"Prove all things, Hold fast that which is good.*' — I. Thcss. 5, 21. INTRODUCTION. I T is hardly necessary for me to remark that the popular belief is that we are living on a whirling globe of land and water. Whether this be, or be not, a correct and demonstrable theory, I intend here calmly to discuss. Its popularity is no argument for the accuracy of the theory ; and though it is taught by men who in some cases have made astronomy a life study, it would be unsafe to accept for truth any theory (even though it come from such men) unless such theory could be, or was, confirmed by the facts of Nature. Great men have made mistakes. Now the question arises, are the theories of modern Astronomical " Science ” confirmed by facts ? Unfortun- ately — or fortunately— as I shall show later, they are not. A careful examination of any astronomical work, by a mind seeking truth, will reveal this undeniable fact, that the doctrines of modern Astronomical and Cosmological "Science’' are based entirely upon hypotheses. As such, those doctrines can only be regarded as the speculations of certain individuals, and therefore possibly valueless, so far as a correct explan- ation of phenomena is concerned. If then we desire to obtain reliable and logical explanations of known data, and to ascertain the true form of the earth upon which we live, it will be necessary to adopt the Zetetic method of investi- gating, starting from known facts. This method we as Zetetics adopt because it allows of no speculations, or premature deductions ; and as the con- clusions arrived at bv this process are the result of experiments and a careful examination of facts, they are bound to be more accurate and trustworthy. 6 The term " Zetetic " is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo, which means to search, to trace out, or to examine. This term we use in contradistinction to the word " theoretic,” which means imaginary , speculative, supposing, but not proving. It is needless to sav which method is the easier of the two, it being much easier to suppose than to prove, to speculate rather than to trace out, or search for truth ; but we must acknowledge that the conclusions which result from the Zetetic process of reasoning, whatever be the subject under discussion, are the only logical conclusions which can be obtained. By adopting this method we keep on solid ground. We take nothing for granted without a proved basis of fact ; and so, as we proceed step bv step in the exposition of any phenomenon, we are certain of eventually arriving at a correct explanation of it. As for the Theoretic process (adopted by modern Astrono- mers) of basing arguments upon mere hypothesis — until this practice is abolished we can place no reliance upon their conclusions, but must regard them merely as the fancies of men with vivid imaginations — fancies which would lead us into, and leave us with, a very " nebulous ” idea of the great cosmos around us. I am sure that there are many w'ho, realising the importance of this subject, desire to obtain a clear and a definite conception of the shape, position, and condition of the w'orld, and to such I repeat the warning words of the apostle Paul, " Prove all things, hold fast that which is good ” (I. Thess. v, 21). Let us beware of being deceived by the unreasonable theories foisted upon us in the name of " science.” Let us not ignore this undeniable fact — that conclusions which result from calculations based merely upon hypotheses, are absolutely worthless, even though they come from the pen of an " F.R.A.S.” or from a learned and titled " Sir.” Let us be candid enough to examine these modern orthodox astronomical theories with an honest and unbiased mind, and if after a careful and critical examination we find them wanting and unreliable, let us have the courage to accept an zmorthodox, but a more scientific explanation of the terrestrial and celestial phenomena which is offered by Zetetics. 7 It is a pleasure to see a man who is not afraid of going against the current of popular ideas, when he has found those ideas to be unfounded and false. The prevailing modern Cosmology, in many respects, is different from that taught by Astronomers some centuries ago, and different even from that of the last two centuries ; but it is one of the privileges of these " Fellows ” that they may alter their theories ad libitum, as often as such procedure is considered advisable, and this without confessing their previous mistakes ! In the following brief and interesting quotations, we are able to see how this " science ” has advanced (?) though — if I may be permitted to use an Irishism — I am convinced that it has " advanced backwards !” For while its under- lying theories were originally put forth merely as theories, they are now, in this enlightened twentieth century, accepted as facts. Science means " knowledge." It is what we know, not merely what we think, or assume ; whereas much of the teaching commonly called " science ” is merely assumption. " Pythagoras of Samos, a heathen philosopher, who lived, it is thought, about 500 years B.c., is the first who taught that the Sun is the stationary centre of the Universe, and that the earth revolved around it as one of its satellites ; but his opinion did not make much headway. In the second century a.d., Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, a man reported among the Greeks to be of great learning and wisdom, restored the ancient Cosmogony that the EARTH is in the centre of the Universe and is immovable, and that the Sun, Moon and Stars, revolve around it, as instruments to give it light. " This system prevailed until the time of the monk NICHOLAS COPERNICUS, who was born at Thorn, in Prussia, in the year 1472. He studied philosophy and medicine at Cvacova, and afterwards became professor of Mathematics at Rome. After some years he returned to his native country, and began to investigate the various