Navigation Proves The World a Plane

Navigation Proves The World a Plane

By “Yachtsman”

When at school, I was taught that the most conclusive proof that the Earth is a Globe, was found in the fact that the upper masts and sails of ships at sea are seen first, and as the vessels approach the observer, the lower masts and sails become visible, and finally the hull.

I am in possession of one of the most powerful glasses ever invented, or made by man. The iron barque, “ La Querida,” of Liverpool, left Capetown for Australia some time ago. I watched her from an elevation of 200 feet. She was in ballast, and thus presented a hull high out of water. As she sailed away, the entire vessel, masts, sails and hull gradually became less, until the hull was scarcely visible. I applied the “Emperor” binocular glass to my eyes, and could see the hull as plain as the sails and masts. The ship went on until I could no longer see the hull, and only the masts and sails indistinctly. Again I applied the glass, and again saw the hull, masts and sails all very small, but all distinctly visible, although about lo miles distant. Hence, I came to the conclusion that either my binocular glass has the power of piercing a segment of water miles in thickness, or that the earth is a plane and therefore not a globe.

On a fine afternoon I took up my usual position (200 feet above sea level) to watch the schooner “Lilia,” of Capetown, sail away about due North for Saldanha Bay…

 

… At my usual position again one very fine and clear morning, I saw a black spot far away on the horizon. As it drew nearer I could indistinctly see a funnel and two masts, but nothing whatever of the ship’s body. Now, thought I, here’s a fine chance to test the “Emperor” and the scientists globe teaching at one and the sg,me time, and suiting the action to the thought, I applied the glass, when lo! and behold! What did I see? I saw a funnel, two masts, and the body of the steamer, and also the white wave being dashed from her bow by her speed through the water!!!

Now if any Observatory man can be found to attempt to prove the Earth a Globe, I am ready to meet him.

Posted in Flat earth and science, Flat Earth Experiments | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Flat Earth Believers Then and Now, Part 1

Flat Earth Believers Then and Now, Part 1

It’s a strange that that there are many flat earthers today do not believe in the God of the Bible. They believe in a God but somehow separate him from Scripture. Also, there are some flat earth believers today who did not believe in God at all but after believing in the flat earth, had to accept that there is a God. But for some strange reason – known only to them – that is is not the God of the Bible. Yet, it was only 125 years ago that all flat earthers believed in Yahweh, God first, then believed in the flat earth. From there, they saw the beautiful harmony of true science matching up with the Bible. Flat earth believers in the 1890s, for example, did not change their God into something that fits their political views but still saw Him as “the Great I Am.” While today, some, and I say some, flat eathers try to create god into a person who that is “politically correct.” Yes, I think that they are still controlled by being politically correct and not truthful. They did, however, learned more truth by realising that the earth is, indeed, flat and stationary but that is all; they still have a long way to go. I could go on and on but I’ll just continue this article with a sample of an old flat earth article written in the 1890s of flat earth believers’ who trust in Holy Scripture. There are many, many such article I could quote that it would compile a book. But you, as a regular reader of Christian Flat Earth Ministry, know quite well that the generation of flat earth believers of long ago remained believers in the the Bible as the literal Word of God.

*****

Think of the witnesses who from Genesis to Revelation have attested to the reality of miracles, supernatural dreams and visions: think of the mental and moral calibre of the whole; think as they spoke chiefly of what they experienced, saw, as God’s instruments. I say, if these are not the witnesses of truth, of the deliberate falsehoods these exemplary men condescended without possibility of collusion to utter. Think of Joseph, if he had only accidentally guessed right in interpreting the dreams of Pharaoh, his chief butler and chief baker, having the audacity speak as God’s commissioned messenger: think of Daniel having habitually committed the same enormity; think of the Bible dreamers:, always dreaming according to the interpretation of their dreams: think of the Bible interpreters being men greatly beloved of God; never reproved for their solutions of enigmas in His name, and never accidentally guessing wrong? And in the region of miracle, think of the walls of Jericho having only fallen flat by a strange coincidence “when the priests blew with the trumpets and the people shouted with a great shout;” think of Moses only pretending; to plague Egypt: of Joshua having only pretended to converse with the Captain of the Lord’s host: of Gideon having only juggled with that fleece of wool: of Daniel having somehow circumvented the lions, and then given the thing a miraculous colour that he might gain ascendency over the Median king : think of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego making themselves fire-proof by a scientific process of which the particulars are not now recoverable : think of God having only been pretended by Solomon as the Giver o f his wisdom and the Answerer of his prayer for it; and think of Christ having only pretended to feed “five thousand men, besides women and children” by the miraculous increase of “five loaves and two fishes;” having only pretended to raise the dead, to heal the sick, to cast out devils, and Himself to die and rise again! Explain away the miraculous if we can make ourselves ridiculous; by trying, but as to doing it— we may as well try to scale heaven.

