Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: common_sense_seeker on 30/08/2008 10:33:45
-
Professor Brian Cox of CERN and TV fame has expressed his concern that a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity seems increasingly likely, especially if the results of the forthcoming LHC experiment turn out to be unexpected. Unbelievable as it may initially seem, after 25 years work, I am convinced that I have found the stumbling block of modern physics:
The OBVIOUS reason of how the moon causes the ocean tides is that it pulls on the Earth's inner core, creating a flexure of the lithosphere, rather than acting on the seawater directly itself. Hence Newton's law of universal gravitation must be wrong. Once you get the simple picture in your head there's no going back. You'll never look at the sea the same again.
The first person to really understand was Richard Madeley (!) who posted a tribute on his blog (6th March 2008) about my new scientific breakthrough. Also Professor Murty of the University of Ottawa is interested in the extension of the idea to account for a natural cause for global warming. I propose that convection currents in the Earth's mantle created by a giant comet near-miss of around 40,000 years ago gave rise to the last ice age, by reducing the amount of heat reaching the crust. The gradual re-warming of the oceans is inevitable due to the convection currents slowly subsiding.
-
AS far as I know Brian Cox's concern about our understanding of Gravity is to do with quantum gravity and, more fundamentally, explaing why gravity is so weak. I don't think he would take issue with the application of Newton's laws, being an extremely good approximation for normal usage i.e. not subatomic or very massive (like a neutron star say).
I note that Richard Madeley, not known for his expertise in Physics, was commenting on how gravity affects Vanessa Feltz's cleavage which is hardly an endorsement of a new theory, although amusing.
I would really like to know why you think the current explanation of the tides is wrong. I am prepared to believe that there are other effects making some contributions but I do not see anything erronious in the conventional view.
-
The OBVIOUS reason of how the moon causes the ocean tides is that it pulls on the Earth's inner core, creating a flexure of the lithosphere, rather than acting on the seawater directly itself. Hence Newton's law of universal gravitation must be wrong. Once you get the simple picture in your head there's no going back. You'll never look at the sea the same again.
Are you really suggesting that the Moon's gravity pulls only upon the Earth's core and not the rest of it, including the sea layer?
You also seem to be suggesting that the sea level rises because the land beneath it rises, but this wouldn't cause a tide because the sea level would remain the same with respect to the land beneath it. The whole thing about tides is that the sea level changes with respect to the land beneath it. This is probably best seen at the beach, where areas of land normally covered by sea when the tide is 'in' can be completely uncovered by sea when the tide is 'out'
-
Modern GPS technology can measure altitude very accurately. If the ground went up and down with the tides we would know about it. It doesn't, so the new "theory" is wrong.
-
Thought you might like to know that we have also received the OP on the Science Forums (http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1220090937/20)
and I emailed Dr Murty.
This is his reply:
Dear Sir, Yes, I am the same Murty. I did not say I support it, all I said was any new idea shoud be critically examined before either agreeing with it, or comletely dismissing it, or words to that effect.
I am not an expert on this topic. Regards,Tad murty
I think this guy has spammed everyone he can find!
-
Modern GPS technology can indeed measure altitude very accurately, and has measured the rise of the seabed to be around 1 meter in the presence of the moon. The bulge of the sea can be seen to precede that of the moon's motion, which can be explained by my theory. Also the highest tides are always found on the west coast of a continent compared to the east coast, which can also be explained by my theory. It takes a bit of time to get used to, I agree.
-
Water has mass and very little stiffness. The Earth's crust has mass (a density of only about ten times that of water) and very high stiffness. They will both be affected by the Moon's mass / gravitational field but I think that, it the Ocean floor moved up and down by 1m, the surface of the sea would be moving by at least hundreds of metres on account of the Young Modulus of rock compared with that of water.
How could Gravity be so 'selective'?
How come the rocks which are not covered by water don't move up and down just as much? The layer of seawater is, relative, very thin. Why would it make such a difference.
Actually, the whole of the Earth 'wobbles'on a monthly cycle because the Earth / Moon effectively orbit around their common centre of mass - which is inside the Earth but slightly on the Moon's side of the Earth's centre. You could say that this is a 'tidal' effect, I suppose, but there is very little actual distortion.
Any new theory would, surely, need to be consistent with observed facts. Isn't that 'common sense'?
-
The mountains have also been observed to rise in the presence of the moon. But apart from the ocean bulge, seafloor and mountains NOTHING ELSE is seen to be affected by the moon's gravitational influence i.e. why doesn't it get windier on a high tide? Why isn't the dust affected by the moon's pull?
The only logical answer is that the uber-condensed inner core of the moon has a dominant gravitational attraction with the uber-condensed inner core of the Earth.
Does anybody reading this topic have a scientific qualification or background to substantiate their remarks?
common_sense_seeker : BSc Astronomy with Computing, former computer modeller for the MoD, Defence Research Agency, Farnborough.
-
Incidentally, the reason why Newton's law of universal gravitation appears to work so well is that the size of the uber-condensed inner core of a planetesimal is proportional to it's total size. My explanation for the daily tides is simply better than that of Sir Isaac Newton.
-
Could you please give a link to evidence/research that the mountains rise due to lunar gravity?
Preferably something by an expert in the field and peer-reviewed. Thanks
-
Does anybody reading this topic have a scientific qualification or background to substantiate their remarks?
I think you'll find that several of us have first degrees, at least, plus institute memberships etc.. I could go on a bit about joint degrees and the resulting dilution in content.
I still question your idea of 'selective' gravity. Is there there some special mass at the centre of objects which only affects the special masses inside other objects?
1. How would you detect the effect on dust?
2. Do you have a link to published data about this crust movement?
3. What do you mean by the "presence of the Moon"? Isn't it always there?
4. If the crust were to be flexing as much as you imply then would we not be aware of huge amounts of volcanic activity due to heating through frictional forces? Incredibly slow movements during subduction are sufficient to melt the rocks and cause volcanoes. What is different about your model which stops this happening?
5. Were you not aware of atmospheric tides? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide) I wouldn't use Wikkers as a clinching argument but, if it's in there then it must be a well known phenomenon. Also, it would be more windy half way between high and low tide - when the rate of change is highest.
-
The question should be:
Why is the moon's gravity seemingly selective in that it only acts on seawater?
-
It affects seawater because it is a LIQUID and it can move easily. Hadn't you noticed? The crust is rather stuck in place!
Are you for real?
-
Post about predicting earthquakes based on lunar events, ocean shift and core distortion.
One possible reason is the stability of the crust in the area over a period of time has built up some resistance to the stress, due to the compacting of the sediment and rocks.
Having used a road drill for some time to break up concrete and road surfaces, the first impact does not cause any considerable damage, and the eventual crumbling of the concrete takes some considerable vibrational impacts before it crumbles, leaving a delay from when you start the hammer to when you actually break up the concrete.
Maybe it takes a while for the vibrations to weaken the surface before the pressure caused by the shift in the force to have an effect.
It is just something I have noticed over the years and would be very interested to see if it can be backed up by historical events.
In areas that are unstable, the event should happen soon after the planetary alignments take place, whereas in areas free from relatively recent disturbances in the crust should resist the vibrations for a longer period.
If we turn to Io again, the constant pulling and releasing of Jupiter’s massive gravitational force does indicate that this effect is a possibility, as it is believed that a tremendous amount of friction and heat is generated by the alignment of the forces of both the planet and the moons. And I would presume that the effects on this environment would be near instantaneous, if not constant.
Another possibility is that the sudden release of the molten core, along with the weight of the shift in the ocean mass has an effect similar to that of stretched elastic when it is released and that the constant movements of the core as it settles back to a more stable ball shape rather than a slight egg shape is responsible for the delay in the events at the crust.
