Part 4

84. If we move away from an elevated object on or over a plain or a prairie, the height of the object will apparently diminish as we do so. Now, that which is sufficient to produce this effect on a small scale is sufficient on a large one; and travelling away from an elevated object, no matter how high, over a level surface, no matter how far, will cause the appearance in question--the lowering of the object. Our modern theoretical astronomers, however, in the case of the apparent lowering of the North Star as we travel southward, assert that it is evidence that the Earth is globular! But, as it is clear that an appearance which is fully accounted for on the basis of known facts cannot be permitted to figure as evidence in favor of that which is only a supposition, it follows that we rightfully order it to stand down, and make way for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

85. There are rivers which flow east, west, north, and south--that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth's surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down, taking it for a fact that there really is an "up" and a "down" in nature, whatever form she assumes. But, since rivers do not flow up-hill, and the globular theory requires that they should, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

86. If the Earth were a globe, rolling and dashing through "space" at the rate of "a hundred miles in five seconds of time," the waters of seas and oceans could not, by any known law, be kept on its surface--the assertion that they could be retained under these circumstances being an outrage upon human understanding and credulity! But as the Earth--that is, the habitable world of dry land--is found to be "standing out of the water and in the water" of the "mighty deep," whose circumferential boundary is ice, we may throw the statement back into the teeth of those who make it and flaunt before their faces the flag of reason and common sense, inscribed with--a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

87. The theory of a rotating and revolving earth demands a theory to keep the water on its surface; but, as the theory which is given for this purpose is as much opposed to all human experience as the one which it is intended to uphold, it is an illustration of the miserable makeshifts to which astronomers are compelled to resort, and affords a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

88. If we could--after our minds had once been opened to the light of Truth--conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings could exist, the power--no matter by what name it be called--that would hold them on would, then, necessarily, have to be so constraining and cogent that they could not live; the waters of the oceans would have to be as a solid mass, for motion would be impossible. But we not only exist, but live and move; and the water of the ocean skips and dances like a thing of life and beauty! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

89. It is well known that the law regulating the apparent decrease in the size of objects as we leave them in the distance (or as they leave us) is very different with luminous bodies from what it is in the case of those which are non-luminous. Sail past the light of a small lamp in a row-boat on a dark night, and it will seem to be no smaller when a mile off than it was when close to it. Proctor says, in speaking of the Sun: "his apparent size does not change,"--far off or near. And then he forgets the fact! Mr. Proctor tells us, subsequently, that, if the traveller goes so far south that the North Star appears on the horizon, "the Sun should therefore look much larger"--if the Earth were a plane! Therefore, he argues, "the path followed cannot have been the straight course,"--but a curved one. Now, since it is nothing but common scientific trickery to bring forward, as an objection to stand in the way of a plane Earth, the non-appearance of a thing which has never been known to appear at all, it follows that, unless that which appears to be trickery were an accident, it was the only course open to the objector--to trick. (Mr. Proctor, in a letter to the "English Mechanic" for Oct. 20, 1871, boasts of having turned a recent convert to the Zetetic philosophy by telling him that his arguments were all very good, but that "it seems as though [mark the language!] the sun ought to look nine times larger in summer." And Mr. Proctor concludes thus: "He saw, indeed, that, in his faith in 'Parallax,' he had 'written himself down an ass.'") Well, then: trickery or no trickery on the part of the objector, the objection is a counterfeit--a fraud--no valid objection at all; and it follows that the system which does not purge itself of these things is a rotten system, and the system which its advocates, with Mr. Proctor at their head, would crush if they could find a weapon to use--the Zetetic philosophy of "Parallax"--is destined to live! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

90. "Is water level, or is it not?" was a question once asked of an astronomer. "Practically, yes; theoretically, no," was the reply. Now, when theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to do is to drop the theory. (It is getting too late, now, to say "So much the worse for the facts!") To drop the theory which supposes a curved surface to standing water is to acknowledge the facts which form the basis of Zetetic philosophy. And since this will have to be done--sooner or later,--it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

91. "By actual observation," says Schoedler, in his "Book of Nature," "we know that the other heavenly bodies are spherical, hence we unhesitatingly assert that the earth is so also." This is a fair sample of all astronomical reasoning. When a thing is classed amongst "other" things, the likeness between them must first be proven. It does not take a Schoedler to tell us that "heavenly bodies" are spherical, but "the greatest astronomer of the age" will not, now, dare to tell us that The Earth is--and attempt to prove it. Now, since no likeness has ever been proven to exist between the Earth and the heavenly bodies, the classification of the Earth with the heavenly bodies is premature--unscientific--false! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

92. "There is no inconsistency in supposing that the earth does move round the sun," says the Astronomer Royal of England. Certainly not, when theoretical astronomy is all supposition together! The inconsistency is in teaching the world that the thing supposed is a fact. Since, then, the "motion" of the Earth is supposition only--since, indeed, it is necessary to suppose it at all--it is plain that it is a fiction and not a fact; and, since "mobility" and "sphericity" stand or fall together, we have before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.

93. We have seen that astronomers--to give us a level surface on which to live--have cut off one-half of the "globe" in a certain picture in their books. [See page 6.] Now, astronomers having done this, one-half of the substance of their "spherical theory" is given up! Since, then, the theory must stand or fall in its entirety, it has really fallen when the half is gone. Nothing remains, then, but a plane Earth, which is, of course, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

94. In "Cornell's Geography" there is an "Illustrated proof of the Form of the Earth." A curved line on which is represented a ship in four positions, as she sails away from an observer, is an arc of 72 degrees, or one-fifth of the supposed circumference of the "globe"--about 5,000 miles. Ten such ships as those which are given in the picture would reach the full length of the "arc," making 500 miles as the length of the ship. The man, in the picture, who is watching the ship as she sails away, is about 200 miles high; and the tower, from which he takes an elevated view, at least 500 miles high. These are the proportions, then, of men, towers, and ships which are necessary in order to see a ship, in her different positions, as she "rounds the curve" of the "great hill of water" over which she is supposed to be sailing: for, it must be remembered that this supposed "proof" depends upon lines and angles of vision which, if enlarged, would still retain their characteristics. Now, since ships are not built 500 miles long, with masts in proportion, and men are not quite 200 miles high, it is not what it is said to be--a proof of rotundity--but, either an ignorant farce or a cruel piece of deception. In short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

95. In "Cornell's Intermediate Geography," (1881) page 12, is an "Illustration of the Natural Divisions of Land and Water." This illustration is so nicely drawn that it affords, at once, a striking proof that Earth is a plane. It is true to nature, and bears the stamp of no astronomer-artist. It is a pictorial proof that Earth is not a globe.

96. If we refer to the diagram in "Cornell's Geography," page 4, and notice the ship in its position the most remote from the observer, we shall find that, though it is about 4,000 miles away, it is the same size as the ship that is nearest to him, distant about 700 miles! This is an illustration of the way in which astronomers ignore the laws of perspective. This course is necessary, or they would be compelled to lay bare the fallacy of their dogmas. In short, there is, in this matter, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

97. Mr. Hind, the English astronomer, says: "The simplicity with which the seasons are explained by the revolution of the Earth in her orbit and the obliquity of the ecliptic, may certainly be adduced as a strong presumptive proof of the correctness"--of the Newtonian theory; "for on no other rational suppositions with respect to the relations of the Earth and Sun, can these and other as well-known phenomena, be accounted for." But, as true philosophy has no "suppositions" at all--and has nothing to do with "suppositions"--and the phenomena spoken of are thoroughly explained by facts, the "presumptive proof" falls to the ground, covered with the ridicule it so richly deserves; and out of the dust of Mr. Hind's "rational suppositions" we see standing before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.

98. Mr. Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is "carried across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth." Now, this is nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could possibly carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the star is carried across anything at all, it is the star that moves, not the thing across which it is carried! Besides, the idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of nearly 600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over a star "millions of millions" of miles away is simply monstrous; whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, "the further away they are, the less they will seem to shift." Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, if the Earth on which they fix them move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor's mass of "six thousand million million million tons" is "rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever" with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a "very slow coach," with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of "Zadkeil's Almanac," says: "We declare that this 'motion' is all mere 'bosh'; and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks for TRUTH only, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity." Since, then, these absurd theories are of no use to men in their senses, and since there is no necessity for anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a "strong presumptive proof"--as Mr. Hind would say--that the Zetetic philosophy is true, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.

99. Mr. Hind speaks of two great mathematicians differing only fifty-five yards in their estimate of the Earth's diameter. Why, Sir John Herschel, in his celebrated work, cuts off 480 miles of the same thing to get "round numbers!" This is like splitting a hair on one side of the head and shaving all the hair off on the other! Oh, "science!" Can there be any truth in a science like this? All the exactitude in astronomy is in Practical astronomy--not Theoretical. Centuries of observation have made practical astronomy a noble art and science, based--as we have a thousand times proved it to be--on a fixed Earth; and we denounce this pretended exactitude on one side and the reckless indifference to figures on the other as the basest trash, and take from it a proof that the "science" which tolerates it is a false--instead of being an "exact"--science, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

100. The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings "noon" to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun's position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where "time" is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be "put on," or we may be said to "gain time." If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still "morning," the watch has to be "put back," and it may be said that we "lose time." But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth's "rotundity," as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.

"And what then?" What then! No intelligent man will ask the question; and he who may be called an intellectual man will know that the demonstration of the fact that the Earth is not a globe is the grandest snapping of the chains of slavery that ever took place in the world of literature or science. The floodgates of human knowledge are opened afresh and an impetus is given to investigation and discovery where all was stagnation, bewilderment and dreams! Is it nothing to know that infidelity cannot stand against the mighty rush of the living water of Truth that must flow on and on until the world shall look "up" once more "to Him that stretched out the earth above the waters"--"to Him that made great lights:--the Sun to rule by day--the Moon and Stars to rule by night?" Is it nothing to know and to feel that the heavenly bodies were made for man, and that the monstrous dogma of an infinity of worlds is overthrown for ever? The old-time English "Family Herald," for July 25, 1885, says, in its editorial, that "The earth's revolution on its own axis was denied, against Galileo and Copernicus, by the whole weight of the Church of Rome." And, in an article on "The Pride of Ignorance," too!--the editor not knowing that if the Earth had an axis to call its "own"--which the Church well knew it had not, and, therefore, could not admit--it would not "revolve" on it; and that the theoretical motion on an axis is that of rotation, and not revolution! Is it nothing to know that "the whole weight of the Church of Rome" was thrown in the right direction, although it has swayed back again like a gigantic pendulum that will regain its old position before long? Is it nothing to know that the "pride of ignorance" is on the other side? Is it nothing to know that, with all the Bradlaughs and Ingersolls of the world telling us to the contrary--Biblical science is true? Is it nothing to know that we are living on a body at rest, and not upon a heavenly body whirling and dashing through space in every conceivable way and with a velocity utterly inconceivable? Is it nothing to know that we can look stedfastly up to Heaven instead of having no heaven to look up to at all? Is it nothing, indeed, to be in the broad daylight of Truth and to be able to go on towards a possible perfection, instead of being wrapped in the darkness of error on the rough ocean of Life, and finding ourselves stranded at last--God alone knows where?

Baltimore, Maryland, U. S. A., August, 1885.

APPENDIX TO THE SECOND EDITION.

The following letters remain unanswered, at the time of going to press, December 7, 1885:--

"71 Chew Street, Baltimore, Nov. 21, 1885. R. A. Proctor, Esq., St. Joe, Mo. Sir: I have sent you two copies of my 'One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe,' and, as several weeks have since elapsed and I have not heard from you, I write to inform you that if you have any remarks to make concerning that publication, and will let me have them in the course of a week or ten days, I will print them--if you say what you may wish to say in about five or six hundred words--in the second edition of the pamphlet, which will very soon be called for. Allow me to say that, as this work is not only 'dedicated' to you but attacks your teachings, the public will be looking for something from your pen very shortly. I hope they may not be disappointed. Yours in the cause of truth, W. Carpenter."

"71 Chew Street, Baltimore, Nov. 24, 1885. Spencer F. Baird, Esq., Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Sir:--I had the pleasure, several weeks ago, of sending you my 'One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe.' I hope you received them. A second edition is now called for, and I should esteem it a favor if you would write me a few words concerning them that I may print with this forthcoming edition as an appendix to them. If you think any of the 'Hundred Proofs' are unsound, I will print all you may have to say about them, if not over 400 words, as above stated. I have made Richard A. Proctor, Esq., a similar offer, giving him, of course, a little more space. I feel sure that the very great importance of this matter will prompt you to give it your immediate attention. I have the honor to be, sir, yours sincerely, Wm. Carpenter."

Copies of the first edition of this pamphlet have been sent to the leading newspapers of this country and of England, and to very many of the most renowned scientific men of the two countries--from the Astronomer Royal, of England, to Dr. Gilman, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Several copies have been sent to graduates of different Universities, on application, in consequence of the subjoined advertisement, which has appeared in several newspapers:--

"WANTED.--A Scholar of ripe attainments to review Carpenter's 'One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe.' Liberal remuneration offered. Apply to Wm. Carpenter, 71 Chew Street, Baltimore. N. B.--No one need apply who has not courage enough to append his name to the Review for publication."

We should be pleased to hear from some of the gentlemen in time for the insertion of their courageous attacks in the Third edition!

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

"This can only be described as an extraordinary book.... His arguments are certainly plausible and ingenious, and even the reader who does not agree with him will find a singular interest and fascination in analyzing the 'one hundred proofs.'... The proofs are set forth in brief, forcible, compact, very clear paragraphs, the meaning of which can be comprehended at a glance."--Daily News, Sept. 24.

"Throughout the entire work there are discernible traces of a strong and reliant mind, and such reliance as can only have been acquired by unbiassed observation, laborious investigation, and final conviction; and the masterly handling of so profound a theme displays evidence of grave and active researches. There is no groping wildly about in the vagueness of theoretical speculations, no empty hypotheses inflated with baseless assertions and false illustrations, but the practical and perspicuous conclusions of a mind emancipated from the prevailing influences of fashionable credence and popular prejudice, and subordinate only to those principles emanating from reason and common sense."--H. D. T., Woodberry News, Sept. 26, 1885.

"We do not profess to be able to overthrow any of his 'Proofs.' And we must admit, and our readers will be inclined to do the same, that it is certainly a strange thing that Mr. Wm. Carpenter, or anyone else, should be able to bring together 'One Hundred Proofs' of anything in the world if that thing is not right, while we keep on asking for one proof, that is really a satisfactory one, on the other side. If these 'Hundred Proofs' are nonsense, we cannot prove them to be so, and some of our scientific men had better try their hands, and we think they will try their heads pretty badly into the bargain."--The Woodberry News, Baltimore, Sept. 19, 1885.

"This is a remarkable pamphlet. The author has the courage of his convictions, and presents them with no little ingenuity, however musty they may appear to nineteenth century readers. He takes for his text a statement of Prof. Proctor's that 'The Earth on which we live and move seems to be flat,' and proceeds with great alacrity to marshal his hundred arguments in proof that it not only seems but is flat, 'an extended plane, stretched out in all directions away from the central North.' He enumerates all the reasons offered by scientists for a belief in the rotundity of the earth and evidently to his own complete satisfaction refutes them. He argues that the heavenly bodies were made solely to light this world, that the belief in an infinity of worlds is a monstrous dogma, contrary to Bible teaching, and the great stronghold of the infidel; and that the Church of Rome was right when it threw the whole weight of its influence against Galileo and Copernicus when they taught the revolution of the earth on its axis."--Michigan Christian Herald, Oct. 15, 1885.

"So many proofs."--Every Saturday, Sept. 26, 1885.

"A highly instructive and very entertaining work.... The book is well worth reading."--Protector, Baltimore, Oct. 3, 1885.

"The book will be sought after and read with peculiar interest."--Baltimore Labor Free Press, Oct. 17, 1885.

"Some of them [the proofs] are of sufficient force to demand an answer from the advocates of the popular theory."--Baltimore Episcopal Methodist, October 28, 1885.

"Showing considerable smartness both in conception and argument."--Western Christian Advocate, Cincinnati, O., Oct. 21, 1885.

"Forcible and striking in the extreme."--Brooklyn Market Journal.

Baltimore, Maryland, U. S. A., December 7, 1885.

[APPENDIX TO THIRD EDITION.]

COPY OF LETTER FROM RICHARD A. PROCTOR, ESQ.

5 Montague Street, Russell Square, London, W.C., 12 Dec., 1885.

W. Carpenter, Esq., Baltimore.