Recent Posts

The Plane Truth was a good read. I just finished it. The author is clearly an REer, and I wish that he had focused just on reporting the facts, but I found value to his historical research. The Flat Earth story is engaging, and there is a lot of good biographical information.

I have attempted to paste together the sun map from the beginning of The Anti-Newtonian. It is a shame that we can't really read that the text on the image.

Thank you Dionysis, I have started to read that book and have found it to be interesting. I am seeking to include it in our library. Here is a book I came across that you may find of interest:

An Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients
An excellent find. It is sad there are few diagrams and mainly description in these works. The quality also makes it a tough read.

I shall read the plane truth when I get a little spare time.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Redesign to the Library
« Last post by Baby Thork on Today at 12:55:03 AM »
You'd have to be careful with the videos. Anything we link, we're endorsing if it is in the library. And unfortunately most of the popular youtube videos are made with people who have ... a dark side.

There is Eric Dubay, who has been expunged from youtube for being anti-semetic.
There is Math Boylan who thinks he is in his very own episode of 24.
There is Mark Sargent who I'm sure is just using flat earth because he wants to sleep with Patricia Steere.

The list goes on, but there isn't anything we would agree has been 'peer reviewed' by the society.

But updating the library isn't a bad shout. I think a section for FE maps would be pretty cool. If we could add a searchable gallery or something.

I am reading The Plane Truth: A History of the Flat Earth Movement by Robert J. Schadewald and this passage caught my eye in the chapter about Samuel Birley Rowbotham:

In 1819, an anonymous author published a 38-page pamphlet entitled The Anti-Newtonian: or, A True System of the Universe, with a Map of Explanation, Proving the Sun to Be a Moveable Body and Central Circling Equator of Equal Time, etc. The work was printed in London at the author’s expense, but it contains no hint of who the writer was, where he lived, or any other biographical information except that he had previously published a work pointing out “the dangerous consequences of speculative astronomy.”

According to The Anti-Newtonian, the earth is a vast circular plain enclosed by a wall of ice.  A map in the pamphlet shows the north pole at the center, the south pole at 12 o’clock, east and west respectively at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock, and an “unknown pole” at 6 o’clock.  The sun’s path is a circle whose center moves back and forth along a line connecting the south pole and the unknown pole to cause the seasons.  The half of the earth beyond the east–west line toward the unknown pole is unknown and uninhabitable.

Rowbotham never mentions The Anti-Newtonian in any of his writings, but he almost certainly based his own system on it.  He discarded the circumferential poles and the unknown, uninhabitable parts of the earth as unworkable.  He left the north pole at the center, but he declared that there is no south pole; the impassable wall of ice encircling the known, inhabitable world forms the “southern limit.” East and west are merely those directions at right angles to the compass needle.  The equator is a circle centered on the north pole and lying halfway between it and the southern limit.  The sun circles above the earth in the region of the equator, moving north or south of the equator to suit the season.  Rowbotham called his system zetetic astronomy.

This was interesting. I took it upon myself to look for this book and found a copy of it online on Google Books.

The Anti-Newtonian (1819)

It is unknown who wrote this book. The author only refers to himself as "The Author". Samuel Birlery Rowbotham was born in 1816, and was only three years old at the time, so he was likely not the author.

Upon reading this book, the proofs and arguments made are very unique, in that The Author bases most of his Flat Earth model on the behaviors of the sun. There are numerous details on why the Flat Earth model in The Anti-Newtonian must exist as consequence of the sun's actions.

The Author seems to assert that there is a North Pole and a South Pole, and that the sun circles around each one depending on the time of the year. This is similar to Lady Blount's model, except that rather than one circle of rotation being on top of another, the circles of the sun overlap. I am not yet sure where Robert Schadewald is getting the "Unknown Pole" from in his description of this model.

It is unclear if the Sun "switches gears" to rotate along a different circular track, or if the center of the sun's rotations gently drifts between the North and South Poles. At first glance it appears that The Author is describing a switching of gears to mark a shifting of the two main seasons. Presumably the circle of the sun also expands and contracts like in the monopole model while on these circular tracks for the mid-seasons?

