Browse By

Getting the math wrong

Ann writes at the Remnant:
No one ever accuses an engineer of excessive rigidity or of a “fortress mentality” for his unswerving and intransigent belief in the fundamental properties of algebra. No one deems an engineer deeply flawed as a human being if he refuses to entertain the notion that the additive inverse of x might NOT be (-x), much less tolerate a plan for a building put before him in which the plans operate on the premise that the reciprocal of 2 is ¼.

The heresy of Modernism has been well defined as “to not believe what one believes”. Only in the irrational, self-contradicting philosophical matrix of Modernism does believing in the fundamentals of one’s professed belief system make a person either crazy or evil.

Sadly, in today’s Church, thoroughly infiltrated by Modernism, it is simply incomprehensible that a Catholic not only should, but MUST believe the fundamentals of the Catholic faith with more certainty and less doubt than the fundamental properties of algebra. The supreme truth in the universe is Catholicism, not mathematics. After all, five loaves and two fishes went into baskets, and hundreds, if not thousands of loaves and fishes came out. The multiplicative identity did not hold.

Yep. This is more or less what I’ve been telling people who ask about all this. “If an engineer decided he wanted to build a bridge but thought that correct mathematics were just outdated ‘rules’ that were invented to oppress people, would you drive your car over it? Even once?”


6 thoughts on “Getting the math wrong”

  1. Americano says:

    It is torsional oscillation of a bridge. The node is the center line and it is roughly twisting (rotating) around the line. But, the bride is arced and the line on the top of the bridge beam rather than the center. But, the cables are springy. That is why the man has gravitated to the line.

    Any, how a possible vocation for monks could be civil engineering, earth quake engineering. Or, building inspectors who enforce building codes.

    The Japanese are very good at earth quake engineering.

    There is a saying, “earthquakes don’t kill people buildings do.”

    Obviously, the pictures of fallen buildings are examples of deficient building design, construction materials, and construction.

    It is in Italy’s culture to have advanced science. So, there has to be a modern way for Italy’s culture to solve this problem. Lutherans say the church is the people not the buildings. Same for Italy’s people are the most important part of the culture, in fact more important than tradition.

    The cardinal who asked that the congregations meet outside is a hero from my point of view. He some how realized and admitted that that type of building is dangerous and acted at the right time. This is some thing the church needs to solve.

    I have been in a quake a little less than that size. And, have read earth quake reconnaissance reports by civil engineers who survey the structural damage and report on it. These things are online and very educational. I read about L’Aquila.

    Phrased that come up describing problems are *unengineered structures, *smooth bars, *no re-bar, adobe, rubble construction, *infill construction, *no-reinforcing, etc.

    Buildings can be designed and built to withstand this sort of thing. Brittle non-ductile materials shatter. Brittle materials are strong only in compression but not in tension or shear forces. If those materials are used they need reinforcing. Using steel reinforced concrete works.

    These documents on earthquake design are made for every one to understand. I think they should be translated to every language in fault zones. They were written by an other hero.
    examples: (comment: these were written for non engineers, and for low affordability areas, things could be designed even stronger.)

    *These apply to the L’Aquila reports and the recent photos.

    Elastic rock and rebound theory: (Normally rock is brittle, thus the problem)
    (This is slightly flexible because its geometry it is long an thin like fiber glass, and the bridge in the video.)

  2. MaryKJ says:

    I’d like to upvote you several more times. But I’d also like to see one of those ‘ample’ sisters of Providence (from out West here) wearing yards of polyester trundle across as well.

  3. Rocco DeFelice says:

    That’s a good analogy. I’m going to start using that

  4. Rocco DeFelice says:

    That’s a good analogy. I’m going to start saying that to people.

  5. GW says:

    “No one ever accuses an engineer of excessive rigidity or of a “fortress mentality” for his unswerving and intransigent belief in the fundamental properties of algebra.”

    I wish that were the case. I love Ann, but it appears she has never worked as an engineer for a typical project manager.

    Engineer: 2+2=4
    Manager: That’s too expensive. Can you make it 3.5 instead?

    Edit: A real world example.

    Manager: Anyone opposed to launching?
    Engineer: Don’t launch. At these cold temperatures, the o-rings get brittle, they don’t seal, and a jet of flame will escape the solid rocket boosters.
    Manager: Get rid of the engineers.

    Manager: Now, anyone opposed to launching?
    Manager: I didn’t think so. OK, launch.

    And that’s how the Space shuttle Challenger exploded.

  6. Stephen Lowe says:

    I think I would let the Popemobile go first and then maybe a priest riding a Harley then maybe a Cardinal on a St Patrick’s Day float…yeah, that is it….only then would I think of attempting it.

Comments are closed.