Question about tides

Alright. I've read around the forums that tides are caused by a gentle seesaw movement of the earth,

Now, I'm going to to use a RE model...since it won't interfere with the point


Based on your explanation, it would look something like this when it tilts west



And Vice-versa when it tilts to the east.

It doesn't make sense to me, since high tides sometimes occur on two different cardinal sides of a country.

How does the earth seesaw? Does it seesaw in a circular motion?

If you're going to post something about tides on a flat earth, at least have the decency to use a flat earth map.

I understand what he means, the picture isn't needed to grasp the concept.

The tides are an indirect result of the gravitational pull from the moon. This has been proven. The tides coincide perfectly with the position of the moon. Look it up if you don't believe me.


Edit: I DON'T MEAN IN THE BIBLE

The picture is necessary to grasp the concept.  At the very least, the picture the O.P. has produced reveals his assumptions about the topology of the Flat Earth, which is not canonical.  He is treating N/S and E/W as linear directions, whereas in the FE model, E/W is circular.

It is obviously incorrect that the tides are produced by a simple "seesaw" effect, since opposite sides of the world ought to have the same tides.  I have proposed that the Earth's surface is rather vibrating in the second harmonic rather than the first; in this vibration, opposite radii of the Earth (north and south, east and west, northeast and southwest) always deviate from "level" by the same (signed) amount.

Vibrating? Are you seriously suggesting that the Earth "Vibrating" is LESS absurd than the idea of a round Earth?

Vibrating? Are you seriously suggesting that the Earth "Vibrating" undetectably, no less, is LESS absurd than the idea of a round Earth?

My goodness, what was I, and everybody involved in the study of seismic activity, thinking?

If the vibrations manifested themselves as the seismic activity we see, they would be predictable, and follow a set pattern. However they don't. I don't see how you can compare the behaviour of an entire planet to a vibrating string.

If the vibrations manifested themselves as the seismic activity we see, they would be predictable, and follow a set pattern. However they don't. I don't see how you can compare the behaviour of an entire planet to a vibrating string.

They're too low of a frequency, maybe?  Nobody's looking at them because vibrations that slow aren't interesting?  I don't know much about seismic analysis, but I know that the Earth does vibrate on a variety of scales.

You know this how, exactly?

I'm very interested to learn the source of all this information you're pissing. This elevates bullshit to an art form, I'm almost impressed.

The picture is necessary to grasp the concept.  At the very least, the picture the O.P. has produced reveals his assumptions about the topology of the Flat Earth, which is not canonical.  He is treating N/S and E/W as linear directions, whereas in the FE model, E/W is circular.

It is obviously incorrect that the tides are produced by a simple "seesaw" effect, since opposite sides of the world ought to have the same tides.  I have proposed that the Earth's surface is rather vibrating in the second harmonic rather than the first; in this vibration, opposite radii of the Earth (north and south, east and west, northeast and southwest) always deviate from "level" by the same (signed) amount.

All you need is the capacity to reason and this sentence:

It doesn't make sense to me, since high tides sometimes occur on two different cardinal sides of a country.

So the vibration are too low to be detectable, yet they constantly move all the water on earth? Unlikely.

You know this how, exactly?

I made it up?  Never pretended that I didn't?  I don't know what you're going on about.  I said I proposed it, not discovered it or proved it.

So the vibration are too low to be detectable, yet they constantly move all the water on earth? Unlikely.

I don't know what you mean by "low".  I've never used the adjective "low" to modify the noun "vibration" in this context.

The frequency of the vibration is low, in comparison to, say, that of a violin string.

Is any of this bullshit you post actually based on ANY scientific evidence whatsoever? or is it just another example of how it might be if you ignore the thousands of pages of scientific documentation.

Hell, forget scientific method, thats part of the government conspiracy.

Is any of this bullshit you post actually based on ANY scientific evidence whatsoever? or is it just another example of how it might be

Didn't I answer this question two posts ago?

if you ignore the thousands of pages of scientific documentation.

