Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.

44. It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in, a second of time, "from west to east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.

#44 simply restates and #42 and fails just the same.

Quote from: ClockTower 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.

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 couldn't also resist. Legendary? He proved something? Who the hell is William Carpenter and what did he do except putting some 100 random thoughts to the paper? And how can anyone even think that he did prove earth being not round without having any data and experiments.

Edit: I guess for me he is no more legendary than any person who made some list like "100 Reasons Why It's Great to be a Woman", "100 Reasons Twilight is apparently better than Harry Potter", "101 Reasons to Breastfeed" and so on.

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.

It's also geocentric, which sets us back about 400 years. Well done Carpenter.

45. The Astronomer Royal, of England, George B. Airy, in his celebrated work on Astronomy, the "Ipswich Lectures," says - "Jupiter is a large planet that turns on his axis, and why do not we turn?" Of course, the common sense reply is: Because the Earth is not a planet! When, therefore, an astronomer royal puts words into our mouth wherewith we may overthrow the supposed planetary nature of the Earth, we have not far to go to pick up a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Carpenter fails to provide evidence once again for his premise; therefore, the proof is faulty.

46. It has been shown that an easterly or a westerly motion is necessarily a circular course round the central North, The only north point or centre of motion of the heavenly bodies known to man is that formed by the North Star, which is over the central portion of the outstretched Earth. When, therefore, astronomers tell us of a planet taking a westerly course round the Sun, the thing is as meaningless to them as it is to us, unless they make the Sun the northern centre of the motion, which they cannot do! Since, then, the motion which they tell us the planets have is, on the face of it, absurd; and since, as a matter of fact, the Earth can have no absurd motion at all, it is clear that it cannot be what astronomers say it is - a planet; and, if not a planet, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Again Carpenter omits evidence for his premise. He seems to argue incorrectly that an object cannot both rotate and revolve, even though we observe both with the other planets,  such as Jupiter. For both reasons, this proof is faulty.

47. In consequence of the fact being so plainly seen, by everyone who visits the seashore, that the line of the horizon is a perfectly straight line, it becomes impossible for astronomers, when they attempt to convey, pictorially, an idea of the Earth's "convexity," to do so with even a shadow of consistency: for they dare not represent this horizon as a curved line, so well known is it that it is a straight one! The greatest astronomer of the age, in page 15 of his "Lessons," gives an illustration of a ship sailing away, "as though she were rounding the top of a great hill of water;" and there - of a truth - is the straight and level line of the horizon clear along the top of the "hill" from one side of the picture to the other! Now, if this picture were true in all its parts - and it is outrageously false in several - it would show that Earth is a cylinder; for the "hill" shown is simply up one side of the level, horizontal line, and, we are led to suppose, down the other! Since, then, we have such high authority as Professor Richard A. Proctor that the Earth is a cylinder, it is, certainly, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

This proof suffer from the false dichotomy fallacy since both a cylinder or a sphere could produce the observation. There is also a second proof whose premise is unsupported here. The line of the horizon appears straight to an observer at the shore is not unexpected on a spherical Earth.

ClockTower, you like the Energizer Bunny cuz you keep going and going and going...

48. In Mr. Proctor's "Lessons in Astronomy," page 15, a ship is represented as sailing away from the observer, and it is given in five positions or distances away on its journey. Now, in its first position, its mast appears above the horizon, and, consequently, higher than the observer's line of vision. But, in its second and third positions, representing the ship as further and further away, it is drawn higher and still higher up above the line of the horizon! Now, it is utterly impossible for a ship to sail away from an observer, under the, conditions indicated, and to appear as given in the picture. Consequently, the picture is a misrepresentation, a fraud, and a disgrace. A ship starting to sail away from an observer with her masts above his line of sight would appear, indisputably, to go down and still lower down towards the horizon line, and could not possibly appear - to anyone with his vision undistorted - as going in any other direction, curved or straight. Since, then the design of the astronomer-artist is to show the Earth to be a globe, and the points in the picture, which would only prove the Earth to be cylindrical if true, are NOT true, it follows that the astronomer-artist fails to prove, pictorially, either that the Earth is a globe or a cylinder, and that we have, therefore, a reasonable proof that the Earth is not. a globe.

Please reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=qfE8AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Proctor+Lessons+in+Astronomy&source=bl&ots=cZbajOOn2E&sig=BtXgYsq9O8rj9F7PDl23PJgwBwg&hl=en&ei=HCcyTKGxFMK88ga0kv3ICw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The proof fails to support its premise. Further, any error in an illustration for the alternate theory is not evidence of the theory to be proven.

