[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

Thanks Richard, unfortunately I didn't have access to the sites.

AL

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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.

[rich42]

Then try:
http://arxiv.org/ [nofollow]

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[Gabe2k2]

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 !

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

"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.

[lyner]

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?

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[lyner]

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.

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

 

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?

[BenV]

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?

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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.

[Rock A. Fellow]

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

[BenV]

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.

[lyner]

What are your academic achievements?

My willy's a lot bigger than yours and my dad can fight your dad too.

[lyner]

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.

[BenV]

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!

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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.

[lyner]

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.