[Bored chemist]

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.

[lyner]

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.
 

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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.

[lyner]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[LeeE]

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.

[lyner]

Water is runny; rocks are stiff.

That's a bit technical, BC!

[Bored chemist]

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.

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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?

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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.

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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.

[Evie]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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.

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[LeeE]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[common_sense_seeker (OP)]

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.