Transcriber’s Notes

  Texts printed in italics and blackletter have been transcribed
  between _underscores_ and ~tildes~ respectively. Small capitals have
  been replaced with ALL CAPITALS.

  More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the end of this text.




  [_Entered at Stationer’s Hall._]


  ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.

  EARTH NOT A GLOBE!

  AN EXPERIMENTAL INQUIRY
  INTO THE
  TRUE FIGURE OF THE EARTH:
  PROVING IT A PLANE,
  WITHOUT AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION;
  AND THE
  ONLY MATERIAL WORLD
  IN
  THE UNIVERSE!

  BY “PARALLAX.”

  ~London:~
  SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO., STATIONERS’ HALL COURT.
  ~Bath:~
  S. HAYWARD, GREEN STREET.
  1865.

  [_The Right of Translation is Reserved by the Author._]


  BATH:
  PRINTED BY S. HAYWARD, GREEN STREET.




GENERAL CONTENTS.


  SECTION I.
  Introduction--Experiments proving the Earth to be a Plane.

  SECTION II.
  The Earth no Axial or Orbital Motion.

  SECTION III.
  The true distance of the Sun and Stars.

  SECTION IV.
  The Sun moves in a Circle over the Earth, concentric with the North
  Pole.

  SECTION V.
  Diameter of Sun’s path constantly changing.

  SECTION VI.
  Cause of Day and Night, Seasons, &c.

  SECTION VII.
  Cause of “Sun rise” and “Sun set.”

  SECTION VIII.
  Cause of Sun appearing larger when “Arising” and “Setting” than when
  on the Meridian.

  SECTION IX.
  Cause of Solar and Lunar Eclipses.

  SECTION X.
  Cause of Tides.

  SECTION XI.
  Constitution, Condition, and ultimate Destruction of the Earth by
  Fire.

  SECTION XII.
  Miscellanea--Moon’s Phases--Moon’s appearance--Planet Neptune--
  Pendulum Experiments as Proofs of Earth’s motion.

  SECTION XIII.
  Perspective on the Sea.

  SECTION XIV.
  General Summary--Application--“CUI BONO.”




ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.


The term “zetetic” is derived from the Greek verb _zeteo_; which
means to search or examine--to proceed only by inquiry. None can
doubt that by making special experiments and collecting manifest and
undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing
what is naturally and fairly deducible, the result will be far more
consistent and satisfactory than by framing a theory or system and
assuming the existence of causes for which there is no direct evidence,
and which can only be admitted “for the sake of argument.” All theories
are of this character--“supposing instead of inquiring, imagining
systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true
constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may
invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these,
however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later
dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy, with
all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers. The real
state of things escapes our observation; or, if it presents itself
to us, we are apt either to reject it wholly as fiction, or, by new
efforts of a vain ingenuity to interweave it with our own conceits,
and labour to make it tally with our favourite schemes. Thus, by
blending together parts so ill-suited, the whole comes forth an absurd
composition of truth and error. * * These have not done near so much
harm as that pride and ambition which has led philosophers to think it
beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a complete and
finished system of nature; and, in order to obtain this at once, to
take the liberty of inventing certain principles and hypotheses, from
which they pretend to explain all her mysteries.”[1]

  [1] “An Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Discoveries.” By Professor
  Maclaurin, M.A., F.R.S., of the Chair of Mathematics in the
  University of Edinburgh.

Copernicus admitted, “It is not necessary that hypotheses should be
true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results
of calculation which agree with calculations. * * Neither let any
one, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything _certain_
from astronomy; since that science can afford nothing of the kind;
lest, in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another
purpose, he should leave this study more foolish than he came. * * The
hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was _nothing but an hypothesis_,
valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered
with reference to absolute truth or falsehood.” The Newtonian and all
other “systems of nature” are little better than the “hypothesis of
the terrestrial motion” of Copernicus. The foundations or premises are
always unproved; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is
denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions shall _seem_
to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that one theory
supplants another; that system gives way to system as one failure after
another compels opinions to change. This will ever be so; there will
always exist in the mind a degree of uncertainty; a disposition to look
upon philosophy as a vain pretension; a something almost antagonistic
to the highest aspirations in which humanity can indulge, unless the
practice of theorising be given up, and the method of simple inquiry,
the “zetetic” process be adopted. “Nature speaks to us in a peculiar
language; in the language of phenomena, she answers at all times the
questions which are put to her; and such questions are experiments.”[2]
Not experiments only which corroborate what has previously been
_assumed_ to be true; but experiments in every form bearing on the
subject of inquiry, before a conclusion is drawn or premises affirmed.

  [2] “Liebig’s Agricultural Chemistry,” p. 39.

We have an excellent example of zetetic reasoning in an arithmetical
operation; more especially so in what is called the “Golden Rule,” or
the “Rule-of-Three.” If one hundred weight of any article is worth a
given sum, what will some other weight of that article be worth? The
separate figures may be considered as the elements or facts of the
inquiry; the placing and working of these as the logical arrangement;
and the quotient or answer as the fair and natural deduction. Hence,
in every zetetic process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a
quotient, which, if the details be correct, must, of necessity, be true
beyond the reach or power of contradiction.

In our courts of Justice we have also an example of the zetetic
process. A prisoner is placed at the bar; evidence for and against
him is advanced; it is carefully arranged and patiently considered;
and only such a verdict given as could not in justice be avoided.
Society would not tolerate any other procedure; it would brand with
infamy whoever should assume a prisoner to be guilty, and prohibit all
evidence but such as would corroborate the assumption. Yet such is the
character of theoretical philosophy!

The zetetic process is also the natural method of investigation; nature
herself teaches it. Children invariably seek information by asking
questions--by earnestly inquiring from those around them. Question
after question in rapid and exciting succession will often proceed
from a child, until the most profound in learning and philosophy will
feel puzzled to reply. If then both nature and justice, as well as the
common sense and practical experience of mankind demand, and will not
be content with less or other than the zetetic process, why should it
be ignored and violated by the learned in philosophy? Let the practice
of theorising be cast aside as one fatal to the full development of
truth; oppressive to the reasoning power; and in every sense inimical
to the progress and permanent improvement of the human race.

If then we adopt the zetetic process to ascertain the true figure
and condition of the Earth, we shall find that instead of its being
a globe, and moving in space, it is the directly contrary--A PLANE;
without motion, and unaccompanied by anything in the Firmament
analogous to itself.

If the Earth is a globe, and 25,000 miles in circumference, the surface
of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every
part must be an arc of a circle, curvating from the summit at the
rate of 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance.
That this may be sufficiently understood, the following quotation is
given from the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, art. “Levelling.” “If a
line which crosses the plumb-line at right angles be continued for
any considerable length it will rise above the Earth’s surface (the
Earth being globular); and this rising will be as the square of the
distance to which the said right line is produced; that is to say, it
is raised eight inches very nearly above the Earth’s surface at one
mile’s distance; four times as much, or 32 inches, at the distance
of two miles; nine times as much, or 72 inches, at the distance of
three miles. This is owing to the globular figure of the Earth, and
this rising is the difference between the true and apparent levels;
the curve of the Earth being the true level, and the tangent to it
the apparent level. So soon does the difference between the true and
apparent levels become perceptible that it is necessary to make an
allowance for it if the distance betwixt the two stations exceeds two
chains.

[Illustration: FIG. 1.]

Let B. D. be a small portion of the Earth’s circumference, whose centre
of curvature is A. and consequently all the points of this arc will be
on a level. But a tangent B. C. meeting the vertical line A. D. in C.
will be the apparent level at the point B. and therefore D. C. is the
difference between the apparent and the true level at the point B.

The distance C. D. must be deducted from the observed height to have
the true difference of level; or the differences between the distances
of two points from the surface of the Earth or from the centre of
curvature A. But we shall afterwards see how this correction may be
avoided altogether in certain cases. To find an expression for C. D.
we have Euclid, third book, 36 prop. which proves that B. C² = C. D.
(2 _A D_ × _C D_); but since in all cases of levelling C. D. is
exceedingly small compared with 2 A. D., we may safely neglect C. D²
and then B C² = 2 A. D × C. D. or

          B. C²
  C. D = ------.
         2 A. D

Hence the depression of the true level is equal to the square of the
distance divided by twice the radius of the curvature of the Earth.

For example, taking a distance of four miles, the square of 4 = 16,
and putting down twice the radius of the Earth’s curvature as in round
figures about 8000 miles, we make the depression on four miles

     16              16 × 1760         176         528
  = ---- of a mile = --------- yards = --- yards = --- feet,
    8000                8000            50          50

or rather better than 10¹⁄₂ feet.

Or, if we take the mean radius of the Earth as the mean radius of its
curvature, and consequently 2 A. D = 7,912 miles, then 5,280 feet being
1 mile, we shall have C. D. the depression in inches

    5280 × 12 × B C²
  = ---------------- = 8008 B. C² inches.
          7912

The preceding remarks suppose the visual ray C. B. to be a straight
line, whereas on account of the unequal densities of the air at
different distances from the Earth, the rays of light are incurvated
by refraction. The effect of this is to lessen the difference between
the true and apparent levels, but in such an extremely variable and
uncertain manner that if any constant or fixed allowance is made for
it in formulæ or tables, it will often lead to a greater error than
what it was intended to obviate. For though the refraction may at a
mean compensate for about a seventh of the curvature of the earth, it
sometimes exceeds a fifth, and at other times does not amount to a
fifteenth. We have, therefore, made no allowance for refraction in the
foregone formulæ.”

If the Earth is a globe, there cannot be a question that, however
irregular the _land_ may be in form, the _water_ must have a convex
surface. And as the difference between the true and apparent level, or
the degree of curvature would be 8 inches in one mile, and in every
succeeding mile 8 inches multiplied by the square of the distance,
there can be no difficulty in detecting either its actual existence
or proportion. Experiments made upon the sea have been objected to on
account of its constantly-changing altitude; and the existence of banks
and channels which produce a “a crowding” of the waters, currents, and
other irregularities. Standing water has therefore been selected, and
many important experiments have been made, the most simple of which
is the following:--In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial
river or canal, called the “Old Bedford.” It is upwards of twenty
miles long, and passes in a straight line through that part of the
fens called the “Bedford level” The water is nearly stationery--often
entirely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from
locks or water-gates; so that it is in every respect well adapted for
ascertaining whether any and what amount of convexity really exists.
A boat with a flag standing three feet above the water, was directed
to sail from a place called “Welney Bridge,” to another place called
“Welche’s Dam.” These two points are six statute miles apart. The
observer, with a good telescope, was seated in the water as a bather
(it being the summer season), with the eye not exceeding eight inches
above the surface. The flag and the boat down to the water’s edge were
clearly _visible throughout the whole distance!_ From this observation
it was concluded that the water did not decline to any degree from the
line of sight; whereas the water would be 6 feet higher in the centre
of the arc of 6 miles extent than at the two places Welney Bridge and
Welche’s Dam; but as the eye of the observer was only eight inches
above the water, the highest point of the surface would be at one mile
from the place of observation; below which point the surface of the
water at the end of the remaining five miles would be 16 feet 8 inches
(5² × 8 = 200 inches). This will be rendered clear by the following
diagram:--

[Illustration: FIG. 2.]

Let A B represent the arc of water from Welney Bridge to Welche’s Dam,
six miles in length; and A L the line of sight, which is now a tangent
to the arc A B; the point of contact, T, is 1 mile from the eye of the
observer at A; and from T to the boat at B is 5 miles; the square of 5
miles multiplied by 8 inches is 200 inches, or, in other words, that
the boat at B would have been 200 inches or above 16 feet below the
surface of the water at T; and the flag on the boat, which was 3 feet
high, would have been 13 feet below the line-of-sight, A T L!!

From this experiment it follows that the surface of standing water is
_not convex_, and therefore _that the Earth_ IS NOT A GLOBE! On the
Contrary, this simple experiment is all-sufficient to prove that the
surface of the water is parallel to the line-of-sight, and is therefore
horizontal, and that the Earth _cannot_ be other than A PLANE! In
diagram Figure 3 this is perfectly illustrated.

[Illustration: FIG. 3.]

A B is the line-of-sight, and C D the surface of the water equidistant
from or parallel to it throughout the whole distance observed.

Although, on account of the variable state of the water, objections
have been raised to experiments made upon the sea-shore to test the
convexity of the flood or ebb-tide level, none can be urged against
observations made from higher altitudes. For example,--the distance
across the Irish Sea between Douglas Harbour, in the Isle of Man, and
the Great Orm’s Head in North Wales is 60 miles. If the earth is a
globe, the surface of the water would form an arc 60 miles in length,
the centre of which would be 1,944 feet higher than the coast line
at either end, so that an observer would be obliged to attain this
altitude before he could see the Welsh coast from the Isle of Man: as
shown in the diagram, Figure 4.

[Illustration: FIG. 4.]

It is well known, however, that from an altitude not exceeding 100 feet
the Great Orm’s Head is visible in clear weather from Douglas Harbour.
The altitude of 100 feet could cause the line of sight to touch the
horizon at the distance of nearly 13 miles; and from the horizon to
Orm’s Head being 47 miles, the square of this number multiplied by 8
inches gives 1472 feet as the distance which the Welsh coast line would
be below the line of sight B C.--A representing the Great Orm’s Head,
which, being 600 feet high, its summit would be 872 feet below the
horizon.

Many similar experiments have been made across St. George’s Channel,
between points near Dublin and Holyhead, and always with results
entirely incompatible with the doctrine of rotundity.

Again, it is known that the horizon at sea, whatever distance it may
extend to the right and left of the observer on land, always appears
as a straight line. The following experiment has been tried in various
parts of the country. At Brighton, on a rising ground near the race
course, two poles were fixed in the earth six yards apart, and directly
opposite the sea. Between these poles a line was tightly stretched
parallel to the distant horizon. From the centre of the line the view
embraced not less than 20 miles on each side, making a distance of 40
miles. A vessel was observed sailing directly westwards; the line cut
the rigging a little above the bulwarks, which it did for several hours
or until the vessel had sailed the whole distance of 40 miles. This
will be understood by reference to the diagram, Figure 5.

[Illustration: FIG. 5.]

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

[Illustration: FIG. 6.]

[Illustration: FIG. 7.]

The ship coming into view from the east would have to ascend an
inclined plane for 20 miles until it arrived at the centre of the arc
A B, whence it would have to descend for the same distance. The square
of 20 miles multiplied by 8 inches gives 266 feet as the amount the
vessel would be below the line C D at the beginning and at the end of
the 40 miles.

If we stand upon the deck of a ship, or mount to the mast head; or go
to the top of a mountain, or ascend above the Earth in a balloon, and
look over the sea, the surface appears as a vast inclined plane rising
up until in the distance it intercepts the line of sight. If a good
mirror be held in the opposite direction, the horizon will be reflected
as a well-defined mark or line across the centre, as represented in
diagram, Figure 7.

Ascending or descending, the distant horizon does the same. It rises
and falls with the observer, and is always on a level with his eye. If
he takes a position where the water surrounds him--as at the mast-head
of a ship out of sight of land, or on the summit of a small island
far from the mainland, the surface of the sea appears to rise up on
all sides equally and to surround him like the walls of an immense
amphitheatre. He seems to be in the centre of a large concavity,
the edges of which expand or contract as he takes a higher or lower
position. This appearance is so well known to sea-going travellers that
nothing more need be said in its support. But the appearance from a
balloon is familiar only to a small number of observers, and therefore
it will be useful to quote from those who have written upon the subject.

  “_The Apparent Concavity of the Earth as seen from a Balloon._--A
  perfectly-formed circle encompassed the visible planisphere beneath,
  or rather the concavo-sphere it might now be called, for I had
  attained a height from which the surface of the Earth assumed a
  regularly hollowed or concave appearance--an optical illusion
  which increases as you recede from it. At the greatest elevation I
  attained, which was about a mile-and-a-half, the appearance of the
  World around me assumed a shape or form like that which is made
  by placing two watch-glasses together by their edges, the balloon
  apparently in the central cavity all the time of its flight at that
  elevation.”--_Wise’s Aeronautics._

  “Another curious effect of the aerial ascent was, that the Earth,
  when we were at our greatest altitude, positively appeared _concave_,
  looking like a huge dark bowl, rather than the convex sphere such
  as we naturally expect to see it. * * * The horizon always appears
  to be on a level with our eye, and seems to rise as we rise, until
  at length the elevation of the circular boundary line of the sight
  becomes so marked that the Earth assumes the anomalous appearance as
  we have said of a _concave_ rather than a _convex_ body.”--_Mayhew’s
  Great World of London._

Mr. Elliott, an American æronaut, in a letter giving an account of his
ascension from Baltimore, thus speaks of the appearance of the Earth
from a balloon:--

  “I don’t know that I ever hinted heretofore that the æronaut may
  well be the most sceptical man about the rotundity of the Earth.
  Philosophy imposes the truth upon us; but the view of the Earth
  from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial
  basin, the deeper part of which is that directly under one’s feet.
  As we ascend, the Earth beneath us seems to recede--actually to sink
  away--while the horizon gradually and gracefully lifts a diversified
  slope stretching away farther and farther to a line that, at the
  highest elevation, seems to close with the sky. Thus upon a clear
  day, the æronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance
  between the vast blue oceanic concave above, and the equally expanded
  terrestrial basin below.”

  “The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon, at a considerable
  elevation, was the altitude of the horizon, which remained
  practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles,
  causing the surface of the Earth to appear _concave_ instead of
  _convex_, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon
  and the balloon seemed to be stationary.”--_London Journal_, July 18,
  1857.

During the important balloon ascents recently made for scientific
purposes by Mr. Coxwell and Mr. Glaisher, of the Royal Greenwich
Observatory, the same phenomenon was observed--

  “The horizon always appeared on a level with the car.”--Vide
  “Glaisher’s Report.”

The following diagram represents this appearance:--

[Illustration: FIG. 8.]

The surface of the earth C D appears to rise to the line-of-sight from
the balloon, and “seems to close with the sky” at the points H H in
the same manner that the ceiling and the floor of a long room, or the
top and bottom of a tunnel appear to approach each other, and from the
same cause, viz.: that they are _parallel to the line-of-sight, and
therefore horizontal_.

If the Earth’s surface were convex the observer, looking from a
balloon, instead of seeing it gradually ascend to the level of the eye,
would have to look downwards to the horizon H H, as represented in
figure 9, and the amount of dip in the line-of-sight C H would be the
greatest at the highest elevation.

[Illustration: FIG. 9.]

Many more experiments have been made than are here described, but the
selection now given is amply sufficient to prove that the surface of
water is horizontal, and that the Earth, taken as a whole, its land and
water together, is not a globe, has really no degree of sphericity; but
is “to all intents and purposes” A PLANE!

If we now consider the fact that when we travel by land or sea, and
from any part of the known world, in a direction towards the North
polar star, we shall arrive at one and the same point, we are forced
to the conclusion that what has hitherto been called the North Polar
region, is really THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH. That from this northern
centre the land diverges and stretches out, of necessity, towards a
circumference, which must now be called THE SOUTHERN REGION: which is
a vast circle, and not a pole or centre. That there is ONE CENTRE--THE
NORTH, and ONE CIRCUMFERENCE--THE SOUTH. This language will be better
understood by reference to the diagram Figure 10.

[Illustration: FIG. 10.]

N represents the northern centre; and S S S the southern
circumference--both icy or frozen regions. That the south is an
immense ring, or glacial boundary, is evident from the fact, that
within the antarctic circle the most experienced, scientific, and
daring navigators have failed in their attempts to sail, in a direct
manner, completely round it. Lieut. Wilkes, of the American Navy, after
great and prolonged efforts, and much confusion in his reckoning, and
seeing no prospect of success, was obliged to give up his attempt and
return to the north. This he acknowledged in a letter to Captain Sir
James Clarke Ross, with whose intention to explore the south seas he
had become acquainted, in which the following words occur: “I hope
you intend to circumnavigate the antarctic circle. I made 70 degrees
of it.” Captain Ross, however, was himself greatly confused in his
attempts to navigate the southern region. In his account of the voyage
he says, at page 96--“We found ourselves every day from 12 to 16 miles
by observation in advance of our reckoning.” “By our observations
we found ourselves 58 miles to the eastward of our reckoning in two
days.” And in this and other ways all the great navigators have been
frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in
their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the antarctic
circle. But if the southern region is a pole or centre, like the
north, there would be little difficulty in circumnavigating it, for
the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that
the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one centre, the
north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the
difficulties experienced by circumnavigators can be easily understood.

Having given a surface or bird’s-eye view of the Earth, the following
sectional representation will aid in completing the description.

[Illustration: FIG. 11.]

E E represents the Earth; W W the “great deep,” or the waters which
surround the land; N the northern centre; and S S sections of the
southern ice. As the present description is purely zetetic, and as
every fact must therefore have its fullest value assigned to it, and
its consequences represented, a peculiarity must be pointed out in the
foregoing diagram. It will be observed that from about the points E E
the surface of the water rises towards the south S S. It is clearly
ascertained that the altitude of the water in various parts of the
world is much influenced by the pressure of the atmosphere--however
this pressure is caused--and it is well known that the atmospheric
pressure in the south is constantly less than it is in the north, and
therefore the water in the southern region must always be considerably
higher than it is in the northern. Hence the peculiarity referred to
in the diagram. The following quotation from Sir James Ross’s voyages,
p. 483, will corroborate the above statements:--“Our barometrical
experiments appear to prove that a gradual diminution of atmospheric
pressure occurs as we proceed southwards from the tropic of Capricorn.
* * * It has hitherto been considered that the mean pressure of the
atmosphere at the level of the sea was nearly the same in all parts of
the world, as no material difference occurs between the equator and
the highest northern latitudes. * * * The causes of the atmospheric
pressure being so _very much less_ in the southern than in the northern
hemispheres remains to be determined.”

Thus, putting all theories aside, we have seen that direct experiment
demonstrates the important truth, _that the Earth is an extended
Plane_. Literally, “Stretched out upon the waters;” “Founded on the
seas and established on the floods;” “Standing in the water and out
of the water.” How far the southern icy region extends horizontally,
or how deep the waters upon and in which the earth stands or is
supported are questions which cannot yet be answered. In Zetetic
philosophy the foundation must be well secured, progress must be made
step by step, making good the ground as we proceed; and whenever a
difficulty presents itself, or evidence fails to carry us farther,
we must promptly and candidly acknowledge it, and prepare for future
investigation; but never fill up the inquiry by theory and assumption.
In the present instance there is no practical evidence as to the extent
of the southern ice and the “great deep.” Who shall say whether the
depth and extent of the “mighty waters” _have_ a limit, or constitute
the “World without end?”

Having advanced direct and special evidence that the surface of the
earth is not convex, but, on the contrary, a vast and irregular plane,
it now becomes important that the leading phenomena upon which the
doctrine of rotundity has been founded should be carefully examined.
First, it is contended that because the hull of an outward-bound vessel
disappears before the mast head, the water is convex, and therefore the
Earth is a globe. In this conclusion, however, there is an assumption
involved, viz., that such a phenomenon _can only_ result from a convex
surface. Inquiry will show that this is erroneous. If we select for
observation a few miles of straight and level railway, we shall
find that the rails, which are parallel, appear in the distance to
approach each other. But the two rails which are nearest together do
so more rapidly than those which are farthest asunder, as shown in the
following diagram, Figure 12.

[Illustration: FIG. 12.]

Let the observer stand at the point A, looking in the direction of the
arrows; and the rails 1.2.3.4. will appear to join at the point B, but
the rail 5.6 will appear to have converged only as far as C towards B.

Again, let a train be watched from the point A in Figure 13.

[Illustration: FIG. 13.]

The observer looking from A, with his eye midway between the bottom
of the carriage and the rail, will see the diameter of the wheels
gradually diminish as they recede. The lines 1.2 and 1.4 will appear to
approach each other until at the point B they will come together, and
the space, including the wheels, between the bottom of the carriage
and the rail will there disappear. The floor of the carriage will seem
to be sliding without wheels upon the rail 1.2; but the lines 5.6 and
7.8 will yet have converged only to C and D.

The same phenomenon may be observed with a long row of lamps, where the
ground is a straight line throughout its entire length as represented
in Figure 14.

[Illustration: FIG. 14.]

The lines 1.2 and A D will converge at the point D and the pedestal of
the lamp at D will seem to have disappeared, but the line 3.4, which
represents the true altitude of the lamps, will only have converged to
the point C.

A narrow bank running along the side of a straight portion of railway,
upon which poles are placed for supporting the wires of the electric
telegraph will produce the same appearance, as shown in Figure 15.

[Illustration: FIG. 15.]

The bank having the altitude 1.3 and 2.4 will, in the distance of two
or three miles (according to its depth) disappear to the eye of an
observer placed at Figure 1; and the telegraph pole at Figure 2 will
seem not to stand upon a bank at all, but upon the actual railway. The
line 3.4 will merge into the line 1.2 at the point B, while the line
5.6 will only have descended to the position C.

[Illustration: FIG. 16.]

Many other familiar instances could be given to show the true law of
perspective; which is, that parallel lines appear in the distance
to converge to one and the same datum line, but to reach it at
different distances if themselves dissimilarly distant. This law being
remembered, it is easy to understand how the hull of an outward-bound
ship, although sailing upon a plane surface disappears before the
mast-head. In Figure 16, let A B represent the surface of the water;
C H the line of sight; and E D the altitude of the mast-head. Then,
as A B and C H are nearer to each other than A B and E D, they will
converge and appear to meet at the point H, which is the practical,
or, as it would be better to call it, the _optical_ horizon. The hull
of the vessel being contained within the lines A B and C H, must
gradually diminish as these converge, until at H, or the horizon,
it enters the vanishing point and disappears; but the mast-head
represented by the line E D is still _above_ the horizon at H, and will
require to sail more or less, according to its altitude, beyond the
point H before it sinks to the line C H, or, in other words, before the
lines A B and E D form the same angle as A B and C H.

It will be evident also that should the elevation of the observer be
greater than at C, the horizon or vanishing point would not be formed
at H, but at a greater distance; and therefore the hull of the vessel
would be longer visible. Or, if, when the hull has disappeared at H,
the observer ascends from the elevation at C to a higher position
nearer to E, it will again be seen. Thus all these phenomena which have
so long been considered as proofs of the Earth’s rotundity are really
optical sequences of the contrary doctrine. To argue that because the
lower part of an outward-bound ship disappears before the highest the
water must be round, is to _assume_ that a _round_ surface _only_
can produce this effect! But it is now shown that a _plane_ surface
_necessarily_ produces this effect; and therefore the assumption is
not required, and the argument involved is fallacious!

It may here be observed that no help can be given to this doctrine of
rotundity by quoting the prevailing theory of perspective. The law
represented in the foregoing diagrams is the “law of nature.” It may
be seen in every layer of a long wall, in every hedge and bank of the
roadside, and indeed in every direction where lines and objects run
parallel to each other; but no illustration of the contrary perspective
is ever to be seen! except in the distorted pictures, otherwise
cleverly and beautifully drawn as they are, which abound in our public
and private collections.

The theory which affirms that parallel lines converge only to one and
the same point upon the eye-line is an error. It is true only of lines
equidistant from the eye-line. It is true that parallel lines converge
to one and the same _eye-line_, but _meet it at different distances
when more or less apart from each other_. This is the true law of
perspective as shown by Nature herself; any other idea is fallacious
and will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice.

As it is of great importance that the difference should be clearly
understood, the following diagram is given. Let E L (Figure 17)
represent the eye-line and C the vanishing point of the lines, 1 C 2
C; then the lines 3.4.5.6, although converging _somewhere_ to the line
E L, will not do so to the point C, but 3 and 4 will proceed to D and 5
and 6 to H. It is repeated, that lines _equidistant_ from the _datum_
will converge on the _same point_ and at the _same distance_; but lines
_not_ equidistant will converge on the same _datum_ but at _different
distances_! A very good illustration of the difference is given in
Figure 18. Theoretic perspective would bring the lines 1, 2, and 3 to
the same _datum_ line E L and to the _same point_ A. But the true
or natural law would bring the lines 2 and 3 to the point A because
equidistant from the eye-line E L; but the line 1 being farther from
E L than either 2 or 3, would be taken beyond the point A on towards C,
until it formed the _same angle_ upon the line E L as 2 and 3 form at
the point A.

[Illustration: FIG. 17.]

[Illustration: FIG. 18.]

The subject of perspective will not be rendered sufficiently clear
unless an explanation be given of the cause and character of what is
technically called the “vanishing point.” Why do objects, even when
raised above the earth, vanish at a given distance? It is known,
and can easily be proved by experiment, that “the range of the eye,
or diameter of the field of vision is 110°; consequently this is
the _largest_ angle under which an object can be seen. The range of
vision is from 110° to 1°. * * The _smallest_ angle under which an
object can be seen is upon an average for different sights the 60th
part of a degree, or _one minute_ in space; so that when an object is
removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just
be distinguishable; consequently, the greatest distance at which we
can behold an object, like a shilling, of an inch in diameter is 3000
inches or 250 feet.”[3] It may, therefore, be very easily understood
that a line passing over the hull of a ship, and continuing parallel
to the surface of the water, must converge to the vanishing point at
the distance of about 3000 times its own elevation; in other words,
if the surface of the hull be 10 feet above the water it will vanish
at 3,000 times 10 feet; or nearly six statute miles; but if the
mast-head be 30 feet above the water, it will be visible for 90,000
feet or over 17 miles; so that it could be seen upon the horizon for
a distance of eleven miles _after the hull had entered the vanishing
point_! Hence the phenomenon of a receding ship’s hull being the
first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and relied
upon as proving the rotundity of the Earth is fairly and logically
a proof of the very contrary! It has been misapplied in consequence
of an erroneous view of the law of perspective, and the desire to
support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose has already
been shown; and that, even if there were no question of the Earth’s
form involved, it could not arise from the convexity of the water, is
proved by the following experiment:--Let an observer stand upon the
sea-shore with the eye at an elevation of about six feet above the
water, and watch a vessel until it is just “hull down.” If now a good
telescope be applied the hull will be distinctly _restored to sight_!
From which it must be concluded that it had disappeared through the
influence of perspective, and not from having sunk behind the summit
of a convex surface! Had it done so it would follow that the telescope
had either carried the line-of-sight through the mass of water, or over
its surface and down the other side! But the power of “looking round a
corner” or penetrating a dense and extensive medium has never yet been
attributed to such an instrument! If the elevation of the observer be
much greater than six feet the distance at which the vanishing point is
formed will be so great that the telescope may not have power enough to
magnify or enlarge the angle constituting it; when the experiment would
appear to fail. But the failure would only be apparent, for a telescope
of sufficient power to magnify at the horizon or vanishing point would
certainly restore the hull at the greater distance.

  [3] “Wonders of Science,” by Mayhew, p. 357.

[Illustration: FIG. 19.]

An illustration or proof of the Earth’s rotundity is also supposed to
be found in the fact that navigators by sailing due east or west return
in the opposite direction. Here, again, a supposition is involved,
viz., that upon a globe _only_ could this occur. But it is easy to
prove that it could take place as perfectly upon a circular plane
as upon a sphere. Let it first be clearly understood what is really
meant by sailing _due east and west_. Practically it is sailing at
right angles to north and south: this is determined ordinarily by the
mariners’ compass, but more accurately by the meridian lines which
converge to the northern centre of the Earth. Bearing this in mind,
let N in Figure 19 represent the northern centre; and the lines N. S.
the directions north and south. Then let the small arrow, Figure 1,
represent a vessel on the meridian of Greenwich, with its head W. at
right angles, or due west; and the stern E due east. It is evident that
in passing to the position of the arrow, Figure 2, which is still
due west or square to the meridian, the arc 1.2 must be described;
and in sailing still farther under the same condition, the arcs 2.3,
3.4, and 4.1 will be successively passed over until the meridian of
Greenwich, Figure 1, is arrived at, which was the point of departure.
Thus a mariner, by keeping the head of his vessel due west, or at right
angles to the north and south, practically circumnavigates a plane
surface; or, in other words, he describes a circle _upon a plane_,
at a greater or lesser distance from the centre N, and being at all
times square to the radii north and south, he is _compelled_ to do
so--_because_ the earth is a plane, having a central region, towards
which the compass and the meridian lines which guide him, converge. So
far, then, from the fact of a vessel sailing due west coming home from
the east, and _vice versa_, being a proof of the earth’s rotundity, it
is simply a phenomenon, consistent with and dependent upon its being
a plane! The subject may be perfectly illustrated by the following
simple experiment:--Take a round table, fix a pin in the centre; to
this attach a thread, and extend it to the edge. Call the centre the
north and the circumference the south; then, at any distance between
the centre and the circumference, a direction at right angles to the
thread will be due east and west; and a small object, as a pencil,
placed across or square to the thread, to represent a ship, may be
carried completely round the table without its right-angled position
being altered; or, the right-angled position firmly maintained, the
vessel must of necessity describe a circle on being moved from right
to left or left to right. Referring again to the diagram, Figure 19,
the vessel may sail from the north towards the south, upon the meridian
Figure 1, and there turning due west, may pass Cape Horn, represented
by D, and continue its westerly course until it passes the point C, or
the Cape of Good Hope, and again reaches the meridian, Figure 1, upon
which it may return to the north. Those, then, who hold that the earth
is a globe because it can be circumnavigated, have an argument which
is logically incomplete and fallacious. This will be seen at once by
putting it in the syllogistic form:--

  A globe _only_ can be circumnavigated:

  The Earth has been circumnavigated:

  Therefore the Earth is a globe.

It has been shown that a _plane_ can be circumnavigated, and therefore
the first or major proposition is false; and, being so, the conclusion
is false. This portion of the subject furnishes a striking instance
of the necessity of, at all times, proving a proposition by direct
and immediate evidence, instead of quoting a natural phenomenon as a
proof of what has previously been assumed. But a theory will not admit
of this method, and therefore the zetetic process, or inquiry before
conclusion, entirely eschewing assumption, is the only course which
can lead to simple and unalterable truth. Whoever creates or upholds a
theory, adopts a monster which will sooner or later betray and enslave
him, or make him ridiculous in the eyes of practical observers.

Closely following the subject of circumnavigation, the gain and loss
of time discovered on sailing east and west is referred to as another
proof of rotundity. But this illustration is equally fallacious with
the last, and from the same cause, viz., the assumption that a _globe
only_ could produce the effect observed. It will be seen, by reference
to diagram, Figure 19, that the effect must take place equally upon a
plane as upon a globe. Let the ship, W E, upon the meridian, Figure 1,
at 12 at noon, begin to sail towards the position, Figure 2, which it
will reach the next day at 12, or in 24 hours: the sun during the same
24 hours will have returned only to Figure 1, and will require to move
for another hour or more until it reaches the ship at Figure 2, making
25 hours instead of 24, in which the sun would have returned to the
ship, if it had remained at Figure 1. In this way, the sun is more and
more behind the meridian time of the ship, as it proceeds day after day
upon its westerly course, so that on completing the circumnavigation
the ship’s time is a day later than the solar time, reckoning to and
from the meridian of Greenwich. But the contrary follows if the ship
sails from Figure 1 towards Figure 4, or the east, because it will meet
the sun one hour earlier than the 24 hours which would be required for
it to pass on to Figure 1. Hence, on completing the circle 1.4.3.2.1,
the time at the ship would be one day in advance of the time at
Greenwich, or the position Figure 1. Captain Sir J. C. Ross, at page
132, vol. 2, says--“November 25, having by sailing to the eastward
gained 12 hours, it became necessary, on crossing the 180th degree and
entering upon west longitude, in order to have our time correspond with
that of England, to have two days following of the same date, and by
this means lose the time we had gained, and still were gaining, as we
sailed to the eastward.”

In further illustration of this matter, and to impress the mind of the
readers with its importance as an evidence in support of the theory
of the earth’s sphericity, several authors have given the following
story:--Two brothers, twins, born within a few minutes of each other,
and therefore of the same age, on growing to manhood went to sea. They
both circumnavigated the earth, but in opposite directions; and when
they again met, one was a day older than the other!

Whatever truth there may be in this account, it is here shown to be no
more favourable to the idea of rotundity than it is to the opposite
fact that the earth is a plane; as both forms will permit of the same
effect.

Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is found in the fact
that Polaris, or the north polar star, gradually sinks to the horizon
as the mariner approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes
invisible. First, it is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object
to appear lower and lower as the observer recedes. Let any one try
the experiment of looking at a lighthouse, church spire, monument,
gas-lamp, or other elevated object, from the distance of a few yards,
and notice the angle at which it is observed: on going farther away,
the angle will diminish and the object appear lower, until, if the
distance be sufficiently great, the line-of-sight to the object, and
the apparently ascending surface of the Earth upon which it stands
will converge to the angle which constitutes the vanishing point; at
a single yard beyond which it will be invisible. This, then, is the
necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating
between the eye-line and the plane surface upon which the object
stands; and has no relation whatever to rotundity.

It is not denied that a similar depression of a distant object would
take place upon a globe; it is simply contended that it would not occur
upon a globe exclusively. But if the Earth is a sphere and the pole
star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for
a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The
line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently
several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the
pole-star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star
being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of
Capricorn. In the _Times_ newspaper of May 13, 1862, under the head of
“Naval and Military Intelligence,” it is stated that Captain Wilkins
distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the polar star at midnight in
23·53 degrees of latitude, and longitude 35·46.

[Illustration: FIG. 20.]

This would be utterly impossible if the Earth were a globe, as shown
in the diagram, Figure 20. Let N represent the north pole, E E the
equator, C C the tropic of Capricorn, and P the polar star. It will
be evident that the line-of-sight C D being a tangent to the Earth
beyond the equator E must diverge from the axis N and could not by any
known possibility cause the star P to be visible to an observer at C.
No matter how distant the star P, the line C D being divergent from
the direction N P could never come in contact with it. The fact, then,
that the polar star has often been seen from many degrees beyond the
equator, is really an important argument against the doctrine of the
Earth’s rotundity.

It has been thought that because a pendulum vibrates more rapidly in
the northern region than at the equator, the Earth is thereby proved to
be a globe; and because the variation in the velocity is not exactly as
it should be if all the surface of the Earth were equidistant from the
centre, it has been concluded that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, or
that its diameter is rather less through the poles than it is through
the equator. The difference was calculated by Newton to be the 235th
part of the whole diameter; or that the polar was to the equatorial
diameter as 689 to 692. Huygens gave the proportion as 577 to 875 or
a difference of about one-third of the whole diameter. Others have
given still different proportions; but recently the difference of
opinion has become so great that many have concluded that the Earth
is really instead of oblate an _oblong_ spheroid. It is certain that
the question when attempted to be answered by measuring arcs of the
meridian, is less satisfactory than was expected. This will be evident
from the following quotation from the account of the ordnance survey
of Great Britain, which was conducted by the Duke of Richmond, Col.
Mudge, General Roy, Mr. Dalby, and others, who measured base lines on
Hounslow Heath and Salisbury Plain with glass rods and steel chains:
“when these were connected by a chain of triangles and the length
computed the result did not differ more than one inch from the actual
measurements--a convincing proof of the accuracy with which all the
operations had been conducted.

The two stations, of Beachy Head in Sussex and Dunnose in the Isle of
Wight, are visible from each other, and more than 64 miles asunder,
nearly in a direction from east to west; their exact distance was found
by the geodetical operations to be 339,397 feet (64 miles and 1477
feet). The azimuth, or bearing of the line between them with respect
to the meridian, and also the latitude of Beachy Head, were determined
by astronomical observations. From these data the length of a degree
perpendicular to the meridian was computed; and this, compared with the
length of a meridional degree in the same latitude, gave the proportion
of the polar to the equatorial axis. The result thus obtained, however,
differed considerably from that obtained by meridional degrees. It
has been found impossible to explain the want of agreement in a
satisfactory way. * * By comparing the celestial with the terrestrial
arcs, the length of degrees in various parallels was determined as in
the following table:--

                                 Latitude of
                                middle point.   Fathoms.
                                 °   ′    ″
  Arbury Hill and Clifton       52  50  29·8     60,766
  Blenheim and Clifton          52  38  56·1     60,769
  Greenwich and Clifton         52  28   5·7     60,794
  Dunnose and Clifton           52   2  19·8     60,820
  Arbury Hill and Greenwich     51  51   4·1     60,849
  Dunnose and Arbury Hill       51  35  18·2     60,864
  Blenheim and Dunnose          51  13  18·2     60,890
  Dunnose and Greenwich         51   2  54·2     60,884

This table presents a singular deviation from the common rule; for
instead of the degrees _increasing_ as we proceed from north to south,
they appear to _decrease_, as if the Earth were an _oblong_ instead
of an _oblate_ spheroid. * * The measurements of small arcs of the
meridian in other countries have presented similar instances.”[4]

  [4] Encyclopedia of Geography, by Hugh Murray and several Professors
  in the University of Edinburgh.

A number of French Academicians who measured above three degrees of
the meridian in Peru, gave as the result of their labours the first
degree of the meridian from the equator as 56,653 toises; whilst
another company of Academicians, who proceeded to Bothnia in Lapland,
gave as the result of their calculation 57,422 toises for the length
of a degree cutting the polar circle. But a more recent measurement
made by the Swedish Astronomers in Bothnia shows the French to have
been incorrect, having given the degree there 196 toises more than
the true length. Other observations have been made, but as no two sets
of experiments agree in result, it would be very unsatisfactory to
conclude from them that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

Returning to the pendulum, it will be found to be equally
unsatisfactory as a proof of this peculiar rotundity of the Earth. It
is argued that as the length of a seconds pendulum at the equator is
39,027 inches, and 39,197 inches at the north pole, that the Earth
must be a globe, having a less diameter through its axis than through
its equator. But this proceeds upon the _assumption_ that the Earth
_is_ a globe having a “centre of attraction of gravitation,” towards
which all bodies gravitate or fall; and as the pendulum is a falling
body under certain restraint, the fact that it oscillates or falls
more rapidly at the north than it does at the equator, is a proof that
the north is nearer to the centre of attraction, or the centre of
the Earth, than is the equatorial region; and, of course, if nearer,
the radius must be shorter; and therefore the “Earth is a spheroid
flattened at the poles.” This is very ingenious and very plausible,
but, unfortunately for its character as an argument, the essential
evidence is wanting that the Earth is a globe at all! whether oblate
or oblong, or truly spherical, are questions logically misplaced.
It should also be first proved that _no other_ cause could operate
besides greater proximity to the centre of gravity, to produce the
variable oscillations of a pendulum. This not being attempted, the
whole subject must be condemned as logically insufficient, irregular,
and worthless for its intended purpose. Many philosophers have ascribed
the alterations in the oscillations of a pendulum to the diminished
temperature of the northern centre. That the heat gradually and almost
uniformly diminishes on passing from the equator to the north is well
ascertained. “The mean annual temperature of the whole Earth at the
level of the sea is 50° Fah. For different latitudes it is as under:--

                       Degrees.                     Inches.
  Latitude (Equator)   0  84·2  Length of Pendulum  39,027
      „        „      10  82·6     „          „        „
      „        „      20  78·1     „          „        „
      „        „      30  71·1     „          „        „
      „        „      40  62·6     „          „        „
      „    (London)   50  53·6     „          „     39,139
      „        „      60  45·0     „          „        „
      „        „      70  38·1     „          „        „
      „        „      80  33·6     „          „        „
      „      (Pole)   90  00·0     „          „     39,197[5]”

  [5] “Million of Facts,” by Sir Richard Phillips, p. 475.

“All the solid bodies with which we are surrounded are constantly
undergoing changes of bulk corresponding to the variations of
temperature. * * The expansion and contraction of metals by heat and
cold form subjects of serious and careful attention to chronometer
makers, as will appear by the following statements:--The length of the
pendulum vibrating seconds, in vacuo, in the latitude of London (51°
31′ 8″ north), at the level of the sea, and at the temperature of 62°,
has been ascertained with the greatest precision to be 39·13929 inches:
now, as the metal of which it is composed is constantly subject to
variation of temperature, it cannot but happen that its _length_ is
constantly varying; and when it is further stated that if the “bob”
be let down ¹⁄₁₀₀th of an inch, the clock will lose 10 seconds in 24
hours; that the elongation of ¹⁄₁₀₀₀th of an inch will cause it to lose
one second per day; and that a change of temperature equal to 30° Fah.
will alter its length ¹⁄₅₀₀₀th part and occasion an error in the rate
of going of 8 seconds per day, it will appear evident that some plan
must be devised for obviating so serious an inconvenience.”[6]

  [6] “Noad’s Lectures on Chemistry,” p. 41.

From these data it is readily seen that the variations in the rate
of a pendulum as it is carried from the equator towards the north
are sufficiently explained, without supposing that they arise from a
peculiar spheroidal form of the Earth.

Others have attributed the variable motions of the pendulum to
increased density of the air on going northwards. That the condition
of the air must have some influence in this respect will be seen
from the following extract from experiments on pendulums by Dr.
Derham, recorded in numbers 294 and 480 of the _Philosophical
Transactions_:--“The arches of vibration _in vacuo_ were larger than
in the open air, or in the receiver before it was exhausted; the
enlargement or diminution of the arches of vibration were _constantly
proportional_ to the _quantity of air_, or rarity, or density of it,
which was left in the receiver of the air-pump. And as the _vibrations_
were _longer_ or _shorter_, _so_ the _times_ were accordingly, viz.,
two seconds in an hour when the vibrations were longest, and less and
less as the air was re-admitted, and the vibrations shortened.”

Thus there are two distinct and tangible causes which necessarily
operate to produce the variable oscillations of a pendulum, without
supposing any distortion in the supposed rotundity of the Earth. First,
if the pendulum vibrates in the air, which is colder and therefore
denser in the north than at the equator, it must be more or less
resisted in its passage through it; and, secondly, if it vibrates _in
vacuo_, the temperature being less, the length must be less, the arcs
of vibration less, and the velocity greater. In going towards the
equator, the temperature increases, the length becomes greater, the
arcs increase, and the times of vibration diminish.

Another argument for the globular form of the Earth is the
following:--The degrees of longitude radiating from the north pole
gradually increase in extent as they approach the equator; beyond which
they again converge towards the south. To this it is replied that no
actual measurement of a degree of longitude has ever been made south of
the equator! If it be said that mariners have sailed round the world
in the southern region and have _computed_ the length of the degrees,
it is again replied that such evidence is unfavourable to the doctrine
of rotundity. It will be seen from the following table of what the
degrees of longitude would be if the earth were a globe of 25,000
miles circumference, and comparing these with the results of practical
navigation, that the diminution of degrees of longitude beyond the
equator is purely imaginary.

Latitudes at different longitudes:--

  Latitude  1 = 59·99 nautical miles.
           10 = 59·09    „       „
           20 = 56·38    „       „
           30 = 51·96    „       „
           34 = 49·74 (Cape Town)
           40 = 45·96    „       „
           45 = 42·45 (Port Jackson, Sydney)
           50 = 38·57    „       „
           56 = 33·55 (Cape Horn)
           60 = 30·00    „       „
           65 = 25·36    „       „
           70 = 20·52    „       „
           75 = 15·53    „       „
           80 = 10·42    „       „
           85 =  5·53    „       „
           86 =  4·19    „       „
           87 =  3·14    „       „
           88 =  2·09    „       „
           89 =  1·05    „       „
           90 =  0·00    „       „

According to the above table (which is copied from a large Mercator’s
chart in the library of the Mechanics’ Institute, Royal Hill,
Greenwich), the distance round the Earth at the Antarctic circle would
only be about 9,000 miles. But practical navigators give the distance
from the Cape of Good Hope to Port Jackson as 8,000 miles; from Port
Jackson to Cape Horn as 8,000 miles; and from Cape Horn to the Cape
of Good Hope, 6,000 miles, making together 22,000 miles. The average
longitude of these places is 45°, at which parallel the circuit of
the Earth, if it be a globe, should only be 14,282 miles. Here, then,
is an error between the theory of rotundity and practical sailing of
7,718 miles. But there are several statements made by Sir James Clarke
Ross which tend to make the disparity even greater: at page 236, vol.
2, of “South Sea Voyages,” it is said “From near Cape Horn to Port
Philip (in Melbourne, Australia) the distance is 9,000 miles.” These
two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore
the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical
question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance
made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The
answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8,357 miles more than the theory of
rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the
above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles,
gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude
as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest
circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.

But actual measurement of a degree of longitude in Australia or some
other land far south of the equator can alone place this matter beyond
dispute. The problem to be solved might be given as the following:--A
degree of longitude in England at the latitude of 50° N. is 38·57
nautical or 45 statute miles; at the latitude of Port Jackson in
Australia, which is 45° S., a degree of longitude, if the Earth is a
globe, should be 42·45 nautical or 49·52 statute miles. But if the
Earth is a plane, and the distances above referred to as given by
nautical men are correct, a degree of longitude on the parallel of Port
Jackson will be 69·44 statute miles, being a difference of 19·92 or
nearly 20 statute miles. In other words, a degree of longitude along
the southern part of Australia ought to be, _if the Earth is a plane_,
nearly 20 miles greater than a degree of longitude on the southern
coast of England. This is the point which has yet to be settled. The
day is surely not far distant when the scientific world will demand
that the question be decided by proper geodetical operations! And
this not altogether for the sake of determining the true figure of
the Earth, but also for the purpose of ascertaining, if possible, the
cause of the many anomalies observed in navigating the southern region.
These anomalies have led to the loss of many vessels and the sacrifice
of a fearful amount of life and property. “In the southern hemisphere,
navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when
still West, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which
according to their reckoning lay behind them. This misfortune happened
to a fine frigate, the “Challenger,” in 1845.”[7] “Assuredly there are
many shipwrecks from alleged errors in reckoning which _may_ arise
from a somewhat false idea of the general form and measurement of the
Earth’s surface. Such a subject, therefore, ought to be candidly and
boldly discussed.”[8]

  [7] “Tour through Creation,” by the Rev. Thomas Milner, M.A.

  [8] “The Builder,” Sept. 20, 1862, in a “review” of a
  recently-published work on Astronomy.

It is commonly believed that surveyors when laying out railways
and canals, are obliged to allow 8 inches per mile for the Earth’s
curvature; and that if this were not done in the latter case the water
would not be stationary, but would flow on until at the end of one
mile in each direction, although the canal should have the same depth
throughout, the surface would stand 8 inches higher in the middle than
at the ends. In other words, that the bottom of a canal in which the
allowance of 8 inches per mile had not been made, would be a chord
to the surface of the contained water, which would be an arc of a
circle. To this it is replied, that both in regard to railways and
canals, wherever an allowance has been attempted the work has not
been satisfactory; and so irregular were the results in the earlier
days of railway, canal, and other surveying, that, the most eminent
engineers abandoned the practice of the old “forward levelling” and
allowing for convexity; and adopted what is now called the “double
sight” or “back-and-fore sight” method. It was considered that whether
the surface were convex or horizontal, or whether the convexity were
more or less than the supposed degree, would be of no consequence in
practice if the spirit level or theodolite were employed to read both
backwards and forwards; for whatever degree of convexity existed,
one “sight” would compensate for the other; and if the surface were
horizontal, the same mode of levelling would apply. So important did
the ordnance department of the Government consider this matter, that it
was deemed necessary to make the abandonment of all ideas of rotundity
compulsory, and in a standing order (No. 6) of the House of Lords as to
the preparation of sections for railways, &c., the following language
is used, “That the section be drawn to the same _horizontal_ scale as
the plan; and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every
one hundred feet; and shall show the surface of the ground marked on
the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every
embankment, and the depth of every cutting; and a _datum_ HORIZONTAL
LINE, which shall be _the same throughout the whole length of the
work_, or any branch thereof respectively; and shall be referred to
some fixed point stated in writing on the section, near some portion of
such work; and in the case of a canal, cut, navigation, turnpike, or
other carriage road, or railway, near either of the termini.” No. 44
of the standing orders of the House of Commons is similar to the above
order (No. 6) of the House of Lords.

Thus it is evident that the doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity cannot
be mixed up with the practical operations of civil engineers and
surveyors, and to prevent the waste of time and the destruction of
property which necessarily followed the doings of some who were
determined to involve the convexity of the Earth’s surface in their
calculations, the very Government of the country has been obliged to
interfere! Every survey of this and other countries, whether ordnance
or otherwise, is now carried out in connection with a horizontal datum,
and therefore, as no other method proves satisfactory, it is virtually
an admission by all the most practical scientific men of the day that
the Earth _cannot be other than a plane_!

An argument for the Earth’s convexity is thought by many to be found
in the following facts:--“Fluid or semi-fluid substances in a state
of motion invariably assume the globular form, as rain, hail, dew,
mercury, and melted lead, which, poured from a great height becomes
divided into spherical masses, as in the manufacture of small shot,
&c.” “There is abundant evidence from geology that the Earth has been
a fluid or semi-fluid mass, and it could not, therefore, continue in
a state of motion through space without becoming spherical.” Without
denying that the Earth has been, at some former period, in a pulpy or
semi-fluid state, it is requisite to prove beyond all doubt that it
has a motion upon axes and through space, or the conclusion that it
is therefore spherical is premature and illogical. It will be shown
in a subsequent part of this work, that such axial and orbital motion
does not exist, and therefore any argument founded upon and including
it as a fact is necessarily fallacious. In addition to this, it may
be remarked that the tendency in falling fluids to become globular is
owing to what has been called “attraction of cohesion” (not “attraction
of gravitation”), which is very limited in its operation. It is
confined to small quantities of matter. If, in the manufacture of
small shot, the melted metal is allowed to fall in masses of several
ounces or pounds, instead of being divided into particles weighing
only a few grains, it will never take a spherical form, and shot of
an inch in diameter could not be made by this process. Bullets of
even half-an-inch diameter can only be made by casting the metal into
spherical moulds. In tropical countries, the rain instead of falling in
drops or small globules, often comes down in large irregular masses,
which have no approximation whatever to sphericity. So that it is
manifestly unjust to affirm of large masses of matter like the Earth
that which only belongs to minute portions or a few grains in weight.
The whole matter taken together entirely fails as an argument for the
Earth’s rotundity.

