GRAVITATION

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 14/47)

GRAVITATION.

The "law of gravitation" is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy. If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this "most exact of all the sciences," this wonderful "feat of the intellect" becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed. In the "Story of the Heavens," by Sir R. Ball, it is stated on page 82 (first two quotes below) and page 101 (3rd quote below):

"The law of gravitation, THE GREATEST DISCOVERY that science has yet witnessed."

"The law of gravitation WHICH UNDERLIES THE WHOLE OF ASTRONOMY."

"The law of gravitation announces that every body in the universe attracts every other body with a force which varies inversely with the square of the distance."

"Popular Science Recreations" by G. Tissandier, pages 486 and 487, contains the following:     "Gravitation is the force which keeps the planets in their orbits."

"Every object in the world tends to attract every other object in proportion to the quantity of matter of which each consists."

Professor W. B. Carpenter, in his work "Nature and Man," page 365, says:

"'The laws of light and gravitation,' wrote Mr. Atkinson to Harriet Martineau, 30 years ago, 'extend over the universe, and explain whole classes of phenomena,' and this explanation, according to the same writer, is all-sufficient, 'Philosophy finding no God in nature, NOR SEEING THE WANT OF ANY.'"

C. Vernon Boys, F.R.S., A.R.S.M., M.R.I., in his paper, "The Newtonian Constant of Gravitation," says:

"G, represents that mighty principle under the influence of which every star, planet and satellite in the universe pursues its allotted course. Unlike any other known physical influence, it is independent of medium, it knows no refraction, it cannot cast a shadow. It is a mysterious power which NO MAN CAN EXPLAIN, OF ITS PROPAGATION THROUGH SPACE, ALL MEN ARE IGNORANT . . . . . I cannot contemplate this mystery, at which we ignorantly wonder, without thinking of the altar on Mars' hill. When will a St. Paul arise able to declare it unto us? Or is gravitation, like life, a mystery that never be solved?"—Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, March 1895, p. 355.   

Professor W. B. Carpenter, in his paper "Nature and Law," published in the "Modern Review" for October, 1890, says:

"The first of the great achievements of Newton in relation to our present subject, was a piece of purely Geometrical reasoning. ASSUMING two forces to act on a body, of which one should be capable of imparting to it uniform motion in a straight line, whilst the other should attract it towards a fixed point in accordance with Galileo's law of gravity, he demonstrated that the path of the body would be deflected into a curve . . . . . The idea of continuous onward motion in a straight line, as the result of an original impulsive force not antagonised or affected by any other—formularised by Newton as his first 'law of motion'—is not borne out by any acquired experience, and does not seem likely to be ever thus verified. For in no experiment we have it in our power to make, can we entirely eliminate the antagonising effects of friction and atmospheric resistance; and thus all movement that is subject to this retardation, and is not sustained by any fresh action of the impelling force, must come to an end. Hence the conviction commonly entertained that Newton's first 'law' of motion must be true, cannot be philosophically admitted to be anything more than a probability . . . . . 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 weak point of HIS system. All that we can be said to know is that which we learn from our own experience. Now, in regard to the Sun's attraction for the Earth and Planets, WE HAVE NO CERTAIN EXPERIENCE AT ALL. Unless we could be transported to his surface, we have no means of experimentally comparing Solar gravity with Terrestrial gravity; and if we could ascertain this, we should be no nearer the determination of his attraction for bodies at a distance. THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION THEN, IS A PURE ASSUMPTION."

In "Letters to the British Association," Professor Bernstein says:

"The theory that motions are produced through material attraction is absurd . . . . . Attributing such a power to mere matter, which is PASSIVE BY NATURE, is a supreme illusion . . . . . it is a lovely and easy theory to satisfy any man's mind, but when the practical test comes, it falls all to pieces and becomes one of the most ridiculous theories to common sense and judgment."

The following extracts are taken from "A Million of Facts," by Sir Richard Phillips:

"If the sun has any power, it must be derived from motion; and if acting on bodies at a distance, like Jupiter on his moons, or the Earth on its moon, THERE MUST BE AN INTERVENING MEDIUM TO CONDUCT ITS MOMENTUM THROUGH ITS SYSTEM."   

"It is a principle never to be lost sight of, that circular motion is a necessary result of equal action and reaction in contrary directions; for the harmony would be disturbed by variation of distance, if the motion were rectilinear. The same action and reaction are therefore only to be preserved by reciprocal circular motion. NO ATTRACTION AND NO PROJECTILE FORCE ARE THEREFORE NECESSARY. THEIR INVENTION MUST BE REGARDED AS BLUNDERS OF A SUPERSTITIOUS AGE."