In the Preface The Author hints that he had previously written about the subject of speculative astronomy. I performed a Google Books Search on that term and came up with the following work called:

Reflections on the Inconsistency of Speculative Astronomy, Volume 4 (1819)

I couldn't find Volumes 1 through 3. The text of this work seems to follow the same style of The Anti-Newtonian, with an unknown author, and ends with "THE END." like The Anti-Newtonian does. This appears to be a Flat Earth book, as it is suggested in several places that the earth is likely a plane. The Author again speaks at length about his investigation into the sun, with perhaps greater detail and focus than is seen in other 19th, 20th, and 21st century Flat Earth writings.

There is a great amount of information here to digest. As this is the original Flat Earth study, these works are especially important, since all the rest are derivatives and interpretations. This investigative work into an alternative shape of the earth may provide insights that Rowbotham and others have not expressed.

I believe that by reading and interpreting these works, and seeking to understand this mysterious author, we will be able to answer more questions on why the globe theory was found to be insufficient, and how modern Flat Earth Theory was created.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Burden of Proof
« Last post by xenotolerance on January 19, 2018, 11:38:20 PM »
See also: One of the previous burden of proof threads. This topic gets retread quite a bit.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Burden of Proof
« Last post by InquisitiveREer on January 19, 2018, 10:50:58 PM »
Thank you both for your  insight on this subject i was simply confused by how there wiki presented who should or should not be providing more evidence this clears it up

Again thanks
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« Last post by supaluminus on January 19, 2018, 10:33:24 PM »
@supraluminus fMRI appears to show that these decisions that you are saying are willful are actually made before you are aware of it. That could very well mean that these decisions are not as volitional as we suspect. It doesn’t negate the possibility of volitional decisions but this is not a clear cut matter.

It's clear enough that we have more evidence to the contrary than we do to support the premise of the OP. I'm not saying that means it's definitely one way or the other, but it means that we don't really have to spend a lot of time worrying about it until more evidence can be obtained.
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved
« Last post by Rama Set on January 19, 2018, 10:24:22 PM »
@supraluminus fMRI appears to show that these decisions that you are saying are willful are actually made before you are aware of it. That could very well mean that these decisions are not as volitional as we suspect. It doesn’t negate the possibility of volitional decisions but this is not a clear cut matter.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Burden of Proof
« Last post by Curious Squirrel on January 19, 2018, 09:45:50 PM »
So I was reading Through the wiki and came across the Burden of Proof section the one example I found confusing is:

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

I find in an debate both sides have to provide evidence or you are not actually having a debate.

I don't know how this particular forum does things, but this is how I usually structure debate:

1 ) First person makes a claim. They may present evidence from the outset or bit by bit as the first person is plied with questions.

2 ) Second person rebuts the first claim, either by questioning the reasoning, or scrutinizing the evidence, or a combination of the two.

3 ) First person raises objections to the second person's rebuttal in an attempt to either clear up confusion or indicate to the second person why their reasoning is poor.

4 ) Both may then hash out any discrepancies or disagreements and either come to a consensus or agree to disagree.

You can get stuck in steps 3 and 4 ad nauseum, but that's why I stick to a rule of thumb like, "If two people have an argument for more than five minutes, they're both wrong." But I'm just spitballing.
This is somewhat fine for a simpler yes/no question. Like what is covered by most debate clubs. But for something more complex (flat vs round isn't really two sides of the same coin, and neither side is a negative) BOTH should be presenting evidence at first. Then you dissect and attempt to discredit the evidence of the other, followed by rebuttals of the dissection. Unfortunately FE usually boils down to 'Well, it *looks* flat' at the core of why. Which, one can't really argue with directly. Because yeah, it rather does look flat. They must be willing to look beyond that without being biased by this original observation in order to start to understand why the Earth is like a book. Instead we have a whole host of things (many unobserved elsewhere or misunderstood) that are created to accommodate this 'obvious truth' of the Earth being flat. Also why debates generally have a moderator of some form. You aren't attempting to convince the other, you are attempting to convince the presumably neutral third party. The undecided.