Timeline for Did the Golden Gate Bridge 'flatten' under the weight of 300,000 people in 1987?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2023 at 18:52 | comment | added | ventsyv | The Gary Giacomini claim of teh arch completely disappearing is obviously wrong. | |
| May 2, 2023 at 7:08 | comment | added | Evargalo | Thanks, it works now ! | |
| May 2, 2023 at 6:50 | comment | added | benrg | @Evargalo I rehosted it. | |
| May 2, 2023 at 6:49 | history | edited | benrg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
rehost image
|
| May 2, 2023 at 6:39 | comment | added | Evargalo | Maybe it is only on my device, but the "photo under light traffic" isn't visible for me... | |
| May 1, 2023 at 19:47 | comment | added | benrg | @IMSoP I added a photo under light traffic for comparison. | |
| May 1, 2023 at 19:46 | history | edited | benrg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
add a normal photo for comparison
|
| May 1, 2023 at 16:33 | comment | added | IMSoP | @benrg I stand by my comment; if you took the McDonald's logo and made it as flat as shown in those photos, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say "the whole arch has disappeared", even though there's still a slight arch shape visible. | |
| Apr 30, 2023 at 16:17 | comment | added | supercat | @IMSoP: If one were to place a bowed piece of material on the floor and step on it, there would be a qualitative difference between being heavy enough to flatten it "completely", versus flattening it to a lesser degree. With something like a suspension bridge, there would likely be a level of loading at which it would be closest to being flat (though it would most likely some parts that were concave up and some that were concave down), and additional loading would cause the bridge to be less flat. Thus, the adjective "completely" wouldn't really have a well defined meaning. | |
| Apr 29, 2023 at 22:16 | comment | added | benrg | @IMSoP The use of "flattened" in the question is a bit vague, but I linked an article showing that even immediately after the event there were notable (NYT quoting a named official) claims that it had flattened completely, not just locally ("its whole arch disappeared"). I'd guess that at least some subsequent mentions of flattening are linked to that early claim. So it seems relevant that it didn't flatten to that extent. | |
| Apr 29, 2023 at 21:59 | comment | added | IMSoP | @supercat I don't follow why that's relevant. The claim being examined is not about the consequences of it changing shape, just whether it did change shape. | |
| Apr 29, 2023 at 17:51 | comment | added | supercat | @IMSoP: True, though I think it's more important to note that arch shape of the road surface does not serve as any kind of compression arch. Many bridge surfaces and roof are designed to be slightly arched up in the middle for practical reasons (e.g. minimizing the amount of force required to remove a heavy vehicle whose engine fails while it's on the bridge), but from a structural standpoint woudln't care about whether they were bowed up or down. | |
| Apr 29, 2023 at 9:33 | comment | added | IMSoP | The photos are hard to interpret without comparisons from similar angles to see how curved it normally is. I don't think "flattened" necessarily means "completely flat", only "flatter than normal". | |
| Apr 28, 2023 at 20:37 | history | answered | benrg | CC BY-SA 4.0 |