As to the origin of this earth, when and how the world began to evolve itself, we are
told that in the beginning there was gas, or a nebulous cloud, according to scientists
and evolutionists.
This is a rather difficult subject to deal with, because there was scientifically no
beginning, just an eternal evolution of substance.
Anyway, there was a time when this nebulous cloud arose.
Never mind where it came from, for no scientist has yet ever attempted an explanation on this point.
Although its existence requires some accounting for, considering it was inorganic matter, and
it possessed the powers of feeling and inclination.
According to Laplace, the particles forming the cloud were very hot.
He was not there to see, but I only mention this because some scientists, like Herbert
Spencer, state that the embryo universe was cold.
Anyway, hot or cold, the particles by universal suffrage, or by some other method unknown to
scientists, took upon themselves to form the solar system.
Therefore, it was necessary that this diffused fire mist should condense a little, and move
its particles a little closer together, according to Newtonian laws.
There is a difference of opinion among the man of science concerning the origin and
destiny of this earth.
Some geologists inform us that this earth had its origin in fire, others in water.
Some contend that it will become extinct by a lack of water, a drought, others by too much
water, a flood, others that the end is likely to come by fire, a burnout, others that it
will be caused by intense cold, a freeze-out.
They all feel sure of their opinions, and yet no two of them quite agree.
Now concerning gravitation, C. Vernon Boyd in his paper, The Newtonian Constant of
Gravitation says, It is a mysterious power which no man can explain, of its propagation
through space all men are ignorant.
This is clearly an honest and authoritative confession of astronomical ignorance of
their fundamental position.
Professor W. B. Carpenter in his paper, Nature and Law says, We have no proof,
and in the nature of things can never get one, of the assumption of the attractive force exerted
by the earth, or by any of the bodies of the solar system, upon other bodies at a distance.
Newton himself strongly felt that the impossibility of rationally accounting for action at
a distance through an intervening vacuum was the weakest point of his theory.
The doctrine of universal gravitation, then, is a pure assumption.
This absurd law, or mysterious power which no man can explain the existence of, which has never
been proven, and of which its supposed operation through space all men are ignorant, amounts to
nothing more or less than an empty assumption. Astronomers themselves consider that gravitation
is absolutely necessary to their system, in fact the very foundation of it all.
But I deny that there is any such force in existence, and will express my denial in the
language of Sir Isaac Newton himself, written in a letter to his friend, Dr. Bentley,
February 1692, just before the death of Newton, quote,
that gravity should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon
another at a distance, is to me so great an absurdity that I think no one who has,
in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.
I agree with Sir Isaac, for I too think it so great an absurdity that I shall never fall into it.
Inertia is that property which renders a body incapable of putting itself in motion when
at rest, or coming to rest when in motion. When a stationary body begins to move,
or a moving body comes to rest, it is not through any power of its own,
but because it is acted upon by some external agency, which is called force.
That no inanimate body can put itself in motion is evident from our daily experience
and observation. The rocks that we saw on Earth's surface years ago are precisely
in the same place today that they were them, and there they will remain forever,
unless some force removes them. A moving body gradually comes to rest when the force which
put in motion ceases to act. This is also due to the resistance of the air, and not by any agency
of its own. A projectile may be thrown with such force as to be borne some distance in a straight
line without having its direction altered either by its weight or air resistance. But when the
force is spent, its velocity diminishes and it comes to rest. Now since it requires force to act,
whether that force be a pull or a push, I might inquire how did the planets ever tend to group
themselves together about the Sun, or speed off into space as we are taught to believe.
Do they run on their own power? Does that force reside in them? Is it inherent force?
It must have some source, some origin, some place of abode. Are the planets living,
organized bodies, or are they composed of dead, unorganized matter? When they left
the supposed nebula mass, did they separate, move off, or drop behind on their own power,
or by some other force? Can a mass of dead matter at rest start itself into motion,
or stop itself once it's in motion? Can a pebble or your penknife start or stop itself?
