Further clarification with tides

I don't see how its mass can be too small to be affected by the Moon.  It'll be pulled with less 'force', yes, but should still accelerate by the same amount and in the same direction in the RE.

You're missing the point again. You are looking at this under the assumption that the force applied by each model to produce tides is equal, and therefor must be in essence the same...

But it's not.

The RE Model states that the gravity of the moon is what is pulling on the large bodies of water, which causes a large tide in oceans and a very reduced tide in smaller bodies of water like a lake. This is due to the principles of gravity, which are based heavily around *mass* as I understand them. (Again, I know... I am no scientist.)

Now... with the FE model, mass should not, in any way, matter. The entire planet tilts to one side and the other, but the direction in which the planet travels and the UA maintaining that movement remain constant. That gives us the tides in your model. HOWEVER, were it to be true, there would be an equal shift in ocean levels AND lake levels. And it would expand to a free hanging body like a rope, which is hanging downward. NOT because of the rope's mass, it's not considered at all in this model because gravity doesn't exist as it does in the RE model. The concept of /down/ changes.

Now... with the FE model, mass should not, in any way, matter. The entire planet tilts to one side and the other, but the direction in which the planet travels and the UA maintaining that movement remain constant. That gives us the tides in your model. HOWEVER, were it to be true, there would be an equal shift in ocean levels AND lake levels. And it would expand to a free hanging body like a rope, which is hanging downward. NOT because of the rope's mass, it's not considered at all in this model because gravity doesn't exist as it does in the RE model. The concept of /down/ changes.

I disagree on this point.  Even if mass were not a factor, if this "tilting" was indeed what caused the tides, one would expect more water to be displaced from a body of water as large as an ocean than from one as relatively small as a large lake.  In fact, this particular aspect of the nature of tides seems to support the FE model.

To see this in action, fill an 8 ounce cup halfway with water, and a 32 ounce cup.  Mark the water line.  Tilt each cup exactly 30 degrees. Measure how much higher the water level is as a result of the tilting.  You should see that the "tide" is higher in the 32 ounce cup than in the 8 ounce cup.

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 10:30:26 AM

Now... with the FE model, mass should not, in any way, matter. The entire planet tilts to one side and the other, but the direction in which the planet travels and the UA maintaining that movement remain constant. That gives us the tides in your model. HOWEVER, were it to be true, there would be an equal shift in ocean levels AND lake levels. And it would expand to a free hanging body like a rope, which is hanging downward. NOT because of the rope's mass, it's not considered at all in this model because gravity doesn't exist as it does in the RE model. The concept of /down/ changes.

I disagree on this point.  Even if mass were not a factor, if this "tilting" was indeed what caused the tides, one would expect more water to be displaced from a body of water as large as an ocean than from one as relatively small as a large lake.  In fact, this particular aspect of the nature of tides seems to support the FE model.

To see this in action, fill an 8 ounce cup halfway with water, and a 32 ounce cup.  Mark the water line.  Tilt each cup exactly 30 degrees. Measure how much higher the water level is as a result of the tilting.  You should see that the "tide" is higher in the 32 ounce cup than in the 8 ounce cup.

Now.... Note that tilt in the experiment. If that tilt is what produces the tides, wouldn't I be able to measure it with a creative experiment? I could, for example, tie a string to a nail in my ceiling, and a pen to the other end of the string. Then all I would need to to do is either A: Take photographs (using a tripod) at hour intervals throughout the day and then compare then, or just use photoshop to make them opaque and overlap. There would be a discrepancy over an interval because of the same force that causes the tides. OR .. B: Place a piece of paper under the same pen, so it just touches the paper without resting on it. After a day of hanging there will be a dot on an RE model, or a small line on a FE model.

There are a few more things I could think up with a pendulum that could also demonstrate that tilt. I think it's a simple experiment that could easily prove the FE model's tilting right, or wrong, if you have an appropriate place to do it that wouldn't allow for outside sources on the string.

You're missing the point again. You are looking at this under the assumption that the force applied by each model to produce tides is equal, and therefor must be in essence the same...

But it's not.

The RE Model states that the gravity of the moon is what is pulling on the large bodies of water, which causes a large tide in oceans and a very reduced tide in smaller bodies of water like a lake. This is due to the principles of gravity, which are based heavily around *mass* as I understand them. (Again, I know... I am no scientist.)

Now... with the FE model, mass should not, in any way, matter. The entire planet tilts to one side and the other, but the direction in which the planet travels and the UA maintaining that movement remain constant. That gives us the tides in your model. HOWEVER, were it to be true, there would be an equal shift in ocean levels AND lake levels. And it would expand to a free hanging body like a rope, which is hanging downward. NOT because of the rope's mass, it's not considered at all in this model because gravity doesn't exist as it does in the RE model. The concept of /down/ changes.

Gravitation does have a lot to do with mass, yes.  However the water's mass affects the Moon, not the water.  More mass in the water pulls the moon towards it (not by much, but it does).  The acceleration of the water still should be the same as the acceleration of the rope, the rope just won't pull the Moon as much as the water will.

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 10:30:26 AM

You're missing the point again. You are looking at this under the assumption that the force applied by each model to produce tides is equal, and therefor must be in essence the same...

But it's not.

The RE Model states that the gravity of the moon is what is pulling on the large bodies of water, which causes a large tide in oceans and a very reduced tide in smaller bodies of water like a lake. This is due to the principles of gravity, which are based heavily around *mass* as I understand them. (Again, I know... I am no scientist.)

Now... with the FE model, mass should not, in any way, matter. The entire planet tilts to one side and the other, but the direction in which the planet travels and the UA maintaining that movement remain constant. That gives us the tides in your model. HOWEVER, were it to be true, there would be an equal shift in ocean levels AND lake levels. And it would expand to a free hanging body like a rope, which is hanging downward. NOT because of the rope's mass, it's not considered at all in this model because gravity doesn't exist as it does in the RE model. The concept of /down/ changes.

Gravitation does have a lot to do with mass, yes.  However the water's mass affects the Moon, not the water.  More mass in the water pulls the moon towards it (not by much, but it does).  The acceleration of the water still should be the same as the acceleration of the rope, the rope just won't pull the Moon as much as the water will.

... That's exactly why it support the RE model.. but I am trying to get you to apply it to the FE model for me. :/

Quote from: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 10:50:34 AM

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 10:30:26 AM

You're missing the point again. You are looking at this under the assumption that the force applied by each model to produce tides is equal, and therefor must be in essence the same...

But it's not.

The RE Model states that the gravity of the moon is what is pulling on the large bodies of water, which causes a large tide in oceans and a very reduced tide in smaller bodies of water like a lake. This is due to the principles of gravity, which are based heavily around *mass* as I understand them. (Again, I know... I am no scientist.)

Now... with the FE model, mass should not, in any way, matter. The entire planet tilts to one side and the other, but the direction in which the planet travels and the UA maintaining that movement remain constant. That gives us the tides in your model. HOWEVER, were it to be true, there would be an equal shift in ocean levels AND lake levels. And it would expand to a free hanging body like a rope, which is hanging downward. NOT because of the rope's mass, it's not considered at all in this model because gravity doesn't exist as it does in the RE model. The concept of /down/ changes.

Gravitation does have a lot to do with mass, yes.  However the water's mass affects the Moon, not the water.  More mass in the water pulls the moon towards it (not by much, but it does).  The acceleration of the water still should be the same as the acceleration of the rope, the rope just won't pull the Moon as much as the water will.

... That's exactly why it support the RE model.. but I am trying to get you to apply it to the FE model for me. :/

No, that's exactly why it supports neither model.  The ACCELERATION on the rope is the same as the ACCELERATION on the water.  The force is less, yes, but that is because it takes less force to accelerate a smaller mass the same amount.  Reread it and see if it makes more sense.

There are a few more things I could think up with a pendulum that could also demonstrate that tilt. I think it's a simple experiment that could easily prove the FE model's tilting right, or wrong, if you have an appropriate place to do it that wouldn't allow for outside sources on the string.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a place exists. 

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 10:50:07 AM

There are a few more things I could think up with a pendulum that could also demonstrate that tilt. I think it's a simple experiment that could easily prove the FE model's tilting right, or wrong, if you have an appropriate place to do it that wouldn't allow for outside sources on the string.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a place exists. 

