Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 04:08:35 PM

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. 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 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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 05:42:11 PM

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.

Quote from: 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?

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 04:08:35 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 05:42:11 PM

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.

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 12:48:16 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 04:08:35 PM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 04:46:32 PM

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.)

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 06:14:58 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 12:48:16 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 04:08:35 PM

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.