PDA

View Full Version : Lunar tides lunacy



The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-03, 09:01 PM
I just received an email about a website that seems to have some problems with my tides page. Check it out (http://www.logicnews.com/astro1.html). It's rare to find someone who so thoroughly misunderstands basic physics.

Geo3gh
2002-May-03, 09:17 PM
It gets real rich on the second page, too. Oh my. Wrong figures, mixing conventional and metric units. It's a mess. No wonder the author gets such goofy results.

When I have more time I'll check more of the math presented, but given that the author states the mass of the Moon as 1/100 of the mass of the Earth, I'm not expecting much.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-May-03, 09:17 PM
You might not have noticed, BA Phil, but by the time that article arrives at Page 3, it's on to Nibaru and the Annunaki. In other words, it's work by a Sitchin-droid.

The hosting web-site doesn't seem to be completely Sitchinated, but they've definitely got some goodies there. A complete recasting of gravity-as-air-hockey-table (I kid you not), another how the Reigning Heads of Europe created the Illuminati (which would have been fascinating, not to say disturbing, news to a certain Adam Weishaupt), etc.

Call themselves LogicNews, do they? They've got the wrong 'L' word, I'm afraid.

The (and no, I'm not thinking 'Lucid', either) Curtmudgeon

ToSeek
2002-May-03, 09:20 PM
I worked out his math very carefully, then realized that the key issue with tides isn't the absolute gravitation but the relative gravitation between the near side and the far side (guess that's pretty obvious to you physicist types). That's more significant for the Moon because the Moon is closer - the Earth's diameter is a bigger proportion of the distance.

_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-05-03 17:20 ]</font>

Chip
2002-May-03, 09:30 PM
It's bad enough to miss basic physics, but they're also quite smug and rude too! And why are they so anti PhD? (Which they define as a "social group"). Hmmm...Sounds a bit like the smart people are conspiring against us common sense folk routine. despite the vocabulary, the article seems quite immature. Sheeesh! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

These people never realize that if one either (A.) misunderstands or disagrees with a concept, or (B.) has a radical new idea, politeness goes a lot further than sarcasm.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-May-03, 09:31 PM
Follow up: at least one article posted on that site is into some rather weird variant of Holocaust Revisionism. They don't claim that the Holocaust didn't happen, but that it was a concerted effort to get some undefined "information" out of "Jewish sects", and that if the Jews had ever revealed whatever it was that he thinks they should have, then no more Jews would have had to die after that point. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Anyway, they almost take all the evil out of the same post by including the ridiculous statement: "In this new system, money will become electronic, governed by Microsoft technology." Obviously, not only did the Jews cause the Holocaust to happen to themselves, but Bill Gates is the AntiChrist, too. Or something.

Oh, yeah: they also strongly hint that the 11 September attack wasn't what we've been led to believe, and very carefully skirt all around actually saying that Our Beloved Government was behind it:



Could a band of Afghani cave dwellers, riding about on their camels with barely enough resources to feed themselves, really have coordinated the attack on September 11? You already know the answer to that question.

Coherency doesn't seem to be any part of their stock in trade.

The (a bit too confused to be completely angry) Curtmudgeon

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-05-03 17:38 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-05-03 18:02 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-03, 09:54 PM
As I like to say, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

Azpod
2002-May-03, 10:17 PM
Could a band of Afghani cave dwellers, riding about on their camels with barely enough resources to feed themselves, really have coordinated the attack on September 11? You already know the answer to that question.

Give said cave dwellers (and they weren't Afghani) a couple hundred million US dollars worth of currency and the answer is: yes.

Space Bandito
2002-May-05, 03:54 AM
Wow.... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

I’m at a loss of words, assuming that this guy is not a danger to society; he lacks any understanding of physics.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-May-05, 11:52 AM
I like his comments at the bottom of his first page, and at the top of page three. He takes the fact that the tidal bulge is a bit in front of the moon, and attributes that facetiously to some sort of consciousness, or precognition. I've made the same joke myself.

