4 Flat Earth Evidences

” space may be the final frontier but it’s made in a Hollywood basement “

Hey people once again it is that time to speak my mind. If you read my last post then you got to see the beginning stages of a mind shift. I feel like this post here is extra necessary, especially the way a person gets attacked for believing this. People act the same way a person that believes in evolution acts about this same topic when you tell them that evolution is that they believe a lie. Imagine going your whole life, since a child entrenched in all of this propaganda of any type of lie. But not just any lie a big lie that affects your life and view of the world. I’m not 110% sure why they would be lying about something like this, but I feel strongly that they are lying about this. There’s so many test, experiments, and different types of maths that you can do to formulate that they have been wrong. In this I hope to provide some strong evidence and proofs for the fact that this Earth is not a spinning globe. I might not know exactly what the map of this Earth is but I’m trying to say that we need to go back to the drawing board. Now for my Christians who can see the way that the world of people have perverted science, something that we know to be good. We have a better understanding of how this lie could even be fathomed up. In order to help my brothers and sisters through this deception I have decided to take the time to place here many proofs and evidences. This will be a slightly hard read but if you have the time and a brave enough to make it through this post I’m sure it’s your eyes and your view will have to be opened. After reading this don’t just take my word but look further.

Broken down into sections.

Preface

Many have been enabled to see through the delusions of modern astronomy. Letters from, various parts testify that, in some cases, men and women have begun to make use of their brain-power, which had been stunted and dwarfed by acceptation, without the slightest proof, of the unscientific, unreasonable, un natural, and infidel teachings of men foisted upon a credulous public in the name of ” Science.” Others again, tell that the writers have thrown to the moles and to the bats the world-wide and almost universally- believed hoax that we are living on a whirling sea-earth globe, revolving faster than a cannon-ball travels, rushing through ” space ” at a rate beyond human power to conceive, and flying — with the whole of the so-called solar-system — in another direction twenty times the speed of its rotation.

Introduction

For convenience of reference we have arranged the present edition alphabetically. In this way any particular branch of the subject can be found without looking up the index, and something new is found on every page. Briefly, modern astronomical teaching affirms that the world we live on is a globe, which rotates, revolves, and spins away in space at brain-reeling rates of speed ; that the sun is a million and a-half times the size of the earth-globe, and nearly a hundred million miles distant from it; (that the moon J is about a quarter the size of the earth ; that it receives all its / light from the sun, and is thus only a reflector, and not a – I giver, of light ; that it attracts the body of the earth and thus ^.causes the tidesjjthat the stars are worlds and suns, some of_ j them equal in importance to our own sun himself, and others vastly his superior ; that these worlds, inhabited by sentient beings, are without numbers and occupy space boundless in extent and illimitable in duration ; the whole of these inter laced bodies being subject to, and supported by, universal gravitation, the foundation and father of the whole fabric. To fanciful minds and theoretical speculators, the so- called “science” of modern astronomy furnishes a field, un surpassed in any science for the unrestrained license of the imagination, and the building up of a complicated conjuration of absurdities such as to overawe the simpleton and make him gape with wonder ; to deceive even those who truly believe their assumptions to be facts, and to “make men doubt Divine Revelation with as little discrimination as they were formerly called upon to believe.”

Age of the Earth

This is a subject which has been much speculated upon. I shall quote a few of the more prominent assumptions. Sir Robert Ball, in his ” Story of the Heavens,” pages 169 and 170, tells us that ” We cannot pretend to know how many thousands of millions of years ago this epoch was, but we may be sure that earlier still the earth was even hotter, until at length we seem to see the temperature increase to a red heat, from a red heat we look back to a still earlier age when the earth was white hot, back again till we find the surface of our now solid globe was ACTUALLY MOLTEN.” But imagination goes still further than this. In ” Our place among Infinities,” by R. A. Proctor, pages 9 and 10, we find the following : — ” Let it suffice that we recognise as one of the earliest stages of our earth’s history, her condition as a rotating MASS OF GLOWING VAPOUR, capturing then as now, but far moreactively then than now, masses of matter which approached near enough, and growing by these continual indraughts from without.” How we are to ” recognise ” that the earth was once a rotating mass of vapour, we are not told. On what evidence the recognition rests, is not stated. Perhaps it is not too much to assume that this is like most other assumptions of the astronomical schools, without the slightest vestige of possibility, to say nothing of probability. Sir R. Ball tells us that ” we may be sure ” that the earth was once ” actually molten”; but on what provable data the “surety” of this “actuality” rests we are left to the foggy mazes of imagina tion to discover. But imagination, assisted by assumption, will account for anything, and so we are told that it ” took 350,000,000 years for the earth to cool down from a tempera ture of 2,000 centigrade to 200.” Proctor says that Bischoff has shown this, aud so we ought to be sure enough. Were similar ridiculous statements made in relation to any other science than Astronomy or Geology, I believe the general reader would dismiss them at sight. But because they are made in a ” domain of science ” where the general reader, in most cases, cannot follow, they are allowed to pass as the genuine product of learning and investigation ; whereas they are at best but wild and utterly impossible theories.

