Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Yusup Hizirov on 10/08/2018 13:07:24
-
Who is the author of the theory of tidal resonance and why is this theory not available on the Internet?
Encyclopedia https://www.1902encyclopedia.com/T/TID/tides.html
-
Who is the author of the theory of tidal resonance and why is this theory not available on the Internet?
Theoretical calculation of tide heights by Newton and others was an abject failure.
In practice, tide heights were calculated from observed amplitude and phase of the Fourier coefficients measured at each port, and these were of some limited use at other nearby ports.
The first serious attempt to measure tide heights was an early citizen science project organised by polymath William Whewell in 1836, involving simultaneous measurement of tide heights at many ports around the world.
He received a Royal Medal for this effort. He provided a new theory which we still use today (including amphidromic points - places with effectively no tide), but as for predicting tides at any given point on the coast, it too was a failure.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Whewell
Listen: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/william-whewell---coined-osmosis,-conductivity,-ion-and-scienti/9836858
1902 encyclopedia
I find it odd that the link is to an encyclopedia from 1902.
The true motion of tides across ocean basins (including locating all the amphidromic points) could not be determined until the deployment of ocean-scanning radar satellites, and this was well after 1902.
-
The resonance theory was incorporated into the dynamic theory which takes account of both harmonic and resonance effects and other effects caused by tide waves being deflected by continental masses. It is the sister theory to the equilibrium theory of tides which assumes an earth devoid of land masses an uses the rotation of the earth/moon system around its barycentre, gravity, and centrifugal force to calculate the tidal bulges in the absence of continents.. It takes account of the effect of the sun’s orbit, declination and elliptical orbit of the moon,
-
Who can give a reference to the theory of tidal resonance.
-
Who can give a reference to the theory of tidal resonance.
See answer #2. Read it and try to understand it, then you will be able to find numerous references.
PS Hint: don’t try looking in any 1902 encyclopaedias
-
Who can give a reference to the theory of tidal resonance.
Anyone with even the slightest competency in using the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_resonance
So the real question is "Why can't Yusup Hizirov give a reference to the theory of tidal resonance?".
What's the answer to that?
-
What's the answer to that?
This is not a difficult question for me. I know the Internet rather poorly. It is believed that in dictionaries and encyclopedias information is more reliable. It is believed that Wikipedia is written by anyone who wants to.
-
Yusup. Instead of spewing out new questions on this, go and open it up in New Theories.
It's very clear that you're not satisfied with peoples answers, that means that you already have a opinion.
Place that one in New Theories.
Or be banned
Because that is what I would do if I was a moderator here.
Looking at this sub forum it seems you fill it up Yusup, asking the same questions in various disguise,
That's not how the TNS is thought to work.
-
and Yusup. People like to think of them self as 'elite', that means that community projects as Wikipedia will be attacked, but Wikipedia is a community project expecting people to avoid bias, it's like open code in that effect, so there will be back reactions when something is found biased, and that then will be discussed on the 'talk side' of whatever 'Wikipedia Page' you are looking at. Those wanting to be that 'elite' complaining are usually not one of those people. They keep themselves away, and so become part of the problem instead of a solution. Meaning that they mostly don't dare to state what they think, where they should.
-
yor_on you beat me to it!
Yusup, yor_on is quite right that your preoccupation with one very specific topic and repeated apparent refusal to accept any of the answers provided make these posts good candidates for the New Theories section, which is devoted to members who would like to promote their own ideas and challenge "widely accepted" scientific ideas.
I had put off commenting on this because there were already other moderators involved, who had not raised a red flag yet, but your continued posting pattern has made me reevaluate that decision. I will move these threads into the New Theories section shortly. You are welcome to continue the discussion in these threads in the New Theories section, or even start new ones in the New Theories section, but having been warned now, I ask that you do not continue to start new threads related to your theory of tidal motions in other sections of the forum, which are reserved for discussions of generally accepted science. Also, please be careful when responding to threads in the "main" sections of the forum. If you appear to be inserting your own new theories into other threads outside of the New Theories section, members will become annoyed very quickly, and a mod may have to step in.
Thank you.
-
It is believed that in dictionaries and encyclopedias information is more reliable.
You say "It is believed"
Well who believes that?
Just you?
It is not believed by people who actually check.
It is believed that Wikipedia is written by anyone who wants to.
Yes, and it is corrected by anyone who wants to. So it usually ends up very reliable.
Did you not understand that?
-
I apologize for the mistakes I made on this polite forum.
In my topic, no one paid any attention to my questions, and I decided to put them in the astronomy section of physics cosmology.
Because they ask questions, but in new theories it is more convenient for me.
Thank you for understanding.
-
No worries Yusup, and, it's not always 'polite' :)
But you will find some good minds here.
And that is what any idea needs
-
In my topic, no one paid any attention to my questions, and I decided to put them in the astronomy section of physics cosmology.
That’s not true.
A number of us paid attention to your new theory posts and provided replies, in fact the same people who replied to you in the astronomy section.
You have to accept that there is a limit to how long we will go on trying to convince you. I think we have reached that limit and need to agree that you have your views and they don’t align with our view of current physics.