"If the bodies came near while moving THE SAME WAY, there would be no mutual REACTION, and they would go together for want of reaction, and NOT OWING TO THAT MECHANICAL IMPOSSIBILITY CALLED ATTRACTION."

"To accommodate THE HYPOTHETICAL LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION to the phenomena of the Planets, astronomers have preferred to change the mean density of matter itself; and the Earth, for comparison, being taken at a density of 1,000, to accommodate Mercury to THE ASSUMED LAW, it is taken as 2,585; Venus, 1,024; Mars, 656; Jupiter, 201; Saturn, 103; and Herschel, 218. Consequently, we have the paradox, that Jupiter, 1,290 times larger than the Earth, contains but 323 times more atoms. Saturn 1,107 times larger, but 114 times more atoms. Even the Sun, according to these theorists, is but one-fourth the density of the Earth! There may be differences, but chemistry and all the laws that unite and compound atoms, are utterly at variance with so rash and wild an hypothesis."   

"It is waste of time to break a butterfly on a wheel, but as astronomy and all science is beset with fancies about attraction and repulsion, it is necessary to eradicate them."

C     

A O — — — — — l — — — — — O B     

"If there are two bodies, and it is required to move A to C, the force moving A to C must proceed from the side A. Either some impact, or some involvement of a motion towards C, must act at A to carry A to C. The modern schools, however, assert that B may move A to C, and A move B to C; and this is mutual attraction!! Hence it is necessary to believe that B acts on the side A, where B is not present; and that A acts on B on the side B, where A is not present. In other words, A is required to be where it is not, and also be in force at A, so as to move B to C! All of which is absurd."

"If in any case A and B approach, it is not because A moves B towards itself, or B moves A towards itself, but owing to some causes which affect the space in which A and B are situated; and which causes act on A at A, and on B at B . . . . the statement that A moves B, and B moves A, is ignorance, and is what is meant by attraction. It is also worse than ignorance, to justify idleness by asserting that the true cause is indifferent; or to justify ignorance, by asserting that it is unknowable!!"

"This reasoning applies to every species of Attraction, whatever may be the pomposity of equivocal terms in which it is described. Universally, bodies cannot push other bodies towards themselves."

C — — — — — O A   B O — — — — — D     

"If A and B are said to repel one another, and that B makes A move to C, and A makes B move to D, we have to bear in mind, that while A is moving to C it is in force only in that direction, and cannot, therefore, be moving B towards D. In like manner, while B is moving to D, it is in force only in that direction, and cannot, therefore, be in force in the contrary direction so as to move A to C." Every species and variety of Attraction and Repulsion are therefore absurd.      

"MATTER IS IN ALL CASES THE CONDUCTOR OF MOTION. If a body moves, it is because it is the patient of some sufficient momentum of body or matter acting ON the side FROM which the body moves, and only in force in that direction." "Some adopters of attraction, &c., talk, by false analogy, of drawing, others of pulling, lifting, &c. La Place INVENTS gravitating atoms, and gives them a velocity of 6,000 times that of light, which in some way (known only to himself) performs the work of bringing the body in; others IMAGINE little hooks! As to drawing, pulling, &c., it behooves them to show the tackle—the levers, the ropes, &c."

"In spite of all the learning, ingenuity, and elaborations of men, confessedly very able, if there is not and cannot be any action of the nature of attraction, and if the phenomena ascribed to it are local effects of palpable local causes, and if all the phenomena and involvement maybe clearly explained on different principles, then it may be to be lamented that so much ability and character should have been wasted, while a respect for truth and sound reasoning demands that the whole should be FORGOTTEN AS A DREAM, OR DEMOLISHED AS A CARD HOUSE."

Professor Airy, in his "Lectures on Astronomy," 5th Edition, page 194, informs us: "Newton was the first person who made a calculation of the figure of the earth on the theory of gravitation. He took the following SUPPOSITION as the only one to which his theory could be applied. He ASSUMED the earth to be a fluid. This fluid matter he ASSUMED to be equally dense in every part . . . . . For trial of his theory he SUPPOSED the ASSUMED fluid earth to be a spheroid. In this manner he INFERRED that the form of the earth would be a spheroid, in which the length of the shorter is to the longer, or equatorial diameter, in the proportion of 229 to 230."

