This is a verbatim transcript of a strange little book called "Does the Earth Rotate?" written (and originally published) by William Edgell, in which he attempts to prove, by 'reasoned' argument and scaled diagrams, that the Earth is flat and stationary and that the sun and moon travel above it to produce daylight and seasonal effects.
Originally written in 1916 and expanded up to 1927, the book was produced at probably the very last moment in history when it would have been realistic to promote these beliefs. It is utter nonsense from start to finish, but does illustrate how a particular attitude and style of reasoning can allow an individual to see only what they want to see.
The book was found in the library collection of the Radstock (South-West England) schoolmaster of the time by its inheritor. A library that included Einstein's 1919 first English edition of "The Special and General theory of Relativity" (Suggesting the scientific context in which Mr Edgell was writing).
The book appears to have been presented to the schoolmaster as part of Mr Edgell's campaign to promote his notion of the truth, and was subject to some abuse as a result. The words appearing in this text as "[common sense]" (in a bordered box on the page opposite the introduction) had been scratched out. Common sense has been inserted as those words seem best to fit the context and the little remaining printers ink. It appears that the contents where not considered to qualify as common sense by the recipient of the book.
Why the book was retained at all is unclear. Perhaps as an object lesson in where erroneous reasoning will get you, or maybe for its humorous aspects as Mr Edgell stubbornly refuses to undertake the demonstrations that would illustrate his folly (instead re-interpreting them to fit his world vision, and thus avoiding the effects that would contradict his theories).
The text here is (as near as practical) a verbatim reproduction, styled to mirror the type-setting of the original and including the illustrations scanned from the original. Unlike the original it is not broken up across pages so references to other pages in the original have had internal hyperlinks added to facilitate navigation and cross-referencing.
I have, although a very weak David, ventured to throw a stone at the "Great Goliaths"-the Scientists, expecting that they will threaten to give me to be meat for the beasts of the field, and fowls of the air, but yet, I hope for the same success, not to kill with a stone, but to conquer with reason, [common sense] and facts.
In compiling this book I have endeavoured to explain my theory of a stationary Earth and a travelling Sun, as a contradiction to the present day teachings of Astronomers, in the most simple and concise manner possible.
My intention is to place all my facts in simple language, thus enabling the youngest of readers to understand my proofs and arguments.
For thirty years I have been studying and experimenting on this interesting subject, I now claim to be able to prove conclusively that we are living on a stationary earth and enjoying the multitude of benefits of a travelling sun.
It will be helpful for readers to remember that, according to history, the theory of a rotating Earth was first introduced by Copernicus and Galilio, the Italian astronomers, in the year 1639, Galilio was, I read, imprisoned for propogating his theory, it being alleged to be against the teachings of the Bible.
One important feature in connection with my theory of the solution of this great problem, is its consistency with the teachings of the Great Book. The nature of my observations and investigations are such, that the conclusions I have arrived at are the results of an inventive and scientific train of thought, rather than the results of orthodox education. It would appear that many of the calculations of distances, and many of the gigantic figures also, given by the astronomers, have been handled very loosely. They seem to have accepted many of such without testing them.
Ideas nearly three centuries old have become so deeply rooted that it is difficult to convince every one, even though proof absolutely conclusive can be produced, as to the rightness of my claim. Nevertheless, I believe that when the responsible officials of the Educational Departments have had an opportunity of considering my case, which I am desirous of demonstrating before them at as early a date as possible, may I ask, why deny me of this opportunity? They will be in a position to so alter the teachings in the schools, as to make the studies compatible with reason, in the process of which they will be able to effect considerable economies in the presumably heavy expenditure of this department.
In modern times, astronomers have concentrated largely on discovering new bodies in the heavens foretelling future happenings with regard to Comets, etc., with a large measure of success, all praise is due to them on this account. I submit, however, their success in this direction is due to a stationary Earth from which they can constantly view the Heavens and the ingraids of bodies contained therein.
I trust that readers will ponder over the matter contained in this book, and I am confident the arguments submitted by me will convince them that my theory is the correct one. Having accepted it as such, the time will not be far distant when all Educational Authorities will supplant the present incorrect teachings in the schools and colleges, with the only practical theory, vis.: a stationary Earth and travelling Sun.
Truth will always win.
Sir O.Lodge, in the Daily Chronicle, on October 17th, 1927, informed us that each day grows longer by 1/240,000,000 part of a second. He also says: "All the same, these fractions mount up, and in centuries to come the Day will become so lengthened that it will be longer than the Month."
First of all, there is no means whatever of even arriving at a two-hundredth part of a second. Secondly, it would take 657,534 years, to make the Day one second longer, instead of a Month.
I invite Sir Oliver and the readers to Check my figures, and I ask, is the statement compatible with reason?
It is generally accepted that the famous Pole Star, by the aid of which mariners navigate their vessels, is a fixture.
The angle at which the Pole Star stands to London is 51 ½ degrees, to Frome, Somerset, which is in the vicinity where most of my calculations and observations have been taken, at an angle of 51 ¼ degrees, at Newcastle 55 degrees, New Zealand 40 degrees, Edinburgh 56 degrees, and Spitzbergen 77 degrees.
The distance from London to the North Pole, we are informed, is approximately 3000 miles.
To arrive at the altitude of the Pole Star therefore, is an easy matter, by a simple mathematical calculation. Working to a scale of half inch to every thousand miles, we shall discover that the distance from London to the Pole Star is approximately 4,500 miles.
The most effective test of the accuracy of my figures will be found by using a tripod test, the angle to London being 51 ½ degrees, to Asia 52 degrees, and Columbia, Canada 53 degrees.
Note the places mentioned are all in the Northern Hemisphere, as it is termed by the astronomers.
By working to the aforementioned scale my previous figures are proved to be correct.
Astronomers' given distance to the Pole Star from London is 3,680,000,000,000,000 miles.
Readers, please test these fantastic figures.
Again, you will observe that the least movement of the Earth would destroy both angles to the fixed Pole Star in the heavens, as above. Also each one of the 4,811 angles referred to on the next page. After such a test, is the Earth Rotation theory worth consideration ?
There are 4,811 towns, etc., mentioned in the school book with the angle given to the famous Pole Star at each place.
I have selected a few names as bellow, and readers can fix a tube directed to the Star at each of these places named, or, of course, to any of the 4,811 places, and view this famous Pole Star, as I view it in my garden. I hope they will do so as I feel sure it will convince the readers without a shadow of a doubt that no movement of the Earth takes place.
Frome 51 ¼ degrees (only seven miles from my garden), Warminster 51 ¼ degrees, Wincanton 51 degrees, Weston-super-Mare 51 ¼ degrees, Weymouth 50 ½ degrees, Bath 51 ½ degrees, Bournemouth 51 ¾ degrees, Southampton 51 degrees, Exeter 50 ¾ degrees, Sidmouth 50 ¾ degrees, Glastonbury 50 ¼ degrees, Devizes 50 ¼ degrees, Taunton 51 degrees, Bridgwater 51 ¾ degrees, Ilfracombe 51 ¼ degrees, Swindon 51 ¼ degrees, Reading 51 ½ degrees, Sailsbury 51 degrees, Torquay 53 ¼ degrees, Bedminster, (Bristol)51 ½ degrees, Dorchester 50 ¾ degrees, Cardiff 51 ¼ degrees, New Zealand 40 degrees, South Victoria 37 degrees, Gilots Island 1 degree, Margo Island 1 degree, and Molusees Island 1 degree.
Astronomers often speak of the equator as a place of mystery. It is 0 degree. Readers will observe that the last eight places mentioned above are practically on the equator, "Astronomers' term." As stated elsewhere, the Pole Star is nearly horizontal to these eight places.
For a period of two years, I have had a tube, 3ft 6ins. in length and ¾ in. in diameter, fixed to a stand in my garden. Not the slightest movement can take place. On ascertaining the position of the Pole Star I was able to view the Star continually on any night over that period.
The spherical shape earth, we are told, is tearing round on its axis at the rate of 18 miles per second, and also in its Orbit it is travelling at a rate of 10 miles per second.
What will puzzle the reader and what puzzled me was, how I could view the Star constantly under such conditions.
I communicated with several Astronomers at various times, and one of the replies was, that owing to the tremendous distance to the Pole Star, 3,680,000,000,000,000, miles, the tube may continually point to it, in spite of the two terrific movements of the earth. I want to definitely state here, the Astronomers' figures are absurd in the light of practical calculations. Secondly, size and distance make no difference whatever. The fixed tube, ¾ in. in diameter and 3 ft. 6 ins. long, is simplicity itself and absolutely reliable, and it would betray the smallest possible movement of the earth.
Reverting again to page 8, readers will note that some of the towns mentioned are very small. Population of Warminster is 5,000 and only thirteen miles distant from here.
Now, if the Sun is a fixture, the same as the Pole Star, may I ask, why is it the angle to the Sun is given from London and no other place?
Again, why are three angles given to the Sun from London, viz.: 15 degrees, 23 ½ degrees, and 62 degrees?
You will observe that the fixed Sun theory is absolutely absurd.
Illustration on Page 24 will convince you also that sunset cannot be obtained by the Earth's rotation.
Writing in the Evening Times and Echo, Bristol, June 29th, 1927, Dr. Andrew Cromellin says:-"It is admitted by astronomers that there is something acting on the Moon or the Earth that we know nothing about at present. It is thought that the rate at which the Earth spins is not uniform -at times it seems a little slower than at others."
Investigation on this question might be greatly helped if we could predict exactly the moon's place. The prediction of the moon's place is not at present perfect, in spite of all the greatest Mathematicians during the last three centuries.
In the school book, Longman's Geographical Series, book II, page 10, it states:-"As the Earth turns on its Axis from West to East at an Absolutely Uniform Rate, every meridian is bought successively in front of the Sun every day."
Please note, that after nearly three centuries, we have the most eminent Astronomer in England, of Greenwich Observatory, absolutely contradicting the school book as to The Uniform Rate the Earth is supposed to spin. Readers, is the Earth Rotation theory compatible with reason?
If we take an orange, and stick an ordinary knitting needle through the centre, allowing the head of the needle to project two inches, at the end of which we will stick a pea to represent the Pole Star, some idea of the immence discrepancy in the astronomers' calculations can be grasped, when in comparison, instead of the pea or Pole Star being two inches from the orange, they assert it to be over 17,000 miles. Readers please test these figures.
One million miles is sixty times farther than the distance from London to Australia.
It is astonishing that Astronomers give such absurd figures representing the distance from London to the Pole Star, while at the same time they tell us that the diameter of the Earth is only 7912 miles, furthermore, it is known to them that there are places on this comparatively small Earth which are nearly horizontal with the Star.
Now if they are correct in their given figures representing the diameter of the Earth, then the Pole Star, being directly overhead of such places, cannot possibly be such an enormous distance from the Earth, as they would have us believe.
The angle from Para to the Pole Star is 1 degree, thus Para will be nearly horizontal to the Star. Now if Para is approximately 10,000 miles distant from the North Pole, therefore the distance from Para to the Star can only be approximately 11,000 miles. Para is practically what the Astronomers term "on the Equator."
I explained my method of viewing the Pole Star, sending a chart along to another Astronomer. The very poor attempt to reply to my reasoning was as follows:-
He stated: "You may illustrate the rotation of the Earth theory by means of a cart-wheel and axle, and your tube. Tie a small tube, say six inches long, in such a manner, to the outer end of one of the spokes, that when you look through the tube, you will view the far end of the axle. Now no matter how you turn the wheel you will always see the end of the axle, which represents the Pole Star."
Very plausable answer and as equally adroit. The object representing the Pole Star must be fixed at an angle of 51 ½ degrees, and of course not on the axis.
The experiment under these conditions will not work right for the Astronomer, quite the reverse, for we find by moving the wheel the slightest distance, the object representing the Pole Star is lost to our view. Please test for yourself.
I again communicated with the Astronomer giving the results of my investigations with this illustration, but no further reply was forthcoming.
The rotation of an umbrella was another illustration similar to the cart-wheel, and equally as absurd.
A noted astronomer, writing in the Westminster Gazette, London, on April, 1924, told us that the Astronomical Society intended holding a conference to decide as to whether a part of the Earth is flat or not.
Evidently, some members of the Society have doubts as to its shape, if so, what about the measurements? also the weight of the Earth as given by Astronomers?
Page 15 is a sketch of a man viewing an object representing the Pole Star through a tube, you will note that the tube is dead on the Star. If the Earth moved only a quarter of an inch, part of the Star must be lost to view, as sketched on page 16.
I have proved the Pole Star to be less than 5,000 miles distant, but even if it were as far as the Astronomers estimate, it would make no difference with regard to the continual visability of the Star under the conditions previously mentioned.
You may test this for yourself, by fixing a steel disk to represent the star as large and as far away as you choose. The size of the disc will depend upon the distance you may be sighting from. If you move the tube only a quarter-of-an-inch in whatever direction you please, you will lose sight of part of the disc. This illustration can be conducted on a larger or smaller scale, the result is identical.
On page 16 you will observe a diagram with a disc three feet in diameter and 100 yards distant, and another representing a disc nine feet in diameter and 300 yards distant, both were directly covered by the tube and both are lost sight of at the same time. This is a practical illustration and if tried will convince the most sceptical that the Earth cannot move at all.
Before developing any further arguments and proofs of a stationary Earth, I claim that the Pole Star experiments absolutely proves my case.
The fantastic figures 3,680,000,000,000,000, given by Astronomers, as the distance from London to the Pole Star, may be useful to them for mystifying purposes, but practical scientific calculations overthrow such impossible and absurd assertions.