Then if, according to the inertia of matter, and the first law of motion, a mass of dead matter,
can neither start nor stop its own motion, can it pull on some other mass of matter at a distance
and start that mass into motion? These are pertinent questions, which, when carefully
considered, lead to the conclusion that universal gravitation is a gross delusion,
a presumptuous assumption. And now, in case the planets can and do pull on the Sun,
and the Sun on the planets, as we are told, how does that pulling force act? If that force
does not reside in the planets, if it is not innate force, then the planets do not
attract or pull on the Sun, or the Sun on the planets, and the force is not an attractive
force. If, however, that force does reside in the planets, does it go out of the planets,
pass across the inter-reading space between themselves and the Sun, and on reaching the Sun,
does it reverse itself and come back to the planets when they pull on the Sun and vice versa?
Does that force flow out from the planets to the Sun, and back again in a steady constant
stream, or does it go out in impulses or waves? If so, would it not meet itself
coming back, and thus interfere with its own motion, or counteract, or nullify itself?
But does force ever reverse itself and return to its own source? Does force act that way?
How often can you explode a stick of dynamite? What becomes of the force when dynamite is
exploded? Does it return and concentrate itself in its original source, ready for subsequent action?
Does force push or pull when it leaves its source? Does dynamite accomplish the purpose for which
it is used by a push or a pull? What is your answer? But is not force exhausted and wasted
when it leaves its source or center instead of returning to that center? It is utterly
impossible then for the planets to attract or pull on the Sun, or the Sun on the planets,
or on anything else, because force never reverses itself and returns to its own source,
thus pulling on some object at a distance. On the contrary, when force acts and passes
away from its source, no matter what that force may be, it radiates in all directions from that
source, and the farther it goes, the weaker it becomes, until it is finally entirely exhausted.
Force then exhausts itself. It spends its strength in its action. It wastes its own power or energy
in moving away from its source. Furthermore, when force is exerted and reaches an object,
if that force is strong enough to move the object, it would push on the object and drive it
farther and farther away from its source, instead of pulling the object towards itself.
Force pushes. It is repulsive, not attractive. Hence, we have here
incontrovertible proof in the exhaustive energy of force that gravity is an absurd assumption,
a scientific myth. If there is such a force as gravitation, as taught by our astronomers,
then the action of that force violates the law of all other known forces.
Now the action of all known force is eccentric, expansive, outward, that is repulsive.
This, of course, is the direct opposite to attraction. The force of dynamite, powder, steam,
heat, electricity, gas, air, water, lightning, mineral, vegetable, and animal oils, and all
combustible and explosive materials and elements are all eccentric, outwards,
and therefore repulsive and not concentric or attractive forces.
Repulsion is not attraction. All these forces are exerted eccentricly. They operate outwardly from
their centers or sources. So then, if matter exerted any force at all, it would be eccentric,
repulsive, instead of concentric or attractive, and bodies would be driven apart instead of
towards each other. Now we know from experience and observation that the action of all force is
expansive, outward, repulsive. Dynamite rips up the earth, steam bursts the boiler, powder speeds
the bullet, lightning splits the tree, electricity runs the dynamo, wind topples over buildings
and devastates, water breaks the dam and inundates. It is only by some intelligent
and mechanical device that force can be made to pull or draw objects concentrically.
The hand may reach out and draw objects inwardly, but even then the pull is a push.
This is the nature of force. Force pushes. It is repulsive, not attractive. The wheels that
speed along our highways and run our factories of industry exert a repelling force.
All rotary movement, like a wheel in motion, whether it be a water wheel or a mill wheel,
all exerts a repulsive outward force. The grindstone that sharpens our tools,
throwing off the water, exerts such a force, and so would this earth if it were in motion,
a revolving globe, nothing would remain on its surface. Even a magnet does not draw a needle
towards it. The needle, or a piece of soft iron, when brought within the magnetic current,
which enters into and flows through the magnet, is pushed or impelled towards it. But the other
pole of the magnet will repel the needle because the current comes out at the negative end,
so that there is quite as much evidence in the action of the magnet for repulsion
as for attraction, but magnetic currents account for both. So then, if gravitation exists,
the nature of that force must be similar to the nature of all other known forces,
which are eccentric, repulsive, expansive, and not concentric or attractive.