Those who hold that the Earth is a globe will often affirm, with
visible enthusiasm, that in an eclipse of the Moon there is proof
positive of rotundity. That the shadow of the Earth upon the Moon is
always round; and that nothing but a globe could, in all positions,
cast a circular shadow. Here again the essential requirements of an
argument are wanting. It is _not proved_ that the Moon is eclipsed _by
a shadow_. It is _not proved_ that the _Earth moves_ in an orbit, and
therefore takes _different positions_. It is _not proved_ that the Moon
receives her light from the Sun, and that therefore her surface is
darkened by the Earth intercepting the Sun’s light. It will be shown
in the proper place that the Earth has no motion in space or on axes;
that it is not a shadow which eclipses the Moon; that the Moon is not
a reflector of the Sun’s light, but is _self-luminous_; and therefore
could not possibly be obscured by _a shadow_ from any object whatever.
The subject is only introduced here because it forms one of the
category of supposed evidences of the Earth’s rotundity. But to call
that an argument where every necessary proposition is assumed, is to
stultify both the judgment and the reasoning powers!

Many place great reliance upon what is called the “spherical excess”
observed in levelling, as a proof of the Earth’s rotundity. In
Castle’s Treatise on Levelling it is stated that “the angles taken
between any three points on the surface of the Earth by the theodolite,
are, strictly speaking, spherical angles, and their sum must exceed 180
degrees; and the lines bounding them are not the chords as they should
be, but the tangents to the Earth. This excess is inappreciable in
common cases, but in the larger triangles it becomes necessary to allow
for it, and to diminish each of the angles of the observed triangle by
one-third of the spherical excess. To calculate this excess, divide the
area of the triangle in feet by the radius of the Earth in seconds and
the quotient is the excess.”

The following observation as made by surveyors, also bears upon the
subject:--If a spirit-level or theodolite be “levelled,” and a given
point be read upon a graduated staff at the distance of about or
more than 100 chains, this point will have an altitude slightly in
excess of the altitude of the cross-hair of the theodolite; and if the
theodolite be removed to the position of the graduated staff and again
levelled, and a backward sight taken to the distance of 100 chains,
another excess of altitude will be observed; and this excess will
go on increasing as often as the experiment or backward and forward
observation is repeated. From this it is argued that the line of sight
from the spirit-level or theodolite is a tangent, and that the surface
of the Earth is therefore spherical.

Of a similar character is the following observation:--If a theodolite
or spirit-level be placed upon the sea-shore, and “levelled,” and
directed towards the sea, the line of the horizon will be observed to
be a given amount below the cross-hair of the instrument, to which a
certain dip, or inclination from the level will have to be given to
bring the cross-hair and the sea horizon together. It is concluded that
as the sea horizon is always observed to be below the cross-hair of the
“levelled” theodolite, the line of sight is a tangent, the surface of
the water convex, and therefore the Earth is a globe.

[Illustration: FIG. 21.]

The conclusion derived from the last three observations is exceedingly
plausible, and would completely satisfy the minds of scientific men
as to the Earth’s sphericity if a perfect explanation could not be
given. The whole matter has been specially and carefully examined;
and one very simple experiment will show that the effects observed do
not arise from rotundity in the Earth’s surface, but from a certain
peculiarity in the instruments employed. Take a convex lens or a
magnifying glass and hold it over a straight line drawn across a
sheet of paper. If the glass be so held that a part of the straight
line can be seen _through_ it, and another part seen _outside_ it, a
difference in the _direction_ of the line will be observed, as shown
in the diagram Figure 21. Let A B C represent a straight line. If a
lens is now held an inch, or more, according to its focal length,
over the part of the line A B, and the slightest amount out of its
centre, that part of the line A B which passes under the lens will
be seen in the direction of the figures 1.2; but if the lens be now
moved a little out of its central position in the opposite direction,
the line B C will be observed at 3.4, or below B C. A lens is a
magnifying glass because it _dilates_ or spreads out from its centre
the objects observed through it Therefore whatever is magnified by it
is seen a little out of its axis or centre. This is again necessitated
by the fact that the axis or actual centre is always occupied by the
cross-hair. Thus the line-of-sight in the theodolite or spirit-level
not being axial or absolutely central, reads upon a graduated staff
a position which is necessarily slightly divergent from the axis of
vision; and this is the source of that “spherical excess” which has so
long been considered by surveyors as an important proof of the Earth’s
rotundity. In this instance, as, indeed, in all the others given as
evidence that the Earth is a globe, the premises do not fully warrant
the conclusion--which is premature,--drawn before the whole subject is
fairly examined; and when other causes are amply sufficient to explain
the effects observed.




SECTION 2.

THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.


If a ball be allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship _at rest_, it
will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment
be tried with a ship _in motion_, the same result will be observed.
Because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by
two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it
by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion, and the other
the force of gravity, the direction of which is square to that of the
momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together will not
go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as
shown in the following diagram, Figure 22.

[Illustration: FIG. 22.]

[Illustration: FIG. 23.]

The ball passing from A to C by the force of gravity, and having at
the moment of its liberation received a momentum from the ship in the
direction A B, will by the conjoint action of the two forces, take the
direction A D, falling at D, just as it would have fallen at C had the
vessel remained at rest. In this way, it is contended by those who
hold that the Earth is a moving sphere, a ball allowed to fall from
the mouth of a deep mine reaches the bottom in an apparently vertical
direction, the same as it would if the Earth were motionless. So far,
there need be no discussion--the explanation is granted. But now let
the experiment be modified in the following way:--Let the ball be
thrown _upwards from_ the mast-head of a moving vessel; it will partake
as before of two motions, the upward and the horizontal, and will take
a diagonal course upwards and with the vessel until the two forces
expend themselves, when it will begin to fall by the force of gravity
only, and drop into the water far behind the ship, which is still
moving horizontally. Diagram Figure 23 will illustrate this effect. The
ball being thrown upwards in the direction A C, and the vessel moving
from A to B, will cause it to pass in the direction A D, arriving at D
when the vessel reaches B; the two forces having expended themselves
when the ball arrives at D, it will begin to descend by the force of
gravity in the direction D B H, but during its fall the vessel will
have reached the position S, so that the ball will drop far behind
it at the point H. To bring the ball from D to S _two forces_ would
be required, as D H and D W; but as D W does not exist, the force of
gravity operates _alone_, and the ball necessarily falls behind the
vessel at a distance proportionate to the altitude attained at D, and
the time occupied in falling from D to H.

The same result will be observed on throwing a ball directly upwards
from a railway carriage when in rapid motion, as shown in the following
Figure 24. While the carriage or tender passes from A to B, the ball
thrown from A to C will reach the position D, but while the ball then
comes down by the force of gravity, _operating alone_, to the point H,
the carriage will have advanced to W, so that the ball will always drop
more or less behind the carriage, according to the force first given
to it in the direction A C and the time occupied in ascending to D,
and thence descending to H. It is therefore demanded that if the Earth
had a motion upon axes from west to east, and a ball, instead of being
dropped down a mine or allowed to fall from the mast head of a ship,
be _shot upwards_ into the air; from the moment of its beginning to
descend the surface of the Earth would turn from under its direction,
and it would fall behind or to the west of its line of descent. On
making the experiment _no such effect is observed_, and therefore the
conclusion is unavoidable, that the Earth DOES NOT MOVE UPON AXES!

[Illustration: FIG. 24.]

[Illustration: FIG. 25.]

The following experiment has been tried, with the object of obtaining
definite results. If the Earth is a globe, having a circumference of
25,000 miles at the equator, the circumference at the latitude of
London (51°) will be about 16,000 statute miles; so that the motion of
the Earth’s surface, if 25,000 miles in 24 hours at the equator, in
England would be more than 700 feet per second. An air-gun was firmly
fixed to a strong post, as shown at A in Figure 25, and carefully
adjusted by a plumb-line, so that it was perfectly vertical. On
discharging the gun, the ball ascended in the direction A C, and
invariably (during several trials) descended within a few inches of
the gun at A; twice it fell back upon the very mouth of the barrel.
The average time that the ball was in the atmosphere was 16 seconds;
and, as half the time would be required for the ascent and half for the
descent, it is evident that if the Earth had a motion once round its
axis in 24 hours, the ball would have passed in 8 seconds to the point
D, while the air-gun would have reached the position B H. The ball
then commencing its descent, requiring also 8 seconds, would in that
time have fallen to the point H, while the Earth and the gun would
have advanced as far as W. The time occupied being 8 seconds, and the
Earth’s velocity being 700 feet per second, the progress of the Earth
and the air-gun to W, in advance of the ball at H, would be 5,600 feet!
In other words, in these experiments, the ball, which always fell back
to the place of its detachment, should have fallen 5,600 feet, or
considerably more than one statute mile to the west of the air-gun!
Proving beyond all doubt that the supposed axial motion of the Earth
DOES NOT EXIST!

The same experiment ought to suffice as evidence against the
assumed motion of the Earth in an orbit; for it is difficult, if
not impossible, to understand how the behaviour of the ball thrown
from a vertical air-gun should be other in relation to the Earth’s
forward motion in space than it is in regard to its motion upon axes.
Besides, if it is proved _not_ to move upon axes, the assumption
that it moves in an orbit round the Sun is useless for theoretical
purposes, and there is no necessity for either denying or in any
way giving it farther consideration. But that no point may be taken
without direct evidence, let the following experiment be tried:--Take
two carefully-bored iron tubes, about two yards in length, and place
them, one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or
a solid block of wood or masonry; so adjust them that their axes of
vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other, and direct them to
the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its
meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube; and the
moment the star appears in the first tube, let a knock or other signal
be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he
first sees the star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the
signals given, showing that the same star is not visible at the same
moment by two lines of sight parallel to each other and only one yard
asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first
would be required for the star to be seen at the same moment. If now
the tubes be left in their position for six months, the same star will
be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration
being required in the direction of the tubes. From which result it
is concluded that if the Earth had moved _a single yard_ in an orbit
through space there would at least be the difference of time indicated
by the signals, and the slight inclination of the tube which the
difference in position of one yard required. But as no such difference
in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable
that in six months a given meridian upon the Earth has not moved a
single yard, and that therefore the Earth has not the slightest degree
of orbital motion--or motion at right angles to the meridian of a given
star! It will be useless to say in explanation that the stars are so
infinitely distant that a difference in the angle of inclination of the
tube in six months could not be expected, as it will be proved in a
subsequent section that _all_ the stars are within a few thousand miles
from the Earth’s surface!




SECTION 3.

THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN AND STARS.


As it is now demonstrated that the Earth is a plane, the distance of
the Sun and Stars may readily be measured by plane trigonometry. The
base line in any operation being horizontal and always a carefully
measured one, the process becomes exceedingly simple. Let the altitude
of the Sun be taken on a given day at 12 o’clock at the high-water
mark on the sea shore at Brighton, in Sussex; and at the same hour
at the high-water mark of the River Thames, near London Bridge; the
difference in the Sun’s altitude taken simultaneously from two stations
upon the same meridian, and the distance between the stations, or the
length of the base line ascertained, are all the elements required for
calculating the exact distance of the Sun from London or Brighton;
but as this distance is the hypothenuse of a triangle, whose base is
the Earth’s surface, and vertical side the zenith distance of the
Sun, it follows that the distance of the Sun from that part of Earth
to which it is vertical is less than the distance from London. In the
Diagram, Figure 26, let L B represent the base line from London to
Brighton, a distance of 51 statute miles. The altitude at L and at B
taken at the same moment of time will give the distance L S or B S.
The angle of altitude at L or B, with the length of L S or B S, will
then give the vertical distance of the Sun S from E, or the place which
is immediately underneath it. This distance will be thus found to be
considerably less than 4,000 miles.

[Illustration: FIG. 26.]

The following are the particulars of an observation made, a few years
ago, by the officers engaged in the Ordnance survey. Altitude of the
Sun at London 55° 13′; altitude taken at the same time, on the grounds
of a public school, at Ackworth, in Yorkshire, 53° 2′; the distance
between the two places in a direct line, as measured by triangulation,
is 151 statute miles. From these elements the true distance of the Sun
may be readily computed; and proved to be under 4,000 miles!

Since the above was written, an officer of the Royal Engineers, in the
head-quarters of the Ordnance Survey, at Southampton, has furnished the
following elements of observations recently made:--

  Southern Station, Sun’s altitude, 45°
  Northern  ditto,   „       „      38°
  Distance between the two stations, 800 statute miles.

The calculation made from these elements gives the same result, viz.,
that the actual distance of the Sun from the Earth is less than 4,000
miles.

The same method of measuring distances applies equally to the Stars;
and it is easy to demonstrate, beyond the possibility of doubt, so long
as assumed premises are excluded, that all the visible objects in the
firmament are contained within the distance of 6,000 miles!

From these demonstrable distances it follows unavoidably that the
_magnitude_ of the Sun, Moon, Stars, &c., is very small--much smaller
than the Earth from which they are measured; and to which therefore
they cannot possibly be other than secondary, and subservient.




SECTION 4.

THE SUN MOVES IN A CIRCLE OVER THE EARTH, CONCENTRIC WITH THE NORTH
POLE.


As the Earth has been shown to be fixed, the motion of the Sun is a
visible reality; and if it be observed from any northern latitude, and
for any period before and after the time of southing, or passing the
meridian, it will be seen to describe an arc of a circle; an object
moving in an arc cannot return to the centre of such arc without having
completed a circle. This the Sun does visibly and daily. To place the
matter beyond doubt, the observation of the Arctic navigators may be
referred to. Captain Parry, and several of his officers, on ascending
high land in the vicinity of the north pole, repeatedly saw, for 24
hours together, the sun describing a circle upon the southern horizon.




SECTION 5.

THE DIAMETER OF THE SUN’S PATH IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING--DIMINISHING FROM
DECEMBER 21ST TO JUNE 15TH, AND ENLARGING FROM JUNE TO DECEMBER.


This is a matter of absolute certainty, proved by what is called, in
technical language, the northern and southern declination, which is
simply saying that the Sun’s path is nearest the north pole in summer,
and farthest away from it in winter. This difference in position gives
rise to the difference of altitude, as observed at various periods of
the year, and which is shewn in the following table, given in “The
Illustrated London Almanack,” for 1848, by Mr. Glaisher, of the Royal
Observatory, Greenwich.

“Sun’s altitude at the time of Southing, or being on the meridian:--

                            Sun’s    Time of Southing.
                          altitude.   M. S. (Common clock, or
                                            London mean time.)
  June  15                  62°        0  4   before noon.
   „    30                  61²⁄₃°     3 18   afternoon.
  July  15                  59²⁄₃°     5 38       „
   „    31                  56¹⁄₂°     6  4       „
  Aug.  15                  52¹⁄₂°     0 11       „
   „    31                  47°        0  5       „
  Sep.  15                  38²⁄₃°     4 58   before noon.
   „    30                  35¹⁄₂°    10  6       „
  Oct.  31                  24°       16 14       „
  Nov.  30                  17°       10 58       „
  Dec.  21                  12°        0 27       „
   „    31                  15°        3 29   afternoon.
  Jan.   1                  15¹⁄₂°     3 36       „
   „    15                  17°        9 33       „
   „    31                  21°       13 41       „
  Feb.  15                  25°       14 28       „
   „    29                  30¹⁄₂°    12 43       „
  March 15 {On the Equator} 36°        9  2       „
           {  at 6 a.m.   } 38¹⁄₂°     0  0       „
    „   21                  42¹⁄₂°     4 10   before noon.
  April 15                  48°        0  8       „
    „   30                  53°        2 58       „
  May 15                    57°        3 54       „
   „  31                    60°        2 37       „

In the following diagram (Fig. 27) A A A represent the Sun’s daily path
on December 21st, and B B B the same on June 15th. N the North Pole, S
the Sun, E Great Britain. The figures 1 2 3 the Arctic Circle, and 4 5
6 the extent of sunlight. The arrows show the direction of the Sun’s
motion.

[Illustration: FIG. 27.]




SECTION 6.

CAUSE OF DAY AND NIGHT, SEASONS, &c.


The Sun S describes the circle A A A on the 21st December once in 24
hours; hence in that period day and night occur to every part of the
Earth, except within the Arctic circle. The light of the Sun gradually
diminishing from S, to the Arctic circle 1 2 3, where it becomes
twilight, does so according to the well-known law of radiation, equally
in all directions--hence, the circle 4 5 6 represents the whole extent
of the Sun’s light at any given time. The arc 4 E is the advancing or
morning twilight, and 6 E the receding or evening twilight; to every
place underneath a line drawn across the circle through S to N it is
noonday. It will now be easily understood that as the Sun S moves in
the direction of the arrows or from right to left, and completes the
circle A A A in 24 hours, it will produce in that period morning,
noon, evening, and night to all parts of the Earth in succession. On
referring to the diagram, it will be seen that to England, E, the
length of the day at this time of the year is the _shortest_, the
amount of light being represented by the arc E E E; and also that
the northern centre N remains in darkness during the whole daily
revolution of the Sun, the light of which terminates at the Arctic
circle 1 2 3. Thus, morning, noon, evening, midnight, the _shortest_
days, or the Winter season, and the constant or six months’ darkness
at the pole are all a part of one general phenomenon. As the Sun’s
path begins now to diminish every day until in six months, or on the
15th of June, it describes the circle B B B, it is evident that the
same extent of sunlight will reach over or beyond the pole N, as shown
in the following diagram (Fig. 28), when morning, noon, evening, and
night will again occur as before; but the amount of light passing over
England, represented by the arc E E E, is now much larger than when
the Sun was upon the circle A A A, and represents the _longest_ days,
or the _Summer_ season, and the constant, or six months’ light at the
pole. Thus, day and night, long and short days, Winter and Summer, the
long periods of alternate light and darkness at the pole, arise simply
from the Sun’s position in relation to the north pole.

[Illustration: FIG. 28.]

If the Earth is a globe, it is evident that Winter and Summer, and
long and short days, will be of the same character and duration in
corresponding latitudes, in the southern as in the northern hemisphere.
But we find that in many respects there is a marked difference; for
instance, in New Zealand, where the latitude is about the same as in
England, a remarkable difference exists in the length of day and night.
In the Cook’s Strait Almanack, for 1848, it is stated, “At Wellington,
New Zealand, December 21, Sun rises 4h. 31m., and sets at 7h. 29m., the
day being 14 hours 58 minutes. June 21st, Sun rises at 7h. 29m., and
sets at 4h. 31m., the day being 9 hours and 2 minutes. In England the
longest day is 16h. 34m., and the shortest day is 7h. 45m. Thus the
_longest day_ in New Zealand is 1 hour and 36 minutes _shorter_ than
the _longest day_ in England; and the _shortest day_ in New Zealand is
1 hour and 17 minutes _longer_ than the shortest day in England.”

In a recently published pamphlet, by W. Swainson, Esq., Attorney
General, the following passage occurs:--“Compared with an English
summer, that of Auckland is but little warmer, though much longer; but
the nights in New Zealand are always cool and refreshing.... The days
are _one hour shorter_ in the summer, and _one hour longer_ in the
winter than in England! of _twilight_ there is _little_ or _none_.”

From a work, also recently published, on New Zealand, by Arthur S.
Thompson, M.D., the following sentences are quoted:--“The summer
mornings, even in the warmest parts of the colony are sufficiently
fresh to exhilarate without chilling; and the seasons glide
imperceptibly into each other. The days are _an hour shorter_ at
_each end_ of the day in summer, and an hour longer in winter than in
England.”

A letter from a correspondent in New Zealand, dated Nelson, September
15, 1857, contains the subjoined passages:--“Even in summer people
here have no notion of going without fires in the evening; but then,
though the days are very warm and sunny, the nights are always cold.
For seven months last summer we had not one day that the Sun did
not shine as brilliantly as it does in England in the finest day in
June; and though it has more power here, the heat is not nearly so
oppressive.... But then there is not the twilight which you get in
England. Here it is light till about eight o’clock; then, in a few
minutes, it becomes too dark to see anything, and the change comes
over in almost no time.” “Twilight lasts but a short time in so low
a latitude as 28 degrees, and no sooner does the Sun peep above the
horizon, than all the gorgeous parade by which he is preceded is shaken
off, and he comes in upon us in the most abrupt and unceremonious way
imaginable.”[9] These various peculiarities could not exist in the
southern region if the Earth were spherical and moved upon axes, and
in an orbit round the Sun. If the Sun is fixed, and the Earth revolves
underneath it, the same phenomena should exist at the same distance on
each side of the Equator. But such is not the case! What can operate
to cause the twilight in New Zealand to be so much more sudden than it
is in England? The southern “hemisphere” cannot revolve more rapidly
than the northern! The distance round _a globe_ would be the same at
50° south as at 50° north, and as the whole globe would revolve once in
24 hours, the surface at the two places would move underneath the Sun
with the same velocity, and the light would approach in the morning
and recede in the evening in exactly the same manner; yet the _very
contrary_ is the fact! The twilight in England in summer is slow and
gradual, but in New Zealand it is rapid and abrupt; a difference which
is altogether incompatible with the doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity.
But, the Earth a plane, and it is a simple “matter of course.” Let E,
in Figure 28, represent England, and W New Zealand; the radius N E and
the consequent circle round N is much less than the radius N W and
its consequent circle round the same point. But as the larger circle,
radius N W is passed over by the sunlight in the same time (24 hours)
as the smaller circle, radius N E, the velocity is proportionately
greater. The velocity is the space passed over multiplied by the time
in passing, and as the space over New Zealand is much greater than the
space over England, the velocity of the Sun-light must be much greater,
and its morning and evening twilight necessarily more “abrupt and
unceremonious;” and _therefore_, it might be said with strictly logical
accuracy, the Earth is a Plane, and cannot possibly be a Globe!

  [9] Captain Basil Hall, R.N., F.R.S.




SECTION 7.

CAUSE OF “SUNRISE” AND “SUNSET.”


[Illustration: FIG. 29.]

Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s
surface, he appears to ascend the firmament from morning until noon,
and to descend and sink below the horizon at evening. This arises from
a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds,
when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend
as it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears
lower, or nearer to the horizon than the last. When a balloon sails
from an observer without increasing or decreasing its altitude, it
appears gradually to approach the horizon. The farthest light in a row
of lamps appears the lowest, although each one has the same altitude.
Bearing these phenomena in mind, it will easily be seen how the Sun,
although always parallel to the surface of the Earth, must appear to
ascend when approaching, and descend after leaving the meridian or
noon-day position. Let the line A B, Fig. 29, represent a portion
of the Earth’s surface; C D of the Sun’s path, and H H, the line of
sight. The surface of the Earth, A B, will appear to ascend from B to
H, forming the horizon. When the Sun is traversing the line C D, in the
direction of the arrows, he will appear to emerge from the horizon H,
and to gradually ascend the line H D. When in the position 1, he will
_appear_ to be at the point 2; and when at 3, the apparent position
will be at 4; but when he arrives upon the meridian D, his apparent
and actual, or noon-day position, will be the same. But now, from the
point D, the Sun will appear to descend, as in Fig. 30, and when he
has passed from D to 1, he will appear at 2, and when really at 3 will
appear at 4; and thus continuing his course in the direction D C, he
will reach the horizon at H, and disappear or “set” to the observer
at H A. Thus “Sunrise” and “Sunset” are phenomena dependent entirely
upon the fact that horizontal lines parallel to each other appear to
approach or converge in the distance, the surface of the Earth being
horizontal, and the line-of-sight of the observer and the Sun’s path
being parallel with it, necessarily produce the observed phenomena.

[Illustration: FIG. 30.]




SECTION 8.

CAUSE OF SUN APPEARING LARGER WHEN RISING AND SETTING THAN WHEN ON THE
MERIDIAN.


It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a
dense medium it will appear larger than when seen through a lighter
medium. This will be more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous
particles in solution,--as in a damp or foggy atmosphere the light of
a gas-lamp will seem greater at a given distance than it will under
ordinary circumstances. In the diagram, Figure 30, it is evident that
H D is less than H 1, H 3, or H 5. The latter (H 5) represents the
greater amount of atmosphere which the Sun has to shine through when
approaching the horizon; and as the air near the Earth is both more
dense and more damp, or holds more watery particles in solution, the
light of the Sun must be dilated or enlarged as well as modified in
colour. But the enlarged appearance of the Sun when rising and setting
is only an optical impression, as proved by actual measurement. “If
the angle of the Sun or Moon be taken either with a tube or micrometer
when they appear so large to the eye in the horizon, the measure is
identical when they are in the meridian and appear to the eye and
mind but half the size. The apparent distance of the horizon is three
or four times greater than the zenith. Hence the mental mistake of
horizontal size, for the angular dimensions are equal; the first 5° is
apparently to the eye equal to 10° or 15° at 50° or 60° of elevation;
and the first 15° fill a space to the eye equal to a third of the
quadrant. This is evidently owing to the ‘habit of sight,’ for with an
accurate instrument the measure of 5° near the horizon is equal to 5°
in the zenith.”[10]

  [10] “Million of Facts,” by Sir Richard Philips, p. 537.




SECTION 9.

CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES.


An Eclipse of the Sun is caused simply by the Moon passing before it,
or between it and the observer on the Earth. Of this no question has
been raised. But that an Eclipse of the Moon arises from a shadow
of the Earth is in every respect unsatisfactory. The Earth has been
proved to have no motion, either upon axes or in an orbit round the
Sun, and therefore it could never come between the Sun and the Moon.
The Earth is proved to be a Plane, always underneath the Sun and Moon,
and therefore to speak of its intercepting the light of the Sun and
thus casting its own shadow upon the Moon, is to say that which is
impossible. Besides this, cases are on record of the Sun and Eclipsed
Moon being above the horizon together. “The full Moon has sometimes
been seen above the horizon before the Sun was set. A remarkable
instance of this kind was observed at Paris on the 19th of July, 1750,
when the Moon appeared visibly Eclipsed while the Sun was distinctly
to be seen above the horizon.”[11] “On the 20th of April, 1837, the
Moon appeared to rise Eclipsed before the Sun had set. The same
phenomenon was observed on the 20th of September, 1717.”[12] “In the
lunar Eclipses of July 17, 1590; Nov. 3, 1648; June 16, 1666; and May
26, 1668, the Moon rose Eclipsed whilst the Sun was still apparently
above the horizon. Those _horizontal_ Eclipses were noticed as early
as the time of Pliny.”[13] The Moon’s entire surface, or that portion
presented to the Earth has also been distinctly seen during the whole
time of a total Eclipse, a phenomenon utterly incompatible with the
doctrine that the Earth’s shadow is the cause of it. “The Moon has
sometimes shown during a total Eclispe with an almost unaccountable
distinctness. On Dec. 22, 1703, the Moon, when totally immersed in
the Earth’s shadow, was visible at Avignon by a ruddy light of such
brilliancy that one might have imagined her body to be transparent, and
to be enlightened from behind; and on March 19th, 1848, it is stated
that so bright was the Moon’s surface during its total immersion, that
many persons could not be persuaded that it was eclipsed. Mr. Forster,
of Bruges, states, in an account of that eclipse, that the light and
dark places on the moon’s surface could be almost as well made out as
in an ordinary dull moonlight night.

  [11] “Astronomy and Astronomical Instruments,” p. 105, by Geo. G.
  Carey.

  [12] “McCulloch’s Geography,” p. 85.

  [13] “Illustrated London Almanack for 1864,” the astronomical part in
  which is by James Glaisher, Esq., of the Greenwich Observatory.

“Sometimes, in a total lunar eclipse, the moon will appear quite
obscure in some parts of its surface, and in other parts will exhibit
a high degree of illumination. * * * To a certain extent I witnessed
some of these phenomena during the merely partial eclipse of February
7th, 1860. * * * I prepared, during the afternoon of February 6th for
witnessing the eclipse, without any distinct expectation of seeing much
worthy of note. I knew, however, that upwards of eight-tenths of the
disc would be covered, and I was anxious to observe with what degree
of distinctness the eclipsed portion could be viewed, partly as an
interesting fact, and partly with a view of verifying or discovering
the weak points of an engraving (in which I am concerned) of a lunar
eclipse.

