A test of your common sense

Oh, and my answer.I should say that the greatest curvature of the beam under those forces would be either between A and B or (symmetrically) between C and D. I would expect it to give way where it is most bent.My common sense, garnered over many years of experience, suggests that I don't know and should ask an engineer.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

My common sense tells me I should have ignored this thread.

At A, because of the sharp angles???In plumbing we use a set of equations to determine where we can and can't drill/notch a load carrying member. My limited knowledge doesn't help me here.My guess is based on knowing that sharp corners are to be avoided. BOAC Flight 781 - Wikipedia

The point is for all intent and purposes it doesn't matter where failure occur in this particular case. I was just demonstrating how something that appears so simple can be so complex without proper training. You can't use common sense to arrive at the answer for something like this. It takes a lot of proper training and experience.I was really hoping for some more creationist participation in this thread, since a lot of them seem to be all knowing. Instead, I think I just pissed off a bunch of evilutionists LOL.

..and again...

So put them out of their misery Taz!

Hi Taz. After reading the entire thread and rating most of the responses, there is no common sense answer to un-common complex problems. A better example of a common sense test would be would chaos emerge into complexity and order, whether given relatively little time or given mllions to billions of years?Edited by Admin, : Fix closing italic and quote tags.

[this portion edited in accordance with Admin's request] CrystalsEdited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Please don't help Buz make himself the topic of yet another thread.

Intuitively I would of said the middle. But knowing this is a trick question I then thought point (A) since the surface area is less at the apex.

Hi Buz,I think you've actually stumbled upon perhaps the most important point of the thread. Indeed true, and this is exactly what Taz intended to display. Yet here you illustrate a far more important fact: people tend to incorrectly classify certain topics as comprehensible through normal, common sense. This is an extension, I believe, of the tendency of human beings to believe themselves to be far more competent in subjects they are ignorant of (specifically, if you know just a little about a topic, you are more likely to believe yourself to be extremely competent in the subject matter, even though an actual test of your knowledge would prove distinctly otherwise).You believe yourself, through "common sense," to have identified a major contraindication of what you would likely term a "materialistic worldview." You are certain that chaos will never spontaneously form into order, regardless of the amount of time or the circumstances, and you hold this to be proof positive of the falsity of evolution, modern cosmology, etc.Yet you are neither a physicist nor a chemist, and your education in those areas is negligible. That's not an insult - not everyone is or needs to be an expert in those fields. But you're making claims based on ignorance, and for the rest of us, it shows.The word "crystals" has been thrown at you repeatedly, every time you make this claim, because crystals (some of them, at least) are the easiest and most obvious example of what you believe to be impossible.A snowflake in particular is a thing of beauty and impeccable order. Yet it is not guided by any intelligence as it forms, and it requires no input of energy. A snowflake forms spontaneously from a fluid, chaos shifting into order all on its own. Exactly what you say cannot and does not happen, ever, happens billions or trillions of times in a single snowstorm.Your "common sense" is wrong, Buz. "Common sense" usually is, because the knowledge upon which that sense is based is limited to what we individually know to be true...and that knowledge is often based on inaccuracies or even outright falsehoods. Just as you can reach a false conclusion through solid logic if your premise is incorrect, "common sense" only works when the knowledge it's based on is at all accurate.In this case, once again you demonstrate that many people will reach utterly inaccurate "common sense" conclusions because their knowledge on a given topic is flawed or utterly absent. This is so ubiquitous that I would suggest that "common sense" is a shortened form of "I'm not at all knowledgeable in this subject, but this is my best guess." And for some strange reason, people place confidence in "common sense" solutions. It would be funny, if it weren't so frequently disastrous.

Haha, ok ok.Usually, the beam will fail in the region adjacent to one of the loads. However, if the beam is elastic enough, it may fail in the middle region. In this particular case, the end condition is set to fail. Left end more than right end.Edit.And notice how my member ratings went from 8.0 from the start of this thread to 6.9 at the moment.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

You also called it a, "normal everyday thing that most people deal with." If I'm deciding how many fat ladies my lawn furniture will hold, I'm not going to pay for an engineering feasibility study; I'm going to use my common sense, such as it is.

Jesus christ, you still fail to see the point. Something like this really does represent normal everyday thing. Suppose you and your wife sits on one of those lawn chairs. And both of you have been trying to gain the title of the fattest mother fuckers on guiness book of records.Or how about this. Recently one of my friends made a homemade dolly thing to push his plants around. He does a lot of outdoor and indoor gardening. His dolly thing looks like this. The area between the larger circle and the smaller circle represents the area of contact between the plant pot and the dolly thing. Where do you suppose the best place for the wheels will be for the dolly?If it were me, I'd put the wheels toward the outside for stability and support. This guy actually put the wheels very close together toward the center. His reasoning to me was if the dolly thing was going to break it will break in the middle so he better support the middle. Here's the problem. Every time he pushes it around, the plant tends to tip over due to lack of stability.That's what normal everyday people do. See the similarities between my beam example and the dolly thing?

Which is why common sense is used and waiting for expertise is impractical. Your example doesnt relate to the EvC debate at all. I won't admit to being normal but my answer was right, wasn't it? (To be fair, I have zero knowledge of engineering but I do have some experience in construction.)