I believe that there is such a place. The device the Eotvos used with its mechanical resonance works in most any laboratory free of drafts. It would detect such motion, easily

No, that's exactly why it supports neither model.  The ACCELERATION on the rope is the same as the ACCELERATION on the water.  The force is less, yes, but that is because it takes less force to accelerate a smaller mass the same amount.  Reread it and see if it makes more sense.

Take your two glasses of water from earlier and set them on a platter of some sort, now tape a piece of string to the bottom. Now tilt the entire platter 30 degrees to one side (might want to tape them to the platter too...) and note that the same results you saw earlier. HOWEVER, observe the affect on the string. Do you see what I'm trying to get at?

Quote from: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 10:56:38 AM

No, that's exactly why it supports neither model.  The ACCELERATION on the rope is the same as the ACCELERATION on the water.  The force is less, yes, but that is because it takes less force to accelerate a smaller mass the same amount.  Reread it and see if it makes more sense.

Take your two glasses of water from earlier and set them on a platter of some sort, now tape a piece of string to the bottom. Now tilt the entire platter 30 degrees to one side (might want to tape them to the platter too...) and note that the same results you saw earlier. HOWEVER, observe the affect on the string. Do you see what I'm trying to get at?

I know what you're trying to say.  I also see that you don't know what I'm trying to say.  I'm saying that in RE the same thing should be observed because the acceleration on the string in the same relative direction is THE SAME.  I'm not supporting FE's tide theory, I'm merely pointing out that your example of why it's flawed is not valid.

Quote from: Roundy the Liar on July 27, 2007, 10:57:33 AM

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 10:50:07 AM

There are a few more things I could think up with a pendulum that could also demonstrate that tilt. I think it's a simple experiment that could easily prove the FE model's tilting right, or wrong, if you have an appropriate place to do it that wouldn't allow for outside sources on the string.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a place exists. 

I believe that there is such a place. The device the Eotvos used with its mechanical resonance works in most any laboratory free of drafts. It would detect such motion, easily

Interesting.  Explain exactly how we would use Eotvos' device for this experiment.

The same thing wouldn't be observed in RE, because the mass of a rope or a windchime is simply far too small for it to work with the moon in such a way. Given, if we had a rope with the mass of a lake and it was somehow freehanging... we would probably be able to see the same results that I propose in an FE model. You're comparing a mouse to a mountain, so to speak, and telling me that forces would work on each towards the same results :/

The same thing wouldn't be observed in RE, because the mass of a rope or a windchime is simply far too small for it to work with the moon in such a way. Given, if we had a rope with the mass of a lake and it was somehow freehanging... we would probably be able to see the same results that I propose in an FE model. You're comparing a mouse to a mountain, so to speak, and telling me that forces would work on each towards the same results :/

I really don't think you've been reading what I've posted so far.


Acceleration towards a body caused by gravitation does not care about the mass of the body being accelerated.  A feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum fall at the same speed, correct?

Keeping the above in mind, why would the rope not accelerate towards the Moon at the same rate as the water?

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 11:21:39 AM

The same thing wouldn't be observed in RE, because the mass of a rope or a windchime is simply far too small for it to work with the moon in such a way. Given, if we had a rope with the mass of a lake and it was somehow freehanging... we would probably be able to see the same results that I propose in an FE model. You're comparing a mouse to a mountain, so to speak, and telling me that forces would work on each towards the same results :/

I really don't think you've been reading what I've posted so far.


Acceleration towards a body caused by gravitation does not care about the mass of the body being accelerated.  A feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum fall at the same speed, correct?

Keeping the above in mind, why would the rope not accelerate towards the Moon at the same rate as the water?

Yes... but the earth is /not/ a vacuum. The RE model explains that the earth has it's own gravitational pull, which is what keeps the smaller mass of the rope from shifting with the tides. The mass of the water is great enough to interact with the moon in such a way as to produce tides, but the mass of the rope isn't enough to defy the gravitational force of the earth itself.

