Question for RE's Tides

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?
[/quote]

Check me if I'm wrong, but the gravitational influence of the sub-heavens contribute to tides in your model, correct? 

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 10:25:08 PM

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?

Check me if I'm wrong, but the gravitational influence of the sub-heavens contribute to tides in your model, correct?  
[/quote]
I'm confused as to how the gravitational pull of matter could not influence matter through other normal matter.

edit: and yes

Eh, I don't think my comment went up. Anyway it has to do with the size of the Moon considering that its said to be 32 miles in diameter on your side. So yes, I do believe my comment was relative being that the Moon is the biggest factor in our tides(RE).

Eh, I don't think my comment went up. Anyway it has to do with the size of the Moon considering that its said to be 32 miles in diameter on your side. So yes, I do believe my comment was relative being that the Moon is the biggest factor in our tides(RE).

I guess the moon to be roughly the same size in either model.  However, fair enough to other feers that don't hold that.

I'm confused as to how the gravitational pull of matter could not influence matter through other normal matter.

edit: and yes

Well, it's just that gravity tends to act towards the center of mass of an object.  Unfortunately, I'm not really sure what the implications would be on your model, seeing as an infinite plane does not really have a center of mass.

I'm just bringing up points that need to be examined. The Moon is kinda a big deal for the tides ya know. ^^

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 10:39:02 PM

I'm confused as to how the gravitational pull of matter could not influence matter through other normal matter.

edit: and yes

Well, it's just that gravity tends to act towards the center of mass of an object.  Unfortunately, I'm not really sure what the implications would be on your model, seeing as an infinite plane does not really have a center of mass.

From my understanding, thats a simplification model to ease in calculations.

Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2011, 10:53:24 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 10:39:02 PM

I'm confused as to how the gravitational pull of matter could not influence matter through other normal matter.

edit: and yes

Well, it's just that gravity tends to act towards the center of mass of an object.  Unfortunately, I'm not really sure what the implications would be on your model, seeing as an infinite plane does not really have a center of mass.

From my understanding, thats a simplification model to ease in calculations.

To a certain extent, yes.  It really depends on the shape and composition of the object.  Technically, center of mass and center of gravity are 2 different things, but are in the same location in uniform gravitational field.  Either way, however, gravity does tend to act towards a single point within an object.  In an infinite plane model, I would suspect that gravity would act towards a point in the midpoint of a line normal to the surface of the plane.  But I think that you are more up on Gauss's Law than I am, so I'll let you ponder that for a while.

Quote from: hoppy on February 16, 2011, 05:14:15 PM

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.

He was asking about RE, so their is no submoon.
And if the submoon and moon has gravity, what keeps them from crashing to earth?

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

Quote from: hoppy on February 16, 2011, 05:14:15 PM

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.

He was asking about RE, so their is no submoon

The RET explanation of the tides is kind of funny. For example, it is said that the sun is the cause of Solar Tides and Spring Tides, but the sun isn't overhead during the tides. The tides never happen at 12:00 noon. There are two tides a day, which happen in the morning and evenings.



If images like that were true then there should be a tide at 12:00 noon. There isn't.

The RET explanation of the tides is kind of funny. For example, it is said that the sun and moon are the cause of the sides, but the sun isn't overhead during the tides. The tides don't happen at 12:00 noon. They happen in he morning and evenings.

And tides don't happen when the moon is directly overhead either.  Go figure.

The tides in the oceans do not line up with the moon.

The oceans are resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours (depending on the Ocean). They are driven by tidal forces with a period of twelve hours. Whenever you drive a system near its resonant frequency you will find phase shifts between the driving force and the resulting motion. This is why the motion of the water of the oceans does not produce high tides when the moon is overhead. The gravity of the moon does create the tides. The exact time of the high tide depends on where you are along the edge of the Ocean.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2011, 11:33:21 PM

The RET explanation of the tides is kind of funny. For example, it is said that the sun and moon are the cause of the sides, but the sun isn't overhead during the tides. The tides don't happen at 12:00 noon. They happen in he morning and evenings.

And tides don't happen when the moon is directly overhead either.  Go figure.

Quote from: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/tides/tides.html

The tides in the oceans do not line up with the moon.

The oceans are resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours (depending on the Ocean). They are driven by tidal forces with a period of twelve hours. Whenever you drive a system near its resonant frequency you will find phase shifts between the driving force and the resulting motion. This is why the motion of the water of the oceans does not produce high tides when the moon is overhead. The gravity of the moon does create the tides. The exact time of the high tide depends on where you are along the edge of the Ocean.

Wait, did your source just say that the gravity of the moon doesn't create the tides? that's wrong

Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2011, 11:38:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2011, 11:33:21 PM

The RET explanation of the tides is kind of funny. For example, it is said that the sun and moon are the cause of the sides, but the sun isn't overhead during the tides. The tides don't happen at 12:00 noon. They happen in he morning and evenings.

And tides don't happen when the moon is directly overhead either.  Go figure.

Quote from: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/tides/tides.html

The tides in the oceans do not line up with the moon.

The oceans are resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours (depending on the Ocean). They are driven by tidal forces with a period of twelve hours. Whenever you drive a system near its resonant frequency you will find phase shifts between the driving force and the resulting motion. This is why the motion of the water of the oceans does not produce high tides when the moon is overhead. The gravity of the moon does create the tides. The exact time of the high tide depends on where you are along the edge of the Ocean.

Wait, did your source just say that the gravity of the moon doesn't create the tides? that's wrong

Read a little closer, if you will.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 21, 2011, 12:00:09 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2011, 11:38:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2011, 11:33:21 PM

The RET explanation of the tides is kind of funny. For example, it is said that the sun and moon are the cause of the sides, but the sun isn't overhead during the tides. The tides don't happen at 12:00 noon. They happen in he morning and evenings.

And tides don't happen when the moon is directly overhead either.  Go figure.

Quote from: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/tides/tides.html

The tides in the oceans do not line up with the moon.

The oceans are resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours (depending on the Ocean). They are driven by tidal forces with a period of twelve hours. Whenever you drive a system near its resonant frequency you will find phase shifts between the driving force and the resulting motion. This is why the motion of the water of the oceans does not produce high tides when the moon is overhead. The gravity of the moon does create the tides. The exact time of the high tide depends on where you are along the edge of the Ocean.

Wait, did your source just say that the gravity of the moon doesn't create the tides? that's wrong

Read a little closer, if you will.

oh I need to go to bed now.

I was expecting it to say "creates the tides", if it was a positive statement, and "doesn't create" if it is a  negative, so my brain inserted "n't". So is it saying that the cyclic nature of the tides causes it to be out of phase with the moon?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2011, 11:33:21 PM

The RET explanation of the tides is kind of funny. For example, it is said that the sun and moon are the cause of the sides, but the sun isn't overhead during the tides. The tides don't happen at 12:00 noon. They happen in he morning and evenings.

And tides don't happen when the moon is directly overhead either.  Go figure.

Quote from: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/tides/tides.html

The tides in the oceans do not line up with the moon.

The oceans are resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours (depending on the Ocean). They are driven by tidal forces with a period of twelve hours. Whenever you drive a system near its resonant frequency you will find phase shifts between the driving force and the resulting motion. This is why the motion of the water of the oceans does not produce high tides when the moon is overhead. The gravity of the moon does create the tides. The exact time of the high tide depends on where you are along the edge of the Ocean.

As I recall, even Newton himself said that the prediction of the tides was the least satisfactory portion of the Theory of Gravitation.

As I recall, even Newton himself said that the prediction of the tides was the least satisfactory portion of the Theory of Gravitation.

What makes you think that Newton is the final authority on gravity?  Is our understanding of gravity not allowed to grow beyond what Newton was able to figure out?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2011, 09:29:32 AM

As I recall, even Newton himself said that the prediction of the tides was the least satisfactory portion of the Theory of Gravitation.

What makes you think that Newton is the final authority on gravity?  Is our understanding of gravity not allowed to grow beyond what Newton was able to figure out?

  Oh that's right. I forgot that you are smarter than Newton was.

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2011, 01:17:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2011, 09:29:32 AM

As I recall, even Newton himself said that the prediction of the tides was the least satisfactory portion of the Theory of Gravitation.

What makes you think that Newton is the final authority on gravity?  Is our understanding of gravity not allowed to grow beyond what Newton was able to figure out?

  Oh that's right. I forgot that you are smarter than Newton was.

He's not saying that. He's merely saying that just because Newton "discovered" gravity, it doesn't mean he was right about everything. Our understanding of gravity as a species has grown beyond his through the intervening centuries.

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2011, 01:17:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2011, 09:29:32 AM

As I recall, even Newton himself said that the prediction of the tides was the least satisfactory portion of the Theory of Gravitation.

What makes you think that Newton is the final authority on gravity?  Is our understanding of gravity not allowed to grow beyond what Newton was able to figure out?

  Oh that's right. I forgot that you are smarter than Newton was.

lrn2Einstein.

Newton's theory of gravity has long since been reworked.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2011, 09:29:32 AM

As I recall, even Newton himself said that the prediction of the tides was the least satisfactory portion of the Theory of Gravitation.

What makes you think that Newton is the final authority on gravity?  Is our understanding of gravity not allowed to grow beyond what Newton was able to figure out?

The explanation that the tides are caused by the moon and the sun has not changed since the time of Newton.

It was a bad explanation then and it's a bad explanation today.

As I recall, even Newton himself said that the prediction of the tides was the least satisfactory portion of the Theory of Gravitation.

Paraphrasing your bible again? I read Rowbotham's thoughts concerning tides, too, but I have to say...his dismissal of RET's model seemed weak and his "arguments", while interesting, just didn't hold much water.

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2011, 01:17:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2011, 09:29:32 AM

As I recall, even Newton himself said that the prediction of the tides was the least satisfactory portion of the Theory of Gravitation.

What makes you think that Newton is the final authority on gravity?  Is our understanding of gravity not allowed to grow beyond what Newton was able to figure out?

The explanation that the tides are caused by the moon and the sun has not changed since the time of Newton.

It was a bad explanation then and it's a bad explanation today.

Its a bad explanation because it works?
but refraction is a good explanation because it doesn't.

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2011, 01:17:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2011, 09:29:32 AM

As I recall, even Newton himself said that the prediction of the tides was the least satisfactory portion of the Theory of Gravitation.

What makes you think that Newton is the final authority on gravity?  Is our understanding of gravity not allowed to grow beyond what Newton was able to figure out?

The explanation that the tides are caused by the moon and the sun has not changed since the time of Newton.

It was a bad explanation then and it's a bad explanation today.

Why is it a bad explanation?  Is it any worse an explanation than sub-heavens?

Its a bad explanation because it works?

It doesn't work. Please read this thread.

Why is it a bad explanation?

It's a bad explanation because neither the sun or the moon are overhead during the tides.

Is it any worse an explanation than sub-heavens?

I've never used the sub-heavens as an explanation. I follow the Zetetic Philosophy. I only hold empirical truths as valid, which is why I also don't use "bendy light" as an explanation for the sun's setting.

Quote from: Markjo

Why is it a bad explanation?

It's a bad explanation because neither the sun or the moon are overhead during the tides.

Yes, we know that already.  The reason for that is explained here:

The tides in the oceans do not line up with the moon.

The oceans are resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours (depending on the Ocean). They are driven by tidal forces with a period of twelve hours. Whenever you drive a system near its resonant frequency you will find phase shifts between the driving force and the resulting motion. This is why the motion of the water of the oceans does not produce high tides when the moon is overhead. The gravity of the moon does create the tides. The exact time of the high tide depends on where you are along the edge of the Ocean.

Please try to keep up, will you?

Quote

Is it any worse an explanation than sub-heavens?

I've never used the sub-heavens as an explanation. I'm a Zetetic. I only hold empirical truths as valid, which is why I also don't use "bendy light" as an explanation for the sun's setting.

Perhaps not, but other leading FET researchers have.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2011, 11:24:20 AM

Quote from: Markjo

Why is it a bad explanation?

It's a bad explanation because neither the sun or the moon are overhead during the tides.

Yes, we know that already.  The reason for that is explained here:

Quote from: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/tides/tides.html

The tides in the oceans do not line up with the moon.

The oceans are resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours (depending on the Ocean). They are driven by tidal forces with a period of twelve hours. Whenever you drive a system near its resonant frequency you will find phase shifts between the driving force and the resulting motion. This is why the motion of the water of the oceans does not produce high tides when the moon is overhead. The gravity of the moon does create the tides. The exact time of the high tide depends on where you are along the edge of the Ocean.

The oceans are "resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours"?

Sounds like a load of baloney to me.

The oceans are "resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours"?

Sounds like a load of baloney to me.

Do you have any evidence to refute that claim or are you just dismissing it because you don't understand the implications?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2011, 11:52:45 AM

The oceans are "resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours"?

Sounds like a load of baloney to me.

Do you have any evidence to refute that claim or are you just dismissing it because you don't understand the implications?

I'll admit it sounds like an interesting theory and I would like to know more. Are there any other sources for information for this?

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2011, 11:55:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2011, 11:52:45 AM

The oceans are "resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours"?

Sounds like a load of baloney to me.

Do you have any evidence to refute that claim or are you just dismissing it because you don't understand the implications?

I'll admit it sounds like an interesting theory and I would like to know more. Are there any other sources for information for this?

Google is your friend:
http://www.this-magic-sea.com/TIDE.HTM
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html#tide

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2011, 11:52:45 AM

The oceans are "resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours"?

Sounds like a load of baloney to me.

Do you have any evidence to refute that claim or are you just dismissing it because you don't understand the implications?

It just says that the oceans are oscillators without really describing why or how. How does it oscillate? Why does it take tens of hours to cycle?

If the author is making a claim it's his or her burden to describe and demonstrate it. It's not my responsibility to prove a negative.

Quote from: magicpencil88 on February 22, 2011, 10:01:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2011, 11:55:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 22, 2011, 11:52:45 AM

The oceans are "resonant oscillators with periods of tens of hours"?

Sounds like a load of baloney to me.

Do you have any evidence to refute that claim or are you just dismissing it because you don't understand the implications?

I'll admit it sounds like an interesting theory and I would like to know more. Are there any other sources for information for this?

Google is your friend:
http://www.this-magic-sea.com/TIDE.HTM
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html#tide

I couldn't find the word "oscillate," "oscillator," or "oscillators" on any of those pages.