“After seeing the increasing darkness of the penumbra softly merging
into the true shadow at the commencement of the eclipse (about 1
o’clock a.m., Greenwich time) I proceeded with pencil and paper,
dimly lighted by a distant lamp, to note by name the different lunar
mountains and plains (the so-called seas) over which the shadow
passed. * * * During the first hour and ten minutes I had seen nothing
unexpected. * * * I had repeatedly written down my observations of
the remarkable clearness with which the moon’s eclipsed outline could
be seen, both with the naked eye, and with the telescope; at 1 hour
58 minutes, however, I suddenly noted the ruddy colour of a _portion_
of the moon. I may as well give my notes in the original words, as
copied next day in a more connected form:--1h. 58m., Greenwich time. I
am suddenly struck by the fact that the whole of the western seas of
the moon are showing through the shadow with singular sharpness, and
that the whole region where they lie has assumed a decidedly reddish
tinge, attaining its greatest brightness at a sort of temporary polar
region, having ‘Endymion’ about the position of its imaginary pole. I
particularly notice that the ‘Lake of Sleep’ has disappeared in this
brightness, instead of standing out in a darker shade: and I notice
that this so-called polar region is not parallel with the rim of the
shadow, but rather west of it.--2h. 15m. Some clouds, though very thin
and transparent, now intervene.--2h. 20m. The sky is now cleared, How
extraordinary is the appearance of the Moon _Reddish_ is not the word
to express it; it is red--red hot! I endeavour to think of various
red objects with which to compare it, and nothing seems so like as a
_red-hot penny_--a red-hot penny with a little _white_-hot piece at its
lower edge, standing out against a dark-blue back ground; only it is
evidently not a mere disc, but beautifully rounded by shading.

“Such is its appearance with the naked eye: with the telescope its
surface varies more in tint than with the naked eye, and is not of
quite so bright a red as when thus viewed. The redness continues to be
most perceptible at a distance from the shadow’s southern edge, and to
be greatest about the region of ‘Endymion.’ The Hercynian mountains
(north of Grimaldus) are, however, of rather a bright red, and
Grimaldus shows well. Mare Crisium and the western seas are wonderfully
distinct. Not a trace to be seen of Aristarchus or Plato.--2h. 27m.
It is now nearly the middle of the eclipse. The red colour is very
brilliant to the naked eye. * * * After this, I noticed a progressive
change of tint in the Moon.--2h. 50m. The Moon does not seem to the
naked eye of so bright a red as before; and again I am reminded by its
tint of red-hot copper, or rather copper which has begun to cool. The
whole of Grimaldi is now uncovered. Through the telescope I notice a
decided grey shade at the lower part of the eclipsed portion, and the
various small craters give it a stippled effect, like the old aqua-tint
engravings. The upper part is reddish, but two graceful bluish curves,
like horns, mark the form of the Hercynian mountains, and the bright
region on the other limb of the Moon. These are visible also to the
naked eye.

“At 3h. 5m. the redness had almost disappeared; a very few minutes
afterwards, no trace of it remained, and ere long clouds came on.
I watched the Moon, however, occasionally gaining a glimpse of its
disc, till a quarter to four o’clock, when, for the last time on that
occasion, I saw it faintly appearing through the clouds, nearly a full
Moon again; and then I took leave of it, feeling amply repaid for my
vigil by the beautiful spectacle which I had seen.”[14]

  [14] The Hon. Mrs. Ward, Trimleston House, near Dublin, in
  “Recreative Science,” p. 281.

Mr Walkey, who observed the lunar eclipse of March 19th, 1848, near
Collumpton, says--“The appearances were as usual till 20 minutes
past 9; at that period, and for the space of the next hour, instead
of an eclipse, or the shadow (umbra) of the Earth being the cause
of the total obscurity of the Moon, the whole phase of that body
became very quickly and most beautifully _illuminated_; and assumed
the appearance of the glowing heat of fire from the furnace, rather
tinged with a _deep red_. * * * The whole disc of the Moon being as
_perfect with light_ as if there had been _no eclipse whatever_! * *
* The Moon positively gave _good light from its disc during the total
eclipse_!”[15]

  [15] “Philosophical Magazine,” No. 220, for August, 1848.

In the astronomical portion of the “Illustrated London Almanack
for 1864,” by Mr. Glaisher, a beautiful tinted engraving is given
representing the appearance of the Moon during the total eclipse
of June 1, 1863, when all the light and dark places--the so-called
mountains, seas, &c., were plainly visible. In the accompanying
descriptive chapter, the following sentences occur:--“At the time
of totality the Moon presented a soft woolly appearance, apparently
more globular in form than when fully illuminated. Traces of the
larger and brighter mountains were visible at the time of totality,
and particularly the bright rays proceeding from Tycho, Kepler, and
Aristarchus. * * * At first, when the obscured part was of small
dimensions, it was of an iron grey tint, but as it approached totality,
the reddish light became so apparent that it was remarked that the
Moon ‘seemed to be on fire;’ and when the totality had commenced, it
certainly looked like a fire smouldering in its ashes, and almost
going out.”

If then, the Sun and Moon have many times been seen above the horizon
when the latter was eclipsed, how can it be said that the Earth’s
shadow was the cause of a lunar eclipse, when the Earth was not between
or in a line with the Sun and Moon? And how can the Moon’s non-luminous
surface be distinctly visible and illuminated during the very totality
of an eclipse, if all the light of the Sun is intercepted by the Earth?

Again, if the Moon is a sphere, which it is declared to be, how can its
surface _reflect_ the light of the Sun? If her surface was a mass of
polished silver, it could not reflect from more than a mere point! Let
a silvered glass ball or globe of considerable size be held before a
lamp or fire of any magnitude, and it will be seen that instead of the
whole surface reflecting light, there will be a very small portion only
illuminated. But the Moon’s _whole surface_ is brilliantly illuminated!
a condition or effect utterly impossible if it be spherical. The
surface _might_ be _illuminated_ from the Sun, or any other source if
opaque, instead of polished, like an ordinary silvered mirror, but it
could not shine intensely from every part, and brightly illuminate the
objects before it, as the Moon does so beautifully when full and in
a clear firmament. If the Earth _were admitted_ to be globular, and
to move, and to be capable of throwing a shadow by intercepting the
light of the Sun, it would be impossible for a lunar eclipse to occur
thereby, unless at the same time the Moon be proved to be non-luminous,
and to shine only by reflection. But this is not proved; it is only
assumed as an essential part of a theory. The _contrary_ is capable
of proof, and proof beyond the power of doubt, viz., that the Moon
is _self-luminous_, or shines with a light peculiar to herself, and
therefore independently of the Sun. A reflector necessarily gives
off what it receives. If a mass of red-hot metal be placed before a
plane or concave surface, _heat_ will be reflected. If snow or ice
be similarly placed, _cold_ will be reflected. If light, ordinary or
coloured, be presented, the _same_ will be reflected. If sound of a
given pitch be produced, the same pitch will be reflected. If the
note A be sounded upon a musical instrument, a reflector would not
return the note B or C, but the _same note_, altered only in degree or
intensity, but not in “pitch.” A reflector receiving a red light would
not return a blue or yellow light. A reflector collecting the cold from
a mass of ice, would not throw off heat; nor the contrary. Nor could
the Moon, if a reflector, radiate or throw down upon the Earth any
other light than such as she receives from the Sun. No difference could
exist in the quality or character of the light, and it could differ in
no respect but the quantity or intensity.

The light of the Sun and of the Moon are different in their general
appearance--in the colour and action upon the eye.

The Sun’s light is drying and preservative, or antiseptic. The Moon’s
light is damp and putrefactive.

The Sun’s rays will put out a common fire; the Moon’s light will
increase the combustion. The light of the Sun falling upon certain
chemical substances, produces a change of colour, as in photographic
and other processes. The light of the Moon fails to produce the same
effect. Dr. Lardner, at page 121 of his excellent work, “The Museum of
Science,” says--“The most striking instance of the effect of certain
rays of solar light in blackening a light-colored substance, is
afforded by chloride of silver, which is a white substance, but which
immediately becomes black when acted upon by the rays near the violet
extremity of the spectrum. This substance, however, highly susceptible
as it is of having its colour affected by light, is, nevertheless,
found not to be changed in any sensible degree when exposed to the
light of the Moon, even when that light is condensed by the most
powerful burning lenses.”

The Sun’s light when concentrated by a number of mirrors, or a large
burning lens, produces a focus which is entirely non-luminous, but
in which the heat is so great that metallic and alkaline substances
are quickly fused; earthy and mineral compounds almost immediately
vitrified; and all animal and vegetable structures in a few seconds
burned up and destroyed. But the Moon’s light so concentrated produces
a brilliant focus, so luminous that it is difficult to look upon it;
and yet there is no increase of temperature! “If the most delicate
thermometer be exposed to the full light of the Moon, shining with its
greatest lustre, the mercury is not elevated a hair’s breadth, neither
would it be if exposed in the focus of her rays concentrated by the
most powerful lenses. This has been proved by actual experiment.”[16]
“This question has been submitted to the test of direct experiment. * *
* The bulb of a thermometer sufficiently sensitive to render apparent a
change of temperature amounting to the thousandth part of a degree, was
placed in the focus of a concave reflector of vast dimensions, which,
being directed to the Moon, the lunar rays were collected with great
power upon it. Not the slightest change, however, was produced in the
thermometric column, proving that a concentration of rays sufficient to
fuse gold, if they proceeded _from the Sun_, does not produce a change
of temperature so great as the thousandth part of a degree, when they
proceed _from the Moon_.”[17]

  [16] “All the Year Round,” by Dickens.

  [17] Dr. Lardner’s Museum of Science, p. 115.

“The light of the Moon though concentrated by the most powerful burning
glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate
thermometer. M. De La Hire collected the rays of the full Moon when
on the meridian, by means of a burning glass thirty-five inches in
diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer.
_No effect was produced_, though the lunar rays by this glass were
concentrated 300 times.” “Professor Forbes concentrated the Moon’s
light by a lens thirty inches in diameter, its focal distance being
about forty-one inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding
6,000 times. The image of the Moon which was only eighteen hours past
full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown
by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermo-pile. Although the
observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing
that half the rays were reflected, dispersed, and absorbed) though the
light of the Moon was concentrated _3000 times, not the slightest
thermo-effect was produced_![18] In the “Lancet” (medical journal) for
March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments, which
proved that the Moon’s rays when concentrated actually _reduced_ the
temperature upon a thermometer more than 8 degrees!

  [18] Dr. Noad’s Lectures on Chemistry, p. 334.

    “The cold chaste Moon, the Queen
    Of Heaven’s bright Isles;
    Who makes all beautiful
    On which she smiles:
    That wandering shrine of soft
    Yet _icy flame_,
    Which ever is transformed
    Yet still the same;
    And _warms not_ but _illumes_.”

  --SHELLEY.

The “pale _cold_ Moon” is an expression not only beautiful poetically
but evidently true philosophically.

If, as we have now seen, the very nature of a reflector demands certain
conditions and the Moon does not manifest these conditions, it must
of necessity be concluded that the Moon is _not_ a _reflector_, but
a _self-luminous body_. If self-luminous her surface could not be
darkened or eclipsed by a shadow of the Earth--supposing such were
thrown upon it. The luminosity instead of being diminished would be
greater in proportion to the greater density or darkness of the
shadow. As the light in a lantern shines most brightly in the darkest
places, so would the Moon’s self-luminous surface be most intense in
the deepest part of the Earth’s shadow. It is thus rendered undeniable
that a Lunar Eclipse _does_ not and _could_ not arise from a shadow of
the Earth! As a _Solar_ Eclipse occurs from the Moon passing over the
Sun; so from the evidence it is clear that a Lunar Eclipse _can only_
arise from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined
passing before the Moon, or between her surface and the observer on the
surface of the Earth. That such a body exists is admitted by several
distinguished astronomers. In the report of the Council of the Royal
Astronomical Society for June, 1850, it is stated, “We may well doubt
whether that body which we call the Moon is the _only satellite_ of
the Earth.” In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12,
1846, and again for August, 1847, the Director of one of the French
Observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which
have led him to conclude that “there is at least _one non-luminous
body_ of considerable magnitude which is attached as a _satellite to
this Earth_.”[19]

  [19] Referred to in Lardner’s “Museum of Science,” p. 159.

Persons who are unacquainted with the methods of calculating Eclipses
and other astronomical phenomena, are prone to look upon the
correctness of these calculations as powerful arguments in favour of
the doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity and the Newtonian philosophy
generally. But this is erroneous. Whatever theory is adopted, or if
all theories are discarded, the same results may follow, because the
necessary data may be tabulated and employed independently of all
theory, or may be mixed up with any, even the most opposite doctrines,
or kept distinct from every system, just as the operator may decide.
The tables of the Moon’s relative positions for almost any second of
time are purely practical, the result of long continued observation,
and may or may not be mixed up with hypothesis. In Smith’s “Rise and
progress of Astronomy,” speaking of Ptolemy, who lived in the 2nd
century of the Christian Era, it is said, “The (considered) defects of
his system did not prevent him from calculating all the Eclipses that
were to happen for 600 years to come.” Professor Partington, at page
370 of his Lectures on Natural Philosophy, says, “The most ancient
observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently
accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made
at Babylon about 719 before the Christian Era, of three Eclipses of
the Moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for
determining the period of the Moon’s mean motion; and therefore had
probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans,
however, must have made a long series of observations before they could
discover their “Saros” or lunar period of 6,585¹⁄₃ days, or about 18
years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the Moon, her
_node_ and _apogee_ return nearly to the same situation with respect
to the Earth and the Sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar
Eclipses occur.”

Sir Richard Phillips, in his “Million of Facts,” at page 388,
says:--“The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from
prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the
ascertained uniformity of their irregularities. Ephemerides of the
planets’ places, of Eclipses, &c., have been published for above 300
years, and were nearly as precise as at present.”

“No particular theory is required to calculate Eclipses; and the
calculations may be made with equal accuracy _independent of every
theory_.”[20]

  [20] Somerville’s Physical Sciences, p. 46.




SECTION 10.

CAUSE OF TIDES.


The doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity being fallacious, all ideas of
“centre of attraction of gravitation,” “mutual attraction of Earth and
Moon,” &c., &c., must be given up; and the cause of tides in the ocean
must be sought for in another direction. It is certain that there is
a constant pressure of the atmosphere upon the surface of the Earth
and ocean. This is proved by ordinary barometrical observations, many
Pneumatic experiments, and by the fact that during the most fearful
storms at sea the surface only is disturbed; at the depth of a hundred
feet the water is always calm--except in the path of well-marked
currents and local submarine phenomena. The following quotations
gathered from casual reading fully corroborate this statement. “It is
amazing how superficial is the most terrible tempest. Divers assure
us that in the greatest storms calm water is found at the depth of 90
feet.”[21]

  [21] Chambers’s Journal, No. 100, p. 379.

“This motion of the surface of the sea is not perceptible to a great
depth. In the strongest gale it is supposed not to extend beyond
72 feet below the surface; and at the depth of 90 feet the sea is
perfectly still.”[22]

  [22] Penny Cyclopædia, Article Sea.

“The people are under a great mistake who believe that the substance of
the water moves to any considerable depth in a storm at sea. It is only
the form or shadow which hurries along like a spirit, or like a thought
over the countenance of the ‘great deep,’ at the rate of some forty
miles an hour. Even when the ‘Flying Dutchman’ is abroad the great mass
of water continues undisturbed and nearly motionless a few feet below
the surface.”[23]

  [23] London Saturday Journal, August 8, 1840, p. 71.

“The unabraded appearance of the shells brought up from great depths,
and the almost total absence of the mixture of any _detritus_ from the
sea, or foreign matter, suggest most forcibly the idea of _perfect
repose_ at the bottom of the deep sea.”[24]

  [24] Physical Geography of the Sea, by Lieut. Maury, p. 265.

Bearing this fact in mind, that there exists a continual pressure of
the atmosphere upon the Earth, and associating it with the fact that
the Earth is a vast plane “stretched out upon the waters,” and it will
be seen that it must of necessity slightly fluctuate, or slowly rise
and fall in the water. As by the action of the atmosphere the Earth
is slowly depressed, the water moves towards the receding shores and
produces the flood tide; and when by the reaction of the resisting
oceanic medium the Earth gradually ascends the waters recede, and the
ebb tide is produced. This is the _general_ cause of tides. Whatever
peculiarities are observable they may be traced to the reaction of
channels, bays, headlands, and other local causes.

If a raft, or a ship, or any other structure floating upon water be
carefully observed, it will be seen to have a gentle fluctuating
motion. However calm the water and the atmosphere may be, this
gradual rising and falling of the floating mass is always more or
less observable. If vessels of different sizes are floating near each
other they will be seen to fluctuate with different velocities, the
largest and heaviest will move the least rapidly. This motion will be
observable whether the vessels be held by their anchors, or moored to
buoys, or freely floating in still water. A large and heavily laden
vessel will make several fluctuations in a minute of time; the Earth
once only in about twelve hours, because it is proportionately larger.

To this simple condition of the Earth,--the action or pressure upon
it of the atmosphere, and the reaction or resistance to it of the
water, may be traced all the leading peculiarities of the tides.
The simultaneous ebb and flow upon meridians 180° apart. The absence
of high and low water in large inland seas and lakes; which being
contained within and fluctuating with the Earth cannot therefore show
a relative change in the altitude of the surface. The flux and reflux
observed in several inland wells and basins though far from the sea,
but being connected with it by subterranean passages, necessarily show
a relative difference in the surface levels of the earth and water. And
the regular ebb and flood of the water in the great Polar sea recently
discovered by Dr. Kane, although it is separated from the great tidal
current of the Atlantic Ocean by deep barriers of ice--as will be seen
by the following quotation:--“Dr. Kane reported an open sea north of
the parallel of 82°. To reach it his party crossed a barrier of ice
80 or 100 miles broad. Before gaining this open water he found the
thermometer to show the extreme temperature of -60°. Passing this
ice-bound region by travelling North, he stood on the shores of an
iceless sea extending in an unbroken sheet of water as far as the eye
could reach towards the pole. Its waves were dashing on the beach with
the swell of a boundless ocean. The tides ebbed and flowed in it, and I
apprehend that the tidal wave from the Atlantic can no more pass under
this icy barrier to be propagated in seas beyond than the vibrations
of a musical string can pass with its notes a ‘fret’ upon which the
musician has placed his finger. * * * These tides therefore must have
been born in that cold sea, having their cradle about the North Pole;
and we infer that most, if not all, the unexplored regions about the
Pole are covered with deep water; for, were this unexpected area mostly
land, or shallow water, it could not give birth to regular tides.”[25]

  [25] Physical Geography of the Sea, by Lieut. Maury, p. 176.

That the Earth has a vibratory or tremulous motion, such as must
necessarily belong to a floating and fluctuating structure, is
abundantly proved by the experience of astronomers and surveyors.
If a delicate spirit-level be firmly placed upon a rock or upon the
most solid foundation which it is possible to construct, the very
curious phenomenon will be observed of constant change in the position
of the air-bubble. However carefully the “level” may be adjusted,
and the instrument protected from the atmosphere, the “bubble”
will not maintain its position many seconds together. A somewhat
similar influence has been noticed in astronomical observatories,
where instruments of the best construction and placed in the most
approved positions cannot always be relied upon without occasional
re-adjustment.




SECTION 11.

CONSTITUTION, CONDITION, AND ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH BY FIRE.


Chemical analysis proves to us the important fact that the great
bulk of the Earth--meaning thereby the _land_ as distinct from the
waters--is composed of metallic oxides or metals in combination with
oxygen. When means are adopted to remove the oxygen it is found that
most of these metallic bases are highly combustible. The different
degrees of affinity existing among the elements of the Earth, give rise
to all the rocks, minerals, ores, deposits, and strata which constitute
the material habitable world. The different specific gravities or
relative densities which these substances are found to possess, and the
numerous evidences which exist of their former plastic or semi-fluid
condition, afford positive proof that from a once commingled or chaotic
state regular but rapid precipitation, stratification, crystallization,
and concretion successively occurred; and that in some way not yet
clear to us sufficient chemical action was produced to ignite a great
portion of the Earth, and to reduce it to a molten incandescent state,
the volatile products of which being forcibly eliminated have broken
up the stratified formations, and produced the irregular confused
condition which we now observe. That such an incandescent molten
state of a great portion of the lower parts of the Earth still exists
is a matter of certainty; and there is evidence that the heat thus
internally generated is gradually increasing.

“The uppermost strata of the soil share in all the variations of
temperature which depend upon the seasons; and this influence is
exerted to a depth which, although it varies with the latitude, is
never very great. Beyond this point the temperature rises in proportion
as we descend to greater depths, and it has been shown, by numerous
and often-repeated experiments, that the increase of temperature is
on average one degree (Fahrenheit) for about every 545 feet. Hence it
results that at a depth of about twelve miles from the surface, we
should be on the verge of an incandescent mass.”[26]

  [26] Rambles of a Naturalist, by M. de Quatrefages.

“So great is the heat within the Earth, that in Switzerland, and other
countries where the springs of water are very deep, they bring to the
surface the warm mineral waters so much used for baths and medicine for
the sick; and it is said, that if you were to dig very deep down into
the Earth, the temperature would increase at the rate of one degree
of the thermometer for every 100 feet; so that, at the depth of 7000
feet, or one mile and a half, all the water that you found would be
boiling; and at the depth of about ten miles all the rocks would be
melted. * * * A day will yet come when this earth will be burned up by
the fire. There is fire, as you have heard, within it, ready to burst
forth at any moment.”[27] “This earth, although covered all round with
a solid crust, is all on fire within. Its interior is supposed to be a
burning mass of melted, glowing metals, fiery gas, and boiling lava.
* * * * * The solid crust which covers this inward fire is supposed
not to be much more than from 9 to 12 miles in thickness. Whenever
this crust breaks open, or is cleft in any place, there rush out lava,
fire, melted rocks, fiery gases, and ashes, sometimes in such floods as
to bury whole cities. From time to time we read of the earth quaking,
trembling, and sometimes opening, and of mountains and small islands
(which are mountains in the sea) being thrown up in a day.”[28]

  [27] “The World’s Birthday,” by Professor Gaussen, Geneva, p. 43.

  [28] “The World’s Birthday,” by Professor Gaussen, Geneva, p. 42.

In a periodical called “Recreative Science,” at the end of an
interesting article on volcanoes, &c., the following sentence
occurs:--“The conclusion is therefore inevitable, that the general
distribution all over the earth of volcanic vents, their similarity of
action and products, their enormous power and seeming inexhaustibility,
their extensiveness of action in their respective sites, the
continuance of their energies during countless years, and the incessant
burning day and night, from year to year, of such craters as Stromboli;
and lastly, the apparent inefficiency of external circumstances in
controlling their operations, eruptions happening beneath the sea as
beneath the land, in the frigid as in the torrid zone, for these and
many less striking phenomena, we must seek for some great and general
cause, such only as the central heat of the earth affords us.”

Sir Richard Phillips says, “at the depth of 50 feet (from the sea
level) the temperature of the earth is the same winter and summer.”
* * * “The deepest coal mine in England is at Killingworth, near
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and the mean annual temperature at 400 yards below
the surface is 77°; and at 300 yards, 70°; while at the surface it is
but 48°, being about one degree of increase for every 15 yards. Hence,
at 3,300 yards, the heat would be equal to boiling water, taking 20
yards to a degree. This explains the origin of hot springs. The heat of
the Bath waters is 116°, hence they would appear to rise from a depth
of 1,320 yards. By experiments made at the Observatory of Paris for
ascertaining the increase of temperature from the surface of the earth
towards the interior, 51 feet, or 17 yards, corresponds to the increase
of one degree Fahrenheit’s thermometer. Hence, the temperature of
boiling water would be at 8,212 feet, or about 1¹⁄₂ English miles under
Paris.”

Professor Silliman, of America, states “that in boring the Artesian
wells in Paris, the temperature increased at the rate of 1 degree for
every 50 feet downwards; and, reasoning from causes known to exist, the
whole of the interior part of the earth, or, at least, a great part of
it, is an ocean of melted rock agitated by violent winds.”

Sir Charles Lyell, in his address to the British Association, assembled
at Bath, September, 1864, speaking of hot springs generally, said “An
increase of heat is always experienced as we descend into the interior
of the earth. * * * The estimate deduced by Mr. Hopkins, from an
accurate series of observations made in the Monkwearmouth shaft, near
Durham, and in the Dukenfield shaft, near Manchester, each of them
2,000 feet in depth. In these shafts the temperature was found to rise
at the rate of 1° Fah. for every increase of depth of from 65 to 70
feet.”

“The observations made by M. Arago, in 1821, that the deepest Artesian
wells are the warmest, threw great light on the origin of thermal
springs, and on the establishment of the law, that terrestrial heat
increases with increasing depth. It is a remarkable fact, which has
but recently been noticed, that at the close of the third century St
Patricius, probably Bishop of Partusa, was led to adopt very correct
views regarding the phenomenon of the hot springs at Carthage. On being
asked what was the cause of boiling water bursting from the earth,
he replied, ‘Fire is nourished in the clouds, and in the interior of
the earth, as Etna and other mountains near Naples may teach you.
The subterranean waters rise as if through siphons. The cause of hot
springs is this: waters which are more remote from the subterranean
fire are colder, whilst those which rise nearer the fire, are heated
by it, and bring with them to the surface which we inhabit, an
insupportable degree of heat.’”[29]

  [29] “Humboldt’s Cosmos,” p. 220.

