Question for RE's Tides

Quote from: Around And About on February 18, 2011, 11:17:30 AM

Quote from: hoppy on February 18, 2011, 10:53:27 AM

Hi kung, All the explanations on tides that I have read, they all state that the sun has greater gravity affecting the earth . But the moon actually moves the tides because it's closer.

 It's like they have to say the sun's gravity is greater, because the rest of their theories would fall apart if they didn't say that.  But the moon's gravity is driving the tides because it's closer...Even that doesn't make sense considering there are 2 high tides, each on opposite sides of the earth at the same time.

Do you have a reading disability, or is English not your first language?

 You're a real tough guy, or woman.

There are no women on the internet.

Quote from: Around And About on February 18, 2011, 11:17:30 AM

Quote from: hoppy on February 18, 2011, 10:53:27 AM

Hi kung, All the explanations on tides that I have read, they all state that the sun has greater gravity affecting the earth . But the moon actually moves the tides because it's closer.

 It's like they have to say the sun's gravity is greater, because the rest of their theories would fall apart if they didn't say that.  But the moon's gravity is driving the tides because it's closer...Even that doesn't make sense considering there are 2 high tides, each on opposite sides of the earth at the same time.

Do you have a reading disability, or is English not your first language?

 You're a real tough guy, or woman.

It was a genuine question, are you going to answer it? I know for a fact that no legitimate source, including the one you cited, says what you claim it says. But if you have difficulty reading English above a certain level then I would be much more understanding.

VOR, thank you for trying to help me understand. However, I see you are a bendy truth specialist indeed.

My title is a parody of Parsifal's.
If you don't understand, then there's little hope for you. l2frame of reference

K i didnt actually calculate it but I am pretty sure that the moon exert a greater force on the water  on earth than the sun does. based the equation above. And it is because the moon is close, its not bs, gravity it similar to magnetic, the closer the magnet is to the metal the stronger the pull. An analogy: A fridge magnet right next to a metal will always have a stronger pull than a neodymium from a 1 Km away from the metal.

the difference in force matters not the magnitude of force

although the Sun is farther away, its force on objects is 175 times as strong.
But also since its far away, the force on the near side vs the force on the far side are practically the same.

the difference for the moon's force however is 6.8%, which is why we have tides.


its like comparing 10 and 11 vs. 1000 and 1001. one might be greater, but its the DIFFERENCE THAT COUNTS. Sure the force of the Sun is greater, but there's a reason why we don't see 1000 mile high tides, and that's because the earth itself is also being pulled toward the sun. So in the accelerating frame of reference, aka the frame of the earth, the force on the tides is insignificant for the moon. As parsec put it, the earth is in free fall.

This is not directed towards you, but to anyone that still doesn't understand how to put things in a frame of reference

I just wanted to say that I did look up the explanation for simultaneous high tides on opposite sides of RET's model, but it seemed technical and I didn't feel like trying to condense and simplify it into a readily accessible post. I also then realized that this is a Q&A for FLAT Earth Theory. Any questions regarding RET, the mainstream theory, can be answered by using the mainstream Internets. Now, if you understand the idea and wish to debate it, there's an aptly-named section for that, too. [/nooberating]

Dear people of the internet. Rem-person is going to try to explain with mechanical pencil. The Sun, the Earth, the Moon and you. When the moon is full or new, the Sun and the Moon due to their positioning with the Earth have an combined force of gravity upon the Earth's water, resulting in very high tides and very low tides. Now this does not only apply to the oceans, it applies to all bodies of water large and small. However the bigger the body of water, the more you will notice it. These things are called spring tides, even though its name suggests seasons being involved it doesn't. They are just names. During quarter phases of the moon the gravity of the Moon and the Sun work against each other, resulting in smaller changes of tide, so in other words less high of high tide, and less low of low tide. This is called Neap tide. Even though the name might suggest it, it has no relation with the National Electrical Annuity Plan. Now, the Earth has a much greater pull of gravity than the moon has, but when combined with, oh lets say the centrifugal force created by the spin of a very round beautiful Earth, you get the effects of the tide. So in a way, tides prove the Earth is round.

Dear people of the internet. Rem-person is going to try to explain with mechanical pencil. The Sun, the Earth, the Moon and you. When the moon is full or new, the Sun and the Moon due to their positioning with the Earth have an combined force of gravity upon the Earth's water, resulting in very high tides and very low tides. Now this does not only apply to the oceans, it applies to all bodies of water large and small. However the bigger the body of water, the more you will notice it. These things are called spring tides, even though its name suggests seasons being involved it doesn't. They are just names. During quarter phases of the moon the gravity of the Moon and the Sun work against each other, resulting in smaller changes of tide, so in other words less high of high tide, and less low of low tide. This is called Neap tide. Even though the name might suggest it, it has no relation with the National Electrical Annuity Plan. Now, the Earth has a much greater pull of gravity than the moon has, but when combined with, oh lets say the centrifugal force created by the spin of a very round beautiful Earth, you get the effects of the tide. So in a way, tides prove the Earth is round.

Sigh. the that is not what causes the tides. Its the 6.8% difference of the force of the moon on the near and far side of the earth that causes the tides. doesn't anyone read here?

Actually it's a combination of things. If we had no Moon we would still have tides because of the Sun. However it would be how how they described it, once a day at noon and not as impressive. They are getting the wrong impression though. They are interpreting it as a car falling off of a cliff and not going straight down so they don't believe in gravity. When in fact the cars speed while driving it off the cliff would change the equation of the problem and it's landing or rather crashing point? Well...it's point of impact. I left something out as well, the Moon orbits the Earth because the Earth has more mass. Therefore it has more gravity but it does not mean that the Moon doesn't affect the Earth. Or is it effect? Ahh whatever, you say magic pencil I say mechanical, in the end it does the same thing. Is that a picture of House?

Actually it's a combination of things. If we had no Moon we would still have tides because of the Sun. However it would be how how they described it, once a day at noon and not as impressive. They are getting the wrong impression though. They are interpreting it as a car falling off of a cliff and not going straight down so they don't believe in gravity. When in fact the cars speed while driving it off the cliff would change the equation of the problem and it's landing or rather crashing point?  Well...it's point of impact. I left something out as well, the Moon orbits the Earth because the Earth has more mass. Therefore it has more gravity but it does not mean that the Moon doesn't affect the Earth. Or is it effect? Ahh whatever, you say magic pencil I say mechanical, in the end it does the same thing. Is that a picture of House?

If we had no moon, the tides would be minuscule. And it would still be twice a day.
And yes it is

Moon and Sun work together to create our tides. It is also believed that Venus and Mars affect our tides as well however it would be on a very small scale and it would be covered up by slight and regular distrubances(did i spell that wrong? It says I did :/) in the ocean. Such as normal and everyday waves because the effects would be so small. Affects....Effects...? Oh well, very nice. Is the 7th season any good? I don't have cable.

Another factor that influences tides is weather.  It could be argued that wind driven waves breaking on a shore are a form of mini-tide.  Not to mention significant storm surges that can occur as large storms make landfall.

I was just reading on the net about tides. The source was St Petersburg University. The Prof says the sun's gravitational pull is greater than that of the moon. However according to RET the tides are driven mainly by the moon. It seems that there should a high tide at noon everyday if the Sun, has the greater gravitational pull.
 
My question is how does the moon move the tides more than the sun, if the sun's gravitational field is stronger?   The Prof said the moon moves the tides because it is closer. Something doesn't add up.........Also there is usually 2 high tides on earth per day, high on opposite sides of the earth.  Why not 1 high tide if gravity is causing them?
    thanks

http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/tides1.pdf

Tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, submoon and sun.

I would like to know what observational evidence there is for the existence of the submoon.

