Zetetic Cosmogony or Conclusive Evidence that some people shouldn't write books.

  • 62 Replies
  • 9016 Views
I was recently directed to this book for FE evidence;
Zetetic Cosmogony; or Conclusive Evidence that the World is not a Rotating-Revolving-Globe, but a Stationary Plane Circle
My opinion so far...
This book is a giant pile of nonsense!
Page i and ii; Preface to second edtion (didn't bother reading it)
Introduction; Page iii; A poor description of what science knows about the universe expressed in a way that makes it sound as ridiculous as possible.
Page iv; An attempt to describe what science thinks of the solar system. Here are some examples; "Current science declares that the earth was once shot off from the sun" (Actually it was formed in the same cloud of gases and dust as the sun but was NEVER part of it). "The moon was once inhabited but is now a chaotic mass" (Facepalm). "The Earth is inhabited. It was once like the planet Jupiter. Earlier still it was like the sun, and will become like the moon now is" (Aren't you supposed to know at least the basics of cosmology before trying to prove it wrong? The earth was like the Sun??? WTF???)
I'll keep posting as I read along, until then...
« Last Edit: September 19, 2013, 09:30:19 AM by LockRay »
Two major reasons I don't believe the earth is flat;
1. Most of modern science needs to be denied in order for it to work.
2. Sunrise/Sunset.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Quote
Actually it was formed in the same cloud of gases and dust as the sun but was NEVER part of it

Incorrect. RET says that we were all once part of the stars.

Also, as this book was written in the late 1800's, what Thomas Winship says about "current science" and its theories is likely true. Your analysis fails.

He is correct, Tom. The Sun and the planets were created from the same cloud of gas that was leftover from previous stars. The Earth was never apart of the Sun.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
The Earth was part of "a sun", according to RET.  That is supposed to be why we have heavy metals. 

?

11cookeaw1

The Earth was part of "a sun", according to RET.  That is supposed to be why we have heavy metals.
Nope, we were part of a gas cloud that formed the sun, but never were part of the sun.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
http://www.livescience.com/32828-humans-really-made-stars.html

    'All organic matter containing carbon was produced originally in stars,' Impey told Life's Little Mysteries. 'The universe was originally hydrogen and helium, the carbon was made subsequently, over billions of years.'"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
He is correct, Tom. The Sun and the planets were created from the same cloud of gas that was leftover from previous stars. The Earth was never apart of the Sun.

If the earth was made from the same materials the sun is made from, then the earth is made of the sun.

The RET theory that the earth is part of the particulate matter ejected from the sun in early formation is perfectly valid, and may have been dominant at the time of writing.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2013, 12:24:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
He is correct, Tom. The Sun and the planets were created from the same cloud of gas that was leftover from previous stars. The Earth was never apart of the Sun.

If the earth was made from the same materials the sun is made from, then the earth is made of the sun.

Are you and your brother made from your brother?

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
The Earth was part of "a sun", according to RET.  That is supposed to be why we have heavy metals.

A star, a sun.  Not the sun, otherwise known as our sun, as he clearly implies.  Or rather, explicates.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
The Earth was part of "a sun", according to RET.  That is supposed to be why we have heavy metals.
Nope, we were part of a gas cloud that formed the sun, but never were part of the sun.

Were did uranium come from?  Did it form here on Earth?

?

11cookeaw1

It came from r-process nucleosynthesis from supernovas. A little hint, the sun has never gone supernova.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
So, it came from a sun?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
So, it came from a sun?

I'm not going to pretend I know much about this but they are saying it comes from a sun but not ours. A star. A sun.

?

REphoenix

  • 984
  • Round Earther
So, it came from a sun?
Yes. A sun. Not THE sun.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

The cloud of gas and debris that eventually formed our solar system originated from the remains of a star going supernova. That's pretty much it.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Then, what is wrong with Tom's answer that you all seem to have a problem with?

Incorrect. RET says that we were all once part of the stars.

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Then, what is wrong with Tom's answer that you all seem to have a problem with?

Quote
Actually it was formed in the same cloud of gases and dust as the sun but was NEVER part of it

Incorrect. RET says that we were all once part of the stars.

Also, as this book was written in the late 1800's, what Thomas Winship says about "current science" and its theories is likely true. Your analysis fails.

The highlighted part.  REPhoenix made a factual statement, that the Earth was never part of the sun under the current model.  Tom replied that he was wrong, and then proceeded with a non sequitur about how the Earth was once part of a sun, rather than addressing the point REPhoenix was making.

His objection shows that he believes the Earth was part of our sun, or that he didn't understand the statement, and the first is simply false and is for that reason being argued.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
If the Sun and the Earth came from the same super nova, then were they not part of the same thing at one time? 

?

11cookeaw1

Not really, some the material that made them was once part of the same thing.

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
If the Sun and the Earth came from the same super nova, then were they not part of the same thing at one time?

Yes and no.  They're made of the same materials, likely at least in part from the same stars, but the Earth is still not made of the sun.  A sun, sure.  In fact, probably many suns, although none of them were our sun.  To make an analogy, tires are not made of Pluto, and to say otherwise is simply ridiculous.

So we're all in agreement that Tom's original point was, well, pointless?  That when REPhoenix criticised the author for his claim, he was right in doing so, because the mainstream view in no way claims that Earth was once part of the sun, our sun?
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
What was the mainstream view in 1899?

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
What was the mainstream view in 1899?

No idea, care to enlighten us?  Because as best as I can tell, the current hypothesis was in use at the time, although in significantly less detail.  Something similar to what the author proposes was only put forth around nineteen seventeen.

If you don't want to that's fine, it's irrelevant either way.  The book is being held to the knowledge of today, not the day it was written.  If it doesn't hold up, regardless of the reason, it's as REPhoenix said.  A giant pile of nonsense.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
The book is being held to the knowledge of today, not the day it was written.

How does comparing the RET of 1899 to the RET of 2013 discredit the work?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
The book is being held to the knowledge of today, not the day it was written.

How does comparing the RET of 1899 to the RET of 2013 discredit the work?

Well, isn't the point of the OP to show how incorrect the book is? A book highly regarded here on this site I presumed.

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
The book is being held to the knowledge of today, not the day it was written.

How does comparing the RET of 1899 to the RET of 2013 discredit the work?

It doesn't.  Comparing it as a book that starts from a false premise, regardless of whether or not it was held as true at the time, to the currently held facts discredits the work.  It's not the matter of when it was written, it's a matter of what it says as compared to what we know to be true.

You still haven't proven that what he said was even the position held at the time, by the way.  Until you do, it seems more likely that he was simply misunderstanding the position that was held, since again, something similar wasn't proposed until eighteen years after.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Well, isn't the point of the OP to show how incorrect the book is? A book highly regarded here on this site I presumed.

The author is quoting the 'facts' and 'theories' claimed by science. He did not create those theories himself, but is quoting a third-party source.

If I quote something stupid you say, how does that invalidate my position on the matter?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Well, isn't the point of the OP to show how incorrect the book is? A book highly regarded here on this site I presumed.

The author is quoting the 'facts' and 'theories' claimed by science. He did not create those theories himself, but is quoting a third-party source.

If I quote something stupid you say, how does that invalidate my position on the matter?

Isn't that precisely what you did to LockRay?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
The book is being held to the knowledge of today, not the day it was written.

How does comparing the RET of 1899 to the RET of 2013 discredit the work?

It doesn't.  Comparing it as a book that starts from a false premise, regardless of whether or not it was held as true at the time, to the currently held facts discredits the work.  It's not the matter of when it was written, it's a matter of what it says as compared to what we know to be true.

You still haven't proven that what he said was even the position held at the time, by the way.  Until you do, it seems more likely that he was simply misunderstanding the position that was held, since again, something similar wasn't proposed until eighteen years after.

I would suggest reading the work. Thomas Winship is quoting the astronomer Richard Proctor on the points in the OP.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Isn't that precisely what you did to LockRay?

Richard Proctor said stupid things. Other RE scientists of the late 1800's said stupid things.

Quoting those people only shows the RET proponents to be stupid, not the person quoting them.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Isn't that precisely what you did to LockRay?

Richard Proctor said stupid things. Other RE scientists of the late 1800's said stupid things.

Quoting those people only shows those people to be stupid, not the person quoting them.

I see. Well, if that was the mainstream view at the time, it wasn't far off from the modern view. Certainly better than thinking that "The moon was once inhabited but is now a chaotic mass".