http://home.iprimus.com.au/siewk/INFINITE%20CONVERGENCE/

This is a web page about how the second high tide is an equal and opposite reaction to the first across the core of the earth and a few other things. It challenges apple gravity and probably not of interest to anybody. Never the less the views about equal and opposite tides from those believing an apple attracts the universe would be of interest


leeaus

I sincerely hope that English isn't the author's first language!

Other than that, pure and utter bilge.

Janus 58

Are you saying the centre of the earth should not be subject to an equal and opposite force system? Is that clearly what you are saying.

leeaus

I'm saying that the author lacks a good understanding of gravity and its effects.

The mere fact that the Earth wobbles around the common center of gravity of the Earth-moon system is direct evidence that the Moon exerts a gravitational influence on the Earth.

As is the same type of wobble we find in stars that have planets around them.

The simple fact is that the author doesn't know what he is talking about.

Originally posted by leeaus
http://home.iprimus.com.au/siewk/INFINITE%20CONVERGENCE/

This is a web page about how the second high tide is an equal and opposite reaction to the first across the core of the earth and a few other things. It challenges apple gravity and probably not of interest to anybody. Never the less the views about equal and opposite tides from those believing an apple attracts the universe would be of interest


leeaus

The author of the aforementioned web site is a little misguided. At the L1 Lagrange Point (http://www.ottisoft.com/samplact/Lagrange%20point%20L1.htm) (derivation of it is at the link as well), which is the point discussed at the site, it is true that the gravitational force of the Moon is equal to that of the Earth, but they do not "cancel out" (i.e. the gravitational influences of the Earth and Moon do not terminate at that point), if so, how would the Moon orbit the Earth? In fact, the gravitational influence of the Moon never truly dies out, as one can see from the equation for gravitational force (Http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm).

For an explanation of how the Moon causes high tides, see here (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question72.htm).

I also would like to recommend http://science.howstuffworks.com/ to those in Leeaus' position who have questions about physical phenomenon and want a resource that will explain the basics.

Sorry Dapthar you are the misguided one. Appreciate that you may not have the opportunity to do detail analysis of what is being said but quote from Across the core of the Earth “When the sun’s gravity is brought into the system things do change a bit with respect of just what gravity field is in what gravity field.”

When you do the arithmetic the moon is not in the earth gravity field. On moon shots wasn’t it found that the earth’s gravity was left at about 260,000 km from the earth or where the earth and sun gravities are or would be equal and opposite. If correct such indicates the moon is not in the earth’s gravity field. The moon-sun equal and opposite point is about 30,000 km from the moon so there is distance between the earth and moon gravity fields.

What is put forward is that a superior gravity field contains an inferior one. The superior one for both the earth and the moon is the sun on account of the moon never getting to be within 260,000 km of the earth. Admittedly it is a scrappy diagram but if you look in frame of differences you will clearly see the moon shown to be outside the earth gravity field.
Think what is being said is quite clearly laid out in ACROSS THE CORE OF THE EARTH. The high tide under the moon is rationally caused by a termination of the earth gravity. Chose not to initially detail that it is the sun’s and not the moon’s gravity doing the terminating as the important thing is the principle involved. Or conflicting ones as it were. You (most likely) say gravity penetrates gravity as a high tide explanation. What is being said here is that such is arithmetically misguided. The high tide is explained by termination of gravity. If you read it carefully you will find that care was taken not to fully say the moon is the base cause of what we know as the lunar tides. On arithmetic the sun would be with the moon moving these tides around the earth’s gravity field as it orbits the earth.

Hope this helps

Leeaus.

Hello again Janus
The author is aware of the wobble mentioned. It is a criss cross of the earth’s orbital path. Such does not prove a gravitational attraction between the earth and the moon, particularly as it is unexplained how the earth – moon system could rotate around a point, which is what the common centre would be. Or how the earth has concurrent axii of rotation. More likely to be evidence of the earth and moon gravity fields pushing each other around the galaxy. What you are calling a wobble could just as easily be the alternation of moon gravity field pushing earth gravity field to the other way around as each leap frogs the other for galactic advancement. For fourteen days the moon is galactically behind the earth and the next fourteen it is galactically in front.

Hope this is of help to you.

leeaus

This is of help to us in deducing that you are probably the author of that website and came here to spam. Never mind that, but you obviously need to go back to the books, since you clearly don't have a clue about how gravity works.

Do yourself a favor and go to the library, pick up an elementary book on gravity, and read it. Keep in mind that laws of gravity are very well researched, before you try to launch alternative theories.

Hans

Currently, I cannot do a more detailed analysis of gravitational forces as I am not versed in the theory of General Relativity, and as of today, I do not possess the Mathematics knowledge to study it, thus I will not comment further on the tidal situation.

However, I will make a remark on the content of the "Infinite Convergence" site. To me, this site appears to support its scientific claims by using a "philosophical" methodology, especially in the "Infinite Convergence" and "Mathematics is not Logical Truth" sections. Aside from this fallacy, liberal use of statements that are obviously incorrect such as: what right has a reference frame to cancel the existence of motion lead me to believe that the author is in the dangerous situation of misapplying principles.