The "New Principia," by N. Crossland, contains the following:

"In ascending a hill we experience a hard struggle, and feel more fatigued than when walking on level ground. Why is this? The Newtonian attributes this to the attraction of gravitation of the earth, against the pull of which we have to contend; but if he would be consistent with his theory that the attraction of gravitation diminishes inversely as the square of the distance from the centre of the earth, we ought, in defiance of experience, to feel it to be less laborious to ascend a hill than to promenade the same distance on level ground, because as we ascend we recede from the centre of the earth; therefore the force of gravitation ought to diminish in a corresponding degree. The Newtonian can only get over this difficulty by a species of scientific quibbling. According to the definition of weight I have given, the solution of the problem is perfectly simple. In ascending a hill a man comes in conflict with the law that the natural tendency of any body is to seek the easiest and shortest route to its level of stability. He chooses the very reverse, and must therefore endure the consequences of acting in opposition to this law. At every step he has to lift his own weight, and the higher he mounts the more he feels the influence of the law which he defies. His easiest and more direct course to obey the law of weight is to remain where he is; the next is to descend to a lower level.   

"The attraction of gravitation is said to be stronger at the surface of the earth than at a distance from it. Is it so? If I spring upwards perpendicularly I cannot with all my might ascend more than four feet from the ground; but if I jump in a curve with a low trajectory, keeping my highest elevation about three feet, I might clear at a bound a space above the earth of about eighteen feet; so that practically I can overcame the so-called force (pull) at the distance of four feet, in the proportion of 18 to 4, being the very reverse of what I ought to be able to do according to the Newtonian hypothesis.

"Again, take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon. By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth. Here we may ask, why—if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation—does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth? The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent. Precisely so: but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun? What is the cause of this permanence?

"We are asked by the Newtonian to believe that the action of gravitation, which we can easily overcome by the slightest exercise of volition in raising a hand or a foot, is so overwhelmingly violent when we lose our balance and fall a distance of a few feet, that this force, which is imperceptible under usual conditions, may, under extraordinary circumstances, cause the fracture of every limb we possess? Common-sense must reject this interpretation. Gravitation does not furnish a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena here described, whereas the definition of weight already given does, for a body seeking in the readiest manner its level of stability would produce precisely the results experienced. If the influence which kept us securely attached to this earth were identical with that which is powerful enough to disturb a distant planet in its orbit, we should be more immediately conscious of its masterful presence and potency; whereas this influence is so impotent in the very spot where it is supposed to be most dominant that we find an insurmountable difficulty in accepting the idea of its existence. Fortunately for our faculty of locomotion, the Newtonian hypothesis may be rejected as a snare and a delusion.

"It is quite amusing to watch Newtonians and Darwinians floundering about in their attempts to expound the mysteries of creation. Their theories are as ridiculous as the fashion which once prevailed for Della-Cruscan poetry, and they ought to be treated with equal severity.

"It seems quite possible that during the last two hundred years we have been living in a sort of scientific fool's paradise, and that universal gravitation is a gigantic Newtonian mare's nest.

"As a theoretical scientific guide we must give up Sir Isaac Newton as useless and misleading, and allow his reputation to retire into private life.   

"In Knowledge of the 17th and 24th Feb., 1882, there appeared a discourse on The Birth of the Moon by Tidal Evolution, by Dr. Ball, the Astronomer Royal for Ireland, which I should say is without exception, the most delusive and absurd contribution ever made to so-called science. At one time I thought that 'Parallax,' who told us that the earth was a flat plane like a plate, was the most misguided man in the kingdom, but I now believe that he is quite entitled to take rank in scientific wisdom, and to sit down on an equality with the Astronomer Royal of Dublin."

I have quoted at length on this important matter, and the evidence here produced, besides very much more in the same direction, for which I have not the space here, shows clearly that THERE IS NO SUCH FORCE AS GRAVITATION IN EXISTENCE ANYWHERE.

One of the world's so-called great thinkers, J. S. Mill, is quoted in Professor Carpenter's "Nature and Man," page 385, as saying:

"Although we speak of a man's fall as caused by the slipping of his foot, or the breaking of a rung (as the case may be) the efficient cause IS THE ATTRACTIVE FORCE OF THE EARTH, which the loss of support to the man's foot brings into operation."

