Vector theory of gravity and dual high-tide peak formation

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by geistkiesel, Apr 6, 2012.

  1. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    The net vector forces lunar-earth gravity results in a net decrease of gravity force nearest the moon which produces the nearside high-tide ocean peak.

    The net vector forces of lunar-earth results in a net increase of gravity force farthest from the moon and produces a net decrease in the farside water height.

    The net gravitational result here produces a single water peak and a single water depression, a condition that is contrary to the observed equivalent dual high-tide peaks on directly opposite sides of the earth and inline with the moon center as the moon orbits the earth.

    The observed equivalent dual high-tide peaks is inconsistent with a system of mutally attracting forces of gravity.
    Cheerio!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Are you claiming current models of gravity don't explain the tides properly? You are demonstrably wrong in that regard. Can you justify any of your claims with quantitative work or are you going to simply assert things without detail?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    Nope. Tides don't work that way. What you're saying would be true if the Earth was fixed in place in space as the moon orbited around it. But it isn't: the Earth and moon orbit their common centre of gravity, which means that the Earth is constantly in freefall acceleration toward the moon. Tides are only caused by the the difference in the moon's gravitational pull at different points on Earth.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    'quantification of claims is a matter of res ipsa loquitor.'


    The thread as confined to a vector analysis of mutually attracting forces of gravity. In this regard the analysis was flaw free. Me thinks that an exception to a million experimental results consistent with the known gravity model has just been realized,so sad.

    Your response seemed to demand that all the dozens of inconsistent models that use the newtonian force term as representing the mutual attraction gravity force model where most agree that the nearside peak is due to lunar pulling and the farside peak formation as wildly inconsistent with each other and with the vector model. You seemede to nclaim yourself as knowledgable in this matter, present one, just one and I will slay your dragon.

    Take an easy problem here and find a mathematical or physical flaw from within the thread. Or develop a model yourself that is unambiguously flawless.

    Prove it.
     
  8. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    1. See if the lunar orbit is significantly perturbed by the sun.

    2. Or to suggest real cruelty as the current theory of solar motion is seen arcing to the center of file 13, all net, what do you see as the planetary trajectories in a system where the sun is moving at approximately 210 km/sec. Do any visions spring to mind. Does it seem as if a diamond back rattlesnake is coiled and ready to strike? I received my epiphany when considering the DNA component of human thought. Screw it, my religion prohibits me from engaging in conflicting dialogue.
     
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Yes, it's that I require more than just a baseless assertion, I require that you demonstrate your claim. The fact of the matter is mainstream gravitational models, like those of Newton or Einstein, are very good. They are demonstrably accurate when it comes to describing such things as the tides. Heck, 'tidal forces' are something every student learns about

    You haven't done an analysis. You haven't used any vectors. You haven't shown anything.

    All you've done is show you don't understand the thing you're rejecting. The modelling of tides is well understood and accurate. We even use it to understand things like the volcanic eruptions of Io, which is driven by tidal forces from Jupiter.

    You're the one making the claim here. You've claimed that models used by the mainstream to accurately describe the behaviour of oceans and even techtonic plates, is wrong. You haven't shown it, you haven't explained why the models accurately describe reality despite, so you claim, being wrong and inconsistent with the behaviour of said oceans.

    You haven't given anything mathematical or physical. You've simply asserted something incorrect about a model you haven't understood.

    You're the one claiming models used to years are inaccurate, despite them being used to accurately model things. You're, therefore, the one who has to justify his claim.

    If current models don't consistently describe the tides then you need to show it explicitly. Pick a particular phenomenon, give the mainstream model description, demonstrate the prediction doesn't match observation and then demonstrate why. That's what your opening post should have contained.

    Instead it contained nothing mathematical and nothing physically viable. Your reply to me shows a lot of intellectual dishonesty and a profound ignorance of reality. I asked you to justify your initial claim and rather than doing so, as anyone rational making such a claim would do automatically, you've refused (because, as you're well aware, you're incapable of doing so) and tried to turn it around on me. Mainstream models of tidal behaviour work. They are used all the time by groups like shipping companies, climate scientists, wildlife scientists, even people running major ports. They need accurate models and they have them. You're claiming they don't. You have failed on every level to justify your position and you've been dishonest in trying to shift the burden of proof.

    It's sad that you spend so much of your life in an ignorant haze, occasionally sticking your head above ground to delude yourself you're anything other than completely lacking in understanding on this stuff. In the many years you've been whining about imaginary problems (all the problems are in your head, in both senses of the phrase) you could have actually learnt the models in question, like Newtonian gravity, and see for yourself how it works. Instead you're tilting at windmills.

    Of course that presumes you possess the intellectual capacity to grasp the models if you tried. I don't believe that to be the case.

    /edit I just saw your new post

    Now I know you don't possess the intellectual capacity and the problems really are in your head.
     
  10. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    If it is as simple as you say, please share with the rest of us some o9f that science. Just explain qualitatively how the farside peak is formed.

    Call it whyat ypu will but the mere directions of the lunar force and the earth forces on the near side of the earth subtrract, such that the force holding the water level is decreased thereby forming the near side peak.

    The two gravity fields on the farside add thereby increasing the force on the farside water in the direction of the moon. If you need numbers put them in yourself as it appears that your only interest here is to keep this simple matter from the eyes of the interested public. Why was this matgter ttransferred here? Answer: personal bias of Alpha N.
    An honest monotor would analyze my thread as written, while you bring n Io motion.
    I limited my thread to thye interaction of the v ector forces of gravity at the earth surface. I did not mention mainstream , you did.

    You haven't given anything mathematical or physical. You've simply asserted something incorrect about a model you haven't understood.

    You're the one claiming models used to years are inaccurate, despite them being used to accurately model things. You're, therefore, the one who has to justify his claim.

    If current models don't consistently describe the tides then you need to show it explicitly. Pick a particular phenomenon, give the mainstream model description, demonstrate the prediction doesn't match observation and then demonstrate why. That's what your opening post should have contained.

    Instead it contained nothing mathematical and nothing physically viable. Your reply to me shows a lot of intellectual dishonesty and a profound ignorance of reality. I asked you to justify your initial claim and rather than doing so, as anyone rational making such a claim would do automatically, you've refused (because, as you're well aware, you're incapable of doing so) and tried to turn it around on me. Mainstream models of tidal behaviour work. They are used all the time by groups like shipping companies, climate scientists, wildlife scientists, even people running major ports. They need accurate models and they have them. You're claiming they don't. You have failed on every level to justify your position and you've been dishonest in trying to shift the burden of proof.

    It's sad that you spend so much of your life in an ignorant haze, occasionally sticking your head above ground to delude yourself you're anything other than completely lacking in understanding on this stuff. In the many years you've been whining about imaginary problems (all the problems are in your head, in both senses of the phrase) you could have actually learnt the models in question, like Newtonian gravity, and see for yourself how it works. Instead you're tilting at windmills.

    Of course that presumes you possess the intellectual capacity to grasp the models if you tried. I don't believe that to be the case.

    /edit I just saw your new post

    Now I know you don't possess the intellectual capacity and the problems really are in your head.[/QUOTE]

    go fuck yorself Alphy
     
  11. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    This is your thread, you're making assertions about how we have inconsistent models of gravity despite the very obvious fact said models are used day in and day out to accurately model ocean dynamics. Our understanding is so good we know to calculate nanosecond corrections to satellite signal timings so as to make GPS viable.

    You have yet to demonstrate your original claim, neither mathematically or physically. You haven't shown a contradiction in the equations nor a false prediction when compared with experiment. And rather than providing those things when asked you demand I teach you something you should have learnt before opening your mouth in this thread.

    How am I trying to keep this from the public? I've asked you to give MORE details! I want you to elaborate, because presently I seen nothing of any substance.

    And how is it my personal bias when I point out to you the things you claim are inconsistent appear to be put to good use describing the real world? Is reality a personal bias now?

    As for putting in numbers myself, you haven't provided anything for me to put numbers into. Things like Newtonian gravity or relativity I know how to put numbers into, as do many other physicists, and funnily enough they have succeeded in accurately modelling reality, which contradicts your claim the equations are inconsistent on such a fundamental level.

    So me bringing in another example of how your claim is false is dishonest? Providing evidence is dishonest?

    What planet are you living on?

    You haven't really discussed anything of substance. All you've given are assertions. Can you actually do the mathematics of vectors? Can you show the mathematics of vectors backs you up?

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you're claiming that for centuries the use of gravitational models based on vectors have been inconsistent when it comes to tides yet somehow they have managed to be accurately describing said tides? You need to provide evidence and reason for your position.

    If you're so cheesed I think you're profoundly ignorant of this then prove me wrong. Give some evidence and quantitative detail, not arm waving whining. If you don't like the fact science is based on reason and evidence and you're required to provide said things for outlandish claims then might I suggest you stop frequenting forums which have anything to do with science.

    It's your own time you waste. You've been whining about gravity for years and you don't seem to have even a high school grasp of it. If a child could have picked it up in the time you've been whining about it why can't you?
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Type into google - tides. You will be able to get a qualitative explanation. Here is a bit more in depth explanation - but it is just using algebra and Newton's equation for gravity.

    I thought you would like this because of the use of vectors.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    geistkiesel:

    You do realise that Isaac Newton had this issue sorted out back in the 1600s, don't you?

    Why don't you go and read his Principia Mathematica?

    Or, for a more up-to-date treatment (yes, with vectors), try any 1st-year university physics textbook.
     

Share This Page