Tamarack Mines Mystery... Plumbline Experiments Prove Earth Concave/HubCap...

In the Tamarack Mines an experiments was performed...  Basically, A plumbline was suspended from two holes hundreds of feet deep and a mile apart...  Fortunately, betwixt both of the bottoms of these holes existed a connecting tunnel which permitted measurement...

  Instead of converging together more at the bottom than the top (what an individual would expect on a round earth), a divergence of about 8 inches was observed...

Gravitational attraction of the side walls was ruled out...

Magnetic field influence proved to not provide the answer as well... (They used brass wire and a 50lb. weight suspended in oil)

Winds as well inside of the tunnels provided no explanation as to the cause (they sealed the entrances)

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

The guy in this website discusses the aspects of centripetal force as a possible explanation...  However, I possess keen observations on how centrifugal divergences give very small effects on hanging objects: how much more so centripetal force a tiny attraction and pivot to the center...  It would not create such a great change in RET...

He had to note how centrifugal forces, being of a much greater potential, only give tiny readings on even the Foucult pendulum (and that was a very small pendulum... not at all 50 lbs.)  In addition, the centripetal change, if it really existed, would have to produce a uniform result across both plumblines.  A result which still allows one to determine the shape of the earth by taking the average measurement...

This organization even utilized a rectilineator which measured the concave parabolic shape of the planet... I suggest a slight bowl shape to the earth, their measurements support also the hubcap model with its intense curves...

They really got hyped up about this issue and created a cult (which I do not believe in by the way)...

As Simanek says, it's in all probability a myth (I have been unable to locate any solid evidence that the proposed experiment using two mine shafts 3,200 feet apart was ever performed).

Bear in mind too, that at its alleged time period, there was no way they could've carried out any accurate measurements anyway—certainly not to decimals of an inch LOL.

Until Geoffrey started to read up on this he assumed it was mining for road surface material. 

Bear in mind too, that at its alleged time period, there was no way they could've carried out any accurate measurements anyway—certainly not to decimals of an inch LOL.

lol, you round Earthers claim that people could measure the circumference of the Earth thousands of years ago, yet, now you claim that they could not measure 2/3 of a mile 100 years ago.  You are so entertaining with the stuff you come up with.  Thanks for the laugh. 

yet, now you claim that they could not measure 2/3 of a mile 100 years ago. 

Where in the hell did anyone claim that?

The linked article goes into quite a bit of detail about, if this "experiment" ever took place, which is debatable, then how the measurement error could have occured:

The expected sidewise deflection of the plumb line turns out to be only about 0.04 inch for each plumb line, or 0.08 inch greater separation of the two plumb lines at bottom than top. This is only about 1/100 the amount of 8.22 inches reported in the accounts of the two-shaft Tamarack experiments. But remember, we have no contemporary account that this experiment was ever performed in two mine shafts separated horizontally by 3,200 feet.

and later on

     In case you haven't done the calculation already while reading this, the force required to deflect a 50 lb bob sidewise just one inch, when it hangs from a 4,200 foot wire, is only 0.016 ounce. [Calculation, using a force triangle: (1/12)(50/4200)*16 = 0.016)] That's about the weight of a Ruby-Throated Hummingbird.

So it seems there's no mystery in this whole affair, and no real challenge to conventional geodesy and gravity theory. The Koreshans were citing misleading newspaper accounts and selecting data to suit their philosophical agenda, without understanding the methodology of the experiments or recognizing the centripetal effect due to earth's rotation (which they didn't accept anyway).

and

At the present time I have been unable to locate any solid evidence that the proposed experiment using two mine shafts 3,200 feet apart was ever performed

Maybe read the actual article before you comment?

You are so entertaining with the stuff you come up with.  Thanks for the laugh. 

You need to get out more.

The claim was made (by ausGeoff) that they could not measure (for what ever reason) accurate distances 100 years ago.  That is what I was responding to. 

The claim was made (by ausGeoff) that they could not measure (for what ever reason) accurate distances 100 years ago.

You said:

you claim that they could not measure 2/3 of a mile 100 years ago. 

Whereas in fact nobody has made this claim, and it's just another one of your stramen.

Whereas in fact nobody has made this claim, and it's just another one of your stramen.

Bear in mind too, that at its alleged time period, there was no way they could've carried out any accurate measurements anyway—certainly not to decimals of an inch LOL.

Please, try harder to argue. 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on October 13, 2014, 07:47:35 AM

Whereas in fact nobody has made this claim, and it's just another one of your stramen.

Quote from: ausGeoff on October 12, 2014, 02:57:00 PM

Bear in mind too, that at its alleged time period, there was no way they could've carried out any accurate measurements anyway—certainly not to decimals of an inch LOL.

Please, try harder to argue.

Sounds like your argument was handled nicely Jroa. One does not have try hard to rebut a straw man, only recognize it.

@jroa, you could at least vary your fallacies now and again.  It would be more entertaining at least.

lol, you round Earthers claim that people could measure the circumference of the Earth thousands of years ago, yet, now you claim that they could not measure 2/3 of a mile 100 years ago.  You are so entertaining with the stuff you come up with.  Thanks for the laugh.

Unfortunately, the laugh is on you jroa.  The ancient Greeks did NOT "measure" the circumference of the earth.  They deduced it mathematically using trigonometry.  Their deduction was derived as a conclusion from several known factors.

Secondly, you're totally confused about the alleged Tamarack mines experiment.  They did not measure any 2/3 of a mile accurately as an integral part of the experiments either;  I don't know where you got that from.

Also, do you really believe that they could accurately measure convergences such as 0.028 feet, and divergences of 0.141 feet 150 years ago to the third decimal point, or 0.03mm?  Seriously?

And if you do, can you please describe the instrument they would've used?  And also how it was used to measure the distance without physically touching either of the plumb lines themselves?

Quote from: jroa on October 13, 2014, 05:53:31 AM

lol, you round Earthers claim that people could measure the circumference of the Earth thousands of years ago, yet, now you claim that they could not measure 2/3 of a mile 100 years ago.  You are so entertaining with the stuff you come up with.  Thanks for the laugh.

Unfortunately, the laugh is on you jroa.  The ancient Greeks did NOT "measure" the circumference of the earth.  They deduced it mathematically using trigonometry.  Their deduction was derived as a conclusion from several known factors.

Secondly, you're totally confused about the alleged Tamarack mines experiment.  They did not measure any 2/3 of a mile accurately as an integral part of the experiments either;  I don't know where you got that from.

Also, do you really believe that they could accurately measure convergences such as 0.028 feet, and divergences of 0.141 feet 150 years ago to the third decimal point, or 0.03mm?  Seriously?

And if you do, can you please describe the instrument they would've used?  And also how it was used to measure the distance without physically touching either of the plumb lines themselves?

Actually, the bobs, which were 3,200 feet apart, diverged by more than 8 inches. 

Actually, the bobs, which were 3,200 feet apart, diverged by more than 8 inches.

And the means and method of measurement were.....?

You don't think they were capable of measuring 8 inches 100 years ago? 

You don't think they were capable of measuring 8 inches 100 years ago?

Uh... they weren't measuring 8 inches.  They were allegedly measuring to a far greater tolerance (as I said earlier)...

Do you really believe that they could accurately measure convergences such as 0.028 feet, and divergences of 0.141 feet 150 years ago to the third decimal point, or 0.03mm?

And...

The means and method of measurement were.....?

Please address these two specific questions.

Two questions answered.

1.  Yes, 100 years ago they were capable of measuring things down to .0001 inches.

2.  The same way we measure things today. 

Two questions answered.

1.  Yes, 100 years ago they were capable of measuring things down to .0001 inches.

2.  The same way we measure things today.

You do realise it was not a matter of accurately measuring that something was 0.0001 inch/cm/whatever, right? This is done in a fairly simple way, using a micrometer screw(or whatever this device is called in English) or similar finely-threaded contraption. It was a matter of measuring something with was hundreds of meters long with a precision of a few centimeters. 8 inches out of 2/3 mile is about 0.000189. While such ratio is easily measurable on a small scale, on a large scale one would have to use a completely different way of collecting data.

So, could you please tell us how such a measurement can be accurately conducted without things like radars or laser meters? I am pretty sure there were no such devices back then. And I don't believe taking a yard-stick and placing it end-to-end hundreds of times would give a reasonably accurate result.

Quote from: jroa on October 14, 2014, 07:21:30 AM

Two questions answered.

1.  Yes, 100 years ago they were capable of measuring things down to .0001 inches.

2.  The same way we measure things today.

You do realise it was not a matter of accurately measuring that something was 0.0001 inch/cm/whatever, right? This is done in a fairly simple way, using a micrometer screw(or whatever this device is called in English) or similar finely-threaded contraption. It was a matter of measuring something with was hundreds of meters long with a precision of a few centimeters. 8 inches out of 2/3 mile is about 0.000189. While such ratio is easily measurable on a small scale, on a large scale one would have to use a completely different way of collecting data.

So, could you please tell us how such a measurement can be accurately conducted without things like radars or laser meters? I am pretty sure there were no such devices back then. And I don't believe taking a yard-stick and placing it end-to-end hundreds of times would give a reasonably accurate result.

How were they capable of building rail-road tracks from two different places and having them meet at a given location 100 years ago?  Oh, wait, they must have had some pretty accurate ways to measure things back then.  Maybe you should try harder before you make people think you are dumb? 

Quote from: Macpie on October 14, 2014, 07:44:52 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 14, 2014, 07:21:30 AM

Two questions answered.

1.  Yes, 100 years ago they were capable of measuring things down to .0001 inches.

2.  The same way we measure things today.

You do realise it was not a matter of accurately measuring that something was 0.0001 inch/cm/whatever, right? This is done in a fairly simple way, using a micrometer screw(or whatever this device is called in English) or similar finely-threaded contraption. It was a matter of measuring something with was hundreds of meters long with a precision of a few centimeters. 8 inches out of 2/3 mile is about 0.000189. While such ratio is easily measurable on a small scale, on a large scale one would have to use a completely different way of collecting data.

So, could you please tell us how such a measurement can be accurately conducted without things like radars or laser meters? I am pretty sure there were no such devices back then. And I don't believe taking a yard-stick and placing it end-to-end hundreds of times would give a reasonably accurate result.

How were they capable of building rail-road tracks from two different places and having them meet at a given location 100 years ago?  Oh, wait, they must have had some pretty accurate ways to measure things back then.  Maybe you should try harder before you make people think you are dumb?

Surveying.

How were they capable of building rail-road tracks from two different places and having them meet at a given location 100 years ago? 

How is laying railroad tracks even remotely comparable to precisely measuring the distance between plumb bobs hanging down mine shafts?

Maybe you should try harder before you make people think you are dumb?

Maybe you should try using relevant comparisons.

Quote from: jroa on October 14, 2014, 07:51:21 AM

How were they capable of building rail-road tracks from two different places and having them meet at a given location 100 years ago? 

How is laying railroad tracks even remotely comparable to precisely measuring the distance between plumb bobs hanging down mine shafts?

Because they both require accurate measurements, maybe? 

Quote from: jroa on October 14, 2014, 07:51:21 AM

Maybe you should try harder before you make people think you are dumb?

Maybe you should try using relevant comparisons.

Making accurate measurements over thousands of miles is not relevant to making accurate measurements over 2/3 of a mile?  Are you drunk again? 

Quote from: markjo on October 14, 2014, 02:57:15 PM

Quote from: jroa on October 14, 2014, 07:51:21 AM

How were they capable of building rail-road tracks from two different places and having them meet at a given location 100 years ago? 

How is laying railroad tracks even remotely comparable to precisely measuring the distance between plumb bobs hanging down mine shafts?

Because they both require accurate measurements, maybe? 

Quote from: markjo on October 14, 2014, 02:57:15 PM

Quote from: jroa on October 14, 2014, 07:51:21 AM

Maybe you should try harder before you make people think you are dumb?

Maybe you should try using relevant comparisons.

Making accurate measurements over thousands of miles is not relevant to making accurate measurements over 2/3 of a mile?  Are you drunk again?

I'm not drunk, but it sounds like you are.  What techniques are used to measure thousands of miles of railroad tracks and what techniques were used to measure the plumb bobs hanging in the mine shafts? 

What difference does it make how they made the measurements?  The fact is that they could accurately measure distances back in those days.  I was not there, so I don't know the methods they used.  You might be old enough to remember how they measured things in those days.  Maybe you could enlighten us?   

Two questions answered.

1.  Yes, 100 years ago they were capable of measuring things down to .0001 inches.

2.  The same way we measure things today.

1.   What instrument was used to measure the distance between the plumb lines—without physically touching the lines themselves (which would of course disrupt the accuracy of the measurement)?

2.   Surveyors use laser rangefinders to measure long distances these days to sub-millimetre accuracy—how did they manage it 150 years ago?  What sorts of instrument(s) were used to obtain fourth decimal point accuracy?


   

What difference does it make how they made the measurements?  The fact is that they could accurately measure distances back in those days.

Some they could, some they couldn't.  It depends.   Just like it does now, only we have got much better.

In this case of this, maybe mythical experiment, the measurement error was greater than the claimed effect.  Do you really not get this?

You claim to have some engineering qualifications and this stuff is absolutely core, so I can't believe you really don't get it.  It is like you are being intentionally dense for some reason....

What difference does it make how they made the measurements?  The fact is that they could accurately measure distances back in those days.  I was not there, so I don't know the methods they used.  You might be old enough to remember how they measured things in those days.  Maybe you could enlighten us?

If you can't see the difference between trying to precisely and accurately measure the distance between 2 plumb bobs hanging down mine shafts and trying to line up train tracks, then I'm not sure how to explain it to you in a way that you would understand.  If you don't know how the distance between the plumb bobs were measured, then I don'k know how you can intelligently comment on the accuracy or precision of those measurements.

Quote from: jroa on October 15, 2014, 06:55:47 AM

What difference does it make how they made the measurements?  The fact is that they could accurately measure distances back in those days.  I was not there, so I don't know the methods they used.  You might be old enough to remember how they measured things in those days.  Maybe you could enlighten us?

If you can't see the difference between trying to precisely and accurately measure the distance between 2 plumb bobs hanging down mine shafts and trying to line up train tracks, then I'm not sure how to explain it to you in a way that you would understand.  If you don't know how the distance between the plumb bobs were measured, then I don'k know how you can intelligently comment on the accuracy or precision of those measurements.

You could use the example of the Sierra Nevada Summit tunnel excavated during the laying of the transcontinental railway in the 1860's. If memory serves their highly accurate surveying got the error between the centre points of the two tunnel segments to about 2 inches. The tunnel itself is just under a third of a mile long.

Quote from: markjo on October 15, 2014, 10:09:47 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 15, 2014, 06:55:47 AM

What difference does it make how they made the measurements?  The fact is that they could accurately measure distances back in those days.  I was not there, so I don't know the methods they used.  You might be old enough to remember how they measured things in those days.  Maybe you could enlighten us?

If you can't see the difference between trying to precisely and accurately measure the distance between 2 plumb bobs hanging down mine shafts and trying to line up train tracks, then I'm not sure how to explain it to you in a way that you would understand.  If you don't know how the distance between the plumb bobs were measured, then I don'k know how you can intelligently comment on the accuracy or precision of those measurements.

You could use the example of the Sierra Nevada Summit tunnel excavated during the laying of the transcontinental railway in the 1860's. If memory serves their highly accurate surveying got the error between the centre points of the two tunnel segments to about 2 inches. The tunnel itself is just under a third of a mile long.

Yes, I could probably use any of dozens of examples of such examples.  That is, if I thought that they were relevant to measuring how far out of parallel 2 plumb bobs hung 2/3 of a mile apart to within a small fraction of an inch.  But since I don't, I won't.

Quote from: dephelis on October 15, 2014, 04:26:55 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 15, 2014, 10:09:47 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 15, 2014, 06:55:47 AM

What difference does it make how they made the measurements?  The fact is that they could accurately measure distances back in those days.  I was not there, so I don't know the methods they used.  You might be old enough to remember how they measured things in those days.  Maybe you could enlighten us?

If you can't see the difference between trying to precisely and accurately measure the distance between 2 plumb bobs hanging down mine shafts and trying to line up train tracks, then I'm not sure how to explain it to you in a way that you would understand.  If you don't know how the distance between the plumb bobs were measured, then I don'k know how you can intelligently comment on the accuracy or precision of those measurements.

You could use the example of the Sierra Nevada Summit tunnel excavated during the laying of the transcontinental railway in the 1860's. If memory serves their highly accurate surveying got the error between the centre points of the two tunnel segments to about 2 inches. The tunnel itself is just under a third of a mile long.

Yes, I could probably use any of dozens of examples of such examples.  That is, if I thought that they were relevant to measuring how far out of parallel 2 plumb bobs hung 2/3 of a mile apart to within a small fraction of an inch.  But since I don't, I won't.

markjo, whether I measure my desk, my living room, or the field behind my house, the techniques I use would be just as accurate.  You act like measuring rail road tracks over thousands of miles has nothing to do with measuring plumb bobs at 2/3 of a mile.  Please learn to measure. 

Should be easy to repeat today.