Archimedes Plutonium <[email protected]> wrote:

Here is a case of memorized science, with no-one understanding the physics involved. And everyone throwing and tossing around terms like "tension" like "stress".

Science is not term-tossing. Science is explaining what is going on.

Not a single engineer, I bet, can explain Middle Third Rule to a High School classroom and the students-- understanding "What did he say?????"

Since understanding what the middle third rule is about would require at
least a basic statics class, which is not taught at the high school
level, such is pointless.

Probably not a single living engineer knows and understands the Middle Third Rule, other than it has something to do with 1/3, 2/3, 3/3.

Probably every living civil engineer understands the Middle Third Rule.
Nobody else cares as they have no use for it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:26:28 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Here is a case of memorized science, with no-one understanding the physics involved. And everyone throwing and tossing around terms like "tension" like "stress".

Science is not term-tossing. Science is explaining what is going on.

Not a single engineer, I bet, can explain Middle Third Rule to a High School classroom and the students-- understanding "What did he say?????"

Probably not a single living engineer knows and understands the Middle Third Rule, other than it has something to do with 1/3, 2/3, 3/3.

If no-one can explain a concept in science, that is easy to understand, then it is not science at all. It is memorized b.s. passed down from one science failure to the next.

Until now, I was not aware of the huge obfuscation that exists inside of engineering and engineering education.

Having spent some 30 years trying to clean up both physics and mathematics, with much success, that regretably I happen to stroll into engineering and find a nightmarish field of obfuscation.

But it is sensible, that many people would not understand the underlying physics then hop on over into engineering and apply that "gibberish misunderstanding of physics" apply that to engineering and call it a "firm science of engineering". And education
in engineering of memorized gibberish passed on from one class to the next.

--- quoting Wikipedia on Middle Third Rule ---

In civil engineering, the middle-third rule states that no tension is developed in a wall or foundation if the resultant force lies within the middle third of the structure.
The rule is covered by various standard texts in the field of civil engineering, for instance Principles of Foundation Engineering by B.M. Das. The application of this rule is limited to foundations that are square or rectangular in plan. (For circular
foundations a different rule, known as the Middle Quarter Rule applies).


In physics and engineering, a resultant force is the single force and associated torque obtained by combining a system of forces and torques acting on a rigid body via vector addition. The defining feature of a resultant force, or resultant force-torque,
is that it has the same effect on the rigid body as the original system of forces. Calculating and visualizing the resultant force on a body is done through computational analysis, or (in the case of sufficien

Archimedes Plutonium <[email protected]> wrote:

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 1:26:28 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Here is a case of memorized science, with no-one understanding the physics involved. And everyone throwing and tossing around terms like "tension" like "stress".

Science is not term-tossing. Science is explaining what is going on.

Not a single engineer, I bet, can explain Middle Third Rule to a High School classroom and the students-- understanding "What did he say?????"

Probably not a single living engineer knows and understands the Middle Third Rule, other than it has something to do with 1/3, 2/3, 3/3.

If no-one can explain a concept in science, that is easy to understand, then it is not science at all. It is memorized b.s. passed down from one science failure to the next.

Until now, I was not aware of the huge obfuscation that exists inside of engineering and engineering education.

Having spent some 30 years trying to clean up both physics and mathematics, with much success, that regretably I happen to stroll into engineering and find a nightmarish field of obfuscation.

But it is sensible, that many people would not understand the underlying physics then hop on over into engineering and apply that "gibberish misunderstanding of physics" apply that to engineering and call it a "firm science of engineering". And

education in engineering of memorized gibberish passed on from one class to the next.

--- quoting Wikipedia on Middle Third Rule ---

In civil engineering, the middle-third rule states that no tension is developed in a wall or foundation if the resultant force lies within the middle third of the structure.
The rule is covered by various standard texts in the field of civil engineering, for instance Principles of Foundation Engineering by B.M. Das. The application of this rule is limited to foundations that are square or rectangular in plan. (For circular

foundations a different rule, known as the Middle Quarter Rule applies).

In physics and engineering, a resultant force is the single force and associated torque obtained by combining a system of forces and torques acting on a rigid body via vector addition. The defining feature of a resultant force, or resultant force-

torque, is that it has the same effect on the rigid body as the original system of forces. Calculating and visualizing the resultant force on a body is done through computational analysis, or (in the case of sufficiently simple systems) a free body
diagram.

The point of application of the resultant force determines its associated torque. The term resultant force should be understood to refer to both the forces and torques acting on a rigid body, which is why some use the term resultant force–torque.
--- end quote ---

I should have known better. That if a science like physics has points-of-obfuscation, then a science like engineering that applies that physics will only compound and increase and multiply those points-of-obfuscation, to where it is no longer

understandable by anyone. Where no one can comprehend what is said or what reality is. Very much reminds me of Cantor's foolery in mathematics.

AP

Only ArchiePoo could turn an obscure, civil engineering rule of thumb
with limited applicability into a multiple post rant...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

One resolution like so often happens in math or physics, is that a Equivalent statement is found that clarifies the garbled up incomprehensive statement.

Such as in deriving a new law, the discoverers are blurred in concept, blurred in connections, foggy on what is going on, so they concoct a expression full of error.

So there must be a Equivalent form of Middle Third Rule that is instantly comprehendible and which is easily understood.

While looking through that awful Internet literature on Middle Third Rule, someone tried explaining it as in poured concrete, that you want the width to depth of the poured concrete to be a ratio of 3 to 1.

So, well that is beginning to be a statement, whether equivalent to the Middle Third Rule, but at least beginning to be understandable.

AP, cannot include Middle Third Rule in his 252nd book of science, other than to point out that Engineering has no Rule that is even scientific for they cannot explain it with any clarity-- all is obfuscation.

We need physicists to go into this engineering rule and make clear--- what the hell are you????

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Archimedes Plutonium <[email protected]> wrote:

One resolution like so often happens in math or physics, is that a Equivalent statement is found that clarifies the garbled up incomprehensive statement.

Such as in deriving a new law, the discoverers are blurred in concept, blurred in connections, foggy on what is going on, so they concoct a expression full of error.

So there must be a Equivalent form of Middle Third Rule that is instantly comprehendible and which is easily understood.

While looking through that awful Internet literature on Middle Third Rule, someone tried explaining it as in poured concrete, that you want the width to depth of the poured concrete to be a ratio of 3 to 1.

So, well that is beginning to be a statement, whether equivalent to the Middle Third Rule, but at least beginning to be understandable.

AP, cannot include Middle Third Rule in his 252nd book of science, other than to point out that Engineering has no Rule that is even scientific for they cannot explain it with any clarity-- all is obfuscation.

We need physicists to go into this engineering rule and make clear--- what the hell are you????

AP

One more time, the so called middle third rule is a rule of thumb
approximation used by civil engineers to (roughly) analyze the static
forces in square and rectangular structures.

To understand it, one needs a background in statics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:46:13 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:

One more time, the so called middle third rule is a rule of thumb approximation used by civil engineers to (roughly) analyze the static
forces in square and rectangular structures.

To understand it, one needs a background in statics.

Static forces-- is not that a contradiction in terms. Just like Cool flames.

No, I expect more from you Jim than to be a fool for science scams.

For example, if Quantum Computing is real, then there is a part/s in a quantum computer, not found in a normal regular computer. Since there are no such parts, then all of Quantum Computing is a scam on sucker investors.

Now, I apply the very practical logic to Middle Third Rule-- Jim gets a bunch of 2 by 4s or gets a cement truck. And Jim builds those 2 by 4s into a structure obeying the Middle Third Rule and another that disobeys. Now Jim comes into the picture and
demonstrates why his one structure is standing and the other falls apart. Same thing with two displays of concrete poured. One is okay, other falls apart.

Jim we do not need hot air about tension, about stress. We need an actual demonstration.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Archimedes Plutonium <[email protected]> wrote:

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:46:13 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:

One more time, the so called middle third rule is a rule of thumb
approximation used by civil engineers to (roughly) analyze the static
forces in square and rectangular structures.

To understand it, one needs a background in statics.

Static forces-- is not that a contradiction in terms. Just like Cool flames.

Nope, and your utter lack of understanding the subject makes it clear
why you are struggling with a rule of thumb from civil engineering.

<snip remaining>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)