[StinkyOne]

Proof #15:
The idea that, instead of sailing horizontally round the Earth, ships are taken down one side of a globe, then underneath, and are brought up on the other side to get home again, is, except as a mere dream, impossible and absurd! And, since there are neither impossibilities nor absurdities in the simple matter of circumnavigation, it stands without argument, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

I was reading the 100 Proofs and came to the conclusion that Rowbotham was either uneducated or an idiot. Taken as written, Rowbotham doesn't appear to understand that 1) his hypothetical ship only made it halfway around the Earth and 2) he seems to think there is an up/down on the globe. Given his usual lack of detail, one can only assume the "down" portion is with gravity and the "up" portion is against. This implies he has no clue how gravity works. If he isn't referring to gravitational issues, he doesn't seem to understand that by going all the way around a globe, one can indeed arrive back at their starting point.

Rowbotham - uneducated, idiot, or terribly lazy writer?

[Tom Bishop]

That is some impressive research ability. It is funny that you are identifying someone as a lazy person who got his facts wrong.

[TropeADope]

It is funny that you are identifying someone as a lazy person who got his facts wrong.

Definitely less insulting than the previous two comments you deleted Tom, but it doesn't express your point very well. As I write this though, it keeps changing.

[juner]

Rowbotham - uneducated, idiot, or terribly lazy writer?

Betteridge's law says no.

[StinkyOne]

Tom, I got my facts right. I made a point that you may have missed. Beyond that, I'm not writing any books about the shape of the Earth. Just posting cheeky comments on the Internet.

Back to this post - do you stand by the Rowbotham comments I posted? "It doesn't make sense to me, so it is wrong" pretty much sums up what was he said. He didn't even provide a logical argument to support his statement.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, I got my facts right. I made a point that you may have missed. Beyond that, I'm not writing any books about the shape of the Earth. Just posting cheeky comments on the Internet.

Back to this post - do you stand by the Rowbotham comments I posted? "It doesn't make sense to me, so it is wrong" pretty much sums up what was he said. He didn't even provide a logical argument to support his statement.

What Rowbotham comments? Rowbotham didn't write that book.

[Curious Squirrel]

Tom, I got my facts right. I made a point that you may have missed. Beyond that, I'm not writing any books about the shape of the Earth. Just posting cheeky comments on the Internet.

Back to this post - do you stand by the Rowbotham comments I posted? "It doesn't make sense to me, so it is wrong" pretty much sums up what was he said. He didn't even provide a logical argument to support his statement.

Rowbotham didn't write that book.

Too busy to try and find the quote as well, but Tom here has also mentioned the "100 proofs" need some touching up or something amounting to him not agreeing with all of them as I recall. Many are indeed no longer very valid after the past century or so since it was printed.

[StinkyOne]

Tom, I got my facts right. I made a point that you may have missed. Beyond that, I'm not writing any books about the shape of the Earth. Just posting cheeky comments on the Internet.

Back to this post - do you stand by the Rowbotham comments I posted? "It doesn't make sense to me, so it is wrong" pretty much sums up what was he said. He didn't even provide a logical argument to support his statement.

What Rowbotham comments? Rowbotham didn't write that book.

Crap - I thought he did. I shouldn't have assumed the author. Sigh, I was wrong on this one. C'est le vie.

[Tom Bishop]

The author is empirically correct, however, in that up is up and down is down. Take away the decades of brainwashing and the notion of a globe is absurd in that sense.

[model 29]

The author is empirically correct, however, in that up is up and down is down.

Up is away from the surface and down is toward the surface on a globe.  Pretty straight forward concept.

Take away the decades of brainwashing and the notion of a globe is absurd in that sense.

Only if one doesn't comprehend it.

[GiantTurtle]

Proof #15:
The idea that, instead of sailing horizontally round the Earth, ships are taken down one side of a globe, then underneath, and are brought up on the other side to get home again, is, except as a mere dream, impossible and absurd! And, since there are neither impossibilities nor absurdities in the simple matter of circumnavigation, it stands without argument, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

The author is empirically correct,

How is it empirical unless he saw a ship sailing underneath a globe and falling?

[Tom Bishop]

I will suggest that you familairize yourselves with the concept of Empericism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

[GiantTurtle]

"Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience."
So he had a sensory experience of a ship falling from the underside of a globe?

[Tom Bishop]

"Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience."
So he had a sensory experience of a ship falling from the underside of a globe?

I don't see that claim.

The idea that up is up and down is down is our human experience.

The globe concept of up and down is contradictory to this and, while "possible", is unemperical. The author is spot on to call out this absurdity.

[GiantTurtle]

I don't see that claim.

The idea that up is up and down is down is our human experience.

The globe concept of up and down is contradictory to this and, while "possible", is unemperical. The author is spot on to call out this absurdity.

That is not empirical as it is not viewing a situation anything like what he is calling into question anymore than observing a fly walking on the ceiling is an empirical view of the globe.
The empirical view would be to observe a storm cloud on the 'underside' of another planet.

[model 29]

The idea that up is up and down is down is our human experience.

Indeed

The globe concept of up and down is contradictory to this

How so?  Are you saying that on a globe, up is not 'away from the surface' and down is not 'toward the surface' in some places?

and, while "possible", is unemperical. The author is spot on to call out this absurdity.

I thought up being 'away' and down being 'toward' the surface was pretty much emperical.  Why is it absurd?

[Tom Bishop]

Up is up and down is down and the globe theory requires different imaginings of those concepts. Those globe concepts are not readily experienced and are therefore an unemperical hypothesis in comparison

[Rama Set]

Up is up and down is down and the globe theory requires different imaginings of those concepts.

If up and down are experiential concepts then nothing need be reimagined, you just experience them. That’s the point of it being experiential, no abstraction is required.

Those globe concepts are not readily experienced and are therefore an unemperical hypothesis in comparison

Up and down are trivial to experience in any acclerating reference frame.

[model 29]

Up is up and down is down and the globe theory requires different imaginings of those concepts.

Hardly.  Up is away from the globe and down is toward it.

Those globe concepts are not readily experienced and are therefore an unemperical hypothesis in comparison

Are there areas where the population experiences things falling in a direction other than toward the ground?

[Tom Bishop]

Up is up and down is down and the globe theory requires different imaginings of those concepts.

If up and down are experiential concepts then nothing need be reimagined, you just experience them. That’s the point of it being experiential, no abstraction is required.

You could say the same about us living in the Matrix. But imagining that things are some sort of illusion is not emperical.