# Talk on Gravitation, Part 4

## Universal Gravitation, a Pure Assumption

Yes, the Bible does “ teach that the world is flat ” approximately; and consequently there is no need of “the law o f gravitation” to “draw everything to the centre.” But is this teaching of the Bible — absolutely true? Yes, and the scientists themselves tacitly admit the fact when they declare that “the upper surface of a fluid at rest under the action of gravity alone is a horizontal plane, since otherwise, if a part o f the surface were higher than the rest,”— don’t you see it? This is a tacit acknowledgement that the world is NOT A GLOBE!! If the World were a Globe, then of necessity “a part of the surface ” MUST be “higher than the rest’’ for as they themselves have owned, “whichever way you go on a Globe you must go down’’ therefore one part must be higher than the other, and that part is the observer’s standpoint. But, be it remembered, that where there is a “down” there must also be an “up’’ therefore the above statement is a “down” – proof that the World is not a Globe— but to continue— “ those parts of the fluid which were under it would exert a greater pressure upon the surrounding parts than they received from them, so that motion would take place amongst the particles and continue until there were none at a higher level than the rest, that is, until

THE UPPER SURFACE OF THE WHOLE MASS OF FLUID BECAME A HORIZONTAL PLANE.”

The First Principles o f Natural Philosophy by Mr. W. T . Lynn, of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, p. 51.

This testimony is absolutely true to Nature and experimental fact; therefore the assumptions o f convexity and concavity are relegated to the lethe they came from by the savants of the Royal Observatory.

But let us continue our enquiry; IS THERE IN TEH UNIVERSE ANY SUCH “FORCE” OR “LAW OF GRAVITATION?” 6th. “ The history of science (so-called. Ed.) shows that ALL the great laws of mind and matter have been discovered, NOT BY DEMONSTRATION but b y IMAGINATION.”

Science Siftings, Vol. I No. 15. p. 235.

That this is absolutely true is proven by the undeniable and acknowledged fact that Kepler “discovered” his three “Laws of Planetary Motion” in that way. Listen to the testimony of your own school men, ye, who believe in the “ earth’s sphericity,” surely you will believe them won’t you? even though you deny the evidence of your senses that they may be considered, “The wise guides, philosophers and friends, who do lay upon themselves the onerous duty of deciding these momentous problems for us.”— L o r d S. LISBURY. Morning Leader, June 23rd, 1894. Listen, I say, to Professor W. B. Carpenter, C.B., F.R.S., etc.

7th. It was not until twelve years after the publication of his first two laws, that Kepler was able to announce the discovery of the third.

This, again, was the outcome of a long series of GUESSES, and what was remarkable as to the error of the idea which suggested the second law to his mind, was still more remarkable as to the third; for not only, in his search for the ‘harmony’ of which he felt assured, did he proceed on the erroneous notion of a whirling force emanating from the Sun, which decreases with increase of distance, but he took as his guide another ASSUMPTION no less erroneous, viz., that the masses of the Planets increase with their distances from the Sun. In order to make this last fit with the facts (?) he was driven to ASSUME a relation of their respective which we now know to be UTTERLY UNTRUE; for, as he himself says, ‘unless we ASSUME this proportion of the densities, the law of the periodic times will not answer. Thus, says his biographer, ‘three out of the four suppositions made by Kepler to explain the beautiful law he had detected are now INDISPUTABLY KNOWN TO BE FALSE? SEE? what he considered to be the proof of it, being only A MODE OF FA L SE REASONING by which “any required result might be deduced from any given principles.” —Modern Review, Oct. 1880.

And these “three laws” are the basis of Newtonian “Universal Gravitation,” O ! most glorious origin!!

The most superficial scholar knows what is the received explanation of the movements of the Planets round the Sun, viz., that when the Planet is first hurled on its course from the hand of its Maker, the Maker of the Planets is the Sun, its tendency is to go in a straight line; but this tendency is arrested by the attraction of gravitation, and the two forces acting in opposition to each other cause the orb which they control to move in a curve. It was supposed by Kepler that this curve did not form a perfect circle, but an ellipse, and that the Planet was accelerated in some parts of its orbit when it was nearest the Sun. The cause of this discrepancy was attributed by Newton to the antagonistic action of the centripetal and centrifugal forces: as the attraction of gravitation, or centripetal force, gradually overcomes the centrifugal, the Planet is drawn nearer the Sun, and its speed in its orbit accelerated. But let us see what another eminent Professor o f Astronomy has said about centrifugal force, and we shall find that the “laws,” which Professor Guillemin in The Heavens, edited by Professor Lockyer, informs us that Newton “extended to all the bodies of our Solar system,” are no more to do with Natural Phenomena, than the ravings of a madman.

8th. CENTRIFUGAL FORCE IS A FICTION; THERE IS REALLY NO SUCH THING AS CENTRIFUGAL FORCE.” Professor Airy, Mathematical Traits. Note on p. 140, 4th ed.