Author Topic: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying? (Read 52110 times)

Tradman · « **Reply #300 on:** December 06, 2021, 01:46:55 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 06, 2021, 01:03:33 PM

It was in the quote I just posed in reply #277. Didn't you read it the whole post? You replied to it.

I gave a quote from Wikipedia, since that is easily accessible. For more details you could read Christine Garwood's Flat Earth:History of an Infamous Idea. She has a whole chapter about Rowbotham. It is quite well researched, using lots of original sources.

Yea, I read Garwood some time ago and found it to have several errors. Also, Rowbotham is not the same as deMorgan or whatever his name is. Not sure why someone thinks they are the same person.

Jaynek · « **Reply #301 on:** December 06, 2021, 02:02:44 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on December 06, 2021, 01:46:55 PM

Yea, I read Garwood some time ago and found it to have several errors.

If you read Garwood then you should have come across the information about his responsibility for multiple deaths due to his "quack cures". Why did you say that you did not know about it?

Quote from: Tradman on December 06, 2021, 01:46:55 PM

Also, Rowbotham is not the same as deMorgan or whatever his name is. Not sure why someone thinks they are the same person.

Nobody thinks they are the same person. You seem to have misunderstood the Wikipedia article. De Morgan is an author who wrote about Rowbotham.

Tradman · « **Reply #302 on:** December 06, 2021, 02:10:13 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 06, 2021, 02:02:44 PM

If you read Garwood then you should have come across the information about his responsibility for multiple deaths due to his "quack cures". Why did you say that you did not know about it?
Nobody thinks they are the same person. You seem to have misunderstood the Wikipedia article. De Morgan is an author who wrote about Rowbotham.

Ah

Jaynek · « **Reply #303 on:** December 06, 2021, 02:29:10 PM »

Augustus De Morgan, a respected scientist and member of the Royal Astronomical Society, was a contemporary of Rowbotham's. Rowbotham repeatedly claimed that he had written a paper that had been read before the RAS. De Morgan came across this claim and wanted to set the record straight:

Quote

One of the broadsheets fell into the hands of mathematician Augustus De Morgan, who explored unorthodoxies of science and scholarship in a weekly column “A Budget of Paradoxes” [note 1.8] in the magazine. As it happened, De Morgan could shed light upon what happened at the Royal Astronomical Society. Quoting Rowbotham’s claim, he commented:

No account of such a paper appears in the for that month: I suspect that the above is Mr. S. Goulden’s way of representing the following occurrence: 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 that had been transmitted by the lecturer. [ref. 1.18]

https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_01.html

De Morgan refers to Rowbotham as "Mr. S. Goulden" because that was a pseudonym Rowbotham was using at the time.

Jaynek · « **Reply #304 on:** December 06, 2021, 03:09:27 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 06, 2021, 01:32:21 PM

As far as I can tell, what most people understand by "sphere earth" is pretty much what historical Catholics meant by it.

Here are some quotes from De Sphaera Mundi (the medieval Catholic university textbook) to illustrate the historical Catholic understanding:

SPHERE DEFINED. -- A sphere is thus described by Euclid: A sphere is the transit of the circuмference of a half-circle upon a fixed diameter until it revolves back to its original position. That is, a sphere is such a round and solid body as is described by the revolution of a semicircular arc.

By Theodosius a sphere is described thus: A sphere is a solid body contained within a single surface, in the middle of which there is a point from which all straight lines drawn to the circuмference are equal, and that point is called the "center of the sphere." Moreover, a straight line passing through the center of the sphere, with its ends touching the circuмference in opposite directions, is called the "axis of the sphere." And the two ends of the axis are called the "poles of the world."

THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.

FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive. http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm

This is not dogmatic teaching so we are not bound to believe it. It is, however, what virtually all educated Catholics believed from the time of St. Bede.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #305 on:** December 06, 2021, 03:16:21 PM »

Quote

THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west;

So, a "sphere earth" describes the shape of the earth, as a whole (i.e. land + oceans), as looking at it from above, as one looks at a map.

Typically, "flat earth" is ONLY describing that the land mass is flat, from a horizontal view. Since 99% of flat-earthers aren't Trads, they wouldn't refer to the "sphere earth" idea.

Conclusion: These 2 descriptions aren't mutually exclusive, as they talk about 2 different things. The former concerns itself with the entire globe; the latter concerns itself with simply the land.

Jaynek · « **Reply #306 on:** December 06, 2021, 03:21:06 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2021, 03:16:21 PM

So, a "sphere earth" describes the shape of the earth, as a whole (i.e. land + oceans), as looking at it from above, as one looks at a map.

Typically, "flat earth" is ONLY describing that the land mass is flat, from a horizontal view. Since 99% of flat-earthers aren't Trads, they wouldn't refer to the "sphere earth" idea.

Conclusion: These 2 descriptions aren't mutually exclusive, as they talk about 2 different things. The former concerns itself with the entire globe; the latter concerns itself with simply the land.

As I understand it, the most common flat earth model is a flat land mass with a dome over it. I do not see how this can be reconciled with the historical Catholic view.

Stanley N · « **Reply #307 on:** December 06, 2021, 03:23:35 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2021, 12:55:50 PM

This is just a clever way to hide the illogical idea of an earth spinning at over 1,000 mph.

Your car is going the same direction/speed as the coffee. This is not an apples-apples comparison of an earth rotating one direction (at over 1,000 mph) and a train going the opposite direction (at 60 mph). It makes no sense that this could work. The train going WITH the rotation of the earth (1,000 + 60 mph = 1,060) would have totally different physics than the train going AGAINST the rotation (-60mph vs 1000 mph = 940 mph). The train going against the rotation wouldn't be able to move and would be pushed backwards at a very high speed.

What is so "illogical" about 1000 mph? So what?

And when I pick up the coffee for a drink, sometimes it's moving in the same apparent direction as the car, and sometimes in the opposite apparent direction. There is not "totally different physics". And somehow, I can still move the cup of coffee without it being "pushed backwards at a very high speed."

Again, I honestly can't tell if you're serious or joking.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #308 on:** December 06, 2021, 03:44:39 PM »

Quote

As I understand it, the most common flat earth model is a flat land mass with a dome over it. I do not see how this can be reconciled with the historical Catholic view.

Because the "sphere earth" is describing how the earth looks from above, while the "flat earth" describes how the earth looks from the side view. You could have a flat land mass that is also in the shape of a sphere.

Jaynek · « **Reply #309 on:** December 06, 2021, 04:07:45 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2021, 03:44:39 PM

Because the "sphere earth" is describing how the earth looks from above, while the "flat earth" describes how the earth looks from the side view. You could have a flat land mass that is also in the shape of a sphere.

In the historical Catholic understanding, the earth does not merely look like a sphere; it is a sphere. It is a geometrical solid that looks the same no matter what angle one looks from.

Our Catholic forefathers did acknowledge that it seems flat to human sight because of its size, but they believed the earth to be an actual Euclidean sphere.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #310 on:** December 06, 2021, 04:14:43 PM »

Quote

In the historical Catholic understanding, the earth does not look like a sphere; it is a sphere.

Are you saying that the land mass (the surface dirt we walk on) of the earth has a slope/curvature in the shape of a sphere? Because I keep talking about the LAND (the surface dirt we walk on) and you keep referring to the earth (which includes the earth's surface but much, much more).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #311 on:** December 06, 2021, 04:25:04 PM »

Ladislaus · « **Reply #312 on:** December 06, 2021, 04:28:12 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 06, 2021, 04:07:45 PM

In the historical Catholic understanding, the earth does not merely look like a sphere; it is a sphere.

Pffft. You spent untold amounts of time explaining that we needn't take the Church Father's scientific observations as theological (per Leo XIII) and now you're claiming that there's a "Catholic understanding" that the earth is a sphere.

Hogwash.

Sacred Scripture is very clear about its description of the earth, the firmament, etc. Church Fathers all believed in the firmament, but you dismiss that ... yet now you're promoting some other Catholic standard.

Yes, the "earth" is a sphere. But it's a sphere the same way that a snow globe is a sphere, with a domed firmament on top.

Meg · « **Reply #313 on:** December 06, 2021, 04:33:11 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 06, 2021, 04:25:04 PM

I didn't watch much of it (will watch more later), but what I did watch was interesting. The narrator showed, at one point, a view from a plane which was about two hundred miles in distance. It was completely flat. If the earth were a ball, the view would have shown a steep curve, or rather the view would have faded away MUCH sooner than two hundred miles.

Jaynek · « **Reply #314 on:** December 06, 2021, 04:33:38 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 06, 2021, 04:14:43 PM

Are you saying that the land mass (the surface dirt we walk on) of the earth has a slope/curvature in the shape of a sphere? Because I keep talking about the LAND (the surface dirt we walk on) and you keep referring to the earth (which includes the earth's surface but much, much more).

In the De Sphaera passage i quoted there are a couple of references to the "bulge of the earth". This means that the surface of the earth is curved in the shape of a sphere. This also means the land that is at the surface of the earth is curved.

Author Topic: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying? (Read 52110 times)

Tradman

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Jaynek

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Tradman

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Jaynek

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Jaynek

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Jaynek

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Stanley N

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Jaynek

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Ladislaus

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Ladislaus

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Meg

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Jaynek

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?