Subtract the miraculous and leave the historic— impossible! Tear away the first and nearly the whole of the last comes with it. And why should we? Wherefore is not the miraculous part of the Bible as true history as any other part?

If we credit all we now hear, the splendid men of old, whose histories in brief the Bible gives, were so many weak-minded enthusiasts, bent on manufacturing archives out of mutual hallucinations; poor creatures the whole or them; and so insufferably oriental as to be quite unable, even in the commonest matters, either to express themselves comprehensibly, or to distinguish between fact and fancy. It is we who are the wise; they were but superstitious ignoramuses. Well, let our wise men produce a subtler and, in spite of its metaphors, clearer bit of argumentation than that between Job and his fellow-ignoramuses, they can.

The world has its sages and its sages. Those whose works are obsolete are its wise sages: those who produced the only standard work in existence, the incomparable Bible, are its otherwise sages; that is to say, its foolish ones. Wanted an illustration of virtue— where it is oftenest sought? Among the worthies of the Bible?

Nine times out of ten among the greatly more esteemed worthies of heathendom! What perversity, for merely classical ends, to prefer the men, maxims, and morals of a dead heathendom before the inimitable exemplars of a living Bible! The infatuation of scholars for things heathenish— this seems the cause of the Bible’s witness against heathen science revived being ignorantly under-valued.

Elihu, apparently knowing as perfectly well what he was talking about as the sanest man amongst us, declared supernatural dreams to have been one means of Divine communication with men; and he added, that what actual knowledge men possessed was imparted by the God who made and gave them life. It is “ God my Maker,” he says, “who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven” (Job xxxv. 11). And Job, as if to illustrate this, comes out with a sample of the teaching received— “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand in the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God ” (Job xix. 25. 26). Where learnt he that? Of men? And was it the initial fancy from which men, many of whom never saw one another, artfully conspired together, the living with the dead, to concoct that fairy tale— Christ and the Resurrection! Men are amazingly clever; but to attribute all this to them would make them out far more clever than hitherto they have shown themselves to be.

Supernatural dreams one of the means by which God imparted knowledge— visible angels seem to have been another; and in God’s grand answer to Job “out of the whirlwind” we hive a third.

Scientific gentlemen may sneer at the whirlwind communications of God with men; but the recorded fact that God spoke to Job is not to be displaced, except by proof that He did not; or shaken, except by substantiated inferences on the contrary. Disbelief by itself is not the mind-work of men, but the passion-work of fools: by itself, disbelief is not worth attention; yet only disbelief— by itself— has assailed this Bible statement.

That amongst the worshippers of God in Job’s day there were very faulty notions— -especially of God’s providences, and man’s ability to maintain his own righteousness before his Maker— is sufficiently evident: for Job himself had imbibed them. Nor was it strange it should be so; for although God himself was the teacher, His people were but scholars: education, in no case complete, was simply in progress.

Now Modern Science’s position is, that God has proceeded upon the principle of adapting Himself to man’s errors ; and here is a test case proving He has done no such thing.

To be Continued

Posted in Bible and Flat Earth, Old flat earth news | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Fake News, Fake Nature of the Earth, Fake Food

Fake News, Fake Nature of the Earth, Fake Food

With all the fake news that is out there, we also know there are fake products on the market from shoes to clothing to perfume. So, is it any wonder that there is fake food out there. It’s one thing fake name-brand coffee but but another when fillers are used in the coffee.

With the lying government, it makes it easy for companies to lie – as it’s part of the food regulations. Food laws are designed for companies to easily mislead people. For example, if you see the words “Cheese Product” on a package, you probably think that it’s cheese. The truth is, that it’s not or it may have less than 50% cheese. In the video you’ll see that American cheese is not cheese.

Here are a couple of video clips on the fake food that is out there. After seeing this, ask yourself if you eat any of this. You might want to change your mind if you do. One rule of thumb is, if it’s cheap it’s probably fake. You can add this fake to the fake globe earth that we were all taught in school.

 

More fake food – more shocking. Mostly about fake food in China. BUT, you know that a lot of food from China is imported into America.

