What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

How would flat earth make better bridges, more efficient aircraft, better navigation systems, and targeting systems with better tactical advantages?


What tactical advantages would flat earth bring to a modern navy?  For bringing ships faster and more efficiently on station?  Saving time and money while beating competing navies to the punch?   

What advances in communication would flat earth offer?  In satellite and ground based line of sight internet for example? 

How would flat earth make better bridges, more efficient aircraft, better navigation systems, and targeting systems with better tactical advantages?
 

I doubt that we will see many FEers respond with anything meaningful.

Since they don't believe in gravity, I would be hesitant to walk across any bridges they design.
Since they have little knowledge of how an aircraft works, I would not want to fly in any they design.

I doubt that we will see many FEers respond with anything meaningful.

Since they don't believe in gravity, I would be hesitant to walk across any bridges they design.
Since they have little knowledge of how an aircraft works, I would not want to fly in any they design.

Strange how flat earthers claim they know the truth. And spherical earthers have no imagination and are programmed drones.  But then flat earthers can’t offer better solutions and modeling for everyday life?  And their explanations for the natural events contradict each other, or fail in some why.


Like there is no gravity, and water seeks its own level.  But then can’t explain tides, tidal bores, or why one drop of water clings to a stalactite while another breaks the force of adhesion to fall without gravity. 

I guess explain in any useful or predictable manner that can be proven through experimentation would be a better statement. 

How would flat earth make better bridges, more efficient aircraft, better navigation systems, and targeting systems with better tactical advantages?


What tactical advantages would flat earth bring to a modern navy?  For bringing ships faster and more efficiently on station?  Saving time and money while beating competing navies to the punch?   

Everything always HAS been based on the flat Earth, that's the reason it DOES work out.

We've NEVER used a ball Earth, a curving surface, for anything we've done, we've designed, or built on Earth. Look through any of our past documents, that were used to build something, and see if you can find 'curvature' mentioned at all, because it's rarely found, and when it IS mentioned at all, it's only in RECENT papers, because they're trying to back pedal for nothing supporting 'curvature' in our documents, or drawings...

Think about how ridiculous it is -

'Curvature' is claimed to have an ACTUAL RATE, of curve, which is 8 inches per mile, squared.

Having this as your 'rate of curvature', means it would be USED, DOCUMENTED, and accounted for, BEFOREHAND. It would be known as curving at that rate, because it WOULD exist, as being the real surface of Earth. There'd be no possible reason it would NOT be considered that way, taken that way, used that way.

Every design would be more complicated, harder to make accurately, IF there actually was 'curvature' of Earth's surface, which you'd only understand, if it was there to BE accounted for, because you believe there IS 'curvature', some sort of 'phantom' that cannot be seen, cannot be measured, isn't relevant to account for in SMALL areas, completely ignoring it.....

But the main problem with your argument, is that you have said it has an actual RATE, and if there IS a rate for 'curvature', it WOULD be mentioned, documented, stated as an actual rate, because what other actual rate, from the countless OTHER actual rates we have, or have hijacked for a made up 'force' called 'gravity', is the only 'rate' that's never once been MENTIONED, as an actual 'rate', or any 'rate' at all, because it's NOT mentioned anywhere, even when 'curvature' IS spoken of! 

When they DO mention 'curvature', you think it supports your argument for it existing. But in fact, by pointing it out in a textbook, for example, they do NOT mention a 'RATE of curvature', something that WE ALL KNOW, is 8 inches per mile squared!

If WE know the 'rate of curvature', THEY would obviously know it, but when they don't even MENTION this rate, after they mentioned 'curvature' in the textbook, that means it is a ruse, a sham, say the word 'curvature', and all is good!

Everything always HAS been based on the flat Earth, that's the reason it DOES work out.

No, it isn't.
Airline routes are based upon a RE.
If it was based upon a FE, they would get lost.

While not directly related to the shape of Earth, bridges, etc rely upon gravity, which you and countless FEers reject.