Andrew
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=1929.25
-
Does anybody reading this topic have a scientific qualification or background to substantiate their remarks?
common_sense_seeker : BSc Astronomy with Computing, former computer modeller for the MoD, Defence Research Agency, Farnborough.
Are you claiming that the background associated with your name, in that quote above, actually applies to you?
-
The question should be:
Why is the moon's gravity seemingly selective in that it only acts on seawater?
It only seems that way to you.
The rest of us know that the effect of the moon's gravity isn't very big. Because the ocean is sloppy it can be moved about. The rocks are not nearly as soft so they only move a little.
Tidal movements of rock are, however, perfectly measurable and they sometimes upset, or have to be accounted for, in sensitive experiments.
I should perhaps explain that I'm totally AWEstruck by your resume. Unfortunately, modesty; the official secrets act; and the fact that nobody would give a toss, prevent me telling you for whom I work.
-
If the moon pulls the seawater to create the tides as you say, and the moon travels from east to west across the sky, why aren't the highest tides on the east coast of a continent? The maximum tidal range of 12 meters is always found on the west coast, which is counter-intuitive to the simple Newtonian model. My theory predicts an increase in the flexure of the crust on the west side of a continent due to the acceleration of the pressure wave after it travels under it and is then released from the weight and added stiffness of the continental mass which is resisting it.
-
Barack Obama's speech about a United States which is independent of foreign oil within 10 years was very uplifting. The core-centered theory of gravity predicts that a new uber-energy source will be available to humanity in the not-too-distant future. I believe that 'magnetic hill' and 'gravity hill' sites are the location of meteor core material which has become embedded in the Earth's crust. I propose that this miracle rock is similar to, or another name for, Bose-Einstein condensate. Futhermore, places such as the Oregon Vortex suggest that this uber-condensed material has a directional component. I therefore wish to state that my new theory predicts that:
GRAVITY IS DIRECTIONAL
-
I predict that the gravity anomaly of the Pioneer probes 10 & 11 being pursued by NASA can be explained by this new way of thinking. Newton's theory of gravity also doesn't account for why the moon is moving away from us.
-
"why aren't the highest tides on the east coast of a continent? "
They are.
From Wiki
"The Bay of Fundy (French: Baie de Fundy) is a bay on the Atlantic coast of North America, on the northeast end of the Gulf of Maine between the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, with a small portion touching the U.S. state of Maine. The Bay of Fundy is known for its high tidal range and the bay is contested as having the highest vertical tidal range in the world with Ungava Bay in northern Quebec and The Severn Estuary in the UK. The name "Fundy" is thought to date back to the 16th century when the Portuguese referred to the bay as "Rio Fundo" or "deep river".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungava_Bay
shows that it's on the East coast too.
The Severn's mouth is on the West coast so you are only wrong two times out of three.
-
This thread has just broken the bounds of loopyness. I'm out. And I don't mean BC's post.
-
I will just remind CommonSenseSeeker (BTW, was he in the Harry Potter books?) that if your theory does not agree with reality then it isn't reality that is wrong.
-
I'm certainly not quaking in my boots about Bored chemist's credentials. If you are so convinced that Newton's law of universal gravitation is 100% correct, why is the moon moving further away from us?? Sir Isaac Newton would have us believe that it would eventually coalesce with the Earth, just as my old physics teacher said all those years ago. WRONG.
-
And I think the reason the Severn has a high tidal range is a large amount of water being squeezed into quite a narrow space.
And doesn't the Thames have quite a high tide? I'm sure they said on Coast that it goes all the way up to Richmond......
and CCS, your answers to objections leap from one thing to another.....try and answer the question please?
-
Incidentally, the tide levels of NE Canada are an exception to the rule, due to the powerful Labrador Current flowing south east and the upcoming Gulf Stream flowing north.
-
I repeat the crucial question:
WHY IS THE MOON MOVING AWAY FROM THE EARTH??
-
From Wikipedia...
>Gravitational coupling between the Moon and the ocean bulge nearest the Moon affects its orbit. The Earth rotates on its axis in the very same direction, and roughly 27 times faster, than the Moon orbits the Earth. Thus, frictional coupling between the sea floors and ocean waters, as well as water’s inertia, drags the peak of the near-Moon tidal bulge slightly forward of the imaginary line connecting the centers of the Earth and Moon. From the Moon’s perspective, the center of mass of the near-Moon tidal bulge is perpetually slightly ahead of the point about which it is orbiting. Precisely the opposite effect occurs with the bulge farthest from the Moon; it lags behind the imaginary line. However it is 12,756 km farther away and has slightly less gravitational coupling to the Moon. Consequently, the Moon is constantly being gravitationally attracted forward in its orbit about the Earth. This gravitational coupling drains kinetic energy and angular momentum from the Earth’s rotation (see also, Day and Leap second). In turn, angular momentum is added to the Moon’s orbit, which lifts the Moon into a higher orbit with a longer period. The effect on the Moon’s orbital radius is a small one, just 0.10 ppb/year, but results in a measurable 3.82 cm annual increase in the Earth-Moon distance.[50] Cumulatively, this effect becomes ever more significant over time; since when astronauts first landed on the Moon approximately 39 years ago, it is now 1.49 metres farther away.
>
This seems a reasonable explanation to me. I have no doubt there are distortions to the earth's crust too but I have yet to see any evidence for abandoning our current understanding based on Newtonian mechanics. It is a very good approximation to GR for this sort of problem.
-
The Wiki expanation is completely wishy-washy and could have been written by anyone. Do you have a more convincing reference?
Just because the Earth is rotating doesn't mean that the Moon will increase it's angular momentum.
-
Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?
My explanation is that GRAVITY IS DIRECTIONAL and the matter is orientationally mixed at a quark level giving a net field of zero.
-
What?? Everyday objects do attract each other. It is just that G*m1*m2/r^2 is such a small value that it is very hard to measure. It has been done though. I think the earliest was in 1798. Here is a description of the experiment...
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf
-
The Wiki explanation is quite good without resorting to maths. Because the tidal bulge nearest the moon is slightly ahead of the moon, there is an additional gravitational vector from this bulge which is pulling the moon in the direction of the earth's rotation, which happens also to be the direction in which the moon is moving. The moon is being accelerated very slightly by this force and so increasing its orbital height. The force from the bulge on the other side of the earth will work in opposition but is an earth diameter further away. The net force is accelerating the moon.
-
"My explanation is that GRAVITY IS DIRECTIONAL and the matter is orientationally mixed at a quark level giving a net field of zero."
And here speaks a man who complains about wishy washy explanations. Concatenating as many big words as possible doesn't justify any theory.
There is plenty of evidence about the relative timings of the Ocean tides and the position of the Moon in its orbit. The lag is clearly there and explains the increase in the Moon's speed due to conservation of momentum. (No posh words - except for "momentum", which has been a concept for hundreds of years). Presumably common-sense acknowledges and understands the concepts of momentum and angular momentum? I wonder about his understanding of quarks, though.
-
I'm certainly not quaking in my boots about Bored chemist's credentials. If you are so convinced that Newton's law of universal gravitation is 100% correct, why is the moon moving further away from us?? Sir Isaac Newton would have us believe that it would eventually coalesce with the Earth, just as my old physics teacher said all those years ago. WRONG.
Well, The only thing I agree with is that nobody should be swayed by anyone's credentials.
Newton, as it happens was pretty much right about this (Einstein was closer, but the elativistic effects are tiny).
Your physics teacher was wrong. I take it you were not too bothered about his credentials.
The wiki explanation is perfectly clear to me. If you don't understand it that's your problem.
A theory (whether it's a wishy washy one, or one that strings random long words together) which predicts that the highest tides will be on the wrong side of the continent is wrong.
