Why Bridges Fail

O

OilIsMastery

Banned
Banned
Guy notes that all river valleys are earthquake expansion faults and we as engineers build Dams and Bridges across rivers and wonder why they fail?

Bridges have fallen into the Mississippi River, a major earthquake fault. The largest earthquake shock in North America in 1811-1812 occurred at New Madrid, Missouri on the Mississippi. Scientists are still puzzled by the New Madrid earthquake occurring, as it did, in the middle of the Continent. Guy sees the Mississippi as the most obvious fracture point for a major earthquake shock i.e. in the middle of the continent. This continental fracture phenomenon is taking place on other continents.

All landmasses are fragmenting along lines that are, in some cases, known faults or fracture lines. It is not popularly accepted that river valleys are earthquake faults but all the evidence points in that direction. ...

Seismic creep is an element of earth expansion. Fault lines continue to expand insidiously and this is the reason that many dams and bridges fail mysteriously. All dams leak around the abutments because there is no way an engineer can combat or forecast this seismic creep anomaly. Many older bridges are, just now, being retrofitted against earthquake action. This precaution was never even considered when the bridges were first designed and erected, years ago.

Guy states that the earth has expanded to almost twice its original size. The expansion ratios can be viewed on his web site. Global warming is a fact Guy says. The earth is getting hotter but the heat is coming from the earth's interior. That heat is steadily increasing. As the internal heat increases the earth expansion rate increases. Earthquakes are the manifestation of that expansion. There are approximately 25 earthquakes every day all around the world. Over a period of the average year there are approximately 20000 earthquakes. The expansion probability is more graphic if we view the amount of earthquake activity worldwide. We also know that earthquakes express tensional release of built up crustal stress. As the earth expands it is natural that sea levels must fall. That is actually what is has been happening for millions of years Guy concludes.
Click to expand...

Link
 
OilIsMastery said:
Link
Click to expand...

He's a nut. I could easily poke several holes in his - and your - idea, but I'll only mention one: land never rises, it's just sea levels that fall, eh?

Then how do either of you nuts explain the marine fossils found on the tops on mountains in Tibet???? You can't, can you????:bugeye:
 
Read-Only said:
He's a nut.
Click to expand...
That's the typical reaction and language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.

I could easily poke several holes in his - and your - idea, but I'll only mention one: land never rises, it's just sea levels that fall, eh?
Click to expand...
His language is somewhat confusing here because land does in fact rise.

Then how do either of you nuts explain the marine fossils found on the tops on mountains in Tibet???? You can't, can you????:bugeye:
Click to expand...
Lake fossils are not marine fossils.
 
OilIsMastery said:
That's the typical reaction and language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Even if that's true, it doesn't make either of you less of a nut.


His language is somewhat confusing here because land does in fact rise.
Click to expand...

There's nothing confusing about it. He clearly stated that land does NOT rise, it's only the seas that fall. He's a nut and so are you.


Lake fossils are not marine fossils.
Click to expand...

Biologists can easily tell the difference.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Obviously you're no biologist.
Click to expand...

Ha!

Try this - how do you explain your beloved "lake fossils" appearing on mountain peaks over 14,500 feet tall?

But they're still marine fossils - ones that cannot survive in fresh water. All marines biologists can easily tell the difference.
 
Read-Only said:
Try this - how do you explain your beloved "lake fossils" appearing on mountain peaks over 14,500 feet tall?
Click to expand...
You don't believe in mountain lakes anymore?

But they're still marine fossils - ones that cannot survive in fresh water. All marines biologists can easily tell the difference.
Click to expand...
What marine fossils are you refering to?
 
OilIsMastery said:
You don't believe in mountain lakes anymore?
Click to expand...
Certainly - but is that the best you can do? I'm talking about mountains that stand WAY above any surrounding land.


What marine fossils are you refering to?
Click to expand...

I've already told you. If you mean types, in the Himalayas, the team found fossils of marine plankton called radiolarians. They cannot survive in fresh water.
 
OilIsMastery said:
It is not popularly accepted that river valleys are earthquake faults but all the evidence points in that direction. ...
Click to expand...

What evidence? Do you know that water always flows from a higher level to the lowest level...sometimes called sea level? :D
 
Read-Only said:
I've already told you. If you mean types, in the Himalayas, the team found fossils of marine plankton called radiolarians. They cannot survive in fresh water.
Click to expand...
Link please. If true, it doesn't make any difference to theory because there were shallow seas on the supercontinent. Planktonic as opposed to benthonic means that they were in shallow seas.
 
This is the Engineering section. It requires more engineering details. If not I will move it to general science section for general statements. Thank you.
 
kmguru said:
This is the Engineering section. It requires more engineering details. If not I will move it to general science section for general statements. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I figured bridges would qualify as architeture and bridge collapses are an engineering problem that need to be explained in a scientific way, i.e. based upon observation and logic. So be it.
 
For someone that cries and whines "you ad hom'd me" every odd post, you certainly don't mind doing it yourself on the even ones.

Why should anyone bother attempting to use logic, reason and critical thought with someone who's only purpose is probably to spam his pseudoscience blog?

By the way, you keep quoting this apparent nutbar and his book. Perhaps you could tell us how many peer-reviewed citations and primary sources he uses within it? I'm betting very, very few if any. Indeed, I predict a book written in a vernacular as though the "author" (inverted commas intentional) were speaking. He probably also uses run-on paragraphs repeating the same themes over and over.

Such are the characteristics of crackpots who "publish" their "books" through vanity presses. IAC sent me one that exhibited nearly all these and other characteristics, and not a single genuine citation to peer-reviewed work.
 
Last edited:
I'm just asking. If I knew, why would I ask?

Again, since you have the book, how many peer-reviewed citations does Guy use?

Is there a bibliography full of them? Chapter-by-chapter end notes? What does Guy use to source his work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top