Oceans in RET

I congratulate you on an epic troll Robosteve.

Now, this table indicates that the measured value of g in Singapore is just 9.781 m s^-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s^-2. This is a difference of nearly 0.4%. Were the oceans truly bound to the surface of the Earth gravitationally, those nearer the Equator should be seeking out the lower energy states that exist in the polar regions and accumulating there. Coastal cities such as Helsinki and Copenhagen would be completely flooded, while there would be much more dry land in Oceania and Central America.

Why is this not the case? The answer, of course, is simple. The Earth is flat, and these oceans are not impressed to move because the acceleration keeping them in place is the same everywhere.

Your theory is flawed from the beginning. I don't know what angle to take at first... but. You start with assumption that we are on flat earth. You take piece of land, without gravity and spinning, put water on it and accelerate it upward and say that water is distributed equally because g is same everywhere. Then you take round earth which is round, has gravity and rotates around it's axis and spins around sun and has whatever miscellaneous forces more. And you say that it must behave exactly like flat earth. How come?
 Second, you say that despite of earth being flat or round you measure g in same way and you get same results in FE and RE. And if we get value of g in Singapore 9.781 m s^-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s^-2 we have two different g's in both model and the Helsinki and Copenhagen would be completely flooded in FE model also. It doesn't matter if the difference is because of "stars overhead"(as you said) it matters that it is different and you itself argue that because of this difference Helsinki must be flooded.
 Third. Your invariance in g because of "stars overhead" bothers me. How can you claim that on FE the acceleration is same everywhere and not be able to measure it same? And how is that you can't measure this "stars overhead"? You only measure the g and get different results and that means that g is different in different places. To claim otherwise you must be able to measure the other part which makes g different. Or yo must have a way to measure g same everywhere eliminating the "stars overhead" part. So, how do you measure these things?

Your theory is flawed from the beginning. I don't know what angle to take at first... but. You start with assumption that we are on flat earth. You take piece of land, without gravity and spinning, put water on it and accelerate it upward and say that water is distributed equally because g is same everywhere. Then you take round earth which is round, has gravity and rotates around it's axis and spins around sun and has whatever miscellaneous forces more. And you say that it must behave exactly like flat earth. How come?

I never did anything of the sort. I said that the observed positions of the oceans are compatible with FET but not RET.

Second, you say that despite of earth being flat or round you measure g in same way and you get same results in FE and RE. And if we get value of g in Singapore 9.781 m s^-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s^-2 we have two different g's in both model and the Helsinki and Copenhagen would be completely flooded in FE model also. It doesn't matter if the difference is because of "stars overhead"(as you said) it matters that it is different and you itself argue that because of this difference Helsinki must be flooded.

Incorrect. The stars are rotating overhead faster than the oceans can gravitate towards them. The only place where they would have a significant effect on the oceans is where their linear velocity is small; that is, in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. The fact remains that the acceleration keeping the oceans in place is the same everywhere, which causes the ocean surface to be flat on a large scale.

Third. Your invariance in g because of "stars overhead" bothers me. How can you claim that on FE the acceleration is same everywhere and not be able to measure it same? And how is that you can't measure this "stars overhead"? You only measure the g and get different results and that means that g is different in different places. To claim otherwise you must be able to measure the other part which makes g different. Or yo must have a way to measure g same everywhere eliminating the "stars overhead" part. So, how do you measure these things?

You can't measure them separately. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:09:30 PM

Shortly, Robosteve insist that because we haven't made sustained nuclear fusion in labs the stars can't run on sustained nuclear fusion.

I have said no such thing.

Yes, you have. You have argued repeatedly that because nuclear fusion has never been shown to work it isn't believable that stars can use this. Your quotes for example:
billions of stars which are powered by a mechanism that has never been proven to be practical
Which(nuclear fusion) is supposedly happening in billions of stars all over the Universe, yet has never been shown to work.

Quote from: Robosteve on April 19, 2009, 11:12:30 PM

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:09:30 PM

Shortly, Robosteve insist that because we haven't made sustained nuclear fusion in labs the stars can't run on sustained nuclear fusion.

