Is the Earth Flat?

  • 30 Replies
  • 4683 Views
*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Is the Earth Flat?
« on: December 04, 2014, 01:11:27 PM »
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42015
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2014, 01:18:45 PM »
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.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2014, 02:03:22 PM »

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2014, 08:21:35 PM »
lol, who measure the top and bottom of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge towers to determine that they are not parallel?  Oh, maybe this is just more of your RE indoctrination information? 

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2014, 08:36:04 PM »
lol, who measure the top and bottom of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge towers to determine that they are not parallel?  Oh, maybe this is just more of your RE indoctrination information?

I bet it was the folks that made it. Maybe there's an indoctrination plaque near the site that describes all of this.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2014, 08:40:32 PM »
lol, who measure the top and bottom of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge towers to determine that they are not parallel?  Oh, maybe this is just more of your RE indoctrination information?

jroa never ceases to amaze. ::) Of course the engineers who designed the bridge and the towers had to take into account the curvature of the earth and they designed and measured the distances between the towers. Of course any Flat Earther will tell you that all scientists and engineers are liars and just made up those figures to fit in a fictional "Round Earth."

Just about anything constructed has to be checked upon completion to see if there any errors. So....Of Course !!!!....The distance between the towers were most likely made by surveyors to see if they coincided the designs of the engineers. Simple.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2014, 08:51:00 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2014, 06:02:40 AM »
lol, who measure the top and bottom of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge towers to determine that they are not parallel?  Oh, maybe this is just more of your RE indoctrination information?

Are you claiming that the towers are parallel jroa?  And if so, can you please cite your references?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2014, 06:36:01 AM »
lol, who measure the top and bottom of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge towers to determine that they are not parallel?  Oh, maybe this is just more of your RE indoctrination information?

Are you claiming that the towers are parallel jroa?  And if so, can you please cite your references?


I am claiming that this is hypothetical.  I am saying that nobody has actually measured the distances, only assumed them using RET.  Can you prove otherwise? 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2014, 06:59:00 AM »
lol, who measure the top and bottom of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge towers to determine that they are not parallel?  Oh, maybe this is just more of your RE indoctrination information?

Are you claiming that the towers are parallel jroa?  And if so, can you please cite your references?


I am claiming that this is hypothetical.  I am saying that nobody has actually measured the distances, only assumed them using RET.  Can you prove otherwise?

The 41mm difference often quoted is hypothetical, as it makes no allowance for thermal expansion and/or contraction, or dynamic vehicle loading and wind loading.  It's one of those silly things the tourist guide books like to quote as a "Did you know" sort of thing.  It's a so-called factoid.

And it certainly can't be used to prove the curvature of the earth (or its flatness for that matter).

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2014, 09:07:04 AM »
lol, who measure the top and bottom of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge towers to determine that they are not parallel?  Oh, maybe this is just more of your RE indoctrination information?

Are you claiming that the towers are parallel jroa?  And if so, can you please cite your references?


I am claiming that this is hypothetical.  I am saying that nobody has actually measured the distances, only assumed them using RET.  Can you prove otherwise?

How is it hypothetical? The engineer's that built it either accounted for curvature or they didn't. Whether or not they did is a question of validity of claim and nothing more, not that showing you the blueprint (if they were handy) would convince a flat earther anyway.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2014, 09:44:27 AM »
It is hypothetical because, unless someone has actually measured the distance, then it is just a hypothesis. 

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2014, 09:48:58 AM »
It is hypothetical because, unless someone has actually measured the distance, then it is just a hypothesis.

Unless the bridge was created by a divine power then the bridge was made by human beings meaning someone actually does know. So trail off back to your tin foil corner.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2014, 10:04:42 AM »
It is hypothetical because, unless someone has actually measured the distance, then it is just a hypothesis.

Unless the bridge was created by a divine power then the bridge was made by human beings meaning someone actually does know. So trail off back to your tin foil corner.

If it was measured, then surely, somewhere, there is a record of the date and method of measuring it.  Maybe you can find something that I can not? 

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2014, 10:11:27 AM »
It is hypothetical because, unless someone has actually measured the distance, then it is just a hypothesis.

Unless the bridge was created by a divine power then the bridge was made by human beings meaning someone actually does know. So trail off back to your tin foil corner.

If it was measured, then surely, somewhere, there is a record of the date and method of measuring it.  Maybe you can find something that I can not?

I don't have access to that and I didn't say that I did. The claim was in the video and you claimed that nobody has measured it. Obviously someone did, a human being engineered it. So either the claim is true or it is not. So like I said, all you have is your conspiring counter claim.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2014, 10:35:03 AM »
It is hypothetical because, unless someone has actually measured the distance, then it is just a hypothesis.

Unless the bridge was created by a divine power then the bridge was made by human beings meaning someone actually does know. So trail off back to your tin foil corner.

If it was measured, then surely, somewhere, there is a record of the date and method of measuring it.  Maybe you can find something that I can not?

I don't have access to that and I didn't say that I did. The claim was in the video and you claimed that nobody has measured it. Obviously someone did, a human being engineered it. So either the claim is true or it is not. So like I said, all you have is your conspiring counter claim.

Surely, it must be much easier to prove that the towers were measure than to prove they were not.  Unless, that is, that they were simply calculated using RET numbers and not actually measured. 

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2014, 11:12:59 AM »
It is hypothetical because, unless someone has actually measured the distance, then it is just a hypothesis.

Unless the bridge was created by a divine power then the bridge was made by human beings meaning someone actually does know. So trail off back to your tin foil corner.

If it was measured, then surely, somewhere, there is a record of the date and method of measuring it.  Maybe you can find something that I can not?