According to present-day teachings, there are two movements of the earth, one on its Axis, from B to A, and the other round its Orbit. The Orbit we are told is 360 million miles round, and efforts are made by Astronomers to explain how Day and Night and Seasons function, based on the theory of a rotating Earth, travelling round its Orbit. See page 24, sunset cannot be obtained as illustration below.
The first movement referred to, from B to A, is at the rate of 18 miles per second, the second movement, round the Orbit, is more than 10 miles a second.
Now before we examine these sensational figures, I just want to remind readers of the position of the Sun as we know it to be.
My House faces South-East and is built on mother Earth, as shown, Earth (morning), June 21st. In the evening of the same day, the Sun is at the back of my house, North-West, Sun (evening). These are facts each of us know to be true. If this change of position of the Sun takes place by rotation of the Earth, the Earth must needs travel round 180 million miles to X in one day. Please see school illustration, page 32, and note Astronomers say that it takes from June to December for the earth to travel half-way round the Orbit. Readers will agree with me that it must be the Sun that travels over the fixed Earth. May I ask, should not the school illustration be withdrawn from the school book?
We will take July 3rd, see sketch of my house, page 57, from which I have taken a large number of observations, faces South-East; at Sunrise the Sun appears South-East, and at Sunset will be observed in the West, gradually receding towards North-West at the back of my house, where he becomes hidden from view.
I have referred to this at this juncture in order to receive the imagination of readers on this phase.
It is necessary for me to quote some more figures in order for me to develop the case.
Astronomers tell us that at 8 a.m. on January 3rd, the Earth reaches that point in its Orbit where it appears nearest to the Sun.
From January the Earth will slowly recede being at its mean distance 92,843,000 miles on April 1st, and its greatest distance 94,400,000 miles two hours before noon on July 3rd.
First of all, the readers will observe a serious contradiction of what we all know to be the actual facts, the position is just the reverse to the statement, that is, the Sun is nearest to us in Summer. Secondly, how does this work out with regard to the Pole Star. If the Earth and my garden thereon, moved two inches, the angle of 51 ½ degrees to the famous Star would be destroyed, and I could not view the Pole Star through a fixed tube.
Again, each of the 4811 angles to the Pole Star, given in the school book would be destroyed also.
The school book states: besides spinning round on its Axis, the Earth is at the same time sweeping through space round the Sun and Orbit, more than 50 miles in every 5 seconds. This means that while the Astronomer Royal and others were viewing the alleged fixed Sun from 5.30 to 7.10 a.m., they were carried 60,000 miles through space, which is more than four times the distance from London to New Zealand, not counting the daily rotation. Please test these enormous figures.
May I ask, how could anyone view the Sun through a telescope while being carried through space at such a terrific speed? Is the Earth rotation theory reasonable?
A fixed Earth only enabled us to view the Eclipse in the Sun on the date named.
The angle to the Pole Star at South Victoria is 37 degrees. May I ask, how can the angle be taken if on space continually, as on page 20? Is the rotation theory compatible with reason?
Will the reader now refer to the sketch, page 20 and note that D, representing South Victoria, is continually underneath the globe which Astronomers inform us represents the Earth, 7912 miles in diameter, C and E are the same.
Now on July 3rd they tell us the Earth slopes towards the Sun, as illustrated, rotating at the rate of 18 miles per second. Now you will notice the globe leaning on one side at the angle given in the illustration, and you will see England or B only rotates from A to B, the position marked B is supposed to be night, although B dose not pass the centre XY of the Earth: hence, England dose not pass out of view of the Sun in July.
Therefore, if the Astronomers' theory is correct; then we should experience all daylight.
If the Earth rotated perpendicularly then B would rotate to F. That will not work right for the Astronomer.
We are forced back once again to the theory of a Stationary Earth and a Travelling Sun.
Again, several places on the South Antartic Circle according to the Astronomers' theory, would only rotate from C to E, Therefore, could not get any sun-light for several days in July, also D, representing the position of South Victoria would be in total darkness in July.
Another anamoly arises here, South Victoria would be directly underneath, and according to Astronomers on space continually. Is it compatible with reason?
If the reader will examine the School Globe he will notice that England is in the Northern Hemisphere (Astronomers' term), as also is Siberia, Canada and other places.
The Astronomers tell us that the Earth completes one revolution on its Axis every 24 hours, that the Sun is continually shining but as the Globular Earth rotates, only half can, and dose receive the heat and light as per illustration on next page.
What are the facts? We find the Northern part of Norway, down to Tronjeim, known as the land of the midnight Sun, receives Sunlight continually, night and day for 14 days in June, (see X spot on Sketch). How does the other places fare? England, Poland and Russia, Which are on the same side of the globe, they do not experience continuous Sunlight.
Readers, note the X on the diagram represents Norway and the other two dark spots Poland and England. The school illustration (No. 6) representing half Globe receiving daylight, and the other half in darkness is therefore incorrect. This Phenomena is to be explained in the following manner.
Norway being a mountainous country and the travelling Sun reaches such an angle at this time of the year which enables one to view it continuously day and night.
The shape and altitude of the surrounding mountains would be a factor in producing this effect.
Day and Night, as we experience it, could not function with a rotating Earth and a fixed Sun.
You will be assisted to grasp the theory by now considering that wonderful illuminating body the Sun.
The Astronomers tell us and scholars are taught that the Sun is stationary in the centre of the Earth's Orbit, that it is 330.000 times greater than the Earth.
Earth not drawn to scale as it would not be as large as a needle's point.
The Eminent Astronomer, Sir Norman Lockyer, compared the Earth the size of a pea, to that of the Sun as a 2 feet in diameter.
As an illustration, if you roll a pea across your table, it does not elevate the pea to the ceiling.
We, however, find ourselves almost horizontal to the Sun at sunset, the Earth is then in position as above.
May I ask, how can the Earth reach this position by rotation?
Angle to Sun, 62 degrees.
Astronomers assert that the sun is directly over the tropic of cancer on July 3rd.
Working to scale, the Sun is 40,000,000 miles distant from X, which, as readers will see, Xis drawn directly overhead of spot below, representing the Earth midday. on July 3rd.
Astronomers say that the Earth gets nearer and nearer to the Sun each day from July 3rd to January 3rd. If so, the Earth must rotate towards the left hand to get nearer to the Sun. Then how can we get sunset?
Again, how can sunset be obtained with a circular movement of the Earth as illustrated on page 32?
If the pea, Sir Norman Lockyer's term of the earth, rotates towards the right hand, the pea will get further away from the Sun, and even then, how can sunset be obtained? Please hold book upright when reading.
Astronomy teaches us the Sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer, I contend that it would be utterly impassible for the Sun, if 330,000 times greater than the Earth; we should be absolutely flooded with sunlight and heat, no matter in what part of the Earth we should be.
we could not experience day and night nor could we get seasons under such conditions.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun, we are taught, is 94,400,000 on July 3rd, that it is practically perpendicular over the Tropic of Cancer at an angle of 62 degrees to London.
