Humber Bridge

If you think the only way they could do it was with a tape measure you dont deserve to be on this earth flat or round!!
The technology around these days, i.e. lazer measuring tools, they could tell you with in milli meters.
You must be thinking to yourself that you might just be wrong.

I wasn't the one that suggested it was done with a tape measure. That was one of your buddies. I was simply pointing out the impossibility of using a tape measure on it.

Of course these figures have been around for much longer than laser measuring devices. So that argument is pretty much moot.

No, i'm a structural engineer, i went to uni, got a degree, and work as a structural design engineer. Stop being a condescending pr*ck.

Well it's only a theoretical situation if you don't go and do it. If you do go and do it, it'll be practical, undeniable proof. Which is strong evidence in anyone's book.

How did they measure it? Honestly don't know, but do you think for a second, a team of civil engineers and a few architects would turn up and each one of them would get it wrong? Whether they were FE or RE believers? Really, stop talking nonsense.

What makes you say that the figures have been around longer than lazer devices?

I like the fact that Raist is fighting this losing battle on his own, Do you think other FE'RS ars staying away because there is no fe answer for this?

Quote from: zork on July 26, 2009, 01:34:42 PM

Quote from: Raist on July 26, 2009, 01:29:16 PM

Now if you have any serious contributions other than poor logic, and even poorer bridge design skills I'd love to hear them.

You didn't offer explanation how do you measure longer distance for towers top if separately taken the towers are vertical. I don't want RE or FE stuff but just possible logical explanation.

I've given you them, they are on slopes.

I see that you ignore the entire situation and just try to explain only part of it. And they are not on sloped ground. They are not itself sloped separately, they are vertical. If one measurement gives you this |-------| and second one gives you this \-----/ then how do you logically put them together?

No, i'm a structural engineer, i went to uni, got a degree, and work as a structural design engineer. Stop being a condescending pr*ck.

Well it's only a theoretical situation if you don't go and do it. If you do go and do it, it'll be practical, undeniable proof. Which is strong evidence in anyone's book.

How did they measure it? Honestly don't know, but do you think for a second, a team of civil engineers and a few architects would turn up and each one of them would get it wrong? Whether they were FE or RE believers? Really, stop talking nonsense.

Get it wrong? They built a bridge, estimated its distance using the designs, a structure that large has large enough tolerances spread over enough distance that a few inches mean nothing especially with the gaps necessary to allow the expansion of steel in a bridge.

Then some mathematicians, used the figures given in the estimate along with their assumed circumference of the earth in order to get a theoretical increase in distance between the two towers related by height.

Apparently at your "uni" they didn't teach much about independent thought. If you can't find more than one solution to a problem (with at least one of them meaning you are wrong) you aren't looking at it correctly.

You're funny.

Do you not believe i went to a "uni" or something? Do you have a problem with me personally, or are you just grumpy because someone else here knows what they're talking about?  There may be more than one solution to the problem, but the one being discussed here is the correct one. There may be many so called "solutions" but only one of them is right.

What qualifications do you have that allow you to draw these impeccable conclusions on this topic?

Grumpy? Not at all, you seem the one that is grumpy.

You claim that it was measured but have provided no proof other than your impeccable record as an engineer and the way you seem to "know" exactly what happened.

Other than having solved this exact same problem my junior year in high school (pulled from a book of problems that predates any practical use of lasers or perhaps even the invention of the laser) the teacher later told us that our estimations of the Earth's radius should be accurate to however many significant figures were provided due to the fact that the values for the bridge were determined solely by the length of the bridge and the known radius of the Earth.

He had a PhD in chemistry, and was probably one of the most well educated people you'd meet.

He had a PhD in chemistry, and was probably one of the most well educated people you'd meet.

Did he belive the earth was flat as well?

Quote from: Raist on July 26, 2009, 03:16:54 PM

He had a PhD in chemistry, and was probably one of the most well educated people you'd meet.

Did he belive the earth was flat as well?

I have no idea, I never asked him. It's not exactly on my list of things to ask people.

Oh for the love of all that's holy, not this one again.

I actually work in the construction industry (As a quantity surveyor if you must know) and I'll make the same points as I've made time and again when this has come up.
-The differences are what is stipulated in DESIGN, not in practicality.

-The differences stated are measured in inches, but assuming that the bridges are built PERFECTLY they are still designed to sway, bend and twist within reason. To people not familiar with projects like his, it might seem unthinkable but guess what happens if they didn't? So to say they're 'x' inches apart at all times is out and out false.

-Engineers on site are not going to get measurements to within the millimeter, even on the most tightly controlled sites they'll be off a little bit. Probably no more than a few mm but enough that they won't be perfect.
As an extreme case, the Hilton Hotel was built so far off the original designs that they had to botch together the bridge which connected it to Symphony Hall

-I've yet to see the actual measurements given by a surveyor to confirm the distances because in all honesty a real surveyor would just laugh if you asked him to do it.


There are many good arguments against FE but this isn't one of them.

Oh for the love of all that's holy, not this one again.

I actually work in the construction industry (As a quantity surveyor if you must know) and I'll make the same points as I've made time and again when this has come up.
-The differences are what is stipulated in DESIGN, not in practicality.

-The differences stated are measured in inches, but assuming that the bridges are built PERFECTLY they are still designed to sway, bend and twist within reason. To people not familiar with projects like his, it might seem unthinkable but guess what happens if they didn't? So to say they're 'x' inches apart at all times is out and out false.

 I want to make point that Robosteve argues quite fervently that I can't put two ordinary mirrors perpendicular to the ground and have them be parallel with each other. Distance between them is some 1.5 km and mirrors itself are maybe some meter or so at height. Now you come and say that towers which are roughly in same distance and much more taller are just designed to be so or just swaying. I understand the swaying part but in that case they definitely took account swaying when the distance between tops was measured. You of course can argue that they were stupid and didn't know that towers sway but... it's kind of absurd.
 Another thing is that I understand that you claim they didn't measure that towers were vertical when they measured distance between top. Shortly, you claim that they didn't have any knowledge how to do that kind of measurements. And they didn't know that towers sway. Or that they were knowingly built as tilted.

Grumpy? Not at all, you seem the one that is grumpy.

You claim that it was measured but have provided no proof other than your impeccable record as an engineer and the way you seem to "know" exactly what happened.

Other than having solved this exact same problem my junior year in high school (pulled from a book of problems that predates any practical use of lasers or perhaps even the invention of the laser) the teacher later told us that our estimations of the Earth's radius should be accurate to however many significant figures were provided due to the fact that the values for the bridge were determined solely by the length of the bridge and the known radius of the Earth.

He had a PhD in chemistry, and was probably one of the most well educated people you'd meet.

I never claimed it was measured, now you're just making stuff up.

Ah, i see. You solved a problem in junior high, i studied engineering at a uni with one of the best engineering dept's in the country. And you're more qualified to comment on this. Someone that thinks the earth, is flat. Are you having a giraffe?

And Chris, no offence, but you're a quantity surveyor. Which means you know jack sh1t about engineering, so you'll excuse me if i disregard anything you say. You proclaim to know a thing or two about engineering, and are suggesting that the humber bridge, is not evidence for a round earth?

I was a civil engineer for a number of years and it is Civil Engineering I studied at Uni. I was forced into QSmanship through threat of redundancy.

Zork, you misunderstand me. If the tops of the towers are always swaying and in motion then how can they be said to be permanantly 'x' inches apart? There will be times when they're closer together and times when they're further apart.

I was a civil engineer for a number of years and it is Civil Engineering I studied at Uni. I was forced into QSmanship through threat of redundancy.

Zork, you misunderstand me. If the tops of the towers are always swaying and in motion then how can they be said to be permanantly 'x' inches apart? There will be times when they're closer together and times when they're further apart.

That's even worse, you do have a solid engineering background! I dare you to phone up whichever engineering institution you're a member of, and tell them that the humber bridge is squint, and that the earth is flat.

Quote from: Raist on July 26, 2009, 03:16:54 PM

Grumpy? Not at all, you seem the one that is grumpy.

You claim that it was measured but have provided no proof other than your impeccable record as an engineer and the way you seem to "know" exactly what happened.

Other than having solved this exact same problem my junior year in high school (pulled from a book of problems that predates any practical use of lasers or perhaps even the invention of the laser) the teacher later told us that our estimations of the Earth's radius should be accurate to however many significant figures were provided due to the fact that the values for the bridge were determined solely by the length of the bridge and the known radius of the Earth.

He had a PhD in chemistry, and was probably one of the most well educated people you'd meet.

I never claimed it was measured, now you're just making stuff up.

Ah, i see. You solved a problem in junior high, i studied engineering at a uni with one of the best engineering dept's in the country. And you're more qualified to comment on this. Someone that thinks the earth, is flat. Are you having a giraffe?

And Chris, no offence, but you're a quantity surveyor. Which means you know jack sh1t about engineering, so you'll excuse me if i disregard anything you say. You proclaim to know a thing or two about engineering, and are suggesting that the humber bridge, is not evidence for a round earth?