Quote from: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 11:24:26 AM

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 11:21:39 AM

The same thing wouldn't be observed in RE, because the mass of a rope or a windchime is simply far too small for it to work with the moon in such a way. Given, if we had a rope with the mass of a lake and it was somehow freehanging... we would probably be able to see the same results that I propose in an FE model. You're comparing a mouse to a mountain, so to speak, and telling me that forces would work on each towards the same results :/

I really don't think you've been reading what I've posted so far.


Acceleration towards a body caused by gravitation does not care about the mass of the body being accelerated.  A feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum fall at the same speed, correct?

Keeping the above in mind, why would the rope not accelerate towards the Moon at the same rate as the water?

Yes... but the earth is /not/ a vacuum. The RE model explains that the earth has it's own gravitational pull, which is what keeps the smaller mass of the rope from shifting with the tides. The mass of the water is great enough to interact with the moon in such a way as to produce tides, but the mass of the rope isn't enough to defy the gravitational force of the earth itself.

I believe you missed the point where the mass of the object being pulled doesn't matter.  That's the point of the 'dropping objects in a vacuum' experiment.  The rope still should be attracted to the Moon, just not as much as it is towards the Earth.  I say that the Moon DOES pull the rope, just you don't notice it because it's so slight.  I also say that the FE tilting is so slight you don't notice the rope's slant.

consider the difference in mass between the rope in the gym and the pacific ocean, or one of the great lakes if you'd like to use a smaller body of water.

The difference between the models is that gravity applies in RE, and is a product of the upward acceleration provided by the UA.. We can agree on this?

Now, in the RE model the mass of the Moon, the Earth, and <insert body of water here> are what causes the tides.

In the FE model it's the tilt of the planet in relation to the direction that the UA is pushing the earth.

Just a short review, partially for my own purposes. :p

NOW... you contest that the gravitational attraction cannot affect the rope in the same way that it does the larger mass of something like a large lake. This is due to the power of the Earth's gravity, the rope cannot be pulled enough for a noticeable difference.

I contest the same, BUT... in the FE model there is a tilt that makes the bodies of water move and cause tides, and larger bodies have more water to move and therefor a greater shift in ocean level at the shores. That is derived with thought to your experiment with the cups. But where there should be no noticeable (or perhaps even measurable) shift in the rope on the RE model, I am saying that there should be some measurable level of difference in the rope on an FE model. That is due to the fact that 'down' is changing over time. The mass of the rope has nothing to do with it in the FE model, where gravity doesn't exist, and it should be something that could be measured in a laboratory (or even a less structured) environment.

Now, in the RE model the mass of the Moon, the Earth, and <insert body of water here> are what causes the tides.

This proves that you don't know what I'm saying.  The mass of the body of water PULLS THE MOON, it does not PULL ITSELF.  The mass of the Moon and Earth part is correct.


That is, of course, unless you have a new theory of gravitation that's better than the current one?

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 11:47:16 AM

Now, in the RE model the mass of the Moon, the Earth, and <insert body of water here> are what causes the tides.

This proves that you don't know what I'm saying.  The mass of the body of water PULLS THE MOON, it does not PULL ITSELF.  The mass of the Moon and Earth part is correct.


That is, of course, unless you have a new theory of gravitation that's better than the current one?

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects attract each other.*

The moon pulls on the body of water, even as the body of water pulls on the moon... I fail to see how that makes my argument faulty.. :/

* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation if you want to contest my source (I know people love to bash wiki here...)

Quote from: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 11:51:46 AM

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 11:47:16 AM

Now, in the RE model the mass of the Moon, the Earth, and <insert body of water here> are what causes the tides.

This proves that you don't know what I'm saying.  The mass of the body of water PULLS THE MOON, it does not PULL ITSELF.  The mass of the Moon and Earth part is correct.


That is, of course, unless you have a new theory of gravitation that's better than the current one?

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects attract each other.*

The moon pulls on the body of water, even as the body of water pulls on the moon... I fail to see how that makes my argument faulty.. :/

* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation if you want to contest my source (I know people love to bash wiki here...)

I'll try it one more time.  The mass of the water PULLS THE MOON TOWARDS THE WATER.  It does not PULL THE WATER TOWARDS THE MOON.  This is a major part of gravitation.  If you continue to fail to understand this, I will cease responding.  This is the only point I'm trying to get across, and if you don't understand it, I don't know what else I can do.

Oh, I've read the wiki gravitation articles, they agree with me on this point.

I've said a few times.. I'm no scientists.. :/

Could you explain it to me in some layman's terms? I'd appreciate the added material as it would help me in the debate.

I've said a few times.. I'm no scientists.. :/

Could you explain it to me in some layman's terms? I'd appreciate the added material as it would help me in the debate.

I've been trying to put this in layman's terms, and I apologize if you still can't understand.  You are aware that things falling in a vacuum towards a larger mass (feather and bowling ball on the moon) will accelerate at the same right, correct?


Knowing that, there is no reason why the rope should not be pulled towards the Moon.  In fact, the rope is pulled towards the Moon in RE, you just don't notice it.  Now why would the force required to move water noticeably but not move the rope noticeably in the RE require a tilt in the FE that would make the rope's movement noticeable?

But in the RE model the gravity of the earth comes into play, providing a barrier that the moon/rope interaction have to overcome for there to be a notable movement.

in the FE model, no such gravity exists, and I still believe that a tilt, even a small one, that could provide for the tides would be measurable through experiment.

I do apologize if you find me frustrating, I know that I am without all the science... but I'm pretty sure my logic is solid. (pretty sure..)

And why in the RE does the Earth not come into play when moving the water?  It does.


It's alright, man.  I'm just glad you're not a "ERTH IS ROUND, UR ALL STOOPID" noob ^_^

but the principles in play are different by their very nature when you compare the RE and the FE reasoning behind tides. We can clearly see in the RE model that the rope /doesn't/ move, but it's  due to the properties and rules of gravity.

I need to head to work, but I'll think it over... probably all day. :/

I'll throw something up when I get home.

but the principles in play are different by their very nature when you compare the RE and the FE reasoning behind tides. We can clearly see in the RE model that the rope /doesn't/ move, but it's  due to the properties and rules of gravity.

I need to head to work, but I'll think it over... probably all day. :/

I'll throw something up when I get home.

Gravity exists in both models, but it does not exist as a force in either.  Gravity is merely an object's tendency to follow the curvature of spacetime, whether from acceleration (FE) or mass bending it (RE).

Gravitation, not gravity.

Gravitation, not gravity.

We've already proven that gravity is a term to relate to this effect.  It exists, just not as a force, in both models.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 27, 2007, 11:11:48 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Liar on July 27, 2007, 10:57:33 AM

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 10:50:07 AM

There are a few more things I could think up with a pendulum that could also demonstrate that tilt. I think it's a simple experiment that could easily prove the FE model's tilting right, or wrong, if you have an appropriate place to do it that wouldn't allow for outside sources on the string.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a place exists. 

I believe that there is such a place. The device the Eotvos used with its mechanical resonance works in most any laboratory free of drafts. It would detect such motion, easily

Interesting.  Explain exactly how we would use Eotvos' device for this experiment.

Measure g over the course of a day at approximately hourly intervals. If the FE is tilting then g should vary with the tilting, increasing and then decreasing four times a day. As the FE acceleration is oblique when you're tilted (tide high or low), g should be lower than when you're flat (base tide).
 

Quote from: Principal Blackman on July 27, 2007, 11:18:41 AM

Quote from: Gulliver on July 27, 2007, 11:11:48 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Liar on July 27, 2007, 10:57:33 AM

Quote from: MDCharlatan on July 27, 2007, 10:50:07 AM

There are a few more things I could think up with a pendulum that could also demonstrate that tilt. I think it's a simple experiment that could easily prove the FE model's tilting right, or wrong, if you have an appropriate place to do it that wouldn't allow for outside sources on the string.

Unfortunately, I don't think such a place exists. 

I believe that there is such a place. The device the Eotvos used with its mechanical resonance works in most any laboratory free of drafts. It would detect such motion, easily

Interesting.  Explain exactly how we would use Eotvos' device for this experiment.

Measure g over the course of a day at approximately hourly intervals. If the FE is tilting then g should vary with the tilting, increasing and then decreasing four times a day. As the FE acceleration is oblique when you're tilted (tide high or low), g should be lower than when you're flat (base tide).
 

g = gram
g = acceleration due to gravitation