Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.

  • 353 Replies
  • 77809 Views
*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #120 on: July 04, 2010, 04:16:37 PM »
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.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #121 on: July 04, 2010, 04:19:25 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #122 on: July 04, 2010, 04:21:25 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #123 on: July 04, 2010, 04:23:44 PM »
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?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #124 on: July 04, 2010, 04:25:55 PM »
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.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #125 on: July 04, 2010, 04:30:25 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #126 on: July 04, 2010, 04:42:28 PM »
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.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #127 on: July 04, 2010, 04:54:21 PM »
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
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #128 on: July 04, 2010, 05:04:53 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #129 on: July 04, 2010, 05:07:31 PM »
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

How does this relate to my question, exactly?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #130 on: July 04, 2010, 05:17:12 PM »
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

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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #131 on: July 04, 2010, 05:20:38 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #132 on: July 04, 2010, 05:28:12 PM »
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.)
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #133 on: July 04, 2010, 05:31:27 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #134 on: July 04, 2010, 05:32:53 PM »
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

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.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #135 on: July 04, 2010, 05:35:07 PM »
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

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?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #136 on: July 04, 2010, 05:38:02 PM »
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.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #137 on: July 04, 2010, 06:18:05 PM »
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.
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?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #138 on: July 04, 2010, 06:25:33 PM »
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.
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #139 on: July 04, 2010, 06:32:55 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #140 on: July 04, 2010, 06:35:35 PM »
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.
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.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #141 on: July 04, 2010, 06:51:04 PM »
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.
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"
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #142 on: July 04, 2010, 06:56:10 PM »
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".
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #143 on: July 04, 2010, 07:17:52 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #144 on: July 04, 2010, 08:02:42 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #145 on: July 04, 2010, 08:21:07 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #146 on: July 04, 2010, 09:02:26 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #147 on: July 04, 2010, 10:37:37 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #148 on: July 04, 2010, 10:44:03 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #149 on: July 04, 2010, 10:54:04 PM »
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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards