ECLIPSES OF MOON

ZETETIC COSMOGONY:
OR
Conclusive Evidence
THAT THE WORLD IS NOT A
ROTATING—REVOLVING—GLOBE,
BUT
A STATIONARY PLANE CIRCLE.
By Thomas Winship
1899

 start here

(Post 22/47)

ECLIPSES OF MOON.

From "Wonders of the Sun, Moon, and Stars" I extract the following:

"Astronomers, by mere calculation, are able to forecast the position of any luminary at any time for many years to come. By the same means, they can foretell to a second, the commencement, duration, precise aspect, and the ending of all the eclipses that will occur for a lifetime hence, and more, without limitation. Such being the case the theories upon which the calculations are based must be true, or the correctness of such calculations would be impossible."

This statement, and similar ones so often made, have had the effect desired by their inventors. The public have believed that the theory of a globular world is true, because astronomers can correctly foretell eclipses. This is a totally erroneous view of the matter, as eclipses have no connection with the shape of the world, and are not calculated on any theory, but on well-known time cycles. In "Pagan Astronomy," by A. McInnes, the following occurs:

"More than 2,000 years ago the Chaldeans presented to Alexander the Great at Babylon, tables of eclipses for 1,993 years; and the ancient Greeks made use of the cycle of 18 years, 11 days, the interval between two consecutive eclipses of the same dimensions. The last total eclipse of the sun occurred on Jan. 22, 1879, and the preceding one on Jan. 11, 1861. Now, have not mere theorising about the sun and moon—the great unerring clocks of time—thrown chronology and the calendar into confusion, and hence scientists cannot agree as to the world's age, and the year absurdly begins on Jan. 1 instead of at the vernal equinox, the months consisting of 31 or 30 days, one of 28? However, it can be shown that, with eclipse and star transit cycles, the greatest accuracy as to dates may be attained."

"Going back, for example, from Jan. 11, 1861, through a period of thirty-six eclipses, or 651 years, we find that a total eclipse occurred also on Jan. 11, 1210; and, continuing backwards, by such cycles we arrive precisely at the date of creation as given by Moses in Genesis. Also, as related by Josephus, the moon was eclipsed in the fifth month of 3,998 A.M., when Herod the Great died, and Christ being then two years old, His birth occurred 3,996."

In "The Triumph of Philosophy," Mr, J, Gillespie informs us as follows:

"I am asked to take into consideration how they, with the present theory, can calculate and foretell eclipses and other events with surprising accuracy. Now, I can prove that long before the present theory was ever thought of, even 600 years before Christ, the ancients discovered the difference of local time or the hour of the day between places of different longitudes, knew the causes and laws of eclipses, and the motion of the sun, moon and stars with surprising accuracy."   

R. J. Morrison, F.A.S.L., R.N., in his "New Principia," says:

"Eclipses, occultations, the positions of the planets, the motions of the fixed stars, the whole of practical navigation, the grand phenomena of the course of the sun, and the return of the comets, may all and every one of them be as accurately, nay, more accurately, known without the farrago of mystery the mathematicians have adopted to throw dust in the eyes of the people, and to claim honours to which they have no just title. . . . . . The public generally believe that the longitudes of the heavenly bodies are calculated on the principles of Newton's laws. Nothing could be more false."

T. G. Ferguson, in the Earth Review, for September, 1894, says:

"No doubt some will say, 'Well, how do the astronomers foretell the eclipses so accurately.' This is done by cycles. The Chinese for thousands of years have been able to predict the various solar and lunar eclipses, and do so now, in spite of their disbelief in the theories of Newton and Copernicus. Keith says, 'The cycle of the moon is said to have been discovered by Meton, an Athenian, B.C. 433,' when, of course, the globular theory was not dreamt of."

E. Breach, in his "Fifty Scientific Facts," says:

"Sir Richard Phillips in his Million Facts, says, 'Nothing therefore can be more impertinent than the assertion of modern writers that the accuracy of astronomical predictions arises from any modern theory.' Astronomy is strictly a science of observation, and far more indebted to the false theory of Astrology, than to the equally false and fanciful theory of any modern."