There's no nice way to dael with this the theory is dead. It will never be resurected.
Grieve for it briefly; then forget it.
BTW, Richmond is only a few metres above sea level.
-
BTW, Richmond is only a few metres above sea level.
I saw a drowned car on the slipway, once at high tide, which proves it.
-
common_sense_seeker: you are like someone who pretends to be blind so that you can feel clever because you have tricked people in to offering to help you cross the road.
-
I assume you all saw Prof Brain Cox last night on BBC 4 about the LHC start-up on 10th September. The Higgs Boson has a ZER0% chance of being found. I bet you're into a Higgs Field type scenario, aren't you? Just wait and see, that's all I'm saying.
My explanation is that gravity is more like Magnetism, or that Magnetism is just 'lumpy' gravity. The STRONG gravitational field emitted by the uber-condensed and aligned Earth's inner core only interacts weakly with everyday matter due it being of such low density. The Moon's uber-condensed and aligned inner core interacts very STRONGLY though, giving us planetary motion.
-
Are we just Troll-chasing here?
-
I can PROVE that the Earth is not inducing the Moon with angular momentum:
WHY THEN IS THE MOON NOT SPINNING?? [::)]
It is TRUE that the tides are higher on the west coast of a continent compared to the east when only considering the Earth-Moon system where ocean current effects due to temperature variation are ignored. I predict that the Hudson Bay gravitational anomaly is also an influential factor. I further predict that the GOCE satellite (launch 10th Sept) will detect that this anomaly is due to core material embedded in the crust from an ancient meteor impact event.
Cheers,
AL [8)]
-
Are we just Troll-chasing here?
One of the signs of troll infestation is spurious use of capitals in their writing, often mid-sentence, in the mistaken belief that it will aid comprehension. It is similar, and perhaps based upon the same mental processes, to the phenomena where some people think that speaking their own language more loudly will enable non-speaking foreigners to understand them.
-
I think that someone who says "WHY THEN IS THE MOON NOT SPINNING??" is an idiot, a troll or both.
The moon spins.
-
Well, anyone who starts a thread with the title "Gravity Problem Solved" has got to be on shakey ground, especially when they then start talking about something that isn't regarded as a problem at all.
-
I think that someone who says "WHY THEN IS THE MOON NOT SPINNING??" is an idiot, a troll or both.
The moon spins.
Perhaps such people need to seek some common sense.
-
What is the mechanism for your transfer of angular momentum? If it is by a particle, then it would have to have a large mass, would it not?
Do gravitons have mass?
-
You were talking about the concept being unexplained by Newtonian mechanics. It has been shown that it is well qualitatively explained by Newtonian mechanics to a good approximation (no huge masses or relativistic velocities) and the sizes of objects are such that you do not need to invoke quantum mechanics. Now you have jumped to quantum particle exchange issues. I think you must first explain why you think the simple Newtonian explanations are wrong before delving into gravitational waves and gravitons. This is simply moving the goalposts.
-
"Common_sense_seeker" If you insist on posting stuff like that please restrict it to just one thread.
Anyway the simple answer to "If it is by a particle, then it would have to have a large mass, would it not?"
is "no".
-
The Wiki explanation for 'graviton' states that it would have to be massless. That's the crucial point I'm trying to make and which you seem unable to comprehend.
-
graham.d, I'm simply replying to Brian Cox's TV programme 'What's Wrong With Gravity?'. He states quite clearly that if the LHC experiment, start-up tomorrow, shows that the Standard Model is incorrect, then it is extremely likely that there is a fundamental mis-understanding of the nature of gravity. I'm stating that I think I can see the problem and that it boils down to the fact that Newton's vision and subsequent equation of universal gravitation is wrong. It's crystal clear in my mind.
AL [8)]
-
We all know and agree that Newton's theory of Gravitation is wrong and I think most of us would agree that all the theories (about everything) are probably wrong and it just a matter of time before they are shown to be so. The question is "how wrong?" Newton's theory (obviously) does not take into account relativistic effects or quantum effects but has been shown to be a very good predictor of reality away from the extremes where these effects apply. Motions of planets, including the moon going around the earth, is well within the scope of using Newtonian mechanics and getting a reasonably accurate result. It falls down in a predictable way with the high gravitation of the sun acting on the close orbit of Mercury where it can be shown that General Relativity does a better job. GR accurately predicts gravitational lensing, and many other effects, which Newtonian mechanics would not, and all of the limits of applicability are reasonably predictable. Black Holes at their event horizons need to invoke quantum gravitational effects and the theory here starts to be debatable. And when it comes to unifying the theories into a coherent whole, there are several variations posed all of which are consistent with observations to date. The work with the LHC can eliminate a number of these theories. None of this is likely to change our calculations or reasoning about the moon's orbit around the earth.
You could argue that, even now, we could think of how gravity works in a number of ways. For example, the moon could be in a gravitational field or it could simply be following a geodesic. The results would come out the same to a high level of precision. It seems to me that your suggestions of how the moon affects tides is nothing at all to do with the subtleties of any unified theories, but is trying to qualitatively pose an alternative explanation for tides for which there is no justification or supporting evidence. Any new theory that may emerge as a result of experiments with the LHC will have to support existing observations and all of these observations to do with gravity (made so far) are wholly consistent (within there ranges of applicability) to Newtonian Theory of Gravitation or GR.
-
graham.d, I'm proposing that Newton's theory of gravity is totally wrong. He's missed out the fact that it has a directional component. What about the Pioneer probe gravity anomalies that NASA are wrestling with?
-
What do you mean by a "directional component"? Centres of masses attract (Newton), which is directional. It what sense do you mean it? And what has this got to do with the moon and the tides anyway? Your ideas here seem at odds with any theory. The Pioneer probe anomalies may have nothing whatever to do with gravity - there are many theories. As I said before, any new theory has to be compatible with measurements and as the existing theories are compatible (as far as planetary motion and many other effects are concerned), it means that any new theory has to be compatible with the older theories within the range of applicability.
-
graham.d, I believe that matter was created as spinning 'energy' from a point source until the big bang event occurred. I believe that this spinnning energy was only emitting gravity perpendicular to it's main axis of rotation. A bit like a spinning pencil that doesn't emit gravity out of either end of it's main axis. I don't expect you to agree of course.
AL [8)]
-
It seems that you are not aware that photons, which are massless, carry momentum.
Do you also not understand that, since it predicts the highest tides in the wrong places and a non-spinning moon, your theor is totally wrong?
Newton might not have taken account of relativity, but you are not taking account of reality. That's not science- it's trolling.
-
Bored chemist, you keep forgetting that ocean currents are a major influence on the location of Earth's highest tides. As a general rule, the highest tides ARE found on the west coasts.
I also have a solution for the wave/particle duality which you'll be delighted to know I haven't posted as a new thread yet.
AL [8)]
-
Dear common_sense_seeker,
Please understand that for your ideas to be taken seriously, you need to supply more than a series of buzzwords linked together. For any new theory proposed (not just by you), the ideas must be explained clearly and quantitatively, and they must also be consistent with observational results. Also please bear in mind that any post without these kind of testable predictions which start out saying "everyone else is wrong and I have come up with the theory of everything" is likely to be treated with scepticism at best and ridicule at worst. The place I work gets several letters a month detailing new universal theories, and almost all of them follow the same pattern we've seen in this thread. Most of them do get credit for attempting the maths, but have made a flawed assumption or two close to the start. New ideas are ALWAYS welcome, but they must be based in the scientific method!
Trying to pick holes in an established theory does not automatically make your alternative right, especially when you specifically say you are refusing to do the relevant maths. Maybe you are concerned that if you do, your theory will not agree with observations? If you want to pursue this, either post fully testable (or at least consistent) predictions of your new theory or, if you are concerned about your work being stolen, I would suggest writing it up as a paper and sending it to a journal for peer-review (such as MNRAS). I look forward to reading it!