Curvature

In ” Chambers’ Mathematical Tables ” the curvature of the globe is given as 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance. If it be required to ascertain the curvature on a globe of 25,000 statute miles equatorial circumference, square the distance and multiply by 7.935 inches. The result is the curvature. Thus, in six miles there is a dip of nearly 24 feet; in 30 miles, nearly 600 feet ; and so on. – In ” Mensuration,” by T. Baker, C.E., the correction for curvature is said to be 7.962 inches to the mile. These two equations so nearly agree, and amount to just about what the correction would be on a globe of the size the earth is said to be, that they may be taken as correct. If, therefore, the world we live on is a globe, it is a simple matter to find out how far any object at a given height can be seen. In September, 1898, I received a letter from Australia, in which the writer says : “In the year 1872 I was on board the ship “Thomas Wood,” Capt. Gibson, from China to London. Owing to making a long passage, we ran short of provisions, and so short after rounding the Cape that the Captain spoke of putting into St. Helena for a supply. It was then my hobby to get the first glimpse of land, and in order to do this I would go up to the topgallant yard and make a survey, just as the sun would be rising. The island was clearly in view, well on the starboard bow. I reported this to Capt. Gibson. He disbelieved me, saying it was impossible, as we were 75 miles distant. He, however, offered me paper and pencil to sketch the land I saw. This I did. He then said, ‘you are right,” and shaped his course accordingly. I had never seen the Island before, and could not have described the shape of it had I not seen it.” St. Helena is a high volcanic island, and if my informant had seen the top only, there would have to be an allowance made for the height of the land, but as he sketched the island, he must have seen the whole of it, which should have been 3,650 feet below the line of sight, if the world be a globe (deducting 100 feet for the height of the yard he viewed’ it from). In ” Chambers’ Information for the People,” section on Physical Geography, page 59, the following occurs : “In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi is estimated at 1,300,000 square miles, and that of the St. Law- rened at 600,000 ; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends an inhospitable/a/ of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next in order of importance is that section of Europe extending from the German Sea, through Prussia, Poland, and Russia, towards the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ONE VAST PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that it has been remarked, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE FROM LONDON TO MOSCOW, WHICH WOULD NOT PERCEPTIBLY VARY FROM A DEAD LEVEL.” The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the surface of the world is not globular. On a globe, no matter how powerful the glass, only a certain distance could be seen, as the roundness of the globe would prevent a glass from seeing round it, and its thickness would equally prevent one seeing through it. But in fine weather objects at distances out of all proportion to what the curvature would allow, are visible with the assistance of a good glass. The following from the ” Voyage of a Naturalist,” by C. Darwin, page 166, illustrates this point : ” The guanaco, or wild llama.— Mr. Stokes told me that he one day saw, through a glass, a herd of these animals which evidently had been frightened, and were running away at full speed, although their distance was so great that he could not dis tinguish them with the naked eye.” From the ” Atlas of Physical Geography,” by the Rev. T.Milner, M.A., I extract the following: ” Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise ex isting through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals. South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles.” “The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefly on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT.” “The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course ; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile.” These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe. And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence against the popular view. In ” Nature and Man,” by Professor W. B. Carpenter, article “The Deep Sea and its Contents,” pages 320 and 321, the writer says : ” Nothing seems to have struck the ” Challenger” surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neigh bourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth’s crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded by an elevated and deeply-sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared.” This remarkable writer tells of thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.