Now, since all known force is expansive, repulsive outward, if there is such a force as gravitation,
it must, by the law of analogy, be like all other forces, and therefore it would be a repulsive
and not an attractive force. Therefore, we have conclusive evidence, by a knowledge of all known
forces, that the supposed law of universal gravitation is an unproved and unprovable assumption.
My next proposition is that equal mass balances equal mass, and equal force exhausts the strength
of equal opposing forces. Every mass of matter, whether smooth or rough, regular or irregular,
must have within itself a center of gravity, according to this universal law,
or scientific principles of physics. The center is that pivot about which
all its parts are balanced. The center of gravity is nothing more than the center of weight. Each mass
retains its own weight, but inherent weight is a very different thing from extraneous gravitation,
or a pull from something outside a body. When a body is of uniform density, its center of
gravity coincides with its center of magnitude. When one part of a body is heavier than another,
the center of gravity is shifted, and lies nearer the heavier part. Take a wheel, for instance,
of uniform density. Both the center of motion and the center of gravity correspond with the
center of magnitude. But let the same wheel, with its two lower spokes, be made of lead,
while the center of magnitude and motion remain. The center of gravity has fallen or changed.
Those who have made a study of natural philosophy or physics are familiar with these laws.
When two bodies, say lead balls, of equal weight are connected by a rod, the center of gravity
will be in the center of the rod. They will balance each other when placed at equal distance
from the fulcrum. They are then said to be in equilibrium. But when two bodies of unequal
weight are so connected, the center of gravity will no longer be at equal distance from the
pivot, but will be nearer the heavier one. This same principle is illustrated by the
teeter board balanced on a bench, or by the common balance or scales used for weighing.
The balance weighs correctly only when the arms of the beam are exactly equal. The weight of one
exactly balances the weight of the other, so that the one side could not lift a pound more
than the other without destroying the equilibrium or throwing them out of balance. In other words,
we have mass acting against mass, equal weight working against equal weight, and equal force
pitted against equal force. And just that instance, either side exerts a greater weight,
force or strength than the opposite side, the law of equality is violated and it becomes unequal.
The weight of one is all employed in balancing up the other, and all the weight, force, power,
pull or gravity exerted by one is exhausted in neutralizing that of the other, so that
neither body could attract or exert a force on anything beyond an equal mass or outside its
own circumference. Two boats of equal weight, A and B, are connected with a rope. A man in A
pulls the rope, action and reaction being equal, not only would the boat B move towards him,
but the boat A, which he is in, will move with the same velocity towards B.
If another boat were attached at either end, the law of equality would be destroyed,
and they would not move the same velocity towards each other. Hitch two horses together
of equal strength, and let them pull against each other. Where will they move to? Will not
each one exhaust all his strength on his opponent and not move him? Then how could
they pull on some other object at the same time? This may represent the supposed globe
cut into sections, the center of which is called the center of its gravity.
Gravity is said to act towards the center of the mass, so on the principle of the balance,
section A and section B, and all the sections of the sphere for that matter, exhaust all their
force, power or pull, on their opposite sections, the center being the pivot on which the whole
mass is balanced. So then, section A cannot reach out and pull C towards itself, because it exhausts
all its force on B, an equal mass of the opposite side of the pivot, the center, and B cannot
reach out and pull D towards itself, because all its force is exhausted on A, an equal mass on
the opposite side of the pivotal center of the greater mass. Remember, mass A equals mass B,
therefore the attraction of mass A must equal the attraction of mass B, and so neutralize it.
If A can pull B towards itself, and more too, then B is not equal to A, and the law of equality
would be destroyed, and it would no longer maintain its equilibrium, and thus would become
unbalanced. Every mass must have a pivotal center, and cannot act beyond its own circumference.
Of course, this refers to dead, unorganized matter, and not to living beings. Therefore,
it is utterly impossible for any sun, planets, globe, or mass of matter to exert the power of
attraction outside of its own circumference, because every particle of matter in that mass
has its equal, neutralizing force on the opposite side of the center of the mass.