If a man is not "deeper" than to believe what this "deep" thinker has left on record in this matter; if he has no more brain power than to accept the foregoing statement, I would strongly advise him to cease thinking altogether, and thus save the few brains he has. It is simply astounding that men, who in business matters are sharp enough, are as dull as bricks and as credulous as children when the awe-inspiring subject of gravitation, "that grand masterpiece of astronomy," is the theme. To ask the reason why, or to venture to suggest that the assumptions of the "learned" require some sort of proof to back them up, never seems to strike moderns who believe in this monstrous humbug. A. Giberne, in "Sun, Moon, and Stars," page 27, says:

"If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?"  

A very proper question, truly. And when this question is propounded to astronomers, they cannot give an answer worth recording. They simply do not know how to answer the question without stultifying their common-sense. But the above writer thinks it can be answered, so says:

"Did you ever tie a ball to a string and swing it rapidly round and round your hand? If you did, YOU MUST HAVE NOTICED THE STEADY OUTWARD PULL OF THE BALL."   

The "steady outward pull of the ball" clearly implies that the ball has intelligence, and knows just what to do so as to prevent its hitting the hand of the operator. The "outward pull" of a ball which is fastened to the hand of the operator by a string, is clearly impossible. If the operator ceased to impel it round and round his hand by the mechanical attachment and the power he exerts in swinging it round, the ball would seek its level of stability and fall to the ground. And, as this illustration is used to teach what gravitation is, and how it acts, we shall just follow the illustration to its logical issue, and see where the theory is. The illustration implies that BETWEEN ALL THE BODIES IN THE UNIVERSE, THERE IS A CONNECTING LINK, which keeps the "body" that attracts attached to the "body" that is attracted. This connecting link, in the case of the ball, is the string. Now, we could readily understand gravitation if this illustration conveyed to us by the ball and the string were a correct representation of fact. But, we very naturally ask, what is the connecting link? Of what does it consist? And of what do all the connecting links between the sun and the myriad orbs of heaven consist? Would not the "strings" get somewhat entangled? Has this connecting link ever been observed anywhere? The answer to these pertinent questions is that THERE IS NO CONNECTING LINK in existence. When the "missing link'' is produced, we are prepared to admit all the gravitation theorists teach on the subject. Until then we shall continue to regard it as the myth it undoubtedly is. But we are not done with the illustration yet. The "ball and string" device sets forth that the "body" that attracts is not only connected with the "body" attracted, but that the former IS THE MOTIVE POWER OF THE LATTER—that the sun is the power which compels the earth to revolve round it, even as the motive power of the ball is the exertion of the hand of the operator. Without the connecting link the earth would fall (according to the astronomers) in a rectilinear path for ever. But what these wise men do not see, and which is a necessary part of the theory, as represented by the ball and string idea, is that the motive power also must come from the sun. Without this motive power and the connecting link, the whole of the theory falls to pieces. THERE IS NO MOTIVE POWER IN THE SUN TO CAUSE THE EARTH TO REVOLVE AROUND IT, AND THERE IS NO CONNECTING LINK BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE EARTH TO KEEP THE LATTER IN ITS POSITION, consequently the theory of universal gravitation has no existence in fact.

"He who cannot reason is a fool; he who will not reason is a bigot; he who dares not reason is a coward; but he who can and dares to reason is a MAN."

If the reader can and dares to reason, let him reason this matter out and discover whether astronomy as drummed into children's heads at school, and vauntingly displayed, with many pictures, from public platforms, has one inch of standing ground, or one reason to offer as an apology for its further existence and power to befool mankind longer. These are strong statements, but not stronger than the facts warrant.   

"The Story of the Heavens," by Sir Robert Ball, is not only an authoritative treatise, which it is, coming from such a recognised exponent of the "science"; but a fulsome account of general principles and details in popular form. As a literary production, it possesses considerable merit, and its good English entitles it to the respect and consideration of all its readers. But as a contribution to science, it is the most absurd and unreasoning conglomeration of nonsensical and impossible ideas I have ever read. On page 110 of this book, we read that:

"Kepler found that the movements of the planets could be explained by supposing that the path in which each one revolved was an ellipse. This in itself was a DISCOVERY of the most commanding importance."

To explain anything by a supposition, and then to label the supposition a discovery is ridiculous in the "domain of science" and a marvel of literary ingenuity.

On the same page, the first law of planetary motion is enunciated in these words, "each planet revolves around the sun in an elliptical path, having the sun as one of the foci," and on page 112 the ellipse is shown with the sun in one focus. Throughout the book, however, the other focus is not mentioned, and it is very evident from the diagram that if the sun were of sufficient power to retain the earth in its orbit when nearest the sun, when the earth arrived at that part of its elliptical path farthest from the sun, the attractive force (unless very greatly increased) would be utterly incapable of preventing the earth rushing away into space "in a right line for ever," as astronomers say.

On the other hand, it is equally clear that if the sun's attraction were just sufficient to keep the earth in its proper path when farthest from the sun, and thus to prevent it rushing off into space; the same power of attraction when the earth was nearest the sun would be so much greater, (unless the attraction were very greatly diminished) nothing would prevent the earth rushing towards and being absorbed by the sun, there being no counterbalancing focus to prevent such a catastrophe! As astronomy makes no reference to the increase and diminution of the attractive force of the sun, called gravitation, for the above necessary purposes, we are again forced to the conclusion that the great "discovery" of which astronomers are so proud is absolutely non-existent. The law of dynamics, assisted by geometry, makes it, as the learned say, "mathematically certain" that no such force as gravitation exists anywhere in the universe. As another has well said, its invention must be regarded as a blunder of a superstitious age.   

If the earth were the globe of astronomical invention, and if gravitation were needed to keep it in its path around the sun, it is easily seen that gravitation must be circular, as then and then only, would the attraction be equal in every part of the path, and so cause the earth to describe an exact circle throughout the year. Astronomers say that the earth moves and not the sun. And that this movement of the earth causes the seasons. And further, that the movement of the sun which we see is really caused by the movement of the earth. If, therefore, the sun appears to make an exactly circular path every day of the year, there might be some ground for the astronomers' supposition of gravitation. That the sun's path is an exact circle for only about four periods in a year, and then of only a few hours at the equinoxes and solstices—completely disproves the "might have been" of circular gravitation, and by consequence, of all gravitation.

It has long been pointed out that gravitation, if it existed at all, must be circular, as the following from Drapers' "Conflict between Religion and Science" page 168, shows:

"Astronomers justly affirm that the book of Copernicus, 'De Revolutionibus,' changed the face of their science. It incontestably established the heliocentric theory. It showed that the distance of the fixed stars is infinitely great, and that the earth is a mere point in the heavens. Anticipating Newton, Copernicus imputed gravity to the sun, the moon and heavenly bodies, but he was led astray by assuming that the celestial motions must be circular. Observations on the orbit of Mars, and his different diameters at different times, had led Copernicus to this theory."

That the paths of the orbs of heaven are not exactly circular disproves the theory of gravitation entirely.

It is impossible to make a ball tied to the hand with a string revolve in an elliptical path, circular motion only being possible. So we may consign the illustration, together with the thing it is intended to illustrate, into oblivion. The volume already quoted, "Sun, Moon, and Stars," states, on page 73, that:

"Comets obey the attraction of the sun, yet he appears to have a singular power of driving the comets' tails away from himself. For, however rapidly the comet may be rushing round the sun, and however long the tail may be, IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS FOUND TO STREAM IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THE SUN."

Here we have an acknowledged failure of the law of gravitation, which is said to be universal. Now comes a declaration which supports my contention that gravitation is non-existent.   

In "Science and Culture," by Professor T. H. HUXLEY, page 136, the following statement is made:

"If the law of gravitation EVER FAILED TO BE TRUE, EVEN TO THE SMALLEST EXTENT, for that period, the CALCULATIONS OF THE ASTRONOMER HAVE NO APPLICATION."

After such an "authoritative" declaration, we may well dismiss the subject, and we are fairly entitled to conclude, with such a consensus of evidence against the commonly received "view" of gravitation, together with the application of the principles of sound logic, that GRAVITATION HAS NOT AND NEVER HAD ANY EXISTENCE, and the idea of such a force must be relegated to the limbo of mythology.

~ ~ ~

Fossils of crinoids and other sea creatures can be found at the top of
most mountain ranges, including Everest, the highest point on earth.
The air is so thin you can barely breath!

Everest is 5.5 miles tall, littered with frozen solid human bodies.  Commercial jets fly around 6 miles high, and the Concord flew around 8 miles high. Globe-heads would have you believe that "gravity" makes you a few pounds lighter at the equator, while at the same time, creating a 13 mile high mountain of loose sand and ocean water all around the equator "bulging" the equatorial diameter by 26 miles—making it impossible to travel between hemispheres. Gravity also stops you flying off the globe, that's spinning 1000 mph at the equator, as you enjoy a cup of tea?— Preposterous!—You would be totally frozen at 13 miles high!!!

 "Create a belief in the theory and the facts will create themselves"
Joseph Jastow 1935