[timterroo]

Here is an interesting video by vsauce:



It is worth it to watch the whole video, but I wanted to focus particularly at 3:20.

Thoughts?

[Tumeni]

Yes, but what ABOUT 3.20 ... ?

[timterroo]

Yes, but what ABOUT 3.20 ... ?

My apologies for not clarifying here.....

At 3 minutes and 20 seconds, he talks about a bridge. It was designed to account for the earth's curvature. How is it that the foundation of the bridge is laid perpendicular to the ground, but is further apart at the top than at the base?

[Curious Squirrel]

Yes, but what ABOUT 3.20 ... ?

My apologies for not clarifying here.....

At 3 minutes and 20 seconds, he talks about a bridge. It was designed to account for the earth's curvature. How is it that the foundation of the bridge is laid perpendicular to the ground, but is further apart at the top than at the base?

Haven't watched it, but there's only one bridge I know of this was the case. The most common (quite reasonable) retort/dismissal of this bridge is pointing out that no one has ever actually measured that the difference actually exists, and that the materials tolerance means assuming and building for the opposite of what's true, wouldn't create enough difference for it to be noticeable.

[Tom Bishop]

A similar claim is made about the Humber Bridge: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Humber_Bridge

Q. If the earth is flat, why do top of the pylons of the Humber Bridge deviate in distance horizonally by 36mm?

A. The pylons were built vertically in relation to the earth. The pylons were built to be exactly the same height. The difference in horizontal distance at the top of the pylons is only a theoretical figure for what the difference should be if the earth were a globe.

No physical measurement of distance deviation was ever detected on this or any other bridge. Forum user "Niceguybut" once tried to champion the cause that there was a physical, detected difference on the Humber Bridge. Here were his results:

Niceguybut wrote:

"I once tried to champion this cause, and in the interests of getting a definitive answer, I emailed the Humber Bridge Authority to ask whether the figure was measured or purely theoretical. Here's the reply:

    Thank you for your recent email.
   
    The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the
    centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an
    inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of
    the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.
   
    The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the
    apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".
   
    Regards
   
    Peter Hill
    General Manager & Bridgemaster

So there you have it, straight from the horse's bridgemaster's mouth. I'm man enough to admit I backed a wrong 'un, so can we let this one go now?"

[markjo]

Here is an interesting video by vsauce:



It is worth it to watch the whole video, but I wanted to focus particularly at 3:20.

Thoughts?

I think that 6:24 shows that he gets FET.