There can be no center without equal masses in opposition. Matter could only exist in the
aggregate, and never in the segregate, if this law of universal gravity were true.
To separate them is impossible. Here, then, we have demonstrative and scientific proof
that universal gravitation is an unfounded assumption, a universal fake.
The sun is said to be the center of universal gravitation, and the greatest of all bodies
in the known universe possessing gravitation. But, on the principle already propounded in
the foregoing proposition, the sun, being a hot body, could not possess the power of gravitation.
Heat is expansive. It is eccentric. It is repulsive. Consider the following quotation,
and estimate how much gravity is possessed by a body of so great heat.
The sun is a fiery ball one million three hundred thousand times larger than our earth,
and several thousand times hotter than the most powerful electric furnace. The sun is pouring
forth enough heat every second to melt a column of ice two and a half miles square,
reaching from the earth to the sun, and in eight seconds of time it could turn the column
from solid ice to steam. Some heat. Strange we ever had a glacial period,
if the sun melted the ice formation of that period, it could have prevented it,
therefore never existed. Just figure out, if you can, how much attraction of gravity
a body of such immense heat would have. Do not our scientists know that they teach that it was
that eccentric outward repulsive force of the nebulous mass, a portion of which it is claimed
still composes the sun, which originally threw off the earth and the planets? Then was it not
the repulsive force of heat that threw them off? And now they would have us believe that
same force which formerly repulsed is that force that attracts. Strange philosophy.
But what reversed its action? Is repulsion attraction? And on the principle of the repulsive
energy of heat, how much attraction would the most powerful electric furnace exert on a fly,
a wild goose, or an airship? And on this same principle of the repulsion of heat,
how great would the gravity of this earth, with its supposed hut and molten interior,
having only a thin shell or crust surrounding this molten matter, so thin that it frequently
bursts through in volcanic eruption? On this principle of the expansion and radiation of heat,
it is positively certain that neither the sun, an alleged fiery nebulous seething mass,
nor the supposed molten interior of the globe, would ever tend to draw anything towards its
center or towards itself. Is it not the repulsive and expansive force of the sun's heat that
affects the temperature of the air, land, and sea, producing atmospheric changes,
air currents, ocean streams, and land conditions, or change of seasons, melting ice, bursting buds,
and generating warmth and light? The sun, then, being a hot body, is not an attractive force.
Hence there is no universal law of gravitation. And so clear is this, that I state again,
that universal gravitation is a universal fake, because it is an unfounded assumption.
Our present Newtonian-Coprenican system teaches that the earth we inhabit is a planet,
a very subordinate rank, that it is dashing and spinning about through space,
rotating on its axis, equatorial motion, at the brain-reeling rate of 17 miles per minute,
and that it is also moving in an ellipse or orbit 18 miles per second, describing annually
a circuit around the sun of about 600 million miles, breaking all speed limits and speed records.
The sun, at the same time we are told, moves through space at a rate of 10 miles per second,
around some mysterious center of gravitation. Which center of gravitation must again revolve
around some other center of gravitation, still more mysterious, and so on indefinitely,
because the law of universal gravitation knows no rest.
Now, let a force, it matters not what kind of force, it may be a wind force, a steam force,
a dynamic force, an electric force, or the force of gravity. Whether it be a pull or a push strong
enough to move this vast earth, either on its axis or in its ellipse, pass over its surface
at such a terrific speed and note the result, it would be disastrous. If it were a pushing
force, everything would be crushed and driven into sea and earth. If it were a pulling force,
everything would be lifted, bodily off the sea and earth, and in either case,
the whole face of the earth would be devastated. Since motion creates friction, and friction
produces heat, if this earth so vast were dashing and spinning so many different ways
through space, faster than any bullet, which speeding through space is often disfigured,
or even faster than lightning speed, the friction set up by air resistance would
cause it to disintegrate or burn up. According to Duncan's astronomy, page 260,
the average velocity of meteors is about 26 miles a second, and at this speed,
most of the meteors burn up completely, only a few comparatively ever reach the earth and are
found. Now, the speed of a meteor is only one eighth of the alleged speed of the earth,
yet the earth does not burn up or even warm up from that cause. But the sun is not only pulling
the earth, but the earth is attracting too. But the sun, being 1,300,000 times larger than the earth,
is therefore that many times stronger than the earth, and therefore is doing the most of the
pulling. The greater pull of the sun must overcome the weaker pull of the earth,
even though the earth resisted, like a boy pulling in his kite, or a fisherman pulling
in a fish. But the earth is constantly pulling the sun towards itself, or itself towards the sun,
and does not resist, so that if gravity pulls, when the sun got the earth started,
it would draw the earth to itself. But if it pushes, it would drive the earth
farther and farther away from the sun all the time, so that in either case,
it would result in utter destruction or total loss. A very gentle wind moves light objects,
but no windstorm, hurricane, cyclone strong enough to move this earth has ever been known.