systems of Astronomy. He preferred that of Pythagoras, and after more than twenty years' study, his scheme of the Universe was given at his death to the world, by a friend." " He died in 1543, but his system was 8 followed by Galileo and other able men ; and the introduction of the telescope greatly helped on the cause. But Galileo was condemned and sorely punished for his theories, by the Romish College of Cardinals in i6r6. SIR ISAAC NEWTON was born in 1642. When only twenty-seven years of age, he was chosen Professor of Mathematics in the University of Cambridge ; and in 1687 he published his " Principia," confirming and improving the system of Copernicus, somewhat after the manner in which the cook in a boarding-school dishes up what the boys call a " resurrection pie,” the chief ingredients being the same as it was previously, but with some spice, called " Gravitation,” scientifically added to suit the more fastidious palates of the day. ” ■' Pythagoras, Copernicus, and Sir Isaac Newton, all considered the Sun to be stationary, and in that idea, for many years other Astronomers followed suit ; but "A change came o’er the spirit of the dream,” when Sir William Herschel " discovered ” (?) that the SUN DOES MOVE, not indeed around the world, but as he supposed, towards an infinitely distant star in the constellation " Hercules.” Pythagoras, it is said, first made himself known in Greece at the Olympic games, and though he distinguished himself by his " discoveries ” (?) in astronomy, etc., he was one of the first who supported the doctrine of metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls into different bodies. If Pythagoras had actually spent a previous life in Mars or the Moon, it might account for his astro-nomical inclin- ation. His ability was marked as a Grecian wrestler, perhaps as much as a Greek philosopher. m us m THE COPERNICAN HYPOTHESIS. We come to Copernicus, from whom the modern system of Astronomy derived its name. He was no doubt a clever man in many things, amongst which we are bound to place his ability to frame hypotheses respecting the shape and 9 ■condition of the cosmos. Unfortunately (for him) his hypotheses were not only confuted at the time of their promulgation, but have been signally refuted by practical experiments since his day ; and we now find even Astronomers making apologies for much of his teaching. For instance, " The Copernicam system is that which represents the sun to be at rest in the centre of the Universe, the earth and planets to move round it as a centre Many who reverence the name of Copernicus in connection with this system, would be surprised to find how MUCH OF ERROR, UNSOUND REASONING, and HAPPY CONJECTURES, combined to secure for him in all times the association of the system with his name.” — Chambers Encyclopedia, New Ed., Vol. 3, p. 462 (1889). The work " " De Revolutionibus Orbium,” by which Copernicus made his name, was published just before his ■death, and in it we find an anonymous preface — either by himself or by one of his friends who assisted in the publication of the work — but there it is. It contains the following confession to the effect, that " 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 calculation Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from Astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the hind. ; lest, in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave the science more foolish than he came The hypotheses of 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.” This famous Astronomer believed the Sun to be the centre ■of the Universe and STATIONARY. He did not offer any proof in support of his theory — such was quite out of the question. Perhaps his Professor’s chair, or his gown, obviated that necessity ! Now, we find the tables have turned, but on just the same kind of hypothetical hinges ; for He (Herschel) was led to conclude that the Solar system as a ■whole WAS MOVING towards a point in the celestial sphere not Jar from the star Lambda Hercules." — Story of the Stars, p. 87. G. K. Chambers, F.R.A.S. How strangely eminent Professors of an " exact science ’’ contradict each other ; nor on this point alone, for even those Astronomers who believe that the Solar system as a whole is moving somewhere, are not agreed as to where it is going ; for, I copy from the same work, Terra Tirma, by the late D. \V. Scott : 10 II "A skilful and careful German Astronomer named Mudler, put forth in 1846, an idea that there exists some central point in the universe around which the sun, with its bevy of planets and comets, revolves in the course of millions of years ; and he suggested that such centre is situate in the direction of Alcyone, one of the Pleiades." Now IF the whole Universe be gyrating in this fashion, it needs no philosopher to tell us that it cannot be going in two different directions at the same time. However, these discrepancies — not very small either — we leave for " men of science ” to settle amongst themselves ! Though the name of Galileo is an important link in the chain of " great men of astronomical fame,” we hear little about this astronomer except that he is called " a martyr of science ; ” this no doubt is because he was brought before the Inquisition, charged with teaching and publishing astron- omical doctrines contrary to the Bible, not sanctioned by the church, and therefore considered to be heretical. Such doctrines as a stationary Sun, and terrestrial motion, with all their accompanying assumptions. He was released only when he made a recantation of his opinions, and promised, under severe penalties, never again to propagate such infidel doctrines. But now that this 11 Infallible Church ” has changed its doctrine in respect to science, there may be some who would like to send us to the Inquisition for venturing to express disbelief in the now accepted theories. Sir Isaac Newton is famous for the discovery (?) of