Hell, forget scientific method,

The scientific method is not "Look it up in a physics textbook."

thats part of the government conspiracy.

On the contrary!  I've met very few REers who can be said to employ it.  Government officials, almost never.

well duh, but the content of the physics textbook is all derived from experimental evidence, and scientific method. Your arguments all have the same basic formula, i.e "Thats not the way it is, its like this, anyone who tells you otherwise is lying"

That is not a valid argument, although at least you aren't talking complete jibberish. Oh wait.

well duh, but the content of the physics textbook is all derived from experimental evidence, and scientific method.

Your beloved physics texts are not always correct.  I have seen an undergrad  physics text state that the coriolis force can be seen in the way your sink drains.  I have also seen many physics texts say that a wing generates lift because the of the fact that the air that goes over the wing has to travel faster because it has further to go.

well duh, but the content of the physics textbook is all derived from experimental evidence, and scientific method.

What The Engineer said, plus, what experimental evidence?

Yeh, some physics textbooks have erroneous information. Who cares?
There are literally tens of thousands of physics textbooks, yet only a handful of books on this flat earth hypothesis, and you question the physics?

Out of interest, why study engineering if you don't believe half the material?

Erasmus, quit asking me for experimental evidence. I don't have the time to explain 500 years of science to you. Go and look it up and stop being so damn lazy.

the only "evidence" the FE folks have given us amounts to: "Thats not the way it is, this picture i drew in paint illustrates it, yet i'll be damned if i'm gonna prove it"

Yeh, some physics textbooks have erroneous information. Who cares?

You should, since it's the backbone of your argument.

I don't have the time to explain 500 years of science to you. Go and look it up and stop being so damn lazy.

well duh, but the content of the physics textbook is all derived from experimental evidence, and scientific method.

Out of interest, why study engineering if you don't believe half the material?

Which half don't I believe in?

I don't see how you can compare the behaviour of an entire planet to a vibrating string.

Why not?  I can model the vibration of a building during an earthquake, and it will be just like that of a violin string.

Erasmus, quit asking me for experimental evidence.

Boys and girls, an illustration of what not to say while applying the scientific method.

Since you're the expert here, can you explain some of the scientific evidence for a flat earth, as in experiments? I'm having a hard time finding it.

Yeh, some physics textbooks have erroneous information. Who cares?

What not to say when applying the scientific method.

There are literally tens of thousands of physics textbooks, yet only a handful of books on this flat earth hypothesis, and you question the physics?

What not to say when applying the scientific method.

Erasmus, quit asking me for experimental evidence. I don't have the time to explain 500 years of science to you. Go and look it up and stop being so damn lazy.

What not to say when applying the scientific method.

*edit*  This was, of course, in response to the now-edited-or-deleted

Why'd you only quote the bit that backed up your point?

[/i]

And what do you suppose you have achieved by repeating your previous post verbatim?

I asked you a question, and you ignored it.

Since you're the expert here, can you explain some of the scientific evidence for a flat earth, as in experiments? I'm having a hard time finding it.

The best place to look is in Rowbotham's book.  He gives over a dozen experiments that show that the surface of standing water is not curved over long distances.  Many threads on this forum discuss the details of the experiments.  A cursory search of such threads in which I have participated reveals Rowbotham's Data vs. Every Other Scientist's Data, Earth, and  Proofs-thread.

And what do you suppose you have achieved by repeating your previous post verbatim?

I asked you a question, and you ignored it.

Hum.  You accused me of cutting things out of my reply that didn't back up my point.  While I don't see what that's a bad thing for me to do, I decided to remake my point, cutting out only those sentences of yours that were totally unrelated to my point.

So would you say that Rowbotham's evidence is entirely conclusive? That it proves without a shadow of a doubt the flat nature of the earth?

So would you say that Rowbotham's evidence is entirely conclusive? That it proves without a shadow of a doubt the flat nature of the earth?

No.

That was an easy one.

So do you accept that the FE (or, in fact, either) model of the Earth may not be correct, and that this notion of a conspiracy may also be false?