railroad ties argument

In the FE literature, there is often reference made to the fact, or putative fact, that in making railroads, companies don't seem to need to request materials consistent with earth curvature, i.e., they requisition materials consistent with the assumption of encountering flatness.

Might this be owed to the fact that the hills and curves to be encountered will occasion a fractionally much greater degree of variation, making it unnecessary to plan for curvature?

(Rails too, indeed, although they'd need more of both theoretically.)

From your linked page:

These distances are so high and far apart that in designing the bridge it was necessary to take into account the curvature of the earth. The total height of the towers is 693 feet and with the towers 4260 feet apart the top of the towers are 1 5/8" further apart due to the curvature of the earth.

One might reply that the towers tilt away from each other because that is convenient for supporting the segment between them, giving a bit of extra lift. And neither would be necessary. The towers could be designed at any angle, and work for a flat earth or a curved earth.

The Verazzano-Narrows Bridge was designed taking into account the curvature of the earth.:
http://bridgepros.com/projects/Verrazzano/Verrazzano.htm

But again, the FE disregards anything published on the Internet as being faked since anything published on the Internet is part of the Conspiracy. The Flat Earth Society Forum is the only source of the truth on the Internet. 

Perhaps you could write them and confirm this?

Its a myth.

Please read the Humber Bridge Statistics

Quote from: http://www.goyorkshirego.com/eastyorkshirepages/humberbridge.htm

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.

However this is actually addressed in the wiki.

It transpires that no one has ever actually measured the distance to confirm it, and that whilst the bridge should allow for curvature, its only a theory.

A round earther actually wrote to the Humber bridge for clarification. Here is the reply he got

Quote from: zork on August 10, 2009, 10:38:19 PM

There is the mail address [email protected] on page http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/administration.php and everyone can write and ask about the matter as I did. And the answer was following:

There is no evidence of this, unfortunately, it is merely a theoretical
and, I have been told, rather inprecise calculation.

Yours sincerely

Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

Humber Bridge Board
Ferriby Road
Hessle
East Yorkshire
HU13 0JG

Many of the older RErs will remember Zork. I didn't just make him up. He was a pain in the butt for ages. But fell flat on his face with this.

Conclusions: RET expects buildings to account for earth's curvature. However its just theory, there is no evidence to support this.

You may also ask your civil engineering friend if they use tools like laser plumb lines when they build skyscrapers. If this is the case and the earth is round, this means the top floors of skyscrapers would have more sq.f floor space as the walls progressively splay outwards. Ask your friend if they charge more in rent for the extra floor space in skyscrapers, the higher you go. (They don't and advertised floor space is always the same on all floors in a 'square' skyscraper).

A flat earth really is the only sensible conclusion.

As a minor side note, I spoke asked an architect about the skyscraper phenomenon mentioned in the quote above and he posited that although the proposed line of walls on skyscrapers would not be parallel due to the curvature of the Earth, they would be pulled parallel because all the materials used to actually build the walls would be square. The tension put on the materials because of this would be negligible compared to the sway in a skyscraper from wind.

Sorry for the semi-off topic remark, it seemed better than resurrecting an old thread.

Another side note about skyscrapers is that they are built on man made foundations.  It would make sense that these foundations don't follow the curvature of the earth, but instead are level, making the upper floors the same size as the lower floors, if this was the intent of the design.

But it would be interesting if someone were to measure the distance between the tops of those two bridge towers and determined if the towers are truly vertical or if they are built at an angle.

Another side note about skyscrapers is that they are built on man made foundations.  It would make sense that these foundations don't follow the curvature of the earth, but instead are level, making the upper floors the same size as the lower floors, if this was the intent of the design.

They also use plumb-lines, which is how that conversation got started. Were the earth round, the plumb-lines would not result in a square building.

But it would be interesting if someone were to measure the distance between the tops of those two bridge towers and determined if the towers are truly vertical or if they are built at an angle.

\ they would be pulled parallel because all the materials used to actually build the walls would be square. The tension put on the materials because of this would be negligible compared to the sway in a skyscraper from wind.

That seems a reasonable answer.

Ski, I was not aware that skyscrapers were so vastly huge that it actually would have this effect. I haven't studied this, but are they actually big enough to have a significant effect on area?

I mean, a skyscraper can't be more than .000001 degrees of the 360 degree Earth, can it? Again, I haven't made calculations, I am actually asking. Thanks.

Ski, I was not aware that skyscrapers were so vastly huge that it actually would have this effect. I haven't studied this, but are they actually big enough to have a significant effect on area?

I mean, a skyscraper can't be more than .000001 degrees of the 360 degree Earth, can it? Again, I haven't made calculations, I am actually asking. Thanks.

One or two extra inches can mean many extra square feet difference between the top and bottom floors.

Quote from: darknavyseal on April 25, 2013, 10:20:48 PM

Ski, I was not aware that skyscrapers were so vastly huge that it actually would have this effect. I haven't studied this, but are they actually big enough to have a significant effect on area?

I mean, a skyscraper can't be more than .000001 degrees of the 360 degree Earth, can it? Again, I haven't made calculations, I am actually asking. Thanks.

One or two extra inches can mean many extra square feet difference between the top and bottom floors.

An extra inch where exactly?

Quote from: jroa on April 25, 2013, 10:26:32 PM

Quote from: darknavyseal on April 25, 2013, 10:20:48 PM

Ski, I was not aware that skyscrapers were so vastly huge that it actually would have this effect. I haven't studied this, but are they actually big enough to have a significant effect on area?

I mean, a skyscraper can't be more than .000001 degrees of the 360 degree Earth, can it? Again, I haven't made calculations, I am actually asking. Thanks.

One or two extra inches can mean many extra square feet difference between the top and bottom floors.

An extra inch where exactly?

So, if you have to lines going straight up from Earth, (literally, straight up), the curvature of the Earth will cause these lines to deviate slowly. On a flat Earth, these lines would be parallel. So, in essence, the base of a building is wide enough, the lines would have deviated enough at the top to cause the top of the building to be wider. That is, of course, if that building was not getting thinner as you go up, like most skyscrapers do.

According to Round Earth Theory, the distance to the centre of the Earth is 6369 km. Pythagoras theorem therefore tells us that the earth curves about 12.5 centimetres for every kilometre. For a skyscraper 150 metres high, and 50 metres wide, the curvature to compensate for would be 0.62 of a centimetre. Which is negligible; there'd be higher fluctuations from temperature differences.

Taller skyscrapers, as mentioned, are generally built with wider bases anyway to support weight and wind sheer on the structure.

Ski's remark about the top floor of skyscrapers being greater in floorspace than those on the ground floor is somewhat over-exaggerated. While technically true, the increase in size (as observed using the Round Earth Model) is practically irrelevant.

Agreed. I was just wondering about the science behind it.

And temperature changes cause that much expansion? Cool!

In sum, railroad laying and bridge building are both inconclusive regarding the shape of the earth. In laying a railroad, other variables would be more consequential to the need for materials. In building a bridge, the towers could tilt any which way, and bridge managers express doubts about the towers being tilted along a 'curvature'.

I think that bridge spans always are made a bit convex (upward) because then tension works to preserve the bridge. Imagine building a bridge that takes the form of a valley. This works best with flexible materials such as rope.

Flat earth writers are correct insofar as these engineering experiences do not illustrate curvature. But even if the earth were curved, these engineering experiences may not have much need of considering them.

Quote from: Puttah on April 26, 2013, 06:56:54 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 25, 2013, 10:26:32 PM

Quote from: darknavyseal on April 25, 2013, 10:20:48 PM

Ski, I was not aware that skyscrapers were so vastly huge that it actually would have this effect. I haven't studied this, but are they actually big enough to have a significant effect on area?

I mean, a skyscraper can't be more than .000001 degrees of the 360 degree Earth, can it? Again, I haven't made calculations, I am actually asking. Thanks.

One or two extra inches can mean many extra square feet difference between the top and bottom floors.

An extra inch where exactly?

So, if you have to lines going straight up from Earth, (literally, straight up), the curvature of the Earth will cause these lines to deviate slowly. On a flat Earth, these lines would be parallel. So, in essence, the base of a building is wide enough, the lines would have deviated enough at the top to cause the top of the building to be wider. That is, of course, if that building was not getting thinner as you go up, like most skyscrapers do.

I thought that's what he might have meant, but it's clearly over exaggerated because the deviation is a function of how wide the building is, and skyscrapers are very thin in comparison to the Earth. For example, 2 lines extending perpendicularly from the ground that are very close to each other, will also only move apart very slowly, while two lines on the opposite ends of the Earth will "move apart" much more quickly.

In Karl A. Smith's book, at the end, he includes some quotes of interest, including this one:



This would suggest that the engineering aspect tilts in the favor of flat earth theory, because, in planning a railroad, one would be thinking of the whole project. It wouldn't be a matter of one trainload of materials at a time, but of all the costs and practical factors considered at one time. If large-scale projects ignore curvature, when curvature would directly affect the outcome, that suggests an implied superior utility of a zetetic or objective approach. Or if I phrased that inadequately, it suggests simply that the curvature is non-existent.

Quote from: darknavyseal on April 25, 2013, 10:20:48 PM

Ski, I was not aware that skyscrapers were so vastly huge that it actually would have this effect. I haven't studied this, but are they actually big enough to have a significant effect on area?

I mean, a skyscraper can't be more than .000001 degrees of the 360 degree Earth, can it? Again, I haven't made calculations, I am actually asking. Thanks.

One or two extra inches can mean many extra square feet difference between the top and bottom floors.

You're forgetting, or did't read, or didn't understand Duck Dodgers' point. The architect isn't going to design a top floor that's slightly bigger. A contractor isn't going to buy beams that are just slightly bigger for each floor. The result is a building whose sides are parallel, although on a big enough building they might be just slightly out of plumb. If it's a 1/4" or so off for a 500' skyscraper they are not going to care. Once again I am just floored at what a lame argument this is.

In Karl A. Smith's book, at the end, he includes some quotes of interest, including this one:



This would suggest that the engineering aspect tilts in the favor of flat earth theory, because, in planning a railroad, one would be thinking of the whole project. It wouldn't be a matter of one trainload of materials at a time, but of all the costs and practical factors considered at one time. If large-scale projects ignore curvature, when curvature would directly affect the outcome, that suggests an implied superior utility of a zetetic or objective approach. Or if I phrased that inadequately, it suggests simply that the curvature is non-existent.

It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to plan projects without considering the curvature of the Earth.  If you are building a canal, one would simply have a minimum depth of the canal, figure out the lowest elevation in the path of the canal, then from there make it slightly off the level in the direction you'd want the canal to go.  If the ground is a constant elevation, you'd just have to dig down say, 3 meters, at each point and it would naturally conform to the curvature.

I'm no engineer, but I would imagine that curvature would really only come into play when building very long bridges.

It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to plan projects without considering the curvature of the Earth.  If you are building a canal, one would simply have a minimum depth of the canal, figure out the lowest elevation in the path of the canal, then from there make it slightly off the level in the direction you'd want the canal to go.  If the ground is a constant elevation, you'd just have to dig down say, 3 meters, at each point and it would naturally conform to the curvature.

I'm no engineer, but I would imagine that curvature would really only come into play when building very long bridges.

I would think that canals, bridges, railroads, the sailing arts, etc., all seek the greatest precision possible. But my reading suggests that curvature is never taken seriously by those who do practical things.

The engineer quoted seems to indicate that curvature issues appear in textbooks. Why would useless ideas be in textbooks?

I wonder if the modern instrumentation people use obscures the possible fact that their assumptions are consistent with flat earth theory. For example, I made a comparison of traveling from

Raleigh NC -> Seville, Spain
Montevideo, Uruguay -> Cape Town

Both routes travel along 35 degrees latitude, the first north, the second south. On a toy globe, they seem to be about equidistant. A web site measuring distances says they are very similar in distance. Is the web site simply calculating what ought to be true based on a specific theory?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on April 27, 2013, 11:17:18 AM

It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to plan projects without considering the curvature of the Earth.  If you are building a canal, one would simply have a minimum depth of the canal, figure out the lowest elevation in the path of the canal, then from there make it slightly off the level in the direction you'd want the canal to go.  If the ground is a constant elevation, you'd just have to dig down say, 3 meters, at each point and it would naturally conform to the curvature.

I'm no engineer, but I would imagine that curvature would really only come into play when building very long bridges.

I would think that canals, bridges, railroads, the sailing arts, etc., all seek the greatest precision possible. But my reading suggests that curvature is never taken seriously by those who do practical things.

The engineer quoted seems to indicate that curvature issues appear in textbooks. Why would useless ideas be in textbooks?

I wonder if the modern instrumentation people use obscures the possible fact that their assumptions are consistent with flat earth theory. For example, I made a comparison of traveling from

Raleigh NC -> Seville, Spain
Montevideo, Uruguay -> Cape Town

Both routes travel along 35 degrees latitude, the first north, the second south. On a toy globe, they seem to be about equidistant. A web site measuring distances says they are very similar in distance. Is the web site simply calculating what ought to be true based on a specific theory?

Textbooks are famous for having impractical knowledge in them.  I'm an auditor, and my auditing text book was basically useless in practical applications in the real world.  It's working experience learned on the job that is the real benefit.

Modern equipment could be set up to assume a FE and it make the calculations correctly even though the user has the assumption of a RE.  But it could also be set up to assume a RE and take into account whatever corrective calculations would be needed for curvature on structures.

The distances could be the same issue, of being calculated based on a RE concept and be completely off.  But commercial flights would routinely make these trips, and have an expected travel time and arrival time.  If there is variation from the expected, people would definitely take note on that.  But there are several other threads that tackle this issue, and have been left alone with the RE'ers not having an answer that could explain this on a FE map.

Most (if not all) modern technology that would need to factor in the shape of the Earth assumes a RE, since it's the prevalent "theory" of the shape.  It's a known fact that it's round, but on here the rotundity is just a theory.

I'm surprised no-one has brought this up: the distance covered by a length of railway is the determining factor in how much material is used, regardless of earth's curvature. To put that another way, 100km of railway is 100km of railway, and will need 100km worth of materials. To put it yet another way, 10cm of string is still 10cm of string, whether it's laid out on a dinner plate, or wrapped around a basket ball.

That's not a bad argument, Scin, I just wonder about the planning stages. In Enag, Rowbotham says that engineers have found that when they attempt to take curvature into account, the results are less than desirable, along about p. 56.

I take it you are referring to this "experiment"? Rowbotham has mistakenly assumed that the datum is being measured as a chord. I think you would find that, if you asked a surveyor, the datum for a large work such as this would be relative to sea level; an arc on a round earth. This would still give you a shorter distance covered by the datum line (if the line is entirely below the level of the work being conducted), but not as short as a chord, and quite possibly not short enough to be significant, especially if the distance to be covered has actually been measured over the surface anyway.

A little maths to show what I mean:

For a 1,000km railway with a datum 10m below (and parallel to) it's path, the rails cover 1/40 the earth's circumference, or pi / 20 radians (this is going to be important).
The datum covers the same arc in radians, but with a smaller radius: 6,366.188km instead of 6,366.198km.
This leaves us with the datum being 999.998km long, a difference of only 2m in 1,000km.
I don't think they're going to worry too much about that! Thermal expansion would make a much bigger difference over that distance anyway.

Going on Rowbotham's mistaken belief that the datum is measured as a chord, the datum would be 995.893km. Yes, that's a significant difference, but it's not how it's done.