I know exactly what a space elevator is and how it works thank you. However, like I just said, we don't have the technology to build one. It says that in exactly the same wikipedia article. Even current carbon nanotube tech isn't good enough, and it's not like we can produce that volume of nanotubes anyway.

i didn't say we could, and you sounded like you were unaware.
Sheesh.
I'm well aware of our ignorance with nanotubes, but hey, we'll figure it out sometime, won't we?

Sentynel wrote: Space elevator has to be over about 35,000km out because that's geostationary orbit, and the counterweight has to be further out than that to support the cable. The further out or the heavier it is, the more weight the elevator could lift at once.

Yes, you're right, I'm completely unaware..

Heh.
Well, after all the evidence presented, has your view(s) on studiously tall buildings been altered at all?

Doubt it, Sent is very stubborn and tbh there haven't really been any arguments against Sent's view.

Sentynel wrote: Yes, I understand that, but my point is it could be done more efficiently with less money. The taller a building gets the more expensive it gets, and with buildings getting taller and taller, it's getting more and more expensive to build new ones. Money that could achieve more spent otherwise.

Yes, your devastating riposte to this point completely changed my views...

What language are u guys speaking in? Anyway, I hate tall buildings. Becoz where I used to live before, they have broken down all the pretty cottages to build skyscrapers. Not a valid reason with the population blooming but I have always has a soft corner for cottages.

Well I don't mind tall buildings, and even awed by them, but taking out cottages to build em? <_<

Nathaniel wrote: Doubt it, Sent is very stubborn and tbh there haven't really been any arguments against Sent's view.

He either sticks with his principles, or spreads them.

or both :P

I kinda like tall buildings, but when I get close to a really high skyscraper or a really tall structure, I start to get worried a bit. I just hope there won't be a huge earthquake all of a sudden.

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote: What language are u guys speaking in?

English?

Really? :blink: I never guessed.
Architecture really is'nt my cup of tea but physics is.

Dansariki wrote: studiously tall buildings

Actually, n&b has a point - how the hell can a building be studious?

anooyingly tall, instead?
Idk....
And what kind of Physics, exactly?

Hmm...first topic to stay on topic past the first page...
Hmm...Physics for how your building stays up? :P
Probably the only physics in buildings is the building itself when you need to create stable structure, or after when your tall structure needs to withstand nature.

Dansariki wrote: anooyingly tall, instead?
Idk....
And what kind of Physics, exactly?

Uh...I guess I did'nt explain myself properly.
I like physics a lot but engineering & architecture(which are a lot like physics) I hate. Not hate exactly, just don't like. I like pure sciences, if u get my meaning. Like, I would'nt mind taking a career in either Physics or Maths but engineering -never!

Meh. I was always an Arts person.


Skyscapers are uneconomical and un-environmental. The only reason they exist is because of prime locations.

Or to satisfy the needs of the booming population.

Cities occupy a very small part of the total area you can have. Why build a large spike in the Ground that half of the time won't be Earthquake proof and eats a Uberwatt of power when you can build a couple of city blocks with the same resources?

im not big on the idea of tall buildings. mostly because the majority of 'tall' buildings in the north of england look like sh*t. However i do see the point in building them in order to save space.