Richard
-
Dear Richard, thanks for a sensible comment. I intend to pursue a computer simulation model route using geometry rather than mathematical formulae. Something akin to the Durham University model, which I think looks like the most unelegant answer to creation I've ever seen. In reality, the start of it all has got to be very simple. Even Einstein says that an initial simple mental picture is the key to success.
AL [8)]
-
...in which case, you are using maths, just through numerical methods. Which model are you referring to?
A couple of references to published papers would be much appreciated!
Richard
-
Obviously using some maths. I don't believe that supporters of the Standard Model have a simple mental picture of creation. Simplicity is the key. I know it's all words until I pull something professional out the bag. I have a wonderful visual solution for the cosmological expansion. Epiphany-inducing. You're right, I'm worried someone's going to pinch my ideas. I hoping some other hapless fool clicks with my thinking.
Chance in a billion so far I think.
AL [;D]
-
Which model are you referring to?
A couple of references to published papers would be much appreciated!
Richard
I confess that my knowledge of the Durham University work came solely from the TV. It was the standard model cobbled together to produce graphics which resembled the pictures from Hubble. I wasn't impressed and neither was Brian Cox if I remember correctly.
-
It doesn't matter how often you say "Bored chemist, you keep forgetting that ocean currents are a major influence on the location of Earth's highest tides. As a general rule, the highest tides ARE found on the west coasts.".
2 of the 3 highest are on the East.
Ignoring mathematics' importance in science will make you look odd.
Ignoring the facts makes you look a fool.
-
I would suggest a good literature search to find out if anything has been done previously in the area you want to explore. If I'm allowed to post links to external sites, here are a couple:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/preprint_service.html
You can search there for any published or preprinted paper in any area of physics/astronomy, so there should be something there relevant for you. At least it should give you some ideas of what has already been covered.
-
Thanks Richard, unfortunately I didn't have access to the sites.
AL
-
It doesn't matter how often you say "Bored chemist, you keep forgetting that ocean currents are a major influence on the location of Earth's highest tides. As a general rule, the highest tides ARE found on the west coasts.".
2 of the 3 highest are on the East.
Ignoring mathematics' importance in science will make you look odd.
Ignoring the facts makes you look a fool.
Bored chemist, it's starting to get infectious. Another circumstantial piece of evidence to support my claims is that the highest transport of nutrients from the seafloor towards the surface are also found on the west coasts. An example of this is off the west coast of South America. It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon.
-
Then try:
http://arxiv.org/
I think this is open to all, the previous preprint link should be too. For the papers published in journals I think you would need a subscription to that journal.
-
"It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon."
Or by any number of other less fancifull theories including the normal one.
This theory also has the advantage of fitting the rest of the data and not predicting a stationary moon or the highest tides in the wrong places. For those who like that sort of thing (ie most scientists) the usual theory has the helpful , if conventional, benefit of a basis in sound mathematics applied to measurable quantities.
-
OK do the moons gravitational effects effect the thickness of the atmosphere do we have to account for lunar gravity when modeling a weather system ! or when the tide is high is the atmosphere also thicker ! Free flowing water yeah obvious to me but even more free flowing gasses !
-
"It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon."
Or by any number of other less fancifull theories including the normal one.
Do you actually know what the conventional explanation is?? I'd be impressed if you do, or if you could even find out the answer.
-
The conventional explanation is based on the simple, basic idea of gravitational force being proportional to
m1m2/d2. The sum of the elements of all the masses of the Moon and Earth produce the mutual orbit of the two bodies, a wobble in the Earth's motion and the tidal bulges are (at least, qualitatively) predicted. You can do simple sums to show the way the effective gravity varies at different points around the Earth's surface due to the Moon's presence. This accounts for two bulges- one on the Moon side and one on the other side.
If you take a simplified Earth Moon system with a thin layer of water around a solid sphere where there is some 'damping' involved, it predicts a pair of bulges which sweep around the Earth, following the Moon. The depth of the bulges and the actual lag will depend upon actual details of the system. The 'real' system is too complicated to model accurately because the Oceans resonate and produce extra effects of phase shifts and standing waves. And, of course, the Sun's effect is very significant, too.
However, you don't need to involve the Earth's crust flexing in order to explain how the tides happen.
Why look for a a totally unverifiable explanation when a simple one does the job?
-
The conventional explanation is based on the simple, basic idea of
You are wrong, according to a lavish BBC science programme presented by Sir David Attenborough. The conventional explanation of why there is a copious amount of nutrient transport from the seabed on the west coast of south america is due to "very strong winds blowing from the east". This is a wishy-washy explanation that was given without any real reason of why this is so compared to the east coast for example.
I maintain that the added flexure of the lithosphere on the west coast is a better and more logical explanation.
-
"It is perfectly explained by the Earth tide accelerating from under the continent after it has been forced down whilst passing under it due to the east to west motion of the Moon."
Or by any number of other less fancifull theories including the normal one.
Do you actually know what the conventional explanation is?? I'd be impressed if you do, or if you could even find out the answer.
You would be impressed if I knew the conventional explanation?
It's in the WIKI article that someone posted in this thread.
It's interesting to note that mty abillity to read impresses you.
As for "I maintain that the added flexure of the lithosphere on the west coast is a better and more logical explanation." you aare obviously talking nonsense as this flexing is very small. You cannot call it a logical explanation because it doesn't make sense.
-
The conventional explanation is based on the simple, basic idea of
You are wrong, according to a lavish BBC science programme presented by Sir David Attenborough. The conventional explanation of why there is a copious amount of nutrient transport from the seabed on the west coast of south america is due to "very strong winds blowing from the east". This is a wishy-washy explanation that was given without any real reason of why this is so compared to the east coast for example.
I maintain that the added flexure of the lithosphere on the west coast is a better and more logical explanation.
This seems a complete red herring; do we now claim that wind is the main cause of tides as well as the lithosphere moving up and down? What has David Attenborough got to do with Physics? I thought he was a naturalist.
btw, I wonder whether you have ever done any sums to justify this new model of yours. Oh and, yes - I have done sums and so have many other people, in connection with the accepted model. The results tie in with experience - would / do yours? How many mm is the lithosphere supposed to be moving and how does this account for 5m of sea movement or more.
-
How many mm is the lithosphere supposed to be moving and how does this account for 5m of sea movement or more.
That's a good question for once. The exact data is difficult to get hold off of course, but I work on a rough estimate of around 0.2m rise in the seabed. It is the also the lateral movement of the seabed bulge which has an 'unlimited' amount of momentum when compared to that of the ocean. I'm using logical arguments to highlight my theory, rather than woolly mathematics. It's not that I can't do maths, I scored 98% in my first year at university and was awarded joint 'best student' for my discipline out of around 300+.
What are your academic achievements?
-
Now now. Sophie's academic achievements are not relevant to this discussion. What's important is that you have been asked a question, and instead of answering it you say you work on a "rough estimate", then claim you use logic instead of "wooly mathematics". If your logic is true, it will hold up against the maths. In fact, if your logic is true it will predict the maths. People here have asked you to mathematically prove your logic, yet you refuse.
And how can something have unlimited momentum?
-
And how can something have unlimited momentum?
The size and weight of the ocean is miniscule in comparison to the Moon. I don't need to do the maths, because it's just so obvious. My argument of the Moon pulling on the Earth's inner core is trying to appeal to the right-sided part of peoples brains. My scientific friends are just like you lot, they hit a blank wall straight away because their minds refuse to question Newton's fundamental law of gravitation. Other non-technical people, who are still very sucessful and intelligent, don't have the same problem and think that the idea makes a lot of sense. It's a comprehension using the whole of the mind, not just one based on calculations.
