« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Rivers at High/Low Tide

  • 20 Replies
  • 5699 Views
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Rivers at High/Low Tide
« on: November 18, 2007, 12:37:57 AM »
Sorry to be clogging up the forums with new threads, but i have questions that need answering...

According to the F/E model, tides occur because of a slight tilting of the earth.

Imagine that the earth tilts East/West (this is just an example to explain my question, so bear with me)

Now imagine a river running North/South (ie at right angles to the tilting)
Wouldn't this mean that during high tide on one bank, it would be low tide on the other?
However i have seen with my own eyes that the tides in rivers are pretty uniform, and while the water levels might not be exactly the same, both banks are always under the effect of high tide or low tide at the same time.

Now i realise that the earth probably doesnt tilt east west but whatever way it does tilt i'm sure there is a river or a lake which runs at right angles to the tilt.

So how is this explained?
Logged
Dumbshoe
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2007, 12:39:17 AM »
Tides are due to the gravitational pull of our twin moons, the moon and the anti-moon.  The antimoon is on the reverse side of the earth.
Logged
f you can't arrgue both sides, ou undrstnd nether
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2007, 12:41:21 AM »
could you please explain a bit more fully? or direct me somewhere which does?

and if this is the cause of the tides in a flat earth, please update the FAQ.
Logged
Dumbshoe
?

eric bloedow

Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2007, 08:39:16 AM »
amazing. i never heard of the "antimoon" until Username MADE IT UP!

oh, and that wouldn't work anyway, because the antimoon would have to have GRAVITY, which FErs don't believe in...
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2007, 10:05:57 AM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 18, 2007, 08:39:16 AM
amazing. i never heard of the "antimoon" until Username MADE IT UP!

oh, and that wouldn't work anyway, because the antimoon would have to have GRAVITY, which FErs don't believe in...
No, it wouldn't have gravity, it would have gravitational pull.   The FAQ clearly states multiple times that we believe in gravitational pull.  Please familiarize yourself with it, you've been here long enough asking questions out of it multiple times daily.


The moon has gravitational pull as does the antimoon.  The move in similar orbits, but at opposite times - which is to say when one is at 90 degrees the other is at 270 degrees.  This adequately explains tides and diurnal tides.

Logged
f you can't arrgue both sides, ou undrstnd nether
?

Captain Alitus

  • 151
  • +0/-0
  • Lord of the Lizard People
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2007, 10:21:02 AM »
Quote from: Username on November 18, 2007, 12:39:17 AM
Tides are due to the gravitational pull of our twin moons, the moon and the anti-moon.  The antimoon is on the reverse side of the earth.
Logged
Quote from: McDonalds Fan
Why is it when I throw a delicious McNugget up in the air it always comes back down into my eagerly awaiting mouth?
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2007, 02:15:40 PM »
Quote from: Username on November 18, 2007, 10:05:57 AM
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 18, 2007, 08:39:16 AM
amazing. i never heard of the "antimoon" until Username MADE IT UP!

oh, and that wouldn't work anyway, because the antimoon would have to have GRAVITY, which FErs don't believe in...
No, it wouldn't have gravity, it would have gravitational pull.   The FAQ clearly states multiple times that we believe in gravitational pull.  Please familiarize yourself with it, you've been here long enough asking questions out of it multiple times daily.


The moon has gravitational pull as does the antimoon.  The move in similar orbits, but at opposite times - which is to say when one is at 90 degrees the other is at 270 degrees.  This adequately explains tides and diurnal tides.



So why doesn't it have this in the FAQ? Who else believes this? Or is this your own personal theory?
Logged
Dumbshoe
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2007, 02:28:55 PM »
I think there are a few of us that hold it as true. 
Logged
f you can't arrgue both sides, ou undrstnd nether
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2007, 03:47:02 PM »
then please either include it in the FAQ along with the 'tilting' theory or replace the tilting theory with the anti moon theory.

RE's have one theory for the tides, and it fits pretty well, so i don't think it should be right that there are two theories for the FE's.

please choose one and stick with it
Logged
Dumbshoe
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2007, 12:26:05 AM »
Quote from: paradiselost on November 18, 2007, 03:47:02 PM
then please either include it in the FAQ along with the 'tilting' theory or replace the tilting theory with the anti moon theory.

RE's have one theory for the tides, and it fits pretty well, so i don't think it should be right that there are two theories for the FE's.

please choose one and stick with it


Thats not how it works.
Logged
f you can't arrgue both sides, ou undrstnd nether
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2007, 01:30:09 AM »
well you have no evidence for the anti-moon, it would be a lot more credible if others believed it too
Logged
Dumbshoe
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2007, 02:34:40 AM »
Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 01:30:09 AM
well you have no evidence for the anti-moon, it would be a lot more credible if others believed it too
It would not be more credible if others believe it too.  Thats a fallacy.  Those that live near water can see the effects of the antimoon everyday.
Logged
f you can't arrgue both sides, ou undrstnd nether
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2007, 02:46:47 AM »
Quote from: Username on November 19, 2007, 02:34:40 AM
Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 01:30:09 AM
well you have no evidence for the anti-moon, it would be a lot more credible if others believed it too
It would not be more credible if others believe it too.  Thats a fallacy.  Those that live near water can see the effects of the antimoon everyday.

The antimoon does not explain the tides.  Yes, there is a high tide on the opposite side of the earth to the moon.  However, the antimoon would cause a "dip" in the ocean because it would be pulling from underneath.  This is directly at odds with the observation.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2007, 02:58:09 AM »
Quote from: Username on November 19, 2007, 02:34:40 AM
Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 01:30:09 AM
well you have no evidence for the anti-moon, it would be a lot more credible if others believed it too
It would not be more credible if others believe it too.  Thats a fallacy.  Those that live near water can see the effects of the antimoon everyday.

but you can't prove that the anti moon is making those effects.
Logged
Dumbshoe
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2007, 10:28:15 AM »
You can't prove the moon is.
Logged
f you can't arrgue both sides, ou undrstnd nether
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2007, 12:21:46 PM »
Quote from: Username on November 19, 2007, 10:28:15 AM
You can't prove the moon is.

It's more likely that the moon is...
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1512
  • +0/-0
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2007, 04:22:21 PM »
But why are the tides so predictable?
Logged
Quote from: Eddy Baby on May 24, 2011, 05:54:00 PM
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2007, 04:25:15 PM »
Quote from: Username on November 19, 2007, 10:28:15 AM
You can't prove the moon is.

The tides have been proved to coincide with different phases of the moon.
Logged
Dumbshoe
?

SparteX

  • 411
  • +0/-0
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2007, 01:44:28 PM »
Ok anti moon on the opposite side of the planet? this proves you lot are talking total chod. Not a SINGLE mention of this anti moon occurred during the time i owned everyone when i was here six months ago. Once you lost you made up a new moon?
Logged
?

Guns N. Roses

  • 55
  • +0/-0
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2007, 02:38:23 PM »
Do anti people on anti earth have anti tides?
Logged
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-82
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Rivers at High/Low Tide
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2007, 04:12:42 PM »
Quote from: SparteX on November 20, 2007, 01:44:28 PM
Ok anti moon on the opposite side of the planet? this proves you lot are talking total chod. Not a SINGLE mention of this anti moon occurred during the time i owned everyone when i was here six months ago. Once you lost you made up a new moon?
So I am a chod because flat earth science has advanced?  You are quite the special child, aren't you?

Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Username on November 19, 2007, 10:28:15 AM
You can't prove the moon is.

The tides have been proved to coincide with different phases of the moon.
They have also been proven to coincide with the movements of the antimoon and moon.

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on November 19, 2007, 04:22:21 PM
But why are the tides so predictable?
Because the orbit of the moon/antimoon is predictable.

Quote from: L0gic on November 19, 2007, 12:21:46 PM
Quote from: Username on November 19, 2007, 10:28:15 AM
You can't prove the moon is.

It's more likely that the moon is...
That doesn't mean its correct.

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 19, 2007, 02:46:47 AM
Quote from: Username on November 19, 2007, 02:34:40 AM
Quote from: paradiselost on November 19, 2007, 01:30:09 AM
well you have no evidence for the anti-moon, it would be a lot more credible if others believed it too
It would not be more credible if others believe it too.  Thats a fallacy.  Those that live near water can see the effects of the antimoon everyday.

The antimoon does not explain the tides.  Yes, there is a high tide on the opposite side of the earth to the moon.  However, the antimoon would cause a "dip" in the ocean because it would be pulling from underneath.  This is directly at odds with the observation.
No, I don't believe it would.
Logged
f you can't arrgue both sides, ou undrstnd nether
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »