The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 02:46:33 PM
-
Let's start with #1.
1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
False. This proof fails to demonstrate at what altitude the curvature would be discernible or that no one has ever seen it. Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not. This is not a proof in any sense of the word.
Ready for #2?
-
Ready for #2?
Hold it!
All you did was point out a grammatical inconsistency. That is no disproof in any sense of the word. (Well, you also mentioned altitudes, but I see no reason why they're important. If you wish to elaborate, I encourage you to do so).
If you require a grammatically correct substitute, you can, for example, replace "The aeronaut can see for himself" with "It can be seen".
-
Don't even ask, keep posting. I see a lot of win and a lot of FE antics trying to prove you wrong about to happen.
-
Ready for #2?
Hold it!
All you did was point out a grammatical inconsistency. That is no disproof in any sense of the word.
If you require a grammatically correct substitute, you can, for example, replace "The aeronaut can see for himself" with "It can be seen".
Is there any proof that R himself went up and saw this lack of curvature for himself? It looks like he was making assumptions.
-
Ready for #2?
Hold it!
All you did was point out a grammatical inconsistency. That is no disproof in any sense of the word.
If you require a grammatically correct substitute, you can, for example, replace "The aeronaut can see for himself" with "It can be seen".
Is there any proof that R himself went up and saw this lack of curvature for himself? It looks like he was making assumptions.
He didn't say that you can't see the curvature, only that what you see as curvature is a misinterpretation of the facts.
The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface
-
Ready for #2?
Hold it!
All you did was point out a grammatical inconsistency. That is no disproof in any sense of the word. (Well, you also mentioned altitudes, but I see no reason why they're important. If you wish to elaborate, I encourage you to do so).
If you require a grammatically correct substitute, you can, for example, replace "The aeronaut can see for himself" with "It can be seen".
When did I say that I had disproved anything. I simply point out that R didn't prove anything in 1. He didn't interview every aeronaut. He didn't determine even at what altitude there would be a discernible difference to the aeronaut. He failed.
-
Ready for #2?
Hold it!
All you did was point out a grammatical inconsistency. That is no disproof in any sense of the word. (Well, you also mentioned altitudes, but I see no reason why they're important. If you wish to elaborate, I encourage you to do so).
If you require a grammatically correct substitute, you can, for example, replace "The aeronaut can see for himself" with "It can be seen".
When did I say that I had disproved anything. I simply point out that R didn't prove anything in 1. He didn't interview every aeronaut. He didn't determine even at what altitude there would be a discernible difference to the aeronaut. He failed.
I disagree. All you're doing so far is pointing out that grammar wasn't a priority for Carpenter.
How are the altitudes relevant to anything? It's the shape of the visible land that matters.
And really, are you going to get so attached to the aeronaut? It really doesn't matter if you're an aeronaut or a pizza deliverer, you'll see more or less the same thing. By your logic, he would have to take everyone on a plane trip and ask them if they saw it.
-
Okay moving along...
2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no citation of such experiments in this “proof” or any reason to believe that the preponderance of the evidence supports it. Indeed BLT tries hard to explain the observer convexity. Anyone who has gone to and (hopefully) returned from sea has witnessed this convexity. You can yourself witness this with the rising dusk on most any clear evening.
-
Ready for #2?
Hold it!
All you did was point out a grammatical inconsistency. That is no disproof in any sense of the word. (Well, you also mentioned altitudes, but I see no reason why they're important. If you wish to elaborate, I encourage you to do so).
If you require a grammatically correct substitute, you can, for example, replace "The aeronaut can see for himself" with "It can be seen".
When did I say that I had disproved anything. I simply point out that R didn't prove anything in 1. He didn't interview every aeronaut. He didn't determine even at what altitude there would be a discernible difference to the aeronaut. He failed.
I disagree. All you're doing so far is pointing out that grammar wasn't a priority for R.
How are the altitudes relevant to anything? It's the shape of the visible land that matters.
And really, are you going to get so attached to the aeronaut? It really doesn't matter if you're an aeronaut or a pizza deliverer, you'll see more or less the same thing. By your logic, he would have to take everyone on a plane trip and ask them if they saw it.
I have made no comments about grammar, so I'll have to dismiss your first point as just attacking a straw-man. The altitude at which the models predict a difference sight is the key to the experiment. Both FET and RET predict the same result for the earthbound pizza delivery driver. So saying the the driver sees what he'd expect if FET were true is meaningless.
Yes, if R says that all aeronaut sees something, then he must have evidence to support that or yield. With no evidence presented, we reject his premise and his proof. Simple.
-
I have made no comments about grammar, so I'll have to dismiss your first point as just attacking a straw-man.
Oh, but you did. You're attacking words (yeah, make that grammar and semantics, not just grammar). The usage of the aeronaut was just a way of saying "It can be seen from up high".
Yes, if R says that all aeronaut sees something, then he must have evidence to support that or yield. With no evidence presented, we reject his premise and his proof. Simple.
See above. Simple.
Both FET and RET predict the same result for the earthbound pizza delivery driver. So saying the the driver sees what he'd expect if FET were true is meaningless.
I never mentioned that the pizza deliverer were earthbound. In fact, assuming this would be nonsense.
-
I have made no comments about grammar, so I'll have to dismiss your first point as just attacking a straw-man.
Oh, but you did. You're attacking words (yeah, make that grammar and semantics, not just grammar). The usage of the aeronaut was just a way of saying "It can be seen from up high".
Yes, if R says that all aeronaut sees something, then he must have evidence to support that or yield. With no evidence presented, we reject his premise and his proof. Simple.
See above. Simple.
Both FET and RET predict the same result for the earthbound pizza delivery driver. So saying the the driver sees what he'd expect if FET were true is meaningless.
I never mentioned that the pizza deliverer were earthbound. In fact, assuming this would be nonsense.
I did not impugn his choice of the word, "aeronaut" at any time. You attack a straw-man.
I still don't see anything above or otherwise to support this as a proof.
I never said that you mentioned the location of the driver. I simply said that the earthbound driver would not be able to detect a difference. Do you disagree?
-
I did not impugn his choice of the word, "aeronaut" at any time. You attack a straw-man.
Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not.
::)
I still don't see anything above or otherwise to support this as a proof.
Are you saying it's not proof because you can't understand it?
I never said that you mentioned the location of the driver. I simply said that the earthbound driver would not be able to detect a difference. Do you disagree?
Why are you linking a person's occupation to whether they can be on a plane or not?
-
3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.
Again, the premise is false. Allowances are made for the curvature of the Earth once the accuracy needed so dictates. Please reference a counter-example: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Suspension-Bridge/html (http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Suspension-Bridge/html): In very long bridges, it may be necessary to take the earth's curvature into account when designing the towers. For example, in the New York's Verrazano Narrows Bridge, the towers, which are 700 ft (215 m) tall and stand 4,260 ft (298 m) apart, are about 1.75 in (4.5 cm) farther apart at the top than they are at the bottom.
-
3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.
Again, the premise is false. Allowances are made for the curvature of the Earth once the accuracy needed so dictates. Please reference a counter-example: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Suspension-Bridge/html (http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Suspension-Bridge/html): In very long bridges, it may be necessary to take the earth's curvature into account when designing the towers. For example, in the New York's Verrazano Narrows Bridge, the towers, which are 700 ft (215 m) tall and stand 4,260 ft (298 m) apart, are about 1.75 in (4.5 cm) farther apart at the top than they are at the bottom.
Whoah, whoah, whoah. What happened to the "one at a time"? We're not done with #1, unless you gave up.
-
I did not impugn his choice of the word, "aeronaut" at any time. You attack a straw-man.
Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not.
::)
I still don't see anything above or otherwise to support this as a proof.
How unfortunate.
I never said that you mentioned the location of the driver. I simply said that the earthbound driver would not be able to detect a difference. Do you disagree?
Why are you linking a person's occupation to whether they can be on a plane or not?
I still don't see where I impugn the choice of the word.
I am not linking occupation with ability to fly. Why need the adjective "earthbound" be restrictive of the occupation and not descriptive of the observer? The point I made is that different observers may not be able to detect any difference in the model's prediction.
-
3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.
Again, the premise is false. Allowances are made for the curvature of the Earth once the accuracy needed so dictates. Please reference a counter-example: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Suspension-Bridge/html (http://www.madehow.com/Volume-5/Suspension-Bridge/html): In very long bridges, it may be necessary to take the earth's curvature into account when designing the towers. For example, in the New York's Verrazano Narrows Bridge, the towers, which are 700 ft (215 m) tall and stand 4,260 ft (298 m) apart, are about 1.75 in (4.5 cm) farther apart at the top than they are at the bottom.
Whoah, whoah, whoah. What happened to the "one at a time"? We're not done with #1, unless you gave up.
"One at time" does not grant you a license to stop anything, especially with what little you've provided so far. I only post the next once I feel that every legitimate concern either way has been addressed.
-
I still don't see where I impugn the choice of the word.
I quoted it for you.
I am not linking occupation with ability to fly. Why need the adjective "earthbound" be restrictive of the occupation and not descriptive of the observer?
We're back to my original point. Being able to be on a plane is not unique to aeronauts. Ergo, following the amended logic of your question, one would have to ask each and every one person on Earth if they agree before considering something proof. That's not how things work. Or at least I hope so.
The point I made is that different observers may not be able to detect any difference in the model's prediction.
Which is incorrect.
"One at time" does not grant you a license to stop anything, especially with what little you've provided so far. I only post the next once I feel that every legitimate concern either way has been addressed.
"One at a time" means that one subject is discussed... at a time... uh...
You know, like... one... at a time. What you've done up to now is "three at a time".
-
I still don't see where I impugn the choice of the word.
I quoted it for you.
Nothing in the quote is impugning. Do pay attention
-
Nothing in the quote is impugning.
Incorrect.
-
The point I made is that different observers may not be able to detect any difference in the model's prediction.
Which is incorrect.
Care to tell us how you determined that it's incorrect?
-
Nothing in the quote is impugning.
Incorrect.
Care to tell us how?
-
I still don't see anything above or otherwise to support this as a proof.
Are you saying it's not proof because you can't understand it?
No.
-
The point I made is that different observers may not be able to detect any difference in the model's prediction.
Which is incorrect.
Care to tell us how you determined that it's incorrect?
Any observer should be able to detect the difference in the model's prediction. Their occupation is irrelevant. Therefore, assuming that someone other than an aeronaut could not see things one would see is incorrect.
I still don't see anything above or otherwise to support this as a proof.
Are you saying it's not proof because you can't understand it?
No.
Oh, okay.
-
Nothing in the quote is impugning.
Incorrect.
Care to tell us how?
The key lies in the definition of the word "impugn". It's a rather obsolete word meaning "to assault, attack". The objective of your entire post was to attack R's proof and deem it invalid. How can you attack something while not attacking it?
-
The point I made is that different observers may not be able to detect any difference in the model's prediction.
Which is incorrect.
Care to tell us how you determined that it's incorrect?
Any observer should be able to detect the difference in the model's prediction. Their occupation is irrelevant. Therefore, assuming that someone other than an aeronaut could not see things one would see is incorrect.
I never said that occupation made a difference. You attack a straw-man. I never assumed that someone other than an aeronaut could not see things one would see. You attack a straw-man, yet again.
-
Nothing in the quote is impugning.
Incorrect.
Care to tell us how?
The key lies in the definition of the word "impugn". It's a rather obsolete word meaning "to assault, attack". The objective of your entire post was to attack R's proof and deem it invalid. How can you attack something while not attacking it?
I most certainly can attack the proof, and not attack a "word" in the proof at the same time. Geeesh.
-
You attack a straw-man.
No.
You attack a straw-man, yet again.
No.
I never assumed that someone other than an aeronaut could not see things one would see.
The point I made is that different observers may not be able to detect any difference in the model's prediction.
Which is incorrect.
::)
I most certainly can attack the proof, and not attack a "word" in the proof at the same time. Geeesh.
Most certainly. However, your attack was based on aeronauts.
Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not.
-
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
-
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
ITT: R's 100 Proofs, FOUR at a time.
-
I most certainly can attack the proof, and not attack a "word" in the proof at the same time. Geeesh.
Most certainly. However, your attack was based on aeronauts.
Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not.
Again you argued that I attacked grammar, in particular the use of the word 'aeronaut'. You have failed repeatedly to show this to be the case. So I used the same word as R. did. That is not an attack on his grammar, or rather word choice, by any means.
-
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
ITT: R's 100 Proofs, FOUR at a time.
Do try to keep up...
-
Again you argued that I attacked grammar, in particular the use of the word 'aeronaut'. You have failed repeatedly to show this to be the case. So I used the same word as R. did. That is not an attack on his grammar, or rather word choice, by any means.
The usage of the word "aeronaut" is a means of simplification. I have already provided you with an explanation on that matter.
Do try to keep up...
By no means am I going to argue four things, at once, in one thread. So far we're stuck on #1, while in the meantime you're posting some irrelevant stuff. Oh well.
-
5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.
This proof runs contrary to thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Please reference: http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf (http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf). It provided one supportive anecdotal example without date or attribution. The experiment does not report from what height above deck and above sea level that the sighting took place, nor does it report to the height of the waves under the ship at the time. Please reference: http://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv18300.php (http://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv18300.php) for a clear example supporting RET here. (The view is from the south shore of Lake Ontario towards the partial obscured Toronto.
-
6. If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise" - to the extent, of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on a level with the eye - that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
There's no proof here to argue. The photo of Toronto in the #5's first post shows that R. does not describe reality. Objects "sink" and "rise" into the sea based on the curvature of the Earth. The argument that the horizon remain at eye level is meaningless without math to show that the horizon should fall away at that height. The argument that by climbing a hill and seeing farther out to sea invalidates an observation on the sands in a non sequitor.
-
7. If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears "hull down," as it is called, it is because the hull is "behind the water:" for, vessels, have been seen, and may often be seen - again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away - far away - beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the "hull-down" ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Again, R. fails to present any proof, or even a decent description of his experiment. The image of Toronto from New York proves the counter-example and destroys this proof as well.
-
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
There is no certainty, so there is no proof. R. must show that the wreck would occur and the using the globe instead of maps of the FE caused the wrecks.
-
9. As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well - and only tolerably for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we speak - that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be, whether the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of "plane sailing," a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.
First R. provides no way to check his premise that sailors only use plane charts. But let’s suppose that mariners used charts over small areas that were drawn as though the Earth were flat. He would still have to show the differences between the models’ predictions would be affect navigation. Since he doesn’t do that, we must reject yet another proof. (So far I’m disappointed as to how little thought he’s putting into these proofs.)
-
10.- That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.
R. makes no sense here. Maybe doesn’t understand that the LoFs follow the shape of the RE?
-
Who's R?
-
Who's R?
William Carpenter (1830–1896)
-
Nice. I was also thinking about doing a series on these as well, even though it is a waste of time, because I waste a lot of time here, as can be seen by my total time logged in. I suggest you give one giant list of 100 at once, though, as that would be more striking and less drawn out than 1000 pages of argument in between.
-
But seriously, this proof fails because in its attempt to prove by contradiction that the earth cannot be a globe, it does not find any inherent contradictions between what is observed by aeronauts and what is alleged by RET. Indeed, for globes of large enough radii (especially the radius alleged by all RE'ers), we would expect to see exactly what the aeronaut has seen: a basically flat terrain, since the aeronaut is only a few miles high.
-
Let's start with #1.
1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
False. This proof fails to demonstrate at what altitude the curvature would be discernible or that no one has ever seen it. Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not. This is not a proof in any sense of the word.
Ready for #2?
Do you have any proof against Carpenters claim - or are you just refuting what he has said baselessly?
-
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
Please provide proof of your claim.
-
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
There is no certainty, so there is no proof. R. must show that the wreck would occur and the using the globe instead of maps of the FE caused the wrecks.
I am willing to finance you on a journey from New York to the Canary islands on a small sea vessel. I will also give you a miniature globe.
If you make it alive to the canary islands I will concede this point to you.
-
7. If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears "hull down," as it is called, it is because the hull is "behind the water:" for, vessels, have been seen, and may often be seen - again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away - far away - beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the "hull-down" ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Again, R. fails to present any proof, or even a decent description of his experiment. The image of Toronto from New York proves the counter-example and destroys this proof as well.
Please read up on perspective effects.
-
6. If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise" - to the extent, of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on a level with the eye - that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
There's no proof here to argue. The photo of Toronto in the #5's first post shows that R. does not describe reality. Objects "sink" and "rise" into the sea based on the curvature of the Earth. The argument that the horizon remain at eye level is meaningless without math to show that the horizon should fall away at that height. The argument that by climbing a hill and seeing farther out to sea invalidates an observation on the sands in a non sequitor.
Please try to construct arguments beyond nonsensical dribble.
-
Johannes, you like most of the Flat Earth Idiotoracy, have this problem that things need to be disproven, not proven, before they are fact. R does nothing to prove anything ever, all he does is state observation and personal belief. So how is he right? If TFES wants to eventually be accepted by more than tens of people, there has to be a legit appeal to the masses. "The Earth is flat, therefore..." is not a legit appeal the to the masses. There is too much worldwide proof of a round Earth to try that.
-
Idiotoracy
Making a mistake while calling someone an idiot. Classic.
Vocabulary lesson: idiotoracy - not a word; idrotorace - the presence of fluid in the pleural cavity; idiocracy - government that is based upon abstract theory; idiocy - stupidity.
all he does is state observation
We know quite a massive amount of things thanks to observation. Does stating observation make it wrong? Because that's essentially what you're implying here. If you disagree, please amend your statement so that it makes sense.
There is too much worldwide proof of a round Earth to try that.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
Oh, and I assume you're not going to carry on disproving proof #1? In that case, we can move on to #2!
-
We were both wrong on idiotacracy, so good job failing on proving my fail. Secondly, where is his EVIDENCE that proves his observations? Oh yeah, they're non-existant. In a real scientific method you need evidence, which the zetetic method fails on having. Clocktower wins in this thread because he questions the original statements, while you question his questions. If nothing was proven to begin with, you cant question the opposition. You first need proof of why Clocktower is wrong (scientifically not zetitically) before you claim he is wrong.
-
idiotacracy
There is no such word. Where the hell did you find it?
Even if there were, the -cracy would instantly render your name-calling invalid. I appreciate the fact that you tried, though.
You first need proof of why Clocktower is wrong (scientifically not zetitically) before you claim he is wrong.
Scientifically speaking, his questions make no sense, which I have pointed out. It was ignored. So yeah.
-
I looked it up, and found a definition, therefore you are wrong sir. Regarding Clocktower, he has provided enough evidence on a post to post basis to prove it wrong. Observation = shit unless you backing or are TFES and not the TFES.
-
I looked it up, and found a definition, therefore you are wrong sir.
I encourage you to provide me with a reliable source. The source has to be of credibility comparable to (or greater than) the Oxford and Cambridge Advanced Learner's dictionaries.
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/spellcheck/?q=idiotacracy
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=idiotacracy
Ah, and just for the record, Wiktionary:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idiotacracy
Oh, wow. Not even dictionary.com and thefreedictionary.com, which are known for containing words that don't exist, don't mention it. I was thinking you'd like one of these, but hey, not even that is possible.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiotacracy
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idiotacracy
Eek, not even Google knows of a source!
http://www.google.com/search?q=idiotacracy+dictionary
Based on that, I claim that you haven't looked it up.
-
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
There is no certainty, so there is no proof. R. must show that the wreck would occur and the using the globe instead of maps of the FE caused the wrecks.
I am willing to finance you on a journey from New York to the Canary islands on a small sea vessel. I will also give you a miniature globe.
If you make it alive to the canary islands I will concede this point to you.
In the same way I will finance the same trip for you, but instead you use your FE map.
If you make it alive, I'll definately believe in FEH.
-
Let's start with #1.
1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
False. This proof fails to demonstrate at what altitude the curvature would be discernible or that no one has ever seen it. Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not. This is not a proof in any sense of the word.
Ready for #2?
Do you have any proof against Carpenters claim - or are you just refuting what he has said baselessly?
Sir, you're confused. Carpenter makes that claim that he's proven FET. It's his job to provide the proof. I simply point out his failure to provide any evidence and that he fails to prove anything, once again.
-
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
Please provide proof of your claim.
Again, I need not provide proof, just point out that the proof is false because it fails to provide evidence for what it claims.