49 It is a well-known fact that clouds are continually seen moving in all manner of directions - yes, and frequently, in different directions at the same time - from west to east being as frequent a direction as any other. . Now, if the Earth were a globe, revolving through space from west to east at the rate of nineteen miles in a second, the clouds appearing to us to move towards the east would have to move quicker than nineteen miles in a second to be thus seen; whilst those which appear to be moving in the opposite direction would have no necessity to be moving at all, since the motion of the Earth would be more than sufficient to cause the appearance. But it only takes a little common sense to show us that it is the clouds that move just as they appear to do, and that, therefore, the Earth is motionless. We have, then a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

This proof relies on the concept the motion is not relevant, which we know it is. I wonder it Carpenter even traveled by train at even 20 miles per hour.

50. We read in the inspired book, or collection of books, called THE BIBLE, nothing at all about the Earth being a globe or a planet, from beginning to end, but hundreds of allusions there are in its pages which could not be made if the Earth were a globe, and which are, therefore, said by the astronomer to be absurd and contrary to what he knows to be true! This is the groundwork of modern infidelity. But, since every one of many, many allusions to the Earth and the heavenly bodies in the Scriptures can be demonstrated to be absolutely true to nature, and we read of the Earth being "stretched out" "above the waters," as "standing in the water and out of the water," of its being "established that it cannot be moved," we have a store from which to take all the proofs we need, but we will just put down one proof - the Scriptural proof - that Earth is not a globe.

This proof contains an appeal to authority. The Bible is not a reference for scientific study.

Quote from: Johannes on July 04, 2010, 06:35:35 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 06:25:33 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 04, 2010, 06:18:05 PM

Quote from: ClockTower 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.

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"

No, there is no curvature visible in any of those pictures, and I see curvature in some pictures posted here.

... I see curvature in some pictures posted here.

That's good enough for me. Thanks.

51. A "Standing Order" exists in the English Houses of Parliament that in the cutting of canals, &c., the datum line employed shall be a "horizontal line, which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work." Now if the Earth were a globe, this "Order" could not be carried out: but, it is carried out: therefore it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Again, the proof fails to show the mathematics the the length of the canal, the accuracy of the measurement, and the tautness of the line are sufficient to show the Earth is not curved. And since when can a Government legislate a result of nature?

52. It is a well-known and indisputable fact that there is a far greater accumulation of ice south of the equator than is to be found at an equal latitude north: and it is said that at Kerguelen, 50 degrees south, 18 kinds of plants exist, whilst, in Iceland, 15 degrees nearer the northern centre, there are 870 species; and, indeed, all the facts in the case show that the Sun's power is less intense at places in the southern region than it is in corresponding latitudes north. Now, on the Newtonian hypothesis, all this is inexplicable, whilst it is strictly in accordance with the facts brought to light by the carrying out of the principles involved in the Zetetic Philosophy of "Parallax." This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

There is no reason to conclude the Sun's power is less intense at places in the southern region...

So many other factors influence climate, including just that the Antarctic region is at a higher altitude than the Arctic.

Quote from: Johannes on July 05, 2010, 01:05:02 PM

... I see curvature in some pictures posted here.

That's good enough for me. Thanks.

God help you.

54. The aeronaut is able to start in his balloon and remain for hours in the air, at an elevation of several miles, and come down again in the same county or parish from which he ascended. Now, unless the Earth drag the balloon along with it in its nineteen-miles-a-second motion, it must be left far behind, in space: but, since balloons have never been known thus to be left it is a proof that the Earth does not move, and, therefore, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Among other errors in this proof, Carpenter does not understand that all motion is relative. His premise is false, and this proof therefore faulty.

55. The Newtonian theory of astronomy requires that the Moon "borrow" her light from the Sun. Now, since the Sun's rays are hot and the Moon's light sends with it no heat at all, it follows that the Sun and Moon are "two great lights," as we somewhere read; that the Newtonian theory is a mistake; and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Carpenter fails to support his premise, "the Moon's light sends with it no heat at all". Without the premise supported, the proof is faulty.

56. The Sun and Moon may often be seen high in the heavens at the same time - the Sun rising in the east and the Moon setting in the west - the Sun's light positively putting the Moon's light out by sheer contrast! If the Newtonian theory were correct, and the moon had her light from the Sun, she ought to be getting more of it when face to face with that luminary - if it were possible for a sphere to act as a reflector all over its face! But as the Moon's light pales before the rising Sun, it is a proof that the theory fails; and is gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Carpenter forgets at a sphere does not reflect all the light it receives straight back. He also forget that the Moon absorbs some of the light directed at it. He also forgets that light spreads out as it travels greater distances. The premise is unsupported, so the proof fails.

If the earth were round as suggested by Newton and others then the Sun would invade the night sky just as the moon invades the day sky.

This is not observed and the earth is once again proven flat.

57. The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of. the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Carpenter's implies incorrectly that one cannot see the Full Moon and the Sun at the same time. Standing on top of the highest mountain small Pacific Island, such as Hawaii, one can see the Pacific Ocean on all sides.

