officers, on ascending -high land in the vicinity of the north pole, repeatedly saw, for 24 -hours together, the sun describing a circle upon the southern horizon. - - - - -SECTION 5. - -THE DIAMETER OF THE SUN’S PATH IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING--DIMINISHING FROM -DECEMBER 21ST TO JUNE 15TH, AND ENLARGING FROM JUNE TO DECEMBER. - - -This is a matter of absolute certainty, proved by what is called, in -technical language, the northern and southern declination, which is -simply saying that the Sun’s path is nearest the north pole in summer, -and farthest away from it in winter. This difference in position gives -rise to the difference of altitude, as observed at various periods of -the year, and which is shewn in the following table, given in “The -Illustrated London Almanack,” for 1848, by Mr. Glaisher, of the Royal -Observatory, Greenwich. - -“Sun’s altitude at the time of Southing, or being on the meridian:-- - - Sun’s Time of Southing. - altitude. M. S. (Common clock, or - London mean time.) - June 15 62° 0 4 before noon. - „ 30 61²⁄₃° 3 18 afternoon. - July 15 59²⁄₃° 5 38 „ - „ 31 56¹⁄₂° 6 4 „ - Aug. 15 52¹⁄₂° 0 11 „ - „ 31 47° 0 5 „ - Sep. 15 38²⁄₃° 4 58 before noon. - „ 30 35¹⁄₂° 10 6 „ - Oct. 31 24° 16 14 „ - Nov. 30 17° 10 58 „ - Dec. 21 12° 0 27 „ - „ 31 15° 3 29 afternoon. - Jan. 1 15¹⁄₂° 3 36 „ - „ 15 17° 9 33 „ - „ 31 21° 13 41 „ - Feb. 15 25° 14 28 „ - „ 29 30¹⁄₂° 12 43 „ - March 15 {On the Equator} 36° 9 2 „ - { at 6 a.m. } 38¹⁄₂° 0 0 „ - „ 21 42¹⁄₂° 4 10 before noon. - April 15 48° 0 8 „ - „ 30 53° 2 58 „ - May 15 57° 3 54 „ - „ 31 60° 2 37 „ - -In the following diagram (Fig. 27) A A A represent the Sun’s daily path -on December 21st, and B B B the same on June 15th. N the North Pole, S -the Sun, E Great Britain. The figures 1 2 3 the Arctic Circle, and 4 5 -6 the extent of sunlight. The arrows show the direction of the Sun’s -motion. - -[Illustration: FIG. 27.] - - - - -SECTION 6. - -CAUSE OF DAY AND NIGHT, SEASONS, &c. - - -The Sun S describes the circle A A A on the 21st December once in 24 -hours; hence in that period day and night occur to every part of the -Earth, except within the Arctic circle. The light of the Sun gradually -diminishing from S, to the Arctic circle 1 2 3, where it becomes -twilight, does so according to the well-known law of radiation, equally -in all directions--hence, the circle 4 5 6 represents the whole extent -of the Sun’s light at any given time. The arc 4 E is the advancing or -morning twilight, and 6 E the receding or evening twilight; to every -place underneath a line drawn across the circle through S to N it is -noonday. It will now be easily understood that as the Sun S moves in -the direction of the arrows or from right to left, and completes the -circle A A A in 24 hours, it will produce in that period morning, -noon, evening, and night to all parts of the Earth in succession. On -referring to the diagram, it will be seen that to England, E, the -length of the day at this time of the year is the _shortest_, the -amount of light being represented by the arc E E E; and also that -the northern centre N remains in darkness during the whole daily -revolution of the Sun, the light of which terminates at the Arctic -circle 1 2 3. Thus, morning, noon, evening, midnight, the _shortest_ -days, or the Winter season, and the constant or six months’ darkness -at the pole are all a part of one general phenomenon. As the Sun’s -path begins now to diminish every day until in six months, or on the -15th of June, it describes the circle B B B, it is evident that the -same extent of sunlight will reach over or beyond the pole N, as shown -in the following diagram (Fig. 28), when morning, noon, evening, and -night will again occur as before; but the amount of light passing over -England, represented by the arc E E E, is now much larger than when -the Sun was upon the circle A A A, and represents the _longest_ days, -or the _Summer_ season, and the constant, or six months’ light at the -pole. Thus, day and night, long and short days, Winter and Summer, the -long periods of alternate light and darkness at the pole, arise simply -from the Sun’s position in relation to the north pole. - -[Illustration: FIG. 28.] - -If the Earth is a globe, it is evident that Winter and Summer, and -long and short days, will be of the same character and duration in -corresponding latitudes, in the southern as in the northern hemisphere. -But we find that in many respects there is a marked difference; for -instance, in New Zealand, where the latitude is about the same as in -England, a remarkable difference exists in the length of day and night. -In the Cook’s Strait Almanack, for 1848, it is stated, “At Wellington, -New Zealand, December 21, Sun rises 4h. 31m., and sets at 7h. 29m., the -day being 14 hours 58 minutes. June 21st, Sun rises at 7h. 29m., and -sets at 4h. 31m., the day being 9 hours and 2 minutes. In England the -longest day is 16h. 34m., and the shortest day is 7h. 45m. Thus the -_longest day_ in New Zealand is 1 hour and 36 minutes _shorter_ than -the _longest day_ in England; and the _shortest day_ in New Zealand is -1 hour and 17 minutes _longer_ than the shortest day in England.” - -In a recently published pamphlet, by W. Swainson, Esq., Attorney -General, the following passage occurs:--“Compared with an English -summer, that of Auckland is but little warmer, though much longer; but -the nights in New Zealand are always cool and refreshing.... The days -are _one hour shorter_ in the summer, and _one hour longer_ in the -winter than in England! of _twilight_ there is _little_ or _none_.” - -From a work, also recently published, on New Zealand, by Arthur S. -Thompson, M.D., the following sentences are quoted:--“The summer -mornings, even in the warmest parts of the colony are sufficiently -fresh to exhilarate without chilling; and the seasons glide -imperceptibly into each other. The days are _an hour shorter_ at -_each end_ of the day in summer, and an hour longer in winter than in -England.” - -A letter from a correspondent in New Zealand, dated Nelson, September -15, 1857, contains the subjoined passages:--“Even in summer people -here have no notion of going without fires in the evening; but then, -though the days are very warm and sunny, the nights are always cold. -For seven months last summer we had not one day that the Sun did -not shine as brilliantly as it does in England in the finest day in -June; and though it has more power here, the heat is not nearly so -oppressive.... But then there is not the twilight which you get in -England. Here it is light till about eight o’clock; then, in a few -minutes, it becomes too dark to see anything, and the change comes -over in almost no time.” “Twilight lasts but a short time in so low -a latitude as 28 degrees, and no sooner does the Sun peep above the -horizon, than all the gorgeous parade by which he is preceded is shaken -off, and he comes in upon us in the most abrupt and unceremonious way -imaginable.”[9] These various peculiarities could not exist in the -southern region if the Earth were spherical and moved upon axes, and -in an orbit round the Sun. If the Sun is fixed, and the Earth revolves -underneath it, the same phenomena should exist at the same distance on -each side of the Equator. But such is not the case! What can operate -to cause the twilight in New Zealand to be so much more sudden than it -is in England? The southern “hemisphere” cannot revolve more rapidly -than the northern! The distance round _a globe_ would be the same at -50° south as at 50° north, and as the whole globe would revolve once in -24 hours, the surface at the two places would move underneath the Sun -with the same velocity, and the light would approach in the morning -and recede in the evening in exactly the same manner; yet the _very -contrary_ is the fact! The twilight in England in summer is slow and -gradual, but in New Zealand it is rapid and abrupt; a difference which -is altogether incompatible with the doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity. -But, the Earth a plane, and it is a simple “matter of course.” Let E, -in Figure 28, represent England, and W New Zealand; the radius N E and -the consequent circle round N is much less than the radius N W and -its consequent circle round the same point. But as the larger circle, -radius N W is passed over by the sunlight in the same time (24 hours) -as the smaller circle, radius N E, the velocity is proportionately -greater. The velocity is the space passed over multiplied by the time -in passing, and as the space over New Zealand is much greater than the -space over England, the velocity of the Sun-light must be much greater, -and its morning and evening twilight necessarily more “abrupt and -unceremonious;” and _therefore_, it might be said with strictly logical -accuracy, the Earth is a Plane, and cannot possibly be a Globe! - - [9] Captain Basil Hall, R.N., F.R.S. - - - - -SECTION 7. - -CAUSE OF “SUNRISE” AND “SUNSET.” - - -[Illustration: FIG. 29.] - -Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s -surface, he appears to ascend the firmament from morning until noon, -and to descend and sink below the horizon at evening. This arises from -a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, -when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend -as it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears -lower, or nearer to the horizon than the last. When a balloon sails -from an observer without increasing or decreasing its altitude, it -appears gradually to approach the horizon. The farthest light in a row -of lamps appears the lowest, although each one has the same altitude. -Bearing these phenomena in mind, it will easily be seen how the Sun, -although always parallel to the surface of the Earth, must appear to -ascend when approaching, and descend after leaving the meridian or -noon-day position. Let the line A B, Fig. 29, represent a portion -of the Earth’s surface; C D of the Sun’s path, and H H, the line of -sight. The surface of the Earth, A B, will appear to ascend from B to -H, forming the horizon. When the Sun is traversing the line C D, in the -direction of the arrows, he will appear to emerge from the horizon H, -and to gradually ascend the line H D. When in the position 1, he will -_appear_ to be at the point 2; and when at 3, the apparent position -will be at 4; but when he arrives upon the meridian D, his apparent -and actual, or noon-day position, will be the same. But now, from the -point D, the Sun will appear to descend, as in Fig. 30, and when he -has passed from D to 1, he will appear at 2, and when really at 3 will -appear at 4; and thus continuing his course in the direction D C, he -will reach the horizon at H, and disappear or “set” to the observer -at H A. Thus “Sunrise” and “Sunset” are phenomena dependent entirely -upon the fact that horizontal lines parallel to each other appear to -approach or converge in the distance, the surface of the Earth being -horizontal, and the line-of-sight of the observer and the Sun’s path -being parallel with it, necessarily produce the observed phenomena. - -[Illustration: FIG. 30.] - - - - -SECTION 8. - -CAUSE OF SUN APPEARING LARGER WHEN RISING AND SETTING THAN WHEN ON THE -MERIDIAN. - - -It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a -dense medium it will appear larger than when seen through a lighter -medium. This will be more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous -particles in solution,--as in a damp or foggy atmosphere the light of -a gas-lamp will seem greater at a given distance than it will under -ordinary circumstances. In the diagram, Figure 30, it is evident that -H D is less than H 1, H 3, or H 5. The latter (H 5) represents the -greater amount of atmosphere which the Sun has to shine through when -approaching the horizon; and as the air near the Earth is both more -dense and more damp, or holds more watery particles in solution, the -light of the Sun must be dilated or enlarged as well as modified in -colour. But the enlarged appearance of the Sun when rising and setting -is only an optical impression, as proved by actual measurement. “If -the angle of the Sun or Moon be taken either with a tube or micrometer -when they appear so large to the eye in the horizon, the measure is -identical when they are in the meridian and appear to the eye and -mind but half the size. The apparent distance of the horizon is three -or four times greater than the zenith. Hence the mental mistake of -horizontal size, for the angular dimensions are equal; the first 5° is -apparently to the eye equal to 10° or 15° at 50° or 60° of elevation; -and the first 15° fill a space to the eye equal to a third of the -quadrant. This is evidently owing to the ‘habit of sight,’ for with an -accurate instrument the measure of 5° near the horizon is equal to 5° -in the zenith.”[10] - - [10] “Million of Facts,” by Sir Richard Philips, p. 537. - - - - -SECTION 9. - -CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES. - - -An Eclipse of the Sun is caused simply by the Moon passing before it, -or between it and the observer on the Earth. Of this no question has -been raised. But that an Eclipse of the Moon arises from a shadow -of the Earth is in every respect unsatisfactory. The Earth has been -proved to have no motion, either upon axes or in an orbit round the -Sun, and therefore it could never come between the Sun and the Moon. -The Earth is proved to be a Plane, always underneath the Sun and Moon, -and therefore to speak of its intercepting the light of the Sun and -thus casting its own shadow upon the Moon, is to say that which is -impossible. Besides this, cases are on record of the Sun and Eclipsed -Moon being above the horizon together. “The full Moon has sometimes -been seen above the horizon before the Sun was set. A remarkable -instance of this kind was observed at Paris on the 19th of July, 1750, -when the Moon appeared visibly Eclipsed while the Sun was distinctly -to be seen above the horizon.”[11] “On the 20th of April, 1837, the -Moon appeared to rise Eclipsed before the Sun had set. The same -phenomenon was observed on the 20th of September, 1717.”[12] “In the -lunar Eclipses of July 17, 1590; Nov. 3, 1648; June 16, 1666; and May -26, 1668, the Moon rose Eclipsed whilst the Sun was still apparently -above the horizon. Those _horizontal_ Eclipses were noticed as early -as the time of Pliny.”[13] The Moon’s entire surface, or that portion -presented to the Earth has also been distinctly seen during the whole -time of a total Eclipse, a phenomenon utterly incompatible with the -doctrine that the Earth’s shadow is the cause of it. “The Moon has -sometimes shown during a total Eclispe with an almost unaccountable -distinctness. On Dec. 22, 1703, the Moon, when totally immersed in -the Earth’s shadow, was visible at Avignon by a ruddy light of such -brilliancy that one might have imagined her body to be transparent, and -to be enlightened from behind; and on March 19th, 1848, it is stated -that so bright was the Moon’s surface during its total immersion, that -many persons could not be persuaded that it was eclipsed. Mr. Forster, -of Bruges, states, in an account of that eclipse, that the light and -dark places on the moon’s surface could be almost as well made out as -in an ordinary dull moonlight night. - - [11] “Astronomy and Astronomical Instruments,” p. 105, by Geo. G. - Carey. - - [12] “McCulloch’s Geography,” p. 85. - - [13] “Illustrated London Almanack for 1864,” the astronomical part in - which is by James Glaisher, Esq., of the Greenwich Observatory. - -“Sometimes, in a total lunar eclipse, the moon will appear quite -obscure in some parts of its surface, and in other parts will exhibit -a high degree of illumination. * * * To a certain extent I witnessed -some of these phenomena during the merely partial eclipse of February -7th, 1860. * * * I prepared, during the afternoon of February 6th for -witnessing the eclipse, without any distinct expectation of seeing much -worthy of note. I knew, however, that upwards of eight-tenths of the -disc would be covered, and I was anxious to observe with what degree -of distinctness the eclipsed portion could be viewed, partly as an -interesting fact, and partly with a view of verifying or discovering -the weak points of an engraving (in which I am concerned) of a lunar -eclipse. - -“After seeing the increasing darkness of the penumbra softly merging -into the true shadow at the commencement of the eclipse (about 1 -o’clock a.m., Greenwich time) I proceeded with pencil and paper, -dimly lighted by a distant lamp, to note by name the different lunar -mountains and plains (the so-called seas) over which the shadow -passed. * * * During the first hour and ten minutes I had seen nothing -unexpected. * * * I had repeatedly written down my observations of -the remarkable clearness with which the moon’s eclipsed outline could -be seen, both with the naked eye, and with the telescope; at 1 hour -58 minutes, however, I suddenly noted the ruddy colour of a _portion_ -of the moon. I may as well give my notes in the original words, as -copied next day in a more connected form:--1h. 58m., Greenwich time. I -am suddenly struck by the fact that the whole of the western seas of -the moon are showing through the shadow with singular sharpness, and -that the whole region where they lie has assumed a decidedly reddish -tinge, attaining its greatest brightness at a sort of temporary polar -region, having ‘Endymion’ about the position of its imaginary pole. I -particularly notice that the ‘Lake of Sleep’ has disappeared in this -brightness, instead of standing out in a darker shade: and I notice -that this so-called polar region is not parallel with the rim of the -shadow, but rather west of it.--2h. 15m. Some clouds, though very thin -and transparent, now intervene.--2h. 20m. The sky is now cleared, How -extraordinary is the appearance of the Moon _Reddish_ is not the word -to express it; it is red--red hot! I endeavour to think of various -red objects with which to compare it, and nothing seems so like as a -_red-hot penny_--a red-hot penny with a little _white_-hot piece at its -lower edge, standing out against a dark-blue back ground; only it is -evidently not a mere disc, but beautifully rounded by shading. - -“Such is its appearance with the naked eye: with the telescope its -surface varies more in tint than with the naked eye, and is not of -quite so bright a red as when thus viewed. The redness continues to be -most perceptible at a distance from the shadow’s southern edge, and to -be greatest about the region of ‘Endymion.’ The Hercynian mountains -(north of Grimaldus) are, however, of rather a bright red, and -Grimaldus shows well. Mare Crisium and the western seas are wonderfully -distinct. Not a trace to be seen of Aristarchus or Plato.--2h. 27m. -It is now nearly the middle of the eclipse. The red colour is very -brilliant to the naked eye. * * * After this, I noticed a progressive -change of tint in the Moon.--2h. 50m. The Moon does not seem to the -naked eye of so bright a red as before; and again I am reminded by its -tint of red-hot copper, or rather copper which has begun to cool. The -whole of Grimaldi is now uncovered. Through the telescope I notice a -decided grey shade at the lower part of the eclipsed portion, and the -various small craters give it a stippled effect, like the old aqua-tint -engravings. The upper part is reddish, but two graceful bluish curves, -like horns, mark the form of the Hercynian mountains, and the bright -region on the other limb of the Moon. These are visible also to the -naked eye. - -“At 3h. 5m. the redness had almost disappeared; a very few minutes -afterwards, no trace of it remained, and ere long clouds came on. -I watched the Moon, however, occasionally gaining a glimpse of its -disc, till a quarter to four o’clock, when, for the last time on that -occasion, I saw it faintly appearing through the clouds, nearly a full -Moon again; and then I took leave of it, feeling amply repaid for my -vigil by the beautiful spectacle which I had seen.”[14] - - [14] The Hon. Mrs. Ward, Trimleston House, near Dublin, in - “Recreative Science,” p. 281. - -Mr Walkey, who observed the lunar eclipse of March 19th, 1848, near -Collumpton, says--“The appearances were as usual till 20 minutes -past 9; at that period, and for the space of the next hour, instead -of an eclipse, or the shadow (umbra) of the Earth being the cause -of the total obscurity of the Moon, the whole phase of that body -became very quickly and most beautifully _illuminated_; and assumed -the appearance of the glowing heat of fire from the furnace, rather -tinged with a _deep red_. * * * The whole disc of the Moon being as -_perfect with light_ as if there had been _no eclipse whatever_! * * -* The Moon positively gave _good light from its disc during the total -eclipse_!”