0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Which model are you referring to?A couple of references to published papers would be much appreciated!Richard
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.
"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.
The conventional explanation is based on the simple, basic idea of
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/09/2008 19:41:15"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.
Quote from: sophiecentaur on 13/09/2008 00:13:06The 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.
How many mm is the lithosphere supposed to be moving and how does this account for 5m of sea movement or more.
And how can something have unlimited momentum?
Quote from: BenV on 16/09/2008 10:35:16And 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.
What are your academic achievements?
QuoteWhat are your academic achievements?My willy's a lot bigger than yours and my dad can fight your dad too.
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.
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.
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, it will take more than that.
Shortly after you ignore the question and change the subject I think.
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.
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 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.