The True Facts and the Modern Theories

  MODERN ASTRONOMY and its crafty or, most deluded sycophants teach that “ the sun is stationary and the centre of the planetary or celestial bodies, and that it is over One Million miles larger than the earth ! ”

Whereas, it is not one thousandth part of its size,—is constantly moving in spiral orbits, round and over the face of the motionless earth increasing the latitude of those orbits about ten or eleven miles every day from June to December, and decreasing them in the same proportion from December to June.

The astronomers now teach that the Sun’s distance from the Earth is from 92 to 93 Million miles; whereas, it is proved to be under 2,400 miles, and the stars and planets even less than that.

So far from the Earth being a planet and “very much inferior in size to all the other planets but Mars,” it is no part at all of the celestial system; but is wholly distinct and far superior in size and character to all the planets put together, which exhibit very little variety in size among themselves, and no parallax whatever, when viewed under any possible conditions!

The astronomers again assert the Earth to be a revolving and rotating Globe, with an axial speed of over one thousand miles an hour, and an orbital speed of over one thousand miles per minute! whereas, it is an absolutely motionless plane, surrounded by a barrier of impassable icebergs, extending into unknown regions, where “day and night come to an end,” or, in other words, cease to be distinguished, and will only be removed when “there shall be no more sea;” and a “ new firmament and a new earth ” shall replace this sin-stained and misused world.

The astronomers teach an atmospheric pressure of fifteen pounds on the square inch; whereas, it does not amount to half as many grains. Gravitation (central), is the wildest fiction ever invented.

All Attraction,—Solar, lunar, central, and magnetic, is purely conjectural and physically impossible.

The astronomers further declare that this globe has no material support. but is sustained and controlled in its terrific orbits by solar attraction only, at a distance of nearly one hundred million miles; although Sir Isaac Newton himself declares the idea was “grossly preposterous and

discreditable to any rational mind;” meaning, of course, that the “centripetal and centrifugal forces” were hypothetical conditions only, and like all the other data on which the Copernican theory was founded, were purely geometrical devices, which no one in their sober senses ever thought could be illustrated by an appeal to facts. But such was the ignorance or bigotry of his professional friends, that they would not allow even Sir Isaac Newton himself to publish his repeated disclaimers of being anything more than a mathematical inventor or formulator of a system which was in no degree dependent on the truth of his premises. The rank absurdity and downright impossibility of any one, of its most elementary conditions, and the fact that no man of honor or scientific reputation would venture openly to defend it, ought to secure the instant rejection of it by every lover of truth in the world. The whole thing lies in a nutshell. All that is insisted upon is, that results or conclusions drawn from conjectural theories of philosophy, however plausible and apparently simple they may be, are wholly worthless and unworthy of any claim to rank as true science, till they have been proved correct by actual experimental demonstration, and can be thus confirmed and illustrated as often as their truth is challenged or denied. Even if a theory be true in the abstract, yet, if incapable of practical demonstration, it is not science, merely to suppose or assert it to be true. Newton himself was too sound a philosopher to attempt to illustrate the truth of the globular theory; he repeatedly discouraged all discussion, and, if left to himself, would never have attached his name-or sanction to such a bungling absurdity.

This is the ground on which the ZETETICS take their stand, and all the professors in the kingdom will strive in vain to dislodge them; and, what is more, they are too cowardly to attempt it. The above is so startling an exposure that the public press is ashamed to announce it; although the globular theory has been shown to be a Pagan superstition, unscriptural, irrational, unscientific, and physically impossible!

The true cosmogony of the Universe should be the primary subject, and one which ought to take precedence of every other on which the mind of a child can possibly be engaged. Ignorance of its true nature is a gross scandal on all connected with any phase of education, either religious or secular; and the imposition of a fraud which the intelligent child soon learns to detect, exerts a positive injury on the mind all through life. At the present moment there is not a teacher in the kingdom who would venture _to prove himself familiar with the most elementary principles of

natural science; and yet the writer is abused for declaring the world is full of knaves or dunces. Even savages never boast of being wiser than they are, or teach their children what they know to be untrue.

Never before was there such a fuss made about education. Do we really know or only think we know? Or is it learn, learn, learn – leave off no wiser than before? If bricks and mortar could make brain’s—fine buildings could ensure great thoughts—if learned professors nearly all that they profess, Thomas Carlyle would have belied his countrymen when he said we were a nation of “mostly fools.”

What is our standard of true knowledge? an imperfect standard is as misleading as defective weights If we deal with false analogies, we are only comparing true metal with an ingenious counterfeit! What are we aiming at these remarks? We mean to say and are able to prove that at this moment, we are living in an age of shams and false pretences, and that we are totally unfamiliar with the most elementary conditions of some of the most important subjects that can possibly occupy the attention of a professedly intelligent and commercial nation;—that even our Clergy and Theological professors do not yet understand the teaching of the Mosaic records;—that our Schoolmasters, on some subjects, do not understand oi know more than their pupils; that even our nautical charts and tables would discredit a nation of savages; and that our geography and astronomy are just where they were left by our university authorities of two hundred years ago; and that the most eminent of our educational professors would not now venture to defend what our poor children are compelled to carry with them through life.

What shall we say to those “Scientific” Journalists and Reviewers who persistently discourage any desire for discussion or ventilation of this important subject? Is it to hide their own ignorance or to display a mock contempt for any suggestion that runs counter to popular prejudice or opinion; or do they go so far as to imply that they cannot find among their numerous literary connexion, one individual writer who has intelligence enough to maintain his ground in a discussion with an honest

opponent ? It is a gross fraud on the credulity of the public as well as on the helplessness of childhood to enforce the acceptance of certain teaching which they are too ignorant to explain or too cowardly to defend.

If modem astronomical science could be shown to be demonstrably true, how’ glorious would be the victory, and how, dire our confusion ! But till they cease their insolent taunts and courteously show us our error and the futility of our opposition, we shall certainly not cease to regard them as vanquished foes, who lack the moral courage to acknowledge their defeat. And we can but trust that when Prof. This or Prof. That ventures to pose as a Scientist or as an oracle on scientific subjects, he will learn to exhibit a little more modesty and confess that for once in his life, he had to bow to the superior influence of common sense, and, above all, to the omnipotent authority of the inspired records.

As it is. Science is irredeemably prejudiced in the eyes of all honest men and can never again assume those insolent airs which have so frequently disfigured its encounters with the less dogmatic searchers after truth.

*****

The following Extract was taken from the “Birmingham Weekly Mercury” of February 15^th, 1890, and must have been first published very soon after the experiment on the Bedford Canal, when that Professor fraudulently appropriated the sum of £1,000 on the grossly false plea that he had proved a curvature on six miles of the surface water of that Canal.

An Engineer of Thirty Years

“ An Engineer of Thirty Years Standing” writes to a magazine in 1874 quoting the following sentences as the result of his experience in the construction of railways, more especially :—“ I am thoroughly acquainted both with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are incapable of any practical illustration.

All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as true levels or flats. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined, and must be carefully traversed.

But anything approaching to ‘ eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance,’ could not be worked by any engine that was ever yet constructed. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be positively stated that all the platforms are on the same relative level. The distance between the eastern and western coast of England may be set down as three hundred miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed, as represented, the central stations say at Rugby or Warwick, ought to be close upon three miles higher than a cord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case, there is not a driver or stoker within the kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train.

As long as they know the pretended curve to be mere theory, they do not trouble themselves about what may be stated in the tables of the geographers. But we can only laugh at those of your readers and others who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical surfaces. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough; vertical ones would be a thousand times worse, and, with our rolling stock constructed as at present, physically impossible.

There are several other reasons why such locomotion on iron rails would be as impracticable as carrying the trains through the air.”—Surveyor.