04/17/2011 EDIT: I will not be able to continue this thread as I am removing myself from this forum:
theflatearthsociety.org > Other > Discussion Boards > The Lounge > Farewell.==============================================================
Link:
Zetetic Cosmology by RectangleOk, I've read the first few pages of this book and have yet to come across anything of any substantial worth. Rather than sifting through nearly 200 pages that could end up to be a complete waste of time, I was wondering if anyone had any recommend pages to direct me to that will conclusively show that the Earth is indeed flat as this book claims, instead of playing rhetorical tricks on words to try to convince the audience of the flatness of the earth? I'm looking for logical assertions, not convincing rhetoric.
Here are some samples of rhetoric and why I have problems with them:
ASSUMPTIONS.
"What is the material universe composed of? Ether, Matter, and Energy. Ether is not actually known to us by any test of which the senses can take cognizance, but it is a sort of mathematical substance WHICH WE ARE COMPELLED TO ASSUME IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT for the phenomena of light and heat."
Whatever explanation may be furnished regarding light and heat on this basis, must be discarded as utterly untrustworthy, because the premises are assumed.
Certain assumptions have to be made, otherwise we cannot progress at all. For example, we build off of what we know and if what we know turns out to be in error, we correct our understanding and move on. If we trusted nothing that was assumed, then we would have no knowledge. We ASSUME that what we see and observe is a reflection of truth in front of us, but what we see and observe could just as easily be a hallucination. The only single thing that we can state for certain is "I think, therefore I am." and even that statement is an assumption in and of itself.
It is a known fact that some assumptions are flawed, but we learn from our mistakes, adjust and move on. The author does not offer anything of material to challenge RE point of view other than to try and cast it in the light of the realm of being a blind or wild guess, which it is not.
This by itself is mere rhetoric to confuse the reader into thinking that the original line of thought is inherently flawed and is further worthless because it does not support that the earth is flat, curved, or anything at all.
skipping ahead a bit:
Professor Huxley had to resort to assumption to account for the disappearance of ships at sea, although had he known the truth of the matter, or taken the trouble to enquire, his unwarranted assumptions would have been totally unnecessary.
He says:
"We assume the convexity of the water, because we know of no other way to explain the appearance and disappearance of ships at sea."
What learning! What profound wisdom! If we " know of no other way" it is better to admit the fact and wait until we "have found out some other way" to explain the difficulty, if there is any. Knowledge is gained by practical investigation and experience, and has no need of the assistance of assumption to provide an excuse for ignorance. If water could be proved to be convex, there would be no need to assume it to be so. We should have many proofs and abundant evidence of the fact. But the fact that water has been proved to be level, hundreds of times, makes it.necessary for those who refuse to believe proved facts which tell against their theory, to resort to assumption to maintain their unreasoning position.
I have yet to see a single shred of 'Proof' that the earth is perfectly/infinitely level (at sea level, not accounting for hills or valleys). All tests made that I have witnessed were based on a certain assumed curvature of the surface, and an assumption that light travels in straight lines. By the argument first posted, these experiments to show that the earth was indeed flat are flawed by their own assumptions as stated in the first quote.
AERONAUTICS.
If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us, the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The London Journal of 18th July, 1857, says:—
"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."
J. Glaisher, F.R.S., in his work, "Travels in the Air," states: "On looking over the top of the car, the horizon appeared to be on a level with the eye, and taking a grand view of the whole visible area beneath, I was struck with its great regularity; all was dwarfed to one plane; it seemed too flat, too even, apparently artificial." In his accounts of his ascents in the air, M Camilla Flammarion states: "The earth appeared as one immense plane richly decorated with ever-varied colours; hills and valleys are all passed over without being able to distinguish any undulation in the immense plane."
Well...duh... For sufficiently large concave, convex, or even flat disc surfaces, these might all appear to be the same when observed from relatively close proximity to the surface. Actually, one would expect the horizon to drop away in all these models as one achieved greater heights. The fact that it does not appear to drop away is because you haven't moved sufficiently far enough away from it to be able to tell a difference.
This observation does nothing to support or deny RET or FET, it is pure rhetoric.
CONTRASTS.
If the earth be the globe of popular belief, the same amount of heat and cold, summer and winter, should be experienced at the same latitudes North and South of the Equator. The same number of plants and animals would be found, and the same general conditions exist. That the very opposite is the case, disproves the globular assumption. The Great Contrasts between places at the same latitudes North and South of the Equator, is a strong argument against the received doctrine of the rotundity of the earth.
So... we are assuming that the only thing that contributes to climate is the sun by itself? Seems a bold move to ignore the fact that the land masses in the north and the south are vastly different is shape, position, and availability (surface water to land ratio). All of these aspects would play a role in air and water currents as well as weather patterns and heat and cold.
Climate across the same latitude changes vastly, let alone comparing the Northern Latitude to its comparable Southern Latitude.
It has in fact been shown that at the same latitudes (at respective opposite times of the years), that similar regions get approximately the same amount of daylight hours as each other.
And the rhetoric seems to go on and on...
I'm just wondering if there is a single thing in here that is worthwhile to read, or is it a complete waste of time?
Show Posts