Top 10 fake foods

fake food that you eat every day

 

Posted in Conspiracies, Fake Science | Tagged | 4 Comments

Science’s Quarrel With The Bible, Part 3

Science’s Quarrel With The Bible, Part 3

Extracts from Lectures by Walter Rowton, Esq.

The most of us, in our innocence, have all along been believing in the beautiful lady who calls herself science, as “ the handmaid of religion;” so she at one time delighted in representing herself, and we ever took her at her word. Never dreaming of any unchristian motives underlying her fair professions, we hitherto have listened to her counsels and been gradually guided by them. When she explained that the Bible Astronomy, Geology, Geography, and so forth, were not true, nor intended to be true, though the bulk of us were not so educated as to be able to follow her through “ the experimental evidence,” yet, considering she spoke in the interest of that religion whose service she professed, we implicitly believed her, and, dupes as we were, gave them up. Having a wonderful opinion of her cleverness, and unbounded confidence in her rectitude, it never once entered our minds she had a disguise to abandon. But how— now she has succeeded as she thinks in committing us to theories we must follow to where she herself stands; now, “abandoning all disguise,” she exclaims, like Elihu of old, “I am full of matter’’ (Job xxxii. I8); not Elihu’s, however, but a very inferior matter. Elihu reads forward — his matter is God : she backward— her God is matter.

So far as Christians are concerned. Professor Tyndall, whether he intended it or not, has re-opened the whole scientific question : and should it be held a kind of Quixotism to tilt in these days against such stone-wall conclusions as those of Galileo and Newton, pray as Dr. Tyndall been guilty of a less Quixotism by his denial, in this the nineteenth century of Christianity, of the Bible’s God ?

The fashionable course, I am sure, is to doubt Scripture and believe science: to her our perpetual cry is for more; so far from questioning the truth of the incredible tales she tells; so far from treating her as she treats the Bible, we are agape for greater marvels; and we swallow them whole. But is this reasonable? Why should Scripture, without proper knowledge of it, be doubted? and why should science, with no knowledge of it, be believed. The doubting spirit is by no means a bad one; yet when our spirit doubts according to its prejudices—strains at a gnat and bolts camels by the dozen— then, its doubting, like its similar beliefs, are both foolish and mischievous. Instead of believing Scripture and doubting science, or believing science and doubting Scripture, for the sake of fairness, let us begin de novo, by doubting both, reserving belief till doubt is satisfied.

“But how is it possible,’’ you may ask, to doubt science’s proved facts? We would gladly accept the Bible cosmogony if we could, but how can we? The exact sciences shut us up to the conclusions that the Bible astronomy is wrong, that its geology is wrong, that the earth, so far from being the centre of the universe, is a mere speck in it; that the earth is not flat but round, that it is not move-less but moving.

“How is it possible to escape these impregnable facts?”

Our duty will be to inquire if these stated facts are impregnable. But, meantime, this also we must consider; if we continue one by one to desert the Bible positions, as we have been doing, if we associate with the holders of these views whenever they elect to take another step, as they say, in “advance,” the alarming likelihood is, that beginning with the received astronomy, we shall get gradually but surely on to Tyndallism, Spencerism, and Darwinism, and end by not apprehending a creating and controlling First Cause. Consent with the philosophers that the Bible speaks unreliably from its presumably Divine side upon scientific subjects, and what is in the way of its similarly speaking upon all others? Consent with the wisdom of this world, against which the Bible itself warns us, and your God may eventually become, like his whose words have been quoted, a may-be, rather than a must-be; a dim human possibility, rather than a divinely revealed fact.

“ And wherefore not, if that be really the truth?” Quite so; but is it? The philosophers having raised that question, and given their doubts in the form of beliefs ; now it devolves upon the other side to give facts and reasons for the contrary belief that is in them.

In the complicated quarrel before us, we indeed are deeply concerned, and had need be very careful lest direct personal interest in the issue should bias our judgment of its merits. We have looked at the no longer disguised leading of what is called Science, as she herself having invited, attention to them, it was fitting we should : let us now give to them their proper place and influence. All they should cause is this : they should stimulate to extra carefulness in the search we are making into the rights and wrongs of this contention. Those of us who are Christians must not remember we are so to the extent of allowing our Christianity to blind our judgment; neither must those who agree with science be men of already made-up minds.

If we should find that science, so called, has an unanswerable case, let us say so, and honestly cast in our lot with hers. But, on the other hand, if we should be of opinion that the Bible positions are good, let us back to our allegiance, and, if necessary, defend them like men.

