The Roman Arch

  • 13 Replies
  • 1705 Views
?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
The Roman Arch
« on: February 24, 2011, 12:27:29 AM »
Looking at a Roman arch and paying particular attention to the shape of the keystone should tell anyone in about two minutes that the forces acting upon this very strong structure are downward. Observation only is required; no assumptions need be made and should satisfy even the most ardent zetetist among us. The Davis model is superior to the UA model.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 12:29:45 AM by Mrs. Peach »

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2011, 12:33:05 PM »
At your suggestion, I stared at a photograph of a Roman arch for quite some time. Nothing in what I saw suggested to me that anything other than the upward push of the Earth against the bricks and surrounding atmolayer was in effect.
"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

Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2011, 02:27:32 PM »
Mrs.Peach, could you post that picture of the roman arch? Right now I'm inclined to say that such an arch neither proves and upward or downward push for me. But maybe your picture will change my mind if you care to elaborate on it?
"You don't earn respect, you give it"
Check out my verbatim posts

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2011, 05:39:41 PM »
Thanks guys for your kind consideration. 

The strength of the arch is demonstrated by time.  If the forces were upward, the arch would be weak, just held together by mortar and crumbling sooner rather than later.  Many building practices are dictated by downward forces; it's just that it's easiest to see for me by looking at a typical semicircular arch although I believe it's an engineering tenet that the catenary arch is stronger still.

I have been debating myself between the two models and was just struck by looking at an arch while waiting in the drive-through at the bank.  Another example, btw, of why I love this website.  :)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41860
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2011, 05:46:15 PM »
Arches gain strength because stone is strong in compression.  However, the Equivalence Principle says that it's impossible to determine if that compression is a result of acceleration due to gravity or acceleration due to acceleration.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2011, 06:01:20 PM »
My point doesn't require consideration of material or age and I can't see your point about the EP. Shaped blocks in a semicircular arch do not even require mortar. The downward forces acting alone are enough to give strength and stability.  Where am i going wrong?

Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2011, 06:18:40 PM »
It's a good idea, but it requires more than observations. Look at the bible for instance, there's one bible (technically multiple versions, mainly so that they're easier to read) read by every Christian. However this one bible has evolved to tens of different denominations by just observing the bible. However, if you can give some sort of mathematical proof that shows that the Arch is based on gravity alone, or uses gravity, or whatever it requires then it would be accepted. Otherwise you'll find everyone here saying it's a different reason.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2011, 06:32:43 PM »
Your analogy escapes me but that's okay. Lots of things escape me. By observation I didn't mean an abstract sort of observation, I meant actual seeing it with my blue, blue eyeballs.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41860
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2011, 06:41:52 PM »
My point doesn't require consideration of material or age and I can't see your point about the EP. Shaped blocks in a semicircular arch do not even require mortar. The downward forces acting alone are enough to give strength and stability.  Where am i going wrong?

You are correct about the strength of arches coming from downward force, however the EP states that it's impossible to tell if the source of that downward force is a result of gravity or the UA.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2011, 07:31:15 PM »
very nice example. TB will always tell you that the earth rises to your feet when you fall, this seems a little flawed with the arch. it would certainly loose its strength. perhaps you could make a small model on a board and raise it upwards to test it?

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2011, 05:29:45 AM »
sigh

Equivalency principle.

transform the frame of reference. You'll find that because of Newton's third law, the forces are all exactly the same.
In the Davis model, the earth pulls on the keystone, which pushes down and sideways on the arch. Newton's third law the holds that the arch pushes on the keystone upwards and side ways. The sideways forces are even, so they cancel. The upwards force on the arch is equal to the downward force, and so it doesn't move.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2011, 09:16:41 AM by Thevoiceofreason »

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2011, 05:31:25 AM »
I have to agree with Thevoiceofreason on that one, none of this proves (or even hints us towards) one model or the other.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2011, 09:31:52 AM »
Ah well, I've been quite partial to the Universal Accelerator idea.  I'm much in the dark about the infinite plane model and not sure if I have the requisite mathematical background to ever get a good grasp of it but I'll give it a good try.  Maybe a third model will be put forth.  My little bit about the arch isn't built on much either, just a little architectural lore gleaned from art history classes.  An extremely modest paper on a couple of Romanesque buildings put me on my limited path of the problems builders encounter and an appreciation of how they have managed to overcome the forces of nature.

I appreciate every one's comments on my dilemma.  :)

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The Roman Arch
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2011, 10:36:14 AM »
Forgive this add-on, please, but it is so encouraging that there seems to be more than a handful of believers here after
all.  Congratulations to those who have managed to shed the biases and influences of the globularist doctrine.  Very encouraging indeed.   ;D ;D ;D