the Law of Universal Gravitation, the existence of which neither he nor any of his disciples has ever proved ; he merely suggested it. You have now had a brief history of the solar system, which first represents the Sun as occupying a central position in the universe, with the earth and stars revolving around it ; and then the whole Universe, shooting away through space, towards — somewhere ! It is the essence of the Modern Astronomical theories adopted and taught by the late Mr. Proctor, Sir Robert Ball, and most, if not all, present- day astronomers. It is like a scientifically spiced " resurrection pie ” of the theories of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Herschel, all minced together ; and it is upon this " pie ” we are invited to feed, and if it were possible, satisfy our mental hunger for more knowledge, and a better understanding, of terrestrial and celestial phenomena. Yet it is a system acknowledged to contain " MUCH OF ERROR, UNSOUND REASONING, AND IIAI’PY CONJECTURE.” It is further admitted to be ” NOTHING BUT AN HYPOTHESIS,” and then it is, as we have seen, an hypothesis about which the inventors or patentees do not agree amongst themselves. How can we mentally swallow, much less digest, such a conglomeration of unnatural, un- proved and contradictory theories ? Assumptions not only highly improbable, but hostile to the evidences of our God-given senses, and to the Bible. If we seek true ” knowledge ” (which word I find the dictionary renders, information, instruction, practical acquaintance) on this subject, we shall have, to digest, some- thing different from this Astronomical ” pie,” lest we too become tainted with its poison, and show the same symptoms of " error, unsound reasoning, and happy conjecture,” and of mental aberration as exhibited by one of the promulgators of this modern system of Cosmogony. The great underlying assumption of this " science ” is, " that tlie Earth is a Globe.” Unless the earth be globular it could not be guilt}' of committing the offence of whirling us all through space around the Sun, at the terrible rate attributed to it ; though as yet no evidence has been advanced convicting it of this folly. But just imagine, if you have the bump of imagination, a great sea-earth globe- more sea than land — whizzing away one thousand times faster than an express train, and by some imaginary ” stick- phast ” called " Gravitation ” we are lashed to this ball, like a man tied to a great flywheel. The idea is preposterous, unnatural and wicked ! I intend to prove the fallacy of this assumption ; and to show the wickedness of " cramming ” children at school, with so impracticable a theory, without its being questioned. The primary assumption of Globularity we will deal with first, as the further assumptions of motion, gravitation, etc., must necessarily fall if we destroy their foundation. 12 Now. if we want to ascertain the shape of the floor of any large room we get clown to the floor itself, and do not go about measuring the gas globes, or spots on the ceiling. So it is with respect to the Earth ; to determine its shape we take observations of its surface, for whatever be the shape of the heavenly bodies — made only for lights — they cannot in any way effect the surface shape of the earth. The following are a few observations. WATER LEVEL. If the sea-earth be a Globe, or the oblate spheroid of scientific belief, the curvature of its surface would be seen from suitable elevations, in long distances, with the naked eye ; and it could not fail to be detected in short distances by the aid of a telescope. If, therefore, the surface of water is experimentally found to be level, and as it would be impossible to have level water on or around a sphere, the whole fabric of the Globular theory must crumble to dust. Water everywhere level destroys all assumptions respecting ROTUNDITY, AXIAL, or ORBITAL motions, and even the assumption of GRAVITATION itself. In order, therefore, to demonstrate whether or not the surface of the water is level, the following experiments were made by a medical gentleman (Dr. Rowbottam) who adopted the nom-de-plmne of " Parallax." In the county of Cambridge, there is an artificial river or canal called the " Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and (except at the part referred to at page 16*) passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the " Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary, often completely so, and throughout its entire length it has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind ; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any, or what amount of, convexity really exists. EXPERIMENT 1. "A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag being five feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called Welche’s Dam (a well-known ferry passage), to another called Welney Bridge. These two points are six statute miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, * Of Zetetic Astronomy, by " Parallax.” It is unnecessary to sav much about these lights, since they conclusively vindicate our contention that the surface of the earth and sea constitute a vast irregular plane. Refraction (" acting in such an extremely variable and uncertain manner, that if any constant or fixed allowance is made for it in formula or tables, it will often lead to a greater error than it was intended to obviate "*) would not allow of these lights being seen at such distances if the sea were a globe ; but it would be possible to see them at the given distances on a plane surface. That they are seen is undeniable ; therefore the surface of the SEA-EARTH MUST BE A PLANE, and cannot be the globe of astronomical speculation. Under exceptional conditions of the atmosphere, not only lights, but VESSELS themselves have been seen at great distances by the naked eye, and further by the aid of the telescope ; distances incompatible with