Into the examination of these positions we cannot go now : the task is a very arduous one, and must be reserved for my next lecture.

Posted in Bible and science, Old flat earth news, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Science’s Quarrel With The Bible, Part 2

Science’s Quarrel With The Bible, Part 2

 

Extracts from Lectures by Walter Rowton, Esq.

“But it is not Science’s business,” I am reminded, “ to do more than delay our arrival at mother earth; at the grave’s mouth her duties cease. To provide for the Afterwards is Faith’s work.” Yes; and to enable Faith to do it well—she invalidates her Bible! “Oh, but she means not to invalidate the Bible’s faith: she only invalidates its science.” Nay, but these are inseparable: the Bible science is the Bible faith’s platform: they stand or fall together. Does that require proof? it shall have proof, overwhelming proof in my next lecture.

Meantime, let me show you that modern science really does her utmost to invalidate the Bible Faith.

With reference to modern astronomy, The Daily Telegraph. July 6th, 1875, says: “Nothing has so changed the beliefs of society as the discoveries of astronomy; ” and after naming approvingly our larger conceptions and widened theologies, it adds the amazing revelation that “All the ancient theologies were constructed upon the Ptolemxan notion that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that the sun, moon, and stars were hung in the void to lighten it, and for signs and seasons.” With Claudius Ptolemy therefore, born Anno Domini 70, originated this, the Genesis Cosmogony! Did not I rightly say, that in the cases of scientific men theological knowledge was not equal to technical? But what is the drift of this anachronism 1 Evidently to impute to one of ourselves the scientific teaching of the Scriptures, and so to destroy veneration for it.

The modern astronomy, beginning as a system with Galileo, together with “the moral sense in man,” according to the Telegraph, “really furnish the foundations of a natural religion, to the vast and imperative demands of which the official teachers of dogma must advance. All theories of Revelation and Divine Government,” it continues, “have, since the discoveries more especially of Newton, had more or less to adapt themselves to the ideas of modern astronomy,” by which, so to speak, “the breath of theology has been taken away.” So you see the Bible is not considered an actual Revelation, but only a theory of Revelation, with a mortal breath, “which has been taken away.” In effect dead, if its sentence is to be revoked, it must worship science. Its teaching is so inferior to “natural religion” based upon modern astronomy and moral intuitions, that instead of natural religion advancing to Revelation, it is our theory of Revelation which mast advance to natural religion.

“Not,” adds the Telegraph, “until the professors of theology’ address themselves in earnest to the vastly larger demands which the minds of men now make for doctrines commensurate with scientific teaching, will religion and morality come up abreast of astronomical truth.” So far from the Bible being the one truth-test to explode all error, now it is modern astronomy which is the truth; and the only doctrines commensurate” therewith, are those of a “natural religion,” compounded of itself and “the moral sense in man.” As for the Bible, its doctrines not being commensurate with scientific teaching; its religion not being natural; its respect for the moral sense in man non-existent; it never could have been the truth; obviously not, or it would be still. For many ages it has been a very good substitute; but now it is bygone, worn-out; it has been completely superseded by modern science.

Of course, if our Bible is this superseded “theory of Revelation,” man’s guaranteed eternal life is not worth the page it is printed on: for how can a God whose promises were put into His mouth by the theorists who invented Him either undertake or fulfil an undertaking?

“ ‘Thus saith the Lord!’ Out upon ye, Moses, David, Isaiah, and the rest! Your God is your delusion! He never spoke a word, either to you or any one else!” That is the legitimate outcome through the Bible “a theory of Revelation.” And if that is not an invalidation of our Faith by modern science, what else to call it, I know not. But modern science having neither proof that our Revelation is more than a theory, nor colourable pretext for supposing so, why does she obtrude that statement? Why? because she has started in opposition: and like some shabby tradesman, she puffs her own article at her neighbour’s expense. “ If you want true science, the genuine article, deal with me. Next door not to be depended on.

The concern is a sham— its proprietor a myth; and its pretended science, not science at all! Guilty of this meanness, does modern science deserve support? Our Bible a theory! its revealed God a non-entity! I call upon science to prove the scurrilous libel, or withdraw it.

Modern science has long had its advocates even in our pulpits; but Christian ministers aware of its latest pretensions, and who hold with it notwithstanding, have a difficult task before them. Still Sunday by Sunday, drawing for their analogies upon modern science, they must now publicly reconcile what they themselves denounce as poisonous grapes with that producing stock they hitherto have maintained a true vine.

I wonder if Dr. Tyndall foresaw that the legitimate recoil from such teaching as he gave at Belfast would assuredly be the re-consideration by genuine Christendom of the whole of its relations with what is called science, with a view to their abrupt and final termination? He might have done so; he might easily have surmised that sooner or later his denial of the Christian’s God would certainly be followed by their denial of that science in whose name he was selected to speak ; and not in part, but altogether: for science, consistent with herself— her past must be of a piece with her present.

To be continued…

 

Posted in Old flat earth news | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Science’s Quarrel With The Bible, Part 1

Science’s Quarrel With The Bible, Part 1

Extracts from Lectures by Walter Rowton, Esq.

It is all very well for our philosophers to dismiss the Bible as having nothing to do with the technicalities of Science, but they have no right to take that course upon a merely superficial acquaintance with the Book they dismiss. I say “superficial acquaintance,” for hitherto our men of science have shewn only that. Which none of them at any time has learnedly grappled with the Bible case? The frequent assertion, “There is no case to grapple with,” simply proves my point; our men of theoretical science are not accomplished on that side of the subject, or they could not say so.

Not one of them apparently has studied the Book with anything like method. Grotesque explanations of isolated texts to square them with their theories they obviously oppose— these are plentiful enough; but exhaustive treatises in refutation of Bible Science as a systematic whole— where are they? The subjects upon which the Bible is said to speak incorrectly are four; The First Great Cause—the Origin of Man— Geology— Astronomy. Upon these, it is confidently affirmed that the Bible records are but traditional beliefs. But these four resolve themselves into one; for if the Cosmogony of the Bible, or Origin of the Universe, be true, the great pivot principle upon which turn the Philosopher’s First Cause, Darwinism, the “ periods” of Geology, and the elaborate calculations of Astronomy, collapses like a burst soap-bubble.

This, of course, is very startling, and we may well pause were we recommit ourselves to the truth of the Bible Cosmogony. I say recommit ourselves, for long ago, in deference to statements of the then scientific philosophers, that Cosmogony was virtually given up; and before reverting to it, not alone have we to dispose of Kepler’s and Galileo’s and Copernicus’ stated facts, consolidated by the speculations of Newton, Herschel, Tyndall and Proctor, but also we have to take into account the formidable difficulties, owing to the ways in which we stand pledged, of making a recantation. We are committed to Astronomy at variance with the Scriptures: we have surrendered more than Bible dates at the bidding of the Geologists; the theories of Herbert Spencer and Darwin have myriads of adherents amongst the cleverest and most influential of the age’s teachers and leaders; and a recoil from these latest and loftiest results of human reasoning and observation upon the old Bible Cosmogony, looks such a relapse from the zenith of civilization into almost aboriginal barbarism, that we may well hesitate ere consenting it should occur.

But here it is proper we should look for a little at the drift of those technical teachings which from time immemorial to this time have impugned the scientific accuracy of the Bible.

The most eminent living representative of the heathen philosophers, and at the same time the most honoured spokesman in the name of Science that England possesses, recently said— and his words, reproduced by all our newspapers, have been the well-learnt Science lesson of millions since; “Abandoning all disguise, the confession I feel bound to make is, that I prolong the vision backward across the boundary of the experimental evidence, and discern in that matter, which we in our ignorance have hitherto covered with opprobrium, the promise and potency of every form and quality of life,” And again: “All religious theories, schemes, and systems which embrace notions of cosmogony, or which otherwise reach into its domain, must, in so far as they do this, submit to the control of Science, and relinquish all thought of controlling it.”

This, of course, embraces the Bible Cosmogony, it therefore, must submit to the control of such principles as these. By that which calls itself Science, we are authoritatively directed to give up believing in the personal Creator of the Scriptures; to own only a possible First Cause: to accept the heathen atomic theory ; and to discern in “ matter—the promise and potency of every form and quality of life;” which, if there be a God, inevitably includes the life of God Himself. That the heavens declare the glory of God ; that the firmament showeth his handiwork; that God made man; that Creation, as biblically described took place, nay, that Creation as a special work occurred at all: all this we are summoned to surrender. And for what ? For the dear sake of a materialism which, when we fail— for aught that has ever been taught us to the contrary— shall receive us into as good as everlasting nothingness! “Survival of the fittest” — a blessed hope truly! for, as their times come, “ the fittest” did” as unavoidably as others. Everlasting dust and ashes, that appears our promised end; and who but is .speeding towards it? As in this life there is vastly more pain than pleasure, if there be indeed no afterwards, no day of reckoning, why does not science recommend suicide? Depriving us of our Bible hope, and giving us none other— by all means everlasting dust and ashes; and the sooner the better. Science has no right to devise schemes for prolonging life; with her views, it is the refinement of cruelty.

To be continued.

Posted in Bible and science, Old flat earth news | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Flat Earth Believer From Capetown

A Flat Earth Believer From Capetown

Dear Sir,— I am very pleased to hear from you and thank you for papers sent. I may say that I have always questioned some of the teachings of astronomers but had not the means at hand to support any objection I wished to make. Now, however, the case is altered and I can see very clearly that a “plane” earth and that alone is compatible with Bible teaching. I am especially thankful that the means of proof are now within the reach of every man who knows the multiplication table and uses his eyesight — that precious, though abused, God given sense.

What puzzles me more than everything else is that common sense people have been so deluded as to believe in the fearful monstrosity that the earth is a whirling ball! I went to a lecture here a few weeks ago, by a gentleman from the Royal Observatory (near here). His advertised address was on “Glimpses of the Solar System,” illustrated by limelight views. He said he had had a good deal to do with astronomy, having been employed at Greenwich when a boy in connection with the Royal Observatory there. Well, this “ authoritative” lecture amused me most of all for the “blind credulity” it manifested the audience to be possessed of. I simply smiled and sometimes laughed at what I plainly saw were mere suppositions.

The lecturer fairly knocked the legs off his own theories by saying, “we may ASSUME, we may SUPPOSE,” etc.. He said, “the accepted theory of astronomy is true, at least, WE ASSUME IT TO BE TRUE!” I just laughed’ outright at such “science.” Well, the learned man went on, being considerably helped by the pictures. He said there were places on the moon which appeared to be the same as old craters on the lops of volcanoes, and showed a few of them.

“How wonderful!” an old lady behind me kept repeating. The next picture shown was a volcano with lots of smoke issuing from its summit. The man of figures, paused just long enough to give his audience time to hold their breath at seeing a picture of an actual volcano on the moon— and then said that the volcano of the picture was not on the moon—it was Vesuvius ! Well, well, the chagrin and disappointment caused by that statement plainly made it evident that—so far as I could see— everybody but myself believed the volcano to be on the moon’s surface! This serves to show the gullibility of human nature. The man of figures quietly smiled at his dupes. I should think so! (But as a flat earth man, these men of figures never smile. Ed. E. R.)

During the lecture he referred to the “flat earth” people, and said that until they could do what astronomers had done some spots on the sun) they would have lo be silent! Wonderful! exclaimed the lady behind me. After the lecture I wrote to the learned man and said, I was sorry he made reference to the “ flat earth” people without giving-them a chance of replying, and that if he would take the affirmative in the preposition “ that the earth is a revolving globe,” I would gladly take the negative on the same platform as his lecture was delivered. In his reply, he said, “ I have neither the ambition nor the leisure to join in such a discussion as you suggest, especially as from previous experience I well know its uselessness.”

Such a debate would have fairly roused Capetown, but, of course, a good situation is not to be so easily thrown away. If I had been allowed to ask a few questions at the lecture, I think one or two would have taken as long to answer as it would take a science lecturer ” to walk to his 93.000,000 to the sun.

Being an amateur navigator I am much interested in the truth of the earth’s planarity and would much like to get a chart on the natural principle if there are any to be had. I am at present living right east of Table Mountain, and therefore cannot determine where the Southern Cross sets; but should I go to live in the city I shall have great pleasure in observing it and reporting to you.

Now I must close, wishing you God speed in the propagation of truth.

Sincerely yours,

T. W.

Posted in Old flat earth news | Tagged | Leave a comment

Posing a question for Newtonian believers

Posing a question for Newtonian believers

 

Works on Newtonian astronomy tell us that the planets, including our earth, revolve round the sun and also rotate on their axes from west to east, or from right to left.

The earth then, according to this theory, turns on its axis from west to east and revolves round the sun in the same direction.

Let the following diagram illustrate this:

Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, the earth travelling in its orbit around  the sun. The earth is said to turn on its axis from right to left or from west to east; that is, from A to B, (No. 2).

It also revolves round the sun from right to left: that is, from 2 to 3. Since the sun is seen to rise in the east and set in the west, it travels, as viewed in this country, from left to right.

As the earth is supposed to rotate like a top in the direction from A to B, an inhabitant on the other side o f the “ globe ” could not see the sun until the earth turned round and brought him to A. He would then, from his position at A, see the sun rising on his right, that is, in the west; for, as we look at the sun, the west is on our right.

How is this, then? We know the sun rises in the east, that is, on our left; but according to the Newtonian theory, as illustrated by their own diagram, the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

Surely this is a poser for Newtonians. Who among them can explain this contradictory theory?
Beta.

 

Posted in Old flat earth news | Tagged | Leave a comment

Talk on Gravitation, Part 3

Talk on Gravitation, Part 3

Attraction is a Myth

The attraction of gravitation a myth ? Yes! a fabulous story, with no foundation in fact, though having an APPARENT support in some terrestrial phenomena. Many people imagine that gravitation is a word representing some discovered fact or force in Nature; but let them proceed to show us what fact or force, and they will discover their mistake. Gravitation was an invention, not a discovery; and a supposition necessitated by another hypothesis, viz; the globular theory. One was invented to support the other. Without gravitation the globular theory falls; and without the globular theory what would become of gravitation? I t would become less and lighter than our little molecule of hydrogen, and fly away into unknown and uncivilized regions.

“Parallax” proved the globular theory false, by the FACT that the surface of water is horizontal; and the investigator after truth, practically proves, that the theory of gravitation is utterly false, by a little molecule of hydrogen gas! No one can even tell us what gravitation is, or how it acts. Now, although we may not know what electricity is, or magnetism; we do know how they act.

As I showed in No. 2 Earth Review, Newton did not know how gravitation acts, or whether it really be attraction, or repulsion; that is, he did not know whether there is such a thing as attraction or not.

Where Newton failed to guess, what other mathematician dare try? If the inventor did not know, who amongst his pupils can tell? But they should first prove that gravitation does act before they attempt to explain how it acts.

The magnet is no proof of gravitation. Its power is selective and limited. It seems to attract steel and soft iron, but it will not draw stones and wood ! Gravitation is supposed to attract all bodies, even the stars. They are all supposed to be pulling hard at one another, yet they never get any nearer together. It is strange! But does the magnet really attract steel? The iron or steel goes towards the magnet, but is its motion caused by the attraction or the repulsion of some force? It may be carried by a magnetic current, not drawn by the magnet itself.

Newton confessed that the idea of bodies acting “ upon one another at a distance,” and “ without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other,” is “so great an absurdity, that,” says he, “I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Yet many do fall into this error. They are not flat earth believers. I stand on a bridge and I watch a log of wood coming down the stream towards the bridge. Is the bridge attracting the log from a distance? Yes, as much as ever the magnet attracts the soft iron! If there were a log by the bridge, the log would remain by it, as the iron remains attached to the magnet. If not, and if the arch under the bridge be sufficiently wide, the log would pass under and follow the stream. Then the bridge would seem to be repelling the log, like one “pole” of the magnet will repel the magnetic needle. Yet by such flimsy arguments and pretexts is the theory of attraction supported. No man in the world can define gravitation, nor tell how it acts; it is a tissue of philosophical speculations and falsehoods, unworthy of honest men and thinker’s, perhaps the most ingenious theory of gravitation ever proposed is that of Le Sage. He “imagines,” says Mr, J. E. Gore, “An infinite number of ultra mundane corpuscles of excessive minuteness, speeding through space in all directions, and with enormous velocities. Two bodies in this ocean of flying corpuscles screen each other from the molecular bombardment, and would consequently move together with a force varying inversely as the square of the distance.”

Upon which Professor Tait remarks:
“ It is necessary also to suppose that the particles and masses of matter have a cage like
form, so that enormously more corpuscles pass through them than impinge upon them; else the gravitation action between two bodies would not be as the product of their masses.”

Well might Sir John Herschel say:
“The hypothesis of Le Sage, which assumes that every point of space is penetrated at every instant of time by material particles sui generis, moving in right lines in every possible direction, and impinging upon the material atoms of bodies, as a mode of accounting for gravitation, is too grotesque to need serious consideration!”

What then must the poorer theories be? Readers, take your choice between common sense and reason, and theories “too grotesque to need serious consideration.”

*****

A Professor’s View of His Own Teaching

“The student of science will do well to bear in mind the words of a very eminent lecturer of physiology. The statements I have made to you gentlemen I have every reason to believe to be wholly untrue, but you must learn them, because if you do not, you will not be able to pass your examinations.” The Engineer, October 12, 1894.

Query: Is the father of lies, the father of the so-called sciences?

