Clark
New Member
Newbie
Posts: 48
|
Post by Clark on Jun 3, 2015 14:47:27 GMT
I found from another forum of some guy having links to old flat earth articles. They come from The Library of Congress. Do a search with the words, “flat earth” and see what you come up with. I read that some of them are attacked but no as viciously as one would be today.
Here are some attachments to get you started...
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jun 3, 2015 19:43:05 GMT
"It's easy to fly like an eagle when you live among the turkeys."
Here is an old flat earth article copied from a newspaper. The scanned copy was very bad, so this is the first one readable view of it - enjoy. THE ARIZONA REPLBLICAN, TUESDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 12, 1899
THE EARTH IS FLAT
Ebenezer Breach Gives Reasons to Show It Is Not Round
Mr. Ebenezer Breach of this town has just written to the presidents of the leading American universities and colleges seeking to enlist them on his side of an argument that is just new exercising the greatest minds in England, namely, the question of the earth's shape, writes a Portsmouth correspondent. Mr. Breach in his letter t the American men of learning, has prepared what he is pleased to call a list of Breach-loaded arguments, which go to show that, whatever may be said about the theory he expands, Mr. Breach is without his equal among the first earthites of modern times. So ingenious are the arguments advanced by Mr. Breach that the man who calls on him in a scaling mood comes away rather perturbed in mind to find that he is half persuaded to believe there is something in the flat earth theory after all.
The talk I had with Mr. Breach, supplemented by the information contained in the letters to the American professors, gave me a comprehensive idea of the subtle reasoning that underlies the easy conversational arguments of Mr. Breach. To give the gist of these arguments, Mr. Breach's idea is that the earth is the central and greatest object of the universe; that its surface is the top of a colossal pillar, its mountains and hollows forming excrescences and indentations as on the top of the Madeira cake; that this top surface of the monstrous pillar is circular in shape, and that above – a mere matter of only 5,000 miles or so distant – a crystal sea, circular and co-extensive with the earht's surface, through which we behold the celestial bodies revolving in one plane. One of the illustrations I sent gives an idea of this. The roughly and rapidly improvised circular disc on the table represents the top of the earth; the paper patches are the containers The piece of mechanism held in the right had was constructed to show the spiral course from the center to the circumference, like a coiled watch spring, marking the course of the planets. The north is the center. The south is the circumference all the way round. There is perpetual ice at the north center and at the south, the sun performing its course above the intermediate parts.
“And the pillar which constitutes the earth Mr. Breach, upon what does the rest?”
“Ah!” he replied with a smile, “that I cannot say. Job was once humiliated by that question, asked of God. 'Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?' Thus, showing conclusively that the earth had foundations and wasn't a revolving body.”
“Ships have sailed around the world?” I queried.
“Quite so. You take a point in my disk. A sip by continued sailing, either east or west, is bound to come back to the point of starting. She would have sailed round the world. Nothing is clearer.”
“But the fact that you see a ship's masts at sea before the hull?”
“An optical illusion. Believe me, it proves nothing. Cape Tenefiffe can be seen a hundred and twenty miles. If the earth were a curve that cape should be a mile and three-quarters out of sight.
“If ships go out to sea sailing over an orange shaped ocean,” he continued, “they should as often be seen mountains high above the range of visions as they are constantly seen hull down, owing to angular vision. We can only me, too, that the see the surface of the earth as the shape of the saucer, concave, not convex, as it would be if bulged out round. You watch a lark rising. When high up it poises itself in the air, moving neither in one direction nor another. Yet it remains exactly over the field it rose from. If the earth revolved 1,000 miles an hour, that filed ought to be 100 miles away in a few minutes.
“Volcanic substances thrown a mile or so into the air fall near the edge of the crater. They ought to at least be left some little way behind. All burning mountains, in fact, “ Mr Breach went on, “deny the revolution of the earth, as they would be extinguished by the tremendous velocity, ust like a candle swiftly carried through a room. A burning mountain being merely a burning match head compared with the size of the world, ought to be snuffed out with a fraction of a revolution at 1,100 miles an hour.
“The round earthies have to adopt an imaginary axis for their world to revolve upon, but no solid body could revolve upon an imaginary axis. The fact is, the round, revolving world is just as imaginary as their imaginary axis; imaginary cause, imaginary effect.”
Among the numerous converts claimed by Mr. Breach to his theory of a flat earth is no less august a personage than the prince of Wales. His steadfast opponent is Sir Robert Ball, who is preparing to deliver a lecture broadside that he declares will shatter Mr. Breach's falt-earth fantificatians to smithers. As Mr. Breach is so devout a believer in his theory that he is spreading the flat-earth arguments across the American continent it is likely that the worthy hostilities will become world-wide. Nothing would please Mr. Breach more – Galveston News.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jul 14, 2015 12:39:34 GMT
ZETETIC COSMOGONY: or Conclusive Evidence THAT THE WORLD IS NOT A ROTATING – REVOLVING – GLOBE, BUT A STATIONARY PLANE CIRCLE By “RECTANGLE”1899 (Editor's note: This article, along with others, is an extract from the above titled book, which is over 200 pages. The PDF file in which this is copied was scanned in a format that cannot be re-formatted. Thus everything had to be typed from the original.)
The word “aeronautic” is the name of people who went up in a balloon, as this was the only means of air travel at the time.
AERONAUTICS
If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us, the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as the highest part of the “surface of the globe” would be directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall away or “dip” down in every direction. The universal testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The London Journal of 18th July, 1857, says:
“The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a sizeable 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 recoded during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary.”
J. Glaisher, F.R.S., in his work, “Travels in the Air,” states: “On looking over the top of the car, the horizon appeared to be on a level with the eye, and taking a grand view of the whole visible area beneath, I was struck with its great regularity; all was dwarfed to one plane; it seemed too flat, too even, apparently artificial.” In his accounts of his ascents in the air, M Camilla Flammarion states: “The earth appeared as one immense plane richly decorated with ever-varied colours; hills and valleys are all passed over without being able to distinguish any undulation in the immense plane.”
Mr. Elliott, an American aeronaut, says: “I don't know that I ever hinted heretofore that the aeronaut may well be the most sceptical man about the rotundity of the earth. Philosophy forces 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 directly under one's fee – Zetetic Astronomy. Page 37.
In March, 1897, I met M. Victor Emanuel, and asked him to give me an idea of the shape of the earth as seen from a balloon. He informed me that, instead of the earth declining from the view on either side, and the higher part being under the car, as is popularly supposed, it was the exact opposite; the lowest part, like a huge basin, being immediately under the car, and the horizon on all sides rising to the level of the eye. This, he admitted, was exactly what should be appearance of a plane viewed from a balloon.
It is almost needless to say that a globe would present a totally different appearance, the highest part being directly under the car.
"It's easy to fly like an eagle when you live among the turkeys."
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jul 17, 2015 11:34:06 GMT
Cannon Ball Shot Vertically
The following experiment has been tried many times, and the reasonable deductions from it are entirely against any theory of earth's motion: A loaded cannon was set vertical by plumb-line and spirit-level and fired. The average time the ball was in the air was 28 seconds. On several occasions the ball returned to the mouth of the cannon, and never fell more than 2 feet from its base. Now, let us see what the result would be if the earth were a rapidly rotating sphere. The ball would partake of two motions, the one from the cannon vertical, and the other from the earth, from west to east. While it had been ascending, the earth, with the cannon, would have moved significantly. In descending it would have no impulse from the earth's motion or from the cannon, and would fall in a straight line, but during the time it were falling, the earth, with the cannon, would have travelled on, and the ball would fall (allowing the world's rotation to be 600 miles per hour in England) more than a mile and a half behind the cannon.” -A.E. Skellam
“There is an investigation which it would be important and at the same time easy to make, and that is, whether the rotation of the earth on its axis has any effect on the curve of a cannon-ball in its flight. One should suppose that it has, and that while the cannon-ball is flying in the air, impelled by the gunpowder in a straight line from the cannon's mouth, the ball would not follow the rotation of the earth in the same manner which it would do if lying at rest on the earth's surface. If this be so, a ball fired in the meridional direction--that is to say, due south or due north--ought to deviate to the west of the object at which it was aimed, because during the time of flight, that object will have gone to the east somewhat faster than the cannon-ball will have done… The trial might be easily made in any place in which a free circle of a mile or more radius could be obtained; and a cannon placed in the centre of that circle, and fired alternately north, south, east, and west, with equal charges, would afford the means of ascertaining whether each shot flew the same distance or not.”
"It's easy to fly like an eagle when you live among the turkeys."
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jul 17, 2015 11:44:29 GMT
“If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth's rotation. The distance covered by an aircraft would be reduced or increased by the speed of the rotation according to whether such aircraft travelled in the same direction, or against it. Thus, if the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth's rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal. There would, in addition, be no need to fly from one place to another situated on the same latitude. The aircraft could just rise and wait for the desired country to arrive in the ordinary course of the rotation, and then land.” -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth”
"It's easy to fly like an eagle when you live among the turkeys."
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Oct 28, 2015 20:23:49 GMT
Antarctica and the Flat Earth, part 1
Knowledge about the Antarctica and the ice wall is an important study for those who want to know more about the flat earth. Here are a series of Post from what writers and explores of more than 100 years ago said. Back then, what the Antarctica explores said about their discoveries were not censored. Here is the first post from old flat earth booklets.
“The ice-barrier, so frequently referred to in accounts of the Antarctic regions, is the fore-front of the enormous glacier-covering, or ice-cap, which, accumulating in vast, undulating fields from the heavy snowfall, and ultimately attaining hundreds, if not thousands, of feet in thickness, creeps from the continent of Antarctica into the polar sea. The ice-barrier, yet a part of the parent ice-cap, presents itself to the navigator who has boldness enough to approach its fearful front, as a solid, perpendicular wall of marble-like ice, ranging from one thousand to two thousand feet in thickness, of which from one hundred to two hundred feet rises above, and from eight hundred to eighteen hundred feet sinks below, the level of the sea." -Greely, General A. W. "Antarctica, or the Hypothetical Southern Continent." Cosmopolitan 17 (1894): p. 296
“It has been demonstrated that the earth is a plane, the surface-centre of which is immediately underneath the star called ‘Polaris,’ and the extremities of which are bounded by a vast region of ice and water and irregular masses of land. The whole terminates in fog and darkness, where snow and driving hail, piercing sleet and boisterous winds, howling storms, madly-mounting waves, and clashing icebergs are almost constant.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (117)
Antarctica and Flat Earth part 2
Before reaching the Antarctic ice-wall, navigating the increasingly tumultuous Southern oceans, explorers encounter the longest, darkest, coldest nights and the most dangerous seas and storms anywhere on Earth. Vasco de Gama, an early 16th century Portuguese explorer of the South Seas wrote how, “The waves rise like mountains in height; ships are heaved up to the clouds, and apparently precipitated by circling whirlpools to the bed of the ocean. The winds are piercing cold, and so boisterous that the pilot’s voice can seldom be heard, whilst a dismal and almost continual darkness adds greatly to the danger.”
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”
“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.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (78)
Antarctica and Flat Earth part 3
“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 center of the Earth. That from this northern center 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 center … 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 center, 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 center, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circumnavigators can be easily understood.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (21-23)
If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude South of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South traveled. In other words, the circumference at 10 degrees South latitude would comprise a smaller circle than at the equator, 20 degrees South latitude would comprise a circle smaller than 10, and so on. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude South of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South traveled. 10 degrees South latitude will comprise a larger circle than the equator, 20 degrees South latitude will comprise a circle larger than 10, and so on. Likewise, if the Earth were a globe, lines of longitude would bubble out at the equator while converging at both poles. Whereas if the Earth is an extended plane, lines of longitude should simply expand straight outwards from the North Pole. So which is actually the case?
“Upon the principle, as taught by Scripture and common observation, that the world is not a Planet, but consists of vast masses of land stretched out upon level seas, the North being the centre of the system, it is evident that the degrees of longitude will gradually increase in width the whole way from the North centre to the icy boundary of the great Southern Circumference. In consequence of the difference between the actual extent of longitudes and that allowed for them by the Nautical Authorities, which difference, at the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope, has been estimated to amount to a great number of miles, many Ship-masters have lost their reckoning, and many vessels have been wrecked. Ship-captains, who have been educated in the globular theory, know not how to account for their getting so much out of their course in Southern latitudes, and generally put it down to currents; but this reason is futile, for although currents may exist, they do not usually run in opposite directions, and vessels are frequently wrecked, whether sailing East or West.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (102)
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Nov 2, 2015 14:45:41 GMT
Something on Gravitation
From Earth Not a Globe Review, January 1895
By “ Zetetes”
A correspondent, interested in Zetetic Truth, asks me for “ Something on Gravitation.” I propose, therefore, to give a few of my thoughts thereon in the Earth Review, as others besides my missionary friend may be interested in reading something on this subject.
But a difficulty meets one at the outset. How am I to write “ something” about nothing? I cannot create, as some erroneously suppose the world was made, out of nothing. Paul says the things which are seen were not made out of “ phenomena,” or things which do appear ; but he nowhere teaches that they came out of absolutely nothing, except invisibility. Now, “ Gravitation ” has been created, not only out of invisibility, but out of nothing, except the vain imaginations of astronomical minds. I t was not “ discovered,” but invented; and I shall proceed to prove that there is no such thing as the “ attraction of Gravitation ” in God’s universe, and that the phenomena supposed to countenance the theory are capable of other and more natural interpretations. O f course, I speak of “ Gravitation ” in the astronomical sense of a universal power in all bodies, celestial and terrestrial, to attract, or pull one another together, with forces directly in proportion to their masses, and inversely as the squares of their distances. So that terrestrial attraction and phenomena will be seen to be only a small part of this question of Universal Gravitation. The former we may explain by weight and currents ; but the latter we utterly deny. Let us try, in the first place, to realize what is meant by, and implied in the astronomical theory of gravitation, and its
Universal Attraction
According to this idea, every body in the universe, however large or small, has the power, by some means or other, to attract, or pull towards itself, every other body in the universe, however near or distant. Yea, not only is every body supposed to have this power, but the power is said to be in actual operation every moment of time for ever. So that, if I hold an apple in my hand, it is connected with, and pulling at all the apples in the world ; all the pears and plums, all the trees, gardens, walls, houses, all the stones, rocks, rivers, and mountains; yea, and every separate drop of water in the ocean, and every grain of sand on the sea shore. A n d these are a ll pulling at the apple. Yet it remains passively on my hand, while I study gravitation, or decide whether I will eat the apple now, or leave it for further experimentation. This apple ought to dance about, or at least to show some symptoms of the awful internal struggles going on within it. Perhaps it has learned the art of appearing passive, an art which some astronomers seem to acquire, and to keep a quiet and serene countenance, while internally tortured with ten thousand doubts and pangs. Ten thousand ! Yea, ten thousand times ten thousand gravitating cords or strings are pulling at it ! For we must remember that sun, moon and stars, and supposed millions of millions of “ other worlds than ours ” are each and all interested in that apple; and they send out their innumerable long and filamentous fingers to clutch it out of my open hand. Ye t it remains outwardly unmoved in .serene and blushing passivity. 1 shall have to eat it, threads and all, with whatever tentacles, or other attractive matter may be attached to it! What a peril! But there is such an attractive force, either in the apple, or in the natural taste God has given us for common fruit, as well, as for common sense, that I take all risks and disappoint the sun and stars. I am glad that Newton was led to muse over an apple falling to the ground by its own weight, when the stalk was rotten. He would have mused more had it “ fallen ” upwards.
But we, dear reader, can also muse over apples. While so musing, I wonder why my apple makes no tremulous motion towards the moon, which is rising as I write, especially as she is now between the two “ ponderous and superior” planets. Mars and Jupiter, which are approaching towards conjunction. Ye t through the varying positions and relationships of the heavenly bodies, as they roll around the world and my apple, it remained on the shelf twenty-four hours perfectly stationary, as though no such tremendous forces were playing their mighty artillery upon it. They may try from their various vantage grounds, east or west, north or south, mid-heaven or sideways, yet the apple will not move. Yet a breath would have caused it to roll. There is no proof for Zetetics of universal attraction in this apple. But perhaps mine is different from Newton’s. It will not bow to fair Luna as she pulls it sideways, assisted by the two powerful giants, one on each side, attending her like guards, much less will it attempt to rise towards the mighty sun as he pulls with all his meridian power and glory. Its weight is the same throughout the twenty-four hours. No ! friends. I must see an apple fall upwards before I believe in solar gravitation.
But a superficial thinker may object that the reason bodies only fall downwards to the earth is, because the earth being nearer than the sun, its force of attraction is the greater of the two. Is it ? Let us take another instance, which proves, not only that there is no such thing as terrestrial gravitation, or attraction, but which shows that this supposed power may be defied.
"It's easy to fly like an eagle when you live among the turkeys."
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Nov 2, 2015 14:47:13 GMT
Attraction is a Myth
From Earth Not a Globe Review, January 1895
By “ Zetetes”
The attraction of gravitation a myth ? Y e s ! a fabulous story, with no foundation in fact, though having an APPARENT support in some terrestrial phenomena. Many people imagine that gravitation is a word representing some discovered fact or force in N atu re ; but let them proceed to show us what fact or force, and they will discover their mistake. Gravitation was an invention, not a discovery; and a supposition necessitated by another hypothesis, viz .; the globular theory. One was invented to support the other. Without gravitation the globular theory falls ; and without the globular theory what would become of gravitation ? I t would become less and lighter than our little molecule of hydrogen, and fly away into unknown and uncivilized regions. “ Parallax” proved the globular theory false, by the F A C T that the surface of water is horizontal; and “ Zetetes,” the investigator after Truth, practically proves, that the theory of gravitation is utterly false, by a little molecule of hydrogen gas ! No one can even tell us what gravitation is, or how it acts. Now, although we may not know what electricity is, or magnetism ; we do know how they act. As I showed in No. 2 Earth Review, Newton did not know how gravitation acts, or whether it really be attraction, or repulsion ; that is, he did not know whether there is such a thing as attraction or not. Where Newton failed to guess, what other mathematician dare try ? I f the inventor did not know, who amongst his pupils can tell ? But they should first prove that gravitation does act before they attempt to explain how it acts. The magnet is no proof of gravitation. Its power is selective and limited. It seems to attract steel and soft iron, but it will not draw stones and wood ! Gravitation is supposed to attract all bodies, even the stars. They are all supposed to be pulling hard at one another, yet they never get any nearer together. It is strange ! But does the magnet really attract steel ? The iron or steel goes towards the magnet, but is its motion caused by the attraction or the repulsion of some force ? It may be carried by a magnetic current, not drawn by the magnet itself. Newton confessed that the idea of bodies acting “ upon one another at a distance,” and “ without the mediation o f anything else by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other,” is “ so great an absurdity, that,” says he, “ I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Yet many do fall into this error. They are not Zetetics. I stand on a bridge and I watch a log of wood coming down the stream towards the bridge. Is the bridge attracting the log from a distance ? Yes, as much as ever the magnet attracts the soft iron ! I f there were a weir by the bridge, the log would remain by it, as the iron remains attached to the magnet. I f not, and if the arch under the bridge be sufficiently wide, the log would pass under and follow the stream. Then the bridge would seem to be repelling the log, like one “ pole ” of the magnet will repel the magnetic needle. Ye t by such flimsy arguments and pre texts is the theory of attraction supported. No man in the world can define gravitation, nor tell how it acts ; it is a tissue of philosophical speculations and falsehoods, unworthy of honest men and thinker's, perhaps the most ingenious theory of gravitation ever proposed is that of Le Sage. He “ imagines,” says Mr, J. E. Gore,
“ An infinite number of ultra mundane corpuscles of excessive minuteness, speeding through space in all directions, and with enormous velocities. Two bodies in this ocean of flying corpuscles screen each other from the molecular bombardment, and would consequently move together with a force varying inversely as the square of the distance.”
Upon which Professor Tait remarks:
“ It is necessary also to suppose that the particles and masses of matter have a cagelike form, so that enormously more corpuscles pass through them than impinge upon them ; else the gravitation action between two bodies would not be as the product of their masses.”
Well might Sir John Herschel say:
“ The hypothesis of Le Sage, which assumes that every point of space is penetrated at every instant of time by material particles sui gene7-is, moving in right lines in every possible direction, and impinging upon the material atoms of bodies, as a mode of accounting for gravitation, is too grotesque to need serious consideration! ” “ Too grotesque to need serious consideration!” One of the theories of gravitation “ grotesque ! ” And a clever astronomer says so, not an humble zetetic! An humble zetetic agrees with him though. What then must the poorer theories be ? Readers, take your choice between common sense and reason, theories "too grotesque to need serious consideration."
"It's easy to fly like an eagle when you live among the turkeys."
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Mar 15, 2016 18:14:36 GMT
"It's easy to fly like an eagle when you live among the turkeys."
100 Proofs from Scripture That The Earth is Flat, part 2
(Note: spelling, italics and grammar is as in the original text.)
It was some time ago that I posted the first part of 100 Proofs from Scripture That The Earth is Flat. This is a continuation of an old booklet that was written in the late 19th Century. I hope you enjoy this.
26 – The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall and not rise again. - Isa 24:20 That is, at the second advent, but not till then will it reel and shake.
27 – Thus saith the Jehovah, the heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. - Isa 66:1 Who ever heard of a footstool always rolling away. The earth will be christ's everlasting footstool. Praise His name.
28 – At the noise of the taking of Babylon the earth is moved, and the cry is heard among the nations – Jer. 50:46 and 49:21. Moved at the end; but not till then. Through Rome shall come the end of the times.
29 – They are the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth. - Zech 4:10. Not round and underneath it, but through it at one time.
30 – And they answered the angel of the Lord that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, “We have walked to and fro through the earth, and behold all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest. - Zech 1:11. A wonder they never saw it revolve on its axis.
31 – The earth and the works that are therein shall be discovered; as the mos ancient manuscripts read. II Peter 3:10. The foundations among them.
32 – And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them. - Rev. 20:11 But according to modern astronomy it is always fleeing away, no one knows where.
33 – And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, as the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of His nostrils; He sent from above, He took me; He drew me to Himself out of many waters. - II Sam. 22:16,17. To be fulfilled at the advent, see also Pslam 18:15,16
34 – Thou wentest forth for the salvation of They People; for the salvation of Thine annointed. Thou woundest the head out of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. - Heb. 3:13. Driving out satan as the god of this world, and preparing everything for Himself, in the inhabited earth to come.
35 – Fear before Him, all the earth; the world also shall be stable that it be not moved. - I Chron. 16:30. A stable earth, not moved, is very different to the wobbling merry-go-round of the astronomers.
36 – The world also is established that it cannot be moved. They throne is established of old, Thou art from everlasting. - Psalm 43:1,2. Cannot be moved is a strong statement. Who is to cancel it? See also Psalm 45:10, which refers to the future.
37 – The devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. - Matt. 4:8
38 – Of old has Thou laid the foundations of the earth; and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Psalm 52:25. This is Daniel's psalm, who was doubtless a wise astronomer, and had his wisdom from above.
39 – Mine had also hath laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them they stand up together. Isa. 48:13. Not revolve together.
40 – The burden of the word of the Lord which layeth the foundation of the earth, and formed the spirit of man within him. - Zech. 12:1
42 to 52 – I will utter things which have been left secret from the foundation of the world. - Matt. 13:35. See also Matt. 25:34, Luke 11:50, John 17:24, Eph. 1:4, Heb. 4:3,9,26, I Peter 1:20, Rev. 13:8, 17:8.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Mar 24, 2016 9:42:13 GMT
"It's easy to fly like an eagle when you live among the turkeys."
Flat or Spherical, part 4 RELIGION AND “SCIENCE”
By “ZETETES”
Early in this year, namely, on January 23rd, 1903, the Editor of a weekly newspaper called The Clarion, commenced an attack on religion generally and the Bible in particular. He attacks the truth and inspiration of the Bible on various grounds, but chiefly because of its cosmogony, the creation and order of the universe, as revealed therein. He bases these attacks on the assumption of the truth of the globular theory of the earth, and the theory of evolution which has sprung from it. He seems to think that which is written in the name of “Science” is infallible, and that the Bible, therefore, is in error wherever it is contradicted by the teachings of science: and there are contradictions. He complains that Christians accept the teachings of the Bible without submitting them to the light of reason; while he gives abundant evidence that he accepts the teachings of “Science" without having personally tested its claims. Gullibility is not confined to those who profess some religion. Men who are sceptical of Bible truth can swallow down unproven and extravagant cosmical theories when promulgated in the name of Science.
A man like Mr. Blatchford may deny that God made the world in six days; but he can believe it came into existence of itself, by merely “natural law" operating through millions of years! He can ridicule the belief of the early Christians who, as he affirms, thought “that the earth was flat like a plate"; but he cannot for the life of him give an unimpeachable proof that the earth on which he lives is a whirling globe flying through space faster than a cannon ball. It is often easier to ridicule than to reason; but sceptics who pride themselves on their ability to reason ought not to lay themselves open to this reproach.
In The Clarion for April 17th, 1903, about half of the front page is devoted to an article headed– “THE UNIVERSE AND ITS CREATOR”
By R. BLATCHFORD
From this article we make the following quotations:
“The theory of the early Christian Church was that the earth was flat, like a plate, and the sky was a solid dome above it, like an inverted blue basin. The sun revolved round the earth to give light by day, the moon revolved round the earth to give light by night. The stars were auxiliary lights, and had all been specially, and at the same time, created for the good of man. God created the sun, moon, stars, and earth is six days. He created them by word, and lie created them out of nothing.
. . . To-day our ideas are very different. Hardly any educated man or woman in the world believes that the world is flat, or that the sun revolves round the earth, or that what we call the sky is a solid substance like a domed ceiling?”
Advanced thinkers, even amongst the Christians, believe that the world is round, that it is one of a series of planets revolving round the sun, that the sun is only one of many millions of other suns, that these suns were not created simultaneously, but at different periods, probably separated by millions or billions of years. Advanced thinkers, even amongst the Christians, have abandoned the fable of the six days' creation, the story of Adam and Eve, and the fall. . . . All the advances in knowledge, and all the improvements in the Christian religion, are due to scientists and to sceptics, many of whom have been persecuted or murdered by the Church for their services to mankind.
There is no passage in the Bible which says the world was made “out of nothing.” But we acknowledge that the early Christians believed the earth to be a motionless and extended plane. We also acknowledge that the Old Testament Scriptures taught this doctrine hundreds of years before Christ's time. Moreover, we Zetetic; in these days still believe this teaching. We think it is in harmony with facts and true to nature; and we challenge proof that it is otherwise. The world has never yet been proved to be globular; nor has it ever yet been proved to have axial or orbital motion. These doctrines are assumed. We know whereof we affirm. We have read some of the best books on modern astronomy: and have been surprised to find what a large amount of this so-called “Science” is based upon hypothesis or assumption. On two consecutive pages of a modern work on Astronomy we counted, as it lay open, a dozen terms like the following: —hypothesis, assumption, speculation, supposition, theory, etc., etc., now “Science” means knowledge, from the Latin Scio or Scientia; but hypothesis is supposition, or guesswork, not real knowledge. We Christians have too readily yielded the claims of modern theoretical astronomy. We should “prove all things,” and not accept science teaching on trust, because of great names; especially where that teaching contradicts the Bible.
Mr. Blatchford says that “Advanced thinkers even amongst Christians believe the world is round"—when he says “round" we suppose he means globular, for a penny is “round” and flat too. We should call such Christians very thoughtless, or even recreant Christians, if they, give up Bible teaching at the bidding of such speculative theories as now pass for Science. But the question is not what “advanced" Christians may “believe,” but “What is true” in itself: “Science,” so-called, or the Bible? We know it is fashionable and popular at the present day to believe in “science”; but it is a different thing to prove its ever-changing theories true. Let anyone try, for instance, to prove that the world is now rushing through “space,” as the astronomers affirm it is, about nineteen miles a second. We have asked Mr. Blatchford to try, but he declines! It is easier to flourish astronomical speculations and to flout their figures in the face of Bible cosmogony. Mr. Blatchford knows that at the present time they will be generally accepted as true. But he also knows that a theory which is not true may be generally accepted even by “educated men,” as he affirms of some religious opinions. Yet in the same article he complacently proceeds as follows:
We have seen the account of the universe and its creation, as given in the revealed Scriptures. Let us now take a hasty view of the universe and its creation, as revealed to us by science. What is the universe like, as far as our limited knowledge goes? Our sun is only one sun amongst many millions. Our planet is only one of eight which revolve around him. Our sun, with his planets and comets, comprises what is known as the solar system. There is no reason to suppose that this is the only solar system: there may be millions of solar systems. For aught we know, there may be millions of systems, each containing millions of solar systems. Let us deal first with the solar system of which we are a part. The sun is a globe of 866,200 miles diameter. His diameter is more than 108 times that of the earth. His volume is 1,305,000 times the volume of the earth. All the eight planets added together only make one-seven-hundredth part of his weight. His circumference is more than two and a half millions of miles. He revolves upon his axis in 25 days, or at a speed of nearly 4,000 miles an hour. This immense globe is supposed to be a solid mass, encased in an envelope of flaming gas. It affords light and heat to all the planets. Without the light and heat of the sun, no life would now be, or in the past have been, possible on this earth, or any other planet of the solar system.
The volume of Jupiter is 1,389 times, of Saturn 848 times, of Neptune 103 times, and of Uranus 59 times the volume of the earth. The mean distances from the sun are: Mercury, 36 million miles; Venus, 67 million miles; the Earth, 93 million miles; Mars, 141 million miles; Jupiter, 483 million miles; Saturn 886 million miles; Uranus, 1782 million miles; Neptune, 2792 million miles. To give an idea of the meaning of these distances I may say that a train travelling night and day at 60 miles an hour would take quite 176 years to come from the sun to the earth. The same train, at the same speed, would be 5,230 years in travelling from the sun to Neptune. Reckoning that Neptune is the outermost planet of the solar system, that system would have a diameter of 5,584 millions of miles. But this distance is as nothing when we come to deal with the distances of the other stars from our sun. The distance from our sun to the nearest fixed (?) star is supposed to be about 20 millions of millions of miles. Our express train, which crosses the diameter of the solar system in, 10,560 years, would take, if it went 60 miles an hour day and night, about 35 million years to reach the nearest fixed star from the sun.
But these immense distances only relate to the nearest stars. Now, the nearest stars are about four “light years” distant from us. That is to say, that light, travelling at the rate of about 182,000 miles in one second, takes four years to come from the nearest fixed star to the earth. But I have seen the distance from the earth to the Great Nebula in Orion given as a thousand light years, or 250 times the distance of the fixed star above alluded to. To reach that nebula at 60 miles an hour, an express train would have to travel for 35 millions of years multiplied by 250-that is to say, for 8,750 million years. And yet there are millions of stars whose distances are even greater than the distance of the Great Nebula in Orion. How many stars are there? No one can even guess. But L. Struve estimates the number of those visible to the great telescopes at 20 millions. Twenty millions of suns! And as to the sizes of these suns, Sir Robert Ball says Sirius is ten times as large as our sun; and a well-known astronomer, writing in the “English Mechanic” about a week ago remarks that Alpha Orionis (Betelgeuze) has probably 700 times the light of our sun.
Can you suppose that such a creator would, after thousands of years of effort, have failed even now to make his repeated revelations comprehensible? Do you believe that He would be driven across the unimaginable gulfs of space, out of the transcendent glory of His myriad resplendent suns, to die on a cross, in order to win back to Him the love of the puny creatures on one puny planet in the marvellous universe His power had made? Well, next week I will contrast this idea of the universe with the idea given in the so-called Book of the Revelation of God, and I will contrast this idea of a creator with the pictures of the God presented to us in the Holy Bible.
And so our editor goes on with these extravagant and monstrous speculations. I have underlined the word “suppose" three times in the above brief quotations. On the basis of these supposition he compares the “universe of science” with the universe of the Bible, and of course, very much to the disparagement of the latter. But thoughtful and faithful Christians will require proof that these speculations are justified before giving up the Bible and natural cosmogony. Proctor acknowledges that it is natural to think the earth is flat, because, as he says, it “looks flat.” And balloonists, who get a more extended view than others, acknowledge the same thing. And wherever an extent of still water has been carefully surveyed the surface has been found to be perfectly level or horizontal. By this means the Riddle of the Universe may be resolved, for a flat earth “knocks the bottom out of" evolution! For if the surface of standing water is horizontal, the earth generally must be a plane. Abundant proof of this fact has been given in The Earth, a monthly paper published in the interests of the zetetic cosmology. We have only space here for a short extract.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on May 28, 2016 14:01:54 GMT
THE EARTH IS FLAT
*****
Note: No changes were made in the grammar or style. The exceptions being are type-setters mistakes.
*****
The Arizona Republic 1899
Ebenezer Breach Gives Reasons to Show It Is Not Round.
Mr. Ebenezer Breach of this town has just written to the presidents of the leading American universities and colleges seeking to enlist them on his side in an argument that is just now exercising the greatest minds in England, namely, the question of the earth's shape, writes a Portsmouth correspondent. Mr. Breach, in his letter to the American men of learning, has prepared what he is pleased to call a list of Breach-loaded arguments, which go to show that, whatever may be said about the theory he expands. Mr. Breach is without his equal among the first earthites of modern times. So ingenious are the arguments advanced by Mr. Breach that the man who calls on him in a scoffing mood comes away rather perturbed in mind to find that he is half persuaded to believe there is something in the flat earth theory after all.
The talk I had with Mr. Breach, supplemented by the information contained in the letters to the American professors, gave me a comprehensive idea of the subtle reasoning that underlies the easy conversational arguments of Mr. Breach. To give the gist of those arguments, Mr. Breach's idea is that the earth is the central and greatest object of the universe; that its surface is the top of a colossal pillar, its mountains and hollows forming excrescences and indentations as on the top of a Madeina cake; that this top surface of the monstrous pillar is circular in shape, and that above – a mere matter of only 5,000 miles or so distant – a crystal sea, circular and co-extensive with the earth's surface, through which we behold the celestial bodies revolving in one plane. One of the illustrations I send gives an idea of this. The roughly and rapidly improvised circular disc of the table represents the top of the earth; the paper patches are the continents. The piece of mechanism held in the right hand was constructed to show the spiral course from the center to the circumference, like a coiled watch spring, marking the course of the planets. The north is the center. The south is the circumference all the way round. There is perpetual ice at the north center and at the south, the sun performing its course above the intermediate parts.
“And the pillar which constitutes the earth, Mr. Breach, upon what does that rest?”
“Ah!” he replied with a smile, “that I cannot say. Job was once humiliated by that question, asked by God. 'Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?' Thus showing conclusively that the earth had foundations and wasn't a revolving body.”
“Ship have sailed around the world?” I quarrelled.
“Quite so. You take a point in my disk. A ship by continued sailing, either east or west, is bound to come back to the point of starting. She would have sailed round the world. Nothing is clearer.”
“But the fact that you see a ship's masts at sea before the hull?”
“An optical illusion. Believe me, it proves nothing. Cape Teneriffe can be seen a hundred and twenty miles. If the earth were a globe that cape should be a mile and three-quarters out of sight.
“If ships go out to sea sailing over an orange shaped ocean,” he continued, “they should as often be seen mountains high above the range of vision as they constantly seen hull down, owing to angular vision. We can only see distinctly for three miles. By telescope the ship will appear again as a sheet of glass. I have proved this by lightships and other things.”
“But at sunrise you see the sun rising out of the water, if you are up early enough, and at sunset it dips behind the horizon to the west.”
Mr. Breach smiled. “It is the law of perspective,” he replied. “Two parallels will meet at a given point.”
“How do you account for the day and night?”
“Easily enough. When the sun is in the arc of the spiral course, which is above our flat earth, we have day; when it is in the opposite we get night. It is foolish to imagine that the sun goes underneath the earth, as foolish as the false teaching that the earth rotates round the sun.
“The earth is the greatest of all things created,” he continued. “It was created first, is immovable, and all other bodies were made for it. The sun was made first of the subsidiary bodies to give light to the world.”
“But the sun is of greater proportion?”
“No,” he said, laughing at my folly. “Modern astronomers say so, but they are wrong. God created the sun to light the world. Whoever heard of a light being made bigger than the place to be lighted? We never carry a room round the candle, but always the candle round the room.”
The ingenuity and originality of the argument silenced me.
“All plains are flat,” continued Mr. Breach. “Take the Sahara for instance. If you go to geology you will find all strata in flat layers, not in convex, as they would be in a curved body. Look at the case of rivers. The Nile drops only one foot in 1,000 miles. Rivers cannot flow uphill, as they would have to do in mounting the curvature of the world.”
But what excited Mr. Breach even more than the globular “fallacy” was that the earth should be supposed to revolve.
“Why,” he exclaimed, “if the world went around the oceans would be whisked away in a moment. If water is dropped on a spinning top it would at once be thrown off. According to the false theory, ships must be upside down at Australia. Ridiculous! All wells would be emptied of their contents and Niagara would be upturned and tumble upwards.
“If the earth is revolving at about 1,100 miles an hour as it taught,” he continued, “why do not balloonists make an easy and swift passage to America by rising into the air and waiting till the new world comes round? Instead of that they go slowly with the wind, either in the direction of the supposed revolution of the earth or against it. Aeronauts have informed me, too, that they see the surface of the earth as the shape of a saucer, concave, not convex, as it wound be if bulged out round. You watch a lark rising. When high up it poises itself in the air, moving neither in one direction nor another. Yet it remains exactly over the field it rose from if the earth revolved 1,000 miles an hour, that field ought to be 100 miles away in a few minutes.
“Volcano substances thrown a mile or so into the air fall near the edge of the crater. They ought, at least be left some little way behind. All burning mountains, in fact,” Mr. Breach went on, “deny the revolution of the earth, as they would be extinguished by the tremendous velocity, just like a candle swiftly carried through a room. A burning mountain being merely a burning match head compared with the size of the world, ought to be snuffed out with a fraction of a revolution at 1,100 miles an hour.
“The round earthites have to adopt an imaginary axis for their world to revolve upon, but no solid body could revolve upon an imaginary axis. The fact is, the round revolving world is just as imaginary as their imaginary axis, imaginary cause, imaginary effect.”
Among the numerous converts claimed by Mr. Breach to his theory of a flat earth is no less august a personage than the Prince of Wales. His steadfast opponent is Sir Robert Ball, who is preparing to deliver a lecturer broadside that he declares will shatter Mr. Breach's flat-earth fortifications. As Mr. Breach is so devout a believer in his theory that he is spreading the flat-earth arguments across the American continent it is likely that the worthy hostilities will become world-wide. Nothing would please Mr. Breach more. - Galveston News.
"It's easy to fly like an eagle when you live among the turkeys."
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Mar 14, 2018 14:49:59 GMT
"It's easy to fly like an eagle when you live among the turkeys."
A Lecture on Gravity Given 100 Years Ago
From The Earth Volume III
On Tuesday evening, July 1st, a lecture on “The Plane Earth Truth” was delivered at Craftsman's Club, Birmingham.
Great interest was manifest throughout my address. I explained briefly the common belief as to the Earth being a “globe” turning on its imaginary axis from West to East, with the inevitable consequences of everything being periodically turned upside down.
One man said if we got too near the edge we might fall off the earth. This greatly amused the chairman and caused much laughter.
I then briefly explained the beliefs of planists which are based (1st) upon the statements as set forth in the Scriptures, and (2nd) upon the evidence of their senses, and practical investigation. After dwelling for some time on the undeniable fact that water is level, the sun's motions (which we may all behold) I exhibited a map of the earth as an outstretched plane, published by the late D. Wardlaw Scott.
Questions were asked about gravitation, and if there was no such law why bodies fell to the earth? I suddenly dropped a piece of paper, and asked them why it fell to the floor? No reply. I repeated my question, “Why did it fall?” they said it was because of “gravity.” But one said, “that means weight. Where is the weight?” (Laughter.) Another said, “Oh, there are forces in nature of which we are at present unaware.” They could not define “ gravitation,” and were in a greater fix when I asked them why a balloon rose in the air? “ Had ‘ gravitation ’ lost its power over a little bit of earth, silk, rope, &c.” One gentleman said it was because certain gases had a law peculiar to themselves, and the gas in the balloon was one of them. Then I asked, “Has one gas the power of robbing ‘gravitation’ of its force?” Next I told them “the reason why the paper fell is because it is heavier than the air, and the reason a balloon rises, is because it is lighter, and when it has risen to the height of its own density there it remains until it is relieved of weight or ballast, or the gas is loosed out of the bag. The company being satisfied with this explanation the meeting was reluctantly brought to a close, and I received a cordial vote of thanks for m}' “entertaining address;” the President remarking that “it seemed that we had accepted much on this subject, from boyhood, without questioning its truth, and that there was much food for thought in the teaching of a plane and motionless earth.” J. JONES, Jun.
|
|