Further clarification with tides

Q: "What about tides?"

A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".


How, then, do the tides correspond with where the moon is in the sky?

Additionally, if gravity of the FE moon is the real culprit of the tides, what makes the sun different, especially if both are approximately the same distance in the sky?  "Because the sun isn't the moon" is going to be a guess as to what's going to be said.

Q: "What about tides?"

A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".


How, then, do the tides correspond with where the moon is in the sky?

Additionally, if gravity of the FE moon is the real culprit of the tides, what makes the sun different, especially if both are approximately the same distance in the sky?  "Because the sun isn't the moon" is going to be a guess as to what's going to be said.

Also, how does FE moon cause two high tides daily, one under the Moon and one when the Moon is not in the sky about 12 hours later?

Q: "What about tides?"

A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".


How, then, do the tides correspond with where the moon is in the sky?

Additionally, if gravity of the FE moon is the real culprit of the tides, what makes the sun different, especially if both are approximately the same distance in the sky?  "Because the sun isn't the moon" is going to be a guess as to what's going to be said.

According to FE, the UA pushes the earth 'upward'... if the whole thing wobbles... wouldn't stuff generally roll in the direction of the side of the disc that is lower? if it's acceleration that holds us to the disc, then logically things should slide along the tilt, right?

Quote from: Ferruccio on June 28, 2007, 07:48:14 PM

Q: "What about tides?"

A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".


How, then, do the tides correspond with where the moon is in the sky?

Additionally, if gravity of the FE moon is the real culprit of the tides, what makes the sun different, especially if both are approximately the same distance in the sky?  "Because the sun isn't the moon" is going to be a guess as to what's going to be said.

According to FE, the UA pushes the earth 'upward'... if the whole thing wobbles... wouldn't stuff generally roll in the direction of the side of the disc that is lower? if it's acceleration that holds us to the disc, then logically things should slide along the tilt, right?

Yes, if by 'things should slide along the tilt' you mean 'tides should occur'.

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 26, 2007, 07:41:01 PM

Quote from: Ferruccio on June 28, 2007, 07:48:14 PM

Q: "What about tides?"

A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".


How, then, do the tides correspond with where the moon is in the sky?

Additionally, if gravity of the FE moon is the real culprit of the tides, what makes the sun different, especially if both are approximately the same distance in the sky?  "Because the sun isn't the moon" is going to be a guess as to what's going to be said.

According to FE, the UA pushes the earth 'upward'... if the whole thing wobbles... wouldn't stuff generally roll in the direction of the side of the disc that is lower? if it's acceleration that holds us to the disc, then logically things should slide along the tilt, right?

Yes, if by 'things should slide along the tilt' you mean 'tides should occur'.

That is the thread we are talking in... yes. But why is it that water is the only thing that the tilt applies to? Shouldn't there be plenty of other things like... I don't know, well say a wind chime. I've never heard of anything hanging from a rope being on a tilt that corresponds with the tides in reference to the force applied by the UA.

Quote from: CommonCents on July 26, 2007, 08:19:14 PM

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 26, 2007, 07:41:01 PM

Quote from: Ferruccio on June 28, 2007, 07:48:14 PM

Q: "What about tides?"

A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".


How, then, do the tides correspond with where the moon is in the sky?

Additionally, if gravity of the FE moon is the real culprit of the tides, what makes the sun different, especially if both are approximately the same distance in the sky?  "Because the sun isn't the moon" is going to be a guess as to what's going to be said.

According to FE, the UA pushes the earth 'upward'... if the whole thing wobbles... wouldn't stuff generally roll in the direction of the side of the disc that is lower? if it's acceleration that holds us to the disc, then logically things should slide along the tilt, right?

Yes, if by 'things should slide along the tilt' you mean 'tides should occur'.

That is the thread we are talking in... yes. But why is it that water is the only thing that the tilt applies to? Shouldn't there be plenty of other things like... I don't know, well say a wind chime. I've never heard of anything hanging from a rope being on a tilt that corresponds with the tides in reference to the force applied by the UA.

Funny, the Moon doesn't pull these things in the RE theory, so why would an equal 'force' pull them in FE theory?

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 26, 2007, 08:24:46 PM

Quote from: CommonCents on July 26, 2007, 08:19:14 PM

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 26, 2007, 07:41:01 PM

Quote from: Ferruccio on June 28, 2007, 07:48:14 PM

Q: "What about tides?"

A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".


How, then, do the tides correspond with where the moon is in the sky?

Additionally, if gravity of the FE moon is the real culprit of the tides, what makes the sun different, especially if both are approximately the same distance in the sky?  "Because the sun isn't the moon" is going to be a guess as to what's going to be said.

According to FE, the UA pushes the earth 'upward'... if the whole thing wobbles... wouldn't stuff generally roll in the direction of the side of the disc that is lower? if it's acceleration that holds us to the disc, then logically things should slide along the tilt, right?

Yes, if by 'things should slide along the tilt' you mean 'tides should occur'.

That is the thread we are talking in... yes. But why is it that water is the only thing that the tilt applies to? Shouldn't there be plenty of other things like... I don't know, well say a wind chime. I've never heard of anything hanging from a rope being on a tilt that corresponds with the tides in reference to the force applied by the UA.

Funny, the Moon doesn't pull these things in the RE theory, so why would an equal 'force' pull them in FE theory?

Do tell us how you reached the amazing conclusion that there would be an equal 'force' (whatever that means). Do tell us how your reached the conclusion that the Moon doesn't pull these thing in RE theory. Finally do tell us how you make the connection that a force parallel to the FE surface would be akin to an upward force from the Moon.

Or better yet: if you're going to play games with the newcomers, at least get your argument straight.

He said there these things aren't noticeably pulled.  Considering that the tides in FE and RE have to match, the same 'force' has to be made by the tilting FE as the Moon pulling the water in the RE.  Since in the RE we don't notice these things being pulled (as he stated), there is absolutely no reason to expect them to be pulled in the FE.

<sarcasm>That was so hard I think my brain is bleeding.</sarcasm>

He said there these things aren't noticeably pulled.  Considering that the tides in FE and RE have to match, the same 'force' has to be made by the tilting FE as the Moon pulling the water in the RE.  Since in the RE we don't notice these things being pulled (as he stated), there is absolutely no reason to expect them to be pulled in the FE.

<sarcasm>That was so hard I think my brain is bleeding.</sarcasm>

Wow! That would be amazing, if you made any sense. Of course, you don't.

The same effect by different mechanism does not imply equal forces.

He said that the items weren't tilted. You said the item weren't pulled. He's right; You're wrong.

His reasoning far surpasses yours. For a newcomer, he is sure making you look bad, fast.

Quote from: CommonCents on July 26, 2007, 08:51:49 PM

He said there these things aren't noticeably pulled.  Considering that the tides in FE and RE have to match, the same 'force' has to be made by the tilting FE as the Moon pulling the water in the RE.  Since in the RE we don't notice these things being pulled (as he stated), there is absolutely no reason to expect them to be pulled in the FE.

<sarcasm>That was so hard I think my brain is bleeding.</sarcasm>

Wow! That would be amazing, if you made any sense. Of course, you don't.

The same effect by different mechanism does not imply equal forces.

He said that the items weren't tilted. You said the item weren't pulled. He's right; You're wrong.

His reasoning far surpasses yours. For a newcomer, he is sure making you look bad, fast.

Why would moving the same mass in the same direction by the same amount not imply equal force?

Tilted items would show that the FE is PULLING them at a different angle.  Keep up there, TomG.

He's not making me look bad.  You're trying, and failing, to make me look bad.

Thank you Gulliver.

How about we ignore that point for a moment then...

