Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 02, 2010, 04:36:14 PM

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?

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.

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?

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

Ready for #2?

Hold it!

My zetetic senses tell me you play too much Ace Attorney.

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.

Actually it would be much simplier if someone provided such a body,if no one can then it is proven.

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!

My zetetic senses tell me you play too much Ace Attorney.

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.

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.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 03, 2010, 06:19:35 AM

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.

Look at a topographical map of egypt and you will see carpenters claim was correct.

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 12:54:31 AM

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.

If you are not willing to test the claim, you must think the claim is true.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 06:23:02 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 03, 2010, 06:19:35 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 06:17:19 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 12:54:31 AM

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.

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".

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 09:06:47 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 06:17:19 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 12:54:31 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: The Question1 on July 03, 2010, 07:51:30 AM

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, 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.)

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 09:15:28 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 09:06:47 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 06:17:19 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 12:54:31 AM

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.

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?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 03, 2010, 09:17:40 AM

Quote from: The Question1 on July 03, 2010, 07:51:30 AM

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.

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 09:05:13 AM

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, 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?

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 12:47:29 AM

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.

Become an aeronaut like Carpenter and you can see the very thing he observed.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 09:33:07 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 09:05:13 AM

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, 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?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:39:56 AM

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?

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 10:09:06 AM

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.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 03, 2010, 06:13:43 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 03, 2010, 12:47:29 AM

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.

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.