3 ms·

Fundamentally such a thing has to be possible or else natural occurrences like mountains, waterfalls, cliffs etc. would not be possible since they would collaps

Fundamentally such a thing has to be possible or else natural occurrences like mountains, waterfalls, cliffs etc. would not be possible since they would collapse on themselves. Steel is stronger than dirt after all.

eminence32 5y ago
Good point, that's true. But mountains also have massive bases over which to distribute the load. I assume in the context of a skyscraper, the overall shape is still very much "skyscraperish" (that is, much taller than it is wide)
- edgyquant 5y ago
  I don’t think that’s quite accurate. You still need to extend the base to support the top, I imagine a pyramid would be better as well at such heights without futuristic materials.
jodrellblank 5y ago
> "else natural occurrences like mountains would not be possible since they would collapse on themselves" One way of looking at how mountains can get so high is to think of them as if they already have collapsed on themselves. There's no more collapsing possible, so they can pile up higher. A lot like the Pyramids, they're so big and so old and haven't fallen down because they can't, they're basically a collapsed heap already. Which is something Isaac Arthur mentions in his YouTube series on space elevators, if you can make the base wider, you can make the top higher, and then you don't need Graphene or Scrith or other future super-strong materials to go high enough (in theory, in practise the base would have to get wider than Earth).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- _hypx 5y ago
  You'd run into two problems: The first is that all materials begins to behave like fluids under enough pressure. The second is that your giant heap of material will have its own gravitation pull. By the time you're talking space elevators, you'll run into very unique engineering challenges.
cperciva 5y ago
Steel is stronger than dirt after all. Rock is also stronger than dirt. In fact, if you like up dirt a km deep, you end up with rock. (Sedimentary rock to be specific.)

eminence32 5y ago

Good point, that's true. But mountains also have massive bases over which to distribute the load. I assume in the context of a skyscraper, the overall shape is still very much "skyscraperish" (that is, much taller than it is wide)

edgyquant 5y ago
I don’t think that’s quite accurate. You still need to extend the base to support the top, I imagine a pyramid would be better as well at such heights without futuristic materials.

jodrellblank 5y ago

> "else natural occurrences like mountains would not be possible since they would collapse on themselves" One way of looking at how mountains can get so high is to think of them as if they already have collapsed on themselves. There's no more collapsing possible, so they can pile up higher. A lot like the Pyramids, they're so big and so old and haven't fallen down because they can't, they're basically a collapsed heap already. Which is something Isaac Arthur mentions in his YouTube series on space elevators, if you can make the base wider, you can make the top higher, and then you don't need Graphene or Scrith or other future super-strong materials to go high enough (in theory, in practise the base would have to get wider than Earth).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
_hypx 5y ago
You'd run into two problems: The first is that all materials begins to behave like fluids under enough pressure. The second is that your giant heap of material will have its own gravitation pull. By the time you're talking space elevators, you'll run into very unique engineering challenges.

cperciva 5y ago

Steel is stronger than dirt after all. Rock is also stronger than dirt. In fact, if you like up dirt a km deep, you end up with rock. (Sedimentary rock to be specific.)