Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.

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. 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.

Quote from: sillyrob on July 07, 2010, 06:38:37 AM

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?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 07, 2010, 06:43:13 AM

Quote from: sillyrob on July 07, 2010, 06:38:37 AM

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.

Quote from: sillyrob on July 07, 2010, 06:49:14 AM

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.

Quote from: Pseudointellect on July 07, 2010, 01:28:50 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 07, 2010, 06:43:13 AM

Quote from: sillyrob on July 07, 2010, 06:38:37 AM

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  

/inb4ban

You gotta try harder than that to be banned.

Quote from: Catchpa on July 07, 2010, 02:32:34 PM

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  

/inb4ban

There are 100 facts proving the earth isn't round in my sig.

Quote from: LoGiCaL on July 07, 2010, 02:36:37 PM

Quote from: Catchpa on July 07, 2010, 02:32:34 PM

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  

/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!

Quote from: LoGiCaL on July 07, 2010, 02:36:37 PM

Quote from: Catchpa on July 07, 2010, 02:32:34 PM

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  

/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"

Quote

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"

Quote

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.