So you admit that it was never measured yet you are going to say that the tops are farther apart than the bottoms?

Cool, more idiots changing their stories, it's good to know you lie when you realize the "fe'er" actually knows what he's talking about.

As for "someone that thinks the earth is flat" wow, trying to attack me by assigning a belief to me? At least I don't think Ron Jeremy is a detriment to the film industry.

Quote from: d00gz on July 27, 2009, 02:05:00 AM

Quote from: Raist on July 26, 2009, 03:16:54 PM

Grumpy? Not at all, you seem the one that is grumpy.

You claim that it was measured but have provided no proof other than your impeccable record as an engineer and the way you seem to "know" exactly what happened.

Other than having solved this exact same problem my junior year in high school (pulled from a book of problems that predates any practical use of lasers or perhaps even the invention of the laser) the teacher later told us that our estimations of the Earth's radius should be accurate to however many significant figures were provided due to the fact that the values for the bridge were determined solely by the length of the bridge and the known radius of the Earth.

He had a PhD in chemistry, and was probably one of the most well educated people you'd meet.

I never claimed it was measured, now you're just making stuff up.

Ah, i see. You solved a problem in junior high, i studied engineering at a uni with one of the best engineering dept's in the country. And you're more qualified to comment on this. Someone that thinks the earth, is flat. Are you having a giraffe?

And Chris, no offence, but you're a quantity surveyor. Which means you know jack sh1t about engineering, so you'll excuse me if i disregard anything you say. You proclaim to know a thing or two about engineering, and are suggesting that the humber bridge, is not evidence for a round earth?

So you admit that it was never measured yet you are going to say that the tops are farther apart than the bottoms?

Cool, more idiots changing their stories, it's good to know you lie when you realize the "fe'er" actually knows what he's talking about.

As for "someone that thinks the earth is flat" wow, trying to attack me by assigning a belief to me? At least I don't think Ron Jeremy is a detriment to the film industry.

No, i'm fairly sure it has been measured, more than likely with very accurate laser measuring equipment. Otherwise how would they have came to the conclusion that it is further apart at the top, than at the bottom? Or is that more people lying? Do you think everyone is lying to you?

Regardless, i never said it had been measured though. Try reading what i write before misquoting me.

What am i being accused of lying about then?

I'm not trying to attack you, and i have no idea what Ron Jeremy has to do with this thread at all, so why don't you try keep on topic? You carried out an experiment or solves a problem in junior high? Presumably then, you are American, and therefore have been through the US education system, which further weakens my opinion of your views, and you suppose that this, coupled with what some chemistry professor told you, constitute better evidence than a university degree in Engineering?

Quick question, have you even ever heard of a man called James Watt?

Quote from: Raist on July 27, 2009, 06:34:13 AM

Quote from: d00gz on July 27, 2009, 02:05:00 AM

Quote from: Raist on July 26, 2009, 03:16:54 PM

Grumpy? Not at all, you seem the one that is grumpy.

You claim that it was measured but have provided no proof other than your impeccable record as an engineer and the way you seem to "know" exactly what happened.

Other than having solved this exact same problem my junior year in high school (pulled from a book of problems that predates any practical use of lasers or perhaps even the invention of the laser) the teacher later told us that our estimations of the Earth's radius should be accurate to however many significant figures were provided due to the fact that the values for the bridge were determined solely by the length of the bridge and the known radius of the Earth.

He had a PhD in chemistry, and was probably one of the most well educated people you'd meet.

I never claimed it was measured, now you're just making stuff up.

Ah, i see. You solved a problem in junior high, i studied engineering at a uni with one of the best engineering dept's in the country. And you're more qualified to comment on this. Someone that thinks the earth, is flat. Are you having a giraffe?

And Chris, no offence, but you're a quantity surveyor. Which means you know jack sh1t about engineering, so you'll excuse me if i disregard anything you say. You proclaim to know a thing or two about engineering, and are suggesting that the humber bridge, is not evidence for a round earth?

So you admit that it was never measured yet you are going to say that the tops are farther apart than the bottoms?

Cool, more idiots changing their stories, it's good to know you lie when you realize the "fe'er" actually knows what he's talking about.

As for "someone that thinks the earth is flat" wow, trying to attack me by assigning a belief to me? At least I don't think Ron Jeremy is a detriment to the film industry.

No, i'm fairly sure it has been measured, more than likely with very accurate laser measuring equipment. Otherwise how would they have came to the conclusion that it is further apart at the top, than at the bottom?

They assumed. Not lied.