I have not been posting here long, but if the archives are any indication, arguments of the above sort do not sit well with the members of the Physics and Math forum. However, arguments supported by one's calculations, collected data, method of collection (all three of which are provided for review) and careful attention to existing theory elicit a more amicable response. As such, I suggest that the author either revise their material to include the details of their calculations (so it relies on more concrete means than diagrams), or that Leeaus considers giving up trying to persuade others that the author's ideas are true without this basis.

Since I have stated my views on this matter, this will be my final post in this thread, so I hope that Leeaus will heed my advice, and that other forum members will not be baited into a flame war over this issue.

Thanks Dapthar for your final post.

Lets get this straight. This either is or isn’t a science forum. If anyone wishes to research the accepted reasoning of why there is a tide on the side of the earth away from the moon they will not find one consistent reasoning related to such.
The boot really is on the other foot. What is being said if you apply an accepted law of science across the core of the earth you have your answer to why water rises against the direction of the moon’s gravity. That is all.
In contrast the accepted rule of gravity is every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe.

Has this theory ever been tested. Where is its proof. Until the test and the proof of the rule appears a true scientist can only view this rule as a pseudo science.

If the calculations showing that the earth-sun equal and opposite point is 260,000 km from the earth fine, they can be supplied. What it will prove it is hard to say. Anybody can do them.

If members of this forum have not the ability to consider whether or not the planet is naturally subject to an equal and opposite force system across its centre, it does it members no service to become beligerent about what is required to be of science and what isn’t, does it.

That question about whether the planet is subject to an equal and opposite force system is the only real question although what right has a reference frame to cancel the existence of motion is an equally valid one, thankyou Dapthar.

If this forum is not of standard to deal in such fundamental question, far be it the poser the contravener of scientific mores.

Lift your game or don’t bother about it is the point. The unproven pseudo science is the idea of every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe. As stated on the web page “The idea of everything in the universe attracting everything else in the universe would possibly be considered interesting and imaginative if it were to be presented today. Essentially it would be quickly seen to be a preposterous pseudo science. How could such an idea of everything attracting everything else ever be tested would be asked. What could possibly be considered the proof of everything attracting everything when here at earth we are so minor in proportion to the whole universe. How do opposite directions of gravity survive within each other would be argued in full until an answer was or wasn't found.”

What is the proof of an apple attracting the earth in other words. Where is the public demonstration, etc.


Leeaus

I recommend that you read the "Science or pseudoscience - a primer" sticky in the Physics & Math forum. In the first post, the distinction between science and pseudoscience is clearly made.

You will notice how "lengthy text explanations" fall under the category of "pseudoscience" because they lack the important aspect of "reproductivibility" encoded in the scientific method. And yes, that refers to a set of postulates or a clear but brief situation sketch and an ending formula that can be deduced from that situation (and preferably, because we are lazy, also some steps in between).

Claims on which the scientific method cannot be applied are pseudoscience. Sorry kiddo, we all had that experience, learn from it and come back next time.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp you lead to wonder about where the disciplined minds of the world are.
Stated is the theory of ‘every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe is the pseudo science. You don't seem to cotton onto this.

From your referred thread

Is it testable. No. How could every particle in the universe be tested to attract every particle in the universe.
NLG is pseudo science at first base.

Is it repeatable/reliable. As every particle has never been tested to attract every other particle the answer is no again.
NLG is pseudo at second base.

Is it supported by evidence.

In the minor region of the solar system, the high tide under the moon and the moon’s orbit of the earth appears to support every particle attracting every other particle. Even it could be shown that the moon actually pulled water, we still wouldn’t have evidence of every particle attracting every other particle. E.G. you would need evidence of the moon attracting a distant star as a next step to get NLG beyond pseudo science stage. NLG still pseudo science

Who has the onus of proof

The thread clearly states the onus is on the claimant. Thus anyone accepting NLG and the theory of every particle attracting every other particle is bound to supply the proof according to your pseudo science criteria. So, with no proof supplied NLG is definitely a pseudo science.

Is it well delineated. Your pseudo science thread states it best to move forward slowly. Every particle attracting every other particle becomes pseudo for sure under this criteria.

Is it open to change. The evidence would be no given the way the theory is idolized. Not clear that this is a true pseudo criteria, though. Like if something is right it wouldn’t need change.

Is the theory falsifiable? This is very similar to testable. Obviously if the theory of every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe can’t be tested in the first place, once again NLG is a pseudo science.

Is it realistic. You ask anyone out side science if they believe that an apple attracts the earth. The answer is always a resounding no. Try it some time. Thus the onus of proving every particle attracts every other particle is with the scientist. Okay kiddo.

If you are a non pseudo scientist, show that the theory of every particle attracting every other particle passes your own non pseudo criteria is wht you need to do. You can't have your cake and eat it to if you are genuine about things.