[15] - - [15] “Philosophical Magazine,” No. 220, for August, 1848. - -In the astronomical portion of the “Illustrated London Almanack -for 1864,” by Mr. Glaisher, a beautiful tinted engraving is given -representing the appearance of the Moon during the total eclipse -of June 1, 1863, when all the light and dark places--the so-called -mountains, seas, &c., were plainly visible. In the accompanying -descriptive chapter, the following sentences occur:--“At the time -of totality the Moon presented a soft woolly appearance, apparently -more globular in form than when fully illuminated. Traces of the -larger and brighter mountains were visible at the time of totality, -and particularly the bright rays proceeding from Tycho, Kepler, and -Aristarchus. * * * At first, when the obscured part was of small -dimensions, it was of an iron grey tint, but as it approached totality, -the reddish light became so apparent that it was remarked that the -Moon ‘seemed to be on fire;’ and when the totality had commenced, it -certainly looked like a fire smouldering in its ashes, and almost -going out.” - -If then, the Sun and Moon have many times been seen above the horizon -when the latter was eclipsed, how can it be said that the Earth’s -shadow was the cause of a lunar eclipse, when the Earth was not between -or in a line with the Sun and Moon? And how can the Moon’s non-luminous -surface be distinctly visible and illuminated during the very totality -of an eclipse, if all the light of the Sun is intercepted by the Earth? - -Again, if the Moon is a sphere, which it is declared to be, how can its -surface _reflect_ the light of the Sun? If her surface was a mass of -polished silver, it could not reflect from more than a mere point! Let -a silvered glass ball or globe of considerable size be held before a -lamp or fire of any magnitude, and it will be seen that instead of the -whole surface reflecting light, there will be a very small portion only -illuminated. But the Moon’s _whole surface_ is brilliantly illuminated! -a condition or effect utterly impossible if it be spherical. The -surface _might_ be _illuminated_ from the Sun, or any other source if -opaque, instead of polished, like an ordinary silvered mirror, but it -could not shine intensely from every part, and brightly illuminate the -objects before it, as the Moon does so beautifully when full and in -a clear firmament. If the Earth _were admitted_ to be globular, and -to move, and to be capable of throwing a shadow by intercepting the -light of the Sun, it would be impossible for a lunar eclipse to occur -thereby, unless at the same time the Moon be proved to be non-luminous, -and to shine only by reflection. But this is not proved; it is only -assumed as an essential part of a theory. The _contrary_ is capable -of proof, and proof beyond the power of doubt, viz., that the Moon -is _self-luminous_, or shines with a light peculiar to herself, and -therefore independently of the Sun. A reflector necessarily gives -off what it receives. If a mass of red-hot metal be placed before a -plane or concave surface, _heat_ will be reflected. If snow or ice -be similarly placed, _cold_ will be reflected. If light, ordinary or -coloured, be presented, the _same_ will be reflected. If sound of a -given pitch be produced, the same pitch will be reflected. If the -note A be sounded upon a musical instrument, a reflector would not -return the note B or C, but the _same note_, altered only in degree or -intensity, but not in “pitch.” A reflector receiving a red light would -not return a blue or yellow light. A reflector collecting the cold from -a mass of ice, would not throw off heat; nor the contrary. Nor could -the Moon, if a reflector, radiate or throw down upon the Earth any -other light than such as she receives from the Sun. No difference could -exist in the quality or character of the light, and it could differ in -no respect but the quantity or intensity. - -The light of the Sun and of the Moon are different in their general -appearance--in the colour and action upon the eye. - -The Sun’s light is drying and preservative, or antiseptic. The Moon’s -light is damp and putrefactive. - -The Sun’s rays will put out a common fire; the Moon’s light will -increase the combustion. The light of the Sun falling upon certain -chemical substances, produces a change of colour, as in photographic -and other processes. The light of the Moon fails to produce the same -effect. Dr. Lardner, at page 121 of his excellent work, “The Museum of -Science,” says--“The most striking instance of the effect of certain -rays of solar light in blackening a light-colored substance, is -afforded by chloride of silver, which is a white substance, but which -immediately becomes black when acted upon by the rays near the violet -extremity of the spectrum. This substance, however, highly susceptible -as it is of having its colour affected by light, is, nevertheless, -found not to be changed in any sensible degree when exposed to the -light of the Moon, even when that light is condensed by the most -powerful burning lenses.” - -The Sun’s light when concentrated by a number of mirrors, or a large -burning lens, produces a focus which is entirely non-luminous, but -in which the heat is so great that metallic and alkaline substances -are quickly fused; earthy and mineral compounds almost immediately -vitrified; and all animal and vegetable structures in a few seconds -burned up and destroyed. But the Moon’s light so concentrated produces -a brilliant focus, so luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; -and yet there is no increase of temperature! “If the most delicate -thermometer be exposed to the full light of the Moon, shining with its -greatest lustre, the mercury is not elevated a hair’s breadth, neither -would it be if exposed in the focus of her rays concentrated by the -most powerful lenses. This has been proved by actual experiment.”[16] -“This question has been submitted to the test of direct experiment. * * -* The bulb of a thermometer sufficiently sensitive to render apparent a -change of temperature amounting to the thousandth part of a degree, was -placed in the focus of a concave reflector of vast dimensions, which, -being directed to the Moon, the lunar rays were collected with great -power upon it. Not the slightest change, however, was produced in the -thermometric column, proving that a concentration of rays sufficient to -fuse gold, if they proceeded _from the Sun_, does not produce a change -of temperature so great as the thousandth part of a degree, when they -proceed _from the Moon_.”[17] - - [16] “All the Year Round,” by Dickens. - - [17] Dr. Lardner’s Museum of Science, p. 115. - -“The light of the Moon though concentrated by the most powerful burning -glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate -thermometer. M. De La Hire collected the rays of the full Moon when -on the meridian, by means of a burning glass thirty-five inches in -diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. -_No effect was produced_, though the lunar rays by this glass were -concentrated 300 times.” “Professor Forbes concentrated the Moon’s -light by a lens thirty inches in diameter, its focal distance being -about forty-one inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding -6,000 times. The image of the Moon which was only eighteen hours past -full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown -by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermo-pile. Although the -observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing -that half the rays were reflected, dispersed, and absorbed) though the -light of the Moon was concentrated _3000 times, not the slightest -thermo-effect was produced_![18] In the “Lancet” (medical journal) for -March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments, which -proved that the Moon’s rays when concentrated actually _reduced_ the -temperature upon a thermometer more than 8 degrees! - - [18] Dr. Noad’s Lectures on Chemistry, p. 334. - - “The cold chaste Moon, the Queen - Of Heaven’s bright Isles; - Who makes all beautiful - On which she smiles: - That wandering shrine of soft - Yet _icy flame_, - Which ever is transformed - Yet still the same; - And _warms not_ but _illumes_.” - - --SHELLEY. - -The “pale _cold_ Moon” is an expression not only beautiful poetically -but evidently true philosophically. - -If, as we have now seen, the very nature of a reflector demands certain -conditions and the Moon does not manifest these conditions, it must -of necessity be concluded that the Moon is _not_ a _reflector_, but -a _self-luminous body_. If self-luminous her surface could not be -darkened or eclipsed by a shadow of the Earth--supposing such were -thrown upon it. The luminosity instead of being diminished would be -greater in proportion to the greater density or darkness of the -shadow. As the light in a lantern shines most brightly in the darkest -places, so would the Moon’s self-luminous surface be most intense in -the deepest part of the Earth’s shadow. It is thus rendered undeniable -that a Lunar Eclipse _does_ not and _could_ not arise from a shadow of -the Earth! As a _Solar_ Eclipse occurs from the Moon passing over the -Sun; so from the evidence it is clear that a Lunar Eclipse _can only_ -arise from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined -passing before the Moon, or between her surface and the observer on the -surface of the Earth. That such a body exists is admitted by several -distinguished astronomers. In the report of the Council of the Royal -Astronomical Society for June, 1850, it is stated, “We may well doubt -whether that body which we call the Moon is the _only satellite_ of -the Earth.” In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12, -1846, and again for August, 1847, the Director of one of the French -Observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which -have led him to conclude that “there is at least _one non-luminous -body_ of considerable magnitude which is attached as a _satellite to -this Earth_.”[19] - - [19] Referred to in Lardner’s “Museum of Science,” p. 159. - -Persons who are unacquainted with the methods of calculating Eclipses -and other astronomical phenomena, are prone to look upon the -correctness of these calculations as powerful arguments in favour of -the doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity and the Newtonian philosophy -generally. But this is erroneous. Whatever theory is adopted, or if -all theories are discarded, the same results may follow, because the -necessary data may be tabulated and employed independently of all -theory, or may be mixed up with any, even the most opposite doctrines, -or kept distinct from every system, just as the operator may decide. -The tables of the Moon’s relative positions for almost any second of -time are purely practical, the result of long continued observation, -and may or may not be mixed up with hypothesis. In Smith’s “Rise and -progress of Astronomy,” speaking of Ptolemy, who lived in the 2nd -century of the Christian Era, it is said, “The (considered) defects of -his system did not prevent him from calculating all the Eclipses that -were to happen for 600 years to come.” Professor Partington, at page -370 of his Lectures on Natural Philosophy, says, “The most ancient -observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently -accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made -at Babylon about 719 before the Christian Era, of three Eclipses of -the Moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for -determining the period of the Moon’s mean motion; and therefore had -probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, -however, must have made a long series of observations before they could -discover their “Saros” or lunar period of 6,585¹⁄₃ days, or about 18 -years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the Moon, her -_node_ and _apogee_ return nearly to the same situation with respect -to the Earth and the Sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar -Eclipses occur.” - -Sir Richard Phillips, in his “Million of Facts,” at page 388, -says:--“The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from -prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the -ascertained uniformity of their irregularities. Ephemerides of the -planets’ places, of Eclipses, &c., have been published for above 300 -years, and were nearly as precise as at present.” - -“No particular theory is required to calculate Eclipses; and the -calculations may be made with equal accuracy _independent of every -theory_.”[20] - - [20] Somerville’s Physical Sciences, p. 46. - - - - -SECTION 10. - -CAUSE OF TIDES. - - -The doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity being fallacious, all ideas of -“centre of attraction of gravitation,” “mutual attraction of Earth and -Moon,” &c., &c., must be given up; and the cause of tides in the ocean -must be sought for in another direction. It is certain that there is -a constant pressure of the atmosphere upon the surface of the Earth -and ocean. This is proved by ordinary barometrical observations, many -Pneumatic experiments, and by the fact that during the most fearful -storms at sea the surface only is disturbed; at the depth of a hundred -feet the water is always calm--except in the path of well-marked -currents and local submarine phenomena. The following quotations -gathered from casual reading fully corroborate this statement. “It is -amazing how superficial is the most terrible tempest. Divers assure -us that in the greatest storms calm water is found at the depth of 90 -feet.”[21] - - [21] Chambers’s Journal, No. 100, p. 379. - -“This motion of the surface of the sea is not perceptible to a great -depth. In the strongest gale it is supposed not to extend beyond -72 feet below the surface; and at the depth of 90 feet the sea is -perfectly still.”[22] - - [22] Penny Cyclopædia, Article Sea. - -“The people are under a great mistake who believe that the substance of -the water moves to any considerable depth in a storm at sea. It is only -the form or shadow which hurries along like a spirit, or like a thought -over the countenance of the ‘great deep,’ at the rate of some forty -miles an hour. Even when the ‘Flying Dutchman’ is abroad the great mass -of water continues undisturbed and nearly motionless a few feet below -the surface.”[23] - - [23] London Saturday Journal, August 8, 1840, p. 71. - -“The unabraded appearance of the shells brought up from great depths, -and the almost total absence of the mixture of any _detritus_ from the -sea, or foreign matter, suggest most forcibly the idea of _perfect -repose_ at the bottom of the deep sea.”[24] - - [24] Physical Geography of the Sea, by Lieut. Maury, p. 265. - -Bearing this fact in mind, that there exists a continual pressure of -the atmosphere upon the Earth, and associating it with the fact that -the Earth is a vast plane “stretched out upon the waters,” and it will -be seen that it must of necessity slightly fluctuate, or slowly rise -and fall in the water. As by the action of the atmosphere the Earth -is slowly depressed, the water moves towards the receding shores and -produces the flood tide; and when by the reaction of the resisting -oceanic medium the Earth gradually ascends the waters recede, and the -ebb tide is produced. This is the _general_ cause of tides. Whatever -peculiarities are observable they may be traced to the reaction of -channels, bays, headlands, and other local causes. - -If a raft, or a ship, or any other structure floating upon water be -carefully observed, it will be seen to have a gentle fluctuating -motion. However calm the water and the atmosphere may be, this -gradual rising and falling of the floating mass is always more or -less observable. If vessels of different sizes are floating near each -other they will be seen to fluctuate with different velocities, the -largest and heaviest will move the least rapidly. This motion will be -observable whether the vessels be held by their anchors, or moored to -buoys, or freely floating in still water. A large and heavily laden -vessel will make several fluctuations in a minute of time; the Earth -once only in about twelve hours, because it is proportionately larger. - -To this simple condition of the Earth,--the action or pressure upon -it of the atmosphere, and the reaction or resistance to it of the -water, may be traced all the leading peculiarities of the tides. -The simultaneous ebb and flow upon meridians 180° apart. The absence -of high and low water in large inland seas and lakes; which being -contained within and fluctuating with the Earth cannot therefore show -a relative change in the altitude of the surface. The flux and reflux -observed in several inland wells and basins though far from the sea, -but being connected with it by subterranean passages, necessarily show -a relative difference in the surface levels of the earth and water. And -the regular ebb and flood of the water in the great Polar sea recently -discovered by Dr. Kane, although it is separated from the great tidal -current of the Atlantic Ocean by deep barriers of ice--as will be seen -by the following quotation:--“Dr. Kane reported an open sea north of -the parallel of 82°. To reach it his party crossed a barrier of ice -80 or 100 miles broad. Before gaining this open water he found the -thermometer to show the extreme temperature of -60°. Passing this -ice-bound region by travelling North, he stood on the shores of an -iceless sea extending in an unbroken sheet of water as far as the eye -could reach towards the pole. Its waves were dashing on the beach with -the swell of a boundless ocean. The tides ebbed and flowed in it, and I -apprehend that the tidal wave from the Atlantic can no more pass under -this icy barrier to be propagated in seas beyond than the vibrations -of a musical string can pass with its notes a ‘fret’ upon which the -musician has placed his finger. * * * These tides therefore must have -been born in that cold sea, having their cradle about the North Pole; -and we infer that most, if not all, the unexplored regions about the -Pole are covered with deep water; for, were this unexpected area mostly -land, or shallow water, it could not give birth to regular tides.”[25] - - [25] Physical Geography of the Sea, by Lieut. Maury, p. 176. - -That the Earth has a vibratory or tremulous motion, such as must -necessarily belong to a floating and fluctuating structure, is -abundantly proved by the experience of astronomers and surveyors. -If a delicate spirit-level be firmly placed upon a rock or upon the -most solid foundation which it is possible to construct, the very -curious phenomenon will be observed of constant change in the position -of the air-bubble. However carefully the “level” may be adjusted, -and the instrument protected from the atmosphere, the “bubble” -will not maintain its position many seconds together. A somewhat -similar influence has been noticed in astronomical observatories, -where instruments of the best construction and placed in the most -approved positions cannot always be relied upon without occasional -re-adjustment. - - - - -SECTION 11. - -CONSTITUTION, CONDITION, AND ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH BY FIRE. - - -Chemical analysis proves to us the important fact that the great -bulk of the Earth--meaning thereby the _land_ as distinct from the -waters--is composed of metallic oxides or metals in combination with -oxygen. When means are adopted to remove the oxygen it is found that -most of these metallic bases are highly combustible. The different -degrees of affinity existing among the elements of the Earth, give rise -to all the rocks, minerals, ores, deposits, and strata which constitute -the material habitable world. The different specific gravities or -relative densities which these substances are found to possess, and the -numerous evidences which exist of their former plastic or semi-fluid -condition, afford positive proof that from a once commingled or chaotic -state regular but rapid precipitation, stratification, crystallization, -and concretion successively occurred; and that in some way not yet -clear to us sufficient chemical action was produced to ignite a great -portion of the Earth, and to reduce it to a molten incandescent state, -the volatile products of which being forcibly eliminated have broken -up the stratified formations, and produced the irregular confused -condition which we now observe. That such an incandescent molten -state of a great portion of the lower parts of the Earth still exists -is a matter of certainty; and there is evidence that the heat thus -internally generated is gradually increasing. - -“The uppermost strata of the soil share in all the variations of -temperature which depend upon the seasons; and this influence is -exerted to a depth which, although it varies with the latitude, is -never very great. Beyond this point the temperature rises in proportion -as we descend to greater depths, and it has been shown, by numerous -and often-repeated experiments, that the increase of temperature is -on average one degree (Fahrenheit) for about every 545 feet. Hence it -results that at a depth of about twelve miles from the surface, we -should be on the verge of an incandescent mass.”[26] - - [26] Rambles of a Naturalist, by M. de Quatrefages. - -“So great is the heat within the Earth, that in Switzerland, and other -countries where the springs of water are very deep, they bring to the -surface the warm mineral waters so much used for baths and medicine for -the sick; and it is said, that if you were to dig very deep down into -the Earth, the temperature would increase at the rate of one degree -of the thermometer for every 100 feet; so that, at the depth of 7000 -feet, or one mile and a half, all the water that you found would be -boiling; and at the depth of about ten miles all the rocks would be -melted. * * * A day will yet come when this earth will be burned up by -the fire. There is fire, as you have heard, within it, ready to burst -forth at any moment.”[27] “This earth, although covered all round with -a solid crust, is all on fire within. Its interior is supposed to be a -burning mass of melted, glowing metals, fiery gas, and boiling lava. -* * * * * The solid crust which covers this inward fire is supposed -not to be much more than from 9 to 12 miles in thickness. Whenever -this crust breaks open, or is cleft in any place, there rush out lava, -fire, melted rocks, fiery gases, and ashes, sometimes in such floods as -to bury whole cities. From time to time we read of the earth quaking, -trembling, and sometimes opening, and of mountains and small islands -(which are mountains in the sea) being thrown up in a day.”[28] - - [27] “The World’s Birthday,” by Professor Gaussen, Geneva, p. 43. - - [28] “The World’s Birthday,” by Professor Gaussen, Geneva, p. 42. - -In a periodical called “Recreative Science,” at the end of an -interesting article on volcanoes, &c., the following sentence -occurs:--“The conclusion is therefore inevitable, that the general -distribution all over the earth of volcanic vents, their similarity of -action and products, their enormous power and seeming inexhaustibility, -their extensiveness of action in their respective sites, the -continuance of their energies during countless years, and the incessant -burning day and night, from year to year, of such craters as Stromboli; -and lastly, the apparent inefficiency of external circumstances in -controlling their operations, eruptions happening beneath the sea as -beneath the land, in the frigid as in the torrid zone, for these and -many less striking phenomena, we must seek for some great and general -cause, such only as the central heat of the earth affords us.” - -Sir Richard Phillips says, “at the depth of 50 feet (from the sea -level) the temperature of the earth is the same winter and summer.” -* * * “The deepest coal mine in England is at Killingworth, near -Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and the mean annual temperature at 400 yards below -the surface is 77°; and at 300 yards, 70°; while at the surface it is -but 48°, being about one degree of increase for every 15 yards. Hence, -at 3,300 yards, the heat would be equal to boiling water, taking 20 -yards to a degree. This explains the origin of hot springs. The heat of -the Bath waters is 116°, hence they would appear to rise from a depth -of 1,320 yards. By experiments made at the Observatory of Paris for -ascertaining the increase of temperature from the surface of the earth -towards the interior, 51 feet, or 17 yards, corresponds to the increase -of one degree Fahrenheit’s thermometer. Hence, the temperature of -boiling water would be at 8,212 feet, or about 1¹⁄₂ English miles under -Paris.” - -Professor Silliman, of America, states “that in boring the Artesian -wells in Paris, the temperature increased at the rate of 1 degree for -every 50 feet downwards; and, reasoning from causes known to exist, the -whole of the interior part of the earth, or, at least, a great part of -it, is an ocean of melted rock agitated by violent winds.” - -Sir Charles Lyell, in his address to the British Association, assembled -at Bath, September, 1864, speaking of hot springs generally, said “An -increase of heat is always experienced as we descend into the interior -of the earth. * * * The estimate deduced by Mr. Hopkins, from an -accurate series of observations made in the Monkwearmouth shaft, near -Durham, and in the Dukenfield shaft, near Manchester, each of them -2,000 feet in depth. In these shafts the temperature was found to rise -at the rate of 1° Fah. for every increase of depth of from 65 to 70 -feet.” - -“The observations made by M. Arago, in 1821, that the deepest Artesian -wells are the warmest, threw great light on the origin of thermal -springs, and on the establishment of the law, that terrestrial heat -increases with increasing depth. It is a remarkable fact, which has -but recently been noticed, that at the close of the third century St -Patricius, probably Bishop of Partusa, was led to adopt very correct -views regarding the phenomenon of the hot springs at Carthage. On being -asked what was the cause of boiling water bursting from the earth, -he replied, ‘Fire is nourished in the clouds, and in the interior of -the earth, as Etna and other mountains near Naples may teach you. -The subterranean waters rise as if through siphons. The cause of hot -springs is this: waters which are more remote from the subterranean -fire are colder, whilst those which rise nearer the fire, are heated -by it, and bring with them to the surface which we inhabit, an -insupportable degree of heat.’”[29] - - [29] “Humboldt’s Cosmos,” p. 220. - -The investigations which have been made, and the evidence which has -been brought together, render it undeniable that the lower parts of the -earth are on fire. Of the intensity of the combustion, no practical -idea can be formed. It is fearful beyond comparison. The lava thrown -out from a volcano in Mexico, “was so hot that it continued to smoke -for twenty years; and after three years and a half, a piece of wood -took fire in it, at a distance of five miles from the crater.” In -various parts of the world, large islands have been thrown up from the -sea, in a red-hot glowing condition, and so intensely heated, that -after being forced through many fathoms of salt water, and standing -in the midst of it, exposed to wind and rain for several months, -they were not sufficiently cooled for persons to approach and stand -upon them. “A notable fact is the force exerted in volcanic action, -Cotopaxi, in 1738, threw its fiery rockets 3,000 feet above its crater, -while in 1744 the blazing mass, struggling for an outlet, roared like -a furnace, so that its awful voice was heard at a distance of more -than six hundred miles. In 1797, the crater of Tunguragua, one of the -great peaks of the Andes, flung out torrents of mud, which dammed up -rivers, opened new lakes, and in valleys of a thousand feet wide made -deposits six hundred feet deep. The stream from Vesuvius which, in -1737, passed through Torre del Greco, contained thirty-three million -cubic feet of solid matter; and, in 1794, when Torre del Greco was -destroyed a second time, the mass of lava amounted to forty-five -million cubic feet. In 1669 Etna poured forth a flood which covered 84 -square miles of surface, and measured nearly 100,000,000 cubic feet. -On this occasion the sand and scoriæ formed the Monte Rossi, near -Nicolosi, a cone two miles in circumference, and four hundred and fifty -feet high. The stream thrown out by Etna, in 1819, was in motion, at -the rate of a yard per day, for nine months after the eruption; and -it is on record that the lavas of the same mountain, after a terrible -eruption, were not thoroughly cooled and consolidated ten years after -the event. In the eruption of Vesuvius, A.D. 79, the scoriæ and ashes -vomited forth far exceeded the entire bulk of the mountain; while, -in 1660, Etna disgorged more than twenty times its own mass. * * * -Vesuvius has thrown its ashes as far as Constantinople, Syria, and -Egypt; it hurled stones eight pounds in weight to Pompeii, a distance -of six miles; while similar masses were tossed up 2,000 feet above -its summit. Cotopaxi has projected a block one hundred cubic yards in -volume a distance of nine miles, while Sumbawa, in 1815, during the -most terrible eruption on record, sent its ashes as far as Java, a -distance of three hundred miles. * * * In viewing these evidences of -enormous power, we are forcibly struck with the similarity of action -with which they have been associated; and, carrying our investigation -a step further, the same similarity of the producing power is hinted -at in the identity of the materials ejected. Thus, if we classify -the characteristics of all recorded eruptions, we shall find that -the phenomena are all reducible to upheavals of the earth, rumblings -and explosions, ejections of carbonic acid, fiery torrents of lava, -cinders, and mud, with accompanying thunder and lightning. The -last-named phenomena are extrajudicial in character; they are merely -the result of the atmospheric disturbance consequent on the escape of -great heat from the earth, just as the burning of an American forest -causes thunder and rain. The connection that apparently exists, too, -between neighbouring craters is strongly confirmed by the fact that -in every distinct volcanic locus but _one_ crater is usually active -at a time. Since Vesuvius has resumed his activity, the numerous -volcanic vents on the other side of the bay have sunk into comparative -inactivity; for ancient writers, who are silent respecting the former, -speak of the mephitic vapours of the Lake Avernus as destructive to -animal existence, and in earlier days than these Homer pictures the -Phlegrean Fields as the entrance to the infernal regions, placed at the -limits of the habitable world, unenlightened by rising or setting sun, -and enveloped in eternal gloom. * * * * The earth contains within it -a mass of heated material; nay, it is a heated and incandescent body, -habitable only because surrounded with a cool crust--the crust being -to it a mere shell, within which the vast internal fires are securely -inclosed: and yet not securely, perhaps, unless such vents existed as -those to which we apply the term volcano. * * * * Every volcano is -a safety-valve, ready to relieve the pressure from within when that -pressure rises to a certain degree of intensity; or permanently serving -for the escape of conflagrations, which, if not so provided with -escape, might rend the habitable crust to pieces.”[30] - - [30] Recreative Science, p.p. 257 to 260. - -Thus it is certain, from the phenomena of earthquakes, submarine and -inland volcanoes which exist in every part of the earth from the frozen -to the tropical regions, hot and boiling springs, fountains of mud -and steam, lakes of burning sulphur, jets and blasts of destructive -gases, and the choke and fire damps of our coal mines, that at a few -miles only below the surface of the earth there exists a vast region of -combustion, the intensity and power of which are indescribable, and -cannot be compared with anything within the range of human experience. - -As the earth is an extended plane resting in and upon the waters of -the “great deep” it may fitly be compared to a large vessel or ship -floating at anchor, with her “Hold” or lower compartments beneath the -water-line filled with burning materials; and, from our knowledge of -the nature and action of fire, it is difficult to understand in what -way the combustion can be prevented from extending, when it is known -to be surrounded with highly inflammable substances. Wherever a fire -is surrounded with heterogeneous materials--some highly combustible -and others partially and indirectly combustible--it is not possible -for it to remain continually in the same condition nor to diminish in -extent and intensity, it must increase and extend itself. That the fire -in the earth is so surrounded with inflammable materials is matter of -certainty; the millions of tons of coals, peat, turf, mineral oils, -rock tar, pitch, asphalte, bitumen, petroleum, mineral naphtha, and -numerous other hydro-carbons which exist in various parts of the earth, -and much of these far down below the surface, prove this condition -to exist. The products of volcanic action being chiefly carbon in -combination with hydrogen and oxygen, prove also that these carbon -compounds already exist in a state of combustion, and that as such -immense quantities of the same fuel still exist, it is quite within -the range of possibility that some of the lower strata of combustible -matter may take fire and the action rapidly extend itself through -the various and innumerable veins which ramify in every direction -throughout the whole earth. Should such an action commence, knowing, -as we do, that the rocks and minerals of the earth are but oxides of -inflammable bases, and that the affinities of these bases are greatly -weakened and almost suspended in the presence of highly heated carbon, -we see clearly that such chemical action or fire would quickly extend -and increase in intensity until the whole earth with everything -entering into its composition, would rapidly decompose, volatilise, and -burst into one vast indescribable, annihilating conflagration! - - - - -SECTION 12. - -MISCELLANEA. - - -MOON’S PHASES.--It has been shown that the Moon is not a reflector of -the Sun’s light, but is self-luminous. That the luminosity is confined -to one-half its surface is sufficiently shown by the fact that at “New -Moon” the whole circle or outline of the Moon is often distinctly -visible; but the darker outline is less, or the circle is smaller than -the segment which is illuminated. From this it is easily seen that -“New Moon,” “Full Moon,” and “Gibbous Moon” are but the different -proportions of the illuminated surface which are presented to the -observer on earth. - -MOON’S APPEARANCE.--Astronomers have indulged their imagination to -such a degree that the Moon has been considered to be a solid, opaque, -spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, volcanic craters, -and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has -this fancy been carried, that the whole visible disc has been mapped -out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though -they had been carefully observed and measured by a party of terrestrial -ordnance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the -fact that whoever looks, without previous bias, through a powerful -telescope at the Moon’s surface, will be puzzled to say what it is -really like, or how to compare it with anything known. The comparison -which may be made, will depend greatly upon the state of mind of the -observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of -a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble -and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire, will, according -to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see different -forms, even the outlines of animals and human faces. It is in this way -that persons may fancy that the Moon’s surface is broken up into hills -and valleys and other arrangements such as are found on earth. But that -anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere -visible upon the Moon is altogether fallacious. This is admitted by -some of those who have written upon the subject “Some persons when -they look into a telescope for the first time, having heard that -mountains are to be seen, and discovering nothing but these (previously -described) unmeaning figures, break off in disappointment, and have -their faith in these things rather diminished than increased. I would -advise, therefore, before the student takes even his _first view_ of -the Moon through a telescope, to form as clear an idea as he can how -mountains, and valleys, and caverns situated at such a distance _ought_ -to look, and by what marks they may be recognised. Let him seize, if -possible, the most favourable periods (about the time of the first -quarter), and previously _learn from drawings_ and explanations how to -_interpret_ everything he sees.”[31] “Whenever we exhibit celestial -objects to inexperienced observers it is usual to precede the view with -good _drawings_ of the objects, accompanied by an explanation of what -each appearance exhibited in the telescope _indicates_. The novice is -told that mountains and valleys can be seen in the Moon by the aid -of the telescope; but on looking he sees a confused mass of light -and shade, and _nothing_ which _looks_ to him _like either mountains -or valleys_! Had his attention been previously directed to a plain -_drawing_ of the Moon, and each particular appearance _interpreted_ to -him, he would then have looked through the telescope with intelligence -and satisfaction!”[32] Thus it is admitted by those who teach that the -Moon is a spherical world, having hills and dales like the earth, can -only see such things in imagination. “Nothing but unmeaning figures” -are really visible, and “the students break off in disappointment, and -have their faith in such things rather diminished than increased,” -“until they previously learn from _drawings_ and explanations how to -_interpret_ everything seen.” But who _first made_ the drawings? Who -_first interpreted_ the “unmeaning figures” and the “confused mass -of light and shade?” Who first declared them to indicate mountains -and valleys, and ventured to make drawings and give explanations and -interpretations for the purpose of biasing the minds, and fixing or -guiding the imaginations of subsequent observers? Whoever they were, -they at least had “given the reins to Fancy,” and afterwards took -upon themselves to dogmatise and teach their crude and unwarranted -imaginings to succeeding investigators. And this is the kind of -evidence and “reasoning” which is obtruded in our seats of learning, -and spread out in the numerous works which are published for the -edification of society! - - [31] “Mechanism of the Heavens,” by Denison Olmsted, LL.D., Professor - of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy in Gale College, U.S. - - [32] Mitchell’s “Orbs of Heaven,” p. 232. - -THE PLANET NEPTUNE.--For some years the advocates of the earth’s -rotundity, and of the Newtonian philosophy generally, were accustomed -to refer with an air of pride and triumph to the discovery of a -new planet, which was called Neptune, as an undeniable evidence of -the truth of their system or theory. The existence of this luminary -was said to have been predicated from calculation only, and for a -considerable period before it had been seen by the telescope. It -was urged that therefore the system which would permit of such a -discovery must be true. But the whole matter subsequently proved to -be unsatisfactory. That a proper conception may be formed of the -actual value of the calculations and their supposed verification, -the following account will be useful. “In the year 1781, on March -13, Uranus was discovered by Sir William Herschel, who was examining -some small stars near the feet of Gemini; and he observed one of them -to have a sensible amount of diameter and less brightness than the -others, and it was soon found to be a planet. It, however, had been -seen before--first, by Flamstead, on December 23rd, 1690; and between -this time and 1781 it had been observed 16 times by Flamstead, Bradley, -Mayer, and Lemonnier; these astronomers had classed it as a star of the -sixth magnitude. Between 1781 and 1820 it was of course very frequently -observed; and it was hoped that at the latter time sufficient data -existed to construct accurate tables of its motions. This task was -undertaken by M. Bouvard, Member _de L’Academie des Sciences_, but he -met with unforeseen difficulties. It was found utterly impossible to -construct tables which would represent the 17 ancient observations, -and at the same time the more numerous modern ones; and it was finally -concluded that the ancient observations were erroneous, or that some -strange and unknown action disturbed, or had disturbed, the planet; -consequently M. Bouvard discarded entirely the old observations, and -used only those taken between 1781 and 1820, in constructing the tables -of Uranus. For some years past it has been found that the tables thus -constructed do not agree any better with modern observations, than they -do with the ancient observations; _consequently it was evident that -the planet was under the influence of some unknown cause_. Several -hypotheses have been suggested as to the nature of this cause; some -persons talked of a resisting medium; others of a great satellite which -might accompany Uranus; some even went so far as to suppose that the -vast distance Uranus is from the Sun caused the law of gravitation to -lose some of its force; others thought that the rapid flight of a comet -had disturbed its regular movements; others thought of the existence of -a planet beyond Uranus, whose disturbing force caused the anomalous -motions of the planet; but no one did otherwise than follow the bent -of his inclination, and did not support his assertion by any positive -considerations. - -“Thus was the theory of Uranus surrounded with difficulties, when M. -Le Verrier, an eminent French mathematician, undertook to investigate -the irregularities in its motions. His first paper appeared on the -10th November, 1845, and his second on June 1, 1846 (published in -the Comptes Rendûs). In this second paper, after a most elaborate -and careful investigation, he proves the utter incompatibility of -any of the preceding hypotheses to account for the planet’s motions, -except only that of the last one, viz., that of a new planet. He then -successively proves that this planet cannot be situated either between -the Sun and Saturn, or between Saturn and Uranus; but that it must be -beyond Uranus. And in this paper he asks the following questions:--‘Is -it possible that the irregularities of Uranus can be owing to the -action of a planet situated in the ecliptic, at a distance of twice -the mean distance of Uranus from the Sun? If so, where is it actually -situated? What is its mass? What are the elements of the orbit it -describes?” - -This was the problem he set himself to work upon, by the means of -solving the inverse problem of the perturbations; for instead of -having to measure the action of a determined planet, he had to deduce -the elements of the orbit of the disturbing planet, and its place -in the heavens from the recognised inequalities of Uranus. And this -problem M. Le Verrier has successfully solved. In his second paper -he deduces the place in the heavens that the body must be as 325° of -helio-centric longitude. On the 31st August last he published his third -paper. In this he has calculated that the period of the planet is 217 -years; and that it moves in an orbit at the distance of more than 3,000 -millions of miles from the Sun; that its mean longitude on January -1st, 1847, will be 318° 17′; its true longitude 326° 32′; and that the -longitude of its perihelion will be 284° 45′; that it will appear to -have a diameter of 3¹⁄₄ seconds of arc as seen from the earth; and that -it is now about 5° E. of _Delta Capricorni_. - -“These remarkable calculations have pointed out a position which has -very nearly proved to be the true one. - -“On September 23, Dr. Galle at Berlin discovered a star of the eighth -magnitude, which has proved to be the planet. Its place at the time was -five degrees from _Delta Capricorni_. It was found to have a disc of 3 -seconds as predicted; and its longitude at the time differs less than a -degree from the longitude computed from the above elements. Its daily -motion, too, is found to agree very closely with the predicted; and, -judging from this last circumstance, the planet’s distance, as stated -above, must be nearly the truth. - -“Thus the result of these calculations was the discovery of a new -planet in the place assigned to it by theory, whose mass, distance, -position in the heavens, and orbit it describes round the Sun, were all -approximately determined before the planet had ever been seen; and all -agrees with observations, so far as can at present be determined. It is -found to have a disc, and its diameter cannot be much less than 40,000 -miles, and may be more; its motions are very slow; it is at present in -the constellation of Aquarius as indicated by theory; and it will be in -the constellation of Capricornus all the year 1847. It may be readily -seen in a telescope of moderate power. - -“Whatever view we take of this noble discovery it is most gratifying, -whether at the addition of another planet to our list; whether at the -proving the correctness of the theory of universal gravitation; or in -what view soever, it must be considered as a splendid discovery, and -the merit is chiefly due to theoretical astronomy. This discovery is -perhaps the greatest triumph of astronomical science that has ever -been recorded.”[33] - - [33] “Illustrated London Almanack for 1847.” - -If such things as criticism, experience, and comparative observation -did not exist, the tone of exultation in which the above article -indulges might be properly shared in by the astronomical student; but -let the following extracts be carefully read, and it will be seen that -such a tone was premature and unwarranted. “Paris, Sept. 15, 1848. -The only sittings of the Academy of late in which there was anything -worth recording, and even this was not of a practical character, were -those of the 29th ult. and the 11th inst. On the former day M. Babinet -made a communication respecting the planet Neptune, which has been -generally called M. Le Verrier’s planet, the discovery of it having, -as it was said, been made by him from theoretical deductions, which -astonished and delighted the scientific public. What M. Le Verrier had -inferred from the action on other planets of some body which ought to -exist was verified, at least so it was thought at the time, by actual -vision. Neptune was actually seen by other astronomers, and the honour -of the theorist obtained additional luster. But it appears from a -communication of M. Babinet that _this is not the planet_ of M. Le -Verrier. He had placed his planet at a distance from the Sun equal to -thirty-six times the limit of the terrestrial orbit; Neptune revolves -at a distance equal to thirty times of these limits, which makes a -difference of nearly _two hundred millions of leagues_! M. Le Verrier -had assigned to his planet a body equal to thirty-eight times that of -the earth; Neptune has only _one third_ of this volume! M. Le Verrier -had stated the revolutions of his planet round the Sun to take place -in two hundred and seventeen years; Neptune performs its revolutions -in one hundred and sixty-six years! Thus then Neptune is not M. Le -Verrier’s planet; and all his theory as regards that planet falls to -the ground! M. Le Verrier may find another planet, but it will not -answer the calculations which he had made for Neptune. In the sitting -of the 14th, M. Le Verrier noticed the communication of M. Babinet, and -to a great extent admitted his own error! He complained indeed that -much of what he said was taken in too absolute a sense; but he evinces -much more candour than might have been expected from a disappointed -explorer. M. Le Verrier may console himself with the reflection that -if he has not been so successful as he thought he had been, others -might have been equally unsuccessful, and as he has still before him -an immense field for the exercise of observation and calculation, we -may hope that he will soon make some discovery which will remove the -vexation of his present disappointment.”[34] - - [34] “Times” Newspaper, Monday, Sept. 18, 1848. - -“As the data of Le Verrier and Adams stand at present there is a -discrepancy between the predicted and the true distance; and in some -other elements of the planet. It remains, therefore, for these or -future astronomers to reconcile theory with fact; or, perhaps, as -in the case of Uranus, to make the new planet the means of leading -to yet greater discoveries. It would appear, from the most recent -observations, that the mass of Neptune, instead of being as at first -stated one nine thousand three hundredth is only one twenty three -thousandth that of the Sun; whilst its periodic time is now given -with a greater probability at 166 years; and its mean distance from -the Sun nearly thirty. Le Verrier gave the mean distance from the Sun -thirty-six times that of the Earth; and the period of revolution 217 -years.[35] - - [35] “Cosmos,” by Humboldt, p. 75. - -“May 14, 1847. A Paper was read before the Royal Astronomical Society, -by Professor Schumacher, ‘on the identity of the planet Neptune (M. Le -Verrier’s) with a star observed by M. Lalande in May, 1795.’”[36] - - [36] “Report of Royal Astronomical Society,” for Feb. 11, 1848, No. 4, - vol. 8. - -Such mistakes as the above ought at least to make the advocates of the -Newtonian theory less positive, and more ready to acknowledge that at -best their system is but hypothetical and must sooner or later give -place to a philosophy the premises of which are demonstrable, and which -is in all its details sequent and consistent. - - -PENDULUM EXPERIMENTS AS PROOFS OF EARTH’S MOTION. - -In the early part of the year 1851, the scientific journals and nearly -all the newspapers published in Great Britain and on the Continents of -Europe and America were occupied in recording and discussing certain -experiments with the pendulum, first made by M. Foucault, of Paris; and -the public were startled by the announcement that the results furnished -a practical proof of the Earth’s rotation. - -The subject was referred to in the _Literary Gazette_, in the following -words:--“Everybody knows what is meant by a pendulum in its simplest -form, a weight hanging by a thread to a fixed point. Such was the -pendulum experimented upon long ago by Galileo, who discovered the -well-known law of isochronous vibrations, applicable to the same. The -subject has since received a thorough examination, as well theoretical -as practical, from mathematicians and mechanicians; and yet, strange -to say, the most remarkable feature of the phenomenon has remained -unobserved and wholly unsuspected until within the last few weeks, when -a young and promising French physicist, M. Foucault, who was induced by -certain reflections to repeat Galileo’s experiments in the cellar of -his mother’s house at Paris, succeeded in establishing the existence -of a fact connected with it which gives an immediate and visible -demonstration of the Earth’s rotation. Suppose the pendulum already -described to be set moving in a vertical plane from north to south, -the plane in which it vibrates, to ordinary observation, would appear -to be stationary. M. Foucault, however, has succeeded in showing that -this is not the case, but that the plane is itself slowly moving round -the fixed point as a centre in a direction contrary to the Earth’s -rotation, _i.e._, with the apparent heavens, from east to west. His -experiments have since been repeated in the hall of the observatory, -under the superintendence of M. Arago, and fully confirmed. If a -pointer be attached to the weight of a pendulum suspended by a long and -fine wire, capable of turning round in all directions, and nearly in -contact with the floor of a room, the line which this pointer appears -to trace on the ground, and which may easily be followed by a chalk -mark, will be found to be slowly, but visibly, and constantly moving -round, like the hand of a watch dial; and the least consideration will -show that this ought to be the case, and will excite astonishment that -so simple a consequence as this is, of the most elementary laws of -Geometry and Mechanics, should so long have remained unobserved. * * -* The subject has created a great sensation in the mathematical and -physical circles of Paris. It is proposed to obtain permission from -the Government to carry on further observations by means of a pendulum -suspended from the dome of the Pantheon, length of suspension being -a desideratum in order to make the result visible on a larger scale, -and secure greater constancy and duration in the experiment. The time -required for the performance of a complete revolution of the plane of -vibration would be about 32 hours 8 minutes for the parallel of Paris; -30 hours 40 minutes for that of London; and at 30 degrees from the -equator exactly 48 hours. Certainly any one who should have proposed -not many weeks back to prove the rotation of the Earth upon which we -stand by means of direct experiment made upon its surface would have -run the risk, with the mob of gentlemen who write upon mechanics, of -being thought as mad as if he were to have proposed reviving Bishop -Wilkins’s notable plan for going to the North American colonies in a -few hours, by rising in a balloon from the Earth and gently floating -in the air until the Earth, in its diurnal rotation, have turned the -desired quarter towards the suspended æronaut, whereupon as gently to -descend; so necessary and wholesome is it occasionally to reconsider -the apparently simplest and best established conclusions of science.” - -The following is from the _Scotsman_, which has always been -distinguished for the accuracy of its scientific papers. The article -bears the initials “C. M.,” which will at once be recognised as those -of Mr. Charles Maclaren, for many years the accomplished editor of -that journal:--“The beautiful experiment contrived by M. Foucault -to demonstrate the rotation of the globe, has deservedly excited -universal interest. * * * A desire has always been felt that some -method could be devised of rendering this rotation palpable to the -senses. Even the illustrious Laplace participated in this feeling -and has left it on record. ‘Although,’ he says, ‘the rotation of the -Earth is now established with all the certainty which the physical -sciences require, still a direct proof of that phenomenon ought to -interest both geometricians and astronomers.’ No man ever knew the -laws of the planetary motions better than Laplace, and before penning -such a sentence, it is probable that he had turned the subject in his -mind, and without discovering any process by which the object could be -attained; but it does not follow that if he had applied the whole force -of his genius to the task, he would not have succeeded. Be this as it -may, here we have the problem solved by a man not probably possessing -a tithe of his science or talent; and, what is very remarkable, after -the discovery was made, it was found to be legitimately deducible -from mathematical principles. * * * In this, as in many other cases, -the _fact_ comes first, and takes us by surprise; after which we find -that we had long been in possession of the principles from which it -flowed, and that, with the clue we had in our hands, theory should -have revealed the fact to us long before. M. Foucault’s communication -describing his experiments is in the _Comptes Rendus_ of the Academy -of Sciences, for 3rd February, 1851. His first experiments were made -with a pendulum only two metres (6ft. 6¹⁄₄in.) in length, consisting -of a steel wire from ⁶⁄₁₀ths to ¹¹⁄₁₀ths of a millimetre in diameter -(the millimetre is the 25th part of an inch); to the lower end of -which was attached a polished brass ball, weighing 5 kilogrammes, or -11 English pounds. * * * A metallic point projecting below the ball, -and so directed as if it formed a continuation of the suspension wire, -served as an index to mark the change of position more precisely. The -pendulum hung from a steel plate in such a manner as to move freely in -any vertical plane. To start the oscillatory movement without giving -the ball any bias, it was drawn to one side with a cord, which held -the ball by a loop; the cord was then burned, after which the loop -fell off, and the vibrations (generally limited to an arc of 15 or 20 -degrees) commenced. In one minute the ball had sensibly deviated from -the original plane of vibration towards the observer’s left. Afterwards -he experimented at the Observatory with a pendulum 11 metres (30 feet) -long, and latterly at the Pantheon with one still longer. The advantage -of a large pendulum, as compared with a small one, is, that a longer -time elapses before it comes to a state of rest; for machinery cannot -be employed here, as in a clock, to continue the motion. The pendulum -is suspended over the centre of a circular table, whose circumference -is divided into degrees and minutes. The vibrations are begun in the -manner above described, and in a short time it is observed that the -pendulum, instead of returning to the same point of the circle from -which it started, has shifted to the left. If narrowly observed, the -change in the plane of vibration (says M. Foucault) is perceptible -in one minute, and in half an hour, “Il saute aux yeux,” it is quite -palpable. At Paris the change exceeds 11 degrees in an hour. Thus, -supposing the oscillations to commence in a plane directed south and -north, in two hours the oscillations will point SSW. and NNE.; in four -hours they will point SW. and NE.; and in eight hours the oscillations -will point due east and west, or at right angles to their original -direction. To a spectator the change seems to be in the pendulum, -which, without any visible cause, has shifted round a quarter of a -circle; but the real change is in the table, which, resting on the -Earth, and accompanying it in its rotation, has performed a fourth (and -something more) of its diurnal revolution. - -No one anticipated such a result; and the experiment has been received -by some with incredulity, by all with wonderment; and one source of the -incredulity arises from the difficulty of conceiving how, amidst the -ten thousand experiments of which the pendulum has been the subject, so -remarkable a fact could have escaped notice so long. Fully admitting -that these experiments have generally been conducted with pendulums -which had little freedom of motion horizontally, we still think odd -that somebody did not stumble upon the curious fact. - -Though all the parts of the Earth complete their revolution in the -same space of time, it is found that the rate of horizontal motion -in Foucault’s pendulum varies with the latitude of the place where -the experiment is made. At the pole, the pendulum would pass over 15 -degrees in an hour, like the Earth itself, and complete its circuit in -24 hours. At Edinburgh, the pendulum would pass over 12¹⁄₂ degrees in -an hour, and would complete its revolution in 29 hours 7 minutes. At -Paris, the rate of motion is 11 degrees and 20 minutes per hour, and -the revolution should be completed in 32 hours. - -[Illustration: FIG. 31.] - -Let the above figure represent a portion of the Earth’s surface near -the north pole N. Suppose the pendulum to be set in motion at _m_, so -as to vibrate in the direction _x y_, which coincides with that of the -meridian _m_ N or _m r_. The Earth in the meantime is pursuing its -easterly course, and the meridian line _m_ N has come in six hours into -the position _n_ N. It has been hitherto supposed that the pendulum -would now vibrate in the new direction _n_ N, assumed by the meridian, -but thanks to M. Foucault, we now know that this is a mistake. The -pendulum will vibrate in a plane _x n y_, parallel to its original -plane at _m_, as will be manifest if the plane of vibration points to -some object in absolute space, such as a star. While the meridian line -_m_ N will in the course of 24 hours range round the whole circle of -the heavens, and point successively in the direction _n_ N, _o_ N, _p_ -N, _r_ N, _s_ N, _t_ N, and _u_ N, the pendulum’s plane of vibration -_x y_, whether at _m_, at _n_, at _o_, at _p_, at _r_, at _s_, at _t_, -or at _u_, will always be parallel to itself, pointing invariably to -the same star, and were a circular table placed under the pendulum, its -plane of vibration, while really stationary, would appear to perform a -complete revolution. - -This stationary position of the plane of vibration at the pole seems -to present little difficulty. We impress a peculiar motion on the -pendulum in setting it a going. The Earth is at the same time carrying -the pendulum eastward, but _at the pole_ the one motion will not -interfere with the other. The only action of the Earth on the pendulum -there is that of attracting it towards its own (the Earth’s) centre. -But this attraction is exactly in the plane of vibration and merely -tends to continue the oscillatory motion without disturbing it. It -is otherwise if the experiment is made at some other point, say 20 -degrees distant from the pole. Supposing the vibrations to commence in -the plane of the meridian, then as the tendency of the pendulum is to -continue its vibrations in planes absolutely parallel to the original -plane, it will be seen, if we trace both motions, that, while it is -carried eastward with the Earth along a parallel of latitude, this -tendency will operate to draw the plane of vibration away from a ‘great -circle’ into a ‘small circle’ (that is, from a circle dividing the -globe into two _equal_ parts, into one dividing it into two _unequal_ -parts). But the pendulum _must_ necessarily move in a ‘great circle,’ -and hence to counteract its tendency to deviate into a ‘small circle,’ -a correctory movement is constantly going on, to which the lengthening -of the period necessary to complete a revolution must be ascribed. At -Edinburgh the period is about 29 hours, at Paris 32, at Cairo 48, at -Calcutta 63. At the Equator, the period stretches out to infinity. M. -Foucault’s rule is, that the angular space passed over by the pendulum -at any latitude in a given time, is equal to the angular motion of -the Earth in the period, multiplied by the sine of the latitude. -The angular motion of the Earth is 15 degrees per hour; and at the -latitude of 30, for example, the sine being to radius as 500 to 1000, -the angular motion of the pendulum will consequently be 7¹⁄₂ degrees per -hour. It is, therefore, easily found. It follows that the motions of -the pendulum may be employed in a rough way to indicate the latitude of -a place.”[37] - - [37] Supplement of the _Manchester Examiner_, of May 24, 1851. - -Notwithstanding the apparent certainty of these pendulum experiments, -and the supposed exactitude of the conclusions deducible therefrom, -many of the same school of philosophy differed with each other, -remained dissatisfied, and raised very serious objections both to the -value of the experiments themselves, and to the supposed proof which -they furnished of the Earth’s rotation. One writer in the _Times_ -newspaper of the period, who signs himself “B. A. C.,” says, “I have -read the accounts of the Parisian experiment as they have appeared in -many of our papers, and must confess that I still remain unconvinced -of the reality of the phenomenon. It appears to me that, except at -the pole where the point of suspension is immovable, no result can -be obtained. In other cases the shifting of the direction of passage -through the lowest point that takes place during an excursion of -the pendulum, from that point in one direction and its return to it -again, will be exactly compensated by the corresponding shifting in -the contrary direction during the pendulum’s excursion on the opposite -side. Take a particular case. Suppose the pendulum in any latitude to -be set oscillating in the meridian plane, and to be started from the -vertical towards the south. It is obvious that the wire by which it -is suspended _does not continue to describe a plane_, but a species -of conoidal surface; that when the pendulum has reached its extreme -point its direction is to the south-west, and that as the tangent plane -to the described surface through the point of suspension necessarily -contains the normal to the Earth at the same point, the pendulum on -its return passes through the same point in the direction north-east. -Now, starting again from this point, we have exactly the circumstances -of the last case, the primary plane being shifted slightly out of the -meridian; when, therefore, the pendulum has reached its extreme point -of excursion the direction of the wire is to the west of this plane, -and when it returns to the vertical the direction of passage through -the lowest point is as much to the west of this plane as it was in the -former case to the west of the meridian plane; but since it is now -moving from north to south instead of from south to north, as in the -former case, its former deviation receives complete compensation, and -the primary plane returns again to the meridian, when the whole process -recurs.” - -In the _Liverpool Mercury_ of May 23, 1851, the following letter -appeared:--“The supposed manifestation of the Rotation of the -Earth.--The French, English, and European continental journals have -given publicity to an experiment made in Paris with a pendulum; which -experiment is said to have had the same results when made elsewhere. -To the facts set forth no contradiction has been given, and it is -therefore to be hoped that they are true. The correctness of the -inferences drawn from the facts is another matter. The first position -of these theorists is, that in a complete vacuum beyond the sphere of -the Earth’s atmosphere, a pendulum will continue to oscillate in one -and the same original plane. On that supposition their whole theory is -founded. In making this supposition the fact is overlooked that there -_is no vibratory motion_ unless through atmospheric resistance, or by -force opposing impulse. Perpetual progress in rectilinear motion may be -imagined, as in the corpuscular theory of light; circular motion may -also be found in the planetary systems; and parabolic and hyperbolic -motions in those of comets; but vibration is artificial and of limited -duration. No body in nature returns the same road it went, unless -artificially constrained to do so. The supposition of a permanent -vibratory motion such as is presumed in the theory advanced, is -_unfounded in fact_, and absurd in idea; and the whole affair of this -proclaimed discovery falls to the ground. It is what the French call a -‘mystification’--anglice a ‘humbug.’ Liverpool, 22nd May, 1851.” - - “T.” - -Another writer declared that he and others had made many experiments -and had discovered that the plane of vibration had nothing whatever -to do with the meridian longitude nor with the Earth’s motion, but -followed the plane of the magnetic meridian. - -“A scientific gentleman in Dundee recently tried the pendulum -experiment, and he says--‘that the pendulum is capable of showing the -Earth’s motion I regard as a _gross delusion_; but that it tends to the -_magnetic meridian_ I have found to be a fact.’”[38] - - [38] _Liverpool Journal_, May 17, 1851. - -In many cases the experiments have not shown a change at all in the -plane of oscillation of the pendulum; in others the alteration in -the plane of vibration has been in the _wrong direction_; and very -often the _rate of variation_ has been altogether different to that -which theory indicated. The following is a case in illustration:--“On -Wednesday evening the Rev. H. H. Jones, F.R.A.S., exhibited the -apparatus of Foucault to illustrate the diurnal rotation of the Earth, -in the Library Hall of the Manchester Athenæum. The preparations -were simple. A circle of chalk was drawn in the centre of the floor, -immediately under the arched skylight. The circle was exactly 360 -inches in its circumference, every inch being intended to represent -one degree. According to a calculation Mr. Jones had made, and which -he produced at the Philosophical Society six weeks ago, the plane of -oscillation of the pendulum would, at Manchester, diverge about one -degree in five minutes, or perhaps a very little less. He therefore -drew this circle exactly 360 inches round, and marked the inches on -its circumference. The pendulum was hung from the skylight immediately -over the centre of the circle, the point of suspension being 25 feet -high. At that length of wire, it should require 2¹⁄₂ seconds to make -each oscillation across the circle. The brazen ball, which at the end -of a fine wire constituted the pendulum, was furnished with a point, -to enable the spectator to observe the more easily its course. A long -line was drawn through the diameter of the circle, due north and south, -and the pendulum started so as to swing exactly along this line; to the -westward of which, at intervals of three inches at the circumference, -two other lines were drawn, passing through the centre. According -to the theory, the pendulum should diverge from its original line -towards the west, at the rate of one inch or degree in five minutes. -This, however, Mr. Jones explained, was a perfection of accuracy only -attainable in a vacuum, and rarely could be approached where the -pendulum had to pass through an atmosphere subject to disturbances; -besides, it was difficult to avoid giving it some slight lateral bias -at starting. In order to obviate this as much as possible, the steel -wire was as fine as would bear the weight, ¹⁄₃₀th of an inch thick; -and the point of suspension was adjusted with delicate nicety. An iron -bolt was screwed into the frame-work of the skylight; into it a brass -nut was inserted--the wire passed through the nut (the hollow sides -of which were bell-shaped, in order to give it fair play), and at the -top the wire ended in a globular piece, there being also a fine screw -to keep it from slipping. * * * The pendulum was gently drawn up to -one side, at the southern end of the diametrical line, and attached -by a thread to something near. When it hung quite still the thread was -burnt asunder, and the pendulum began to oscillate to and fro across -the circle. * * * Before it had been going on quite seven minutes, -it had reached nearly the third degree towards the west, whereas it -_ought_ to have occupied a quarter of an hour in getting thus far from -its starting line, even making no allowance for the resistance of the -atmosphere.”[39] - - [39] “Manchester Examiner” (Supplement), May 24, 1851. - -Besides the irregularities so often observed in the time and direction -of the pendulum vibrations, and which are quite sufficient to render -them worthless as evidence of the Earth’s motion, the use which -the Newtonian astronomers made of the general fact that the plane -of oscillation is variable, was most unfair and illogical. It was -proclaimed to the world as a visible proof of the Earth’s diurnal -motion; but the motion was _assumed to exist_, and then employed to -explain the cause of the fact which was first called a proof of the -thing assumed! A greater violation of the laws of investigation was -never perpetrated! The whole subject as developed and applied by the -theoretical philosophers is to the fullest degree unreasonable and -absurd--not a “jot or tittle” better than the reasoning contained -in the following letter:--“Sir,--Allow me to call your serious and -polite attention to the extraordinary phenomenon, demonstrating the -rotation of the Earth, which I at this present moment experience, and -you yourself or anybody else, I have not the slightest doubt, would -be satisfied of, under similar circumstances. Some sceptical and -obstinate individuals may doubt that the Earth’s motion is visible, -but I say from personal observation its a positive fact. I don’t -care about latitude or longitude, or a vibratory pendulum revolving -round the sine of a tangent on a spherical surface, nor axes, nor -apsides, nor anything of the sort. That is all rubbish. All I know -is, I see the ceiling of this coffee-room going round. I perceive -this distinctly with the naked eye--only my sight has been sharpened -by a slight stimulant. I write after my sixth go of brandy-and-water, -whereof witness my hand,”--“Swiggins”--_Goose and Gridiron, May 5, -1851._--“P.S. Why do two waiters come when I only call one?”[40] - - [40] “Punch,” May 10, 1851. - -The whole matter as handled by the astronomical theorists is fully -deserving of the ridicule implied in the above quotation from _Punch_; -but because great ingenuity has been shewn, and much thought and -devotion manifested in connection with it, and the general public -thereby greatly deceived, it is necessary that the subject should be -fairly and seriously examined. What are the facts? - -First.--When a pendulum, constructed according to the plan of M. -Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often -variable--_not always_. The variation when it _does_ occur, is _not -uniform_--is not always the same in the same place; nor always the -same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction. It cannot -therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant cannot be -used in favour of or against any given proposition. It therefore _is -not evidence and proves nothing_! - -Secondly.--If the plane of vibration _is_ observed to change, where -is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the -Earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the -conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the pendulum, -and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth? What logical right or -necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other? - -Thirdly.--Why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of -suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its -possible influence upon the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or -was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, -ignored that a “ball-and-socket” joint is one which facilitates -_circular_ motion more readily than any other? and that a pendulum so -suspended (as was M. Foucault’s), could not, after passing over one -arc of vibration, return through the same arc without there being many -chances to one that its globular point of suspension would slightly -turn or twist in its bed, and therefore give to the return or backward -oscillation a slight change of direction? Let the _immediate cause_ of -the pendulum’s liability to change its plane of vibration be traced; -and it will be found not to have the slightest connection with the -motion or non-motion of the surface over which it vibrates. - -At a recent meeting of the French Academy of sciences, “M. Dehaut sent -in a note, stating that M. Foucault (whose experiments on the pendulum -effected a few years ago at the Pantheon, are of European notoriety) is -not the first discoverer of the fact that the plane of oscillation of -the free pendulum is invariable; but that the honour of the discovery -is due to Poinsinet de Sivry, who, in 1782, stated, in a note to his -translation of ‘Pliny,’ that a mariner’s compass might be constructed -without a magnet, by making a pendulum and setting it in motion in a -given direction; because, provided the motion were continually kept -up, the pendulum would continue to oscillate in the same direction, no -matter by how many points, or how often the ship might happen to change -her course.” - - - - -SECTION 13. - -PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA. - - -It has been shown (at pages 25 to 34) that the law of perspective, as -commonly taught in our Schools of Art, is fallacious and contrary to -everything seen in nature. If an object be held up in the air, and -gradually carried away from an observer who maintains his position, it -is true that all its parts will converge to one and the same point; but -if the same object be placed upon the ground and similarly moved away -from a fixed observer, the same predicate is false. In the first case -the _centre_ of the object is the _datum_ to which every point of the -exterior converges; but in the second case the _ground_ becomes the -_datum_, in and towards which every part of the object converges in -succession, beginning with the lowest, or that nearest to it. - -Instances:--A man with light trousers and black boots walking along a -level path, will appear at a certain distance as though the boots had -been removed, and the trousers brought in contact with the ground. - -A young girl, with short garments terminating ten or twelve inches -above the feet, will, in walking forward, appear to sink towards the -Earth, the space between which and the bottom of the clothes will -appear to gradually diminish, and in the distance of half-a-mile -the limbs, which were first seen for ten or twelve inches, will be -invisible--the bottom of the garment will seem to touch the ground. - -A small dog running along will appear to gradually shorten by the legs, -which, in less than half a mile, will be invisible, and the body appear -to glide upon the earth. - -Horses and cattle moving away from a given point will seem to have lost -their hoofs, and to be walking upon the outer bones of the limbs. - -Carriages similarly receding will seem to lose that portion of the -rim of the wheels which touches the Earth; the axles will seem to get -lower; and at the distance of a few miles, the body will appear to -drag along in contact with the ground. This is very remarkable in the -case of a railway carriage when moving away upon a straight and level -portion of line several miles in length. These instances, which are -but a few of what might be quoted, will be sufficient to prove, beyond -the power of doubt or the necessity for controversy, that upon a plane -or horizontal surface, the _lowest part_ of bodies receding from a -given point of observation will disappear _before the higher_. This is -precisely what is observed in the case of a ship at sea, when outward -bound--the _lowest_ part--the hull, disappearing before the higher -parts--the sails and mast head. Abstractedly, when the lowest part of -a receding object thus disappears by entering the “vanishing point,” -it could be seen again to any and every extent by a telescope, if the -power were sufficient to magnify at the distance observed. This is to -a great extent practicable upon smooth horizontal surfaces, as upon -frozen lakes or canals; and upon long straight lines of railway. But -the power of restoring such objects is greatly modified and diminished -where the surface is undulating or otherwise moveable, as in large and -level meadows, and pasture lands generally; in the vast prairies and -grassy plains of America; and especially so upon the ocean, where the -surface is always more or less in an undulating condition. In Holland -and other level countries, persons have been seen in winter, skating -upon the ice, at distances varying from ten to twenty miles. On some -of the straight and “level” lines of railway which cross the prairies -of America, the trains have been observed for more than twenty miles; -but upon the sea the conditions are altered, and the hull of a receding -vessel can only be seen for a few miles, and this will depend very -greatly--the altitude of the observer being the same, upon the state of -the water. When the surface is calm, the hull may be seen much farther -than when it is rough and stormy; but under ordinary circumstances, -when to the naked eye the hull has just become invisible, or is -doubtfully visible, it may be seen again distinctly by the aid of a -powerful telescope. Although abstractedly or mathematically there -should be no limit to this power of restoring by a telescope a lost -object upon a smooth horizontal surface, upon the sea this limit is -soon observed; the water being variable in its degree of agitation, the -limit of sight over its surface is equally variable, as shown by the -following experiments:--In May, 1864, on several occasions when the -water was unusually calm, from the landing stairs of the Victoria pier -at Portsmouth, and from an elevation of 2 ft. 8 in. above the water, -the greater part of the hull of the Nab Light-ship was, through a good -telescope, distinctly visible; but on other experiments being made, -when the water was less calm, no portion of it could be seen from the -same elevation, notwithstanding that the most powerful telescopes were -employed. At other times half the hull, and sometimes only the upper -part of the bulwarks, were visible. If the hull had been invisible -from the rotundity of the Earth, the following calculation will show -that it should at all times have been 24 feet below the horizon:--The -distance of the light-ship from the pier is 8 statute miles. The -elevation of the observer being 32 inches above the water, would -require 2 miles to be deducted as the distance of the supposed convex -horizon; for the square of 2 multiplied by 8 inches (the fall in the -first mile of the Earth’s curvation) equals 32 inches. This deducted -from the 8 miles, will leave 6 miles as the distance from the horizon -to the light ship. Hence 6² × 8 in. = 288 inches, or 24 feet. The top -of the bulwarks, it was said, rose about 10 ft. above the water line; -hence, deducting 10 from 24 feet, under all circumstances, even had the -water been perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should -have been 14 feet below the summit of the arc of water, or beneath -the line of sight! This one fact is entirely fatal to the doctrine of -the Earth’s rotundity. But such facts have been observed in various -other places--the north-west light-ship in Liverpool Bay, and the -light vessels of many other channels near the southern, eastern, and -western shores of Great Britain. From the beach of Southsea Common, -near Portsmouth, the observer lying down near the water, above the -surface of which the eye was 2¹⁄₂ feet, and with a telescope looking -across Spithead to the quarantine ship lying in the “Roads,” between -Ryde and Cowes, in the Isle of Wight, a distance of 7 miles, the copper -sheathing of that vessel was distinctly seen, the depth of which was -about 2 feet. Making the usual calculation in accordance with the -doctrine of the Earth’s convexity, it will be seen that an arc of water -ought to have existed between the two points, the summit of which arc -should have been 16 feet above the copper sheathing of the vessel! - -From an elevation of 2¹⁄₂ feet above the water opposite the Royal Yacht -Club House, in West Cowes, Isle of Wight, the pile work and promenade -of the pier at Stake’s Bay, near Gosport, and nearly opposite Osborne -House, were easily distinguished through various telescopes: the -distance is 7 miles, the altitude of the promenade 10 feet, and the -usual calculation will show that this pier ought to have been many feet -below the horizon! - -It is a well-known fact that the light of the Eddystone lighthouse is -often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound; and sometimes, -when the sea is very calm, persons can see it distinctly when sitting -in ordinary rowing boats in that part of the Sound which will allow -the line of sight to pass between Drake’s Island and the western end -of the Breakwater. The distance is 14 statute miles. In a list of -lighthouses in a work called “The Lighthouses of the World,” by A. G. -Findlay, F.R.G.S., published in 1862, by Richard H. Lawrie, 53, Fleet -Street, London, it is said, at page 28:--“In the Tables the height of -the flame above the highest tide high water level is given, so that -it is the _minimum_ range of the light; to this elevation 10 feet is -added for the height of the deck of the ship above the sea. Besides -the increased distance to which low water will cause the light to be -seen, the effect of refraction will also sometimes increase their -range.” In the “Tables” above referred to, at page 36 the Eddystone -light is said to be visible 13 miles. But these 13 miles are nautical -measure; and as 3 nautical miles equal 3¹⁄₂ statute miles, the distance -at which the Eddystone light is visible is over 15 statute miles. -Notwithstanding that the Eddystone light is actually visible at a -distance of 15 statute miles, and admitted to be so both by the -Admiralty authorities and by calculation according to the doctrine -of rotundity, very often at the same distance, the lantern is not -visible at an elevation of 4 feet from the water; showing that the -law of perspective, previously referred to, is greatly influenced by -the state of the surface of the water over which the line of sight -is directed. A remarkable illustration of this influence is given in -the _Western Daily Mercury_, published in Plymouth, of October 25, -1864. Several discussions had previously taken place at the Plymouth -Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics’ Institute, on the true figure of -the Earth; subsequent to which a committee was formed for the purpose -of making experiments bearing on the question at issue. The names of -the gentlemen as given in the above-named journal were “Parallax” (the -author of this work), “Theta” (Mr. Henry, a teacher in Her Majesty’s -Dock-yard, Devonport), and Messrs. Osborne, Richards, Rickard, Mogg, -Evers, and Pearce, all of Plymouth. From the report published as above -stated, the following quotation is made:--Observation 6th: “_On the -beach, at 5 feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out -of sight_.” - -The matter may be summarized as follows:--At any time when the sea is -calm and the weather clear, the Light of the Eddystone, which is 89 -feet above the foundation on the rock, may be distinctly seen from an -elevation of 5 feet above the water level; according to the Admiralty -directions, it “may be seen 13 nautical (or 15 statute) miles,”[41] or -one mile still farther away than the position of the observers on the -above-named occasion; and yet _on that occasion_, and at a distance of -only 14 statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn -day, and a clear back ground existed, not only was the lantern, which -is 89 feet high, not visible, but the _top of the vane_, which is 100 -feet above the foundation was, as stated in the report, “_entirely out -of sight_.” - - [41] “Lighthouses of the World,” p. 36. - -[Illustration: FIG. 32.] - -That vessels and lighthouses are sometimes more distinctly seen than -at others; and that the lower parts of such objects are sooner lost -sight of when the sea is rough than when it is calm, are items in the -experience of seafaring people as common as their knowledge of the -changes in the weather; and prominence is only given here to the above -case because it was verified by persons of different opinions upon the -subject of the Earth’s form, and in the presence of several hundreds -of the most learned and respectable inhabitants of Plymouth and the -neighbourhood. The conclusion which such observations necessitate and -force upon us is, that the law of perspective which is everywhere -visible on land, is _modified_ when observed in connection with objects -upon or near the sea. But _how_ modified? If the water of the ocean -were frozen and at perfect rest, any object upon its surface would be -seen as far as telescopic or magnifying power could be brought to bear -upon it. But because this is not the case--because the water is always -more or less in motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation, -the swells and waves, into which the surface is broken operate to -prevent the line of sight from passing parallel to the horizontal -surface of the water. It has been shown at pages 16 to 20, and also -at 25 to 33, that the surface of the Earth and Sea appears to rise up -to the level, or altitude of the eye; and that at a certain distance -the line of sight and the surface which is parallel to it appear to -converge to a “vanishing point;” which point is “the horizon.” If this -horizon, or vanishing point, were formed by the apparent junction of -two _perfectly stationary_ parallel lines, it could be penetrated by a -telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance; but because -upon the sea the surface of the water is _not stationary_, the line of -sight at the vanishing point becomes angular instead of parallel, and -telescopic power is of little avail in restoring objects beyond this -point. The following diagram will render this clear:--The horizontal -line C D E and the line of sight A B are parallel to each other, and -appear to meet at the vanishing point B. But at and about this point -the line A B is intercepted by the undulating, or fluctuating surface -of the water; the degree of which is variable, being sometimes very -great and at others inconsiderable, and having to pass over the crest -of the waves, as at H, is obliged to become A H, instead of A B, and -will therefore fall upon a ship, lighthouse, or other object at the -point S, or higher or lower as such objects are more or less beyond the -point H. - -It is worthy of note that the waves at the point H, whatever their -real magnitude may be, are _magnified_ and rendered more obstructive -by the very instrument--the telescope--which is employed to make the -objects beyond more plainly visible: and thus the phenomenon is often -very strikingly observed--that while a powerful telescope will render -the sails and rigging of a ship when beyond the point H, or the optical -horizon, so distinct that the very ropes are easily distinguished, not -the slightest portion of the hull can be seen. The “crested waters” -form a barrier to the horizontal line-of-sight, as substantial as would -the summit of an intervening rock or island. - -In the report which appeared in the _Western Daily Mercury_, of Oct. -25, 1864, the following observations were also recorded:--“On the -sea-front of the Camera house, and at an elevation of 110 feet from -the mean level of the sea, a plane mirror was fixed, by the aid of a -plumb-line, in a _true vertical position_. In this mirror the distant -horizon was distinctly visible on a level with the eye of the observer. -This was the simple fact, as observed by the several members of the -committee which had been appointed. But some of the observers remarked -that the line of the horizon in the mirror rose and fell with the -eye, as also did every thing else which was reflected, and that this -ought to be recorded as an _addendum_--granted. The surface of the sea -appeared to regularly ascend from the base of the Hoe to the distant -horizon. The horizon from the extreme east to the west, as far as the -eye could see, was parallel to a horizontal line.” - -The following version was recorded in the same journal, of the same -date, and was furnished by one of the committee who had manifested a -very marked aversion to the doctrine that the surface of all water is -horizontal:--“A vertical looking-glass was suspended from the Camera -and the horizon seen in it, as well as various other objects reflected, -rising and falling with the eye. The water was seen in the glass to -ascend from the base of the Hoe to the horizon. The horizon appeared -parallel to a horizontal line.” - -It will be observed that the two reports are substantially the same, -and very strongly corroborate the remarks made at pages 15, 16, and -17 of this work. Indeed no other report could have been given without -the author’s becoming subject to the charge of glaring, obstinate, and -wilful misrepresentation. What then has again been demonstrated? That -the surface of all water _is horizontal_, and that, therefore, the -Earth cannot possibly be anything other than a Plane. All appearances -to the contrary have been shown to be purely optical and adventitious. - -[Illustration: FIG. 33.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 34.] - -Another proof that the surface of all water is horizontal and that -therefore the Earth cannot be a globe is furnished by the following -experiment, which was made in May, 1864, on the new pier at Southsea, -near Portsmouth:--A telescope was fixed upon a stand and directed -across the water at Spithead to the pier head at Ryde, in the Isle of -Wight, as shown in the subjoined diagram. The line of sight crossed -a certain part of the funnel of one of the regular steamers trading -between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight; and it was observed to cut -or fall upon the same part during the whole of the passage to Ryde -Pier, thus proving that the water between the two piers is horizontal, -because it was parallel to the line of sight from the telescope fixed -at Southsea. If the Earth were a globe the channel between Ryde and -Southsea would be an arc of a circle, and as the distance across is -4¹⁄₂ statute miles the centre of the arc would be 40 inches higher -than the two sides; and the steamer would have ascended an inclined -plane for 2¹⁄₄ miles, or to the centre of the channel, and afterwards -descended for the same distance towards Ryde. This ascent and descent -would have been marked by the line of sight falling 40 inches nearer -to the deck of the steamer when on the centre of the arc of water, as -represented in the following diagram; but as the line of sight did -not cut the steamer lower down when in the centre of the channel, and -no such ascent and descent was observed, it follows necessarily that -the surface of the water between Southsea and the Isle of Wight is -_not convex_, and therefore the Earth as a whole is _not a globe_. The -evidence against the doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity is so clear -and perfect, and so completely fulfils the conditions required in -special and independent investigations, that it is impossible for -any person who can put aside the bias of previous education to avoid -the opposite conclusion that the _Earth is a plane_. This conclusion -is greatly confirmed by the experience of mariners in regard to -certain lighthouses. Where the light is fixed and very brilliant it -can be seen at a distance, which the present doctrine of the Earth’s -rotundity would render altogether impossible. For instance, at page 35 -of “Lighthouses of the World,” the Ryde Pier Light, erected in 1852, -is described as a bright fixed light, 21 feet above high water, and -visible from an altitude of 10 feet at the distance of 12 nautical or -14 statute miles. The altitude of 10 feet would place the horizon at -the distance of 4 statute miles from the observer. The square of the -remaining 10 statute miles multiplied by 8 inches will give a fall or -curvature downwards from the horizon of 66 feet. Deduct from this 21 -feet, the altitude of the light, and we have 45 feet as the amount -which the light ought to be _below the horizon_! - -By the same authority, at page 39, the Bidston Hill Lighthouse, near -Liverpool, is 228 feet above high water, one bright fixed light, -visible 23 nautical or very nearly 27 statute miles. Deducting 4 miles -for the height of the observer, squaring the remaining 23 miles and -multiplying that product by 8 inches we have a downward curvature of -352 feet; from this deduct the altitude of the light, 228 feet, and -there remains 124 feet as the distance which the light should be _below -the horizon_! - -Again, at page 40:--“The lower light on the ‘Calf of Man’ is 282 -feet above high water, and is visible 23 nautical miles.” The usual -calculation will show that it ought to be 70 feet _below the horizon_! - -At page 41 the Cromer light is described as having an altitude of 274 -feet above high water, and is visible 23 nautical miles, whereas it -ought to be at that distance 78 feet _below the horizon_! - -At page 9 it is said:--“The coal fire (which was once used) on -the Spurn Point Lighthouse, at the mouth of the Humber, which was -constructed on a good principle for burning, has been seen 30 miles -off.” If the miles here given are nautical measure they would be equal -to 35 statute miles. Deducting 4 miles as the usual amount for the -distance of the horizon, there will remain 31 miles, which squared and -multiplied by 8 inches will give 640 feet as the declination of the -water from the horizon to the base of the Lighthouse, the altitude of -which is given at page 42 as 93 feet above high water. This amount -deducted from the above 640 feet will leave 547 feet as the distance -which the Spurn Light ought to have been _below the horizon_! - -The two High Whitby Lights are 240 feet above high water (see page 42), -and are visible 23 nautical miles at sea. The proper calculation will -be 102 feet _below the horizon_! - -At page 43, it is said that the Lower Farne Island Light is visible for -12 nautical or 14 statute miles, and the height above high water is 45 -feet. The usual calculation will show that this light ought to be 67 -feet _below the horizon_! - -The Hekkengen Light, on the west coast of Norway (see page 54), is 66 -feet above high water, and visible 16 statute miles. It ought to be -sunk beneath the horizon 30 feet! - -The Trondhjem Light (see p. 55), on the Ringholm Rock, west coast of -Norway, is 51 feet high, and is visible 16 statute miles; but ought to -be 45 feet below the horizon! - -The Rondö Light, also on the west coast of Norway (see p. 55), is 161 -feet high, and is visible for 25 statute miles; the proper calculation -will prove that it ought to be above 130 feet below the horizon! - -The Egerö Light, on west point of Island, south coast of Norway (see -p. 56), and which is fitted up with the first order of the dioptric -lights, is visible for 28 statute miles, and the altitude above high -water is 154 feet; making the usual calculation we find this light -ought to be depressed, or sunk, below the horizon 230 feet! - -The Dunkerque Light, on the north coast of France (see p. 71), is 194 -feet high, and visible 28 statute miles. The ordinary calculation will -show that it ought to be 190 feet below the horizon! - -The Goulfar Bay Light, on the west coast of France, is said at page 77, -to be visible 31 statute miles, and to have an altitude at high water -of 276 feet, at the distance given it ought to be 210 feet below the -horizon! - -At page 78, the Cordonan Light, on the River Gironde, west coast of -France, is given as being visible 31 statute miles, and its altitude -207 feet, which would give its depression below the horizon as nearly -280 feet! - -The Light at Madras (p. 104), on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high, and -visible 28 statute miles, whereas at that distance it ought to be -beneath the horizon above 250 feet! - -The Port Nicholson Light, in New Zealand, erected in 1859 (p. 110), is -visible 35 statute miles, the altitude is 420 feet above high water, -and ought, if the water is convex, to be 220 feet below the horizon! - -The Light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet above high -water, and is visible 35 statute miles (p. 111), this will give on -calculation for the Earth’s rotundity, 491 feet that the Light should -be below the horizon! - -Many other cases could be given from the same work, shewing that the -practical observations of mariners, engineers, and surveyors, entirely -ignore the doctrine that the Earth is a globe. The following cases -taken from miscellaneous sources will be interesting as bearing upon -and leading to the same conclusion. In the _Illustrated London News_ of -Oct. 20, 1849, an engraving is given of a new Lighthouse erected on the -Irish coast, The accompanying descriptive matter contains the following -sentence:--“Ballycotton Island rises 170 feet above the level of the -sea; the height of the Lighthouse is 60 feet including the Lantern; -giving the light an elevation of 230 feet, which is visible upwards of -35 miles to sea.” If the 35 miles are nautical measure the distance in -statute measure would be over 40 miles; and allowing the usual distance -for the horizon, there would be 36 miles from thence to the Lighthouse. -The square of 36 multiplied by 8 inches amounts to 864 feet; deduct the -total altitude of the Lantern, 230 feet, and the remainder, 634 feet, -is the distance which the Light of Ballycotton ought to be below the -horizon! - -In the _Times_ newspaper of Monday, Oct. 16, 1854, in an account of her -Majesty’s visit to Great Grimsby from Hull, the following paragraph -occurs:--“Their attention was first naturally directed to a gigantic -tower which rises from the centre pier to the height of 300 feet, and -can be seen 60 miles out at sea.” The 60 miles if nautical, and this -is always understood when referring to distances at sea, would make -70 statute miles, to which the fall of 8 inches belongs, and as all -observations at sea are considered to be made at an elevation of 10 -feet above the water, for which four miles must be deducted from the -whole distance, 66 statute miles will remain, the square of which -multiplied by 8 inches, gives a declination towards the tower of -2,904 feet; deducting from this the altitude of the tower, 300 feet, -we obtain the startling conclusion that the tower should be at the -distance at which it is visible, (60 nautical miles,) more than 2,600 -feet _below the horizon_! - -The only modification which can be made or allowed in the preceding -calculations is that for refraction, which is considered by surveyors -generally to amount to about ¹⁄₁₂th of the altitude of the object -observed. If we make this allowance it will reduce the various -quotients by ¹⁄₁₂th, which is so little that the whole will be -substantially the same. Take the last quotation as an instance--2,600 -feet divided by 12 gives 206, which deducted from 2,600 leaves 2,384 as -the corrected amount for refraction. - - - - -SECTION 14. - -GENERAL SUMMARY--APPLICATION--_CUI BONO?_ - - -In the preceding sections it has been shown that the Copernican, or -Newtonian theory of Astronomy is “an absurd composition of truth and -error;” and, as admitted by its founder, “not necessarily true or -even probable,” and that instead of its being a general conclusion -derived from known and admitted facts, it is a heterogeneous compound -of assumed premises, isolated truths, and variable appearances in -nature. Its advocates are challenged to show a single instance wherein -a phenomenon is explained, a calculation made, or a conclusion -advanced without the aid of an avowed or implied assumption! The -very construction of a theory at all, and especially such as the -Copernican, is a complete violation of that natural and legitimate mode -of investigation to which the term _zetetic_ has been applied. The -doctrine of the universality of gravitation is an assumption, made only -in accordance with that “pride and ambition which has led philosophers -to think it beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a -complete and finished system of nature.” It was said, in effect, by -Newton, and has ever since been insisted upon by his disciples--“Allow -us, without proof, the existence of two universal forces--centrifugal -and centripetal, or attraction and repulsion, and we will construct -a system which shall explain all the leading mysteries of nature. An -apple falling from a tree, or a stone rolling downwards, and a pail of -water tied to a string set in rapid motion were assumed to be types of -the relations existing among all the bodies in the universe. The moon -was assumed to have a tendency to fall towards the Earth, and the Earth -and Moon together towards the Sun. The same relation was assumed to -exist between all the smaller and larger luminaries in the firmament; -and it soon became necessary to extend this assumption to infinity. The -universe was parcelled out into systems--co-existent and illimitable. -Suns, Planets, Satellites, and Comets were assumed to exist, infinite -in number and boundless in extent; and to enable the theorists to -explain the alternating and constantly recurring phenomena which -were everywhere observable, these numberless and for-ever-extending -objects were assumed to be spheres. The Earth we inhabit was called a -_planet_; and because it was thought to be reasonable that the luminous -objects in the firmament which were called _planets_ were _spherical_ -and had _motion_, so it was only reasonable to suppose that as the -Earth was a planet it must also be spherical and have motion--_ergo_, -the Earth is a globe, and moves upon axes and in an orbit round the -Sun! And as the Earth is a globe, and is inhabited, so again it is only -reasonable to conclude that the planets are worlds like the Earth, -and are inhabited by sentient beings! What reasoning! Assumption upon -assumption, and the conclusion derived therefrom called a thing proved, -to be employed as a truth to substantiate the first assumption! Such a -“juggle and jumble” of fancies and falsehoods, extended and intensified -as it is in theoretical astronomy, is calculated to make the -unprejudiced inquirer revolt in horror from the terrible conjuration -which has been practised upon him; to sternly resolve to resist its -further progress; to endeavour to overthrow the entire edifice, and -to bury in its ruins the false honours which have been associated -with its fabricators, and which still attach to its devotees. For the -learning, the patience, the perseverance, and devotion for which they -have ever been examples, honour and applause need not be withheld; -but their false reasoning, the advantages they have taken of the -general ignorance of mankind in respect to astronomical subjects, and -the unfounded theories they have advanced and defended, cannot but be -regretted, and ought to be resisted. It has become a duty, paramount -and imperative, to meet them in open, avowed, and unyielding rebellion; -to declare that their unopposed reign of error and confusion is over; -and that henceforth, like a falling dynasty, they must shrink and -disappear, leaving the throne and the kingdom to those awakening -intellects whose numbers are constantly increasing, and whose march is -rapid and irresistible. The soldiers of truth and reason have drawn the -sword, and ere another generation has been educated, will have forced -the usurper to abdicate. The axe is lifted--it is falling, and in a -very few years will have “cut the cumberer down.” - -The Earth a Globe, and it is necessarily demanded that it has a diurnal -and an annual and various other motions; for a globular world without -motion would be useless--day and night, winter and summer, the half -year’s light and darkness at the “North Pole,” and other phenomena -could not be explained by the supposition of rotundity without the -assumption also of rapid and constant motion. Hence it is _assumed_ -that the Earth and Moon, and all the Planets and their Satellites -move in relation to each other, and that the whole move together in -different planes round the Sun. The Sun and its “system” of revolving -bodies are now assumed to have a general and all-inclusive motion, -in common with an endless series of other Suns and systems, around -some other and “central Sun” which has been assumed to be the true -axis and centre of the Universe! These assumed general motions -with the particular and peculiar motions which are assigned to the -various bodies in detail, together constitute a system so confused -and complicated that it is almost impossible and always difficult of -comprehension by the most active and devoted minds. The most simple -and direct experiments, however, may be shown to prove that the Earth -has no progressive motion whatever; and here again the advocates of -this interminable and entangling arrangement are challenged to produce -a single instance of so called proofs of these motions which does not -involve an assumption--often a glaring falsehood--but always a point -which is not, or cannot be demonstrated. - -The magnitudes, distances, velocities, and periodic times which these -assumed motions eliminate, are all glaringly fictitious, because -they are only such as a false theory creates a necessity for. It -is geometrically demonstrable that all the visible luminaries in -the firmament are within a distance of a few thousand miles, not -more than the space which stretches between the North Pole and the -Cape of Good Hope; and the principle of measurement--that of plane -triangulation--which demonstrates this important fact, is one which no -mathematician, demanding to be considered a master in the science, dare -for a moment deny. All these luminaries then, and the Sun itself, being -so near to us, cannot be other than very small as compared with the -Earth we inhabit. They are all in motion over the Earth, which is alone -immoveable, and therefore they cannot be anything more than secondary -and subservient structures, ministering to this fixed material world, -and to its inhabitants. This is a plain, simple, and in every respect -demonstrable philosophy, agreeing with the evidence of our senses, -borne out by every fairly instituted experiment, and never requiring -a violation of those principles of investigation which the human mind -has ever recognized, and depended upon in its every day life. The -modern, or Newtonian Astronomy, has none of these characteristics. The -whole system taken together constitutes a most monstrous absurdity. It -is false in its foundation; irregular, unfair, and illogical in its -details; and in its conclusions inconsistent and contradictory. Worse -than all, it is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of -which its advocates are, practically, supporters! By defending a system -which is directly opposite to that which is taught in connection with -all religions, they lead the more critical and daring intellects to -reject the scriptures altogether, to ignore the worship, and doubt and -deny the existence of a Supreme Ruler of the world. Many of the primest -minds are thus irreparably injured, robbed of those present pleasures, -and that cheering hope of the future which the earnest christian -devotee holds as of far greater value than all earthly wealth and -grandeur; or than the mastery of all the philosophical complications -which the human mind ever invented. - -The doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity and motion is now shown to be -unconditionally false; and therefore the scriptures which assert the -contrary, are, in their philosophical teachings at least, _literally -true_. In practical science therefore, atheism and denial of scriptural -authority have no foundation. If human theories are cast aside, and -the facts of nature, and legitimate reasoning alone depended upon, it -will be seen that religion and true philosophy are not antagonistic, -and that the hopes which both encourage may be fully relied upon. To -the religious mind this matter is most important, it is indeed no -less than a sacred question, for it renders complete the evidence -that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are true, and must have been -communicated to mankind by an anterior and supernal Being. For if after -so many ages of mental struggling, of speculation and trial, and change -and counterchange, we have at length discovered that all astronomical -theories are false, that the Earth is a plane, and motionless, and that -the various luminaries above it are lights only and not worlds; and -that these very doctrines have been taught and recorded in a work which -has been handed down to us from the earliest times; from a time, in -fact, when mankind could not have had sufficient experience to enable -them to criticise and doubt, much less to invent, it follows that -whoever dictated and caused such doctrines to be recorded and preserved -to all future generations, must have been superhuman, omniscient, and, -to the Earth and its inhabitants pre-existent. - -To the dogged Atheist, whose “mind is made up” not to enter into any -further investigation, and not to admit of possible error in his past -conclusions, this question is of no more account than it is to an Ox. -He who cares not to re-examine from time to time his state of mind, -and the result of his accumulated experience is in no single respect -better than the lowest animal in creation. He may see nothing higher, -more noble, more intelligent or beautiful than himself; and in this -his pride, conceit, and vanity find an incarnation. To such a creature -there is no God, for he is himself an equal with the highest being he -has ever recognised! Such Atheism exists to an alarming extent among -the philosophers of Europe and America; and it has been mainly fostered -by the astronomical and geological theories of the day. Besides which, -in consequence of the differences between the language of Scripture and -the teachings of modern Astronomy, there is to be found in the very -hearts of Christian and Jewish congregations a sort of “smouldering -scepticism;” kind of faint suspicion which causes great numbers to -manifest a cold and visible indifference to religious requirements. -It is this which has led thousands to desert the cause of earnest, -active Christianity, and which has forced the majority of those who -still remain in the ranks of religion to declare “that the Scriptures -were not intended to teach correctly other than moral and religious -doctrines; that the references so often made to the physical world, -and to natural phenomena generally, are given in language to suit -the prevailing notions and the ignorance of the people.” A Christian -philosopher who wrote almost a century ago in reference to remarks -similar to the above, says, “Why should we suspect that Moses, Joshua, -David, Solomon, and the later prophets and inspired writers have -counterfeited their sentiments concerning the order of the universe, -from pure complaisance, or being in any way obliged to dissemble with a -view to gratify the prepossessions of the populace? These eminent men -being kings, lawgivers, and generals themselves, or always privileged -with access to the courts of sovereign princes, besides the reverence -and awful dignity which the power of divination and working of miracles -procured to them, had great worldly and spiritual authority.... -They had often in charge to command, suspend, revert, and otherwise -interfere with the course and laws of nature, and were never daunted -to speak out the truth before the most mighty potentates on earth, -much less would they be overawed by the _vox populi_.” To say that -the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully, is in -substance to declare that God himself has stated, and commissioned -His prophets to teach things which are utterly false! Those Newtonian -philosophers who still hold that the sacred volume is the Word of God, -are thus placed in a fearful dilemma. How can the two systems, so -directly opposite in character, be reconciled? Oil and water alone will -not combine--mix them by violence as we may, they will again separate -when allowed to rest. Call oil oil, and water water, and acknowledge -them to be distinct in nature and value; but let no “hodge-podge” be -attempted, and passed off as a genuine compound of oil and water. -Call Scripture the Word of God--the Creator and Ruler of all things, -and the Fountain of all Truth; and call the Newtonian or Copernican -Astronomy the word and work of man, of man, too, in his vainest -mood--so vain and conceited as not to be content with the direct and -simple teachings of his Maker, but who must rise up in rebellion and -conjure into existence a fanciful complicated fabric, which being -insisted upon as true, creates and necessitates the dark and horrible -interrogatives--Is God a deceiver? Has He spoken direct and unequivocal -falsehood? Can we no longer indulge in the beautiful and consoling -thought that God’s justice, and love, and truth are unchanging and -reliable for ever? Let Christians--for Sceptics and Atheists may be -left out of the question--to whatever division of the Church they -belong, look at this matter calmly and earnestly. Let them determine -to uproot the deception which has led them to think that they can -altogether ignore the plainest astronomical teaching of Scripture, and -endorse a system to which it is in every sense opposed. The following -language is quoted as an instance of the manner in which the doctrine -of the Earth’s rotundity and the plurality of worlds interferes with -Scriptural teachings:--“The theory of original sin is confuted (by -our astronomical and geological knowledge), and I cannot permit the -belief, when I know that our world is but a mere speck, a perishable -atom in the vast space of creation, that God should just select this -little spot to descend upon and assume our form, and clothe Himself in -our flesh, to become visible to human eyes, to the tiny beings of this -comparatively insignificant world.... Thus millions of distant worlds, -with the beings allotted to them, were to be extirpated and destroyed -in consequence of the original sin of Adam. No sentiment of the human -mind can surely be more derogatory to the Divine attributes of the -Creator, nor more repugnant to the known economy of the celestial -bodies. For in the first place, who is to say, among the infinity -of worlds, whether Adam was the _only creature_ who was tempted by -Satan and fell, and by his fall involved all the other worlds in his -guilt.”[42] - - [42] Encyclopædia Londenensis, p. 457, vol. 2. - -The difficulty experienced by the author of the above remarks is -clearly one which can no longer exist, when it is seen that the -doctrine of a plurality of worlds is an impossibility. That it is an -impossibility is shown by the fact that the Sun, Moon, and Stars are -very small bodies, and very near to the earth; this fact is proved by -actual non-theoretical measurement; this measurement is made on the -principle of plane trigonometry: this principle of plane trigonometry -is adopted because the Earth is a Plane; and all the base lines -employed in the triangulation are horizontal. By the same practical -method of reasoning, all the difficulties which, upon geological and -astronomical grounds, have been raised to the literal teachings of the -scriptures, may be completely destroyed. Instances:--The scriptures -repeatedly declare that the Sun moves over the Earth--“His going forth -is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it.” -“He ariseth and goeth down, and hasteth to his place whence he arose.” -“The sun stood still in the midst of heaven.” “Great is the Earth, high -is the heaven, swift is the Sun in his course.” In the religious poems -of all ages the same fact is presented. Christians especially, of every -denomination, are familiar with, and often read and sing with delight -such poetry as the following:-- - - “My God who makes the Sun to know - His proper hour to rise, - And to give light to all below - Doth send him _round the skies_.” - - “When from the chambers of the east - His _morning race_ begins, - He never tires _nor stops to rest_, - But round the world he shines.” - - “God of the morning, at whose voice, - The cheerful sun makes haste to rise, - And, like a giant, doth rejoice, - To _run his journey through the skies_.” - - “He sends the sun _his circuit round_, - To cheer the fruits and warm the ground.” - - “How fair has the day been! - How bright was the Sun! - How lovely and joyful - The _course that he run_.” - -All the expressions of scripture are consistent with the fact of the -Sun’s motion. They never declare anything to the contrary. Whenever -they speak of the subject it is in the same manner. The direct evidence -of our senses confirms it; and actual and special observations, as well -as the most practical scientific experiments, declare the same thing. -The progressive and concentric motion of the Sun over the Earth is in -every sense demonstrable; yet the Newtonian astronomers insist upon -it that the Sun does not really move, that it only _appears_ to move, -and that this appearance arises from the motion of the Earth; that -when, as the scriptures affirm, the “Sun stood still in the midst of -heaven,” it was the _Earth_ which stood still and _not_ the Sun! that -the scriptures therefore speak falsely, and the experiments of science, -and the observations and applications of our senses are never to be -relied upon. Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of -our senses and judgement, and the authority of scripture? The Earth -or the Sun moves. Our senses tell us, and the scriptures declare that -the Earth is fixed and that it is the Sun which moves above and around -it; but a _theory_, which is absolutely false in its groundwork, and -ridiculously illogical in its details, demands that the Earth is round -and moves upon axes, and in several other and various directions; and -that these motions are _sufficient to account for_ certain phenomena -without supposing that the Sun moves, _therefore_ the Sun is a fixed -body, and his motion is _only apparent_! Such _reasoning_ is a disgrace -to philosophy, and fearfully dangerous to the religious interests of -humanity! - -Christian ministers and commentators find it a most unwelcome task -when called upon to reconcile the plain and simple philosophy of the -scriptures with the monstrous teachings of theoretical astronomy. -Dr. Adam Clark, in a letter to the Rev. Thomas Roberts, of Bath,[43] -speaking of the progress of his commentary, and of his endeavours -to reconcile the statements of scripture with the modern astronomy, -says: “Joshua’s Sun and Moon standing still, have kept me going for -nearly three weeks! That one chapter has afforded me more vexation -than anything I have ever met with; and even now I am but about half -satisfied with my own solution of all the difficulties, though I am -confident that I have removed mountains that were never touched before; -shall I say that I am heartily weary of my work, so weary that I have -a thousand times wished I had never written one page of it, and am -repeatedly purposing to give it up.” - - [43] Life of Adam Clark, 8vo Edition. - -The Rev. John Wesley, in his journal, writes as follows:--“The more I -consider them the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy. I doubt -whether we can with certainty know either the distance or magnitude of -any star in the firmament; else why do astronomers so immensely differ, -even with regard to the distance of the Sun from the Earth? Some -affirming it to be only three and others ninety millions of miles.”[44] - - [44] Extracts from works of Rev. J. Wesley, 3rd Edition, 1829. - Published by Mason, London, p. 392, vol. 2. - -In vol. 3, page 203, the following entry occurs:--“January 1st, -1765.--This week I wrote an answer to a warm letter published in the -_London Magazine_, the author whereof is much displeased that I presume -to doubt of the ‘modern astronomy.’ I cannot help it. Nay, the more -I consider the more my doubts increase; so that at present I doubt -whether any man on earth knows either the distance or magnitude, I -will not say of a fixed Star, but Saturn or Jupiter--yea of the Sun or -Moon.” - -In vol. 13, page 359, he says:--“And so the whole hypothesis of -innumerable Suns and worlds moving round them vanishes into air.” And -again at page 430 of same volume, the following words occur:--“The -planets revolutions we are acquainted with, but who is able to this -day, regularly to demonstrate either their magnitude or their distance? -Unless he will prove, as is the usual way, the magnitude from the -distance, and the distance from the magnitude. * * * Dr. Rogers has -evidently demonstrated that no conjunction of the centrifugal and -centripetal forces can possibly account for this, or even cause any -body to move in an ellipsis.” There are several other incidental -remarks to be found in his writings which shew that the Rev. John -Wesley was well acquainted with the then modern astronomy; and that -he saw clearly both its self-contradictory and its anti-scriptural -character. - -It is a very popular idea among modern astronomers that the stellar -universe is an endless congeries of systems, of Suns and attendant -worlds peopled with sentient beings analogous in the purpose and -destiny of their existence to the inhabitants of this earth. This -doctrine of a plurality of worlds, although it conveys the most -magnificent ideas of the universe, is purely fanciful, and may be -compared to the “dreams of the alchemists” who laboured with unheard -of enthusiasm to discover the “philosopher’s stone,” the _elixir vitæ_, -and the “universal solvent.” However grand the first two projects -might have been in their realisation, it is known that they were never -developed in a practical sense, and the latter idea of a solvent which -would dissolve everything was suddenly and unexpectedly destroyed by -the few remarks of a simple but critical observer, who demanded to -know what service a substance would be to them which would dissolve -all things? What could they keep it in? for it would dissolve every -vessel wherein they sought to preserve it! This idea of a plurality -of worlds is but a natural and reasonable conclusion drawn from the -doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity. But this doctrine being false its -off shoot is equally so. The supposition that the heavenly bodies are -Suns and inhabited worlds is demonstrably impossible in nature, and -has no foundation whatever in Scripture. “In the beginning God created -the Heaven and _the Earth_.” One Earth _only_ is created; and the fact -is more especially described in Genesis, ch. i., v. 10. Where, instead -of the word “Earth” meaning both land and water as together forming a -globe, as it does in the Newtonian astronomy, only the _dry land_ was -called _earth_,” and “the gathering together of the waters called He -seas.” The Sun, Moon, and Stars are described as lights only and not -worlds. A great number of passages might be quoted which prove that no -other material world is ever in the slightest manner referred to by the -sacred writers. The creation of the world; the origin of evil, and the -fall of man; the plan of redemption by the death of Christ; the day -of judgement, and the final consummation of all things are invariably -associated with _this Earth alone_. The expression in Hebrews, ch. i., -v. 2, “by whom also he made the _worlds_,” and in Heb., ch. ii., v. -3, “through faith we understand that the _worlds_ were framed,” are -known to be a comparatively recent rendering from the original Greek -documents. The word which has been translated _worlds_ is fully as -capable of being rendered in the singular number as the plural; and -previous to the introduction of the Copernican Astronomy was always -translated “_the world_.” The Roman Catholic and the French Protestant -Bibles still contain the singular number; and in a copy of an English -Protestant Bible printed in the year 1608, the following translation is -given:--“Through faith we understand that _the world_ was ordained.” -So that either the plural expression “worlds” was used in later -translations to accord with the astronomical notions then recently -introduced, or it was meant to include the Earth and the spiritual -world, as referred to in:-- - -_Hebrews_ ii., 5--“For unto angels hath he not put into subjection _the -world to come_.” - -_Ephesians_ i., 21--“Far above all principality and power, and might, -and dominion, and every name that is named not only in _this world_, -but also in _that which is to come_.” - -_Luke_ xviii., 29, 30--“There is no man that hath left house, or -parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s -sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this _present time_, and -in _the world to come_ life everlasting.” - -_Matthew_ xii., 32--“Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it -shall not be forgiven him, neither in _this world_ neither in the -_world to come_.” - -The Scriptures teach that in the day of the Lord “the Heavens shall -pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent -heat,” and the “stars of Heaven fall unto the Earth even as a fig tree -casteth her untimely figs when shaken of a mighty wind.” The Newtonian -system of astronomy declares that the stars and planets are mighty -worlds--nearly all of them much larger than this Earth. The fixed -stars are considered to be suns, equal to if not greater than our own -sun, which is said to be above 800,000 miles in diameter. All this is -proveably false, but to those who have been led to believe it, the -difficult question arises,--“How can thousands of stars fall upon -the Earth, which is many times less than any one of them?” How can -the Earth with a supposed diameter of 8000 miles receive the numerous -suns of the firmament many of which are said to be a million miles in -diameter? - -These stars are assumed to have positions so far from the Earth that -the distance is almost inexpressible; figures indeed may be arranged on -paper but in reading them no practical idea is conveyed to the mind. -Many of them are said to be so distant that should they fall with the -velocity of light or above one hundred and sixty thousand miles in a -second, or six hundred millions of miles per hour, they would require -nearly two millions of years to reach the Earth! Sir William Herschel -in a paper on “The power of telescopes to penetrate into space,” -published in the _Philosophical Transactions_ for the year 1800, -affirms, that with his powerful instruments he discovered brilliant -luminaries so far from the Earth that the light from them “could not -have been less than _one million nine hundred thousand years in its -progress_.” Again the difficulty presents itself--“If the stars of -Heaven begin to fall to-day, and with the greatest imaginable velocity, -millions of years must elapse before they reach the Earth!” But the -Scriptures declare that these changes shall occur suddenly--shall -come, indeed, “as a thief in the night.” - -The same theory, with its false and inconceivable distances and -magnitudes, operates to destroy all the ordinary, common sense, and -scripturally authorised chronology. Christian and Jewish commentators, -unless astronomically educated, hold and teach that the Earth, as well -as the Sun, Moon, and Stars, were created about 4,000 years before the -birth of Christ, or less than 6,000 years before the present time. -But if many of these luminaries are so distant that their light would -require above a million of years to reach us; and if, as we are taught, -bodies are visible to us because of the light which they reflect or -radiate, then their light _has_ reached us, because we have been able -to see them, and therefore they must have been shining, and must have -been created at least _one million nine hundred thousand years ago_! -The chronology of the bible indicates that a period of six thousand -years has not yet elapsed since “the Heavens and the Earth were -finished, and _all_ the Host of them.” - -In the modern astronomy, Continents, Oceans, Seas, and Islands, are -considered as together forming one vast Globe of 25,000 miles in -circumference. This has been shown to be fallacious, and it is clearly -contrary to the plain, literal teaching of the scriptures. In the first -chapter of Genesis, we find the following language: “and God said let -the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, and let the -_dry land_ appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land _Earth_, -and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas.” Here the -Earth and Seas--Earth and the great body of waters, are described as -two distinct and independent regions, and not as together forming one -Globe which astronomers call “the Earth.” This description is confirmed -by several other passages of scripture. - -2 _Peter_, iii., 5--“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by -the Word of God the Heavens were of old, and the Earth _standing out of -the waters and in the waters_.” - -_Psalms_ cxxxvi., 6--“O give thanks to the Lord of Lords, that by -wisdom made the heavens, and that _stretchet out the earth above the -waters_.” - -_Psalms_ xxiv., 1, 2--“The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof; -the world and they that dwell therein: for he hath _founded it upon the -seas, and established it upon the floods_.” - -_Hermes_ (New Testament Apocrypha)--“Who with the word of his strength -fixed the heaven; and _founded the earth upon the waters_.” - -_Job_ xxvi., 7--“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and -hangeth the Earth upon nothing.” - -Some think that the latter part of this verse, “hangeth the Earth upon -nothing,” favours the idea that the Earth is a globe revolving in -space without visible support; but Dr. Adam Clark, although himself a -Newtonian philosopher, says, in his commentary upon this passage in -Job, the literal translation is, “on the hollow or empty waste,” and -he quotes a Chaldee version of the passage which runs as follows: “He -layeth the Earth upon the waters nothing sustaining it.” - -It is not that He “hangeth the Earth upon nothing,” but “hangeth -or layeth it upon the waters” which were empty or waste, and where -before there was nothing. This is in strict accordance with the other -expressions, that “the Earth was founded upon the waters,” &c., and -also with the expression in Genesis, “that the face of the deep was -covered only with darkness.” - -If the Earth were a globe, it is evident that everywhere the water of -its surface, the seas, lakes, oceans, and rivers, must be sustained the -land, the Earth must be under the water; but if the land and the waters -are distinct, and the Earth is “founded upon the seas,” then everywhere -the sea must sustain the land as it does a ship or any other floating -mass, and there is water below the earth. In this particular as in all -the others, the scriptures are beautifully sequential and consistent:-- - -_Exodus_ xx, 4--“Thou shalt not make unto thee any likeness of anything -in heaven above or in the Earth beneath, or in the _waters under the -Earth_.” - -_Genesis_ xliv, 25--“The Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings -of heaven above, and blessings of the _deep that lieth under_.” - -_Deut._ xxxiii, 13--“Blessed be his land, for the precious things of -heaven; for the dew; and for the _deep which couched beneath_.” - -_Deut._ iv, 18--“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, and make -no similitude of anything on the Earth, or the likeness of anything -that is in the _waters beneath the Earth_.” - -The same idea prevailed among the ancients generally. In Ovid’s -Metamorphoses, Jupiter, in an assembly of the gods, is made to say, “I -swear by the infernal _waves which glide under the Earth_.” - -If the earth is a distinct structure standing in and upon the waters -of the “great deep,” it follows that, unless it can be shown that -something else sustains the waters, that the depth is fathomless. As -there is no evidence whatever of anything existing underneath the -“great deep,” and as in many parts of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans -no bottom has been found by the most scientific and efficient means -which human ingenuity could invent, we are forced to the conclusion -that the depth is boundless. This conclusion is again confirmed by the -scriptures. - -_Jeremiah_ xxxi, 37--“Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a -light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a -light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar, the -Lord of Hosts is His name. If these ordinances depart from before me, -saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a -nation before me for ever. Thus saith the Lord: if heaven above can be -measured, and the _foundations_ of the _Earth searched out beneath_, I -will also cast off all the seed of Israel.” - -From the above it will be seen that God’s promises to his people could -no more be broken than could the height of heaven, or the depths of the -Earth’s foundations be searched out. The fathomless deep beneath--upon -which the Earth is founded, and the infinitude of heaven above, are -here given as emblems of the boundlessness of God’s power, and of -the certainty that all his ordinances will be fulfilled. When God’s -power can be limited, heaven above will no longer be infinite; and -the mighty waters, the foundations of the earth may be fathomed. But -the scriptures plainly teach us that the power and wisdom of God, the -heights of Heaven, and the depths of the waters under the Earth are -alike unfathomable; and no true philosophy ever avers, nor ever did nor -ever can aver, a single fact to the contrary. - -In all the religions of the Earth the words “up” and “above” are -associated with a region of peace and happiness. Heaven is always -spoken of as _above_ the _Earth_. The scriptures invariable convey the -same idea:-- - -_Deut._ xxvi., 15--“Look _down_ from Thy holy habitation, from Heaven, -and bless Thy people Israel.” - -_Exodus_ xix., 20--“And the Lord came _down_ upon Mount Sinai.” - -_Psalm_ cii., 19--“For he hath looked _down_ from the height of his -sanctuary: from Heaven did the Lord behold the Earth.” - -_Isaiah_ lxiii., 15--“Look _down_ from Heaven, and behold from the -habitation of Thy holiness and of Thy glory.” - -_Psalm_ ciii., 11--“For as the Heaven is high _above the Earth_.” - -2 _Kings_ ii., 11--“And Elijah went _up_ by a whirlwind into Heaven.” - -_Mark_ xvi., 10--“So then after the Lord had spoken unto them he was -received _up into Heaven_.” - -_Luke_ xxiv., 51--“And it came to pass, while He blessed them, He was -parted from them, and carried _up into Heaven_.” - -If the Earth is a globe revolving at the rate of above a thousand miles -an hour all this language of scripture is necessarily fallacious. The -terms “up” and “down,” and “above” and “below,” are words without -meaning, at best are merely relative--indicative of no absolute -or certain direction. That which is “up” at noon-day, is directly -“down” at midnight. Heaven can only be spoken of as “above,” and the -scriptures can only be read correctly for a single moment out of the -twenty-four hours; for before the sentence “Heaven is high above the -Earth” could be uttered, the speaker would be descending from the -meridian where Heaven was above him, and his eye although unmoved would -be fixed upon a point millions of miles away from his first position. -Hence in all the ceremonials of religion, where the hands and eyes -are raised upwards to Heaven, nay when Christ himself “lifted up his -eyes to Heaven and said, Father, the hour is come,” his gaze would -be sweeping along the firmament at rapidly varying angles, and with -such incomprehensible velocity that a fixed point of observation, and -a definite position, as indicating the seat or throne of “Him that -sitteth in the Heavens” would be an impossibility. - -Again: the religious world have always believed and meditated upon the -word “Heaven” as representing an infinite region of joy and safety, -of rest and happiness unspeakable; as “the place of God’s residence, -the dwelling place of angels and the blessed; the true palace of -God, entirely separated from the impurities and imperfections, the -alterations and changes of the lower world; where He reigns in eternal -peace. * * It is the sacred mansion of light, and joy, and glory.[45]” -But if there is a plurality of worlds, millions upon millions, nay, -an “infinity of worlds,” if the universe is filled with innumerable -systems of burning suns, and rapidly revolving planets, intermingled -with rushing comets and whirling satellites, all dashing and sweeping -through space in directions, and with velocities surpassing all human -comprehension, and terrible even to contemplate, where is the place of -rest and safety? Where is the true and unchangeable “palace of God?” In -what direction is Heaven to be found? Where is the liberated human soul -to find its home--its refuge from change and motion, from uncertainty -and danger? Is it to wander for ever in a labyrinth of rolling worlds? -To struggle for ever in a never ending maze of revolving suns and -systems? To be never at rest, but for ever seeking to avoid some -vortex of attraction--some whirlpool of gravitation? The belief in -the existence of Heaven, as a region of peace and harmony “extending -(above the Earth) through all extent,” and beyond the influence of -natural laws and restless elements, is jeopardised, if not destroyed, -by a false and usurping astronomy, which has no better foundation -than human conceit and presumption. If this ill-founded, unsupported -philosophy is admitted by the religious mind, it can no longer say -that-- - - “Far above the sun, and stars, and skies, - In realms of endless light and love, - My Father’s mansion lies.” - - [45] Cruden’s Concordance, article “Heaven.” - -The modern theoretical astronomy affirms that the Moon is a solid -opaque, non-luminous body; that it is, in fact, nothing less than a -material world. It has even been mapped out into continents, islands, -seas, lakes, volcanoes, &c., &c. The nature of its atmosphere and -character of its productions and possible inhabitants have been -discussed with as much freedom as though our philosophers were quite as -familiar with it as they are with the different objects and localities -upon Earth. The light, too, with which the Moon so beautifully -illuminates the firmament is declared to be only borrowed--to be -only the light of the Sun intercepted and reflected upon the Earth. -These doctrines are not only opposed by a formidable array of -well-ascertained facts (as given in previous sections), but they are -totally denied by the scriptures. The Sun and Moon and Stars are never -referred to as worlds, but simply as _lights_ to rule alternately in -the firmament. - -_Genesis_ i., 14, 16--“And God said let there be _lights_ in the -firmament of the Heaven to divide the day from the night. * * * And God -made two _great lights_--the greater light to rule the day, and the -lesser light to rule the night.” - -_Psalm_ cxxxvi., 7, 9--“O give thanks to Him that made _great lights_: -the Sun to rule by day, the Moon and Stars to rule by night.” - -_Jeremiah_, xxxi., 35--“The Sun is given for a light by day, and the -ordinances of the Moon and of the Stars for a light by night.” - -_Ezekiel_, xxxii., 7, 8--“I will cover the Sun with a cloud; and the -Moon shall not give _her light_.” “All the bright lights of Heaven will -I make dark over thee.” - -_Psalm_ cxlviii., 3--“Praise him Sun and Moon, praise him all ye Stars -of light.” - -_Isaiah_ xiii., 10--“The Sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and -the Moon shall not cause _her_ light to shine.” - -_Matthew_ xxiv., 29--“Immediately after the tribulation of those days -shall the Sun be darkened, and the Moon shall not give her light.” - -_Isaiah_ ix., 19, 20--“The Sun shall be no more thy light by day; -neither for brightness shall the _Moon give light_ unto thee. * * Thy -Sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy Moon withdraw itself.” - -_Psalm_ cxxxvi., 7 to 9--“To him that made great lights, the Sun to -rule by day, the Moon and Stars to rule by night.” - -_Job_ xxv., 5--“Behold even to the Moon, and _it_ shineth not.” - -_Ecclesiastes_ xii., 2--“While the Sun, or the light, or the Moon, or -the Stars be not darkened.” - -_Isaiah_ xxx., 26--“The light of the Moon shall be as the light of the -Sun; and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold.” - -_Deuteronomy_ xxxiii., 14--“And for the precious fruits brought forth -by the Sun, and for the precious things put forth by the Moon.” - -In the very first of the passages above quoted the doctrine is -enunciated that various distinct and independent _lights_ were created. -But that two _great_ lights were specially called into existence for -the purpose of ruling the day and the night. The Sun and the Moon are -declared to be these great and alternately ruling lights. Nothing is -here said, nor is it in any other part of scripture said, that the -Sun is a great light, and that the Moon shines only by reflection. -The Sun is called the “greater light to rule the day,” and the Moon -the “lesser light to rule the night.” Although of these two “great -lights” one is less than the other, each is declared to shine with -its own light. Hence in Deuteronomy, c. 33, v. 14, it is affirmed that -certain fruits are specially brought forth by the influence of the -Sun’s light, and that certain other productions are “put forth by the -Moon.” That the light of the sun is influential in encouraging the -growth of certain natural products; and that the light of the Moon has -a distinct influence in promoting the increase of certain other natural -substances, is a matter well known to those who are familiar with -horticultural and agricultural phenomena; and it is abundantly proved -by chemical evidence that the two lights are distinct in character -and in action upon various elements. This distinction is beautifully -preserved throughout the sacred scriptures. In no single instance are -the two lights confounded. On the contrary, in the New Testament, St. -Paul affirms with authority, that “there is one glory of the Sun, and -another glory of the Moon, and another glory of the Stars.” - -The same fact of the difference in the two lights, and their -independence of each other is maintained in the scriptures to the last. -“The Sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the Moon became as -blood.” If the Moon is only a reflector, the moment the Sun becomes -black her surface will be blackened also, and not remain as blood, -while the Sun is dark and black as sackcloth of hair! - -Again: the modern system of astronomy teaches that this earth cannot -possibly receive light from the Stars, because of their supposed great -distance from it: that the fixed Stars are only burning spheres, or -Sun’s to their own systems of planets and satellites: and that their -light terminates, or no longer produces an active luminosity at the -distance of nearly two thousand millions of miles. Here again the -scriptures affirm the contrary doctrine. - -_Genesis_ i., 16-17--“He made the Stars also; and God set them in the -firmament _to give light upon the earth_.” - -_Isaiah_ xiii., 10--“For the Stars of Heaven and the constellations -thereof shall not _give their light_.” - -_Ezekiel_ xxxii., 7--“I will cover the Heaven, and make the _Stars_ -thereof _dark_.” - -_Joel_ ii., 10--“The Sun and the Moon shall be dark, and the _Stars_ -shall withdraw _their shining_.” - -_Psalm_ cxlviii., 3--“Praise him Sun and Moon: promise him all ye -_Stars of Light_.” - -_Jeremiah_ xxxi., 35--“Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the Sun for a -light by day; and the ordinances of the Moon and of _the Stars_ for a -_light by night_.” - -_Daniel_ xii., 3--“They that turn many to righteousness shall _shine_ -as the _Stars_ for ever and ever.” - -These quotations place it beyond doubt that the Stars were made -expressly to shine in the firmament, and “to give light upon the -Earth.” In addition to this language of scripture, we have the evidence -of our own eyes that the Stars give abundant light. “What beautiful -star-light!” is a common expression: and we all remember the difference -between a dark and starless night, and one when the firmament is as it -were studded with brilliant luminaries. Travellers inform us that in -many parts of the world, where the sky is clear and free from clouds -and vapours for weeks together, the Stars appear both larger and -brighter than they do in England; and that their light is sufficiently -intense to enable them to read and write, and to travel with safety -through the most dangerous places. - -If it be true that the Stars and the Planets are not simply lights, as -the scriptures affirm them to be, but magnificent worlds, for the most -part much larger than this earth, then it is a very proper question -to ask--“are they inhabited?” If the answer be in the affirmative, it -is equally proper to inquire “have the first parents in each world -been tempted?” If so, “have they fallen?” if so, “Have they required -redemption?” And “have they been redeemed?” “Has each world had a -separate Redeemer? or has Christ been the Redeemer for every world in -the universe?” And if so, “did His suffering and crucifixion on this -Earth suffice for the redemption of the fallen inhabitants of all other -worlds? Or had He to suffer and die in each world successively? Did -the fall of Adam in this world involve in his guilt the inhabitants of -all other worlds? Or was the baneful influence of Satan confined to -the first parents of this Earth? If so, why so? and if not, why not? -But, and if, and why, and again--but it is useless thus to ponder! The -Christian philosopher must be confounded! If his religion be to him a -living reality, he will turn with loathing or spurn with indignation -and disgust, as he would a poisonous reptile, a system of astronomy -which creates in his mind so much confusion and uncertainty! But as the -system which necessitates such doubts and difficulties has been shown -to be purely theoretical; and to have not the slightest foundation in -fact, the religious mind has really no cause for apprehension. Not a -shadow of doubt remains that this World is the only one created; that -the sacred Scriptures contain, in addition to religious and moral -doctrines, a true and consistent philosophy; that they were written -for the good of mankind, at the direct instigation of God himself; -and that all their teachings and promises are truthful, consistent, -and reliable. Whoever holds the contrary conclusion is the victim of -an arrogant false astronomy, of an equally false and presumptuous -geology, or a suicidal method of reasoning--a logic which never demands -a proof of its premises, and which therefore leads to conclusions -which are contrary to nature, to human experience, and to the direct -teaching of God’s word, and therefore contrary to the deepest and -most lasting interests of humanity. “God has spoken to man in two -voices, the voice of inspiration and the voice of nature. By man’s -ignorance they have been made to disagree; but the time will come, and -cannot be far distant, when these two languages will strictly accord; -when the science of nature will no longer contradict the science of -scripture.”[46] - - [46] Professor Hunt. - -CUI BONO.--“Of all terrors to the generous soul, that _Cui bono_ is -the one to be the most zealously avoided. Whether it be proposed to -find the magnetic point, or a passage impossible to be utilised if -discovered, or a race of men of no good to any human institution -extant, and of no good to themselves; or to seek the Unicorn in -Madagascar, and when we had found him not to be able to make use of -him; or the great central plateau of Australia, where no one could -live for centuries to come; or the great African lake, which, for all -the good it would do us English folk might as well be in the Moon; -or the source of the Nile, the triumphant discovery of which would -neither lower the rents nor take off the taxes anywhere--whatever it -is, the _Cui bono_ is always a weak and cowardly argument: essentially -short-sighted too, seeing that, according to the law of the past, by -which we may always safely predicate the future, so much falls into -the hands of the seeker, for which he was not looking, and of which -he never even knew the existence. The area of the possible is very -wide still, and very insignificant and minute, the angle we have -staked out and marked impossible. What do we know of the powers which -nature has yet in reserve, of the secrets she has still untold, the -wealth still concealed? Every day sees new discoveries in the sciences -we can investigate at home. What, then, may not lie waiting for the -explorers abroad? Weak and short-sighted commercially, the _cui bono_ -is worse than both, morally. When we remember the powerful manhood, -the patience, unselfishness, courage, devotion, and nobleness of aim -which must accompany a perilous enterprise, and which form so great an -example, and so heart-stirring to the young and to the wavering, it is -no return to barbaric indifference to life to say, better indeed a few -deaths for even a commercially useless enterprise--better a few hearths -made desolate, and a few wives and mothers left to bear their stately -sorrow to the end of time, that the future may rejoice and be strong: -better a thousand failures, and a thousand useless undertakings, -than the loss of national manhood or the weakening of the national -fibre. Quixotism is a folly when the energy which might have achieved -conquests over misery and wrong, if rightfully applied, is wasted in -fighting windmills; but to forego any great enterprise for fear of the -dangers attending, or to check a grand endeavour by the _cui bono_ of -ignorance and moral scepticism, is worse than a folly--it is baseness, -and a cowardice.[47]” - - [47] _Daily News_ of April 5, 1865. - -The above quotation is an excellent general answer to all those who -may, in reference to the subject of this work, or to anything which is -not of immediate worldly interest, obtrude the _cui bono_? But as a -special reply it may be claimed for the subject of these pages-- - -First,--It is more edifying, more satisfactory, and in every sense far -better that we should know the true and detect the false. Thereby the -mind becomes fixed, established upon an eternal foundation, and no -longer subject to those waverings and changes, those oscillations and -fluctuations which are ever the result of falsehood. To know the truth -and to embody it in our lives and purposes our progress must be safe -and rapid, and almost unlimited in extent. None can say to what it may -lead or where it may culminate. Who shall dare to set bounds to the -capabilities of the mind, or to fix a limit to human progress? Whatever -may be the destiny of the human race truth alone will help and secure -its realisation. - -Second,--Having detected the fundamental falsehoods of modern -astronomy, and discovered that the Earth is a plane, and motionless, -and the only material world in existence, we are able to demonstrate -the actual character of the Universe. In doing this we are enabled to -prove that all the so-called arguments with which so many scientific -but irreligious men have assailed the scriptures, are absolutely -false; have no foundation except in their own astronomical and -geological theories, which being demonstrably fallacious, they fall -to the ground as valueless. They can no longer be wielded as weapons -against religion. If used at all it can only be that their weakness -and utter worthlessness will be exposed. Atheism and every other form -of Infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away, -and their poison dissipated. The irreligious philosopher can no longer -obtrude his theories as things proved wherewith to test the teachings -of scripture. He must now himself be tested. He must be forced to -demonstrate his premises, a thing which he has never yet attempted; and -if he fails in this respect his impious vanity, self-conceit and utter -disregard of justice, will become so clearly apparent that his presence -in the ranks of science will no longer be tolerated. All theory must be -put aside, and the questions at issue must be decided by independent -and practical evidence. This has been done. The process--the _modus -operandi_, and the conclusions derived therefrom have been given in -the early sections of this work. They are entirely consonant with the -teachings of scripture. The scriptures are therefore literally true, -and must henceforth either alone or in conjunction with practical -science be used as a standard by which to test the truth or falsehood -of every system which does or may hereafter exist. Philosophy is no -longer to be employed as a test of scriptural truth, but the scriptures -may and ought to be the test of all philosophy. Not that they are to -be used as a test of philosophy simply because they are _thought_ or -_believed_ to be the word of God, but because their literal teachings -in regard to science and natural phenomena, are demonstrably correct. -It is quite as faulty and unjust for the religious devotee to urge -the scriptures against the theories of the philosopher simply because -he _believes_ them to be true, as it is for the philosopher to urge -his theories against the scriptures only because he disbelieves the -one and believes the other. The whole matter must be taken out of the -region of belief and disbelief. The Christian will be strengthened -and his mind more completely satisfied by having it in his power to -demonstrate that the scriptures are philosophically true, than he could -possibly be by the simple belief in their validity, unsupported by -practical evidence. On the other hand the Atheist who is met by the -Christian upon purely scientific grounds, and who is not belaboured -with enunciations of what his antagonist believes, will be led to -listen and to pay more regard and respect to the reasons advanced -than he could possibly concede to the purely religious argument, or -to an argument founded upon faith alone. If it can be shown to the -atheistical philosopher that his astronomical and geological theories -are fallacious, and that all the expressions in the scriptures which -have reference to natural phenomena are literally true, he will of -necessity be led to admit that, apart from all other considerations, -if the _philosophy_ of the scriptures is demonstrably correct, then -possibly their _spiritual_ and _moral_ teachings may also be true; and -if so, they may and indeed must have had a divine origin; and if so -they are truly the “word of God,” and after all, religion is a grand -reality; and the theories which speculative adventurous philosophers -have advanced are nothing better than treacherous quicksands into which -many of the deepest thinkers have been engulphed and lost. By this -process many highly intelligent minds have been led to desert the ranks -of Atheism and to rejoin the army of Christian soldiers and devotees. -Many have rejoiced almost beyond expression that the subject of the -Earth’s true form and position in the universe had ever been brought -under their notice; and doubtless great numbers will yet be induced to -return to that allegiance which plain demonstrable truth demands and -deserves. To induce numbers of earnest thinking human beings to leave -the rebellious cause of Atheism and false philosophy; to return to a -full recognition of the beauty and truthfulness of the scriptures, and -to a participation in the joy and satisfaction which religion can alone -supply, is a grand and cheering result, and one which furnishes the -noblest possible answer to the ever ready “CUI BONO.” - -In addition to the numerous quotations which have been given from -sacred scriptures, and proved to be true and consistent, it may be -useful briefly to refer to the following difficulties which have been -raised by the scientific objectors to scriptural authority:--“As the -earth is a globe, and as all its vast collections of water--its oceans, -lakes, &c., are sustained by the earthy crust beneath them, and as -beneath this ‘crust of the earth’ everything is in a red-hot molten -condition to what place could the excess of waters retire which are -said in the scriptures to have overwhelmed the whole world? It could -not sink into the centre of the earth, for the fire is there so intense -that the whole would be rapidly volatilised, and driven away as vapour. -It could not evaporate, for when the atmosphere is charged with watery -vapour beyond a certain degree it begins to condense and throw back the -water in the form of rain; so that the waters of the flood could not -sink from the earth’s surface, nor remain in the atmosphere; therefore -if the earth had ever been deluged at all, it would have remained so -to this day. But as it is not universally flooded so it never could -have been, and the account given in the scriptures is false.” All this -specious reasoning is founded upon the assumption that the earth is -a globe: this doctrine, however, being false, all the difficulties -quickly vanish. The earth being “founded on the seas” would be as -readily cleared of its superfluous water as would the deck of a ship -on emerging from a storm. Or as a rock in the ocean would be cleared -after the raging waves which for a time overwhelmed it had subsided. - -“Thou coveredst the Earth with the deep as with a garment; the waters -stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; and at the voice -of thy thunder they hasted away ... down by the valleys unto the place -which thou hast founded for them.”[48] - - [48] Psalm civ. - -“Thou didst cleave the Earth with rivers; and the overflowing of the -waters passed by; and the deep uttered his voice and lifted up his -hands on high.”[49] - - [49] Hab. iii. 9-10. - -The surface of the Earth standing above the level of the surrounding -seas, the waters of the flood would simply and naturally run down by -the valleys and rivers into the “great deep,”--into which “the waters -returned from off the earth continually ... until the tenth month, and -on the first day of the month were the tops of the mountains seen.”[50] - - [50] Gen. viii. 2-5. - -Again; as the Earth is a Globe and in continual motion, how could -Jesus on being “taken up into an exceedingly high mountain see all -the kingdoms of the world, in a moment of time?” Or, when “He cometh -with clouds and every eye shall see him,” how could it be possible, -seeing that at least twenty-four hours would elapse before every -part of the Earth would be turned to the same point? But it has been -demonstrated that the Earth is a Plane and motionless, and that from a -great eminence every part of its surface could be seen at once; and, at -once--at the same moment, could every eye behold Him, when “coming in a -cloud with power and great glory.” - - - FINIS. - - - S. HAYWARD, PRINTER, GREEN STREET, BATH. - - - - - Transcriber’s Notes - - Inconsistent and unusual spelling, punctuation etc. have been - retained; accents on (French) words have not been corrected. The - inconsistent nesting and pairing of quote marks often makes it - difficult to determine where a quote starts or ends. - - Page 20: ... as represented in figure 10 ... changed to ... as - represented in figure 9 .... - - Page 13, A B is the line-of-sight, and C D the surface of the water - ...: C nor D are depicted in the illustration. - - Page 27, Fig. 15 and accompanying text: the number 4 in the - illustration appears to be misplaced. - - Page 77, “Sun’s altitude at the time of Southing ...: there is no - closing quote mark. - - Page 142, 143 and Fig. 31: the lower case reference letters are - present as upper case letters in the illustration. - - Page 193, ... only the dry land was called earth,” ...: the opening - quote marks are missing. - - Page 198, ... stretchet out the earth above the waters ...: as - printed in the source document; both "stretched" and "stretcheth" - appear in other sources. - - Page 211, ... “did His suffering and crucifixion ...: the closing - quote mark is lacking. - - Changes made: - - Footnotes and illustrations have been moved out of text paragraphs. - - Some obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been - corrected silently. - - Terrestial has been changed to terrestrial (3x), trignometry to - trigonometry (2x), incondescent to incandescent (3x). - - Illustration captions for Figs. 27, 28 and 31-34 have been added. - - Page 10: ... to lesson the difference ... changed to ... to lessen - the difference .... - - Page 51: ... from Port Jackson to Cape Horn as 8.000 miles ... - changed to ... from Port Jackson to Cape Horn as 8,000 miles .... - - Page 64-65: replicated text deleted. - - Page 133: exclamation mark inserted after Neptune has only _one - third_ of this volume (as in surrounding text). - - Page 134: Professer Schumacher changed to Professor Schumacher. - - Page 139: M. Foucalt’s communication describing his experiments ... - changed to M. Foucault’s communication describing his experiments .... - - Page 141: Ille sante aux yeux ... changed to Il saute aux yeux .... - - Page 171: ... south cost of Norway ... changed to ... south coast of - Norway ...; The Troudhjem Light ... changed to The Trondhjem Light - ...; Lower Farn Island Light changed to Lower Farne Island Light. - - Page 193: ... the heavenly bodies are Sun’s ... changed to ... the - heavenly bodies are Suns .... - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ZETETIC ASTRONOMY *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: - -• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - -• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - -• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you “AS-IS”, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ - -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™'s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |