Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By Ophiolite
  • 1 Post By Physicist
  • 1 Post By Ophiolite
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Boing3000
  • 1 Post By Boing3000

Thread: might be a bit good for a physics forum

  1. #1 might be a bit good for a physics forum 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    Hello. This is a little embarrassing. Would say it was Sir Isaac's third law, not his analysis of gravity that explains why we have like tides on direct opposite sides of the earth.

    So I put *** LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR *** webpage together. Don't really wish to say mathematical physicists are abjectly wrong. What I want to say is mathematical physicists have the intelligence to do much better than what they are currently doing.

    All they have to do is think for themselves. Admit an error or two and bob's everybody's uncle.

    With that said, don't think physics forums are designed for or open to challenge of what Sir Isaac has told us about the tides. Or orbital motion for that matter.

    So as you were.
    Last edited by KJW; 09-12-2014 at 12:27 PM. Reason: Link Removed
     

  2. #2  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    MODERATOR NOTE: Because I removed the link, you should post your explanation here so that there is something to discuss.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  3. #3  
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    At the foot of Bennachie
    Posts
    67
    With that said, don't think physics forums are designed for or open to challenge of what Sir Isaac has told us about the tides.
    Are the forums designed for such a challenge? Not deliberately, but characteristics of the forums in general can lend themselves to provisional1 challenges to any current scientific thinking. What characteristics?
    1) Members knowledgeable about many aspects of physics.
    2) Members well versed in the scientific method.
    3) Members possessed of objective skepticism.

    Is this forum open to such a challenge? It is primarily designed for discussion of currently accepted science. However, alternative ideas are entertained, but proper justification must be offered for the alternative, with appropriate evidence and mathematical support.

    I would note that statistically it is highly improbable that a lone individual on an internet forum will have spotted a weakness that has bypassed thousands of experts in the field for a century and a half. But the improbable is not the impossible.
    Physicist likes this.
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    What I want to say is mathematical physicists have the intelligence to do much better than what they are currently doing.
    Welcome to the forum.

    When someone makes a statement like that it is upon them to explain why we should take what you claim to be true and that means that we need to know what qualifies you to make such a statement. Are you a mathematical physicists? Are you any kind of physicist? Any kind of scientists? Any kind of mathematician? etc?

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    All they have to do is think for themselves.
    Why didn't you explain why you don't think that we think for ourselves? Also it's not clear to me that you understand what a mathematical physicist is. See Mathematical physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for that. I think you're confusing a mathematical physicist with a physicist who uses math to solve problems. If that were the case then all physicists would be mathematical physicists since math is the language of physics and we (i.e. physicists that is) all know mathematics.

    With that said, don't think physics forums are designed for or open to challenge of what Sir Isaac has told us about the tides. Or orbital motion for that matter.
    That's not true whatsoever. First of all let's start off with this NOAA National Ocean Service Education: Tides and Water Levels which, page after page, gives a complete description of tidal forces and gravitational tides.
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I would note that statistically it is highly improbable that a lone individual on an internet forum will have spotted a weakness that has bypassed thousands of experts in the field for a century and a half. But the improbable is not the impossible.
    While I agree with everything thing that you've just said here I have no knowledge of such a thing ever happening to date.
    Jilan likes this.
     

  6. #6  
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    At the foot of Bennachie
    Posts
    67
    While I agree with everything thing that you've just said here I have no knowledge of such a thing ever happening to date
    But an open mind should be open to the possibility that this is the time it will occur.

