On The Stars

(From an old flat earth booklet.)

THERE are definitely no solid bodies between the
earth and the dome of the sky. The stars are not
masses of matter, and they do not result either from
projections like the satellite discs of the earth.

Xenophanes in the 6th century B.C. thought that the
humid exhalations of the earth contained latent sparks
which, after some sort of condensation, formed the stars, and this explanation appears to be acceptable.

The astronomers of ancient Egypt believed also that
the stars were suspended from the dome of the sky
by cables, like lamps, and the fact is that on very clear
nights, filaments or lines connecting the stars of each
constellation can be clearly distinguished; from this
we may conclude that there exists above the earth a
network of ethereal cords, certain parts of which,
particularly at the intersections, condense and retain
permanently the radio-active emanations from the
earth, thus constituting the stars, in accordance with
the theory of Xenophanes. This does not exclude the
possibility of any effects resulting from the influence
of the dome of the sky or from the presence of the
sun during the day.* It is also evident, since all the
constellations are seen to move in bulk, that it is the
frame or structure, acting as their support, which
revolves and carries them along. It could, further,
be surmised that this stellar network above the earth
is, at intervals, subjected to phases of tension and
relaxation, which would have the effect of enlarging
or reducing the size of interstellar spaces; and also
that the volume of the earth’s radio-active emanations
varies according to seasons or other causes, therefore
increasing or diminishing the luminosity and the
number of the stars.

The stars are, thus, nearer the earth than the
satellite discs which move on the vault of the sky,
and this fact is in accordance with the theory of both
Anaximander and Parmenides. Concerning the supposed
occultations of the stars by the moon, it can be
said that it is not necessary that the latter should pass
in front of a star to render it momentarily invisible,
since the same result is achieved if the moon, the
brighter light of which causes the disappearance of
the star, passes at the back of it.

When we speak of a stellar network or system, it
is self evident that there are two such networks, one
over each half of the earth, which possess different
signs and constellations and meet over the equator.
It can be observed that the constellations make a
complete circle of that part of the heavens in which
they are situated, in one year, which is equivalent to
an approximate speed of one degree per day, and it

* Shooting stars are not to be confused with stars in the ordinary
sense. They are luminous manifestations which took place on the surface
of the dome of the sky as previously explained.

is this advancing motion of the constellations of one
degree per day which, for some incomprehensible
reason, has been attributed to the sun. In our regions
north of the equator this movement takes place from
west to east, in a direction opposite to that of the
satellite discs of the earth. As to the possible origin
of the motion of the stars, this could be determined
by a magnet action exercised by the metallic dome
of the sky, or perhaps by the passage of the daily
and semi-annual cosmic breath streams.

It has been said that there exists a regular retrogression
of the constellations of fifty seconds of
degree per year, and that this movement was first
noticed by Hipparchus in the 2nd century B.C. when
comparing his notes with those which another observer,
Timochris by name, had made one and a half
centuries beforehand. It would be necessary, in the
first place, to know whether the calculations these
two investigators made at an interval of one hundred
and fifty years are correct, and whether they must be
accepted, which is by no means certain; but why,
anyhow, has this retrogradation which was visible
and measurable in the time of Hipparchus, been
mysteriously transformed through the ages into an
invisible retrogradation? A difference of fifty seconds
per year is appreciable over a length of time, as it
amounts to one degree in seventy-two years, and it
should by now since the 2nd century B.C. equal
about thirty degrees. It is, however, impossible
nowadays to see this considerable difference in longitude
in the position of the constellations. These
always return to the exact spot they occupied in the
heavens the preceding years at a given instant. That
is to say that this retrogradation which Hipparchus
thought he had discovered, does not exist, and if it
does exist why, considering the importance which is
attached to it, does it not figure in any of the official
astronomical publications?

There is, therefore, no retrograde motion of the
zodiacal signs over each other. Aries, actually
presumably occupied by Taurus, is not in Pisces,
Pisces in Aquarius, etc. They are still, in the same
order, at the place they occupied in the beginning of
time. Further, the theory of the precession of the
equinoctial point which was derived from this supposed
retrogradation of the constellations, as extended
to the sun, cannot be substantiated.