'Curvature' is claimed to have an ACTUAL RATE, of curve, which is 8 inches per mile, squared.
Having this as your 'rate of curvature', means it would be USED, DOCUMENTED, and accounted for, BEFOREHAND.

You have spouted this BS countless times, and had it refuted each time.
What makes you think it would be different this time?

For most projects the curvature is not a significant factor that needs to be accounted for.
Either it will be entirely within the tolerances of the project, or by merely constructing the object level it will naturally account for the curvature.

Every design would be more complicated, harder to make accurately, IF there actually was 'curvature' of Earth's surface

Only if it is significant enough to actually need to be factored in.

you believe there IS 'curvature', some sort of 'phantom' that cannot be seen, cannot be measured

It can and has been seen and measured.
Your inability to measure it over a tiny area doesn't mean it can't be measured.

But in fact, by pointing it out in a textbook, for example, they do NOT mention a 'RATE of curvature', something that WE ALL KNOW, is 8 inches per mile squared!

Probably because like lots of things, you don't actually know it, and instead just parrot BS you have heard elsewhere.
Rate of curvature is angle per unit distance.
What you are trying to quote is the drop.

Instead, what they mention is the radius of curvature.

Everything always HAS been based on the flat Earth, that's the reason it DOES work out.

Nope.  Because with have stuff like this.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 26, 2022, 09:25:14 PM

'Gravity' doesn't exist, and this ALONE proves it doesn't.

No.  Gravity is demonstrably real. Because we have this…. Regenerative Braking

Quote

These Electric Trains Never Need Recharging Thanks to Regenerative Braking

They create so much electricity traveling downhill fully loaded, they can go back to the top of the hill empty with some battery to spare.
ByErin Marquis
PublishedMay 25, 2022

https://jalopnik.com/these-electric-trains-never-need-recharging-thanks-to-r-1848975204/amp


Good old gravity. It’s always there for us, keeping us grounded — and now, charging our electric trains indefinitely. A mining company in Australia recently explained that four of its electric trains create so much electricity through regenerative braking going downhill, they can power themselves back to the top of the hill, and have a little extra battery power left over. Science!

Practical Regenerative Braking that would be impossible in a flat earth delusion. 

Everything always HAS been based on the flat Earth, that's the reason it DOES work out.

Patently false. Meteors

We've NEVER used a ball Earth, a curving surface, for anything we've done, we've designed, or built on Earth.

Patently false. Surveying, Airplane/Sea navigation/transportation, World mapping, LIGO, Crossrail, etc, etc.

Every design would be more complicated, harder to make accurately,

Patently false. I'm pretty sure we can accurately measure curves

IF there actually was 'curvature' of Earth's surface, which you'd only understand, if it was there to BE accounted for, because you believe there IS 'curvature', some sort of 'phantom' that cannot be seen, cannot be measured, isn't relevant to account for in SMALL areas, completely ignoring it.....

Patently false. It's measured, quite accurately all the time. See above.

If WE know the 'rate of curvature', THEY would obviously know it, but when they don't even MENTION this rate, after they mentioned 'curvature' in the textbook, that means it is a ruse, a sham, say the word 'curvature', and all is good!

Patently false. Who is "THEY" and what "TEXTBOOK" are you referring to?

What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

Every design would be more complicated, harder to make accurately

That's true.  Reality is much harder and more complicated than fantasy. 

Evolution is harder and more complicated than GodDidIt.
Heliocentricity is harder and more complicated than Geocentricity.
Plate Tectonics is harder and more complicated than an unchanging earth.
An expanding universe is harder and more complicated than a stationary universe.
Male, female,  gay, straight, trans is harder and more complicated than Adam & Eve.

That's your real problem, isn't it?  You can't handle harder and more complicated.  You need simplicity.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 14, 2022, 08:41:23 AM

How would flat earth make better bridges, more efficient aircraft, better navigation systems, and targeting systems with better tactical advantages?


What tactical advantages would flat earth bring to a modern navy?  For bringing ships faster and more efficiently on station?  Saving time and money while beating competing navies to the punch?   

Everything always HAS been based on the flat Earth, that's the reason it DOES work out.

We've NEVER used a ball Earth, a curving surface, for anything we've done, we've designed, or built on Earth. Look through any of our past documents, that were used to build something, and see if you can find 'curvature' mentioned at all, because it's rarely found, and when it IS mentioned at all, it's only in RECENT papers, because they're trying to back pedal for nothing supporting 'curvature' in our documents, or drawings...

Think about how ridiculous it is -

'Curvature' is claimed to have an ACTUAL RATE, of curve, which is 8 inches per mile, squared.

Having this as your 'rate of curvature', means it would be USED, DOCUMENTED, and accounted for, BEFOREHAND. It would be known as curving at that rate, because it WOULD exist, as being the real surface of Earth. There'd be no possible reason it would NOT be considered that way, taken that way, used that way.

Every design would be more complicated, harder to make accurately, IF there actually was 'curvature' of Earth's surface, which you'd only understand, if it was there to BE accounted for, because you believe there IS 'curvature', some sort of 'phantom' that cannot be seen, cannot be measured, isn't relevant to account for in SMALL areas, completely ignoring it.....

But the main problem with your argument, is that you have said it has an actual RATE, and if there IS a rate for 'curvature', it WOULD be mentioned, documented, stated as an actual rate, because what other actual rate, from the countless OTHER actual rates we have, or have hijacked for a made up 'force' called 'gravity', is the only 'rate' that's never once been MENTIONED, as an actual 'rate', or any 'rate' at all, because it's NOT mentioned anywhere, even when 'curvature' IS spoken of! 

When they DO mention 'curvature', you think it supports your argument for it existing. But in fact, by pointing it out in a textbook, for example, they do NOT mention a 'RATE of curvature', something that WE ALL KNOW, is 8 inches per mile squared!

If WE know the 'rate of curvature', THEY would obviously know it, but when they don't even MENTION this rate, after they mentioned 'curvature' in the textbook, that means it is a ruse, a sham, say the word 'curvature', and all is good!

Congratulations! Ocassionally you surprise me with a flash of intelligence! I actually agree with you on about 80 percent of your post! You're right, through the ages, buildings and even small bridges, have been based around the Earth's surface which will take the said structure, being flat.

However (you knew this however was coming), advances in engineering and technology have led to increasingly longer bridges and tunnels. So, I don't know what textbooks you are referring to, but long span bridges and tunnels most assuredly do factor in Earth's curvature in their planning and then building.

Just to add...

• https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/structures.html
  
  Do human-made structures account for the Earth's curvature?
  If the Earth is round, some of the largest human-made structures would have to take the Earth's curvature into account during design and construction. For smaller structures like individual buildings this wouldn't matter but for things such as very long bridges it would become an issue.
  
  In fact it is an issue and it does happen. A well-known example is the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge in New York. With a central span of 1,298 m (4,260 ft), it was the longest suspension bridge in the world when it was built in 1964. Its two suspension towers are 211 m (693 ft) tall and 1,298 m (4,260 ft) apart. Although each tower is vertical and perpendicular to the water, they are 41.28 mm (1 5⁄8 in) farther apart at the top than the bottom. This is due to the Earth's curvature.
  
  Another example is London's underground train system. When the Crossrail tunnels were built in the 1990s, the Earth's curvature had to be included in the calculations to avoid misaligning them1.

Hey Crouton.

You know what would be a good idea?

Banning all the flat earthers from the flat earth society. Then we can discuss science^TM without all this flat earth nonsense.

Congratulations! Ocassionally you surprise me with a flash of intelligence! I actually agree with you on about 80 percent of your post! You're right, through the ages, buildings and even small bridges, have been based around the Earth's surface which will take the said structure, being flat.

