One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing

  • 40 Replies
  • 10570 Views
?

PeopleOnBehalfOfLogic

  • 130
  • RE'er (for now)
Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2008, 03:07:53 PM »
Thanks. I was just wo ndering since he seems to have stopped posting. How do you know by the way?
Just noticed my name is actually pretty insulting. Apologies.

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2008, 08:21:15 PM »
Thanks. I was just wo ndering since he seems to have stopped posting. How do you know by the way?
Because I got banned.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2008, 06:34:23 AM »
... you can't just claim something and "assume true" without any further evidence...

Indeed. FET fails miserably on that account.
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2008, 08:08:21 AM »
None of us can provide hard evidence either way. But I reckon that if the towers were built without compensating for curvature, someone working on this or a similar project would have noticed.
But why must they compensate for curvature? Metal is flexible enough to make a fit with a 36mm difference over the length of the Humber bridge. The Wiki article states that this is not a compensation, but simply as a result of the curvature of the earth. If both towers are found level at their respective locations, yet there truly is a difference in distances between the towers at the top as stated, then the earth is not flat. If someone could prove this, then Tom is supposed to shut up. However, he posed this challenge knowing that he would never accept any evidence presented as proof, so it is pointless.

So then it means that there were no surveyours on this issue before they started the consutrction?

Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2008, 01:00:19 PM »
In http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20927.0 tom posted....

Quote
If the earth was a globe surveyors would make allowance for the earth's curvature

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter:

      3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.

Shame really. Perhaps Tom you would like to look at the construction of the Humber bridge then?

From Wiki...
The towers, although both vertical, are not parallel, being 36 millimetres (1.4 in) further apart at the top than the bottom as a result of the curvature of the earth.[4]

From http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/interest.php
The bridge towers are 36mm (1.4 inches) further apart at the top than the bottom to take account of the curvature of the earth.

So, this would then be 'cutting proof' that the Earth IS a globe. Thanks Tom.

Pwned.

Unfortunately not.  I once tried to champion this cause, and in the interests of getting a definitive answer, I emailed the Humber Bridge Authority to ask whether the figure was measured or purely theoretical.  Here's the reply:

Quote
Thank you for your recent email.
 
The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
 
The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
 
Regards
 
Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

So there you have it, straight from the horse's bridgemaster's mouth.  I'm man enough to admit I backed a wrong 'un, so can we let this one go now?
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2008, 04:06:55 PM »
Quote
Thank you for your recent email.
 
The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
 
The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
 
Regards
 
Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

So there you have it, straight from the horse's bridgemaster's mouth.  I'm man enough to admit I backed a wrong 'un, so can we let this one go now?
If the two Towers are vertical (as respect to their local position), and yet they are further apart at the top than the bottom, then this is proof that the Earth is indeed Round.

As the diagram I provided shows, only on a Round Earth can the Towers be both vertical and create an inverted trapezoid between them. On a Flat Earth the shape between the towers has to be a rectangle. This is a mathematical imperative, so unless the FEers can prove the 1 + 1 does not equal 2, then this evidence is absolute proof that the Earth is in fact Round.
Everyday household experimentation.

Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2008, 05:11:26 PM »
Quote
Thank you for your recent email.
 
The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
 
The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
 
Regards
 
Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

So there you have it, straight from the horse's bridgemaster's mouth.  I'm man enough to admit I backed a wrong 'un, so can we let this one go now?
If the two Towers are vertical (as respect to their local position), and yet they are further apart at the top than the bottom, then this is proof that the Earth is indeed Round.

As the diagram I provided shows, only on a Round Earth can the Towers be both vertical and create an inverted trapezoid between them. On a Flat Earth the shape between the towers has to be a rectangle. This is a mathematical imperative, so unless the FEers can prove the 1 + 1 does not equal 2, then this evidence is absolute proof that the Earth is in fact Round.

The point is that the 36mm figure quoted is purely a theoretical one (from the figures on the Humber Bridge website I worked it out at 34mm, but there were a lot of round numbers involved), nobody has yet gone up the towers and measured the distance between them.  Unfortunately you can't claim it as proof until somebody does.  Even if that happens though, I'm sure there will be counter arguments from the FEers that will make mention of factors including atmospheric conditions, calibration of surveying equipment, degrees of accuracy, etc.
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2008, 05:50:16 AM »
Quote
Thank you for your recent email.
 
The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
 
The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
 
Regards
 
Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

So there you have it, straight from the horse's bridgemaster's mouth.  I'm man enough to admit I backed a wrong 'un, so can we let this one go now?
If the two Towers are vertical (as respect to their local position), and yet they are further apart at the top than the bottom, then this is proof that the Earth is indeed Round.

As the diagram I provided shows, only on a Round Earth can the Towers be both vertical and create an inverted trapezoid between them. On a Flat Earth the shape between the towers has to be a rectangle. This is a mathematical imperative, so unless the FEers can prove the 1 + 1 does not equal 2, then this evidence is absolute proof that the Earth is in fact Round.

