Zetetic astronomy_ Earth not a globe_ Parallax 1434 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Zetetic astronomy: Earth not
a globe!
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!

Author: Parallax

Release date: January 28, 2023 [eBook #69892]
Most recently updated: October 19, 2024

Language: English

Original publication: United Kingdom: Simpkin, Marshall, and co.,
1865

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69892

Credits: 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: EARTH NOT A GLOBE! ***

Please see the Transcriber’s Notes at the
end of this text.
The cover image has been created for
this e-text, and is in the public domain.

[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:
S I M P K I N , M A R S H A L L , A N D C O . , S TAT I O N E R S ’ H A L L C O U RT.

Ba t h :
S . H AY WA R D , G R E E N S T R E E T.

1 865.
[ T he R ight o f Tra nsl a ti on is R eserved b y th e
A utho r. ]

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.
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.
FIG. 1. 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 C. D = 2B.A.C²D . 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
16
about 8000 miles, we make the depression on four miles = 8000 of a mile =
16 × 1760
8000
yards = 176
50
yards = 528
50
feet, 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 ×7912
12 × B C²
= 8008
B. C² inches.
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:—

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.

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.

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.

FIG. 5.

If the Earth were a globe, the appearance would be as represented in
Figure 6.

FIG. 6.

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
FIG. 7.
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:—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FIG. 17.

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.

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.

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) [5]
„ 90 00·0 „ „ 39,197 ”

[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.

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.

FIG. 22.

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!

FIG. 24.

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.

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
altitude. Time of Southing.
(Common clock, or
M. S. 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 atthe6 Equator
a.m. } 36°
38¹⁄₂°
9 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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

FIG. 33.

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: EARTH NOT A GLOBE! ***

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 41 Watchung Plaza
#516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. 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.