However (you knew this however was coming), advances in engineering and technology have led to increasingly longer bridges and tunnels. So, I don't know what textbooks you are referring to, but long span bridges and tunnels most assuredly do factor in Earth's curvature in their planning and then building.

They have NEVER 'accounted for curvature', look at their actual drawings, and designs, if possible, that is. You will NOT see any 'accounting for curvature' in them.

I'd love to see them try to 'account for' something that doesn't exist, and watch it fail miserably! They know better than that, of course. They aren't morons, they know what to do, and what to ignore, that's why it works, they IGNORE 'curvature', because it does NOT exist.

When we built railroads that crossed over the whole continent, it was in the 1800's.

Those railroads have to be built over flat land, or a slight grade up or down over a certain distance, so any 'curvature' WOULD cause them many problems, if it DID exist.

We've never 'accounted for curvature', and never WILL, either. It's all made up BS.

Surveyors measure surfaces of the Earth, by first KNOWING it is flat, and anywhere that it is NOT flat, is considered a discrepancy. Not good.

If the entire surface of Earth was CURVED, and NOT flat, they WOULD have to account for it, and MAKE it flat. Flat is a good thing, for surveying, and building.

The Panama Canal was built in the early 1900's. Nobody 'accounted for curvature'.


Same as today. Nobody 'accounts for curvature'. It doesn't even exist, so why WOULD they ever 'account for it'?

Levels measure for flat surfaces, not curved surfaces, so 'slightly' curved, they cannot be detected or measured at all! Projects that stretch thousands of miles do not 'account for curvature'. Proven by our railroads, canals, and bridges, which did NOT need such BS as 'curvature' to work perfectly.

And now you can agree with me 100%, knowing they did build long structures over a flat Earth, and we still do so, today.

Unless you think a cross-continental railroad isn't 'long enough' to 'account for curvature', that is...

They have NEVER 'accounted for curvature', look at their actual drawings, and designs, if possible, that is. You will NOT see any 'accounting for curvature' in them.

Sure ‘they’ do. You’ve already been shown, for example, how the London Crossrail underground rail project engineers had to account for earth curvature. It’s well documented.

You don’t have anything to refute that evidence except for responding in all caps, yelling “LIES!” Kinda pathetic and not at all convincing, nor compelling. All you do is rant which is just strange and lacks intelligence, reason, and logic.

They have NEVER 'accounted for curvature'

You sure do love repeating the same baseless claims don't you?

You not liking the fact that they have accounted for the curvature of Earth in a few projects doesn't magically negate that fact.
Why should we believe your claims?

I'd love to see them try to 'account for' something that doesn't exist, and watch it fail miserably! They know better than that, of course. They aren't morons

That's right, they aren't morons, so they know Earth is round.

railroads

And if you understood how they were constructed, you would understand that the only way in which they need to account for curvature is in the same manner as map makers.

Those railroads have to be built over flat land, or a slight grade up or down over a certain distance, so any 'curvature' WOULD cause them many problems, if it DID exist.

Why? Because you say so?
They don't reference any magical flat land. Instead they reference LEVEL.

Surveyors measure surfaces of the Earth, by first KNOWING it is flat

No, knowing it is round, and they can measure the curvature.

The Panama Canal was built in the early 1900's. Nobody 'accounted for curvature'.

Why would they have to?

Levels measure for flat surfaces, not curved surfaces

Levels measure for perpendicular to down, not any magical flat reference.

And now you can agree with me 100%

I will agree with you when you stop spouting such delusional BS.

Unless you think a cross-continental railroad isn't 'long enough' to 'account for curvature', that is...

Again, the issue isn't length.
Did they use a laser level set up on one end, going all the way to the other? No.
They laid the track referencing level.
As such, they don't need to account for curvature, as that is already taken care of by building the track level.

