Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.

18. The best possessions of man are his senses; and, when he uses them all, he will not be deceived in his survey of nature. It is only when some one faculty or other is neglected or abused that he is deluded. Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give him one in name which is not one in fact! Since this is the best that astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow creatures - deceive them - it is clear that things are not as they say they are; and, in short, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

This proof relies on an unsupported premise, "They know that man requires a level surface on which to live"), and thus is faulty.

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 10:42:08 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 09:33:07 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 09:05:13 AM

Look at a topographical map of egypt and you will see carpenters claim was correct.

Please reference: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/north_africa/txu-oclc-6949452-nf36-5.jpg, This map shows that Nile is more than 100 feet above the Mediterranean Sea when it enters Egypt. So, no, the Nile does not fall just a few feet in Egypt. (And remember even if it did, the premise doesn't support the conclusion.)

It stays at a contant elevation for hundreds if not thousands of miles.

We await your reference, still. Do you wish to contribute, or not?

I'm not going to spoon feed you extended explanations to 100 simple proofs. If they are not good enough for you do some more research on your own time, I am certainly not going to assist you with this kind of attitude.

I'm not going to spoon feed you extended explanations to 100 simple proofs. If they are not good enough for you do some more research on your own time, I am certainly not going to assist you with this kind of attitude.

That means you have nothing to spoon feed. Because you have no actual data for anything. And because of that I can only see these 100 proofs as 100 fallacies for FE.

17. Human beings require a surface on which to live that, in its general character, shall be LEVEL; and since the Omniscient Creator must have been perfectly acquainted with the requirements of His creatures, it follows that, being an All-wise Creator, He has met them thoroughly. This is a theological proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Among other reasons, this proof is faulty as it uses the "Appeal to Nature" fallacy.

Also an appeal to tradition, the tradition of Christianity.

Curiously that's one of the things that many "supporters" of FE here are in complete denial about.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:50:58 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 10:42:08 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 09:33:07 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 09:05:13 AM

Look at a topographical map of egypt and you will see carpenters claim was correct.

Please reference: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/north_africa/txu-oclc-6949452-nf36-5.jpg, This map shows that Nile is more than 100 feet above the Mediterranean Sea when it enters Egypt. So, no, the Nile does not fall just a few feet in Egypt. (And remember even if it did, the premise doesn't support the conclusion.)

It stays at a contant elevation for hundreds if not thousands of miles.

We await your reference, still. Do you wish to contribute, or not?

I'm not going to spoon feed you extended explanations to 100 simple proofs. If they are not good enough for you do some more research on your own time, I am certainly not going to assist you with this kind of attitude.

We'll miss you, but honestly, I never expected you to be able to defend Carpenter.

19. Every man in his senses goes the most reasonable way to work to do a thing. Now, astronomers (one after another - following a leader), while they are telling us that Earth is a globe, are cutting off the upper half of this suppositious globe in their books, and, in this way, forming the level surface on which they describe man as living and moving! Now, if the Earth were really a globe, this would be just the most unreasonable and suicidal mode of endeavoring to show it. So that, unless theoretical astronomers are all out of their senses together, it is, clearly, a, proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Another dismal failure of Carpenter, this proof suffers from a reasoning fallacy, an appeal to nature.

20. The common sense of man tells him - if nothing else told him - that there is an "up" and a "down" in -nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, 'the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense - yes, and to inspiration - and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Yes, it's another proof replete with the appeal to nature fallacy. How in the world did anyone ever think that these proofs were worthwhile?

These a rowbottom's proof's?this is what FES is based upon?

21. Man's experience tells him that he is not constructed like the flies that can live said move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the floor: - and since the modern theory of a planetary earth necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it, and one of them is that men are really bound to. the earth by a force which fastens them to it "like needles round a spherical loadstone," a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon common sense ane ignore the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Yes, this is another proof based on the fallacy of appeal to nature. <sigh>

These a rowbottom's proof's?this is what FES is based upon?

Please note that these are Carpenter's. I have no idea what FES is based upon. Johannes refers to these 100 proofs in his sig and challenged us to critique them. So far, not one is even close to proving anything, let alone FET. For a complete set of the proofs with attribution, please reference: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm and www.mrsciguy.com/documents/proofs.doc

These a rowbottom's proof's?this is what FES is based upon?

Not exactly.

Gulliver titling the thread "R"'s 100 Proofs etc was an extremely stupid mistake (dumb, simple, and easily corrected enough that I'm not sure I understand why anybody bothers to take him seriously).  This is from a later book by William Carpenter; it has nothing to do with Rowbotham or his proofs.

Yeah, I was wondering about that too.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 02, 2010, 07:02:11 PM

Who's R?

William Carpenter (1830–1896)

Quote from: The Question1 on July 04, 2010, 09:17:53 AM

These a rowbottom's proof's?this is what FES is based upon?

Not exactly.

Gulliver titling the thread "R"'s 100 Proofs etc was an extremely stupid mistake (dumb, simple, and easily corrected enough that I'm not sure I understand why anybody bothers to take him seriously).  This is from a later book by William Carpenter; it has nothing to do with Rowbotham or his proofs.

I'm not sure why you blame Gulliver for my laziness, but, yes, I was too lazy to look up the author of Johannes sig (He doesn't attribute it, to no one's surprise.) I went with a placeholder of 'R' thinking that it might Rowbotham. When I did realize my error, I found that I don't know how to correct a mistake in titling a topic. If you would do so for us, I would appreciate. Or just tell me how to fix my mistake, please.

22. God's Truth never - no, never - requires a falsehood to help it along. Mr. Proctor, in his " Lessons," says: Men " have been able to go round and round the Earth in several directions." Now, in this case, the word " several will imply more than two, unquestionably: whereas, it is utterly impossible to circumnavigate the Earth in any other than an easterly or a westerly direction; and the fact is perfectly consistent and clear in its relation to Earth as a Plane.. Now, since astronomers would not be so foolish as to damage a good cause by misrepresentation, it is presumptive evidence that their cause is a bad one, and - a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Alas, the same type of mistakes continue. Here the proof fails to provide any evidence of its premise "it is utterly impossible to circumnavigate the Earth in any other then easterly or westerly direction". Without evidence to support its premise, the proof is faulty.

If you would do so for us, I would appreciate. Or just tell me how to fix my mistake, please.

Change the subject of the first post.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 04, 2010, 09:27:00 AM

Quote from: The Question1 on July 04, 2010, 09:17:53 AM

These a rowbottom's proof's?this is what FES is based upon?

Not exactly.

Gulliver titling the thread "R"'s 100 Proofs etc was an extremely stupid mistake (dumb, simple, and easily corrected enough that I'm not sure I understand why anybody bothers to take him seriously).  This is from a later book by William Carpenter; it has nothing to do with Rowbotham or his proofs.

I'm not sure why you blame Gulliver for my laziness, but, yes, I was too lazy to look up the author of Johannes sig (He doesn't attribute it, to no one's surprise.) I went with a placeholder of 'R' thinking that it might Rowbotham. When I did realize my error, I found that I don't know how to correct a mistake in titling a topic. If you would do so for us, I would appreciate. Or just tell me how to fix my mistake, please.

I'm pretty sure it gives due credit in the second line of the webpage.

21. Man's experience tells him that he is not constructed like the flies that can live said move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the floor: - and since the modern theory of a planetary earth necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it, and one of them is that men are really bound to. the earth by a force which fastens them to it "like needles round a spherical loadstone," a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon common sense ane ignore the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Yes, this is another proof based on the fallacy of appeal to nature. <sigh>

No, "gravity" has never been proven, thus the proof is legitimate.

18. The best possessions of man are his senses; and, when he uses them all, he will not be deceived in his survey of nature. It is only when some one faculty or other is neglected or abused that he is deluded. Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give him one in name which is not one in fact! Since this is the best that astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow creatures - deceive them - it is clear that things are not as they say they are; and, in short, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

This proof relies on an unsupported premise, "They know that man requires a level surface on which to live"), and thus is faulty.

Have you ever walked in one of the crooked houses in an amusement park or elsewhere? Good luck trying to live in one of those.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 09:33:13 AM

If you would do so for us, I would appreciate. Or just tell me how to fix my mistake, please.

Change the subject of the first post.

Good idea, but I don't think it worked. Let me know whether you see a change in the topic's title. Thanks.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 09:18:13 AM

21. Man's experience tells him that he is not constructed like the flies that can live said move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the floor: - and since the modern theory of a planetary earth necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it, and one of them is that men are really bound to. the earth by a force which fastens them to it "like needles round a spherical loadstone," a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon common sense ane ignore the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Yes, this is another proof based on the fallacy of appeal to nature. <sigh>

No, "gravity" has never been proven, thus the proof is legitimate.

You'll need  to eliminate the appeal to nature, "unless we can trample on common sense and ignore the teachings of experience", for example. Please provide evidence that gravity has never been proven. I remember high school experiments that proved it.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 11:09:28 AM

18. The best possessions of man are his senses; and, when he uses them all, he will not be deceived in his survey of nature. It is only when some one faculty or other is neglected or abused that he is deluded. Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give him one in name which is not one in fact! Since this is the best that astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow creatures - deceive them - it is clear that things are not as they say they are; and, in short, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

This proof relies on an unsupported premise, "They know that man requires a level surface on which to live"), and thus is faulty.

Have you ever walked in one of the crooked houses in an amusement park or elsewhere? Good luck trying to live in one of those.

