Further clarification with tides

  • 119 Replies
  • 24280 Views
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #60 on: July 27, 2007, 01:40:01 PM »
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.
Roundy does make an excellent point, perhaps accidentally. You cannot create the required two high tides and two low tides by tilting. Furthermore, the demonstrated tides occur at the edge of the FE, not along the ocean shores of the middle and low latitudes.

It looks to me like Roundy has killed FE's explanation with one post. Good job!

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #61 on: July 27, 2007, 01:44:48 PM »
If the FE is tilting then g should vary with the tilting, increasing and then decreasing four times a day.
 

Why is that, exactly?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #62 on: July 27, 2007, 02:15:08 PM »
If the FE is tilting then g should vary with the tilting, increasing and then decreasing four times a day.
 

Why is that, exactly?
FE's acceleration is up. Your 'up' doesn't align with the acceleration when you're tilted, reducing your gravity or causing you to lean. In order for there to be two high tides and two low tides almost daily, you must be tilted fours times a day and (producing less gravity) not tilted four times a day (producing normal gravity).

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #63 on: July 27, 2007, 02:16:21 PM »
I don't see why the acceleration would be any different whether tilted or not.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #64 on: July 27, 2007, 02:21:06 PM »
I don't see why the acceleration would be any different whether tilted or not.
Then I can only suggest a good high school physics textbook. Concentrate on the vector nature of forces.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2007, 02:22:22 PM »
I don't see why the acceleration would be any different whether tilted or not.
Then I can only suggest a good high school physics textbook. Concentrate on the vector nature of forces.

I think you are underestimating him, like we underestimated the VC. You will send you best napalm and still you'll lose.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #66 on: July 27, 2007, 02:38:39 PM »
I don't see why the acceleration would be any different whether tilted or not.
Then I can only suggest a good high school physics textbook. Concentrate on the vector nature of forces.

If you can't explain it how can you assert that it exists?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #67 on: July 27, 2007, 02:45:30 PM »
I don't see why the acceleration would be any different whether tilted or not.
Then I can only suggest a good high school physics textbook. Concentrate on the vector nature of forces.

If you can't explain it how can you assert that it exists?
I have explained it, to everyone with a high school physics background. The rest will have to read up on the subject.

?

MDCharlatan

  • 44
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #68 on: July 27, 2007, 03:15:42 PM »
I don't have a high school physics background.. :p

Skipped it, probably shouldn't have.....

(on break... back to work!)

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #69 on: July 27, 2007, 03:20:31 PM »
I don't see why the acceleration would be any different whether tilted or not.
Then I can only suggest a good high school physics textbook. Concentrate on the vector nature of forces.

If you can't explain it how can you assert that it exists?
I have explained it, to everyone with a high school physics background. The rest will have to read up on the subject.

Where?  Can you at least provide a link?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #70 on: July 27, 2007, 03:21:30 PM »
If you talk with gulliver long enough, he'll argue your points for you.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #71 on: July 27, 2007, 03:21:58 PM »
We're talking about a very slight shift in relation to the size of the earth.  Perhaps this is why g is measured differently in different places at different times?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #72 on: July 27, 2007, 03:28:56 PM »
We're talking about a very slight shift in relation to the size of the earth.  Perhaps this is why g is measured differently in different places at different times?
Really? Please tell us how you calculated the angle of the tilt required to produce two high tides at the same time. Please tell us where you heard that g is measured differently at different times?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #73 on: July 27, 2007, 03:31:12 PM »
We're talking about a very slight shift in relation to the size of the earth.  Perhaps this is why g is measured differently in different places at different times?
Really? Please tell us how you calculated the angle of the tilt required to produce two high tides at the same time. Please tell us where you heard that g is measured differently at different times?

Are you sure it's not?  ;D
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #74 on: July 27, 2007, 03:32:35 PM »
We're talking about a very slight shift in relation to the size of the earth.  Perhaps this is why g is measured differently in different places at different times?
Really? Please tell us how you calculated the angle of the tilt required to produce two high tides at the same time. Please tell us where you heard that g is measured differently at different times?

Are you sure it's not?  ;D
Yep.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #75 on: July 27, 2007, 03:34:35 PM »
Can you provide a source that gives an scientifically sound experiment where this was proven?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • +0/-0
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #76 on: July 27, 2007, 03:37:25 PM »
Incomming wiki...