the theory of rotundity. I will give one, which is a striking example of this phenomenon. In Chambers' Journal of February, 1895, page 32, the following appeared " A good many years ago a Pilot in the Mauritus, reported that he had seen a vessel which turned out to be 200 miles off. This incident caused a good deal of discussion in nautical circles at the time, and strange to say, a seemingly well authenticated case of the same kind occurred afterwards at Aden. A Pilot there announced that he had seen from the heights the Bombay steamer then nearly due. He stated precisely the direction in which he saw her, and added that her head was not then turned towards the port. . . Two days afterwards the missing steamer entered the Port, and it was found on enquiries that at the time mentioned by the Pilot she was exactly in the direction and position indicated by him, but about TWO HUNDRED MILES AWAY.” Such evidence is altogether irreconcilable with the theory of globularity. Theories may be false, but facts w r e cannot refute. This and the previous evidence with which we have dealt, leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that the system of modern Astronomy is false in its foundation, and therefore its conclusions are inconsistent, and contradictory. On a spherical earth the vessel mentioned in the above quotation would have been 15,000 feet, or nearly three miles, below the horizon of the observer, even after allowing as Encyclopedia Britannica ; .article " Levelling. 1 ' 23 much as 1,660 feet above the sea-level for the place of observ- ation. It perplexes me to know how Astronomers, and those who accept their teachings, can ignore such facts as these, for they surely must know about them — facts so diametrically opposed to the theories they propagate. Is it honest to ignore them ? The idea of a globe whirling in space has been so drilled into us at school, that we hardly like to give up the notion ; but as thinking men, able to reason for ourselves, we cannot consistently continue to hold a theory, foisted upon us during childhood, which we are now compelled to acknowledge is opposed to reason, and contrary to fact. We might well repeat the question already asked by a scientific gentleman : " Why should the education given in our schools and universities include a forced recognition of a theory, which, when practically applied, must be ignored and contradicted ?” Can anyone tell us, Why ? AERONAUTS It will be interesting to hear what is the view of such regarding the shape of the world. To describe this I cannot do better than refer you to Mr. Elliott, an American aeronaut, who, in a letter giving an account of his ascension from Baltimore, U.S.A., thus speaks of the appearance of the earth from an elevated balloon : — " I don’t know that I ever hinted heretofore that the aeronaut 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 gracefullv 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 aeronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast blue oceanic concave above, and an equally expanded terrestrial BASIN below.” 24 Another gentleman, Mr. Glaisher, of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, savs : — " The horizon alwavs appears on a level with the car.” — Mr. Glaisher’s report in Leisure Hours, Oct. nth, 1862. The following diagram (Fig. 5) illustrates the phenomena observed by these, and other aeronauts. I'm. 5. The horizon A, B, is always on a level with the eye at any altitude ; and the earth A, C, B, seems like a great basin beneath the balloon. This is what should be observed in accordance with the laws of perspective, at an elevation above a plane surface. But if the earth were a globe the horizon would gradually fall away from the observer, and would naturally dip down- wards more and more as he ascended ; so that the supposed curvature of the earth’s surface should be distinctly visible at great altitudes, if it existed. As no dip of the horizon is seen, and no curvature observed anywhere, we are bound to conclude that the earth is not a globe ; but, that as already proved bv observations and experiments, it is a vast extended plane. A SHIP’S DISAPPEARANCE AT SEA is generallv brought forward to prop up the unsound argu- ments of the globular theory, whenever this theory is challenged. But truth, which is antagonistic to all false theories, does not permit this prop to stand long. As the appearance, or the disappearance, of a ship at sea involves the operation of perspective, this question is worthy of our careful consideration. By studying the laws of perspective we are enabled to give a correct and logical explanation of phenomena. It further enables us to expose 25 the fallacy of the popular assumption that, " as the hull of a vessel disappears before the masts, the hull must have gone over, and disappeared down at the other side of a hill of water.” Apart from the evidence we have already adduced against the globular theory, this assumption is of no value — so far as it is intended to support the theory of rotundity — unless it can be shown that the disappearance of a ship at sea cannot be accounted for in any other way. But a proper application of the laws which govern our vision can, and does, logically explain this phenomenon, so that this astronomical prop must be dropped. Writing upon this subject in Science Siftings, the late Professor Huxley said : " We assume the convexity of water, because we have no other way to explain the appearance and disappearance of ships at sea.” PERSPECTIVE. I wonder whether Professor H. had ever heard of per- spective ? I know some of his readers have. He presumed very much upon their ignorance if, when he wrote, he thought that they would all accept his assumption. To assume the sphericity of the earth because we cannot hear a man speaking five miles away, would be as consistent as making the same assumption because, at times, we are unable to see for more than twenty miles. But, you reply, our sense of hearing is limited ! Is not our sense of vision also limited ? Of course it is ; and the laws of perspective clearly explain this limitation. Let us proceed to examine these laws. Perspective requires that all lines equi-distant above or below the line of sight shall vanish in the line of sight at the same point ; but lines more distant from the eye-line, being longer in converging, must be carried further over the eye- line before they meet it at an angle of i minute of a degree, which constitutes the vanishing point. No object below the eye-line, while continuing at the same altitude, ever rises above it as it recedes, and no object above the eye-line ever descends below it as it recedes ; simply because when such object reaches the line of sight, the angle it forms with the eye is the minimum angle, or i min. of a degree, within which objects are still visible, and beyond which, or less than which, they perspectively vanish. 37 be able to pronounce it (the earth’s motion) absolutely PROVED TO BE TRUE ; the nature of the subject pre- cludes such a possibility.” — Woodhouse’s Treatise of Astron- omy, ch. i., p. 103. 1 ant pleased to think that we have now arrived at the time when we can honestly affirm we have proved the hypothesis of terrestrial motion to be absolutely untrue : so we reject it. m 03 m. GRAVITATION. Since we have proved the earth is a stationary plane, we are able, without inconvenience, to dispense with Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of gravitation. If there were proof, or truth, in the theory of Rotundity, we might welcome such a law as. Gravitation ; for we have not, like flies, been provided with secretions in our feet, to enable us to stick on to a whirling ball ! How necessary some such a force would be, if we hang head downwards, or stick out as radii at various hours of the day and night ; for these must be our positions at different times during the twenty-four hours, if the earth has any axial motion. But somehow or other WE are always on the top ; so that our friends down in the Antipodes are the people who mostly need gravitation. They cannot be on the top too, else it would be a queer shaped globe. This universal law (?) according to Sir R. Ball, affirms that " every body in the universe attracts every other body, with a force which varies inversely as the square of the distance.” If this be so, I should like to know what is the nature of the pulling tackle ? Is it solid, liquid, or gaseous ? Is no one able to explain this mystery ? It would be interesting to learn something definite about it. But when we are told of a " something ” which we are unable to feel, see, taste, or smell, and which docs not show any results for its universal pulling operations, what else can we reasonably call it but ” nothing ”? At a recent debate in Leicester, upon this subject the gentleman who represented the Astronomers' position, con- fessed that " no one can tell what gravitation is ; no, not even an angel from heaven ' ! The question naturally arises : did they get the theory from some angel in the other place ? Sir Isaac never made it clear what this law is ; but I find that he himself confessed it was a "great absurdity.’ 1 In a letter to Dr. Bentley, Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says : — " That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.’’ Yet many have fallen into this " great absurdity.” Such men therefore — according to Newton — have not " a competent faculty of thinking ” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point. Sir Robert Ball says : — " The law of gravitation . . . underlies the whole of Astronomy.” ( Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged " great absurdity.” Perhaps some reader may kindly inform me how the planet Jupiter can pull " our earth ” without any chain or rope between ; or how a fly in my room could manage to attract a stone on the beach at Douglas, Isle of Man ; and this, too, without any " pulling tackle ”? It would be rather hard upon the poor fly ! The idea of " universal attraction ” is foolish in the extreme, it is an absurd theory foisted upon the credulous crowd. C. Vernon Boys, F.R.S., A.R.S.M., M.R.I., in his paper, ■*' The Newtonian Constant of Gravitation,” says : — "It is a mysterious power which NO MAN CAN EXPLAIN. OF ITS PROPAGATION THROUGH SPACE ALL MEN ARE IGNORANT.” — Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, p. 355, March, 1895. Is not this an honest and authoritative confession of Astronomical ignorance of their fundamental position ? Professor W. B. Carpenter, in his paper, " Nature and Law,” says : — " 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. 39 . . . The doctrine of universal gravitation then is A PURE ASSUMPTION.” — Published in Modern Review, October, 1890. This " absurd ” law, or " mysterious power which no man; can explain,” the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space " all men are ignorant,” amounts therefore to nothing but an empty assumption. Bodies by their own weight will either fall or rise, until they have found their equilibrium ; consequently Newton’s apple fell to the ground simply because it was heavier than the atmosphere. Successful attraction operates in the case of sweethearts separated by long distances, though I am not sure whether it is " inversely proportional to the square of their distance !’ r How cleverly Sir Isaac guessed — " discovered ” — I should state — From an apple falling to the ground by its own proper weight. That atoms, million miles apart, and stars down to a straw, Can pull each other without ropes, by merely " Natural Law !” —From " The Evolutionist,” by " Zetetes.” The famous German philosopher and poet, Goethe, regard- ing the Newtonian system, said :• — - ” It may be boldly asked where can the man be found possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself ? . . . To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps FICTION UPON FICTION, seeking to dazzle where he cannot con- vince.” — Proceedings of tlic Royal Institution, vol. 9, part 3, P- 353- (£ ^ CIRCUMNAVIGATION. As the possibility of circumnavigating the earth in a due easterly or westerly direction is thought by many to be an indisputable proof of the sphericity of the world. I shall, as briefly as possible, show the fallacy of such an argument. the date of its creation, it is with a desire to warn my readers of its fanciful and speculative nature that I venture here brief! v to refer to it. Like the system of Astronomy, it is largely based upon suppositions incapable of proof. Some clever writers upon this subject have acknowledged its hypothetical nature ; yet in spite of this it has found a lodging in the minds of many, to the discrediting of their more reasonable belief in the Divine account of Creation which is revealed to us in the Bible. Sir R. Ball, in his book The Cause of an Ice Age, damages the reliability of his work by frankly stating : — " 1 have found it necessary to ASSUME the existence of several ice ages.” Sir D. Brewster, in his More Worlds than One, p. 53, says : " It is TAKEN FOR GRANTED that many of the stratified rocks were deposited at the bottom of the sea, by the same slow processes which are going on in the present day." What reliance can be placed upon the truth of a system of " knowledge ” based upon such assumptions, the truth of which must be " taken for granted ”? The following con- fession of the imperfection of Geology represents the true condition of this so-called " science.” Skertchley, in his book, says : — " So imperfect is the record of the earth’s history as told in the rocks, that we can never hope to fill up completely all the gaps in the chain of life. The testimony of the rocks has been well compared tc a history of which only a few imperfect volumes remain to us, the missing portions of which we can only fill up by CONJECTURE What botanist would but despair of restoring the vegetation of wood and field from the dry leaves that autumn scatters ? Yet from lest than this the geologist has to form all his ideas of past floras. Can we wonder, then, at the imperfection of the Geological world ?” ( Italic : mine.) Geology, p. ioi. Such, therefore, again is GUESSWORK, not "Knowledge” CONCLUSIONS FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT. The time and space at my disposal will not permit me to gc much further into the many side issues of this importan 49 subject. My desire, rather, is to establish the fundamental principles of Zetetic science. The foundation of any " science ” or " system of knowledge ” is the most important part of the science, for it is indispensable. It is therefore of the greatest importance that it be sound, and established on facts, not theories. It is recorded that Sir James Mackintosh said : " Men fall into a thousand errors by reasoning from false premises, to fifty they make by wrong inferences from premises they employ.” This statement is verified by the present condition of the Astronomical science.' It has unfortunately fallen "into a thousand errors ,” because its premises, the basis of its argu- ments, are hypothetical, instead of being founded upon acknowledged facts. It is in this deplorable condition we now find it. I sometimes wonder whether Astronomers themselves have faith in their unreasonable theories. No doubt some of them have. But after so many years of " research ” it is surprising they have not yet experimentally established the truth of their system. By what method could the true shape of the earth be found better than by practical experiments ? " Parallax,” the founder of the Zetetic Society — some of whose experiments I have quoted — adopted this method ; and his conclusions yet remain to be refuted. But since Astronomers in general ignore this method of investigation, we are tempted to ask "Are they afraid of the results of such observations ? ” If I wanted to ascertain the dimensions of the floor of a hall, could I obtain these by taking observations of some objects on the ceiling ? Such observations might acquaint me with the architecture and colourings of the ceiling, but they would not instruct me as to the size or shape of the floor. Since the theories of Astronomical " science ” are based upon the question of the surface shape of the earth, which represents the floor of the universe, it is this subject one would rightly expect Astronomers to take much trouble to decide. Instead of this, we find them continually making observations of the celestial bodies, informing us of their eccentricities, or of the laws which govern them. These observations are interesting and instructive, but they are not of primary importance. As I have already mentioned, under the heading of " Eclipses,” the laws which govern the behaviour of light, and celestial phenomena, cannot in anv way affect or determine the shape of the earth. No two subjects could be more dissimilar, than ethereal light and the dark solid earth ! No two facts in nature contradict each other, though our explanations of them may be contradictory. We have established one important fact, that the earth is a stationary plane, and to this we shall adhere until the evidence adduced in support of it has been logically refuted. The second in importance, though perhaps a more subtle question, is the explanations of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, and the motions of these " lights.” All true Zetetics will seek this explanation in harmony with the plane truth already established. But should WG SO1T10 day find that the Moon or Mars is not behaving exactly in the way r we believed, no Zetetic would he so illogical as to suppose that because of this the earth cannot be a plane ! Such a line of argument would be unreasonable. If Mars is shown to act perversely from any standpoint, the