Fluids

It is in the nature of fluids to be and remain level, and when that level is disturbed by any influence whatever, motion ensues until the level is resumed. Professor Airy tells us, in his ” Six Lectures on Astro nomy,” that ” quick-silver is perfectly fluid, its surface is perfectly horizontal.” We may add that all fluids are the same, for the reason given by the next writer. Mr. W. T. Lynn, of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, in his ” First Principles of Natural Philosophy,” says : ” the upper surface of a fluid at rest is a horizontal plane. Because if a part of the surface were higher than the rest, those parts of the fluid which were under it would exert a greater pressure upon the surrounding parts than they receive from them, so that motion would take place amongst the particles and continue until there were none at a higher level than the rest, that is, until the upper surface of the whole mass of fluid became a horizontal plane.” The English Mechanic of 26th June, 1896, says : ” Since any given body of water must have a level surface, i.e., no one part higher than another, and seeing that all our oceans (a few inland seas excepted) are connected together, it follows that they are all VIRTUALLY OF THE SAME LEVEL.” In March, 1870, the Bedford Canal was chosen to ex periment upon with a view of determining whether water was horizontal or convex. The following argument is taken from the report as printed in the Field for 26th March, 1870, and is considered to be sufficient and unanswerable : — ” The stations appeared, to all intents and purposes, equi distant in the field ot view, and also in a regular series ; first, the distant bridge ; secondly, the central signal ; and, thirdly, the horizontal cross-hair marking the point of observation ; showing that the central disc 13 ft. 4 in. high does NOT depart from a straight line taken from end to end of the six miles in any way whatever, either laterally or vertically. For, if so, and (as in the case of the disc 9 ft. 4 in. high) if it were lower or nearer the water, it would appear, as that disc does, nearer to the distant bridge. If it were higher, it would appear in the opposite direction nearer the horizontal cross-hair which marks the point of observation. As the disc 4 ft. lower appears near to the distant bridge, so a disc to be really 5 ft. higher would have to appear still nearer to the horizontal cross-hair of the telescope. And therefore it is shown that a straight line from one point to the other passes through the central point in its course, and that a curved surface of water has not been demonstrated.” In ” Theoretical Astronomy,” page 47, it is stated : ” On the Royal Observatory wall at Greenwich is a brass plate, which states that a certain horizontal mark is 154 feet above mean water at Greenwich and 155.7 ieet above mean water at Liverpool.” The difference of the level between Liverpool and Green wich is thus shewn to be only 1.7 feet. If the world were a globe, the difference of level would be many thousands of feet. It is a common saying that water will find its level, and it is true. If water be dammed back, it will, as soon as released, take the easiest course to where it can find its level. The following from the Natal Mercury of 24th October, 1898, fully illustrates this point London, Oct. ig (Diggers’ News Speciall. The steamer Blanche Rock, whilst entering the Morpeth Dock, Birkenhead, burst the dock gates. The water inside, which was 8 ft. higher than the level of the river, rushed out with tremendous force. The swirling mass of water damaged the shipping, and beached and sank a number of barges. Two lives were lost. As soon as the water got to the level of the river, its power would cease. C. Darwin, in his “Voyage of a Naturalist,” page 328, tells us : ” I was reminded of the Pampas of Buenos Ayres, by seeing the disc of the rising sun, intersected by an horizon LEVEL AS THAT OF THE OCEAN.” A globe with level oceans would be a new thing in geography!

Gravitation

The “law of gravitation ” is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy. If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this ” most exact of all the sciences,” this wonderful ” feat of the intellect ” becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed. In the “Story of the Heavens,” by Sir R. Ball, it is stated on page 82 “The law of gravitation, THE GREATEST DISCOVERY that science has yet witnessed.” “The law of gravitation WHICH UNDERLIES THE WHOLE OF ASTRONOMY.” Page 10 1 ” The law of gravitation announces that every body in the universe attracts every other body with a force which varies inversely with the square of the. distance.” ” Popular Science Recreations,” byG. Tissandier, pages 486 and 487, contains the following : ” Gravitation is the force which keeps the planets in their orbits.” ” Every object in the world tends to attract every other object in proportion to the quantity of matter of which each consists.” Professor W. B. Carpenter, in his work ” Nature and Man,” page 365, says : ” ‘ The laws of light and gravitation,’ wrote Mr. Atkinson to Harriet Martineau, 30 years ago, ‘ extend over the universe, and explain whole classes of phenomena,’ and this explanation, according to the same writer, is all-sufficient, ‘ Philosophy finding no God in nature, NOR SEEING THE WANT OF ANY.’ ” C. Vernon Boys, F.R.S., A.R.S.M., M.R.I., in his paper, ” The Newtonian Constant of Gravitation,” says : ” G, represents that mighty principle under the influence of which every star, planet and satellite in the universe pursues its allotted course. Unlike any other known physical influence, it is independent of medium, it knows no refraction, it cannot cast a shadow. It is a mysterious power which NO MAN CAN EXPLAIN, OF ITS PROPAGATION THROUGH SPACE, ALL MEN ARE IGNORANT I cannot contemplate this mystery, at which we ignorantly wonder, without thinking of the altar on Mars’ hill. When will a St. Paul arise able to declare it unto us ? Or is gravitation, like life, a mystery that can never be solved ? ” — Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, March 1895, p. 355. Professor W. B. Carpenter, in his paper ” Nature and Law,” published in the ” Modern Review ” for October, 1890, says : ” The first of the great achievements of Newton in relation to our present subject, was a piece of purely Geometrical reason ing. ASSUMING two forces to act on a body, of which one should be capable of imparting to it uniform motion in a straight line, whilst the other should attract it towards a fixed point in accordance with Galileo’s law of gravity, he demonstrated that the path of the body would be deflected into a curve The idea of continuous onward motion in a straight line, as the result of an original impulsive force not antagonised or affected by any other — formularised by Newton as his first ‘ law of motion ‘ — is not borne out by any acquired experience, and does not seem likely to be ever thus verified. For in no experiment we have it in our power to make, can we entirely eliminate the antagonising effects of friction and atmospheric resistance ; and thus all movement that is subject to this retardation, and is not sustained by any fresh action of the impelling force, must come to an end. Hence the conviction commonly entertained that Newton’s first ‘ law ‘ of motion must be true, cannot be philoso phically admitted to be anything more than a probability WE HAVE NO PROOF, AND IN THE NATURE OF THINGS CAN NEVER GET ONE, OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE ATTRACTIVE FORCE EXERTED BY THE EARTH, OR BY ANY OF THE BODIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, UPON OTHER BODIES AT A DISTANCE. Newton himself strongly felt that the impossibility of rationally accounting for action at a distance through an intervening vacuum, was the weak point of HIS system. All that we can be said to know is that which we learn from our own experience. Now. in regard to the Sun’s attraction for the Earth and Planets, WE HAVE NO CERTAIN EXPERIENCE AT ALL. Unless we could be transported to his surface, we have no means of experi mentally comparing Solar gravity with Terrestrial gravity ; and if we could ascertain this, we should be no nearer the determina tion of his attraction for bodies at adistance. THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION THEN, IS A PURE ASSUMPTION.” In ” Letters to the British Association,” Professor Bernstein says : ” The theory that motions are produced through material attraction is absurd Attributing such a power to mere matter, which is PASSIVE BY NATURE, is a supreme illusion. …. it is a lovely and easy theory to satisfy any man’s mind, but when the practical test comes, it falls all to pieces and becomes one of the most ridiculous theories to common sense and judgment.” The following extracts are taken from ” A Million of Facts,” by Sir Richard Phillips : “If the sun has any power, it must be derived from motion ; and if acting on bodies at a distance, like Jupiter on his moons, or the Earth on its moon, THERE MUST BE AN INTER VENING MEDIUM TO CONDUCT ITS MOMENTUM THROUGH ITS SYSTEM.” ” It is a principle never to be lost sight of, that circular motion is a necessary result of equal action and reaction in contrary directions ; for the harmony would be disturbed by variation of distance, if the motion were rectilinear. The same action and reaction are therefore only to be preserved by reciprocal circular motion. NO ATTRACTION AND NO PROJECTILE FORCE ARE THEREFORE NECESSARY. THEIR invention must be regarded AS BLUNDERS OF A SUPERSTITIOUS AGE.” ” If the bodies came near while moving THE SAME WAY, there would be no mutual REACTION, and they would go together for want of reaction, and NOT OWING TO THAT MECHANICAL IMPOSSIBILITY CALLED ATTRACTION.” “To accommodate THE HYPOTHETICAL LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION to the phenomena of the Planets, astronomers have preferred to change the mean density of matter itself ; and the Earth, for comparison, being taken at a density of 1,000, to accommodate Mercury to THE ASSUMED LAW, it is taken as 2,585; Venus, 1,024; Mars, 656; Jupiter, 201 ; Saturn, 103 ; and Herschel, 218. Consequently, we have the paradox, that Jupiter, 1,290 times larger than the Earth, contains but 323 times more atoms. Saturn 1,107 times larger, but 114 times more atoms. Even the Sun, according to these theorists, is but one-fourth the density of the Earth ! There may be differences, but chemistry and all the laws that unite and compound atoms, are utterly at variance with so rash and wild an hypothesis.” ” It is waste of time to break a butterfly on a wheel, but as astronomy and all science is beset with fancies about attraction and repulsion, it is necessary to eradicate them. c O I IJB ” If there are two bodies, and it is required to move A to C, the force moving A to C must proceed from the side A. Either some impact, or some involvement of a motion towards C, must act at A to carry A to C. The modern schools, however, assert that B may move A to C, and A move B to C ; and this is mutual attraction I ! Hence it is necessary to believe that B acts on the side A, where B is not present ; and that A acts on B on the side B, where A is not present. In other words, A is required to be where it is not, and also be in force at A, so as to move B to C ! all of which is absurd.” ‘If in any case A and B approach, it is not because A moves B towards itself, or B moves A towards itself, but owing to some causes which affect the space in which A and B are situated ; and which causes act on A at A, and on B at B . . . . the statement that A moves B, and B moves A, is ignorance, and is what is meant by attraction. It is also worse than ignorance to justify idleness by asserting that the true cause is indifferent ; or to justify ignorance, by asserting that it is unknowable ! ! ” ” This reasoning applies to every species of Attraction, whatever may be the pomposity of equivocal terms in which it is described. Universally, bodies cannot push other bodies towards themselves.” 0A B0 D ” If A and B are said to repel one another, and that B makes A move to C, and A makes B move to D, we have to bear in mind, that while A is moving to C it is in force only in that direction, and cannot, therefore, be moving B towards D. In like manner, while B is moving to D, it is in force only in that direction, and cannot, therefore, be in force in the contrary direction so as to move A to C.” Every species and variety of Attraction and Repulsion are therefore absurd. ” MATTER IS IN ALL CASES THE CONDUCTOR OF MOTION. If a body moves, it is because it is the patient of some sufficient momentum of body or matter acting ON the side FROM which the body moves, and only in force in that direction.” ” Some adopters of attraction, &c, talk, by false analogy, of drawing, others of pulling, lifting, &c. La Place INVENTS gravitating atoms, and gives them a velocity of 6,000 times that of light, which in some way (known only to himself) performs the work of bringing the body in ; others IMAGINE little hooks 1 As to drawing, pulling, &c, it behoves them to show the tackle — the levers, the ropes, &c,” ” In spite ot all the learning, ingenuity, and elaborations of men, confessedly very able, if there is not and cannot be any action of the nature of attraction, and if the phenomena ascribed to it are local effects of palpable local causes, and if all the phenomena and involvement maybe clearly explained on different principles, then it may be to be lamented lhat so much ability and character should have been wasted, while a respect for truth and sound reasoning demands that the whole should be FORGOTTEN AS A DREAM, OR DEMOLISHED AS A CARD HOUSE.” Professor Airy, in his ” Lectures on Astronomy,” 5th Edition, page 194, informs us ” Newton was the first person who made a calculation of the figure of the earth on the theory of gravitation. He took the following SUPPOSITION as the only one to which his theory could be applied. He ASSUMED the earth to be a fluid. This fluid matter he ASSUMED to be equally dense in every part. …. For trial of his theory he SUPPOSED the ASSUMED fluid earth to be a spheroid. In this manner he INFERRED that the form of the earth would be a spheroid, in which the length of the shorter is to the longer, or equatorial diameter, in the proportion of 229 to 230.” The ” New Principia,” by N. Crossland, contains the following : ” In ascending a hill we experience a hard struggle, and feel more fatigued than when walking on level ground. Why is this ? The Newtonian attributes this to the attraction of gravitation of the earth, against the pull of which we have to contend ; but if he would be consistent with his theory that the attraction of gravitation diminishes inversely as the square ot the distance from the centre ot the earth, we ought, in defiance of experience, to feel it to be less laborious to ascend a hill than to promenade the same distance on level ground, because as we ascend we recede from the centre of the earth ; therefore the force of gravi tation ought to diminish in a corresponding degree. The Newtonian can only get over this difficulty by a species of scientific quibbling. According to the definition of weight I have given, the solution of the problem is perfectly simple. In ascending a hill a man comes in conflict with the law that the natural tendency of any body is to seek the easiest and shortest route to its level of stability. He chooses the very reverse, and must therefore endure the consequences of acting in opposition to this law. At every step he has to lift his own weight, and the higher he mounts the more he feels the influence of the law which he defies. His easiest and more direct course to obey the law of weight is to remain where he is ; the next is to descend to a lower level. ” The attraction of gravitation is said to be stronger at the surface of the earth than at a distance from it. Is it so ? If I spring upwards perpendicularly I cannot with all my might ascend more than four feet from the ground ; but if I jump in a curve with a low trajectory, keeping my highest elevation about three feet, I might clear at a bound a space above the earth of about eighteen feet ; so that practically I can overcome the so-called force (pull) at the distance of four feet, in the proportion of 1 8 to 4, being the very reverse of what I ought to be able to do according to the Newtonian hypothesis. ” Again, take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon. By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parbolic curve, and finally falls to the earth. Here we may ask, why — if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation — does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth ? The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary ; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent. Precisely so : but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun ? What is the cause of this permanence ? ” We are asked by the Newtonian to believe that the action of gravitation, which we can easily overcome by the slightest exercise of volition in raising a hand or a foot, is so overwhelm ingly violent when we lose our balance and fall a distance of a few feet, that this force, which is imperceptible under usual conditions, may, under extraordinary circumstances, cause the fracture of every limb we possess ? Common-sense must reject this interpretation. Gravitation does not furnish a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena here described, whereas the definition of weight already given does, for a body seeking in the readiest manner its level of stability would produce precisely the results experienced. If the influence which kept us securely attached to this earth were identical with that which is powerful enough to disturb a distant planet in its orbit, we should be more immediately conscious of its masterful presence and potency ; whereas this influence is so impotent in the very spot where it is supposed to be most dominant that we find an insurmountable difficulty in accepting the idea of its existence. Fortunately for our faculty of locomotion, the Newtonian hypothesis may be rejected as a snare and a delusion. ” It is quite amusing to watch Newtonians and Darwinians floundering about in their attempts to expound the mysteries of creation. Their theories are as ridiculous as the fashion which once prevailed for Della-Cruscan poetry, and they ought to be treated with equal severity. ” It seems quite possible that during the last two hundred years we have been living in a sort of scientific fool’s paradise, and that universal gravitation is a gigantic Newtonian mare’s nest. ” As a theoretical scientific guide we must give up Sir Isaac Newton as useless and misleading, and allow his reputation to retire into private life. ” In Knowledge of the 17th and 24th Feb., 1882, there appeared a discourse on The Birth of the Moon by Tidal Evolution, by Dr. Ball, the Astronomer Royal for Ireland, which I should say is without exception, the most delusive and absurd contribution ever made to so-called science. At one time I thought that ” Parallax,” who told us that the earth was a flat plane like a plate, was the most misguided man in- the kingdom, but I now believe that he is quite entitled to take rank in scientific wisdom, and to sit down on an equality with the Astronomer Royal of Dublin.” I have quoted at length on this important matter, and the evidence here produced, besides very much more in the same direction, for which I have not the space here, shows clearly that THERE IS NO SUCH FORCE AS GRAVI TATION IN EXISTENCE ANYWHERE. One of the world’s so-called great thinkers, J. S. Mill, is quoted in Professor Carpenter’s ” Nature and Man,” page 385, as saying : ” Although we speak of a man’s fall as caused by the slipping of his foot, or the breaking of a rung (as the case may bei the efficient cause IS THE ATTRACTIVE FORCE OF THE EARTH, which the loss of support to the man’s foot brings into operation.” If a man is not ” deeper ” than to believe what this ” deep ” thinker has left on record in this matter ; if he has no more brain power than to accept the foregoing state ment, I would strongly advise him to cease thinking alto gether, and thus save the few brains he has. It is simply astounding that men, who in business matters are sharp enough, are as dull as bricks and as credulous as children when the awe-inspiring subject of gravitation, ” that grand masterpiece of astronomy,” is the theme. To ask the reason why, or to venture to suggest that the assumptions of the ” learned ” require some sort of proof to back them up, never seems to strike moderns who believe in this monstrous humbug. A. Giberne, in ” Sun, Moon, and Stars,” page 27, says : ” If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him ? ” A very proper question, truly. And when this question is propounded to astronomers, they cannot give an answer worth recording. They simply do not know how to answer the question without stultifying their common-sense. But the above writer thinks it can be answered, so says : ” Did you ever tie a ball to a string and swing it rapidly round and round your head ? If you did, YOU MUST HAVE NOTICED THE STEADY OUTWARD PULL OF THE BALL.” The ” steady outward pull of the ball ” clearly implies that the ball has intelligence, and knows just what to do so as to prevent its hitting the head of the operator. Thebelieve that he is quite entitled to take rank in scientific wisdom, and to sit down on an equality with the Astronomer Royal of Dublin.” I have quoted at