I have said no such thing.

Yes, you have. You have argued repeatedly that because nuclear fusion has never been shown to work it isn't believable that stars can use this. Your quotes for example:
billions of stars which are powered by a mechanism that has never been proven to be practical
Which(nuclear fusion) is supposedly happening in billions of stars all over the Universe, yet has never been shown to work.

All I said that it was not proven to work. I didn't say that it therefore can't work.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:43:32 PM

Yes, you have. You have argued repeatedly that because nuclear fusion has never been shown to work it isn't believable that stars can use this. Your quotes for example:
billions of stars which are powered by a mechanism that has never been proven to be practical
Which(nuclear fusion) is supposedly happening in billions of stars all over the Universe, yet has never been shown to work.

All I said that it was not proven to work. I didn't say that it therefore can't work.

You argue the point how stars work with it so it is the same as it can't work. Or lets get it cleared.
Others say that stars are powered by nuclear fusion.
You argue that we have yet to show that nuclear fusion can be sustainable energy source for long run.

 What does that mean? What does our inability to produce nuclear fusion show about stars? Do you agree that to show the stars ability to use nuclear fusion we must produce the star here, at earth? But that is impossible. I quite don't understand why you stay in some kind of limbo with your argument. You don't say that it is possible and you don't say that it is possible but still you argue the side of FE with it. If you are in limbo you can't choose sides.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:33:53 PM

Your theory is flawed from the beginning. I don't know what angle to take at first... but. You start with assumption that we are on flat earth. You take piece of land, without gravity and spinning, put water on it and accelerate it upward and say that water is distributed equally because g is same everywhere. Then you take round earth which is round, has gravity and rotates around it's axis and spins around sun and has whatever miscellaneous forces more. And you say that it must behave exactly like flat earth. How come?

I never did anything of the sort. I said that the observed positions of the oceans are compatible with FET but not RET.

Observed positions in what model? FET of course. But where is observed positions for RET model? You didn't bring any. You say that in FET oceans are flat and in same level everywhere. But you can't bring this theory over to RET model because RET model is completely different.
Therefore you can't argue the oceans positions in RET in same bases as oceans positions in FET. You must make the model of reound earth with all its rotating and spinning and gravity and other forces and then you can go and observe how the oceans behave there.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:33:53 PM

Second, you say that despite of earth being flat or round you measure g in same way and you get same results in FE and RE. And if we get value of g in Singapore 9.781 m s^-2, while in Helsinki it is measured to be 9.819 m s^-2 we have two different g's in both model and the Helsinki and Copenhagen would be completely flooded in FE model also. It doesn't matter if the difference is because of "stars overhead"(as you said) it matters that it is different and you itself argue that because of this difference Helsinki must be flooded.

Incorrect. The stars are rotating overhead faster than the oceans can gravitate towards them. The only place where they would have a significant effect on the oceans is where their linear velocity is small; that is, in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. The fact remains that the acceleration keeping the oceans in place is the same everywhere, which causes the ocean surface to be flat on a large scale.

The only thing I see which you argue is that because of the difference in g Helsinki must be flooded. And g is different in both models whatever the reason. If you argue that water must flow from places with lower g to places with higher g then they must do so also in flat earth or you must bring in some observable/measurable reason why they aren't. Right now there is two different g's in FET but no reason why water doesn't flow from one place to another.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 11:33:53 PM

Third. Your invariance in g because of "stars overhead" bothers me. How can you claim that on FE the acceleration is same everywhere and not be able to measure it same? And how is that you can't measure this "stars overhead"? You only measure the g and get different results and that means that g is different in different places. To claim otherwise you must be able to measure the other part which makes g different. Or yo must have a way to measure g same everywhere eliminating the "stars overhead" part. So, how do you measure these things?

You can't measure them separately. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle.

Forgive me my stupidity but I can't read out from there that you can't measure them separately. And if you go up then there must be some height where the pull of stars is stronger than the acceleration part and you can surely measure it.