The investigations which have been made, and the evidence which has
been brought together, render it undeniable that the lower parts of the
earth are on fire. Of the intensity of the combustion, no practical
idea can be formed. It is fearful beyond comparison. The lava thrown
out from a volcano in Mexico, “was so hot that it continued to smoke
for twenty years; and after three years and a half, a piece of wood
took fire in it, at a distance of five miles from the crater.” In
various parts of the world, large islands have been thrown up from the
sea, in a red-hot glowing condition, and so intensely heated, that
after being forced through many fathoms of salt water, and standing
in the midst of it, exposed to wind and rain for several months,
they were not sufficiently cooled for persons to approach and stand
upon them. “A notable fact is the force exerted in volcanic action,
Cotopaxi, in 1738, threw its fiery rockets 3,000 feet above its crater,
while in 1744 the blazing mass, struggling for an outlet, roared like
a furnace, so that its awful voice was heard at a distance of more
than six hundred miles. In 1797, the crater of Tunguragua, one of the
great peaks of the Andes, flung out torrents of mud, which dammed up
rivers, opened new lakes, and in valleys of a thousand feet wide made
deposits six hundred feet deep. The stream from Vesuvius which, in
1737, passed through Torre del Greco, contained thirty-three million
cubic feet of solid matter; and, in 1794, when Torre del Greco was
destroyed a second time, the mass of lava amounted to forty-five
million cubic feet. In 1669 Etna poured forth a flood which covered 84
square miles of surface, and measured nearly 100,000,000 cubic feet.
On this occasion the sand and scoriæ formed the Monte Rossi, near
Nicolosi, a cone two miles in circumference, and four hundred and fifty
feet high. The stream thrown out by Etna, in 1819, was in motion, at
the rate of a yard per day, for nine months after the eruption; and
it is on record that the lavas of the same mountain, after a terrible
eruption, were not thoroughly cooled and consolidated ten years after
the event. In the eruption of Vesuvius, A.D. 79, the scoriæ and ashes
vomited forth far exceeded the entire bulk of the mountain; while,
in 1660, Etna disgorged more than twenty times its own mass. * * *
Vesuvius has thrown its ashes as far as Constantinople, Syria, and
Egypt; it hurled stones eight pounds in weight to Pompeii, a distance
of six miles; while similar masses were tossed up 2,000 feet above
its summit. Cotopaxi has projected a block one hundred cubic yards in
volume a distance of nine miles, while Sumbawa, in 1815, during the
most terrible eruption on record, sent its ashes as far as Java, a
distance of three hundred miles. * * * In viewing these evidences of
enormous power, we are forcibly struck with the similarity of action
with which they have been associated; and, carrying our investigation
a step further, the same similarity of the producing power is hinted
at in the identity of the materials ejected. Thus, if we classify
the characteristics of all recorded eruptions, we shall find that
the phenomena are all reducible to upheavals of the earth, rumblings
and explosions, ejections of carbonic acid, fiery torrents of lava,
cinders, and mud, with accompanying thunder and lightning. The
last-named phenomena are extrajudicial in character; they are merely
the result of the atmospheric disturbance consequent on the escape of
great heat from the earth, just as the burning of an American forest
causes thunder and rain. The connection that apparently exists, too,
between neighbouring craters is strongly confirmed by the fact that
in every distinct volcanic locus but _one_ crater is usually active
at a time. Since Vesuvius has resumed his activity, the numerous
volcanic vents on the other side of the bay have sunk into comparative
inactivity; for ancient writers, who are silent respecting the former,
speak of the mephitic vapours of the Lake Avernus as destructive to
animal existence, and in earlier days than these Homer pictures the
Phlegrean Fields as the entrance to the infernal regions, placed at the
limits of the habitable world, unenlightened by rising or setting sun,
and enveloped in eternal gloom. * * * * The earth contains within it
a mass of heated material; nay, it is a heated and incandescent body,
habitable only because surrounded with a cool crust--the crust being
to it a mere shell, within which the vast internal fires are securely
inclosed: and yet not securely, perhaps, unless such vents existed as
those to which we apply the term volcano. * * * * Every volcano is
a safety-valve, ready to relieve the pressure from within when that
pressure rises to a certain degree of intensity; or permanently serving
for the escape of conflagrations, which, if not so provided with
escape, might rend the habitable crust to pieces.”[30]

  [30] Recreative Science, p.p. 257 to 260.

Thus it is certain, from the phenomena of earthquakes, submarine and
inland volcanoes which exist in every part of the earth from the frozen
to the tropical regions, hot and boiling springs, fountains of mud
and steam, lakes of burning sulphur, jets and blasts of destructive
gases, and the choke and fire damps of our coal mines, that at a few
miles only below the surface of the earth there exists a vast region of
combustion, the intensity and power of which are indescribable, and
cannot be compared with anything within the range of human experience.

As the earth is an extended plane resting in and upon the waters of
the “great deep” it may fitly be compared to a large vessel or ship
floating at anchor, with her “Hold” or lower compartments beneath the
water-line filled with burning materials; and, from our knowledge of
the nature and action of fire, it is difficult to understand in what
way the combustion can be prevented from extending, when it is known
to be surrounded with highly inflammable substances. Wherever a fire
is surrounded with heterogeneous materials--some highly combustible
and others partially and indirectly combustible--it is not possible
for it to remain continually in the same condition nor to diminish in
extent and intensity, it must increase and extend itself. That the fire
in the earth is so surrounded with inflammable materials is matter of
certainty; the millions of tons of coals, peat, turf, mineral oils,
rock tar, pitch, asphalte, bitumen, petroleum, mineral naphtha, and
numerous other hydro-carbons which exist in various parts of the earth,
and much of these far down below the surface, prove this condition
to exist. The products of volcanic action being chiefly carbon in
combination with hydrogen and oxygen, prove also that these carbon
compounds already exist in a state of combustion, and that as such
immense quantities of the same fuel still exist, it is quite within
the range of possibility that some of the lower strata of combustible
matter may take fire and the action rapidly extend itself through
the various and innumerable veins which ramify in every direction
throughout the whole earth. Should such an action commence, knowing,
as we do, that the rocks and minerals of the earth are but oxides of
inflammable bases, and that the affinities of these bases are greatly
weakened and almost suspended in the presence of highly heated carbon,
we see clearly that such chemical action or fire would quickly extend
and increase in intensity until the whole earth with everything
entering into its composition, would rapidly decompose, volatilise, and
burst into one vast indescribable, annihilating conflagration!




SECTION 12.

MISCELLANEA.


MOON’S PHASES.--It has been shown that the Moon is not a reflector of
the Sun’s light, but is self-luminous. That the luminosity is confined
to one-half its surface is sufficiently shown by the fact that at “New
Moon” the whole circle or outline of the Moon is often distinctly
visible; but the darker outline is less, or the circle is smaller than
the segment which is illuminated. From this it is easily seen that
“New Moon,” “Full Moon,” and “Gibbous Moon” are but the different
proportions of the illuminated surface which are presented to the
observer on earth.

MOON’S APPEARANCE.--Astronomers have indulged their imagination to
such a degree that the Moon has been considered to be a solid, opaque,
spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, volcanic craters,
and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has
this fancy been carried, that the whole visible disc has been mapped
out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though
they had been carefully observed and measured by a party of terrestrial
ordnance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the
fact that whoever looks, without previous bias, through a powerful
telescope at the Moon’s surface, will be puzzled to say what it is
really like, or how to compare it with anything known. The comparison
which may be made, will depend greatly upon the state of mind of the
observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of
a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble
and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire, will, according
to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see different
forms, even the outlines of animals and human faces. It is in this way
that persons may fancy that the Moon’s surface is broken up into hills
and valleys and other arrangements such as are found on earth. But that
anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere
visible upon the Moon is altogether fallacious. This is admitted by
some of those who have written upon the subject “Some persons when
they look into a telescope for the first time, having heard that
mountains are to be seen, and discovering nothing but these (previously
described) unmeaning figures, break off in disappointment, and have
their faith in these things rather diminished than increased. I would
advise, therefore, before the student takes even his _first view_ of
the Moon through a telescope, to form as clear an idea as he can how
mountains, and valleys, and caverns situated at such a distance _ought_
to look, and by what marks they may be recognised. Let him seize, if
possible, the most favourable periods (about the time of the first
quarter), and previously _learn from drawings_ and explanations how to
_interpret_ everything he sees.”[31] “Whenever we exhibit celestial
objects to inexperienced observers it is usual to precede the view with
good _drawings_ of the objects, accompanied by an explanation of what
each appearance exhibited in the telescope _indicates_. The novice is
told that mountains and valleys can be seen in the Moon by the aid
of the telescope; but on looking he sees a confused mass of light
and shade, and _nothing_ which _looks_ to him _like either mountains
or valleys_! Had his attention been previously directed to a plain
_drawing_ of the Moon, and each particular appearance _interpreted_ to
him, he would then have looked through the telescope with intelligence
and satisfaction!”[32] Thus it is admitted by those who teach that the
Moon is a spherical world, having hills and dales like the earth, can
only see such things in imagination. “Nothing but unmeaning figures”
are really visible, and “the students break off in disappointment, and
have their faith in such things rather diminished than increased,”
“until they previously learn from _drawings_ and explanations how to
_interpret_ everything seen.” But who _first made_ the drawings? Who
_first interpreted_ the “unmeaning figures” and the “confused mass
of light and shade?” Who first declared them to indicate mountains
and valleys, and ventured to make drawings and give explanations and
interpretations for the purpose of biasing the minds, and fixing or
guiding the imaginations of subsequent observers? Whoever they were,
they at least had “given the reins to Fancy,” and afterwards took
upon themselves to dogmatise and teach their crude and unwarranted
imaginings to succeeding investigators. And this is the kind of
evidence and “reasoning” which is obtruded in our seats of learning,
and spread out in the numerous works which are published for the
edification of society!

  [31] “Mechanism of the Heavens,” by Denison Olmsted, LL.D., Professor
  of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy in Gale College, U.S.

  [32] Mitchell’s “Orbs of Heaven,” p. 232.

THE PLANET NEPTUNE.--For some years the advocates of the earth’s
rotundity, and of the Newtonian philosophy generally, were accustomed
to refer with an air of pride and triumph to the discovery of a
new planet, which was called Neptune, as an undeniable evidence of
the truth of their system or theory. The existence of this luminary
was said to have been predicated from calculation only, and for a
considerable period before it had been seen by the telescope. It
was urged that therefore the system which would permit of such a
discovery must be true. But the whole matter subsequently proved to
be unsatisfactory. That a proper conception may be formed of the
actual value of the calculations and their supposed verification,
the following account will be useful. “In the year 1781, on March
13, Uranus was discovered by Sir William Herschel, who was examining
some small stars near the feet of Gemini; and he observed one of them
to have a sensible amount of diameter and less brightness than the
others, and it was soon found to be a planet. It, however, had been
seen before--first, by Flamstead, on December 23rd, 1690; and between
this time and 1781 it had been observed 16 times by Flamstead, Bradley,
Mayer, and Lemonnier; these astronomers had classed it as a star of the
sixth magnitude. Between 1781 and 1820 it was of course very frequently
observed; and it was hoped that at the latter time sufficient data
existed to construct accurate tables of its motions. This task was
undertaken by M. Bouvard, Member _de L’Academie des Sciences_, but he
met with unforeseen difficulties. It was found utterly impossible to
construct tables which would represent the 17 ancient observations,
and at the same time the more numerous modern ones; and it was finally
concluded that the ancient observations were erroneous, or that some
strange and unknown action disturbed, or had disturbed, the planet;
consequently M. Bouvard discarded entirely the old observations, and
used only those taken between 1781 and 1820, in constructing the tables
of Uranus. For some years past it has been found that the tables thus
constructed do not agree any better with modern observations, than they
do with the ancient observations; _consequently it was evident that
the planet was under the influence of some unknown cause_. Several
hypotheses have been suggested as to the nature of this cause; some
persons talked of a resisting medium; others of a great satellite which
might accompany Uranus; some even went so far as to suppose that the
vast distance Uranus is from the Sun caused the law of gravitation to
lose some of its force; others thought that the rapid flight of a comet
had disturbed its regular movements; others thought of the existence of
a planet beyond Uranus, whose disturbing force caused the anomalous
motions of the planet; but no one did otherwise than follow the bent
of his inclination, and did not support his assertion by any positive
considerations.

“Thus was the theory of Uranus surrounded with difficulties, when M.
Le Verrier, an eminent French mathematician, undertook to investigate
the irregularities in its motions. His first paper appeared on the
10th November, 1845, and his second on June 1, 1846 (published in
the Comptes Rendûs). In this second paper, after a most elaborate
and careful investigation, he proves the utter incompatibility of
any of the preceding hypotheses to account for the planet’s motions,
except only that of the last one, viz., that of a new planet. He then
successively proves that this planet cannot be situated either between
the Sun and Saturn, or between Saturn and Uranus; but that it must be
beyond Uranus. And in this paper he asks the following questions:--‘Is
it possible that the irregularities of Uranus can be owing to the
action of a planet situated in the ecliptic, at a distance of twice
the mean distance of Uranus from the Sun? If so, where is it actually
situated? What is its mass? What are the elements of the orbit it
describes?”

This was the problem he set himself to work upon, by the means of
solving the inverse problem of the perturbations; for instead of
having to measure the action of a determined planet, he had to deduce
the elements of the orbit of the disturbing planet, and its place
in the heavens from the recognised inequalities of Uranus. And this
problem M. Le Verrier has successfully solved. In his second paper
he deduces the place in the heavens that the body must be as 325° of
helio-centric longitude. On the 31st August last he published his third
paper. In this he has calculated that the period of the planet is 217
years; and that it moves in an orbit at the distance of more than 3,000
millions of miles from the Sun; that its mean longitude on January
1st, 1847, will be 318° 17′; its true longitude 326° 32′; and that the
longitude of its perihelion will be 284° 45′; that it will appear to
have a diameter of 3¹⁄₄ seconds of arc as seen from the earth; and that
it is now about 5° E. of _Delta Capricorni_.

“These remarkable calculations have pointed out a position which has
very nearly proved to be the true one.

“On September 23, Dr. Galle at Berlin discovered a star of the eighth
magnitude, which has proved to be the planet. Its place at the time was
five degrees from _Delta Capricorni_. It was found to have a disc of 3
seconds as predicted; and its longitude at the time differs less than a
degree from the longitude computed from the above elements. Its daily
motion, too, is found to agree very closely with the predicted; and,
judging from this last circumstance, the planet’s distance, as stated
above, must be nearly the truth.

“Thus the result of these calculations was the discovery of a new
planet in the place assigned to it by theory, whose mass, distance,
position in the heavens, and orbit it describes round the Sun, were all
approximately determined before the planet had ever been seen; and all
agrees with observations, so far as can at present be determined. It is
found to have a disc, and its diameter cannot be much less than 40,000
miles, and may be more; its motions are very slow; it is at present in
the constellation of Aquarius as indicated by theory; and it will be in
the constellation of Capricornus all the year 1847. It may be readily
seen in a telescope of moderate power.

“Whatever view we take of this noble discovery it is most gratifying,
whether at the addition of another planet to our list; whether at the
proving the correctness of the theory of universal gravitation; or in
what view soever, it must be considered as a splendid discovery, and
the merit is chiefly due to theoretical astronomy. This discovery is
perhaps the greatest triumph of astronomical science that has ever
been recorded.”[33]

  [33] “Illustrated London Almanack for 1847.”

If such things as criticism, experience, and comparative observation
did not exist, the tone of exultation in which the above article
indulges might be properly shared in by the astronomical student; but
let the following extracts be carefully read, and it will be seen that
such a tone was premature and unwarranted. “Paris, Sept. 15, 1848.
The only sittings of the Academy of late in which there was anything
worth recording, and even this was not of a practical character, were
those of the 29th ult. and the 11th inst. On the former day M. Babinet
made a communication respecting the planet Neptune, which has been
generally called M. Le Verrier’s planet, the discovery of it having,
as it was said, been made by him from theoretical deductions, which
astonished and delighted the scientific public. What M. Le Verrier had
inferred from the action on other planets of some body which ought to
exist was verified, at least so it was thought at the time, by actual
vision. Neptune was actually seen by other astronomers, and the honour
of the theorist obtained additional luster. But it appears from a
communication of M. Babinet that _this is not the planet_ of M. Le
Verrier. He had placed his planet at a distance from the Sun equal to
thirty-six times the limit of the terrestrial orbit; Neptune revolves
at a distance equal to thirty times of these limits, which makes a
difference of nearly _two hundred millions of leagues_! M. Le Verrier
had assigned to his planet a body equal to thirty-eight times that of
the earth; Neptune has only _one third_ of this volume! M. Le Verrier
had stated the revolutions of his planet round the Sun to take place
in two hundred and seventeen years; Neptune performs its revolutions
in one hundred and sixty-six years! Thus then Neptune is not M. Le
Verrier’s planet; and all his theory as regards that planet falls to
the ground! M. Le Verrier may find another planet, but it will not
answer the calculations which he had made for Neptune. In the sitting
of the 14th, M. Le Verrier noticed the communication of M. Babinet, and
to a great extent admitted his own error! He complained indeed that
much of what he said was taken in too absolute a sense; but he evinces
much more candour than might have been expected from a disappointed
explorer. M. Le Verrier may console himself with the reflection that
if he has not been so successful as he thought he had been, others
might have been equally unsuccessful, and as he has still before him
an immense field for the exercise of observation and calculation, we
may hope that he will soon make some discovery which will remove the
vexation of his present disappointment.”[34]

  [34] “Times” Newspaper, Monday, Sept. 18, 1848.

“As the data of Le Verrier and Adams stand at present there is a
discrepancy between the predicted and the true distance; and in some
other elements of the planet. It remains, therefore, for these or
future astronomers to reconcile theory with fact; or, perhaps, as
in the case of Uranus, to make the new planet the means of leading
to yet greater discoveries. It would appear, from the most recent
observations, that the mass of Neptune, instead of being as at first
stated one nine thousand three hundredth is only one twenty three
thousandth that of the Sun; whilst its periodic time is now given
with a greater probability at 166 years; and its mean distance from
the Sun nearly thirty. Le Verrier gave the mean distance from the Sun
thirty-six times that of the Earth; and the period of revolution 217
years.[35]

  [35] “Cosmos,” by Humboldt, p. 75.

“May 14, 1847. A Paper was read before the Royal Astronomical Society,
by Professor Schumacher, ‘on the identity of the planet Neptune (M. Le
Verrier’s) with a star observed by M. Lalande in May, 1795.’”[36]

  [36] “Report of Royal Astronomical Society,” for Feb. 11, 1848, No. 4,
  vol. 8.

Such mistakes as the above ought at least to make the advocates of the
Newtonian theory less positive, and more ready to acknowledge that at
best their system is but hypothetical and must sooner or later give
place to a philosophy the premises of which are demonstrable, and which
is in all its details sequent and consistent.


PENDULUM EXPERIMENTS AS PROOFS OF EARTH’S MOTION.

In the early part of the year 1851, the scientific journals and nearly
all the newspapers published in Great Britain and on the Continents of
Europe and America were occupied in recording and discussing certain
experiments with the pendulum, first made by M. Foucault, of Paris; and
the public were startled by the announcement that the results furnished
a practical proof of the Earth’s rotation.

The subject was referred to in the _Literary Gazette_, in the following
words:--“Everybody knows what is meant by a pendulum in its simplest
form, a weight hanging by a thread to a fixed point. Such was the
pendulum experimented upon long ago by Galileo, who discovered the
well-known law of isochronous vibrations, applicable to the same. The
subject has since received a thorough examination, as well theoretical
as practical, from mathematicians and mechanicians; and yet, strange
to say, the most remarkable feature of the phenomenon has remained
unobserved and wholly unsuspected until within the last few weeks, when
a young and promising French physicist, M. Foucault, who was induced by
certain reflections to repeat Galileo’s experiments in the cellar of
his mother’s house at Paris, succeeded in establishing the existence
of a fact connected with it which gives an immediate and visible
demonstration of the Earth’s rotation. Suppose the pendulum already
described to be set moving in a vertical plane from north to south,
the plane in which it vibrates, to ordinary observation, would appear
to be stationary. M. Foucault, however, has succeeded in showing that
this is not the case, but that the plane is itself slowly moving round
the fixed point as a centre in a direction contrary to the Earth’s
rotation, _i.e._, with the apparent heavens, from east to west. His
experiments have since been repeated in the hall of the observatory,
under the superintendence of M. Arago, and fully confirmed. If a
pointer be attached to the weight of a pendulum suspended by a long and
fine wire, capable of turning round in all directions, and nearly in
contact with the floor of a room, the line which this pointer appears
to trace on the ground, and which may easily be followed by a chalk
mark, will be found to be slowly, but visibly, and constantly moving
round, like the hand of a watch dial; and the least consideration will
show that this ought to be the case, and will excite astonishment that
so simple a consequence as this is, of the most elementary laws of
Geometry and Mechanics, should so long have remained unobserved. * *
* The subject has created a great sensation in the mathematical and
physical circles of Paris. It is proposed to obtain permission from
the Government to carry on further observations by means of a pendulum
suspended from the dome of the Pantheon, length of suspension being
a desideratum in order to make the result visible on a larger scale,
and secure greater constancy and duration in the experiment. The time
required for the performance of a complete revolution of the plane of
vibration would be about 32 hours 8 minutes for the parallel of Paris;
30 hours 40 minutes for that of London; and at 30 degrees from the
equator exactly 48 hours. Certainly any one who should have proposed
not many weeks back to prove the rotation of the Earth upon which we
stand by means of direct experiment made upon its surface would have
run the risk, with the mob of gentlemen who write upon mechanics, of
being thought as mad as if he were to have proposed reviving Bishop
Wilkins’s notable plan for going to the North American colonies in a
few hours, by rising in a balloon from the Earth and gently floating
in the air until the Earth, in its diurnal rotation, have turned the
desired quarter towards the suspended æronaut, whereupon as gently to
descend; so necessary and wholesome is it occasionally to reconsider
the apparently simplest and best established conclusions of science.”

The following is from the _Scotsman_, which has always been
distinguished for the accuracy of its scientific papers. The article
bears the initials “C. M.,” which will at once be recognised as those
of Mr. Charles Maclaren, for many years the accomplished editor of
that journal:--“The beautiful experiment contrived by M. Foucault
to demonstrate the rotation of the globe, has deservedly excited
universal interest. * * * A desire has always been felt that some
method could be devised of rendering this rotation palpable to the
senses. Even the illustrious Laplace participated in this feeling
and has left it on record. ‘Although,’ he says, ‘the rotation of the
Earth is now established with all the certainty which the physical
sciences require, still a direct proof of that phenomenon ought to
interest both geometricians and astronomers.’ No man ever knew the
laws of the planetary motions better than Laplace, and before penning
such a sentence, it is probable that he had turned the subject in his
mind, and without discovering any process by which the object could be
attained; but it does not follow that if he had applied the whole force
of his genius to the task, he would not have succeeded. Be this as it
may, here we have the problem solved by a man not probably possessing
a tithe of his science or talent; and, what is very remarkable, after
the discovery was made, it was found to be legitimately deducible
from mathematical principles. * * * In this, as in many other cases,
the _fact_ comes first, and takes us by surprise; after which we find
that we had long been in possession of the principles from which it
flowed, and that, with the clue we had in our hands, theory should
have revealed the fact to us long before. M. Foucault’s communication
describing his experiments is in the _Comptes Rendus_ of the Academy
of Sciences, for 3rd February, 1851. His first experiments were made
with a pendulum only two metres (6ft. 6¹⁄₄in.) in length, consisting
of a steel wire from ⁶⁄₁₀ths to ¹¹⁄₁₀ths of a millimetre in diameter
(the millimetre is the 25th part of an inch); to the lower end of
which was attached a polished brass ball, weighing 5 kilogrammes, or
11 English pounds. * * * A metallic point projecting below the ball,
and so directed as if it formed a continuation of the suspension wire,
served as an index to mark the change of position more precisely. The
pendulum hung from a steel plate in such a manner as to move freely in
any vertical plane. To start the oscillatory movement without giving
the ball any bias, it was drawn to one side with a cord, which held
the ball by a loop; the cord was then burned, after which the loop
fell off, and the vibrations (generally limited to an arc of 15 or 20
degrees) commenced. In one minute the ball had sensibly deviated from
the original plane of vibration towards the observer’s left. Afterwards
he experimented at the Observatory with a pendulum 11 metres (30 feet)
long, and latterly at the Pantheon with one still longer. The advantage
of a large pendulum, as compared with a small one, is, that a longer
time elapses before it comes to a state of rest; for machinery cannot
be employed here, as in a clock, to continue the motion. The pendulum
is suspended over the centre of a circular table, whose circumference
is divided into degrees and minutes. The vibrations are begun in the
manner above described, and in a short time it is observed that the
pendulum, instead of returning to the same point of the circle from
which it started, has shifted to the left. If narrowly observed, the
change in the plane of vibration (says M. Foucault) is perceptible
in one minute, and in half an hour, “Il saute aux yeux,” it is quite
palpable. At Paris the change exceeds 11 degrees in an hour. Thus,
supposing the oscillations to commence in a plane directed south and
north, in two hours the oscillations will point SSW. and NNE.; in four
hours they will point SW. and NE.; and in eight hours the oscillations
will point due east and west, or at right angles to their original
direction. To a spectator the change seems to be in the pendulum,
which, without any visible cause, has shifted round a quarter of a
circle; but the real change is in the table, which, resting on the
Earth, and accompanying it in its rotation, has performed a fourth (and
something more) of its diurnal revolution.

No one anticipated such a result; and the experiment has been received
by some with incredulity, by all with wonderment; and one source of the
incredulity arises from the difficulty of conceiving how, amidst the
ten thousand experiments of which the pendulum has been the subject, so
remarkable a fact could have escaped notice so long. Fully admitting
that these experiments have generally been conducted with pendulums
which had little freedom of motion horizontally, we still think odd
that somebody did not stumble upon the curious fact.

Though all the parts of the Earth complete their revolution in the
same space of time, it is found that the rate of horizontal motion
in Foucault’s pendulum varies with the latitude of the place where
the experiment is made. At the pole, the pendulum would pass over 15
degrees in an hour, like the Earth itself, and complete its circuit in
24 hours. At Edinburgh, the pendulum would pass over 12¹⁄₂ degrees in
an hour, and would complete its revolution in 29 hours 7 minutes. At
Paris, the rate of motion is 11 degrees and 20 minutes per hour, and
the revolution should be completed in 32 hours.

[Illustration: FIG. 31.]

Let the above figure represent a portion of the Earth’s surface near
the north pole N. Suppose the pendulum to be set in motion at _m_, so
as to vibrate in the direction _x y_, which coincides with that of the
meridian _m_ N or _m r_. The Earth in the meantime is pursuing its
easterly course, and the meridian line _m_ N has come in six hours into
the position _n_ N. It has been hitherto supposed that the pendulum
would now vibrate in the new direction _n_ N, assumed by the meridian,
but thanks to M. Foucault, we now know that this is a mistake. The
pendulum will vibrate in a plane _x n y_, parallel to its original
plane at _m_, as will be manifest if the plane of vibration points to
some object in absolute space, such as a star. While the meridian line
_m_ N will in the course of 24 hours range round the whole circle of
the heavens, and point successively in the direction _n_ N, _o_ N, _p_
N, _r_ N, _s_ N, _t_ N, and _u_ N, the pendulum’s plane of vibration
_x y_, whether at _m_, at _n_, at _o_, at _p_, at _r_, at _s_, at _t_,
or at _u_, will always be parallel to itself, pointing invariably to
the same star, and were a circular table placed under the pendulum, its
plane of vibration, while really stationary, would appear to perform a
complete revolution.

This stationary position of the plane of vibration at the pole seems
to present little difficulty. We impress a peculiar motion on the
pendulum in setting it a going. The Earth is at the same time carrying
the pendulum eastward, but _at the pole_ the one motion will not
interfere with the other. The only action of the Earth on the pendulum
there is that of attracting it towards its own (the Earth’s) centre.
But this attraction is exactly in the plane of vibration and merely
tends to continue the oscillatory motion without disturbing it. It
is otherwise if the experiment is made at some other point, say 20
degrees distant from the pole. Supposing the vibrations to commence in
the plane of the meridian, then as the tendency of the pendulum is to
continue its vibrations in planes absolutely parallel to the original
plane, it will be seen, if we trace both motions, that, while it is
carried eastward with the Earth along a parallel of latitude, this
tendency will operate to draw the plane of vibration away from a ‘great
circle’ into a ‘small circle’ (that is, from a circle dividing the
globe into two _equal_ parts, into one dividing it into two _unequal_
parts). But the pendulum _must_ necessarily move in a ‘great circle,’
and hence to counteract its tendency to deviate into a ‘small circle,’
a correctory movement is constantly going on, to which the lengthening
of the period necessary to complete a revolution must be ascribed. At
Edinburgh the period is about 29 hours, at Paris 32, at Cairo 48, at
Calcutta 63. At the Equator, the period stretches out to infinity. M.
Foucault’s rule is, that the angular space passed over by the pendulum
at any latitude in a given time, is equal to the angular motion of
the Earth in the period, multiplied by the sine of the latitude.
The angular motion of the Earth is 15 degrees per hour; and at the
latitude of 30, for example, the sine being to radius as 500 to 1000,
the angular motion of the pendulum will consequently be 7¹⁄₂ degrees per
hour. It is, therefore, easily found. It follows that the motions of
the pendulum may be employed in a rough way to indicate the latitude of
a place.”[37]

  [37] Supplement of the _Manchester Examiner_, of May 24, 1851.

Notwithstanding the apparent certainty of these pendulum experiments,
and the supposed exactitude of the conclusions deducible therefrom,
many of the same school of philosophy differed with each other,
remained dissatisfied, and raised very serious objections both to the
value of the experiments themselves, and to the supposed proof which
they furnished of the Earth’s rotation. One writer in the _Times_
newspaper of the period, who signs himself “B. A. C.,” says, “I have
read the accounts of the Parisian experiment as they have appeared in
many of our papers, and must confess that I still remain unconvinced
of the reality of the phenomenon. It appears to me that, except at
the pole where the point of suspension is immovable, no result can
be obtained. In other cases the shifting of the direction of passage
through the lowest point that takes place during an excursion of
the pendulum, from that point in one direction and its return to it
again, will be exactly compensated by the corresponding shifting in
the contrary direction during the pendulum’s excursion on the opposite
side. Take a particular case. Suppose the pendulum in any latitude to
be set oscillating in the meridian plane, and to be started from the
vertical towards the south. It is obvious that the wire by which it
is suspended _does not continue to describe a plane_, but a species
of conoidal surface; that when the pendulum has reached its extreme
point its direction is to the south-west, and that as the tangent plane
to the described surface through the point of suspension necessarily
contains the normal to the Earth at the same point, the pendulum on
its return passes through the same point in the direction north-east.
Now, starting again from this point, we have exactly the circumstances
of the last case, the primary plane being shifted slightly out of the
meridian; when, therefore, the pendulum has reached its extreme point
of excursion the direction of the wire is to the west of this plane,
and when it returns to the vertical the direction of passage through
the lowest point is as much to the west of this plane as it was in the
former case to the west of the meridian plane; but since it is now
moving from north to south instead of from south to north, as in the
former case, its former deviation receives complete compensation, and
the primary plane returns again to the meridian, when the whole process
recurs.”

In the _Liverpool Mercury_ of May 23, 1851, the following letter
appeared:--“The supposed manifestation of the Rotation of the
Earth.--The French, English, and European continental journals have
given publicity to an experiment made in Paris with a pendulum; which
experiment is said to have had the same results when made elsewhere.
To the facts set forth no contradiction has been given, and it is
therefore to be hoped that they are true. The correctness of the
inferences drawn from the facts is another matter. The first position
of these theorists is, that in a complete vacuum beyond the sphere of
the Earth’s atmosphere, a pendulum will continue to oscillate in one
and the same original plane. On that supposition their whole theory is
founded. In making this supposition the fact is overlooked that there
_is no vibratory motion_ unless through atmospheric resistance, or by
force opposing impulse. Perpetual progress in rectilinear motion may be
imagined, as in the corpuscular theory of light; circular motion may
also be found in the planetary systems; and parabolic and hyperbolic
motions in those of comets; but vibration is artificial and of limited
duration. No body in nature returns the same road it went, unless
artificially constrained to do so. The supposition of a permanent
vibratory motion such as is presumed in the theory advanced, is
_unfounded in fact_, and absurd in idea; and the whole affair of this
proclaimed discovery falls to the ground. It is what the French call a
‘mystification’--anglice a ‘humbug.’ Liverpool, 22nd May, 1851.”

  “T.”

Another writer declared that he and others had made many experiments
and had discovered that the plane of vibration had nothing whatever
to do with the meridian longitude nor with the Earth’s motion, but
followed the plane of the magnetic meridian.

“A scientific gentleman in Dundee recently tried the pendulum
experiment, and he says--‘that the pendulum is capable of showing the
Earth’s motion I regard as a _gross delusion_; but that it tends to the
_magnetic meridian_ I have found to be a fact.’”[38]

  [38] _Liverpool Journal_, May 17, 1851.

In many cases the experiments have not shown a change at all in the
plane of oscillation of the pendulum; in others the alteration in
the plane of vibration has been in the _wrong direction_; and very
often the _rate of variation_ has been altogether different to that
which theory indicated. The following is a case in illustration:--“On
Wednesday evening the Rev. H. H. Jones, F.R.A.S., exhibited the
apparatus of Foucault to illustrate the diurnal rotation of the Earth,
in the Library Hall of the Manchester Athenæum. The preparations
were simple. A circle of chalk was drawn in the centre of the floor,
immediately under the arched skylight. The circle was exactly 360
inches in its circumference, every inch being intended to represent
one degree. According to a calculation Mr. Jones had made, and which
he produced at the Philosophical Society six weeks ago, the plane of
oscillation of the pendulum would, at Manchester, diverge about one
degree in five minutes, or perhaps a very little less. He therefore
drew this circle exactly 360 inches round, and marked the inches on
its circumference. The pendulum was hung from the skylight immediately
over the centre of the circle, the point of suspension being 25 feet
high. At that length of wire, it should require 2¹⁄₂ seconds to make
each oscillation across the circle. The brazen ball, which at the end
of a fine wire constituted the pendulum, was furnished with a point,
to enable the spectator to observe the more easily its course. A long
line was drawn through the diameter of the circle, due north and south,
and the pendulum started so as to swing exactly along this line; to the
westward of which, at intervals of three inches at the circumference,
two other lines were drawn, passing through the centre. According
to the theory, the pendulum should diverge from its original line
towards the west, at the rate of one inch or degree in five minutes.
This, however, Mr. Jones explained, was a perfection of accuracy only
attainable in a vacuum, and rarely could be approached where the
pendulum had to pass through an atmosphere subject to disturbances;
besides, it was difficult to avoid giving it some slight lateral bias
at starting. In order to obviate this as much as possible, the steel
wire was as fine as would bear the weight, ¹⁄₃₀th of an inch thick;
and the point of suspension was adjusted with delicate nicety. An iron
bolt was screwed into the frame-work of the skylight; into it a brass
nut was inserted--the wire passed through the nut (the hollow sides
of which were bell-shaped, in order to give it fair play), and at the
top the wire ended in a globular piece, there being also a fine screw
to keep it from slipping. * * * The pendulum was gently drawn up to
one side, at the southern end of the diametrical line, and attached
by a thread to something near. When it hung quite still the thread was
burnt asunder, and the pendulum began to oscillate to and fro across
the circle. * * * Before it had been going on quite seven minutes,
it had reached nearly the third degree towards the west, whereas it
_ought_ to have occupied a quarter of an hour in getting thus far from
its starting line, even making no allowance for the resistance of the
atmosphere.”[39]

  [39] “Manchester Examiner” (Supplement), May 24, 1851.

Besides the irregularities so often observed in the time and direction
of the pendulum vibrations, and which are quite sufficient to render
them worthless as evidence of the Earth’s motion, the use which
the Newtonian astronomers made of the general fact that the plane
of oscillation is variable, was most unfair and illogical. It was
proclaimed to the world as a visible proof of the Earth’s diurnal
motion; but the motion was _assumed to exist_, and then employed to
explain the cause of the fact which was first called a proof of the
thing assumed! A greater violation of the laws of investigation was
never perpetrated! The whole subject as developed and applied by the
theoretical philosophers is to the fullest degree unreasonable and
absurd--not a “jot or tittle” better than the reasoning contained
in the following letter:--“Sir,--Allow me to call your serious and
polite attention to the extraordinary phenomenon, demonstrating the
rotation of the Earth, which I at this present moment experience, and
you yourself or anybody else, I have not the slightest doubt, would
be satisfied of, under similar circumstances. Some sceptical and
obstinate individuals may doubt that the Earth’s motion is visible,
but I say from personal observation its a positive fact. I don’t
care about latitude or longitude, or a vibratory pendulum revolving
round the sine of a tangent on a spherical surface, nor axes, nor
apsides, nor anything of the sort. That is all rubbish. All I know
is, I see the ceiling of this coffee-room going round. I perceive
this distinctly with the naked eye--only my sight has been sharpened
by a slight stimulant. I write after my sixth go of brandy-and-water,
whereof witness my hand,”--“Swiggins”--_Goose and Gridiron, May 5,
1851._--“P.S. Why do two waiters come when I only call one?”[40]

  [40] “Punch,” May 10, 1851.

The whole matter as handled by the astronomical theorists is fully
deserving of the ridicule implied in the above quotation from _Punch_;
but because great ingenuity has been shewn, and much thought and
devotion manifested in connection with it, and the general public
thereby greatly deceived, it is necessary that the subject should be
fairly and seriously examined. What are the facts?

First.--When a pendulum, constructed according to the plan of M.
Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often
variable--_not always_. The variation when it _does_ occur, is _not
uniform_--is not always the same in the same place; nor always the
same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction. It cannot
therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant cannot be
used in favour of or against any given proposition. It therefore _is
not evidence and proves nothing_!

Secondly.--If the plane of vibration _is_ observed to change, where
is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the
Earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the
conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the pendulum,
and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth? What logical right or
necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other?

Thirdly.--Why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of
suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its
possible influence upon the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or
was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry,
ignored that a “ball-and-socket” joint is one which facilitates
_circular_ motion more readily than any other? and that a pendulum so
suspended (as was M. Foucault’s), could not, after passing over one
arc of vibration, return through the same arc without there being many
chances to one that its globular point of suspension would slightly
turn or twist in its bed, and therefore give to the return or backward
oscillation a slight change of direction? Let the _immediate cause_ of
the pendulum’s liability to change its plane of vibration be traced;
and it will be found not to have the slightest connection with the
motion or non-motion of the surface over which it vibrates.

At a recent meeting of the French Academy of sciences, “M. Dehaut sent
in a note, stating that M. Foucault (whose experiments on the pendulum
effected a few years ago at the Pantheon, are of European notoriety) is
not the first discoverer of the fact that the plane of oscillation of
the free pendulum is invariable; but that the honour of the discovery
is due to Poinsinet de Sivry, who, in 1782, stated, in a note to his
translation of ‘Pliny,’ that a mariner’s compass might be constructed
without a magnet, by making a pendulum and setting it in motion in a
given direction; because, provided the motion were continually kept
up, the pendulum would continue to oscillate in the same direction, no
matter by how many points, or how often the ship might happen to change
her course.”




SECTION 13.

PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA.


It has been shown (at pages 25 to 34) that the law of perspective, as
commonly taught in our Schools of Art, is fallacious and contrary to
everything seen in nature. If an object be held up in the air, and
gradually carried away from an observer who maintains his position, it
is true that all its parts will converge to one and the same point; but
if the same object be placed upon the ground and similarly moved away
from a fixed observer, the same predicate is false. In the first case
the _centre_ of the object is the _datum_ to which every point of the
exterior converges; but in the second case the _ground_ becomes the
_datum_, in and towards which every part of the object converges in
succession, beginning with the lowest, or that nearest to it.

Instances:--A man with light trousers and black boots walking along a
level path, will appear at a certain distance as though the boots had
been removed, and the trousers brought in contact with the ground.

A young girl, with short garments terminating ten or twelve inches
above the feet, will, in walking forward, appear to sink towards the
Earth, the space between which and the bottom of the clothes will
appear to gradually diminish, and in the distance of half-a-mile
the limbs, which were first seen for ten or twelve inches, will be
invisible--the bottom of the garment will seem to touch the ground.

A small dog running along will appear to gradually shorten by the legs,
which, in less than half a mile, will be invisible, and the body appear
to glide upon the earth.

Horses and cattle moving away from a given point will seem to have lost
their hoofs, and to be walking upon the outer bones of the limbs.

Carriages similarly receding will seem to lose that portion of the
rim of the wheels which touches the Earth; the axles will seem to get
lower; and at the distance of a few miles, the body will appear to
drag along in contact with the ground. This is very remarkable in the
case of a railway carriage when moving away upon a straight and level
portion of line several miles in length. These instances, which are
but a few of what might be quoted, will be sufficient to prove, beyond
the power of doubt or the necessity for controversy, that upon a plane
or horizontal surface, the _lowest part_ of bodies receding from a
given point of observation will disappear _before the higher_. This is
precisely what is observed in the case of a ship at sea, when outward
bound--the _lowest_ part--the hull, disappearing before the higher
parts--the sails and mast head. Abstractedly, when the lowest part of
a receding object thus disappears by entering the “vanishing point,”
it could be seen again to any and every extent by a telescope, if the
power were sufficient to magnify at the distance observed. This is to
a great extent practicable upon smooth horizontal surfaces, as upon
frozen lakes or canals; and upon long straight lines of railway. But
the power of restoring such objects is greatly modified and diminished
where the surface is undulating or otherwise moveable, as in large and
level meadows, and pasture lands generally; in the vast prairies and
grassy plains of America; and especially so upon the ocean, where the
surface is always more or less in an undulating condition. In Holland
and other level countries, persons have been seen in winter, skating
upon the ice, at distances varying from ten to twenty miles. On some
of the straight and “level” lines of railway which cross the prairies
of America, the trains have been observed for more than twenty miles;
but upon the sea the conditions are altered, and the hull of a receding
vessel can only be seen for a few miles, and this will depend very
greatly--the altitude of the observer being the same, upon the state of
the water. When the surface is calm, the hull may be seen much farther
than when it is rough and stormy; but under ordinary circumstances,
when to the naked eye the hull has just become invisible, or is
doubtfully visible, it may be seen again distinctly by the aid of a
powerful telescope. Although abstractedly or mathematically there
should be no limit to this power of restoring by a telescope a lost
object upon a smooth horizontal surface, upon the sea this limit is
soon observed; the water being variable in its degree of agitation, the
limit of sight over its surface is equally variable, as shown by the
following experiments:--In May, 1864, on several occasions when the
water was unusually calm, from the landing stairs of the Victoria pier
at Portsmouth, and from an elevation of 2 ft. 8 in. above the water,
the greater part of the hull of the Nab Light-ship was, through a good
telescope, distinctly visible; but on other experiments being made,
when the water was less calm, no portion of it could be seen from the
same elevation, notwithstanding that the most powerful telescopes were
employed. At other times half the hull, and sometimes only the upper
part of the bulwarks, were visible. If the hull had been invisible
from the rotundity of the Earth, the following calculation will show
that it should at all times have been 24 feet below the horizon:--The
distance of the light-ship from the pier is 8 statute miles. The
elevation of the observer being 32 inches above the water, would
require 2 miles to be deducted as the distance of the supposed convex
horizon; for the square of 2 multiplied by 8 inches (the fall in the
first mile of the Earth’s curvation) equals 32 inches. This deducted
from the 8 miles, will leave 6 miles as the distance from the horizon
to the light ship. Hence 6² × 8 in. = 288 inches, or 24 feet. The top
of the bulwarks, it was said, rose about 10 ft. above the water line;
hence, deducting 10 from 24 feet, under all circumstances, even had the
water been perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should
have been 14 feet below the summit of the arc of water, or beneath
the line of sight! This one fact is entirely fatal to the doctrine of
the Earth’s rotundity. But such facts have been observed in various
other places--the north-west light-ship in Liverpool Bay, and the
light vessels of many other channels near the southern, eastern, and
western shores of Great Britain. From the beach of Southsea Common,
near Portsmouth, the observer lying down near the water, above the
surface of which the eye was 2¹⁄₂ feet, and with a telescope looking
across Spithead to the quarantine ship lying in the “Roads,” between
Ryde and Cowes, in the Isle of Wight, a distance of 7 miles, the copper
sheathing of that vessel was distinctly seen, the depth of which was
about 2 feet. Making the usual calculation in accordance with the
doctrine of the Earth’s convexity, it will be seen that an arc of water
ought to have existed between the two points, the summit of which arc
should have been 16 feet above the copper sheathing of the vessel!

From an elevation of 2¹⁄₂ feet above the water opposite the Royal Yacht
Club House, in West Cowes, Isle of Wight, the pile work and promenade
of the pier at Stake’s Bay, near Gosport, and nearly opposite Osborne
House, were easily distinguished through various telescopes: the
distance is 7 miles, the altitude of the promenade 10 feet, and the
usual calculation will show that this pier ought to have been many feet
below the horizon!

It is a well-known fact that the light of the Eddystone lighthouse is
often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound; and sometimes,
when the sea is very calm, persons can see it distinctly when sitting
in ordinary rowing boats in that part of the Sound which will allow
the line of sight to pass between Drake’s Island and the western end
of the Breakwater. The distance is 14 statute miles. In a list of
lighthouses in a work called “The Lighthouses of the World,” by A. G.
Findlay, F.R.G.S., published in 1862, by Richard H. Lawrie, 53, Fleet
Street, London, it is said, at page 28:--“In the Tables the height of
the flame above the highest tide high water level is given, so that
it is the _minimum_ range of the light; to this elevation 10 feet is
added for the height of the deck of the ship above the sea. Besides
the increased distance to which low water will cause the light to be
seen, the effect of refraction will also sometimes increase their
range.” In the “Tables” above referred to, at page 36 the Eddystone
light is said to be visible 13 miles. But these 13 miles are nautical
measure; and as 3 nautical miles equal 3¹⁄₂ statute miles, the distance
at which the Eddystone light is visible is over 15 statute miles.
Notwithstanding that the Eddystone light is actually visible at a
distance of 15 statute miles, and admitted to be so both by the
Admiralty authorities and by calculation according to the doctrine
of rotundity, very often at the same distance, the lantern is not
visible at an elevation of 4 feet from the water; showing that the
law of perspective, previously referred to, is greatly influenced by
the state of the surface of the water over which the line of sight
is directed. A remarkable illustration of this influence is given in
the _Western Daily Mercury_, published in Plymouth, of October 25,
1864. Several discussions had previously taken place at the Plymouth
Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics’ Institute, on the true figure of
the Earth; subsequent to which a committee was formed for the purpose
of making experiments bearing on the question at issue. The names of
the gentlemen as given in the above-named journal were “Parallax” (the
author of this work), “Theta” (Mr. Henry, a teacher in Her Majesty’s
Dock-yard, Devonport), and Messrs. Osborne, Richards, Rickard, Mogg,
Evers, and Pearce, all of Plymouth. From the report published as above
stated, the following quotation is made:--Observation 6th: “_On the
beach, at 5 feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out
of sight_.”

The matter may be summarized as follows:--At any time when the sea is
calm and the weather clear, the Light of the Eddystone, which is 89
feet above the foundation on the rock, may be distinctly seen from an
elevation of 5 feet above the water level; according to the Admiralty
directions, it “may be seen 13 nautical (or 15 statute) miles,”[41] or
one mile still farther away than the position of the observers on the
above-named occasion; and yet _on that occasion_, and at a distance of
only 14 statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn
day, and a clear back ground existed, not only was the lantern, which
is 89 feet high, not visible, but the _top of the vane_, which is 100
feet above the foundation was, as stated in the report, “_entirely out
of sight_.”

  [41] “Lighthouses of the World,” p. 36.

[Illustration: FIG. 32.]

That vessels and lighthouses are sometimes more distinctly seen than
at others; and that the lower parts of such objects are sooner lost
sight of when the sea is rough than when it is calm, are items in the
experience of seafaring people as common as their knowledge of the
changes in the weather; and prominence is only given here to the above
case because it was verified by persons of different opinions upon the
subject of the Earth’s form, and in the presence of several hundreds
of the most learned and respectable inhabitants of Plymouth and the
neighbourhood. The conclusion which such observations necessitate and
force upon us is, that the law of perspective which is everywhere
visible on land, is _modified_ when observed in connection with objects
upon or near the sea. But _how_ modified? If the water of the ocean
were frozen and at perfect rest, any object upon its surface would be
seen as far as telescopic or magnifying power could be brought to bear
upon it. But because this is not the case--because the water is always
more or less in motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation,
the swells and waves, into which the surface is broken operate to
prevent the line of sight from passing parallel to the horizontal
surface of the water. It has been shown at pages 16 to 20, and also
at 25 to 33, that the surface of the Earth and Sea appears to rise up
to the level, or altitude of the eye; and that at a certain distance
the line of sight and the surface which is parallel to it appear to
converge to a “vanishing point;” which point is “the horizon.” If this
horizon, or vanishing point, were formed by the apparent junction of
two _perfectly stationary_ parallel lines, it could be penetrated by a
telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance; but because
upon the sea the surface of the water is _not stationary_, the line of
sight at the vanishing point becomes angular instead of parallel, and
telescopic power is of little avail in restoring objects beyond this
point. The following diagram will render this clear:--The horizontal
line C D E and the line of sight A B are parallel to each other, and
appear to meet at the vanishing point B. But at and about this point
the line A B is intercepted by the undulating, or fluctuating surface
of the water; the degree of which is variable, being sometimes very
great and at others inconsiderable, and having to pass over the crest
of the waves, as at H, is obliged to become A H, instead of A B, and
will therefore fall upon a ship, lighthouse, or other object at the
point S, or higher or lower as such objects are more or less beyond the
point H.

It is worthy of note that the waves at the point H, whatever their
real magnitude may be, are _magnified_ and rendered more obstructive
by the very instrument--the telescope--which is employed to make the
objects beyond more plainly visible: and thus the phenomenon is often
very strikingly observed--that while a powerful telescope will render
the sails and rigging of a ship when beyond the point H, or the optical
horizon, so distinct that the very ropes are easily distinguished, not
the slightest portion of the hull can be seen. The “crested waters”
form a barrier to the horizontal line-of-sight, as substantial as would
the summit of an intervening rock or island.

In the report which appeared in the _Western Daily Mercury_, of Oct.
25, 1864, the following observations were also recorded:--“On the
sea-front of the Camera house, and at an elevation of 110 feet from
the mean level of the sea, a plane mirror was fixed, by the aid of a
plumb-line, in a _true vertical position_. In this mirror the distant
horizon was distinctly visible on a level with the eye of the observer.
This was the simple fact, as observed by the several members of the
committee which had been appointed. But some of the observers remarked
that the line of the horizon in the mirror rose and fell with the
eye, as also did every thing else which was reflected, and that this
ought to be recorded as an _addendum_--granted. The surface of the sea
appeared to regularly ascend from the base of the Hoe to the distant
horizon. The horizon from the extreme east to the west, as far as the
eye could see, was parallel to a horizontal line.”

The following version was recorded in the same journal, of the same
date, and was furnished by one of the committee who had manifested a
very marked aversion to the doctrine that the surface of all water is
horizontal:--“A vertical looking-glass was suspended from the Camera
and the horizon seen in it, as well as various other objects reflected,
rising and falling with the eye. The water was seen in the glass to
ascend from the base of the Hoe to the horizon. The horizon appeared
parallel to a horizontal line.”

It will be observed that the two reports are substantially the same,
and very strongly corroborate the remarks made at pages 15, 16, and
17 of this work. Indeed no other report could have been given without
the author’s becoming subject to the charge of glaring, obstinate, and
wilful misrepresentation. What then has again been demonstrated? That
the surface of all water _is horizontal_, and that, therefore, the
Earth cannot possibly be anything other than a Plane. All appearances
to the contrary have been shown to be purely optical and adventitious.

[Illustration: FIG. 33.]

[Illustration: FIG. 34.]

Another proof that the surface of all water is horizontal and that
therefore the Earth cannot be a globe is furnished by the following
experiment, which was made in May, 1864, on the new pier at Southsea,
near Portsmouth:--A telescope was fixed upon a stand and directed
across the water at Spithead to the pier head at Ryde, in the Isle of
Wight, as shown in the subjoined diagram. The line of sight crossed
a certain part of the funnel of one of the regular steamers trading
between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight; and it was observed to cut
or fall upon the same part during the whole of the passage to Ryde
Pier, thus proving that the water between the two piers is horizontal,
because it was parallel to the line of sight from the telescope fixed
at Southsea. If the Earth were a globe the channel between Ryde and
Southsea would be an arc of a circle, and as the distance across is
4¹⁄₂ statute miles the centre of the arc would be 40 inches higher
than the two sides; and the steamer would have ascended an inclined
plane for 2¹⁄₄ miles, or to the centre of the channel, and afterwards
descended for the same distance towards Ryde. This ascent and descent
would have been marked by the line of sight falling 40 inches nearer
to the deck of the steamer when on the centre of the arc of water, as
represented in the following diagram; but as the line of sight did
not cut the steamer lower down when in the centre of the channel, and
no such ascent and descent was observed, it follows necessarily that
the surface of the water between Southsea and the Isle of Wight is
_not convex_, and therefore the Earth as a whole is _not a globe_. The
evidence against the doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity is so clear
and perfect, and so completely fulfils the conditions required in
special and independent investigations, that it is impossible for
any person who can put aside the bias of previous education to avoid
the opposite conclusion that the _Earth is a plane_. This conclusion
is greatly confirmed by the experience of mariners in regard to
certain lighthouses. Where the light is fixed and very brilliant it
can be seen at a distance, which the present doctrine of the Earth’s
rotundity would render altogether impossible. For instance, at page 35
of “Lighthouses of the World,” the Ryde Pier Light, erected in 1852,
is described as a bright fixed light, 21 feet above high water, and
visible from an altitude of 10 feet at the distance of 12 nautical or
14 statute miles. The altitude of 10 feet would place the horizon at
the distance of 4 statute miles from the observer. The square of the
remaining 10 statute miles multiplied by 8 inches will give a fall or
curvature downwards from the horizon of 66 feet. Deduct from this 21
feet, the altitude of the light, and we have 45 feet as the amount
which the light ought to be _below the horizon_!

By the same authority, at page 39, the Bidston Hill Lighthouse, near
Liverpool, is 228 feet above high water, one bright fixed light,
visible 23 nautical or very nearly 27 statute miles. Deducting 4 miles
for the height of the observer, squaring the remaining 23 miles and
multiplying that product by 8 inches we have a downward curvature of
352 feet; from this deduct the altitude of the light, 228 feet, and
there remains 124 feet as the distance which the light should be _below
the horizon_!

Again, at page 40:--“The lower light on the ‘Calf of Man’ is 282
feet above high water, and is visible 23 nautical miles.” The usual
calculation will show that it ought to be 70 feet _below the horizon_!

At page 41 the Cromer light is described as having an altitude of 274
feet above high water, and is visible 23 nautical miles, whereas it
ought to be at that distance 78 feet _below the horizon_!

At page 9 it is said:--“The coal fire (which was once used) on
the Spurn Point Lighthouse, at the mouth of the Humber, which was
constructed on a good principle for burning, has been seen 30 miles
off.” If the miles here given are nautical measure they would be equal
to 35 statute miles. Deducting 4 miles as the usual amount for the
distance of the horizon, there will remain 31 miles, which squared and
multiplied by 8 inches will give 640 feet as the declination of the
water from the horizon to the base of the Lighthouse, the altitude of
which is given at page 42 as 93 feet above high water. This amount
deducted from the above 640 feet will leave 547 feet as the distance
which the Spurn Light ought to have been _below the horizon_!

The two High Whitby Lights are 240 feet above high water (see page 42),
and are visible 23 nautical miles at sea. The proper calculation will
be 102 feet _below the horizon_!

At page 43, it is said that the Lower Farne Island Light is visible for
12 nautical or 14 statute miles, and the height above high water is 45
feet. The usual calculation will show that this light ought to be 67
feet _below the horizon_!

The Hekkengen Light, on the west coast of Norway (see page 54), is 66
feet above high water, and visible 16 statute miles. It ought to be
sunk beneath the horizon 30 feet!

The Trondhjem Light (see p. 55), on the Ringholm Rock, west coast of
Norway, is 51 feet high, and is visible 16 statute miles; but ought to
be 45 feet below the horizon!

The Rondö Light, also on the west coast of Norway (see p. 55), is 161
feet high, and is visible for 25 statute miles; the proper calculation
will prove that it ought to be above 130 feet below the horizon!

The Egerö Light, on west point of Island, south coast of Norway (see
p. 56), and which is fitted up with the first order of the dioptric
lights, is visible for 28 statute miles, and the altitude above high
water is 154 feet; making the usual calculation we find this light
ought to be depressed, or sunk, below the horizon 230 feet!

The Dunkerque Light, on the north coast of France (see p. 71), is 194
feet high, and visible 28 statute miles. The ordinary calculation will
show that it ought to be 190 feet below the horizon!

The Goulfar Bay Light, on the west coast of France, is said at page 77,
to be visible 31 statute miles, and to have an altitude at high water
of 276 feet, at the distance given it ought to be 210 feet below the
horizon!

At page 78, the Cordonan Light, on the River Gironde, west coast of
France, is given as being visible 31 statute miles, and its altitude
207 feet, which would give its depression below the horizon as nearly
280 feet!

The Light at Madras (p. 104), on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high, and
visible 28 statute miles, whereas at that distance it ought to be
beneath the horizon above 250 feet!

The Port Nicholson Light, in New Zealand, erected in 1859 (p. 110), is
visible 35 statute miles, the altitude is 420 feet above high water,
and ought, if the water is convex, to be 220 feet below the horizon!

The Light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet above high
water, and is visible 35 statute miles (p. 111), this will give on
calculation for the Earth’s rotundity, 491 feet that the Light should
be below the horizon!

Many other cases could be given from the same work, shewing that the
practical observations of mariners, engineers, and surveyors, entirely
ignore the doctrine that the Earth is a globe. The following cases
taken from miscellaneous sources will be interesting as bearing upon
and leading to the same conclusion. In the _Illustrated London News_ of
Oct. 20, 1849, an engraving is given of a new Lighthouse erected on the
Irish coast, The accompanying descriptive matter contains the following
sentence:--“Ballycotton Island rises 170 feet above the level of the
sea; the height of the Lighthouse is 60 feet including the Lantern;
giving the light an elevation of 230 feet, which is visible upwards of
35 miles to sea.” If the 35 miles are nautical measure the distance in
statute measure would be over 40 miles; and allowing the usual distance
for the horizon, there would be 36 miles from thence to the Lighthouse.
The square of 36 multiplied by 8 inches amounts to 864 feet; deduct the
total altitude of the Lantern, 230 feet, and the remainder, 634 feet,
is the distance which the Light of Ballycotton ought to be below the
horizon!

In the _Times_ newspaper of Monday, Oct. 16, 1854, in an account of her
Majesty’s visit to Great Grimsby from Hull, the following paragraph
occurs:--“Their attention was first naturally directed to a gigantic
tower which rises from the centre pier to the height of 300 feet, and
can be seen 60 miles out at sea.” The 60 miles if nautical, and this
is always understood when referring to distances at sea, would make
70 statute miles, to which the fall of 8 inches belongs, and as all
observations at sea are considered to be made at an elevation of 10
feet above the water, for which four miles must be deducted from the
whole distance, 66 statute miles will remain, the square of which
multiplied by 8 inches, gives a declination towards the tower of
2,904 feet; deducting from this the altitude of the tower, 300 feet,
we obtain the startling conclusion that the tower should be at the
distance at which it is visible, (60 nautical miles,) more than 2,600
feet _below the horizon_!

The only modification which can be made or allowed in the preceding
calculations is that for refraction, which is considered by surveyors
generally to amount to about ¹⁄₁₂th of the altitude of the object
observed. If we make this allowance it will reduce the various
quotients by ¹⁄₁₂th, which is so little that the whole will be
substantially the same. Take the last quotation as an instance--2,600
feet divided by 12 gives 206, which deducted from 2,600 leaves 2,384 as
the corrected amount for refraction.




SECTION 14.

GENERAL SUMMARY--APPLICATION--_CUI BONO?_


In the preceding sections it has been shown that the Copernican, or
Newtonian theory of Astronomy is “an absurd composition of truth and
error;” and, as admitted by its founder, “not necessarily true or
even probable,” and that instead of its being a general conclusion
derived from known and admitted facts, it is a heterogeneous compound
of assumed premises, isolated truths, and variable appearances in
nature. Its advocates are challenged to show a single instance wherein
a phenomenon is explained, a calculation made, or a conclusion
advanced without the aid of an avowed or implied assumption! The
very construction of a theory at all, and especially such as the
Copernican, is a complete violation of that natural and legitimate mode
of investigation to which the term _zetetic_ has been applied. The
doctrine of the universality of gravitation is an assumption, made only
in accordance with that “pride and ambition which has led philosophers
to think it beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a
complete and finished system of nature.” It was said, in effect, by
Newton, and has ever since been insisted upon by his disciples--“Allow
us, without proof, the existence of two universal forces--centrifugal
and centripetal, or attraction and repulsion, and we will construct
a system which shall explain all the leading mysteries of nature. An
apple falling from a tree, or a stone rolling downwards, and a pail of
water tied to a string set in rapid motion were assumed to be types of
the relations existing among all the bodies in the universe. The moon
was assumed to have a tendency to fall towards the Earth, and the Earth
and Moon together towards the Sun. The same relation was assumed to
exist between all the smaller and larger luminaries in the firmament;
and it soon became necessary to extend this assumption to infinity. The
universe was parcelled out into systems--co-existent and illimitable.
Suns, Planets, Satellites, and Comets were assumed to exist, infinite
in number and boundless in extent; and to enable the theorists to
explain the alternating and constantly recurring phenomena which
were everywhere observable, these numberless and for-ever-extending
objects were assumed to be spheres. The Earth we inhabit was called a
_planet_; and because it was thought to be reasonable that the luminous
objects in the firmament which were called _planets_ were _spherical_
and had _motion_, so it was only reasonable to suppose that as the
Earth was a planet it must also be spherical and have motion--_ergo_,
the Earth is a globe, and moves upon axes and in an orbit round the
Sun! And as the Earth is a globe, and is inhabited, so again it is only
reasonable to conclude that the planets are worlds like the Earth,
and are inhabited by sentient beings! What reasoning! Assumption upon
assumption, and the conclusion derived therefrom called a thing proved,
to be employed as a truth to substantiate the first assumption! Such a
“juggle and jumble” of fancies and falsehoods, extended and intensified
as it is in theoretical astronomy, is calculated to make the
unprejudiced inquirer revolt in horror from the terrible conjuration
which has been practised upon him; to sternly resolve to resist its
further progress; to endeavour to overthrow the entire edifice, and
to bury in its ruins the false honours which have been associated
with its fabricators, and which still attach to its devotees. For the
learning, the patience, the perseverance, and devotion for which they
have ever been examples, honour and applause need not be withheld;
but their false reasoning, the advantages they have taken of the
general ignorance of mankind in respect to astronomical subjects, and
the unfounded theories they have advanced and defended, cannot but be
regretted, and ought to be resisted. It has become a duty, paramount
and imperative, to meet them in open, avowed, and unyielding rebellion;
to declare that their unopposed reign of error and confusion is over;
and that henceforth, like a falling dynasty, they must shrink and
disappear, leaving the throne and the kingdom to those awakening
intellects whose numbers are constantly increasing, and whose march is
rapid and irresistible. The soldiers of truth and reason have drawn the
sword, and ere another generation has been educated, will have forced
the usurper to abdicate. The axe is lifted--it is falling, and in a
very few years will have “cut the cumberer down.”

The Earth a Globe, and it is necessarily demanded that it has a diurnal
and an annual and various other motions; for a globular world without
motion would be useless--day and night, winter and summer, the half
year’s light and darkness at the “North Pole,” and other phenomena
could not be explained by the supposition of rotundity without the
assumption also of rapid and constant motion. Hence it is _assumed_
that the Earth and Moon, and all the Planets and their Satellites
move in relation to each other, and that the whole move together in
different planes round the Sun. The Sun and its “system” of revolving
bodies are now assumed to have a general and all-inclusive motion,
in common with an endless series of other Suns and systems, around
some other and “central Sun” which has been assumed to be the true
axis and centre of the Universe! These assumed general motions
with the particular and peculiar motions which are assigned to the
various bodies in detail, together constitute a system so confused
and complicated that it is almost impossible and always difficult of
comprehension by the most active and devoted minds. The most simple
and direct experiments, however, may be shown to prove that the Earth
has no progressive motion whatever; and here again the advocates of
this interminable and entangling arrangement are challenged to produce
a single instance of so called proofs of these motions which does not
involve an assumption--often a glaring falsehood--but always a point
which is not, or cannot be demonstrated.

The magnitudes, distances, velocities, and periodic times which these
assumed motions eliminate, are all glaringly fictitious, because
they are only such as a false theory creates a necessity for. It
is geometrically demonstrable that all the visible luminaries in
the firmament are within a distance of a few thousand miles, not
more than the space which stretches between the North Pole and the
Cape of Good Hope; and the principle of measurement--that of plane
triangulation--which demonstrates this important fact, is one which no
mathematician, demanding to be considered a master in the science, dare
for a moment deny. All these luminaries then, and the Sun itself, being
so near to us, cannot be other than very small as compared with the
Earth we inhabit. They are all in motion over the Earth, which is alone
immoveable, and therefore they cannot be anything more than secondary
and subservient structures, ministering to this fixed material world,
and to its inhabitants. This is a plain, simple, and in every respect
demonstrable philosophy, agreeing with the evidence of our senses,
borne out by every fairly instituted experiment, and never requiring
a violation of those principles of investigation which the human mind
has ever recognized, and depended upon in its every day life. The
modern, or Newtonian Astronomy, has none of these characteristics. The
whole system taken together constitutes a most monstrous absurdity. It
is false in its foundation; irregular, unfair, and illogical in its
details; and in its conclusions inconsistent and contradictory. Worse
than all, it is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of
which its advocates are, practically, supporters! By defending a system
which is directly opposite to that which is taught in connection with
all religions, they lead the more critical and daring intellects to
reject the scriptures altogether, to ignore the worship, and doubt and
deny the existence of a Supreme Ruler of the world. Many of the primest
minds are thus irreparably injured, robbed of those present pleasures,
and that cheering hope of the future which the earnest christian
devotee holds as of far greater value than all earthly wealth and
grandeur; or than the mastery of all the philosophical complications
which the human mind ever invented.

The doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity and motion is now shown to be
unconditionally false; and therefore the scriptures which assert the
contrary, are, in their philosophical teachings at least, _literally
true_. In practical science therefore, atheism and denial of scriptural
authority have no foundation. If human theories are cast aside, and
the facts of nature, and legitimate reasoning alone depended upon, it
will be seen that religion and true philosophy are not antagonistic,
and that the hopes which both encourage may be fully relied upon. To
the religious mind this matter is most important, it is indeed no
less than a sacred question, for it renders complete the evidence
that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are true, and must have been
communicated to mankind by an anterior and supernal Being. For if after
so many ages of mental struggling, of speculation and trial, and change
and counterchange, we have at length discovered that all astronomical
theories are false, that the Earth is a plane, and motionless, and that
the various luminaries above it are lights only and not worlds; and
that these very doctrines have been taught and recorded in a work which
has been handed down to us from the earliest times; from a time, in
fact, when mankind could not have had sufficient experience to enable
them to criticise and doubt, much less to invent, it follows that
whoever dictated and caused such doctrines to be recorded and preserved
to all future generations, must have been superhuman, omniscient, and,
to the Earth and its inhabitants pre-existent.

To the dogged Atheist, whose “mind is made up” not to enter into any
further investigation, and not to admit of possible error in his past
conclusions, this question is of no more account than it is to an Ox.
He who cares not to re-examine from time to time his state of mind,
and the result of his accumulated experience is in no single respect
better than the lowest animal in creation. He may see nothing higher,
more noble, more intelligent or beautiful than himself; and in this
his pride, conceit, and vanity find an incarnation. To such a creature
there is no God, for he is himself an equal with the highest being he
has ever recognised! Such Atheism exists to an alarming extent among
the philosophers of Europe and America; and it has been mainly fostered
by the astronomical and geological theories of the day. Besides which,
in consequence of the differences between the language of Scripture and
the teachings of modern Astronomy, there is to be found in the very
hearts of Christian and Jewish congregations a sort of “smouldering
scepticism;” kind of faint suspicion which causes great numbers to
manifest a cold and visible indifference to religious requirements.
It is this which has led thousands to desert the cause of earnest,
active Christianity, and which has forced the majority of those who
still remain in the ranks of religion to declare “that the Scriptures
were not intended to teach correctly other than moral and religious
doctrines; that the references so often made to the physical world,
and to natural phenomena generally, are given in language to suit
the prevailing notions and the ignorance of the people.” A Christian
philosopher who wrote almost a century ago in reference to remarks
similar to the above, says, “Why should we suspect that Moses, Joshua,
David, Solomon, and the later prophets and inspired writers have
counterfeited their sentiments concerning the order of the universe,
from pure complaisance, or being in any way obliged to dissemble with a
view to gratify the prepossessions of the populace? These eminent men
being kings, lawgivers, and generals themselves, or always privileged
with access to the courts of sovereign princes, besides the reverence
and awful dignity which the power of divination and working of miracles
procured to them, had great worldly and spiritual authority....
They had often in charge to command, suspend, revert, and otherwise
interfere with the course and laws of nature, and were never daunted
to speak out the truth before the most mighty potentates on earth,
much less would they be overawed by the _vox populi_.” To say that
the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully, is in
substance to declare that God himself has stated, and commissioned
His prophets to teach things which are utterly false! Those Newtonian
philosophers who still hold that the sacred volume is the Word of God,
are thus placed in a fearful dilemma. How can the two systems, so
directly opposite in character, be reconciled? Oil and water alone will
not combine--mix them by violence as we may, they will again separate
when allowed to rest. Call oil oil, and water water, and acknowledge
them to be distinct in nature and value; but let no “hodge-podge” be
attempted, and passed off as a genuine compound of oil and water.
Call Scripture the Word of God--the Creator and Ruler of all things,
and the Fountain of all Truth; and call the Newtonian or Copernican
Astronomy the word and work of man, of man, too, in his vainest
mood--so vain and conceited as not to be content with the direct and
simple teachings of his Maker, but who must rise up in rebellion and
conjure into existence a fanciful complicated fabric, which being
insisted upon as true, creates and necessitates the dark and horrible
interrogatives--Is God a deceiver? Has He spoken direct and unequivocal
falsehood? Can we no longer indulge in the beautiful and consoling
thought that God’s justice, and love, and truth are unchanging and
reliable for ever? Let Christians--for Sceptics and Atheists may be
left out of the question--to whatever division of the Church they
belong, look at this matter calmly and earnestly. Let them determine
to uproot the deception which has led them to think that they can
altogether ignore the plainest astronomical teaching of Scripture, and
endorse a system to which it is in every sense opposed. The following
language is quoted as an instance of the manner in which the doctrine
of the Earth’s rotundity and the plurality of worlds interferes with
Scriptural teachings:--“The theory of original sin is confuted (by
our astronomical and geological knowledge), and I cannot permit the
belief, when I know that our world is but a mere speck, a perishable
atom in the vast space of creation, that God should just select this
little spot to descend upon and assume our form, and clothe Himself in
our flesh, to become visible to human eyes, to the tiny beings of this
comparatively insignificant world.... Thus millions of distant worlds,
with the beings allotted to them, were to be extirpated and destroyed
in consequence of the original sin of Adam. No sentiment of the human
mind can surely be more derogatory to the Divine attributes of the
Creator, nor more repugnant to the known economy of the celestial
bodies. For in the first place, who is to say, among the infinity
of worlds, whether Adam was the _only creature_ who was tempted by
Satan and fell, and by his fall involved all the other worlds in his
guilt.”[42]

  [42] Encyclopædia Londenensis, p. 457, vol. 2.

The difficulty experienced by the author of the above remarks is
clearly one which can no longer exist, when it is seen that the
doctrine of a plurality of worlds is an impossibility. That it is an
impossibility is shown by the fact that the Sun, Moon, and Stars are
very small bodies, and very near to the earth; this fact is proved by
actual non-theoretical measurement; this measurement is made on the
principle of plane trigonometry: this principle of plane trigonometry
is adopted because the Earth is a Plane; and all the base lines
employed in the triangulation are horizontal. By the same practical
method of reasoning, all the difficulties which, upon geological and
astronomical grounds, have been raised to the literal teachings of the
scriptures, may be completely destroyed. Instances:--The scriptures
repeatedly declare that the Sun moves over the Earth--“His going forth
is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it.”
“He ariseth and goeth down, and hasteth to his place whence he arose.”
“The sun stood still in the midst of heaven.” “Great is the Earth, high
is the heaven, swift is the Sun in his course.” In the religious poems
of all ages the same fact is presented. Christians especially, of every
denomination, are familiar with, and often read and sing with delight
such poetry as the following:--

    “My God who makes the Sun to know
    His proper hour to rise,
    And to give light to all below
    Doth send him _round the skies_.”

    “When from the chambers of the east
    His _morning race_ begins,
    He never tires _nor stops to rest_,
    But round the world he shines.”

    “God of the morning, at whose voice,
    The cheerful sun makes haste to rise,
    And, like a giant, doth rejoice,
    To _run his journey through the skies_.”

    “He sends the sun _his circuit round_,
    To cheer the fruits and warm the ground.”

    “How fair has the day been!
    How bright was the Sun!
    How lovely and joyful
    The _course that he run_.”

All the expressions of scripture are consistent with the fact of the
Sun’s motion. They never declare anything to the contrary. Whenever
they speak of the subject it is in the same manner. The direct evidence
of our senses confirms it; and actual and special observations, as well
as the most practical scientific experiments, declare the same thing.
The progressive and concentric motion of the Sun over the Earth is in
every sense demonstrable; yet the Newtonian astronomers insist upon
it that the Sun does not really move, that it only _appears_ to move,
and that this appearance arises from the motion of the Earth; that
when, as the scriptures affirm, the “Sun stood still in the midst of
heaven,” it was the _Earth_ which stood still and _not_ the Sun! that
the scriptures therefore speak falsely, and the experiments of science,
and the observations and applications of our senses are never to be
relied upon. Whence comes this bold and arrogant denial of the value of
our senses and judgement, and the authority of scripture? The Earth
or the Sun moves. Our senses tell us, and the scriptures declare that
the Earth is fixed and that it is the Sun which moves above and around
it; but a _theory_, which is absolutely false in its groundwork, and
ridiculously illogical in its details, demands that the Earth is round
and moves upon axes, and in several other and various directions; and
that these motions are _sufficient to account for_ certain phenomena
without supposing that the Sun moves, _therefore_ the Sun is a fixed
body, and his motion is _only apparent_! Such _reasoning_ is a disgrace
to philosophy, and fearfully dangerous to the religious interests of
humanity!

Christian ministers and commentators find it a most unwelcome task
when called upon to reconcile the plain and simple philosophy of the
scriptures with the monstrous teachings of theoretical astronomy.
Dr. Adam Clark, in a letter to the Rev. Thomas Roberts, of Bath,[43]
speaking of the progress of his commentary, and of his endeavours
to reconcile the statements of scripture with the modern astronomy,
says: “Joshua’s Sun and Moon standing still, have kept me going for
nearly three weeks! That one chapter has afforded me more vexation
than anything I have ever met with; and even now I am but about half
satisfied with my own solution of all the difficulties, though I am
confident that I have removed mountains that were never touched before;
shall I say that I am heartily weary of my work, so weary that I have
a thousand times wished I had never written one page of it, and am
repeatedly purposing to give it up.”

  [43] Life of Adam Clark, 8vo Edition.

The Rev. John Wesley, in his journal, writes as follows:--“The more I
consider them the more I doubt of all systems of astronomy. I doubt
whether we can with certainty know either the distance or magnitude of
any star in the firmament; else why do astronomers so immensely differ,
even with regard to the distance of the Sun from the Earth? Some
affirming it to be only three and others ninety millions of miles.”[44]

  [44] Extracts from works of Rev. J. Wesley, 3rd Edition, 1829.
  Published by Mason, London, p. 392, vol. 2.

In vol. 3, page 203, the following entry occurs:--“January 1st,
1765.--This week I wrote an answer to a warm letter published in the
_London Magazine_, the author whereof is much displeased that I presume
to doubt of the ‘modern astronomy.’ I cannot help it. Nay, the more
I consider the more my doubts increase; so that at present I doubt
whether any man on earth knows either the distance or magnitude, I
will not say of a fixed Star, but Saturn or Jupiter--yea of the Sun or
Moon.”

In vol. 13, page 359, he says:--“And so the whole hypothesis of
innumerable Suns and worlds moving round them vanishes into air.” And
again at page 430 of same volume, the following words occur:--“The
planets revolutions we are acquainted with, but who is able to this
day, regularly to demonstrate either their magnitude or their distance?
Unless he will prove, as is the usual way, the magnitude from the
distance, and the distance from the magnitude. * * * Dr. Rogers has
evidently demonstrated that no conjunction of the centrifugal and
centripetal forces can possibly account for this, or even cause any
body to move in an ellipsis.” There are several other incidental
remarks to be found in his writings which shew that the Rev. John
Wesley was well acquainted with the then modern astronomy; and that
he saw clearly both its self-contradictory and its anti-scriptural
character.

It is a very popular idea among modern astronomers that the stellar
universe is an endless congeries of systems, of Suns and attendant
worlds peopled with sentient beings analogous in the purpose and
destiny of their existence to the inhabitants of this earth. This
doctrine of a plurality of worlds, although it conveys the most
magnificent ideas of the universe, is purely fanciful, and may be
compared to the “dreams of the alchemists” who laboured with unheard
of enthusiasm to discover the “philosopher’s stone,” the _elixir vitæ_,
and the “universal solvent.” However grand the first two projects
might have been in their realisation, it is known that they were never
developed in a practical sense, and the latter idea of a solvent which
would dissolve everything was suddenly and unexpectedly destroyed by
the few remarks of a simple but critical observer, who demanded to
know what service a substance would be to them which would dissolve
all things? What could they keep it in? for it would dissolve every
vessel wherein they sought to preserve it! This idea of a plurality
of worlds is but a natural and reasonable conclusion drawn from the
doctrine of the Earth’s rotundity. But this doctrine being false its
off shoot is equally so. The supposition that the heavenly bodies are
Suns and inhabited worlds is demonstrably impossible in nature, and
has no foundation whatever in Scripture. “In the beginning God created
the Heaven and _the Earth_.” One Earth _only_ is created; and the fact
is more especially described in Genesis, ch. i., v. 10. Where, instead
of the word “Earth” meaning both land and water as together forming a
globe, as it does in the Newtonian astronomy, only the _dry land_ was
called _earth_,” and “the gathering together of the waters called He
seas.” The Sun, Moon, and Stars are described as lights only and not
worlds. A great number of passages might be quoted which prove that no
other material world is ever in the slightest manner referred to by the
sacred writers. The creation of the world; the origin of evil, and the
fall of man; the plan of redemption by the death of Christ; the day
of judgement, and the final consummation of all things are invariably
associated with _this Earth alone_. The expression in Hebrews, ch. i.,
v. 2, “by whom also he made the _worlds_,” and in Heb., ch. ii., v.
3, “through faith we understand that the _worlds_ were framed,” are
known to be a comparatively recent rendering from the original Greek
documents. The word which has been translated _worlds_ is fully as
capable of being rendered in the singular number as the plural; and
previous to the introduction of the Copernican Astronomy was always
translated “_the world_.” The Roman Catholic and the French Protestant
Bibles still contain the singular number; and in a copy of an English
Protestant Bible printed in the year 1608, the following translation is
given:--“Through faith we understand that _the world_ was ordained.”
So that either the plural expression “worlds” was used in later
translations to accord with the astronomical notions then recently
introduced, or it was meant to include the Earth and the spiritual
world, as referred to in:--

_Hebrews_ ii., 5--“For unto angels hath he not put into subjection _the
world to come_.”

_Ephesians_ i., 21--“Far above all principality and power, and might,
and dominion, and every name that is named not only in _this world_,
but also in _that which is to come_.”

_Luke_ xviii., 29, 30--“There is no man that hath left house, or
parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s
sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this _present time_, and
in _the world to come_ life everlasting.”

_Matthew_ xii., 32--“Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it
shall not be forgiven him, neither in _this world_ neither in the
_world to come_.”

The Scriptures teach that in the day of the Lord “the Heavens shall
pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent
heat,” and the “stars of Heaven fall unto the Earth even as a fig tree
casteth her untimely figs when shaken of a mighty wind.” The Newtonian
system of astronomy declares that the stars and planets are mighty
worlds--nearly all of them much larger than this Earth. The fixed
stars are considered to be suns, equal to if not greater than our own
sun, which is said to be above 800,000 miles in diameter. All this is
proveably false, but to those who have been led to believe it, the
difficult question arises,--“How can thousands of stars fall upon
the Earth, which is many times less than any one of them?” How can
the Earth with a supposed diameter of 8000 miles receive the numerous
suns of the firmament many of which are said to be a million miles in
diameter?

These stars are assumed to have positions so far from the Earth that
the distance is almost inexpressible; figures indeed may be arranged on
paper but in reading them no practical idea is conveyed to the mind.
Many of them are said to be so distant that should they fall with the
velocity of light or above one hundred and sixty thousand miles in a
second, or six hundred millions of miles per hour, they would require
nearly two millions of years to reach the Earth! Sir William Herschel
in a paper on “The power of telescopes to penetrate into space,”
published in the _Philosophical Transactions_ for the year 1800,
affirms, that with his powerful instruments he discovered brilliant
luminaries so far from the Earth that the light from them “could not
have been less than _one million nine hundred thousand years in its
progress_.” Again the difficulty presents itself--“If the stars of
Heaven begin to fall to-day, and with the greatest imaginable velocity,
millions of years must elapse before they reach the Earth!” But the
Scriptures declare that these changes shall occur suddenly--shall
come, indeed, “as a thief in the night.”

The same theory, with its false and inconceivable distances and
magnitudes, operates to destroy all the ordinary, common sense, and
scripturally authorised chronology. Christian and Jewish commentators,
unless astronomically educated, hold and teach that the Earth, as well
as the Sun, Moon, and Stars, were created about 4,000 years before the
birth of Christ, or less than 6,000 years before the present time.
But if many of these luminaries are so distant that their light would
require above a million of years to reach us; and if, as we are taught,
bodies are visible to us because of the light which they reflect or
radiate, then their light _has_ reached us, because we have been able
to see them, and therefore they must have been shining, and must have
been created at least _one million nine hundred thousand years ago_!
The chronology of the bible indicates that a period of six thousand
years has not yet elapsed since “the Heavens and the Earth were
finished, and _all_ the Host of them.”

