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?
Scribbled by Alfred Armstrong 13 years 12 months ago
Comments
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
joy replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Sol replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
You're not wrong there. For years this site did not have a commenting facility. What wonders did we miss?
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
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.
Sol replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Seadolphin1253 replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
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.
Thelonious replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
See further down the page for a link to the comment feed for this article.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Oh, so that's why the Copernican model caught on: CNN endorsed it. How insightful.
Robert Seddon replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
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.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Lord Kefka replied on Permalink
Bridget replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
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.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
pseudonym replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
People aren't afraid of you, you wally, they just find you boring.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Sol replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
The sun does rotate around its own axis, but I assume that's not what you mean. The author of this book thought the Earth was flat, so I don't think he was worried about the general consensus of opinion.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
kerry replied on Permalink
Lord Kefka replied on Permalink
FrancoisTremblay replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Don't poke them, Francois. I'm trying to collect a full set of religions in the idiot comments category. The first Zoroastrian wins a prize!
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Ahmed Shehata replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Please note: any further comments left here that are off-topic and nothing to do with this book will be deleted. That includes any that are purely about Islam, whether for or against.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
No, the earth rotation every day so bad book. Or, the earth orbit sun every year so bad book. Indeed the earth not flat so bad book. And indupitably the author idiot so very bad book.
What language this we speak by the way?
Klive replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
hamy replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
I wouldn't pretend to know much about Islam, but not all muslims agree with you. http://www.islamawareness.net/Science/muslims_contributions.html
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
It's quite a rare item, but copies do turn up from time to time. I would suggest creating a search on abe.com, so you get emailed when someone lists it.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Ha ha. Hilarious. So predicting eclipses doesn't involve calculations which take the rotation of the Earth into account? Astonishing!
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Oh yeah, like the fact that someone in 1922 made an error proves all evolution wrong? Get over yourself.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Robert replied on Permalink
jamal replied on Permalink
Candle replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
No, I'm not considering selling the book right now, sorry.
Candle replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Do I really have to explain my sense of humour, or justify it to you? There's plenty of sites around where the blatherings of blithering idiots are taken seriously: this just isn't one of them.
This is MY site and I write stuff on it that reflects my own opinions and tastes. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it. You can set up your own web site and wibble on in your own sweet way, but if you come whinging and complaining round here, you'll get short shrift.
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Recent commenters: if you leave comments attacking or questioning me personally, from now on I shall be deleting them. Not because I care, but because it's boring, and other visitors to this site don't give a stuff what you think of me or my views.
Bear in mind that all comments are moderated, so you'll be wasting your energies in raising a protest. Round here, it's an absolute dictatorship.
August replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Thanks August. Glad you like the site. Please ignore the nitwittery, it's the weather of the internet.
FrancoisTremblay replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Dear anonymous, thanks for your comment, but these birds that fly at 1000mph are a bit of a puzzle.
kerry replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
You are right that the marble doesn't fly backwards, however, this is nothing to do with geosynchronicity. It's simply the case that the marble is already travelling with the same forward velocity as the plane when you toss it upwards. For it to fly backwards would require it to change its velocity in that direction, in other words to accelerate, which it won't do in the absence of any backward force acting on it.
If the plane speeds up while the marble is in the air, then it will appear to travel backwards but in fact it will be continuing its previous forward motion. Exactly the same effects can be observed in a moving car or train. The fact that the plane is flying far above the earth is irrelevant in this instance.
There are lots of online resources to basic physics if you want to understand this stuff better. Here's one: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Introduction_to_physics
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Adam replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/earthmove.shtml
Adam replied on Permalink
Chris Hunt replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
I can't believe in such a thing. I went out into my garden this afternoon and demonstrated that it was impossible.
Ray replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Bill replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Timotheous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Thanks and glad you like the site. I too find the existence of flat-earthers these days a little strange, but at least their peculiar viewpoint is harmless compared to some others expressed in the comments.
Kris replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
New Guy replied on Permalink
Elder TruthTeller replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Thanks for the handy link to your attractive and informative website. I am sure that given your comments above you are indeed one of the wisest men on earth, with access to truths hidden from the rest of us.
... or on the other hand you may be a bit of a twit.
jeff daniels replied on Permalink
Uncle Samurai replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
No, you aren't on the right thread. Mostly, this page is about ignorance of astronomy, not knowledge of it.
My guess at an answer would be no, because if it were true it would be an astonishing observation and there'd have been a big fuss about it. But as I don't have the facts to back it up, I can't be sure. Go ask an astronomer, not random idiots on the internet.
Uncle Samurai replied on Permalink
Lord Kefka replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Thanks for your pointless and doubly-wrong comment.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Lord Kefka replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
skip replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Simple observation will show that the stars do move in the sky, albeit slowly. This is one of the reasons we know that our planet is moving. They don't move quickly because they are a very, very long way away. When you are driving alongside distant hills, don't they seem to move much more slowly than nearby trees? That is the same phenomenon on a smaller scale.
skip replied on Permalink
Guy Fulton replied on Permalink
skip replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Man, you are curious, aren't you? But also too lazy to look things up for yourself, I see,
Guy Fulton replied on Permalink
skip replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Why should I answer anyone's questions? I'm not here providing a public service.
When I don't know the answer to something, I do this thing called research. These days it's easier than it used to be, but I don't expect random strangers on the internet to give me all the answers, for nothing, without even the pretence of gratitude.
Unlike you, you [unnecessary insult written in heat of the moment removed].
Ta ta!
kjvman replied on Permalink
Jen replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
timgarrow replied on Permalink
pseudonym replied on Permalink
timgarrow replied on Permalink
David Horton replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
David, you are welcome to them!
David Horton replied on Permalink
Tariq replied on Permalink
[some irrelevant discussion of the Quran]
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Note, off-topic comments such as the one posted by Tariq will be edited or deleted.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Shaamil replied on Permalink
Shaamil replied on Permalink
Shaamil replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
Please take the discussions of Islam somewhere else. It's not really relevant to the discussion of this book, which will remain idiotic regardless of what the Koran says.
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Alfred Armstrong replied on Permalink
You call that a discussion? Wow.
It's a good thing you are such a master of rhetoric, otherwise people might think you a fool.
FrancoisTremblay replied on Permalink
pseudonym replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Anonymous replied on Permalink