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #77 on: July 27, 2007, 03:37:56 PM »
Can you provide a source that gives an scientifically sound experiment where this was proven?
Yep. Your 32 oz. cup experiment does a fine job demonstrating FE's failure. The classic boy on a sled experiment also provides a great proof. You'll find it in almost all high school physics textbooks, usually in the chapter on friction.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #78 on: July 27, 2007, 03:39:19 PM »
Can you provide a source that gives an scientifically sound experiment where this was proven?
Yep. Your 32 oz. cup experiment does a fine job demonstrating FE's failure. The classic boy on a sled experiment also provides a great proof. You'll find it in almost all high school physics textbooks, usually in the chapter on friction.

How do any of these experiments prove that g never changes in any particular place?  ???

I think you're attacking a straw man, TomG!  Careful!  ;D
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #79 on: July 27, 2007, 03:50:15 PM »
Can you provide a source that gives an scientifically sound experiment where this was proven?
Yep. Your 32 oz. cup experiment does a fine job demonstrating FE's failure. The classic boy on a sled experiment also provides a great proof. You'll find it in almost all high school physics textbooks, usually in the chapter on friction.

How do any of these experiments prove that g never changes in any particular place?  ???

I think you're attacking a straw man, TomG!  Careful!  ;D
I've never argued that g never changes in any particular place. Eotvos data show that it hasn't changed in the required four times daily cycle that FE's tilting argument would require. Therefore FE is wrong.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #80 on: July 27, 2007, 03:58:00 PM »
Can you provide a source that gives an scientifically sound experiment where this was proven?
Yep. Your 32 oz. cup experiment does a fine job demonstrating FE's failure. The classic boy on a sled experiment also provides a great proof. You'll find it in almost all high school physics textbooks, usually in the chapter on friction.

How do any of these experiments prove that g never changes in any particular place?  ???

I think you're attacking a straw man, TomG!  Careful!  ;D
I've never argued that g never changes in any particular place. Eotvos data show that it hasn't changed in the required four times daily cycle that FE's tilting argument would require. Therefore FE is wrong.

And this is (more or less) what I was asking for.  Thank you.  Wasn't so difficult, right?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #81 on: July 27, 2007, 04:01:44 PM »
Can you provide a source that gives an scientifically sound experiment where this was proven?
Yep. Your 32 oz. cup experiment does a fine job demonstrating FE's failure. The classic boy on a sled experiment also provides a great proof. You'll find it in almost all high school physics textbooks, usually in the chapter on friction.

How do any of these experiments prove that g never changes in any particular place?  ???

I think you're attacking a straw man, TomG!  Careful!  ;D
I've never argued that g never changes in any particular place. Eotvos data show that it hasn't changed in the required four times daily cycle that FE's tilting argument would require. Therefore FE is wrong.

And this is (more or less) what I was asking for.  Thank you.  Wasn't so difficult, right?
You're welcome.

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #82 on: July 27, 2007, 05:56:24 PM »
Can you provide a source that gives an scientifically sound experiment where this was proven?
Yep. Your 32 oz. cup experiment does a fine job demonstrating FE's failure. The classic boy on a sled experiment also provides a great proof. You'll find it in almost all high school physics textbooks, usually in the chapter on friction.

Your boy on a sled experiment proved nothing.  When I asked you where the 'missing energy' in the FE model goes, you did not respond.  In the boy on a sled experiment, the energy does not just disappear, it goes to a different location.
OMG!

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #83 on: July 27, 2007, 06:36:22 PM »
Can you provide a source that gives an scientifically sound experiment where this was proven?
Yep. Your 32 oz. cup experiment does a fine job demonstrating FE's failure. The classic boy on a sled experiment also provides a great proof. You'll find it in almost all high school physics textbooks, usually in the chapter on friction.

Your boy on a sled experiment proved nothing.  When I asked you where the 'missing energy' in the FE model goes, you did not respond.  In the boy on a sled experiment, the energy does not just disappear, it goes to a different location.
Well, equal forces was your asserting, so the burden to show that that is yours. If you don't understand that, then you'd don't debating. If you believe that all energy goes to work, then you don't understand physics. Oh, the little brother on the sled does prove that two different mechanisms can achieve the same work with different amounts of force.