A FE engineering school?  Let's think on this.  The vast majority of engineering related jobs do not account for curvature.  But the other parts of reality that is used poses a huge problem.  Depending on the FE version, you will have to ignore gravity.  Well you can do away with every engineer dealing with movement of anything.  Ok then let's use communications, well we hit another snag.  Most communications deal with line of sight and how light works, or satellites, etc.  Well that's out.  What do we have left... well electrical, computer, electronics, software, and maybe sanitation.  They don't need to account for curvature or gravity or light.  I'm sure there are countless examples of things those engineers do use those things for, but if you really cut it down to the bare necessities of what job constitutes one of those fields, you could ignore those things and do the job.  But like not many software engineers only ever program accounting programs, the others do usually spread out into aspects of jobs that would require one of those 3 basic things that no FE model can match with reality on all 3 at the same time.  You have to change one or more of those to make any FE claim work.  We'll unless you completely change the entire understanding of the universe and at the small scale, all curved lines are straight and vice versa.  None of the above even use the biggest FE problem, math.
No, I think we won't be able to make a FE engineering program. 

It would look like an engineering school?

You don't assume Round Earth (or Flat Earth) when making architecture.  You build the architecture. The only difference is that woke RE ppl "adjust for the curvature" and things like this happen.

Feminist bridge.



When you have woke globalist theories, you ideas literally cannot stand up.

When you stick to basic engineering, your ideas are still around. There is no special FE engineering. We simply ignore curvature.

When you stick to basic engineering, your ideas are still around. There is no special FE engineering. We simply ignore curvature.

"We"?

When you have woke globalist theories, you ideas literally cannot stand up.

Haven't you spouted this delusional BS before?
That bridge failing has nothing at all do to with the curvature.

It would look like an engineering school?

You don't assume Round Earth (or Flat Earth) when making architecture.  You build the architecture. The only difference is that woke RE ppl "adjust for the curvature" and things like this happen.

Feminist bridge.



When you have woke globalist theories, you ideas literally cannot stand up.

When you stick to basic engineering, your ideas are still around. There is no special FE engineering. We simply ignore curvature.

Let's see, would an engineer know what it takes to be an engineer or some internet troll who loves to spout a lot of unsubstantiated things, aka lies. 

You aren't just ignoring curvature, you unbelievably useless twit.  It's all the other things that you have to ignore also.  Gravity, how light travels, material science, geology, etc.  You have to ignore so much to push the scam of FE, that there is nothing left in many fields that could work. 
But you keep pushing the snake oil.  I'll ignore the con artists like you.

You're right, you don't know what it takes to be an engineer.

I however do. I've had engineer friends and relations and know what real engineers look like.

And how to spot the fakes.

Not all flat Earthers ignore gravity. But sure, go ahead and tell me my business. Tell me what people can and cannot believe.

By the way you do not need to add gravity into architecture. It practically never comes up unless you are knowingingly building something wrong (creating stress when there are ways to limit it). 



A schematic of a bridge. Notice the G is not for gravity.

A bridge builder designs for load, not gravity. Ditto for an engineer for a building or a machine (such as elevators). They are not designing for imaginary forces. They are designing for real world loads, both the load of the bridge/building/elevator and the "live load" of anything incidental to enter the system. It is never necessary to believe in gravity, it is however important to adjust for real weights.

By the way you do not need to add gravity into architecture.

If you want to ensure the structure doesn't collapse due to its own weight, or the weight of objects placed on it, you certainly do need it.

A bridge builder designs for load, not gravity.

i.e. the weight of an object due to gravity.

A schematic of a bridge. Notice the G is not for gravity.

That is not a "schematic" of a bridge. It's the requested measurements in order to start building out a timber-required pricing estimate:



Could you be more dishonest?

Here's an engineering example for you...and where the 'g' refers to gravity...

Horizontal Beam/Drawbridge
For a beam supported at one end - like a typical drawbridge - the resultant force acting on the bridge can be calculated as

F = q L     
   = m g L              (1)

where

F = resultant force or weight (N)
q = uniform distributed load or weight (N/m)
L = length of beam or bridge (m)
m = continuous distributed mass (kg/m)
g = acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2)

For an uniform distributed load the resultant force F will act in distance

a = L / 2        (2)

The moment acting in A can be calculated as

M = F a              (3)
    = F L / 2         (3b)

Note! The generic eq. 3 can be used for any combination of distributed or point loads.

