Suspension Bridges...?

  • 20 Replies
  • 5006 Views
Suspension Bridges...?
« on: December 20, 2007, 08:05:37 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Bridge


Quote
Each tower consists of a pair of hollow vertical concrete columns, each 155.5 metres (510 ft) tall and tapering from 6 metres (20 ft) square at the base to 4.5 metres (14.8 ft) x 4.75 metres (15.6 ft) at the top. The bridge is designed to tolerate constant motion and bends more than 3 metres (10 ft) in winds of 80 miles per hour (129 km/h). 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.[1]

Just a question...

With the incredible weight and torque and everything, wouldn't it be an undue amount of stress to put on the structure, just to perpetuate the "round earth myth?" 

Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2007, 08:16:06 PM »
Don't worry, you will receive a petty remark soon, or a information lacking reference to a person's book/work.
"Try painting a picture with just a single shade of white (on white canvas). How interesting can you make it?"

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2007, 10:24:31 PM »
the bridge-builders are in on the conspiracy and just made the 36mm figure up.  or, the people that reported it just made it up as part of the conspiracy.  those guys - they are really on top of things.

Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2007, 11:27:47 PM »
the bridge-builders are in on the conspiracy and just made the 36mm figure up.  or, the people that reported it just made it up as part of the conspiracy.  those guys - they are really on top of things.

I want one of the "big guys" to answer this one.  Come on, there's supposed to be nearly NO ONE in on this conspiracy!  Now, we have one man supposedly creating all the GPS user systems in the world, three guys at NASA creating many thousands of pictures (if not millions)... If we need a separate guy for every little incident like this one, that's going to add up!

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2007, 03:49:40 AM »
I take it you don't believe in elevation?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2007, 04:23:51 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Bridge


Quote
Each tower consists of a pair of hollow vertical concrete columns, each 155.5 metres (510 ft) tall and tapering from 6 metres (20 ft) square at the base to 4.5 metres (14.8 ft) x 4.75 metres (15.6 ft) at the top. The bridge is designed to tolerate constant motion and bends more than 3 metres (10 ft) in winds of 80 miles per hour (129 km/h). 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.[1]

Just a question...

With the incredible weight and torque and everything, wouldn't it be an undue amount of stress to put on the structure, just to perpetuate the "round earth myth?" 

Here is a reply a Flat Earth proponent could make: the fact that the earth is overall flat does not mean that there can't be curved surfaces here and there. Obviously, the bit of the earth on which these two towers stand is such a curved surface. But this does not mean that the earth is a "whirling globe" Read Rowbotham. You lose.

etc. etc. etc.

?

eric bloedow

Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2007, 08:26:20 AM »
a typical FE answer; deny the facts in favor of their fanaticism, then make up weird answers that contradict each other!

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2007, 08:50:06 AM »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Spacehopperjoe

  • 225
  • He dosnt sleep, he waits.
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2007, 08:58:23 AM »
^ The single most confusing/ annoying questions for a FE'er lol.
Read the FAQ first, it will save half of you looking like fools!

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2007, 07:00:28 AM »
I've spoken to civil engineers who claim that discrepancies in large structures to compensate for the "curvature of the Earth" are largely bogus - they're in the textbooks, but when it actually comes to building stuff nobody takes it into account.

Now, I'm not a civil engineer, so all I'm going on is basically their word versus yours.

Quote
I want one of the "big guys" to answer this one.  Come on, there's supposed to be nearly NO ONE in on this conspiracy!  Now, we have one man supposedly creating all the GPS user systems in the world, three guys at NASA creating many thousands of pictures (if not millions)... If we need a separate guy for every little incident like this one, that's going to add up!

This is totally wrong - nobody seriously claims that the Conspiracy isn't pretty huge. I dunno who told you that NASA had three employees in on the Con but I get the feeling they were pulling your leg.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2007, 07:30:38 AM »
I've spoken to civil engineers who claim that discrepancies in large structures to compensate for the "curvature of the Earth" are largely bogus - they're in the textbooks, but when it actually comes to building stuff nobody takes it into account.