The tidal bulge would be directly below the moon, except there is a bit of friction involved that makes the formation of the bulge lag behind. So, the bulge directly underneath the moon is not forming as fast as it should, and as the Earth turns the bulge doesn't subside as fast as it should. The end result, since the Earth turns on its axis once a day, whereas the moon takes 27 days to go around the Earth, is that there is a lopsided bulge a bit in front of the moon's direction of revolution.

No geophysical intelligence needed.

David Hall
2002-May-05, 01:49 PM
What a sad bunch of wackos. I just tried searching for this "LogicNews" site on Crank.net, to see what kind of rank they'd give it, and believe it or not, I couldn't find it there at all.

It wasnt easy, since it seems to be such a wide-ranging mish-mash of wierdness, and Crank.net doesn't seem to have a search engine, but checked out all the main categories and found nothing.

Anybody here able to find it? I went ahead and sent it in as a submission. Can't hurt in any case.

2002-May-05, 02:32 PM
<PRE>1:***[ PREPOSED TABLE of metaPHYSICAL UNITS ]*********
2: ^1.? ^2 VELO |-------erg0---^3-----| ? ^4 ?
3: TIME LENGTH CITY FORCE {fudge}[e6] WORK POWER MASS
4: {--default--} &Acc {factor} energy {default}
5: us ?-16 _raff e-30 #construkt !plank fg(-15)
6: ms ?-9 _felt e-24 #gravolti !graft ag(-12)
7: ms ?-4 _rif e-18 #parton !part pg(-9)
8: cs mm _sta 1.6 e-12 eVolt !surge ug(-6)
9: ds mm mm/ds _lyte e -6 #bolt !merg mg(-3)
s cm cm/s dyne 1 e 0 erg ! gram(UNIT)</PRE>

2002-May-05, 02:34 PM
<pre>
1: s cm cm/s dyne 1 e 0 erg ! gram(UNIT)
2: SEC METER M/S NEWTON 10 e 6 Joule WATT kg( 3)
3: ?hr M _warm 3.6 e 12 kWhr !cty Mg( 6)
4: ?11hr kM KM/Hr _blite 4.2 e 18 kTonn !boom Gg( 9)
5: ?day ?+4 _shake e 24 #Rh.ictar !rattle (12)
6: ?14 3/4d?+9 _wiew e 30 #Tp.actor !wtcht (15)
7: ?yr ?+16 _sheen e 36 #Sf.un !flue2 (18)
8: ??Myr ?+25 _puff e 42 #O___blartor !wowe (21)
9: "BELIEVE WHAT YOU LIKE"

ToSeek
2002-May-07, 06:33 PM
I emailed a rebuttal to the site in question and apparently they are going to be good enough to publish it. Here's my comments and their response:

Thank you sir for your response.
You bring an excellent argument to the table, as well
as an acid tongue, which is very much appreciated.
Currently, your response will appear on LogicNews
Wednesday, May 8. The purpose of this email is to
request permission to use your name on your comment,
or a perhaps a moniker if you prefer. If you would
prefer to remain completely anonymous, LogicNews will
react in conjunction with your request.

Regards,
LogicNews.com


--- kevinwparker@... wrote:
> >> Hold on; let me get my stupid hat on… O.K., we’re
> all set, go
> ahead…
>
> >> “Now, we measure the gravity of the Earth
> relative to the center
> of the earth; everywhere on the Earth, the center is
> “down.” In a
> sense, we see the center of the earth as “at rest.”
> It is
> mathematically correct to then subtract the force of
> the Moon on the
> center of the Earth from the force felt on the near
> and far sides.
>
> >> Mathematically correct? Suppose it was 62 degrees
> outside, and I
> had $1.73 in my pocket, if I subtract these numbers
> I get 60.27; now
> that is mathematically correct! Essentially, what we
> are being told
> is when you subtract this force, by that force; add
> a dash of salt
> and a pinch of sugar… Voila! An explanation. What if
> I pass gas? Are
> you going to subtract that too? it’s a force. When
> does this dim-
> witted analysis end?
>
I fail to understand what your problem is. The explanation seems clear enough to me. Do you always get this obnoxious when faced with something you don't understand? Let's try this: since the Earth's gravitational force is the same on the side nearest the Moon and the side farthest the Moon, we can effectively ignore it when dealing with the tides. Now, the side nearest the Moon will be attracted to the Moon more than anywhere else, and the side farthest from the Moon will be attracted less than anywhere else.
>
> >> However, do not allow yourself to be misled by
> this fact, for the
> tides created by this gravitational force are
> greatly insignificant.
>

Care to provide some support for this statement?

>
> >> Are you implying that the tides lead the Moon?
> Are you making the
> assumption that the water has consciousness and
> “knows” where to be
> moments before the force of the Moon’s gravity puts
> it there?
>

No, the water is being pushed by the Earth's rotation? Is that too complex a concept for you?

> >> Is anyone else crying?
>

I'm crying over how someone can be so stupid and so arrogant about it at the same time. Does that count?

> >> THE SUN PULLS ON THE WATER ROUGHLY 208 TIMES
> GREATER THAN THE MOON
> DOES!

You're completely missing the point. The issue with the tides isn't the absolute gravitational force, but the difference in the force between the near and far sides of the Earth. The Earth's diameter is about 1/80 of the distance to the Moon, while it's on the order of 1/10,000 of the distance to the Sun.

> >> I’ve heard enough.

For once we're in agreement - the rest of the article isn't even worth arguing over.



_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-05-07 14:36 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-05-07 14:37 ]</font>

Roy Batty
2002-May-07, 06:55 PM
I thought your 'acid tongue' was tame (maybe alkaline) compared to theirs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ToSeek
2002-May-07, 07:42 PM
On 2002-05-07 14:55, Roy Batty wrote:
I thought your 'acid tongue' was tame (maybe alkaline) compared to theirs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



I was thinking the same thing and probably should have said as much in my response.

ljbrs
2002-May-08, 03:03 AM
As I like to say, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.


Good thinking! Naturally!

People who do not understand something which is difficult are likely to go about understanding it the lazy way. They make up something which agrees with their silly preconceived notions.

I have an acquaintance (a member of another, not to be mentioned, astronomy club) who has made up nonsense about almost everything in physics, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, about phonetically simplifying the English language (so that he can learn it easily), about diet, etc. Learning about anything the hard way (struggling) is too much for him, so he invents everything for himself. It is really very sad. He lives in an imaginary (make-believe) world, and will argue against almost any topic anybody brings up.

Making things agree with one's errors in thinking is the easy way out (but a waste of time).

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

ToSeek
2002-May-08, 02:57 PM
I am sure you all will be distressed to hear that I am a witless individual (http://www.logicnews.com/followup1.html) and will likely have nothing more to do with me.

SpacedOut
2002-May-08, 04:35 PM
ToSeek – I’d take “witless individual” from them as a complement! It adds credibility to you.

Now their email response to you -


You bring an excellent argument to the table, as well as an acid tongue, which is very much appreciated.

makes sense.

Of course they thought it was an excellent argument, it gave them another an other chance to continue “… supplying some clairvoyance to this puzzling issue of tidal motion…”

[fixed html]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-08 12:37 ]</font>

Geo3gh
2002-May-08, 04:53 PM
What I love is the belief that "since I am getting responses from people telling me that I am wrong, that must mean I'm right.

"See, I'm hitting a nerve, and now we're seeing people defending their little dogmas. If I were really wrong, people would just ignore me."

But if you do ignore them, they take your silence as assent.

Ugh! To misquote Marvin, I get a headache just trying to think down to their level.



_________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance,
and only I have managed to erase that line.
--Dr. Science

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Geo3gh on 2002-05-08 12:55 ]</font>

Roy Batty
2002-May-08, 05:58 PM
On 2002-05-08 12:53, Geo3gh wrote:
Ugh! To misquote Marvin, I get a headache just trying to think down to their level.

Yes.. & after reading that site's twaddle I feel like sticking my head in a bucket of water /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

ToSeek
2002-May-08, 06:02 PM
Okay, I'm trying to work the math out to prove them wrong, but I'm having problems. I'm figuring that the distance factor for the Moon should be (244,000)^2/(236,000)^2, while for the Sun it should be (93,004,000)^2/(92,996,000)^2. (I'm dividing the square of the distance to the far side of the Earth by the square of the distance to the near side of the Earth.) The former figure comes to 1.07, or a .07 difference. The latter comes to a .00017 difference. But multiplying that by the masses of the objects gives a huge factor in the Sun's favor (even worse than what they're suggesting!). So what am I doing wrong?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Roy Batty
2002-May-08, 06:24 PM
Tidal forces are proportional to the mass but inversely proportional to then cube of the distance /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ToSeek
2002-May-08, 06:45 PM
On 2002-05-08 14:24, Roy Batty wrote:
Tidal forces are proportional to the mass but inversely proportional to then cube of the distance /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



I've heard that, but is there some calculation that proves that?

ToSeek
2002-May-08, 06:48 PM
Meanwhile, I've crafted another response (I'm very bored at work this week, what can I say?):

First off, I regret if the incendiary tone of my message in any way obscured my points. However, I would like to point out that, despite your writer's claim that "this is not emotional for me," he persists in using phrases such as "let me get my stupid hat on," "is anyone else crying," "endemic stupidity," "please pull your heads out of the ground," and - directed at me - "witless individual" and "sloppy penmanship" (how the writer knows about my sloppy penmanship from an email is beyond me). This would seem to belie his claim.

Also, please attribute my submission, as I requested, either to "Kevin W. Parker" or to "ToSeek," as you prefer. At the very least, please spell "anonymous" correctly - my penmanship may be sloppy, but my spelling is impeccable. (My apologies for being slow with my previous response - this particular email service is not as reliable as I wold like it to be.)

Now to the rebuttal:

>> “The issue with the tides isn’t the absolute gravitational force, but the difference in the force between the near and far sides of the Earth.” This is the statement that the individual in question put forth, and for all intensive purposes he is absolutely CORRECT, except for one little problem. The DIFFERENCE IN THE FORCE BETWEEN THE NEAR AND FAR SIDES OF THE EARTH, DUE TO THE SUN, IS ROUGHLY 208 TIMES GREATER THAN THE SAME DIFFERENCE IN THE FORCE BETWEEN THE NEAR AND FAR SIDES OF THE EARTH DUE TO THE MOON. You must be able to comprehend this simple verifiable fact in order to pose any argument at all. I know that the Sun is further away than the Moon. DO NOT WRITE TO THIS NEWSGROUP AND ATTEMPT TO INFORM US OF THIS FACT! However, if you all follow the mathematical process laid forth in the original article (click here to view), you will see that the Sun has a stronger gravitational effect on the Earth than the Moon does.

This is the key paragraph. (There are other issues with the rebuttal, but I'll focus on this one for now.) To work backwards, I have followed the mathematical process in the original article and indeed worked out the numbers for myself and found them to be roughly correct. There is no argument that the "Sun has a stronger gravitational effect on the Earth than the Moon does" - that's why the Earth goes around the Sun and not the Moon - and in fact the factor is somewhere around the 208 that the writer (and I) derived. (I'll mention as an aside that the numbers are slightly off: the distance to the Sun is around 93,000,000 miles rather than the 95,000,000 used in the article; however, this small error is trivial and in fact works against your claim rather than in favor of it.)

However, the mathematical process supplied is irrelevant to the claim of "The DIFFERENCE IN THE FORCE BETWEEN THE NEAR AND FAR SIDES OF THE EARTH, DUE TO THE SUN, IS ROUGHLY 208 TIMES GREATER THAN THE SAME DIFFERENCE IN THE FORCE BETWEEN THE NEAR AND FAR SIDES OF THE EARTH DUE TO THE MOON."

