ZETETIC COSMOGONY:
OR
Conclusive Evidence
THAT THE WORLD IS NOT A
ROTATING—REVOLVING—GLOBE,
BUT
A STATIONARY PLANE CIRCLE.
By Thomas Winship
1899
(Post 3/47)
If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us, the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The London Journal of 18th July, 1857, says:
"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."
J. Glaisher, F.R.S., in his work, "Travels in the Air," states: "On looking over the top of the car, the horizon appeared to be on a level with the eye, and taking a grand view of the whole visible area beneath, I was struck with its great regularity; all was dwarfed to one plane; it seemed too flat, too even, apparently artificial."
In his accounts of his ascents in the air, M. Camilla Flammarion states: "The earth appeared as one immense plane richly decorated with ever-varied colours; hills and valleys are all passed over without being able to distinguish any undulation in the immense plane."
Mr. Elliott, an American aeronaut, says: "I don't know that I ever hinted heretofore that the aeronaut may well be the most skeptical man about the rotundity of the earth. Philosophy forces the truth upon us; but the view of the earth from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is directly under one's feet."—Zetetic Astronomy. Page 37.
In March, 1897, I met M. Victor Emanuel, and asked him to give me an idea of the shape of the earth as seen from a balloon. He informed me that, instead of the earth declining from the view on either side, and the higher part being under the car, as is popularly supposed, it was the exact opposite; the lowest part, like a huge basin, being immediately under the car, and the horizon on all sides rising to the level of the eye. This, he admitted, was exactly what should be the appearance of a plane viewed from a balloon. It is almost needless to say that a globe would present a totally different appearance, the highest part being directly under the car.
if you want to know what the earth looks like from the sky dont use a ballon it cant even go higher than a plane if you want to know so badly find out for yourself dont use some randos knowledge considering you dont trust NASA dont trust this guy either just take a plane flight and see for yourself
ReplyDeleteBalloons today go three to four times higher than any plane, and we have mounted cameras on them and get the exact same observations as noted in the article above. The higher you go, the flatter it gets. The horizon always rises to eye level. Only possible on a flat plane.
DeleteIn 1899, no one had a vehicle capable of climbing high enough in altitude to discern the actual arc of the curved earth.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Winship's impression is "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist."
And as a corrloary to that axiom, "If I t 'know' it doesn't exist, anyone else who thinks it exists is wrong or lying."
Not a very open minded view of reality..,
The key observation is that the horizon rises to eye level and that the lowest part seems like it is directly below the balloon. On a ball, you would not experience such observations, the horizon would appear to drop below eye level the higher you go, and the ground directly below the balloon would seem to be the highest point.
DeleteThe higher you elevate yourself from the surface of the earth, the LESS the horizon rises to "eye level."
DeleteFor a fact, at 30,000 feet, the depression of the horizon is almost 3%. NOT AT ALL the same thing as "eye level."
In fact, as you state, on a GLOBE it is lower as you go higher.
An OBSERVABLE FACT.
The ground below you is too close to you for you to see the "hump." The diameter of the earth, and the arc segment of the surface of the sphere precludes that.
Learn some geometry..,
One major FLAW with all of Winship's musings: he ASSUMES that perception is the entirety of the truth.
ReplyDeleteIf it looks so, it is so.
He does not understand that there are things that underlie what he can only see the surface of..,
Like walking out onto a frozen pond and determining there is no liquid water in the world, when picking up a piece of ice in his bare hand, he might determine that another state of things exists when the ice melts into water in his hand. And, seeing such, might choose to put a drill into the surface of the pond and seek something deeper: the ice is simply the SURFACE of a more complicated reality..,
You might like to give us some examples of where he does this in the book?
DeletePRACTICALLY EVERY OTHER SENTENCE..,
DeleteSo you obviously don't subscribe to the scientific method of observable testable repeatable. You cannot DEMONSTRATE a single globe claim especially not water on a spinning ball. This proves your model is IMAGINARY and thus relegated to the realms of pseudoscience and scientism. Flat Earth is REAL SCIENCE, and REAL OBSERVATIONS.
Delete