Part 1

Transcriber’s Notes

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

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

[_Entered at Stationer’s Hall._]

ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.

EARTH NOT A GLOBE!

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

BY “PARALLAX.”

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

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

BATH: PRINTED BY S. HAYWARD, GREEN STREET.

GENERAL CONTENTS.

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

SECTION II. The Earth no Axial or Orbital Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION IX. Cause of Solar and Lunar Eclipses.

SECTION X. Cause of Tides.

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

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

SECTION XIII. Perspective on the Sea.

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

ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 1.]

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

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

B. C² C. D = ------. 2 A. D

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

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

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

or rather better than 10¹⁄₂ feet.

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 2.]

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 3.]

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 4.]

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

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 5.]

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

[Illustration: FIG. 6.]

[Illustration: FIG. 7.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following diagram represents this appearance:--

[Illustration: FIG. 8.]

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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 9.]