Leeaus

It is quite right that the onus of proof is on the claimant, and normally, I will reject an attempt at sending people off to read lengthy literature on a subject. However, we MUST make an exception for established science; we cannot be required to educate everybody who thinks he can revise our understanding of the universe on basical scientific knowledge.

Even Newtonian theory of gravity has explained quite satisfactory how tidal forces function. The fact that you do not understand it (or have not bothered to read about it) does not oblige us to explain it all over to you, let alone prove it.

If you want to present a controversial thesis, you must provide the evidence.

I can tell you, however, that most universities have an equipment that can show mass attraction. It involves a stationary metal ball and one swinging on a super-low friction pivot.

It (obviously) cannot be proved that gravity applies to ALL particles it he universe, but such proof is not nesseccary; it can be showed that predictions made by the Law of Gravity (sometimes amended by the Law of Relativity) apply in all cases we can observe. We are therefore justified in assuming that it applies universally.

Hans
Not a spammer incidentally. Why you went that way don’t know. Sleep tight with your exception. Look you will be referring to Cavendish experiments. The large mass is not observed to move towards the small mass. In the calculation of the constant the small mass is cancelled out and takes no part in the derivation.


Drop back to a demonstration of a smaller mass attracting a larger mass if you like. Forget every particle attracting every other particle. An apple attracting a pumpkin if you like. Lets face it if you can’t prove that you have a long way to go to prove every particle attracting every particle is not a pseudo job.

If science can’t hang an apple and a pumpkin up and watch the pumpkin move towards the apple then the question of where the substance of science is can be asked by anyone.

Forget the “controversial theory”. That is just there if the proof of an apple pulling pumpkin can’t be found. So please present the proof of this small mass attracting a large mass. Otherwise, face fact, there is justification for anyone to call NLG a great big pseudo science. Your exception does not ring true to a scientific mind incidentally.

Leeaus.

Wheres Dwayne D L Rabon when you need him?

Anyhow, yes, that suggestion does look rather bad. The author seems to be confusing mass and gravity and weight, which is silly, then even more fun, tehy dont seem to be able to explain why thhe gravity equations we have work perfectly well if you say that there is an attraction between all mass. If you knock that out the equations, surely they would come wrong.

"I can tell you, however, that most universities have an equipment that can show mass attraction. It involves a stationary metal ball and one swinging on a super-low friction pivot."

is not equal to the CAvendish experiment. The Cavendish experiment was about the density of the earth, not the movement of masses towards or away from each other.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics_221/Michell.htm

I woudl draw your attention to:
"If you want to present a controversial thesis, you must provide the evidence."

I must have missed something! I thought the bulge of tides on Earth on the opposite side of the moon had already been explained!?!:confused:

Correct me if I'm wrong...

When the moon and sun line up, the combined gravitational forces 'pull' the water towards them as water is, visually, more affected by gravity than Earth. However what most people forget is that the Earth too is susceptible to this 'pull'. Now the water on the other side is obviously not affected but for the gravity of the Earth. So the moon and sun pull the water AND the Earth away from the water on the opposite side leaving a smaller bulge on the opposite side.
If you did not get that, picture a bubble filled with water, with a marble floating in it. The moon and sun pull and distort the bubble into an elliptical shape. The marble also gets pulled to one side of the bubble leaving a bulge on the other side as well (which isn't actually a bulge it is just that the marble has moved to one side)

Now is this an incorrect statement? (if it is I will go and sit in the corner and wear a pointy hat) This has been my belief for some time and it seemed quite reasonable.

Originally posted by leeaus
Hans
Not a spammer incidentally. Why you went that way don’t know.

Came from my suspicion that you were the author of the website you linked to (otherwise how do you know what the author was thinking?). I could be wrong, of course.

Sleep tight with your exception. Look you will be referring to Cavendish experiments. The large mass is not observed to move towards the small mass. In the calculation of the constant the small mass is cancelled out and takes no part in the derivation.

Nonsense. So what is your limit for a small and a large mass? A star? Earth? The Moon? A marble? All masses attract mutually. When an apple falls to the ground, Earth rises to meet it. Now, since Earth is almost infinitely more massive than the apple, we can disregard its movement towards the apple for all practical purposes, but it is there. Not so with the Earth/Moon combination. The common center of gravity for the Earth/Moon mass is significantly removed from the center of Earth.


Drop back to a demonstration of a smaller mass attracting a larger mass if you like. Forget every particle attracting every other particle. A pumpkin attracting an apple if you like. Lets face if you can’t prove that you have a long way to go to prove every particle attracting every particle is not a pseudo job.

As I have told you, this (the attraction between two small masses, like metal balls) has been proven experimentally. In theory atomic particles also exhibit gravitational attraction, but cince gravity is a very weak force, it has little or no influence compared to the other forces that govern the movement of atomic particles.


If science can’t hang an apple and a pumpkin up and watch the pumpkin move towards the apple then the question of where the substance of science is can be asked by anyone.

But again, science can do this.

Forget the “controversial theory”. That is just there if the proof of an apple pulling pumpkin can’t be found. So please present the proof of this small mass attracting a large mass.

Has been proved. I can't prove it to you on a message board. You must look for it yourself.

Otherwise, face fact, there is justification for anyone to call NLG a great big pseudo science. Your exception does not ring true to a scientific mind incidentally.

We simply can't start repeating the proof for every part of elementary physics every time somebody shows up and declares gravity, electricity, or what-have-you to be wrong. You must be expected to seek basic knowledge for yourself.



Hans

Still waiting for evidence of a smaller mass attracting a larger mass. Otherwise the idea of an apple attracting the earth is a pseudo science.

F = G.M.m/d2

In the calculation of G for the density assessment of the earth mg is set equal to F where m is the small mass and g the rate of acceleration due to M at d.

mg = G.M.m/d2 which gives you G = M/g.d2

The large mass is not observed to move towards the small mass and the magnitude of the small mass takes no part in the calculation of G.

This again points to universal gravitation being a pseudo science. We need evidence of a small mass attracting a large mass for it to look like being a fundamental truth of the universe.

The so called controversial theory of INFINITE CONVERGENCE is nothing more than an application of Newton’s third law to the planet. If Newton’s third law is true, then the so called controversial theory is true.

As stated squarely in INFINITE CONVERGENCE anyone wishing to project universal gravitation as a truth needs to explain how a direction of gravity towards the earth occurs more than 260,000 km from the earth. That is where the sun and earth gravities produce a resultant gravity of zero.
If you can explain this and also demonstrate a large mass being attracted by a small mass here on earth then you are moving towards your entitlement of believing gravity is a universal affect and other than a pseudo science.

So far the angle has been universal gravitation is true because it is accepted as being true. When put the test, its evidence does not come forth.

Anyway, this thing is two tiered. Why wouldn’t the centre of the earth be subject to the accepted theory of there being an equal and opposite force to every force. Such easily explains why water rises against the direction of the moon gravity. As stated in INFINITE CONVERGENCE, if the centre of the earth was not subject to an equal and opposite force system, the centre of the earth would be moving relative to the body of the earth.

This is almost undoubtedly something you haven't considered through your education. Suppose this is why the word controversial pops up. If you are a scientist you should be able to consider such.

Secondly where is the evidence of small mass attracting a larger mass. Hans, if it is true you will be able to put a link up. Have searched for it. You are running for cover.

Oxymoron you haven’t the common earth moon centre of gravity in your explanation as most put in. You have the problem of an ellipse versus a teardrop. The ellipse would require a pull in opposite dirctions.


leeaus

"The large mass is not observed to move towards the small mass and the magnitude of the small mass takes no part in the calculation of G."

But it is, dont you believe Hans?

"That is where the sun and earth gravities produce a resultant gravity of zero. "

No, its where the gravitational forces balance out.

"if the centre of the earth was not subject to an equal and opposite force system, the centre of the earth would be moving relative to the body of the earth."

I think it does, only the rest of the earth gets in the way.

And lets make it clear here, your messing about with stuff, suggesitng it should be looked at another way, yet lack something unexplained that your theory helps explain better. What is so much wrong with the current theories that yours is better?

Hello Guthrie

If you believe you have observational proof of a small mass attracting a large mass am sure you will be able to give a lead as to where it is. Fair enough. Remember the onus of proof is with you as it is your theory the idea of a small mass attracting a large mass. Doesn't come from this side of things.

You probably are having a problem with believing gravity is a force. (this is where gravitational forces cancel out) Gravity causes mass to be forceful but we know nothing more about it than it causes an acceleration. Force due to gravity is inapplicable if no mass is present at a point 260,000 km from earth.

What you mean by the rest of the earth getting in the road is between you and your self. You don’t seem to comprehend that the earth is a mass forceful towards a centre. You will have to work on that it is guessed.

You joke about equal and opposite tides not giving scientific advancement. Specifically it gives a lead in to the Earth – Venus synchronicity. No pretext of full understanding is offered but when all which a way of current gravity ideas either ignore or are flummoxed by the synchronicity you have to be a strange type not to realize that a possible lead in to the synchronicity is of a potential advancement value.

Suggest you read the page more thoroughly before making such silly statements as no advancement is being offered.

Yours

leeaus

"If you believe you have observational proof of a small mass attracting a large mass am sure you will be able to give a lead as to where it is."

Im looking, ok.

"You probably are having a problem with believing gravity is a force. (this is where gravitational forces cancel out) Gravity causes mass to be forceful but we know nothing more about it than it causes an acceleration. Force due to gravity is inapplicable if no mass is present at a point 260,000 km from earth."

No, they balance out, not cancel.

"What you mean by the rest of the earth getting in the road is between you and your self. You don’t seem to comprehend that the earth is a mass forceful towards a centre. You will have to work on that it is guessed."

A mass towards a centre of the combined earth moon system balance point. Lets put it this way- you assert that our current udnerstanding of gravity is wrong, therefore there is something that the current hypothesis of gravity doesnt explain. So what is it?
Earth Venus synchronicity? aye right. if you can explain it in simple language, do so.

heres what loks liek a textbook introduciotn:
http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/courses/gladney/phys1/lectures/lecture11/phys_lecture_11_pg1_1.html

Guthrie hello

You didn’t really get through your problem of gravitational forces balancing out. If there is no force at the point of your “balance out” what is “balancing out”. Its acceleration rates that are balancing out. What you have in your head for forces balancing out definitely needs elaborating upon.

With this common earth centre of gravity that you appraise, do you realize that it has to be constantly relocating within the earth whilst the earth turns on its 24 hour axis. Given that the common earth moon gravity centre is suspected to be a point and not an axis it is really not plausibly to allow the common centre belief into the second high tide explanation to go beyond the pseudo stage is it.

Well, to 0.09 degrees the same longitude of Venus is towards the earth when ever Venus passes between the earth and the sun. As well there is 2 – 3 ratio of earth orbits to venus axial rotations. The evidence is Venus turns on its axis as the earth’s moves forward.
Well, how such a synchronicity could begin is the earth – sun tidal axis passing through the Venus gravity field during an eclipse of Venus. Beyond the eclipse if the Venus gravity field is subject to being turned by the forward motion of Venus bending the earth – sun tidal axis then you have both an original explanation of why Venus turns backwards and also a lead in to the synchronicity.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/siewk/INFINITE%20CONVERGENCE/rot_ra2.gif

http://home.iprimus.com.au/siewk/INFINITE%20CONVERGENCE/rot_ra4.gif

Your link says such things as masses communicating with each other. Just words in hope isn’t it. Not explanatory physics.

leeaus

Originally posted by leeaus
Still waiting for evidence of a smaller mass attracting a larger mass. Otherwise the idea of an apple attracting the earth is a pseudo science.

Don't you read my replies? I consider this basic knowledge, and I don't feel obliged to educate you on basic knowledge. It is not my problem that you don't believe it and your ignorance does not turn the laws of gravity into pseudoscience.

F = G.M.m/d2

In the calculation of G for the density assessment of the earth mg is set equal to F where m is the small mass and g the rate of acceleration due to M at d.

You even HAVE the formula, and you can SEE that it contains both M and m. BOTH masses are in the formula.

mg = G.M.m/d2 which gives you G = M/g.d2

The large mass is not observed to move towards the small mass and the magnitude of the small mass takes no part in the calculation of G.

It is left out because it is infinitessimal.

This again points to universal gravitation being a pseudo science. We need evidence of a small mass attracting a large mass for it to look like being a fundamental truth of the universe.

We have the evidence. But since you choose to be obtuse about this, pray tell me: In your opinion, what is the difference betwen Earth and a pepple, apart from size? What do you theorize is the magic quality that endows Earth with mass, but not the pepple?

The so called controversial theory of INFINITE CONVERGENCE is nothing more than an application of Newton’s third law to the planet. If Newton’s third law is true, then the so called controversial theory is true.

Infinite convergence?

As stated squarely in INFINITE CONVERGENCE anyone wishing to project universal gravitation as a truth needs to explain how a direction of gravity towards the earth occurs more than 260,000 km from the earth. That is where the sun and earth gravities produce a resultant gravity of zero.

You could try and read this: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav .

If you can explain this and also demonstrate a large mass being attracted by a small mass here on earth then you are moving towards your entitlement of believing gravity is a universal affect and other than a pseudo science.

So far the angle has been universal gravitation is true because it is accepted as being true. When put the test, its evidence does not come forth.

Gravitation has been put to the test often enough. You are just brandishing your ignorance

Anyway, this thing is two tiered. Why wouldn’t the centre of the earth be subject to the accepted theory of there being an equal and opposite force to every force. Such easily explains why water rises against the direction of the moon gravity. As stated in INFINITE CONVERGENCE, if the centre of the earth was not subject to an equal and opposite force system, the centre of the earth would be moving relative to the body of the earth.

The gravitational centre of Earth moves relative to the body of the Earth.

This is almost undoubtedly something you haven't considered through your education. Suppose this is why the word controversial pops up. If you are a scientist you should be able to consider such.

Perhaps YOU should consider the possibility that YOUR understandin of the theory of gravity is flawed.

Secondly where is the evidence of small mass attracting a larger mass. Hans, if it is true you will be able to put a link up. Have searched for it. You are running for cover.

Check the link above. I could lecture you at length about it, but I choose not to. Believe you me, I have met people on the internet who were questioning all kinds of established knowledge, and sometimes I have tried to educate them. But usually it turns out they don't really want to know. I suspect the same about you. So I simply opt not to waste enegy on your education, if you want education, seek it yourself. If you want to call this "running for cover", be my guest.