There have been horrible earthquakes, which have swallowed up cities, destroying thousands
of lives, and damaging property. Fierce storms have raged, hurricanes and cyclones have devastated,
and terrible explosions of dynamite, nitroglycerin, gas, and other explosions have occurred,
causing the loss of life and property. But none of these have shaken the earth,
or moved it out of its place. These disasters were caused by the force of these destructive
agencies. What, then, would be the result of a force of gravity passing over the surface of
this earth, if that force is great enough to move and actually does move this earth,
at the terrific rate we are told. We feel the force of the slightest wind,
but we do not feel this force of gravity. We know the destructive power of these other
forces, but as there are no such disastrous effects experienced, we can but logically conclude
that there is no such cause or force as gravitation. The astronomers tell us that all bodies have a
tendency to rush together into one mass, and this tendency, which brings them together,
we are told, is this law or force of gravitation. One writer goes so far as to inform us that
the planets are, quote, anxious to all rush together, and that the nearer they approach
to each other, the greater their anxiety becomes, so that at least it is twofold. But we might ask,
why do they not all rush together into one mass, since nothing lies between them but empty space?
Bees swarm or all rush together whenever they have the tendency to make the attempt,
and what is there to hinder them from doing so? For there is nothing between them but empty
space, exactly as it is with the planets. And this tendency, this anxiety to rush together,
we are told, is constant and persistent. Therefore the planets are always making a constant and
persistent attempt to rush together. How is it then that they cannot accomplish their purpose?
It is a foolish attempt for the astronomers to invent another force,
which they call centrifugal force, to hinder the planets embracing one another.
Just think of it, nothing between you and your wife but empty space. She anxiously, constantly,
persistently tending to rush to you, and you attracting, pulling her with a force directly
proportioned to the mass of your attractive personality, and still a persistent repulsive force
forever preventing her embracing you. Well, this is some science, some profound philosophy,
and mind you, that pull of yours, together with her persistent tendency to rush to you,
is what prevents her from rushing off into space. So there she stands, poor thing, a pity,
some way cannot be devised whereby bodies attracted and pulled and tending to rush together
may be enabled to do so. Here then, we have an attractive force, constantly and persistently
pulling everything inwardly towards everything, and another force just so constantly and
persistently pushing everything outwardly away from itself. And if these two forces,
centripetal and centrifugal, are not equal, if the inward pull is stronger than the outward push,
if attraction is greater than repulsion, the stronger force must overcome the weaker,
and all these bodies would be drawn into one mass. But if the centrifugal force, or repulsion,
is stronger than attraction, then all would be driven farther and farther apart.
And in this two-force position, we have a positive violation of the dictum of the scientist,
when they tell us that nature is not superfluous. When only one thing is needed, she does not use
two. But in this case, nature is not only superfluous, but she is superfluously superfluous,
because she is here using two forces where none is needed. If it was intended by God or nature,
that a body should stand still, why should a force be set in action on that body to pull
it up, and an equal force to act in an opposite direction to keep it down? It is a monstrous absurdity.
If the heavenly bodies out there in space are all pulling on each other now,
then why in the name of the commonest kind of common sense do they not all drift into one vast
mass? The conclusion is absolutely unavoidable, that if gravitation existed, all these bodies
would rush together, and that it would have been accomplished long ago. Furthermore,
if this attraction exists in matter now, it must have always existed in matter.
Then it existed in the nebulous mass which originally composed the universe.
If equal now, it must have been equal then. Hence the planets never left their primitive
nebulous mass. Then there are no planets. All these bodies never would have been separated
by empty space from their primitive nebulous mass. If all matter and all atoms of matter
have this constant, persistent, and everlasting pull, matter could only exist in the aggregate,
or in the one vast mass, and never in the segregate, or in individual bodies.
So then, since we know that all force is eccentric, outward, repulsive, and not concentric or attractive,
and since we know that no such condition as described above has obtained and never will
obtain, therefore we know that there is no such constant, persistent, powerful tendency,
or attempt, and universal gravitation is a scientific myth, a universal fake.
We are told that the planets once did all rush off into space from their primitive nebulous mass.
Something stopped them in their mad rush. That something was gravity. It was the attraction
or pull of the sun that stopped them. The sun is working overtime in a mighty effort to prevent
the planets from rushing off into space. This hard work of the sun is no doubt what keeps
him so hot and red-faced. Now it requires more force to start a body at rest than it does to
keep it in motion after it is once started. Hence if the sun's centrifugal force exceeds
its attractive force when the planets were once started they would have rushed off forever
into space. A moving body is a resisting body. It takes more power or force to stop a body in motion
than it does to start a body at rest. Therefore if the sun continued to exert the same force on the
planets after it got them stopped that it did to stop them they would be drawn back again to the
sun. But if centripetal and centrifugal forces are equal then the planets are at a dead stand
still. For equal opposing forces prevent motion. Try it and see. Now this principle is illustrated by
the philosopher's third law of motion. Action is said to be the force which one body exerts on
another subjected to its operation. Reaction is the counter force which the body acted upon exerts
upon the body acting. Reaction then is always equal to the action and opposite to it in direction.
So then we try to push a cart up an incline and we feel the reaction in the resistance it offers
and the force of its weight. A boatman pulls on his oars against the water. The water reacts
and drives his boat in the opposite direction. A bird when flying strikes the air downward
with the wings. The air reacts and supports the bird. Reaction often nullifies action.
Take two balls of equal size and weight suspended by a string. Throw A against B with a definite force
and a definite result will be produced. If A met with no resistance it would rise to about the
same height on the opposite side. But encountering B it imparts to it a portion of its motion
and both move on together though only half as far as A would have gone alone.
The reaction of B is clearly equal to the action of A for the latter loses
just as much motion as the former gains. Hence the reaction of B brings A to rest.
A boy in a basket tries to lift himself by pulling on the basket but the power of resistance
prevents him. Action and reaction being equal or equal opposing forces preventing motion.
He remains at a dead standstill. It is like an irresistible force coming in contact with an
immovable body or like Eugene Field's gingham dog with the calico cat. They eat each other up.
So these forces would eat each other up, neutralize themselves. If the law of gravity
were true and attraction and repulsion were equal the earth would be at a dead standstill.
If we could conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings could exist,
the power, no matter by what name it be called, that would hold them on would necessarily have to
be so constraining that they could not move or live. The waters of the oceans would become rigid,
one solid mass. Everything would be stationary, for motion would be impossible.
But since we not only exist but live and move and the waters of the seas skip and dance
like a thing of life it is a stunning rebuke against such a theory and a reasonable argument
that the supposed law of gravity is a delusion, a snare. Our astronomers tell us that it is
the attraction or pull of the sun and moon on the water that causes the tides. High tide
occurring at the time of the new moon when both the sun and moon are on the same side of the
earth and both pulling together. But strange to relate they never get any nearer for after
three or four hours pull the moon becomes tired and drops the tides all together and
lets them go back again to their original level. David Neald in The Earth A Globe compares gravitation
to animal love which draws the sexes together. But sexual attraction actually draws together
its objects while the globe has been pulling at the moon and the moon has been pulling back
at the globe for thousands of years that they have not succeeded in coming together.
It must be a case of a very long and cold courtship.
