Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.

63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

This would be a great proof, if only the premise were supported with evidence. However lacking any evidence and relying on "It is a fact so well known as it ought to be..." this proof fails.

64. Mr. Glaisher, in speaking of his balloon ascents, says: "The horizon always appears to be on a level with the car." Now, since we may search among the laws of optics in vain for any principle that would cause the surface of a globe to turn its face upwards instead of downwards, it is a clear proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Again, Carpenter omits the math and evidential record needed here to successfully prove anything. He must first show at what height the models would make different predictions about the view of the horizon, show that the observation was made at the required height, and record the view. Until he does so, this proof fails.

For evidence to the contrary though not need here, please reference: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo8_xmas.html ,

65. The Rev. D. Olmsted, in describing a diagram whish is supposed to represent the Earth as a globe, with a figure of a man sticking out at each side and one hanging head downwards, says "We should dwell on this point until it appears to us as truly up," In the direction given to these figures as it does with regard to a figure which he has placed on the top! Now, a system of philosophy which requires us to do something which is, really, the going out of our minds, by dwelling on an absurdity until we think it is a fact, Cannot be a system based on God's truth, which never requires anything of the kind. Since, then, the popular theoretical astronomy of the day requires this, it is evident that it is the wrong thing, and that this conclusion furnishes us with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

That you can't conceive that down can be toward the center of the Earth is not evidence that it can't be. This proof also involves the appeal to nature fallacy. It fails for both reasons. Also, again, attacking the 'other side's' position does not prove your case.

66. It is often said that the predictions of eclipses prove astronomers to be right in their theories. But it is not seen that this proves too much. It is well known that Ptolemy predicted eclipses for six-hundred years, on the basis of a plane Earth, with as much accuracy as they are predicted by modern observers. If, then, the predictions prove the truth of the particular theories current at the time, they just as well prove one side of the question as the other, and enable us to lay claim to a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

The unsupported premise that Ptolemy used the model of FE to make his prediction appears false Please reference: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/PtolemyAstronomy.htm where we see that Ptolemy used a geocentric model, not a model with the Sun as a spotlight. Without support for his premise, this proof fails.

67. Seven-hundred miles is said to be the length of the great Canal, in China, Certain it is that, when this canal was formed, no "allowance" was made for "curvature." Yet the canal is a fact without it. This is a Chinese proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Again, Carpenter present no reason under RE that a canal must account for curvature of the Earth. Again, attacking the 'other side's' position does not prove yours. Again, no evidence is presented to support the premise, despite his use of 'Certain it is that...'. This proof fails.

68. Mr. J.M. Lockyer says: Because the Sun seems to rise in the east and set in the west, the Earth really spins in the opposite direction; that is, from west to east," Now, this is no better than though we were to say - Because a man seems to be coming up the street, the street really goes down to the man! And since true science would contain no such nonsense as this, it follows that the so-called science of theoretical astronomy is not true, and, we have another proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Carpenter does not seem to improve with the higher count, alas. Again, you cannot prove your theory by attacking the theory of the 'other side'. Again, that an idea is odd does not make it impossible. Yes, the larger object is moving. Yes, that's possible. Yes, it makes sense. With its false premise, the proof fails.

69. Mr. Lockyer says: "The appearances connected with the rising and setting of the Sun and stars may be due either to our earth being at rest and the Sun and stars traveling round it, or the earth itself turning round, while the Sun and stars are at rest." Now, since true science does not allow of any such beggarly alternatives as these, it is plain that modern theoretical astronomy is not true science, and that its leading dogma is a fallacy. We have, then, a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.

This proof uses the Appeal to Nature and perhaps the To the Person fallacies. Again, you cannot prove your thesis by attacking the other side's thesis (unless there is a true dichotomy.) The proof fails for at least these three reasons.

70. Mr. Lockyer, in describing his picture of the supposed proof of the Earth's rotundity by means of ships rounding a "hill of water," uses these words: - "Diagram showing how, when we suppose the earth is round, we explain how it is that ships at sea appear as they do." This is utterly unworthy of the name of Science! A science that begins by supposing, and ends by explaining the supposition, is, from beginning to end, a mere farce. The men who can do nothing better than amuse themselves in this way must be denounced as dreamers only, and their leading dogma a delusion. This is a proof that Earth, not a globe.

Again, you cannot prove your thesis by attacking another's thesis. Mr. Lockyer, did not attempt to prove the Earth was round with his diagram. He was only illustrating how based on an assumption the observation is explained. Clearly one person's choice of words can hardly prove anything. This is not a proof.

71. The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

The premise is incorrect. You can see the Polaris, the current North Star, from latitudes below the Equator. While is arguable the conditions must be right, It's not uncommon to see far over the normal edge due to inversions, though I suspect here, Carpenter has simply created a straw-man by omitting the required "from sea level" phrase. Finally, attacking the other side will never prove your thesis. For these three reasons this proof fails.

72. Astronomers tell us that, in consequence of the Earth's "rotundity," the perpendicular walls of buildings are, nowhere, parallel, and that even the walls of houses on opposite sides of a street are not! But, since all observation fails to find any evidence of this want of parallelism which theory demands, the idea must be renounced as being absurd and in opposition to all well-known facts. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Again, Carpenter attacks a straw-man. The position "the perpendicular walls of building are, nowhere, parallel." is the straw-man for the real position, "Given enough distance, enough height, and enough accuracy, two points of elevation will measure each other as smaller. That is: their normal lines (from their peaks to the Earth'scenter) will not be parallel.)". Next you cannot prove your position by attacking the other side's position. For these two reasons the proof fails.

63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

This would be a great proof, if only the premise were supported with evidence. However lacking any evidence and relying on "It is a fact so well known as it ought to be..." this proof fails.

ITT: "I didn't check it so it's wrong"

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 04:14:30 AM

63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

This would be a great proof, if only the premise were supported with evidence. However lacking any evidence and relying on "It is a fact so well known as it ought to be..." this proof fails.

ITT: "I didn't check it so it's wrong"

To correct you: "He didn't show any evidence for what he claimed, so it's not a proof." Do pay attention, please.

Pay attention. Half of your rebuttals are based on the fact that instead of "I SAW IT!11!!!" he says "It can be seen". It means the exact same thing. If you want to verify his experiment you have to (zing!) verify it.

Pay attention. Half of your rebuttals are based on the fact that instead of "I SAW IT!11!!!" he says "It can be seen". It means the exact same thing. If you want to verify his experiment you have to (zing!) verify it.

Not at all. It's his claim, he has to prove it with logic, evidence, or both. Furthermore, how do you know that I haven't already verified the results? You assume too much.

Oh, and just to help you some more with logic. "It can be seen." is not the same as "I saw it." The first doesn't even say that it's been seen or who the observer was, while the second does.

63. It is a fact not so well known as it ought to be that when a ship, in sailing away from us, has reached the point at which her hull is lost to our unaided vision, a good telescope will restore to our view this portion of the vessel. Now, since telescopes are not made to enable people to see through a "hill of water," it is clear that the hulls of ships are not behind a hill of water when they can be seen through a telescope though lost to our unaided vision. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

This would be a great proof, if only the premise were supported with evidence. However lacking any evidence and relying on "It is a fact so well known as it ought to be..." this proof fails.

Actually,this reminds me.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25232.msg560231#msg560231
lots of links there.

Oh, and just to help you some more with logic. "It can be seen." is not the same as "I saw it." The first doesn't even say that it's been seen or who the observer was, while the second does.

I agree, but the default assumption would be that if something can be seen, then it, in fact, was.

Quote from: ClockTower on July 06, 2010, 06:17:40 PM

Oh, and just to help you some more with logic. "It can be seen." is not the same as "I saw it." The first doesn't even say that it's been seen or who the observer was, while the second does.

I agree, but the default assumption would be that if something can be seen, then it, in fact, was.

But do you really want assumptions when proving something? Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Give me the assumption that "1+1=3", and I can prove that the Moon is made of cheese.

The assumption is of a completely different nature.
If I say "It can be seen that the sky is blue", will you accuse me of not having checked it myself?

The assumption is of a completely different nature.
If I say "It can be seen that the sky is blue", will you accuse me of not having checked it myself?

No. I will, however, if I don't have any evidence about the color of the sky or experience of seeing it myself, challenge to provide evidence. Is it blue at night? How about at sunrise? During a snowstorm? During a thunderstorm? When see from an altitude of 20 miles? Proofs are very powerful, but only when developed well and checked. A proof requires the precise of evidence and logic and we must challenge each assumption. That is what FES expects on us REers, probably even more so than we expect of them. The evidence, our experiences, our Science, all say the Earth is a sphere. Unless we pause to challenge those 'proofs' of RET, then there's nothing to debate.

Unless we pause to challenge those 'proofs' of RET, then there's nothing to debate.