And why gravity is a completely bogus idea, yet the sun, moon and submoon exhibit the exact same phenomenon.

I would like to know what observational evidence there is for the existence of the submoon.

The observational evidence are the tides themselves.

Quote from: General Disarray on February 20, 2011, 06:39:28 PM

I would like to know what observational evidence there is for the existence of the submoon.

The observational evidence are the tides themselves.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because...

Quote from: General Disarray on February 20, 2011, 06:39:28 PM

I would like to know what observational evidence there is for the existence of the submoon.

The observational evidence are the tides themselves.

Hmm...I would classify that as faulty reasoning. I can do this as well: the observational evidence for giant periodically leaky cisterns in the heavens is rainfall.

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 06:57:45 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on February 20, 2011, 06:39:28 PM

I would like to know what observational evidence there is for the existence of the submoon.

The observational evidence are the tides themselves.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because...

Its not circular reasoning at all.

I believe the Submoon exists due to evidence of tides.  

For it to be circular reasoning it would have to have its premise in the proof.  This not the case.  

The premise is that there is a massive body underneath the earth that "orbits" or rather appears to orbit.  The evidence for this are tides.

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 06:57:45 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on February 20, 2011, 06:39:28 PM

I would like to know what observational evidence there is for the existence of the submoon.

The observational evidence are the tides themselves.

Hmm...I would classify that as faulty reasoning. I can do this as well: the observational evidence for giant periodically leaky cisterns in the heavens is rainfall.

That is evidence towards that premise, however it is weak evidence.  There is direct opposing evidence that makes a stronger case for weather.

I can just as easily call anything you'd like "faulty reasoning."  Faulty reasoning is a blanket term for all logical fallacies.  Unfortunately, I have not made one.

The reason why we have two tides on opposite ends of the Earth due to the moon's gravity is well known and understood. Gravity in the RE model explains all observations. FE requires gravity, UA, a submoon and celestial gears just to fill in the holes to explain tides. And you aren't even going to doubt this theory?

By the way, exactly how does the submoon create a second high tide when it's on the other end of the globe? Wouldn't it instead create a localized low tide?

Tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, submoon and sun.

What about spring and neap tides?

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 06:04:29 PM

Tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, submoon and sun.

What about spring and neap tides?

Without spring and neap tides we would have less evidence for the submoon.  I'm not sure what you are getting at.

The reason why we have two tides on opposite ends of the Earth due to the moon's gravity is well known and understood. Gravity in the RE model explains all observations. FE requires gravity, UA, a submoon and celestial gears just to fill in the holes to explain tides. And you aren't even going to doubt this theory?

By the way, exactly how does the submoon create a second high tide when it's on the other end of the globe? Wouldn't it instead create a localized low tide?

The submoon has nothing to do with UA or celestial gears.  The submoon is not on the other end of any globe.  I'm not sure I understand your question.

Of course the submoon is a theory.  It could just as easily be anything else that would cause an increase in attractive force.

Without spring and neap tides we would have less evidence for the submoon.  I'm not sure what you are getting at.

As I'm sure that you are aware, RET defines spring tides as when the gravitational influence of the sun and moon combine in order to cause extra high tides.  Likewise, neap tides are when the gravitational influence of the sun and moon partially cancel each other out resulting in less dramatic tides.  Both are illustrated below.

My question is this; what is the equivalent arrangement of sun, moon and sub-heavens in your model to explain these different tides?

Quote from: Puttah on February 20, 2011, 07:24:09 PM

The reason why we have two tides on opposite ends of the Earth due to the moon's gravity is well known and understood. Gravity in the RE model explains all observations. FE requires gravity, UA, a submoon and celestial gears just to fill in the holes to explain tides. And you aren't even going to doubt this theory?

By the way, exactly how does the submoon create a second high tide when it's on the other end of the globe? Wouldn't it instead create a localized low tide?

The submoon has nothing to do with UA or celestial gears. The submoon is not on the other end of any globe.  I'm not sure I understand your question.

Of course the submoon is a theory.  It could just as easily be anything else that would cause an increase in attractive force.

Exactly. Your first theory that the Earth is flat has such dire consequences that it needs to create other consequential theories to keep it alive. First you need UA to replace gravity, then you need celestial gears to replace gravity, then you need a submoon to replace... well... gravity.
RET, one theory, describes it all. FET, 4 theories, still has holes.

Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.

Notice how it says the moon causes the tides, it can only cause one tide on a flat Earth. You suggest that the sub-moon is the cause of the other tide, but the FAQ says that it is underneath the Earth, so it should be causing a local low tide, not a high tide. It is attracting downwards, not upwards.

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 08:08:41 PM

Without spring and neap tides we would have less evidence for the submoon.  I'm not sure what you are getting at.

As I'm sure that you are aware, RET defines spring tides as when the gravitational influence of the sun and moon combine in order to cause extra high tides.  Likewise, neap tides are when the gravitational influence of the sun and moon partially cancel each other out resulting in less dramatic tides.  Both are illustrated below.

Quote from: http://urbanherbwifery.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/lunar-musings/

My question is this; what is the equivalent arrangement of sun, moon and sub-heavens in your model to explain these different tides?

Ahh, I see now;  I don't have the time now to diagram this out.  Remind me (I will forget, as history shows us!)  You are pretty good about reminding me about things when I start talking about things.

However, its inherently hard to map without the use of an accurate map;  using the fractal map, the only accurate flat earth map, makes it even more difficult to display!

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 08:08:41 PM

Quote from: Puttah on February 20, 2011, 07:24:09 PM

The reason why we have two tides on opposite ends of the Earth due to the moon's gravity is well known and understood. Gravity in the RE model explains all observations. FE requires gravity, UA, a submoon and celestial gears just to fill in the holes to explain tides. And you aren't even going to doubt this theory?

By the way, exactly how does the submoon create a second high tide when it's on the other end of the globe? Wouldn't it instead create a localized low tide?

The submoon has nothing to do with UA or celestial gears. The submoon is not on the other end of any globe.  I'm not sure I understand your question.

Of course the submoon is a theory.  It could just as easily be anything else that would cause an increase in attractive force.

Exactly. Your first theory that the Earth is flat has such dire consequences that it needs to create other consequential theories to keep it alive. First you need UA to replace gravity, then you need celestial gears to replace gravity, then you need a submoon to replace... well... gravity.
RET, one theory, describes it all. FET, 4 theories, still has holes.

I don't need UA to replace gravity.  I don't need celestial gears to replace gravity.  The submoon uses gravity and replaces gravity?

Whaa?

Basically you are asking that the theories differ from RET?  Of course they do.  If nothing was replaced, they would be identical.

Quote from: FAQ

Q: "What about tides?"

A: The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provides tidal effects. Others believe that there is an object called the Sub-moon that sits underneath the Earth. The moon causes the tides, and the Sub-moon balances out the effect.

Notice how it says the moon causes the tides, it can only cause one tide on a flat Earth. You suggest that the sub-moon is the cause of the other tide, but the FAQ says that it is underneath the Earth, so it should be causing a local low tide, not a high tide. It is attracting downwards, not upwards.

No;  One moon can cause low and high tides.  Think about it.  If the tide is high somewhere, it must be low elsewhere.  A local low tide?  That doesn't even make sense.  Does gravitational pull destroy water now?  

Thats ok though, lets go ahead with your odd view.  Even ignoring this fundamental misunderstanding of water and gravity, also consider that "high" and "low" is relative.  Even if the moon somehow creates water to make high tides using gravity, the low tides elsewhere would clearly still exist as they would not be experiencing a high tide.

I don't need UA to replace gravity.  I don't need celestial gears to replace gravity.  The submoon uses gravity and replaces gravity?

Whaa?

Basically you are asking that the theories differ from RET?  Of course they do.  If nothing was replaced, they would be identical.

