Extracted text
Advocates of the Flat Theory Must Accept Facts of Demonstration, or Endeavor to Defend a Fallacy.
Editorial transcription, lightly normalized from the cited scan pages. Historical claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
In the past we have referred to the work of Parallax, of England, as directed against the popular idea that the surface upon which we live is convex. From some experiments which he conducted, he concluded that the surface of water is flat, and therefore, that the general form of the earth is a comparatively flat surface—a circular plane. He instituted what he termed Zetetic Philosophy. The word Zetetic is from zetco, which means to investigate or to search out. The name, therefore, is indicative of the fact that he did not pretend to be the founder of a system of integralism, or the discoverer of the laws of the form and function of the universe—simply that he was a searcher for truth, and an experimenter. His followers are called, Zetetics; and they can best follow him in the progress of truth but some of them have deemed it wise to stop with his conclusions, and to stubbornly defend them against all progress and all demonstrations contrary to the opinions which they hold.
In the past, Zetetics have made some progress; they have succeeded in throwing off the yoke of the Copernican fallacy. Their battle with the other side has been a hard one, and they have often been provoked to call the advocates of the popular theories dishonest and deceitful, for endeavoring to disregard and evade the facts to which the Zetetics appeal, but which they cannot succeed in getting the scientists to observe. It is really provoking to observe facts contrary to erroneous theories advocated in the world, and then be unable to induce the advocates of the fallacies to even consider the facts observed! And this is somewhat the basis of a charge of inconsistency that we have to bring against the editor of the journal advocating the so called Zetetic philosophy. He does not like the character of our demonstrations, and promptly manifests the fact that he does not. In a late number of the "Earth (not-a-globe) Review, of London, we find the following in reply to a correspondent:
"What do we think of the Geodetic Rectilineator? Will it prove us wrong?" First, we think it is the last trump card of the great adversary of mankind; but never fear, we hold the ace and king—the Word of God, the horizontality of water. No, it will not prove us wrong any more than an "equatorial telescope" does, and it once made a gentleman exclaim, "Why, in that way you can actually see the curvature of the earth." You see the instrument is made to prove a foregone conclusion. The Koreshan "Rectilineator" is made for the same purpose. They assume by a ' 'geometrical proposition'' that the earth ' is concave, and then talk about "a rail, two miles long, concaved eight inches to the mile." Who made these rails, and who looked along them? We know that they do big things in America, but we are inclined to think that the rail 2 miles, or even 1 mile, long, is too long even for a "cute Yankee. "
We ask our readers to note carefully the language quoted above, because in it is seen an endeavor to evade the question by simply giving some warning suggestions to the reader without any proof for the assertions. The sarcasm in the above, subjects its author to the same charges that he is often compelled to make against those who have endeavored to treat the Zetetic philosophy with contempt. We take it for granted that every reasonable man reaches conclusions by the application of the principles of logic—reasoning from a known premise; a Zetetic especially, should take extra precautions not to violate his reasoning faculties by jumping at conclusions. We ask the author of the above, for the known premise of conclusion that the Rectilineator does not demonstrate the earth's concavity, and consequently does not overthrow the idea of the earth's flatness. We promptly challenge the Earth Review to meet the issue of our propositions concerning the test or determination of the earth's true contour, the principles of which are set forth in the pamphlet "The New Geodesy," and which have been practically applied by a corps of operators in scientific experiments, by which the earth surface has been demonstrated to be concave. We challenge it to show wherein the principles of the proposition are at fault, or where lies the failure to properly apply these principles in the geodetic expedition at Naples, Fla. The man who has conducted an experiment has a decided advantage over those who have not. Does the editor of the Review know absolutely, that the demonstration of the earth's concavity has not been made? Let him answer this question specifically; if he does not, then he is simply setting up his opinion against the testimony of a company of men who have devoted months to the specific work of demonstration and experimentation.
We have pointed out in past issues the intricacies attending the survey of an air line by ordinary survey; we have shown the necessity of employing a method in which refraction and perspective foreshortening must be eliminated. We also ask the journal referred to, to consider and answer the following: Would not a straight line a few miles in length, at right angles to the perpendicular at any given point on a convex surface, be tangent to the surface at place of given perpendicular? Would not a similar line extended over a flat surface continue to be parallel to the rectilinear surface? And again, if the line be extended over a concave surface, would not the line constitute the chord of arc, the extremities of which are convergent to the surface proportionate to the altitude of the line at point of the given perpendicular? Would not such a line, therefore, determine whether the earth is convex, flat or concave? If such a line ran continuously parallel to the surface beneath, would it not be a demonstration that the earth is flat? and if the line extended into the surface according to a ratio of approach to the surface, would it not be a demonstration of the earth's concavity?
Can such a line be extended? If the contemporary concludes that it can be, then is it ready to accept the evidences of the actual survey of such a line? If it concludes that it is a mechanical impossibility, then it puts forth the admission that the absolute determination of the true form of the earth is beyond human ingenuity; if it concludes that such a line cannot be surveyed, what is it going to do about the fact that it has been surveyed? The editor of the Earth Review must either agree with the facts of our demonstrations, or deny the evidences embraced therein. If it denies them, we challenge reason for the denial! It is a wise (?) Zetetic who can sit in his office and decide against the evidences of presumably honest men who are competent scientific experimentalists! You see, the argument is put forth "to prove a foregone supposition" that the earth is flat; and blinded by this supposition, our esteemed contemporary may not be able to regard, without prejudice, the absolute fact we have to present, that the earth's surface is concave.
The Surface of Water is Horizontal.
The Zetetics labor under the delusion that the surface of water is flat. When any hydrostatist or civil engineer makes the statement that the surface of water is horizontal, they take it that the water's flatness is meant. They consider it impossible for water in its universal static balance, to be concave; and against any demonstration of the earth's concavity, they will undertake to pit the supposition of the water's flatness, and a misinterpretation as to what is the Word of God. We accept the Bible, and also the Word of God, and the fact that the surface of all water at rest, is horizontal; but we defy the Zetetic organ to show that the Bible is the Word of God, or that water's surface is flat. The Bible nowhere claims that it is the Word of God, but clearly and definitely that, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John i: 1,2); "The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword; neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight" (Heb. iv: 12,13); "And his name is called the Word of God." (Rev. xix: 13.) Is this the Bible?
The surface of a globe is everywhere at right angles to the radii of the sphere; the geometrical principles are the same as to the inner surface of a hollow sphere. If it be admitted that the universe is so arranged that the static balance of water is derived or maintained from some center of generation of the energies which equilibrate all substances, then the static balance of water is concave, every part of the surface of which is horizontal or at right angles to the direction of gravity. In such case, the water is absolutely horizontal and absolutely concave. Water is level; if that level is derived from a flat plane above, then the water level is flat; but if the level is derived from the center of generation of energies that maintain the water level, then that level is concave to the center. If it be admitted that the earth is flat, from whence are derived the energies which cause the water to maintain its flatness? and from whence does gravity proceed?
The metallic lines of railway tracks are called "rails." American usage is not violated in the term, "a rail two miles long. " It is by these metallic lines that the experiments, which the Earth Review WILL NOT consider, have been conducted. The Koreshan principles of optics and perspective are as susceptible of demonstration as any subject, when reduced to a pivot. The sarcastic reference in the above quotation to the use of the word "rail," is simply an attempt to evade the principles of perspective involved in the experiments. Will our esteemed quarterly contemporary have the bravery to consider the evidences we have to present, that the surface of the earth is concave, and to undertake to meet the challenge proposed in this article? The Review will find Koreshan astronomers quite unlike the popular ones; the flat philosophy is meeting its own fate in its attack upon the Koreshan Cosmogony. We will refute all its arguments, and answer all its objections against the Koreshan Astronomy; and we will meet its advocates in the field of contest in demonstration of the earth's contour, or in substantiation of any of the scientific experiments proposed in the Koreshan literature. Now let the Earth Review again review the earth—and do something, or keep quiet and non-combative!
Source boundary: Begins under The Earth Is Concave; ends before Lady Blount's Questions.
Vol. 11, No. 5 · May 1897 · PDF pp. 21, 22
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 11, No. 5 · May 1897 · PDF pp. 21–22