The reason for the bridge towers being slightly further apart at the top(if true), is to accommodate the weight of several dozen, fully loaded trucks, mainly on the centre span. The massive weight pulls the towers square.

Raist, what about the rest of my post, have you finally admitted you don't really know what you're talking about and given up, yeah?

Spanner, what is this based on. do you have any proof to back this up? Or are you just making it up as you go along?

Also, you know that the mass of a few large trucks is almost negligible when compared to the mass of the structure itself?

The bridge is designed to move several meters in high winds, and the towers bend inwardly at the top:

http://www.humberbridge.co.uk/interest.php

That could render any distance due to 'curvature' negligable.

You're aware that the link you make reference to, also states that the towers are 1.4 inches further apart at the top, due to the earths curvature. You're trying to disprove RE with a link that supports RE?

You're aware that the link you make reference to, also states that the towers are 1.4 inches further apart at the top, due to the earths curvature. You're trying to disprove RE with a link that supports RE?

Ha! That's hilarious.

Flat Earth Fail.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on July 27, 2009, 05:07:38 AM

I was a civil engineer for a number of years and it is Civil Engineering I studied at Uni. I was forced into QSmanship through threat of redundancy.

Zork, you misunderstand me. If the tops of the towers are always swaying and in motion then how can they be said to be permanantly 'x' inches apart? There will be times when they're closer together and times when they're further apart.

That's even worse, you do have a solid engineering background! I dare you to phone up whichever engineering institution you're a member of, and tell them that the humber bridge is squint, and that the earth is flat.

Have you ever got down in the dirt of sitework, or are you still a uni lad?

Either way, designs that factor in a 0.036m difference over 155.5m is negligible on site. The designers would be far more concerned with excessive bending moments, shear forces and load bearing than on insignificant level changes as a result of 'curvature'. The total safety factors would more than compensate for any slight differences caused by standard site work.

As I said in my original post, had you read it properly, there are many good arguments against FE but this isn't one. I don't believe in FE but I'll argue against anyone who makes flawed arguments like asserting that a 36 mm on-paper difference in tower heights proves a RE.

You're the second person in this thread to question my qualifications and job. Odd. Why does no-one around here trust anyone? is everyone paranoid that everyone else is "in on it"?

I'm working as a Naval structural design engineer at the moment, have been for over 3 years. 1.4" over half the length of a boat (155m ish) is a big fucking mistake as far as i'm concerned.

No, i had read your post correctly. You are telling me that the difference in distance between the 2 bases of the towers, and the 2 tops of the towers, isn't proof of the earth's curvature. And i'm telling you, that it very clearly is.

Why would I be worried that you were 'in on it'?

I don't believe in FE

I questioned whether you'd ever worked on site because then you'd see just how many little cock-ups are made and are accepted because the engineers will have compensated for it in their designs. Mistakes like that are just one reason we apply up to 60% safety factors on top of loading conditions

I've worked on sites where a lift shaft has been almost 30cm out of place and 3 degrees off. The builders on site have rightly shrugged it off and built the rest of the building around that.

Again, the towers WILL NOT be permanently 1.4" out, they may be significantly more or less as it sways and rocks with the wind and water pressures or as the live load from vehicles changes.

What an architect (boo hiss!) draws and gives to the client is not identical to the reality on site.

Fair enough, but in the industry i work in, a "cock up" like that is not acceptable and can't be shrugged off.

If the shell doesn't line up, the boat isn't water tight, simples.

Ha, I can understand the meticulous care in shipbuilding. I would love to take you on a tour of some construction sites, I think it would stun you! As long as the site surveyor says it's safe then generally they'll go ahead with it! Mind you, with a ship I bet you don't have the f*cking architect swanning into the office five weeks into a build saying "Oh maybe we could change this bit here..."

Architects are failed artists who have no appreciation of the laws of physics..

Zork, you misunderstand me. If the tops of the towers are always swaying and in motion then how can they be said to be permanantly 'x' inches apart? There will be times when they're closer together and times when they're further apart.

  I understand then that it's impossible in our current technology to put some measuring devices on towers which measure that towers are level or not and in same time we have some measuring devices at the bottom and at the top which measure distances. And if it is even possible then we can't in any way record these measurements, mark the time of measurements and afterward analyze data.
 It's just my opinion but towers may sway however they want but if we catch the moment when they are vertical and we can measure distances at same time then we have got what we needed. But I see that you claim this being impossible.

And what the hell makes you think anyone's gone to that much trouble? If they have, please cite the source because those must be the most obsessive surveyors on the face of the planet.