"We find that four or five thousand years ago, the mean motion of the Sun, Moon and Planets were known to a second, just as at present, and the moon's nodes, the latitudes of the planets, &c., were all adopted by Astrologers in preparing horoscopes for any time past or present. Ephemerides of the planets places, of eclipses, &c., have been published for above 600 years, and were at first nearly as precise as at present."

The same thing is admitted by Sir R. Ball, in his "Story of the Heavens." On page 56, he informs us:

"If we observe all the eclipses in a period of eighteen years, or nineteen years, then we can predict, with at least an approximation to the truth, all the future eclipses for many years. It is only necessary to recollect that in 6585⅓ days after one eclipse a nearly similar eclipse follows. For instance, a beautiful eclipse of the moon occurred on the 5th of December, 1881. If we count back 6585 days from that date, or, that is, 18 years and 11 days, we come to November 24th, 1863, and a similar eclipse of the moon took place then. . . . . . . It was this rule which enabled the ancient astronomers to predict the occurrence of eclipses, at a time when the motions of the moon were not understood nearly so well as we now know them."   

The foregoing extracts speak for themselves, and show clearly that the statement quoted from "Wonders of the Sun, Moon, and Stars," is entirely fallacious.

This same text book states on page 110: "When the moon gets on the side of the earth precisely opposite the sun, the interpolation of the mass of the earth causes an eclipse of the moon."

But this statement is stripped of all its glory by the fact that lunar eclipses have taken place when both sun and moon were in full view, as Sir H. Holland informs us, and which we have before referred to.

But if there is a way to wriggle out of the logical conclusion attaching to this fact, astronomers will find it, and so we are coolly informed that refraction is the cause of the moon being visible in such a case. The moon, it is said, is really below the horizon, but refraction has cast its image upwards and thus it can be seen. To square the matter, it is stated that this refraction amounts to "over 30 minutes at the horizon." Now, 30 minutes is about the diameter of the moon, and thus it is said that the refraction is over 30 minutes at the horizon, so that the phenomenon may be accounted for, and the moon, which is in full view, declared to be actually below the horizon. But this refraction is incapable of verification. Firstly, because refraction can only operate when the moon and the observer are in different densities, and it cannot be proved that such is the case. And, secondly, if such were the case, it could not be proved that refraction amounts to over 30 minutes at the horizon. A table of refraction before me gives it as nearly 35 minutes at the horizon, and only 3' at an angle of 17½°. This is so utterly impossible, that it must be rejected.

The only object of the table for the horizon seems to be to account for the phenomenon we have mentioned. But it is really too transparent, and must be cast aside as worthless and as being an endeavour to make theoretical astronomy tally with the facts. The fact that sun and moon have been seen above the horizon at a lunar eclipse, completely disproves the theory that the earth has got between the two luminaries. Refraction cannot be proved to exist, because it cannot be proved that the moon is in a greater density than the observer. And even if we "assume" the moon to be in such greater density the amount of it is entirely uncertain, and thus the theory in it's entirety must be rejected.

E. Breach, in his "Fifty Scientific Facts," says: "It is supposed that an eclipse of the moon is caused by the earth intervening between the sun and moon. The earth is reckoned to travel 1,100 miles per minute; how long would it be passing the moon, travelling herself at 180 miles per minute? Not four minutes. Yet the last eclipse of the moon, on February 28th, lasted 4½ hours; so it could not be the earth intervening, as both luminaries were above the horizon when the eclipse commenced, and the spots of the moon could be seen distinctly through the shadow; the moon was also seen among the stars."

This is a hard nut for Newtonians to crack, and not quite so easy of accomplishment as "cracking the crust" of their globe theory.   