-
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
There is no certainty, so there is no proof. R. must show that the wreck would occur and the using the globe instead of maps of the FE caused the wrecks.
I am willing to finance you on a journey from New York to the Canary islands on a small sea vessel. I will also give you a miniature globe.
If you make it alive to the canary islands I will concede this point to you.
How would your proposed experiment prove the premise? If one person failed, we'd not have any reason to believe the general case that Carpenter relies upon.
-
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
Please provide proof of your claim.
Again, I need not provide proof, just point out that the proof is false because it fails to provide evidence for what it claims.
You fail to point out that it fails to provide evidence for what it claims. And I'm not providing proof for this claim of mine, because I need not do so.
-
7. If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day-time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears "hull down," as it is called, it is because the hull is "behind the water:" for, vessels, have been seen, and may often be seen - again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away - far away - beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the "hull-down" ships! Since, then, the idea will not stand its ground when the facts rise up against it, and it is a piece of the popular theory, the theory is a contemptible piece of business, and we may easily wring from it a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Again, R. fails to present any proof, or even a decent description of his experiment. The image of Toronto from New York proves the counter-example and destroys this proof as well.
Please read up on perspective effects.
I have. Do you have a point to make? Can you draw a diagram with realistic waves that so how the perspective effects hide half of the tower when seen from New York? (Those are some mighty big waves, Stan.)
-
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
Please provide proof of your claim.
Again, I need not provide proof, just point out that the proof is false because it fails to provide evidence for what it claims.
You fail to point out that it fails to provide evidence for what it claims. And I'm not providing proof for this claim of mine, because I need not do so.
Once someone provides evidence that "There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few fee" we can consider this further. Until the premise is supported by evidence, we have nothing to debate.
-
6. If we stand on the sands of the sea-shore and watch a ship approach us, we shall find that she will apparently "rise" - to the extent, of her own height, nothing more. If we stand upon an eminence, the same law operates still; and it is but the law of perspective, which causes objects, as they approach us, to appear to increase in size until we see them, close to us, the size they are in fact. That there is no other "rise" than the one spoken of is plain from the fact that, no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye, though it be two-hundred miles away, as seen by Mr. J. Glaisher, of England, from Mr. Coxwell's balloon. So that a ship five miles away may be imagined to be "coming up" the imaginary downward curve of the Earth's surface, but if we merely ascend a hill such as Federal Hill, Baltimore, we may see twenty-!five miles away, on a level with the eye - that is, twenty miles level distance beyond the ship that we vainly imagined to be " rounding the curve," and "coming up!" This is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
There's no proof here to argue. The photo of Toronto in the #5's first post shows that R. does not describe reality. Objects "sink" and "rise" into the sea based on the curvature of the Earth. The argument that the horizon remain at eye level is meaningless without math to show that the horizon should fall away at that height. The argument that by climbing a hill and seeing farther out to sea invalidates an observation on the sands in a non sequitor.
Please try to construct arguments beyond nonsensical dribble.
No doubt you will enlighten us to how this is 'nonsensical' dribble some day, right?
-
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
Please provide proof of your claim.
Again, I need not provide proof, just point out that the proof is false because it fails to provide evidence for what it claims.
You fail to point out that it fails to provide evidence for what it claims. And I'm not providing proof for this claim of mine, because I need not do so.
I have no idea what you mean by: "You fail to point out that it fails to provide evidence for what it claims." Did you mean something else? Clearly pointing out is simply a matter of saying "Hey, look here." You aren't asking that we provide proof before you require Carpenter to support his claims, are you?
-
Ready for #2?
Hold it!
My zetetic senses tell me you play too much Ace Attorney.
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
Please provide proof of your claim.
Actually it would be much simplier if someone provided such a body,if no one can then it is proven.
-
Ready for #2?
Hold it!
My zetetic senses tell me you play too much Ace Attorney.
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
Please provide proof of your claim.
Actually it would be much simplier if someone provided such a body,if no one can then it is proven.
To what body to you refer? The river? Even if FE does provide evidence of such a body, FE would still need to show us the reason that such a body can't exist on a RE, right?
-
11. As the mariners' compass points north and south at one time, and as the North, to which it is attracted is that part of the Earth situated where the North Star is in the zenith, it follows that there is no south "point" or "pole" but that, while the centre is North, a vast circumference must be South in its whole extent. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The premise here is correct, but the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Non sequitur.
-
12. As we have seen that there is, really no south point (or pole) but an infinity of points forming, together, a vast circumference -- the boundary of the known world, with its battlements of icebergs which bid defiance to man's onward course, in a southerly direction - so there can be no east or west "points,' just as there is no "yesterday," and no "tomorrow." In fact, as there is one point that is fixed (the North), it is impossible for any other point to be fixed likewise. East and west are, therefore, merely directions at right angles with a north and south line: and as the south point of the compass shifts round to all parts of the circular boundary, (as it may be carried round the central North) so the directions east and west, crossing this line, continued to form a circle at any latitude. A westerly circumnavigation, is going around with the North Star continually on the right hand, and an easterly circumnavigation is performed only when the reverse condition of things is maintained, the North Star being on the left hand as the journey is made. These facts, taken together, form a beautiful proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The first premise is unsupported and requires the conclusion.
-
13. As the mariners' compass points north and south at one and the same time, and a meridian is a north and south line, it follows that meridians can be no other than straight lines. But, since all meridians on a globe are semicircles, it is an incontrovertible proof that the Earth is not a globe.
It does not follow that meridians can be no other than straight lines. Carpenter does not appreciate that the LoFs follow the surface of the Earth.
-
14. "Parallels of latitude" only - of all imaginary lines on the surface of the Earth - are circles, which increase, progressively, from the northern centre to the southern circumference. The mariner's course in the direction of any one of these concentric circles is his longitude, the degrees of which INCREASE to such an extent beyond the equator (going southwards) that hundreds of vessels have been wrecked because of the false idea created by the untruthfulness of the charts and the globular theory together, causing the sailor to be continually getting out of his reckoning. With a map of the Earth in its true form all difficulty is done away with, and ships may be conducted anywhere with perfect safety. This, then, is a very important practical proof that the Earth is not a globe.
We have a counter-example recently posed that invalidates this proof the length of the parallels south of the Equator do decrease progressively. Please reference the Perth to Old Bar challenge for more details here.
Regardless Carpenter does not provide evidence to support his claim, again. (Though REers provide evidence of just the opposite). Without evidence this proof fails.
-
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
Please provide proof of your claim.
Again, I need not provide proof, just point out that the proof is false because it fails to provide evidence for what it claims.
You fail to point out that it fails to provide evidence for what it claims. And I'm not providing proof for this claim of mine, because I need not do so.
Once someone provides evidence that "There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few fee" we can consider this further. Until the premise is supported by evidence, we have nothing to debate.
Look at a topographical map of egypt and you will see carpenters claim was correct.
-
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
There is no certainty, so there is no proof. R. must show that the wreck would occur and the using the globe instead of maps of the FE caused the wrecks.
I am willing to finance you on a journey from New York to the Canary islands on a small sea vessel. I will also give you a miniature globe.
If you make it alive to the canary islands I will concede this point to you.
How would your proposed experiment prove the premise? If one person failed, we'd not have any reason to believe the general case that Carpenter relies upon.
If you are not willing to test the claim, you must think the claim is true.
-
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
The premise is false. There is no river that flows for hundreds of miles to the sea without falling more than a few feet.
The proof fails even further in that it does not support its claim of “quite incompatible”.
Please provide proof of your claim.
Again, I need not provide proof, just point out that the proof is false because it fails to provide evidence for what it claims.
You fail to point out that it fails to provide evidence for what it claims. And I'm not providing proof for this claim of mine, because I need not do so.
Once someone provides evidence that "There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few fee" we can consider this further. Until the premise is supported by evidence, we have nothing to debate.
Look at a topographical map of egypt and you will see carpenters claim was correct.
Really? What height for the Nile there does your reference provide? Also, please provide your reference. I'd hate to think that you can't back up Carpenter's claims, especially given your sig.
-
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
There is no certainty, so there is no proof. R. must show that the wreck would occur and the using the globe instead of maps of the FE caused the wrecks.
I am willing to finance you on a journey from New York to the Canary islands on a small sea vessel. I will also give you a miniature globe.
If you make it alive to the canary islands I will concede this point to you.
How would your proposed experiment prove the premise? If one person failed, we'd not have any reason to believe the general case that Carpenter relies upon.
If you are not willing to test the claim, you must think the claim is true.
1) I am willing to test the claim, so your premise is faulty
2) Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. non sequitur.
-
My zetetic senses tell me you play too much Ace Attorney.
There is no such thing as "too much Ace Attorney".
-
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
There is no certainty, so there is no proof. R. must show that the wreck would occur and the using the globe instead of maps of the FE caused the wrecks.
I am willing to finance you on a journey from New York to the Canary islands on a small sea vessel. I will also give you a miniature globe.
If you make it alive to the canary islands I will concede this point to you.
How would your proposed experiment prove the premise? If one person failed, we'd not have any reason to believe the general case that Carpenter relies upon.
If you are not willing to test the claim, you must think the claim is true.
1) I am willing to test the claim, so your premise is faulty
2) Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. non sequitur.
In the age of sail, no one used a globe as navigation. Wrecks were very uncommon.
Clearly FE maps work fine.
-
My zetetic senses tell me you play too much Ace Attorney.
There is no such thing as "too much Ace Attorney".
Oh ya?what about playing all the games x5 over?
-
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 (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.)
-
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
There is no certainty, so there is no proof. R. must show that the wreck would occur and the using the globe instead of maps of the FE caused the wrecks.
I am willing to finance you on a journey from New York to the Canary islands on a small sea vessel. I will also give you a miniature globe.
If you make it alive to the canary islands I will concede this point to you.
How would your proposed experiment prove the premise? If one person failed, we'd not have any reason to believe the general case that Carpenter relies upon.
If you are not willing to test the claim, you must think the claim is true.
1) I am willing to test the claim, so your premise is faulty
2) Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. non sequitur.
In the age of sail, no one used a globe as navigation. Wrecks were very uncommon.
Clearly FE maps work fine.
Do tell us how this relates to Carpenter's proof. You wouldn't be trying to derail the thread now, would you?
-
My zetetic senses tell me you play too much Ace Attorney.
There is no such thing as "too much Ace Attorney".
Oh ya?what about playing all the games x5 over?
Including AA Investigations: Miles Edgeworth? Well, either way: That's not too much.
-
In the age of sail, no one used a globe as navigation. Wrecks were very uncommon.
??? You're joking, right?
-
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.
Once again the premise requires the conclusion. Further the premise is not supported. Counter-examples include the polar-orbit satellites.
-
16. If the, Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 "degrees" south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance -- to say the least of it -- or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The premise is unsupported. The distance around the globe at both 45oN and S are measured the same on every navigation map in use today. Check Google Earth for an excellent and free reference.
-
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 (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.
-
16. If the, Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 "degrees" south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance -- to say the least of it -- or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The premise is unsupported. The distance around the globe at both 45oN and S are measured the same on every navigation map in use today. Check Google Earth for an excellent and free reference.
I think even RE'ers will admit that the earth is not a perfect globe. Not sure what you are arguing about here.
-
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.
Once again the premise requires the conclusion. Further the premise is not supported. Counter-examples include the polar-orbit satellites.
Are you sure polar-orbit satellites exist?
-
Let's start with #1.
1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
False. This proof fails to demonstrate at what altitude the curvature would be discernible or that no one has ever seen it. Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not. This is not a proof in any sense of the word.
Ready for #2?
Do you have any proof against Carpenters claim - or are you just refuting what he has said baselessly?
Sir, you're confused. Carpenter makes that claim that he's proven FET. It's his job to provide the proof. I simply point out his failure to provide any evidence and that he fails to prove anything, once again.
Become an aeronaut like Carpenter and you can see the very thing he observed.
-
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 (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?
-
16. If the, Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 "degrees" south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance -- to say the least of it -- or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The premise is unsupported. The distance around the globe at both 45oN and S are measured the same on every navigation map in use today. Check Google Earth for an excellent and free reference.
I think even RE'ers will admit that the earth is not a perfect globe. Not sure what you are arguing about here.
Please don't troll. No one is talking about a prefect sphere. Can you provide any evidence to support the premise "it is found to be twice the distance" or not?
-
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.
Once again the premise requires the conclusion. Further the premise is not supported. Counter-examples include the polar-orbit satellites.
Are you sure polar-orbit satellites exist?
Based on the preponderance of evidence, I am sure that polar-orbit satellites exist. The proof is faulty regardless, however.
-
Let's start with #1.
1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
False. This proof fails to demonstrate at what altitude the curvature would be discernible or that no one has ever seen it. Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not. This is not a proof in any sense of the word.
Ready for #2?
Do you have any proof against Carpenters claim - or are you just refuting what he has said baselessly?
Sir, you're confused. Carpenter makes that claim that he's proven FET. It's his job to provide the proof. I simply point out his failure to provide any evidence and that he fails to prove anything, once again.
Become an aeronaut like Carpenter and you can see the very thing he observed.
Why would I do that? Do stay on topic. Do you have any evidence to back up Carpenter's proof, or not?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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 (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm) and www.mrsciguy.com/documents/proofs.doc (http://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.
Who's R?
William Carpenter (1830–1896)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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 (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.
-
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.
I give up, you are a basket case.
-
29. If the Earth were a globe, it would, unquestionably, have the same general characteristics - no matter its size - as a small globe that may be stood upon the table. As the small globe has top, bottom, and sides, so must also the large one - no matter how large it be. But, as the Earth, which is "supposed" to be a large globe, bas no sides or bottom as the small globe has, the conclusion is irresistible that it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The errors this are compounded. That "no matter its size" the Earth as a globe would have the same general statistics is hardly unquestionable. That the small globe has a top, bottom, and sides is just semantics. Mathematically, it does not. Practically, we humans tend to assign tops and such to objects--even when, such in this case, they don't apply. This proof fails in both premise and lack of evidence.
-
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.
I give up, you are a basket case.
I find that you can't even mount a defense for any of the first 25 to be very telling. Please feel free to pick one and try to salvage something from Carpenter's effort.
-
That the small globe has a top, bottom, and sides is just semantics. Mathematically, it does not.
Can you provide a reasonable source verifying this claim?
-
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.
I give up, you are a basket case.
No, I give up, you are a basket case.
-
30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter can't make this a proof without doing the impossible. He'd have to climb every 'eminence on the earth' to provide evidence of his claim. We need only one to disprove it. So I'll just point to http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html (http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html).
-
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.
I give up, you are a basket case.
No, I give up, you are a basket case.
Nonono, I give up.
-
That the small globe has a top, bottom, and sides is just semantics. Mathematically, it does not.
Can you provide a reasonable source verifying this claim?
Yes. From topology we have: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/topology2.pdf (http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/topology2.pdf)
-
31. If the Earth were a globe, it would certainly have to be as large as it is said to be - twenty-five thousand miles in circumference. Now, the thing which I have called a "proof" of the Earth's roundness, and which is presented to children at school, is, that if we stand on the seashore we may see the ships, as they approach us, absolutely "coming up," and that, as we are able to see the highest parts of these ships first, it is because the lower parts are "behind the earth's curve."Now since if this were the case - that is, if the lower parts of these ships were behind a "hill of water" - the size of the Earth, indicated by such a curve as this, would be so small that it would only be big enough to hold the people of a parish, if they could get all round it, instead of the nations of the world, it follows that the idea is preposterous; that the appearance is due to another and to some reasonable cause; and that, instead of being a proof of the globular form of the Earth, it is a proof that at Earth is not a globe.
This proof lacks any support for its premise: " the size of the Earth, indicated by such a curve as this, would be so small that it would only be big enough to hold the people of a parish" and is thus faulty.
-
That the small globe has a top, bottom, and sides is just semantics. Mathematically, it does not.
Can you provide a reasonable source verifying this claim?
Yes. From topology we have: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/topology2.pdf (http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/topology2.pdf)
How does this relate to my question, exactly?
-
That the small globe has a top, bottom, and sides is just semantics. Mathematically, it does not.
Can you provide a reasonable source verifying this claim?
Yes. From topology we have: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/topology2.pdf (http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/topology2.pdf)
How does this relate to my question, exactly?
It answers it. The table documents that a sphere (a mathematical globe) has no edges or sides. Let me know if you honestly need it explained more completely, but I really doubt that you do. You do know about Euclid's five postulates of geometry, right? Google is your friend.
-
32. It is often said that, if the Earth were flat, we could see all over it! This is the result of ignorance. If we stand on the level surface a plain or a prairie, and take notice, we shall find that the horizon is formed at about three miles all around us: that is, the ground appears to rise up until, at that distance, it seems on a level with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently, objects no higher than we stand - say, six feet - and which are at that distance (three miles), have reached the "vanishing point," and are beyond the sphere of our unaided vision. This is the reason why the hull of a ship disappears (in going away from us) before the sails; and, instead of there being about it the faintest shadow of evidence of the, Earth's rotundity, it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.
It hard to see any proof here. By offering an alternative solution (and not a very good one at that) to the disappearing hulls observation, Carpenter does not eliminate RE's explanation, so he offers nothing in the ways of a proof here.
-
33. If the Earth were a globe, people - except those on the top - would, certainly, have to be "fastened" to its surface by some means or other, whether by the "attraction" of astronomers or by some other undiscovered and undiscoverable process! But, as we know that we simply walk on its surface without any other aid than that which is necessary for locomotion on a plane, it follows that we have, herein, a conclusive proof that Earth is not a globe.
This proof is not self-consistent. It complains about the undiscovered process of attraction and then relies on it to have us walking on a flat Earth. Obviously the absence of the explanation of a phenomenon in one model is not a proof of another. (That said, the model that is better explained is usually the better model at prediction.)
-
34. If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be - if we could imagine the thing to be peopled all round - "antipodes:" "people who," says the dictionary, "living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to ourselves, have their feet opposite to ours: - people who are hanging heads downwards whilst we are standing heads up! But, since the theory allows us to travel to those parts of the Earth where the people are said to be heads downwards, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards and our friends whom we have left behind - us to be heads downwards, it follows that the whole thing is a myth - a dream - a delusion - and a snare; and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate the popular theory, it is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
This seems to just be a restatement of #33. It fails for the same reasons as #33 and for forgetting the direction 'down' is defined in RET as towards the center of the Earth.
-
That the small globe has a top, bottom, and sides is just semantics. Mathematically, it does not.
Can you provide a reasonable source verifying this claim?
Yes. From topology we have: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/topology2.pdf (http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/topology2.pdf)
How does this relate to my question, exactly?
It answers it. The table documents that a sphere (a mathematical globe) has no edges or sides. Let me know if you honestly need it explained more completely, but I really doubt that you do. You do know about Euclid's five postulates of geometry, right? Google is your friend.
How does this relate to a globe sitting on a table? I'm looking at one right now and I can clearly see a top and a bottom.
-
That the small globe has a top, bottom, and sides is just semantics. Mathematically, it does not.
Can you provide a reasonable source verifying this claim?
Yes. From topology we have: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/topology2.pdf (http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/topology2.pdf)
How does this relate to my question, exactly?
It answers it. The table documents that a sphere (a mathematical globe) has no edges or sides. Let me know if you honestly need it explained more completely, but I really doubt that you do. You do know about Euclid's five postulates of geometry, right? Google is your friend.
How does this relate to a globe sitting on a table? I'm looking at one right now and I can clearly see a top and a bottom.
When did a say I globe sitting on a table didn't have a top and a bottom? What does that globe have to do with the RE? Do you think the RE is sitting on a table?
-
How does this relate to a globe sitting on a table? I'm looking at one right now and I can clearly see a top and a bottom.
Globes cannot sit. They don't have bottoms.
-
30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter can't make this a proof without doing the impossible. He'd have to climb every 'eminence on the earth' to provide evidence of his claim. We need only one to disprove it. So I'll just point to http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html (http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html).
I couldn't resist.
What the hell? Do you really think pointing people to a random webpage is enough to disprove the legendary William Carpenter?
-
30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter can't make this a proof without doing the impossible. He'd have to climb every 'eminence on the earth' to provide evidence of his claim. We need only one to disprove it. So I'll just point to http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html (http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html).
I couldn't resist.
What the hell? Do you really think pointing people to a random webpage is enough to disprove the legendary William Carpenter?
