Oceans in RET

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. 

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

NTheGreat made the claim. It's his responsibility to provide data for his contentions.

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.

And why do we need absolute gravitational potential energy? As far as I know the water is in it's local frame of reference.

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

Absolute proof is impossible, and technically they aren't anyway as they're sloshing about all the time. But if you spin a body of fluid, much like the Earth rotating on it's axis, it's going to form a oblate spheroid, not a prolate one. Not sure how numbers are going to show this to you any better than simply thinking about how fluids behave.

Quote from: markjo on April 21, 2009, 08:36:56 AM

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

NTheGreat made the claim. It's his responsibility to provide data for his contentions.

Actually, it's Steve's thread.  He made claims in the OP and has yet to back any of those claims with numbers.

Quote

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.

thanks 

robos equation simply leaves this out

And why do we need absolute gravitational potential energy? As far as I know the water is in it's local frame of reference.

The water near the poles is not in the same local frame of reference as the water at the Equator, and that is what we are trying to differentiate between.

Absolute proof is impossible, and technically they aren't anyway as they're sloshing about all the time. But if you spin a body of fluid, much like the Earth rotating on it's axis, it's going to form a oblate spheroid, not a prolate one. Not sure how numbers are going to show this to you any better than simply thinking about how fluids behave.

This is true for small bodies of fluid where gravitation is negligible. Again, the water is more strongly attracted to the Earth at its poles, and has less gravitational potential energy per unit mass there. It should settle in the polar regions far more than near the Equator. Why does it not do this?

the surface of the oceans is an equipotential surface in the earth's gravitational potential. do you agree with that?

This is true for small bodies of fluid where gravitation is negligible. Again, the water is more strongly attracted to the Earth at its poles, and has less gravitational potential energy per unit mass there. It should settle in the polar regions far more than near the Equator. Why does it not do this?

But the water around the Earth is not actively being attracted towards the poles. If anything, the water at the poles has more weight than the water at the equator, so the water at the poles should sink down and push the water at the equator up.

the surface of the oceans is an equipotential surface in the earth's gravitational potential. do you agree with that?

It should be, if it were to obey the laws of physics. Unfortunately for you guys, RET disagrees.

But the water around the Earth is not actively being attracted towards the poles. If anything, the water at the poles has more weight than the water at the equator, so the water at the poles should sink down and push the water at the equator up.

What? Weight has nothing to do with it, the water can't sink down if there's solid earth below it. The fact remains that the water at the Equator has more gravitational potential energy per unit mass than that at the poles, according to RET.

Quote from: NTheGreat on April 21, 2009, 08:54:14 AM

And why do we need absolute gravitational potential energy? As far as I know the water is in it's local frame of reference.

The water near the poles is not in the same local frame of reference as the water at the Equator, and that is what we are trying to differentiate between.

Why wouldn't the water near the poles be in the same frame of reference as the water at the equator?  If you're talking about one body of  water, then it only makes sense that it should be in one FoR, doesn't it?