    I do disagree with half of this statement:
    When someone makes a statement like that it is upon them to explain why we should take what you claim to be true and that means that we need to know what qualifies you to make such a statement. Are you a mathematical physicists? Are you any kind of physicist? Any kind of scientists? Any kind of mathematician? etc?
    Their qualifications are wholly irrelevant. That comes dangerously close to accepting an Argument from Authority. The only thing that matters is that their evidence and argument stand up to rigorous probing by the scientific method. If they happen to be an oyster fisherman in the Maldives, or Chair of Physics at a prestigious university, it makes no difference.
    Jilan likes this.
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I do disagree with half of this statement:
    Their qualifications are wholly irrelevant.
    I asked because I wanted to know if they had the ability to understand the mathematics they were talking about. A great deal of the time members will make disparaging comments about math as if they knew a great deal about math when it was their lack of understanding of math that was the root of the problem all along.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    That comes dangerously close to accepting an Argument from Authority.
    I donít understand your objection. You appear to think that Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy, which it is not. Several years ago, as a continuing effort to strengthen my reasoning and arguing skills, I picked up at text on logic called Practical Logic: An Antidote for Uncritical Reasoning by Douglas Soccio and Vincent Barry (1998). On page 54 they address Authority as a valid and even quite common, source of knowledge. They state that ďAuthority refers to an expert other than ourselves.Ē That this is a well-known source of knowledge and not a logical fallacy can be found in that text and the following sites
    Argument from authority - RationalWiki
    An argument from authority, when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source. The operation of the common law would be impossible without it, for example.
    Frequently, however, it is a logical fallacy consisting of an appeal to authority, but on a topic outside of the authority's expertise or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (aka. the authority is biased). Almost any subject has an authority on every side of the argument, even where there is generally agreed to be no argument.
    Alternative terms include [b]appeal to authority, argumentum ad verecundiam[b] and argumentum ab auctoritate. When someone uses themselves as an authority, it is known as Ipse Dixit - "he himself has said it."
    One has to be careful to make sure one is not using an authority in a fallacious way. For example: itís correct to say that if you are listening to an authority on a subject then itís likely that theyíre right about something they said on a subject in their field. It is a logical fallacy to assert that what a person says is correct merely because theyíre an authority.
    Iíve been forced to rely on authority myself in June of 2000. In that month I learned that I had Leukemia. I had about 4 days to live if I didnít start treatment that day. Had I spent a few days learning about Leukemia so that I could make better choices or learn to become a doctor so that I wouldnít have to rely on an authority, then I would have died before I learned what I needed to know.
    This one defines what arugment from authority is and thatís why they claim itís a fallacy
    https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...authority.html
    but notice what they say about it
    On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The only thing that matters is that their evidence and argument stand up to rigorous probing by the scientific method. If they happen to be an oyster fisherman in the Maldives, or Chair of Physics at a prestigious university, it makes no difference.
    Itís more than what you say is the only thing because what you didnít say is that one must have the skills to be able to form that argument. Before he started to make such arguments I wanted to see if I was wasting my time listening to them or not. I didnít need to know it since I can learn as I go. Thatís why I didnít say that I needed to know it. I was simply a question, i.e. I wanted to know if he had the skills to argue that his assertion is correct. Iíve seen all too many times people making such claims and Iíve yet to see someone who was right about it. In all cases it was due to a lack of skill in the area they were talking about. Itís not wrong to ask about someoneís knowledge in a subject that they want to claim has been wrong for hundreds of years by thousands of physicists.
     

  8. #8  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    MODERATOR NOTE: The URL link that I removed is "http://tidaltruth.com/". I have not opened this webpage, so I cannot vouch for it and if you do open it, it is at your own risk. My advice is to wait for the opening poster to return to the thread.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  9. #9  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    MODERATOR NOTE: The URL link that I removed is "http://tidaltruth.com/". I have not opened this webpage, so I cannot vouch for it and if you do open it, it is at your own risk. My advice is to wait for the opening poster to return to the thread.
    And return I have.

    Thanks for putting the link back, KJW. With a copy and paste it opens. I still edit it a bit occasionally and haven't necessarily settled on a title.

    I do not have a university education. I did become disenchanted with the education system through what I was taught about satellite suspension and the tides.

    As you linked, physicist, Sir Isaac said the high tides are due to relative longitudinal lunar gravity.

    I have had no original acceptance of this. You must have had and you can answer for your self the origin of your acceptance of relative lunar gravity meaning water rising up in both the earth and moon gravity.

    My only understanding of the high and low tides is through relative right angled earth gravity. And Sir Isaac's third law. It is an understanding I arrived at my self some 25 years ago. Thus the eventual web page.

    It could be tldr for you, don't know. Anyway, its there.

    If you go through it, think you will learn how Sir Isaac came up with his revered formula and also see how the formula comes undone with rigourous intellectual scrutiny.



    cheers and all the best with the future.
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist View Post
    I wanted to know if he had the skills to argue that his assertion is correct.
    That usually becomes quite evident early on. Asking for a list of qualifications rarely conveys a relevant picture because it relies on self-assessment and self-reportage, not all of which are of high fidelity. I've encountered individuals who are unjustifiably proud of their background, or who inflate their credentials (e.g., "I have a PhD" later turns out to mean that he took some PhD level classes before washing out of university). I've also encountered autodidacts with little formal background, but who have acquired deep expertise in an area. I would not dismiss them based on the answers to the questions you suggest.

    In short, it's a waste of time asking the proponent whether he has the skills to argue.

    Just listen to the argument. If you can't figure out from that whether he has the skills to argue, it's probably a reflection on your own competence in that area.
    Boing3000 likes this.
     

  11. #11  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    As you linked, physicist, Sir Isaac said the high tides are due to relative longitudinal lunar gravity.
    Can you point to that "statement" of Newton ?

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    You must have had and you can answer for your self the origin of your acceptance of relative lunar gravity meaning water rising up in both the earth and moon gravity.
    I myself have no acceptance that people cannot understand both tides. I always thought everybody gets a chance to dance with a beautiful girl. You would be pulling towards you her hands (the first tide), and the centrifugal force will make her skirt bulge on the other side. And both these tide are the only reason you would dance in the first place (especially the second tide)
    The pages linked by physicist are pretty clear. Maybe inertia can by better represented by centrifuge force, but it the same physics involved.

    If you address some of those points maybe we can help you to understand.

    If you have made another understanding for yourself, it is fine. If it has became a believe or a faith we cannot do anything about that.

    But don't ask us if we are "up to the challenge" if you are not yourself ready to do the same thing.
    Chances are Sir Issac and all that comes after that make a better theory then yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    If you go through it, think you will learn how Sir Isaac came up with his revered formula and also see how the formula comes undone with rigourous intellectual scrutiny.
    I have done that. And it is the other way around.
     

  12. #12  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Can you point to that "statement" of Newton ?
    not so much a statement but here.

    We are in the red herring area (as to whether or not the real reason of high and low tides is relative right angled earth gravity) but Sir Isaac did not come up with the joint centre of gravity idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    I myself have no acceptance that people cannot understand both tides. I always thought everybody gets a chance to dance with a beautiful girl. You would be pulling towards you her hands (the first tide), and the centrifugal force will make her skirt bulge on the other side. And both these tide are the only reason you would dance in the first place (especially the second tide)
    Your physics has descended to the level of Mr Albert Einstein and his hot stove pretty girl analogy when trying to state that time is relative. What if you are both girls. Both your skirts will bulge as the other tide. In my 'argument', if you go through it, I do suggest squeezing a balloon as a way of deciding tidal truth. However gravity has no analogy. You are best of steering clear of analogies when it comes to gravity.


    The 'argument' opens with a copy and paste from the link from KJW's second post. You either want to test your self against it or you don't.

    Sir Isaac being wrong is almost incidental to you. It is you being wrong that is of concern to you.

    And what you are wrong about is the moon's gravity reaching the earth. Easy mistake to make. At first glance it appears to because of the high tide under the moon.

    The problem you have is explaining how opposite directions of gravity can mathematically/physically survive in each others presence. Sir Isaac bowed out with force at distance happens but I can't tell you how. Mr Einstein did not address the issue. Until mathematical physics can explain such a phenomena, it's value to our understanding of gravity is diminished.

    You will probably have difficulty getting your head around this in your pretty girl frame of mind but mathematically the moon causes an ocean under the moon to be weighted towards the earth less without being weighted towards the moon in the slightest.


    As I said, you either are prepared to test your self against the linked web page. Or you are not. It is going to be a bit good for anyone resorting to an image of a pretty girl dancing to explain the tides.

    Anyway, can you or anyone explain how opposite directions of gravity mathematically/physically survive in each other's presence? Don't think anyone can say they understand universal gravitation until they can succinctly explain that phenomena. On Sir Isaac's behalf, of course. Apologies for any typos.
     

  13. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    That usually becomes quite evident early on. Asking for a list of qualifications rarely conveys a relevant picture because it relies on self-assessment and self-reportage, not all of which are of high fidelity
    I have many years experience dealing with people in forums so I have a very good feeling of what to expect when I ask such questions. It's very rare that I've seen someone who barely knows algebra to claim he has a PhD in math. The manner in which I asked it was a way I'd get a feeling for what was looking for.
     

