Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 02:46:33 PM

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.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 02, 2010, 02:57:48 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 02:46:33 PM

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

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 02:46:33 PM

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.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 02, 2010, 02:57:48 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 02:46:33 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:05:46 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 02, 2010, 02:57:48 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 02:46:33 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:21:25 PM

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".

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:21:25 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:21:25 PM

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: 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: 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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:33:06 PM

I did not impugn his choice of the word, "aeronaut" at any time. You attack a straw-man.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 02:46:33 PM

Did R go and talk with every aeronaut? No, of course not.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:33:06 PM

I still don't see anything above or otherwise to support this as a proof.

How unfortunate.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:33:06 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:38:40 PM

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: 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".

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:42:43 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:42:43 PM

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?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:53:21 PM

Nothing in the quote is impugning.

Incorrect.

Care to tell us how?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:33:06 PM

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.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 02, 2010, 03:48:05 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:42:43 PM

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.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 02, 2010, 03:38:25 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:33:06 PM

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.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 02, 2010, 03:54:32 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:53:21 PM

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?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:57:03 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 02, 2010, 03:48:05 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:42:43 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:57:36 PM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 02, 2010, 03:54:32 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:53:21 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 03:42:43 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 04:04:39 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 02:46:33 PM

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.