This has been done several times, to no effect. Both sides claim victory.
And you're doing the same. You quote each and every single proof in a separate post, and then say "Yeah, it's wrong". RE'ers probably applaud, FE'ers probably don't see the point. Result? Nothing.

73. Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its "axis," by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath - asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the "rotation" theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.

I infer that this proof involves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum. Again, you cannot prove your position by attacking the other side's experiments. Here the overwhelming evidence does not support the premise. This proof fails for both reasons.

74. As to the supposed "motion of the whole Solar system in space," the Astronomer Royal of England once said: "The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I Shall be very glad if anyone can help us out of it." But, since the whole Newtonian scheme is, today, in a most deplorable state of uncertainty - for, whether the Moon goes round the Earth or the Earth round the Moon has, for years, been a matter of "raging" controversy it follows that, root and branch, the whole thing, is wrong; and, all hot from the furnace of philosophical phrensy, we find a glowing proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Again, you cannot prove your thesis by attacking the other side's thesis. Furthermore, given the current state of experimental evidence on the motion of the Solar System and the orbit about the common center of mass of the Earth and the Moon, the premise is demonstrably false. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System.

75. Considerably more than a million Earths would be required to make up a body like the Sun -the astronomers tell us: and more than 53,000 suns would be wanted to equal the cubic contents of the star Vega. And Vega is a "small star!" And there are countless millions of these stars! And it takes 30,000,000 years for the light of some of those stars to reach us at 12,000,000 miles in a minute! And, says Mr. Proctor, "I think a moderate estimate of the age of the Earth would be 500,000,000 years! "Its weight," says the same individual, "is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,060 tons!" Now, since no human being is able to comprehend these things, the giving of them to the world is an insult - an outrage. And though they have all risen from the one assumption that Earth is a planet, instead of upholding the assumption, they drag it down by the weight of their own absurdity, and leave it lying in the dust - a proof that Earth is not a globe.

Granted that the Universe is an amazing place with such fine structure both microscopic and astronomical, we must reject this proof with its appeal to nature fallacy.

I laugh at that last one. Basically he says that the dimensions of the universe we have been born in must be comprehensible to us. Well, humans can't comprehend seeing a billion of something, so I guess there aren't billions of humans, either.

76. Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one. And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

The opinion of one Mr. J. R. Young does not prove that the Earth is not a globe. (Let's say Grover on tomorrow's Sesame Street said the Earth is a sphere. Would Tom Bishop believe that statement proved that it was so? Of course not!

But let's tarry at bit longer on this proof. Let's consider the word, "represent". From http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/represent, have: "11 : to correspond to in essence". So Mr. Young may have meant only that for the purposes of a particular journey of limited distance, which is true even on a "spherical surface."

For both reasons, this proof fails.

76. Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one. And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

The opinion of one Mr. J. R. Young does not prove that the Earth is not a globe. (Let's say Grover on tomorrow's Sesame Street said the Earth is a sphere. Would Tom Bishop believe that statement proved that it was so? Of course not!

But let's tarry at bit longer on this proof. Let's consider the word, "represent". From http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/represent, have: "11 : to correspond to in essence". So Mr. Young may have meant only that for the purposes of a particular journey of limited distance, which is true even on a "spherical surface."

For both reasons, this proof fails.

Dude, just give up. I don't have the time to teach you elementary math.

Dude, you should change your sig to "24 proofs the Earth is not a globe" until Clocktower finishes ruining your face.

Dude, you should change your sig to "24 proofs the Earth is not a globe" until Clocktower finishes ruining your face.

Clocktower has done no harm to the proofs so far. He has the right not to believe them, and he has the right to talk about it on a forum, but that does not invalidate them per se.

Quote from: sillyrob on July 07, 2010, 06:38:37 AM

Dude, you should change your sig to "24 proofs the Earth is not a globe" until Clocktower finishes ruining your face.

Clocktower has done no harm to the proofs so far. He has the right not to believe them, and he has the right to talk about it on a forum, but that does not invalidate them per se.

Done no harm? The 100 proofs don't make sense and he's showing why. This is like Hiroshima in text form.

77. "Oh, but if the Earth is a plane, we could go to the edge and tumble over!" is a very common assertion. This is a conclusion that is formed too hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is, what man by his observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor himself says it "seems" to be. flat - and we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it. This is a complete answer to the objection, and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a globe.

First, defending your model against a single critique is never a proof. Proofs stand along. Second, he again fails to support his premise the "we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it." This never was a proof.