0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It’s a damned shame that no one is taking this seriously.
Earth tide is the sub-meter motion of the Earth of about 12 hours or longer caused by Moon and Sun gravitation, also called body tide which is the largest contribution globally. The largest body tide contribution is from the semidiurnal constituents, but there are also significant diurnal constituents. There also semi-annual and fortnightly contributions due to the axial tilt. The use of the word tide is by analogy, and although the forcing is quite similar, the responses are quite different.Earth tide effects Volcanologists use the regular, predictable Earth tide movements to calibrate and test sensitive volcano deformation monitoring instruments. The tides may also trigger volcanic events.
If the molten core changes from a sphere to an egg-shape and back again in response to lunar phases, it should produce a measurable wobble in the earth's rotation. I'll plead ignorance, but do you know if there is a measurable change due to changes in the core ?
Nutation is a slight irregular motion in the axis of rotation of a largely axially symmetric object, such as a gyroscope or a planet...The nutation of a planet happens because the tidal forces which cause the precession of the equinoxes vary over time so that the speed of precession is not constant. It was discovered in 1728 by the English astronomer James Bradley ... simple rigid-body mechanics do not give the best theory; one has to account for deformations of the solid Earth.
Strong Earth Tides Can Trigger Earthquakes, UCLA Scientists ReportScienceDaily (Oct. 22, 2004) — Earthquakes can be triggered by the Earth's tides, UCLA scientists confirmed Oct. 21 in Science Express, the online journal of Science. Earth tides are produced by the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun on the Earth, causing the ocean's waters to slosh, which in turn* raise and lower stress on faults roughly twice a day. Scientists have wondered about the effects of Earth tides for more than 100 years. (The research will be published in the print version of Science in November.)
[* this is somewhat misleading; Earth tides (Body tides) would occur even if there was no water on Earth, because of Earth's liquid interior]
I have learned in this post more of what I have in high school...  all these arguments open my mind. .I do not know if this correct; matter never disappears it just transforms. but if it is correct how is the universe going to freeze  , because if matter is converted by black holes to radiation, the radiation by diffusion will be move out to other places; ie Jupiter or the Earth adding up to the mass of these planets, and if these planets are eat by black holes would not others celestial bodies capture the radiation from their disintegration. I am kind of confuse now, would not that be redundant and never finish 
Apart from the black holes existing, this is precisely my argument. There is no end or beginning just a constantly evolving universe. etc . . .
Hi ErickejahApart from the black holes existing, this is precisely my argument. There is no end or beginning just a constantly evolving universe. As you state matter cannot be destroyed so must be converted, diffused across the universe and married up to another mass continually repeating the process forever. But rather than a black hole absorbing matter, consider a sun as the ultimate in planetary evolution. A mass so great after attracting matter that it becomes unstable and decay’s over countless years dispersing matter to other planets causing them to increase and become unstable to the point where they too become suns. It is a beautifully simple theory that encompasses everything into planetary growth and decay, which during the cycle involves the correct gravitational force to produce water from atoms and breath life into a desolate stable environment. But for how long?Jupiter holds some important clues!Quote from: erickejah on 23/11/2008 02:24:38I have learned in this post more of what I have in high school...  all these arguments open my mind. .I do not know if this correct; matter never disappears it just transforms. but if it is correct how is the universe going to freeze  , because if matter is converted by black holes to radiation, the radiation by diffusion will be move out to other places; ie Jupiter or the Earth adding up to the mass of these planets, and if these planets are eat by black holes would not others celestial bodies capture the radiation from their disintegration. I am kind of confuse now, would not that be redundant and never finish 
I did a google on tides and earthquakes.I was amazed at the number of sites where the correlation between high tides and the occurrence of earthquakes was taken as a possible causal relationship.Precisely the same fields / accelerations act on the Earth's lithosphere as act on the sea and the ratio of masses is vast. How can they consider the fleabite effect of the wafer-thin layer of water on the outside of the lithosphere and ignore the greater likelihood of a direct effect between Moon / Sun and the main masses which constitute the lithosphere, mantle and core?Have I missed something - other than the statistics, which simply show a connection?You might as well say that wildlife, which sometimes reacts to an imminent Earthquake, is responsible for it.
following a full moon high tides rise and fall further
How am i being daft? Do we not use electrons to power the bulge, in which the electrons are converted to make the energy that we observe leave the bulb? Do you know something i don't?
So, please explain to me then, where the electron energy is being used up? And where do photons come from if they emerge from the technology of a light bulb?I'm not so civy on electromechanics, but i am willing to learn.
Let's say there isn't a battery, because i know how battery's work.
My arguement is not putative. If there is no battery to power the light, such as found ina general lightbulb in the cieling, it is powered by electricity; the photons are a by-product of this electroactivity.
No problem. You proved my point either way. The electric energy is converted into photons, the original point i raised before people where trying to tie my shoelaces together.
I am not familiar with Kirchoff's law. The electrodynamic course i took for electrical appliances was very tame. But i am somewhat puzzled. I understand that particles give up their energies, however, where do the electrons go if they are not converted wholey into photons?
Yes, i understand circuitry. This is not my problem here. Its the words, ''electrons converted into photons'' that is puzzling me, and until i get my head around this, i will continue to ask without recourse.
Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 31/12/2008 12:15:28My arguement is not putative. If there is no battery to power the light, such as found ina general lightbulb in the cieling, it is powered by electricity; the photons are a by-product of this electroactivity.It doesn't change anything: in a power plant some kind of energy is converted into potential electric energy, which drives the electrons, which number stay constant; the electric energy is then converted into photons in the lamp. Where is the problem?