Yup, essentially, it's easier and more reliable to lump a heap of reinforcement bars in there than to trust the contractors to get it right to less than half a percent. Most modern structures are over-engineered anyway to allow contractors to cock-up by a couple of percent either way. 36mm on such a large structure simply wouldn't be noticed

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2007, 07:33:16 AM »
Yup, essentially, it's easier and more reliable to lump a heap of reinforcement bars in there than to trust the contractors to get it right to less than half a percent. Most modern structures are over-engineered anyway to allow contractors to cock-up by a couple of percent either way. 36mm on such a large structure simply wouldn't be noticed


So basically it doesn't constitute any kind of proof of anything.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2007, 07:42:25 AM »
Yup, essentially, it's easier and more reliable to lump a heap of reinforcement bars in there than to trust the contractors to get it right to less than half a percent. Most modern structures are over-engineered anyway to allow contractors to cock-up by a couple of percent either way. 36mm on such a large structure simply wouldn't be noticed


So basically it doesn't constitute any kind of proof of anything.

Exactly. If such a large structure was dependent on 36mm difference to hold it up, the designers would be sacked most likely, there should be (I think, not sure about the exact figure) be about 20% safety margin either side of the optimum

?

silverhammermba

  • 172
  • Anger makes me debate. Debating makes me angry.
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2007, 08:45:36 AM »
Well that sounds like something you wouldn't have to do intentionally. If you try to build two very tall perfectly vertical structures far enough apart there's probably going to be a somewhat consistent difference in their orientation. That particular fact was probably found out after the fact by accident. So if true, then it's neat but probably not a very good argument against FE.
Quote from: Kasroa
Tom usually says at this point that people have seen the ice-wall. It is the Ross Ice Shelf. That usually kills the conversation by the power of sheer bull-shit alone.

Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2007, 09:01:38 AM »
How about people check multiple suspension bridges? If it turns out that the difference in the distance between the top of the pillars is always more than the bottom, well, that is pretty solid evidence for the RE theory. However, if it is found that the bottom of the pillars is sometimes further apart than the top, and this consistency is random, then that is pretty good evidence for the FE theory.

Agreed?
"Try painting a picture with just a single shade of white (on white canvas). How interesting can you make it?"

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2007, 09:12:06 AM »
How about people check multiple suspension bridges? If it turns out that the difference in the distance between the top of the pillars is always more than the bottom, well, that is pretty solid evidence for the RE theory. However, if it is found that the bottom of the pillars is sometimes further apart than the top, and this consistency is random, then that is pretty good evidence for the FE theory.

Agreed?

from the centre of the columns or the edge? because they're usually tapered

?

silverhammermba

  • 172
  • Anger makes me debate. Debating makes me angry.
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2007, 09:44:47 AM »
How would one even check that? That sounds difficult.
Quote from: Kasroa
Tom usually says at this point that people have seen the ice-wall. It is the Ross Ice Shelf. That usually kills the conversation by the power of sheer bull-shit alone.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2007, 09:49:06 AM »
i don't think anyone is claiming that all or most suspension bridges are built to take the earth's curvature into account.  i'm sure it wouldn't affect a short bridge too much to not even bother with that in the equation.  the tolerances of materials and design should more than accommodate it.  or so i (the non bridge engineer) would think.

Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2007, 09:58:07 AM »
rom the centre of the columns or the edge? because they're usually tapered

Hmm, I guess a point that is along the vertical line that the bottom point was measured in.

i don't think anyone is claiming that all or most suspension bridges are built to take the earth's curvature into account.  i'm sure it wouldn't affect a short bridge too much to not even bother with that in the equation.  the tolerances of materials and design should more than accommodate it.  or so i (the non bridge engineer) would think.

Hmm, maybe. I don't suppose anyone on the forums is a bridge engineer?  :-\
"Try painting a picture with just a single shade of white (on white canvas). How interesting can you make it?"

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2007, 10:13:09 AM »
I was a civil engineer for about 2 years, with about 6 months of that spent in the bridges department. I don't claim to know a great deal, but I can say that the 36mm difference between top and bottom would be near impossible to achieve on-site

?

silverhammermba

  • 172
  • Anger makes me debate. Debating makes me angry.
Re: Suspension Bridges...?
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2007, 09:48:35 PM »
I was a civil engineer for about 2 years, with about 6 months of that spent in the bridges department. I don't claim to know a great deal, but I can say that the 36mm difference between top and bottom would be near impossible to achieve on-site

Which it almost definitely isn't. If the discrepancy does exist, it's simply a consequence of building two vertical structures far apart. I'm pretty sure that engineers don't have to worry about making the ends of bridges parallel when they can ensure that each end is vertical independently using simple techniques.
Quote from: Kasroa
Tom usually says at this point that people have seen the ice-wall. It is the Ross Ice Shelf. That usually kills the conversation by the power of sheer bull-shit alone.