NAVIGATION

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 24/47)

NAVIGATION.

It must be obvious to the reader that, if the earth be the globe of popular belief, the rules observed for navigating a vessel from one part of this globe to another, must be in conformity to its figure. The datum line in navigation would be an arc of a circle, and all computations would be based on the convexity of water and worked out by spherical trigonometry.

Let me preface my remarks on this important branch of our subject by stating that at sea the datum line is always a horizontal line; spherical trigonometry is never used, and not one out of one thousand shipmasters understands spherical trigonometry.

In "Modern Science and Modern Thought," by S. Laing, we are informed, on page 54, that: "These calculations . . . . . . are as certain as those of the nautical almanac, based on the law of gravity WHICH ENABLE SHIPS TO FIND THEIR WAY ACROSS THE PATHLESS OCEAN."

I have used the Nautical Almanac somewhat, but this is the first intimation I ever had that the few things it contains which are useful to the navigator, viz: Sun's Declination, Equation of Time, Semidiameter, and such-like, are "based on the law of gravity." Nor did I ever suspect that the calculations of the nautical almanac "enable ships to find their way across the pathless ocean." Such utter mis-statements may suit the unthinking man to bolster up his theory, but they declare to the complete ignorance of the critic regarding practical navigation. A knowledge of the facts compels me to jettison the cargo to lighten the ship of such absurd misrepresentations. Sun's declination is the sun's distance north or south of the equator. Semidiameter of a heavenly body is half the diameter which has to be added to the reading if the lower limb be taken, and subtracted if the upper limb be observed, so as to get the altitude of the centre of the object. Equation of time is the difference between the real sun and the sun which the astronomer supposes to rise and set every day alike, called the mean sun. Except in taking lunars, these are all the elements required from the nautical almanac to work out an observation. In lunars the moon's parallax and right ascension are used and are given in the nautical almanac. The first of these depends on the moon's position and the second is reckoned from the first point of Aries, one of the zodiacal signs and a point in the heavens. None of these elements have anything whatever to do with the shape of the earth, and certainly none are in any way connected with the bogus "law of gravity." To a practical man, Mr. Laing's statement is both untrue and absurd.

Now let us go into the matter and see what actually is the case, and how and on what principle "ships find their way across the pathless ocean." I shall first deal with Plane Sailing.   

PLANE SAILING.

In "A Primer of Navigation," by A. T. Flagg, M.A., page 65, we find the following: "Plane Sailing.—When a ship sails for a short distance on one course, the earth is regarded as a plane or level surface. . . . . . The results obtained by this assumption, although not absolutely correct, are near enough in practice."

This does not look as if the "law of gravity" had a hand in the matter; neither, it must be confessed, does it appear that the Nautical Almanac has any connection with the subject. So while the reader is reflecting on what "figure" a globe with a plane or level surface would "cut," we may let go the anchor for a brief space, so that A GLOBE WITH A PLANE OR LEVEL SURFACE may be duly appreciated. If the reader cannot now find time to search Euclid and other works for the nondescript figure, he may find leisure some other time. But let us get the anchor aboard and proceed.

In "Navigation and Nautical Astronomy," by J. R, Young, page 40, the author declares that:

"PLANE SAILING is usually defined to be the art of navigating a ship on the supposition that the earth is a plane. This definition is erroneous in the extreme, in all sailings the earth is regarded as what it really is, a sphere. Every case of sailing, from which the consideration of longitude is excluded, involves the principles of plane sailing; a name which merely implies that although the path of a ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of this path by a straight line on a plane surface. . . . . . Even when longitude enters into consideration, it is still with the plane triangle only that we have to deal . . . . . . but as the investigation here given in the text shows, the rules for plane sailing WOULD EQUALLY HOLD GOOD THOUGH THE SURFACE WERE A PLANE."

It must be evident to everyone who understands what a triangle is, that the base of any such figure on a globe would be an arc of a circle, of which the centre would be the centre of the globe. Thus, instead of a PLANE triangle, the figure would contain one plane angle and two spherical angles. Hence, if the PLANE TRIANGLE is what we have to deal with, and such is the case, the base of the triangle would be a straight line—the ocean. That all triangulation used at sea is plane, proves that the sea is a plane. The foregoing quotation states that a plane triangle is used for a spherical surface, but "the rules for plane sailing would equally hold good though the surface were a plane." What fine reasoning. It is like saying that the rules for describing a circle are those used for drawing a square, but they would equally hold good though the figure were a square.   

From Mr. Young, the mathematician, we ascend to Professor Evers, Doctor of Laws, surely he will be able to enlighten us. In his "Navigation in Theory and Practice," page 66, he tells us that:

"PLANE SAILING is sailing a ship, or making the arithmetical calculations for so doing, on the assumption that THE EARTH IS PERFECTLY FLAT. . . . . . It is not a strictly correct supposition to take any part whatever of the earth's surface as a plane; yet when the vessel goes on short voyages, the results obtained by plane sailing will be sufficiently correct to serve every useful purpose. . . . . . Plane sailing cannot always be advantageously employed, ALTHOUGH IN PRACTICE SCARCELY ANY OTHER RULES ARE USED BUT THOSE DERIVED FROM PLANE SAILING. . . . . . The great and serious objection to Plane Sailing is, that longitude cannot be found by it ACCURATELY, ALTHOUGH IN PRACTICE IT IS MORE FREQUENTLY FOUND BY IT THAN BY ANY OTHER METHOD."

This, I notice, extends the principle from "a short distance" by Flagg, to "short VOYAGES" by Evers. A voyage, then, may be completed by plane sailing. That is, the rules used in navigating the ship on a short voyage will be those that would "hold good though the surface were a plane." Flat surface all the way, that is it. But we are again confronted by "a globe with a plane or level surface;" clearly an impossibility. Now let us enquire how long the short voyage may be, to have "a plane surface all the way." In December, 1897, I met Captain Slocum on board the "Spray." This navigator told me that he had sailed his little craft 33,000 miles by plane sailing. Rather a LONG voyage, it must be admitted. A PLANE or LEVEL SURFACE for 33,000 miles, and yet the world a globe? To the prehistoric "man of science" at the North Pole, and the Darwinian Ape at the South Pole (?) of the astronomers' imaginary globe, with such a delusion.

Let it be put on lasting record that "in practice scarcely any other rules are used but those derived from plane sailing;" and that although "the great and serious objection to plane sailing is that longitude cannot be found by it accurately," yet "IN PRACTICE IT IS MORE FREQUENTLY FOUND BY IT THAN BY ANY OTHER METHOD."

The only logical conclusion we can arrive at from the principles of Plane Sailing, as furnished by its mathematical exponents, is that IT PROVES THE WORLD A PLANE, and we know from actual practice that such is really the case.

But before saying adieu to this navigation proof, we must quote still further.

"Bergen's Navigation and Nautical Astronomy," 1st app., page 4, states:

"If the course and distance which a ship has sailed on the globe be given, the difference of latitude and departure may be found by the resolution of a right-angled-plane-triangle."

We have before seen that "a right-angled-plane-triangle" on a globular surface is impossible. So there is no need to comment on Captain Bergen's statement.   

In "Navigation," by D. Wilson Barker, R.N.R., F.R.S.E., and W. Allingham, Plane Sailing is dealt with on page 29 as follows:

"We may now assume as an axiom that the shape of the earth somewhat resembles that of an orange. At one time people thought differently, but no sane person today would venture to assert that our planet is merely an extended plane. Still we shall not be far out IF WE IMAGINE that the small portion of the earth's surface with which we are concerned in Plane Sailing is ACTUALLY A PLANE. Hence, in Plane Sailing, regarding the small portion of the ocean with which we have to deal AS A FLAT SURFACE LIKE A SHEET OF PAPER, we have always A RIGHT ANGLED PLANE TRIANGLE TO WORK WITH."

These learned gentlemen say that no sane person today would venture to assert that OUR PLANET is merely an extended plane; and yet they ask the reader to admit their sanity when they furnish data which prove the world to be a plane! Wonderful learning and profound philosophy that fit a plane triangle on to a spherical surface. Surely A GLOBE with a FLAT SURFACE LIKE A SHEET OF PAPER is a new figure, not found in Euclid or any of the works that deal with triangulation. We may well challenge the advocates of the globular theory to produce their globe with its plane or level surface like a sheet of paper, and be certain of their failure.

The spectre called "our planet" only requires to be planed (just a little levelling) to reduce its surface to a plane; and before we have finished the process the plane will be very plain indeed.

In the "Natal Mercury" of 14th March, 1898, the following example of 2,000 miles of plane sailing is furnished:

"Captain Moloney, of the "Briton," gave a representative of this journal particulars respecting the passage of the vessel through a dust storm on the way out. He said that they fell into the storm about 80 miles south of Madeira, and were in it for a distance of between 1,800 and 1,900 miles. They were without observations for 2,000 miles so that they had to go over 2,000 miles on DEAD RECKONING."

This terrible sand-storm visited another ship, and planed off the supposed convexity of the water, so that plane sailing could be carried out and even longitude found by it for a further distance of 900 miles, as witness the "Natal Mercury" of 25th February, 1898:

"The experience met with by the 'Roslin Castle' on her homeward journey was most extraordinary. A sand-storm of unprecedented density enveloped the vessel, and rendered observation impossible for 900 miles. Madeira was reached by means of DEAD RECKONING."

Plane Sailing proves that the surface of water is a plane or horizontal surface "like a sheet of paper," and in practice it is shown that this plane extends for many thousands of miles. Whether the voyage is outwards, as in the case of the "Briton;" or homewards, as in the case of the "Roslin Castle," makes no difference; thus showing that a "short voyage" to the Cape and back to England can be accomplished by plane sailing, flat water "like a sheet of paper" all the way.

The fact that water is flat like a sheet of paper (when undisturbed by wind and tide) is my "working anchor," and the powerful "ground tackle" of all those who reject the delusions of modern theoretical astronomy.

Prove water to be convex, and we will at once and forever recant and grant you anything you like to demand.

I will not waste time by quoting Mercator's, Middle Latitude, and Parallel Sailings, for they are merely plane sailing extended. Let us get on to what unthinking navigators believe to be a proof of the globularity of the world, Great Circle Sailing.   

GREAT CIRCLE SAILING.

Bergen's "Navigation," 1st appendix, page 9, states:

"Great circle sailing is founded on the principle that the shortest distance reckoned on the earth's surface between any two points, is the arc of the great circle intercepted between them."

The "arc of a circle" has undergone considerable planing when it leaves Mr. Wilson Barker's hands, for he informs us on page 95 that:

"We may ASSUME as an axiom that the shortest distance between any two points is a STRAIGHT LINE."

What, a straight line on a globular surface? Never, it is impossible. When it can be obtained, we surrender.

In "Navigation," by Rev. W. T. Read, M.A., page 51, the resource that is had to approximate great circle sailing is stated to be that:

"The vessel may be said to sail UPON THE SIDES of a many-sided PLANE FIGURE."

So, after all, the earth is not a globe, but a flat-surfaced many-sided plane figure—A POLYGON!

But how long is Mr. Wilson Barker's STRAIGHT line? When the corner of the Polygon was reached another straight line would have to be followed, and another on the next side, and so on. Truly, these paste-board navigators are all "at sea" and don't know whether the ship is in the water or the water in the ship.

It is somewhat remarkable that J. R. Young, who so earnestly endeavours to support the globular hypothesis in his "plane sailing," does not even mention "great circle sailing" in his work already referred to. Plane sailing is sailing on a plane and there is not the remotest chance of proving convexity from it. If there be any semblance of globularity it can only be found in what is known as great circle sailing. There is, in reality, no such thing as sailing on a great circle, or on any circle except a flat one. On a globe, all circles that do not pass through the centre are called small circles, and to sail on one of them, it is said, is on the Rhumb-line or Mercator track, and the longest distance. But on any great circle—any circle that passes through the centre of the globe—the distance is said to be the shortest. The arc of the great circle between any two places on it is the shortest distance and is the great circle track.   

I have already shown that water is level, "like a sheet of paper," as one author puts it. It is, therefore, quite impossible to sail a vessel on the globular arc of a circle, which is said to be done in following a great circle track. But Bergen's "Navigation" will help us. Page 247 of this work states that the great circle track may be found on a great circle chart by laying a straight edge on the ship's position and that of her destination, "the edge shows the track."

We simply ask for the globe that will bear the application of the straight edge. If it be argued that the great circle chart is merely a device for reducing the globular surface of the earth to a plane surface for the sake of simplicity, and that a curved surface can be represented by a straight line, we say it is impossible to represent a curved surface by a straight line and absurd to make the attempt, and we have already shown that water is flat, "like a sheet of paper;" we are, therefore, fully entitled to conclude that Captain Bergen's straight edge is applicable to a straight surface only. That this is what is really the case will appear later.   

Rhumb-line sailing, which was mostly practised under certain conditions before Great Circle sailing was "discovered," is sailing the longest way round. The difference between the methods will be seen in the following:—Describe a circle, and mark any two places on it, say A and B. Let the circle be 12 miles in circumference, and A and B 3 miles apart. It is evident that if the rhumb-line from A to B be followed, the distance sailed will be 3 miles; but draw a straight line from A to B, and it will at once be seen that by following this track the distance will be shortened to 2¾ miles. This straight line is the great circle track between A and B. Or, if a piece of thread be drawn across a globe between any two places, the track thus obtained will be part of a great circle, and if this be transferred to a Great Circle chart IT WILL BE A STRAIGHT LINE. Therefore I conclude that great circle sailing is no discovery, for, had those who "discovered" it only perceived that the earth is a plane, they would have known that, on a plane surface, the shortest way is a straight line between two places.   

Rhumb-line sailing between any two places on the same parallel of latitude, would be sailing the ship east or west (as the case might be), thus making a circular path; whereas the great circle track would either be to the north or south of east or west, so as to get a straight line between the two places, which would be the shortest distance. It is surprising that anyone has claimed this as a discovery, and still more surprising to find anyone with a knowledge of navigation writing it down as proof of the earth's rotundity. THE GREAT CIRCLE TRACK ON A GLOBE ANSWERS TO A STRAIGHT LINE ON A PLANE SURFACE. THE EARTH'S SURFACE IS A PLANE SURFACE, THEREFORE IT IS NO DISCOVERY TO FIND THE SHORTEST CUT TO BE THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE, ON THAT SURFACE.

Thus, great circle sailing, which is in reality rectilinear sailing, shows that the chord of the arc is a shorter distance than the arc, inasmuch as a straight line is shorter than a roundabout one can be. Let it be noted, however, that great circle courses are seldom followed on account of land and other impediments being in the way. Now we return to "Evers' Navigation." On page 192 we get his idea of great circle sailing as follows:   

"The solution of problems in great circle sailing depends upon spherical trigonometry; hence to rightly comprehend the whole subject, the student must be well versed in the solution of right angled and oblique spherical triangles."

When a Professor of Navigation says that spherical trigonometry is necessary to the practice of great circle sailing, of course the general reader believes the statement. But there is no truth in the statement all the same. I have already stated that spherical trigonometry is never used at sea, and that few navigators understand the subject. But there are few navigators who hold Board of Trade certificates that could not calculate the first and other great circle courses, the position of the vertex and the last course on a great circle track in a few minutes. How then can it be done by spherical trigonometry, if the calculators do not understand it? The answer is that it is done in every case by plane trigonometry. If the reader will procure a work on spherical trigonometry and one on plane trigonometry, he will see that the sines, cosines, tangents, secants, &c., in relation to the chord of an arc on a flat surface, are precisely the same as these quantities when taken in relation to the arc of a globular circle. In Evers' "Navigation," pages 227 and 228, the "limitations of great circle sailing" are dealt with as follows:

"The difficulty in making the calculations for great circle sailing are sufficient to deter the majority of practical men from adopting it. Again, as before intimated, many impediments, as islands, land, too high a latitude, &c., lies in its way. Several modifications to further extend its use, and mechanical methods already referred to, have been introduced. Theory and practice in this case are often widely separated. The sailing master has to take advantage of winds and currents, and considers how he shall make the quickest passage, which is not always the shortest. The best way to find out where the quickest passage can be made, is to lay down the great circle on a Mercator's chart, which has the winds and currents marked on it; then with the straight line on the chart joining the two places, first compare the two paths, i.e., the Mercator's and great circle tracks, taking note of what currents of wind or water will assist the vessel; whichever offers the quickest passage is the best route, if not the shortest. Again, if by modifying the great circle track, by keeping to a lower latitude, the ship can be brought into currents in favour of the vessel, that will be the best track. Although the greatest advantages of great circle sailing over the rhumb are obtained when sailing in high latitudes, yet, in consequence of the danger arising from ice and icebergs floating from the North Pole into the North Atlantic, and from the South Pole into the South Pacific and South Atlantic, navigators are unable to secure these advantages."

From page 193, Vol. I., of "Naval Science," we extract the following: "In the passage from Panama to Australia, the rhumb track would entangle us in the Low Archipelago, in Dangerous Archipelago, and carry us into the very focus of coral reefs, atolls, lagoon islands, and sunken rocks, while the great circle route would take us clear of these dangers. On the other hand, the great circle track from Cape Horn to Cape of Good Hope (were there no other objections), would run the ship on one of the Sandwich group, while the rhumb course would carry her clear of such dangers."   

In practice, therefore, it is clear that the advantages of what is known as great circle sailing, can seldom be secured, for the above reasons.

But if a vessel starts on a great circle course and sails on it one day, how is her position found? By plane triangulation only, and in every case, as I shall now proceed to show. The example (see below) of "finding the latitude" from a meridian altitude of the sun is taken from Bergen's "Navigation," page 67.   

The sextant, or quadrant, is an instrument used to measure the altitude of any object above the surface of the earth. The former will measure angles up to 120°. The latter instrument only measures up to 90° hence a quadrant. Except in taking a lunar, where two heavenly bodies are at a greater angular distance than 90°, the quadrant will do as well as the sextant.

 
EXAMPLE  1. 1865, March 4th, in longitude 4° 30' E., the observed meridian altitude of the sun's lower limb was 24° 49' 10", bearing south, index error —9' 50", height of eye 11 feet; required the latitude.   

                                                                                       °   '    " 

Observed altitude, sun's lower limb   ... ... ... ... ... ...    24 49 10 S.  

Index error     ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...       — 9 50     

                                                                                       —————

                                                                                       24 39 20  

Dip, Table V., for 11 feet   ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...      — 03 16

                                                                                       ————— 

Apparent altitude, sun's lower limb   ... ... ... ... ... ...     24 36 04  

Sun's correction, Table VII.     ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...      — 01 57  

                                                                                       ————— 

                                                                                       24 34 07  

Sun's semi-diameter, Table VIII.  ... ... ... ... ... ... ...       + 16 10  

                                                                                       ————— 

True altitude, sun's centre  ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...     24 50 17  

                                                                                       90 00 00  

                                                                                       ————— 

Sun's zenith distance    ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...      65 09 43 N.  

Sun's declination (reduced)     ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...      06 18 44 S.  

                                                                                       ————— 

Latitude    ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...      58 50 59 N.     

Having previously adjusted the instrument, with the sextant bring down the image of the sun to the horizon at noon, and note the reading. In the example before us, the instrument had an error, which is allowed for. If the observer's eye were at water-level, there would be nothing to deduct for "height of eye" (erroneously styled "dip"). But as the eye is always above the water, and consequently a greater angle is obtained, an amount must be deducted to give the reading that would have been obtained with the eye at water level, that being the datum line. Therefore, "height of eye" must be deducted.

With the eye at water level at one angle and the sun at water level at the other, the line joining them is the base of the triangle—a straight line, of which we have already heard so much. But if water be convex, when the height of eye is deducted and the observation reduced to the datum line—the sea, then the eye and the sun are both at the surface of the convex water, consequently the base of the triangle is the arc of the circle between the two points, and another allowance must be made to reduce this arc of a circle to a straight line, in order to determine the true angle of the plane triangle. That this is not only never done, but that no work on Navigation ever published makes the slightest reference to the need for such a correction, and that all triangulation in Navigation is plane, proves incontestably that the surface of the ocean is a plane surface.

Having deducted height of eye, deduct the refraction (which raises the image of an object above its true position) if any exists, and the result is the true altitude. Then, if the lower limb of the sun be observed, add half the diameter so as to get the true altitude of sun's centre. Then a further fact requires to be noticed. The sun, when on the equator, that is, when it has no declination, makes a right angle with the ocean and land at all points on the equator. This fact and horizontal water are the main data in observations for finding the ship's position at sea. Deduct what has now been arrived at from the right angle (90°), the remainder is the sun's zenith distance. Then, if the sun had no declination, the zenith distance would be the latitude; but as the sun in the present case is south of the equator and the ship in north latitude, the declination (sun's distance from the equator) has to be subtracted to give the latitude. The declination, I may notice, is the reduced declination. That is, the declination reduced to the longitude of the ship. As the sun only makes a perfectly circular path about four times in a year, his path being eccentric at all other times; it is required to know the variation of the declination, the eccentric above referred to being a spiral or corkscrew movement. If at Greenwich the declination is a given amount, and the variation for one hour be known, we only require to know how many hours the ship is east or west of Greenwich to know by how much to multiply the variation, to get the amount to be added if declination be increasing, or subtracted if it be decreasing.

Much time could be saved by the use of an instrument pivoted vertically and supported by four legs with gimballs and weighted with lead to preserve the instrument vertical; with a sight to take the angle of the sun, that is, its difference from the vertical (90°), which, with the declination applied, would give the latitude in a few minutes. In all these quantities there is not the remotest reference to the rotundity of the earth, but the very opposite, as the datum line—flat water, is one of the main factors.

In finding the longitude also, the same method of triangulation is used. If the surface of the ocean be globular, there are no rules laid down for calculating on that basis.

The allowance for convexity is never made, and it would be impossible to allow for it, as in clear weather the horizon is distant, while in thick weather it is very near. To reduce the curved base of a spherical triangle to a straight line of a plane triangle is an impossibility, because the factors are unknown and in the nature of the case, never can be known.

The whole of navigation, therefore, furnishes strong evidence that the world is not the globe of astronomical speculation and popular credulity, but a plane figure.

The base of the triangle is always the straight line projected from the observer; and a straight line requires a flat or horizontal surface for its projection.

It is commonly supposed that meridians of longitude south of the equator, converge to a common centre, as they do in north latitudes. If this were so, the allowances to be made for the longitudes being shorter as the south was approached would show the ship to be in her true position.

Captain Woodside, of the American barkentine Echo, at Capetown, in June, 1898, says that on 12th January, 1896, being without observation for two days and sailing a straight course at 250 miles a day, he expected to be about 100 miles to the southward, and a long way to the eastward of Gough Island, in latitude 40° south; but was startled to find the ship making straight for the island, and barely escaped shipwreck. This proves that although the usual allowance for shorter longitudes in the south had been made, the ship's position was not known. There must, therefore, be something wrong with the assumed length of degrees of longitude in the south. In the case above referred to, the ship was going to the eastward, and had an allowance in excess of the usual length of a degree of longitude been made, so as to correspond to what the length of degrees are at 40° south latitude, the ship's longitude would have been known. That it was not known proves that degrees are longer at 40° south latitude than at the same latitude north of the equator.

In "South Sea Voyages," by Sir James C. Ross, page 37, it is stated: "By our observations at noon we found ourselves 58 miles to the eastward of our reckoning in two days."

And in a "Voyage towards the South Pole," by Captain James Weddell, we find the following: "At noon in latitude 65° 53' South our chronometers gave 44 miles more westing than the log in three days."

Lieutenant Wilkes informs us that: "In less than 18 hours he was 20 miles to the east of his reckoning in latitude 54° 20' South."

The discrepancies in the above cases were attributed to currents, whether the course of the ship was westerly or easterly, which could not possibly be the case. These navigators, believing the world to be globular could not imagine any other way of accounting for the discrepancies between longitude by "dead reckoning," making allowance for the supposed shorter longitudes, and that obtained by observation. The explanation is that the world diverges as the south is approached, instead of converging, as the theory teaches.

It has also been shown under "Distances" page 33 of this work, that at latitude 32° south, the distance round the world is about 23,000 statute miles; at latitude 35½° south, the distance round is over 25,000 miles; and still further south, at latitude 37½° south, the distance is 25,500 miles, about. These distances, obtained from ship's logs, cannot be disputed; and are altogether against the theory of the earth's rotundity. By purely practical data, apart from any theory, it is shown that the world diverges to the south, and that, therefore, it cannot be a globe. 

~ ~ ~

WARSHIP NAVIGATOR USES PLANE SAILING

AS IF THE SEA WAS A FLAT SHEET OF PAPER