Example - Moment with Horizontal Beam/Drawbridge
The total weight - or resultant force - of a 10 m HE-B 340B steel beam with continuous mass 134 kg/m can be calculated as

F = (134 kg/m) (9.81 m/s2) (10 m)
   = 13145 N

The acting distance a for the resultant force or weight can be calculated as

a = (10 m) / 2
   = 5 m

The moment acting in A can be calculated as

M = (13145 N) (5 m)
   = 65725 Nm

You really are trolling up a storm any chance you can get.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 23, 2022, 11:02:16 PM

A schematic of a bridge. Notice the G is not for gravity.

That is not a "schematic" of a bridge. It's the requested measurements in order to start building out a timber-required pricing estimate:



Could you be more dishonest?

Here's an engineering example for you...and where the 'g' refers to gravity...

Horizontal Beam/Drawbridge
For a beam supported at one end - like a typical drawbridge - the resultant force acting on the bridge can be calculated as

F = q L     
   = m g L              (1)

where

F = resultant force or weight (N)
q = uniform distributed load or weight (N/m)
L = length of beam or bridge (m)
m = continuous distributed mass (kg/m)
g = acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2)

For an uniform distributed load the resultant force F will act in distance

a = L / 2        (2)

The moment acting in A can be calculated as

M = F a              (3)
    = F L / 2         (3b)

Note! The generic eq. 3 can be used for any combination of distributed or point loads.

Example - Moment with Horizontal Beam/Drawbridge
The total weight - or resultant force - of a 10 m HE-B 340B steel beam with continuous mass 134 kg/m can be calculated as

F = (134 kg/m) (9.81 m/s2) (10 m)
   = 13145 N

The acting distance a for the resultant force or weight can be calculated as

a = (10 m) / 2
   = 5 m

The moment acting in A can be calculated as

M = (13145 N) (5 m)
   = 65725 Nm

You really are trolling up a storm any chance you can get.

Oh that's cute. You think you're an engineer.

Yes, it that's where I found it. It talks about the dimensions, the height, and the length.

With that information, they figure you can build it. As it is literally titled "how to build a bridge".



Whereas nobody can build a bridge by crunching math together (you have some nice numbers but no bridge), anyone can build a build a bridge by simply dispersing weight correctly, and building according to drafted model.

Quote from: Stash on December 24, 2022, 01:06:41 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 23, 2022, 11:02:16 PM

A schematic of a bridge. Notice the G is not for gravity.

That is not a "schematic" of a bridge. It's the requested measurements in order to start building out a timber-required pricing estimate:



Could you be more dishonest?

Here's an engineering example for you...and where the 'g' refers to gravity...

Horizontal Beam/Drawbridge
For a beam supported at one end - like a typical drawbridge - the resultant force acting on the bridge can be calculated as

F = q L     
   = m g L              (1)

where

F = resultant force or weight (N)
q = uniform distributed load or weight (N/m)
L = length of beam or bridge (m)
m = continuous distributed mass (kg/m)
g = acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2)

For an uniform distributed load the resultant force F will act in distance

a = L / 2        (2)

The moment acting in A can be calculated as

M = F a              (3)
    = F L / 2         (3b)

Note! The generic eq. 3 can be used for any combination of distributed or point loads.

Example - Moment with Horizontal Beam/Drawbridge
The total weight - or resultant force - of a 10 m HE-B 340B steel beam with continuous mass 134 kg/m can be calculated as

F = (134 kg/m) (9.81 m/s2) (10 m)
   = 13145 N

The acting distance a for the resultant force or weight can be calculated as

a = (10 m) / 2
   = 5 m

The moment acting in A can be calculated as

M = (13145 N) (5 m)
   = 65725 Nm

You really are trolling up a storm any chance you can get.

Oh that's cute. You think you're an engineer.

Yes, it that's where I found it. It talks about the dimensions, the height, and the length.

With that information, they figure you can build it. As it is literally titled "how to build a bridge".



Whereas nobody can build a bridge by crunching math together (you have some nice numbers but no bridge), anyone can build a build a bridge by simply dispersing weight correctly, and building according to drafted model.

You literately trotted out, misrepresented a diagram calling it a "schematic" and spouting, "See, they use 'g', but not for gravity!" like some village idiot. When in fact, the diagram was literally for them to scope out the amount glulam (wood) they would need given their normal designs so they could start making up a pricing. You really think that drawing is all they need to build a bridge? If so, you really are the village idiot.

As well, the site you referenced also mentions the following:

HS20-44

Definition: a designation established by AASHTO. “HS” refers to the type of vehicles a bridge or highway can accommodate; “20” refers to the loading specification of the bridge; “44” indicates the year the specification was adopted. HS20-44 capacity means that the bridge or highway is able to safely accommodate 3-4 axle vehicles, such as a large semi-truck and trailer. All Bridge Builder Timber Vehicular Bridges meet these AASHTO requirements. Bridge Builders can also design HS25-44 Timber Vehicular Bridges, which are able to accommodate a much higher continuous loading capacity.
https://bridgebuilders.com/timber-bridge-construction/timber-bridge-construction-terminology

Important to note their mention of "AASHTO requirements"

Now, looking at AASHTO requirements, here's one from Minnesota:



Notice anything here regarding 'g'...


http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bridge/pdf/insp/USFS-TimberBridgeManual/em7700_8_chapter06.pdf

So even your own citation references AASHTO standards used in bridge construction all across the country and those standards factor in gravity. I guess they are all doing it wrong too...You obviously know better than 1000's of engineers who actually do the work.

Whereas nobody can build a bridge by crunching math together (you have some nice numbers but no bridge), anyone can build a build a bridge by simply dispersing weight correctly, and building according to drafted model.

Yes, any moron can build a bridge based upon an already drafted model, a model which has calculations behind it.
And yes, it needs you to support the weight, i.e. the downwards force due to gravity.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 24, 2022, 06:18:07 AM

Whereas nobody can build a bridge by crunching math together (you have some nice numbers but no bridge), anyone can build a build a bridge by simply dispersing weight correctly, and building according to drafted model.

Yes, any moron can build a bridge based upon an already drafted model, a model which has calculations behind it.
And yes, it needs you to support the weight, i.e. the downwards force due to gravity.

No, the mass of objects put up into air is what we need to support. No magical made up 'pulling down force' exists at all.

Why do you think it is a CONSTANT? No actual forces have any CONSTANTS to them. Actual forces have a source of origin, where it is strongest, and they weaken with more distance FROM their sources, in all cases. They have a distinct length where they start to weaken, and it constantly is weakening, with more distance from their sources, until it is gone completely.

Actual forces also act differently ON each object, not the exact same way. A magnet pulls in a small nail to it,  but cannot pull in a heavy steel plate. A wind will blow around sand, but not a camel on the sand. Only your made up force can do such magical things, but none of our ACTUAL forces can, for it is purely nonsense, and not based on reality.

Engineers use the TERM 'gravity', it doesn't change the facts, and reality.

Objects in air, or put up into air, on posts, in the ground, have mass, and density, which is GREATER than that of air. That's why they're heavy, and fall without supporting them in air, by something in the ground.

Nothing within air, is 'pulled down to Earth's surface', by a magical, made up force.

We don't feel anything 'pull us down' from below, when we're in air. When we dangle a foot off a rooftop, INTO air, we don't feel our leg being 'pulled down' at all, either.

Winds will push us, and we feel this as an actual force, acting on us. When we dangle a leg off a roof, when it's windy, our leg will be pushed by the wind, and we feel it as a force, acting on our leg. But the wind doesn't push the REST of us, or not as much as our LEG is pushed, at least.

Your force is made up nonsense, and shows no features of ACTUAL forces, why WOULD it? Making up things that don't exist, are bound to fail miserably. 'Gravity' is a perfect example of it.

No, the mass of objects put up into air is what we need to support.

No, it isn't mass, it is weight.
Mass has no directionally, weight does.

If there was no force (i.e. gravity) trying to pull the mass down, the bridge wouldn't need to support anything.

Why do you think it is a CONSTANT?

Why do you think it is constant?
You keep repeating this delusional BS, when it has been refuted multiple times.

g varies around Earth and with altitude.
It is not constant, it is just approximately 9.8 m/s^2.
For most calculations, you can use 9.8 m/s^2.
But if you need them to be very precise, you need a more accurate value, and can't just use that "constant", as that constant is an approximation.

No actual forces have any CONSTANTS to them.

Actual forces (like gravity and electromagnetism) have a constant of proportionality, describing the relationship between the force and what the force is based on.

Actual forces have a source of origin, where it is strongest, and they weaken with more distance FROM their sources, in all cases.

Technically no. In general, they will vary, however specific arrangements have different overall contributions to force.
For example a planar source has the strength remain constant with distance.
But this matches gravity, where for example the gravity of Earth is strongest when closest to Earth and gets weaker as you go further away from Earth.
This is part of the reason why the weight of an object is less on the equator than the poles, because the equator is further from the centre than the poles.

They have a distinct length where they start to weaken, and it constantly is weakening, with more distance from their sources, until it is gone completely.

And with this you directly contradict yourself.

If it is constantly weakening, there is no distinct length where it starts to weaken.

For monopoles, like gravity and electrostatics, each individual point source is responsible for a field (which imparts a force) which is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from it.
There is no magical distance at which it starts to weaken. It weakens right from the very start.

Actual forces also act differently ON each object, not the exact same way.

You mean like how gravity applies a much larger force to a more massive object than it does to a lighter object?

An electrostatic field will accelerate all objects with the same mass to charge ratio at the same rate.
For wind, such a ratio exists but it is far more complex.

Engineers use the TERM 'gravity', it doesn't change the facts, and reality.

You rejecting gravity does not change the facts or reality.
Gravity continues to operate, even with you wanting to pretend it doesn't exist.

Objects in air, or put up into air, on posts, in the ground, have mass, and density, which is GREATER than that of air.

Which provides no reason for them to move in any particular direction.
They are heavy because there is a force trying to move them towards Earth.
If you wish to keep in the air (without them being in orbit), you need to apply a force to keep them there to resist the force of gravity.

This is quite unlike trying to have them move over a level surface.

Mass and density alone are not enough. You need a force.

Nothing within air, is 'pulled down to Earth's surface', by a magical, made up force.

Of course not, which is why your made up delusional BS is wrong.
Instead, it is pulled down to Earth's surface by a real force, gravity.

We don't feel anything 'pull us down' from below, when we're in air. When we dangle a foot off a rooftop, INTO air, we don't feel our leg being 'pulled down' at all, either.

Yes, we do.
Repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.

If you wish to assert such delusional BS, try holding yourself up by your pinky, and then see if you can feel something pulling you down.
Or better yet, trying lifting a car with your pinky.
If there is nothing pulling it down, there shouldn't be anything there to resist you lifting it.

All you are really saying is that you can't feel the weight of your foot because of how light it is.
That would be like me holding out a small string and saying I can't feel the wind forcing it, so the wind can't be real.
It is delusional BS.

Your force is made up nonsense

Your objections are made up nonsense, based upon wilful ignorance and dishonesty.
Gravity displays all the properties of a real force.

Making up things that don't exist, are bound to fail miserably. 'Gravity' is a perfect example of it.

Yet you are entirely incapable of showing any actual fault with gravity.
Instead you just make up delusional BS which fails under even slight scrutiny.
Just like your delusional BS about things magically returning to their origin fails with a tiny bit of scrutiny.