logical deduction would be to alter our standpoint, and enquire further into the peculiarities of his perigrinations. But before we give up our belief in the " plane earth ” truth, someone must come forward and prove that water is convex, and not level. It therefore follows that when the midnight sun was reported to have been seen in the south, it leaves the Zetetic position untouched. It merely constitutes an additional problem in celestial — not terrestrial — motion. If the sun is seen in the South, it must be because it periodically goes there ; for the midnight sun has never been seen in the South at a time when that luminary had North declination. Zetetics are open to receive further facts, but not to deny those already obtained. Should investigation prove, as seems probable, that there is a second circle of motion for Southern constellations about a central point, it would simply show that there are two celestial " poles ” around which the different lights of heaven circle ; but it would not follow that these so-called " poles ” were caused by the rotating of the assumed sea-earth-globe, since we have already proved this is impossible. Such 5i " poles ” or centres would be celestial, not terrestrial, and caused by the different ethereal currents carrying these small bodies of light with them in their appointed courses. In such a case, the sun, instead of being confined throughout the vear to one circuit or centre, would in turn revolve about the other, according to its varying declinations. The figure 8, therefore, may be used to represent this double circuit, in conjunction with the letter S. (See Part II. of this book.) m oj a? " CUI BONO ? ” Not infrequently are we asked, " What benefit is derived from this, the discussion of this subject ?” " What does it matter whether the world is a globe or a plane ?" From whomsoever they come, such questions, to say the least, indicate mental shortsightedness. They often proceed from professing Christians who either cannot, or will not see, that at the present time there is a great controversy going on between religion and science— a controversy based upon the assumption that the account of the Creation of the world, as given by God through His servants Moses and the Prophets, is not in harmony with the facts of nature. Those who cannot see that the globular theory is the main support of modern infidelity, I say are mentally shortsighted. Those who, rather than surrender modern astronomical and evolutionary theories, endeavour to reconcile them with Bible Cosmogony, would be more logical to give up their religious profession and enter the ranks of infidelity ; for though they work day and night, they will never succeed in harmonising modern " science ” with the Bible. Thomas Paine — the celebrated infidel — was logical enough to see, as he said in his Age oj Reason, that " The two opposing beliefs (the Bible and Modern Astronomy) cannot be held together in the same mind ; he who thinks he can believe both has thought very little of either.” My desire is to create a greater interest in Zetetic research ; to cause men to think for themselves, and so to find out which is true and which false. It is my hope that honest 52 thinkers will choose that belief, which we have already shown is supported by facts, and corroborated by the Word of God. Even the commercial importance of this subject may be seen in its connection with navigation. If mariners in Southern latitudes are supposing the land and the seas to form a vast globe, instead of, as they do form, one vast outstretched plane, we can see a cause for manv mistakes navigators have made in Southern waters. These mistakes have doubtless led modern mariners to navigate the seas bv Mercator's Chart, which is an approach to the truth, repre- senting the earth and the seas as one vast but square plane. T think I may venture to affirm that in the whole range of commercial navigation, no sea captain, or master mariner, would attempt to navigate his vessel in Southern waters by a globular chart. Why do they use Flat-earth charts, or rather Flat-sea charts ? They are practical men, not spoiled by philosophies. ! " Plain sailing," the system of navigation now adopted, " is sailing a ship, or making the arithmetical calculations for so doing, on the. assumption that THE EARTH IS PERFECTLY FLAT ." — Navigation in Theory and Practice, p. 66 ; by Prof. Evers, LL.D. From this standpoint alone the subject is of sufficient importance to arouse the interest of reasonable and intelligent men. Again ; the earth cannot be both a plane and a globe. One or other of these ideas must be erroneous. Is it not more edifying and satisfactory to know which is true and which is false ? By the Zetetic method of investigation, the mind becomes fixed and resolute, and is established in Truth. To be living on the earth, made so wonderfully by the power of God, and yet to be ignorant of and without a desire to know its position, shape, stability, and the various phenomena connected with it, is a condition of mind of which a Christian ought to be ashamed. Indifference tends to degrade man to the level of the brute, which cares nothing for the shape of the field in which it feeds, so long as it finds plenty of grass or fodder ! Moreover, it should be remembered that the system of Astronomy, which represents the world as a whirling globe, has been shewn by the best evidence it is possible to obtain — 53 that of practical experiment — to be unreliable ; for the hypotheses and assumptions which support it have been found to be contrary to facts. It therefore amounts to this : Shall we accept and uphold an unreliable, hypothetical, and false system of Cosmogony ? or a system that is practical, reason- able, natural, demonstrable, and Scriptural ? Christians should decide. To those who say " what does it matter ?” we might as well ask, " Does it matter whether we receive the evolutionary theories of Darwin, Grant Allen, Haeckle, and other infidel philosophers, or the simple but grand teachings of the prophets of Israel, and the Apostles of our Lord, respecting God and His great Creation ? Are we to be so indifferent to the honour of God’s word, and the hope of eternal salvation which it brings before us, as to decline the trouble of investigating whether the Bible is fully inspired or not ? If so, we may as well at once yield the whole citadel of divine inspiration, as a false " science ” has led many to do. This should be a matter of serious importance, especially to Christians, as both systems cannot possibly be true. We shall be logically compelled, ere long, to give up belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible, or to reject the modern system of globular evolution. m m m THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE BIBLE AND INFIDEL SCIENCE. In the consideration of this subject we have fairly examined the modern theories of Astronomical science. In every section considered, we have been compelled to conclude that, whether examined departmentallv or collectively, it is founded entirely upon hypotheses. Bolstered with extrava- gant theories, contradictory to the evidences of our God-given senses, vet it has found many adherents. Neglecting to examine its claims, and to prove their accuracy or fallacy, many have unthinkingly imbibed them, and consequently their faith in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures has been poisoned. Its opposition to the Bible suggests its unseen source ! g8 arrives at D, making the angle d A B an angle of about 58° with the base line, already proved to be level. At III. p.m. the sun arrives at E, making the angle e A B of 38°, or a descent from C of about 52°. At VI. p.m. the sun arrives at F, a distance from C of nearly three times its height, and the angle of its rays drops to about 22 0 , and sometimes to only 18°. Thus the fact is made clear, that even by perspective alone the sun seems to drop almost to the horizon, while remaining at the same height. If the sun were a non-luminous body it would disappear sooner, as a balloon disappears. There are details which we cannot here stop to consider, such as variations in the time of sunset caused by alterations in its declination. The speed of the sun itself varies, hence we find a good clock sometimes said to be " fast ” and sometimes " slow,” according to the time of the year and the size of the sun’s circle over the earth. These are points which can be studied with the aid of a good astronomical almanac or ephemeris. But I may briefly intimate the general Law of Motion for celestial bodies. As far back as the year 1900 I published these Laws of Motion, which are much simpler than those of Kepler, which later astronomers have spoiled, as shewn in a previous article, and which we have altogether exploded. GENERAL LAWS OF CELESTIAL MOTION. (1) . There seems to be two great Etherial Currents eternally revolving round their respective centres, one north and the other south ; like two immense cog-wheels revolving harmoniously in opposite directions. The etherial currents doubtless supplied the primum mobile of the ancients. These currents move most rapidly above and around the equatorial belts (like the water in the middle of a stream), becoming slower towards the " poles ” or centres of the wheels. ! 2). The planets, sun, moon, and stars, being compara- tively small and light bodies, are carried daily round the world by these all-powerful currents at different altitudes, according to their various densities, the higher currents moving them more rapidly than those lower, or nearer the surface of the earth. Therefore, 99 (3) - The more rapidly a planet revolves daily round the earth and the higher its altitude, and the nearer it is to the " fixed stars,” which are the highest of all ; which fact is illustrated by Neptune and Uranus, which keep a long time in the same zodiacal " signs.” (4) . The nearer a planet is to the earth and the more slowly it revolves, like Venus and Mercury, thus more rapidly getting left behind by the higher planets and constellations, and so passing through the signs more quickly, or strictly the signs leaving .the planet more quickly. {5). The moon, which is the lowest of the heavenly bodies, the one nearest to the earth, gets left behind by the ” fixed stars ” as much as 12 0 to 14° daily, thus passing through all the twelve signs of the zodiac in a lunar month. This makes the globularist imagine that the moon has what they call a " proper motion " in a direction contrary to that of her " apparent ” daily motion. And if a planet keeps in conjunction with a fixed star for a few days they call it " stationary ”; if it loses a little on a star it is said to be " direct and if it should gain a little on a star they actually call it " retrograde ” to suit their theories ! Thus the motions of the celestial bodies are governed by the etherial currents, according to their heights and declin- ations ; their actual speeds being quicker the nearer they are to the great equatorial belts, and their circles or spirals becoming smaller, and speeds slower, as they approach nearer the north or south centres. This causes their daily revolu- tions to consist of a series of very fine spirals, as they vary their declinations, the north and south centres being the earthly focal points of the two great vortices, or etherial whirlpools, which carry with them the planets, the sun and the moon, and sometimes make them pass over from one great whirlpool to another. This causes the seasons and some lunar changes, with the various planetary periods or cycles of time. These, with the eclipse cycles, are of great utility in celestial ch onology ; and, for those with sufficient understanding to compute them backwards, they prove that it is not quite 6,000 years since the Adamic creation of the world.


More stories from Cyprus