length on this important matter, and the evidence here produced, besides very much more in the same direction, for which I have not the space here, shows clearly that THERE IS NO SUCH FORCE AS GRAVI TATION IN EXISTENCE ANYWHERE. One of the world’s so-called great thinkers, J. S. Mill, is quoted in Professor Carpenter’s ” Nature and Man,” page 385, as saying : ” Although we speak of a man’s fall as caused by the slipping of his foot, or the breaking of a rung (as the case may bei the efficient cause IS THE ATTRACTIVE FORCE OF THE EARTH, which the loss of support to the man’s foot brings into operation.” If a man is not ” deeper ” than to believe what this ” deep ” thinker has left on record in this matter ; if he has no more brain power than to accept the foregoing state ment, I would strongly advise him to cease thinking alto gether, and thus save the few brains he has. It is simply astounding that men, who in business matters are sharp enough, are as dull as bricks and as credulous as children when the awe-inspiring subject of gravitation, ” that grand masterpiece of astronomy,” is the theme. To ask the reason why, or to venture to suggest that the assumptions of the ” learned ” require some sort of proof to back them up, never seems to strike moderns who believe in this monstrous humbug. A. Giberne, in ” Sun, Moon, and Stars,” page 27, says : ” If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him ? ” A very proper question, truly. And when this question is propounded to astronomers, they cannot give an answer worth recording. They simply do not know how to answer the question without stultifying their common-sense. But the above writer thinks it can be answered, so says : ” Did you ever tie a ball to a string and swing it rapidly round and round your head ? If you did, YOU MUST HAVE NOTICED THE STEADY OUTWARD PULL OF THE BALL.” The ” steady outward pull of the ball ” clearly implies that the ball has intelligence, and knows just what to do so as to prevent its hitting the head of the operator. The ” outward pull ” of a ball which is fastened to the hand of the operator by a string, is clearly impossible. If the operator ceased to impel it round and round his head by the mechanical attachment and the power he exerts in swinging it round, the ball would seek its level of stability and fall to the ground. And, as this illustration is used to teach what gravitation is, and how it acts, we shall just follow the illus tration to its logical issue, and see where the theory is. The illustration implies that BETWEEN ALL THE BODIES IN THE UNIVERSE, THERE IS A CON NECTING LINK, which keeps the “body” that attracts attached to the “body” that is attracted. This connecting link, in the case of the ball, is the string, Now, we could readily understand gravitation if this, illustration conveyed to us by the ball and the string were a correct representation of fact. But, we very naturally ask, what is the connecting link ? Of what does it consist r And ot what do all the connecting links between the sun and the myriad orbs of heaven consist r Would not the ” strings ” get somewhat entangled? Has this connecting link ever been observed anywhere r The answer to these pertinent questions is that THERE IS NO CONNECTING LINK in existence. When the “missing link “‘ is produced, we are prepared to admit all the gravita tion theorists teach on the subject. Until then we shall continue to regard it as the myth it undoubtedly is. But we are not done with the illustration yet. The ” ball and string ” device sets forth that the ” body ” that attracts is not only connected with the ” body ” attracted, but that the former IS THE MOTIVE POWER OF THE LATTER — that the sun is the power which compels the earth to revolve round it, even as the motive power of the ball is the exertion of the hand of the operator. Without the connecting link the earth would fall (according to the astronomers) in a rectilinear path for ever. But what these wise men do not see, and which is a necessary part of the theory, as repre sented by the ball and string idea, is that the motive power also must come from the sun. Without this motive power and the connecting link, the whole of the theory falls to pieces. THERE IS NO MOTIVE POWER IN THE SUN TO CAUSE THE EARTH TO REVOLVE AROUND IT, AND THERE IS NO CONNECTING LINK BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE EARTH TO KEEP THE LATTER IN ITS POSITION, consequently the theory of universal gravitation has no existence in fact. ” He who cannot reason is a fool ; he who “will not reason is a bigot ; he who dares not reason is a coward ; but he who can and dares to reason is a MAN.” If the reader can and dares to reason, let him reason this matter out and discover whether astronomy as drummed into children’s heads at school, and vauntingly displayed, with many pictures, from public platforms, has one inch of standing ground, or one reason to offer as an apology for its further existence and power to befool mankind longer. These are stiong statements, but not stronger than the facts warrant. ” The Story of the Heavens,” by Sir Robert Ball, is not only an authoritative treatise, which it is, coming from such a recognised exponent of the ” science ” ; but a fulsome account of general principles and details in popular form. As a literary production, it possesses considerable merit, and its good English entitles it to the respect and consideration of all its readers. But as a contribution to science, it is the most absurd and unreasoning conglomeration of nonsensical and impossible ideas I have ever read. On page 1 1 o of this book, we read that ” Kepler found that the movements of the planets could be explained by supposing that the path in which each one revolved was an ellipse. This in itself was a DISCOVERY of the most commanding importance.” To explain anything by a supposition, and then to label the