-
Hello all
With respect to common sense seeke,I would like to encourage any new theory that uses right brain thinking. I believe it is possible to use the subconscious along with our conscious mind to see pictures of how things work.
Using simplicity,as I believe c_s_s is asking us to do, I would like to know what your thoughts would be on this.
If we heat the center of a dense ball, we would get a reaction. One reaction is well known as expansion. If the ball was large(like the earth) expansion and contraction (heat/cool/expand/contract) would cause what ever covers the surface (water) to create waves?
This is simple yes and is shown in natural physics everyday.
Math is a nice tool that helps enplane what we see nature doing.
Good discussion thanks
-
And how can something have unlimited momentum?
The size and weight of the ocean is miniscule in comparison to the Moon. I don't need to do the maths, because it's just so obvious. My argument of the Moon pulling on the Earth's inner core is trying to appeal to the right-sided part of peoples brains. My scientific friends are just like you lot, they hit a blank wall straight away because their minds refuse to question Newton's fundamental law of gravitation. Other non-technical people, who are still very sucessful and intelligent, don't have the same problem and think that the idea makes a lot of sense.
Are you at all surprised to find that the people here, on this science forum, are like your scientific friends? The problem is that you are proposing a way to think about something, then claiming that it's true. I'm sure it's a nice logical way to think of it, but to prove it you will need some evidence. You will need to show how your idea predicts what happens, and the only way to do this convincingly is with the maths.
I can comprehend all sorts of things, but this does not make them true. In order to prove them scientifically, I will have to use scientific proof.
It's a comprehension using the whole of the mind, not just one based on calculations.
But it's not based at all on calculations - you have so far refused to give them.
-
What are your academic achievements?
My willy's a lot bigger than yours and my dad can fight your dad too.
-
The effect on the right brain would only work if we were all facing the same way!
c-s-s would, presumably insist on the Maths used to calculate his grocery or restaurant bill was correct and would probably not accept a random, "common sense" figure from the shopkeeper's or waiter's imagination.
If we are to disregard Maths then we might as well all go home and give up any idea of doing Science.
I can never understand why 'these' fanciful people are so selective about when they are prepared to accept conventional Science and when they will reject it. I think it's just attention seeking, most of the time.
-
What are your academic achievements?
My willy's a lot bigger than yours and my dad can fight your dad too.
I told you they weren't relevant!
-
I can never understand why 'these' fanciful people are so selective about when they are prepared to accept conventional Science and when they will reject it. I think it's just attention seeking, most of the time.
My argument is simply an answer to Brian Cox's TV programme "What's wrong with gravity", shown sometime earlier this year. He's the one who designed the LHC at CERN.
Incidentally the maths isn't worth doing at high school standard, since fluid dynamics are involved, which neither of us could do.
-
Now you can't say the size of my willy isn't relevant!!
I am sure that, if I were to talk to Brian Cox, the message would make perfect sense. He might be expected to know what he's talking about. He has a track record - as his sponsors would agree.
-
I am sure that, if I were to talk to Brian Cox, the message would make perfect sense. He might be expected to know what he's talking about. He has a track record - as his sponsors would agree.
Did you see his TV programme concerning the problem with gravity? Are you aware that there really is a possibility that Newton's fundamental law of gravitation could be wrong, which is acknowledged by the experts?
-
Sophie, sophie, sophie. How silly of me not to realise that you're a physics supply teacher. I genuinely have a lot of respect for you, I know how confident you have to be to face a class of modern day teenagers. I certainly couldn't do it. But do you have the same attitude and responses to children who challenge the long held orthodoxy of physics?
-
Of course Newton's Laws of Gravity are limited in their scope. That does not make them wrong. When you ask someone the time and they say "Quarter past two" you would not tell them they were 'wrong' if you then looked at your Rubidium Activated Caesium clock and you saw it was 14:14.33.3674663552.
You might be surprised, however, if, some time later, they told you it was Two o'clock.
Newton's laws describe the situation extremely well ( they don't contradict themselves either) but they don't EXPLAIN anything; they don't even pretend to. They are correct in sign and very accurate in magnitude in their prediction. Very few situations cannot be dealt with by using Newton. He fails under extreme conditions - high speeds, big masses, big and small distances. There have been other, 'better' models, since. Unlike your proposed ideas, however, these more advanced models 'tend to' Newton's Laws under normal conditions. They don't need to contradict the laws, they just modify them.
The nice thing about teaching kids is that, when you give them enough good reason to believe what you tell them - conventional evidence coupled with (usually) some simple maths - they accept it and, presumably, wait until they know more and can understand better - possibly to prove me wrong. They may have many faults but they seem recognise reasonable Science when they see it I never have to say "because I say so". I think they must realise that you have to be VERY GOOD and VERY RIGHT to challenge conventional wisdom. I often wonder where people get the arrogance to oppose the conventions of Science with so little substance to their new theories.
-
"Are you aware that there really is a possibility that Newton's fundamental law of gravitation could be wrong, which is acknowledged by the experts?!"
Yes, I understand that. There's a couple of problems. We don't know how to combine quantumn mechanics and gravity. We also suspect there might be a small correction to Einstein's work - the pioneer probe isn't quite where we expect it to be. The difference is about a ten-thousandth of a thousandth of a thousandth of the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
That's a tiny difference- small enough that we are not sure it is real.
We know that our understanding of gravity is good enough to fly spacecraft to the moon. It gives us things like the GPS system.
Just for a start, the GPS is good enough to show that the earth's surface simply does not move as much as you think.
Sorry- it's an ugly fact destroying a dumb "theory".
The tides are perfectly well explained by our theory of gravity.
You seem to be trying to make up some imaginary problem in order to justify a "theory".
there might be some tiny little problem and there's certainly a need for a better theory of quantumn gravity.
If you were doing anything like that you would be making a contribution here.
You are not.
You are banging on about nonsense.
Having qualifications dosn't make your theory right; getting the right answers does.
You have failed in any way to do this.
You got the tides' maxima wrong. You got the moon's spin wrong. You got the tidal range of the bedrock wrong.
Do you not understand that this means that your theory isn't right; it never was right; and it never can hope to be right?
-
No, BC, don't hold back - tell 'im straight!
-
Do you not understand that this means that your theory isn't right; it never was right; and it never can hope to be right?
Dear BC and Sophie, I hear you. I know that I will only be considered seriously if the results of the LHC experiment show that there really is a fundamental problem in our understanding of physics. A recent BBC4 TV programme had Brian Cox show that he thought there was only a 0.01% chance of not finding the Higgs particle. But another top scientist gave a 60% chance of not finding it. So it ISN'T a foregone conclusion. I'm not anti-science in the least. Hopefully the result will come in the next few months, or maybe it will take a lot longer than that? I don't know.
-
"I know that I will only be considered seriously if the results of the LHC experiment show that there really is a fundamental problem in our understanding of physics."
No, it will take more than that.
The LHC might show there's something wrong with our current models of the universe; but it won't show that your model is right unless
1 it moves the high tides,
2 it stops the moon spinning and
3 it makes the land bounce up and down
When those all happen come back and tell us you were right.
-
No, it will take more than that.
You're right on that score. I think Brian Cox is probably going to be the person to see the light. But that's just my opinion of course.
How long do you think it will take for Brian Cox to declare that the Higgs particle has been found?
-
Shortly after you ignore the question and change the subject I think.
-
Shortly after you ignore the question and change the subject I think.
How drole.
-
This new core-centered theory of gravity predicts a clean uber-energy source of the future found in the form of meteor core material embedded in the crust from earlier impact events. Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea.
Or would this just lead to an even bigger 'rat-race' for civilisation? Hopefully not.
