What gives with the ancient texts?

  • 43 Replies
  • 6067 Views
What gives with the ancient texts?
« on: February 23, 2009, 12:27:52 PM »
Guys, been reading a bit about your society on BBC and in your faq. One question I have is why you are relying on an out of date paper, written over one hundred years ago and which has been disproven since? Haven't you got anything better like written in the last century?

?

zork

  • 3338
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2009, 12:57:14 PM »
 I ask same question sometimes when Tom refers to these texts and he always answers that - they are truth. I also did a topic(http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27043.0) where I thought that anyone may be post some scientific works done in last 10-20 years but I guess there isn't any works to refer.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

Proleg

Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2009, 12:58:50 PM »
Last I checked, truth didn't have an expiration date.

?

zork

  • 3338
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2009, 01:04:36 PM »
Last I checked, there wasn't any absolute truth. And only one who says that Rowbotham words are truth are only some people in this site. So, how can it be truth when it isn't...
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18006
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2009, 01:06:32 PM »
Last I checked, there wasn't any absolute truth. And only one who says that Rowbotham words are truth are only some people in this site. So, how can it be truth when it isn't...

Rowbotham's scientific work was true then and it's true now.

?

zork

  • 3338
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2009, 01:07:38 PM »
So, how can it be truth when it isn't...
Actually, it is.
Your word has same weight as my four year old kids word when she says that she didn't take candy and her mouth is smeared with chocolate.

Rowbotham's scientific work was true then and it's true now.
It can't be because you can't verify his work because it's documented so damn lousily.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 01:14:40 PM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

Proleg

Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2009, 01:17:00 PM »
Your word has same weight as my four year old kids word when she says that she didn't take candy and her mouth is smeared with chocolate.
The joke is on you, I'm afraid; it's faeces.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42884
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2009, 01:20:59 PM »
Last I checked, there wasn't any absolute truth. And only one who says that Rowbotham words are truth are only some people in this site. So, how can it be truth when it isn't...

Rowbotham's scientific work was true then and it's true now.

Then why hasn't his scientific work been accepted by the scientific community?  You do realize that the scientific community does actually like to be proven wrong every now and then, don't you?  If they're proven wrong, then that mean lots more grants to do the research all over again.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

zork

  • 3338
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2009, 01:38:43 PM »
Your word has same weight as my four year old kids word when she says that she didn't take candy and her mouth is smeared with chocolate.
The joke is on you, I'm afraid; it's faeces.
Heh, I reckon that you don't have children. It may be faeces when child isn't yet a year or so(and they don't speak then). If she/he is already four year old, then you can be 100% sure that it's not something inedible like faeces.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

Proleg

Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2009, 01:43:01 PM »
Your word has same weight as my four year old kids word when she says that she didn't take candy and her mouth is smeared with chocolate.
The joke is on you, I'm afraid; it's faeces.
Heh, I reckon that you don't have children. It may be faeces when child isn't yet a year or so(and they don't speak then). If she/he is already four year old, then you can be 100% sure that it's not something inedible like faeces.
Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18006
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2009, 01:43:54 PM »
Then why hasn't his scientific work been accepted by the scientific community?

Rowbotham's work was accepted by the scientific community at the time of publication and at the time of his college lectures.

"The lecturer gained great praise for his ingenuity in proving that the earth is a plane surrounded by ice. . . The evidence that the earth is round is but cumulative and circumstantial."--Professor de Morgan, Cambridge University.

-------------

"WESTBOURNE HALL.--By special desire, such was the interest taken in the propositions advanced, 'Parallax' was induced to repeat his three lectures, the first of which was delivered on Thursday evening last to a numerous and appreciative audience. . . . Although we must be understood as not endorsing all, yet he said enough to puzzle the most inveterate Newtonian philosopher present. . . . The lecture was amply illustrated by diagrams, without which it is impossible to do justice to the able remarks of the lecturer. . . . An animated discussion, which at times was rather irregular, took place; some of the gentlemen who entered the arena betraying more animus than ability. The lecturer replied readily to the various objections of his opponents; and, judging by the clamorous approval of the audience, he seemed to have gained the attention of many who were not disposed to look favourably on the claims of what is termed 'Zetetic Astronomy.'"--Notting Hill and Bayswater Times, November 13th, 1869.

-------------

"A conclave of scientific gentlemen sat to get up a reply, and just one of the number was able to state the answer: even that answer, scientific as it was, had a fallacy in it."--Spectator, April 12th, 1856.

-------------

"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

-------------

"ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.--His lectures furnish a clear, masterly, and very plausible exposition of his system. At the close of each lecture he invited discussion; and it must be admitted that 'Parallax' evinced varied knowledge, ability, and readiness in replying to objections."--Bradford Review, July 6th, 1867.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 01:47:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

zork

  • 3338
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2009, 01:57:17 PM »
Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Good workout throughout the day. But I have one more question - why it is truth? Because... ?

Rowbotham's work was accepted by the scientific community at the time of publication and at the time of his college lectures.
Only one professor. Chatham News - just newspaper. Spectator - British weekly current affairs magazine. Greenwich Free Press - again some newspaper/magazine. Bradford Review - whatever it is, didn't find any science related about it.
 So, where is this scientific community?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2009, 01:58:28 PM »
"The lecturer gained great praise for his ingenuity in proving that the earth is a plane surrounded by ice. . . The evidence that the earth is round is but cumulative and circumstantial."--Professor de Morgan, Cambridge University.

Augustus de Morgan was a mathematician well known for studying cranks. He wrote "A Budget of Paradoxes" which was one of the first books to discuss in detail math and physics crackpots. Without the context of the quote in question I can't say for sure but it looks like a classic de Morgan line. He never says that anyone thought the work was correct merely that it required ingenuity. Similarly, he says that the evidence for a round earth is "cumulative and circumstantial." Please read a bit by de Morgan.

(Incidentally, de Morgan wrote a number of books on astronomy and related ideas for the popular press. If he had thought this had any validity whatsoever he would have noted it).

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42884
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2009, 02:06:51 PM »
Then why hasn't his scientific work been accepted by the scientific community?

Rowbotham's work was accepted by the scientific community at the time of publication and at the time of his college lectures.

So then why has he fallen out of favor if he received such high accolades for his scientific prowess?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18006
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2009, 02:17:25 PM »
Only one professor. Chatham News - just newspaper. Spectator - British weekly current affairs magazine. Greenwich Free Press - again some newspaper/magazine. Bradford Review - whatever it is, didn't find any science related about it.
 So, where is this scientific community?

Considering that those papers are reporting on lectures given at colleges, it's all about the scientific community.

Quote
Augustus de Morgan was a mathematician well known for studying cranks. He wrote "A Budget of Paradoxes" which was one of the first books to discuss in detail math and physics crackpots. Without the context of the quote in question I can't say for sure but it looks like a classic de Morgan line. He never says that anyone thought the work was correct merely that it required ingenuity. Similarly, he says that the evidence for a round earth is "cumulative and circumstantial." Please read a bit by de Morgan.

(Incidentally, de Morgan wrote a number of books on astronomy and related ideas for the popular press. If he had thought this had any validity whatsoever he would have noted it).

It's a good thing that he does note it then. Here's another quote from him:

"The flat earth floating tremulously on the sea, the sun moving always over it, giving day when near enough, and night when too far off; the self-luminous moon, with a semi-transparent invisible moon created to give her an eclipse now and then; the new law of perspective, by which the vanishing of the hull before the masts, usually thought to prove the earth globular, really proves it flat; all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises in learning the elements of astronomy. 'Parallax,' though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience."--Augustus De Morgan, Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge University, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, F.R.A.S., &c., &c.--Athen?um Journal for October 12, 1872.

Quote
So then why has he fallen out of favor if he received such high accolades for his scientific prowess

Because of NASA and its lies.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 02:36:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2009, 02:18:44 PM »

Because of NASA and its lies.

So you think prior to 1960 or so there were many scientists who thought the world was flat and then they changed their minds when NASA came along?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18006
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2009, 02:26:21 PM »
So you think prior to 1960 or so there were many scientists who thought the world was flat and then they changed their minds when NASA came along?

Prior to the 1950's the Universal Zetetic Society and Flat Earth Theory proliferated. There was even an entire city in Illinois founded on the Flat Earth belief, as well as its dedicated Flat Earth Radio Station.

After the inception of NASA the majority of Flat Earth organizations died away.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 02:28:58 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42884
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2009, 02:28:57 PM »
Only one professor. Chatham News - just newspaper. Spectator - British weekly current affairs magazine. Greenwich Free Press - again some newspaper/magazine. Bradford Review - whatever it is, didn't find any science related about it.
 So, where is this scientific community?

Considering that those papers are reporting on lectures at colleges, it's all about the scientific community.

More here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm

Quote
Augustus de Morgan was a mathematician well known for studying cranks. He wrote "A Budget of Paradoxes" which was one of the first books to discuss in detail math and physics crackpots. Without the context of the quote in question I can't say for sure but it looks like a classic de Morgan line. He never says that anyone thought the work was correct merely that it required ingenuity. Similarly, he says that the evidence for a round earth is "cumulative and circumstantial." Please read a bit by de Morgan.

(Incidentally, de Morgan wrote a number of books on astronomy and related ideas for the popular press. If he had thought this had any validity whatsoever he would have noted it).

It's a good thing that he does note it then. Here's another quote from him:

"The flat earth floating tremulously on the sea, the sun moving always over it, giving day when near enough, and night when too far off; the self-luminous moon, with a semi-transparent invisible moon created to give her an eclipse now and then; the new law of perspective, by which the vanishing of the hull before the masts, usually thought to prove the earth globular, really proves it flat; all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises in learning the elements of astronomy. 'Parallax,' though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience."--Augustus De Morgan, Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge University, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, F.R.A.S., &c., &c.--Athen?um Journal for October 12, 1872.

In other words, Parallax (Rowbotham) has not disproven his RE critics.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2009, 02:29:56 PM »
So you think prior to 1960 or so there were many scientists who thought the world was flat and then they changed their minds when NASA came along?

Prior to the 1950's the Universal Zetetic Society and Flat Earth Theory proliferated. In the 30's there was even an entire city in Illinois founded on the Flat Earth belief, as well as its dedicated Flat Earth Radio Station.

After the inception of NASA the Flat Earth organizations died away.

Proliferated in Zion (the city you are referring to) maybe, but not at my parents school.
The Earth is Round.

?

zork

  • 3338
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2009, 02:35:48 PM »
Only one professor. Chatham News - just newspaper. Spectator - British weekly current affairs magazine. Greenwich Free Press - again some newspaper/magazine. Bradford Review - whatever it is, didn't find any science related about it.
 So, where is this scientific community?
Considering that those papers are reporting on lectures at colleges, it's all about the scientific community.
It's about scientific community generally but it's not about scientific community acceptance. Please refer to any text where his work was really accepted by scientific community on anywhere on the world.

It's a good thing that he does note it then. Here's another quote from him:

"The flat earth floating tremulously on the sea, the sun moving always over it, giving day when near enough, and night when too far off; the self-luminous moon, with a semi-transparent invisible moon created to give her an eclipse now and then; the new law of perspective, by which the vanishing of the hull before the masts, usually thought to prove the earth globular, really proves it flat; all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises in learning the elements of astronomy. 'Parallax,' though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience."--Augustus De Morgan, Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge University, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, F.R.A.S., &c., &c.--Athen?um Journal for October 12, 1872.
This quote also doesn't state that Rowbotham work is right or truth. It's quite similar to first one and I don't read out from there that he even supports Rowbotham. I guess you must choose your quotes more carefully.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18006
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2009, 02:36:00 PM »
Quote
In other words, Parallax (Rowbotham) has not disproven his RE critics.

Nope, "impeaching the honesty" means calling someone a liar. Morgan is saying that Rowbotham did not resort to calling his opponents liars.

Here's another review which discusses Rowbotham's college lectures and the reaction:

"The second lecture of this series was delivered last evening. The hall was crammed to excess--in fact, many were unable to obtain admission. The lecturer briefly recapitulated a portion of his previous lecture. He went through the whole of the syllabus, amidst constant interruption, with the best possible temper, making his subject extremely interesting, and handling it in such an able manner as to elicit loud and frequent applause. Before the lecture was concluded it was quite evident, judging from the feelings exhibited by the majority of the audience, that 'Parallax' had impressed many of them with the truth of his ideas. It cannot be denied that he treats his subject in a very clever and ingenuous manner, and succeeds in drawing many over to agree with him. "--Western Daily Mercury, September 28th, 1864.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 02:37:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2009, 02:37:41 PM »
So you think prior to 1960 or so there were many scientists who thought the world was flat and then they changed their minds when NASA came along?

Prior to the 1950's the Universal Zetetic Society and Flat Earth Theory proliferated. There was even an entire city in Illinois founded on the Flat Earth belief, as well as its dedicated Flat Earth Radio Station.

After the inception of NASA the majority of Flat Earth organizations died away.

Tom that's charming except for two problems: 1) The city in question (Zion, Illinois) was part of the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church which was a cult. There wasn't widespread belief at all. 2) The Church fell apart in the 1940s, 20 years before NASA.

So all we have is a single group of religious nutcases who believed in a flat earth for explicitly religious reasons. And they ceased well before NASA. Can you do better than that?

Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2009, 02:58:28 PM »
Augustus de Morgan was a mathematician well known for studying cranks. He wrote "A Budget of Paradoxes" which was one of the first books to discuss in detail math and physics crackpots. Without the context of the quote in question I can't say for sure but it looks like a classic de Morgan line. He never says that anyone thought the work was correct merely that it required ingenuity. Similarly, he says that the evidence for a round earth is "cumulative and circumstantial." Please read a bit by de Morgan.

(Incidentally, de Morgan wrote a number of books on astronomy and related ideas for the popular press. If he had thought this had any validity whatsoever he would have noted it).

It's a good thing that he does note it then. Here's another quote from him:

"The flat earth floating tremulously on the sea, the sun moving always over it, giving day when near enough, and night when too far off; the self-luminous moon, with a semi-transparent invisible moon created to give her an eclipse now and then; the new law of perspective, by which the vanishing of the hull before the masts, usually thought to prove the earth globular, really proves it flat; all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises in learning the elements of astronomy. 'Parallax,' though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience."--Augustus De Morgan, Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge University, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, F.R.A.S., &c., &c.--Athen?um Journal for October 12, 1872.


I'm amused that you post this viewing it as a vindication of Rowbotham's theories by de Morgan, when to me it appears that he is saying that Rowbotham provides useful intellectual exercises for students of astronomy to question their teachings, but that his theories need not be taken seriously.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 03:07:32 PM by niceguybut »
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42884
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2009, 03:13:13 PM »
Quote
In other words, Parallax (Rowbotham) has not disproven his RE critics.

Nope, "impeaching the honesty" means calling someone a liar. Morgan is saying that Rowbotham did not resort to calling his opponents liars.

You missed "nor allots them any future inconvenience" bit meaning that Rowbotham did not cause any problems for RET either.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18006
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2009, 03:20:59 PM »
Quote
I'm amused that you post this viewing it as a vindication of Rowbotham's theories by de Morgan, when to me it appears that he is saying that Rowbotham provides useful intellectual exercises for students of astronomy to question their teachings, but that his theories need not be taken seriously.

Yes, Rowbotham does provide useful intellectual exercises for students of astronomy in learning that the truth that the the earth is flat.

You missed "nor allots them any future inconvenience" bit meaning that Rowbotham did not cause any problems for RET either.

That's funny, I took the last sentence of Morgan's statement to say that Rowbotham does not call his opponents liars, nor does he "allot them any future inconvenience," meaning that he does not resort to insults either.

Here's a similar commendation after a lecture at the Devonport Mechanics' Institute, an institute of higher education:

"PARALLAX AT DEVONPORT.--On Wednesday evening last the gentleman adopting this cognomen, and who has been creating a great deal of interest in this locality during the last few weeks, commenced a series of lectures at the Devonport Mechanics' Institute. The reasoning of 'Parallax,' which he has termed Zetetic, is so astounding and diametrically opposed to the great Newtonian theory which has obtained in the world for hundreds of years, that he has often been ridiculed as a crude experimentalist, abused as a false teacher, and even accused of mendacity. He has borne these harsh expressions and ungentlemanly imputations calmly and patiently; and it is but just to say that, in his lectures, he has always courted the fullest inquiry--stating that his only object is the elucidation of truth, no matter what it may be or what it may lead to; and that in his discussions he is courteous in hearing and candid in expression. That he is a clever man, and that he has studied his subject deeply, there can be no possible doubt; and it is certainly the case, whether he is right or wrong, that his arguments are exceedingly plausible, and that he has much the better of his opponents in discussion. Unfortunately those who have entered into discussion with him have in nine cases out of ten become excited and lost their command, while 'Parallax,' remaining cool and calculating, has thus, apart from his demonstrations, been enabled to gain an advantage over them in reasoning. On this occasion the discussion became very warm, and ungracious imputations were made, which 'Parallax' said resulted from a fear to face the consequences resulting from new and true ideas. The demeanour, respectful bearing, and candour of 'Parallax' bear out his assertions that his object is the elucidation of truth; and he appeals to his audience to disprove his statements, while he undertakes to prove them to be true. He is fair in every way, and it is unjust, nay, it is something worse, to treat with disrespect a lecturer of this character."
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 03:34:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42884
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2009, 03:29:29 PM »
Just because Rowbotham can keep a straight face and keep his cool doesn't make him any less of a troll.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2009, 03:30:46 PM »
Quote
I'm amused that you post this viewing it as a vindication of Rowbotham's theories by de Morgan, when to me it appears that he is saying that Rowbotham provides useful intellectual exercises for students of astronomy to question their teachings, but that his theories need not be taken seriously.

Yes, Rowbotham does provide useful intellectual exercises for students of astronomy to learn the truth that the the earth is flat.

I think you'll find that's not what I said.  Nor is it what de Morgan said either:

Quote
...all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises in learning the elements of astronomy.

Astronomy ≠ Flat Earth

You missed "nor allots them any future inconvenience" bit meaning that Rowbotham did not cause any problems for RET either.

That's funny, I took the last sentence of Morgan's statement to say that Rowbotham does not call his opponents liars, "nor allots them any future inconvenience", meaning that he does not resort to insults either.

I don't think it can be argued that Rowbotham was calling his opponents liars, but perhaps you might want to consider the full quote from A Budget of Paradoxes, Vol II:

Quote
The author, though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience: in these points he is worthy to live on a globe, and to revolve in twenty-four hours.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 03:32:52 PM by niceguybut »
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2009, 03:39:06 PM »
And if you want a definitive statement of de Morgan's belief, another quote from A Budget of Paradoxes, Vol II:

Quote
...they say roundly that the earth is flat; I say flatly that it is round.
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

?

zork

  • 3338
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2009, 03:40:16 PM »
Quote
I'm amused that you post this viewing it as a vindication of Rowbotham's theories by de Morgan, when to me it appears that he is saying that Rowbotham provides useful intellectual exercises for students of astronomy to question their teachings, but that his theories need not be taken seriously.

Morgan is saying that Rowbotham's work is useful for students of astronomy in learning the true shape of the earth.
Straight twisting of words for your own goal. He did say - all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises in learning the elements of astronomy. He was well educated in astronomy and so we can quite surely assume that he did mean it somewhat as niceguybut describes. Context is also important. You just rip his quotes out of context and present these as Flat Earth support.

 Other things. You haven't yet quoted any scientific communities acceptance about Rowbotham. Just newspapers. And I asked earlier from Proleg but you are just as much qualified to answer. Why is Rowbotham work truth? Because ... ?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42884
Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2009, 04:49:48 PM »
And if you want a definitive statement of de Morgan's belief, another quote from A Budget of Paradoxes, Vol II:

Quote
...they say roundly that the earth is flat; I say flatly that it is round.

Personally, I think that you need to read the full passage to truly understand Morgan's feelings about Rowbotham's work:
Quote from: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26408/26408-h/26408-h.htm
(August 28, 1865.) The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands. When, in 1851, I went to see the Great Exhibition, I heard an organ played by a performer who seemed very desirous to exhibit one particular stop. "What do you think of that stop?" I was asked.?"That depends on the name of it," said I.?"Oh! what can the name have to do with the sound? 'that which we call a rose,' etc."?"The name has everything to do with it: if it be a flute-stop, I think it very harsh; but if it be a railway-whistle-stop, I think it very sweet." So as to this book: if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish. The flat earth, floating tremulously on the sea; the sun moving always over the flat, giving day when near enough, and night when too far off; the self-luminous moon, with a semi-transparent invisible moon, created to give her an eclipse now and then; the new law of perspective, by which the vanishing of the hull before the masts, usually thought to prove the earth globular, really proves it flat;?all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises for a person who is learning the elements of astronomy. The manner in which the sun dips into the sea, especially in tropical climates, upsets the whole. Mungo Park,[187] I think, gives an African hypothesis which explains phenomena better than this. The sun dips into the western ocean, and the people there cut him in pieces, fry him in a pan, and then join him together again, take him round the underway, and set him up in the east. I hope this book will be read, and that many will be puzzled by it: for there are many whose notions of astronomy deserve no better fate. There is no subject on which there is so little [92]accurate conception as that of the motions of the heavenly bodies. The author, though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience: in these points he is worthy to live on a globe, and to revolve in twenty-four hours.

Tom, do you ever feel embarrassed when RE'ers actually check your sources and put your carefully plucked excerpts back into context?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 04:53:04 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.