manicminer

Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2019, 09:44:05 AM »
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.
 
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 09:48:36 AM by manicminer »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2019, 01:13:10 PM »
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.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2019, 01:27:12 PM »
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.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

manicminer

Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2019, 01:55:37 PM »
Quote
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.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2019, 08:31:14 PM »

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."

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2019, 09:24:50 PM »
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 09:32:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2019, 09:46:55 PM »
Quote
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #47 on: March 16, 2019, 10:30:28 PM »
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.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #48 on: March 16, 2019, 10:41:07 PM »
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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #49 on: March 16, 2019, 10:48:31 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2019, 10:59:39 PM »
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.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2019, 11:06:44 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2019, 11:40:03 PM »
Many religions spawn from, or were influenced by, content which was created around a period of about 4000 B.C -- the Old Testament.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2019, 11:48:21 PM »
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.