-
" Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea."
Bollocks!
If I say I have a "theory" that says you can extract unlimited energy from old crisp packets it doesn't mean it's worth investigating; it means I'm a loony.
-
This new core-centered theory of gravity predicts a clean uber-energy source of the future found in the form of meteor core material embedded in the crust from earlier impact events. Even a possibility of such a new energy source should excite the speculation of this new idea.
Or would this just lead to an even bigger 'rat-race' for civilisation? Hopefully not.
Do you actually 'understand' what this new core-centred theory means?
Does gravity only work between certain parts of objects? Which bits?
You are surely aware that it is possible to measure the gravitational attracive force between two lumps of steel. Which bits of the balls are supplying the force?
-
It means that gravity has a directional component. I have deduced that the fundamental particle doesn't emit gravity particles in all directions.
Core-centered theory is the only way to explain the carbon-dated Siberian mammoths found frozen in standing positions within the permafrost. They are even located within the arctic circle, in near perfect condition with their meat being good enough to eat. I propose a giant comet near-miss pulled on the Earth's inner core around 40,000 years ago. Earthquakes liquified the ground and engulfed the mammoths. The entire landmass then rose by over 6km into the freezing air temperatures above.
Professor Hapgood has analysed the data in detail. I even propose that Siberia was lush with vegetation during the summer at least, necessary to support a population of mammoths in the first place. I further propose that the pull on the inner core created convection currents within the mantle which reduced the amount of heat reaching the crust, hence the start of an ice age.
Not only is it a new theory of gravity but also a new theory of the ice ages.
-
Let's forget about the mammoths - which sleep standing up in any case because their knees lock just like horses.
I ask again; do you (i.e. could you) explain this theory in such a way that you connect actual cause and effect? Your Science is even more woolly than the poor dead mammoths!
The best sign of someone who hasn't got a clue is that they constantly change the subject instead of pursuing the one in hand. No more red herrings please.
-
Let's forget about the mammoths - which sleep standing up in any case because their knees lock just like horses.
I ask again; do you (i.e. could you) explain this theory in such a way that you connect actual cause and effect? Your Science is even more woolly than the poor dead mammoths!
The best sign of someone who hasn't got a clue is that they constantly change the subject instead of pursuing the one in hand. No more red herrings please.
You're ignoring the scientific data concerning the carbon-dated Siberian mammoths yourself! A core-centered theory is the only viable option.
My theory of gravity has cause and effect just the same as the standard theory. I'm proposing that the size of the uber-condensed core of is proportional to the planetesimal's total size. Therfore the maths works out pretty much the same on planetary scales.
-
I suppose it would be too much to ask for some kind of formula - which could be applied to simple situations and return the correct answer?
Science is not based on arm waving.
-
You are surely aware that it is possible to measure the gravitational attracive force between two lumps of steel. Which bits of the balls are supplying the force?
If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.
Does that sound fair enough?
BTW Another forum discussion about the mammoth analysis is rife.
-
"If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.
Does that sound fair enough?"
OK,
If you look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
it shows you how to calculate the force acting on the two balls.
It also lets you calculate the forvce between the eath and the moon.
The answer explains planetary motion perfectly.
Since it works just fine, but your ideas predict that it wouldn't work, your ideas must be wrong.
Please stop wittering on about them.
-
If you get the data for the amount of force between these two balls of steel and their sizes, I will scale them up to the size of the Earth and Moon and show you that the result produced would not be enough to sustain planetary motion.
Don't just promise it - show us it- give us some actual NUMBERS! Or bow out gracefully.
ps YOU can get the data - School Physics tells you what it will be and the experiments verify it.
-
OK CSC, here are the numbers.
For two balls of steel (stop giggling at the back) each with a mass of 1 Kg and separated by a distance (between their centres) of 10 cm, the force is 6.67X10^-11 Newtons.
Now do what you said you would, or shut up.
-
I repeat the crucial question:
WHY IS THE MOON MOVING AWAY FROM THE EARTH??
To answer this question one must understand what happened to create the moon/effect that it has on this planet.. you might look into the history of the moon and of earth as celestial bodies. There has been talk relating the ancient stories of greek goddess Thea, the mother of the moon with the creation of our only satelite, along with giving the earth the tilt that allows for seasons and the properties that are vital in creating and sustaining life.
-
OK CSC, here are the numbers.
I was thinking more of the surface gravity of a steel ball. If this could be determined in the lab and given a specific value for a given size then this should be able to be scaled up to the size of the Earth to give 9.8m/s/s. I'm dubious to whether this could be achieved. Also the experiment should ideally be done away from any other possible influences i.e. in space, on a big a steel ball as possible. I also noted from the Wikipedia entry that the Cavendish experiment and results don't appear quite as clear cut as you may like to think.
Trying to convince people that there is a fundamental problem with gravity is never going to be easy. My main piece of evidence is the mammoth data provided by Charles Hapgood. If you could do me the honour of looking at Sciforums.com in the Astronomy section, 'Did Giant Comet Help Hobbits Reach Flores' to see a lively considered debate over this fascinating subject of a Core-Centered Theory of Gravity, then I will look further into the Cavendish experiment and the concept of big G.
Try and be a little open-minded about my claims for just a bit longer.
-
On sciforums.com someone has responded that the Sun's gravitational influence has been measured to be 0.1 grains (force) greater on a 150lb person at noon rather than at midnight. It is just that it is such a small amount that we can't notice it.
My reply is that why is the Sun's gravitational influence on 150lb of seawater so many more orders of magnitude greater than this? We can see the effect of the rise of the seawater by the Sun with our eyes.
-
I've just thought of the answer. The Earth's surface gravity of 9.8m/s/s is only for baryonic (or everyday) matter. For dark matter it is much greater. I am proposing that dark matter (DM) exists at the center of the Earth, the Moon and the stars. Therefore all the calculations of their weight using the Cavindish value of G, the universal constant of newtonian gravitation are underestimates. This is therefore a solution for the Missing Mass problem as well! It all fits.
-
Why are you wasting your time and everyone else's by bringing in all these red herrings to explain an effect which isn't there in the first place? Are you just an attention seeker?
You really need to establish some bona fide by showing us some calculations and figures. Quoting 'some bloke' is not likely to convince anyone.
I suggest that, in fact, you don't know enough of basic Physics to come to a conclusion one way or another.
-
I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is my life's work in one respect. I instinctively knew that someone in the history of science had made a mistake from a relatively early age. It's just something that's happened. It makes perfect sense to me. You can't please all of the people all of the time.
-
And you can't prove everything every time. But just a bit of it might earn some sympathy.
Instinct is a really poor criterion for judging Scientific Theories.
Wasn't it 'obvious to everyone' that things 'just fall down'?
-
I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is my life's work in one respect. I instinctively knew that someone in the history of science had made a mistake from a relatively early age. It's just something that's happened. It makes perfect sense to me. You can't please all of the people all of the time.
Then get a better life.
-
Dear BC and sophiecentaur, I've answered your criticisms with a good explanation. I don't expect you to acknowledge that of course.
A couple of references to justify my theory of a temporary land bridge between the American continent and Australasia due to a giant comet near-miss pulling on the Earth's inner core of dark matter around 40,000 B.P are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Siberian_American_Aborigines
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php
-
I've answered your criticisms with a good explanation.
Really? I can't recall seeing anything which could be classified as an explanation. Where are your model, your maths and your data?
I shan't bother reading links until you actually commit yourself to something more substantial than mere assurances.
-
I did read them and found they merely pose the question about how certain primitive peoples moved around the Earth.
There is even a perfectly reasonable suggestion that they traveled by BOAT. Well, there's a novel idea - much more attractive than massive distortion of the Earth's crust. After all, we've seen lots of boats and never seen the Lithosphere pounding up and down by more than a few cm for a few minutes (and that constitutes a very violent Quake).
