A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe
A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe

91. "By actual observation," says Schoedler, in his " Book of Nature," we know that the other heavenly bodies are spherical, hence we unhesitatingly assert that the earth is so also." This is a fair sample of all astronomical reasoning. When a thing is classed amongst "other" things, the likeness between them must first be proven. It does not take a Schroedler to tell us that "heavenly bodies" are spherical, but " the greatest astronomer of the age" will not, now, dare to tell us that THE EARTH is - and attempt to prove it. Now, since no likeness has ever been proven to exist between the Earth and the heavenly bodies, the classification of the Earth with the heavenly bodies is premature - unscientific -false! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

92. "There is no inconsistency in supposing that the earth does move round the sun," says the Astronomer Royal of England. Certainly not, when theoretical astronomy is all supposition together! The inconsistency is in teaching the world that the thing supposed is a fact. Since, then, the "motion" of the Earth is supposition only - since, indeed, it is necessary to suppose it at all - it is plain that it is a fiction and not a fact; and, since "mobility" and "sphericity" stand or fall together, we have before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.

93. We have seen that astronomers - to give us a level surface on which to live - have cut off one-half of the "globe" in a certain picture in their books. [See page 6.] Now, astronomers having done this, one-half of the substance of their "spherical theory" is given up! Since, then, the theory must stand or fall in its entirety, it has really fallen when the half is gone. Nothing remains, then, but a plane Earth, which is, of course, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

94. In " Cornell's Geography" there is an "Illustrated proof of the Form of the Earth," A curved line on which is represented a ship in four positions, as she sails away from an observer, is an arc of 72 degrees, or one-fifth of the supposed circumference of the "globe" - about 5,000 miles. Ten, such ships as those which are given in the picture would reach the full length of the "arc," making 500 miles as the length of the ship, The man in the picture, who is watching the ship as she sails away, is about 200 miles high; and the tower, from which he takes an elevated view, at least 600 miles high. These are the proportions, then, of men, towers, arid ships which are necessary in order to see a ship, in her different positions, as she "rounds the curve" of the "great hill of water" over which she is supposed to be sailing: for, it must be remembered that this supposed "proof" depends upon lines and angles of vision which, if enlarged, would still retain their characteristics. Now, since ships are not built 500 miles long, with masts in proportion, and men are not quite 200 miles high, it is not what it is said to be - a proof of rotundity - but, either an ignorant farce or a cruel piece of deception. In short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

95. In "Cornell's Intermediate Geography," (1881) page 12, is an "Illustration of the Natural Divisions of Land and Water." This illustration is so nicely drawn that it affords, at once, a striking proof that Earth is a plane. It is true to nature, and bears the stamp of no astronomer-artist. It is a pictorial proof that Earth is not a globe.

96. If we refer to the diagram in "Cornell's Geography," page 4, and notice the ship in its position the most remote from the observer, we shall find that, though it is about 4,000 miles away, it is the same size as the ship that is nearest to him, distant about 700 miles! This a an illustration of the way in which astronomers ignore the laws of perspective. This course is necessary, or they would be compelled to lay bare the fallacy of their dogmas. In short, there is, in this matter, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

97. Mr. Hind, the English astronomer, says - "The simplicity, with which the seasons are explained by the revolution of the Earth in her orbit and the obliquity of the ecliptic, may certainly be adduced as a strong presumptive proof of the correctness" - of the Newtonian theory; "for on no other rational suppositions with respect to the relations of the Earth and Sun, can these and other as well-known phenomena, be accounted for." But, as true philosophy has no "suppositions" at all - and has nothing to do with, "suppositions" - and the phenomena spoken of are thoroughly explained by facts, the "presumptive proof" falls to the ground, covered with the ridicule it the dust of Mr. Hind's "rational suppositions" we are standing before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.

98. Mr Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is carried across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth." Now, this is nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could possibly carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the star is carried across anything at all, it is the star that moves, not the thing across which it is carried! Besides, the idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of nearly 600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over a star "millions of millions" of miles away is simply monstrous; whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, "the further away they are, the less they will seem to shift." Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, - if the Earth on which they fix them move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor's mass of "six thousand million million million tons" is "rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever" with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a "very slow coach," with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of "Zadkeil's Almanac;" says: "We declare that this "motion" is all mere 'bosh'; and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks for TRUTH only, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity. "Since, then, these absurd theories are of no use to men in their senses, and since there is no necessity for anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a "strong presumptive proof" - as Mr. Hind would say that the Zetetic philosophy is true, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe..

99. Mr. Hind speaks of two great mathematicians differing only fifty-five yards in their estimate of the Earth's diameter. Why, Sir John Herschel, in his celebrated work, cuts off 480 miles of the same thing to get "round numbers!" This is like splitting a hair on one side of the bead and shaving all the hair off on the other! Oh, "science!" Can there be any truth in a science like this? All the exactitude in astronomy is in Practical astronomy - not Theoretical. Centuries of observation have made practical astronomy a noble art and science, based - as we have a thousand times proved it to be - on a fixed Earth; and we denounce this pretended exactitude on one side and the reckless indifference to figures on the other as the basest trash, and take from it a proof that the "science" which tolerates it is a false - instead of being an "exact" - science, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

100. The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings "noon" to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun's position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where "time" is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be "put on"or we may be said to "gain time." If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still "morning," the watch has to be "put back," and it may be said that we "lose time." But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth's "rotundity," as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.