*****

News of Interest

Check out the News tab at the top of this page for a recent posting.

 

Posted in gravity exposed, Old flat earth news | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Talk on Gravitation, Part 2

Talk on Gravitation, Part 2

  But we, dear reader, can also muse over apples. While so musing, I wonder why my apple makes no tremulous motion towards the moon, which is rising as I write, especially as she is now between the two “ ponderous and superior” planets. Mars and Jupiter, which are approaching towards conjunction. Ye t through the varying positions and relationships of the heavenly bodies, as they roll around the world and my apple, it remained on the shelf twenty-four hours perfectly stationary, as though no such tremendous forces were playing their mighty artillery upon it. They may try from their various vantage grounds, east or west, north or south, mid-heaven or sideways, yet the apple will not move. Yet a breath would have caused it to roll. There is no proof for flat earthers of universal attraction in this apple. But perhaps mine is different from Newton’s. It will not bow to fair Luna as she pulls it sideways, assisted by the two powerful giants, one on each side, attending her like guards, much less will it attempt to rise towards the mighty sun as he pulls with all his meridian power and glory. Its weight is the same throughout the twenty-four hours. No! friends. I must see an apple fall ” upwards before I can believe in solar gravitation. But a superficial thinker may object that the reason bodies only fall downwards to the earth is, because the earth being nearer than the sun, its force of attraction is the greater of the two. Is it ? Let us take another instance, which proves, not only that there is no such thing as terrestrial gravitation, or attraction, but which shows that this supposed power may be defied.

Gravitation Defined

In the science schools o f to-day our pupils are taught the atomic theory, namely: that all bodies consist of innumerable minute particles so small that they are invisible and cannot be further divided, or cut up, as their name, atoms, implies. These atoms, the gods of the scientist and evolutionist, may all be the same size, if we can attach size to such infinitely small things, or potentialities, but they have not all the same specific gravity or weight. Hydrogen, a kind of gas, is the lightest body known. Hydrogen may be obtained by a combination of sulphuric acid, zinc clippings, and water. As the gas bubbles up through the water we catch a little in a glass bottle, or a test-tube. We may fix our mind’s eye upon one molecule of hydrogen, and let all the others go free.

We work this molecule safely inside a small glass tube. It is the lightest body known upon the earth, and it is easier to pull about light bodies than heavy ones. Now, the theory of gravitation is that all the atoms in the earth and in the world are attracting, or pulling at this molecule of hydrogen; and that, being nearest to the earth, the latter will have the most power over it. We will not pause to show further the absurdity of this theory, and the infinite number of bonds and filaments our little

molecule must possess to be in pulling connection with all the atoms of the universe; but we will proceed to liberate it from the bottle, not from the bonds, and watch, with mental vision, its behaviour, on being so far set free. Now what course ought the molecule to take, if the theory of

our astronomical friends be true?

Clearly and rapidly downwards to the earth, pulled down unmercifully by ten thousand times ten million threads or gravitating cords. We turn the bottle neck downwards and draw the cork. The molecule of hydrogen ascends in the glass, and refuses to leave the bottle. Remember, every atom in the so-called “ globe” is pulling with all its might at our little molecule of hydrogen; yet It refuses to leave the jar! Turn the glass right side up, and now our molecule, really liberated, mounts up above the highest clouds, in complete defiance of the combined pull of all the gravitating forces in the “ globe.” It stands aloof from all the nonsensical “ forces,” or theories, of the astronomers, and mounts upwards and onwards in defiance of them. It defies, as we defy, all their metaphysical “reasoning” and jargon about gravitation. If bodies falling to the earth prove gravitation, what do bodies ascending from the earth prove? If the “globe” can pull at a distant body like the moon and make it “fall” through sixteen feet per second, why can it not pull at air, smoke, clouds, gases and things close at hand, and make them all lie down in layers upon its surface? The conclusion is evident; a force that cannot overcome a little helpless molecule of hydrogen, is no force at all. The apple was too much for it, and so is the molecule.

Bodies rise or fall, according to their inherent density, or weight, and they remain at rest whenever and wherever they attain their equilibria. This is reasonable, because it is natural; yet at the same time it is utterly opposed to the fanciful speculations of the scientists, who darken counsel with words without knowledge. In the whole wide world there is no such thing as the astronomer’s “attraction of gravitation.” I challenge any of them to prove it. I will, in conclusion, proceed to show that their idea of attraction is a myth.

To be continued

Posted in Gravity, Old flat earth news | Tagged , | Leave a comment