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 21/47)

MOON.

According to current science the moon was once a piece of molten rock fractured off from the earth, when the earth was in a soft or plastic condition. Its origin is thus stated by Sir R. Ball, in the "Story of the Heavens," page 520:

"There is the gravest reason to believe that the moon was at some very early period, fractured off from the earth, when the earth was in a soft or plastic condition. . . . . . At this epoch the earth rotated 29 times on its axis, while the moon completed one circuit . . . . . but whether it (the epoch) is to be reckoned in hundreds of thousands of years, in millions of years, or in tens of millions of years, must be left in great degree to conjecture."

Conjecture, in this case, has to choose between hundreds of thousands and tens of millions of years. Ample scope one must admit! In the same volume, page 52, the insignificant size of the moon as compared to the stars is set forth:

"Every one of the thousands of stars that can be seen with the unaided eye, is enormously larger than our satellite."

In "Wonders of the Sun, Moon, and Stars," the same idea is announced thus:

"The luminary which appears to us next in importance to the sun is the moon, and for practical purposes, it, of course, is so; but, considered from a broad astronomical point of view, the moon is exceedingly insignificant, being the smallest of all the luminaries visible to us with the naked eye. The diameter of the moon is only 2,160 miles."

The moon is said to be a reflector of the sun's light, and to have no light of her own, as the following shows. Sir R. Ball, in his "Story of the Heavens," pages 50 and 56, says:

"The brilliancy of the moon arises solely from the light of the sun which falls on the not self-luminous substance of the moon."

"The sunlight will thus pass over the earth to the moon, and the moon will be illuminated."

The speculation regarding the origin of the "lesser light that rules the night" is in keeping with the other impossible notion concerning the earth being shot off from the sun in remote ages. It is so purely nonsensical that it may well be relegated to oblivion without further ado.   

As to size, the moon is next in importance to the sun, if, indeed, she is not quite as large; and many times larger than any star in the heavens, including all the planets ever seen by the eye of man.

Both the distance and size of most of the objects in the heavens may be measured with a high degree of accuracy. It only requires to be known that the object is vertical to a certain part of the world at a certain time, when the observer must take a position—which could be ascertained by previous experiment—where the angular distance of the object is 45°. A base line measured from that position to the point at which the object was vertical at the moment of observation, will be the same length as the distance of the object from the earth's surface.

Size, except in the case of very small stars, may be as easily determined. Let the instrument with which the angular distance was taken be graduated to degrees, minutes and seconds, the minutes and seconds corresponding to miles and sixtieths of miles on the earth's surface.

Having carefully adjusted the instrument, bring the image of the lower limb of the object to be measured down to the horizon, and note the reading on the instrument. Now bring the upper limb in contact with the horizon, and the difference of the reading will be the diameter of the object. It would, of course, require a very finely adjusted instrument, and one graduated to say the one hundredth part of a second to measure some of the smaller stars.

Instead of the diameter of the moon being 2,160 miles, as we are informed by the men of science of today, it is, by the above process, found to be about 32 nautical miles in diameter.   

Then as to the moon being a non-luminous body, and receiving all its light from the sun, astronomy is as hopelessly wrong as in most other of its fanciful statements.

If the reader has taken notice of reflectors, he will have seen that they are either flat—where angles are involved—or concave, but never convex. A convex surface cannot concentrate and reflect light. But a concave surface does this, hence all reflectors, where angles are not involved, are concave. The moon is a globe. It is convex, and therefore cannot reflect light to any extent.

Then, if the moon could reflect the light, it would also reflect the heat of the sun. But we know that moonlight is cold instead of warm. In Noad's "Lectures on Chemistry," it is said:

"The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer."

"The Lancet" says: "The moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduce the temperature upon a thermometer more than 8°."

When light and heat are received by a reflector, light and heat are reflected, as the reader may prove for himself, by testing the matter with a petroleum lamp and a reflector.

If a red light be projected on to the surface of a reflector the reflection of it is red. In fine, reflectors reflect just what they receive.

If fish be hung up to dry in the sun, they will be preserved. But if exposed to the moon, will be rendered putrid in one night. The same applies to fruits, &c., clearly proving that the light of the moon cannot be of the same nature as that of the sun. And, furthermore, that the moon shines by its own light. The nearest approach to moonlight is phosphorescent light. And if the moon and stars be observed through a telescope, it will be noticed that starlight and moonlight, except in a few cases, are identical; the size of the star determining its brilliancy, on the principle that the larger the star the greater will its brilliancy be. "Sun, Moon, and Stars," page 57, says:

"That soft silvery light, so unlike sunlight, or gaslight, or any other kind of light seen upon the earth."

The theory that moonlight is only reflected sunlight requires that the illuminated part of the moon be always next the sun. Unfortunately for the theory, however, this is not the case.   

If the Moon be observed from last quarter to new, it will be found that for a portion of one day, immediately before new moon, the dark part of the moon is turned towards the sun; and at new moon the sun is still to the eastward of the moon, which is illuminated on its western surface.

On 10th August, 1898, at Durban, Natal, the moon rose at 1.7 a.m., and by sunrise (6.35) was high in the heavens, showing about half on her eastern surface. On 15th, moon rose 4.56 a.m. (sunrise 6.30), with a very small portion of eastern limb illuminated, but the whole circle was distinctly visible. On 16th, moon rose 5.32 a.m. (sunrise 6.29) with the dark part towards the sun. On 17th, moon rose 6.4 a.m, (sunrise 6.28), 24 minutes before the sun. New moon same day 0.35 p.m., the moon's illuminated western limb being turned away from the sun, which was to the eastward. On 18th, moon rose 6.36 a,m, (sunrise 6.27), and the sun was thus ahead of the moon, and on the illuminated side, having passed her between the hours of sunset on the 17th and sunrise on the 18th. Anyone who cares to take the time and make the necessary observations, may satisfy himself on this point. The almanac shows that at every new moon, the sun is to the east of the moon, which is illuminated on her western surface, clearly proving that the moon is a self-luminous body, and not a reflector of sunlight.

But how about the "phases" of the moon, if she is self-luminous? If the moon be observed it will be apparent that she rotates from west to east in order to produce the various phases, each phase appearing in spite of the position of the sun. This shows that she is luminous on half her surface, the dark half being towards us when she is invisible.

Take a wooden ball and rub half its surface with a solution of phosphorous in olive oil. Place the ball in a dark room, and cause it to rotate, and all the phases, representing those of the moon will be manifested.

It is said that the moon has been photographed and that extinct volcanoes, dry watercourses, &c., have been found on its surface. The places where seas once were, it is alleged, have not only been photographed, but named, and thus there is nothing wanting to show that the moon was once inhabited—a world like ours.

We know that "poets are licensed to lie," but astronomers who claim that their science is the most exact of any, and admits of demonstration, should be careful to speak the truth, surely. How then are photos of the moon obtained? Sir R. Ball shall tell us. In "The Story of the Heavens," note on page 62, says: "This sketch has been copied by permission from the very beautiful view in Messrs. Nasmyth and Carpenter's book. . . . . So have also the other illustrations of lunar scenery in Plates 7, 8, 9. The photographs were obtained by Mr. Nasmyth from models carefully constructed by him to illustrate the features of the moon." In the text, Sir Robert very carefully says that: "This is no doubt a somewhat imaginary sketch."   

Read also the following from "Answers to Planar Questions," by W. Bathgate, M.A.:

"The author of a work called 'The Plurality of Worlds,' says: 'Take the appearance of the heavenly bodies, the moon; examine its appearance by the best constructed telescope; read all that has been written upon it by the most skillful astronomers, and nothing remains to satisfy a mind that thinks and reasons for itself, a mind not warped by theory and fanciful hypothesis. . . . . . The mountains and valleys, the seas and rivers, the fields and orchards, are all in the head of the observer. Ever since I looked at the moon through a good telescope, I have been much surprised at the credulity of the human mind in the combination of opinions raised from the appearance of this planet. . . . . . These discoveries are hypothetical. You will not elicit them by applying the rules of the Baconian philosophy, or by looking through a telescope, aided by the science of geometry; BUT THEY ARE INVENTED IN THE CLOSET, BROUGHT TO THE TELESCOPE, AND THEN USHERED INTO THE WORLD AS THE CLOSE RESULT OF INDUCTIVE INVESTIGATION.'"

No, gentle reader, there are no "extinct volcanoes" on the moon; there are no "seas" on her surface. You have been badly "had" by the profession, that is all. Let photography be questioned as to the possibility of securing a correct picture of an object at a distance of 240,000 miles!

 NO BRIGHT SPOT ON THE MOON

PROVES NOT REFLECTOR