You argue the point how stars work with it so it is the same as it can't work. Or lets get it cleared.
Others say that stars are powered by nuclear fusion.
You argue that we have yet to show that nuclear fusion can be sustainable energy source for long run.

What does that mean? What does our inability to produce nuclear fusion show about stars? Do you agree that to show the stars ability to use nuclear fusion we must produce the star here, at earth? But that is impossible. I quite don't understand why you stay in some kind of limbo with your argument. You don't say that it is possible and you don't say that it is possible but still you argue the side of FE with it. If you are in limbo you can't choose sides.

It means that REers criticise FET for not having a proven mechanism by which the Sun can produce energy, yet RET is no better. That's all I was pointing out.

Observed positions in what model? FET of course. But where is observed positions for RET model? You didn't bring any. You say that in FET oceans are flat and in same level everywhere. But you can't bring this theory over to RET model because RET model is completely different.
Therefore you can't argue the oceans positions in RET in same bases as oceans positions in FET. You must make the model of reound earth with all its rotating and spinning and gravity and other forces and then you can go and observe how the oceans behave there.

Are you suggesting that Singapore and Helsinki are not both coastal cities in RET? Because I'm pretty sure the ocean is observed to be right beside both of them in both theories.

The only thing I see which you argue is that because of the difference in g Helsinki must be flooded. And g is different in both models whatever the reason. If you argue that water must flow from places with lower g to places with higher g then they must do so also in flat earth or you must bring in some observable/measurable reason why they aren't. Right now there is two different g's in FET but no reason why water doesn't flow from one place to another.

The reason why they aren't is because the source of gravitation is constantly moving (the stars), unlike in RET where it is stationary relative to the water (the Earth). If that doesn't convince you, see my argument based on gravitational potential energy:

U_equ = -Gm_earthm_object/R_equ
U_equ = -6.2504 * 10⁷ m² s^-2 * m_object

U_pol = -Gm_earthm_object/R_pol
U_pol = -6.2713 * 10⁷ m² s^-2 * m_object

That's a good 200 kJ more gravitational potential energy per kilogram of mass at the Equator than at the poles, or 200 MJ extra potential energy per cubic metre of water.

The water should be flowing to where it has least potential energy - that is, the polar regions - if the Earth is round. Naturally, the lack of significant variations in gravitational potential energy on the surface of the Earth in FET means that there should be no such effect if the Earth is flat, which is what is observed.

Forgive me my stupidity but I can't read out from there that you can't measure them separately. And if you go up then there must be some height where the pull of stars is stronger than the acceleration part and you can surely measure it.

It states that gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable; therefore the gravitation of the stars and the acceleration of the Earth cannot be measured separately, for any tool that measures one will also measure the other. And the point where the gravitation of the stars becomes dominant is well above the top of the atmoplane, where Dark Energy is present in any case.

It means that REers criticise FET for not having a proven mechanism by which the Sun can produce energy, yet RET is no better. That's all I was pointing out.

You miss the point that nuclear fusion as process itself has proven and has it's mechanism but we just can't produce the conditions of star here, at the earth. We just don't have technology yet to produce such sustainable nuclear fusion. Or do you want to state that mankind has reached already it's high peak of technology?

Quote from: zork on April 20, 2009, 12:42:01 AM

Observed positions in what model? FET of course. But where is observed positions for RET model? You didn't bring any. You say that in FET oceans are flat and in same level everywhere. But you can't bring this theory over to RET model because RET model is completely different.
Therefore you can't argue the oceans positions in RET in same bases as oceans positions in FET. You must make the model of reound earth with all its rotating and spinning and gravity and other forces and then you can go and observe how the oceans behave there.

Are you suggesting that Singapore and Helsinki are not both coastal cities in RET? Because I'm pretty sure the ocean is observed to be right beside both of them in both theories.

I am suggesting that Singapore and Helsinki in FET are in same level but in RET they are in different sides of sphere. You can't bring the assumptions which you make for flat and level plane model to the spherical and spinning/rotating model.