Irrelevant...

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 09:18:13 AM

21. Man's experience tells him that he is not constructed like the flies that can live said move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the floor: - and since the modern theory of a planetary earth necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it, and one of them is that men are really bound to. the earth by a force which fastens them to it "like needles round a spherical loadstone," a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon common sense ane ignore the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Yes, this is another proof based on the fallacy of appeal to nature. <sigh>

No, "gravity" has never been proven, thus the proof is legitimate.

Absence of gravity or not having proof about gravity doesn't make the earth not round. What does the 21. says? We have the theory of "a force which fastens them to it" but because it is outrageous then surely The Earth is not round. Even you must admit that there is something that keeps us on the ground. FEers have invented UA to replace the gravity. So, this "proof" is definitely not proof for anything.

No, "gravity" has never been proven, thus the proof is legitimate.

Genius like this makes life worth living.

23. If astronomical works be searched through and through, there will not be found a single instance of a bold, unhesitating, or manly ,statement respecting a proof of the Earth's " rotundity." Proctor speaks of "proofs which serve to show ... that the Earth is not flat," and says that man "finds reason to think that the Earth is not flat," and speaks of certain matters being "explained by supposing" that the Earth is a, globe; and says that people have "assured themselves that it is a globe;" but he says, also, that there is a " most complete proof that the Earth is a globe:" just as though anything in the world could possibly be wanted but a proof - a proof that proves and settles the whole question. This, however, all the money in the United States Treasury would not buy; and, unless the astronomers are all so rich that they don't want the cash, it is a sterling proof that the Earth is not a globe.

This proof fails in a couple of ways. First it uses a straw-man fallacy. Second its premise is false. Reference for example: http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf.

24. When a man speaks of a "most complete" thing amongst several other things which claim to be what that thing is, it is evident that they must fall short of something which the "most complete" thing possesses. And when it is known that the "most complete" thing is an entire failure, it is plain that the others, all and sundry, are worthless. Proctor's "most complete proof that the Earth is a globe" lies in what he calls "the fact" that distances from place to place agree with calculation. But, since the distance round the Earth at 45 " degrees" south of the equator is twice the distance it would be on a globe, it follows that what the greatest astronomer of the age calls "a fact" is NOT a fact; that his "most complete proof' is a most complete failure; and that be might as well have told us, at once, that he has NO PROOF to give us at all. Now, since, if the Earth be a globe, there would, necessarily, be piles of proofs of it all round us, it follows that when astronomers, with all their ingenuity, are utterly unable to point one out - to say nothing about picking one up - that they give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.

The premise "since the distance round the Earth at 45 " degrees" south of the equator is twice the distance it would be on a globe" is 1) unsupported and 2) arguably  false. Please, for example, use the ruler in Google Earth to determine the width of Australia from Perth to Old Bar. The number you'll get will be much closer to the RET than FET. If you'd like more on-hands evidence, please drive the route yourself and show that Carpenter is right.

Only 76 more, Gulliver!  You can do it!

25. The surveyor's plans in relation to the laying of the first Atlantic Telegraph cable, show that in 1665 miles - from Valentia, Ireland, to St . John's, Newfoundland - the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is a LEVEL surface - not the astronomers' "level," either! The authoritative drawings, published at the time, are a standing evidence of the fact, and form a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.

This proof relies on irrelevant evidence. The plans are not evidence of anything, but perhaps that someone didn't understand that the Earth's curvature might affect results.

26. If the Earth were a globe, it would, if we take Valentia to be the place of departure, curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles across the Atlantic to Newfoundland, according to the astronomers' own tables, more than three hundred miles; but, as the surface of the Atlantic does not do so - the fact of its levelness having been clearly demonstrated by Telegraph Cable surveyors, - it follows that we have a grand proof that Earth is not a globe.

This is just a restatement of #25 and equally worthless.

Carpenter continues to be in a rut.

27. Astronomers, in their consideration of the supposed "curvature" of the Earth, have carefully avoided the taking of that view of the question which - if anything were needed to do so -would show its utter absurdity. It is this: - if, instead of taking our ideal point of departure to be at Valentia, we consider ourselves at St. John's, the 1665 miles of water between us and Valentia would just as well "curvate" downwards as it did in the other case! Now, since the direction in which the Earth is said to "curvate" is interchangeable - depending, indeed, upon the position occupied by a man upon its surface - the thing is utterly absurd; and it follows that the theory is an outrage , and that the Earth does not "curvate" at all: - an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.

This is yet another restatement of #25 and equally false.

28. Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth's surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as a vast "hill"-of water!" The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a "hill of water" more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such "science" as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe.

This proof lacks evidence and seems to rely solely on an appeal to nature with "The idea is simply monstrous...". and is thus false.