There is a difference between the tides in a lake, and the tides in an ocean. Can you explain to me (please don't just say why I'm stupid, indulge me) why there is a difference?

I can explain it in an RE model, it's because the mass of the lake is so small compared to the mass of an ocean. Which makes perfect sense in the model considering that the smaller masses of water aren't affected by the gravitational pull of the moon as much.

Shouldn't they be about the same according to the tilting explanation?

I'm not sure how the tilting FE answers this.  Perhaps TomB can enlighten us.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 26, 2007, 09:01:07 PM

Quote from: CommonCents on July 26, 2007, 08:51:49 PM

He said there these things aren't noticeably pulled.  Considering that the tides in FE and RE have to match, the same 'force' has to be made by the tilting FE as the Moon pulling the water in the RE.  Since in the RE we don't notice these things being pulled (as he stated), there is absolutely no reason to expect them to be pulled in the FE.

<sarcasm>That was so hard I think my brain is bleeding.</sarcasm>

Wow! That would be amazing, if you made any sense. Of course, you don't.

The same effect by different mechanism does not imply equal forces.

He said that the items weren't tilted. You said the item weren't pulled. He's right; You're wrong.

His reasoning far surpasses yours. For a newcomer, he is sure making you look bad, fast.

Why would moving the same mass in the same direction by the same amount not imply equal force?

Tilted items would show that the FE is PULLING them at a different angle.  Keep up there, TomG.

He's not making me look bad.  You're trying, and failing, to make me look bad.

It's your assertion. The burden of proof is yours.

Here's an example to demonstrate your fallacy. Consider a sled on a snow covered lake on a winter's day. For a constant mass on the sled, say your little brother, is equal force required to pull as to push the sled to obtain the same acceleration? No. Force and energy will be diverted from the work based on the mechanism. That's high school physics. Not understanding high school physics does make you look bad indeed.

You've stated his claim very well. Are you now agreeing with him? You said the Moon isn't pulling on these item "in RE". I'm quite sure that you're wrong. But do tell us, and this is my second request, how you determined that the Moon is not pulling on the wind chime or the rope.

A newcomer seems to have tripped you up on his (or her) first question!

Second one actually, I got shot down pretty quick in The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium. It hurt. :p

Thank you Gulliver.

How about we ignore that point for a moment then...

There is a difference between the tides in a lake, and the tides in an ocean. Can you explain to me (please don't just say why I'm stupid, indulge me) why there is a difference?

I can explain it in an RE model, it's because the mass of the lake is so small compared to the mass of an ocean. Which makes perfect sense in the model considering that the smaller masses of water aren't affected by the gravitational pull of the moon as much.

Shouldn't they be about the same according to the tilting explanation?

The tidal effects must be developed over time, about six hours. The water must be free to move along "under" the Moon for hours for the effect to become substantial.

I believe that you have pointed out another shortcoming of the "tilting-causing-tides" theory. You should also demand that the theory predict the tides, not just explain them as well as RE does.

All that said, I believe that the FEers have retreating from both the earthquake and tilting theories. They currently have no substantial answer to explain or predict twice daily high tides.

Oh, and you're most welcome. I really am happy that you're arguing so well so quickly. Good job.

Yea, I'm all tripped up here...what with me not knowing what to say...oh wait...

Shouldn't there be plenty of other things like... I don't know, well say a wind chime. I've never heard of anything hanging from a rope being on a tilt that corresponds with the tides in reference to the force applied by the UA.

That's why I said the Moon is not pulling them in the RE model.  He used it for his own argument.


Where, exactly, is the energy going in the FE tilting model?  Sounds to me that you're saying it is just 'lost' because the mechanism is different.



Yes, I am agreeing with his latest point because it is valid.  His previous one, however, was not.  You've seen me post long enough to know I don't care which side someone's on.  If (s)he makes an invalid claim, or a claim I think is invalid, I will call him/her out on it.  If (s)he can prove themselves, I will admit that I was wrong.  This is something I have yet to see you do when you're wrong.

Not sure how you guys didn't understand this.

The Moon affects the tides in the RE. This has no noticeable effect on the objects that were mentioned, like the wind chime.

The tilting of the FE affects the tides (even though it's a lame explanation). This also has no noticeable effect on the objects that were mentioned, obviously. People seem to enjoy proposing things that are obviously contrary to observation as if that makes their point more valid.

Shouldn't they be about the same according to the tilting explanation?

Obviously not.

Yea, I'm all tripped up here...what with me not knowing what to say...oh wait...

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 26, 2007, 08:24:46 PM

Shouldn't there be plenty of other things like... I don't know, well say a wind chime. I've never heard of anything hanging from a rope being on a tilt that corresponds with the tides in reference to the force applied by the UA.

That's why I said the Moon is not pulling them in the RE model.  He used it for his own argument.


Where, exactly, is the energy going in the FE tilting model?  Sounds to me that you're saying it is just 'lost' because the mechanism is different.



Yes, I am agreeing with his latest point because it is valid.  His previous one, however, was not.  You've seen me post long enough to know I don't care which side someone's on.  If (s)he makes an invalid claim, or a claim I think is invalid, I will call him/her out on it.  If (s)he can prove themselves, I will admit that I was wrong.  This is something I have yet to see you do when you're wrong.

The moon can't pull on the object because there isn't enough mass.. The point of the first argument is this:

The FE is tilted to one side, but the force applied on it and the direction in which is moves remains constant. This is the solution offered to account for the tides...
If this is true for tides, then a free-hanging object like a rope in a gymnasium should also be tilted, even if only by a couple degrees.

The RE model shows that the gravitational force of the moon is what pulls on the masses of water to make a tide. But the mass of a rope or a windchime is /far/ too small for the same pull to apply.

I think I explained it better that time. :/

It's something that should be easy to demonstrate with and experiment, even on a small scale.

Yea, I'm all tripped up here...what with me not knowing what to say...oh wait...

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 26, 2007, 08:24:46 PM

Shouldn't there be plenty of other things like... I don't know, well say a wind chime. I've never heard of anything hanging from a rope being on a tilt that corresponds with the tides in reference to the force applied by the UA.

That's why I said the Moon is not pulling them in the RE model.  He used it for his own argument.


Where, exactly, is the energy going in the FE tilting model?  Sounds to me that you're saying it is just 'lost' because the mechanism is different.



Yes, I am agreeing with his latest point because it is valid.  His previous one, however, was not.  You've seen me post long enough to know I don't care which side someone's on.  If (s)he makes an invalid claim, or a claim I think is invalid, I will call him/her out on it.  If (s)he can prove themselves, I will admit that I was wrong.  This is something I have yet to see you do when you're wrong.

(S)he is quite clear: tilting vice pulling up. You loose.

Look it's your assertion that the forces would be equal. That's ridiculous of you, and you should be thoroughly embarrassed. You know that the FE and RE are different in size, shape, and mass. You know that tilting the FE would require tilting the entire surface of the FE, while RE accelerates the entire RE toward the Moon, though the near ocean more and the far ocean less. You have different masses, different directions, and probably even different magnitude of accelerations. You are not just moving the same water to the same place.

I have not seen you do anything respectable, so don't try to convince me with "I am humbler than thou" argument. You seem to enjoy attacking arguments, rather than educating. You seem to want to reduce the help we have for newcomers, arguing against the RE Primer. You attack people almost as much as you attack arguments. Nah, I'm not buying what you're selling.

...This also has no noticeable effect on the objects that were mentioned, obviously. ...

Do you have proof of your assertion? What angle is required to raise the tide two feet twice a day and lower it twice a day? You'd have to know in order to make your claim. Personally, I think you have no idea.

The moon can't pull on the object because there isn't enough mass.. The point of the first argument is this:

The FE is tilted to one side, but the force applied on it and the direction in which is moves remains constant. This is the solution offered to account for the tides...
If this is true for tides, then a free-hanging object like a rope in a gymnasium should also be tilted, even if only by a couple degrees.

The RE model shows that the gravitational force of the moon is what pulls on the masses of water to make a tide. But the mass of a rope or a windchime is /far/ too small for the same pull to apply.

I think I explained it better that time. :/

It's something that should be easy to demonstrate with and experiment, even on a small scale.

You did do a much better job explaining that time, but I still don't quite agree with you.  I don't see why the greater mass would be pulled more.  We know that all objects regardless of mass will 'fall' at the same rate in a vacuum.  Why would the rope move any less than the tides if it's accelerated by the same amount?  The force changes, yes, but the acceleration would remain constant, wouldn't it?

Do you have proof of your assertion?

Proof that there is no noticeable effect on objects? Why would I need to provide proof for something we already know? Oh, you misunderstood what I typed.

I don't think the tilting is an adequate explanation for the tides. I still haven't thought of anything just yet to be good enough as an explanation to explain the tides.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 26, 2007, 09:37:12 PM

Do you have proof of your assertion?

Proof that there is no noticeable effect on objects? Why would I need to provide proof for something we already know? Oh, you misunderstood what I typed.

I don't think the tilting is an adequate explanation for the tides. I still haven't thought of anything just yet to be good enough as an explanation to explain the tides.

Are you clear that MD argues that the FE tilting for tides would cause these objects, wind chime, rope, to tilt?

Are you clear that MD argues that the FE tilting for tides would cause these objects, wind chime, rope, to tilt?

I know what he's saying.

How high are the highest tides and where are they?

Quote from: Gulliver on July 26, 2007, 09:45:16 PM

Are you clear that MD argues that the FE tilting for tides would cause these objects, wind chime, rope, to tilt?

I know what he's saying.

How high are the highest tides and where are they?

Your country, Bay of Fundy. Wiki

"Folklore in the Mi'kmaq First Nation claims that the tides in the Bay of Fundy are caused by a giant whale splashing in the water. "

Works for me! 

"Folklore in the Mi'kmaq First Nation claims that the tides in the Bay of Fundy are caused by a giant whale splashing in the water. "

Works for me! 

Another FE problem solved! Tides are caused by the giant whales, not related to the four elephants or turtle.

It's an animal conspiracy!

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 26, 2007, 09:31:37 PM

The moon can't pull on the object because there isn't enough mass.. The point of the first argument is this:

The FE is tilted to one side, but the force applied on it and the direction in which is moves remains constant. This is the solution offered to account for the tides...
If this is true for tides, then a free-hanging object like a rope in a gymnasium should also be tilted, even if only by a couple degrees.

The RE model shows that the gravitational force of the moon is what pulls on the masses of water to make a tide. But the mass of a rope or a windchime is /far/ too small for the same pull to apply.

I think I explained it better that time. :/

It's something that should be easy to demonstrate with and experiment, even on a small scale.

You did do a much better job explaining that time, but I still don't quite agree with you.  I don't see why the greater mass would be pulled more.  We know that all objects regardless of mass will 'fall' at the same rate in a vacuum.  Why would the rope move any less than the tides if it's accelerated by the same amount?  The force changes, yes, but the acceleration would remain constant, wouldn't it?

That lsecond to last thing is exactly the question I am posing... According to the FE model.. the rope /should/ move in conjunction to the tides. The acceleration remains constant... but it is being applied on what is now a /tilted/ disc. The definition of down (which is opposite of the force applied by UA) shifts slightly in accordance with the tilt according to the FE model. The rope doesn't move on a RE model, because the mass is too small to be affected by the gravity of the moon.

Hello? I know it's late... but I can see topics getting updated so /someone/ has to be online.. :/