The calculations performed in the original article are for the force of the Moon and the Sun at the CENTER of the Earth. Note that there are only two calculations given, one for the Moon and one for the Sun. If you wish to calculate the difference in force between the near and far sides of the Earth for the Moon and the Sun, then you need to perform FOUR calculations: one for the force of the Moon on the near side of the Earth, one for the force of the Moon on the far side of the Earth, one for the Sun on the near side of the Earth, and one for the Sun on the far side of the Earth. You must then calculate the ratio (near side/far side) for the Moon and the ratio (likewise) for the Sun and compare the two. I do not see this calculation being performed.

I am working on this calculation myself but am having some problems. (Please note a humility you seem to think is uncharacteristic of us "intellectuals.") Once I have worked it out, I will supply it.

Oh, and one other issue:

>> At 23 degrees, the Earth is closest to the Moon, which means that the gravitational pull would be the strongest (which also means that the tides should be the highest at this point, of which they are undeniable NOT). The individual in question responded to this fact by stating, “Care to provide some support for this statement?” No problem, I’ll give you four pages of support if you would just kindly CLICK HERE and this time actually read the article.

My response of "Care to provide some support for this statement?" was to the statement - quoted in my response - of "However, do not allow yourself to be misled by this fact, for the tides created by this gravitational force are greatly insignificant" and not to this new issue of the Moon being at 23 degrees, something I did not address and which I honestly cannot find being mentioned in the original article. (If it is, please provide me with page and line number.) If the writer wishes his article to be read carefully, he should at least return the favor.

Kevin W. Parker/"ToSeek"

Roy Batty
2002-May-08, 07:00 PM
Some math:
http://mb-soft.com/public/tides.html

& some more /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
http://www.jal.cc.il.us/~mikolajsawicki/tides_new2.pdf

SeanF
2002-May-08, 07:14 PM
On 2002-05-08 14:02, ToSeek wrote:
Okay, I'm trying to work the math out to prove them wrong, but I'm having problems. I'm figuring that the distance factor for the Moon should be (244,000)^2/(236,000)^2, while for the Sun it should be (93,004,000)^2/(92,996,000)^2. (I'm dividing the square of the distance to the far side of the Earth by the square of the distance to the near side of the Earth.) The former figure comes to 1.07, or a .07 difference. The latter comes to a .00017 difference. But multiplying that by the masses of the objects gives a huge factor in the Sun's favor (even worse than what they're suggesting!). So what am I doing wrong?

Thanks in advance for any help.




ToSeek,

You don't want to multiply those ratios by the mass of the bodies. Your first ratio concludes that the moon's gravity on the nearside would be 1.07 times the gravity on the farside. Regardless of the mass, an object at that distance from the Earth would have a ratio of 1.07.

The full equation for calculating the gravity ratio would be m*d1^2 / m*d2^2, which is the same as d1^2 / d2^2 and not the same as m * (d1^2 / d2^2).

SeanF
2002-May-08, 07:17 PM
. . . and for all intensive purposes he is absolutely CORRECT . . .


OMG! I've never heard this except from a couple of, um, people I used to work for.

The expression is "for all intents and purposes," not "for all intensive purposes!"

(Sorry, just had to vent on this one . . . )

BadAstrologer
2002-May-08, 07:22 PM
On 2002-05-03 17:54, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
As I like to say, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.


Well, then why do you look down upon the ancient science of Astrology? Just because you don't understand the science behind it doesn't give you any rights to condemn it. I think most of you so called scientists should refrain from rediculing Astrology.

----------------------------
it's all in the Tao of Planets

ToSeek
2002-May-08, 07:44 PM
On 2002-05-08 15:14, SeanF wrote:

You don't want to multiply those ratios by the mass of the bodies. Your first ratio concludes that the moon's gravity on the nearside would be 1.07 times the gravity on the farside. Regardless of the mass, an object at that distance from the Earth would have a ratio of 1.07.

The full equation for calculating the gravity ratio would be m*d1^2 / m*d2^2, which is the same as d1^2 / d2^2 and not the same as m * (d1^2 / d2^2).



Well, I understand that the mass is irrelevant to the ratio, but then I want to see how the Sun's influence compares with the Moon's, so I have to figure the mass in somehow. Right now I'm looking at the math on the pages supplied above - thanks, Roy!

amstrad
2002-May-08, 09:24 PM
On 2002-05-08 15:17, SeanF wrote:


. . . and for all intensive purposes he is absolutely CORRECT . . .


OMG! I've never heard this except from a couple of, um, people I used to work for.

The expression is "for all intents and purposes," not "for all intensive purposes!"

(Sorry, just had to vent on this one . . . )




I love pointing out these kinds of errors to people that make them. This website contains a listing of Common Errors in English (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html). Low and behold, intense/intensive (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/intensive.html) is listed there! Incidently, light-year (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/lightyear.html) is also listed.

Roy Batty
2002-May-08, 10:24 PM
On 2002-05-08 15:22, BadAstrologer wrote:


On 2002-05-03 17:54, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
As I like to say, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.


Well, then why do you look down upon the ancient science of Astrology? Just because you don't understand the science behind it doesn't give you any rights to condemn it. I think most of you so called scientists should refrain from rediculing Astrology.

----------------------------
it's all in the Tao of Planets


Oh please explain the science behind Astrology.. but perhaps start a different thread in the same forum, I'll join in /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Lisa
2002-May-08, 10:51 PM
On 2002-05-08 18:24, Roy Batty wrote:


On 2002-05-08 15:22, BadAstrologer wrote:


On 2002-05-03 17:54, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
As I like to say, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.


Well, then why do you look down upon the ancient science of Astrology? Just because you don't understand the science behind it doesn't give you any rights to condemn it. I think most of you so called scientists should refrain from rediculing Astrology.

----------------------------
it's all in the Tao of Planets


Oh please explain the science behind Astrology.. but perhaps start a different thread in the same forum, I'll join in /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


BadAstrologer? C'mon, lets all get in on the act. Shall I now be known as BadMilitaryRetiree?
There's no science, no science no science behind astrology.
Unless you want to talk about the science of taking money from gullible people. Maybe Phil needs a new folder "Cranks Post Here".
Lisa

Roy Batty
2002-May-08, 11:05 PM
On 2002-05-08 18:51, Lisa wrote:


On 2002-05-08 18:24, Roy Batty wrote:


On 2002-05-08 15:22, BadAstrologer wrote:


On 2002-05-03 17:54, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
As I like to say, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.


Well, then why do you look down upon the ancient science of Astrology? Just because you don't understand the science behind it doesn't give you any rights to condemn it. I think most of you so called scientists should refrain from rediculing Astrology.

----------------------------
it's all in the Tao of Planets


Oh please explain the science behind Astrology.. but perhaps start a different thread in the same forum, I'll join in /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


BadAstrologer? C'mon, lets all get in on the act. Shall I now be known as BadMilitaryRetiree?
There's no science, no science no science behind astrology.
Unless you want to talk about the science of taking money from gullible people. Maybe Phil needs a new folder "Cranks Post Here".
Lisa


Now steady on, you forgot <u>no science</u>' /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

The Curtmudgeon
2002-May-08, 11:09 PM
On 2002-05-08 19:05, Roy Batty wrote:

Now steady on, you forgot <u>no science</u>' /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif



Not to mention <font color=red>NO SCIENCE</font>! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

The (piling on is allowed here, right?) Curtmudgeon

Roy Batty
2002-May-08, 11:11 PM
LOL!!!

AstroMike
2002-May-08, 11:23 PM
On 2002-05-08 15:22, BadAstrologer wrote:
Just because you don't understand the science behind it doesn't give you any rights to condemn it.

What's so hard to understand about it? There is NO scientific and factual basis behind astrology. It's all fake crap.

Roy Batty
2002-May-08, 11:25 PM
Joking aside though, i'm serious. If the Bad Astrologer wants to set up a thread debating the 'science' (add whatever html tag you wish)
this is probably the right forum (but i'd suggest starting a seperate thread)

Lisa
2002-May-08, 11:32 PM
Sorry, I didn't know and was too lazy to find other fonts.
Wait! I'm getting a vision! Tomorrow will be a great day unless I question others. Someone where I work will annoy me. The weather will still suck in South Dakota.
Do I get my mountaintop and turban now?
Astrology is bad and useless. (Insert your own fonts here. Did I mention I was lazy?)
Lisa

Roy Batty
2002-May-08, 11:47 PM
I've already lost the will to live... Mercury, Venus & Mars told me /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Jim
2002-May-09, 01:54 AM
What's so hard to understand about it? There is NO scientific and factual basis behind astrology.

Y'know, this topic is more germane to this thread than most may think.

One of the "scientific theories" proposed to explain astrology was that the tidal (gravitational) forces of the planets affect human behaviour.

I agree. This could make for an interesting other thread.

Oh, and btw, it's "lo" and behold. (Sorry, the planets made me say that. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif )

Gsquare
2002-May-09, 04:09 AM
Well, I understand that the mass is irrelevant to the ratio, but then I want to see how the Sun's influence compares with the Moon's, so I have to figure the mass...


To Seek, that is correct but...Roy was originally correct also. The tidal force upon the earth varies as M/d^3.

The standard formula for determining the tidal force is given by:
F = GMR/d^3 where R is the earth radius, M is the mass that is 'acting upon' the earth, and d is the distance.

So for the moon, simply plug in M for the moon's mass and d for lunar distance.

Then compare it to the tidal force produced by the sun by using sun's mass and distance.

In other words, the tidal force scales as M/d^3.

I believe you should come out with 2 to 1 ratio in favor of the moon vs. the effect of the sun.

G^2



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gsquare on 2002-05-09 00:10 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-May-09, 10:37 AM
On 2002-05-08 15:44, ToSeek wrote:
Well, I understand that the mass is irrelevant to the ratio, but then I want to see how the Sun's influence compares with the Moon's, so I have to figure the mass in somehow. Right now I'm looking at the math on the pages supplied above - thanks, Roy!

You're on the right track. Notice that the gravitational effect of the Sun is 208 times greater than the gravitational effect of the moon--that's the calculation by House of Knowledge, and it is essentially OK.

You calculated a difference of .07 near side to far side for the moon, and a difference of .00017 for the Sun, right? The ratio .07/.00017 is 411.8, so the effect of the moon is 412 times as great because of the distance. Put these two together, 412/208, and you get the fact that the tidal effect of the moon is roughly twice the tidal effect of the Sun.

So, why do they say that the tidal effect is proportional to the inverse cube? What you have calculated concerns GM/(d-R)^2 - GM/(d+R)^2, which algebraically is

GM( (d+R)^2 - (d-R)^2 ) / ( (d-R)^2 (d+R)^2 )

or

GM( 2dR ) / ( (d-R)^2 (d+R)^2 )

which is approximately equal to

GM( 2dR ) / ( d^4 )

or

GM2R/d^3

That is nearly the same formula as Gsquare's--he forgot the factor of two.

2002-May-09, 11:24 AM
On 2002-05-08 15:14, SeanF wrote:
[quote]
On 2002-05-08 14:02, ToSeek wrote:
Ok So what am I doing wrong?

Thanks in advance for any help.




3:17 A.M. HUb'
My advice ? use the cgs "SYSTEM"
centimeter gram second {actually its an energy scale based upon the erg}
the MKS Meter KiloGram Second
retains the Second as sacrosankt
however it deals with energy levels called Joules
really? keep your Enron Unit small
and your Step Large { I use e6 }
not E3 as it allows a broader spectrum than Micro-Mega

2002-May-09, 11:29 AM
On 2002-05-08 18:24, Roy Batty wrote:


On 2002-05-08 15:22, BadAstrologer wrote:


On 2002-05-03 17:54, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
As I like to say, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.


Well, then why do you look down upon the ancient science of Astrology? Just because you don't understand the science behind it doesn't give you any rights to condemn it. I think most of you so called scientists should refrain from rediculing Astrology.