I thought the main point of this thread (indeed, the TITLE) is about a 'new theory of gravity'.
-
Talking about the title, I'm still waiting to hear what evidence there is that shows that there is a problem with gravity. OK there's the "pioneer anomaly" but that's a tiny effect, It's hard to be certain that it's even real.
Before you solve a problem you have to identify it; so go on CSC- tell us what you think the problem is.
-
BC, see the BBC TV webpage devoted to Brain Cox's programme "What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?". He's the expert, and he says there is a problem.
sophie, there is no evidence of boat building expertise anything like this far back. It goes against all known scientific trends for this ability.
-
Is it likely that any evidence would remain of 'boats', used at that time? They would be more like rafts, in any case and would be much less likely to survive than other signs of civilisation.
And whilst we are talking about 'going against all known scientific trends'??????
Brian Cox's idea of 'something wrong with gravity represents a very low level of modification of present ideas. Relevant, of course and could well be true but it would not propose that the existing model is 'totally wrong'. I think he is in a better position to explain it than css, who seems to be more intent in proving the present system to be wrong than making an incremental step in the right direction.
Would Brian Cox go along with the Land Bridge idea, do you think?
-
CSC
The presense of people in places that they could only have reached by boat is evidence that they had boats.
Dr Cox' TV show talks about tiny changes to "gravity as we know it" ; things like the pioneer anomaly.
Did you not notice that I already accepted those?
Now please tell us what evidence you have for there being a problem with gravity.
-
BC and sophie, see "Does Earth/Moon Model Show Cavendish Is Wrong?" in the Physics section.
-
I'm currently working through the maths for my alternative idea of gravity. Dark Matter At The Center Of The Earth Theory. It would also be a solution of the Missing Mass Problem of cosmology.
-
Starting another thread doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to answer the question.
What's the evidence of a problem with gravity (in particular an problem thst your fanfifull notions solve).?
-
BC, it requires lateral thinking. If you're so negative you won't begin to understand what I'm on about. The main reason for thinking there's a problem with gravity is that a Theory Of Everything hasn't been achieved. This is despite the billions of cash poured into the search, the hundreds of thousands of science experts, and the ludicrously large amount of computing power and technology at humanity's disposal. Still everyone is confused. Also a lack of a mechanism for gravity is a tell-tell sign of ignorance.
What about the Earth's lower equitorial gravity? This is counter-intuitive, there's more mass due to the bulge! Yet another clue to Newton's law of gravitation being simply too basic, and that it is only applies to objects near the Sun's ecliptic plane which are baryonic in structure.
-
What about the Earth's lower equitorial gravity?
Did you know the Earth rotates? Are you aware of the forces involved with circular motion?
If you are going to replace conventional Science with some stuff of your own, the least you could do is to learn about the official stuff. The measured difference in weight at different points on Earth is perfectly explained by Newton's laws of Gravity and Motion. Try the sums - they work!
Are there any sums to support you theory?
-
I notice that you say BC doesn't understand what you are talkikng about.
Do you understand? You certainly don't appear to.
-
Css, before you try lateral thinking, try the ordinary version.
Spending cash doesn't produce a theory- there is a deffinition that says a mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. Perhaps we need better coffee in physics departments.
One thing that we have a plentiful supply of is speculative nonsense like yours.
As for your comment the "Still everyone is confused.", speak for yourself.
-
The lack of a coeherent Theory of Everything is proof enough that my theory should be given a chance. The reply by Professor Murty of the University Of Ottawa said just as much. Ii will never happen with you two, I know. I've not that put out by the situation. The maths proof is coming along just fine. I plan to publish a professional paper in the Nexus, if I have to.
-
"The lack of a coeherent Theory of Everything is proof enough that my theory should be given a chance. "
Bollocks.
Since your theory is demonstrably wrong (in predicting where the high tidees are for example) it doesn't deserve anything more than to be laughed at.
Also, since you don't even understand the current theroty at school level it's not realistic to think that you will improve it.
-
I plan to publish a professional paper in the Nexus, if I have to.
That would merely prove that Nexus are prepared to publish 'anything'.
Possibly Prof Murty was just humouring you. Did he catch a glimpse of the wild gleam in your eye?
-
Who or what are "Nexus" anyway?
-
Who or what are "Nexus" anyway?
A magazine that covers alternate issues which can be against the mainstream. When I have read it in the past, most were of no interest to me, but occassionally there was a good article.
BTW my theory of matter at the center of Earth having a lower entropy and so a higher gravitational force of attraction would increase the effect of a gravity gradient. This is the effect which creates the ocean tides by a flexure of the lithosphere. If my theory is correct then the tidal force calculated due to the Sun´s gravity gradient should be too low to actually create the observed flexure. I´m currently working on the mathematical calculation from the bottom up, assuming nothing. The discovery of this discrepancy would help in my explanation of how a giant comet´s gravity could raise the seafloor by over 6 km. This is because the effect of a gravity gradient is greatly increased by small bodies with a high gravitational field being at close range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
My theory would also increase the gravity gradient effect which produces tidal heating. The internal heating of Jupiter´s moon Io is currently not very well understood and something of an enigma. Yet another clue to the validity of my new idea? I´m convinced it is.
-
Validity?
Do you realise that, not only do you need to justify your new idea but you have to show that the normal gravitational laws actually DON'T apply. That would be very hard in the face of all the perfectly good evidence in their favour.
-
For a start, "alternate" is a verb, not an adjective.
Anyway, perhaps you could oblige us by pointing out the web address of this publisher. I'm sure we would all like to judge for ourselves (thne laugh)
-
Validity?
Do you realise that, not only do you need to justify your new idea but you have to show that the normal gravitational laws actually DON'T apply. That would be very hard in the face of all the perfectly good evidence in their favour.
I´ve found some data and calculated that the pressure needed to flex the crust by 0.2m due to the load of an ice sheet is 727kg/m/m. The calculation to find the internal pressure due to the Sun is a lot trickier. I´m assuming that this pressure will be a lot less than the figure above, which will lend credibility to my theory. I´m still working on the maths.
-
What do you mean by "the internal pressure due to the Sun "?
-
What do you mean by "the internal pressure due to the Sun "?
You really need to read up on the current theory of ocean tides. It´s the pressure produced from the gravity gradient of the Sun. Simple in concept, the side facing the Sun is slightly closer and so therefore experiences a greater force of gravitational attraction. I´m saying that this effect is too small to produce the flexure of the lithosphere of around 0.2m. The pressure would have to be around 727kg/m/m.
-
Really, BC, you should read more of the fringe Science press. Don't you keep up with 'current theory'? I regularly read Nexus, Viz and the Beano so I am well ahead on this new stuff.
It strikes me that the 'new theory doesn't seem to have an explanation for the fact that we have TWO HIGH TIDES every day.
Gosh darn - we may have to go back to the old theory after all.
-
Really, BC, you should read more of the fringe Science press. Don't you keep up with 'current theory'? I regularly read Nexus, Viz and the Beano so I am well ahead on this new stuff.
It strikes me that the 'new theory doesn't seem to have an explanation for the fact that we have TWO HIGH TIDES every day.
Gosh darn - we may have to go back to the old theory after all.
It´s just the same as the current theory, of course. An effect due to the gravity gradient produces a bulge on either side of the Earth. Hence two tides a day.
-
due to the gravity gradient
Would this be from the Sun or the Moon?
Do rotational forces play a part?
Which bits of the conventional gravitational forces are you claiming not to exist? How massive does an object need to be to have gravity?
These are but a few of the questions which you haven't fully addressed yet.
I would advise you to prepare a much more complete theory about this before you go public. Wouldn't that make 'common sense'?