But the battle is not won yet. There is another bug-bear to face. It is alleged by the learned that at a lunar eclipse the earth casts a shadow on the moon, by intercepting the light of the sun. The shadow, it is alleged, is circular, and as only a globe can cast a circular shadow, and as that shadow is cast by the earth, of course the earth is a globe. In fact, what better proof could any reasonable person require? “Powerful reasoning," says the dupe. Let us see. I have already cited a case where sun and moon have been seen with the moon eclipsed, and as the earth was not between, or they both could not have been seen, the shadow said to be on the moon could not possibly have been cast by the earth. But as refraction is charged with raising the moon above the horizon, when it is said to be really beneath, and the amount of refraction made to tally with what would be required to square the matter, let us see how refraction would act in regard to a shadow. Refraction can only exist where the object and the observer are in different densities. If a shilling be put in the bottom of a glass and observed there is no refraction; but as soon as water is poured into the basin, there is refraction. Refraction casts the image of the shilling UPWARDS, but a shadow always downwards. If a basin be taken and put near a light, so that the shadow of the edge touches the bottom of the basin, and a rod be placed on the shadow and water be poured in, the shadow will shorten inwards and DOWNWARDS; but if the rod is allowed to rest in the basin and water poured in, the rod will appear to be bent UPWARDS. This places the matter beyond dispute and proves that it is out of the range of possibility that the shadow said to be on the moon could be that of the earth. Herschel admitted that there are many invisible moons in the sky, and it is just one of these that eclipses the moon, being visible as it passes over her luminous surface. But even if we admit refraction, and that to the extent seemingly required to prove that when the eclipsed moon is seen above the horizon with the sun visible, the moon is in reality below the horizon, we are still confronted with a fact which entirely annihilates every theory propounded to account for the phenomenon. Taking the astronomers' own equation of 8" to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, for the curvature of the earth, where sun and moon are both seen at a lunar eclipse, the centre of the sun is said to be in a straight line with the centres of the earth and the moon, each luminary being 90° from the observer. This would give about 6,000 miles as the distance of each body from the observer. Now, what is the curvature in 6,000 miles? No less than 24,000,000 feet or 4,545 miles. Therefore, according to the astronomers own showing an observer would have to get up into space 4,545 miles before he could see both sun and moon above his horizon at a lunar eclipse!!! As lunar eclipses have been seen from the surface of the earth with sun and moon both above the horizon at the same time, it is conclusively proved THAT THERE IS NO "CURVATURE OF THE EARTH," and, therefore, that the world is a plane, and cannot by any possibility be globular. This one proof alone demolishes for ever the fabric of astronomical imagination and popular credulity.   

In The Belfast News Letter, there appeared the following letter:

To the Editor of the Belfast News Letter.     

Sir,—I have been requested to direct attention to the forthcoming eclipse of the moon, which will take place on the 28th instant, and have much pleasure in doing so.     

On Friday next this interesting phenomenon will take place during the ordinary observing hours of the evening, and will, no doubt, attract some attention should the weather prove favourable. The first contact of the disc of the moon with the shadow of the earth will take place at about eight minutes to six o'clock in the evening; the middle of the eclipse happening at twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock; and the last contact of the moon's disc with the earth's shadow will take place about nine o'clock p.m. The eclipse will be a partial one, but a large area of the lunar disc will be immersed in the shadow of the earth. If the diameter of the moon be taken as unity, the magnitude of the eclipse will be 0.87. The first contact of the lunar disc with the shadow may be looked for at 85° eastward from the northernmost portion of the limb of the moon; and the last contact with the shadow will take place at 30° from same starting point in a westerly direction.     

It will be interesting to those people who have recently been treated to a dissertation on the non-rotundity of the earth by a member of the so-called Zetetic Society (an association formed with the object of proving, amongst other things scarcely orthodox from an astronomical point of view, that the earth is not a sphere, but is rather a great flat plane), to watch the well-defined circular shadow which the earth will, by its interposition between the sun and moon, cast upon the disc of the latter body.—Yours truly,     

W. REDFERN KELLY, F.R.A.S.     

Dalriada, Malone Park, Belfast,  
24th February, 1896.     

In a subsequent issue of the paper the following appeared:

To the Editor of the Belfast News Letter.     

Sir,—Having come across Mr. W. Redfern Kelly's letter on the above in your issue of the 15th, it occurred to me that the writer is mistaken in thinking the Zetetic Planeist's (as they call themselves) ideas can be injured or swept away by such superficial remarks. Unfortunately for the globular side, many eclipses have taken place when the sun has been above the observer's horizon, thus nullifying at once the generally accepted idea that it is the shadow of the intervening earth projected on the moon by the sun. Again, the moon is recorded to have been eclipsed by a triangular shadow. This, of course, makes the Newtonians' case still worse.     

As to the accepted idea that the foretelling of eclipses proved the truth of the Newtonian hypothesis, this must be only mentioned to be ignored, it being well known and allowed by those who have studied this branch of astronomy to be merely a matter of correct observations during a series of years to foretell the exact time of either lunar or solar eclipses for an indefinite number of years, and has nothing whatever to do with the shape of the world.     

I trust the writer of the letter in question and other champions of the Newtonian system in Belfast will see the weakness of their attack in this instance, and take counsel, so as to attack these stubborn-minded globe-smashers or planeists in a more vulnerable position. Apologising for trespassing on your valuable space, and thanking you in anticipation for inserting my letter.—I am, dear sir, yours,     

H. H. D'ARCHY ADAMS.     
March 10th.     

The following letters, published in the Earth Review, in 1896, were refused insertion in the Belfast News Letter:   

To the Editor of the Belfast News Letter.     

Sir,—In your issue of yesterday, I observe an article by Mr. Redfern Kelly, relative to the coming lunar eclipse. In that article reference is made to the Zetetic Society and its contention, viz,:—that the earth is not globular. This, indeed, is the contention, and the Society is indebted to Mr. Kelly for the opportunity thus afforded of giving some of their views publicly, particularly in this instance with regard to eclipses. Now, the fact may be gainsaid, but cannot be logically denied, that the surface of standing water is horizontal. Water has been proved repeatedly by the Zetetic School to be flat or level, without curvature. Such being the case the earth must and does conform to that configuration with the sun and moon above the surface. With such conditions it is obvious a shadow of the earth cannot operate, both luminaries being overhead, and several instances are on record where eclipses have taken place when sun and moon have been above the horizon, the earth being out of range of both. Of course it will be argued that refraction operated in such cases, and at first this explanation may appear plausible, but on carefully examining the subject it is found to be inadequate, and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards, but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following simple experiment:—Take a plain white shallow basin, and place it ten or twelve inches from a light in such a position that the shadow of the edge of the basin touches the centre of the bottom. Hold a rod vertically over and on the edge of the shadow, to denote its true position; now let water be gradually poured into the basin, and the shadow will be seen to recede or shorten inwards and downwards, but if a rod or a spoon is allowed to rest, with its upper end toward the light, and the lower end in the bottom of the vessel, it will be seen as the water is poured in to bend upwards—thus proving that if refraction operated at all it would do so by elevating the moon above its true position, and throwing the earth's shadow downwards, or directly away from the moon's surface. Hence it is clear that a lunar eclipse by a shadow of the earth is not possible. It is admitted by Herschel and other astronomers that invisible bodies exist in the firmament, and such an amount of evidence on this point has accumulated as to put the matter beyond all doubt—such bodies, though invisible to the naked eye, become apparent when in a line between an observer and a luminous body like the moon, the intervention of such a body (says the celebrated Zetetic Astronomer known as "Parallax") is the direct cause of a lunar eclipse. There are instances on record showing that some other cause existed than that of the earth's shadow to produce an eclipse.     

Mr. Walker, who observed the lunar eclipse of March 19th, 1848, near Collumpton, says, "the appearances were as usual until twenty minutes past nine, at that period, and for the space of the next hour, instead of an eclipse or shadow (umbra) of the earth being the cause of the total obscurity of the moon, the whole phase of that body became very quickly and most beautifully illuminated, and assumed the appearance of the glowing heat of fire from the furnace, rather tinged with a deep red, the whole disc of the moon being as perfect with light as if there had been no eclipse whatever. THE MOON POSITIVELY GAVE GOOD LIGHT FROM ITS DISC DURING THE TOTAL ECLIPSE." Of course it will be asked how the phases of the moon can be accounted for on the Zetetic basis. The reply is, the moon is semi-luminous, shining with an independent light of its own, one side is illuminated and the other not, as it revolves, all the phases we are familiar with become apparent. That the moon is not a perfectly opaque body, but a crystalised substance, is shown from the fact that when a few hours old or even at quarter we can through the unilluminated portion see the light shining on the other side. Stars have also been observed through her surface. In conclusion (for I have already transgressed with regard to valuable space), I would observe that a system requiring for its support such a condition and such belief as that associated with the antipodean theory, must necessarily be absolutely theoretical, and consequently devoid of any facts!     

J. ATKINSON.     

26th February, 1896.     