Quote from: zork on April 20, 2009, 12:42:01 AM

The only thing I see which you argue is that because of the difference in g Helsinki must be flooded. And g is different in both models whatever the reason. If you argue that water must flow from places with lower g to places with higher g then they must do so also in flat earth or you must bring in some observable/measurable reason why they aren't. Right now there is two different g's in FET but no reason why water doesn't flow from one place to another.

The reason why they aren't is because the source of gravitation is constantly moving (the stars), unlike in RET where it is stationary relative to the water (the Earth).

What I see is that you just said - if you measure g in one place but at different times then you get different results(source of gravitation is constantly moving).
And still, you specifically argued that water moves because of difference in g(the water is more weakly attracted where g is lower and will move to where gravitation is stronger). And yet you measure two different g's and say that on FET water doesn't move but in RET it should be.

The water should be flowing to where it has least potential energy - that is, the polar regions - if the Earth is round. Naturally, the lack of significant variations in gravitational potential energy on the surface of the Earth in FET means that there should be no such effect if the Earth is flat, which is what is observed.

Again, where did you get your "should be flowing" part in RET model? What kind of model is your model where you observed the water flowing to place where it has least potential energy? You are just making the assumption here based on flat and level earth where it "shoul'd be flowing". I guess it is quite easy to build such a model and observe things but how do you make such a model for RET?

Quote from: zork on April 20, 2009, 12:42:01 AM

Forgive me my stupidity but I can't read out from there that you can't measure them separately. And if you go up then there must be some height where the pull of stars is stronger than the acceleration part and you can surely measure it.

And the point where the gravitation of the stars becomes dominant is well above the top of the atmoplane, where Dark Energy is present in any case.

In what height this top of atmoplane is? If we have table which shows how g is decreasing in relation of sea level then I am sure we can calculate the height where the line is where earths acceleration effect decreases to 4.7 and we have stars gravitation which is 5.1. But I guess that you are going to argue that in some reason we still measure only earth acceleration to be 4.7 or even 2.0 but we can't in any way measure stars gravitation.

You miss the point that nuclear fusion as process itself has proven and has it's mechanism but we just can't produce the conditions of star here, at the earth. We just don't have technology yet to produce such sustainable nuclear fusion. Or do you want to state that mankind has reached already it's high peak of technology?

It is you that is missing the point. I give up trying to explain it to you because you just ignore what I say every time I do.

I am suggesting that Singapore and Helsinki in FET are in same level but in RET they are in different sides of sphere. You can't bring the assumptions which you make for flat and level plane model to the spherical and spinning/rotating model.

I'm bringing one of the most basic laws of physics to the spherical model. If you would like to rewrite every physics textbook since the age of Newton, be my guest.

What I see is that you just said - if you measure g in one place but at different times then you get different results(source of gravitation is constantly moving).
And still, you specifically argued that water moves because of difference in g(the water is more weakly attracted where g is lower and will move to where gravitation is stronger). And yet you measure two different g's and say that on FET water doesn't move but in RET it should be.

Because the stars are rotating. The oceans would need to be dragged around the planet once a day in order to gravitate as expected, but they can't do this because there are continents in the way.

Again, where did you get your "should be flowing" part in RET model? What kind of model is your model where you observed the water flowing to place where it has least potential energy?

One that is based on every known physical system in the Universe. If you can find me a system that naturally goes from low potential energy to high potential energy, I would be delighted to read of it.

In what height this top of atmoplane is? If we have table which shows how g is decreasing in relation of sea level then I am sure we can calculate the height where the line is where earths acceleration effect decreases to 4.7 and we have stars gravitation which is 5.1. But I guess that you are going to argue that in some reason we still measure only earth acceleration to be 4.7 or even 2.0 but we can't in any way measure stars gravitation.

The effect of the Earth's acceleration doesn't gradually decrease, because the Earth is accelerating at the same rate regardless of where you are. There is a definite boundary, which may be anywhere between a hundred and five thousand kilometres high, where Dark Energy takes effect and accelerates everything in space at the same rate as the Earth. The volume up until that point contains the atmoplane.

The water should be flowing to where it has least potential energy - that is, the polar regions - if the Earth is round.

I wonder if you're including all the factors that act on the Earth's oceans in your caculations.

I wonder if you're including all the factors that act on the Earth's oceans in your caculations.

Thank you for listing what you consider to be all the factors that act on them, so that I may tell you if I have considered them.

Thank you for listing what you consider to be all the factors that act on them, so that I may tell you if I have considered them.

And I thank you for listing all the factors you considered in your calculations when you performed them.

I would start with the rotation of the planet, I guess. The figure of 200kJ makes the water about 20km higher than it should be, which is roughly the same hight of the bulge at the planet's equator caused by it's spin.

I would start with the rotation of the planet, I guess. The figure of 200kJ makes the water about 20km higher than it should be, which is roughly the same hight of the bulge at the planet's equator caused by it's spin.

The fact that the planet is rotating doesn't change the fact that the water would lose some potential energy if it moved towards the poles.

The fact that the planet is rotating doesn't change the fact that the water would lose some potential energy if it moved towards the poles.

But it would have to gain just as much energy fighting against it's own inertia to move away from the equator.

I'm just wondering, has anyone yet to figure out he is using places at different altitudes?

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but couldn't the difference in densities of water and land have something to do with this phenomenon? I mean, all that would do is shift the center of gravity.

BTW, has there been a study of some sort to estimate where the center of gravity of the earth is? Possibly in spherical coordinates. Of course, it would be changing over time. I think it would be interesting to see how far away it can shift from the apparent center of the earth.

Quote from: iznih on April 19, 2009, 08:58:01 AM

E=mgh (good enough for this problem)

I beg to differ. Let's try that one again.

U_equ = -Gm_earthm_object/R_equ
U_equ = -6.2504 * 10⁷ m² s^-2 * m_object

U_pol = -Gm_earthm_object/R_pol
U_pol = -6.2713 * 10⁷ m² s^-2 * m_object

That's a good 200 kJ more gravitational potential energy per kilogram of mass at the Equator than at the poles, or 200 MJ extra potential energy per cubic metre of water.

that equation is correct if you have no other effects like a centrifugal force. let me explain it differently: instead of varying values of g we could assume a constant g all over the world but an additional radial directed force pointing away from earth at the places where the observed g is smaller (and before you wonder, i know that force=/=accelaration  ). would water flow to the points with no additional outwards force or would we observe a bulge at the points with additional outwards force?

It is you that is missing the point. I give up trying to explain it to you because you just ignore what I say every time I do.

The problem is, you don't say anything except - you don't have proven mechanism for Sun energy production. But the thing is that we have. You just ignore it and stretch things out that we not only must have proven mechanism but we must have proven and constantly running example for it. And if your point really is only this that we don't have itself some miniature star running at lab then your point fails. Because we don't have yet the technology to contain and control nuclear fusion. And we don't have technology to do all kind of nuclear fusion. And you just always ignore our current technological sate when you talk about nuclear fusion. Okay, I ask you, do we have theory for nuclear fusion or not? If we have then where is the problem?

I'm bringing one of the most basic laws of physics to the spherical model. If you would like to rewrite every physics textbook since the age of Newton, be my guest.

Yes, I understand, most basic laws and ignoring all other conditions which exist in spherical model(including that the gravity in Singapore and Helsinki wasn't measured at sea). You bring them in but you haven't in any way verified that they really work exactly in same way in this spherical model as you assume. You know, most basic model for round earth is ball. It has the most basic propery of round earth, roundiness. I guess you verified your most basic laws with most basic models.

Quote from: zork on April 20, 2009, 03:36:54 AM

What I see is that you just said - if you measure g in one place but at different times then you get different results(source of gravitation is constantly moving).

Because the stars are rotating. The oceans would need to be dragged around the planet once a day in order to gravitate as expected, but they can't do this because there are continents in the way.

You didn't answer my main question. You just claimed that you can get different g in same place depending on the time you measure it. How is it so?

