Part 2

Many more experiments have been made than are here described, but the selection now given is amply sufficient to prove that the surface of water is horizontal, and that the Earth, taken as a whole, its land and water together, is not a globe, has really no degree of sphericity; but is “to all intents and purposes” A PLANE!

If we now consider the fact that when we travel by land or sea, and from any part of the known world, in a direction towards the North polar star, we shall arrive at one and the same point, we are forced to the conclusion that what has hitherto been called the North Polar region, is really THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH. That from this northern centre the land diverges and stretches out, of necessity, towards a circumference, which must now be called THE SOUTHERN REGION: which is a vast circle, and not a pole or centre. That there is ONE CENTRE--THE NORTH, and ONE CIRCUMFERENCE--THE SOUTH. This language will be better understood by reference to the diagram Figure 10.

[Illustration: FIG. 10.]

N represents the northern centre; and S S S the southern circumference--both icy or frozen regions. That the south is an immense ring, or glacial boundary, is evident from the fact, that within the antarctic circle the most experienced, scientific, and daring navigators have failed in their attempts to sail, in a direct manner, completely round it. Lieut. Wilkes, of the American Navy, after great and prolonged efforts, and much confusion in his reckoning, and seeing no prospect of success, was obliged to give up his attempt and return to the north. This he acknowledged in a letter to Captain Sir James Clarke Ross, with whose intention to explore the south seas he had become acquainted, in which the following words occur: “I hope you intend to circumnavigate the antarctic circle. I made 70 degrees of it.” Captain Ross, however, was himself greatly confused in his attempts to navigate the southern region. In his account of the voyage he says, at page 96--“We found ourselves every day from 12 to 16 miles by observation in advance of our reckoning.” “By our observations we found ourselves 58 miles to the eastward of our reckoning in two days.” And in this and other ways all the great navigators have been frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the antarctic circle. But if the southern region is a pole or centre, like the north, there would be little difficulty in circumnavigating it, for the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one centre, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circumnavigators can be easily understood.

Having given a surface or bird’s-eye view of the Earth, the following sectional representation will aid in completing the description.

[Illustration: FIG. 11.]

E E represents the Earth; W W the “great deep,” or the waters which surround the land; N the northern centre; and S S sections of the southern ice. As the present description is purely zetetic, and as every fact must therefore have its fullest value assigned to it, and its consequences represented, a peculiarity must be pointed out in the foregoing diagram. It will be observed that from about the points E E the surface of the water rises towards the south S S. It is clearly ascertained that the altitude of the water in various parts of the world is much influenced by the pressure of the atmosphere--however this pressure is caused--and it is well known that the atmospheric pressure in the south is constantly less than it is in the north, and therefore the water in the southern region must always be considerably higher than it is in the northern. Hence the peculiarity referred to in the diagram. The following quotation from Sir James Ross’s voyages, p. 483, will corroborate the above statements:--“Our barometrical experiments appear to prove that a gradual diminution of atmospheric pressure occurs as we proceed southwards from the tropic of Capricorn. * * * It has hitherto been considered that the mean pressure of the atmosphere at the level of the sea was nearly the same in all parts of the world, as no material difference occurs between the equator and the highest northern latitudes. * * * The causes of the atmospheric pressure being so _very much less_ in the southern than in the northern hemispheres remains to be determined.”

Thus, putting all theories aside, we have seen that direct experiment demonstrates the important truth, _that the Earth is an extended Plane_. Literally, “Stretched out upon the waters;” “Founded on the seas and established on the floods;” “Standing in the water and out of the water.” How far the southern icy region extends horizontally, or how deep the waters upon and in which the earth stands or is supported are questions which cannot yet be answered. In Zetetic philosophy the foundation must be well secured, progress must be made step by step, making good the ground as we proceed; and whenever a difficulty presents itself, or evidence fails to carry us farther, we must promptly and candidly acknowledge it, and prepare for future investigation; but never fill up the inquiry by theory and assumption. In the present instance there is no practical evidence as to the extent of the southern ice and the “great deep.” Who shall say whether the depth and extent of the “mighty waters” _have_ a limit, or constitute the “World without end?”

Having advanced direct and special evidence that the surface of the earth is not convex, but, on the contrary, a vast and irregular plane, it now becomes important that the leading phenomena upon which the doctrine of rotundity has been founded should be carefully examined. First, it is contended that because the hull of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the mast head, the water is convex, and therefore the Earth is a globe. In this conclusion, however, there is an assumption involved, viz., that such a phenomenon _can only_ result from a convex surface. Inquiry will show that this is erroneous. If we select for observation a few miles of straight and level railway, we shall find that the rails, which are parallel, appear in the distance to approach each other. But the two rails which are nearest together do so more rapidly than those which are farthest asunder, as shown in the following diagram, Figure 12.

[Illustration: FIG. 12.]

Let the observer stand at the point A, looking in the direction of the arrows; and the rails 1.2.3.4. will appear to join at the point B, but the rail 5.6 will appear to have converged only as far as C towards B.

Again, let a train be watched from the point A in Figure 13.

[Illustration: FIG. 13.]

The observer looking from A, with his eye midway between the bottom of the carriage and the rail, will see the diameter of the wheels gradually diminish as they recede. The lines 1.2 and 1.4 will appear to approach each other until at the point B they will come together, and the space, including the wheels, between the bottom of the carriage and the rail will there disappear. The floor of the carriage will seem to be sliding without wheels upon the rail 1.2; but the lines 5.6 and 7.8 will yet have converged only to C and D.

The same phenomenon may be observed with a long row of lamps, where the ground is a straight line throughout its entire length as represented in Figure 14.

[Illustration: FIG. 14.]

The lines 1.2 and A D will converge at the point D and the pedestal of the lamp at D will seem to have disappeared, but the line 3.4, which represents the true altitude of the lamps, will only have converged to the point C.

A narrow bank running along the side of a straight portion of railway, upon which poles are placed for supporting the wires of the electric telegraph will produce the same appearance, as shown in Figure 15.

[Illustration: FIG. 15.]

The bank having the altitude 1.3 and 2.4 will, in the distance of two or three miles (according to its depth) disappear to the eye of an observer placed at Figure 1; and the telegraph pole at Figure 2 will seem not to stand upon a bank at all, but upon the actual railway. The line 3.4 will merge into the line 1.2 at the point B, while the line 5.6 will only have descended to the position C.

[Illustration: FIG. 16.]

Many other familiar instances could be given to show the true law of perspective; which is, that parallel lines appear in the distance to converge to one and the same datum line, but to reach it at different distances if themselves dissimilarly distant. This law being remembered, it is easy to understand how the hull of an outward-bound ship, although sailing upon a plane surface disappears before the mast-head. In Figure 16, let A B represent the surface of the water; C H the line of sight; and E D the altitude of the mast-head. Then, as A B and C H are nearer to each other than A B and E D, they will converge and appear to meet at the point H, which is the practical, or, as it would be better to call it, the _optical_ horizon. The hull of the vessel being contained within the lines A B and C H, must gradually diminish as these converge, until at H, or the horizon, it enters the vanishing point and disappears; but the mast-head represented by the line E D is still _above_ the horizon at H, and will require to sail more or less, according to its altitude, beyond the point H before it sinks to the line C H, or, in other words, before the lines A B and E D form the same angle as A B and C H.

It will be evident also that should the elevation of the observer be greater than at C, the horizon or vanishing point would not be formed at H, but at a greater distance; and therefore the hull of the vessel would be longer visible. Or, if, when the hull has disappeared at H, the observer ascends from the elevation at C to a higher position nearer to E, it will again be seen. Thus all these phenomena which have so long been considered as proofs of the Earth’s rotundity are really optical sequences of the contrary doctrine. To argue that because the lower part of an outward-bound ship disappears before the highest the water must be round, is to _assume_ that a _round_ surface _only_ can produce this effect! But it is now shown that a _plane_ surface _necessarily_ produces this effect; and therefore the assumption is not required, and the argument involved is fallacious!

It may here be observed that no help can be given to this doctrine of rotundity by quoting the prevailing theory of perspective. The law represented in the foregoing diagrams is the “law of nature.” It may be seen in every layer of a long wall, in every hedge and bank of the roadside, and indeed in every direction where lines and objects run parallel to each other; but no illustration of the contrary perspective is ever to be seen! except in the distorted pictures, otherwise cleverly and beautifully drawn as they are, which abound in our public and private collections.