  14. #14  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by maldive View Post
    Hello. This is a little embarrassing. Would say it was Sir Isaac's third law, not his analysis of gravity that explains why we have like tides on direct opposite sides of the earth.

    So I put *** LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR *** webpage together. Don't really wish to say mathematical physicists are abjectly wrong. What I want to say is mathematical physicists have the intelligence to do much better than what they are currently doing.

    All they have to do is think for themselves. Admit an error or two and bob's everybody's uncle.

    With that said, don't think physics forums are designed for or open to challenge of what Sir Isaac has told us about the tides. Or orbital motion for that matter.

    So as you were.
    OK,

    I read your work. For someone who is 60 and has no formal education, it is impressive. The presentation is nice, the drawings are well done.
    Unfortunately, the physics part is all wrong. The main reason is that you base your paper on the notion of "gravitational shielding". There is no such thing, the gravitation of the Moon acts on the ocean on the "shielded" side of the Earth as if the Earth did not exist. In other words, gravitational forces of the Earth and the Moon ADD to each other for the case of the "shielded" side.
    So, sadly, your work is wrong.
     

  15. #15  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    not so much a statement but here.
    Well I suppose, I'll have to read the Pincipia then. I didn't new Newton had also envisioned the notion of tidal forces. Except that every balloon everywhere on earth is indeed "compressed" in the vertical exist (up-down as dedicated by the direction apple do falls)
    I think I have read that the slightest difference on those force along the circumference of ocean do indeed account for one of the bulge, but not for the other.
    You'll see that I can be as wrong as you, and there is some physics watch-dog here that will bite my ass if I don't. I am a little masochist. I'll like to be wrong (at times)

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    Your physics has descended to the level of Mr Albert Einstein
    I hope not, and I am pretty sure I'll never will. Let's not compare apples with moons.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    and his hot stove pretty girl analogy, when trying to state that time is relative.
    Did not know that one, I'll look it up thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    What if you are both girls.
    Now it's my time to getting hot...

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    Both your skirts will bulge as the other tide
    But there is no ocean on the moon. If there was, moon back skirt will be flapping about, and nasty-roÔd like me will be stealing glances.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    Sir Isaac being wrong is almost incidental to you. It is you being wrong that is of concern to you.
    I don't understand. You didn't know Sir Isaac was wrong about everything ? It's a proven fact by now, well sort of. The minor detail is: he did know he didn't know back then. He was a great scientist, and doubt is part of the deal, that why they deal in theory and not in revelation.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    And what you are wrong about is the moon's gravity reaching the earth. Easy mistake to make. At first glance it appears to because of the high tide under the moon.
    At second glance too. There is tide all over the place, even the earth "solid" crust do tides.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    The problem you have is explaining how opposite directions of gravity can mathematically/physically survive in each others presence. Sir Isaac bowed out with force at distance happens but I can't tell you how. Mr Einstein did not address the issue. Until mathematical physics can explain such a phenomena, it's value to our understanding of gravity is diminished.
    A valid point, except that the current understanding of gravity perfectly define/explain/compute both tides.
    One conclusion I made is that you simply are not aware of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    You will probably have difficulty getting your head around this in your pretty girl frame of mind but mathematically the moon causes an ocean under the moon to be weighted towards the earth less without being weighted towards the moon in the slightest.
    I have difficulty understanding that phrase. Do you say the tide under the moon should be "negative" ? Or do you say tide and moon are synchronized just by pure luck ?

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    As I said, you either are prepared to test your self against the linked web page. Or you are not. It is going to be a bit good for anyone resorting to an image of a pretty girl dancing to explain the tides.
    But I have, I am a curious person. Did I pass the test ?
    The problem is the picture of two bodies attracted to each other and in rotation is exactly the good picture, and it is more sexy.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    Anyway, can you or anyone explain how opposite directions of gravity mathematically/physically survive in each other's presence?
    I am taking up this challenge ! If at least I understood the question. I'll try anyway.
    You'll find this kind of picture
    Or explanation more sexy.
    And I'll still use the dancing metaphor, it have taught me the world does not revolve around me, but around our common center of gravity.
     

  16. #16  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    OK,

    I read your work. For someone who is 60 and has no formal education, it is impressive. The presentation is nice, the drawings are well done.
    Unfortunately, the physics part is all wrong. The main reason is that you base your paper on the notion of "gravitational shielding". There is no such thing, the gravitation of the Moon acts on the ocean on the "shielded" side of the Earth as if the Earth did not exist. In other words, gravitational forces of the Earth and the Moon ADD to each other for the case of the "shielded" side.
    So, sadly, your work is wrong.
    And if you add earth and moon gravity on the far side, that tide becomes the lowest of low tides, not a high tide at all. So bad luck and away you go to become inventive about why that high tide occurs. Sir Isaac said a decrease in lunar gravity would cause it. This has never been fully accepted and so along came the centrifugal idea.

    Any honest broker of the tides will agree that we do not have a coherent agreed upon explanation of the lunar tides. Try this link. Every other academic is putting their own spin on how they happen.

    Thanks for the compliments about the diagrams and presentation.

    I cannot return a compliment to you with respect of your analysis. How could you confuse so called gravitational shielding with a simple demonstration that all gravities have terminal points and that their termination points are their tidal points? You gave me a bit of shudder with that.

    To be clear, the moon's gravity does not extend to either side of the earth. It is a subtlety but until you can understand the mathematical impossibility of the moon's gravity extending into the earth's gravity, you will be guessing and flummoxing about the relationship between the moon and our high and low tides. Just as Sir Isaac has done. The key is relative right angled earth gravity. Have laid it out clearly for you in the link that KJW has allowed. The moon's gravity causes the relative right angled effect which is the high and low tides. But the moon's mass does not connect with the earth's mass.

    Not mucking around. Know the significance of you all being wrong in believing that moon's mass is somehow hooked to the earth's mass. Also understand the reality of anyone who really believes such just because Sir Isaac says so is unlikely to have the wherewithal to comprehend that the moon's gravity only extends a local distance. Mr Neil Armstrong and a few others have directly experienced the moon's gravity. Th rest of us have only experienced the moon's gravity indirectly.


    Cheers, no typos I hope. (BOING 3000, afraid your work is sub standard. You can do better than trying to intellectually trip people up.)
     

  17. #17  
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    At the foot of Bennachie
    Posts
    67
    Moderator Comment: Maldive, your snide, patronising tone is unacceptable on this forum. Do not let it appear in any further posts. Do not respond to this advice in this thread. If you have an issue with it then Report this post and make your comments in that way.
     

  18. #18  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by maldive View Post
    How could you confuse so called gravitational shielding with a simple demonstration that all gravities have terminal points and that their termination points are their tidal points? .
    I didn't confuse anything, I simply pointed out the fundamental flaw in your "paper". The gravitational field of a radially symmetric object is .....well, radially symmetric. No "termination points". I only help people seeing their mistakes once, you are on your own from now on.


    To be clear, the moon's gravity does not extend to either side of the earth.

    For your education, this exact misconception is called "shielding". And it does not exist. It is the exact misconception that renders your "paper" DOA. Bye.
     

  19. #19  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    Those who believe an apple pulls the earth are indeed a long way behind.

    For today's lesson you are privileged to learn one of the greatest yet simplest deductions that has been made on earth. Whether or not you will be able to appreciate its significance, well here's hoping on your behalf. This planet has a front and a back is the simple deduction. A bow and a stern.

    You will have a pen or some other object nearby. Drop it and watch it fall. Then ask your self did the pen gain momentum as it fell. Or did it lose momentum as it fell. In your Sir Isaac Newton world you simply say gained. In the real world you don't know.

    As a global physics forum of the real world, some will be on front of the earth. Some will be one the back. For those of you on the front of the earth, the object, lets say it is an apple you dropped for the sake of going to the one of the key personalities involved, your apple will have gained momentum.

    For those of you on the front of the earth, the apple lost momentum as it fell.

    What I just dropped is a tape measure. I installed an air conditioner yesterday and today I will put an architrave around it and a few other things. As the tape fell, I was in wonder. Wouldn't it be good to know. Because if I could see the moon, which I can't because it is overcast as I look out the window, then I could know if the earth's gravity was directed to supply the moon with momentum. Or cost the moon momentum.

    The arithmetic of my tape measure at this stage ignores the motion of the galaxy. Some say the galaxy is moving at a great rate. I doubt this. But I do not doubt that the sun is moving at about 220 km/sec around the galaxy. We know the speed of the earth relative to the sun is about 30 km/sec. At the sun's great distance from the centre of the galaxy, it's path during the course of an earth year is indifferent to that of a straight line.

    The actual speed of the sun is not critical. The fact that it's gravity field has a front and a back because of its motion is. (If you are having trouble following this, don't worry, diagrams can be done.) We know the earth is in a stable orbit of the sun. The earth and sun are galactically level pegging twice a year. In one instance the earth will be going in the opposite direction to the sun. Then its speed will be 220 km/sec - 30 km/sec = 190 km/sec. When the earth's motion is the same as that of the sun, the speed of the earth will be 220 km/sec + 30 km/sec = 250 km/sec.

    The angle of the solar system to the path of the sun is being ignored a little here but that is not relevant to the tape measure I watched descend a few minutes ago. Let's just say the speed of the gravity field that the tape measure is within is currently 196 km/sec.

    The earth's gravity caused the tape measure to accelerate at a rate of 0.0098 km/sec. And it fell about 0.001 km. To make the lesson simpler, we will go hypothetical here and say I am on the equator and on the very rear of the earth. The time taken for the descent was thus 0.45 sec.

    At an earth gravity speed of 196 km/sec, the tape measure on the rear of the earth is travelling at a speed of 196.00441 upon impact with the computer bag below. Which is the tape measure gaining momentum as it fell.

    If I drop the tape measure again in 12 hours time, I will be on the front of the earth. Then the speed of the tape measure upon impact with the computer bag below will be 195.99559 km/sec. Which is a loss of momentum as it fell.

    Reckon I have my numbers right. Did it pretty quick.

    When you drop your pen or apple, it may seem incomprehensible to you that the pen or apple was actually losing momentum as it fell. But this is just where real relativity begins.

    In one case the earth moves towards the apple. In the other case the apple moves towards the earth. It is the case of the earth moving towards the apple that is of the greatest interest. In this circumstance the earth's gravity actually suspends the motion of the apple.

    I forgive the moderator who made the inappropriate remark, sure you are a decent person down deep, and x0x, I thank you. I see my mistake. It was the title. Round Earth Tidal Theory caused you to make a wrong presumption. If you had of actually studied the fresh news that was in front of you, you would have been right. Anyway, it has a new title now. Simply HERE TO HELP so thanks.

    Best of luck with what you have just been taught today. Try it out on your peers. Drop something and ask them whether or not it gained or lost momentum as it fell.(fair chance I have a typo in there somewhere, cheers)
     

  20. #20  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by maldive View Post
    and x0x, I thank you. I see my mistake. It was the title.
    It isn't the title, it is the content. It is pure crankery.


    Best of luck with what you have just been taught today. Try it out on your peers.
    I don't propagate fringe stuff, you can keep it.
     

  21. #21  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Maldive
    Best of luck with what you have just been taught today.
    We knew already that science forum have a great deal of pull toward some kind of people with, let's say, delusion of adequacy.

    So this forum has lost some momentum, thanks to you. Anyway, people on the front will hopefully set things right.


    Cheers Gerry (finally you learned not to hit the return key at random times)
    x0x likes this.
     

  22. #22  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    It isn't the title, it is the content. It is pure crankery.




    I don't propagate fringe stuff, you can keep it.
    Whoever you are X0x, I am using you a little (to establish a title.) You calling it a paper didn't sit comfortable. A paper is something you prepare for peers. This is a statement to the world (to the effect that Sir Isaac Newton made several blunders and people of educational conscience have work to do.)

    Now you are completely right about the statement being pure. Crankery is not a word so it is up to you explain what you mean there. For a start you assessed you were looking at a gravitational shielding idea. When it was pointed out to you were being confronted by no such thing, you have become lost I guess.

    Incidentally it is not fringe stuff. It is a statement by an individual that includes why Sir Isaac's now famous formula is corrupt. To a certain extent the statement is reminiscent of Aristarchus of the B.C. period. He was laughed at and persecuted for a diagram he did. It took the best part of 2,000 years before the basic diagram that Aristarchus drew was accepted by the institutions that had previously derided it.

    My diagrams are not going to be precise in measurement, as Aristarchus's wasn't, but they will stand the test of time over the ones that you are currently mindlessly worshiping about the tides and orbital motion. You have no idea why Venus turns backwards, for instance let alone backwards in an almost precise ratio with the forward movement of the earth. You get diagrams that lead you in and then say I, x0x, propagate the mob, not the individual without even investigating much of what the individual is saying.

    That makes you akin to a fixed earth nincompoop, no other real way of putting it. Well head in the sand might be another way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    We knew already that science forum have a great deal of pull toward some kind of people with, let's say, delusion of adequacy.

    I hope not, and I am pretty sure I'll never will. Let's not compare apples with moons.
    Yes a science forum has attracted you. This is why I found it difficult to take you seriously.




    In the year 1666 he retired again from Cambridge to his mother in Lincolnshire. Whilst he was pensively meandering in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity (which brought an apple from a tree to the ground) was not limited to a certain distance from earth, but that this power must extend much further than was usually thought. Why not as high as the Moon said he to himself & if so, that must influence her motion & perhaps retain her in her orbit, whereupon he fell a calculating what would be the effect of that supposition.
    He surmised that the moon is falling towards the earth like the apple just did whilst having a motion at a right angle to the direction of the earth's gravity.

    Sir Isaac did compare apples and the moon.
     

  23. #23  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by maldive View Post
    Crankery is not a word so it is up to you explain what you mean there.
    Crankery is what a crank posts on the internet. Hope that this clarifies it for you.

    This is a statement to the world (to the effect that Sir Isaac Newton made several blunders and people of educational conscience have work to do.)
    LOL
    Last edited by x0x; 09-19-2014 at 12:51 AM.
     

  24. #24  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    you have become lost I guess
    We all are. Science use rationality and logic. You are using word salad. One is feeding the common knowledge, the other is feeding individual's vanity.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    Incidentally it is not fringe stuff
    No, it is pure fringe stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    It is a statement by an individual that includes why Sir Isaac's now famous formula is corrupt
    Indeed, and that'is where you ruin your credential. So the formula is corrupted, did it also have fleas ?

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    To a certain extent the statement is reminiscent of Aristarchus of the B.C. period. He was laughed at and persecuted for a diagram he did. It took the best part of 2,000 years before the basic diagram that Aristarchus drew was accepted by the institutions that had previously derided it.
    No, to no extent. Aristarchus would have smiled at your nice pictures with us. But nobody is going to persecute you, we are doing science here, we pursue correctness we persecute errors. Sometimes we get a laugh in the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    It took the best part of 2,000 years before the basic diagram that Aristarchus drew was accepted by the institutions that had previously derided it
    Not at all. Even your history is wrong. The institutions you think of have died a long time ago. Apparently you are nostalgic of them, and try to resurrect their mind-set : corruption, self-confidence, arrogance, word salad.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    You have no idea why Venus turns backwards
    Actually, that is correct, because Venus does not turn backward. We have absolutely no idea what your are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    the ones that you are currently mindlessly worshiping
    We don't deal in "worshiping" either. We use a bunch of Newton's law, nobody is giving give him "sir" this "master" that.
    You hatred for this individual is strange. What have he ever done to you ? Apart giving rational and testable theory, much like Aristarchus was doing. Just because you are not able to do that should not trigger your hate response.
    I can't do better either. But I like to learn from my peers. Do you ?

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    Sir Isaac did compare apples and the moon
    Ho indeed he does. They are alike, gravity wise, except for minor details, like their size, and they relative motion. Which was his point, you should make the effort to understand that.
    My analogy was just about the size, you comparing my genius with the one of Einstein, for example, is off the mark, by a large amount.

    I am thinking you are as much deluded about the quantity of your relevance as to "statement to the world", while comparing you and our dude Newt'

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    without even investigating much of what the individual is saying
    Sadly, we have. And you are clearly not up to the challenge to take the result at face value, especially when the errors are pointed to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by maldive
    Yes a science forum has attracted you. This is why I found it difficult to take you seriously
    So by your own definition, we shouldn't take you seriously either. And believe it or not, we do just that.

    Seriously though, why are you still here ? Be coherent with yourself and go away
    Last edited by Boing3000; 09-19-2014 at 02:33 PM.
    x0x likes this.
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •