Mixing
What is the opposite of “parallel�
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Because of its length, the two towers of the Verrazano Bridge are not parallel: they are [???], accounting for the curvature of the earth.
There's a bunch of terms that come close, such as:
Radial from the center of the earth.
Okay, but this only covers vertical lines.
They're skewed.
Close, but no cigar. "These two lines are skewed." Huh?
Is there an exact term?
single-word-requests
asked 2 hours ago
Ricky
13.3k43073
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Because of its length, the two towers of the Verrazano Bridge are not parallel: they are [???], accounting for the curvature of the earth.
There's a bunch of terms that come close, such as:
Radial from the center of the earth.
Okay, but this only covers vertical lines.
They're skewed.
Close, but no cigar. "These two lines are skewed." Huh?
Is there an exact term?
single-word-requests
asked 2 hours ago
Ricky
13.3k43073
1
There's all sorts of mathematical words for it, but that is surely not what you are loking for. The best way to say that two (straightish) objects lack parallelism is to say qualify it and say 'not parallel', 'not level', 'a little off' or any number of variations. 'only the slightest bit askew' due to the earth's curvature' may suffice. 'Just 'they are askew' just doesn't work.
– Mitch
2 hours ago
1
@Mitch: They're, and I quote, "the towers are 1 5â„8 in (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases." If they were parallel, it would ... uh ... put additional ... uh ... strain on their ... uh ... structural integrity. I think. Or maybe the engineers were just showing off, I don't know.
– Ricky
1 hour ago
@Mitch In order to be perpendicular, each in their own place, the towers must (both) be on radials which meet at the centre of the earth. Else they would both lean - inwards. Not a good idea in a suspension bridge.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
1
I would say that they are "non-parallel" or "not quite parallel".
– Hot Licks
1 hour ago
1
Even theoretically if the two towers pointed in exactly the same directions (up) in respect to one another they still wouldn't be parallel apparently, "two lines in three-dimensional space which do not meet must be in a common plane to be considered parallel; otherwise they are called skew lines." The lines that we trace for each tower wouldn't be on one plane.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Because of its length, the two towers of the Verrazano Bridge are not parallel: they are [???], accounting for the curvature of the earth.
There's a bunch of terms that come close, such as:
Radial from the center of the earth.
Okay, but this only covers vertical lines.
They're skewed.
Close, but no cigar. "These two lines are skewed." Huh?
Is there an exact term?
single-word-requests
asked 2 hours ago
Ricky
13.3k43073
Because of its length, the two towers of the Verrazano Bridge are not parallel: they are [???], accounting for the curvature of the earth.
There's a bunch of terms that come close, such as:
Radial from the center of the earth.
Okay, but this only covers vertical lines.
They're skewed.
Close, but no cigar. "These two lines are skewed." Huh?
Is there an exact term?
single-word-requests
single-word-requests
asked 2 hours ago
Ricky
13.3k43073
asked 2 hours ago
Ricky
13.3k43073
asked 2 hours ago
Ricky
13.3k43073
asked 2 hours ago
Ricky
13.3k43073
asked 2 hours ago
Ricky
13.3k43073
13.3k43073
1
There's all sorts of mathematical words for it, but that is surely not what you are loking for. The best way to say that two (straightish) objects lack parallelism is to say qualify it and say 'not parallel', 'not level', 'a little off' or any number of variations. 'only the slightest bit askew' due to the earth's curvature' may suffice. 'Just 'they are askew' just doesn't work.
– Mitch
2 hours ago
1
@Mitch: They're, and I quote, "the towers are 1 5â„8 in (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases." If they were parallel, it would ... uh ... put additional ... uh ... strain on their ... uh ... structural integrity. I think. Or maybe the engineers were just showing off, I don't know.
– Ricky
1 hour ago
@Mitch In order to be perpendicular, each in their own place, the towers must (both) be on radials which meet at the centre of the earth. Else they would both lean - inwards. Not a good idea in a suspension bridge.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
1
I would say that they are "non-parallel" or "not quite parallel".
– Hot Licks
1 hour ago
1
Even theoretically if the two towers pointed in exactly the same directions (up) in respect to one another they still wouldn't be parallel apparently, "two lines in three-dimensional space which do not meet must be in a common plane to be considered parallel; otherwise they are called skew lines." The lines that we trace for each tower wouldn't be on one plane.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1
There's all sorts of mathematical words for it, but that is surely not what you are loking for. The best way to say that two (straightish) objects lack parallelism is to say qualify it and say 'not parallel', 'not level', 'a little off' or any number of variations. 'only the slightest bit askew' due to the earth's curvature' may suffice. 'Just 'they are askew' just doesn't work.
– Mitch
2 hours ago
1
@Mitch: They're, and I quote, "the towers are 1 5â„8 in (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases." If they were parallel, it would ... uh ... put additional ... uh ... strain on their ... uh ... structural integrity. I think. Or maybe the engineers were just showing off, I don't know.
– Ricky
1 hour ago
@Mitch In order to be perpendicular, each in their own place, the towers must (both) be on radials which meet at the centre of the earth. Else they would both lean - inwards. Not a good idea in a suspension bridge.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
1
I would say that they are "non-parallel" or "not quite parallel".
– Hot Licks
1 hour ago
1
Even theoretically if the two towers pointed in exactly the same directions (up) in respect to one another they still wouldn't be parallel apparently, "two lines in three-dimensional space which do not meet must be in a common plane to be considered parallel; otherwise they are called skew lines." The lines that we trace for each tower wouldn't be on one plane.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
1
1
There's all sorts of mathematical words for it, but that is surely not what you are loking for. The best way to say that two (straightish) objects lack parallelism is to say qualify it and say 'not parallel', 'not level', 'a little off' or any number of variations. 'only the slightest bit askew' due to the earth's curvature' may suffice. 'Just 'they are askew' just doesn't work.
– Mitch
2 hours ago
There's all sorts of mathematical words for it, but that is surely not what you are loking for. The best way to say that two (straightish) objects lack parallelism is to say qualify it and say 'not parallel', 'not level', 'a little off' or any number of variations. 'only the slightest bit askew' due to the earth's curvature' may suffice. 'Just 'they are askew' just doesn't work.
– Mitch
2 hours ago
1
1
@Mitch: They're, and I quote, "the towers are 1 5â„8 in (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases." If they were parallel, it would ... uh ... put additional ... uh ... strain on their ... uh ... structural integrity. I think. Or maybe the engineers were just showing off, I don't know.
– Ricky
1 hour ago
@Mitch: They're, and I quote, "the towers are 1 5â„8 in (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases." If they were parallel, it would ... uh ... put additional ... uh ... strain on their ... uh ... structural integrity. I think. Or maybe the engineers were just showing off, I don't know.
– Ricky
1 hour ago
@Mitch In order to be perpendicular, each in their own place, the towers must (both) be on radials which meet at the centre of the earth. Else they would both lean - inwards. Not a good idea in a suspension bridge.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
@Mitch In order to be perpendicular, each in their own place, the towers must (both) be on radials which meet at the centre of the earth. Else they would both lean - inwards. Not a good idea in a suspension bridge.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
1
1
I would say that they are "non-parallel" or "not quite parallel".
– Hot Licks
1 hour ago
I would say that they are "non-parallel" or "not quite parallel".
– Hot Licks
1 hour ago
1
1
Even theoretically if the two towers pointed in exactly the same directions (up) in respect to one another they still wouldn't be parallel apparently, "two lines in three-dimensional space which do not meet must be in a common plane to be considered parallel; otherwise they are called skew lines." The lines that we trace for each tower wouldn't be on one plane.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
Even theoretically if the two towers pointed in exactly the same directions (up) in respect to one another they still wouldn't be parallel apparently, "two lines in three-dimensional space which do not meet must be in a common plane to be considered parallel; otherwise they are called skew lines." The lines that we trace for each tower wouldn't be on one plane.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
I believe it's as simple as "nonparallel". A synonym for this is "oblique" ("slanting or inclined in direction or course or position--neither parallel nor perpendicular nor right-angled").
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/nonparallel
answered 1 hour ago
Kanari
593
New contributor
Kanari is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Use of a descriptive word along with "parallel" seems appropriate here - adverbs like almost, approximately, virtually, or visually.
The nature of the construction and the deviance from parallel is so small that using a completely different word would seem to convey greater difference than is actually present. The two bridge towers are almost (but not quite) parallel, differing, top distance vs. base distance, by a small but significant 41.26 mm. They are:
"virtually" parallel. or "approximately" parallel
or
They "deviate" from being truly parallel.
Example: Though virtually parallel, they actually deviate from parallel by 41.26
mm at top to correct for the curvature of the earth.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtually
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/deviate
answered 38 mins ago
user22542
1,14127
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Divergent seems sensible to me
answered 3 mins ago
Phil Masters
1
New contributor
Phil Masters is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
I believe it's as simple as "nonparallel". A synonym for this is "oblique" ("slanting or inclined in direction or course or position--neither parallel nor perpendicular nor right-angled").
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/nonparallel
answered 1 hour ago
Kanari
593
New contributor
Kanari is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
I believe it's as simple as "nonparallel". A synonym for this is "oblique" ("slanting or inclined in direction or course or position--neither parallel nor perpendicular nor right-angled").
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/nonparallel
answered 1 hour ago
Kanari
593
New contributor
Kanari is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
I believe it's as simple as "nonparallel". A synonym for this is "oblique" ("slanting or inclined in direction or course or position--neither parallel nor perpendicular nor right-angled").
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/nonparallel
answered 1 hour ago
Kanari
593
New contributor
Kanari is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I believe it's as simple as "nonparallel". A synonym for this is "oblique" ("slanting or inclined in direction or course or position--neither parallel nor perpendicular nor right-angled").
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/nonparallel
answered 1 hour ago
Kanari
593
New contributor
Kanari is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
Kanari
593
New contributor
Kanari is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
Kanari
593
answered 1 hour ago
Kanari
593
593
New contributor
Kanari is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Kanari is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Kanari is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Use of a descriptive word along with "parallel" seems appropriate here - adverbs like almost, approximately, virtually, or visually.
The nature of the construction and the deviance from parallel is so small that using a completely different word would seem to convey greater difference than is actually present. The two bridge towers are almost (but not quite) parallel, differing, top distance vs. base distance, by a small but significant 41.26 mm. They are:
"virtually" parallel. or "approximately" parallel
or
They "deviate" from being truly parallel.
Example: Though virtually parallel, they actually deviate from parallel by 41.26
mm at top to correct for the curvature of the earth.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtually
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/deviate
answered 38 mins ago
user22542
1,14127
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Use of a descriptive word along with "parallel" seems appropriate here - adverbs like almost, approximately, virtually, or visually.
The nature of the construction and the deviance from parallel is so small that using a completely different word would seem to convey greater difference than is actually present. The two bridge towers are almost (but not quite) parallel, differing, top distance vs. base distance, by a small but significant 41.26 mm. They are:
"virtually" parallel. or "approximately" parallel
or
They "deviate" from being truly parallel.
Example: Though virtually parallel, they actually deviate from parallel by 41.26
mm at top to correct for the curvature of the earth.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtually
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/deviate
answered 38 mins ago
user22542
1,14127
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Use of a descriptive word along with "parallel" seems appropriate here - adverbs like almost, approximately, virtually, or visually.
The nature of the construction and the deviance from parallel is so small that using a completely different word would seem to convey greater difference than is actually present. The two bridge towers are almost (but not quite) parallel, differing, top distance vs. base distance, by a small but significant 41.26 mm. They are:
"virtually" parallel. or "approximately" parallel
or
They "deviate" from being truly parallel.
Example: Though virtually parallel, they actually deviate from parallel by 41.26
mm at top to correct for the curvature of the earth.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtually
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/deviate
answered 38 mins ago
user22542
1,14127
Use of a descriptive word along with "parallel" seems appropriate here - adverbs like almost, approximately, virtually, or visually.
The nature of the construction and the deviance from parallel is so small that using a completely different word would seem to convey greater difference than is actually present. The two bridge towers are almost (but not quite) parallel, differing, top distance vs. base distance, by a small but significant 41.26 mm. They are:
"virtually" parallel. or "approximately" parallel
or
They "deviate" from being truly parallel.
Example: Though virtually parallel, they actually deviate from parallel by 41.26
mm at top to correct for the curvature of the earth.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtually
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/deviate
answered 38 mins ago
user22542
1,14127
answered 38 mins ago
user22542
1,14127
answered 38 mins ago
user22542
1,14127
answered 38 mins ago
user22542
1,14127
1,14127
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Divergent seems sensible to me
answered 3 mins ago
Phil Masters
1
New contributor
Phil Masters is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Divergent seems sensible to me
answered 3 mins ago
Phil Masters
1
New contributor
Phil Masters is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Divergent seems sensible to me
answered 3 mins ago
Phil Masters
1
New contributor
Phil Masters is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Divergent seems sensible to me
answered 3 mins ago
Phil Masters
1
New contributor
Phil Masters is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 mins ago
Phil Masters
1
New contributor
Phil Masters is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 mins ago
Phil Masters
1
answered 3 mins ago
Phil Masters
1
1
New contributor
Phil Masters is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Phil Masters is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Phil Masters is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f466717%2fwhat-is-the-opposite-of-parallel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
There's all sorts of mathematical words for it, but that is surely not what you are loking for. The best way to say that two (straightish) objects lack parallelism is to say qualify it and say 'not parallel', 'not level', 'a little off' or any number of variations. 'only the slightest bit askew' due to the earth's curvature' may suffice. 'Just 'they are askew' just doesn't work.
– Mitch
2 hours ago
1
@Mitch: They're, and I quote, "the towers are 1 5â„8 in (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases." If they were parallel, it would ... uh ... put additional ... uh ... strain on their ... uh ... structural integrity. I think. Or maybe the engineers were just showing off, I don't know.
– Ricky
1 hour ago
@Mitch In order to be perpendicular, each in their own place, the towers must (both) be on radials which meet at the centre of the earth. Else they would both lean - inwards. Not a good idea in a suspension bridge.
– Nigel J
1 hour ago
1
I would say that they are "non-parallel" or "not quite parallel".
– Hot Licks
1 hour ago
1
Even theoretically if the two towers pointed in exactly the same directions (up) in respect to one another they still wouldn't be parallel apparently, "two lines in three-dimensional space which do not meet must be in a common plane to be considered parallel; otherwise they are called skew lines." The lines that we trace for each tower wouldn't be on one plane.
– Zebrafish
1 hour ago