Criticism Upon Modern Views Of Over - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "A Criticism Upon Modern Views of Our Earth" by Gyan Chand Jain, based on the given pages:

The author, Gyan Chand Jain, presents a critique of modern scientific views regarding the Earth's shape and gravitational field, arguing for a flat, motionless, and widely spread Earth. He begins by stating that while religious concepts may differ on other matters, most religions, including Jainism, have historically held the Earth to be flat, motionless, and expansive in all directions. He contrasts this with the modern scientific assertion of a spherical and moving Earth, referencing historical figures like Copernicus and Galileo who faced persecution for advocating such ideas.

Jain challenges the modern scientific consensus by focusing on the gravitational field of the Earth:

Absence of Earth's Center: Modern science posits a spherical Earth with a center approximately 6,400 km below the surface, towards which all objects are pulled. Jain argues that if this were true, falling bodies would converge towards this point, implying a reduction in their size as they fall. Since practical experience shows that falling bodies maintain their original size, Jain concludes there is no such central point and therefore no converging gravitational forces. Instead, he asserts that gravitational forces are parallel, both externally and internally, which is only possible on a flat Earth. He dismisses the modern scientific explanation of gravitational forces being considered parallel for practical purposes over large distances as "man-made parallelism" and argues that if forces were converging, rigid falling bodies should not be able to move. He also suggests that the successful landing of Apollo crafts indicates the presence of parallel gravitational forces, proving the Earth is flat and widely spread.
Gravitational Forces in Slanting Directions: Jain contends that the Earth's ability to cause objects to roll and slide down inclined surfaces demonstrates that gravitational forces act in all slanting directions. He illustrates this with an example of a toy car rolling down an inclined surface on Mount Everest. He argues that a spherical Earth would not be able to exert gravitational forces in such slanting directions, as these forces would pass above its curvature. He believes that a flat and widely spread Earth would allow gravitational forces to enter from all slanting directions and heights, explaining this phenomenon.
Failure of Modern Science in Case of the Moon: Jain disputes the scientific explanation of the Moon revolving around the Earth, as proposed by Copernicus and Newton and accepted by Einstein and Hoyle. Through his own mathematical calculations, which he claims were accepted by the Royal Greenwich Observatory, Jain asserts that Newton's law of universal gravitation indicates the Sun pulls on the Moon more than twice as strongly as the Earth does. Therefore, the Moon should revolve around the Sun as an independent planet, not the Earth. He dismisses the Observatory's suggestion to consider the Earth and Moon as a single body, emphasizing their separate nature and the distance between them. He concludes that modern science lacks proof for the Moon being Earth's satellite and that Apollo flights did not prove Earth's sphericity by going to the Moon.
Absence of Capillarity on the Modern Earth: Jain explains that capillarity, the phenomenon of liquids rising in narrow tubes, is possible only when the surface of the liquid is flat. He states that if the Earth were spherical, the surface of water in any container would be convex, preventing capillary action and preventing liquids from wetting surfaces or rising in tubes. The presence of capillary action and plants on Earth, which rely on it for water, thus proves that the Earth is flat.

In conclusion, Jain argues that modern science's proofs for a spherical Earth are primarily based on photographs and visual observations, which are prone to "optical illusions." In contrast, his arguments are based on experimental facts and daily experiences, which he considers dependable and free from illusion, thus supporting the flatness of the Earth.