Road Bridge from the USA to Europe

Status
Closed
Jul 2016
8,392
USA
More or less. Humans have not respected the seas, we have overfished and polluted, and really should just try to step back and try and undo some of the damage we have caused. Is this a controversial opinion?
Yes. At the very least, besides destroying global trade you'd resign billions of humans to a slow death from starvation so you can feel better about the horrors of over fishing and littering. Yeah, that is a bit controversial, a bit selfish.

Not in a "Wow, this person is tough as nails" type of way. More like "Is that person crying because they cut down a tree?" way, when its weird and sad. ;)
 
Aug 2012
1,518
Yes. At the very least, besides destroying global trade you'd resign billions of humans to a slow death from starvation so you can feel better about the horrors of over fishing and littering. Yeah, that is a bit controversial, a bit selfish.

Not in a "Wow, this person is tough as nails" type of way. More like "Is that person crying because they cut down a tree?" way, when its weird and sad. ;)
But you would agree that human activities have harmed sea life?
 
Mar 2018
588
UK
Space elevator? Not possible- why? Because the forces involved exceed the nuclear bonds that hold matter together. Ergo no material CAN possibly be developed that would take the load unless the laws of physics change.
Firstly it isn't nuclear bonds (they hold protons and neutrons together inside the nucleus), but inter-atomic or molecular bonds. They are the ones that give a material its strength. Secondly, there is no minimum required strength for a space elevator, you can always use a weaker material and just make the cable more tapered; hell, you could build it out of wool if you really wanted, it's just that your cable would be 100s of kilometres thick at the end. Thirdly, a space elevator is infinitely more plausible and desirable than a transatlantic bridge; but still probably not worth it on Earth, reusable rockets just seem a lot cheaper and more versatile (might be worth it on mars/the moon if we ever have enough people there).

By the way, there have been quite a lot of in depth studies on space elevators. Different serious groups have got rough costings for building one, requirements on materials in order for it to be sensible, and even competitions to design the climbers for it. That's because it's a medium-distant technology which, while incredible difficult with modern technology, could be hugely useful and desirable. There are no studies of even 1% of that depth for a transatlantic bridge, because it's a stupid idea. Nobody would ever want one - even if you could build it for free tomorrow the disadvantages of having it completely outweigh the advantages. The only reason anyone would ever want it is because JoanOfArc thinks it might be cool. That is literally the only thing in its favour.
 
Likes: Matthew Amt
Mar 2018
588
UK
Yes. At the very least, besides destroying global trade you'd resign billions of humans to a slow death from starvation so you can feel better about the horrors of over fishing and littering. Yeah, that is a bit controversial, a bit selfish.

Not in a "Wow, this person is tough as nails" type of way. More like "Is that person crying because they cut down a tree?" way, when its weird and sad. ;)
But you would agree that human activities have harmed sea life?
Do we need to have a complete dichotomy here?

Surely we can reduce how much we fish (say, by limiting deep sea or sea flour trawling) without completely banning fishing? Those who rely mostly on fish for their food tend to be local coastal fishermen rather than trans-oceanic trawlers anyway. Same thing about littering, we can massively reduce how much plastic is waster, and how much of that flows into the ocean, without having to go on a crusade against how intrinsically evil straws are.
 
Likes: Matthew Amt
Jan 2016
1,066
Collapsed wave
Somehow the idea of travelling for two weeks trapped in a train in the russian wild east doesn't hold much appeal to me. Call me old fashioned but I still prefer the 6 hours trans atlantic flight.
 
Oct 2009
3,434
San Diego
Firstly it isn't nuclear bonds (they hold protons and neutrons together inside the nucleus), but inter-atomic or molecular bonds. They are the ones that give a material its strength. Secondly, there is no minimum required strength for a space elevator, you can always use a weaker material and just make the cable more tapered; hell, you could build it out of wool if you really wanted, it's just that your cable would be 100s of kilometres thick at the end. Thirdly, a space elevator is infinitely more plausible and desirable than a transatlantic bridge; but still probably not worth it on Earth, reusable rockets just seem a lot cheaper and more versatile (might be worth it on mars/the moon if we ever have enough people there).

By the way, there have been quite a lot of in depth studies on space elevators. Different serious groups have got rough costings for building one, requirements on materials in order for it to be sensible, and even competitions to design the climbers for it. That's because it's a medium-distant technology which, while incredible difficult with modern technology, could be hugely useful and desirable. There are no studies of even 1% of that depth for a transatlantic bridge, because it's a stupid idea. Nobody would ever want one - even if you could build it for free tomorrow the disadvantages of having it completely outweigh the advantages. The only reason anyone would ever want it is because JoanOfArc thinks it might be cool. That is literally the only thing in its favour.
Right- the molecular bonds are the weak link.
However, I disagree about making the cable thicker.
The thicker the cable is at the ends the higher the tidal forces acting on the cable- Adding mass does NOT make matter capable of holding together any more than the bonding forces are able to sustain. Under acceleration- adding mass divides the G force among more molecules. But a space elevator is a cable in tidal tension. the further from the center of mass you move- the higher the force becomes, and you are not dividing the force among the amount of matter... you are multiplying the force by the mass. People who think more mass at the ends would make it possible are people who do not understand orbital dynamics.
To wit- the moon has a very large diameter- but if it were to spiral in toward earth, it would get to a distance at which the tidal forces would literally tear it apart. Eventually forming rings.

I don't care how many day dreamers want to sit around and think they can out-figure physics- they just can't.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
2,814
Australia
Its too late peeps !

Bridge across the Atlantic gets go ahead .

" The bridge aims to provide a direct link for Brits to travel to America and vice versa, utilising both workforces and creating millions of jobs.

Cameron said, “The opening of the bridge will enable many out of work British citizens seek work in America and, similarly, we will allow unemployed Americans work here daily.”

Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miller Band, criticised the move. “The fact that it will take over a week to get to work by car negates the fact that the bridge is being built to accommodate unemployment issues in each country. If a man sets off to work on Monday morning, he won’t get there until the following Wednesday and will get home for his tea over two weeks later.”

:D

" Cameron countered such claims by saying, “By the time the bridge is completed in 2021, we will have hover cars that will travel at the speed of light.”

"



..... :eek:

" When responding to the logistical flaw of starting the bridge in Gateshead – an area of Britain on the East coast, Cameron conceded that there were teething problems. “I accept that criticism. On one hand, moving the bridge to Liverpool will cut an hour off the commute time, however Gateshead is one of the most deprived areas on Britain with an alarmingly high rate of unemployment.”

Here is the vision , that goes with the article ;

1549917201057.png

See ^ .... easy as .

:D

" Facing such criticisms, Cameron came out fighting, defending his decision to build the bridge. “The cost of the bridge is not the point. The point is we are creating an easy way for jobseekers from both countries to seek and work, therefore putting millions back into our respective economies.


" David Cameron .. revealed that plans to build the bridge were at ‘an advanced stage,’ and building is set to commence in early 2013."


W o w - I had no idea he was such a complete idiot .

Like I thought , this whole idea is just geopolitical BS and is used distract the gullible ... just like the Aussie VFT !

- Not too far away , that 2021 ... so start saving up people, for those faster than light hover cars that will be on the market soon .

.. and you know what we will be using them for !


1549917886928.png
 
Likes: aggienation
Mar 2018
588
UK
Right- the molecular bonds are the weak link.
However, I disagree about making the cable thicker.
The thicker the cable is at the ends the higher the tidal forces acting on the cable- Adding mass does NOT make matter capable of holding together any more than the bonding forces are able to sustain. Under acceleration- adding mass divides the G force among more molecules. But a space elevator is a cable in tidal tension. the further from the center of mass you move- the higher the force becomes, and you are not dividing the force among the amount of matter... you are multiplying the force by the mass. People who think more mass at the ends would make it possible are people who do not understand orbital dynamics.
To wit- the moon has a very large diameter- but if it were to spiral in toward earth, it would get to a distance at which the tidal forces would literally tear it apart. Eventually forming rings.

I don't care how many day dreamers want to sit around and think they can out-figure physics- they just can't.
I'm a physicist by training and vocation, I know what I'm talking about :). You are right that making the cable thicker on it's own doesn't help. Having, making it progressively thicker does! You make it thicker as it gets closer to it's geostationary anchor so that it there is more width to carry the increasing mass. But you won't believe it if I say it, so here is a research article on the topic https://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0601/0601668.pdf, from which I quote
Accordingly, the cable could be built of any material (Pearson, 1975) by simply using a large enough “taper ratio”, i.e., the maximum cross section area -at GEO- over its minimum value -at the Earth’s surface. For example, for steel this value is 10^33, for kevlar is 2.6×10^8 and for carbon nanotubes is only 1.9.

Bibliography
Pearson J 1975 The orbital tower: a spacecraft launcher using the Earth’s rotational energy Acta Astronautica 2 785-799.
.
Note that the value of 10^33 is hilariously bad. If one end had the same surface area as an entire hemisphere of the Earth, the other side would only be only an atom wide.

And if you want to argue that arXiv isn't a peer reviewed journal you'd be correct; but it is a universal used pre-print repository in physics, and this particular paper has been cited an impressive 120 times, including in rather prestigious journals.

I would apologise for getting off topic, but the topic of this thread is inane anyway and - if anything - this highlights that proper feasibility studies can be done even for futuristic technologies. But it hasn't been done for a transatlantic bridge for reasons which are transparently obvious to everyone but the OP.
 
Likes: specul8
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions