DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Xyrinfe Shadow Project Forums
HTML https://lunarshadowcs.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Disposal
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10148--------------------------------------------------
Re: Andromeda -- 0-hour game
By: paladin_platform Date: October 28, 2019, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=Open Sans]The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a
Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest
elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface -
this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is
truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear
to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular
demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
[/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Whenever experiments have been
tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always
been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface
of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental
proof that Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Surveyors' operations in
the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted
without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature,"
although it is taught that this so-called allowance is
absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not
a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]There are rivers that flow
for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without
falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a
thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent
is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity."
It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The lights which are
exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at
which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given
by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some
cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at
Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that,
according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher
above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be
visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no
"curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the
sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of
proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof
that the Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If we stand on the sands
of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find
that she will apparently "rise" - to the extent, of her own
height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law
operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which
causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in
size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact.
That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain
from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level
of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so
that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be
two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England,
from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may
be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of
the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as
Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on
a level with the eye - that is, twenty miles level distance
beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the
curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is
not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If we take a trip down the
Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the
utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears "hull
down," as it is called, it is because the hull is "behind the
water:" for, vessels, have been seen, and may often be seen -
again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away - far away
- beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore
line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees towering
up, in perspective, over the heads of the "hull-down" ships!
Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts
rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the
theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily
wring from it a proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If the Earth were a globe,
a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest
- thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a
thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the
mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof
that Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]As mariners take to sea
with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level
surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of
this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find
them answer their purpose tolerably well - and only tolerably
for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we speak
- that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be, whether
the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe or
anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of
"plane sailing," a practical proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]That the mariners' compass
points north and south at the same time is a fact as
indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would
be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north"
and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that
does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen:
and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it
a pointed proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]As the mariners' compass
points north and south at one time, and as the North, to which
it is attracted is that part of the Earth situated where the
North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south
"point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North, a vast
circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is a proof
that the Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]As we have seen that there
is, really no south point (or pole) but an infinity of points
forming, together, a vast circumference -- the boundary of the
known world, with its battlements of icebergs which bid defiance
to man's onward course, in a southerly direction - so there can
be no east or west "points,' just as there is no "yesterday,"
and no "tomorrow." In fact, as there is one point that is fixed
(the North), it is impossible for any other point to be fixed
likewise. East and west are, therefore, merely directions at
right angles with a north and south line: and as the south point
of the compass shifts round to all parts of the circular
boundary, (as it may be carried round the central North) so the
directions east and west, crossing this line, continued to form
a circle at any latitude. A westerly circumnavigation, is going
around with the North Star continually on the right hand, and an
easterly circumnavigation is performed only when the reverse
condition of things is maintained, the North Star being on the
left hand as the journey is made. These facts, taken together,
form a beautiful proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]As the mariners' compass
points north and south at one and the same time, and a meridian
is a north and south line, it follows that meridians can be no
other than straight lines. But, since all meridians on a globe
are semicircles, it is an incontrovertible proof that the Earth
is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]"Parallels of latitude"
only - of all imaginary lines on the surface of the Earth - are
circles, which increase, progressively, from the northern centre
to the southern circumference. The mariner's course in the
direction of any one of these concentric circles is his
longitude, the degrees of which INCREASE to such an extent
beyond the equator (going southwards) that hundreds of vessels
have been wrecked because of the false idea created by the
untruthfulness of the charts and the globular theory together,
causing the sailor to be continually getting out of his
reckoning. With a map of the Earth in its true form all
difficulty is done away with, and ships may be conducted
anywhere with perfect safety. This, then, is a very important
practical proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The idea that, instead of
sailing horizontally round the Earth, ships are taken down one
side of a globe, then underneath, and are brought up on the
other side to get home again, is, except as a mere dream,
impossible and absurd! And, since there are neither
impossibilities nor absurdities in the simple matter of
circumnavigation, it stands without argument, a proof that the
Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If the, Earth were a
globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 "degrees"
south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at
the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to
be twice the distance -- to say the least of it -- or, double
the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it
is a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Human beings require a
surface on which to live that, in its general character, shall
be LEVEL; and since the Omniscient Creator must have been
perfectly acquainted with the requirements of His creatures, it
follows that, being an All-wise Creator, He has met them
thoroughly. This is a theological proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The best possessions of
man are his senses; and, when he uses them all, he will not be
deceived in his survey of nature. It is only when some one
faculty or other is neglected or abused that he is deluded.
Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level
surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us
that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know
that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give
him one in name which is not one in fact! Since this is the best
that astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for
their fellow creatures - deceive them - it is clear that things
are not as they say they are; and, in short, it is a proof that
Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Every man in his senses
goes the most reasonable way to work to do a thing. Now,
astronomers (one after another - following a leader), while they
are telling us that Earth is a globe, are cutting off the upper
half of this suppositious globe in their books, and, in this
way, forming the level surface on which they describe man as
living and moving! Now, if the Earth were really a globe, this
would be just the most unreasonable and suicidal mode of
endeavoring to show it. So that, unless theoretical astronomers
are all out of their senses together, it is, clearly, a, proof
that the Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The common sense of man
tells him - if nothing else told him - that there is an "up" and
a "down" in -nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth;
but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion
that there is not: therefore, 'the theory of the astronomers is
opposed to common sense - yes, and to inspiration - and this is
a common sense proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Man's experience tells him
that he is not constructed like the flies that can live said
move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the
floor: - and since the modern theory of a planetary earth
necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it, and
one of them is that men are really bound to. the earth by a
force which fastens them to it "like needles round a spherical
loadstone," a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all
human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon
common sense ane ignore the teachings of experience, we have an
evident proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]God's Truth never - no,
never - requires a falsehood to help it along. Mr. Proctor, in
his " Lessons," says: Men " have been able to go round and round
the Earth in several directions." Now, in this case, the word "
several will imply more than two, unquestionably: whereas, it is
utterly impossible to circumnavigate the Earth in any other than
an easterly or a westerly direction; and the fact is perfectly
consistent and clear in its relation to Earth as a Plane.. Now,
since astronomers would not be so foolish as to damage a good
cause by misrepresentation, it is presumptive evidence that
their cause is a bad one, and - a proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If astronomical works be
searched through and through, there will not be found a single
instance of a bold, unhesitating, or manly ,statement respecting
a proof of the Earth's " rotundity." Proctor speaks of "proofs
which serve to show ... that the Earth is not flat," and says
that man "finds reason to think that the Earth is not flat," and
speaks of certain matters being "explained by supposing" that
the Earth is a, globe; and says that people have "assured
themselves that it is a globe;" but he says, also, that there is
a " most complete proof that the Earth is a globe:" just as
though anything in the world could possibly be wanted but a
proof - a proof that proves and settles the whole question.
This, however, all the money in the United States Treasury would
not buy; and, unless the astronomers are all so rich that they
don't want the cash, it is a sterling proof that the Earth is
not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]When a man speaks of a
"most complete" thing amongst several other things which claim
to be what that thing is, it is evident that they must fall
short of something which the "most complete" thing possesses.
And when it is known that the "most complete" thing is an entire
failure, it is plain that the others, all and sundry, are
worthless. Proctor's "most complete proof that the Earth is a
globe" lies in what he calls "the fact" that distances from
place to place agree with calculation. But, since the distance
round the Earth at 45 " degrees" south of the equator is twice
the distance it would be on a globe, it follows that what the
greatest astronomer of the age calls "a fact" is NOT a fact;
that his "most complete proof' is a most complete failure; and
that be might as well have told us, at once, that he has NO
PROOF to give us at all. Now, since, if the Earth be a globe,
there would, necessarily, be piles of proofs of it all round us,
it follows that when astronomers, with all their ingenuity, are
utterly unable to point one out - to say nothing about picking
one up - that they give us a proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The surveyor's plans in
relation to the laying of the first Atlantic Telegraph cable,
show that in 1665 miles - from Valentia, Ireland, to St .
John's, Newfoundland - the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is a
LEVEL surface - not the astronomers' "level," either! The
authoritative drawings, published at the time, are a standing
evidence of the fact, and form a practical proof that Earth is
not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If the Earth were a globe,
it would, if we take Valentia to be the place of departure,
curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles across the Atlantic to
Newfoundland, according to the astronomers' own tables, more
than three hundred miles; but, as the surface of the Atlantic
does not do so - the fact of its levelness having been clearly
demonstrated by Telegraph Cable surveyors, - it follows that we
have a grand proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Astronomers, in their
consideration of the supposed "curvature" of the Earth, have
carefully avoided the taking of that view of the question which
- if anything were needed to do so -would show its utter
absurdity. It is this: - if, instead of taking our ideal point
of departure to be at Valentia, we consider ourselves at St.
John's, the 1665 miles of water between us and Valentia would
just as well "curvate" downwards as it did in the other case!
Now, since the direction in which the Earth is said to "curvate"
is interchangeable - depending, indeed, upon the position
occupied by a man upon its surface - the thing is utterly
absurd; and it follows that the theory is an outrage , and that
the Earth does not "curvate" at all: - an evident proof that the
Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Astronomers are in the
habit of considering two points on the Earth's surface, without,
it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them,
as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it
be an ocean, as a vast "hill"-of water!" The Atlantic ocean, in
taking this view of the matter, would form a "hill of water"
more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous,
and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business
is made up of materials of the same description: and it
certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such "science" as
this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If the Earth were a globe,
it would, unquestionably, have the same general characteristics
- no matter its size - as a small globe that may be stood upon
the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so
must also the large one - no matter how large it be. But, as the
Earth, which is "supposed" to be a large globe, bas no sides or
bottom as the small globe has, the conclusion is irresistible
that it is a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If the Earth were a globe,
an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to
took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of
a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical
diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty
degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as
absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man
full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no
observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has
ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are
imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things
to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a
substantial proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If the Earth were a globe,
it would certainly have to be as large as it is said to be -
twenty-five thousand miles in circumference. Now, the thing
which I have called a "proof" of the Earth's roundness, and
which is presented to children at school, is, that if we stand
on the seashore we may see the ships, as they approach us,
absolutely "coming up," and that, as we are able to see the
highest parts of these ships first, it is because the lower
parts are "behind the earth's curve." Now since if this were the
case - that is, if the lower parts of these ships were behind a
"hill of water" - the size of the Earth, indicated by such a
curve as this, would be so small that it would only be big
enough to hold the people of a parish, if they could get all
round it, instead of the nations of the world, it follows that
the idea is preposterous; that the appearance is due to another
and to some reasonable cause; and that, instead of being a proof
of the globular form of the Earth, it is a proof that at Earth
is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It is often said that, if
the Earth were flat, we could see all over it! This is the
result of ignorance. If we stand on the level surface a plain or
a prairie, and take notice, we shall find that the horizon is
formed at about three miles all around us: that is, the ground
appears to rise up until, at that distance, it seems on a level
with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently, objects no
higher than we stand - say, six feet - and which are at that
distance (three miles), have reached the "vanishing point," and
are beyond the sphere of our unaided vision. This is the reason
why the hull of a ship disappears (in going away from us) before
the sails; and, instead of there being about it the faintest
shadow of evidence of the, Earth's rotundity, it is a clear
proof that Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If the Earth were a globe,
people - except those on the top - would, certainly, have to be
"fastened" to its surface by some means or other, whether by the
"attraction" of astronomers or by some other undiscovered and
undiscoverable process! But, as we know that we simply walk on
its surface without any other aid than that which is necessary
for locomotion on a plane, it follows that we have, herein, a
conclusive proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If the Earth were a globe,
there certainly would be - if we could imagine the thing to be
peopled all round - "antipodes:" "people who," says the
dictionary, "living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to
ourselves, have their feet opposite to ours: - people who are
hanging heads downwards whilst we are standing heads up! But,
since the theory allows us to travel to those parts of the Earth
where the people are said to be heads downwards, and still to
fancy ourselves to be heads upwards and our friends whom we have
left behind - us to be heads downwards, it follows that the
whole thing is a myth - a dream - a delusion - and a snare; and,
instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to
substantiate the popular theory, it is a plain proof that the
Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If we examine a true
picture of the distant horizon, or the thing itself, we shall
find that it coincides exactly with a perfectly straight and
level line. Now, since there could be nothing of the kind on a
globe, and we find it to be the case all over the Earth, it is a
proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If we take a journey down
the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the "light" exhibited
at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We
may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the
vessel's side will be in a line with the "light" and in the line
of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light
will won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent
elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been
traversed, the astronomers' theory of "curvature" demands a
difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of
the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a
difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that
the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof
that the Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If the Earth were a globe,
there would, very likely, be (for nobody knows) six months day
and six months night at the arctic and antarctic regions, as
astronomers dare to assert there is: - for their theory demands
it! But, as this fact - the six months day and six months night
- is; nowhere found but in the arctic regions, it agrees
perfectly with everything else that we know about the Earth as a
plane, and, whilst it overthrows the "accepted theory," it
furnishes a striking proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]When the Sun crosses the
equator, in March, and begins to circle round the heavens in
north latitude, the inhabitants of high northern latitudes see
him slimming round their horizon and forming the break of their
long day, in a horizontal course, not disappearing again for six
months, as he rises higher and higher in the heavens whilst he
makes his twenty-four hour circle until June, when he begins to
descend and goes on until he disappears beyond the horizon in
September. Thus, in the northern regions, they have that which
the traveler calls the "midnight Sun," as he sees that luminary
at a time when, in his more southern latitude, it is always
midnight. If, for one-half the year, we may see for ourselves
the Sun making horizontal circles round the heavens, it is
presumptive evidence that, for the other half-year, he is doing
the same, although beyond the boundary of our vision. This,
being a proof that Earth is a plane, is, therefore, a proof that
the Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]We have abundance of
evidence that the Sun moves daily round and over the Earth in
circles concentric with the northern region over which hangs the
North Star; but, since the theory of the Earth being a globe is
necessarily connected with the theory of its motion round the
Sun in a yearly orbit, it falls to the ground when we bring
forward the evidence of which we speak, and, in so doing, forms
a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The Suez canal, which
joins the Red Sea with the Mediterranean, is about one hundred
miles long; it forms a straight and level surface of water from
one end to the other; and no allowance for any supposed
"curvature" was made in its construction. It is a clear proof
that the Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]When astronomers assert
that it is "necessary" to make "allowance for curvature" in
canal construction, it is, of course, in order that, in their
idea, a level cutting may be had, for the water. How flagrantly,
then, do they contradict themselves when the curved surface of
the Earth is a "true level!" What more can they want for a canal
than a true level? Since they contradict themselves in such an
elementary point as this, it is an evidence that the whole thing
is a delusion, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It is certain that the
theory of the Earth's rotundity and that of its mobility must
stand or fall together. A proof, then, of its immobility is
virtually a proof of its non-rotundity. Now, that the Earth does
not move, either on an axis, or in an orbit round the Sun or
anything else, is easily proven. If the Earth went through space
at the rate of eleven-hundred miles in a minute of time, as
astronomers teach us, in a particular direction, there would
unquestionably be a, difference in the result of firing off a
projectile in that direction and in a direction the opposite of
that one. But as, in fact, there is not the slightest difference
in any such case, it is clear that any alleged motion of the
Earth is disproved, and that, therefore, we have a proof that
the Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The circumstances which
attend bodies which are caused merely to fall from a great
height prove nothing as to the motion or stability of the Earth,
since the object, if it be on a thing that is in motion, will
participate in that motion; but, if an object be thrown, upwards
from a body at rest, and, again, from a body in motion, the
circumstances attending its descent will be very different. In
the former case, it will fall, if thrown vertically upwards, at
the place from whence it was projected; in the latter case, it
will fall behind the moving body from which it is thrown will
leave it in the rear. Now, fix a gun, muzzle upwards,
accurately, in the ground; fire off a projectile; and it will
fall by the gun. If the Earth traveled eleven hundred miles a
minute, the projectile would fall behind the gun, in the
opposite direction to that of the supposed motion. Since, then,
this is NOT the case, in fact, the Earth's fancied motion is
negatived and we have a proof that the Earth is not a,
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It is in evidence that, if
a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite
direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short
of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in
the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at
the rate of nineteen miles in, a second of time, "from west to
east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun
were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there
is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be
done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to
the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is
not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The Astronomer Royal, of
England, George B. Airy, in his celebrated work on Astronomy,
the "Ipswich Lectures," says - "Jupiter is a large planet that
turns on his axis, and why do not we turn?" Of course, the
common sense reply is: Because the Earth is not a planet! When,
therefore, an astronomer royal puts words into our mouth
wherewith we may overthrow the supposed planetary nature of the
Earth, we have not far to go to pick up a proof that Earth is
not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It has been shown that an
easterly or a westerly motion is necessarily a circular course
round the central North, The only north point or centre of
motion of the heavenly bodies known to man is that formed by the
North Star, which is over the central portion of the
outstretched Earth. When, therefore, astronomers tell us of a
planet taking a westerly course round the Sun, the thing is as
meaningless to them as it is to us, unless they make the Sun the
northern centre of the motion, which they cannot do! Since,
then, the motion which they tell us the planets have is, on the
face of it, absurd; and since, as a matter of fact, the Earth
can have no absurd motion at all, it is clear that it cannot be
what astronomers say it is - a planet; and, if not a planet, it
is a proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]In consequence of the fact
being so plainly seen, by everyone who visits the seashore, that
the line of the horizon is a perfectly straight line, it becomes
impossible for astronomers, when they attempt to convey,
pictorially, an idea of the Earth's "convexity," to do so with
even a shadow of consistency: for they dare not represent this
horizon as a curved line, so well known is it that it is a
straight one! The greatest astronomer of the age, in page 15 of
his "Lessons," gives an illustration of a ship sailing away, "as
though she were rounding the top of a great hill of water;" and
there - of a truth - is the straight and level line of the
horizon clear along the top of the "hill" from one side of the
picture to the other! Now, if this picture were true in all its
parts - and it is outrageously false in several - it would show
that Earth is a cylinder; for the "hill" shown is simply up one
side of the level, horizontal line, and, we are led to suppose,
down the other! Since, then, we have such high authority as
Professor Richard A. Proctor that the Earth is a cylinder, it
is, certainly, a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]In Mr. Proctor's "Lessons
in Astronomy," page 15, a ship is represented as sailing away
from the observer, and it is given in five positions or
distances away on its journey. Now, in its first position, its
mast appears above the horizon, and, consequently, higher than
the observer's line of vision. But, in its second and third
positions, representing the ship as further and further away, it
is drawn higher and still higher up above the line of the
horizon! Now, it is utterly impossible for a ship to sail away
from an observer, under the, conditions indicated, and to appear
as given in the picture. Consequently, the picture is a
misrepresentation, a fraud, and a disgrace. A ship starting to
sail away from an observer with her masts above his line of
sight would appear, indisputably, to go down and still lower
down towards the horizon line, and could not possibly appear -
to anyone with his vision undistorted - as going in any other
direction, curved or straight. Since, then the design of the
astronomer-artist is to show the Earth to be a globe, and the
points in the picture, which would only prove the Earth to be
cylindrical if true, are NOT true, it follows that the
astronomer-artist fails to prove, pictorially, either that the
Earth is a globe or a cylinder, and that we have, therefore, a
reasonable proof that the Earth is not. a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It is a well-known fact
that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of
directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the
same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as
any other. . Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through
space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a
second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east
would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be
thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the
opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all,
since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to
cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to
show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to
do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless. We have, then
a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]We read in the inspired
book, or collection of books, called THE BIBLE, nothing at all
about the Earth being a globe or a planet, from beginning to
end, but hundreds of allusions there are in its pages which
could not be made if the Earth were a globe, and which are,
therefore, said by the astronomer to be absurd and contrary to
what he knows to be true! This is the groundwork of modern
infidelity. But, since every one of many, many allusions to the
Earth and the heavenly bodies in the Scriptures can be
demonstrated to be absolutely true to nature, and we read of the
Earth being "stretched out" "above the waters," as "standing in
the water and out of the water," of its being "established that
it cannot be moved," we have a store from which to take all the
proofs we need, but we will just put down one proof - the
Scriptural proof - that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]A "Standing Order" exists
in the English Houses of Parliament that in the cutting of
canals, &c., the datum line employed shall be a "horizontal
line, which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the
work." Now if the Earth were a globe, this "Order" could not be
carried out: but, it is carried out: therefore it is a proof
that the Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It is a well-known and
indisputable fact that there is a far greater accumulation of
ice south of the equator than is to be found at an equal
latitude north: and it is said that at Kerguelen, 50 degrees
south, 18 kinds of plants exist, whilst, in Iceland, 15 degrees
nearer the northern centre, there are 870 species; and, indeed,
all the facts in the case show that the Sun's power is less
intense at places in the southern region than it is in
corresponding latitudes north. Now, on the Newtonian hypothesis,
all this is inexplicable, whilst it is strictly in accordance
with the facts brought to light by the carrying out of the
principles involved in the Zetetic Philosophy of "Parallax."
This is a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Every year the Sun is as
long south of the equator as he is north; and if the Earth were
not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the
Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a
share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region
being, in consequence of the fact stated, - far more extensive
than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey
round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes
further south, from September to December, and his influence has
less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then
the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it
is a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The aeronaut is able to
start in his balloon and remain for hours in the air, at an
elevation of several miles, and come down again in the same
county or parish from which he ascended. Now, unless the Earth
drag the balloon along with it in its nineteen-miles-a-second
motion, it must be left far behind, in space: but, since
balloons have never been known thus to be left it is a proof
that the Earth does not move, and, therefore, a proof that the
Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The Newtonian theory of
astronomy requires that the Moon "borrow" her light from the
Sun. Now, since the Sun's rays are hot and the Moon's light
sends with it no heat at all, it follows that the Sun and Moon
are "two great lights," as we somewhere read; that the Newtonian
theory is a mistake; and that, therefore, we have a proof that
the Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The Sun and Moon may often
be seen high in the heavens at the same time - the Sun rising in
the east and the Moon setting in the west - the Sun's light
positively putting the Moon's light out by sheer contrast! If
the Newtonian theory were correct, and the moon had her light
from the Sun, she ought to be getting more of it when face to
face with that luminary - if it were possible for a sphere to
act as a reflector all over its face! But as the Moon's light
pales before the rising Sun, it is a proof that the theory
fails; and is gives us a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The Newtonian hypothesis
involves the necessity of. the Sun, in the case of a lunar
eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast
its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have
taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it
follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses
the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing
less than a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Astronomers have never
agreed amongst themselves about a rotating Moon revolving round
a rotating and revolving Earth - this Earth, Moon, planets and
their satellites all, at the same time dashing through space,
around the rotating and revolving Sun, towards the constellation
Hercules, at the rate of four millions of miles a day! And they
never will: agreement is impossible! With the a Earth a plane
and without motion, the whole thing is clear. And if a straw
will show which way the wind blows, this may be taken as a
pretty strong proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Mr. Proctor says.- "The
Sun is so far off that even moving from one side of the Earth to
the other does not cause him to be seen in a different direction
- at least the difference is too small to be measured." Now,
since we know that north of the equator, say 45 degrees, we see
the Sun at mid-day to the south, and that at the same distance
south of the equator we see the Sun at mid-day to the north, our
very shadows on the round cry aloud against the delusion of the
day and give us a proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]There is no problem more
important to the astronomer than that of the Sun's distance from
the Earth. Every change in the estimate changes everything. NOW,
since modern astronomers, in their estimate of this distance,
have gone all the way along the line of figures from three
millions of miles to a hundred and four millions - today, the
distance being something over 91,000,000; it matters not how
much: for, not many years ago, Mr. Hind gave the distance,
"accurately," as 95,370,000! - it follows that they don't know,
and that it is foolish for anyone to expect that they ever will
know, the Sun's distance! And since all this speculation and
absurdity is caused by the primary assumption that Earth is a
wandering, heavenly body, and is all swept away by a knowledge
of the fact that Earth is a, plane, it is a clear proof that
Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It is plain that a theory
of measurements without a measuring-rod is like a ship without a
rudder; that a measure that is not fixed, not likely to be
fixed, and never has been fixed, forms no measuring-rod at all;
and that as modern theoretical astronomy depends upon the Sun's
distance from the Earth as its measuring-rod, and the distance
is not known, it is a system of measurements without a
measuring-rod - a ship without a rudder. Now, since it is not
difficult to foresee the dashing of this thing upon the rock on
which Zetetic astronomy is founded, it is a proof that Earth is
not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It is commonly asserted
that "the Earth must be a globe because people have sailed round
it." Now, since this implies that we can sail round nothing
unless it be a globe, and the fact is well known that we can
sail round the Earth as a plane, the assertion is ridiculous,
and we have another proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It is a fact not so well
known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from
us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our
unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this
portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to
enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear that
the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can
be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision.
This is a proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Mr. Glaisher, in speaking
of his balloon ascents, says: "The horizon always appears to be
on a level with the car." Now, since we may search among the
laws of optics in vain for any principle that would cause the
surface of a globe to turn its face upwards instead of
downwards, it is a clear proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The Rev. D. Olmsted, in
describing a diagram whish is supposed to represent the Earth as
a globe, with a figure of a man sticking out at each side and
one hanging head downwards, says "We should dwell on this point
until it appears to us as truly up," In the direction given to
these figures as it does with regard to a figure which he has
placed on the top! Now, a system of philosophy which requires us
to do something which is, really, the going out of our minds, by
dwelling on an absurdity until we think it is a fact, Cannot be
a system based on God's truth, which never requires anything of
the kind. Since, then, the popular theoretical astronomy of the
day requires this, it is evident that it is the wrong thing, and
that this conclusion furnishes us with a proof that the Earth is
not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It is often said that the
predictions of eclipses prove astronomers to be right in their
theories. But it is not seen that this proves too much. It is
well known that Ptolemy predicted eclipses for six-hundred
years, on the basis of a plane Earth, with as much accuracy as
they are predicted by modern observers. If, then, the
predictions prove the truth of the particular theories current
at the time, they just as well prove one side of the question as
the other, and enable us to lay claim to a proof that the Earth
is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Seven-hundred miles is
said to be the length of the great Canal, in China, Certain it
is that, when this canal was formed, no "allowance" was made for
"curvature." Yet the canal is a fact without it. This is a
Chinese proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Mr. J.M. Lockyer says:
Because the Sun seems to rise in the east and set in the west,
the Earth really spins in the opposite direction; that is, from
west to east," Now, this is no better than though we were to say
- Because a man seems to be coming up the street, the street
really goes down to the man! And since true science would
contain no such nonsense as this, it follows that the so-called
science of theoretical astronomy is not true, and, we have
another proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Mr. Lockyer says: "The
appearances connected with the rising and setting of the Sun and
stars may be due either to our earth being at rest and the Sun
and stars traveling round it, or the earth itself turning round,
while the Sun and stars are at rest." Now, since true science
does not allow of any such beggarly alternatives as these, it is
plain that modern theoretical astronomy is not true science, and
that its leading dogma is a fallacy. We have, then, a plain
proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Mr. Lockyer, in describing
his picture of the supposed proof of the Earth's rotundity by
means of ships rounding a "hill of water," uses these words: -
"Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is round, we
explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do." This is
utterly unworthy of the name of Science! A science that begins
by supposing, and ends by explaining the supposition, is, from
beginning to end, a mere farce. The men who can do nothing
better than amuse themselves in this way must be denounced as
dreamers only, and their leading dogma a delusion. This is a
proof that Earth, not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The astronomers' theory of
a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel
south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility.
Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when
they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This
fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame,
and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Astronomers tell us that,
in consequence of the Earth's "rotundity," the perpendicular
walls of buildings are, nowhere, parallel, and that even the
walls of houses on opposite sides of a street are not! But,
since all observation fails to find any evidence of this want of
parallelism which theory demands, the idea must be renounced as
being absurd and in opposition to all well-known facts. This is
a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Astronomers have made
experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the
interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of
being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its "axis," by
the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared
table underneath - asserting that the table moved round under
the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating
in different directions over the table! But, since it has been
found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong
way for the "rotation" theory, chagrin has taken the place of
exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in
their efforts to substantiate their theory, and, therefore, a
proof that Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]As to the supposed "motion
of the whole Solar system in space," the Astronomer Royal of
England once said: "The matter is left in a most delightful
state of uncertainty, and I Shall be very glad if anyone can
help us out of it." But, since the whole Newtonian scheme is,
today, in a most deplorable state of uncertainty - for, whether
the Moon goes round the Earth or the Earth round the Moon has,
for years, been a matter of "raging" controversy it follows
that, root and branch, the whole thing, is wrong; and, all hot
from the furnace of philosophical phrensy, we find a glowing
proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Considerably more than a
million Earths would be required to make up a body like the Sun
-the astronomers tell us: and more than 53,000 suns would be
wanted to equal the cubic contents of the star Vega. And Vega is
a "small star!" And there are countless millions of these stars!
And it takes 30,000,000 years for the light of some of those
stars to reach us at 12,000,000 miles in a minute! And, says Mr.
Proctor, "I think a moderate estimate of the age of the Earth
would be 500,000,000 years! "Its weight," says the same
individual, "is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,060 tons!" Now, since
no human being is able to comprehend these things, the giving of
them to the world is an insult - an outrage. And though they
have all risen from the one assumption that Earth is a planet,
instead of upholding the assumption, they drag it down by the
weight of their own absurdity, and leave it lying in the dust -
a proof that Earth is not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Mr. J. R. Young, in his
work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a
spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path
by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is
the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent"
a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt,
it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and
not a curved one. And, Since it is the surface of the waters of
the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that
this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr.
Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is
not a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]"Oh, but if the Earth is a
plane, we could go to the edge and tumble over!" is a very
common assertion. This is a conclusion that is formed too
hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is, what
man by his observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor
himself says it "seems" to be. flat - and we cannot cross the
icy barrier which surrounds it. This is a complete answer to the
objection, and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]"Yes, but we can
circumnavigate the South easily enough," is often said by those
who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed
the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure -
but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000
miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round
on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]The remark is common
enough that we can see the circle of the Earth if we cross the
ocean, and that this proves it to be round. Now, if we tie a
donkey to a stake on a level common, and he eats the grass all
around him, it is only a circular disc that he has to do with,
not a spherical mass. Since, then, circular discs may be seen
anywhere - as well from a balloon in the air as from the deck of
a ship, or from the standpoint of the donkey, it is a proof that
the surface of the Earth is a plane surface, and, therefore, a
proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It is supposed," in the
regular course of the Newtonian theory, that the Earth is, in
June, about 190 millions of miles (190,000,000) away from its
position in December. Now, since we can, (in middle north
latitudes), see the North Star, on looking out of a window that
faces it - and out of the very same corner of the very same pane
of glass in the very same window - all the year round, it is
proof enough for any man in his senses that we have made no
motion at all. It is a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Newtonian philosophers
teach us that the Moon goes round: the Earth from west to east.
But observation - man's most certain mode of gaining knowledge -
shows us that the Moon never ceases to move in the opposite
direction - from east to west. Since, then, we know that nothing
can possibly move in two, opposite directions at the same time,
it is a proof that the thing is a big blunder; and, in short, it
is a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]Astronomers tell us. that
the Moon, goes round the Earth in about 28 days. Well, we may
see her making her journey round every. day, if we make use of
our eyes and these are about the best things we have to use. The
Moon falls behind in her daily motion as compared with that of
the Sun to the extent of one revolution in the time specified;
but that is not making a revolution. Failing to go as fast as
other bodies go in one direction does not constitute a going
round in the opposite one - as the astronomers would have us
believe! And, since all this absurdity has been rendered
necessary for no other purpose than to help other absurdities
along, it is clear that the astronomers are on the wrong track;
and it needs no long train of reasoning to show that we have
found a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]It has been shown that the
meridians are, necessarily, straight lines; and that it is
impossible to travel round the Earth in a north or south
direction: from which it follows that, in the general
acceptation of the word "degree" - the 360th - part of a circle
- meridians have no degrees: for no one knows anything of a
meridian circle or semicircle, to be thus divided. But
astronomers speak of degrees of latitude in the same sense as
those of longitude. This, then, is done by assuming that to be
true which is not true. Zetetic philosophy does not involve this
necessity. This proves that the basis of this philosophy is a
sound one, and, in short, is a proof that the Earth is not a
globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][font=Open Sans]If we move away from an
elevated object on or over a plain or a prairie, the height of
the object will apparently diminish as we do so. Now, that which
is sufficient to produce this effect on a small scale is
sufficient on a large one; and traveling away from an elevated
object, no matter how far will cause the appearance in question
- the lowering of the object. Our modern theoretical
astronomers, however, in the case of the apparent lowering of
the North Star as we travel southward, assert that it is
evidence that the Earth is globular! But as it is clear that an
appearance which is fully, accounted for on the basis of known
facts cannot be permitted to figure as evidence in favor of that
which is only a supposition, it follows that we rightfully order
it to stand down, and make way for a proof that the Earth is not
a globe.[/font][/li][/list][font=Open
Sans][/font][list][li][color=rgb(37, 37, 37)][font=Open
Sans][size=14px]There are rivers which flow
*****************************************************