I see, you're not wavered whatsoever by the fact that FET requires many more leaps of faith.

No;  One moon can cause low and high tides.  Think about it.  If the tide is high somewhere, it must be low elsewhere.  A local low tide?  That doesn't even make sense.  Does gravitational pull destroy water now?  Even ignoring this fundamental misunderstanding of water and gravity, also consider that "high" and "low" is relative.

What? Of course the moon causes low and high tides. What I'm saying is that in the FLAT EARTH model it could only possibly create one localized high tide which is directly beneath the moon. RET explains why there is a second high tide on the opposite end of the Earth. FET needs a sub-moon for it to happen. What I'm saying is that if there was a body underneath the Earth travelling up with us due to UA, it would be attracting downwards, not upwards like the moon. This would cause a low tide that is relatively lower than the body of water on the rest of the Earth and even lower than the high tide directly underneath the moon. I thought this was a simple idea to swallow...

Ahh, I see now;  I don't have the time now to diagram this out.  Remind me (I will forget, as history shows us!)  You are pretty good about reminding me about things when I start talking about things.

However, its inherently hard to map without the use of an accurate map;  using the fractal map, the only accurate flat earth map, makes it even more difficult to display!

It would also be interesting to see how the gravitational influence of the sub-heavens can affect the upper surface of the FE.

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 09:54:49 PM

I don't need UA to replace gravity.  I don't need celestial gears to replace gravity.  The submoon uses gravity and replaces gravity?

Whaa?

Basically you are asking that the theories differ from RET?  Of course they do.  If nothing was replaced, they would be identical.

I see, you're not wavered whatsoever by the fact that FET requires many more leaps of faith.

If anything RE theory at its base philosophy and at every step embraces leaps of faith where zetetic science openly denies and damns it.

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 09:54:49 PM

No;  One moon can cause low and high tides.  Think about it.  If the tide is high somewhere, it must be low elsewhere.  A local low tide?  That doesn't even make sense.  Does gravitational pull destroy water now?  Even ignoring this fundamental misunderstanding of water and gravity, also consider that "high" and "low" is relative.

What? Of course the moon causes low and high tides. What I'm saying is that in the FLAT EARTH model it could only possibly create one localized high tide which is directly beneath the moon. RET explains why there is a second high tide on the opposite end of the Earth. FET needs a sub-moon for it to happen. What I'm saying is that if there was a body underneath the Earth travelling up with us due to UA, it would be attracting downwards, not upwards like the moon. This would cause a low tide that is relatively lower than the body of water on the rest of the Earth and even lower than the high tide directly underneath the moon. I thought this was a simple idea to swallow...

You are correct.  The submoon only works in the context of fractal geography.  This is a major mistake I have made;  the err of hastily applying some work of the past to areas it did not belong.  I was wrong.

However, in the context of fractal geography the moon affects two local areas of the earth at once.  As does the submoon.

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 09:54:49 PM

Ahh, I see now;  I don't have the time now to diagram this out.  Remind me (I will forget, as history shows us!)  You are pretty good about reminding me about things when I start talking about things.

However, its inherently hard to map without the use of an accurate map;  using the fractal map, the only accurate flat earth map, makes it even more difficult to display!

It would also be interesting to see how the gravitational influence of the sub-heavens can affect the upper surface of the FE.

Hrm? Not sure I follow?

Did anyone see that episode where the Mythbusters proved we went to the moon? You know about the reflective mirror that we put on the surface so you could measure it's position more accurately. Does this not prove anything about the Moon's size and relation with the Earth?

Did anyone see that episode where the Mythbusters proved we went to the moon? You know about the reflective mirror that we put on the surface so you could measure it's position more accurately. Does this not prove anything about the Moon's size and relation with the Earth?

Mythbusters proves nothing, its an entertainment show that does a pretty bad job at proving anything.

However, of course we went to the moon or something like it.  Not sure of the relevance this has to the thread however.