1. It is worthy of note that a high tide occurred also at the time of full moon when the moon has
passed to the opposite side of the earth from the sun when the two bodies are pulling in
opposite directions. This fact shows that it cannot be the combined effort or pull of both
sun and moon that produces tides. 2. If gravity is so powerful as to actually lift
this vast earth and move it about in so many different ways and pull its waters into heaps
causing tides why can it not lift a man or a feather off the earth or any other object not
attached to the earth when coming directly under the sun and moon. If any other force wind for
instance cannon does move small and light objects before moving a large and heavy one
then how is it that gravity works right the opposite and moves this vast earth
before lifting smaller bodies that are not attached to it. This is a plain proof that
the so-called gravity of the sun or moon has no relation to the tides.
3. If it were true that gravity caused the tides pulling the water of the ocean up from
50 to 100 feet high in places and dashing it against the shores would not tides be seen
and felt in ponds and lakes and inland seas. It is a stated fact that there are no tides
in the Mediterranean Sea. Why should not the force of gravity be felt on that vast area
of one million square miles? What is it that hinders the moon from getting a grip on that sea?
Is it too fresh or too salty? Why are there no tides in the great lakes of America?
Since fresh water is lighter than salt why then does not gravity pull in the waters
of these great lakes and cause tides? Surely if the moon has such a powerful pull on the ocean
as to cause tides it would also produce tides in these lakes and others as well.
As many large inland seas and lakes have no tides at all the moon manifests like her sex
some remarkable preferences which quite upset ordinary theories and calculations.
We are told by Sir Richard Phillips that the tide never ebbs and flows beyond 40 miles from land.
In this case the moon must become very weak in her pulling power when she is over mid ocean.
These facts go to show that there is no connection between the moon and the tides.
Tide is the relative change of level between land and water.
Upon investigation we find that the tides are highest at the north and the farther south we go
the lower the tides until we find no tides at all. Then again there are several places on
the seacoasts of the earth where four tides occur daily. This is another fact which these
theoretical scientists avoid dealing with and which equally disproves the gravitational theory.
4. If it is the pull of the moon that causes high tides or any tide at all for that matter
it certainly follows that high tide would be on any given meridian or always directly under
or following the path of the moon. But a score of instances might easily be found where tables
give the time of high water for different places showing that those times do not correspond as
they ought to with the southing of the moon. High tides are not regular everywhere and are not the
same rise and fall. For instance the average rise and fall of tides in New York are four feet five
inches. Philadelphia five feet four inches. Boston, Massachusetts nine feet seven inches.
Seattle, Washington eleven feet four inches. Balboa Panama twelve feet six inches. East
in Texas eighteen feet. New Orleans Louisiana none. We need not appeal to an attraction of the
moon or sun to explain the tides. One writer relates two instances. Grimsby England on the
meridian of Greenwich has high water at five hours thirty six minutes after the new moon
has crossed the meridian when both sun and moon would generally be near setting on the western
side. Haver in France on the same meridian has high water nine hours eighteen minutes after
both luminaries have crossed the same meridian and in fact after they have set. Hence when the moon
goes down the tide rises up in defiance of theories. Sir Robert Ball in his book Time and Tide
A Romance of the Moon tells us that in some ports it is high tide when the moon is on
the meridian of that place but in some other places it is low water directly under the moon
when the moon is on the meridian of that particular place. This is what he says quote even around
our own coasts the discrepancies are such as to utterly discredit the theory of equilibrium
or high tide always under the moon as offering any practical guide. At Aberdeen the high
tide does not appear till an hour later than the doctrine would suggest. It is two hours late
at London three at Tynemouth four at Trally five at Sligo and six at Hull. This last port
would be indeed the haven or refuge for those who believe that the low tide ought to be under the
moon. At Hull this is no doubt the case and if at all other places the tide behaves as it does
at Hull then it might follow that the law of low water was generally true but then this would
not tally with the condition of affairs at all the other places I've named and to complete
the cycle I shall add a few more. At Bristol the high water does not get up until seven hours after
the moon has passed the meridian at Arclo the delay is eight hours at Yarmouth it is nine at the
needles it is ten hours while lastly the moon has nearly gotten back to the meridian again
ere it has succeeded in dragging up the tide on which Liverpool's great commerce depends
even ports on the vast ocean give a very uncertain response
Curgulian islands and Santa Cruz might seem to prove that the high tide occurs under the moon
but unfortunately both Fiji and Ascension seem to present us with an equally satisfactory
demonstration that beneath the moon is the invariably home of low water these stubborn
facts close up all controversy and show that there is no connection whatsoever between the
moon and tides this is an astounding admission on the part of Sir Robert Ball and fatal to
the theory of gravity and tides in a little book the earth a globe published by David Neil
Wellington New Zealand is found the following statement at Tahita one of the South Pacific
islands they have high tides at noon at midnight all year round without variation
both Sir Robert Ball and this gentleman contend for the theory of gravity and globularity
so I would interrogate does the sun and moon or the sun or moon always pass the meridian of Tahita
at noon and midnight all the year round without variation the Panama Canal a distance of about
50 miles is not without locks because the times of the tides in the Atlantic and Pacific
oceans do not coincide on the Pacific side the tides rise several feet higher than on the Atlantic
where does the pull of the moon in producing tides fit in here five let us view the situation
again from another standpoint we find that our scientists tell us that our earth is 88 times
the size of the moon also that the force of the sun's gravity on the earth is to the moon's
gravity what 3 is to 5 that while the moon exerts five pounds or units of force on the earth the sun
exerts three pounds or units then while the moon exerts one pound or units of force the sun exerts
three fifths of one unit then the two together exert one and three fifths units against 88
units of gravitational force exerted by the earth the earth then acts on the defensive
she balances her own mass with a force of gravity of 48 against one and three fifths hence it is
allowed that the earth is exerting more than 44 times the pull of the sun and moon now can anyone
explain how the pull of the sun and moon can overcome more than 44 times the earth's pull
and cause tides does not this prove again that the supposed pull or gravity of the sun and moon
have nothing whatsoever to do with causing tides so all efforts to maintain a so-called universal
law of gravity vanishes into thin air gravitation is a term derived from gravitas meaning weight
but how one weight can cause another weight to come towards it by reason of its weight
is a thing no thinking person can understand weight is scientifically defined as a measure
of the force of gravity but weight is inherent in matter it is merely a comparison of bulk with bulk
as regards density solidity and compactness there is a distinction between inherent weight
and extraneous gravitation they may call it gravitation if they choose but when an apple falls
to the earth it falls by its own weight when released from the branch on which it grows
and not because the apple has been pulled by the earth or the earth by the apple
why do objects not fall upwards gravity is supposed to act in every direction especially
upwards while weight tends downwards if gravitation were strong enough to move this vast earth and make
tides it certainly would pull all loose and unattached objects away from the earth before
it could move the earth and so they would fall upwards objects move in the direction they are
impelled or acted upon a balloon will ascend because bulk for bulk it is lighter than air
it will rise to an altitude or position at which elevation it will come to rest having found its
balance or equilibrium should it lose its bulk by an escape of gas it will collapse and descend
to earth again for the simple reason that its weight is greater than that of the air it
displaces wood floats in water while a piece of solid iron sinks because mass for mass the wood
is lighter than the water it displaces whereas bulk for bulk the iron is heavier than the water
the denser a body the greater its weight and recognizing this truth the scientists tell us
gravity is another name for weight let a man and a horse cross a swampy stretch of ground
they both will sink into the mud but the horse will sink deeper because he is heavier than the man
this is said to be the measure of the force of gravity on the two bodies but in reality it is
a comparison of bulk with bulk the greater bulk of the horse compared with the lesser bulk of
the man displaces a greater mass of mud than the man displaces so the horse sinks deeper than
the man and each sink into the mud because they present to the mud a more solid and compact
mass than the mud which they displace drop a stone from a bridge into the water below
the stone passes through the thin air then the more solid water into the mud below
and comes to rest on the solid earth beneath the mud the solid earth is unyielding the mud
more yielding the water still more so and the air most of all the earth stops the stone
because it has the greatest power of resistance thus universal gravitation has been tried at the bar
of reason and it has been found to be an unsupported hypothesis a gross delusion