One of Toms posts, and the 100 proofs thing

In http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20927.0 tom posted....

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.

Who went and measured that the height of the towers had a difference of 36mm?

That seems to be a calculated value from building two identical towers on an RE.

Who went and measured that the height of the towers had a difference of 36mm?

That seems to be a calculated value from building two identical towers on an RE.

They probably used laser to measure distance between the towers.

A surveyor measured it. When they built the bridge.

A surveyor measured it. When they built the bridge.

Where's the data? Where are your references? Where's your source?

How do we know that figure wasn't just calculated from the supposed rotundity of the earth?

Most large-scale construction, such as long bridges, accounts for the curvature of the earth. I don't know where Tom gets his bullshit from, but I doubt that in the 19th century most engineers considered it 'absolutely necessary' to account for the curvature of the earth due to the lack of such large-scale projects.

ditto for your proof. It could have been made up. But a surveyor on this or a similar project would have  noticed.

Most large-scale construction, such as long bridges, accounts for the curvature of the earth.

Really? And how do they account for it? They just build the bridge towers straight up at 90 degrees parallel to the earth. They're building identical towers. They're not building one tower 36mm shorter than the other. They're saying that the curvature of the earth does that.

ditto for your proof. It could have been made up. But a surveyor on this or a similar project would have  noticed.

Where's the evidence that surveyors are involved with that 36mm figure at all? I didn't see anything about surveyors on that Wikipedia page. Looks more like a calculation to me.

Quote

Most large-scale construction, such as long bridges, accounts for the curvature of the earth.

Really? And how do they account for it?

36mm can matter a lot in construction, so I'm sure it was taken into account. I'll ask an engineer 'how' when I get the chance. Another example is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.

36mm can matter a lot in construction, so I'm sure it was taken into account. I'll ask an engineer 'how' when I get the chance. Another example is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.

I don't see how it would "matter a lot in construction." Even when building the platforms to connect the towers, the platforms are at all points the same altitude above the earth along the way. The platforms are all built to the same height above the earth. The two towers themselves are built to the same height above the earth.

It's only when calculated in relation to the supposed curvature of the earth should there be a difference in tower heights. But who confirmed those calculations?

It says so on the website.

Surely more evidence of the conspiracy?!

(BTW What did Rowdy Rowboat have to say about the conspiracy? H'm)

I don't see anything on the website that says that the figure comes from surveyors or actual data from the towers. It just looks like a calculated figure supposing the rotundity of the earth's surface.

Quote

36mm can matter a lot in construction, so I'm sure it was taken into account. I'll ask an engineer 'how' when I get the chance. Another example is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.

I don't see how it would "matter a lot in construction." Even when building the platforms to connect the towers, the platforms are at all points the same altitude above the earth along the way. The two towers themselves are built to the same height.

Where's your proof?

Where's your proof?

I don't need to prove your claims. You need to prove your own claims.

So where's the proof that the towers have a height difference of 36mm due to the curvature of the earth?

Quote

Where's your proof?

I don't need to prove your claims. You need to prove your own claims.

So where's the proof that the towers have a height difference of 36mm due to the curvature of the earth?

Evidence cannot be thrown out unless it is proven wrong. You have given no proof that our evidence is wrong. Saying that there is a 36mm difference in the height of bridge towers is not as 'outlandish' as saying that every source that states so is wrong, so you should defend your claims.

Evidence cannot be thrown out unless it is proven wrong.

What evidence? You guys haven't given us any evidence at all.

I'm now sure why you think you have evidence when you don't.

Quote

Evidence cannot be thrown out unless it is proven wrong.

What evidence? You guys haven't given us any evidence at all.

Where's your evidence that the curvature of the earth needs to be taken into account when building anything that has been built? Your proof should be thrown out, unless you can find an example of something that could not have been built due to the curvature of the earth.

So where's the proof that the towers have a height difference of 36mm due to the curvature of the earth?

So where's the proof that the towers [don't] have a height difference of 36mm due to the curvature of the earth?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2008, 01:11:26 PM

So where's the proof that the towers have a height difference of 36mm due to the curvature of the earth?

So where's the proof that the towers [don't] have a height difference of 36mm due to the curvature of the earth?

According to Tom, it is more unlikely that there difference in distance of the top of bridge towers than it is that all the sources that say so are lying or wrong.

They are not saying that the towers are different heights.  They are saying that the towers are 36mm further apart at the top than the bottom!!!!

They are not saying that the towers are different heights.  They are saying that the towers are 36mm further apart at the top than the bottom!!!!

Whoops, the real Tom Bishop's mistake made me stumble in that post.

I just find it amazing how things work here:

In RE normal life, something that has been claimed to be false by someone, that has been proven correct by a vast majority, must present their claims as to why it is false to be proven incorrect.

In FE normal life, something that has been claimed to be true by someone, that has been proven correct by a vast majority, must present their claims as to why it is true to be therefore proven incorrect by the minority.

Tom_Bishop fails at life...

RE has no proof of this measurement... you can't just claim something and "assume true" without any further evidence...

I just find it amazing how things work here:

In RE normal life, something that has been claimed to be false by someone, that has been proven correct by a vast majority, must present their claims as to why it is false to be proven incorrect.

In FE normal life, something that has been claimed to be true by someone, that has been proven correct by a vast majority, must present their claims as to why it is true to be therefore proven incorrect by the minority.

It's more along the lines of:

In RE normal life, a theory with evidence deemed sufficient by the vast majority will be accepted unless something better comes along

In FE normal life, a theory supporting the RET must absolutely be proven (which is impossible), whereas a theory supporting the FET requires only a quote of Rowbotham's poorly conducted experiments to be true.

Tom_Bishop fails at life...

RE has no proof of this measurement... you can't just claim something and "assume true" without any further evidence...

Nothing can be proven. But RE has evidence, such as photographs, observable phenomena and physics. FE has no real evidence of any of their theories. How about this: any evidence supporting both theories at once should be thrown out, and the remaining evidence should be compared. What theory do you think will win? And I'm not Tom_Bishop, I'm Tоm Bishоp, just like Tom Bishop (but not a moron).

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.

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.

Quote

Where's your proof?

I don't need to prove your claims. You need to prove your own claims.

So where's the proof that the towers have a height difference of 36mm due to the curvature of the earth?

Actually the height was not what was different Tom, it was that the tower were not parallel and that the difference in the distance between towers at the top and bottom of the towers was 36mm.

Like this:


The difference in Diagram 1 between A and B would be 36mm (for the bridge). Where as, if it was on a Flat Earth, there would be no difference in the distance as shown in Diagram 2.

The distance can be measured in several ways.

• The easiest would be to use a laser range finder and this uses the time it takes light to travel from the source, to the destination and then get reflected back to the receiver. You could also use an ultrasonic range finder, but it wouldn't work as good.
• Another would be the just use a tape measure.
• You could use triangulation using the edge of one tower as a base line
• And so forth

When building the towers, for the bridge, it would have been necessary to know the size of the gaps between the top and bottom of any two towers so that they had the correct lengths for the Suspension cables. For a bridge this size variations of 36mm would be disastrous. The engineering tolerances for such large constructions is extremely tight. If the cables are too long then too much sway will occur and the bridge will collapse. If the cables are too short, then they won't connect properly (or if forced to they will put too much stress on the towers) and the bridge will collapse.

In certain parts of the bridge, tolerances of this could be accommodated, but for the gaps between the towers, this kind of variation is far too great.

Do you know anything about engineering?

Quote

Where's your proof?

I don't need to prove your claims. You need to prove your own claims.

So where's the proof that the towers have a height difference of 36mm due to the curvature of the earth?

You're mental. Who said they were different heights they're just further apart at the top than the bottom. It seems the only way you would believe would be for someone to take you up there (hands down, i'm doing it). They do tours, put your money where you mouth is.

I already created a post about the bridge and said this but i'm nice and wont say lurk more (or however the cool people say it)

 If the towers aren't further apart at the top than the bottom, then why say that they are?? It's pointless. If that information hadn't been published/made up (if you're tom) then nobody would know any different.
One would assume they were the same distant apart and still think the earth was round. Hence why the fact is so interesting.

Of course, you could always  just stick to spouting non sensical hypothesis and referencing nonsense books from a bloke who like to stand in canals. Yeah, just be forever apathetic. Never wanting to prove to the world that the earth is in fact flat and therefore shattering the illusions of the entire population of the planet and possibly become the most welknown human being ever to have lived. Just fuck that, blame the penguins and post tripe on the internet based on a book of "experiments" that nobody has repeated since (why's that i wonder)



sorry for that, probably makes no sense

Mr Bishop, you still there?

Mr Bishop, you still there?

The pirate Tom Bishop is no longer here. Unfortunately, the real Tom Bishop still is.