In the modern astronomy, Continents, Oceans, Seas, and Islands, are
considered as together forming one vast Globe of 25,000 miles in
circumference. This has been shown to be fallacious, and it is clearly
contrary to the plain, literal teaching of the scriptures. In the first
chapter of Genesis, we find the following language: “and God said let
the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, and let the
_dry land_ appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land _Earth_,
and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas.” Here the
Earth and Seas--Earth and the great body of waters, are described as
two distinct and independent regions, and not as together forming one
Globe which astronomers call “the Earth.” This description is confirmed
by several other passages of scripture.

2 _Peter_, iii., 5--“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by
the Word of God the Heavens were of old, and the Earth _standing out of
the waters and in the waters_.”

_Psalms_ cxxxvi., 6--“O give thanks to the Lord of Lords, that by
wisdom made the heavens, and that _stretchet out the earth above the
waters_.”

_Psalms_ xxiv., 1, 2--“The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof;
the world and they that dwell therein: for he hath _founded it upon the
seas, and established it upon the floods_.”

_Hermes_ (New Testament Apocrypha)--“Who with the word of his strength
fixed the heaven; and _founded the earth upon the waters_.”

_Job_ xxvi., 7--“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and
hangeth the Earth upon nothing.”

Some think that the latter part of this verse, “hangeth the Earth upon
nothing,” favours the idea that the Earth is a globe revolving in
space without visible support; but Dr. Adam Clark, although himself a
Newtonian philosopher, says, in his commentary upon this passage in
Job, the literal translation is, “on the hollow or empty waste,” and
he quotes a Chaldee version of the passage which runs as follows: “He
layeth the Earth upon the waters nothing sustaining it.”

It is not that He “hangeth the Earth upon nothing,” but “hangeth
or layeth it upon the waters” which were empty or waste, and where
before there was nothing. This is in strict accordance with the other
expressions, that “the Earth was founded upon the waters,” &c., and
also with the expression in Genesis, “that the face of the deep was
covered only with darkness.”

If the Earth were a globe, it is evident that everywhere the water of
its surface, the seas, lakes, oceans, and rivers, must be sustained the
land, the Earth must be under the water; but if the land and the waters
are distinct, and the Earth is “founded upon the seas,” then everywhere
the sea must sustain the land as it does a ship or any other floating
mass, and there is water below the earth. In this particular as in all
the others, the scriptures are beautifully sequential and consistent:--

_Exodus_ xx, 4--“Thou shalt not make unto thee any likeness of anything
in heaven above or in the Earth beneath, or in the _waters under the
Earth_.”

_Genesis_ xliv, 25--“The Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings
of heaven above, and blessings of the _deep that lieth under_.”

_Deut._ xxxiii, 13--“Blessed be his land, for the precious things of
heaven; for the dew; and for the _deep which couched beneath_.”

_Deut._ iv, 18--“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, and make
no similitude of anything on the Earth, or the likeness of anything
that is in the _waters beneath the Earth_.”

The same idea prevailed among the ancients generally. In Ovid’s
Metamorphoses, Jupiter, in an assembly of the gods, is made to say, “I
swear by the infernal _waves which glide under the Earth_.”

If the earth is a distinct structure standing in and upon the waters
of the “great deep,” it follows that, unless it can be shown that
something else sustains the waters, that the depth is fathomless. As
there is no evidence whatever of anything existing underneath the
“great deep,” and as in many parts of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
no bottom has been found by the most scientific and efficient means
which human ingenuity could invent, we are forced to the conclusion
that the depth is boundless. This conclusion is again confirmed by the
scriptures.

_Jeremiah_ xxxi, 37--“Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a
light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a
light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar, the
Lord of Hosts is His name. If these ordinances depart from before me,
saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a
nation before me for ever. Thus saith the Lord: if heaven above can be
measured, and the _foundations_ of the _Earth searched out beneath_, I
will also cast off all the seed of Israel.”

From the above it will be seen that God’s promises to his people could
no more be broken than could the height of heaven, or the depths of the
Earth’s foundations be searched out. The fathomless deep beneath--upon
which the Earth is founded, and the infinitude of heaven above, are
here given as emblems of the boundlessness of God’s power, and of
the certainty that all his ordinances will be fulfilled. When God’s
power can be limited, heaven above will no longer be infinite; and
the mighty waters, the foundations of the earth may be fathomed. But
the scriptures plainly teach us that the power and wisdom of God, the
heights of Heaven, and the depths of the waters under the Earth are
alike unfathomable; and no true philosophy ever avers, nor ever did nor
ever can aver, a single fact to the contrary.

In all the religions of the Earth the words “up” and “above” are
associated with a region of peace and happiness. Heaven is always
spoken of as _above_ the _Earth_. The scriptures invariable convey the
same idea:--

_Deut._ xxvi., 15--“Look _down_ from Thy holy habitation, from Heaven,
and bless Thy people Israel.”

_Exodus_ xix., 20--“And the Lord came _down_ upon Mount Sinai.”

_Psalm_ cii., 19--“For he hath looked _down_ from the height of his
sanctuary: from Heaven did the Lord behold the Earth.”

_Isaiah_ lxiii., 15--“Look _down_ from Heaven, and behold from the
habitation of Thy holiness and of Thy glory.”

_Psalm_ ciii., 11--“For as the Heaven is high _above the Earth_.”

2 _Kings_ ii., 11--“And Elijah went _up_ by a whirlwind into Heaven.”

_Mark_ xvi., 10--“So then after the Lord had spoken unto them he was
received _up into Heaven_.”

_Luke_ xxiv., 51--“And it came to pass, while He blessed them, He was
parted from them, and carried _up into Heaven_.”

If the Earth is a globe revolving at the rate of above a thousand miles
an hour all this language of scripture is necessarily fallacious. The
terms “up” and “down,” and “above” and “below,” are words without
meaning, at best are merely relative--indicative of no absolute
or certain direction. That which is “up” at noon-day, is directly
“down” at midnight. Heaven can only be spoken of as “above,” and the
scriptures can only be read correctly for a single moment out of the
twenty-four hours; for before the sentence “Heaven is high above the
Earth” could be uttered, the speaker would be descending from the
meridian where Heaven was above him, and his eye although unmoved would
be fixed upon a point millions of miles away from his first position.
Hence in all the ceremonials of religion, where the hands and eyes
are raised upwards to Heaven, nay when Christ himself “lifted up his
eyes to Heaven and said, Father, the hour is come,” his gaze would
be sweeping along the firmament at rapidly varying angles, and with
such incomprehensible velocity that a fixed point of observation, and
a definite position, as indicating the seat or throne of “Him that
sitteth in the Heavens” would be an impossibility.

Again: the religious world have always believed and meditated upon the
word “Heaven” as representing an infinite region of joy and safety,
of rest and happiness unspeakable; as “the place of God’s residence,
the dwelling place of angels and the blessed; the true palace of
God, entirely separated from the impurities and imperfections, the
alterations and changes of the lower world; where He reigns in eternal
peace. * * It is the sacred mansion of light, and joy, and glory.[45]”
But if there is a plurality of worlds, millions upon millions, nay,
an “infinity of worlds,” if the universe is filled with innumerable
systems of burning suns, and rapidly revolving planets, intermingled
with rushing comets and whirling satellites, all dashing and sweeping
through space in directions, and with velocities surpassing all human
comprehension, and terrible even to contemplate, where is the place of
rest and safety? Where is the true and unchangeable “palace of God?” In
what direction is Heaven to be found? Where is the liberated human soul
to find its home--its refuge from change and motion, from uncertainty
and danger? Is it to wander for ever in a labyrinth of rolling worlds?
To struggle for ever in a never ending maze of revolving suns and
systems? To be never at rest, but for ever seeking to avoid some
vortex of attraction--some whirlpool of gravitation? The belief in
the existence of Heaven, as a region of peace and harmony “extending
(above the Earth) through all extent,” and beyond the influence of
natural laws and restless elements, is jeopardised, if not destroyed,
by a false and usurping astronomy, which has no better foundation
than human conceit and presumption. If this ill-founded, unsupported
philosophy is admitted by the religious mind, it can no longer say
that--

    “Far above the sun, and stars, and skies,
    In realms of endless light and love,
    My Father’s mansion lies.”

  [45] Cruden’s Concordance, article “Heaven.”

The modern theoretical astronomy affirms that the Moon is a solid
opaque, non-luminous body; that it is, in fact, nothing less than a
material world. It has even been mapped out into continents, islands,
seas, lakes, volcanoes, &c., &c. The nature of its atmosphere and
character of its productions and possible inhabitants have been
discussed with as much freedom as though our philosophers were quite as
familiar with it as they are with the different objects and localities
upon Earth. The light, too, with which the Moon so beautifully
illuminates the firmament is declared to be only borrowed--to be
only the light of the Sun intercepted and reflected upon the Earth.
These doctrines are not only opposed by a formidable array of
well-ascertained facts (as given in previous sections), but they are
totally denied by the scriptures. The Sun and Moon and Stars are never
referred to as worlds, but simply as _lights_ to rule alternately in
the firmament.

_Genesis_ i., 14, 16--“And God said let there be _lights_ in the
firmament of the Heaven to divide the day from the night. * * * And God
made two _great lights_--the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night.”

_Psalm_ cxxxvi., 7, 9--“O give thanks to Him that made _great lights_:
the Sun to rule by day, the Moon and Stars to rule by night.”

_Jeremiah_, xxxi., 35--“The Sun is given for a light by day, and the
ordinances of the Moon and of the Stars for a light by night.”

_Ezekiel_, xxxii., 7, 8--“I will cover the Sun with a cloud; and the
Moon shall not give _her light_.” “All the bright lights of Heaven will
I make dark over thee.”

_Psalm_ cxlviii., 3--“Praise him Sun and Moon, praise him all ye Stars
of light.”

_Isaiah_ xiii., 10--“The Sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and
the Moon shall not cause _her_ light to shine.”

_Matthew_ xxiv., 29--“Immediately after the tribulation of those days
shall the Sun be darkened, and the Moon shall not give her light.”

_Isaiah_ ix., 19, 20--“The Sun shall be no more thy light by day;
neither for brightness shall the _Moon give light_ unto thee. * * Thy
Sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy Moon withdraw itself.”

_Psalm_ cxxxvi., 7 to 9--“To him that made great lights, the Sun to
rule by day, the Moon and Stars to rule by night.”

_Job_ xxv., 5--“Behold even to the Moon, and _it_ shineth not.”

_Ecclesiastes_ xii., 2--“While the Sun, or the light, or the Moon, or
the Stars be not darkened.”

_Isaiah_ xxx., 26--“The light of the Moon shall be as the light of the
Sun; and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold.”

_Deuteronomy_ xxxiii., 14--“And for the precious fruits brought forth
by the Sun, and for the precious things put forth by the Moon.”

In the very first of the passages above quoted the doctrine is
enunciated that various distinct and independent _lights_ were created.
But that two _great_ lights were specially called into existence for
the purpose of ruling the day and the night. The Sun and the Moon are
declared to be these great and alternately ruling lights. Nothing is
here said, nor is it in any other part of scripture said, that the
Sun is a great light, and that the Moon shines only by reflection.
The Sun is called the “greater light to rule the day,” and the Moon
the “lesser light to rule the night.” Although of these two “great
lights” one is less than the other, each is declared to shine with
its own light. Hence in Deuteronomy, c. 33, v. 14, it is affirmed that
certain fruits are specially brought forth by the influence of the
Sun’s light, and that certain other productions are “put forth by the
Moon.” That the light of the sun is influential in encouraging the
growth of certain natural products; and that the light of the Moon has
a distinct influence in promoting the increase of certain other natural
substances, is a matter well known to those who are familiar with
horticultural and agricultural phenomena; and it is abundantly proved
by chemical evidence that the two lights are distinct in character
and in action upon various elements. This distinction is beautifully
preserved throughout the sacred scriptures. In no single instance are
the two lights confounded. On the contrary, in the New Testament, St.
Paul affirms with authority, that “there is one glory of the Sun, and
another glory of the Moon, and another glory of the Stars.”

The same fact of the difference in the two lights, and their
independence of each other is maintained in the scriptures to the last.
“The Sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the Moon became as
blood.” If the Moon is only a reflector, the moment the Sun becomes
black her surface will be blackened also, and not remain as blood,
while the Sun is dark and black as sackcloth of hair!

Again: the modern system of astronomy teaches that this earth cannot
possibly receive light from the Stars, because of their supposed great
distance from it: that the fixed Stars are only burning spheres, or
Sun’s to their own systems of planets and satellites: and that their
light terminates, or no longer produces an active luminosity at the
distance of nearly two thousand millions of miles. Here again the
scriptures affirm the contrary doctrine.

_Genesis_ i., 16-17--“He made the Stars also; and God set them in the
firmament _to give light upon the earth_.”

_Isaiah_ xiii., 10--“For the Stars of Heaven and the constellations
thereof shall not _give their light_.”

_Ezekiel_ xxxii., 7--“I will cover the Heaven, and make the _Stars_
thereof _dark_.”

_Joel_ ii., 10--“The Sun and the Moon shall be dark, and the _Stars_
shall withdraw _their shining_.”

_Psalm_ cxlviii., 3--“Praise him Sun and Moon: promise him all ye
_Stars of Light_.”

_Jeremiah_ xxxi., 35--“Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the Sun for a
light by day; and the ordinances of the Moon and of _the Stars_ for a
_light by night_.”

_Daniel_ xii., 3--“They that turn many to righteousness shall _shine_
as the _Stars_ for ever and ever.”

These quotations place it beyond doubt that the Stars were made
expressly to shine in the firmament, and “to give light upon the
Earth.” In addition to this language of scripture, we have the evidence
of our own eyes that the Stars give abundant light. “What beautiful
star-light!” is a common expression: and we all remember the difference
between a dark and starless night, and one when the firmament is as it
were studded with brilliant luminaries. Travellers inform us that in
many parts of the world, where the sky is clear and free from clouds
and vapours for weeks together, the Stars appear both larger and
brighter than they do in England; and that their light is sufficiently
intense to enable them to read and write, and to travel with safety
through the most dangerous places.

If it be true that the Stars and the Planets are not simply lights, as
the scriptures affirm them to be, but magnificent worlds, for the most
part much larger than this earth, then it is a very proper question
to ask--“are they inhabited?” If the answer be in the affirmative, it
is equally proper to inquire “have the first parents in each world
been tempted?” If so, “have they fallen?” if so, “Have they required
redemption?” And “have they been redeemed?” “Has each world had a
separate Redeemer? or has Christ been the Redeemer for every world in
the universe?” And if so, “did His suffering and crucifixion on this
Earth suffice for the redemption of the fallen inhabitants of all other
worlds? Or had He to suffer and die in each world successively? Did
the fall of Adam in this world involve in his guilt the inhabitants of
all other worlds? Or was the baneful influence of Satan confined to
the first parents of this Earth? If so, why so? and if not, why not?
But, and if, and why, and again--but it is useless thus to ponder! The
Christian philosopher must be confounded! If his religion be to him a
living reality, he will turn with loathing or spurn with indignation
and disgust, as he would a poisonous reptile, a system of astronomy
which creates in his mind so much confusion and uncertainty! But as the
system which necessitates such doubts and difficulties has been shown
to be purely theoretical; and to have not the slightest foundation in
fact, the religious mind has really no cause for apprehension. Not a
shadow of doubt remains that this World is the only one created; that
the sacred Scriptures contain, in addition to religious and moral
doctrines, a true and consistent philosophy; that they were written
for the good of mankind, at the direct instigation of God himself;
and that all their teachings and promises are truthful, consistent,
and reliable. Whoever holds the contrary conclusion is the victim of
an arrogant false astronomy, of an equally false and presumptuous
geology, or a suicidal method of reasoning--a logic which never demands
a proof of its premises, and which therefore leads to conclusions
which are contrary to nature, to human experience, and to the direct
teaching of God’s word, and therefore contrary to the deepest and
most lasting interests of humanity. “God has spoken to man in two
voices, the voice of inspiration and the voice of nature. By man’s
ignorance they have been made to disagree; but the time will come, and
cannot be far distant, when these two languages will strictly accord;
when the science of nature will no longer contradict the science of
scripture.”[46]

  [46] Professor Hunt.

CUI BONO.--“Of all terrors to the generous soul, that _Cui bono_ is
the one to be the most zealously avoided. Whether it be proposed to
find the magnetic point, or a passage impossible to be utilised if
discovered, or a race of men of no good to any human institution
extant, and of no good to themselves; or to seek the Unicorn in
Madagascar, and when we had found him not to be able to make use of
him; or the great central plateau of Australia, where no one could
live for centuries to come; or the great African lake, which, for all
the good it would do us English folk might as well be in the Moon;
or the source of the Nile, the triumphant discovery of which would
neither lower the rents nor take off the taxes anywhere--whatever it
is, the _Cui bono_ is always a weak and cowardly argument: essentially
short-sighted too, seeing that, according to the law of the past, by
which we may always safely predicate the future, so much falls into
the hands of the seeker, for which he was not looking, and of which
he never even knew the existence. The area of the possible is very
wide still, and very insignificant and minute, the angle we have
staked out and marked impossible. What do we know of the powers which
nature has yet in reserve, of the secrets she has still untold, the
wealth still concealed? Every day sees new discoveries in the sciences
we can investigate at home. What, then, may not lie waiting for the
explorers abroad? Weak and short-sighted commercially, the _cui bono_
is worse than both, morally. When we remember the powerful manhood,
the patience, unselfishness, courage, devotion, and nobleness of aim
which must accompany a perilous enterprise, and which form so great an
example, and so heart-stirring to the young and to the wavering, it is
no return to barbaric indifference to life to say, better indeed a few
deaths for even a commercially useless enterprise--better a few hearths
made desolate, and a few wives and mothers left to bear their stately
sorrow to the end of time, that the future may rejoice and be strong:
better a thousand failures, and a thousand useless undertakings,
than the loss of national manhood or the weakening of the national
fibre. Quixotism is a folly when the energy which might have achieved
conquests over misery and wrong, if rightfully applied, is wasted in
fighting windmills; but to forego any great enterprise for fear of the
dangers attending, or to check a grand endeavour by the _cui bono_ of
ignorance and moral scepticism, is worse than a folly--it is baseness,
and a cowardice.[47]”

  [47] _Daily News_ of April 5, 1865.

The above quotation is an excellent general answer to all those who
may, in reference to the subject of this work, or to anything which is
not of immediate worldly interest, obtrude the _cui bono_? But as a
special reply it may be claimed for the subject of these pages--

First,--It is more edifying, more satisfactory, and in every sense far
better that we should know the true and detect the false. Thereby the
mind becomes fixed, established upon an eternal foundation, and no
longer subject to those waverings and changes, those oscillations and
fluctuations which are ever the result of falsehood. To know the truth
and to embody it in our lives and purposes our progress must be safe
and rapid, and almost unlimited in extent. None can say to what it may
lead or where it may culminate. Who shall dare to set bounds to the
capabilities of the mind, or to fix a limit to human progress? Whatever
may be the destiny of the human race truth alone will help and secure
its realisation.

Second,--Having detected the fundamental falsehoods of modern
astronomy, and discovered that the Earth is a plane, and motionless,
and the only material world in existence, we are able to demonstrate
the actual character of the Universe. In doing this we are enabled to
prove that all the so-called arguments with which so many scientific
but irreligious men have assailed the scriptures, are absolutely
false; have no foundation except in their own astronomical and
geological theories, which being demonstrably fallacious, they fall
to the ground as valueless. They can no longer be wielded as weapons
against religion. If used at all it can only be that their weakness
and utter worthlessness will be exposed. Atheism and every other form
of Infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away,
and their poison dissipated. The irreligious philosopher can no longer
obtrude his theories as things proved wherewith to test the teachings
of scripture. He must now himself be tested. He must be forced to
demonstrate his premises, a thing which he has never yet attempted; and
if he fails in this respect his impious vanity, self-conceit and utter
disregard of justice, will become so clearly apparent that his presence
in the ranks of science will no longer be tolerated. All theory must be
put aside, and the questions at issue must be decided by independent
and practical evidence. This has been done. The process--the _modus
operandi_, and the conclusions derived therefrom have been given in
the early sections of this work. They are entirely consonant with the
teachings of scripture. The scriptures are therefore literally true,
and must henceforth either alone or in conjunction with practical
science be used as a standard by which to test the truth or falsehood
of every system which does or may hereafter exist. Philosophy is no
longer to be employed as a test of scriptural truth, but the scriptures
may and ought to be the test of all philosophy. Not that they are to
be used as a test of philosophy simply because they are _thought_ or
_believed_ to be the word of God, but because their literal teachings
in regard to science and natural phenomena, are demonstrably correct.
It is quite as faulty and unjust for the religious devotee to urge
the scriptures against the theories of the philosopher simply because
he _believes_ them to be true, as it is for the philosopher to urge
his theories against the scriptures only because he disbelieves the
one and believes the other. The whole matter must be taken out of the
region of belief and disbelief. The Christian will be strengthened
and his mind more completely satisfied by having it in his power to
demonstrate that the scriptures are philosophically true, than he could
possibly be by the simple belief in their validity, unsupported by
practical evidence. On the other hand the Atheist who is met by the
Christian upon purely scientific grounds, and who is not belaboured
with enunciations of what his antagonist believes, will be led to
listen and to pay more regard and respect to the reasons advanced
than he could possibly concede to the purely religious argument, or
to an argument founded upon faith alone. If it can be shown to the
atheistical philosopher that his astronomical and geological theories
are fallacious, and that all the expressions in the scriptures which
have reference to natural phenomena are literally true, he will of
necessity be led to admit that, apart from all other considerations,
if the _philosophy_ of the scriptures is demonstrably correct, then
possibly their _spiritual_ and _moral_ teachings may also be true; and
if so, they may and indeed must have had a divine origin; and if so
they are truly the “word of God,” and after all, religion is a grand
reality; and the theories which speculative adventurous philosophers
have advanced are nothing better than treacherous quicksands into which
many of the deepest thinkers have been engulphed and lost. By this
process many highly intelligent minds have been led to desert the ranks
of Atheism and to rejoin the army of Christian soldiers and devotees.
Many have rejoiced almost beyond expression that the subject of the
Earth’s true form and position in the universe had ever been brought
under their notice; and doubtless great numbers will yet be induced to
return to that allegiance which plain demonstrable truth demands and
deserves. To induce numbers of earnest thinking human beings to leave
the rebellious cause of Atheism and false philosophy; to return to a
full recognition of the beauty and truthfulness of the scriptures, and
to a participation in the joy and satisfaction which religion can alone
supply, is a grand and cheering result, and one which furnishes the
noblest possible answer to the ever ready “CUI BONO.”

In addition to the numerous quotations which have been given from
sacred scriptures, and proved to be true and consistent, it may be
useful briefly to refer to the following difficulties which have been
raised by the scientific objectors to scriptural authority:--“As the
earth is a globe, and as all its vast collections of water--its oceans,
lakes, &c., are sustained by the earthy crust beneath them, and as
beneath this ‘crust of the earth’ everything is in a red-hot molten
condition to what place could the excess of waters retire which are
said in the scriptures to have overwhelmed the whole world? It could
not sink into the centre of the earth, for the fire is there so intense
that the whole would be rapidly volatilised, and driven away as vapour.
It could not evaporate, for when the atmosphere is charged with watery
vapour beyond a certain degree it begins to condense and throw back the
water in the form of rain; so that the waters of the flood could not
sink from the earth’s surface, nor remain in the atmosphere; therefore
if the earth had ever been deluged at all, it would have remained so
to this day. But as it is not universally flooded so it never could
have been, and the account given in the scriptures is false.” All this
specious reasoning is founded upon the assumption that the earth is
a globe: this doctrine, however, being false, all the difficulties
quickly vanish. The earth being “founded on the seas” would be as
readily cleared of its superfluous water as would the deck of a ship
on emerging from a storm. Or as a rock in the ocean would be cleared
after the raging waves which for a time overwhelmed it had subsided.

“Thou coveredst the Earth with the deep as with a garment; the waters
stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; and at the voice
of thy thunder they hasted away ... down by the valleys unto the place
which thou hast founded for them.”[48]

  [48] Psalm civ.

“Thou didst cleave the Earth with rivers; and the overflowing of the
waters passed by; and the deep uttered his voice and lifted up his
hands on high.”[49]

  [49] Hab. iii. 9-10.

The surface of the Earth standing above the level of the surrounding
seas, the waters of the flood would simply and naturally run down by
the valleys and rivers into the “great deep,”--into which “the waters
returned from off the earth continually ... until the tenth month, and
on the first day of the month were the tops of the mountains seen.”[50]

  [50] Gen. viii. 2-5.

Again; as the Earth is a Globe and in continual motion, how could
Jesus on being “taken up into an exceedingly high mountain see all
the kingdoms of the world, in a moment of time?” Or, when “He cometh
with clouds and every eye shall see him,” how could it be possible,
seeing that at least twenty-four hours would elapse before every
part of the Earth would be turned to the same point? But it has been
demonstrated that the Earth is a Plane and motionless, and that from a
great eminence every part of its surface could be seen at once; and, at
once--at the same moment, could every eye behold Him, when “coming in a
cloud with power and great glory.”


  FINIS.


  S. HAYWARD, PRINTER, GREEN STREET, BATH.




  Transcriber’s Notes

  Inconsistent and unusual spelling, punctuation etc. have been
  retained; accents on (French) words have not been corrected. The
  inconsistent nesting and pairing of quote marks often makes it
  difficult to determine where a quote starts or ends.

  Page 20: ... as represented in figure 10 ... changed to ... as
  represented in figure 9 ....

  Page 13, A B is the line-of-sight, and C D the surface of the water
  ...: C nor D are depicted in the illustration.

  Page 27, Fig. 15 and accompanying text: the number 4 in the
  illustration appears to be misplaced.

  Page 77, “Sun’s altitude at the time of Southing ...: there is no
  closing quote mark.

  Page 142, 143 and Fig. 31: the lower case reference letters are
  present as upper case letters in the illustration.

  Page 193, ... only the dry land was called earth,” ...: the opening
  quote marks are missing.

  Page 198, ... stretchet out the earth above the waters ...: as
  printed in the source document; both "stretched" and "stretcheth"
  appear in other sources.

  Page 211, ... “did His suffering and crucifixion ...: the closing
  quote mark is lacking.

  Changes made:

  Footnotes and illustrations have been moved out of text paragraphs.

  Some obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been
  corrected silently.

  Terrestial has been changed to terrestrial (3x), trignometry to
  trigonometry (2x), incondescent to incandescent (3x).

  Illustration captions for Figs. 27, 28 and 31-34 have been added.

  Page 10: ... to lesson the difference ... changed to ... to lessen
  the difference ....

  Page 51: ... from Port Jackson to Cape Horn as 8.000 miles ...
  changed to ... from Port Jackson to Cape Horn as 8,000 miles ....

  Page 64-65: replicated text deleted.

  Page 133: exclamation mark inserted after Neptune has only _one
  third_ of this volume (as in surrounding text).

  Page 134: Professer Schumacher changed to Professor Schumacher.

  Page 139: M. Foucalt’s communication describing his experiments ...
  changed to M. Foucault’s communication describing his experiments ....

  Page 141: Ille sante aux yeux ... changed to Il saute aux yeux ....

  Page 171: ... south cost of Norway ... changed to ... south coast of
  Norway ...; The Troudhjem Light ... changed to The Trondhjem Light
  ...; Lower Farn Island Light changed to Lower Farne Island Light.

  Page 193: ... the heavenly bodies are Sun’s ... changed to ... the
  heavenly bodies are Suns ....