To the Editor of the Belfast News Letter,  

Sir,—In your issue of Tuesday, February 25th, I noticed a letter referring Zetetics to the eclipse of the moon on the 28th of the same month, for a proof of the supposed globularity of the earth.  If the writer had first given proof that it is the shadow of the earth which falls upon the moon, there would have been some support for his contention; but he, like all astronomers, first assumes that it is 'the shadow of the earth,' and secondly, that nothing but a globe can cast a circular shadow! Let him clear his argument, if we can call it one, of these underlying assumptions which vitiate it, by giving some proof of his premises, then I will, with your kind permission, examine whether his conclusions necessarily follow.  I, as one of those Zetetics your correspondent refers to, did watch the eclipse as far as the cloudy state of the sky would permit, and I must state that I drew conclusions from the phenomena very different from those he would draw, and in favour of the Zetetic position. As Mr. Kelly seems kindly disposed towards the 'so-called Zetetic Society,' and seeks to instruct them in correct astronomical principles, he will, perhaps, after giving the proofs above asked for, be good enough to instruct us on the following points: (1) Why did the 'shadow of the earth' begin to obscure the moon's light on her eastern limit? (2) Why did the 'shadow' not go right across the moon's disc, i.e., in the same general direction, as all the bodies involved continued in the same course as they were in when the eclipse commenced? (3) Why did the 'shadow,' after commencing to obscure the moon on her left or eastern edge, gradually disappear at the top or upper surface of the moon? (4) If the moon's light be only reflected sunlight, why is not all that light cut off when the earth is supposed to come in between the sun and the moon? In other words, how is it the moon's disc can be dimly seen when and where the illuminating light is cut off, even to the extent of a total eclipse? And (5) Can your correspondent give us any testimony whatever, not vitiated by astronomical hypothesis, going to prove that the earth, which ordinarily feels so stable, has any of the awful motions attributed to it? If facts can be shown in answer to the above questions, and in favour of the popular contention, I can promise your correspondent that his efforts will not be thrown away on Zetetics, because, as far as I am acquainted with them, and as their name implies, they are honest and fearless investigators of the truth in these matters.—I am, Sir, yours respectfully,     

ALBERT SMITH.  

23, East Park Road, Leicester.

To the Editor of the Belfast News Letter.     

Sir,—May I, with your kind permission, ask W. Redfern Kelly, Esq., F.R.A.S., to answer in your columns the following questions:—     

1st.—Prove by any practical demonstration that it is "the shadow of the earth" that eclipses the moon.     

2nd.—Why is it that the 'shadow' is not always a globular one, and not always the same size?     

3rd.—As the duration of the eclipse of the moon on February 28th lasted 3 hours 8 minutes, will he kindly explain why eclipses in Ptolemy's time lasted over 4 hours?     

4th.—Is it not possible that one of the 'dark bodies' which Anaxagoras said 'were lower than the moon and move between it and the earth' is the cause of lunar eclipses? If not, why not?     

5th.—Will he, by a practical experiment upon the earth's surface, or surface of standing water anywhere in the world, give us ONE proof that the earth is 'an oblate spheroid?'     

Awaiting his esteemed replies, which I trust, for the elucidation of Truth, you will allow me to reply to.—I remain, yours respectfully,     

J. WILLIAMS.  
Hon. Secretary.     

Universal Zetetic Society,  
32, Bankside, London, S.E.

It is thus left on record that the columns of the Belfast News Letter were closed to that open and above-board discussion for which the Press should be celebrated. A "Free Press" is what is wanted, so that the public may have both sides of the matter before them and thus be able to judge for themselves. But it is mostly the other way. Letters dealing with unpopular subjects, or taking a side against the commonly-accepted "view," are often consigned to the waste-paper basket. In this connection, however, I desire to bear witness to the freedom of the Press in this Colony. Nowhere in the world, is there that liberty and freedom of thought that should characterise a free people, as is found in Natal. At least that is my opinion. And certainly I know of no other place that can boast of such impartiality in the matter of newspaper correspondence as enjoyed by the people of Durban.

I have now finished my dissertation on the theories of astronomers regarding the moon, and we have seen that, as in every other case we have considered, there is not a word of truth in the statements of the "learned" concerning the "lesser light that rules the night."