The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: metalgearxd on August 13, 2014, 02:01:43 PM
-
Hi all, I'm interested in this forum and really attracts attention with regard to those who say that the earth is flat
What arguments or evidence shows that true?
-
Have you looked out your window lately?
-
Watching the window shows nothing, which is not about a reply
-
No one is going to give you a synopsis of flat earth theory. You might as well go to NASA and say tell me about space exploration. The topic is too broad.
We have a wiki. It gives you the basics. Pick out something that interests you and ask about that or something you know conclusively proves earth to be round. Be careful, you may need to be a little bit obscure. We get all the obvious ones all the time.
And welcome to the Flat Earth Society :D
-
If you're purely asking for experimental evidence, I would recommend Dr. Samuel Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe , a treatise on that very subject. It's a bit old (19th century), but it's still a good introduction to Flat Earth Theory.
-
If you're purely asking for experimental evidence, I would recommend Dr. Samuel Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe , a treatise on that very subject. It's a bit old (19th century), but it's still a good introduction to Flat Earth Theory.
Yes, and in particular note that Rowbotham doesn't understand the simple physics concept of inertia.
Wind travels East to West or West to East, so of course shooting from North to South would be more accurate than shooting East to West.
Irrelevant. Robotham erred in claiming that the cannonball should have travelled more than a mile because the RE is spinning. He forgot about the concept of momentum. He failed. His conclusion that the Earth doesn't spin based on the cannon experiment is without merit.
Since you've failed for days to address this obvious and clear failure and now dodge it with distractions, I'm sure everyone is convinced by now that you're not able to assist Rowbotham survive this critique.
-
There's no need to heroically rush in and try to convince this newcomer that the earth is round, Gulliver. I'm sure he already thinks that, and more to the point, has his own brain and can do his own thinking.
-
You'd think we were spreading ideas like radical Islam or something the way some of the round earthers go on. as though our dangerous ideas are a threat to humanity. The irony is of course, the truth sets you free.
-
There's no need to heroically rush in and try to convince this newcomer that the earth is round, Gulliver. I'm sure he already thinks that, and more to the point, has his own brain and can do his own thinking.
That's rich. So pointing someone to EnaG is okay, but pointing to its critique is too heroic?
-
There's no need to heroically rush in and try to convince this newcomer that the earth is round, Gulliver. I'm sure he already thinks that, and more to the point, has his own brain and can do his own thinking.
That's rich. So pointing someone to EnaG is okay, but pointing to its critique is too heroic?
Its critique? You mean your objections to it? Who on earth do you think you are? Dr Samuel Rowbotham was an acclaimed academic. A man holding a doctorate, several patents, a multi-millionaire, author of several books, a distinguished speaker, a celebrity. And then you read a few passages from his book, squeal a bit about how you disagree and that is a critique? Rowbotham's work was peer reviewed by the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. Not a troll in his bedroom on the 19th May 2014.
-
There's no need to heroically rush in and try to convince this newcomer that the earth is round, Gulliver. I'm sure he already thinks that, and more to the point, has his own brain and can do his own thinking.
That's rich. So pointing someone to EnaG is okay, but pointing to its critique is too heroic?
Its critique? You mean your objections to it? Who on earth do you think you are? Dr Samuel Rowbotham was an acclaimed academic. A man holding a doctorate, several patents, a multi-millionaire, author of several books, a distinguished speaker, a celebrity. And then you read a few passages from his book, squeal a bit about how you disagree and that is a critique? Rowbotham's work was peer reviewed by the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. Not a troll in his bedroom on the 19th May 2014.
So appeal to authority and ad hominem fallacies are the best you can do? Really?
I understand that physics is a difficult subject for you ("The ISS doesn't accelerate."), but you really could discuss the topic of the critique. Why did Rowbotham ignore the inertial of the cannonball? Since he based his conclusion that the Earth was flat based on his conclusion that the Earth was not rotating based on this misconception, the entire EnaG fails--regardless of how much you like him.
-
The ISS doesn't accelerate. It is subject to an angular velocity. Not an angular acceleration.
Rowbotham ignored Coriolis effects of a cannon ball because there is none. The earth does not spin. This is why toilets don't flush in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere, smoke doesn't spiral in the opposite direction, shot putters don't demand to throw east to west to break world records and ocean currents go anywhere they damned well please.
(http://mail.colonial.net/~hkaiter/AaaimagesNEW/ocean-current-7b.jpg)
-
The ISS doesn't accelerate. It is subject to an angular velocity. Not an angular acceleration.
Rowbotham ignored Coriolis effects of a cannon ball because there is none. The earth does not spin. This is why toilets don't flush in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere, smoke doesn't spiral in the opposite direction, shot putters don't demand to throw east to west to break world records and ocean currents go anywhere they damned well please.
(http://mail.colonial.net/~hkaiter/AaaimagesNEW/ocean-current-7b.jpg)
Aweome! Thanks for the fodder.
1) ISS does it accelerate? The argument that since it has angular acceleration that it must not have (linear) acceleration is simply an excluded middle fallacy. Please try again. You might do well to go back to the definition of acceleration and then determine it the direction (or magnitude) of the ISS changes. (Hint: It's obvious that the ISS has a varying linear velocity throughout its orbit.)
2) Does Rowbotham ignore the effect? Rowbotham is hardly ignoring it. He argues, in error, that the experiment demonstrates that Earth does not rotate. His argument that since the cannonball before landing did not travel over a mile from the launch point, the Earth doesn't rotate. Since he relies inherently on his conclusion regarding this experiment to conclude the Earth is flat, EnaG fails to show that the Earth is flat.
Oh, and your graph is irrelevant. Concentrate on the critique. Rowbotham is a failure.
Oh, and please provide the peer review you mentioned. I'd love to read it. By the way, that an article (or a book) has been peer-reviewed does not improve the validity of an article. The review could have dismissed as wrong the article, for example.
-
1) You should probably open a dictionary and look up the word velocity.
2) No, you fail to understand the experiment. There is a world of difference.
Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.
-
1) You should probably open a dictionary and look up the word velocity.
2) No, you fail to understand the experiment. There is a world of difference.
Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.
1) I know the definition. How is that relevant? Have I in anyway at any time misused the word?
2) How do you know that I fail to understand the experiment? What have I ever post about the experiment that was wrong
3*) So you don't have the peer review. I expected as much. How sad. How typical.
By the way, you're doing a great job of demonstrating FEers' failure for the newcomer. Thanks.
-
Permanoobery in action. A newcomer shows up and asks questions about FET. Gulliver dives in and quickly makes it all about him.
-
1) You should probably open a dictionary and look up the word velocity.
2) No, you fail to understand the experiment. There is a world of difference.
Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.
1) I know the definition. How is that relevant? Have I in anyway at any time misused the word?
2) How do you know that I fail to understand the experiment? What have I ever post about the experiment that was wrong
3*) So you don't have the peer review. I expected as much. How sad. How typical.
By the way, you're doing a great job of demonstrating FEers' failure for the newcomer. Thanks.
1) flogging a dead horse. Can you try to be more interesting, please? New topics, actually contributing content, that kind of thing?
2) If you still think the earth is round, you haven't understood the experiment. I can work back from that point.
3) Your loss. I gave you Rowbotham, the society and the exact date. I'm not going to give you the link as well. Your total lack of will to do any research means if I give you the link, you'll skim read the first paragraph, make some pompous remarks and give me nothing in return.
-
1) You should probably open a dictionary and look up the word velocity.
2) No, you fail to understand the experiment. There is a world of difference.
Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.
1) I know the definition. How is that relevant? Have I in anyway at any time misused the word?
2) How do you know that I fail to understand the experiment? What have I ever post about the experiment that was wrong
3*) So you don't have the peer review. I expected as much. How sad. How typical.
By the way, you're doing a great job of demonstrating FEers' failure for the newcomer. Thanks.
1) flogging a dead horse. Can you try to be more interesting, please? New topics, actually contributing content, that kind of thing?
2) If you still think the earth is round, you haven't understood the experiment. I can work back from that point.
3) Your loss. I gave you Rowbotham, the society and the exact date. I'm not going to give you the link as well. Your total lack of will to do any research means if I give you the link, you'll skim read the first paragraph, make some pompous remarks and give me nothing in return.
1) Saying that you're covered it, doesn't make it true. Rowbotham screwed up the experiment by forgetting that the cannonball has momentum. The newcomer, and most any other open-minded person, will see that and reject EnaG as faulty.
2) The experiment's failure did not make me believe that the Earth is round. This failure did convince me the EnaG is built or a faulty experiment as it worthless. I'm sure newcomers will see that too. Complain all you want, but the damage of Rowbotham's failure remains.
3) What did I lose? You're the once making an reference without citation. How would any newcomer start to believe you when fail to document and cite your sources? You fail, again.
So what about the cannonball's momentum? Did Rowbotham err in forgetting it when making the claim about the cannonball. He says that since it didn't travel a mile then the Earth is not rotating at the RET-predicted speed. Was he wrong?
-
Permanoobery in action. A newcomer shows up and asks questions about FET. Gulliver dives in and quickly makes it all about him.
If Gulliver didn't, Thork would.
1) You should probably open a dictionary and look up the word velocity.
2) No, you fail to understand the experiment. There is a world of difference.
Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.
1) I know the definition. How is that relevant? Have I in anyway at any time misused the word?
2) How do you know that I fail to understand the experiment? What have I ever post about the experiment that was wrong
3*) So you don't have the peer review. I expected as much. How sad. How typical.
By the way, you're doing a great job of demonstrating FEers' failure for the newcomer. Thanks.
1) flogging a dead horse. Can you try to be more interesting, please? New topics, actually contributing content, that kind of thing?
2) If you still think the earth is round, you haven't understood the experiment. I can work back from that point.
3) Your loss. I gave you Rowbotham, the society and the exact date. I'm not going to give you the link as well. Your total lack of will to do any research means if I give you the link, you'll skim read the first paragraph, make some pompous remarks and give me nothing in return.
Thork-You should not embellish the truth. You do not have the peer-review, you have the record that Rowbotham presented to the Society. For all you know, he was laughed out of the building.
-
Thork-You should not embellish the truth. You do not have the peer-review, you have the record that Rowbotham presented to the Society. For all you know, he was laughed out of the building.
To be fair, the newspaper's review of the presentation was favorable, but you're spot on: Thork lies. There was no peer review.
-
I have decided to settle this once and for all. Below I have set out much of the information that I know about this. I contacted the head librarian of the Royal Astronomical Society in London.
This is a copy of the following message you sent to Sian Prosser via Royal Astronomical Society
This is an enquiry email via https://www.ras.org.uk/ from:
[insert real name]
Dear Sian,
I am a member of the Zetetic Council for the Flat Earth Society (Yes, we are still going strong).
I am trying to find information about a paper on 'Zetetic Astronomy' that was read before the Council and Members of the Royal Astronomical Society, Somerset House, Strand, London (Sir John F. W. Herschel, President), Friday, Dec. 8, 1848.
No account of such a paper appears in the Notice for that month.
The paper was submitted by Dr Samuel Birley Rowbotham (pseudonym Parallax - author of Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe - link as follows http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm)
That book is one of the most important texts ever written for our society and the society Rowbotham built is the one we maintain today.
We know it was submitted for peer review but because it did not appear in the monthly Notice, we have no idea what the Royal Astronomical Society said about it. We have our own Flat Earth history archives and would love to add this information and share it with our members.
I do know that on Dec. 8, 1848, the Secretary of the Astronomical Society (De Morgan by name) said, at the close of the proceedings,—"Now, gentlemen, if you will promise not to tell the Council, I will read something for your amusement": and he then read a few of the arguments which had been transmitted by the lecturer.
Whilst I am sure my enquiry will be met with as much mirth today, as his appearance was then, the opinions of one of our greatest adversaries would be a real asset to our collection.
I understand you endeavour to help with enquiries 'as far as limited resources allow' but hope this slightly unusual request might pique someone's interest enough to check the archives. Alternatively I understand 'Access to the Library itself may be given at the discretion of the Librarian, or of one of the Officers of the Society, to those who have a need for information which cannot be fulfilled by public and national libraries.' I suspect I would have little luck in finding what I seek, but would be happy to try if such an invite was forthcoming.
Many thanks for taking the time to read this e-mail and regrettably, I have to add that I'm not crazy. I am one of many who find the history of our society fascinating.
[insert real name]
Member of the Zetetic Council for the Flat Earth Society.
And now we wait. I may have to take a trip to London to dig about for it myself. Anyhoo ... being as I have been very forthcoming with the information I have provided, I trust you will respectfully hold back your opinions until the documents are delivered or I have confirmation that RAS will not help me.
Interestingly, they do have an entire section called the Herschel Archives, and I hope that the document we seek is there. Their online library is very light and returns no search results for a number of key words.
-
I have decided to settle this once and for all. Below I have set out much of the information that I know about this. I contacted the head librarian of the Royal Astronomical Society in London.
<...snip...>
So you lied about already submitting the peer review--as I expected.
Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.
-
I have decided to settle this once and for all. Below I have set out much of the information that I know about this. I contacted the head librarian of the Royal Astronomical Society in London.
<...snip...>
So you lied about already submitting the peer review--as I expected.
Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.
Why don't you fuck off?
-
Regardless of whether or not Thork is in a state of grace, I would like to see his inquiry come to fruition. Being right is not as important as Gulliver thinks.
-
Regardless of whether or not Thork is in a state of grace, I would like to see his inquiry come to fruition. Being right is not as important as Gulliver thinks.
I too would love to see the inquiry answered. I predict that despite Thork's outlandish claims, the RAS did not peer review EnaG. Heck even Thork's own accounting gives a very different title as to the paper presented. There's also no way the a book as long as, and as error-riddled as, EnaG could have been presented in a single evening.
Also, I do not intend to attack Thork's argument by pointing out his lie in this thread. I do however hope to let noobs know that looking for Thork's posting can be useless because he lies about what he has posted.
-
The title if the paper was Zetetic Astronomy. I hazard to guess that that was meant to be descriptive of the paper's particular contents and not a presentation of the book although they may overlap.
-
The title if the paper was Zetetic Astronomy. I hazard to guess that that was meant to be descriptive of the paper's particular contents and not a presentation of the book although they may overlap.
Please note the first line of the cover page:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GLK8m0UaL0o/UcpY549qQuI/AAAAAAAADs4/pT6GBPFgmbI/s1600/Cover+page+of+Flat+Earth+Society+Rowbotham+book.jpg)
-
Yeah. I still think my position is likely.
-
Yeah. I still think my position is likely.
Just to clarify, the presentation was of only 16 pages.
[Rowbotham, Samuel B.] Zetetic astronomy. A description of several experiments which prove that the surface of the sea is a perfect plane, and that the earth is not a globe. Being the substance of a paper read before the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. By ‘Parallax' [pseud.] Birmingham, W. Cornish, 1849. 16 p. illus.
QB638.R87
-
I'm interested in what "approaching destruction by fire" means.
-
I'm interested in what "approaching destruction by fire" means.
Then read the chapter.
-
I'm interested in what "approaching destruction by fire" means.
I'm surprised that you haven't read the last chapter of EnaG.
By the way, this prediction is stupid. Rowbotham argues that the oxides of inflammable bases would contribute by decomposing and "volatilise". So he thinks rocks would "unburn" and catch fire. Simple chemistry eludes him.
-
Regardless of whether or not Thork is in a state of grace, I would like to see his inquiry come to fruition. Being right is not as important as Gulliver thinks.
I too would love to see the inquiry answered. I predict that despite Thork's outlandish claims, the RAS did not peer review EnaG. Heck even Thork's own accounting gives a very different title as to the paper presented. There's also no way the a book as long as, and as error-riddled as, EnaG could have been presented in a single evening.
Also, I do not intend to attack Thork's argument by pointing out his lie in this thread. I do however hope to let noobs know that looking for Thork's posting can be useless because he lies about what he has posted.
I stated that it has been peer reviewed. I have proved that it has. I only do not know the specific wording of the review. Where are all these lies you keep talking about? I have shown the work that was peer reviewed, the exact time and date of who with. I have linked to the papers submitted. I also know that from newspaper articles it was received favourably at the time.
-
And I have a response. More research for me to do over the weekend, but if anyone is able to help uncover some flat earth history with me, I'd be very happy with any contributions.
Dear [insert real name],
Thanks for your enquiry.
Council minutes only record the title and author of papers read before council, and do not give any idea of critical responses to the papers. All I can do for the moment is confirm that the paper was read.
I've also had a look in our pamphlets and tracts collections to see if the 1849 16-page pamphlet (mentioned on your webpage) was preserved with any annotations made by members of the RAS, but have not been able to find anything by the name of Samuel Birley Rowbotham or his pseudonym.
Can you give me any more information about the 1849 pamphlet e.g. its exact title?
Also, can you give me the source of De Morgan's quotation?
As with most libraries with archives and special collections, access to the areas where they are stored is restricted to library staff, but if I am able to find anything which might be relevant to the history of your society, you are welcome to make an appointment to visit the library and consult it.
Kind regards,
Sian
Dr Sian Prosser
Librarian and Archivist
Royal Astronomical Society
Burlington House
Piccadilly
London W1J 0BQ
So my main problem is the 1849 pamphlet. Any information we can garner is useful though. If someone can link the newspaper review as well, that would be awesome. I can't remember where I last saw it.
and who says we don't do any research at FES? :D
-
Regardless of whether or not Thork is in a state of grace, I would like to see his inquiry come to fruition. Being right is not as important as Gulliver thinks.
I too would love to see the inquiry answered. I predict that despite Thork's outlandish claims, the RAS did not peer review EnaG. Heck even Thork's own accounting gives a very different title as to the paper presented. There's also no way the a book as long as, and as error-riddled as, EnaG could have been presented in a single evening.
Also, I do not intend to attack Thork's argument by pointing out his lie in this thread. I do however hope to let noobs know that looking for Thork's posting can be useless because he lies about what he has posted.
I stated that it has been peer reviewed. I have proved that it has. I only do not know the specific wording of the review. Where are all these lies you keep talking about? I have shown the work that was peer reviewed, the exact time and date of who with. I have linked to the papers submitted. I also know that from newspaper articles it was received favourably at the time.
Where did you prove that EnaG was peer reviewed? You claim to have already post this peer review, yet you can't point to the post. Where you did post the peer review?
You lied in this thread but claiming to have posted here the peer review while you are still looking for it.
-
Info gathering.
The De Morgan quote comes from the book 'A budget of paradoxes' Volume II by Augustis De Morgan ... page 89.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26408/26408-h/26408-h.htm
The 16 page pamphlet was titled 'Zetetic Astronomy' and was edition 1 of ENaG. - I can't find an original of that. :(
I'm going to add S Goulden as one of Rowbotham's pseudonyms. He has dozens but seems to be using that one at the time.
@Gulliver. Help or get out. Squabbling with you is a waste of my time. And I have proved it has been peer reviewed again because the royal astronomical society has just bloody confirmed they reviewed it.
Do not fill 8 pages of your squealing. I want to use this thread for those actually interested in uncovering the data. Not those who want an argument for argument's sake.
-
Info gathering.
The De Morgan quote comes from the book 'A budget of paradoxes' Volume II by Augustis De Morgan ... page 89.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26408/26408-h/26408-h.htm
The 16 page pamphlet was titled 'Zetetic Astronomy' and was edition 1 of ENaG. - I can't find an original of that. :(
I'm going to add S Goulden as one of Rowbotham's pseudonyms. He has dozens but seems to be using that one at the time.
@Gulliver. Help or get out. Squabbling with you is a waste of my time. And I have proved it has been peer reviewed again because the royal astronomical society has just bloody confirmed they reviewed it.
Do not fill 8 pages of your squealing. I want to use this thread for those actually interested in uncovering the data. Not those who want an argument for argument's sake.
So you don't have the peer review of EnaG. So you lied when you said that you posted that peer review here.
Where did the RAS confirmed that they reviewed it, not just 16 pages? Do you understand the difference between a "review" and a "peer review"? What concerns did the reviewers have? Were the concerns addressed before publication?
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility.
What did the reviewers have to say about the fatal error in the cannonball experiment?
-
Please get out.
the 1st edition of ENaG was the 16 page version. It was peer reviewed. It wasn't published. Are you an imbecile or something?
-
Please get out.
the 1st edition of ENaG was the 16 page version. It was peer reviewed. It wasn't published. Are you an imbecile or something?
Tell us how you know these things:
- the 16-page brochure was the first edition of the 425+ page book.
the RAS did a peer review (not just a review) of the 16 pages
Also:
Tell us why you lied about posting the RAS peer review here.
Tell us why you don't reject the Rowbotham's conclusion from the cannonball experiment?
-
Please get out.
the 1st edition of ENaG was the 16 page version. It was peer reviewed. It wasn't published. Are you an imbecile or something?
Tell us how you know these things:
- the 16-page brochure was the first edition of the 425+ page book.
the RAS did a peer review (not just a review) of the 16 pages
Also:
Tell us why you lied about posting the RAS peer review here.
Tell us why you don't reject the Rowbotham's conclusion from the cannonball experiment?
How is your home life right now?
-
Please get out.
the 1st edition of ENaG was the 16 page version. It was peer reviewed.
First of all, simply being read to the RAS does not constitute peer review by the RAS.
Secondly, I found this at the Open Library, but they don't seem to have an on line version.
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL2456422M/Zetetic_astronomy?v=3
-
Thanks for the link Markjo. :-*
I couldn't find a direct reference anywhere.
If anyone knows where the newspaper report is, I think I'm in a great place to get back to him.
-
It looks like there are several hard copies in London, Yorkshire and Edinburgh libraries. Anyone fancy a road trip?
http://www.worldcat.org/title/zetetic-astronomy-a-description-of-several-experiments-which-prove-that-the-surface-of-the-sea-is-a-perfect-plane-and-that-the-earth-is-not-a-globe/oclc/316461479?referer=br&ht=edition
-
It looks like there are several hard copies in London, Yorkshire and Edinburgh libraries. Anyone fancy a road trip?
http://www.worldcat.org/title/zetetic-astronomy-a-description-of-several-experiments-which-prove-that-the-surface-of-the-sea-is-a-perfect-plane-and-that-the-earth-is-not-a-globe/oclc/316461479?referer=br&ht=edition
The road trip means me becoming a member as well. I then have to pay a fee to have them furnish the reading room with the document I want.
The alternative is that anyone in the world can order a .pdf.
http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?dscnt=0&frbg=&scp.scps=scope%3A%28BLCONTENT%29&tab=local_tab&dstmp=1408131577332&srt=rank&ct=search&mode=Basic&vl(488279563UI0)=any&dum=true&tb=t&indx=1&vl(freeText0)=Zetetic%20astronomy.%20A%20description%20of%20several%20experiments%20which%20prove%20that%20the%20surface%20of%20the%20sea%20is%20a%20perfect%20plane%20and%20that%20the%20earth%20is%20not%20a%20globe%21&vid=BLVU1&fn=search
Doesn't Daniel have a copy? The first ediition of ENaG is a pretty obvious document to collect.
-
Thork, I tried going through the order process and it seems that it isn't currently available. The Library of Congress seems to have a similar reading room setup, but on microfilm only. I wonder if one of the local college libraries might be able to help me get a reprint.
-
I will try to apply for an inter-library loan. Getting stuff from the British Library should be doable.
EDIT: I've placed a request. Fingers crossed.
EDIT2: Ah, that's in their General Reference Collection. Almost guaranteed that my request will be denied.
-
To buy off of Amazon the 16 pages presented:
http://www.amazon.com/Zetetic-Astronomy-Earth-Globe-Forgotten/dp/1605064173/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408133543&sr=1-1&keywords=Zetetic+Astronomy (http://www.amazon.com/Zetetic-Astronomy-Earth-Globe-Forgotten/dp/1605064173/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408133543&sr=1-1&keywords=Zetetic+Astronomy)
-
No, Gulliver, that's the 329-page edition. You skimmed over the quote from Sacred Texts (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/), saw "16-page" and got excited.
-
No, Gulliver, that's the 329-page edition. You skimmed over the quote from Sacred Texts (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/), saw "16-page" and got excited.
Sorry. I trusted Open Library. Here's the link to OL's page about the 16-page version. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL2456422M/Zetetic_astronomy?v=3 (https://openlibrary.org/books/OL2456422M/Zetetic_astronomy?v=3)
-
Thank you for the OL link again. It wasn't good enough when it was just markjo posting it. I requested a quote from the Library of Congress to see how much a digitised PDF would cost. Their pricing page suggests about $40, so if they confirm that I'll get it and add it to our library.
-
Thank you for the OL link. I requested a quote from the Library of Congress to see how much a digitised PDF would cost. Their pricing page suggests about $40, so if they confirm that I'll get it and add it to our library.
You should also turn to Garwood pp. 62-64 where she explains what the 16-page brochure was, probably. (If your copy hasn't arrived, I'd be willing to message you the most relevant paragraph.
-
These pages don't seem to indicate anything about the pamphlet (a difference between editions, maybe?), but I've read/digitised some of Rowbotham's pamphlets before. I think I more or less know what to expect. The reason I'm interested in pursuing getting a copy is mostly for future reference. After all, we're supposed to collect and share Flat Earth-related resources.
-
These pages don't seem to indicate anything about the pamphlet (a difference between editions, maybe?), but I've read/digitised some of Rowbotham's pamphlets before. I think I more or less know what to expect. The reason I'm interested in pursuing getting a copy is mostly for future reference. After all, we're supposed to collect and share Flat Earth-related resources.
I highlighted the most relevant passage:(http://i.imgur.com/y5jHSyB.png)
That title of the brochure/pamphlet makes the RAS presentation.
Yeah. I still think my position is likely.
Just to clarify, the presentation was of only 16 pages.
[Rowbotham, Samuel B.] Zetetic astronomy. A description of several experiments which prove that the surface of the sea is a perfect plane, and that the earth is not a globe. Being the substance of a paper read before the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. By ‘Parallax' [pseud.] Birmingham, W. Cornish, 1849. 16 p. illus.
QB638.R87
-
Oh, I did see that line. I assumed you were talking about something more significant.
-
Ok PP, Gulliver is at least trying to help now. He just doesn't know as much about it as we do.
Gulliver's referenced pamplets (Garwood) are part of a regular newspaper that was produced by Rowbotham (and later the flat earth society - John Hampden carried on after Rowbotham's death and Lady Blount after that).
What we are looking for is the 1st Edition of his book Earth Not a Globe. The first edition was 16 pages, the next 230 odd and then 430 if memory serves me. Editions 2 and 3 are widely available online. I've never seen a first edition. I have seen extracts of it as people quote from it, but never in entirety. Because it is a forerunner for edition 2 which I had read, I just assumed all the info would be the same. Of course thinking about it, edition 2 had a chunk about the suez canal and I don't think that's in edition 3, so edition 1 probably also has unique features. Anyway, because his first edition was in pamphlet form, its easy to understand the confusion.
Thank you for the OL link again. It wasn't good enough when it was just markjo posting it. I requested a quote from the Library of Congress to see how much a digitised PDF would cost. Their pricing page suggests about $40, so if they confirm that I'll get it and add it to our library.
That would be incredibly generous and a real asset. But if its available no where on the net, who better to have it than the flat earth society?
-
I requested a quote from the Library of Congress to see how much a digitised PDF would cost. Their pricing page suggests about $40, so if they confirm that I'll get it and add it to our library.
For the record, this still ongoing - apparently the LoC have a huge backlog of processing requests so it took some time before they could take mine. Apparently, this has now been completed, so once my payment clears, I should have the PDF!
EDIT: I now have the scans and am putting together an accessible PDF. Meanwhile, enjoy the title page:
(http://i.omgomg.eu/enag/1)