Hypocrisy of Rowboatham

In his waste-of-words Earth Not A Globe (or Bishops Bible for short), snake-oil merchant SB Rowboatham exhibits a huge amount of picking and choosing of evidence. For those who cant be bothered to wade through the pages of this tome, here are some choice examples of his total un-zeteticism.

1. On the rotation of stars around the south celestial pole: page 219, he says some people have observed the stars rotating around a point centred near Sigma Octantis. Because this disagrees with earth as a flat plane, however, he goes on to say these peoples observations are wrong. He then presents snippets from various mariners logs out of context, which imply that southern circumpolar stars were not visible - without including any reference to weather or atmospheric conditions - and says these peoples observations are correct without question and show there are no circumpolar stars.

2. On the continuous daylight at summer within the Antarctic Circle: pages 221-222, Rowboatham states that some people have witnessed continuous daylight in the Antarctic regions. He then says these peoples observations are wrong, and then presents - again out of context and without weather reference - snippets from mariners logs where they say it was too dark to safely sail at certain times. He then holds these accounts up as proof that there is never continuous daylight within the Antarctic Circle.

3. Page 250, he presents an unreferenced letter from an unnamed individual about the discovery of Neptune which claims Newtonian physics is proved wrong because Le Verriers initial calculations and estimates of the planets orbital size, mass and time of orbit were not 100% correct before the planet was visually observed. This shows a fundamental inability to understand how physics works and that something bigger further away will exert the same gravitational attraction as something smaller closer in. Sorry Rowboatham, claiming these things disprove a theory you dont understand is not acceptable.

In his waste-of-words Earth Not A Globe (or Bishops Bible for short), snake-oil merchant SB Rowboatham exhibits a huge amount of picking and choosing of evidence. For those who cant be bothered to wade through the pages of this tome, here are some choice examples of his total un-zeteticism.

1. On the rotation of stars around the south celestial pole: page 219, he says some people have observed the stars rotating around a point centred near Sigma Octantis. Because this disagrees with earth as a flat plane, however, he goes on to say these peoples observations are wrong. He then presents snippets from various mariners logs out of context, which imply that southern circumpolar stars were not visible - without including any reference to weather or atmospheric conditions - and says these peoples observations are correct without question and show there are no circumpolar stars.

2. On the continuous daylight at summer within the Antarctic Circle: pages 221-222, Rowboatham states that some people have witnessed continuous daylight in the Antarctic regions. He then says these peoples observations are wrong, and then presents - again out of context and without weather reference - snippets from mariners logs where they say it was too dark to safely sail at certain times. He then holds these accounts up as proof that there is never continuous daylight within the Antarctic Circle.

3. Page 250, he presents an unreferenced letter from an unnamed individual about the discovery of Neptune which claims Newtonian physics is proved wrong because Le Verriers initial calculations and estimates of the planets orbital size, mass and time of orbit were not 100% correct before the planet was visually observed. This shows a fundamental inability to understand how physics works and that something bigger further away will exert the same gravitational attraction as something smaller closer in. Sorry Rowboatham, claiming these things disprove a theory you dont understand is not acceptable.

That just about sums up the main players of the Flat Earth Society.

Page 219 doesn't have anything about the south celestial pole.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm#page_219

Page 221 doesn't have anything about the summer within the Antarctic Circle:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm#page_221

Page 250 isn't about Neptune.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za40.htm#page_250

Page 219 doesn't have anything about the south celestial pole.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm#page_219

Page 221 doesn't have anything about the summer within the Antarctic Circle:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm#page_221

Page 250 isn't about Neptune.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za40.htm#page_250

Well, I hope we can all get on the same page (ho ho) so that an actual rebuttal might be made.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2011, 02:15:48 PM

Page 219 doesn't have anything about the south celestial pole.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm#page_219

Page 221 doesn't have anything about the summer within the Antarctic Circle:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm#page_221

Page 250 isn't about Neptune.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za40.htm#page_250

Well, I hope we can all get on the same page (ho ho) so that an actual rebuttal might be made.

True the pages where off - but the idea is the same.  Perhaps he has a different version?

Berny
ENaG spells Gane backwards
That was inane

True the pages where off - but the idea is the same.

The ideas are not the same if they are false.

Quote from: berny_74 on July 07, 2011, 06:02:18 PM

True the pages where off - but the idea is the same.

The ideas are not the same if they are false.

Are you saying that Rowbotham hasn't expressed those ideas in his works (regardless of what pages they actually appear on)?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2011, 10:52:27 AM

Quote from: berny_74 on July 07, 2011, 06:02:18 PM

True the pages where off - but the idea is the same.

The ideas are not the same if they are false.

Are you saying that Rowbotham hasn't expressed those ideas in his works (regardless of what pages they actually appear on)?

Rowbotham's words may have easily been misinterpreted in the OP, if not fabricated outright. We'll have to see the actual text.

We'll have to see the actual text.

Please read ENaG (Earth is Not a Globe).

Could we at least have a citation so we have a snowballs chance in hell of finding whatever version he's babbling about?

Berny
ENaG spells Gane backwards
That was inane

Maybe you should look a little deeper




Also


I guess Rowbotham found a way to incorporate both his hobbies.

Actually this doesn't help FE's case at all.



I will find something else to do with my time before FE is destroyed.

Or maybe that was Rowbotham's aim for ENaG from the beginning ...

Anagrams are nice, but are also completely irrelevant and off topic.

Could we at least have a citation so we have a snowballs chance in hell of finding whatever version he's babbling about?

1. On the rotation of stars around the south celestial pole: page 219

Is actually page 286 on the downloaded txt file. 

Here, however, we are met with the positive assertion that there is a very small star (of about the sixth magnitude) in the south, called Sigma Octantis, round which all the constellations of the south revolve, and which is therefore the southern polar star.

I would like to point out all his observations for south of the equator is taken from second hand account information as he never travelled there.

Berny
Satisfied TB?

To clear up the confusion, I have an actual physical copy of enAg, hence my reference to pages. It is called a "book" I believe. What Bishop is calling pages are mere arbitrary subdivisions in a screen of text. If the best refutation he can come up with is that the pages are wrong, I fear for Bishops mental agility.

To clear up the confusion, I have an actual physical copy of enAg, hence my reference to pages. It is called a "book" I believe. What Bishop is calling pages are mere arbitrary subdivisions in a screen of text. If the best refutation he can come up with is that the pages are wrong, I fear for Bishops mental agility.

To clarify the confusion, the arbitrary subdivisions correspond to the most recent edition of ENaG (not to be confused with enAg). If your pages do not correspond to it, you're likely reading an outdated work.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 09, 2011, 12:02:33 PM

To clear up the confusion, I have an actual physical copy of enAg, hence my reference to pages. It is called a "book" I believe. What Bishop is calling pages are mere arbitrary subdivisions in a screen of text. If the best refutation he can come up with is that the pages are wrong, I fear for Bishops mental agility.

To clarify the confusion, the arbitrary subdivisions correspond to the most recent edition of ENaG (not to be confused with enAg). If your pages do not correspond to it, you're likely reading an outdated work.

My version is Rowboathams final 1881 edition, the largest and most comprehensive of the three editions published during his lifetime. Given that he has been dead for a very long time, I highly doubt that he has added any useful insights or text changes between 2007 and now.
I see nobody has disputed that Rowboatham is a hypocrite and evidence-picker of the worst stripe... come on, anybody?

We simply want to get on the same page.  I have several physical copies of ENaG of various editions and none of them match up with your page numbers.

Please this is a simple request and we would like to address your concerns properly once you provide us with enough information to do so.

Is it a reprint?  Does it have an ISBN?  If not, when was it printed?

It looks like my copy was published by NASA Publishing Co. It has been heavily expurgated but seems legit otherwise.

We simply want to get on the same page.  I have several physical copies of ENaG of various editions and none of them match up with your page numbers.

Please this is a simple request and we would like to address your concerns properly once you provide us with enough information to do so.

Is it a reprint?  Does it have an ISBN?  If not, when was it printed?

As I inferred, it was printed in 2007 and its ISBN number is 978-1-60506-417-8 and if you search for it on amazon.co.uk it is the first one listed that comes up. All this is merely irrelevant trolling, Davis, address the meat of the subject.

Quote from: John Davis on July 09, 2011, 08:51:05 PM

We simply want to get on the same page.  I have several physical copies of ENaG of various editions and none of them match up with your page numbers.

Please this is a simple request and we would like to address your concerns properly once you provide us with enough information to do so.

Is it a reprint?  Does it have an ISBN?  If not, when was it printed?

As I inferred, it was printed in 2007 and its ISBN number is 978-1-60506-417-8 and if you search for it on amazon.co.uk it is the first one listed that comes up. All this is merely irrelevant trolling, Davis, address the meat of the subject.

Its not at all.  I have that exact copy and will look at the referenced pages and tell if you if its typical Rowbotham bollocks or whether you are simply wrong.

Thank you for finally providing us with this information which for some reason you have held tight at chest until now...

In his waste-of-words Earth Not A Globe (or Bishops Bible for short), snake-oil merchant SB Rowboatham exhibits a huge amount of picking and choosing of evidence. For those who cant be bothered to wade through the pages of this tome, here are some choice examples of his total un-zeteticism.

1. On the rotation of stars around the south celestial pole: page 219, he says some people have observed the stars rotating around a point centred near Sigma Octantis. Because this disagrees with earth as a flat plane, however, he goes on to say these peoples observations are wrong. He then presents snippets from various mariners logs out of context, which imply that southern circumpolar stars were not visible - without including any reference to weather or atmospheric conditions - and says these peoples observations are correct without question and show there are no circumpolar stars.

He says no such thing.  He never states those observations are wrong, but merely (and rightfully so) states:"[these people who examine the south on vacation] do not examine such matters critically.   They see the stars move towards the east towards the west, and they are satisfied.  But they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute  movements of the southern constellations."

This is a call for such evidence to be provided.  Not an outright damning of it.  Such evidence at the time he states has not been put forward.  He does not call these people wrong or liars, and just states they have not examined it carefully.

2. On the continuous daylight at summer within the Antarctic Circle: pages 221-222, Rowboatham states that some people have witnessed continuous daylight in the Antarctic regions. He then says these peoples observations are wrong, and then presents - again out of context and without weather reference - snippets from mariners logs where they say it was too dark to safely sail at certain times. He then holds these accounts up as proof that there is never continuous daylight within the Antarctic Circle.

I myself have experienced times in the Antarctic circle which did not line up with the supposed time frames the round earth model suggests.   As such I'm not surprised by his logs.

3. Page 250, he presents an unreferenced letter from an unnamed individual about the discovery of Neptune which claims Newtonian physics is proved wrong because Le Verriers initial calculations and estimates of the planets orbital size, mass and time of orbit were not 100% correct before the planet was visually observed. This shows a fundamental inability to understand how physics works and that something bigger further away will exert the same gravitational attraction as something smaller closer in. Sorry Rowboatham, claiming these things disprove a theory you dont understand is not acceptable.

Unreferenced?  He clearly references it as a paper by M. Babinet read before the French Academy of Sciences.  He even includes a citation to where this was obtained from.  :/

He says no such thing.  He never states those observations are wrong, but merely (and rightfully so) states:"[these people who examine the south on vacation] do not examine such matters critically.   They see the stars move towards the east towards the west, and they are satisfied.  But they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute  movements of the southern constellations."

This is a call for such evidence to be provided.  Not an outright damning of it.  Such evidence at the time he states has not been put forward.  He does not call these people wrong or liars, and just states they have not examined it carefully.

Since then, there have been several major observatories built in the southern hemisphere.  I think that it's safe to say that the question of a southern pole star can be safely put to rest.  Not to mention all of the ship's navigators and other travelers of the southern hemisphere who are not "on vacation" who have more than ample opportunity to examine and study the motions of the southern stars in detail, even in Rowbotham's day. 

Quote from: John Davis on July 10, 2011, 07:24:48 PM

He says no such thing.  He never states those observations are wrong, but merely (and rightfully so) states:"[these people who examine the south on vacation] do not examine such matters critically.   They see the stars move towards the east towards the west, and they are satisfied.  But they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute  movements of the southern constellations."

This is a call for such evidence to be provided.  Not an outright damning of it.  Such evidence at the time he states has not been put forward.  He does not call these people wrong or liars, and just states they have not examined it carefully.

Since then, there have been several major observatories built in the southern hemisphere.  I think that it's safe to say that the question of a southern pole star can be safely put to rest.  Not to mention all of the ship's navigators and other travelers of the southern hemisphere who are not "on vacation" who have more than ample opportunity to examine and study the motions of the southern stars in detail, even in Rowbotham's day.

Well apparently ship navigators aren't reliable sources ?!   However, yes I agree.

Quote from: Skeleton on July 07, 2011, 04:57:12 AM

In his waste-of-words Earth Not A Globe (or Bishops Bible for short), snake-oil merchant SB Rowboatham exhibits a huge amount of picking and choosing of evidence. For those who cant be bothered to wade through the pages of this tome, here are some choice examples of his total un-zeteticism.

1. On the rotation of stars around the south celestial pole: page 219, he says some people have observed the stars rotating around a point centred near Sigma Octantis. Because this disagrees with earth as a flat plane, however, he goes on to say these peoples observations are wrong. He then presents snippets from various mariners logs out of context, which imply that southern circumpolar stars were not visible - without including any reference to weather or atmospheric conditions - and says these peoples observations are correct without question and show there are no circumpolar stars.

He says no such thing.  He never states those observations are wrong, but merely (and rightfully so) states:"[these people who examine the south on vacation] do not examine such matters critically.   They see the stars move towards the east towards the west, and they are satisfied.  But they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute  movements of the southern constellations."

This is a call for such evidence to be provided.  Not an outright damning of it.  Such evidence at the time he states has not been put forward.  He does not call these people wrong or liars, and just states they have not examined it carefully.

Quote

2. On the continuous daylight at summer within the Antarctic Circle: pages 221-222, Rowboatham states that some people have witnessed continuous daylight in the Antarctic regions. He then says these peoples observations are wrong, and then presents - again out of context and without weather reference - snippets from mariners logs where they say it was too dark to safely sail at certain times. He then holds these accounts up as proof that there is never continuous daylight within the Antarctic Circle.

I myself have experienced times in the Antarctic circle which did not line up with the supposed time frames the round earth model suggests.   As such I'm not surprised by his logs.

Quote

3. Page 250, he presents an unreferenced letter from an unnamed individual about the discovery of Neptune which claims Newtonian physics is proved wrong because Le Verriers initial calculations and estimates of the planets orbital size, mass and time of orbit were not 100% correct before the planet was visually observed. This shows a fundamental inability to understand how physics works and that something bigger further away will exert the same gravitational attraction as something smaller closer in. Sorry Rowboatham, claiming these things disprove a theory you dont understand is not acceptable.

Unreferenced?  He clearly references it as a paper by M. Babinet read before the French Academy of Sciences.  He even includes a citation to where this was obtained from.  :/

1. He says "it is certain that [people who think the earth is round]... do not examine such matters critically" and in this he is not only making an unfounded assumption about a huge number of people, but also including in this assumption many astronomers going back to the 1600s when the first expeditions specifically to examine the southern skies were mounted. There is no indication he is only talking about people on vacation. and he does NOT just present it as a call for evidence. He states on the following pages that it is a "point of certainty" that "there is no southern pole or southern circumpolar constellations... all  statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts and therefore not admissable as evidence." Cherry picking? Yes indeed.

2. Without corrobaritve proof, your personal observations are to be as trusted as Rowboatham trusts the evidence of people who claim to have seen southern circumpolar stars, i.e dismissed out of hand as lies.

