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

  • 62 Replies
  • 9015 Views
*

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 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".

Richard Proctor was a fellow and secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society. What he says on the matter certainly should have bearing on the Round Earth model of the time.

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
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".

Richard Proctor was a fellow and secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society. What he says on the matter certainly should have bearing on the Round Earth model of the time.

You seem to think there are definite authorities whose word are law.  There aren't, at least not as such.  What someone says stands or falls on it's own merit, although it may gain more interest based on how famous or important the person is.  He's perfectly allowed to be wrong in his beliefs, regardless of his position.  As is everyone of the time, although I'm still not convinced that this belief was the commonly accepted one of the time.

Notice the, stands and falls on it's own merit, part of that.  The book does so too, as word of the author, and today it falls along with the statements of Proctor.  Rather easily, in fact.
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.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
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.

You are just being biased and judgemental. Saying incorrect things, does not make one stupid, merely ignorant. Similarly, contrary to what the OP says, I do not think you can discredit Rowbotham for citing ignorant beliefs. Rowbotham's book falls apart on bad evidence, bad methodology and faulty reasoning, not ignorance per se.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
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".

Richard Proctor was a fellow and secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society. What he says on the matter certainly should have bearing on the Round Earth model of the time.

You seem to think there are definite authorities whose word are law.  There aren't, at least not as such.  What someone says stands or falls on it's own merit, although it may gain more interest based on how famous or important the person is.  He's perfectly allowed to be wrong in his beliefs, regardless of his position.  As is everyone of the time, although I'm still not convinced that this belief was the commonly accepted one of the time.

Notice the, stands and falls on it's own merit, part of that.  The book does so too, as word of the author, and today it falls along with the statements of Proctor.  Rather easily, in fact.

I think you can trust a secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society to accurately represent the orthodox view of the day.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

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".

Richard Proctor was a fellow and secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society. What he says on the matter certainly should have bearing on the Round Earth model of the time.

And as I said, if it was the mainstream view of the time, it wasn't far off from the modern view. In fact it was this thread that provided some clarification on the difference for you. Doesn't seem to stupid to me.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2013, 04:06:45 PM by rottingroom »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
You seem to think there are definite authorities whose word are law.  There aren't, at least not as such.

Actually, the Royal Astronomical Society was the authority of the time, just like NASA is the 'authority' of our time. The RAS were chiefly responsible for the state of Astronomy and everything put into textbooks. It was the prominent astronomical research organization of the western world.

If the Royal Astronomical Society published new findings, the rest of the western world would follow suite and adopt those beliefs. Similarly, if NASA today started publishing that Europa had an oxygen atmosphere, the rest of the world would eventually believe that.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
You seem to think there are definite authorities whose word are law.  There aren't, at least not as such.

Actually, the Royal Astronomical Society was the authority of the time, just like NASA is the 'authority' of our time. The RAS were chiefly responsible for the state of Astronomy and everything put into textbooks. It was the prominent astronomical research organization of the western world.

If the Royal Astronomical Society published new findings, the rest of the western world would follow suite and adopt those beliefs. Similarly, if NASA today started publishing that Europa had an oxygen atmosphere, the rest of the world would eventually believe that.

Sort of?  Other scientific organizations, like the Royal Astronomical Society, would try and verify NASA's claim before believing it.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Sort of?  Other scientific organizations, like the Royal Astronomical Society, would try and verify NASA's claim before believing it.

Nonsense. Nearly everyone takes NASA's word without verifying it for themselves.

Who replicated the Voyager missions which discovered interesting things about Jupiter and its moons?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2013, 04:33:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Sort of?  Other scientific organizations, like the Royal Astronomical Society, would try and verify NASA's claim before believing it.

Nonsense. Nearly everyone takes NASA's word without verifying it for themselves.

Who replicated the Voyager missions which discovered interesting things about Jupiter and its moons?

Is the voyager mission the only method of verifying their claims?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Is the voyager mission the only method of verifying their claims?

Only NASA has sent spacecraft to Jupiter. Everyone believes what NASA discovers without any kind of third party verification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Jupiter

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Is the voyager mission the only method of verifying their claims?

Only NASA has sent spacecraft to Jupiter. Everyone believes what NASA discovers without any kind of third party verification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Jupiter

You did not answer my question and non sequitured back to your original assertion. Could you please answer my question substantially?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Is the voyager mission the only method of verifying their claims?

Only NASA has sent spacecraft to Jupiter. Everyone believes what NASA discovers without any kind of third party verification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Jupiter

You did not answer my question and non sequitured back to your original assertion. Could you please answer my question substantially?

The answer is yes. It is only possible to verify NASA's numerous discoveries by sending spacecraft to Jupiter.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Is the voyager mission the only method of verifying their claims?

Only NASA has sent spacecraft to Jupiter. Everyone believes what NASA discovers without any kind of third party verification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Jupiter

You did not answer my question and non sequitured back to your original assertion. Could you please answer my question substantially?

The answer is yes. It is only possible to verify NASA's numerous discoveries by sending spacecraft to Jupiter.

Now perhaps you would give us some sort of support for your assertion.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Is the voyager mission the only method of verifying their claims?

Only NASA has sent spacecraft to Jupiter. Everyone believes what NASA discovers without any kind of third party verification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Jupiter

You did not answer my question and non sequitured back to your original assertion. Could you please answer my question substantially?

The answer is yes. It is only possible to verify NASA's numerous discoveries by sending spacecraft to Jupiter.

Now perhaps you would give us some sort of support for your assertion.

The assertion that people, specifically other astronomy organizations, will believe anything NASA tells them?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
No that spacecraft are the only way to verify NASA's discoveries.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
No that spacecraft are the only way to verify NASA's discoveries.

Why wouldn't they be? The instruments on a space craft can detect many more things, and at higher resolution, than small amounts of distant light through a telescope.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
No that spacecraft are the only way to verify NASA's discoveries.

Why wouldn't they be? The instruments on a space craft can detect many more things, and at higher resolution, than small amounts of distant light through a telescope.

Don't ask me, you made the assertion. I'm just asking you to back it up. Otherwise you are asking me to take your word for it. I have seen enough from you in the past to not take your word on astronomical questions.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
I don't feel the need to back up the assertion that a space ship could make discoveries that a telescope on earth cannot.

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.
I din't realize the book was that old. But I was directed to it for evidence, and I expected a reasonable person to provide me with evidence that wasn't based on 100+ year old scientific theories... And by the way the material that made the earth came from the stars, yes, but not from our sun.
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
I din't realize the book was that old. But I was directed to it for evidence, and I expected a reasonable person to provide me with evidence that wasn't based on 100+ year old scientific theories... And by the way the material that made the earth came from the stars, yes, but not from our sun.

It was the RET theorist Richard Proctor who claimed the things in your first post. It even says so on the pages you referenced. I would suggest reading closer next time. Your criticism shows RET to be an embarrassment, not the author.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2013, 08:10:03 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
I don't feel the need to back up the assertion that a space ship could make discoveries that a telescope on earth cannot.

Then your assertion means nothing and will not be taken seriously since you have zero credentials as an astronomer and do not even believe NASA can do the things they say they do.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
I din't realize the book was that old. But I was directed to it for evidence, and I expected a reasonable person to provide me with evidence that wasn't based on 100+ year old scientific theories... And by the way the material that made the earth came from the stars, yes, but not from our sun.

It was the RET theorist Richard Proctor who claimed the things in your first post. It even says so on the pages you referenced. I would suggest reading closer next time Your criticism shows RET to be an embarrassment, not the author.

His criticism shows RET at the time to be ignorant, not an embarrassment. 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

I din't realize the book was that old. But I was directed to it for evidence, and I expected a reasonable person to provide me with evidence that wasn't based on 100+ year old scientific theories... And by the way the material that made the earth came from the stars, yes, but not from our sun.

It was the RET theorist Richard Proctor who claimed the things in your first post. It even says so on the pages you referenced. I would suggest reading closer next time Your criticism shows RET to be an embarrassment, not the author.
You claim that because one RE supporter did something stupid, the whole RET is stupid? I admit I din't read carefully enough and I apologize, everyone makes mistakes though.
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
I don't feel the need to back up the assertion that a space ship could make discoveries that a telescope on earth cannot.

Then your assertion means nothing and will not be taken seriously since you have zero credentials as an astronomer and do not even believe NASA can do the things they say they do.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that a space ship can discover things a telescope cannot. I don't feel the need to further discuss the matter.

I din't realize the book was that old. But I was directed to it for evidence, and I expected a reasonable person to provide me with evidence that wasn't based on 100+ year old scientific theories... And by the way the material that made the earth came from the stars, yes, but not from our sun.

It was the RET theorist Richard Proctor who claimed the things in your first post. It even says so on the pages you referenced. I would suggest reading closer next time Your criticism shows RET to be an embarrassment, not the author.
You claim that because one RE supporter did something stupid, the whole RET is stupid? I admit I din't read carefully enough and I apologize, everyone makes mistakes though.

Not "one RE supporter," but rather a Royal Astronomer. If the secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society cannot be trusted to accurately represent the Round Earth model of the time, who can?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39593
Rather than focus on Proctor's qualifications, why don't you guys ask yourselves if Winship presented his assessment of Proctor's statements in a fair and accurate manner?
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.

?

11cookeaw1

I don't feel the need to back up the assertion that a space ship could make discoveries that a telescope on earth cannot.

Then your assertion means nothing and will not be taken seriously since you have zero credentials as an astronomer and do not even believe NASA can do the things they say they do.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that a space ship can discover things a telescope cannot. I don't feel the need to further discuss the matter.

I din't realize the book was that old. But I was directed to it for evidence, and I expected a reasonable person to provide me with evidence that wasn't based on 100+ year old scientific theories... And by the way the material that made the earth came from the stars, yes, but not from our sun.

It was the RET theorist Richard Proctor who claimed the things in your first post. It even says so on the pages you referenced. I would suggest reading closer next time Your criticism shows RET to be an embarrassment, not the author.
You claim that because one RE supporter did something stupid, the whole RET is stupid? I admit I din't read carefully enough and I apologize, everyone makes mistakes though.

Not "one RE supporter," but rather a Royal Astronomer. If the secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society cannot be trusted to accurately represent the Round Earth model of the time, who can?

In Your model, how did the earth form.

I don't feel the need to back up the assertion that a space ship could make discoveries that a telescope on earth cannot.

Then your assertion means nothing and will not be taken seriously since you have zero credentials as an astronomer and do not even believe NASA can do the things they say they do.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that a space ship can discover things a telescope cannot. I don't feel the need to further discuss the matter.

I din't realize the book was that old. But I was directed to it for evidence, and I expected a reasonable person to provide me with evidence that wasn't based on 100+ year old scientific theories... And by the way the material that made the earth came from the stars, yes, but not from our sun.

It was the RET theorist Richard Proctor who claimed the things in your first post. It even says so on the pages you referenced. I would suggest reading closer next time Your criticism shows RET to be an embarrassment, not the author.
You claim that because one RE supporter did something stupid, the whole RET is stupid? I admit I din't read carefully enough and I apologize, everyone makes mistakes though.

Not "one RE supporter," but rather a Royal Astronomer. If the secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society cannot be trusted to accurately represent the Round Earth model of the time, who can?

In Your model, how did the earth form.
I am new here, and would love to see the answer to this.
Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature.

The fact of the matter is that ANY "science" book written that long ago is bound to be full of inaccuracies.  Additionally, the more dependent on technology the research is, the more inaccurate the information is likely to be. 

I'm not really interested in what someone who lived before microscopes were invented has to say about the structure of a cell because he will be guessing.  If I really wanted to know about the structure of a cell, I would look at one through a microscope (as I have done many times). 

A publishing date of 1899 automatically nullifies a book as a source of scientific knowledge for any reason other than historical curiosity.

On a side note:  If there was a Kickstarter campaign to send Tom Bishop up to the International Space Station, do you think we could get enough funding?  Do you think that he would agree to make the trip?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
The fact of the matter is that ANY "science" book written that long ago is bound to be full of inaccuracies.

Yet the only inaccuracies posted in this thread from the work have been by an RE astronomer.

Quote
A publishing date of 1899 automatically nullifies a book as a source of scientific knowledge for any reason other than historical curiosity.

No it does not. Darwin's Origin of the Species was written in 1859, yet the observations and findings are not automatically invalid. Aristotle's equations for buoyancy are several thousand years old, yet they are still used. Truth does not have an expiration date.

?

11cookeaw1

I don't feel the need to back up the assertion that a space ship could make discoveries that a telescope on earth cannot.

Then your assertion means nothing and will not be taken seriously since you have zero credentials as an astronomer and do not even believe NASA can do the things they say they do.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that a space ship can discover things a telescope cannot. I don't feel the need to further discuss the matter.

I din't realize the book was that old. But I was directed to it for evidence, and I expected a reasonable person to provide me with evidence that wasn't based on 100+ year old scientific theories... And by the way the material that made the earth came from the stars, yes, but not from our sun.

It was the RET theorist Richard Proctor who claimed the things in your first post. It even says so on the pages you referenced. I would suggest reading closer next time Your criticism shows RET to be an embarrassment, not the author.
You claim that because one RE supporter did something stupid, the whole RET is stupid? I admit I din't read carefully enough and I apologize, everyone makes mistakes though.

Not "one RE supporter," but rather a Royal Astronomer. If the secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society cannot be trusted to accurately represent the Round Earth model of the time, who can?

Sort of?  Other scientific organizations, like the Royal Astronomical Society, would try and verify NASA's claim before believing it.

Nonsense. Nearly everyone takes NASA's word without verifying it for themselves.

Who replicated the Voyager missions which discovered interesting things about Jupiter and its moons?

Is the voyager mission the only method of verifying their claims?

Bishop, that was the question, stop pretending it was something else.