Quote from: zork on April 20, 2009, 03:36:54 AM

Again, where did you get your "should be flowing" part in RET model? What kind of model is your model where you observed the water flowing to place where it has least potential energy?

One that is based on every known physical system in the Universe. If you can find me a system that naturally goes from low potential energy to high potential energy, I would be delighted to read of it.

And I would be delighted to know from where you so exactly detected the potential energy for sea on Singapore and on Helsinki when you assume only most basic laws and ignore totally all other forces/laws(or whatever stuff there is) which affect this potential energy.

that equation is correct if you have no other effects like a centrifugal force. let me explain it differently: instead of varying values of g we could assume a constant g all over the world but an additional radial directed force pointing away from earth at the places where the observed g is smaller (and before you wonder, i know that force=/=accelaration  ). would water flow to the points with no additional outwards force or would we observe a bulge at the points with additional outwards force?

As I said before, the Earth is not a centrifuge. The water is most strongly attracted to it where the centripetal (fictitious) force is greatest; that is, at the poles. Do not confuse this with a centrifuge, where the centripetal force only exists towards the outside where there is a physical barrier preventing the fluid from moving in a straight line (and therefore the flow is to the outside, where the force is strongest).

The problem is, you don't say anything except - you don't have proven mechanism for Sun energy production. But the thing is that we have. You just ignore it and stretch things out that we not only must have proven mechanism but we must have proven and constantly running example for it. And if your point really is only this that we don't have itself some miniature star running at lab then your point fails. Because we don't have yet the technology to contain and control nuclear fusion. And we don't have technology to do all kind of nuclear fusion. And you just always ignore our current technological sate when you talk about nuclear fusion. Okay, I ask you, do we have theory for nuclear fusion or not? If we have then where is the problem?

You still have no experimental verification for your theory on how stars are powered. Until you do, it has less solid foundation than FET, which has the positioning of the oceans and the observed large-scale flatness of the land in its favour.

Yes, I understand, most basic laws and ignoring all other conditions which exist in spherical model(including that the gravity in Singapore and Helsinki wasn't measured at sea). You bring them in but you haven't in any way verified that they really work exactly in same way in this spherical model as you assume. You know, most basic model for round earth is ball. It has the most basic propery of round earth, roundiness. I guess you verified your most basic laws with most basic models.

Singapore and Helsinki are both at sea level. That's kind of a given for a coastal city. The rest of this paragraph is unintelligible, so I won't bother responding.

You just claimed that you can get different g in same place depending on the time you measure it.

When did I claim that?

And I would be delighted to know from where you so exactly detected the potential energy for sea on Singapore and on Helsinki when you assume only most basic laws and ignore totally all other forces/laws(or whatever stuff there is) which affect this potential energy.

I calculated the gravitational potential energy per unit mass at the Equator and at the poles using the equatorial and polar radii of the Earth as given here. If you have a problem with my calculations, I would love to see yours.

You still have no experimental verification for your theory on how stars are powered.

How many times are you gonna ignore the fact that we have theoretical part but we lack currently technology for it. Answer for once clearly - Do you deny that scientist have theoretical part for nuclear fusion?
Or do you claim that we have technology and materials to contain and control nuclear fusion?

Singapore and Helsinki are both at sea level. That's kind of a given for a coastal city. The rest of this paragraph is unintelligible, so I won't bother responding.

At what sea level? Local sea level varies usually and even mean sea level changes. How far are both cities from the center of earth? I guess that is the aspect that really counts.
 Other part... shortly said - you don't have data to back up your claims about different potential energy at both places. You brought up some equation but as far as I know this equation is missing some variables and you have not actual data about potential energy.

Quote from: zork on April 21, 2009, 12:20:56 AM

You just claimed that you can get different g in same place depending on the time you measure it.

When did I claim that?

You said that g is different because - the source of gravitation is constantly moving (the stars). If source of gravitation moves then their gravitational effect must increase/decrease and you can't get the same g always.

Quote from: zork on April 21, 2009, 12:20:56 AM

And I would be delighted to know from where you so exactly detected the potential energy for sea on Singapore and on Helsinki when you assume only most basic laws and ignore totally all other forces/laws(or whatever stuff there is) which affect this potential energy.

I calculated the gravitational potential energy per unit mass at the Equator and at the poles using the equatorial and polar radii of the Earth as given here. If you have a problem with my calculations, I would love to see yours.

As I said, it is not so simple. As you are the student of physics then you have quite qualified persons near you who can verify your equation correctness. And if you refuse this verifications then that means that equation is wrong.

How many times are you gonna ignore the fact that we have theoretical part but we lack currently technology for it. Answer for once clearly - Do you deny that scientist have theoretical part for nuclear fusion?
Or do you claim that we have technology and materials to contain and control nuclear fusion?

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm simply stating facts.

At what sea level? Local sea level varies usually and even mean sea level changes. How far are both cities from the center of earth? I guess that is the aspect that really counts.

They're both at sea level, therefore the measurements of g in those cities are valid for the surface of the ocean at those points on Earth. How difficult is that to understand?

Other part... shortly said - you don't have data to back up your claims about different potential energy at both places. You brought up some equation but as far as I know this equation is missing some variables and you have not actual data about potential energy.

I have used the general equation for gravitational potential energy. If you think I am wrong, please provide me with the correct one.

You said that g is different because - the source of gravitation is constantly moving (the stars). If source of gravitation moves then their gravitational effect must increase/decrease and you can't get the same g always.

Not necessarily. If the infinitesimal gravitation exerted by each infinitesimally thin angular slice of any annulus of the celestial plane centred on the North Celestial Pole is constant as you travel around the annulus, then we have no problem. Agreed?

As I said, it is not so simple. As you are the student of physics then you have quite qualified persons near you who can verify your equation correctness. And if you refuse this verifications then that means that equation is wrong.

Or that I don't see the point of wasting my time validating a commonly accepted equation just because somebody on the internet tells me it's wrong. If you want to provide a better equation, then by all means do so, but if you don't know enough about it to say anything other than "ask your professors if you're right" then you really shouldn't be debating the subject.

As I said before, the Earth is not a centrifuge. The water is most strongly attracted to it where the centripetal (fictitious) force is greatest; that is, at the poles. Do not confuse this with a centrifuge, where the centripetal force only exists towards the outside where there is a physical barrier preventing the fluid from moving in a straight line (and therefore the flow is to the outside, where the force is strongest).

The Earth is spinning; It's going to behave like a centrifuge. The water's not going to settle where it's most strongly attracted, it's going to settle where it's in it's lowest energy state.

Quote from: zork on April 21, 2009, 04:29:18 AM

How many times are you gonna ignore the fact that we have theoretical part but we lack currently technology for it. Answer for once clearly - Do you deny that scientist have theoretical part for nuclear fusion?
Or do you claim that we have technology and materials to contain and control nuclear fusion?

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm simply stating facts.

You are ignoring repeatedly our technological state.
 I stated the fact to you - we have theory of nuclear fusion. Do you deny that?
 I stated the fact to you - we don't have technology to control nuclear fusion. Do you agree with that?

Quote from: zork on April 21, 2009, 04:29:18 AM

At what sea level? Local sea level varies usually and even mean sea level changes. How far are both cities from the center of earth? I guess that is the aspect that really counts.

They're both at sea level, therefore the measurements of g in those cities are valid for the surface of the ocean at those points on Earth. How difficult is that to understand?

How difficult is to understand that g is not dependent from the sea level? It is dependent from the distance of center of the earth or I guess we can say radius of the earth. So, what is the radius of the earth at both places?

Quote from: zork on April 21, 2009, 04:29:18 AM

You said that g is different because - the source of gravitation is constantly moving (the stars). If source of gravitation moves then their gravitational effect must increase/decrease and you can't get the same g always.

Not necessarily. If the infinitesimal gravitation exerted by each infinitesimally thin angular slice of any annulus of the celestial plane centred on the North Celestial Pole is constant as you travel around the annulus, then we have no problem. Agreed?