3. It is not written by Babinet, you dullard, it is an account by an anonymous individual of a paper by Babinet. This has no bearing on Rowboathams erroneous use of this as evidence; it still illustrates his inability to understand how Newtonian physics works. Its like someone cooking something who doesnt understand that if your oven is cooler you need to cook something for longer. Just because the time/temperature ratio of the dish being cooked may vary, it does not mean you cant cook the dish properly.

Quote from: John Davis on July 10, 2011, 07:24:48 PM

Quote from: Skeleton on July 07, 2011, 04:57:12 AM

In his waste-of-words Earth Not A Globe (or Bishops Bible for short), snake-oil merchant SB Rowboatham exhibits a huge amount of picking and choosing of evidence. For those who cant be bothered to wade through the pages of this tome, here are some choice examples of his total un-zeteticism.

1. On the rotation of stars around the south celestial pole: page 219, he says some people have observed the stars rotating around a point centred near Sigma Octantis. Because this disagrees with earth as a flat plane, however, he goes on to say these peoples observations are wrong. He then presents snippets from various mariners logs out of context, which imply that southern circumpolar stars were not visible - without including any reference to weather or atmospheric conditions - and says these peoples observations are correct without question and show there are no circumpolar stars.

He says no such thing.  He never states those observations are wrong, but merely (and rightfully so) states:"[these people who examine the south on vacation] do not examine such matters critically.   They see the stars move towards the east towards the west, and they are satisfied.  But they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute  movements of the southern constellations."

This is a call for such evidence to be provided.  Not an outright damning of it.  Such evidence at the time he states has not been put forward.  He does not call these people wrong or liars, and just states they have not examined it carefully.

Quote

2. On the continuous daylight at summer within the Antarctic Circle: pages 221-222, Rowboatham states that some people have witnessed continuous daylight in the Antarctic regions. He then says these peoples observations are wrong, and then presents - again out of context and without weather reference - snippets from mariners logs where they say it was too dark to safely sail at certain times. He then holds these accounts up as proof that there is never continuous daylight within the Antarctic Circle.

I myself have experienced times in the Antarctic circle which did not line up with the supposed time frames the round earth model suggests.   As such I'm not surprised by his logs.

Quote

3. Page 250, he presents an unreferenced letter from an unnamed individual about the discovery of Neptune which claims Newtonian physics is proved wrong because Le Verriers initial calculations and estimates of the planets orbital size, mass and time of orbit were not 100% correct before the planet was visually observed. This shows a fundamental inability to understand how physics works and that something bigger further away will exert the same gravitational attraction as something smaller closer in. Sorry Rowboatham, claiming these things disprove a theory you dont understand is not acceptable.

Unreferenced?  He clearly references it as a paper by M. Babinet read before the French Academy of Sciences.  He even includes a citation to where this was obtained from.  :/

1. He says "it is certain that [people who think the earth is round]... do not examine such matters critically" and in this he is not only making an unfounded assumption about a huge number of people, but also including in this assumption many astronomers going back to the 1600s when the first expeditions specifically to examine the southern skies were mounted. There is no indication he is only talking about people on vacation. and he does NOT just present it as a call for evidence. He states on the following pages that it is a "point of certainty" that "there is no southern pole or southern circumpolar constellations... all  statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts and therefore not admissable as evidence." Cherry picking? Yes indeed.

2. Without corrobaritve proof, your personal observations are to be as trusted as Rowboatham trusts the evidence of people who claim to have seen southern circumpolar stars, i.e dismissed out of hand as lies.

3. It is not written by Babinet, you dullard, it is an account by an anonymous individual of a paper by Babinet. This has no bearing on Rowboathams erroneous use of this as evidence; it still illustrates his inability to understand how Newtonian physics works. Its like someone cooking something who doesnt understand that if your oven is cooler you need to cook something for longer. Just because the time/temperature ratio of the dish being cooked may vary, it does not mean you cant cook the dish properly.

If you are to flat out call me a dull liar after I went to the effort to try to help you, I don't see any reason I should continue.  Good day. Protip:  being a jerk isn't going to get your anywhere here.

You didnt go to effort to help me: you spent a great deal of energy and typing trying to say my summaries of Rowboathams writings were wrong. If you happen to be incorrect in what you said or are unhappy being judged by the same standards as Rowboatham judges his sources of information, or dont read the text properly in the first place, then thats not my problem.
As for your annoyance at me dismissing your accounts of the Antarctic as lies - why shouldnt I , when you do exactly the same to every astronaut, satellite engineer, Antarctic researcher etc? Their accounts are presented as evidence of a round earth and you merely say "they are lying". Judge others how you would be judged yourself.
Protip: the zetetic evidence of my own senses tells me that lots of people have got very far here being jerks almost continuously.

I had to put aside my work, dig up the appropriate copy of ENaG out of a box in my attic.  Then I had to look up each of your poorly cited examples, read them, and then post why they were ill construed.  At literally no benefit to myself after having to tear out the bibliographical information from you tooth and nail for 2 pages of this thread.   

I do no such thing to every astronaut, satellite engineer or Antarctic researcher. 

Now, I will spend more of my time.

1. He says "it is certain that [people who think the earth is round]... do not examine such matters critically" and in this he is not only making an unfounded assumption about a huge number of people, but also including in this assumption many astronomers going back to the 1600s when the first expeditions specifically to examine the southern skies were mounted. There is no indication he is only talking about people on vacation. and he does NOT just present it as a call for evidence. He states on the following pages that it is a "point of certainty" that "there is no southern pole or southern circumpolar constellations... all  statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts and therefore not admissable as evidence." Cherry picking? Yes indeed.

He clearly isn't talking about astronomers there... He specifically states  "they have not instituted special experiments, regardless of results, to ascertain the real and absolute movements of the southern constellations."    Its clearly in reference to those globularists who would not pay any mind to give the stars a second look.  Unless of course you are purposefully trying to demonize that section of text.  In which case, I guess you are free to believe as you wish.

2. Without corrobaritve proof, your personal observations are to be as trusted as Rowboatham trusts the evidence of people who claim to have seen southern circumpolar stars, i.e dismissed out of hand as lies.

Like I said I am not a liar.  You also have no evidence that any of the hundreds of cited sources Rowbotham uses are liars either.  At worst you can assume they are mistaken, despite often their nautical and astronomical training.

3. It is not written by Babinet, you dullard, it is an account by an anonymous individual of a paper by Babinet. This has no bearing on Rowboathams erroneous use of this as evidence; it still illustrates his inability to understand how Newtonian physics works. Its like someone cooking something who doesnt understand that if your oven is cooler you need to cook something for longer. Just because the time/temperature ratio of the dish being cooked may vary, it does not mean you cant cook the dish properly.

The letter is still referenced.  I take it you have read the referenced newspaper from 1848?  Or did you just assume Rowbotham made up the citation and attributed to letter to anonymous?

Either way I doubt I'll respond again here.

    Its clearly in reference to those globularists who would not pay any mind to give the stars a second look.  Unless of course you are purposefully trying to demonize that section of text.  In which case, I guess you are free to believe as you wish.

What about all the navigators and those involved in the creation of Almanacs?   I am certain those creating those tables (which were done by hand until the invention of analog computers) would have noticed huge discrepancies in the mathematical equations involved.  How about those using an astrocompass to search for the actual south pole where the magnetic compass became useless.

In fact wouldn't a study on celestial navigation overall be of an overall use to truly discover the paths of the stars and their relationship to the Earth.

Berny
Old posts renewed

 

I do no such thing to every astronaut, satellite engineer or Antarctic researcher. 

Lets imagine a thread on this forum...

Post 1: "Hi, Im Buzz Aldrin, I went to space and saw that the earth is round, then I walked on the moon. I can assure you from first hand experience that the earth is not flat.

Post 2 (by Davis or indeed any other flattist): "You are lying, you are part of the conspiracy and anything you say is false by definition."

The defence rests.