The theory which affirms that parallel lines converge only to one and the same point upon the eye-line is an error. It is true only of lines equidistant from the eye-line. It is true that parallel lines converge to one and the same _eye-line_, but _meet it at different distances when more or less apart from each other_. This is the true law of perspective as shown by Nature herself; any other idea is fallacious and will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice.

As it is of great importance that the difference should be clearly understood, the following diagram is given. Let E L (Figure 17) represent the eye-line and C the vanishing point of the lines, 1 C 2 C; then the lines 3.4.5.6, although converging _somewhere_ to the line E L, will not do so to the point C, but 3 and 4 will proceed to D and 5 and 6 to H. It is repeated, that lines _equidistant_ from the _datum_ will converge on the _same point_ and at the _same distance_; but lines _not_ equidistant will converge on the same _datum_ but at _different distances_! A very good illustration of the difference is given in Figure 18. Theoretic perspective would bring the lines 1, 2, and 3 to the same _datum_ line E L and to the _same point_ A. But the true or natural law would bring the lines 2 and 3 to the point A because equidistant from the eye-line E L; but the line 1 being farther from E L than either 2 or 3, would be taken beyond the point A on towards C, until it formed the _same angle_ upon the line E L as 2 and 3 form at the point A.

[Illustration: FIG. 17.]

[Illustration: FIG. 18.]

The subject of perspective will not be rendered sufficiently clear unless an explanation be given of the cause and character of what is technically called the “vanishing point.” Why do objects, even when raised above the earth, vanish at a given distance? It is known, and can easily be proved by experiment, that “the range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision is 110°; consequently this is the _largest_ angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. * * The _smallest_ angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average for different sights the 60th part of a degree, or _one minute_ in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently, the greatest distance at which we can behold an object, like a shilling, of an inch in diameter is 3000 inches or 250 feet.”[3] It may, therefore, be very easily understood that a line passing over the hull of a ship, and continuing parallel to the surface of the water, must converge to the vanishing point at the distance of about 3000 times its own elevation; in other words, if the surface of the hull be 10 feet above the water it will vanish at 3,000 times 10 feet; or nearly six statute miles; but if the mast-head be 30 feet above the water, it will be visible for 90,000 feet or over 17 miles; so that it could be seen upon the horizon for a distance of eleven miles _after the hull had entered the vanishing point_! Hence the phenomenon of a receding ship’s hull being the first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and relied upon as proving the rotundity of the Earth is fairly and logically a proof of the very contrary! It has been misapplied in consequence of an erroneous view of the law of perspective, and the desire to support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose has already been shown; and that, even if there were no question of the Earth’s form involved, it could not arise from the convexity of the water, is proved by the following experiment:--Let an observer stand upon the sea-shore with the eye at an elevation of about six feet above the water, and watch a vessel until it is just “hull down.” If now a good telescope be applied the hull will be distinctly _restored to sight_! From which it must be concluded that it had disappeared through the influence of perspective, and not from having sunk behind the summit of a convex surface! Had it done so it would follow that the telescope had either carried the line-of-sight through the mass of water, or over its surface and down the other side! But the power of “looking round a corner” or penetrating a dense and extensive medium has never yet been attributed to such an instrument! If the elevation of the observer be much greater than six feet the distance at which the vanishing point is formed will be so great that the telescope may not have power enough to magnify or enlarge the angle constituting it; when the experiment would appear to fail. But the failure would only be apparent, for a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the horizon or vanishing point would certainly restore the hull at the greater distance.

[3] “Wonders of Science,” by Mayhew, p. 357.

[Illustration: FIG. 19.]

An illustration or proof of the Earth’s rotundity is also supposed to be found in the fact that navigators by sailing due east or west return in the opposite direction. Here, again, a supposition is involved, viz., that upon a globe _only_ could this occur. But it is easy to prove that it could take place as perfectly upon a circular plane as upon a sphere. Let it first be clearly understood what is really meant by sailing _due east and west_. Practically it is sailing at right angles to north and south: this is determined ordinarily by the mariners’ compass, but more accurately by the meridian lines which converge to the northern centre of the Earth. Bearing this in mind, let N in Figure 19 represent the northern centre; and the lines N. S. the directions north and south. Then let the small arrow, Figure 1, represent a vessel on the meridian of Greenwich, with its head W. at right angles, or due west; and the stern E due east. It is evident that in passing to the position of the arrow, Figure 2, which is still due west or square to the meridian, the arc 1.2 must be described; and in sailing still farther under the same condition, the arcs 2.3, 3.4, and 4.1 will be successively passed over until the meridian of Greenwich, Figure 1, is arrived at, which was the point of departure. Thus a mariner, by keeping the head of his vessel due west, or at right angles to the north and south, practically circumnavigates a plane surface; or, in other words, he describes a circle _upon a plane_, at a greater or lesser distance from the centre N, and being at all times square to the radii north and south, he is _compelled_ to do so--_because_ the earth is a plane, having a central region, towards which the compass and the meridian lines which guide him, converge. So far, then, from the fact of a vessel sailing due west coming home from the east, and _vice versa_, being a proof of the earth’s rotundity, it is simply a phenomenon, consistent with and dependent upon its being a plane! The subject may be perfectly illustrated by the following simple experiment:--Take a round table, fix a pin in the centre; to this attach a thread, and extend it to the edge. Call the centre the north and the circumference the south; then, at any distance between the centre and the circumference, a direction at right angles to the thread will be due east and west; and a small object, as a pencil, placed across or square to the thread, to represent a ship, may be carried completely round the table without its right-angled position being altered; or, the right-angled position firmly maintained, the vessel must of necessity describe a circle on being moved from right to left or left to right. Referring again to the diagram, Figure 19, the vessel may sail from the north towards the south, upon the meridian Figure 1, and there turning due west, may pass Cape Horn, represented by D, and continue its westerly course until it passes the point C, or the Cape of Good Hope, and again reaches the meridian, Figure 1, upon which it may return to the north. Those, then, who hold that the earth is a globe because it can be circumnavigated, have an argument which is logically incomplete and fallacious. This will be seen at once by putting it in the syllogistic form:--

A globe _only_ can be circumnavigated:

The Earth has been circumnavigated:

Therefore the Earth is a globe.

It has been shown that a _plane_ can be circumnavigated, and therefore the first or major proposition is false; and, being so, the conclusion is false. This portion of the subject furnishes a striking instance of the necessity of, at all times, proving a proposition by direct and immediate evidence, instead of quoting a natural phenomenon as a proof of what has previously been assumed. But a theory will not admit of this method, and therefore the zetetic process, or inquiry before conclusion, entirely eschewing assumption, is the only course which can lead to simple and unalterable truth. Whoever creates or upholds a theory, adopts a monster which will sooner or later betray and enslave him, or make him ridiculous in the eyes of practical observers.

Closely following the subject of circumnavigation, the gain and loss of time discovered on sailing east and west is referred to as another proof of rotundity. But this illustration is equally fallacious with the last, and from the same cause, viz., the assumption that a _globe only_ could produce the effect observed. It will be seen, by reference to diagram, Figure 19, that the effect must take place equally upon a plane as upon a globe. Let the ship, W E, upon the meridian, Figure 1, at 12 at noon, begin to sail towards the position, Figure 2, which it will reach the next day at 12, or in 24 hours: the sun during the same 24 hours will have returned only to Figure 1, and will require to move for another hour or more until it reaches the ship at Figure 2, making 25 hours instead of 24, in which the sun would have returned to the ship, if it had remained at Figure 1. In this way, the sun is more and more behind the meridian time of the ship, as it proceeds day after day upon its westerly course, so that on completing the circumnavigation the ship’s time is a day later than the solar time, reckoning to and from the meridian of Greenwich. But the contrary follows if the ship sails from Figure 1 towards Figure 4, or the east, because it will meet the sun one hour earlier than the 24 hours which would be required for it to pass on to Figure 1. Hence, on completing the circle 1.4.3.2.1, the time at the ship would be one day in advance of the time at Greenwich, or the position Figure 1. Captain Sir J. C. Ross, at page 132, vol. 2, says--“November 25, having by sailing to the eastward gained 12 hours, it became necessary, on crossing the 180th degree and entering upon west longitude, in order to have our time correspond with that of England, to have two days following of the same date, and by this means lose the time we had gained, and still were gaining, as we sailed to the eastward.”