Much of what Carpenter says is correct.
- No aeronaut in the 1800's saw curvature to the earth.
Why speak of a man's writings as correct if they are totally outdated and irrelevant? There was also no observation of Pluto back then, either, so I guess if he said there was no Pluto he would have been correct, too? Obviously people have seen curvature now, and so this discredits the obvious implication he was making that no curvature exists.
- The concept of "Gravity" is absurd and unproven. Newton never gave a mechanism for his absurd theory. "Gravitons" have never been discovered, and the bending of space has never been demonstrated true.
Can you give a reason as to why it is absurd, or is it just your opinion? The lack of a mechanism doesn't indicate that we don't have a pretty good working model. Newton's inverse square law describes the motion of nearby heavenly bodies to great accuracy. Using the gravitational potential energies, it predicted that orbits would be elliptical, circular, parabolic, or hyperbolic depending on the masses, and this is what is observed. I wouldn't exactly call a precise (albeit inaccurate for certain extreme conditions) mathematical model that generates testable predictions "absurd."
Another thing: if the lack of a discovered mechanism/graviton is a problem for gravity, what would you say about the mechanism for all the stars revolving around us in FET? Or UA, or bendy light, or any of the other extra things in FET that apparently don't need mechanisms as badly as gravity does?
- Clearly, it's the stars which move across the sky. The pretense in astronomical observation is that the stars are moving, not that the earth is moving. The assumption that the earth is moving is fallacious an without merit. The burden is on globularists to demonstrate their idea correct. We can visibly see that the stars are moving.
So, the stars move across the sky? What would it look like if the earth was actually rotating? Exactly as it does now? Oh, okay. Well, we have plenty of evidence indicating that the earth is far, far, far more likely to be rotating than the stars are to be orbiting us.
- Fewer species of plant life in the southern hemisphere does suggest that the earth is a plane, the sun circling around the North Pole. Indeed, it is said that less than 10% of the human population even lives in the southern hemisphere, the majority of life taking place above the equator.
Human migration patterns are irrelevant. There are some species that only reside in the southern hemisphere. And there are some that only reside in the northern hemisphere. Plus, 70% of the earth's land area is in the northern hemisphere in RET, so in fact we would on average expect an uneven distribution according to your logic.
- The pretense of human reality is that we exist on a flat plane with astronomical bodies passing by overhead. The idea that the earth is a ball whirling and twirling to space at immeasurable speeds is absurd and undemonstrated.
The burden of evidence is on the absurdists about their crackpot ideas about a ball earth.
You can make any idea sound absurd by caricaturing it in any way you want. Atomic theory is even more absurd when you think about it; common sense will not get you very far in science. We evolved in a world where we didn't care about atomic theory or cosmological expansion or other planets or anything, just hunting and gathering on a very small part of the world which happens to look flat from our vantage point but round from high vantage points.