supposition a discovery is ridiculous in the ” domain of science ” and a marvel of literary ingenuity. On the same page, the first law of planetary motion is enunciated in these words, ” each planet revolves around the sun in an elliptical path, having the sun as one of the foci,” and on page 1 1 2 the ellipse is shown with the sun in one focus. Throughout the book, however, the other focus is not mentioned, and it is very evident from the diagram that if the sun were of sufficient power to retain the earth in its orbit when nearest the sun, when the earth arrived at that part of its elliptical path farthest from the sun, the attractive force (unless very greatly increased) would be utterly incapable of preventing the earth rushing away into space ” in a right line for ever,” as astronomers say. On the other hand, it is equally clear that if the sun’s attraction were just sufficient to keep the earth in its proper path when farthest from the sun, and thus to prevent it rushing off into space ; the same power of attraction when the earth was nearest the sun would be so much greater, that (unless the attraction were very greatly diminished) nothing would prevent the earth rushing towards and being absorbed by the sun, there being no counterbalancing focus to prevent such a catastrophe ! As astronomy makes no reference to the increase and diminution of the attractive force of the sun, called gravitation, for the above necessary purposes, we are again forced to the conclusion that the great ” discovery ” of which astronomers are so proud is absolutely non-existent. The law of dynamics, assisted by geometry, makes it, as the learned say, “mathematically certain ” that no such force as gravitation exists anywhere in the universe. As another has well said, its invention must be regarded as a blunder of a superstitious age. If the earth were the globe of astronomical invention, and if gravitation were needed to keep it in its path around the sun, it is easily seen that gravitation must be circular, as then and then only, would the attraction be equal in every part of the path, and so cause the earth to describe an exact circle throughout the year. Astronomers say that the earth moves and not the sun. And that this movement of the earth causes the seasons. And further, that the move ment of the sun which we see is really caused by the movement of the earth. If, therefore, the sun appears to make an exactly circular path every day of the year, there might be some ground for the astronom srs’ supposition of gravitation. That the sun’s path is an exact circle for only about four periods in a year, and then of only a few hours — at the equinoxes and solstices — completely disproves the ” might have been ” of circular gravitation, and by conse quence, of all gravitation. It has long been pointed out that gravitation, if it existed at all, must be circular, as the following from Drapers’ ” Conflict between Religion and Science,” page 168, shows : ” Astronomers -justly affirm that the book of Copernicus, ‘ De Kevolutionibus,’ changed the face of their science. It incontestably established the heliocentric theory. It showed that the distance of the fixed stars is infinitely great, and that the earth is a mere point in the heavens. Anticipating Newton, Copernicus imputed gravity to the sun, the moon and heavenly bodies, but he was led astray by assuming that the celestial motions must be circular. Observations on the orbit of Mars, and his different diameters at different times, had led Copernicus to this theory.” That the paths of the orbs of heaven are not exactly circular disproves the theory of gravitation entirely. It is impossible to make a ball tied to the hand with a string revolve in an elliptical path, circular motion only- being possible. So we may consign the illustration, together with the thing it is intended to illustrate, into oblivion. The volume already quoted, ” Sun, Moon, and Stars,” states, on page 73, that ” Comets obey the attraction of the sun, yet he appears to have a singular power of driving the comets’ tails away from himself. For, however rapidly the comet may be rushing round the sun, and however long the tail may be, IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS FOUND TO STREAM IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THE SUN.” Here we have an acknowledged failure of the law of gravita tion, which is said to be universal. Now comes a declaration which supports my contention that gravitation is non existent. In ” Science and Culture,” by Professor T. H. HUXLEY, page 136, the following statement is made : ” If the law of gravitation EVER FAILED TO BE TRUE, EVEN TO THE SMALLEST EXTENT, for that period, the CALCULATIONS OF THE ASTRONOMER HAVE NO APPLICATION.” After such an ” authoritative ” declaration, we may well dismiss the subject, and we are fairly entitled to conclude, with such a concensus of evidence against the commonly received “view” of gravitation, together with the application of the principles of sound logic, that GRAVITATION HAS NOT AND NEVER HAD ANY EXISTENCE, and the idea of such a force must be relegated to the limbo of mythology.

MY PERSONAL CLOSING

Now as you can see it’s not the fact that there isn’t any thought put into the situation or the subject, but we find that there are plenty. This isn’t even half of the knowledge in one book about the Flat Earth. I will leave the title of this book at the end of this. I suggest that you read it and continue research from there. Good luck to you and your journey as you seek truth. Don’t forget that there’s a God who made you and loves you and wants you to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Until next time.

-41

Reference

Zetetic Cosmogony; Or, Conclusive Evidence that the World is Not a Rotating-revolving-globe, But a Stationary Plane Circle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s