I really think pointing people to webpage describing the heroics of Air Force scientist Major David G. Simons and his photos showing the curvature of the Earth from his balloon disproves Carpenter's proof quite well. Thank you.
-
35. If we examine a true picture of the distant horizon, or the thing itself, we shall find that it coincides exactly with a perfectly straight and level line. Now, since there could be nothing of the kind on a globe, and we find it to be the case all over the Earth, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Here Carpenter has omitted the math to prove that on a RE the horizon would not appear to be a 'perfectly straight line'. With this math, this proof is faulty since both models might predict the same observation. Also the Simon reference in refuting #34 applies to this proof as well.
-
30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter can't make this a proof without doing the impossible. He'd have to climb every 'eminence on the earth' to provide evidence of his claim. We need only one to disprove it. So I'll just point to http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html (http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html).
I couldn't resist.
What the hell? Do you really think pointing people to a random webpage is enough to disprove the legendary William Carpenter?
I really think pointing people to webpage describing the heroics of Air Force scientist Major David G. Simons and his photos showing the curvature of the Earth from his balloon disproves Carpenter's proof quite well. Thank you.
I don't see any curvature.
-
30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter can't make this a proof without doing the impossible. He'd have to climb every 'eminence on the earth' to provide evidence of his claim. We need only one to disprove it. So I'll just point to http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html (http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html).
I couldn't resist.
What the hell? Do you really think pointing people to a random webpage is enough to disprove the legendary William Carpenter?
I really think pointing people to webpage describing the heroics of Air Force scientist Major David G. Simons and his photos showing the curvature of the Earth from his balloon disproves Carpenter's proof quite well. Thank you.
I don't see any curvature.
Others do. "How earth looks from balloonist’s camera. This view showing curvature of earth was taken on infra-red film by Maj. David Simons during his record breaking balloon flight mainly over Minnesota Aug, 20 1957. At lower right is device attached to outside leg of gondola to measure outside temperature exact location of this scene and height from which it was made are not available. U.S Air Force Photo"
-
36. If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the "light" exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the "light" and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light will won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of "curvature" demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
This proof fails to provide the math and diagrams necessary to be convincing. Scientifically, I'd have to assail it for not considering that the deck of the ship is not at the level of the bay which I believe invalidates the entire 'experiment'. It's odd that Carpenter would throw in the random fact that the 'apparent elevation' is 112' 8".
-
37. If the Earth were a globe, there would, very likely, be (for nobody knows) six months day and six months night at the arctic and antarctic regions, as astronomers dare to assert there is: - for their theory demands it! But, as this fact - the six months day and six months night - is; nowhere found but in the arctic regions, it agrees perfectly with everything else that we know about the Earth as a plane, and, whilst it overthrows the "accepted theory," it furnishes a striking proof that Earth is not a globe.
To summarize, the Earth is a plane since the "fact" that there are no six months day and six months night in the Antarctic. I believe that we have to help Carpenter here just to get to something worth discussing. Let's correct him thus "There aren't the RET predicted very long days and nights, varying with the seasons, in the Antarctic". The proof fails for two reasons: 1) He fails, as he does so very often, to provide evidence to support his premise, and 2) These long days and nights have been documented for years. Please reference: http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/AntarSky.html#MidwinterSun (http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/AntarSky.html#MidwinterSun).
-
38. When the Sun crosses the equator, in March, and begins to circle round the heavens in north latitude, the inhabitants of high northern latitudes see him slimming round their horizon and forming the break of their long day, in a horizontal course, not disappearing again for six months, as he rises higher and higher in the heavens whilst he makes his twenty-four hour circle until June, when he begins to descend and goes on until he disappears beyond the horizon in September. Thus, in the northern regions, they have that which the traveler calls the "midnight Sun," as he sees that luminary at a time when, in his more southern latitude, it is always midnight. If, for one-half the year, we may see for ourselves the Sun making horizontal circles round the heavens, it is presumptive evidence that, for the other half-year, he is doing the same, although beyond the boundary of our vision. This, being a proof that Earth is a plane, is, therefore, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
It's really hard to make sense of this proof. We need first to ignore his inaccuracies. Then we need to figure out his point. He seems to say that we need to realize that the Sun travels in the same type of circles in the Winter as it does in the FE Summer. So if it moves in FE circles in the Winter, FE must be truye. So he assumes his conclusion to get to his conclusion.
-
39. We have abundance of evidence that the Sun moves daily round and over the Earth in circles concentric with the northern region over which hangs the North Star; but, since the theory of the Earth being a globe is necessarily connected with the theory of its motion round the Sun in a yearly orbit, it falls to the ground when we bring forward the evidence of which we speak, and, in so doing, forms a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Since both models predict that the Sun will move in nearly concentric circles, there's nothing to this proof.
-
40. The Suez canal, which joins the Red Sea with the Mediterranean, is about one hundred miles long; it forms a straight and level surface of water from one end to the other; and no allowance for any supposed "curvature" was made in its construction. It is a clear proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Since Carpenter doesn't tell the reason that any canal would need to make an allowance for the curvature of the Earth, the proof is faulty.
-
41. When astronomers assert that it is "necessary" to make "allowance for curvature" in canal construction, it is, of course, in order that, in their idea, a level cutting may be had, for the water. How flagrantly, then, do they contradict themselves when the curved surface of the Earth is a "true level!" What more can they want for a canal than a true level? Since they contradict themselves in such an elementary point as this, it is an evidence that the whole thing is a delusion, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter needs again to provide proof for his premise. When have astronomers asserted that it is necessary to make allowance for curvature in canal construction? Should the construction proceed with each segment locally level to the next? Yes. Should there be some need for the entire canal to be level? No.
-
42. It is certain that the theory of the Earth's rotundity and that of its mobility must stand or fall together. A proof, then, of its immobility is virtually a proof of its non-rotundity. Now, that the Earth does not move, either on an axis, or in an orbit round the Sun or anything else, is easily proven. If the Earth went through space at the rate of eleven-hundred miles in a minute of time, as astronomers teach us, in a particular direction, there would unquestionably be a, difference in the result of firing off a projectile in that direction and in a direction the opposite of that one. But as, in fact, there is not the slightest difference in any such case, it is clear that any alleged motion of the Earth is disproved, and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The premise here is countered with the simple observation that motion is relative.
-
43. The circumstances which attend bodies which are caused merely to fall from a great height prove nothing as to the motion or stability of the Earth, since the object, if it be on a thing that is in motion, will participate in that motion; but, if an object be thrown, upwards from a body at rest, and, again, from a body in motion, the circumstances attending its descent will be very different. In the former case, it will fall, if thrown vertically upwards, at the place from whence it was projected; in the latter case, it will fall behind the moving body from which it is thrown will leave it in the rear. Now, fix a gun, muzzle upwards, accurately, in the ground; fire off a projectile; and it will fall by the gun. If the Earth traveled eleven hundred miles a minute, the projectile would fall behind the gun, in the opposite direction to that of the supposed motion. Since, then, this is NOT the case, in fact, the Earth's fancied motion is negatived and we have a proof that the Earth is not a, globe.
Now this one is actually interesting, finally. Here Carpenter has proposed an experiment that once refined would demonstrate which model is better. For the refinement, we note that its the Earth's acceleration, not motion, that is important. As the Earth rotates after the shot is fired, RET predicts that it will land back to the east; while FET says it will land exactly where it let. Unfortunately the experimental error (It's hard to get the shot straight up, and to have no wind at the various altitudes.) So if Carpenter produced repeatable experiments showing that the FET results occurred, I'd have to give him this one. Unfortunately for FE, the evidence is to the contrary. Please reference: http://bryanlitz.bravehost.com/GyroCor.html (http://bryanlitz.bravehost.com/GyroCor.html).
-
44. It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in, a second of time, "from west to east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.
#44 simply restates and #42 and fails just the same.
-
30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter can't make this a proof without doing the impossible. He'd have to climb every 'eminence on the earth' to provide evidence of his claim. We need only one to disprove it. So I'll just point to http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html (http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html).
I couldn't resist.
What the hell? Do you really think pointing people to a random webpage is enough to disprove the legendary William Carpenter?
I couldn't also resist. Legendary? He proved something? Who the hell is William Carpenter and what did he do except putting some 100 random thoughts to the paper? And how can anyone even think that he did prove earth being not round without having any data and experiments.
Edit: I guess for me he is no more legendary than any person who made some list like "100 Reasons Why It's Great to be a Woman", "100 Reasons Twilight is apparently better than Harry Potter", "101 Reasons to Breastfeed" and so on.
-
42. It is certain that the theory of the Earth's rotundity and that of its mobility must stand or fall together. A proof, then, of its immobility is virtually a proof of its non-rotundity. Now, that the Earth does not move, either on an axis, or in an orbit round the Sun or anything else, is easily proven. If the Earth went through space at the rate of eleven-hundred miles in a minute of time, as astronomers teach us, in a particular direction, there would unquestionably be a, difference in the result of firing off a projectile in that direction and in a direction the opposite of that one. But as, in fact, there is not the slightest difference in any such case, it is clear that any alleged motion of the Earth is disproved, and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The premise here is countered with the simple observation that motion is relative.
It's also geocentric, which sets us back about 400 years. Well done Carpenter.
-
45. The Astronomer Royal, of England, George B. Airy, in his celebrated work on Astronomy, the "Ipswich Lectures," says - "Jupiter is a large planet that turns on his axis, and why do not we turn?" Of course, the common sense reply is: Because the Earth is not a planet! When, therefore, an astronomer royal puts words into our mouth wherewith we may overthrow the supposed planetary nature of the Earth, we have not far to go to pick up a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter fails to provide evidence once again for his premise; therefore, the proof is faulty.
-
46. It has been shown that an easterly or a westerly motion is necessarily a circular course round the central North, The only north point or centre of motion of the heavenly bodies known to man is that formed by the North Star, which is over the central portion of the outstretched Earth. When, therefore, astronomers tell us of a planet taking a westerly course round the Sun, the thing is as meaningless to them as it is to us, unless they make the Sun the northern centre of the motion, which they cannot do! Since, then, the motion which they tell us the planets have is, on the face of it, absurd; and since, as a matter of fact, the Earth can have no absurd motion at all, it is clear that it cannot be what astronomers say it is - a planet; and, if not a planet, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Again Carpenter omits evidence for his premise. He seems to argue incorrectly that an object cannot both rotate and revolve, even though we observe both with the other planets, such as Jupiter. For both reasons, this proof is faulty.
-
47. In consequence of the fact being so plainly seen, by everyone who visits the seashore, that the line of the horizon is a perfectly straight line, it becomes impossible for astronomers, when they attempt to convey, pictorially, an idea of the Earth's "convexity," to do so with even a shadow of consistency: for they dare not represent this horizon as a curved line, so well known is it that it is a straight one! The greatest astronomer of the age, in page 15 of his "Lessons," gives an illustration of a ship sailing away, "as though she were rounding the top of a great hill of water;" and there - of a truth - is the straight and level line of the horizon clear along the top of the "hill" from one side of the picture to the other! Now, if this picture were true in all its parts - and it is outrageously false in several - it would show that Earth is a cylinder; for the "hill" shown is simply up one side of the level, horizontal line, and, we are led to suppose, down the other! Since, then, we have such high authority as Professor Richard A. Proctor that the Earth is a cylinder, it is, certainly, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
This proof suffer from the false dichotomy fallacy since both a cylinder or a sphere could produce the observation. There is also a second proof whose premise is unsupported here. The line of the horizon appears straight to an observer at the shore is not unexpected on a spherical Earth.
-
ClockTower, you like the Energizer Bunny cuz you keep going and going and going...
-
48. In Mr. Proctor's "Lessons in Astronomy," page 15, a ship is represented as sailing away from the observer, and it is given in five positions or distances away on its journey. Now, in its first position, its mast appears above the horizon, and, consequently, higher than the observer's line of vision. But, in its second and third positions, representing the ship as further and further away, it is drawn higher and still higher up above the line of the horizon! Now, it is utterly impossible for a ship to sail away from an observer, under the, conditions indicated, and to appear as given in the picture. Consequently, the picture is a misrepresentation, a fraud, and a disgrace. A ship starting to sail away from an observer with her masts above his line of sight would appear, indisputably, to go down and still lower down towards the horizon line, and could not possibly appear - to anyone with his vision undistorted - as going in any other direction, curved or straight. Since, then the design of the astronomer-artist is to show the Earth to be a globe, and the points in the picture, which would only prove the Earth to be cylindrical if true, are NOT true, it follows that the astronomer-artist fails to prove, pictorially, either that the Earth is a globe or a cylinder, and that we have, therefore, a reasonable proof that the Earth is not. a globe.
Please reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=qfE8AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Proctor+Lessons+in+Astronomy&source=bl&ots=cZbajOOn2E&sig=BtXgYsq9O8rj9F7PDl23PJgwBwg&hl=en&ei=HCcyTKGxFMK88ga0kv3ICw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=qfE8AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Proctor+Lessons+in+Astronomy&source=bl&ots=cZbajOOn2E&sig=BtXgYsq9O8rj9F7PDl23PJgwBwg&hl=en&ei=HCcyTKGxFMK88ga0kv3ICw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
The proof fails to support its premise. Further, any error in an illustration for the alternate theory is not evidence of the theory to be proven.
-
49 It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. . Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless. We have, then a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
This proof relies on the concept the motion is not relevant, which we know it is. I wonder it Carpenter even traveled by train at even 20 miles per hour.
-
50. We read in the inspired book, or collection of books, called THE BIBLE, nothing at all about the Earth being a globe or a planet, from beginning to end, but hundreds of allusions there are in its pages which could not be made if the Earth were a globe, and which are, therefore, said by the astronomer to be absurd and contrary to what he knows to be true! This is the groundwork of modern infidelity. But, since every one of many, many allusions to the Earth and the heavenly bodies in the Scriptures can be demonstrated to be absolutely true to nature, and we read of the Earth being "stretched out" "above the waters," as "standing in the water and out of the water," of its being "established that it cannot be moved," we have a store from which to take all the proofs we need, but we will just put down one proof - the Scriptural proof - that Earth is not a globe.
This proof contains an appeal to authority. The Bible is not a reference for scientific study.
-
30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter can't make this a proof without doing the impossible. He'd have to climb every 'eminence on the earth' to provide evidence of his claim. We need only one to disprove it. So I'll just point to http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html (http://web.mac.com/bemidji2/iWeb/Site/Man%20High%20Photos.html).
I couldn't resist.
What the hell? Do you really think pointing people to a random webpage is enough to disprove the legendary William Carpenter?
I really think pointing people to webpage describing the heroics of Air Force scientist Major David G. Simons and his photos showing the curvature of the Earth from his balloon disproves Carpenter's proof quite well. Thank you.
I don't see any curvature.
Others do. "How earth looks from balloonist’s camera. This view showing curvature of earth was taken on infra-red film by Maj. David Simons during his record breaking balloon flight mainly over Minnesota Aug, 20 1957. At lower right is device attached to outside leg of gondola to measure outside temperature exact location of this scene and height from which it was made are not available. U.S Air Force Photo"
No, there is no curvature visible in any of those pictures, and I see curvature in some pictures posted here.
-
... I see curvature in some pictures posted here.
That's good enough for me. Thanks.
-
51. A "Standing Order" exists in the English Houses of Parliament that in the cutting of canals, &c., the datum line employed shall be a "horizontal line, which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work." Now if the Earth were a globe, this "Order" could not be carried out: but, it is carried out: therefore it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again, the proof fails to show the mathematics the the length of the canal, the accuracy of the measurement, and the tautness of the line are sufficient to show the Earth is not curved. And since when can a Government legislate a result of nature?
-
52. It is a well-known and indisputable fact that there is a far greater accumulation of ice south of the equator than is to be found at an equal latitude north: and it is said that at Kerguelen, 50 degrees south, 18 kinds of plants exist, whilst, in Iceland, 15 degrees nearer the northern centre, there are 870 species; and, indeed, all the facts in the case show that the Sun's power is less intense at places in the southern region than it is in corresponding latitudes north. Now, on the Newtonian hypothesis, all this is inexplicable, whilst it is strictly in accordance with the facts brought to light by the carrying out of the principles involved in the Zetetic Philosophy of "Parallax." This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
There is no reason to conclude the Sun's power is less intense at places in the southern region...
So many other factors influence climate, including just that the Antarctic region is at a higher altitude than the Arctic.
-
... I see curvature in some pictures posted here.
That's good enough for me. Thanks.
God help you.
-
54. The aeronaut is able to start in his balloon and remain for hours in the air, at an elevation of several miles, and come down again in the same county or parish from which he ascended. Now, unless the Earth drag the balloon along with it in its nineteen-miles-a-second motion, it must be left far behind, in space: but, since balloons have never been known thus to be left it is a proof that the Earth does not move, and, therefore, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Among other errors in this proof, Carpenter does not understand that all motion is relative. His premise is false, and this proof therefore faulty.
-
55. The Newtonian theory of astronomy requires that the Moon "borrow" her light from the Sun. Now, since the Sun's rays are hot and the Moon's light sends with it no heat at all, it follows that the Sun and Moon are "two great lights," as we somewhere read; that the Newtonian theory is a mistake; and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter fails to support his premise, "the Moon's light sends with it no heat at all". Without the premise supported, the proof is faulty.
-
56. The Sun and Moon may often be seen high in the heavens at the same time - the Sun rising in the east and the Moon setting in the west - the Sun's light positively putting the Moon's light out by sheer contrast! If the Newtonian theory were correct, and the moon had her light from the Sun, she ought to be getting more of it when face to face with that luminary - if it were possible for a sphere to act as a reflector all over its face! But as the Moon's light pales before the rising Sun, it is a proof that the theory fails; and is gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter forgets at a sphere does not reflect all the light it receives straight back. He also forget that the Moon absorbs some of the light directed at it. He also forgets that light spreads out as it travels greater distances. The premise is unsupported, so the proof fails.
-
If the earth were round as suggested by Newton and others then the Sun would invade the night sky just as the moon invades the day sky.
This is not observed and the earth is once again proven flat.
-
57. The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of. the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter's implies incorrectly that one cannot see the Full Moon and the Sun at the same time. Standing on top of the highest mountain small Pacific Island, such as Hawaii, one can see the Pacific Ocean on all sides.
-
Can you at least give me some credit for predicting the next "proof" without looking it up?
-
Can you at least give me some credit for predicting the next "proof" without looking it up?
Of course! Full credit for the prediction.
-
58. Astronomers have never agreed amongst themselves about a rotating Moon revolving round a rotating and revolving Earth - this Earth, Moon, planets and their satellites all, at the same time dashing through space, around the rotating and revolving Sun, towards the constellation Hercules, at the rate of four millions of miles a day! And they never will: agreement is impossible! With the a Earth a plane and without motion, the whole thing is clear. And if a straw will show which way the wind blows, this may be taken as a pretty strong proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter fails here in many accounts. First the 'the whole thing is clear' is quite a misstatement. FE does have the foggiest idea of the speed of the FE, the Sun, The Moon, the Nexus lines's shapes. Second that the 'other side' doesn't have an agreement on some aspects of their model doesn't prove your side, especially when there is even less agreement on your side.
-
59. Mr. Proctor says.- "The Sun is so far off that even moving from one side of the Earth to the other does not cause him to be seen in a different direction - at least the difference is too small to be measured." Now, since we know that north of the equator, say 45 degrees, we see the Sun at mid-day to the south, and that at the same distance south of the equator we see the Sun at mid-day to the north, our very shadows on the round cry aloud against the delusion of the day and give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Once again we can toss this proof out quickly. Attacking one comment by one person with a different theory does not prove your theory.
But let's pause for a moment to learn. Poctor's statement does stand, but only within the context of parallax (and I don't mean in the sense of some pseudonym.) Relative to the baseline of the two observation points, the Sun is so far away that the change between the two points of the incident angle is too small to be discerned.
-
60. There is no problem more important to the astronomer than that of the Sun's distance from the Earth. Every change in the estimate changes everything. NOW, since modern astronomers, in their estimate of this distance, have gone all the way along the line of figures from three millions of miles to a hundred and four millions - today, the distance being something over 91,000,000; it matters not how much: for, not many years ago, Mr. Hind gave the distance, "accurately," as 95,370,000! - it follows that they don't know, and that it is foolish for anyone to expect that they ever will know, the Sun's distance! And since all this speculation and absurdity is caused by the primary assumption that Earth is a wandering, heavenly body, and is all swept away by a knowledge of the fact that Earth is a, plane, it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.
Once again we see Carpenter arguing that his thesis is proven by the disagreement on the 'other side'. Attacking the 'other side' is never a proof for your side. However, let's consider the argument for a moment. The distance to the Sun is now rather settled at around 93 million miles. That techniques of the time were off by even 10% is not damning. That Carpenter won't consider the size of the number is not relevant.
-
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 mad.
See replications of Cavendish.
See wikipedia.
See Einstein
See Newton
See Kepler
See Hawkings
See Kaku
See a psychiatrist
-
This thread is full of Epic Win.
Thank you so much Clocktower, I was thinking about refuting ENaG because Tom spouts it out as proof for FEH
-
This thread is full of Epic Win.
Thank you so much Clocktower, I was thinking about refuting ENaG because Tom spouts it out as proof for FEH
Thank you for the kind words. I agree the ENaG should be our next project.
-
61. It is plain that a theory of measurements without a measuring-rod is like a ship without a rudder; that a measure that is not fixed, not likely to be fixed, and never has been fixed, forms no measuring-rod at all; and that as modern theoretical astronomy depends upon the Sun's distance from the Earth as its measuring-rod, and the distance is not known, it is a system of measurements without a measuring-rod - a ship without a rudder. Now, since it is not difficult to foresee the dashing of this thing upon the rock on which Zetetic astronomy is founded, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Again, tearing down the 'other side's' efforts does not prove your theory. Science has, contrary to Carpenter's claim, indeed firmly established the Earth-Sun distance. Please reference, for example: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=303488 (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=303488). This is not a proof.
-
62. It is commonly asserted that "the Earth must be a globe because people have sailed round it." Now, since this implies that we can sail round nothing unless it be a globe, and the fact is well known that we can sail round the Earth as a plane, the assertion is ridiculous, and we have another proof that Earth is not a globe.
Again attacking the argument of the 'other side' does not prove your thesis. This would fail regardless, as it has a straw-man fallacy. The correct position of the 'other side' is "The Earth must be a globe because people have sailed around it in various circles, and their journeys have been at the length RE predicts".
-
63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
This would be a great proof, if only the premise were supported with evidence. However lacking any evidence and relying on "It is a fact so well known as it ought to be..." this proof fails.
-
64. Mr. Glaisher, in speaking of his balloon ascents, says: "The horizon always appears to be on a level with the car." Now, since we may search among the laws of optics in vain for any principle that would cause the surface of a globe to turn its face upwards instead of downwards, it is a clear proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again, Carpenter omits the math and evidential record needed here to successfully prove anything. He must first show at what height the models would make different predictions about the view of the horizon, show that the observation was made at the required height, and record the view. Until he does so, this proof fails.
For evidence to the contrary though not need here, please reference: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo8_xmas.html (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo8_xmas.html),
-
65. The Rev. D. Olmsted, in describing a diagram whish is supposed to represent the Earth as a globe, with a figure of a man sticking out at each side and one hanging head downwards, says "We should dwell on this point until it appears to us as truly up," In the direction given to these figures as it does with regard to a figure which he has placed on the top! Now, a system of philosophy which requires us to do something which is, really, the going out of our minds, by dwelling on an absurdity until we think it is a fact, Cannot be a system based on God's truth, which never requires anything of the kind. Since, then, the popular theoretical astronomy of the day requires this, it is evident that it is the wrong thing, and that this conclusion furnishes us with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
That you can't conceive that down can be toward the center of the Earth is not evidence that it can't be. This proof also involves the appeal to nature fallacy. It fails for both reasons. Also, again, attacking the 'other side's' position does not prove your case.
-
66. It is often said that the predictions of eclipses prove astronomers to be right in their theories. But it is not seen that this proves too much. It is well known that Ptolemy predicted eclipses for six-hundred years, on the basis of a plane Earth, with as much accuracy as they are predicted by modern observers. If, then, the predictions prove the truth of the particular theories current at the time, they just as well prove one side of the question as the other, and enable us to lay claim to a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The unsupported premise that Ptolemy used the model of FE to make his prediction appears false Please reference: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/PtolemyAstronomy.htm (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/PtolemyAstronomy.htm) where we see that Ptolemy used a geocentric model, not a model with the Sun as a spotlight. Without support for his premise, this proof fails.
-
67. Seven-hundred miles is said to be the length of the great Canal, in China, Certain it is that, when this canal was formed, no "allowance" was made for "curvature." Yet the canal is a fact without it. This is a Chinese proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again, Carpenter present no reason under RE that a canal must account for curvature of the Earth. Again, attacking the 'other side's' position does not prove yours. Again, no evidence is presented to support the premise, despite his use of 'Certain it is that...'. This proof fails.
-
68. Mr. J.M. Lockyer says: Because the Sun seems to rise in the east and set in the west, the Earth really spins in the opposite direction; that is, from west to east," Now, this is no better than though we were to say - Because a man seems to be coming up the street, the street really goes down to the man! And since true science would contain no such nonsense as this, it follows that the so-called science of theoretical astronomy is not true, and, we have another proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter does not seem to improve with the higher count, alas. Again, you cannot prove your theory by attacking the theory of the 'other side'. Again, that an idea is odd does not make it impossible. Yes, the larger object is moving. Yes, that's possible. Yes, it makes sense. With its false premise, the proof fails.
-
69. Mr. Lockyer says: "The appearances connected with the rising and setting of the Sun and stars may be due either to our earth being at rest and the Sun and stars traveling round it, or the earth itself turning round, while the Sun and stars are at rest." Now, since true science does not allow of any such beggarly alternatives as these, it is plain that modern theoretical astronomy is not true science, and that its leading dogma is a fallacy. We have, then, a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.
This proof uses the Appeal to Nature and perhaps the To the Person fallacies. Again, you cannot prove your thesis by attacking the other side's thesis (unless there is a true dichotomy.) The proof fails for at least these three reasons.
-
70. Mr. Lockyer, in describing his picture of the supposed proof of the Earth's rotundity by means of ships rounding a "hill of water," uses these words: - "Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is round, we explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do." This is utterly unworthy of the name of Science! A science that begins by supposing, and ends by explaining the supposition, is, from beginning to end, a mere farce. The men who can do nothing better than amuse themselves in this way must be denounced as dreamers only, and their leading dogma a delusion. This is a proof that Earth, not a globe.
Again, you cannot prove your thesis by attacking another's thesis. Mr. Lockyer, did not attempt to prove the Earth was round with his diagram. He was only illustrating how based on an assumption the observation is explained. Clearly one person's choice of words can hardly prove anything. This is not a proof.
-
71. The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The premise is incorrect. You can see the Polaris, the current North Star, from latitudes below the Equator. While is arguable the conditions must be right, It's not uncommon to see far over the normal edge due to inversions, though I suspect here, Carpenter has simply created a straw-man by omitting the required "from sea level" phrase. Finally, attacking the other side will never prove your thesis. For these three reasons this proof fails.
-
72. Astronomers tell us that, in consequence of the Earth's "rotundity," the perpendicular walls of buildings are, nowhere, parallel, and that even the walls of houses on opposite sides of a street are not! But, since all observation fails to find any evidence of this want of parallelism which theory demands, the idea must be renounced as being absurd and in opposition to all well-known facts. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again, Carpenter attacks a straw-man. The position "the perpendicular walls of building are, nowhere, parallel." is the straw-man for the real position, "Given enough distance, enough height, and enough accuracy, two points of elevation will measure each other as smaller. That is: their normal lines (from their peaks to the Earth'scenter) will not be parallel.)". Next you cannot prove your position by attacking the other side's position. For these two reasons the proof fails.
-
63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
This would be a great proof, if only the premise were supported with evidence. However lacking any evidence and relying on "It is a fact so well known as it ought to be..." this proof fails.
ITT: "I didn't check it so it's wrong"
-
63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
This would be a great proof, if only the premise were supported with evidence. However lacking any evidence and relying on "It is a fact so well known as it ought to be..." this proof fails.
ITT: "I didn't check it so it's wrong"
To correct you: "He didn't show any evidence for what he claimed, so it's not a proof." Do pay attention, please.
-
Pay attention. Half of your rebuttals are based on the fact that instead of "I SAW IT!11!!!" he says "It can be seen". It means the exact same thing. If you want to verify his experiment you have to (zing!) verify it.
-
Pay attention. Half of your rebuttals are based on the fact that instead of "I SAW IT!11!!!" he says "It can be seen". It means the exact same thing. If you want to verify his experiment you have to (zing!) verify it.
Not at all. It's his claim, he has to prove it with logic, evidence, or both. Furthermore, how do you know that I haven't already verified the results? You assume too much.
Oh, and just to help you some more with logic. "It can be seen." is not the same as "I saw it." The first doesn't even say that it's been seen or who the observer was, while the second does.
-
63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
This would be a great proof, if only the premise were supported with evidence. However lacking any evidence and relying on "It is a fact so well known as it ought to be..." this proof fails.
Actually,this reminds me.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25232.msg560231#msg560231
lots of links there.
-
Oh, and just to help you some more with logic. "It can be seen." is not the same as "I saw it." The first doesn't even say that it's been seen or who the observer was, while the second does.
I agree, but the default assumption would be that if something can be seen, then it, in fact, was.
-
Oh, and just to help you some more with logic. "It can be seen." is not the same as "I saw it." The first doesn't even say that it's been seen or who the observer was, while the second does.
I agree, but the default assumption would be that if something can be seen, then it, in fact, was.
But do you really want assumptions when proving something? Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Give me the assumption that "1+1=3", and I can prove that the Moon is made of cheese.
-
The assumption is of a completely different nature.
If I say "It can be seen that the sky is blue", will you accuse me of not having checked it myself?
-
The assumption is of a completely different nature.
If I say "It can be seen that the sky is blue", will you accuse me of not having checked it myself?
No. I will, however, if I don't have any evidence about the color of the sky or experience of seeing it myself, challenge to provide evidence. Is it blue at night? How about at sunrise? During a snowstorm? During a thunderstorm? When see from an altitude of 20 miles? Proofs are very powerful, but only when developed well and checked. A proof requires the precise of evidence and logic and we must challenge each assumption. That is what FES expects on us REers, probably even more so than we expect of them. The evidence, our experiences, our Science, all say the Earth is a sphere. Unless we pause to challenge those 'proofs' of RET, then there's nothing to debate.
-
Unless we pause to challenge those 'proofs' of RET, then there's nothing to debate.
This has been done several times, to no effect. Both sides claim victory.
And you're doing the same. You quote each and every single proof in a separate post, and then say "Yeah, it's wrong". RE'ers probably applaud, FE'ers probably don't see the point. Result? Nothing.
-
73. Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its "axis," by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath - asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the "rotation" theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.
I infer that this proof involves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum). Again, you cannot prove your position by attacking the other side's experiments. Here the overwhelming evidence does not support the premise. This proof fails for both reasons.
-
74. As to the supposed "motion of the whole Solar system in space," the Astronomer Royal of England once said: "The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I Shall be very glad if anyone can help us out of it." But, since the whole Newtonian scheme is, today, in a most deplorable state of uncertainty - for, whether the Moon goes round the Earth or the Earth round the Moon has, for years, been a matter of "raging" controversy it follows that, root and branch, the whole thing, is wrong; and, all hot from the furnace of philosophical phrensy, we find a glowing proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again, you cannot prove your thesis by attacking the other side's thesis. Furthermore, given the current state of experimental evidence on the motion of the Solar System and the orbit about the common center of mass of the Earth and the Moon, the premise is demonstrably false. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System).
-
75. Considerably more than a million Earths would be required to make up a body like the Sun -the astronomers tell us: and more than 53,000 suns would be wanted to equal the cubic contents of the star Vega. And Vega is a "small star!" And there are countless millions of these stars! And it takes 30,000,000 years for the light of some of those stars to reach us at 12,000,000 miles in a minute! And, says Mr. Proctor, "I think a moderate estimate of the age of the Earth would be 500,000,000 years! "Its weight," says the same individual, "is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,060 tons!" Now, since no human being is able to comprehend these things, the giving of them to the world is an insult - an outrage. And though they have all risen from the one assumption that Earth is a planet, instead of upholding the assumption, they drag it down by the weight of their own absurdity, and leave it lying in the dust - a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Granted that the Universe is an amazing place with such fine structure both microscopic and astronomical, we must reject this proof with its appeal to nature fallacy.
-
I laugh at that last one. Basically he says that the dimensions of the universe we have been born in must be comprehensible to us. Well, humans can't comprehend seeing a billion of something, so I guess there aren't billions of humans, either.
-
76. Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one. And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The opinion of one Mr. J. R. Young does not prove that the Earth is not a globe. (Let's say Grover on tomorrow's Sesame Street said the Earth is a sphere. Would Tom Bishop believe that statement proved that it was so? Of course not!
But let's tarry at bit longer on this proof. Let's consider the word, "represent". From http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/represent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/represent), have: "11 : to correspond to in essence". So Mr. Young may have meant only that for the purposes of a particular journey of limited distance, which is true even on a "spherical surface."
For both reasons, this proof fails.
-
76. Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one. And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
The opinion of one Mr. J. R. Young does not prove that the Earth is not a globe. (Let's say Grover on tomorrow's Sesame Street said the Earth is a sphere. Would Tom Bishop believe that statement proved that it was so? Of course not!
But let's tarry at bit longer on this proof. Let's consider the word, "represent". From http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/represent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/represent), have: "11 : to correspond to in essence". So Mr. Young may have meant only that for the purposes of a particular journey of limited distance, which is true even on a "spherical surface."
For both reasons, this proof fails.
Dude, just give up. I don't have the time to teach you elementary math.
-
Dude, you should change your sig to "24 proofs the Earth is not a globe" until Clocktower finishes ruining your face.
-
Dude, you should change your sig to "24 proofs the Earth is not a globe" until Clocktower finishes ruining your face.
Clocktower has done no harm to the proofs so far. He has the right not to believe them, and he has the right to talk about it on a forum, but that does not invalidate them per se.
-
Dude, you should change your sig to "24 proofs the Earth is not a globe" until Clocktower finishes ruining your face.
Clocktower has done no harm to the proofs so far. He has the right not to believe them, and he has the right to talk about it on a forum, but that does not invalidate them per se.
Done no harm? The 100 proofs don't make sense and he's showing why. This is like Hiroshima in text form.
-
77. "Oh, but if the Earth is a plane, we could go to the edge and tumble over!" is a very common assertion. This is a conclusion that is formed too hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is, what man by his observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor himself says it "seems" to be. flat - and we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it. This is a complete answer to the objection, and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a globe.
First, defending your model against a single critique is never a proof. Proofs stand along. Second, he again fails to support his premise the "we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it." This never was a proof.
-
Done no harm? The 100 proofs don't make sense and he's showing why. This is like Hiroshima in text form.
Incorrect.
-
78. "Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough," is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Finally, some evidence to support a premise. Let's look at this evidence though... Please reference: http://www.answers.com/topic/challenger-expedition (http://www.answers.com/topic/challenger-expedition). Now we've caught Carpenter distorting the evidence to fit his premise. First, HMS Challenger did not complete the circuit of the Southern region. Second, the 69,000 miles includes surveys of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Antarctic Oceans, the voyage from the British Isles and return, as well as return to port in South America. So now we have clear evidence that Carpenter did not check the 'facts' in his premise. This proof only proves that Carpenter distorts evidence for his purposes.
-
79. The remark is common enough that we can see the circle of the Earth if we cross the ocean, and that this proves it to be round. Now, if we tie a donkey to a stake on a level common, and he eats the grass all around him, it is only a circular disc that he has to do with, not a spherical mass. Since, then, circular discs may be seen anywhere - as well from a balloon in the air as from the deck of a ship, or from the standpoint of the donkey, it is a proof that the surface of the Earth is a plane surface, and, therefore, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again Carpenter forgets that a proof stands on its own, defending against a observation that seems, at first, to support RE. Here we have the argument that the view from a ship on the high sea limited to a circle of fixed radius is evidence of RET. I believe that Carpenter is correct in saying that there may be other explanations for this limited view other than RET, but he still fails to prove FET by this defense.
-
80. It is supposed,"in the regular course of the Newtonian theory, that the Earth is, in June, about 190 millions of miles (190,000,000) away from its position in December. Now, since we can, (in middle north latitudes), see the North Star, on looking out of a window that faces it - and out of the very same corner of the very same pane of glass in the very same window - all the year round, it is proof enough for any man in his senses that we have made no motion at all. It is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again, a proof stands alone. Attacking a position of the other side doesn't prove your thesis. Also Carpenter omits the math to show that such motion would be apparent leaving his premise unsupported. For these two reasons, the proof fails.
-
Dude, you should change your sig to "24 proofs the Earth is not a globe" until Clocktower finishes ruining your face.
Clocktower has done no harm to the proofs so far. He has the right not to believe them, and he has the right to talk about it on a forum, but that does not invalidate them per se.
So basically you're saying that you're not willing to argue his points where he believes the proofs fail. No matter what he says, you simply assert that none of the 77 or so proofs have been refuted properly. He has done no harm at all to ANY of these 100 proofs?
-
Dude, you should change your sig to "24 proofs the Earth is not a globe" until Clocktower finishes ruining your face.
Clocktower has done no harm to the proofs so far. He has the right not to believe them, and he has the right to talk about it on a forum, but that does not invalidate them per se.
So basically you're saying that you're not willing to argue his points where he believes the proofs fail. No matter what he says, you simply assert that none of the 77 or so proofs have been refuted properly. He has done no harm at all to ANY of these 100 proofs?
I have attempted to discuss him after he attacked point #1. He dropped the subject without saying a thing, and, frankly, I believe it's pointless reasoning with him. If this wording pleases you: I gave up.
-
Done no harm? The 100 proofs don't make sense and he's showing why. This is like Hiroshima in text form.
Incorrect.
I'm going to assume you are predicting what your next post is going to be.
-
Dude, you should change your sig to "24 proofs the Earth is not a globe" until Clocktower finishes ruining your face.
Clocktower has done no harm to the proofs so far. He has the right not to believe them, and he has the right to talk about it on a forum, but that does not invalidate them per se.
So basically you're saying that you're not willing to argue his points where he believes the proofs fail. No matter what he says, you simply assert that none of the 77 or so proofs have been refuted properly. He has done no harm at all to ANY of these 100 proofs?
I have attempted to discuss him after he attacked point #1. He dropped the subject without saying a thing, and, frankly, I believe it's pointless reasoning with him. If this wording pleases you: I gave up.
It's pointless reasoning with you guys because of your obvious bias that the Earth is flat, therefore anything proving otherwise is wrong.
-
Actually, PizzaPlanets bias comes from the fact that he's a troll.
-
Actually, PizzaPlanets bias comes from the fact that he's a troll.
Any FEer that isn't, in fact, a troll is an idiot for ignoring all the facts proving the earth is round :-X
/inb4ban
-
You gotta try harder than that to be banned.
-
Actually, PizzaPlanets bias comes from the fact that he's a troll.
Any FEer that isn't, in fact, a troll is an idiot for ignoring all the facts proving the earth is round :-X
/inb4ban
There are 100 facts proving the earth isn't round in my sig.
-
Actually, PizzaPlanets bias comes from the fact that he's a troll.
Any FEer that isn't, in fact, a troll is an idiot for ignoring all the facts proving the earth is round :-X
/inb4ban
There are 100 facts proving the earth isn't round in my sig.
Incorrect. There are no more than 20 possible proofs left. But thanks for allowing to point that out!
-
Actually, PizzaPlanets bias comes from the fact that he's a troll.
Any FEer that isn't, in fact, a troll is an idiot for ignoring all the facts proving the earth is round :-X
/inb4ban
There are 100 facts proving the earth isn't round in my sig.
And this thread debunks them 1 by 1.
-
81. Newtonian philosophers teach us that the Moon goes round: the Earth from west to east. But observation - man's most certain mode of gaining knowledge - shows us that the Moon never ceases to move in the opposite direction - from east to west. Since, then, we know that nothing can possibly move in two, opposite directions at the same time, it is a proof that the thing is a big blunder; and, in short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
How very odd that Carpenter can't deal with rotation and revolution at the same time. I guess high school physics with the spinning chair lab wasn't available in his time. His premise here is faulty the Moon very much can appear to travel in one direction due to its revolution about the Earth and in another due to the Earth's rotation. Without his premise, his proof fails. I assume by now that we, having caught Carpenter in fallacies, a lie, and not providing references, can relegate him to the dustbin of history, but let's finish what we started with only 19 left to go.
-
okay i just had to reply here. I am not a believer of flat earth or round earth really. Neither one has shown solid proof but the facts here need not be ignored.
No disrespect Clocktower but 80% of your "disproofs" were, "He has no proof so he is wrong" You barely showed any evidence whatsoever, but what bothers me the most is the calmness of the FE'ers and the "in your face " attitude of those against the 100. You guys honestly sound like a bunch of 12 year olds in the playground trying to prove you are tougher. You disproven little and a 2 line remark against each one of the 100 is not enough. You ARE trying to disprove the 100 correct? Then it is YOU who has to bring the proof! Saying " Eh this is only observation" is not disproving anything. If I seen Bigfoot smash my house then run away is that proof or observation? It happened yet I have no proof but my observation makes it proof for me and until disproved with facts makes it solid. You can't just tell me " eh it was only your observation so you are wrong"
This proof contains an appeal to authority. The Bible is not a reference for scientific study.
This actually angers me. More people have read and studied the bible than any other book in the world by 100x. It is the basis of belief by billions. Much of the world we know today was shaped by it. Your beliefs in Gravity came from a man who actually studied the bible as truth. Everyone from Scientist to Doctors to Archaeologist to RE'ers have used it for study. It is full of facts. It is THE MOST important book of the human race, regardless of your beliefs.
-
okay i just had to reply here. I am not a believer of flat earth or round earth really. Neither one has shown solid proof but the facts here need not be ignored.
No disrespect Clocktower but 80% of your "disproofs" were, "He has no proof so he is wrong" You barely showed any evidence whatsoever, but what bothers me the most is the calmness of the FE'ers and the "in your face " attitude of those against the 100. You guys honestly sound like a bunch of 12 year olds in the playground trying to prove you are tougher. You disproven little and a 2 line remark against each one of the 100 is not enough. You ARE trying to disprove the 100 correct? Then it is YOU who has to bring the proof! Saying " Eh this is only observation" is not disproving anything. If I seen Bigfoot smash my house then run away is that proof or observation? It happened yet I have no proof but my observation makes it proof for me and until disproved with facts makes it solid. You can't just tell me " eh it was only your observation so you are wrong"
This proof contains an appeal to authority. The Bible is not a reference for scientific study.
This actually angers me. More people have read and studied the bible than any other book in the world by 100x. It is the basis of belief by billions. Much of the world we know today was shaped by it. Your beliefs in Gravity came from a man who actually studied the bible as truth. Everyone from Scientist to Doctors to Archaeologist to RE'ers have used it for study. It is full of facts. It is THE MOST important book of the human race, regardless of your beliefs.
Let's start with the concept of a proof. Carpenter held out 100 proofs. He claims that each proofs that the Earth. Now it's up to him to provide the logic, evidence, or both. In critiquing a proof, one need not prove the over side.
Next, let's talk about your affinity for using a non-scientific book as a scientific fact. You're welcome to your opinion about the Bible, but don't expect me, or any scientist to use it for its 'facts'. The appeal to authority applies. The proof is faulty accordingly.
-
There are no proofs that the earth is round or flat by the definition of a proof.
-
There are no proofs that the earth is round or flat by the definition of a proof.
Do tell us our you reached that conclusion. Surely you're not going to attempt to derail the thread on some metaphysical pursuit of what we really know, right?
-
There are no proofs that the earth is round or flat by the definition of a proof.
Mr. Carpenter seems to disagree.
-
okay i just had to reply here. I am not a believer of flat earth or round earth really. Neither one has shown solid proof but the facts here need not be ignored.
No disrespect Clocktower but 80% of your "disproofs" were, "He has no proof so he is wrong" You barely showed any evidence whatsoever, but what bothers me the most is the calmness of the FE'ers and the "in your face " attitude of those against the 100. You guys honestly sound like a bunch of 12 year olds in the playground trying to prove you are tougher. You disproven little and a 2 line remark against each one of the 100 is not enough. You ARE trying to disprove the 100 correct? Then it is YOU who has to bring the proof! Saying " Eh this is only observation" is not disproving anything. If I seen Bigfoot smash my house then run away is that proof or observation? It happened yet I have no proof but my observation makes it proof for me and until disproved with facts makes it solid. You can't just tell me " eh it was only your observation so you are wrong"
This proof contains an appeal to authority. The Bible is not a reference for scientific study.
It is full of facts.
Name 3 facts that CAME FROM the bible.
-
its not a derailment at all.
These "proofs" are almost exclusively ideas or theories or thought experiments. Without real evidence, we can know nothing. Thus, they are a waste.
-
its not a derailment at all.
These "proofs" are almost exclusively ideas or theories or thought experiments. Without real evidence, we can know nothing. Thus, they are a waste.
Please tell us what you mean by "These "proofs"". Are you talking about Carpenter's?
-
82. Astronomers tell us. that the Moon, goes round the Earth in about 28 days. Well, we may see her making her journey round every. day, if we make use of our eyes and these are about the best things we have to use. The Moon falls behind in her daily motion as compared with that of the Sun to the extent of one revolution in the time specified; but that is not making a revolution. Failing to go as fast as other bodies go in one direction does not constitute a going round in the opposite one - as the astronomers would have us believe! And, since all this absurdity has been rendered necessary for no other purpose than to help other absurdities along, it is clear that the astronomers are on the wrong track; and it needs no long train of reasoning to show that we have found a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
#82 restates #81, and does no better. Carpenter fails to understand that relative motion is the sum of various motions. Here we see the Moon move due to both the Earth's rotation and the Moon revolution. Again, he attacks the other side and proves nothing.
-
Please tell us what you mean by "These "proofs"". Are you talking about Carpenter's?
I think it's safe to assume that this is what he meant, yes. You know, that's what this thread is about, and all.
It's pointless reasoning with you guys because of your obvious bias that the Earth is flat, therefore anything proving otherwise is wrong.
Incorrect.
-
83. It has been shown that the meridians are, necessarily, straight lines; and that it is impossible to travel round the Earth in a north or south direction: from which it follows that, in the general acceptation of the word "degree" - the 360th - part of a circle - meridians have no degrees: for no one knows anything of a meridian circle or semicircle, to be thus divided. But astronomers speak of degrees of latitude in the same sense as those of longitude. This, then, is done by assuming that to be true which is not true. Zetetic philosophy does not involve this necessity. This proves that the basis of this philosophy is a sound one, and, in short, is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
First, we start with the premise "[T]he meridians are, necessarily, straight lines." To say that LoFs must be straight is wrong. We've already dealt with this and shown Carpenter's error here. Without its premise the proof fails.
-
85. There are rivers which flow east, west, north, an south - that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth's surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down, taking it for a fact that there really is an "up" and a "down" in nature, whatever form she assumes. But, since rivers do not flow up-hill, and the globular theory requires that they should, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again, you cannot prove your these by attacking the thesis of the other side. Next the proof suffers from a false premise: "f the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill...". Since RET defines down as towards the center of mass of the Earth, RET requires no such thing. Without its premise, the proof fails.
-
86. If the Earth were a globe, rolling and dashing through "space" at the rate of "a hundred miles in five seconds of time," the waters of seas and oceans could not, by any known law, be kept on its surface - the assertion that they could be retained under these circumstances being an outrage upon human understanding and credulity! But as the Earth - that is, the habitable world of dry land - is found to be "standing out of the wafer and in the water" of the "mighty deep," whose circumferential boundary is ice, we may throw the statement back into the teeth of those who make it and flaunt before their faces the flag of reason and common sense, inscribed with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
I believe that Carpenter must be winded, as he seems to be repeating himself all to often now. With a bit of a twist on earlier proofs, he claims here that we would detect our speed, forgetting that motion is relevant. (Of course, most laypeople of the time didn't understand that either.) He is correct in saying though the we should notice that the Earth is spinning, and indeed we do. But without presenting the math behind his claims, he can't show that in RET that "the waters of seas and oceans could not, by any known law, be kept on its surface". We do know that the Earth rotates though for a variety of reasons including Foucault's Pendulum, the need to correct long-range ballistics, and, of course, rocket launches. This proof fails for want of its premise.
-
What happened to 84?
-
What happened to 84?
I don't know... It must the one that's right ;). Seriously, thanks dude. I'll go back and see where it went.
-
84. If we move away from an elevated object on or over a plain or a prairie, the height of the object will apparently diminish as we do so. Now, that which is sufficient to produce this effect on a small scale is sufficient on a large one; and traveling away from an elevated object, no matter how far will cause the appearance in question - the lowering of the object. Our modern theoretical astronomers, however, in the case of the apparent lowering of the North Star as we travel southward, assert that it is evidence that the Earth is globular! But as it is clear that an appearance which is fully, accounted for on the basis of known facts cannot be permitted to figure as evidence in favor of that which is only a supposition, it follows that we rightfully order it to stand down, and make way for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Alas, the premise fails. Polaris is not on or over a plain or prairie, but rather 430 light years from any known prairie. Without the premise, the proof fails. Simply put Polaris is so far away that moving a quarter of the way around the Earth would have no discernible perspective effect.
-
okay i just had to reply here. I am not a believer of flat earth or round earth really. Neither one has shown solid proof but the facts here need not be ignored.
No disrespect Clocktower but 80% of your "disproofs" were, "He has no proof so he is wrong" You barely showed any evidence whatsoever, but what bothers me the most is the calmness of the FE'ers and the "in your face " attitude of those against the 100. You guys honestly sound like a bunch of 12 year olds in the playground trying to prove you are tougher. You disproven little and a 2 line remark against each one of the 100 is not enough. You ARE trying to disprove the 100 correct? Then it is YOU who has to bring the proof! Saying " Eh this is only observation" is not disproving anything. If I seen Bigfoot smash my house then run away is that proof or observation? It happened yet I have no proof but my observation makes it proof for me and until disproved with facts makes it solid. You can't just tell me " eh it was only your observation so you are wrong"
This proof contains an appeal to authority. The Bible is not a reference for scientific study.
It is full of facts.
Name 3 facts that CAME FROM the bible.
really? you are going to waste everyone's time with worthless questions? wow you are definitely the masterdebator
The Bible says that each star is unique.
1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.[1] (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)
The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.
Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.
Genesis 1:11,12
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.[1]
The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.
It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health.[1] The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.
Proverbs 12:4
An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.
Proverbs 14:30
A sound heart is life to the body,
But envy is rottenness to the bones.
Proverbs 15:30
The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
And a good report makes the bones healthy.
Proverbs 16:24
Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.
Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart does good, like medicine,
But a broken spirit dries the bones.
The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.[3]
Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
“And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”
Sooo as you can see REAL scientist HAVE been using the Bible for thousands of years. Just because we have surpassed some of this now does not mean it has not been looked to in the past. If you will insist to deny every fact placed in front of you and not truly agree or disagree in debate form then what is the point? Even if they presented you with solid proof that the world is flat you still would deny it. Your mind is made up and you refuse to truly debate. Instead you follow your own close minded thoughts and ideals and saying no Scientist use the bible is pure proof.
Asking for three facts is just a way of not truly being able to debate a subject. Man didn't you guys go to debate class?
-
And then God read this entire thread, and saw that it was good.
First, I'd like to point out that his proofs are disproofs of the globe, not proofs of th plane. But this is misleading, as he brings up the plane allot.
Secondly, the common theme here is that this guy doesnt really understand physics. The laws of motion and optics are lost on him. Therin, many of the proofs rely on a fallacy of personal incredulity. He doesn't understand that "natural things" are not neccesarily correct. Thirdly, he does what most Zet's do, and pluck out random mechanisms that explain phenomena (the what), but fail to give the how or why things happen.
I've thus far read all of Clocktowers disproofs, and the only complaint I have, is that his position forces a dichotomy, because he is disprooving the globe. However, where you do state the false dichotomy fallacy, it could still be said that he fails at making a complete disproof. he only shows how the premise is wrong, not the conclusion.
-
that this guy doesn't really understand physics. The laws of motion and optics are lost on him.
isn't that the point? If you ever hope to truly discover the world and how it works you must learn to clear your mind. Close out all of what you have been tought and observe with your own mind. You cannot see new things with old eyes. If one person throughout history made a mistake you will never catch it. You are too busy quoting other scientist.
The only way FE or RE will be proven is by those that let everything else go. Obviously science has failed thus far otherwise this forum would not exist. Think with your mind not with Newtons.
Eh like I said in the other thread this place is not a FE society. In a real FE society this thread would have been eaten and spit back up. One guy runs around screaming Newton said so you are wrong and barely one person speaks up. Weak.
One day many of you will learn(most likely as you get older) that believing in something is what makes us human. You believe in a Round Earth, awesome, there is tons of proof of it. These other guys believe in a Flat earth. Even more awesome because they chose to question authority and not eat what has been spoon fed to them. If it was not for these type people we would all still be living in caves.
Do you think Columbus understood Physics? Think he cared? (no I do not think Columbus was the first to sail around the world)
I do believe this is all a guise for RE. These entire forums.
-
One day many of you will learn(most likely as you get older) that believing in something is what makes us human. You believe in a Round Earth, awesome, there is tons of proof of it. These other guys believe in a Flat earth. Even more awesome because they chose to question authority and not eat what has been spoon fed to them. If it was not for these type people we would all still be living in caves.
Oh wait, I think you forgot that humanity believed the earth was flat for a very long period (ty church for that period) then people came along who chose to question authority and not eat what has been spoon fed to them. If it was not for these type people we would all still be living in caves.
So ty you for your insights good sir, but as you can see it doesn't bring us anywhere since both RE'ers and FE'ers question authority, they are not mutually exclusive.
-
87. The theory of a rotating and revolving earth demands at theory to keep the water on its surface; but, as the. theory which is given for this purpose is as much opposed to all human experience as the one which it is intended to uphold, it is an illustration of the miserable makeshifts to which astronomers are compelled to resort, and affords, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
#87 is a repeat of #86. Please see it for the critique.
-
[
really? you are going to waste everyone's time with worthless questions? wow you are definitely the masterdebator
The Bible says that each star is unique.
1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.[1] (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)
What makes you say that,if something differs between the stars,then they are different.
The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.
Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
Earth is not suspended in space.
The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.
Genesis 1:11,12
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.[1]
I'll give you this
The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.
It doesn't really describe much,more of a general guess really.I meanyou get buried and eaten by worms(which live in the ground.)
It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health.[1] The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.
Proverbs 12:4
An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.
Proverbs 14:30
A sound heart is life to the body,
But envy is rottenness to the bones.
Proverbs 15:30
The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
And a good report makes the bones healthy.
Proverbs 16:24
Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.
Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart does good, like medicine,
But a broken spirit dries the bones.
This is due to the fact they heavily believed in things of a spirtual nature causing illness or disease.We know its more of mental thing.
The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.[3]
Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
“And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”
I think people understood that their water was leaving,when they boiled it and the water level wasn't the same.
Asking for three facts is just a way of not truly being able to debate a subject. Man didn't you guys go to debate class?
1.Except that i wasn't debating,i was asking a question.
2.I am not aware of any debating classes in my area,but since you don't know what a debate is i would suggest taking it again.
Responses in Bold.
-
88. If we could - after our minds had once been opened to the light of Truth - conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings could exist, the power - no matter by what name it be called - that would hold them on would, then, necessarily, have to be so constraining and cogent that they could not live; the waters of the oceans would have to be as a solid mass, for motion would be impossible. But we not only exist, but live and move; and the water of the ocean skips and dances like a thing of life and beauty! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Add an appeal to nature fallacy to #86 and you have this attempt of a proof. The proof fails for its fallacy and the reasons listed in #86.
-
89. It is well known that the law, regulating the apparent decrease in the size of objects as we leave them in the distance (or as they leave us) is very different with luminous bodies from what it is in the case of those which are non-luminous. Sail past the light of a small lamp in a row-boat on a dark night, and it will seem to be no smaller when a mile off than it was when close to it. Proctor says, in speaking of the Sun: "his apparent size does not change!" - far off or near. And then he forgets the fact! Mr. Proctor tells us, subsequently, that, if the traveler goes so far south that the North Star appears on the horizon, "the Sun should therefore look much larger" - if the Earth were a plane! Therefore, he argues, "the path followed cannot have been the straight course," - but a curved one. Now, since it is nothing but common scientific trickery to bring forward, as an objection to stand in the way of a plane Earth, the non-appearance of a thing which has never been known to appear at all, it follows that, unless that which appears to be trickery were an accident, it was the only course open to the objector - to trick. (Mr. Proctor, in a letter to the "English Mechanic" for Oct. 20,1871, boasts of having turned a recent convert to the Zetetic Philosophy by telling him that his arguments were all very good, but that "it seems as though [Mark the language!] the sun ought to look nine times larger in summer." And Mr. Proctor conclude's thus: "He saw, indeed, that, in his faith in "Parallax," he had "written himself down an ass.") Well, then: trickery or no trickery on the part of the objector, the objection is a counterfeit - a fraud - no valid objection at all; and it follows that the system which does not purge itself of these things is a rotten system, and the system which advocates, with Mr. Proctor at their head, a weapon to use - the Zetetic philosophy of "Parallax" - is destined to live! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
For all this text, we need only examine the premise: "It is well known that the law, regulating the apparent decrease in the size of objects as we leave them in the distance (or as they leave us) is very different with luminous bodies from what it is in the case of those which are non-luminous." Despite the claim, luminous bodies obey the same Laws of Optics as non-luminous. Perhaps, Carpenter was confused by the concepts of polarization (or glare). Regardless without it premise, this proof fails.
-
90. "Is water level, or is it not?" was a question once asked of an astronomer. "Practically, yes; theoretically, no," was the reply. Now, when theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to do is to drop the theory. (It is getting too late, now to say "So much the worse for the factsI") To drop the theory which supposes a curved surface to standing water is to acknowledge the facts which form the basis of Zetetic philosophy. And since this will have to be done sooner or later, - it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again attacking the other side does not prove your case, unless you have a firm dichotomy. Here Carpenter also uses appeal to nature. That water is locally level but curved with the surface of the Earth may not seem natural to some; however, Carpenter must show that it's not true to justify his proof. Thus yet another proof fails.
-
91. "By actual observation," says Schoedler, in his " Book of Nature," we know that the other heavenly bodies are spherical, hence we unhesitatingly assert that the earth is so also." This is a fair sample of all astronomical reasoning. When a thing is classed amongst "other" things, the likeness between them must first be proven. It does not take a Schroedler to tell us that "heavenly bodies" are spherical, but " the greatest astronomer of the age" will not, now, dare to tell us that THE EARTH is - and attempt to prove it. Now, since no likeness has ever been proven to exist between the Earth and the heavenly bodies, the classification of the Earth with the heavenly bodies is premature - unscientific -false! This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Attacking the argument of the other side does nothing to prove your thesis. Once again, Carpenter's proof fails.
-
92. "There is no inconsistency in supposing that the earth does move round the sun," says the Astronomer Royal of England. Certainly not, when theoretical astronomy is all supposition together! The inconsistency is in teaching the world that the thing supposed is a fact. Since, then, the "motion" of the Earth is supposition only - since, indeed, it is necessary to suppose it at all - it is plain that it is a fiction and not a fact; and, since "mobility" and "sphericity" stand or fall together, we have before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
As in #91, attacking a conclusion of the other side does not prove your thesis. Carpenter offers no proof here that the Earth doesn't move. (Indeed in FET here it does accelerate continuously.) Except for an appeal to nature, he does not seem to have any argument here. For want a supported premise, for a fallacy, and more, this proof fails.
-
93, We have seen that astronomers - to give us a level surface on which to live - have cut off one-half of the "globe" in a certain picture in their books. [See page 6.] Now, astronomers having done this, one-half of the substance of their "spherical theory" is given up! Since, then, the theory must stand or fall in its entirety, it has really fallen when the half is gone. Nothing remains, then, but a plane Earth, which is, of course, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Carpenter attacks a straw-man. Showing diagrams of hemisphere is not "to give us a level surface on which to live". Attacking a straw-man, this proof fails.
-
94. In " Cornell's Geography" there is an "Illustrated proof of the Form of the Earth," A curved line on which is represented a ship in four positions, as she sails away from an observer, is an arc of 72 degrees, or one-fifth of the supposed circumference of the "globe" - about 5,000 miles. Ten, such ships as those which are given in the picture would reach the full length of the "arc," making 500 miles as the length of the ship, The man in the picture, who is watching the ship as she sails away, is about 200 miles high; and the tower, from which he takes an elevated view, at least 600 miles high. These are the proportions, then, of men, towers, arid ships which are necessary in order to see a ship, in her different positions, as she "rounds the curve" of the "great hill of water" over which she is supposed to be sailing: for, it must be remembered that this supposed "proof" depends upon lines and angles of vision which, if enlarged, would still retain their characteristics. Now, since ships are not built 500 miles long, with masts in proportion, and men are not quite 200 miles high, it is not what it is said to be - a proof of rotundity - but, either an ignorant farce or a cruel piece of deception. In short, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again, attacking the explanation of the other side doesn't prove your thesis. Drawing involving the spherical Earth often cannot be entirely to scale. To extrapolate that they are is building a straw-man. Carpenter does nothing to convinces us that the Earth in not a globe here, and his proof #94 fails.
-
95. In "Cornell's Intermediate Geography," (1881) page 12, is an "Illustration of the Natural Divisions of Land and Water." This illustration is so nicely drawn that it affords, at once, a striking proof that Earth is a plane. It is true to nature, and bears the stamp of no astronomer-artist. It is a pictorial proof that Earth is not a globe.
One drawing cannot be a proof. That a drawing must fit into a book may be the reason for its appearance. Furthermore, Carpenter uses the appeal to nature fallacy ("It is true to nature ...") again. For these reasons, proof #95 fails.
-
96. If we refer to the diagram in "Cornell's Geography," page 4, and notice the ship in its position the most remote from the observer, we shall find that, though it is about 4,000 miles away, it is the same size as the ship that is nearest to him, distant about 700 miles! This a an illustration of the way in which astronomers ignore the laws of perspective. This course is necessary, or they would be compelled to lay bare the fallacy of their dogmas. In short, there is, in this matter, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again, attacking an illustration of the other side cannot prove your thesis. Yes, the drawing might be better with perspective effects noted. The size of the ship was probably not the point of the illustration, so Carpenter may be attacking yet another straw-man. Carpenter does nothing to show that ships don't disappear hull first as they move out to sea from the observer. Carpenter provides no reasons to support, let alone prove, his thesis; hence #96 fails.
-
97. Mr. Hind, the English astronomer, says - "The simplicity, with which the seasons are explained by the revolution of the Earth in her orbit and the obliquity of the ecliptic, may certainly be adduced as a strong presumptive proof of the correctness" - of the Newtonian theory; "for on no other rational suppositions with respect to the relations of the Earth and Sun, can these and other as well-known phenomena, be accounted for." But, as true philosophy has no "suppositions" at all - and has nothing to do with, "suppositions" - and the phenomena spoken of are thoroughly explained by facts, the "presumptive proof" falls to the ground, covered with the ridicule it the dust of Mr. Hind's "rational suppositions" we are standing before us a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Again, you cannot prove your thesis by attacking the problems with the other side's work. Here, Mr. Hind makes a convincing case that given a the assumptions of the time for RET that is explains the seasons better than FET does. To say that because RET doesn't have all of the answers you've proven FET is disingenuous. This is not a proof.
-
98. Mr Hind speaks of the astronomer watching a star as it is carried across the telescope by the diurnal revolution of the Earth." Now, this is nothing but downright absurdity. No motion of the Earth could possibly carry a star across a telescope or anything else. If the star is carried across anything at all, it is the star that moves, not the thing across which it is carried! Besides, the idea that the Earth, if it were a globe, could possibly move in an orbit of nearly 600,000,000 of miles with such exactitude that the cross-hairs in a telescope fixed on its surface would appear to glide gently over a star "millions of millions" of miles away is simply monstrous; whereas, with a FIXED telescope, it matters not the distance of the stars, though we suppose them to be as far off as the astronomer supposes them to be; for, as Mr. Proctor himself says, "the further away they are, the less they will seem to shift." Why, in the name of common sense, should observers have to fix their telescopes on solid stone bases so that they should not move a hair's-breadth, - if the Earth on which they fix them move at the rate of nineteen miles in a second? Indeed, to believe that Mr. Proctor's mass of "six thousand million million million tons" is "rolling, surging, flying, darting on through space for ever" with a velocity compared with which a shot from a cannon is a "very slow coach," with such unerring accuracy that a telescope fixed on granite pillars in an observatory will not enable a lynx-eyed astronomer to detect a variation in its onward motion of the thousandth part of a hair's-breadth is to conceive a miracle compared with which all the miracles on record put together would sink into utter insignificance. Captain R. J. Morrison, the late compiler of "Zadkeil's Almanac;" says: "We declare that this "motion" is all mere 'bosh'; and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined with an eye that seeks for TRUTH only, mere nonsense, and childish absurdity. "Since, then, these absurd theories are of no use to men in their senses, and since there is no necessity for anything of the kind in Zetetic philosophy, it is a "strong presumptive proof" - as Mr. Hind would say that the Zetetic philosophy is true, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe..
This may be longest the Carpenter's Proofs. It's difficult to follow and seems to miss several points. Stars are "carried" across the sky by the diurnal rotation of the Earth, as evidenced by most any clear night's observations. That they would move across a telescopes view is not surprising and regularly viewed. Carpenter presents no evidence to the contrary. We've already pointed out Carpenter's errors regarding the effects of rotations and relative nature of motion, so we won't repeat that here. I don't know of Captain R. J. Morrison or the "Zadkeil's Almanac", so I can't verify his opinion of this "motion". I do see that: Richard James Morrison (15 June 1795 – 5 April 1874) was an English astrologer, commonly known by his pseudonym Zadkiel.
Morrison served in the Royal Navy, but resigned with the rank of lieutenant in 1829. He then devoted himself to the study of astrology, and in 1831 issued The Herald of Astrology, subsequently known as Zadkiel's Almanac. In this annual pamphlet Morrison, over the signature Zadkiel Tao-Sze, published predictions of the chief events of the coming year.
from Wikipedia that he was an astrologer and never a captain. I'd have to say that if you have to inflate the rank of source and rely on a source in a questionable occupation, you're not doing very well. Once again, with no evidence to support its premise and relying on a poor resource, this proof is faulty.
-
99. Mr. Hind speaks of two great mathematicians differing only fifty-five yards in their estimate of the Earth's diameter. Why, Sir John Herschel, in his celebrated work, cuts off 480 miles of the same thing to get "round numbers!" This is like splitting a hair on one side of the bead and shaving all the hair off on the other! Oh, "science!" Can there be any truth in a science like this? All the exactitude in astronomy is in Practical astronomy - not Theoretical. Centuries of observation have made practical astronomy a noble art and science, based - as we have a thousand times proved it to be - on a fixed Earth; and we denounce this pretended exactitude on one side and the reckless indifference to figures on the other as the basest trash, and take from it a proof that the "science" which tolerates it is a false - instead of being an "exact" - science, and we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Again you don't prove your thesis by attacking the evidence supporting the other side. Next, the precision of estimates is based on the precision of the measurements and the method the estimate uses. The concept of significant digits eludes Mr. Carpenter. He shows nothing questionable about Sir John Herschel's estimate, in that rounding is correct when wanting for significance in those places. Once again there is no proof here.
-
100. The Sun, as he travels round over the surface of the Earth, brings "noon" to all places on the successive meridians which he crosses: his journey being made in a westerly direction, places east of the Sun's position have had their noon, whilst places to the west of the Sun's position have still to get it. Therefore, if we travel easterly, we arrive at those parts of the Earth where "time" is more advanced, the watch in our pocket has to be "put on"or we may be said to "gain time." If, on the other hand, we travel westerly, we arrive at places where it is still "morning," the watch has to be "put back," and it may be said that we "lose time." But, if we travel easterly so as to cross the 180th meridian, there is a loss, there, of a day, which will neutralize the gain of a whole circumnavigation; and, if we travel westerly, and cross the same meridian, we experience the gain of a day, which will compensate for the loss during a complete circumnavigation in that direction. The fact of losing or gaining time in sailing round the world, then, instead of being evidence of the Earth's "rotundity," as it is imagined to be, is, in its practical exemplification, an everlasting proof that the Earth is not a globe.
#100 is probably the most accurate premise yet. I have no argument with it; however, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is a non sequitur. This is not a proof.
And so, all 100 have failed.
-
So, clocktower, will you continue your debate about #1? I really wanted to see how far FEs could draw that debate out even though its pretty obvious that #1 isn't a "proof" of anything.
-
It is full of facts.
Name 3 facts that CAME FROM the bible.
I concur, I also want some facts, not some general babbling or prophesies or something like that because everyone knows that your bible sentences can be interpreted in different ways. They are just so general.
I have attempted to discuss him after he attacked point #1. He dropped the subject without saying a thing, and, frankly, I believe it's pointless reasoning with him. If this wording pleases you: I gave up.
You did not attempt to discuss point #1. You started to argue about words and and grammar and the use of the word aeronaut and all else but nothing about discussion of the meaning of point #1. So, don't blame others if you just troll.
Clocktower has done no harm to the proofs so far. He has the right not to believe them, and he has the right to talk about it on a forum, but that does not invalidate them per se.
He doesn't try do invalidate them. He just shows that they are fallacies or have totally false or missing premises and so on. And you can't actually argue for any of these Carpenters claims. As seen from point #1 you don't have any actual arguments but just start nitpicking about words and grammar.
-
So, clocktower, will you continue your debate about #1? I really wanted to see how far FEs could draw that debate out even though its pretty obvious that #1 isn't a "proof" of anything.
I'm sure that many REers will be happy to debate any of our points, myself included.
-
I have attempted to discuss him after he attacked point #1. He dropped the subject without saying a thing, and, frankly, I believe it's pointless reasoning with him. If this wording pleases you: I gave up.
You did not attempt to discuss point #1. You started to argue about words and and grammar and the use of the word aeronaut and all else but nothing about discussion of the meaning of point #1. So, don't blame others if you just troll.
Clocktower has done no harm to the proofs so far. He has the right not to believe them, and he has the right to talk about it on a forum, but that does not invalidate them per se.
He doesn't try do invalidate them. He just shows that they are fallacies or have totally false or missing premises and so on. And you can't actually argue for any of these Carpenters claims. As seen from point #1 you don't have any actual arguments but just start nitpicking about words and grammar.
Very much the opposite. It is him who nitpicks on words and grammar. That's what he bases his not-disproving on. I merely pointed this out, but he never addressed the issue so I gave up.
-
Very much the opposite. It is him who nitpicks on words and grammar. That's what he bases his not-disproving on. I merely pointed this out, but he never addressed the issue so I gave up.
Sorry, I read the beginning of the thread again and it was definitely you who started to nitpick about aeronaut and other things. There is nothing about grammar at Clocktowers first post. If there is, please quote it and explain. And again. He doesn't disprove anything. He just shows that they are fallacies or have totally false or missing premises and so on. Just stop with this disproving thing, it just shows that you don't understand at all what this thread is about.
-
disproving
I very clearly called it not-disproving.
it was definitely you who started to nitpick about aeronaut and other things.
Very incorrect.
And here's the quote
Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not.
He's nitpicking on the word "aeronaut" which is completely irrelevant to the topic. He also uses this as the main reason to refute #1. The rest of this tirade is pretty much the same. "He used the wrong word, so he must be wrong", "I didn't check it myself, so it must be wrong", "I don't understand, so it's wrong".
Duh, I'm outta here.
-
This thread belongs in RM. 100 proofs have not failed, they have just been poked with a plastic knife.
-
disproving
I very clearly called it not-disproving.
it was definitely you who started to nitpick about aeronaut and other things.
Very incorrect.
And here's the quote
Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not.
He's nitpicking on the word "aeronaut" which is completely irrelevant to the topic. He also uses this as the main reason to refute #1. The rest of this tirade is pretty much the same. "He used the wrong word, so he must be wrong", "I didn't check it myself, so it must be wrong", "I don't understand, so it's wrong".
Duh, I'm outta here.
While I rather glad that you're "outta here", I have to note that saying "Did R go and talk with every aeronaut?" does not in any way nitpick about the word "aeronaut" as you claim. I'm holding his feet to the fire and his claim the every aeronaut sees something. He can't make that claim (unless he goes and talks with every one of them.)
-
This thread belongs in RM. 100 proofs have not failed, they have just been poked with a plastic knife.
I have to agree that I used very little effort, but I didn't want to use excessive force now, did I?
-
While I am rather glad that you're "outta here"
Might as well stay.
saying "Did R go and talk with every aeronaut?" does not in any way nitpick about the word "aeronaut"
Incorrect.
He can't make that claim (unless he goes and talks with every one of them.)
Following that logic, you can't make the claim that a person can see the sky being blue unless you talk to each and every one of them. And guess what? Not every person will see the sky being blue, considering the fact that some won't see it at all. The "proof" of the fact that the sky is blue fails because it contains an unsupported premise.
-
disproving
I very clearly called it not-disproving.
So, again you start picking about words. Whatever it is, disproving or not-disproving, this thread has nothing to do with anything which has "proving" in it. You repeatedly demonstrate that you fail to understand the thread. I am also quite glad that you are "outta here".
it was definitely you who started to nitpick about aeronaut and other things.
Very incorrect.
Totally correct.
And here's the quote
Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not.
He's nitpicking on the word "aeronaut" which is completely irrelevant to the topic.
He doesn't nitpick about the word "aeronaut" in any way. It's the question. And the question which type have been asked many and many times by FEesrs. Did you go and asked from every pilot, did you go and checked every something did you... It's 100% not nitpicking but just a question. And quite a valid question.
-
disproving
I very clearly called it not-disproving.
So, again you start picking about words. Whatever it is, disproving or not-disproving, this thread has nothing to do with anything which has "proving" in it. You repeatedly demonstrate that you fail to understand the thread. I am also quite glad that you are "outta here".
The absolute opposite. I, for one, don't care how you call what ClockTower is attempting to do here. Invalidating, refuting, disproving, meh. Call it eating corndogs if it suits you, just stop bothering me with words. I really don't understand why you claim that I am the one nitpicking here.
it was definitely you who started to nitpick about aeronaut and other things.
Very incorrect.
Totally correct.
Not at all.
He doesn't nitpick about the word "aeronaut" in any way. It's the question. And the question which type have been asked many and many times by FEesrs. Did you go and asked from every pilot, did you go and checked every something did you... It's 100% not nitpicking but just a question. And quite a valid question.
It is a question, and that's absolutely fine. He also answers it, and is likely to be correct in his answer. However, using this to eat corndogs is completely invalid, because it doesn't apply to the premise if the wording is corrected, which is what I suggested.
-
He can't make that claim (unless he goes and talks with every one of them.)
Following that logic, you can't make the claim that a person can see the sky being blue unless you talk to each and every one of them. And guess what? Not every person will see the sky being blue, considering the fact that some won't see it at all. The "proof" of the fact that the sky is blue fails because it contains an unsupported premise.
You're absolutely right. If I claim that everyone can see that the sky is blue, I'm a fool. If I claim that I've proven that the sky is blue because every one has seen that it is blue, then I'm twice the fool. Hence I claim that Carpenter fails to prove his thesis. Got it now, I hope?
-
disproving
I very clearly called it not-disproving.
So, again you start picking about words. Whatever it is, disproving or not-disproving, this thread has nothing to do with anything which has "proving" in it. You repeatedly demonstrate that you fail to understand the thread. I am also quite glad that you are "outta here".
The absolute opposite. I, for one, don't care how you call what ClockTower is attempting to do here. Invalidating, refuting, disproving, meh. Call it eating corndogs if it suits you, just stop bothering me with words. I really don't understand why you claim that I am the one nitpicking here.
I get it, you don''t care about what the topic is, you just troll. Glad that you admit that.
He doesn't nitpick about the word "aeronaut" in any way. It's the question. And the question which type have been asked many and many times by FEesrs. Did you go and asked from every pilot, did you go and checked every something did you... It's 100% not nitpicking but just a question. And quite a valid question.
It is a question, and that's absolutely fine. He also answers it, and is likely to be correct in his answer. However, using this to eat corndogs is completely invalid, because it doesn't apply to the premise if the wording is corrected, which is what I suggested.
You are totally incorrect again. And again you start speaking about grammar. However you rearrange the words you don't prove anything with first claim. Because it's just not a proof and that's all. And this was also demonstrated. If you have any evidence that shows that all aeronauts see at all levels of altitude flat earth then please, do so. Otherwise just stop complaining about grammar and words.
If you are interested why altitudes are important then please read Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth (http://thulescientific.com/Lynch Curvature 2008.pdf)
-
that this guy doesn't really understand physics. The laws of motion and optics are lost on him.
isn't that the point? If you ever hope to truly discover the world and how it works you must learn to clear your mind. Close out all of what you have been tought and observe with your own mind. You cannot see new things with old eyes. If one person throughout history made a mistake you will never catch it. You are too busy quoting other scientist.
So the point of zeteticism, is to ignore other’s reality and substitute your own? The laws of optics and motion are very good approximates, and should be common sense. And what you said is ridiculous. Do you expect us to reinvent the wheel for everything? That’s impossible. That’s why we have a scientific community. Also, you’re assertion that nothing changes in science is blatantly wrong. Things are being improved on a weekly basis.
The only way FE or RE will be proven is by those that let everything else go. Obviously science has failed thus far otherwise this forum would not exist. Think with your mind not with Newtons.
Eh like I said in the other thread this place is not a FE society. In a real FE society this thread would have been eaten and spit back up. One guy runs around screaming Newton said so you are wrong and barely one person speaks up. Weak.
To let everything go? I’m sorry, but I don’t have time to rediscover physics, chemistry, and biology. And your mind can deceive you, see optical illusions. Also what is common sense, isn’t always what is right. It’s not weak, it is not the man we follow, but rather his ideas that have been verified so many times its not even funny. Most highschool physics classes offer experimental proof of the laws of motion. If you need more evidence, you need to LURK MOAR.
[/quote]
One day many of you will learn(most likely as you get older) that believing in something is what makes us human. You believe in a Round Earth, awesome, there is tons of proof of it. These other guys believe in a Flat earth. Even more awesome because they chose to question authority and not eat what has been spoon fed to them. If it was not for these type people we would all still be living in caves.
Do you think Columbus understood Physics? Think he cared? (no I do not think Columbus was the first to sail around the world)
I do believe this is all a guise for RE. These entire forums.
[/quote]
Yay contradicting the norm is fun!!! Let’s be modernists and stick it to the man! Authority is some evil entity, and therefore should be denied.
/sarcasm
The scientific community isn’t one person, but many people. If you want to avoid all of it, more power to you. But in the end, if your pseudoscience leads to no reliable constructions, inventions, or predictions, then we know in the end who is the victor.
-
ITT: FE'ers evacuating their bowels upon their own pants.
This thread belongs in RM. 100 proofs have not failed, they have just been poked with a plastic knife.
you mad.
you mad that your pride and joy was destroyed by on person in the span of a few days. I've read all 100 of CT's disproofs, and although he does make a few mistakes, in everysingle one, he provides sufficient debunk of the proof. If you read the proofs, you will see that all of them are wrong.
@PP
Its been a misunderstanding, don't you see?
ClockTower was just saying that, because Carpenter claims that the aeronaut can see the earth as flat, doesn't mean that it IS.
-
ITT: FE'ers evacuating their bowels upon their own pants.
This thread belongs in RM. 100 proofs have not failed, they have just been poked with a plastic knife.
you mad.
you mad that your pride and joy was destroyed by on person in the span of a few days. I've read all 100 of CT's disproofs, and although he does make a few mistakes, in everysingle one, he provides sufficient debunk of the proof. If you read the proofs, you will see that all of them are wrong.
@PP
Its been a misunderstanding, don't you see?
ClockTower was just saying that, because Carpenter claims that the aeronaut can see the earth as flat, doesn't mean that it IS.
All this proves is that you are as ignorant as ClockTower.
-
My favorite "proof" is the one that goes like "If the earth was round, walls of buildings would not be parallel."
-
ITT: FE'ers evacuating their bowels upon their own pants.
This thread belongs in RM. 100 proofs have not failed, they have just been poked with a plastic knife.
you mad.
you mad that your pride and joy was destroyed by on person in the span of a few days. I've read all 100 of CT's disproofs, and although he does make a few mistakes, in everysingle one, he provides sufficient debunk of the proof. If you read the proofs, you will see that all of them are wrong.
@PP
Its been a misunderstanding, don't you see?
ClockTower was just saying that, because Carpenter claims that the aeronaut can see the earth as flat, doesn't mean that it IS.
All this proves is that you are as ignorant as ClockTower.
<blush> My, thank you for the kind words. To be put in the same category of VoR is quite the compliment.
-
disproving
I very clearly called it not-disproving.
So, again you start picking about words. Whatever it is, disproving or not-disproving, this thread has nothing to do with anything which has "proving" in it. You repeatedly demonstrate that you fail to understand the thread. I am also quite glad that you are "outta here".
The absolute opposite. I, for one, don't care how you call what ClockTower is attempting to do here. Invalidating, refuting, disproving, meh. Call it eating corndogs if it suits you, just stop bothering me with words. I really don't understand why you claim that I am the one nitpicking here.
I get it, you don''t care about what the topic is, you just troll. Glad that you admit that.
Where did you get that from? All I said is that I do not care how you call ClockTower's activity, as opposed to your claim that it is crucial to me and that I am nitpicking on the words. It was bad when I called it disproving, very bad when I referred to it as invalidating, not-disproving apparently doesn't work either. So yeah, now I'm saying ClockTower is eating corndogs.
@PP
Its been a misunderstanding, don't you see?
ClockTower was just saying that, because Carpenter claims that the aeronaut can see the earth as flat, doesn't mean that it IS.
That sounds much more logical to me. I would disagree that it invalidates the original claim eats corndogs, but I do agree with what you said.
-
ITT: FE'ers evacuating their bowels upon their own pants.
This thread belongs in RM. 100 proofs have not failed, they have just been poked with a plastic knife.
you mad.
you mad that your pride and joy was destroyed by on person in the span of a few days. I've read all 100 of CT's disproofs, and although he does make a few mistakes, in everysingle one, he provides sufficient debunk of the proof. If you read the proofs, you will see that all of them are wrong.
@PP
Its been a misunderstanding, don't you see?
ClockTower was just saying that, because Carpenter claims that the aeronaut can see the earth as flat, doesn't mean that it IS.
All this proves is that you are as ignorant as ClockTower.
Or that I am as troll resistant
-
This thread belongs in RM. 100 proofs have not failed, they have just been poked with a plastic knife.
This is a debate and should be kept where it is. If you are too stupid/biased/both to realize how wrong these "proofs" are, then that's your own damn problem. If threads that shouldn't get moved get moved, then what would encourage new people who might be stupid enough to believe want to post?
-
disproving
I very clearly called it not-disproving.
So, again you start picking about words. Whatever it is, disproving or not-disproving, this thread has nothing to do with anything which has "proving" in it. You repeatedly demonstrate that you fail to understand the thread. I am also quite glad that you are "outta here".
The absolute opposite. I, for one, don't care how you call what ClockTower is attempting to do here. Invalidating, refuting, disproving, meh. Call it eating corndogs if it suits you, just stop bothering me with words. I really don't understand why you claim that I am the one nitpicking here.
I get it, you don''t care about what the topic is, you just troll. Glad that you admit that.
Where did you get that from? All I said is that I do not care how you call ClockTower's activity, as opposed to your claim that it is crucial to me and that I am nitpicking on the words. It was bad when I called it disproving, very bad when I referred to it as invalidating, not-disproving apparently doesn't work either. So yeah, now I'm saying ClockTower is eating corndogs.
@PP
Its been a misunderstanding, don't you see?
ClockTower was just saying that, because Carpenter claims that the aeronaut can see the earth as flat, doesn't mean that it IS.
That sounds much more logical to me. I would disagree that it invalidates the original claim eats corndogs, but I do agree with what you said.
That was the premise of proof one. without the premise, the proof is not good. now granted, this doesn't disprove FE, but it does debunk Carpenter's 1st proof, which was CT's only intention
-
I get it, you don''t care about what the topic is, you just troll. Glad that you admit that.
Where did you get that from? All I said is that I do not care how you call ClockTower's activity, as opposed to your claim that it is crucial to me and that I am nitpicking on the words. It was bad when I called it disproving, very bad when I referred to it as invalidating, not-disproving apparently doesn't work either. So yeah, now I'm saying ClockTower is eating corndogs.
Yes, you are nitpicking about words, these are the only ones that matter to you. You don't talk about anything else and for you doesn't matter what about that thread is. You just talk about words. If you would care busting Cloctower and arguing for Carpenter then you would show us that there is some basis in the claim that all aeronauts see at all levels of altitude the flat earth. But you don't. You ignore that and start again talk about the words and what they mean. And that is trolling. So, please. Start talking about the first claim and how you support it, not what the words meant to you.
-
I get it, you don''t care about what the topic is, you just troll. Glad that you admit that.
Where did you get that from? All I said is that I do not care how you call ClockTower's activity, as opposed to your claim that it is crucial to me and that I am nitpicking on the words. It was bad when I called it disproving, very bad when I referred to it as invalidating, not-disproving apparently doesn't work either. So yeah, now I'm saying ClockTower is eating corndogs.
Yes, you are nitpicking about words, these are the only ones that matter to you. You don't talk about anything else and for you doesn't matter what about that thread is. You just talk about words. If you would care busting Cloctower and arguing for Carpenter then you would show us that there is some basis in the claim that all aeronauts see at all levels of altitude the flat earth. But you don't. You ignore that and start again talk about the words and what they mean. And that is trolling. So, please. Start talking about the first claim and how you support it, not what the words meant to you.
Oh, okay, so now you know my intentions better than I do. Fair enough. Plus, I've already done what you asked for, and I'm no longer awaiting response, because I am fairly confident that there isn't one. As stated many times before, I feel no further need to debate this.
-
Plus, I've already done what you asked for, and I'm no longer awaiting response, because I am fairly confident that there isn't one. As stated many times before, I feel no further need to debate this.
Debate what? Where did you provide some evidence that all who go up to whatever altitude see always flat earth? Nowhere. So, yes, You just can't debate anything more here than grammar and semantics and it's better without this kind of debate.
-
Plus, I've already done what you asked for, and I'm no longer awaiting response, because I am fairly confident that there isn't one. As stated many times before, I feel no further need to debate this.
Debate what? Where did you provide some evidence that all who go up to whatever altitude see always flat earth? Nowhere. So, yes, You just can't debate anything more here than grammar and semantics and it's better without this kind of debate.
What?
That was the premise of proof one. without the premise, the proof is not good. now granted, this doesn't disprove FE, but it does debunk Carpenter's 1st proof, which was CT's only intention
That's fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I still think it's not really the best of possible approaches, but it's justifiable that way.
-
Plus, I've already done what you asked for, and I'm no longer awaiting response, because I am fairly confident that there isn't one. As stated many times before, I feel no further need to debate this.
Debate what? Where did you provide some evidence that all who go up to whatever altitude see always flat earth? Nowhere. So, yes, You just can't debate anything more here than grammar and semantics and it's better without this kind of debate.
What?
That was the premise of proof one. without the premise, the proof is not good. now granted, this doesn't disprove FE, but it does debunk Carpenter's 1st proof, which was CT's only intention
That's fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I still think it's not really the best of possible approaches, but it's justifiable that way.
and with proof one gone, feel free to argue with debunk #2
-
Much of what Carpenter says is correct.
- No aeronaut in the 1800's saw curvature to the earth.
- The concept of "Gravity" is absurd and unproven. Newton never gave a mechanism for his absurd theory. "Gravitons" have never been discovered, and the bending of space has never been demonstrated true.
- There are various experiments which back up Carpenter's claim of viewing across distances which should be unviewable on a round world.
- It does not follow that the Earth is round because Jupiter is round.
- Clearly, it's the stars which move across the sky. The pretense in astronomical observation is that the stars are moving, not that the earth is moving. The assumption that the earth is moving is fallacious an without merit. The burden is on globularists to demonstrate their idea correct. We can visibly see that the stars are moving.
- Fewer species of plant life in the southern hemisphere does suggest that the earth is a plane, the sun circling around the North Pole. Indeed, it is said that less than 10% of the human population even lives in the southern hemisphere, the majority of life taking place above the equator.
Why should this be if the environments are perfectly equal?
- The pretense of human reality is that we exist on a flat plane with astronomical bodies passing by overhead. The idea that the earth is a ball whirling and twirling through space at immeasurable speeds is absurd and undemonstrated.
The burden of evidence is on the absurdists about their crackpot ideas about a ball earth.
-
It's really Easy kids, What time of day is it on the opposite side of the planet LOL.. According to flat earth, the sun at set would be a sunset for the entire planet at the same time.. A total eclipse would be an eclipse for the entire planet.. Sorry, but the logic of this discussion is as about as unintelligent as it gets. And the sun wouldn't be moving over from east to west either only to arise in the east once again. I shouldn't be able to stand in Japan and have it be midnight while the sun is high in the sky back home in Minnesota...Nor would the stars magically be different. When you people can actually talk like you have an education, you might actually figure out what reality is and why the Earth is in fact a Sphere.
-
Much of what Carpenter says is correct.
- No aeronaut in the 1800's saw curvature to the earth.
No aeronaut in the 1800s could fly high enough to see the curvature of the earth.
- The concept of "Gravity" is absurd and unproven. Newton never gave a mechanism for his absurd theory. "Gravitons" have never been discovered, and the bending of space has never been demonstrated true.
The concept of gravity is no more absurd, or less proven, than the concept of universal acceleration.
- There are various experiments which back up Carpenter's claim of viewing across distances which should be unviewable on a round world.
That is unless you take into account various atmospheric refractive phenomena which could explain such observations.
- Clearly, it's the stars which move across the sky. The presence in astronomical observation is that the stars are moving, not that the earth is moving. The assumption that the stars are moving is fallacious an without merit. The burden is on globularists to demonstrate their idea correct. We can visibly see that the stars are moving.
Please read up on stellar aberration: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm
- Fewer species plant life in the southern hemisphere does suggest that the earth is a plane, the sun circling around the North Pole.
Or, it could suggest that the southern hemisphere has not been as thoroughly explored as the norther hemisphere.
Indeed, it is said that less than 10% of the human population even lives in the southern hemisphere, the majority of life taking place above the equator.
Why should this be if the environments are perfectly equal?
Appeal to popularity?
- The pretense of human reality is that we exist on a flat plane with astronomical bodies passing by overhead. The idea that the earth is a ball whirling and twirling to space at immeasurable speeds is absurd and undemonstrated.
No more absurd that the arrogance of believing that the earth is the center of the universe.
-
Much of what Carpenter says is correct.
- No aeronaut in the 1800's saw curvature to the earth.
- The concept of "Gravity" is absurd and unproven. Newton never gave a mechanism for his absurd theory. "Gravitons" have never been discovered, and the bending of space has never been demonstrated true.
- There are various experiments which back up Carpenter's claim of viewing across distances which should be unviewable on a round world.
- It does not follow that the Earth is round because Jupiter is round.
- Clearly, it's the stars which move across the sky. The presence in astronomical observation is that the stars are moving, not that the earth is moving. The assumption that the stars are moving is fallacious an without merit. The burden is on globularists to demonstrate their idea correct. We can visibly see that the stars are moving.
- Fewer species plant life in the southern hemisphere does suggest that the earth is a plane, the sun circling around the North Pole. Indeed, it is said that less than 10% of the human population even lives in the southern hemisphere, the majority of life taking place above the equator.
Why should this be if the environments are perfectly equal?
- The pretense of human reality is that we exist on a flat plane with astronomical bodies passing by overhead. The idea that the earth is a ball whirling and twirling to space at immeasurable speeds is absurd and undemonstrated.
The burden of evidence is on the absurdists about their crackpot ideas about a ball earth.
You had to be that guy.
which of the above points disprove the roundness of the earth??
Did robow interview ever astronaut? and just because none so far had seen it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. i.e. just because we haven't seen aliens, doesn't mean they don't exist.
And your thing on gravity is just a fallacy of personal incredulity.
How is it any more absurd than electric force, before the photon was discovered to be that force bearer?
And how exactly has space not been demonstrated to be curved. the proof is in gravitational lensing.
And there are several modern day claims which debunk that with much better equipment.
It follows that if a big mass turns into a sphere, another big mass will too.
And no, it is clear that we are rotating, see pendulum. lrn2relative motion.
And the fact that humans live on one hemisphere mainly, you don't think might be because LANDMASSES ARE MOSTLY ON THE NORTH HEMISPHERE?
And you give an appeal to nature. it is natural that we live on a geoid and that we rotate along the sun. I'm afraid that it is your theory that is crackpot.
-
Much of what Carpenter says is correct.
- No aeronaut in the 1800's saw curvature to the earth.
It may be the only correct thing in Carpenters list at that time, but we are not at 1800's anymore. And rest of it wasn't correct at 1800's and it isn't correct now. When you upgrade your education from middle ages level to 21 century level?
-
What? They had boeings in the 18th century? :O
-
Much of what Carpenter says is correct.
- No aeronaut in the 1800's saw curvature to the earth.
It may be the only correct thing in Carpenters list at that time, but we are not at 1800's anymore. And rest of it wasn't correct at 1800's and it isn't correct now. When you upgrade your education from middle ages level to 21 century level?
he clearly trolling, or insane. Don't listen to him or let him derail the thread
Remember, this is the guy who thinks that photosynthesis is an "idiotic myth"
-
Much of what Carpenter says is correct.
- No aeronaut in the 1800's saw curvature to the earth.
It may be the only correct thing in Carpenters list at that time, but we are not at 1800's anymore. And rest of it wasn't correct at 1800's and it isn't correct now. When you upgrade your education from middle ages level to 21 century level?
he clearly trolling, or insane. Don't listen to him or let him derail the thread
Remember, this is the guy who thinks that photosynthesis is an "idiotic myth"
No, he is Tom Bishop. It's kind of term in itself in FE forum. You can only define it for yourself if you have been around long enough.
-
Much of what Carpenter says is correct.
- No aeronaut in the 1800's saw curvature to the earth.
It may be the only correct thing in Carpenters list at that time, but we are not at 1800's anymore. And rest of it wasn't correct at 1800's and it isn't correct now. When you upgrade your education from middle ages level to 21 century level?
he clearly trolling, or insane. Don't listen to him or let him derail the thread
Remember, this is the guy who thinks that photosynthesis is an "idiotic myth"
No, he is Tom Bishop. It's kind of term in itself in FE forum. You can only define it for yourself if you have been around long enough.
True. I see him as being the concise version of Leevee, and the less picky version of Parsifal.
In a way, he is FE
-
Tom Bishop has always been FE.
-
Much of what Carpenter says is correct.
- No aeronaut in the 1800's saw curvature to the earth.
Why speak of a man's writings as correct if they are totally outdated and irrelevant? There was also no observation of Pluto back then, either, so I guess if he said there was no Pluto he would have been correct, too? Obviously people have seen curvature now, and so this discredits the obvious implication he was making that no curvature exists.
- The concept of "Gravity" is absurd and unproven. Newton never gave a mechanism for his absurd theory. "Gravitons" have never been discovered, and the bending of space has never been demonstrated true.
Can you give a reason as to why it is absurd, or is it just your opinion? The lack of a mechanism doesn't indicate that we don't have a pretty good working model. Newton's inverse square law describes the motion of nearby heavenly bodies to great accuracy. Using the gravitational potential energies, it predicted that orbits would be elliptical, circular, parabolic, or hyperbolic depending on the masses, and this is what is observed. I wouldn't exactly call a precise (albeit inaccurate for certain extreme conditions) mathematical model that generates testable predictions "absurd."
Another thing: if the lack of a discovered mechanism/graviton is a problem for gravity, what would you say about the mechanism for all the stars revolving around us in FET? Or UA, or bendy light, or any of the other extra things in FET that apparently don't need mechanisms as badly as gravity does?
- Clearly, it's the stars which move across the sky. The pretense in astronomical observation is that the stars are moving, not that the earth is moving. The assumption that the earth is moving is fallacious an without merit. The burden is on globularists to demonstrate their idea correct. We can visibly see that the stars are moving.
So, the stars move across the sky? What would it look like if the earth was actually rotating? Exactly as it does now? Oh, okay. Well, we have plenty of evidence indicating that the earth is far, far, far more likely to be rotating than the stars are to be orbiting us.
- Fewer species of plant life in the southern hemisphere does suggest that the earth is a plane, the sun circling around the North Pole. Indeed, it is said that less than 10% of the human population even lives in the southern hemisphere, the majority of life taking place above the equator.
Human migration patterns are irrelevant. There are some species that only reside in the southern hemisphere. And there are some that only reside in the northern hemisphere. Plus, 70% of the earth's land area is in the northern hemisphere in RET, so in fact we would on average expect an uneven distribution according to your logic.
- The pretense of human reality is that we exist on a flat plane with astronomical bodies passing by overhead. The idea that the earth is a ball whirling and twirling to space at immeasurable speeds is absurd and undemonstrated.
The burden of evidence is on the absurdists about their crackpot ideas about a ball earth.
You can make any idea sound absurd by caricaturing it in any way you want. Atomic theory is even more absurd when you think about it; common sense will not get you very far in science. We evolved in a world where we didn't care about atomic theory or cosmological expansion or other planets or anything, just hunting and gathering on a very small part of the world which happens to look flat from our vantage point but round from high vantage points.
-
Much of what Carpenter says is correct.
- No aeronaut in the 1800's saw curvature to the earth.
Not proof that the earth is flat.
- The concept of "Gravity" is absurd and unproven. Newton never gave a mechanism for his absurd theory. "Gravitons" have never been discovered, and the bending of space has never been demonstrated true.
Not proof that the earth is flat. Same thing can be said about the mechanism that is pushes the earth up.
- There are various experiments which back up Carpenter's claim of viewing across distances which should be unviewable on a round world.
I've yet to hear of one that isn't explainable on a round earth.
- It does not follow that the Earth is round because Jupiter is round.
This is not proof that the earth is flat.
- The pretense of human reality is that we exist on a flat plane with astronomical bodies passing by overhead. The idea that the earth is a ball whirling and twirling to space at immeasurable speeds is absurd and undemonstrated.
The idea that the earth is a flat plane speeding through space at immeasurable speeds is absurd and undemonstrated
The burden of evidence is on the absurdists about their crackpot ideas about a ball earth.
The burden of evidence is on the person who claims to have proof and Carpenter supplied no evidence.
I have to say, I'm enjoying the name calling you're bringing to the table. It's almost like you're trying to make one side look ridiculous.
-
- Fewer species of plant life in the southern hemisphere does suggest that the earth is a plane, the sun circling around the North Pole. Indeed, it is said that less than 10% of the human population even lives in the southern hemisphere, the majority of life taking place above the equator.
Tom Bishop cannot post for more than a few weeks without trying to insult the people of the Southern Hemisphere.
Since there is twice as much landmass in the Northern hemisphere, compared with the Southern hemisphere, there should only be about half the number of species. It is quite idiotic to expect the same amount of plant or animal species in half the landmass.
And the two most severe overpopulation problems on Earth occur in India and China in the Northern hemisphere, with more than 2.5 billion people in just those two countries, so you would expect much less than one third of the population in the Southern hemisphere.
The real problem with the Southern hemisphere, as far as Tom Bishop is concerned, is that we should see easily the many errors of the "RET", even in everyday life, but we do not. (Care to guess why?).
-
- Fewer species of plant life in the southern hemisphere does suggest that the earth is a plane, the sun circling around the North Pole. Indeed, it is said that less than 10% of the human population even lives in the southern hemisphere, the majority of life taking place above the equator.
Tom Bishop cannot post for more than a few weeks without trying to insult the people of the Southern Hemisphere.
Since there is twice as much landmass in the Northern hemisphere, compared with the Southern hemisphere, there should only be about half the number of species. It is quite idiotic to expect the same amount of plant or animal species in half the landmass.
And the two most severe overpopulation problems on Earth occur in India and China in the Northern hemisphere, with more than 2.5 billion people in just those two countries, so you would expect much less than one third of the population in the Southern hemisphere.
The real problem with the Southern hemisphere, as far as Tom Bishop is concerned, is that we should see easily the many errors of the "RET", even in everyday life, but we do not. (Care to guess why?).
Its also a wonder that traveling in the southern hemisphere doesn't take twice as long. and fish nudging/bird tugging doesn't count
-
lol once again silly Flat Earthers, there is no data, only speculation. twist theories to fit facts not facts to fit theories.
@PP-i read through this whole post, and you did the same thing you did the first time i ever responded to your post, you started arguing semantics. CT makes his point in the OP and PP jumps on sematics......" you used that word wrong" you then took up almost a page of post to argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
me lmao @ u
-
lol once again silly Flat Earthers, there is no data, only speculation. twist theories to fit facts not facts to fit theories.
@PP-i read through this whole post, and you did the same thing you did the first time i ever responded to your post, you started arguing semantics. CT makes his point in the OP and PP jumps on sematics......" you used that word wrong" you then took up almost a page of post to argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
me lmao @ u
It was a classic PP fail.
-
argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.
*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"
-
argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.
*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"
Please show where ANY part of my point was based on the misuse of the word "aeronaut". "Aeronaut" is a perfectly good word and I never claimed otherwise. I claimed that he did not talk to every aeronaut as a proof would require, for example. I based my critique of Carpenter's proof based on that and other issues, not "nothing else" as you inaccurately claim.
-
argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.
*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"
Aeronaut is a term for balloon pilots and/or travelers. What issue do you have with the word?
-
I claimed that he did not talk to every aeronaut as a proof would require
Here, you're doing it again. You're focusing on one word. As said before, it can easily be replaced with a more fortunate one. All you're proving here is that Carpenter's English wasn't perfect, which is entirely irrelevant to his argument.
argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.
*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"
Aeronaut is a term for balloon pilots and/or travelers. What issue do you have with the word?
I'm not the one who has an issue with the word. It is ClockTower who claims we have to talk to each and every aeronaut if we want to use the word in this context. Ergo, I suggest replacing it with "one", which would shut his mouth on this subject.
-
I claimed that he did not talk to every aeronaut as a proof would require
Here, you're doing it again. You're focusing on one word. As said before, it can easily be replaced with a more fortunate one. All you're proving here is that Carpenter's English wasn't perfect, which is entirely irrelevant to his argument.
argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.
*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"
Aeronaut is a term for balloon pilots and/or travelers. What issue do you have with the word?
I'm not the one who has an issue with the word. It is ClockTower who claims we have to talk to each and every aeronaut if we want to use the word in this context. Ergo, I suggest replacing it with "one", which would shut his mouth on this subject.
It's Carpenter you'd have to talk to about changing the word he used, not me. I simply have not in anyway argued about the semantics of the word. Requring that Carpenter talk to each and every aeronaut before claiming that not a single aeronaut has seen something is logic, not semantics.
-
It's Carpenter you'd have to talk to about changing the word he used, not me. I simply have not in anyway argued about the semantics of the word. Requring that Carpenter talk to each and every aeronaut before claiming that not a single aeronaut has seen something is logic, not semantics.
And this is where you fail ultimately. How is this logic?
It has been established that there are two biological sexes amongst mankind: male and female. OH WAIT. According to logic, I have to talk to every single person on Earth to verify that. Since I can't possibly accomplish that, I conclude that there is a different number of sexes.
-
I claimed that he did not talk to every aeronaut as a proof would require
Here, you're doing it again. You're focusing on one word. As said before, it can easily be replaced with a more fortunate one. All you're proving here is that Carpenter's English wasn't perfect, which is entirely irrelevant to his argument.
argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.
*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"
Aeronaut is a term for balloon pilots and/or travelers. What issue do you have with the word?
I'm not the one who has an issue with the word. It is ClockTower who claims we have to talk to each and every aeronaut if we want to use the word in this context. Ergo, I suggest replacing it with "one", which would shut his mouth on this subject.
But an aeronaut is someone with a very specific experience. In 1885, very few people have had the experience of riding in a hot air balloon. Even today, a relatively small percentage of the human population has traveled in an airplane.
-
It's Carpenter you'd have to talk to about changing the word he used, not me. I simply have not in anyway argued about the semantics of the word. Requring that Carpenter talk to each and every aeronaut before claiming that not a single aeronaut has seen something is logic, not semantics.
And this is where you fail ultimately. How is this logic?
It has been established that there are two biological sexes amongst mankind: male and female. OH WAIT. According to logic, I have to talk to every single person on Earth to verify that. Since I can't possibly accomplish that, I conclude that there is a different number of sexes.
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Again, where did I say anything about the semantics of the first proof?
-
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
-
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
I did not question the definitions of those words. Reread my post. Then you might want to read through a basic reasoning text and emphasize the chapters on generalization and induction.
-
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
-
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Again, I never used the word 'gender', nor do I have a problem with its definition. You're stalking a straw horse. Good hunting, though!
But let's try your technique on the word: Earth:
( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.
So the Earth is round.
[/FES]
-
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Again, I never used the word 'gender', nor do I have a problem with its definition. You're stalking a straw horse. Good hunting, though!
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
It is an extension of your own logic. Since it's logic, it should apply to this case. Unless you're saying it's not logic and you just made something up on the way.
But let's try your technique on the word: Earth:
( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.
So the Earth is round.
[/FES]
Following my technique you are either wrong about the definition, or the definition is not reasonable. Since I am convinced that you got the def right, the latter point stands. Thank you for participating.
-
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Again, I never used the word 'gender', nor do I have a problem with its definition. You're stalking a straw horse. Good hunting, though!
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
It is an extension of your own logic. Since it's logic, it should apply to this case. Unless you're saying it's not logic and you just made something up on the way.
But let's try your technique on the word: Earth:
( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.
So the Earth is round.
[/FES]
Following my technique you are either wrong about the definition, or the definition is not reasonable. Since I am convinced that you got the def right, the latter point stands. Thank you for participating.
Wow! PP is smarter than the dictionay. It's amazing. More at 11.
-
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Again, I never used the word 'gender', nor do I have a problem with its definition. You're stalking a straw horse. Good hunting, though!
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
It is an extension of your own logic. Since it's logic, it should apply to this case. Unless you're saying it's not logic and you just made something up on the way.
But let's try your technique on the word: Earth:
( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.
So the Earth is round.
[/FES]
Following my technique you are either wrong about the definition, or the definition is not reasonable. Since I am convinced that you got the def right, the latter point stands. Thank you for participating.
Wow! PP is smarter than the dictionay. It's amazing. More at 11.
You did exactly the same regarding genders, remember? Of course you don't. Why did I even expect you to understand this?
-
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Again, I never used the word 'gender', nor do I have a problem with its definition. You're stalking a straw horse. Good hunting, though!
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
It is an extension of your own logic. Since it's logic, it should apply to this case. Unless you're saying it's not logic and you just made something up on the way.
But let's try your technique on the word: Earth:
( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.
So the Earth is round.
[/FES]
Following my technique you are either wrong about the definition, or the definition is not reasonable. Since I am convinced that you got the def right, the latter point stands. Thank you for participating.
Wow! PP is smarter than the dictionay. It's amazing. More at 11.
You did exactly the same regarding genders, remember? Of course you don't. Why did I even expect you to understand this?
Please show where I said that the definition of gender was wrong.
-
"You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction."
-
"You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction."
Just to remind you of the challenge: Where did I disagree with the definition of "gender". I didn't even use that word in that quote.
-
And so you resort to semantics again.
-
And so you resort to semantics again.
How did I resort to semantics again. I used only straight-forward logic. Can you answer the challenge or not?
-
And so you resort to semantics again.
How did I resort to semantics again. I used only straight-forward logic. Can you answer the challenge or not?
"You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction."
-
And so you resort to semantics again.
How did I resort to semantics again. I used only straight-forward logic. Can you answer the challenge or not?
"You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction."
How does that answer the challenge? Where did I say the definition of "gender" was wrong. We know you think you know more than the dictionary, but I don't see where I need to claim that. I have insisted on better definition of terms when used in a rigorous way, but I don't think that I've ever done that here.
-
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Or that gender is not as absolute as one might think.
Third gender or third sex refer to a gender category, of people who are considered neither completely male, nor completely female. It is a gender identity separate from 'men' and 'women,' of people considered to be the intermediate sex; in-betweens (like the androgynes) or neutrals (like the agendered).
-
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Or that gender is not as absolute as one might think.
Third gender or third sex refer to a gender category, of people who are considered neither completely male, nor completely female. It is a gender identity separate from 'men' and 'women,' of people considered to be the intermediate sex; in-betweens (like the androgynes) or neutrals (like the agendered).
Thank you, markjo. I was hoping that PP might learn that on his own, but sometimes we have to spoon feed.
I suspect that we'll have to deal with the differences between lay and scientific definitions and PP all too soon.
Here's a reference for generalization fallacies for PP: http://english2.byu.edu/writingcenter/handouts/revision/logicalfallacies.htm (http://english2.byu.edu/writingcenter/handouts/revision/logicalfallacies.htm).
-
Thank you, markjo. I was hoping that PP might learn that on his own, but sometimes we have to spoon feed.
Just as long as we don't have to burp him and lay him down for a nap afterwards.
I suspect that we'll have to deal with the differences between lay and scientific definitions and PP all too soon.
Yes, it can get frustrating when some people keep switching back and forth between the two arbitrarily or decide to start a semantic fight over which is the correct definition to use.
-
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Or that gender is not as absolute as one might think.
Third gender or third sex refer to a gender category, of people who are considered neither completely male, nor completely female. It is a gender identity separate from 'men' and 'women,' of people considered to be the intermediate sex; in-betweens (like the androgynes) or neutrals (like the agendered).
Who knows what you just did to PP. Maybe it was to soon to expose him to the peculiarities of the sex world and now he is shocked and damaged goods for life...
-
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Or that gender is not as absolute as one might think.
Third gender or third sex refer to a gender category, of people who are considered neither completely male, nor completely female. It is a gender identity separate from 'men' and 'women,' of people considered to be the intermediate sex; in-betweens (like the androgynes) or neutrals (like the agendered).
Who knows what you just did to PP. Maybe it was to soon to expose him to the peculiarities of the sex world and now he is shocked and damaged goods for life...
Wouldn't it be horrible if he had identity issues and found out about it here on this board? I wasn't going to mention the "third" genders in any dealings with him.
I'm really trying to educate him on the grays of life, but I think him parents need to curtail his Internet time and talk to him more. He still thinks that "I don't know" is a bad answer to a "yes" or "no" question. Did you stop beating your horse today? (I don't have a horse, and never did.) Is the Mandurian word for "house" the same as the Thai word for "bed"? (I don't speak either language and don't know.)
-
He still thinks that "I don't know" is a bad answer to a "yes" or "no" question.
Oh, but by all means, you have repeatedly done the same. When I pointed out your hypocrisy, you ignored it. Of course, as you have noticed, this is yet another example.
Did you stop beating your horse today? (I don't have a horse, and never did.)
No, I didn't stop beating my horse today. I never started doing so to begin with. The reason for that is that, much like yourself, I do not have a horse.
Do you think "I don't know" is the answer here? Like, "I don't know if I am currently beating a horse, since I do not have one"? Yet again you fail miserably.
Is the Mandurian word for "house" the same as the Thai word for "bed"? (I don't speak either language and don't know.)
The answer is "No". There is no Mandurian language, therefore the Mandurian word for "house" doesn't exist, which makes it very different from the existent Thai word for "bed". Possibly you meant a local dialect of Italian spoken in Manduria, in which case the answer is "no". Alternatively, you might have meant Mandarin Chinese, in which case the answer is still "no".
Of course, "I don't know" is an existent answer to the second question. However, using it in a debate doesn't strengthen your argument, especially when a sufficient answer is a Google search away.
-
He still thinks that "I don't know" is a bad answer to a "yes" or "no" question.
Oh, but by all means, you have repeatedly done the same. When I pointed out your hypocrisy, you ignored it. Of course, as you have noticed, this is yet another example.
Do tell us all how this is another example. I doubt that you can back up this claim any better the last dozen you've failed at. Do enlighten us. Then tell about how you got that picture of two australias. Then tell us how I was arguing just semantics on Carpenter's first proof. We'll wait (not really).
-
Do tell us all how this is another example.
Claiming there are no replies due to having ignored them in the past is arrogance and hypocrisy. By being arrogant and hypocritical you have demonstrated yet another example of your arrogance and hypocrisy, which was arrogant and hypocritical in its nature.
I doubt that you can back up this claim any better the last dozen you've failed at. Do enlighten us.
And another one. How entertaining.
Then tell about how you got that picture of two australias.
Feel free to abandon your attempts to derail the thread just because you're losing it. It won't work. If you want to ask questions regarding Australias, feel free to ask in the thread regarding Australias.
Then tell us how I was arguing just semantics on Carpenter's first proof. We'll wait (not really).
What, again? As you said yourself many times, not all questions are worth answering. I speculate that you wouldn't read my answer, and then request another one, which you wouldn't read either. You rarely read threads before posting in them. If you wish to have your question answered, just read my previous posts. It's easy, assuming you comprehend English.
Of course, you forgot to respond to the main point of my previous post. I'll wait (really!).
EDIT: To remind you:
Did you stop beating your horse today? (I don't have a horse, and never did.)
No, I didn't stop beating my horse today. I never started doing so to begin with. The reason for that is that, much like yourself, I do not have a horse.
Do you think "I don't know" is the answer here? Like, "I don't know if I am currently beating a horse, since I do not have one"? Yet again you fail miserably.
Is the Mandurian word for "house" the same as the Thai word for "bed"? (I don't speak either language and don't know.)
The answer is "No". There is no Mandurian language, therefore the Mandurian word for "house" doesn't exist, which makes it very different from the existent Thai word for "bed". Possibly you meant a local dialect of Italian spoken in Manduria, in which case the answer is "no". Alternatively, you might have meant Mandarin Chinese, in which case the answer is still "no".
Of course, "I don't know" is an existent answer to the second question. However, using it in a debate doesn't strengthen your argument, especially when a sufficient answer is a Google search away.
-
Do tell us all how this is another example.
Claiming there are no replies due to having ignored them in the past is arrogance and hypocrisy. By being arrogant and hypocritical you have demonstrated yet another example of your arrogance and hypocrisy, which was arrogant and hypocritical in its nature.
Again do tell us all how this is another example. Where did I claim that there were no replies? If you want to send multiple issues in a single post, that's fine. But I'm going to wait on the resolution of your first point before moving on. I really don't feel an obligation to answer all your points, especially when you start off a post with a poor response.
-
It's Carpenter you'd have to talk to about changing the word he used, not me. I simply have not in anyway argued about the semantics of the word. Requring that Carpenter talk to each and every aeronaut before claiming that not a single aeronaut has seen something is logic, not semantics.
And this is where you fail ultimately. How is this logic?
It has been established that there are two biological sexes amongst mankind: male and female. OH WAIT. According to logic, I have to talk to every single person on Earth to verify that. Since I can't possibly accomplish that, I conclude that there is a different number of sexes.
I still don't understand how is it that you are the only one who fails to understand simple reasoning. How in any possible way can you absolutely know that every people in the world is either male of female without checking it out personally? You can only do generalization that it may be so based in your experiences but there is no absolute conclusion that it is 100% so. And your last sentence is also wrong. You don't conclude that there is different number of sexes but that there may be more sexes. Until you don't get even that simple logic there is nothing to talk with you.
-
Ah, so the conclusion is that Carpenter's point may or may not be valid. I'll agree with that, because one of these is true for certain.
-
Ah, so the conclusion is that Carpenter's point may or may not be valid. I'll agree with that, because one of these is true for certain.
It's another way to say that Carpenter didn't really say or prove anything.
-
Ah, so the conclusion is that Carpenter's point may or may not be valid. I'll agree with that, because one of these is true for certain.
This incredibly long discussion is just about your attempts at using mathematical logic where it does not belong.
In science there are no absolute truths. No experiment is totally valid and most experiments are not totally invalid. Welcome to the world of fuzzy logic, where every statement about truth is only about a probability of being true.
That is why all of science is based on overwhelming evidence, not on your binary logic.
You will have to learn about your logic statements before making yourself seem even less intelligent than what you seem right now.
-
To make the point above clearer:
Every time an experiment or observation shows something weird a number of experiments are designed to find out whether they were the result of bad experiments, bad equipment, noise or some other problem. If that one experiment proves to have weird results the fame of the original experimenter goes through the roof. There is nothing that puts a scientist's mind to spin like an unexplained phenomenon.
But what made Carpenter's experiments (the very few he published) underwhelming was that his results were easily explained by better experiments.
We will never know whether Carpenter tweaked his results towards his desired results, or whether the very timid designs were fine tuned to get the desired results or if he really wanted to make good science. What we know is that better experiments have consistently demolished the validity of his experiments.
-
Please explain how my opposition to binary "logic" is binary in its nature.
-
Please explain how my opposition to binary "logic" is binary in its nature.
Please support punctuation. Please explain how "logic" is binary in its nature.
-
Please support punctuation.
(http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/grandave.gif)
Please explain how "logic" is binary in its nature.
It doesn't have to be. However, binary "logic" is binary in its nature due to being defined as binary. I thought that's a very simple concept.
-
To further explain: while the shape of the Earth is constantly being contested on these fora, a round Earth is round* in its nature due to being defined as round, and a flat Earth is flat* for the very same reasons.
*-inb4 hills and mountains and geoids and so on.
-
Please support punctuation.
(http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/grandave.gif)
Please explain how "logic" is binary in its nature.
It doesn't have to be. However, binary "logic" is binary in its nature due to being defined as binary. I thought that's a very simple concept.
Then please explain the reason you've chosen binary logic over logic then.
-
Please support punctuation.
(http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/grandave.gif)
Please explain how "logic" is binary in its nature.
It doesn't have to be. However, binary "logic" is binary in its nature due to being defined as binary. I thought that's a very simple concept.
Then please explain the reason you've chosen binary logic over logic then.
I've done the very opposite of that. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you did so, though?
-
I've done the very opposite of that. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you did so, though?
Binary logic is what you insist on with the position of it's a "yes" or "no" question. Logic allows for at least four states for each question: True, False, Unknown, and Unknowable. Yet, you seem lost in some nascent state that treats the world as black and white. That's the point.
-
Nope, I do grayscale. You keep switching between the two depending on which suits you more. I asked you why you're doing this, and am still awaiting an answer.
-
Nope, I do grayscale. You keep switching between the two depending on which suits you more. I asked you why you're doing this, and am still awaiting an answer.
And I keep challenging you for any example of my inappropriate use of logic. Oddly you seem unable to answer that challenge. You do understand that 1) grayscale is the wrong word, and 2) each type of logic has its appropriate use, right? There is nothing wrong with using the right tool for the task.
-
There is nothing wrong with using the right tool for the task.
That's exactly why I asked you to justify your use of it. Being no less hypocritical than usually, you did not "answer that challenge". Also, further confirming your hypocrisy, you have just attempted to argue semantics again. Shame on you.
-
There is nothing wrong with using the right tool for the task.
That's exactly why I asked you to justify your use of it. Being no less hypocritical than usually, you did not "answer that challenge".
Troll much? I'll answer any well documented challenge, but I won't respond to you any longer when you fail to document your challenge. I hopes troll can find eatz.
-
There is nothing wrong with using the right tool for the task.
That's exactly why I asked you to justify your use of it. Being no less hypocritical than usually, you did not "answer that challenge".
Troll much? I'll answer any well documented challenge, but I won't respond to you any longer when you fail to document your challenge. I hopes troll can find eatz.
Haha. Okay, I accept your withdrawal. I expected nothing else.
-
hmmm... sorry to change subjects, i know how much you FES like to argue pointless dribble. So i'm curious, we all know rowie was wrong, we know his astronomy didnt work, we know he found zero proof that the earth is flat. (Despite the fact that the faq for this forum clearly says that rowie proved the earth must be flat with a series of experiments.....ummm fraid not) In fact, when he found no proof, he made up magical science to explain things, bendy light, the conspiracy, a giant pea-tree dish being accelerated upwards by gods knows what for god knows why. The fact that there are thousands of millionaire ( not to mention 3rd world countries) with private satellites, yet none of them want to come forward cause all of them.....every single one....is part of the conspiracy......
all in all my question is this: y do you personally think that the earth is flat PP?
-
all in all my question is this: y do you personally think that the earth is flat PP?
You'll notice he does not have the title "Flat Earth Believer" under his name.