0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Incidentally, when you have consulted these demigods and done your calculation, what are you going to do if it gives the wrong answer?After all we already know how much the land moves from things like GPS measurements.
Water is runny; rocks are stiff.
I don't think you know what a gravity gradient is. Could you just give me an idea of what you mean by it and include some numbers please?
CSS.I have made a profound observation about the viscoelastic properties of the crust; I believe it is sufficient to rather severely undermine your conjecture. I have pointed it out before but you seem not to have realised the importance it holds. Here it is again - sorry it's not in TeX.Water is runny; rocks are stiff.
I think that CSS has a bet on with a friend to see how long (s)he can keep his/her topics bumped-up in the forum listings. There's certainly no scientific merit in his/her postings and (s)he is not responding to questions posed, in an effort to resolve anything, by other forum members. Personally I'd like to see this thread closed - it has achieved nothing and is just a waste of life.
Sophie and BC, why don't you two give me your explanation of the Earth's ocean tides? I've just realised that Sophie the physics teacher still believes that "the Moon pulls the oceans to create the tides", just as he explains to his school children! What a joke.
Well, for good or ill, some new data will hopefully be available in the very near future. The European Space Agency is launching a probe to measure the earth's gravitational field very precisely. It is called the Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE), and should be launched this month (after several delays, actually). Perhaps this could help decide the matter or clear up some questions about the established tide model (which doesn't seem to have any garish gaps in it, as far as my limited knowledge can tell).Here's a couple links for those who want to learn more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910103709.htmhttp://www.esa.int/esaLP/LPgoce.html
Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 15/10/2008 14:52:55Sophie and BC, why don't you two give me your explanation of the Earth's ocean tides? I've just realised that Sophie the physics teacher still believes that "the Moon pulls the oceans to create the tides", just as he explains to his school children! What a joke.CSS, your memory fails you.The conventional (ie supported by evidence) view was explained in essence herehttp://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16745.msg193467#msg193467There's more herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TidesYou didn't seem to understand it then either.
I admit that I didn't know about the gravity gradient explanation of the tides at the beginning. That's what science is all about. Learning a new perspective on how to understand our world etc.BC, do you accept that I have a good theory which would be proved correct if it is found that the shape of the tidal bulge has an additional central bulge? If not (which I assume is the case), why can't you give a sensible response with reasoning against it?
This is a serious proposition. You haven't been able to come up with any rational argument against the theory
Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 16/10/2008 10:30:15I admit that I didn't know about the gravity gradient explanation of the tides at the beginning. That's what science is all about. Learning a new perspective on how to understand our world etc.BC, do you accept that I have a good theory which would be proved correct if it is found that the shape of the tidal bulge has an additional central bulge? If not (which I assume is the case), why can't you give a sensible response with reasoning against it? No I wouldn't because your "theory" fails to agree with experimental observation on other matters such as the places where the highest tides are the fact that the moon spins and so on.Most preposterous of all is the idea that gravity only affects the earth but ignores the water.If you are wrong in fact, I don't have to give a reason.If, for example, you told me that according to your theory my shoes must be brown, but in fact they are black then your theory is wrong. I don't have to give any explanation of why your theory is wrong and I don't have to offer a better theory.A single fact can kill a theory and your "theory" is dead.