The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: ElTrancy on March 14, 2019, 06:18:20 PM
-
There's always been a question bugging my mind. Why just Rowbotham? What I mean by this is;
When quoting or citing a test done, you mainly (60-70%) of the time, get one about or from Rowbotham. Why is he the one that stands out? He went against the entire scientific community, but failed, unlike so many who have been proven true. Its however many years later, and his experiments and observations still haven't been globally agreed upon. Why is he of such importance? Why is there nearly nobody else in the scientific community quoted as much as him?
-
and his experiments and observations still haven't been globally agreed upon.
Is this just a poor choice of words on your part or are you expecting us to explain why Rowbotham's ideas haven't been GLOBALLY agreed upon?
As to why is Rowbotham important ... because he is the guy who founded the modern flat earth society. Without him , this forum doesn't exist. Its like saying 'there were lots of prophets, why do you keep talking about Jesus?'. A Christian is going to look at you with the same disdain as I have for you now.
-
Rowbotham's work on the topic is still much more detailed and systematic than any other studies so far.
-
Rowbotham's work on the topic is still much more detailed and systematic than any other studies so far.
More than the work of cartographic organisations across the earth?
We can measure our location to within a few cm. The WGS-84 model is understood and accepted throughout the scientific community. We have universally accepted definitions of the constants of mass etc.
-
Rowbotham's work on the topic is still much more detailed and systematic than any other studies so far.
So no one since Rowbotham has done better than him?
-
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm
Rowbotham was not always right. The above link describes his experiment to determine the true distance of the Sun. If a line is extended 400 miles south from London we come to a region of SW France, just south in fact of a line between Cognac and Limoges. Rowbotham predicts that from that distance the Sun should be directly overhead on the date of his experiment. That would be right if the Earth was flat and the Sun only 700 miles from the surface of the Earth. However that can easily be demonstrated to be incorrect. In fairness, Rowbothams stated altitude angles for the Sun as seen from London Bridge and Brighton (61 degrees and 64 degrees) are correct.
The altitude of the Sun as seen from 400 miles south of London is actually 66 degrees. A difference of only a couple of degrees as seen from London. That angle is what we would expect based on the RET stated value of 25,000 miles as the circumference of the Earth. The missing 24 degrees from Rowbothams prediction is accounted for by the amount of curvature of the Earths surface over a 400 mile distance. At such an altitude atmospheric refraction would not be enouth to account for the difference.
-
Honestly I see REers mentioning Rowbotham as a defining authority way more than FEers. At the end of the day the biggest reason Rowbotham gets referenced is just because he was prolific. Nine times out of ten, if you have a basic question it was something he wrote on. Why not reference the pre-existing answer?
-
Honestly I see REers mentioning Rowbotham as a defining authority way more than FEers. At the end of the day the biggest reason Rowbotham gets referenced is just because he was prolific. Nine times out of ten, if you have a basic question it was something he wrote on. Why not reference the pre-existing answer?
Perhaps because 9 times out of 10 he was wrong and cited inferences and assertions as fact and fitted it all into his scriptural literalism.
-
Honestly I see REers mentioning Rowbotham as a defining authority way more than FEers. At the end of the day the biggest reason Rowbotham gets referenced is just because he was prolific. Nine times out of ten, if you have a basic question it was something he wrote on. Why not reference the pre-existing answer?
Perhaps because 9 times out of 10 he was wrong and cited inferences and assertions as fact and fitted it all into his scriptural literalism.
And nine times out of ten REers can't tell the difference between 'wrong' and 'doesn't fit their preconceptions,' what's your point?
-
Honestly I see REers mentioning Rowbotham as a defining authority way more than FEers. At the end of the day the biggest reason Rowbotham gets referenced is just because he was prolific. Nine times out of ten, if you have a basic question it was something he wrote on. Why not reference the pre-existing answer?
Perhaps because 9 times out of 10 he was wrong and cited inferences and assertions as fact and fitted it all into his scriptural literalism.
And nine times out of ten REers can't tell the difference between 'wrong' and 'doesn't fit their preconceptions,' what's your point?
"Why not reference the pre-existing answer?" One that is often found to be wrong. Hence the whole debate thing. The point being, to the OP, why (and maybe it's just because of Bishop) that a bunch of answers/explanations point back to one guy? Are there more modern, progressive FE philosophers we should be looking toward?
-
I think the inference is that whenever any aspect of FET is called into question, more often than not there is some reference made by FE'ers about what Rowbotham did, said or whatever as if he was always right. However whenever it can be shown that Rowbotham was not actually accurate then they are more inclined to distance themselves.
I have already shown how two of Rowbothams experiments/reasonings are not accurate for the simple reason that he was making an incorrect assumption. That is true for many experiments made on the RE side as well in the past. But RE theory is based on the accumulated contributions of a lot of people while FE theory seems to be centred around or biased towards the contributions of just a very select few.
As to why is Rowbotham important ... because he is the guy who founded the modern flat earth society. Without him , this forum doesn't exist
Hmmm.. not sure I agree entirely with that statement. I can accept that Rowbotham might have been the originator of the flat Earth movement but he was dead and buried long before the Internet was even thought of so why is the existence of this forum so reliant on him? I would have thought and hoped that FET has developed a bit since his time over 150 years ago. Our model of the Universe as we know it now is less than a century old.
-
Are there more modern, progressive FE philosophers we should be looking toward?
Yes. It's called the Wiki.
-
Right Ok, so the FE Wiki provides the authoritative guide to all things flat Earth related now then does it?
-
Right Ok, so the FE Wiki provides the authoritative guide to all things flat Earth related now then does it?
Not what I said. Try again.
-
Rowbotham's work on the topic is still much more detailed and systematic than any other studies so far.
But...he was wrong, wasn't he?
He's wrong about perspective, that isn't how perspective works at all.
He was wrong about the moon - he said it was translucent for goodness sake, and he said it emits its own light which it demonstrably doesn't.
He was wrong about pretty much everything, his ideas were not accepted by any serious scientists and he has been largely forgotten about by history.
I'd never heard of him till I found this place.
And his motivation for his book is clearly a misguided interpretation of Scripture.
He was not a man of science, he never worked professionally in a science relevant to his writings, I don't believe he has any published peer reviewed papers.
He is not an authority. If he is who your basing your beliefs on then you're in trouble.
-
Not what I said. Try again.
No... your turn, where is there another authoritiative guide to FE theory?
-
Honestly I see REers mentioning Rowbotham as a defining authority way more than FEers.
Who would you suggest as a better authority on FET than Rowbotham?
-
It was science which claimed to have performed experiments that moonlight cooled thermometers through a telescope and that stars were seen to occult the moon. Rowbotham just reported on it. Look into what quotations and references are.
-
It was science which claimed to have performed experiments that moonlight cooled thermometers through a telescope and that stars were seen to occult the moon. Rowbotham just reported on it. Look into what quotations and references are.
Science also claimed there were only 4 elements and that the earth was the centre of the universe and all kids of things we now know to be wrong.
Just cherry picking bits of science which back up your ideas and ignoring all the bits which don’t is disingenuous. Especially when the bits that don’t often supersede the bits which do.
-
Science demonstrated the existence of other elements through experiment. Science also demonstrated the cooling effects of moonlight through experiment. In order to show those things to be incorrect, contradictory experiments to those of science would need to be given.
-
Science also demonstrated the cooling effects of moonlight through experiment. In order to show those things to be incorrect, contradictory experiments to those of science would need to be given.
Lol what? Since when does moonlight cool stuff? It's a matter of radiative cooling, not moonlight.
Edit: Not only what manicminer said is true, but there's a way to disprove it zetetically, just compare the temp. of an object out on a night with the full moon to the temp of said object with a new moon. There should be no significant difference (that is if other factors are controlled to a reasonable extent, like conducting the experiment on a cloudless night, using the IR thermometer from the same distance each time, clear area around object so nothing else affects the temp. or you accidentally take the temp. of something else near it along with the object, etc.)
-
A tiny amount of energy from the Sun reaches the Moon directly. That energy (electromagnetic radiation) takes the form of UV, visible light and IR among others. A percentage (albedo) of that radiation gets reflected off the Moon in the direction of Earth. In the case of the Moon that amounts to about 12% of the incident radiation.
By the time it reaches Earth any heat energy from the Moon will be so incredibly small as to be undetectable. We can conclude then that moonlight, as pretty as it is, has absolutely no cooling or heating effect on our surroundings.
-
Rowbotham says that many experiments on moonlight have shown no heat increase or a cooling effect:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm
The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat. That the light of the moon is without heat, is fully verified by the following quotations:---
"If the most delicate thermometer be exposed to the full light of the moon, shining with its greatest lustre, the mercury is not elevated a hair's breadth; neither would it be if exposed to the focus of her rays concentrated by the most powerful lenses. This has been proved by actual experiment." 1
"This question has been submitted to the test of direct experiment. . . . The bulb of a thermometer sufficiently sensitive to render apparent a change of temperature amounting to the thousandth part of a degree, was placed in the focus of a concave reflector of vast dimensions, which, being directed to the moon, the lunar rays were collected with great power upon it. Not the slightest change, however, was produced in the thermometric column; proving that a concentration of rays sufficient to fuse gold if they proceeded from the sun, does not produce a change of temperature so great as the thousandth part of a degree when they proceed from the moon." 2
"The most delicate experiments have failed in detecting in the light of the moon either calorific or chemical properties. Though concentrated in the focus of the largest mirrors, it produces no sensible heating effect. To make this experiment, recourse has been had to a bent tube, the extremities of which terminate in two hollow globes filled with air, the one trans-parent, the other blackened, the middle space being occupied by a coloured fluid. In this instrument, when caloric is absorbed by it, the black ball takes up more than the other, and the air it encloses increasing in elasticity, the liquid is driven out. This instrument is so delicate that it indicates even the millionth part of a degree; and yet, in the experiment alluded to, it gave no result." 1
"The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer. M. De la Hire collected the rays of the full moon when on the meridian, by means of a burning-glass 35 inches in diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. No effect was produced though the lunar rays by this glass were concentrated 300 times. Professor Forbes concentrated the moon's light by a lens 30 inches in diameter, its focal distance being about 41 inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding 6000 times. The image of the moon, which was only 18 hours past full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermopile. Although the observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing that half the rays were reflected, dispersed and absorbed), though the light of the moon was concentrated 3000 times, not the slightest thermo effect was produced." 2
In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.
Other references --
Dr. William Le Roy Broun says:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Lz5AAAAAYAAJ&dq=tyndall%20concentrated%20moonlight%20cold&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q&f=false
Even when the moonlight has been concentrated by large concave mirrors on delicate thermometers they have failed to cause any increase of temperature. One astronomer thought that he has obtained a degree of heat from the moon on the top of Teneriffe; but his instrumental means were imperfect. Professor Tyndall says that his experiments indicated rays of cold from the moon.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
https://books.google.com/books?id=44oQ80CCe9AC&dq=Effect%20of%20Moonlight%20on%20Selenium&pg=PA315#v=onepage&q&f=false
Effect of Moonlight on Selenium
The effect of moonlight on the selenium was tried during the month of January 1875. [details follow]
...These experiments show that exposure to cold produces a change in the selenium in the same direction as exposure to moonlight
...From these and a variety of other experiments which have already been described, and which point all in the same direction, we conclude that for a slight increase of temperature the resistance of the selenium is greatly increased, and for a slight lowering of temperature the resistance is greatly diminished
-
Science also demonstrated the cooling effects of moonlight through experiment. In order to show those things to be incorrect, contradictory experiments to those of science would need to be given.
I like how you think science is a “thing”
But anyway, I’d be interested to see a link to a peer reviewed paper in a serious scientific publication which shows that moonlight is cold.
Light is a form of energy, as is heat. That’s why powerful lamps can heat things. If you discover a form of light which has negative energy and so can cool things down then congratulations on your Nobel prize.
This video explains the supposed result of cold moonlight. He gets the exact same result using sunlight and he explains why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgqqmydSzsA
Is sunlight cold?
This is the trouble with cherry picking.
You can’t just look at the result in isolation, you have to understand the result.
-
The Victorian-era professors and scientists used far better controls, tools, and methodologies than those YouTube experiments. Light was collected directly from the moon, concentrated, and studied.
That video does not address those experiments. None of your video is relevant to the question at hand, or the quotes provided. You apparently have just picked it out randomly without even watching it. The video provides an attempted explanation of some other YouTube open-air tests. I would suggest providing material which actually addresses the experiments in question. Those scientists didn't set tinfoil outside.
At one point the video author points the telescope at the moon and then points it at space. Space is colder than the moon. None of that tells us whether the light of the moon can make things cooler. Is the topic "can things be colder than the moon," or is the topic "does moonlight cool"? If moonlight cools, it does not preclude other objects or elements in the universe being colder than the moon. The demonstration given is totally irrelevant.
-
It was science which claimed to have performed experiments that moonlight cooled thermometers through a telescope
Tom, since you were the one who seems to have first mentioned about this moonlight and cooling thermometers thing, any chance you could elaborate on when and how 'science' made this claim?
-
I just gave a bunch of references to experiments where moonlight was seen to have either no heat or a cooling effect. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14004.msg186955#msg186955) Here is another:
https://books.google.com/books?id=QRNLAQAAMAAJ&dq=moonlight%20galvanometer%20cold&pg=PA422#v=onepage&q&f=false
But with Seebeck's discovery of the exactation of electricity by the action of heat upon vertain electrical conductors came a method of detecting changed of temperature infinitisimally small. When plates of two metals, say bismuth and antimony, are soldered together and the point of junction is heated, an electric current is established from one metal to the other; this may be carried off by writes and caused to deflect a galvanometer, the needle of which becomes an index whereby the greater or less intensity of the current can be measured; and since the current varies with the warmth that generates it, the measure of the one becomes a measure of the other, and the metal plates and needle together form a thermometer very different from the instrument to which we generally apply that name.
Now, by multiplying the metal plates and increasing the delicacy of the galvanometer, any degree of sensitiveness can be secured; indeed the instrument may be rendered so acute as to be unmanageable, the warmth of a man's body several yards off sufficing to set the needle a-quivering.
Melloni was the first to apply it, in some of his early experiments he succeeded in measuring the vital heat of different insects and in detecting the warmth accompanying the luminous glow of phosphorous. It was while performing this last test of the powers of his new calorimeter that he bethought himself of trying it upon the moon. So he concentrated the lunar rays, by means of a metallic mirror, upon the face of his thermopile, in the hope of seeing the needle swing in the direction indicating heat; but it turned the opposite way, proving that the anterior and exposed surface of the pile was colder than its posterior face. Here was an anomaly. Did the moon, then, shed cold?
[author goes on to attempt an explanation for the observation]
....
Mr. Park Harrison, who has devoted a vast amount of time to the collation of meteorological observations, finds unmistakable evidence of them. But a strange apparent anomaly is revealed :--When the moon gives us most warmth we feel the greatest cold! The explanation of this lies in the fact of the slight clearing tendency above alluded to. The clearer the sky the more freely the earth's heat passes away into space, and consequently the colder we feel. So that while the moon warms us she cools us.
More details (https://books.google.com/books?id=3w5LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA200&dq=concentrated+moonlight+cold&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidtuOshoXhAhUirlkKHU3NAL8Q6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q&f=false) on Prof Tyndall's cold moonlight experiments:
(https://i.imgur.com/Z1yMlJl.png)
Some scientists have reported no change, others have reported moonlight to cool, even "to more than eight degrees", and it appears that there are a couple who have reported it to increase in temperature by amounts of around two hundred thousandths part of a degree.
-
Fast forwarding to the 1990's:
"Surprising Scientists, Full Moon Is Found to Play Role in Warming the Earth"
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/10/us/surprising-scientists-full-moon-is-found-to-play-role-in-warming-the-earth.html
Could be other contributing factors as well. All in all seemingly hard to measure. But is seems like, if anything, moonlight doesn't have a 'cooling' effect.
-
A study of the relationship between lunar phases and world-wide temperatures seems hardly comparable to a direct study of moonlight.
Rowbotham is correct in that scientists were detecting no change or a cooling effect from the moon.
-
Tom, a few questions, if you would please.
For one, the experiments presented aren't very zetetic, they all focus on seeing if moonlight produces heat, instead of just observing the results from their equipment. They all expected moonlight to have a measurable effect instead of testing their equipment with other conditions, like a moonless night, a night with clouds, etc. Indeed, the only experiment to test having the equipment not face the moon was Tyndall, and he admitted himself London's atmospheric conditions weren't suitable for such a delicate test.
Second, you yourself said the results have a lot of variation, some say no change, some say cool, and you mention some who measured a temp. increase. Hardly results to make a solid conclusion out of. You don't just say "Well, more of them said cooling, so that must be it!" It doesn't work like that. You have to show the results are statistically significant.
Third, where's the explanation of the results? You're also bashing RE about how we can't explain gravity, going so far to add in some snarky remarks on the UA wiki about gravitons, so what's the explanation of this cold light from the moon allegedly? No backsies now, you can't turn heel and say "We can observe the effects without having to explain them."
Fourth, what about the currency of these experiments? They're all from the 19th century, are there any recent results from any scientific (or zetetic) experiments, and you can't just pull a "Truth doesn't have an expiration date," because the variation of results complicates that in point two, and there is better equipment to re conduct their experiments.
Fifth Tom, did you notice you contradicted yourself? In the snippet about Harrison, it says this
The clearer the sky the more freely the earth's heat passes away into space, and consequently the colder we feel. So that while the moon warms us she cools us.
That's radiative cooling! Did you just not read through it, or were you too zealous in trying to prove us wrong?
-
A study of the relationship between lunar phases and world-wide temperatures seems hardly comparable to a direct study of moonlight.
Rowbotham is correct in that scientists were detecting no change or a cooling effect from the moon.
Perhaps, but that in no way exonerates Rowbotham. To say he was correct is negligent in terms of further discovery. Blindly accepting his interpretations in the 1800's doesn't make for a case. As well Rowbotham has no direct experiment he performed against others. This all falls back into the bucket of, "Why Rowbotham?" He provides very little in terms of direct Zetetic examination, mostly interpretations of other's work. All of which, firmly seated in service to scripture. We've come a long way since 1860-ish. I think it's time to find a new messiah.
-
Rowbotham doesn't say that Zetetic means that you have to do it yourself. ENAG is filled with mostly references to scientific works. Zetetic means that your ideas are based on experimental or emperical investigation rather than hypothesis.
-
Rowbotham doesn't say that Zetetic means that you have to do it yourself. ENAG is filled with mostly references to scientific works. Zetetic means that your ideas are based on experimental or emperical investigation rather than hypothesis.
Sure, but if you start with scriptural literalism as your foundation you're starting with a hypothesis. That of the good book. And by all accounts, that's exactly what Rowbotham did.
-
Are you talking about the chapter on religion where he says that all religions of the world depict a Flat Earth in their ancient texts, that the faithful should seek to provide evidence for their beliefs, and that the Bible should be put under the severest of criticism?
-
Are you talking about the chapter on religion where he says that all religions of the world depict a Flat Earth in their ancient texts, that the faithful should seek to provide evidence for their beliefs, and that the Bible should be put under the severest of criticism?
No, I'm talking about the chapter where he says this:
"The Scriptures--the Bible, therefore, cannot be other than the word and teaching of God. Let it once be seen that such a conclusion is a logical necessity; that the sum of the purely practical evidence which has been collected compels us to acknowledge this, and we find ourselves in possession of a solid and certain foundation for all our future investigations."
-
And if we read the preceding two sentences before that "therefore" we find:
"If after so many ages of mental struggling, of speculation and trial, of change and counterchange, we have at length discovered that all astronomical theories are false; that the earth is a plane, and motionless, and that the various luminaries above it are lights only and not worlds; and that these very facts have been declared and recorded in a work which has been handed down to us from the earliest times--from a time, in fact, when mankind had lived so short a period upon the earth that they could not have had sufficient experience to enable them to criticise and doubt, much less to invent and speculate--it follows that whoever dictated and caused such doctrines to be recorded and preserved to all generations must have been superhuman, omniscient, and to the earth and its inhabitants pre-existent."
If all physical elements of the bible turn out to be true, that the earth is the central body of the universe, the depiction of the flat earth and the luminaries, the things said about the corners, endless pits below the earth, etc, etc, then it is evidence that the bible is true.
I don't have a problem with that. That is not a conclusion based upon biblical authority, that is called evidence for the elements of the bible.
Biblical literalism would be "it says this in the bible, therefore it is true". It is not difficult to understand what is being communicated at all.
Supporting elements of the bible with physical evidence is pretty much the exact opposite of biblical literalism. I find it pretty odd and disingenuous that anyone could fail to understand that.
-
We have since discovered that the earth is round...
-
All these references you provide Tom are fascinating but for reasons I have already given earlier and which seem to have been casually overlooked, there is no way that moonlight on its own can have any effect on temperature on Earth. If your understanding of moonlight is as good as it should be then you will surely realise that. Think about it for yourself without just being a messenger for what others have said or tried.
-
Rowbotham’s agenda is pretty clear in that chapter, he rails against science because he says it leads people away from scripture, but we’ve had that conversation. It’s ironic that he champions the idea of a method which doesn’t pre-suppose a theory but it’s clear that his starting assumption for the whole book is a literal and incorrect interpretation of Scripture.
As for Victorian experiments indicating cold moonlight, the Victorians did do some pretty impressive things but they did a lot of crazy stuff too and made some pretty wild claims:
https://listverse.com/2016/10/19/10-ridiculous-things-the-victorians-did-in-the-name-of-science/
(My favourite one is the bloke who claimed he’d taught his dog to read!)
Evolution works because changes which give an advantage are more likely to be copied and built on. Scientific progress is the same. Some of the ideas from the Victorian era (and before) were correct and have shown to be and have been built on, other ideas have been shown to be wrong and have been discarded.
I did physics up to A-Level and I never learned about “cold moonlight”. Because that isn’t how light works. The fact he didn’t know that and the people he was quoting didn’t just shows their collective ignorance and is another reason why the pontifications of this scientific illiterate religious zealot should be ignored.
-
Honestly I see REers mentioning Rowbotham as a defining authority way more than FEers.
Who would you suggest as a better authority on FET than Rowbotham?
Why do you need an authority, are you unable to sort out the veracity of claims by yourself?
Rowbotham is a source, and it's easy to find plenty more sources out there.
-
I can only re-iterate what I said before to an extent. The moonlight we see is obviously visible light, reflected sunlight. We on Earth don't feel any temperature change due to the visible light from the Sun. However the Sun is also giving off other forms of radiation including of course UV and IR. That radiation spreads out into a spherical 'shell' with ever increasing radius and therefore surface area. The energy per unit area therefore gets less and less. So by the time the heat (IR) energy from the Sun reaches Earth it is much less intense but we can still feel it.
Some of that energy also reaches the Moon but only about a 10th of it is reflected and some of that (fraction) reaches Earth. We see the visible light reflected because we can see the Moon. The amount of IR reflected off the Moon is miniscule from the outset so by the time IR photons reflected off the Moons surface reach Earth they are soon absorbed by the Earths atmosphere. That is just common understanding of physics. You have to accept some of what I consider to be basic science knowledge as real and the truth. You then build on that otherwise you never make any progress.
I have read up a bit on Rowbotham and while I respect his intentions , his beliefs were misguided whether intentionally or not. That ultimately affected the conclusions of his experiments and reasoning. I have already explained why in a couple cases.
-
Honestly I see REers mentioning Rowbotham as a defining authority way more than FEers.
Who would you suggest as a better authority on FET than Rowbotham?
Why do you need an authority, are you unable to sort out the veracity of claims by yourself?
Don't you ever seek guidance from people smarter than you? ???
Rowbotham is a source, and it's easy to find plenty more sources out there.
Yes, and I'm asking which of those sources you consider the most reliable.
-
Honestly I see REers mentioning Rowbotham as a defining authority way more than FEers.
Who would you suggest as a better authority on FET than Rowbotham?
Why do you need an authority, are you unable to sort out the veracity of claims by yourself?
Don't you ever seek guidance from people smarter than you? ???
Rowbotham is a source, and it's easy to find plenty more sources out there.
Yes, and I'm asking which of those sources you consider the most reliable.
There's no such thing as universally smarter, universally the most reliable. A genius in one topic might fail at another, the world's best neurosurgeon might be a shitty engineer, what's the point in taking a person as an authority rather than judging their claims? Better to analyze rather than trust blindly.
You'll find that plenty of FEers appeal to a multitude of sources. Rowbotham has accessible answers to some questions, but even when it's that era that gets referred to you're as likely to get Blount and Albert Smith.
They're sources. Take them as such. Science isn't a religion, don't go looking for a holy prophet. That might be how you see the world, but no one else is obligated to do the same.
-
Science isn't a religion
That is very true. Science doesn't base itself purely on faith or belief. It seeks objective answers to fundamental questions and when it gets things wrong it is not afraid to admit it. It then seeks alternative solutions until it finds the best answer.
-
I don't have a problem with that. That is not a conclusion based upon biblical authority, that is called evidence for the elements of the bible.
Biblical literalism would be "it says this in the bible, therefore it is true". It is not difficult to understand what is being communicated at all.
Supporting elements of the bible with physical evidence is pretty much the exact opposite of biblical literalism. I find it pretty odd and disingenuous that anyone could fail to understand that.
I think it's pretty clear that Rowbotham was a scriptural literalist:
"The literal teaching of the Old and New Testaments on the subject of the earth's destruction is plain and unmistakeable. Numbers, however, have been led to deny that the Scriptures have any literal signification. But such a denial is unquestionably contrary to fact, and inconsistent with the genius and purpose of all inspiration. It may not be denied that this language will bear a spiritual application; but its primary and essential meaning is literal and practical. It may have both a spiritual, a moral, and a political aspect, but only as a superstructure upon the material and philosophical. Let men beware how they jeopardise their lasting welfare by taking liberties with a book written as the expressed will of Heaven for the guidance of mankind. If they are determined to read with fanciful bearings, let them do so for what pleasure it will afford; but if it is done to the exclusion of practical good and literal application, it is not less than dangerous presumption."
-
The literal teaching of the Old and New Testaments on the subject of the earth's destruction is plain and unmistakeable.
Are you arguing that the bible does not say and teach those things about the earth? It clearly does say some thing about the earth being flat, and about its impending destruction.
Never does Rowbotham declare that truth is based on scripture. The entire chapter says that scripture should be based on physical evidence. Your definition of "scriptural literalism" is entirely backwards.
You just quoted a sentence saying "It may have both a spiritual, a moral, and a political aspect, but only as a superstructure upon the material and philosophical."
It "may" have a spiritual aspect seems to be contrary to the words of the bible which says that it does have a spiritual aspect. The spiritual aspect being "possible" is sprinkled all throughout that chapter. Rowbotham also states that physical evidence for scripture is necessary. Your interpretation of Rowbotham's message seems to be warped around whatever it is that you want to perceive.
-
The literal teaching of the Old and New Testaments on the subject of the earth's destruction is plain and unmistakeable.
Are you arguing that the bible does not say and teach those things about the earth? It clearly does say some thing about the earth being flat, and about its impending destruction.
Never does Rowbotham declare that truth is based on scripture. The entire chapter says that scripture should be based on physical evidence. Your definition of "scriptural literalism" is entirely backwards.
You just quoted a sentence saying "It may have both a spiritual, a moral, and a political aspect, but only as a superstructure upon the material and philosophical."
It "may" have a spiritual aspect seems to be contrary to the words of the bible which says that it does have a spiritual aspect. The spiritual aspect being "possible" is sprinkled all throughout that chapter. Rowbotham also states that physical evidence for scripture is necessary. Your interpretation of Rowbotham's message seems to be warped around whatever it is that you want to perceive.
I think Rowbotham's full quote (among others) stands for itself showing his scriptural literalism and how it informed his world view. And the same goes for those who carried on his work, Blount, Voliva, etc., though they were much more straight forward about it.
-
Rowbotham's words do stand for themselves.
From Rowbotham:
"If, after the severest criticism, and comparison with known causes of phenomena, the Scriptures are thus found to be absolutely truthful in their literal expressions, it is simply just and wise that we take them as standards by which to test the truth or falsehood of all systems or teachings which may hereafter be presented to the world. Philosophy is no longer to be employed as a test of Scriptural truth, but the Scriptures ought and may with safety and satisfaction be applied as the test of all philosophy. They are not, however, to be used as a test of science and philosophy simply because they are thought or believed to be written or dictated by inspiration, but because their literal teachings in regard to natural phenomena are demonstrably true."
"If, after the severest of criticism"
Who could disagree with this?
The teachings should be "demonstrably true."
Again, who can disagree with this?
On the spiritual and moral teachings Rowbotham says:
"If the truth of the philosophy [Victorian era word for "science"] of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality."
Rowbotham tells us that it is faulty to push religion based on belief:
"It is quite as faulty and unjust for the religious devotee to urge the teaching of Scripture against the theories of the philosopher simply because he believes them to be true, as it is for the philosopher to defend his theories against Scripture for no other reason than that he disbelieves them. The whole matter must be taken out of the region of belief and disbelief. In regard to elements and phenomena belief and disbelief should never be named. Men differ in their powers of conception and concatenation; and, therefore, what may readily be believed by some, others may find impossible to believe. Belief is a state of mind which should be exerted only in relation to matters confessedly beyond the direct reach of our senses, and in regard to which it is meritorious to believe. But in reference to matter, and material combinations and phenomena, we should be content with nothing less than conviction, the result of special practical experimental investigation."
Rowbotham says that belief without evidence is a fallacy.
Picking out quotes of "therefore this is the conclusion" without showing the preceding sentences of "if this turns out to be true," and without context of the entire work which strongly champions the evidence of fact, is pretty childish and deceptive, in my opinion.
Rowbotham is actually very rational on the subject. It is his opponents who are irrational liars, screaming "Biblical Literalist REEEEE!!"
Pretty pathetic that the RE must resort to lies and attempted character assassination since they can't contradict the body work.
-
Are you arguing that the bible does not say and teach those things about the earth? It clearly does say some thing about the earth being flat
Does it, though? Clearly?
Personally, I’ve not been in or heard of a church which teaches a flat earth. Yes, there are verses like the “circle of the earth” one you lot love so much. You could go “Aha! Circle! You see? Flat!”. But what shape would you say the photos of the earth from space are? Forget whether they’re real photos, what shape do you see? If you’re looking down at a sphere what you see is a circle. If it was so clear that that verse was talking about a flat earth and scripture was so clear about this then why does the church not teach a flat earth?
The Bible is not a science book. People get so bogged down by early Genesis. Are the days literal 24 hour periods, etc. My take - honestly, it doesn’t matter. I don’t believe Genesis is trying to teach me science, it contains deeper truths - that we are a creation. It tells us who we were created by and what we were created for. That’s the important message of early Genesis, not the age of the universe.
Some of the language in the Bible is clearly poetic. I never understand why some Christians feel so threatened by science. If scientific ideas contradict their understanding of Scripture then they always assume it must be the science that is wrong rather than consider that their understanding of Scripture might be wrong.
-
Rowbotham says that belief without evidence is a fallacy.
I agree, but he did not practice what he preached.
Here we are instructed that it has been demonstrated and evidenced that Heaven and Hell are places. I hadn't realized that his citing of lighthouse heights and visibility, for example, may have proved out the Christian concept. More scriptural cart before the horse nonsense.
"In addition to this is it as the Scriptures teach? Is not Heaven spoken of as an abode--a blissful residence of the accepted with their satisfied Creator; and hell a place, an actual locality, appointed for the evil-minded and the rejected? Let the distracted believer in Scripture be careful how he parleys with his judgment, and endangers himself by a too exclusive and one-sided conception. That heaven and hell are only conditions and not places no man is justified in asserting; but that they are both is perfectly demonstrable. To adopt one and reject or deny the possibility of the other is utter folly. To admit that both are realities is simply the dictate of reason, and the conclusion which the evidence compels us to acknowledge."
It's just odd that he spends all of chapter XV fitting his "evidence" into scripture. Why do so at all? If only to make a point that the scripture is the truth as evidenced by his "findings". Just so happens that his "findings" didn't fit any other religious text? There's simply no denying that scripture is the bias and he makes his work magically fits that bias.
-
Rowbotham's chapter on religion is called "General Summary -- Application -- Cui Bono" Cui Bono means "who stands to gain from it?"
He is answering a frequently asked question of "Who cares?" and "What does it matter if the earth is flat?", which has been asked here a million times. If the earth is flat, central, and the world in which we live happens to be exactly as the ancients depicted it in their religious texts, bottomless pits, corners, tiny stars, and all, it would matter quite a lot. It may suggest that someone or something gave them that knowledge.
-
Rowbotham's chapter on religion is called "General Summary -- Application -- Cui Bono" Cui Bono means "who stands to gain from it?"
He is answering a frequently asked question of "Who cares?" and "What does it matter if the earth is flat?", which has been asked here a million times. If the earth is flat, central, and the world in which we live happens to be exactly as the ancients depicted it in their religious texts, bottomless pits, corners, tiny stars, and all, it would matter quite a lot. It may suggest that someone or something gave them that knowledge.
I wasn't aware that all ancients were Judeo-Christians.
-
Many religions spawn from, or were influenced by, content which was created around a period of about 4000 B.C -- the Old Testament.
-
Many religions spawn from, or were influenced by, content which was created around a period of about 4000 B.C -- the Old Testament.
And many more were not.
And he is clear to reference both the Old and New Testaments. In doing so, we're back to Chistiandom.