I don't have access to that and I didn't say that I did. The claim was in the video and you claimed that nobody has measured it. Obviously someone did, a human being engineered it. So either the claim is true or it is not. So like I said, all you have is your conspiring counter claim.

Surely, it must be much easier to prove that the towers were measure than to prove they were not.  Unless, that is, that they were simply calculated using RET numbers and not actually measured.

Well initially I would say calculated for sure but the parts used to make the bridge would need to be measured and used. Those measurements would be based on the calculations.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2014, 06:20:21 AM »

How is it hypothetical? The engineer's that built it either accounted for curvature or they didn't.

I've already explained why it's hypothetical.  "The 41mm difference often quoted is hypothetical, as it makes no allowance for thermal expansion and/or contraction, or dynamic vehicle loading and wind loading".

And the design engineers did not take into account the "curvature" of the earth when they designed it.  They did their comps as though the earth was nominally flat.  Which it is over such a short distance.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2014, 06:28:09 AM »

How is it hypothetical? The engineer's that built it either accounted for curvature or they didn't.

I've already explained why it's hypothetical.  "The 41mm difference often quoted is hypothetical, as it makes no allowance for thermal expansion and/or contraction, or dynamic vehicle loading and wind loading".

And the design engineers did not take into account the "curvature" of the earth when they designed it.  They did their comps as though the earth was nominally flat.  Which it is over such a short distance.

Do you have a citation?  I would be interested in learning more.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2014, 09:19:18 AM »

Do you have a citation?  I would be interested in learning more.
I have no citations as such, but it's an accepted structural engineering principle that all "rigid" structures such as bridge pylons are designed and constructed with an inbuilt degree of flexibility in order to dissipate externally applied live loadings (such as wind).

As for the Golden Gate bridge for example:  The transverse deflection of its towers is 320mm, and the longitudinal deflection of its towers (shoreward) is 560mm and (channelward) is 460mm.  So with an aggregated potential deflection of more than 2 metres, the curvature of the earth is not even a consideration.

I'm thinking this notion may have arisen from one of the flat earthers suggesting that a skyscraper's sides tapered out slightly from the bottom to the top.  Which is also erroneous.

I worked in the civil/structural engineering industry for nearly 40 years;  these are a couple of the bridges I worked on during that time...


 



So I can guarantee that the 41mm myth is indeed a myth.



?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2014, 09:22:14 AM »
Well clearly, this is one area where you know what you're talking about and it sounds right enough. Thanks for the info.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2014, 09:26:26 AM »
Thank you.

I asked my father, a retired architect, about the tapered skyscraper and he said that all the construction materials would either be cut or engineered to be square so the building would be pulled square by tension.

Does that sound somewhat accurate?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2014, 09:51:11 AM »
Thank you.

I asked my father, a retired architect, about the tapered skyscraper and he said that all the construction materials would either be cut or engineered to be square so the building would be pulled square by tension.

Does that sound somewhat accurate?

Your father's correct.  Horizontal beams on the first floor are exactly the same length as horizontal beams on the fortieth floor (although in reality they'd be longer because of the diminishing sizes of the columns they connect to).  However, there is no "taper" at all, as the CoG of each column lift is exactly above the CoG of the lift below it, and all columns on the grid are precisely parallel.  So the structure is not "pulled square" by any horizontal tensile forces.  Also, the beams are usually designed to have an induced positive camber, so that if anything, there'd be more likely a "pushing" out of square as the beam "stretched".  That's all hypothetical of course; it doesn't happen in the real world.

And as an example, the CN Tower in Toronto was designed to sway more than 1m in each direction at its uppermost level.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2014, 10:04:55 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano%E2%80%93Narrows_Bridge

"Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge葉he towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases.[13][3]"
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 10:14:05 AM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2014, 10:27:58 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano%E2%80%93Narrows_Bridge

"Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge葉he towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases.[13][3]"

When Adler says that葉he 1 5/8 inches thing揺e's just parroting an urban myth so beloved of news reporters.  They love the gee-whiz factor.

But he's not an engineer, and he's wrong.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2014, 10:59:44 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano%E2%80%93Narrows_Bridge

"Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge葉he towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases.[13][3]"

When Adler says that葉he 1 5/8 inches thing揺e's just parroting an urban myth so beloved of news reporters.  They love the gee-whiz factor.

But he's not an engineer, and he's wrong.

I would have to work it out, but I am not skilled enough.

But I think it would stand to reason that because of the distances between the towers and the height of the towers involved that the top of the towers would be farther apart than the bases....Possibly some very slight figure if not the 1 5/8 inch figure quoted. There may be some truth in it.

Once again, you would really have to have access to the original blue prints to prove it one way or another.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2014, 11:03:48 AM »
Well I have no doubt that if you could measure then there would be a difference but what ausgeoff is saying that such measurements are not necessary during construction because of the way bridges are built.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2014, 12:05:17 PM »
Well I have no doubt that if you could measure then there would be a difference but what ausgeoff is saying that such measurements are not necessary during construction because of the way bridges are built.

Right. Point taken. The only item that might seem to involve the distance between the towers that  might have been necessary during the construction is the length of the suspension cables ? But the differerence between the distances from the bases (base to base)and tops (top to top) of the towers would have been so small that it would not have been necessary for consideration ?

On a flat earth the distances between centers (base to base) and (top to top) of the towers would have been the same ? 
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2014, 03:22:27 PM »
Hey, look at that, my Denpressure thread made it on youtube ;D

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Is the Earth Flat?
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2014, 05:27:18 PM »
Hey, look at that, my Denpressure thread made it on youtube ;D

*golf clap*
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.