*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #84 on: July 27, 2007, 09:09:57 PM »
Can you provide a source that gives an scientifically sound experiment where this was proven?
Yep. Your 32 oz. cup experiment does a fine job demonstrating FE's failure. The classic boy on a sled experiment also provides a great proof. You'll find it in almost all high school physics textbooks, usually in the chapter on friction.

Your boy on a sled experiment proved nothing.  When I asked you where the 'missing energy' in the FE model goes, you did not respond.  In the boy on a sled experiment, the energy does not just disappear, it goes to a different location.
Well, equal forces was your asserting, so the burden to show that that is yours. If you don't understand that, then you'd don't debating. If you believe that all energy goes to work, then you don't understand physics. Oh, the little brother on the sled does prove that two different mechanisms can achieve the same work with different amounts of force.


Believe what you want TomG, but matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed last time I checked.  Even if it's a different mechanism, the energy still has to go somewhere.  You continue to not tell me where the energy goes.  I would like to know, because if I'm wrong then I can learn.  Could you explain where it went?
OMG!

?

MDCharlatan

  • 44
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #85 on: July 27, 2007, 09:24:36 PM »
Well... this thread just went above my head I think.. :/

That's what going to work gets me I guess.

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #86 on: July 27, 2007, 09:39:44 PM »
Can you provide a source that gives an scientifically sound experiment where this was proven?
Yep. Your 32 oz. cup experiment does a fine job demonstrating FE's failure. The classic boy on a sled experiment also provides a great proof. You'll find it in almost all high school physics textbooks, usually in the chapter on friction.

Your boy on a sled experiment proved nothing.  When I asked you where the 'missing energy' in the FE model goes, you did not respond.  In the boy on a sled experiment, the energy does not just disappear, it goes to a different location.
Well, equal forces was your asserting, so the burden to show that that is yours. If you don't understand that, then you'd don't debating. If you believe that all energy goes to work, then you don't understand physics. Oh, the little brother on the sled does prove that two different mechanisms can achieve the same work with different amounts of force.


Believe what you want TomG, but matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed last time I checked.  Even if it's a different mechanism, the energy still has to go somewhere.  You continue to not tell me where the energy goes.  I would like to know, because if I'm wrong then I can learn.  Could you explain where it went?
Well, let's start with your understanding of matter and energy being created and destroyed. Neither energy or matter can be created or destroyed in a closed system except from one to another as given by Einstein's famous equation: E=mc2.

Next, you're arguing that the force must be the same. You have the burden of proof.

Finally, let's go over work and energy. Work is the productive expenditure of energy. All mechanical systems are inefficient. Some energy is wasted, converted to heat through friction or to noise or to moving the item in the wrong direction. In the case of your little brother on the sled, you waste energy melting the ice under the runners. In the RE case of tides, the Moon "wastes energy" in creating tides by the friction of the ocean over the ocean floor. In the FE case of tides, the moving of the FE wastes energy tilting the whole Earth, not just the ocean. To argue that the force in both cases must be equal is supportable--until you calculate the energy required to tilt the FE (The energy wasted by the Moon has long been calculated.). I don't believe that you'll ever be able to determine the energy required to tilt the FE until FE states the mass of the FE.

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #87 on: July 27, 2007, 09:51:40 PM »
OK, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth, and this is where the confusion is arising.  My only point is that the Moon pulls the rope as well as the ocean, and thinking that because you don't notice it in the RE means that you should notice it in the FE is wrong.  That's been my stance this whole time.

I never said the energy required to pull the oceans = the amount of energy to tilt the world.  I said the energy required to move the ocean in RE would be the same as is required to move the ocean in the same manner in the FE.  You told me this was wrong, and I have not seen a reason why yet.
OMG!

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #88 on: July 27, 2007, 09:55:20 PM »
Perhaps I stated it wrong.  Let me try a different way.

The force required to move the Ocean in the RE should be the same in the FE.
OMG!

?

MDCharlatan

  • 44
  • +0/-0
Re: Further clarification with tides
« Reply #89 on: July 27, 2007, 09:59:23 PM »
Perhaps I stated it wrong.  Let me try a different way.

The force required to move the Ocean in the RE should be the same in the FE.

But aren't the forces different by the laws of physics, with different sets of rules? The amount of force could be the exact same and it would /still/ interact differently with earth in an FE model and the earth in an RE model.

That or my understanding of the two sets of principles is flawed.. Which, I admit, is possible. :/