But if you still don't get it, here's the what I'm trying to explain:
I claimed that structural engineers use Newton's 1st law of motion (and of course the 2nd and the 3rd also).
Ok you're claiming it. I want you to explain it and tell me what you're explaining, basically.
You wanted the application and physical proof, so that's what I provided.
You've provided nothing that proves anything and you know this..
You can go to a 25+ multi-storey building, compare for yourself the columns at the bottom and at the top, you will see that columns at ground level are larger than the ones at the top, because columns at ground level experience greater compressive force. (concrete buildings are better for this experiment; in steel buildings the columns are usually covered with plywood, so measuring the cross section will require some form of vandalism)
Now why columns at the bottom experiences greater compressive force? This can easily be proven by Newton's 1st law. In order for you to understand how that's so, I presented a super simple problem there representing a multi-storey building, with results showing that columns at the bottom are indeed experience higher compression compared to the ones at the top.
So what's causing this compression and can you explain why?
If you still don't understand, you can just read the first few chapters of the first book I recommended, Statics by R.C. Hibbeler. You can buy it anywhere or find it in libraries. You can also get a copy in some other ways, if you know what I mean. Or you can get any other books discussing statics, or learn statics from other sources.
I want you to explain in basic terms.
If you still don't understand it, you can just tell me in which part that you don't understand. And I don't take "all of it" as an answer, coz surely you understand at least the first and the last sentence in there, otherwise you might wanna learn English some more.
I'm still waiting.
Yeah, just chunk it up into pieces of quotes so that it looks like I haven't explained anything yet. But I can understand though, if I were you I'd probably keep on avoiding too. I might have said too much, and you've probably realized that I'm in my element right now and you're in my crosshair. Anyway, let me tackle this one by one then.
That problem is super simple. To put it into perspective, one has to be about 2 and a half years into civil engineering undergraduate course to fully be able to do structural analysis and completely solve similar problems. That particular problem still captures the essence of what's going on, yet so simplified even a student just one week into the course (which practically haven't learned anything) can solve that. Because it only requires the understanding of Newton's 1st Law, which he/she already got from high school. And of course, there's no magic in there, just a total of 10 lines of equation (2 are the Newton's 1st law itself, 2 are just repetitions for the purpose of comparison, so you only need to understand 6 of them).
I await your explanation.
So sorry about this, but you can either take my word or pursue a bachelor degree in civil engineering to experience it yourself.
But if you still don't get it, here's the what I'm trying to explain:
I claimed that structural engineers use Newton's 1st law of motion (and of course the 2nd and the 3rd also).
Ok you're claiming it. I want you to explain it and tell me what you're explaining, basically.
Ok then, there it is:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1794320#msg1794320 You wanted the application and physical proof, so that's what I provided.
You've provided nothing that proves anything and you know this..
Again, there it is:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1794320#msg1794320I think you should consider learning English some more, or maybe how to read. It's literally just words and pictures, with 10 lines of equations, in which 4 of them are not new therefore don't need considerable effort to read.
You can go to a 25+ multi-storey building, compare for yourself the columns at the bottom and at the top, you will see that columns at ground level are larger than the ones at the top, because columns at ground level experience greater compressive force. (concrete buildings are better for this experiment; in steel buildings the columns are usually covered with plywood, so measuring the cross section will require some form of vandalism)
Now why columns at the bottom experiences greater compressive force? This can easily be proven by Newton's 1st law. In order for you to understand how that's so, I presented a super simple problem there representing a multi-storey building, with results showing that columns at the bottom are indeed experience higher compression compared to the ones at the top.
So what's causing this compression and can you explain why?
OK, this can get quite complicated rather quickly.
You can either take my word for it, read books about mechanics of materials or solid mechanics (if you don't already know, I recommend
Statics and Mechanics of Materials by R. C. Hibbeler)
, or you can try to understand the following explanation. You cannot say I'm wrong yet not understanding what I'm talking about. OK here it goes:
When load is transferred into a structural element, the material in the element experience stresses. In a solid material, stress can be divided into two forms, which are normal stress (usually referred as σ) and shear stress (usually referred as
τ). In a 3D world, where there are 3 axes to define space, there are 3 normal stresses and 3 shear stresses, one for every axis. In a cross section of a line element (such as column and beam), the distribution of all these six stresses can combines into internal forces. In 2D plane, there are 3 internal forces, which are axial force (tension/compression), shear force, and bending moment. In a full 3D structure, there are 6 internal forces instead, which are axial force (tension/compression), shear force in two axes, bending moment in 2 axes, and torsion. In that example (2D plane), I only calculated the axial force, since it is the easiest one to do. In the real design process, I should have calculated the shear force and bending moment, design process should indeed consider all of those. But calculating them requires something called compatibility equations, which are equations formulating the relationship of deformations between elements. But the main function of column is to resist compression, so the example I presented earlier still captures the essence. So long story short, the compression force emerges as a reaction in the material to the loads imposed to the structure.
Still not convinced? You can read the code for concrete structures released by American Concrete Institute, it's called the ACI 318-14 or ACI 318M-14 (metric). You can buy it anywhere, or get it some other ways, if you know what I mean. Go to chapter 10 which talks about columns. Section 10.5.2.1 refers you to section 22.4, in which if you follow through, you will see in section 22.4.2.1 it is mentioned that you have to design columns to resist compression.
If you still don't understand, you can just read the first few chapters of the first book I recommended, Statics by R.C. Hibbeler. You can buy it anywhere or find it in libraries. You can also get a copy in some other ways, if you know what I mean. Or you can get any other books discussing statics, or learn statics from other sources.
I want you to explain in basic terms.
If you still don't understand it, you can just tell me in which part that you don't understand. And I don't take "all of it" as an answer, coz surely you understand at least the first and the last sentence in there, otherwise you might wanna learn English some more.
I'm still waiting.
Well I'm the one asking you the question. If you don't understand, tell me in which part you don't understand. I have explained it as simple as possible. If you're not satisfied with my explanation, then read the books I recommended, or some other books, or somewhere else. You not understanding is not my problem, and without understanding it you cannot refute my argument. So, until then, my point is still undisputed:
Structural engineers use all three Newton's laws of motion as a basis to do structural analysis and design of structural elements. So we are pretty much betting people's life on the correctness of Newton's laws of motion. If you step into a building, or go over a bridge, your life is part of the bet. And if you believe that 2 out of 3 Newton's laws of motion are wrong, then you definitely don't want to be part of the bet. So, If you live in a multi-storey apartment, leave it immediately, don't ever come back. Don't go to any multi-storey hospitals, or schools, or offices, or malls. And don't go over bridges, you better swim (or turn around). Otherwise, you trust the structural engineers, which means you trust on 3 Newton's laws they are using.
Poll