"Fools rush in", as they say.
-
due to the gravity gradient
Would this be from the Sun or the Moon?
Do rotational forces play a part?
Which bits of the conventional gravitational forces are you claiming not to exist? How massive does an object need to be to have gravity?
These are but a few of the questions which you haven't fully addressed yet.
I would advise you to prepare a much more complete theory about this before you go public. Wouldn't that make 'common sense'?
"Fools rush in", as they say.
I´m just considering a simple Sun-Earth system without rotation. I wish to calculate the pressure on the crust induced by the Sun´s gravity gradient. It´s very simple in concept.
-
I´m just considering a simple Sun-Earth system without rotation.
Isn't some sort of ORBIT involved?
And, as the Moon contributes most of the tidal effect, perhaps your theory should include that?
Your Science is somewhat lacking, I fear.
(However subtle you like to think it may be.)
-
"It´s just the same as the current theory, of course."
Then shut up about it.
"It´s very simple in concept. "
I think it was Einstein who said
"Theories should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
-
No orbit is needed because tidal forces are the same thing as spegettification in principle. Although the surface of the Earth is moving at 465m/s, it's effects can be ignored due to Einstein's inertial frame of reference .i.e it isn't accelerating. The science is coming along just fine. It's getting technical now with mathematical equations using TeX in another forum where people are just a notch higher in their ability than you guys.
Funnily enough I will be comparing this now calculated force with the force producing the equatorial bulge. This will take into account the viscoelasticity of the mantle for a more accurate comparison and give an additional figure to the ice sheet deformation calculation. Coming along just fine.
-
It would be a high school level question to ask how long, if there were no orbit, it would take for the earth to fall into the sun.
CSS is under the delusion that this doesn't matter.
(BTW, rotating frames of reference are accelerating; please learn some physics)
And this "It's getting technical now with mathematical equations using TeX in another forum where people are just a notch higher in their ability than you guys." is too funny to take as an insult.
I could use a laugh and perhaps an education; please tell me where I can find these grandmasters of tex.
(I tried serching for them, but the results didn't seem helpful; they all thought I couldn't spell latex.)
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.
-
Why should using a lame notation be something to be proud of? Tex is perhaps the only way of getting things across when all you have is the medium of text. There is little else to recommend it.
Conventional Maths notation is a lot more useful for showing patterns and doing manipulations. Why do you think it was developed?
If you really want to impress everyone just come up with some real maths which 'proves' your theory. That should be very straightforward for someone who has mastered Tex.
-
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.
You're still missing the point, as usual. The simplest way for my theory to have credibiliy is by showing that the resistive viscoelastic force due to the mantle or outer core has been underestimated. This would then mean that the tidal force calculated due to the gravity gradient of both the Sun and Moon is actually lower than needed to produce the observed deformation of the crust. Hence the idea of a core which is more gravitationally attractive than baryonic matter becomes viable, since this would increase the effect of a gravity gradient, which is necessary to overcome the viscoelastic forces.
-
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?
BTW, that wasn't a 'typo'; it was incorrect and confusing grammar. There is a difference.
Apart from introducing the 'new word' "tex", what do you know of it? I notice you have no reply to my comments.
-
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.
-
Water is runny; rocks are stiff.
That's a bit technical, BC!
-
That was the idea.
Anyway, if CSS can't provide a link then I aggree that this thread should be put out of its misery.
-
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?
A gravity gradient is the effect which gives us the ocean tides. It is simply due to the side of the Earth which faces the Sun being in a slightly stronger gravitational field compared to the side away from the Sun. This is because (as we all know) the gravitational field strength of the Sun falls of by 1/r(sq). The wikipedia explanation is very good, the link of which I have already posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
-
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.
This just shows your ignorance of the subject. All matter can be flexed, it's just the amount of pressure required that is a factor. Stating the obvious bears no hindrance to my theory what-so-ever. Can you explain why you think your comment has any relevance?
-
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.
This is a serious proposition. You haven't been able to come up with any rational argument against the theory. I have even thought of a prediction and proof which would validate my arguments:
The current standard theory of the ocean tides would predict that the whole planet bulges evenly due to the gravity gradients of the Sun and the Moon. The Core-Centered Theory of Gravity (CCTG) predicts that there is an additional central bulge on top of the global bulge due to the extra pressure caused by the exotic inner core. Modern satelite technology should be able to determine the shape of the bulges at Spring Tide due to the Sun and Moon. I am convinced that an additional central bulge would be detected. I am currently looknig for any existing data for the shape of the Earth Tide bulges.
-
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.htm
http://www.esa.int/esaLP/LPgoce.html
-
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.
CSS, your memory fails you.
The conventional (ie supported by evidence) view was explained in essence here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16745.msg193467#msg193467
There's more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides
You didn't seem to understand it then either.
-
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.htm
http://www.esa.int/esaLP/LPgoce.html
Thanks for that. Yes, I was aware of the GOCE satellite mission. Hopefully the question of gravity anomalies will become a hot topic of debate. I'm convinced that the results will correlate with my ideas. But then I would of course.
-
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.
CSS, your memory fails you.
The conventional (ie supported by evidence) view was explained in essence here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16745.msg193467#msg193467
There's more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides
You didn't seem to understand it then either.
The first link you give is about the Earth 'giving' angular momentum to the Moon via Tidal Braking. A different subject. I'm not convinced by it, especially since there isn't an obvious mechanism in my mind.
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?
-
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?
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.
-
Excuse me for not checking on your postings to this thread regularly but:
This is a serious proposition. You haven't been able to come up with any rational argument against the theory
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
choke, splutter,
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Just in case you haven't got it - that's ridicule.
If you are as smart as you seem to believe you are, and all indications to date are to the contrary, you'll have to do much better than you have done so far.
You have, however, managed to get some quite intelligent people to waste a not insignificant amount of their time on you, which I suppose is an achievement of sorts, although not one I would personally be proud of.
-
Re
"You have, however, managed to get some quite intelligent people to waste a not insignificant amount of their time on you, which I suppose is an achievement of sorts, although not one I would personally be proud of."
It's a bit like clearing the neighbour's cat's crap off the lawn. It takes time. It's not particulalry enjoyable, but if you don't do it the place fills up with crap.
His achievement can be compared to a that of dumb animal with an upset stomach.
-
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?
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.
BC said: "Most preposterous of all is the idea that gravity only affects the earth but ignores the water."
This shows that you don't have an understanding of the tides. You don't understand the explanation of gravity gradients. You haven't read the easy-to-read Wikipedia entries on the subject. I doubt whether you are involved in science at a professional level at all. If you do work at the place which you previously alluded to, then that is simply a reflection of how out-of-date that institution really is. Shame on you.
-
Okay everyone, is the rest this thread just going to consist of flaming one another? I think it may have run it's course, so will be locking it soon unless anyone has anything new to add. I'll give it till this weekend.
-
Early on in the thread I was quite reactionary to the negative comments, but now I have realised that the two main protagonists don't understand the basic explanation of the tides even when given the Wikipedia link. That's the problem. I've already admitted that I was ignorant of the full scientific explanation at the beginning of all this. Perhaps they should do the same?
-
Would this be the wikipedia entry you described as
completely wishy-washy and could have been written by anyone
?
Edit - and does your theory still predict a non-spinning moon? If so, it will need some adapting...
Edit again - People asked you for a link to the forum where you are "using TeX in another forum where people are just a notch higher in their ability than you guys." Please supply the link or they, and I, will be forced to think that was just a lie, and that you are wasting people's time.
-
Okay then. No-one has anything constructive to add, and CSS has not posted the requested link to those terribly bright people discussing his idea in TeX on another forum, so we are forced to conclude that it's not really there. Shame.
Thread locked.