The point is that the 36mm figure quoted is purely a theoretical one (from the figures on the Humber Bridge website I worked it out at 34mm, but there were a lot of round numbers involved), nobody has yet gone up the towers and measured the distance between them.  Unfortunately you can't claim it as proof until somebody does.  Even if that happens though, I'm sure there will be counter arguments from the FEers that will make mention of factors including atmospheric conditions, calibration of surveying equipment, degrees of accuracy, etc.
I thought the measurements were taken. Oh well.

But it does give a predictive difference between Flat Earth Theory and Round Earth Theory that can be checked by anyone, although the FEists would need to use equipment that they could accept the measurement form. Say the devices Rowbothm used.
Everyday household experimentation.

Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2008, 09:10:41 AM »
Quote
Thank you for your recent email.
 
The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
 
The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
 
Regards
 
Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

So there you have it, straight from the horse's bridgemaster's mouth.  I'm man enough to admit I backed a wrong 'un, so can we let this one go now?
If the two Towers are vertical (as respect to their local position), and yet they are further apart at the top than the bottom, then this is proof that the Earth is indeed Round.

As the diagram I provided shows, only on a Round Earth can the Towers be both vertical and create an inverted trapezoid between them. On a Flat Earth the shape between the towers has to be a rectangle. This is a mathematical imperative, so unless the FEers can prove the 1 + 1 does not equal 2, then this evidence is absolute proof that the Earth is in fact Round.

The point is that the 36mm figure quoted is purely a theoretical one (from the figures on the Humber Bridge website I worked it out at 34mm, but there were a lot of round numbers involved), nobody has yet gone up the towers and measured the distance between them.  Unfortunately you can't claim it as proof until somebody does.  Even if that happens though, I'm sure there will be counter arguments from the FEers that will make mention of factors including atmospheric conditions, calibration of surveying equipment, degrees of accuracy, etc.
I thought the measurements were taken. Oh well.

But it does give a predictive difference between Flat Earth Theory and Round Earth Theory that can be checked by anyone, although the FEists would need to use equipment that they could accept the measurement form. Say the devices Rowbothm used.

I agree, it's very checkable - in theory.  All it takes is for someone to have the time, inclination and permission from the bridge authorities to do it.
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38431
Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2008, 12:23:45 PM »
Quote
Thank you for your recent email.
 
The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
 
The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
 
Regards
 
Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

So there you have it, straight from the horse's bridgemaster's mouth.  I'm man enough to admit I backed a wrong 'un, so can we let this one go now?
If the two Towers are vertical (as respect to their local position), and yet they are further apart at the top than the bottom, then this is proof that the Earth is indeed Round.

As the diagram I provided shows, only on a Round Earth can the Towers be both vertical and create an inverted trapezoid between them. On a Flat Earth the shape between the towers has to be a rectangle. This is a mathematical imperative, so unless the FEers can prove the 1 + 1 does not equal 2, then this evidence is absolute proof that the Earth is in fact Round.

The point is that the 36mm figure quoted is purely a theoretical one (from the figures on the Humber Bridge website I worked it out at 34mm, but there were a lot of round numbers involved), nobody has yet gone up the towers and measured the distance between them.  Unfortunately you can't claim it as proof until somebody does.  Even if that happens though, I'm sure there will be counter arguments from the FEers that will make mention of factors including atmospheric conditions, calibration of surveying equipment, degrees of accuracy, etc.
I thought the measurements were taken. Oh well.

But it does give a predictive difference between Flat Earth Theory and Round Earth Theory that can be checked by anyone, although the FEists would need to use equipment that they could accept the measurement form. Say the devices Rowbothm used.

I agree, it's very checkable - in theory.  All it takes is for someone to have the time, inclination, sufficiently accurate equipment and permission from the bridge authorities to do it.

Fixed that for you.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2008, 03:59:29 PM »
Quote
Thank you for your recent email.
 
The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
 
The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
 
Regards
 
Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

So there you have it, straight from the horse's bridgemaster's mouth.  I'm man enough to admit I backed a wrong 'un, so can we let this one go now?
If the two Towers are vertical (as respect to their local position), and yet they are further apart at the top than the bottom, then this is proof that the Earth is indeed Round.

As the diagram I provided shows, only on a Round Earth can the Towers be both vertical and create an inverted trapezoid between them. On a Flat Earth the shape between the towers has to be a rectangle. This is a mathematical imperative, so unless the FEers can prove the 1 + 1 does not equal 2, then this evidence is absolute proof that the Earth is in fact Round.

The point is that the 36mm figure quoted is purely a theoretical one (from the figures on the Humber Bridge website I worked it out at 34mm, but there were a lot of round numbers involved), nobody has yet gone up the towers and measured the distance between them.  Unfortunately you can't claim it as proof until somebody does.  Even if that happens though, I'm sure there will be counter arguments from the FEers that will make mention of factors including atmospheric conditions, calibration of surveying equipment, degrees of accuracy, etc.
I thought the measurements were taken. Oh well.

But it does give a predictive difference between Flat Earth Theory and Round Earth Theory that can be checked by anyone, although the FEists would need to use equipment that they could accept the measurement form. Say the devices Rowbothm used.

I agree, it's very checkable - in theory.  All it takes is for someone to have the time, inclination, sufficiently accurate equipment and permission from the bridge authorities to do it.

Fixed that for you.

Thanks for that  ;)
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)