Assuming the diameter of the earth to be 7,912 miles and the Sun to be at an angle of 62 degrees to London, the distance of the Sun cannot exceed 10,000 miles.
You will, I am sure, appreciate the vast difference between 94,400,000 miles the Astronomers' estimate, and my estimate of less than 10,000 miles (see illustration on page 29); it is quiet easy to work it out, and I trust readers will do so.
I want now to draw your attention to a blatant contradiction by Astronomers.
They tell us that at mid-day on January 3rd, the Earth reaches that point in its Orbit where it approached nearest to the Sun, it is then 91,843,000 miles distant. They contend also from that day the Earth will gradually recede, being at its mean distance 92,843,000 miles on April 1st, and at its greatest distance of 94,400,000 miles, two hours before noon on July 3rd.
Any reader may observe the Sun approaching gradually nearer every day from January to July, and vice versa, and yet the absurd paradox is published in school books, and broadcasted all over the World.
That the Sun can be nearer to the Earth by varying distances up to 2,557,000 miles, in spite of the fact that the light and heat we receive is such, that we all know it is winter, will require some digesting.
I should like to draw readers' attention to the Pole Star once again. It is stationary and at an angle of 51 ½ degrees to London. Therefore the least movement of the Earth destroy the angle each time the movement takes place.
We can always view the Pole Star at 51 ½ degrees to London, 51 ½ degrees to Frome, Somerset, only seven miles from my garden.
The Pole Star is stationary and a compass made to function with this one Special Star, is the only means whereby we are able to travel the pathless ocean and desert. No matter in what part of the world we may be, the hand of the compass points almost directly to the star.
Undoubtedly the hand of providence provided the ways and means for the human to find his way on long journeys, on land and water.
I can imagine a critical reader asking if the Earth is fixed, to what is it fixed. To this I would reply, we all agree the Pole Star must be a fixture, to what is it fixed.
Regarding the Sun, I contend that I can prove it is travelling, according to present day teachings it is a fixture. I might say, then to what is the Sun Fixed. The diagram on Page 29 will enable the reader to understand my point.
On March the 10th, 1927, there appeared in the "Daily Chronicle." London, a statement from a noted Astronomer to the effect that the Sun is 1,000,000 times greater than the Earth. Sir Norman Lockyer gives it as 330,000 times greater than the Earth.
Writing in the "Bristol Times & Mirror" on May 28th, 1927, a noted Bristol Astronomer referred to the moon as apparently slightly greater than the Sun. The School Book gives the Moon's diameter as 2160 miles only. Readers please note the discrepancy.
From observations of the sun, I am of the opinion it is less than 10 miles in diameter. There is, of course, no means of measuring it.
To arrive at the altitude of the Sun, the same scientific calculations can be operated as in the case of the Pole Star.
The diameter of the Earth is given as 7,912 miles, the Sun is at an angle of 62 degrees and, Astronomers say, directly over the tropic of cancer on July 3rd. By once more working to a scale of half inch to 1,000 miles and using a simple mathematical calculation, we find that the sun cannot be more than 9,500 miles distant from the Earth.
Once again the colossal figures 93,000,000 given by Astronomers as the distance from the Earth to the Sun, is hopelessly wrecked. By reference to the diagram on Page 29, again readers will see that at an angle of 62 degrees to London, and a distance of 93 million miles from London to the Sun, the Earth on June 21st, in order for us to experience Sunset, would have to take a swift upward movement of 80 million miles from Sunset, and a downward movement of 80 million miles from Sunset to Sunrise on June 22nd.
Letter X on diagram (page 29) denotes the position of the Earth horizontal with the Sun at Sunset on June 21st, in accordance with the school books.
I have used the same simple but very effective method to arrive at what I contend to be the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
By means of a darkened glass, and my tube, I find that contrary to the results of my observations of the Pole Star, the Sun passes out of view in 1 ½ minutes.
Now, if the Stationary Pole Star can be viewed at any minute, or any night, then it is a certainty that the stationary Sun as Astronomers inform us it is, would also be able to be viewed likewise.
Astronomers inform us that the Sun is a fixture in the Heavens, and that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours, in addition to a bodily movement round its Orbit which they say takes one year to complete, see sketch below. They attribute the Seasons to this movement. The distance round its supposed Orbit is 360 million miles so that from January to June the Earth travels 180 million miles which works out roughly, one million miles daily, or sixty eight times the distance from London to Australia, this is in addition to the daily rotation.
If the reader will examine the sketch and compare it with the position of the Sun, as we actually see it, say on June 21st, he will notice that it is identical with my contention namely, that in order for the earth to be in position consistent with the Astronomers' theory, it would first of all be necessary for it to complete the journey round its Orbit in one day, instead of taking one year to accomplish (see illustration, page 17). Secondly, it would have to rise to the extent of 80 million miles to bring it horizontal with the Sun at Sunset. Further, from Sunset to Sunrise on June 22nd, it would have to drop to the extent of 80 million miles (see illustration, page 29).
It will be found an easy matter to test this in the readers' own garden, whether in England, New Zealand, or elsewhere, by first of all ascertaining the exact position of the house and garden, and observe the direction in which the sun travels. See sketch Page 32.
If the Astronomer had contended that the Earth made one revolution in twelve months, there would be a semblance of reason, for under those conditions, with a stationary Sun, the half of the Earth facing the Sun, would be experiencing Summer, while the other half would be experiencing Winter; they would then fail to account for Day and Night, even with this contention.
Again we will examine the School Globe and we find England, Labrador, Canada, Siberia and other places are in the same circle, or the same Latitude, North, therefore should experience the same climatic conditions daily. We are, however, aware of the contrast between the climate of these various countries.
Such a state of affairs can only exist and be accounted for by my calculations, that in Summer, the travelling over of a stationary Earth, the Sun passes nearer to us in summer and farther away from us in Winter.
Readers will observe that from December 21st, the Sun begins to travel nearer to us each day, until June 21st. The heat is absorbed by the Earth as we approach that day, until we find the Sun almost directly overhead. Even after the Sun has travelled from us, towards New Zealand, say in August and September, we often experience hot weather, which can be accounted for by the fact, that the heat accumulated and stored up, as it were, radiates out from the Earth.
I have mentioned New Zealand in the paragraph, we all know that when it is midsummer in England it is midwinter in New Zealand, and visa versa. The Sun in his travels. passes over one place to the other.
From June 21st he begins to travel nearer and nearer to New Zealand, every day and night for six months, until it finally arrives in a position almost directly overhead, it is then midsummer in New Zealand. Meanwhile, as the Sun gradually comes upon us, until we reach December 1st, which is known as midwinter.
You will agree, I think, that this is the most reasonable theory of the functioning of Summer and Winter, as we experience it in the two named places.
Once again I wish too refresh the reader's memory to illustration page 24 wherein the spot or pea representing the Earth (Mid-day), cannot be moved, either towards the left hand, the right hand, or a circular movement, in fact, it cannot be moved in any direction whatever, to reach Sunset.
Now if the reader was playing a game of drafts, and he found himself in the position that he could not make another movement without losing the game, he would give his opponent credit for having won the game. I therefore rely on the reader giving me credit for proving my case, vis.: that Sunset from Mid-day, July 3rd, or any day, cannot be obtained by rotation or movement of the Earth.
Astronomers inform us that the Earth tilts at a different angle in June to that of December. The Earth, according to them, is quite mobile, it appears to make these movements and nobody notices them.
They attempt to bring these and other anomolies and contradictions into line, by saying that because the atmosphere is travelling with the Earth, these movements are not noticeable to us.
To revert to the alleged varying tilt of the Earth. What effect would this have on my house, or the reader's house, or better still, by way of illustration, the Houses of Parliament, or other such buildings.
In my own case the spirit-level and plumb rule was used when my house was built, and I have no reason to believe any alteration has taken place in the base.
The pity of it is that such erroneous teachings should be inculcated into the minds of the young people in the schools and colleges.
You will do well by considering now the position of the people in New Zealand in relation to a rotating globular Earth. By referring to the illustration on the next page you will observe according to the Astronomers' theory the position of the man in New Zealand at 12 o'clock midnight.
What reply could a teacher or schoolmaster give to an enquiring pupil if he was asked the following question:-
You have just informed us that New Zealand is directly underneath England at 12 o'clock to-day. Now what is the position of the school in New Zealand?
There is no sensible answer to be given. The Earth is not globular nor is it rotating. The Astronomer Royal at a lecture some time ago, said a man may be upside-down for a time and not be conscious of it. I desire inform readers, however, that if the Earth Rotates once only in 24 hours, as the Astronomers claim it does, people in New Zealand would be upsidedown for several hours, moreover the position of the people in South Victoria (page 20) is such that they would be in that position continually. Again, the angle at which the Pole stands to New Zealand is 40 degrees. How is it taken in this position?
In reply to what I describe as an awkward question I put to an Astronomer on this subject in 1916, he said the term "Up" means "Down", and "Down" means "Up" with all Astronomers. I leave readers to judge as to whether such a reply is satisfactory to any intelligent person.
If the reader will refer to diagram 5, he will notice two figures, representing observers, one viewing the Pole Star and the other the Sun. Now after continuous experiments, I discover that whilst the pole Star can be always viewed, the Sun passes from view in 1 ½ minutes. Surely this is a weighty argument in favour of my contention that the Earth is Stationary and the Sun travelling, for, if the Star by the aid of a tube is visable continually, then the Sun, if stationary, would also be visable under the same conditions.
Contrary to the imagination of most people, the Sun dose not sink in a perpendicular fashion, it takes a sort of sweep from West towards North-West, as diagram No. 6 denotes. It will be observed that the curve shows a slight upward tendency at the end.
The Pole Star always Keeps at one altitude, 51 ½ degrees to London. The Sun would be the same if it is fixed in the heavens.
This is the position of the sun just before it disappears from view, it was taken in my garden from 7.30 to 8.0 p.m., on June 21st (old time).
In the school book three angles are given to the Sun from London, vis: 15 degrees, 23 ½ degrees and 62 degrees. Why give three, if fixed, and one only to the fixed Star?
Is the fixed Sun theory compatible with reason?
It is very remarkable how easy the rays of the Sun can be obstructed. The diagram No. 35 represents the Sun in a position behind a hill or mountain. Suppose an observer be at position A, B, C, the one watching from A will lose sight of the sun first, the one at B will be next, and the one at C will be able to view the Sun considerably longer than those at A and B.
Over a distance of only a mile, the Sun may be visable to people in one place and yet have disappeared from others.
The Sun disappears gradually as it travels on its journey to other parts of the Earth, such as Australia and New Zealand, and in this manner the the people get the Sun 12 hours earlier or later. countries situated intermediately get it five or six hours earlier or later than we in England, according to the position of the country in which they live.
I contend that the Earth is not spherical in shape and whilst it would be absurd to conjecture the exact size and shape, we are all aware that explorers have endeavoured to penetrate the ice barriers, but in whatever direction they have proceeded, we know that the intense cold and these terrific ice barriers have prevented them from progressing beyond certain limits. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that the shape of the Earth reasonable a plate surrounded by intensely could regions, which makes it impossible for any living creature to exist.
Readers may ask why is it, if the Earth is flat or plate-shaped, that the Sun can only be viewed periodically as it were, that the amount of light and heat vary, both in intensity and duration, the answer is illustrated by the sketch on page 43.
The altitude of travelling bodies in the heavens is very deceptive. For instance, the reader may observe an aeroplane flying at a great speed and height; as it comes towards the spot where you are standing you will notice the tremendous height at which it is flying, but as it will appear to get lower and lower, and if there are any trees in the vicinity, it will appear ultimately to rest on the top of them.
We will assume in order to illustrate this point, that the aeroplane was 265 yards overhead, and seven minutes elapsed before it appeared to be on top of the trees, by going at ordinary speed it would have travelled about ten miles.
Now multiply 265 yards by 5,000 making the height 750 miles, we will also multiply the distance of ten miles at which the flying machine appeared to be resting on top of the trees by 5,000 making 50,000 miles. In order to provide an object to represent the Sun you will also have to imagine 5,000 times larger than the aeroplane. By increasing the sizes and distances in this illustration, a parallel may be drawn with the travelling Sun.
Assuming the Sun to be at an altitude of 750 miles high at mid-day, and having travelled a distance of 50,000 miles, at a very much lower altitude than it actually is. It would, in fact, appear to have sunk to the level of the tops of the trees.
The diagram on next page is the angle in proportion to the size of the Sun and distance which it is supposed to have travelled.
You will note that the angle is very slight, almost horizontal, whereas, in fact, working to scale the Sun is 750 miles high and 250 miles in diameter, but from observations for 30 years, I consider the Sun is less than 10 miles in diameter. There is of course no means of measuring the Sun.
It is therefore a reasonable deduction to draw from this illustration, at the angle of which the observer may be sighting, creates an optical delusion.
The thousands upon thousands of hills, mountains, towns, villages intervening between the figures above, representing a person, and the Sun, in addition to other causes mentioned, are sufficient reason why the Sun is easily hid from our view, and prevents us from seeing a glimmer of light from it. If these mountains were transparent, we could of course view the Sun.
The Sun is continually travelling, varying its course from time to time, which accounts for day and night, also the seasons.
I contend that I have proved the Sun is not such a colossal body as the Astronomers tell us, neither is it such an enormous distance from the Earth.
That the deciding factors controlling the functioning of Day and Night, also the Seasons are:-(1) The variation of the Sun's course; (2) The variation of the Sun's Altitude; (3) The ever-increasing and decreasing angles, of which the Sun may be, in relation to the Earth; (4) Intervening hills, mountains, towns, and villages.
In addition to the hills and mountains referred to above, which we are aware exists, and are above Sea level, there is also the outside edge of this Fixed Earth, which nobody has ever viewed, and probably the Creator never intended for the outside border to be explored.
The outside edge of the Earth may stand much higher than the highest mountain or observatory known to us, the Sun can, therefore, be easily hidden from our view, by night in England, while at the same time, the Sun may be on view, sideways or otherwise, in other countries, and vice-versa.
I might say, that according to Astronomers' measurements, the Sun is 40,000,000 miles beyond the extreme outside edge of the Earth. See pages 24 and 25.
Whilst it would be absurd to give definite particulars or details as to the exact shape of the Earth, it would be equally absurd to attempt to give the exact distance from London to the outside edge of the farther than the Astronomers estimate.
It is reasonable to believe that the outside border of this stationary Earth is a barrier of ice and snow, for in whatever direction one may travel, such unendurable climate is experienced as to make it impossible to exist. The could increases in intensity the farther one travels towards the outside edge of the Earth, due to the outside being surrounded by space, this being the case, then one can understand why it is always below freezing point; there is no means by which the heat of the Sun can be stored.
Undoubtedly there is a centre point to the Earth and no doubt nature ordained that the fixed Pole Star should be the guiding Star to mariners and travellers.
In order to force home my arguments, I have produced a sketch on next page representing the exact position of the Sun in its relation to the Earth, as observed from my garden.
Astronomers, as a rule, argue in terms which disregard our own place of habitation as being part of the Earth, but rather as a place apart. I am of the opinion however, that one can make the reasoning more clear by using one's own garden as a case in point.
Readers, you are aware the above illustration gives the exact position of mother Earth, in relation to the Sun as we experience it, at mid-day and sunset on June 21stm and sunrise on June 22nd. The school book says this change of the Earth's position takes place by the Earth's rotation, let us analyze this assertion, it is absolutely absurd.
May I ask. If you roll a pea or orange across your kitchen table, how can it elevate the pea or orange to the ceiling? How can the Earth at mid-day, by rotation, if only 7912 in diameter, elevate to position as shown- Earth sunset?
Again, to carry out the Astronomers' assertions, you will observe the Earth has passed the Sun twice from June 21st midday to sunrise June 22nd,
This is an absolute contradiction of the school book illustration of the Earth's journey round the Orbit. It is shown there that as from June to December the Earth passes the Sun once only. (page 32)
Having dealt with the three distinct movements of the Earth, which must take place if Astronomers' assertions are correct, may I suggest to readers to consider the results of such antagonistic movements of the Earth. The terrific currents of air would alone make it impossible for any living creature to survive.
It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1,080 miles per minute, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 10 miles per second.
Will the reader now consider this fundamental natural law in its relation to the Astronomers' theory of movements of the universe.
The distance from London to New Zealand is 13,740 miles, the position of New Zealand we are told is, in accordance with the theory of a globular world, directly underneath England.
Vessels travel backwards and forwards at regular periods. It is quite certain that if the sea forms part of the huge globe, then the vessels on their journey must be continually dipping as it were, in fact, working to a scale of 3-8 inch to the thousand miles the first 4,580 miles from London would be nearly level, the second 4,580 miles would be navigated with the vessel in a perpendicular position, and the last 4,500 miles would be completed with the vessel keel upwards and directly underneath the Earth, as on previous page.
We all realize how absurd this sounds, and yet it is an absolute correct conclusion, if we believe what the Astronomers tell us. May I ask; why teach children untruths? Truth will always win.
As an alleged proof of the curvature of the Earth and sea, Astronomers submit the illustration on next page.
A vessel travelling from Bournemouth to Swanage, for example, a distance of eight miles, will gradually pass from our view, as it reaches a distance of about a mile. The hull disappearing first, they claim that this is a sure proof that the sea is curved.
Let us introduce a telescope and we shall be able to again sight the vessel. If, therefore, one may continue this observation of the vessel by the aid of a telescope, then the illustration put forward by Astronomers falls to the ground. Were it the curvature causing the obstruction, the telescope would be useless as the reader will readily grasp.
The diagram gives the correct angle, working to a scale, and readers will observe that from B, representing an observer at Bournemouth, to S, representing Swanage, there is a slight upward curve. Now how dose this tally with the Astronomers' assertions? If we analyze it, we shall discover it to be entirely opposite. Any object above the eye line between B and S is wholly visable at B, therefore, the whole of the vessel should be more distinct, according to the Astronomers' own theory.
That the vessel even at a short distance, is lost to our vision, hull first, is correct, but it is due to other causes than the school book teaches us.
It is due firstly, to the ever-prevailing mist on the surface of the Sea; secondly, to the limitation on visual observance with the naked eye; thirdly, to the natural law, referred to previously; fourthly, to the varying angle at which the observer may be sighting it as the vessel travels farther away.
In the year 1904, an experiment was tried by measuring six miles of the Bedford Canal, it was found to be quite level. Not only was it measured, but by the aid of a specially constructed and costly apparatus, a photograph was taken with a large sheet drawn across the canal six miles distant, and held up at right angles to the surface of the water. The whole sheet was shown in the picture as also was the shadow which was cast on the water by the sheet. To obtain this result, the water must have been absolutely level.
Here again the reader will do well to reason out this problem.
Assuming the Earth to be travelling from West to East, at the terrific speed of eighteen miles per second, bearing in mind also the two other alleged movements of the Earth , combined with these movements a terrific hurricane develops in a direction, powerful enough to almost lift us off our feet, uproot gigantic trees, etc. Where should we poor weak creatures be?
I fear the end of the World, that we hear a great deal of talk about from time to time, would be on us. On each occasion when I have entered into a controversy with Astronomers, they have contended that the air or atmosphere is carried with the Earth, thus nullifying all consciousness of the movements of the Earth. Several have gone so far as to say that an enclosed railway carriage can be taken as an example. The air in the compartment travelling with the train destroys the consciousness of any movement, excepting of course, when one looks through the window at the object outside. What piffle ! The air or atmosphere on the unenclosed Earth is not bound to the Earth, and therefore would not travel round with it. By what and to what is the air harnessed, if it travels round with the Earth? As a matter of fact, the disturbance caused by the rotation of the Earth would be so terrific that nothing could possibly exist.
Yet another alleged proof of the Earth's rotation is put forward by Astronomers. It lies in the fact, they contend, that one may commence a journey from London travelling due East all the time ultimately returning to the starting point. The direction and countries through which one must travel to perform this feat are as follows:-
From London to Berlin on to Asia, China from thence to Japan, the farthest point on land. One would then proceed across the Pacific to Vancouver, on to Newfoundland, and finally across the Atlantic to London.
The weakness of this argument will be manifest to the youngest or dullest intellect, I think.
When the traveller reaches Japan the direction he takes cannot be Eastward, or else the compass would be useless. This can be proved by consulting a map or globe of the universe.
What happens is this, the diagram No. 1 represents the direction which the traveller would take. Arrow 1 we will assume is the vessel leaving London, sailing by the compass due East; after travelling five or six thousand miles the North Pole and Star will have been passed. The compass will then point back as to No.3 arrow, instead of pointing ahead as No. 2 arrow.
Supporters of the rotation theory conclude that as the compass will now point back to No. 3 arrow, as it were, instead of No. 2, which was the direction prior to the vessel passing the North Pole and Star, the rotation of the globular Earth, they say, has altered the position of the vessel on reaching point E of arrow No. 2. The solution of this problem is not in the rotation of the Earth however, it is because the vessel has passed the point known as the North Pole Star by which the compass functions, in consequence of which, the compass must point back. Again, supposing a vessel is anchored at the Port of London at 6.0 a.m., pointing due East as No.1 arrow, then at 6.0 p.m. the vessel should be pointing due West, if the student is to support the rotation theory. Of course, no movement of Earth takes place.
The diagram above represents a compass, readers will observe the mark on the case. Now assuming the Earth makes one complete revolution in 24 hours, the case and mark thereon should be carried round also, to a position pointing South in twelve hours.
Of course no movement takes place, the hand of the compass and the mark on the case points in the same direction continually.
I asked a noted Astronomer to kindly explain to me how the angle of 40 degrees to Pole Star was taken at New Zealand (see page 37), he then referred to a man at the equator, etc. I then informed him of eight places, given in the school book, angles ¼ to 1 degree, which was practically on the Equator (Astronomers' term), and the inhabitants could, of course, view the Pole Star at these places as I view the Star in my garden, except that the Star would be nearly horizontal to them. As usual--no reply was forthcoming.
The diagram on the next page depicts an airman bombing a building from his aeroplane at a great altitude. This is another illustration of the unreasonable theory of a rotating globular Earth. Readers will remember it takes about ten seconds for the bomb to reach the building from the aeroplane one mile up. Multiply eighteen miles by ten and it will give you the distance which the house will have travelled with the Earth according to Astronomers, as readers will observe, the bomb would pitch 180 miles distant from the house. Is the rotation theory compatible with reason?
If our Earth rotated the use of artillery in modern warfare would be impossible as the rifle or shot gun for sport. It would be impossible to sight them, or to use range finders to do so.
To Return now to the town in which I live. In 1917 a thundercloud burst, and over a radius of about 2 ½ miles we received a deluge of rain. The places outside of the radius, however, were bone dry.
Now assuming the Earth to be travelling through space round the Orbit at the speed of 10 miles per second, how-on-earth could they escape the "storm",; moreover, we in our town should have "Whizzed" clear of it in one second.
The reader will undoubtedly consider these very simple matters, but let me assure you, they are too difficult for Astronomers to explain away, based on the theory to a rotating globular Earth.
Aeroplane one mile from Earth dropping a Bomb on my house.
This illustration alone will convince you that the Earth on which this chimney is fixed does not move at all.
The diagram above represents a chimney built on Mother Earth. It will, of course, be travelling at the same speed as the Earth, eighteen miles per second, according to present teachings.
Imagine a heavy weight, 1,000 tons, released;
We shall know where to find it, when it reaches the ground, almost directly under the place where it was released; but, according to astronomy, we should have to search for it some 72 miles distant, assuming it takes 4 seconds for it to complete the journey from the top of the chimney to the ground.
An object can be dropped in an enclosed railway carriage, travelling at its maximum speed and it will fall vertically, because the air is carried along inside the carriage, But if an object is thrown up from on open truck, say 24 feet high, travelling equally as fast, it will drop at a considerable distance to the rear, proving in the one case, the air or atmosphere is travelling with the train, in the case of the latter, the air is not travelling with the Earth.
I have seen an Astronomer with a heavy weight secured to the end of a rope about 12 feet long, He swung the weight round and round in the air till he was nearly exhausted, and claim the experiment as a proof of the Earth's Rotation.
The same person then swung a bucket round and round, out of perpendicular, with a small quantity of water in the bucket, as a proof of the Earth's Rotation, I invited him to fill the bucket nearly full of water, but he did not take my advice, Both experiments, as you will see, is absolutely absurd.
On October 20th 1927, Sir O. Lodge, the eminent Astronomer, in a lecture on falling bodies, explained that, if we toss up an obstacle in a railway carriage when travelling, the obstacle which may be of stone or otherwise would fall direct to the hand again, this is correct, as the air and obstacle is carried by mechanical power inside the carriage. He also mentioned a motor car for the same experiment. I therefore on the following day of the lecture tried the experiment several times in an open motor car, travelling at thirty miles per hour, by throwing up a stone about 24 feet high from above the hand, in each case the stone did not return to my hand, dropping at the rear of the car. I invite Sir Oliver to try the experiment for himself. I might say that I tried it years ago with the same result.
Sir Oliver will need practice to throw a stone so high and straight, owing to the strong air caused by the swift travelling car. The stone can, however, be easily trapped straight up to height given above.
Astronomers often refer to the spinning top as proof of the Earth's rotation, where after being wound up by manual power and set in motion, the top will spin when leaning on one side. The alleged rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with the spinning or the top would not cease to spin.
Boys are often seen whipping a top on the pavement and making it spin, when the boy ceases whipping, the top falls on its side to the pavement; the boy's power had caused the top to spin.
A rider on horse-back when galloping often observe a swarm of flies hovering close over the horse's head, and the writer's attention has been called to this in relation to the Earth Rotation theory. If the flies had been a good height above the horse's head, the air would not have been affected by the moving horse, and the flies could not have kept pace with the horse.
On a clam day with not sufficient air to ruffle the leaves on the trees, and standing on a railway platform, the express passes through swiftly, compelling us to move back from the edge of the platform, and Astronomers say-if you then throw from the carriage window, on obstacle, you will find a difficulty in so doing, and they try to link up this difficulty with the Rotation theory. May I ask? What has this to do with the alleged Earth Rotation theory, as it was calm before and after the express had passed through-it was of course mechanical power that caused the air to be so strong for the moment or two.
Toss an orange when on deck of a moving steamer, is often spoken of in relation to the Earth Rotation theory, as it is said the orange will return to the hand again. If the orange is thrown straight up, say 24 feet or so high, where the air is not affected by the moving steamer, as previously pointed out, the orange will not return to the hand.
I will mention that kite flying was a pastime in my boyhood, and I remember telling my school-master, when lecturing on the Earth Rotation theory, that I did not think my kite could fly under such swift movements of the Earth, the only reply I received was a "smile."
Throughout my whole life of experimenting, I have not found one single point in support of the Earth Rotation theory.
Great importance is attached to Foucault's Pendulum, as it is termed, which was conducted in Paris in 1851. The Astronomers and school books assert it to be sure proof of the Earth's rotation.
On close examination, and by devising experiments on a smaller scale, I find several flaws in this alleged confirmation of the Earth's rotation.
In the first place the Pantheon in Paris, from which the wire 200 feet in length was suspended, is built on the Earth. This is the determining factor of the cause of the heavy ball, one foot in diameter and fastened to the wire, apparently deviating from its course after being set in motion, say the supporters of the rotation theory.
Now readers, if the apparent circular course taken by the ball, after it was set in motion, was the result of the Earth's Rotation, why was it necessary to start it? and why did it not oscillate perpetually.
It is necessary again to direct your attention to the other alleged movements of the Earth. I refer now to the journey round an orbit 360 million miles, at the speed of 10 miles each second. Surely this terrific travelling would have a deterrent effect on the oscillating ball.
The sketch No. 20 on previous page, represents a pendulum 6 feet in length, it is quite free and will swing to and fro, backwards and forwards. By starting it on an irregular course I noticed after a few seconds it travelled for about two hours in a perfectly straight line, it then ceased to move at all. I have also tried this experiment on a larger scale from a high building of 47 feet, with precisely the same results. If it were possible to try it on the scale at the Pantheon, 200 feet high, there would be no difference, the pendulum would travel in a perfectly straight line.
In summing up on this alleged proof let me emphasize this fact. If Foucault's experiment depends upon a rotary Earth for its effects, then why is it necessary to start the pendulum in the first place. Secondly, why dose the pendulum ultimately cease to move at all.
Undoubtedly whilst considering the arguments submitted in this book, the mind of the reader has turned to Sir Issac Newton, whose name has been handed down to posterity. He it was that discovered this mysterious law, that the apple would fall from the tree downwards.
It seems to me quite unnecessary to use the term "Law of Gravitation",; when we know that bodies heavier than air, must fall to the Earth.
Aeroplanes are not termed gravity machines. They are very often described as Heavier than Air Machines, which, of course, is the correct term to use.
Immediately the artificial means, whereby the aeroplane is kept elevated and travelling, is destroyed, then the Heavier than Air Machine crashes to the ground, because of the reason which the term implies. It is not a question of any attraction powers contained in the Earth.
The following experiment will prove this, see illustration on the next page, it depicts a gentleman smoking a cigar. He is gently blowing the smoke against a could pane of glass in winter time. due to the low temperature, the smoke becomes dampened and incidentally slightly heavier than air, giving it a tendency to descend. It dries very quickly, however, becomes lighter than air again, and consequently ascends into the air.
Arguing with a Scientist on this point one day he remarked, I fear you have not studied the law of gravitation, for everything has a tendency to fall to the ground, by the attraction of the Earth. I put it to him if his contention was correct, why did the smoke ascend instead of descending as the cigar would if let fall.
The illustration on next page is taken from a book in my possession, supposed to explain Newton's theory that all bodies fall towards the centre of the Earth at C; that is from A to C, D to C, and B to C.
Astronomers inform us that the Earth is the Shape of an orange and 7912 miles in diameter. if so, there is from A to C, and also from B to C, 3,956 miles of solid earth and rock. Now no one has penetrated through the crust of the Earth, for even the deepest of mines is not ten miles, and I contend that no person can possibly say that the Earth is even fifty miles or 7,912 miles through.
Newton informs us that a body a D will fall towards C. This position is equivalent to a person stood on the Earth in his own garden (which is impossible as previously proved) and certainly he feels no attraction there. Moreover, a body at D is in precisely the same position as a coin held at the side of an orange or even your kitchen wall, and the coin being heavier than air naturally falls perpendicularly to the floor when released. That is a body at D will fall to E, and not towards C. Newton says New Zealand is at B, but has anybody known a body to fall upwards, and it must certainly do so if the Earth is Globular. Surely Newton's theory is incorrect, as reason alone leads us to the fact that bodies cannot fall in any direction except perpendicularly.
Astronomers estimate the diameter of the Moon to be 2,160 miles and that of the Earth 7,912 miles.
The journey of the moon round the Earth they assert is at the rate of 37 miles a minute, whilst in its supposed journey round the Sun, the Earth travels 1,080 miles per minute. Now assuming the shadow cast by the Earth on the Moon to be equal to half its (the Earth's) diameter as the shadow would tend to converge, readers will perceive it to be impossible for an eclipse to last longer than seven minutes.
We are aware, however, that it is quite a common occurrence for an eclipse of the Moon to last several hours.
We shall have to search for more practical causes, therefore, than those given by Astronomers, viz.; the rotation of the Globular Earth.
It is well known that there are dark bodies in the heavens, and periodical movements of such bodies would create phenomena similar to what we understand as the eclipse of the Moon.
The steady pulsation of the ocean which we know as the ebb and flow of the tide, is caused by the rotation of the Earth, say Astronomers.
I venture to suggest there would be very little element of steadiness, were the tilting Earth whirling round, as they assert.
Whilst I contend it is impossible for any human being to say definitely what causes this mysterious advancing and receding movement of the sea, it is within the realms of possibility that the varying temperatures of the water creates a rise and fall sufficient to account for the tides.
It should be borne in mind, that the variation in the tidal rise of water at England and New Zealand is only 27 feet, on a distance of 13,740 miles, which equals an elevation or drop of 1-8 inch in every 5 miles, which is, of course, practically level. Readers please test these figures.
Here is another positive proof that the earth cannot rotate. In the Desert of Sahara, the length from east to west is 3,000 miles, its average breath 900 miles, and its area, 2,000,000 square miles. Rain falls on this desert at intervals only of five to ten or twenty years. If the earth rotates over 1,000,000 miles daily, and in addition makes another movement round the orbit and sun yearly, how can this large desert escape the rain from the heavens for years at a stretch, while other places receive the rain regularly? Why? It is because this desert is a fixture, and is not favoured by rain from the heavens, like other places, owing to geographical conditions.
It is a mistaken idea, and very prevalent one, to suppose that without great observations and complicated mechanical devices one cannot study and experiment
I contend that the most reliable sources of proofs and arguments will be found in one's own garden and with the aid of a tube such as I have mentioned in previous pages, it is quite simple but very reliable.
Present-day Astronomers and educational authorities still continue to teach a theory which I claim to have proved to be incorrect. Not only is it incorrect from a scientific point of view, but if readers care to search the Bible, from the beginning to the end, they will not find one word to support the theory of a rotating Earth. On the contrary, they will discover a great number of verses in various parts bearing out my theory of a Stationary Earth and Travelling Sun.
Therefore, in conclusion, I feel it to be my duty to propagate these ideas in every conceivable method possible, hoping and trusting to be given an opportunity of demonstrating my theory before the Government Educational Authorities, with an Astronomical expert present. May I ask, why deny me this opportunity?
If I can prove that the present day theory is wrong, and I am quite confident of the result, at least it will be the means of repairing a serious defect in the education of our children.
Psalm XIX. verse 4. "In them hath he set a Tabernacle for the Sun"; verse 5-"Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race"; verse 6-"His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and there is nothing hid from the heat there'of."
TRUTH WILL ALWAYS WIN.