The Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge, connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn, has 2 towers which are separated by 1300 meters. Both towers are perfectly vertical, however, the tops of both towers are 41 millimeters further apart from one another at the top than at the bottom.

Explain how this would be the case in a Flat Earth scenario. I will be interested to hear your blustering retorts and attempts to deflect the question.

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge, connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn, has 2 towers which are separated by 1300 meters. Both towers are perfectly vertical, however, the tops of both towers are 41 millimeters further apart from one another at the top than at the bottom.

Explain how this would be the case in a Flat Earth scenario. I will be interested to hear your blustering retorts and attempts to deflect the question.

I expect the FEer response will be "Prove it," and to be honest I'm kind of with them. Hardly an easy thing to measure.

Quote from: Platitude on January 31, 2016, 01:25:48 PM

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge, connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn, has 2 towers which are separated by 1300 meters. Both towers are perfectly vertical, however, the tops of both towers are 41 millimeters further apart from one another at the top than at the bottom.

Explain how this would be the case in a Flat Earth scenario. I will be interested to hear your blustering retorts and attempts to deflect the question.

I expect the FEer response will be "Prove it," and to be honest I'm kind of with them. Hardly an easy thing to measure.

I acknowledge your point. However it CAN be proven. Unlike any other Flat Earth model.

The fact is that they are farther apart at the top then they are at the bottom. This is true for any long bridge around the world. My question is this: How can this be justified in the Flat Earth model?

My question is this: How can this be justified in the Flat Earth model?

Why would they need to justify something they could easily deny?

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge, connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn, has 2 towers which are separated by 1300 meters. Both towers are perfectly vertical, however, the tops of both towers are 41 millimeters further apart from one another at the top than at the bottom.

Explain how this would be the case in a Flat Earth scenario. I will be interested to hear your blustering retorts and attempts to deflect the question.

The earth is supposed to drop eight inches the first mile. The two towers are less than a mile apart, why do you think they could not make both towers exactly vertical  using a plane level of sorts when all they need was four inches of fill dirt under each tower to make them exactly level? I would not believe that those responsible to design and construct the towers would build them so they would lean any amount. Common sense tells me that. If they did, it certainly would have been a mistake and very embarrassing and they would not have made it know, because you can't see them leaning. I believe It is a rumor that got started and it grew a life of it's own.

The earth is supposed to drop eight inches the first mile. The two towers are less than a mile apart, why do you think they could not make both towers exactly vertical  using a plane level of sorts when all they need was four inches of fill dirt under each tower to make them exactly level?

Why would they want to? That'd just mean at least one tower wasn't vertical. Plus it's trickier to build things at an angle.

Quote from: Yendor on January 31, 2016, 02:42:59 PM

The earth is supposed to drop eight inches the first mile. The two towers are less than a mile apart, why do you think they could not make both towers exactly vertical  using a plane level of sorts when all they need was four inches of fill dirt under each tower to make them exactly level?

Why would they want to? That'd just mean at least one tower wasn't vertical. Plus it's trickier to build things at an angle.

You are correct, it is trickier to build things at an angle. Of only a mile between them they would be straight and level.

Quote from: Jane on January 31, 2016, 02:45:55 PM

Quote from: Yendor on January 31, 2016, 02:42:59 PM

The earth is supposed to drop eight inches the first mile. The two towers are less than a mile apart, why do you think they could not make both towers exactly vertical  using a plane level of sorts when all they need was four inches of fill dirt under each tower to make them exactly level?

Why would they want to? That'd just mean at least one tower wasn't vertical. Plus it's trickier to build things at an angle.

You are correct, it is trickier to build things at an angle. Of only a mile between them they would be straight and level.

Eachch one is straight and level in its own right, yet they are 41mm further apart at the top.

Curvature.

Even AusGeoff, probably one of the most vocal spherical-earth proponents since I've been here, was calling this "fact" into question. Here.

In theory, the towers should diverge by that much, but they probably sway more than 41 mm in wind and under varying loads, not to mention thermal expansion and contraction. I don't know what the tolerance for plumb was in this case, but I could see it being off by at least a good part of that amount. Even ignoring all  that, this change in distance between bottom and top would be hard to verify in the early '60s when the bridge was built and that factoid was first brought up.

Quote from: Jane on January 31, 2016, 02:45:55 PM

Quote from: Yendor on January 31, 2016, 02:42:59 PM

The earth is supposed to drop eight inches the first mile. The two towers are less than a mile apart, why do you think they could not make both towers exactly vertical  using a plane level of sorts when all they need was four inches of fill dirt under each tower to make them exactly level?

Why would they want to? That'd just mean at least one tower wasn't vertical. Plus it's trickier to build things at an angle.

You are correct, it is trickier to build things at an angle. Of only a mile between them they would be straight and level.

They are level, and even with less than a mile between them, there is still curvature which means the tops would be slightly further apart than the bottoms.

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge, connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn, has 2 towers which are separated by 1300 meters. Both towers are perfectly vertical, however, the tops of both towers are 41 millimeters further apart from one another at the top than at the bottom.

Explain how this would be the case in a Flat Earth scenario. I will be interested to hear your blustering retorts and attempts to deflect the question.

     I'm curious to know how that measurement was taken.  41 millimeters of difference between the top and bottom can only be calculated to 41 millimeters using arc length and angular ratios to give you this distance of a curved line.
     The actual physical distance is less than 41 millimeters (straight line distance between two points is < arc line distance between the same two points).  Furthermore it is possible that the physical distance between the tops may equate to less than the distance between bases if center to center base measurements are used in conjunction with edge to edge measurements at the top.  Either way this 41 millimeter distance is not the actual distance between the tops of the towers and merely iterates that the arc distance can be calculated for any angle on any set of concentric circle.
     In conclusion this really doesn't prove that the actual physical distance measured by lasers shows that the distance from center to center base is 41 millimeters less than the distance from center to center top; you are merely asserting that the earth is round because arc length for any set of concentric circles can be expressed as a ratio.

Quote from: Platitude on January 31, 2016, 01:25:48 PM

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge, connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn, has 2 towers which are separated by 1300 meters. Both towers are perfectly vertical, however, the tops of both towers are 41 millimeters further apart from one another at the top than at the bottom.

Explain how this would be the case in a Flat Earth scenario. I will be interested to hear your blustering retorts and attempts to deflect the question.

The earth is supposed to drop eight inches the first mile. The two towers are less than a mile apart, why do you think they could not make both towers exactly vertical  using a plane level of sorts when all they need was four inches of fill dirt under each tower to make them exactly level? I would not believe that those responsible to design and construct the towers would build them so they would lean any amount. Common sense tells me that. If they did, it certainly would have been a mistake and very embarrassing and they would not have made it know, because you can't see them leaning. I believe It is a rumor that got started and it grew a life of it's own.

(see highlighted) Because of the center of gravity. Putting four inches of fill dirt under one of the towers would make that tower not plumb to the pull of gravity. It might be 'aligned' to the other tower, but the center of gravity would be off which would cause tension and possible collapse. these structures are colossal and they need to take the absolute horizontal level in to account to ensure the mass is balanced properly.

Which is why these two towers would be slightly unparalleled due to the curvature of earth, accounting for each of their local horizontals respectively.

Make a bridge without taking it into account and watch it collapse precisely because of this.

I can't remember who did it, but one of the members here (perhaps a roundy?) contacted the Bridge Master of the Verrazano-Narrows or some other bridge with a similar claim to inquire about how the distances were measured in order to determine that the tops were farther apart than the bottoms.  The response he received basically said that nobody actually measured the top.  The bottom was measured and the top distance was simply calculated assuming that the Earth is round. 

Sorry.  This must be very embarrassing for you.   

Two thoughts:

1. First I thought "well that's difficult to prove", but now I'm thinking they could just use a laser rangefinder to measure the distance and report the actual difference.

2. It's probably a moot point anyway because the Earth is not a perfect sphere. For all we know that <1 mile stretch could very well be flat. This is why I usually stick to water examples.

This was never measured and doubt anyone will get approval to do so.  I forget who like jroa, but remember reading somewhere someone contacting people involved with the bridge.  The response was basically it was not measured, but if the Earth was round the tops would be further a part than the bottoms.

If this helps sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.  The lines of both towers are parallel to each other.  Like I said, if they really did take the measurement it would be less than the 41 reported because 41 millimeters is what the math would show for an arc length between the two tops not the straight shortest distance.  Looks like one of you rounders forgot how to math.
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/3-verrazano-narrows-bridge-kenneth-cole.jpg

This was never measured and doubt anyone will get approval to do so.  I forget who like jroa, but remember reading somewhere someone contacting people involved with the bridge.  The response was basically it was not measured, but if the Earth was round the tops would be further a part than the bottoms.

With modern surveying the measurement would be easy, but I also wonder whether differential heating the towers (one side in the sun, etc) could bow the towers more than that anyway.
And in a practical sense, I imagine each tower was simple built to the local level as determined by the surveyors used.

Nobody said it is impossible to measure the tops parts of the towers; we are simply stating that nobody has ever bothered.  During construction, the bottom of the towers were measured and the towers were built perpendicular to the ground.  Later, some egg-head calculated how far apart the tops of the towers should be assuming that the Earth is a ball and this little piece of trivia has been passed off as a fact ever since. 

Nobody said it is impossible to measure the tops parts of the towers; we are simply stating that nobody has ever bothered.  During construction, the bottom of the towers were measured and the towers were built perpendicular to the ground.  Later, some egg-head calculated how far apart the tops of the towers should be assuming that the Earth is a ball and this little piece of trivia has been passed off as a fact ever since. 

Yeah and whoever this "egghead" was did his math wrong.  41 millimeters is the distance along the imaginary circle that is concentric to the earth and has a 211 meter (the height of the towers) larger radius.  If they wanted the actual distance between the tops they would have then used the Side Angle Side technique we all learned in trigonometry.  However, this is nearly impossible because the angle you derived from the first equation (the angle at the center of the earth) is about .01169 degrees.  Any % error while calculating this angle or anywhere on the way out to 40,031.499m (like the height if the height of the building is actually 211.226m and the actual basal distance is 1300.89m) will be noticed.  Not only that 41 mm proves the world is round? Gahahaha, silly roundies tricks are for kids.

really 41 mm and you are basing a round earth theory on this. First there are many explanations for this and probably many of them impinge on this.
1) the Bridges are old and there would be settling of the footings.
2) Bridges are flexible in design. A determinate steel and suspension bridge like the VZ must move and must be flexible or else it will fail catastrophically due to wind, movement of traffic and anything else that could induce harmonic vibration.
3)We have no way of knowing if they were exactly level when the bridge was built. The bridge could have been off 20 mm and the # 1 and # 2 could have impinged up it causing another 20mm of change.

really 41 mm and you are basing a round earth theory on this. First there are many explanations for this and probably many of them impinge on this.
1) the Bridges are old and there would be settling of the footings.
2) Bridges are flexible in design. A determinate steel and suspension bridge like the VZ must move and must be flexible or else it will fail catastrophically due to wind, movement of traffic and anything else that could induce harmonic vibration.
3)We have no way of knowing if they were exactly level when the bridge was built. The bridge could have been off 20 mm and the # 1 and # 2 could have impinged up it causing another 20mm of change.

100% agreed

really 41 mm and you are basing a round earth theory on this.

Nah, RET's based on so much more. This is just a bad argument.

I don't know.... Every time I take a side shot of the Verrazano bridge and put it into my MSPaint... then... cut and drag the two towers together... I always see a gap at the top... maybe it's the fish eye lens.

Nobody said it is impossible to measure the tops parts of the towers; we are simply stating that nobody has ever bothered.  During construction, the bottom of the towers were measured and the towers were built perpendicular to the ground.  Later, some egg-head calculated how far apart the tops of the towers should be assuming that the Earth is a ball and this little piece of trivia has been passed off as a fact ever since.

Another ad-hoc episode by the one and only jroa? yaaaayyy..
Just go ahead, I'm listening. 

really 41 mm and you are basing a round earth theory on this. First there are many explanations for this and probably many of them impinge on this.
1) the Bridges are old and there would be settling of the footings.
2) Bridges are flexible in design. A determinate steel and suspension bridge like the VZ must move and must be flexible or else it will fail catastrophically due to wind, movement of traffic and anything else that could induce harmonic vibration.
3)We have no way of knowing if they were exactly level when the bridge was built. The bridge could have been off 20 mm and the # 1 and # 2 could have impinged up it causing another 20mm of change.

No, no, no.

The towers as of this date are plumb. 
The towers as of this date are further apart at the top then at the bottom.

If bridge towers are set into bedrock or deep enough to keep from "settling"  Because this would cause the bridge to fail.
Bridges are designed to take into account the expansion and contraction of metals and cables that has nothing to do with the plumb of the towers.  If the bridge wasnt plumb it would fall.

Quote from: Platitude on January 31, 2016, 01:25:48 PM

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge, connecting Staten Island and Brooklyn, has 2 towers which are separated by 1300 meters. Both towers are perfectly vertical, however, the tops of both towers are 41 millimeters further apart from one another at the top than at the bottom.

Explain how this would be the case in a Flat Earth scenario. I will be interested to hear your blustering retorts and attempts to deflect the question.

I expect the FEer response will be "Prove it," and to be honest I'm kind of with them. Hardly an easy thing to measure.

not only hard to prove but a matter of 41mm under the heed of architectural foundations, that will not play a significant part in anything. could have been that way for a reason as in to keep a specific angled tension on the bridge itself, could have heaved overtime and slowly separated as 41mm is pretty insignificant. so them trying to justify 1.6 inches of difference is pretty desperate. What was the EXACT measurement WHEN it was built!? Then you could justify this answer, to an extent. like I said architecturally speaking it could have been done for a specific reason, not to adjust for the curvature of the earth lol as 0.80miles is not enough for a 1.6inch adjustment..... math doesn't add up

Quote from: jroa on March 10, 2016, 02:34:50 AM

Nobody said it is impossible to measure the tops parts of the towers; we are simply stating that nobody has ever bothered.  During construction, the bottom of the towers were measured and the towers were built perpendicular to the ground.  Later, some egg-head calculated how far apart the tops of the towers should be assuming that the Earth is a ball and this little piece of trivia has been passed off as a fact ever since.

Another ad-hoc episode by the one and only jroa? yaaaayyy..
Just go ahead, I'm listening. 

Wow, another response to a year old thread by our resident genius. 

Well, being new here... I thought of a topic and looked it up to see if someone else had already talked about it... So, I am responsible for it even coming back up

Is this "separation" on all suspension bridges, or just on the Verrazano?

That is the question that we have to ask?

Is this "separation" on all suspension bridges, or just on the Verrazano?

That is the question that we have to ask?

The Golden Gate bridge is just shy of 2" further apart at the top of the towers, for one example.