On a Small Island Watching a Ship at Sea
In the picture here, we have shown an illustration used to support the false perspective, and false teachings, of the schools; but while some of the higher-class astronomical books do not disgrace their pages with such a palpable monstrosity, their teachings are in agreement therewith, and some of their diagrams equally faulty.
Let an observer be placed on some small island in mid-ocean, as represented in figure 12. where he can watch ships sail away from him in opposite directions; now if figure 11 be a true picture of the surface shape of the sea, and the observer on turning round sees a similar rise of the water on opposite sides, then the surface of the ocean would consist of a series of bulges, continued ad infinitum, as indicated by figure 12!
Still Mounting Upwards
Now let there be a series of observers, as implied in figure 13; the first observer on the right sees the vessel mount hill number one. At this point let there be another observer watching the same ship going in the same direction; he should see It mount hill number two. And a third observer, similarly placed, should see the vessel still mounting uphill number three; and so on, up towards the moon! This would agree with the theory that the moon temporarily attracts the waters of the ocean — but who would trust himself to that theory to make the voyage!
We may well leave the theory of a globular sea to the reprobation of all honest thinkers. Yet Sir Robert Ball in common with some other astronomers, maintains that an observer on the seashore. in watching a receding vessel. actually sees it mounting a hill, or a “protuberant” part of the ocean, until it reaches the horizon, when it begins to descend! If the sea-earth were a globe, the observer should always be placed on the top, near the sea-level; and the receding object should at once begin to descend, But as perspective requires objects below the eye-line to appear to rise in the distance, the globularist is thus unconsciously constrained to yield this testimony as a concession to truth!
The Flat Earth Society says “science” itself, based on spinning, whirling, gyrating balls, is not only “untrue” but insane.
That is a really really good illustration.
Do you have the reference location where I can find Sir Robert Ball’s statement you referred to?