Idiotic Musings From Firangistan

karn

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3,713
Likes
15,771
Country flag
Ok obviously something that is 50km tall with not be some tensile material or be able to withstand the surface tension as something that is 500ft. It would be a different material all together. Your comment was about surface area. Something 50km tall needs a different construction material not necessarily more surface area to diffuse the surface tension. You would be an idiot to build a 50km structure using the same materials as something 500ft. Also you would use light weight materials and potentially leverage buoyancy to your advantage
Surface tension is not the issue here .
Which material do you propose ? If it isn't steel and concrete it isnt getting built.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
3,057
Likes
9,588
Country flag
You do not stand on a foot which is in one dimension you stand on an area which is feet squared .

Just read up more on the square cube law man .
It explains why ants can lift 5 X their body weight and why elephants are relatively weak for their size and sluggish.
It also explains why megastructures in earths gravity are increasingly fragile as they are scaled up.
PS . I dunno why you are bringing up US cities sizes . A massive monolith concrete foundation is very different from a scattered layout of houses built with wood and cardboard.
he brought up the city size coz i said that 50km tall manmande structure, that has to be like a mouintain will take up most of murrica as its base.
I was short-handing it a bit, i am not exactly sure because i do know that Olympus mons is about 21km tall and covers an area of 300,000 sq km, which is basically a Madhya Pradesh sized mountain and the long side of the mountain is almost 1000km long before it reaches ground level.
Even with engineering tricks, i'd say that a 50km yankee-tranny-kaala mountain will take up at least 2-3 times that land and distance but i may be wrong lol
I havent actually calculated this using square cube law and youngs moduluses, so its a bit of a shot in the dark from me.
But yea, if this chap thinks we can make a 50 km tall man colossus or 50 km tall standard proportions skyscraper, his building material better me of near neutron star density else it will collapse. lol.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
3,057
Likes
9,588
Country flag
Ok obviously something that is 50km tall with not be some tensile material or be able to withstand the surface tension as something that is 500ft. It would be a different material all together. Your comment was about surface area. Something 50km tall needs a different construction material not necessarily more surface area to diffuse the surface tension. You would be an idiot to build a 50km structure using the same materials as something 500ft. Also you would use light weight materials and potentially leverage buoyancy to your advantage. Carbon nanowires; Helium, hydrogen etc
bhai bas kar.
such material doesn't exist and the point is, if you want to build something freestanding today, or most likely for the next damn century, that is 50km tall, it has to be pyramid shaped else you will fail 100% of the time.
And if you think you can build a building that will be 'floating' by drone action- you clearly do not even know abc of material science.
 

karn

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3,713
Likes
15,771
Country flag
he brought up the city size coz i said that 50km tall manmande structure, that has to be like a mouintain will take up most of murrica as its base.
I was short-handing it a bit, i am not exactly sure because i do know that Olympus mons is about 21km tall and covers an area of 300,000 sq km, which is basically a Madhya Pradesh sized mountain and the long side of the mountain is almost 1000km long before it reaches ground level.
Even with engineering tricks, i'd say that a 50km yankee-tranny-kaala mountain will take up at least 2-3 times that land and distance but i may be wrong lol
I havent actually calculated this using square cube law and youngs moduluses, so its a bit of a shot in the dark from me.
But yea, if this chap thinks we can make a 50 km tall man colossus or 50 km tall standard proportions skyscraper, his building material better me of near neutron star density else it will collapse. lol.
Hehe .. You are more correct than you know . Olympus mons is on mars and that is 1/3rd of earths gravity (approximately). If it was on earth the mountain would collapse under its own weight.
As for future materials for only carbon fibre comes to mind due to concepts of space elevators and even that is theoretical.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
3,057
Likes
9,588
Country flag
Hehe .. You are more correct than you know . Olympus mons is on mars and that is 1/3rd of earths gravity (approximately). If it was on earth the mountain would collapse under its own weight.
As for future materials for only carbon fibre comes to mind due to concepts of space elevators and even that is theoretical.
oh yea. i completely forgot about 1/3rd gravity. so maybe my Ombaba-hijra mountain would cover entire north america
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
3,057
Likes
9,588
Country flag
Hehe .. You are more correct than you know . Olympus mons is on mars and that is 1/3rd of earths gravity (approximately). If it was on earth the mountain would collapse under its own weight.
As for future materials for only carbon fibre comes to mind due to concepts of space elevators and even that is theoretical.
btw, just for interest's sake - we encounter a real life example of square-cube law problem with the bent pyramid. Its older than the great pyramids, in the early days of smooth pyramid building ( as opposed to the more rudimentary ziggurat step pyramids of earlier times) and we can see a clear adjustment to reduce height ( the angle becomes shallower near the top), giving it a bent look, simply because the egyptians realised that if they continue on the same angle, the pyramid would collapse, as the base is too small for such a steep angle.
 

karn

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3,713
Likes
15,771
Country flag
btw, just for interest's sake - we encounter a real life example of square-cube law problem with the bent pyramid. Its older than the great pyramids, in the early days of smooth pyramid building ( as opposed to the more rudimentary ziggurat step pyramids of earlier times) and we can see a clear adjustment to reduce height ( the angle becomes shallower near the top), giving it a bent look, simply because the egyptians realised that if they continue on the same angle, the pyramid would collapse, as the base is too small for such a steep angle.
Can't really comment specifically to your example. But from what I have gathered (and feel free to correct me ). Progression of building techniques in ancient egypt is non linear. The standing intact pyramids are constructed out of granite monolith blocks .. However later constructions are made out of rocks like sand stone but not granite these pyramids look little better than mounds today .. indicating a clear regression of technology.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
3,057
Likes
9,588
Country flag
Can't really comment specifically to your example. But from what I have gathered (and feel free to correct me ). Progression of building techniques in ancient egypt is non linear. The standing intact pyramids are constructed out of granite monolith blocks .. However later constructions are made out of rocks like sand stone but not granite these pyramids look little better than mounds today .. indicating a clear regression of technology.
in architectural terms, the egyptian pyramids show linear advancement - from step pyramid to smooth pyramids, with the bent pyramid being the example of figuring out the square-cube law in practical terms, if not mathematical/theoretical terms.
The great pyramids represent the high point, after which the construction quality & size of pyramids decline, till the fall of the old kingdom. The old kingdom texts refer to famine, destutition, empty coffers, etc - so the explanation that most historians prefer is that the decline in quality and scale of the pyramids are due to the kingdom destituting itself, mostly due to the immense cost of constructing these pyramids every generation - they are built for every single pharaoh of the old kingdom, with construction lasting 20-25 years, meaning there is always a pyramid being build in egypt for 100s of years.
The middle kingdom, IIRC was relatively modest and didnt do much pyramid building and the new kingdom abandoned pyramid building alltogether to focus on temple building, like the temple of rameses.
 

Sanglamorre

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
5,938
Likes
27,072
Country flag
bhai bas kar.
such material doesn't exist and the point is, if you want to build something freestanding today, or most likely for the next damn century, that is 50km tall, it has to be pyramid shaped else you will fail 100% of the time.
And if you think you can build a building that will be 'floating' by drone action- you clearly do not even know abc of material science.
Building it on water could help. This was the reason the terrestrial dinosaurs maxed out on their size, while aquatic ones could still growing larger
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top