In the compiling of this little book as a contradiction of the theory of the present Astronomers I have made a special point of being as concise and plain as possible in putting forward my proofs, and to do so I have used simple language not indulging in astronomical terms. My intention is to place all my facts in a plain and simple method so that all may conceive what I wish to prove, as the use of unnecessary terms and huge wording would only tend to puzzle and fog one in reading, hence I hope that those who peruse this book will be able to follow any argument and agree with my conviction that the earth is a fixture and the sun does certainly move.
Thus begins this uncommon little tract, by which William Westfield hoped in vain to persuade the “Educational Authorities” to abandon the idea that the earth rotates, or indeed moves at all, in space. The crux of his argument is based on a simple experiment performed in his garden, in which he placed a tube pointed at the Pole Star.
He says of it:
I have this tube fixed in my garden, size 3 feet 6 in. by 3/4 in., directed to the fixed pole star, and I can view the star continually. Why? Because the star is fixed in the heavens and because the earth is a fixture also.
His tube would have covered only just over one degree of arc of the sky, so actually he should have observed a little movement of Polaris, but presumably he was not really looking for it. His disbelief in the earth’s rotation did not wholly rest on this single experiment, in any case:
Here is another positive proof that the earth cannot rotate. In the Desert of Sahara, the length from east to west is 3,000 miles, its average breadth 900 miles, and its area 2,000,000 square miles. Rain falls on this desert at intervals only of five to ten or twenty years. If the earth rotates over 10,000,000 miles daily [corrected in errata to a mere 1,555,200 miles a day - still too large by a factor of about 60!], and in addition makes another movement round the orbit and sun yearly how can this large desert escape the rain from the heavens for years at a stretch, while other places receive the rain regularly? Why? It is because this desert is a fixture, and is not favoured by rain from the heavens, like other places, owing to geographical conditions.
As recent as June, 1917, it rained for about one hour on my garden, and only two and a half miles from here, north, south, east and west, there was no rain at all.
His garden should be located and marked with a blue plaque to record its important role in the history of thought.
I would not want to address each of the many fallacies expounded in Westfield’s book, though it may be of interest that he thought that the rotation of the earth that he was arguing against was like the rolling of a ball, with the north and south poles exchanging places twice daily, but I do think his attempt to justify a belief in a flat earth is worthy of some attention:
As I contend that our earth is practically flat except for the hills, mountains and valleys, that no such thing as a globe exists, readers may wonder why the sun is not on view all over the world at one time. My answer is as illustrated. No 1 is the position of the sun at mid-day, in June, in England. At the same time it is midnight in New Zealand, and the mountain, hill or horizon as shown at C would easily prevent a person in New Zealand at D from viewing the sun when over England.
No 2 is the sun at New Zealand in mid-winter and a person in England at A is prevented from viewing the sun at New Zealand after it has travelled from viewing across the heavens to that country. This is due to the mountains, hills, towns, villages or horizon at B obstructing the view. All readers are aware that mountains and hills and horizon are common in all countries, and therefore it is these that easily hide the sun from our view, although the sun is even at a high altitude at that place.
(Yes, those horizons get everywhere, don’t they?) On this basis Westfield calculates the sun to be only 2,500 miles above the earth. Curiously, he omits to say exactly how it must move in relation to the flat earth below it, in order to give the relative timing and orientation of sunrises and sunsets that are actually observed throughout the world. But to do so would presumably be a simple exercise, given his confident conclusion to this volume:
There are […] large sums of money spent annually at our Observatories throughout England on astronomy based upon Astronomers’ opinion and enormous distances given by them, such as the distance of the earth to the pole star and sun of millions of miles, whereas ordinary mathematics as taught at schools daily, absolutely prove the distance in both cases to be less than 10,000 miles.
With all due respect to astronomers’ prophesies of future happenings as to comets, readers will see their judgment as to distances and earth rotation cannot be relied upon. May I ask, is it worth while keeping a large staff at our Observatories, or anyone working at a false and unreasonable theory, especially when our Government has now definitely decided on economy at their establishments?
A considerable sum of money can now be saved by greatly reducing the staff at observatories in this country, and undoubtedly the Government will be convinced that the proofs given in this small book is [sic] overwhelming against the enormous distances given by astronomers, and that the earth rotation theory is absolutely disproved.
I wonder if the current British Government, given its documented willingness to accept dodgy evidence is yet ready to listen?
The Earth is not rotating
The bible doesn't have a word
I am very curious about how
Also it is polite to call us Apes, monkeys is offensive.
Passing on traits is far from
Define system.
Ever ask yourself why they call it the missing link?
It is MISSING. Your great proof the NEBRASKA MAN. A dawm pigs tooth. Hahaha. Missing link. Still missing. Always has. Always will be.
DNA keeps a horse a horse. Only with man and intelligence can we mix DNA from different species. Try breeding a cat with a dog. Won't work. Takes an intelligence to manipulate the system.
T
Boy, aren't you clever.
Boy, aren't you clever. Cleverer for sure than all those people who study evolutionary biology for years, for example, who haven't spent any time at all considering such questions as these.
Read up on the subject with humility and an open mind. You might actually learn something.
Noticed you avoided the facts
Don't care if you work for NASA. Still wrong and the facts prove it with true open investigation using the scientific method and not crazy theories which you cling to like a junky afraid to be exposed to the truth of his addiction. And like all junkies. You want company so you feed your bs on everywhere and call facts fiction and theories as facts. Always ignoring what does not fit your little world of bs.
What's wrong Alfred. Upset
Hahaha
pigs tooth? burying the lead
also yes nebraska man was taken out of textbooks (though I doubt it was featured in any) when scientific consensus determined it was a hoax. When was the bible last revised in the same way?
I still have copies of my old
Same old story. Act like the scientific community didn't rally around Nebraska man as proof. It was inspected by experts from all over the world.
And it was not the biological community which exposed the fraud.
Notice that you no longer travel around hyping your finds after your many frauds have been proven.
It is just one example of the fraud.
Also this site has banned my post. Has to use another location.
What are you Aafraid of?
People aren't afraid of you,
People aren't afraid of you, you wally, they just find you boring.
Again. No actual argument.
Why you avoided my last comments and chose to slander. Proof of a weak argument.
Lol
Oh, that's an easy one. Most
Oh, so that's why the
Oh, so that's why the Copernican model caught on: CNN endorsed it. How insightful.
Well, given relative space
To be pedantic for a moment,
To be pedantic for a moment, actually according to Einstein they aren't the same thing. Rotating frames of reference can't be substituted one for one another. The rest of the universe, and its gravitational effect, means the two things are distinguishable. Without this the twins paradox would not work, for one.
i dont like this guy a man
this is one of the reason
to all muslims who thinks
I'm a muslim to and there is nothing in Quran that proves your theory, don't be stupid and linking Quran to your stupid ideas. the Quran shouldn't be linked to any scientific invention, dicovery for one simple reason : if you do believe in Quran you will know that it is fixed , it doesn't change, its the same as it was 1400 years ago and you cannot link something fixed to something that changes (science).
please be intellegient enough and don't link Quran to this crab.
excuse my english.
thanks
Mmmm, Crab Anyway this is
Anyway this is why I'm a Dudeist (and an ordained minister) we never get into this argumentative stuff
we take it easy man.
Just to make it clear for
he is probably a part of a muslim organization or subculture or whatever that translates the koran however they wish.
Anyway, im a muslim and i believe the earth rotates, and theres no contradiction to that in the koran
Can I subscribe to the
See further down the page
See further down the page for a link to the comment feed for this article.
I love these comments. So
You know, I threw up a stone on an airplane once (it was rotating the earth like the earth rotates around the sun) and sure enough it landed in my hand. But I knew the plane was not moving and it was all an elaborate illusion to make me think the plane was really moving.
Do you people stop and think about what you are saying, or just say it? Where do you think the laws of gravity etc. come from?
Surely the train cannot be
to all the uneducated people
if you do not understand this please refrain from commenting and please do not pass on your wisdom about the earth being flat or not rotating to anyone.
You show your own foolishness
If we evolved.
Why is the DNA record have no evidence of this. Why don't fish and mammals and apes and man have the same DNA sequences etc. DNA proves no link. No record of mans DNA in other species.
Hello. You now have another missing link. Just this one is beyond reasoning. No genetic timeline present. I can trace human beans to genetic ancestors no problem yet never, not a single gene from another species or mans in lower species. You are blind to what is in your own microscopes. You have sacrificed the quest for knowledge to be accepted among your labotamized colleagues.
Every strand of DNA should have a piece which would show a direct timeline from lower to higher DNA. Yet no DNA record to back up a word of your so called educated nonsense you feed each other and say how great your are for dumbing up all of society with your pschobabel.
http://news.nationalgeographi
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
But my mighty internet mindreading powers predict you will have an answer to that. It won't be a good answer and it'll probably involve insulting me and anyone else who dares disagree with you, but you'll hit that submit button just the same.
I love the smell of troll. It's just like unwashed crotch.
Meanwhile, they claim there
That's not the elite trying to conspire against you.. it's 82% (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_47/b3960108.htm) of the american population.
These comments are by far
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!
That was fun.
REFUTATION THAT THE EARTH
The earth moves constantly about its own axis and also round the sun, which is stationary. This theory espoused by Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei, gained popularity all over the world. The theory says that the speed of rotation of earth is 1036 miles per hour, i.e., 17.26 miles per minute i.e., 30,389 yards per minute, i.e., 506.4 yards per second. Against this theory, nobody could speak. It was A‘lahazrat who challenged it and declared:-
"The Islamic principle is that the sky and earth are stationary and the planets rotate. It is sun that moves round the earth; it is not earth that moves round the sun."
In order to substantiate it, A‘lahazrat put forward two-tier arguments. First, he quoted a number of verses from Holy Qur’an and Hadith, the translation of some of which is given below:
1. The movement of Sun and Moon is according to a course.
2. The sun and the moon are sailing within a circle.
3. The moon and the sun were besieged for you which are constantly moving.
[For detailed study, please see "Nuzool-i-Ayat-i-Furqan Besukoon-i-Zameen-o-Aasman" of A‘lahazrat written in 1339 A.H, published from Riza Academy, Bombay.]
In 1920, he presented his book "Fauz-i-Mubin Dar Radd-i-Harkat-i-Zamin", Published from Idara Sunni Dunia, Saudagran, Bareilly. This book contains 105 arguments, dozens of diagrams and lots of calculations in refuting the said theory. Out of 105, I am giving below gist of only five logical and axiomatic arguments which are quite easy and which can be understood by a man of average intelligence.
1. If a heavy stone is thrown up straight, it would fall on the same place from where it was thrown, whereas according to the theory of movement of earth, it must not happen. According to it, if the earth were moving towards east, the stone would fall in west because during the time it went up and came down, that place of earth from where the stone was thrown up, due to movement of earth, would slip away towards east. Suppose, the process of stone going up and coming down took a time of 5 seconds, then according to the said speed of movement of earth, that is, 506.4 yards per second, the earth would slip away towards east by 2532 yards i.e. about one and a half miles In other words, the stone must fall in the west of that place (place of throwing up the stone) at a distance of about one and a half miles but actually it would fall on the same place from where it was thrown up. It shows that the said theory of movement of Earth is wrong.
2. If two stones are thrown away at the same time and with the same power — one towards east and the other towards west, then what should happen according to the said theory of movement of earth, is that the stone going towards west must appear to be going very fast and that the stone going towards east very lazy. Suppose the power of throwing the stone is 19 yards within three seconds, then the respective stones would fall in the east and west at a distance of 19 yards only but according to the said theory, by the time the westward stone would cover a distance of 19 yards in three seconds, the place from where the stones were thrown, would slip away towards east by 1519 yards (506.4 x 3) In this way, it must fall at a distance of 1519+19 i.e. 1538 yards, whereas it would actually fall only at a distance of 19 yards. Similarly, the other stone going towards east must fall in the west at a distance of 1519-19 i.e. 1500 yards, whereas actually it would fall in the very east at a distance of 19 yards only. It shows that the said theory of Movement of Earth is wrong.
3. Suppose, from a tree, two birds fly with equal speed and for equal period, one of them goes towards east and the other towards west. Now if their flying speed is equal to the speed of movement of earth, that is, if they fly at a speed of 1036 miles per hour, then according to the said theory, bird going towards west must fly at a speed of 1036+1036 i.e. 2072 miles per hour (being its own speed added by the speed of movement of earth), while the bird going towards east would not be able to move even an inch as its speed after adjusting the speed of movement of earth (both being equal) would become zero. On the contrary, what would actually happen is that the bird going eastward would go in the east to a distance of 1036 miles during an hour and the bird going westward would go in the west at a distance of 1036 miles. It shows that the said theory of movement of Earth is wrong.
For a bird, the abnormal speed of flight of 1036 miles per hour has been assumed only to bring it parallel to the speed of movement of earth and simply to prove that according to the said theory, the bird flying towards east would not be able to cover any distance even if it comes abreast of a plane in the matter of speed and flies at a rate of 1036 miles per hour.
4. If it is intended to kill a bird appearing at a distance of 10 yards in the air from a particular place and suppose it takes two seconds in stringing the bow and shooting the arrow, then by the time the arrow is shot, that particular place would slip away within these two seconds at a distance of 1013 yards at a speed of 506.4 yards per second being the speed of movement of earth and thus the arrow can never reach the target, whereas it may be taken for granted that the arrow would hit the target. It shows that the theory of movement of Earth is wrong.
5. If a bird is sitting on a pillar near its nest just at a distance of one yard, even then it can never reach the nest, because in order to reach the nest, the bird shall have to fly — may it be for a second or part thereof. The fact is that, the bird can never surpass the speed of 1036 miles per hour, which is said to be the speed of movement of earth. It shows that the theory of Movement of the Earth is wrong.
Need you go yet for further arguments? Go on thinking over plane, gun, cannon, missile squad and so forth.
Thus, it's easy to come to the conclusion that a person who challenged the great scientists like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton etc, must have been a great scientist himself. What is required to disprove the theories of these scientists, A‘lahazrat has done ahead of it but sooner or later its credit will be bagged by someone else who will win the fight in the name of a scientist for, Ahmed Rida Khan is better known as a Muslim theologian rather than a scientist.
The above mentioned cases have no standing in the science of physics. It is very obvious that the author and Mr. Ahmad Rida had no knowledge in the field of physics, and if they did, it was not adequate.
the earths atmosphere rotates
1. You forgot to take in
Last week I took a high speed train (150 mph) and I had to jump a couple of times while trying to get my get my backpack. So if this scholar was right my half a second jumps could have made me fly 38 yardas across the wagon! But I just jumped and landed more or less in the same place, having unstuck the backpack strap with a tug and got my magazine from it.
I love Inertia :D it makes
This is Great Stuff. I think
Also: does the sun spin around the earth? how do night and day work? and the seasons? The apparent movement of stars? Does the entire universe spin around the earth? How does The Foucault Pendulum work?
If the truth ever becomes manifestly obvious to the world what major outcomes do you predict? Mass conversion to Islam? the end of the pork industry?
If you know the truth it is your duty to pursue it!