Can you at least give me some credit for predicting the next "proof" without looking it up?

Can you at least give me some credit for predicting the next "proof" without looking it up?

Of course! Full credit for the prediction.

58. Astronomers have never agreed amongst themselves about a rotating Moon revolving round a rotating and revolving Earth - this Earth, Moon, planets and their satellites all, at the same time dashing through space, around the rotating and revolving Sun, towards the constellation Hercules, at the rate of four millions of miles a day! And they never will: agreement is impossible! With the a Earth a plane and without motion, the whole thing is clear. And if a straw will show which way the wind blows, this may be taken as a pretty strong proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Carpenter fails here in many accounts. First the 'the whole thing is clear' is quite a misstatement. FE does have the foggiest idea of the speed of the FE, the Sun, The Moon, the Nexus lines's shapes. Second that the 'other side' doesn't have an agreement on some aspects of their model doesn't prove your side, especially when there is even less agreement on your side.

59. Mr. Proctor says.- "The Sun is so far off that even moving from one side of the Earth to the other does not cause him to be seen in a different direction - at least the difference is too small to be measured." Now, since we know that north of the equator, say 45 degrees, we see the Sun at mid-day to the south, and that at the same distance south of the equator we see the Sun at mid-day to the north, our very shadows on the round cry aloud against the delusion of the day and give us a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Once again we can toss this proof out quickly. Attacking one comment by one person with a different theory does not prove your theory.

But let's pause for a moment to learn. Poctor's statement does stand, but only within the context of parallax (and I don't mean in the sense of some pseudonym.) Relative to the baseline of the two observation points, the Sun is so far away that the change between the two points of the incident angle is too small to be discerned.

60. There is no problem more important to the astronomer than that of the Sun's distance from the Earth. Every change in the estimate changes everything. NOW, since modern astronomers, in their estimate of this distance, have gone all the way along the line of figures from three millions of miles to a hundred and four millions - today, the distance being something over 91,000,000; it matters not how much: for, not many years ago, Mr. Hind gave the distance, "accurately," as 95,370,000! - it follows that they don't know, and that it is foolish for anyone to expect that they ever will know, the Sun's distance! And since all this speculation and absurdity is caused by the primary assumption that Earth is a wandering, heavenly body, and is all swept away by a knowledge of the fact that Earth is a, plane, it is a clear proof that Earth is not a globe.

Once again we see Carpenter arguing that his thesis is proven by the disagreement on the 'other side'. Attacking the 'other side' is never a proof for your side. However, let's consider the argument for a moment. The distance to the Sun is now rather settled at around 93 million miles. That techniques of the time were off by even 10% is not damning. That Carpenter won't consider the size of the number is not relevant.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 04, 2010, 09:18:13 AM

21. Man's experience tells him that he is not constructed like the flies that can live said move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the floor: - and since the modern theory of a planetary earth necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it, and one of them is that men are really bound to. the earth by a force which fastens them to it "like needles round a spherical loadstone," a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon common sense ane ignore the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Yes, this is another proof based on the fallacy of appeal to nature. <sigh>

No, "gravity" has never been proven, thus the proof is legitimate.

you mad.
See replications of Cavendish.
See wikipedia.
See Einstein
See Newton
See Kepler
See Hawkings
See Kaku
See a psychiatrist

This thread is full of Epic Win.
Thank you so much Clocktower, I was thinking about refuting ENaG because Tom spouts it out as proof for FEH

This thread is full of Epic Win.
Thank you so much Clocktower, I was thinking about refuting ENaG because Tom spouts it out as proof for FEH

Thank you for the kind words. I agree the ENaG should be our next project.

61. It is plain that a theory of measurements without a measuring-rod is like a ship without a rudder; that a measure that is not fixed, not likely to be fixed, and never has been fixed, forms no measuring-rod at all; and that as modern theoretical astronomy depends upon the Sun's distance from the Earth as its measuring-rod, and the distance is not known, it is a system of measurements without a measuring-rod - a ship without a rudder. Now, since it is not difficult to foresee the dashing of this thing upon the rock on which Zetetic astronomy is founded, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Again, tearing down the 'other side's' efforts does not prove your theory. Science has, contrary to Carpenter's claim, indeed firmly established the Earth-Sun distance. Please reference, for example: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=303488. This is not a proof.

62. It is commonly asserted that "the Earth must be a globe because people have sailed round it." Now, since this implies that we can sail round nothing unless it be a globe, and the fact is well known that we can sail round the Earth as a plane, the assertion is ridiculous, and we have another proof that Earth is not a globe.

Again attacking the argument of the 'other side' does not prove your thesis. This would fail regardless, as it has a straw-man fallacy. The correct position of the 'other side' is "The Earth must be a globe because people have sailed around it in various circles, and their journeys have been at the length RE predicts".