----------------------------
it's all in the Tao of Planets


Oh please explain the science behind Astrology.. but perhaps start a different thread in the same forum, I'll join in /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
its based upon the MYTH of a circle decided into 12 parts
not ten pieces as Sceience would have you Believe 3:27 A.M. Pst

2002-May-09, 11:42 AM
<a name="20020509.3:31"> page 20020509.3:31 aka AS.trol.OG
On 2002-05-09 06:37, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To: 12 IMIX 15 UO
{um? its day one in a base twenty system}
On 2002-05-08 15:44, ToSeek wrote: To: Base 10
1:1:0
2:2:1:
3:3:2:
4:4:3:
5:5:4:
6:6:5:
7:7:6:
8:8:7:
9:9:8:
10 A9:
1: B
2: C
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
20
you sure use a lot of 2's and 4's
in your syntax & lexicon for A base 10`er
{Tener} get it whereas base 12 may be heard
as a higher calling {Sap} by some.. the Mayans base 20
system of "Astronomy" probably never had an equal cause they appearently got the calendar right the first time and never neaded to skip a second

Gsquare
2002-May-09, 12:22 PM
GM2R/d^3

That is nearly the same formula as Gsquare's--he forgot the factor of two.



OOps. Yes, I forgot the factor of 2. Thanks for the correction Grapes.

G^2

ToSeek
2002-May-09, 01:54 PM
On 2002-05-09 06:37, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
You're on the right track. Notice that the gravitational effect of the Sun is 208 times greater than the gravitational effect of the moon--that's the calculation by House of Knowledge, and it is essentially OK.

You calculated a difference of .07 near side to far side for the moon, and a difference of .00017 for the Sun, right? The ratio .07/.00017 is 411.8, so the effect of the moon is 412 times as great because of the distance. Put these two together, 412/208, and you get the fact that the tidal effect of the moon is roughly twice the tidal effect of the Sun.


But isn't the distance already factored into the 208x? It looks as if you're figuring the distance in twice.

In any case, thanks for the help and particularly for the second part of your post. I haven't had a chance yet to work through the math of the inverse cube law, though I will.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-May-09, 03:54 PM
On 2002-05-09 09:54, ToSeek wrote:
But isn't the distance already factored into the 208x? It looks as if you're figuring the distance in twice.

More like three or four times! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Your 1.07 figure is a ratio, so the distances cancel, sorta. It just measures how much of a difference the moon's gravity changes from one side of the Earth to the other. That is, 7%. Bottom line, the Sun's gravity is 200 times the gravity of the moon, but the effect of the moon being closer is 400 times greater, as you calculated.

SeanF
2002-May-09, 04:25 PM
On 2002-05-09 06:37, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

GM( (d+R)^2 - (d-R)^2 ) / ( (d-R)^2 (d+R)^2 )

or

GM( 2dR ) / ( (d-R)^2 (d+R)^2 )



Is my algebra screwed up, or should that be GM( 4dR )? Don't you get a +2dR out of both squares?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-May-09, 04:38 PM
Yep. I knew there was a factor of two missing somewhere! :)

The derivative of GM/d^2 is -2GM/d^3 times the derivative of d. The differential of d is also a distance, so the total effect, from one side of the Earth to the other is the diameter D times -2GM/d^3, approximately.

Or, if we're using radius R, -4GMR/d^3

D'oh

David Hall
2002-May-27, 04:42 AM
I just thought people might like to know; it seems that my submission to crank.net was accepted. LogicNews is now up there and it has been given a rank of illucid.

I feel so proud of myself. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

http://www.crank.net/new.html

ToSeek
2002-May-31, 04:19 PM
I note that Bart Sibrel's site has recently been added (May 27) with a well-deserved rank of "crankiest."

David Hall
2002-May-31, 04:33 PM
I see there's also an online petition to reopen the Apollo 1 fire investigation so that people can discover the "truth" about it.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Apollo1/petition.html

The Larry Jacks critique of Paper Moon is also new there. Someone here must have directed them to it, huh?

http://web1.archive.org/web/19980522194004/http://www.skywardpress.com/acritique_video.htm