No, because now it seems to me that you say that the celestial gears have gravitation, not stars. And all this celestial gear stuff is not in any way proven, measured or observed. So, no not agreed.

Or that I don't see the point of wasting my time validating a commonly accepted equation just because somebody on the internet tells me it's wrong. If you want to provide a better equation, then by all means do so, but if you don't know enough about it to say anything other than "ask your professors if you're right" then you really shouldn't be debating the subject.

I can debate even when I don't know all aspects about the subject. I know sufficiently. Also you have shown that yo ualso don't know all the aspects of the subject. You just know a little more and play on that to confuse others.
 But what I can see here is person who clearly refuses to go to expert where he can get the right answer. It is situation where person has two options available, ask from expert or ask from non-expert. And he knowingly chooses to bother the non-expert because he knows that from expert he gets answer which he doesn't need. So, you either ask from expert or acknowledge that you are wrong.

The Earth is spinning; It's going to behave like a centrifuge. The water's not going to settle where it's most strongly attracted, it's going to settle where it's in it's lowest energy state.

Which is at the poles. See my calculations on page three for details.

You are ignoring repeatedly our technological state.
 I stated the fact to you - we have theory of nuclear fusion. Do you deny that?
 I stated the fact to you - we don't have technology to control nuclear fusion. Do you agree with that?

I'm not ignoring anything, except that I am now going to ignore you on this subject, because you keep saying the same thing over and over regardless of how many times I explain myself.

How difficult is to understand that g is not dependent from the sea level? It is dependent from the distance of center of the earth or I guess we can say radius of the earth. So, what is the radius of the earth at both places?

I'm aware of what factors into the value of g at a particular location. What I'm not aware of is how you think this is in any way relevant to my point.

No, because now it seems to me that you say that the celestial gears have gravitation, not stars. And all this celestial gear stuff is not in any way proven, measured or observed. So, no not agreed.

I did not use the phrase "celestial gears" in my post. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I can debate even when I don't know all aspects about the subject. I know sufficiently. Also you have shown that yo ualso don't know all the aspects of the subject. You just know a little more and play on that to confuse others.
But what I can see here is person who clearly refuses to go to expert where he can get the right answer. It is situation where person has two options available, ask from expert or ask from non-expert. And he knowingly chooses to bother the non-expert because he knows that from expert he gets answer which he doesn't need. So, you either ask from expert or acknowledge that you are wrong.

No. You are so infernally convinced that my equation is wrong, yet can't even provide one which you think is better, or suggest how it may be improved. If anybody has anything to prove here, it is you.

Which is at the poles. See my calculations on page three for details.

Your calculations don't take into account all the major factors. The lowest energy energy state is not all the water piling up at the poles.

Your calculations don't take into account all the major factors. The lowest energy energy state is not all the water piling up at the poles.

Oh. Are you going to back up that statement with some numbers?

Oh. Are you going to back up that statement with some numbers?

Well, the apparent force acting down at the equator is less than at the poles. Given that gravitational potential energy is mass times hight times apparent force acting downwards, for the gravitational potential energy to be the same, the equator would have to be a greater height than the poles, not the poles piling up to a greater hight than the equator. I'm not sure what you want in terms of numbers.

Given that gravitational potential energy is mass times hight times apparent force acting downwards

Incorrect. That product only gives you relative gravitational potential energy in a local frame of reference. For absolute gravitational potential energy, the equation is:

U = -Gm₁m₂/R

Where U is gravitational potential energy, G is the universal gravitational constant, m₁ and m₂ are the masses of the two objects involved and R is the separation of their centres of mass.

I'm not sure what you want in terms of numbers.

Proof that the oceans are in their lowest energy state according to RET would be nice.

Quote from: NTheGreat on April 21, 2009, 08:04:17 AM

Your calculations don't take into account all the major factors. The lowest energy energy state is not all the water piling up at the poles.

Oh. Are you going to back up that statement with some numbers?

Are you going to back up any of your statements with some numbers?  No?  I didn't think so.