What Causes Clouds of Vapour?

Reprinted from “The Earth.” an old flat earth publication

What causes clouds of vapour to be precipitated in showers of rain? There must be some definite active motive power. Electricity, which is in itself a “mode of motion,” is a subtle agent or power in Nature, evolved in some disturbance of molecular equilibrium, whether from a chemical, physical, or mechanical cause, and exhibiting itself in a variety of ways, e.g., electro-chemistry: that science which treats of the agency of electricity in effecting chemical changes; electrolysis; the process of chemical decomposition by electricity as to send it to the earth in showers of rain. This brings to the statement made by Lord Kelvin in the Natural Philosophy Class Room, when referring to some experiments, he remarked: “I believe there never is rain without lightning.”

Bearing in mind the last quotation, and the remarks preceding it, if we again turn to Psalm 135:7, we read: “ He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; He maketh lightnings for the rain; He bringeth the wind out of His treasuries.” So, as Roger, in his Reasons, truly says, “Here is the very discovery towards which the biggest electrician of his day is only now feeling his way!” I have thought over the same verse of the Psalm, and have come to the same conclusion. This should strengthen our belief in the Bible and its Divine source, and that any statement not in harmony therewith will be found to be fallacious. How do the clouds become rain? “There is one kind of electricity in this cloud, and the opposite kind in that which meets it. The contact begets the lightning flash; the shock inasses the globules together, the rain is precipitated; and the waiting earth is refreshed.”

God has stretched out “the heavens as a curtain.” I do not say that the Hebrew word dok, translated ‘curtain, does not mean thinness; but to argue that “a cupful would make a globe of ether as big as the earth,” is going outside sense and reason, as well as out of the context and other portions of the Bible. We read in Isaiah 11:22, R.V.: “He that sitteth upon the circle (vault) of the earth…… that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in,” and we are told in Job 37:18, R.V., that He spread out the sky which is strong as a molten mirror;” and again, in Prov, 8:27, 28, R.V., “He set a circle upon the face of the deep; when He made firin the skies above.”

“You cannot deny, at any rate, said one of the speakers in Roger’s Reasons, that the Bible teaches the flatness of the earth. We left Rome to fight that battle out with Galileo, was the quoted reply, but we have to own that Rome had the Bible on its (her) side. The last speaker cannot be contradicted in this respect, although the author of the pamphlet quibbles, and endeavours to show that the language of the Bible is in accord with a whirling sea earth globe. But who ever heard of a globe having ends?

Yet the Bible refers to the ends of the earth and how can a globe, moving at the rate of about 1,100 miles a minute, be fixed on “foundations” and “pillars”? Hannah said and sung: “The pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and He hath set the world upon them.”  I Sam. 2:8. Again, we read: “He founded the earth upon her bases that it should not be moved for ever; the world also is established that it cannot be moved.” The foundations of the earth (land) an outstretched and motionless plane, proved by the fact that water everywhere is level. We read that he spread forth the earth above the waters; and again we are told  heaven above…earth beneath… water under the earth  not empty space all round a whirling globe, nor the sea resting upon the earth, but the earth resting in and upon the waters of the mighty (“He hangeth the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7), that is, as one learned Hebrew scholar says, “upon no thing.”

I have frequently reminded my readers, and hearers, that the correct translation is not that of a suspended globe in empty space. “He stretcheth out the north over the empty space, and does not hang the earth (or land) upon any thing.” This passage of Scripture is frequently brought up by our opponents, but it does not prove the globular teaching at all. In dealing with this verse, in the first place, we hold that the word ‘earth’ means the land portion of the world, and the land only; and therefore it does not include the sea.

Now Job was referring to the land in the north, over which the northern heavens are spread. And the earth beneath it (the land in the north) hangeth upon “no thing,” having neither “pillars” nor foundations, save the waters of the great deep. Job proves his inspiration by this statement of fact, written hundreds of years before any man had attempted to explore the north magnetic centre. A thing hung up is motionless.

Daylight At The Poles

This agrees perfectly with ascertained facts, and the valued reports of trustworthy explorers. The following is reliable, authentic, and in perfect harmony with the aforesaid statements of Holy Writ:

“March 16, Sun rises, preceded by a long dawn of 47 days, (from Jan. 19th, when first glimmer appears).

“On 25th Sept., the sun sets, and, after a twilight of 48 days, darkness reigns supreme for 76 days.

“The sun remains above the horizon, 194 days.

“The year is thus divided at the Poles: 194 days sun; 171 days, no sun, 48 twilight, 76 dark, 47 days dawn.”  Capt. Bedford Pim, R.N., in Marine Pocket Case.

Let us turn to Ps. 135:7: “He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; He maketh lightnings for the rain; He bringeth the wind out of His treasuries.”

The meteorology of that Psalm is abreast with, and actually in advance of, our twentieth century “science.” Even our science has discovered how to produce light from liquids and metals. So that light could exist without the sun, and did so exist according to the Bible, which all Zetetics believe. That God created the luminiferous cther before He created the sun and moon, we may learn from the opening words of the Bible. In Gen, i. 3, the Hebrew word, translated “light,” is, or should more correctly be rendered luminiferous ether, or ‘electricity;’ and in verse 14 the word is M’or, light-holder, or the holder of it.

In a pamphlet, which I have just published, entitled: Zetetic Astronomy, or the Sun’s Motions North and South, etc.; by myself (Lady Blount) and Albert Smith, it is shown that the Bible is provell to be eminently scientific from the fact that the luminiferous Ether was first created, and started in inotion all around and over the level waters of the sea, and this motion is the cause of all other motion and force which is in the world.

But referring again to the subject of rain. Rain is admittedly caused by the falling of the watery vapours, which have been drawn up into the upper regions of the air by the power of the sun. The multitude of little globules, having air inside and watery vapours outside, will, if left when they are formed, fall again upon the Sea, and the earth’s thirst will be unquenched. Will the action of light disperse them?

It is true that light is a complex, powerful, and all-pervading form of energy, traversing “unto the limits” of its appointed bounds in the universe known to us. Scientists differ in their conclusions regarding its velocity; but by some it is said to be about 186,000 miles in a second (!). But this immense speed has been calculated upon the assumption that the planets, and the sun and moon, are at immense distances from the earth, whereas we know they are only a few thousand miles away  even the farthest of them. Yet, according to Dr. Bradley, there is aberration of light. At the same time, does light convey to us anything of a material character?

Now, let a long tube be held perpendicularly, at perfect rest, while a falling body (a drop of a shower of rain) passes down its axis. If the drop entered at the centre of the upper orifice of the tube, and issued at that of the lower, knowing the tube to be exactly vertical, an observer would conclude that the descent of the drop was also vertical. If, however, the tube and the observer were carried uniformly forward as the drop fell, the hinder part of the tube would then advance to meet the drop. In this case, in order that the drop may fall through the length of the moving tube, the latter must be inclined, in the manner illustrated below.

Let the tube have the direction A B, and let it move parallel to itself, so that the end A travels to By then the drop will emerge without touching the tube. If the observer did not know that the tube advanced, he might think that the drop fell in the direction D A. This is a sort of paraphrase of the astronomical phenomena  the raindrop representing the light, and the tube the telescope  A B being said to be the velocity of the earth, and D B, or C A, the velocity of light; but the evidence of our senses tells us that the earth does not move along its base, and that rain-drops fall sometimes perpendicularly, and at other times obliquely, which may be accounted for by the drift of the current through which, and along which, the rain-drops pass to the earth.

Where light, however, for all practical purposes, is absent, there is not necessarily an absence of rain; in fact rain is opposed to the full manifestation of light; but no doubt the movements of the air (called “winds”) have a marked effect in respect to the prolongation, or otherwise, of rain, Suffice it to say that different movements in the air produce different winds; e.g., trade-winds, countertrade-winds, and monsoons (from the Arabic word signifying “season”), which are due to the circumstance that continents become more heated than oceans under the same sun. There are naturally land-breezes and sea breezes. In hot countries bordering on the sea the land is hotter than the sea by day and cooler by night; hence in the day-time, the air over the land rises, and air flows in from the sea. At night the air over the land grows heavier and sinks, presently flowing backwards to the sea. When the land is hottest the sea-breeze blows most strongly, and the land-breeze attains its greatest force during the coldest parts of the day.

There are, of course, winds produced by local causes. Proctor once wrote that the heat of the Sahara Desert in summer causes cool air from the Mediterranean to flow towards the south, the winds thus arising being called Etesian winds. At other times, owing to the cooling at night over the same great desert, air-currents flow from the Sahara across Sicily and South Italy, and sometimes as far as the Black and Caspian Seas, and, although dry winds at starting, they reach Italy as moist winds, after traversing a part of the Mediterranean. These often cause river currents. The Apostle Paul appears to refer to such a wind in Acts 27:14. The name Euroclydon is given by him to the wind which came off the south coast of Crete, and caused the shipwreck of the apostle upon the coast of Melita. The Sirocco belongs to this class of winds, causing a feeling of depression; but Proctor admitted that little is known as to the actual cause of those violent disturbances called gales and hurricanes, and it is not known why atmospheric pressure becomes sometimes very much lower than at others.

The Bible Held Up Against Higher Critics

Reprinted from “The Earth.” an old flat earth publication

The Bible and Science, is the sub-title of what is known as Roger’s Reasons, a pamphlet in which the Bible is professedly upheld against certain Higher Critics. In this conversational pamphlet one of the Agnostics jeeringly speaks of “the mistakes of Moses,” and starts the controversy by asking, “What do you say to the Creation History in the first chapter of Genesis, and that gem of the collection, light before and seemingly without the sun?” This question is followed by the hackneyed statement, that “the Bible was never intended to teach science.”

But the Bible was evidently intended to teach cosmological science, or knowledge; as appears from the fact that it does teach it. So the writer of the pamphlet is, at the beginning, illogical.

Would it be possible for a theological text-book, purporting to come from the Creator for the guidance of His creatures into the way of obtaining Eternal Life, to contain blunders on the very first subject mentioned in that book? If such were the case, the Bible would not be reliable, and could not be from God.

But the subject of Creation is not only mentioned, it is taught in explicit terms, and the Bible has never been shown to contain a scientific error in its statement, that light was created before the sun. Light is described in a dictionary, as an imponderable ethereal fluid diffused through space, and opposed to darkness light being the result of force, caused by wave motion, i.e., the waves of the ether vibrate with almost infinite rapidity. Thus when the Spirit of God “moved” (or brooded) upon the face of the waters, the movement was made with a purpose which was consummated when the fiat went forth: “Let there be light! and there was light.”

I agree with “Roger” when he states, that the Bible generally explains itself; but he subverts the truth in an unwarrantable and awkward manner when dealing with such portions of the inspired Record as the following:

“God said: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear. And God called the dry land, Earth.”  Gen, i, 9.

And in Pet, iii. 5, we read of “the Earth standing out of the water, by the Word of God.”

Also, in Holy Writ, we are told. regarding the waters, that there is “a place which God has founded for them.” And that God “hath set a bound that they may not pass over.”  Ps. civ. 8, 9. “He hath set a compass (circle, R.V.) upon the face of the deep…… When He gave to the sea His decree, that the water should not pass His commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth.” Prov, 8:27, 29. “He hath compassed the water with bounds until the day and the night come to an end,” Job 26:10.