Oxymoron you haven’t the common earth moon centre of gravity in your explanation as most put in. You have the problem of an ellipse versus a teardrop. The ellipse would require a pull in opposite dirctions.

I dont understand what you mean.


leeaus

The HyperPhysics site is a good place to educate yourself, provided, of course that you believe what it says :rolleyes:.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Your little tidal riddle is explained here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.html#mtid



Hans

Hans hello

Settle. We aren’t here to fight. We are endeavouring to determine a right and wrong about why water rises against the direction of the moon’s gravity.
The web page you posted gives the prevalent explanation of why water rises against the lunar direction of gravity. There is attempts at account of why the moon gravity can be reversed on the far side of the earth with some other explanations.
If your description of the second high tide was correct, the body of the earth would not experience the high tide. If you research a bit you will find atmosphere, ocean and land all rise against the moon’s gravity. How so if the moon is pulling the earth away from the water.

What would your reasoning be as to why the solar tide is diurnal when the moon’s is semi diurnal. That question has to be of import. There is no obvious rationale, just as there is no obvious rationale as to why the solar tide works to an inverse cube law.

No question with the rest of your post. You are running for cover. You don’t know of any evidence of a small mass attracting a large mass. If you did you would give lead to it.

You may not be one but mathematical physicists are evidently low on any sense of social contract. World wide NLG is accepted on the say of science. It is not like some theory that no-one has heard of or doesn’t interact with the social consciousness of the planet. A socially orientated physicist would have at the ready the proof of an apple attracting the earth for the sake of the fact that non scientists are given to belief that it is actually true on the word of scientists. Whether it can be understood by non scientists is a lesser worry for the scientist. It should be available, though, if mathematical physicists have any sense of social obligation.

Leeaus

Originally posted by leeaus
Hans hello

Settle. We aren’t here to fight.

We are here to debate. I do, however, find it difficult to debate someone who is determined to disbelieve.

We are endeavouring to determine a right and wrong about why water rises against the direction of the moon’s gravity.

I disagree. In my opinion we are here to debate your alternative theory, but we never get to that point because you insist on attacking the established theory. Even if you were to succed in this, it would in no way vindicate your theory. But you have so far only succeeded in insisting on being ignorant about the current theory.

The web page you posted gives the prevalent explanation of why water rises against the lunar direction of gravity.

Yes, it explains the established explanation, I pointed you to it, since you did not want to take my word for it.

There is attempts at account of why the moon gravity can be reversed on the far side of the earth with some other explanations.
If your description of the second high tide was correct, the body of the earth would not experience the high tide. If you research a bit you will find atmosphere, ocean and land all rise against the moon’s gravity. How so if the moon is pulling the earth away from the water.

Because the same forces that influence the oceans obviously also influence the atmosphere and Earth's crust. They even influence you. The centre of gravity is shifted towards the moon, thus the surface of Earth facing away from the moon is farther from the centre of gravity, and according to the inverse square law, gravity is lower. I really cannot see that it is so difficult to understand.

What would your reasoning be as to why the solar tide is diurnal when the moon’s is semi diurnal. That question has to be of import. There is no obvious rationale, just as there is no obvious rationale as to why the solar tide works to an inverse cube law.

I am not aware that solar tide is different from moon tide, except for magnitude. Where do you get that from?

No question with the rest of your post. You are running for cover. You don’t know of any evidence of a small mass attracting a large mass. If you did you would give lead to it.

I keep giving you leads and you keep ignoring them, repeating the same claims and questions. I am not running for cover, but I may soon be walking away from this hopeless case.

*snipped, attacks on my personal social abilities *

Leeaus

Why do you not for a change present some evidence for YOUR theory instead of attacking the current one. The existence or non-existence of arguments for the current theory is totally irrelevant for the validity of your theory.

You can ignore or reject the evidence for the accepted theory till the cows come home, but this does not bring you one step closer to validating your theory.

Hans

Hans you are presuming you are right without supplying evidence. Not this side of thing. Couldn’t really care less if anyone wishes to consider whether or not weight of one side of the earth has to naturally equal the weight of the other side of the earth as the explanation of why water rises against the direction of the moon’s gravity. Just saying if weight of one side of the earth is not always equivalent to the weight of the other side the planet would be contravening Newton’s third law. That’s all. If you haven’t the wit to consider this hardly the fault of this side. The evidence supplied from this side is Newton’s third law as applied to the planet as a whole. It's a logic thing and put in more detail in ACROSS THE CORE OF THE EARTH in INFINITE CONVERGENCE.
The evidence you need to supply is that of a smaller mass attracting a large mass in the first instance. The onus of proof for that is on you as arithmetical analysis says it can't happen. Guthrie was off to find this proof and hasn’t returned. You are asking this side to believe a small mass attracts a large mass without supplying evidence and then displaying temperament when you can’t force the belief to happen. Not really appreciated when it is shown on the afore mentioned web page that the idea of a small mass attracting a large mass is arithmetically unsound.

If you allow your logic to pass through the arithmetical terminations of gravitation, which you shouldn't, the sun’s gravity at the earth is about 170 times that of moon. Your answer to why the lunar tide is the greater sometimes is that solar gravity works to an inverse cube and sometimes it is the decrease of moon gravity across the earth is greater. The trouble with the latter is the solar tide is diurnal not semi diurnal.

With your view of the high tide away from the moon you are always saying a lesser acceleration towards the moon on the far side of the earth is an acceleration away from the centre of the earth. A lesser acceleration towards the centre of the earth on the side of the earth away from the moon is still an acceleration towards the centre of the earth. You are reversing a vector without given reason. As mentioned some explanations say that the moon’s gravity as at the centre of the earth can be subtracted from the moon’s gravity at the surface of the earth. Then at least arithmetically you have your answer. The reason you can subtract the moon’s gravity at the centre of the earth from the moon’s gravity at the surface of the earth is left hanging though.

If you have given a lead to proof of a smaller mass attracting a larger mass, please say where. Definitely aren’t knowingly ignoring any such lead.

Leeaus

leeaus is a friggin idiot....

did you guys see his site?

the "afore mentioned web page"?

I hope you weren't afore mentioning that infinite convergence place dude, that place sounds like something right out of high school, if I may be so nice.


-->"Finite three dimensional length, of course, produces the shape of a sphere." ????

Well of course!, I had allways thought that all points equal distance from a point produces the shape of a sphere.


-->"Each of these three dimensions must intersect the others and an intersected line is not of infinite length."

You can't be serious with this one????
1) Dimensions do not intersect.......but the lines representing their axis can.
2)whether a line is intersected by another or not has little.....wait a minute, it has NOTHING to do with how long the line is.
3)in fact, EVERY line extends to infinity. The ones that dont' are called "line segments".
4)your TRYING to say that a line with an endpoint does not extent to inifity, well, sorry pal, but you gotta rethink this one as well: There are different degrees of infinity.
ex) compare the set of all even numbers to the set of all numbers.
Now explain to me how the set of all even numbers is finite.


-->And of course, My personal favorite!
"That is if 1 - 1 = 0 were true, then zero would be a number just like 1."
he he he


-->And your pitch at the old....... "There's only one number 1".........Please go back to philosophy 101 and get some new material dude, cuz that shit's weak.

Hello bigjornman
Are you suggesting that there is more than 1 number 1. Seems to be a contradiction of terms to a normal mind just as degrees of infinity does. Suggest that you discipline your mind to not making leaps without checking whether or not you are contradicting your self. Any degree of infinity is finite. Plain contradiction of terms.

leeaus

:rolleyes:

I'll try one more time. If you then keep ignoring my arguments, well, it's your life.

Originally posted by leeaus
Hans you are presuming you are right without supplying evidence.

I supplied evidence. But I will not undertake to educate you on gravity theory, sorry. Anyway it is irrelevant for YOUR theory.

Not this side of thing. Couldn’t really care less if anyone wishes to consider whether or not weight of one side of the earth has to naturally equal the weight of the other side of the earth as the explanation of why water rises against the direction of the moon’s gravity.

So you could't care less about the correct explanations? Why am I not surprised.

Just saying if weight of one side of the earth is not always equivalent to the weight of the other side the planet would be contravening Newton’s third law. That’s all.

No, it is exactly what Newton's third law predicts.

If you haven’t the wit to consider this hardly the fault of this side. The evidence supplied from this side is Newton’s third law as applied to the planet as a whole. It's a logic thing and put in more detail in ACROSS THE CORE OF THE EARTH in INFINITE CONVERGENCE.

Newton's laws fully support the accepted view on gravity. I can only conclude that yuo cannot understand them.

The evidence you need to supply is that of a smaller mass attracting a large mass in the first instance. The onus of proof for that is on you as arithmetical analysis says it can't happen. Guthrie was off to find this proof and hasn’t returned. You are asking this side to believe a small mass attracts a large mass without supplying evidence and then displaying temperament when you can’t force the belief to happen.

I am trying to get it into your head that I am not obliged to provide evidence for ANY theory in order to refute your theory. YOU must supply evidence for your theory.

Not really appreciated when it is shown on the afore mentioned web page that the idea of a small mass attracting a large mass is arithmetically unsound.

You have not shown that. You have just stated that you believe this.

If you allow your logic to pass through the arithmetical terminations of gravitation, which you shouldn't, the sun’s gravity at the earth is about 170 times that of moon. Your answer to why the lunar tide is the greater sometimes is that solar gravity works to an inverse cube and sometimes it is the decrease of moon gravity across the earth is greater.

The answer is both. Gravity from any object falls with the inverse square of the distance. Since Earths diameter is a larger fraction of the distance to the Moon than to the Sun, the Moon caused greater tidal forces. Do the math yourself.

The trouble with the latter is the solar tide is diurnal not semi diurnal.

This is the second time you claim this. Where is your evidence for that claim?

With your view of the high tide away from the moon you are always saying a lesser acceleration towards the moon on the far side of the earth is an acceleration away from the centre of the earth. A lesser acceleration towards the centre of the earth on the side of the earth away from the moon is still an acceleration towards the centre of the earth. You are reversing a vector without given reason.

I am not reversing it, I am reducing it.

As mentioned some explanations say that the moon’s gravity as at the centre of the earth can be subtracted from the moon’s gravity at the surface of the earth. Then at least arithmetically you have your answer. The reason you can subtract the moon’s gravity at the centre of the earth from the moon’s gravity at the surface of the earth is left hanging though.

If you have given a lead to proof of a smaller mass attracting a larger mass, please say where. Definitely aren’t knowingly ignoring any such lead.

Again, apart from pointing you to the HyperPhysics site, I will not undertake to educate you in basic physics.

Could you explain why it should NOT attract a larger mass? Where is the magic limit between a large and a small mass? Stars? Planets? Moons? Rocks? Pepples? I asked you this before, and as it is crucial to your theory, you should be able to answer.

Leeaus

Hans

Hans you worry people. You are to hyped up. Try relaxing and smelling the roses.

Just saying if weight of one side of the earth is not always equivalent to the weight of the other side the planet would be contravening Newton’s third law. That’s all. .


No, it is exactly what Newton's third law predicts.

If we go with this you would be seeing why water rises against the direction of the moon gravity as is being done here. You haven’t got to invent ways of reversing the moon’s direction of gravity like you and seemingly all others do. The second high tide is a consequence of Newton’s third law is what you are supposed to be seeing.

Don’t bother supplying evidence of a small mass attracting a large mass to refute my theory. Just supply it you have it.


As far as can be assessed the variation in magnitude between consecutive semi diurnal tides is a diurnal tide. Tidal analysis is not simply but at the full and new moons there is a differential between the semi diurnal tides. Which means a diurnal tide. There is also a solar tide with a six month frequency interwoven through these tides. A few years since personal analysis was done. Will check through it if you want.

With your claim of not reversing the moon’s gravity on the far side you are categorically wrong. You subtract a reduced moon’s gravity from the earth’s. The direction of the earth and moon gravity on the far side are like. They should be added not subtracted. The result is you reduce the earth gravity but to do so you have reversed the moon gravity regardless of whether it is reduced or non reduced moon gravity. No question at all to this.

Could you explain why it should NOT attract a larger mass? Where is the magic limit between a large and a small mass? Stars? Planets? Moons? Rocks? Pepples? I asked you this before, and as it is crucial to your theory, you should be able to answer.

Read this and you will have the answers to the questions you pose here.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/siewk/INFINITE%20CONVERGENCE/mirror%20tides.htm

leeaus

leeaus, I have a task for you, why don't you explain to me what "nothingness" is?

leeaus,

Wait a minute, are you dismissing gravity because it cannot explain the tides ? Well, you do know that there are different other effects that you need to take into account to explain tides, don't you ?

Bye!

Crisp

Bigjorman Not sure what you are getting at. The assessment is that there is no such thing as a nothingness, that something must exist. The fact that a nothingness is unexplainable is why something exists. Why you ask an assessor of nothing being an impossibility what a nothingness is bewilders the mind. Not on drugs are you.

Crisp Not sure what you are getting at either. Are you implying that gravity is not involved in the tides. The land masses interfere with the high tides occurring along the earth moon axis if that is what you are getting at. Or wind can affect magnitude. The diurnal tides would also be non gravitational affect as mention in frames of differences but please explain what you mean. Seems obtuse, you are implying that gravity doesn’t exist. Sure you are not but difficult to see what you are getting at.

As far as the semi diurnal tides go, the reason is a termination of earth gravity on an axis between the earth and the moon. So straight forward when you do a thorough analysis of resultant gravities. It is leeaus’s baby, that, you might say. Never leant towards saying anything like gravity is not involved in the explanation of the semi diurnal tides. Read ACROSS THE CORE OF THE EARTH if you need. Did so personally last night and found it a compelling argument and, as far as your question goes, strongly along the lines of gravity being in there pitching when it comes to the semi diurnal tides.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/siewk/INFINITE%20CONVERGENCE/mirror%20tides.htm

leeaus

in fact, yes I am, I just thought that you would have an interesting comback leeaus,

about your smaller object attracting the larger one.....
what if you had 2 moons the exact same size, would they not attract each other because they could not come upon an agreement as to which one has more mass?

Also, how to you end up with: "Any degree of infinity is finite."
and claim that I contradict myself?

where is the evidence of small mass attracting a larger mass.

Pluto and Charon orbit a common center of mass, a point between the two planets. Charon is attracting Pluto just as much as Pluto is attracting Charon.

References:

Speckle interferometric observations of Pluto and Charon, Icarus, Volume 50, Issue 1, April 1982, Pages 72-81
E. K. Hege, E. N. Hubbard, J. D. Drummond, P. A. Strittmatter and S. P. WordenT. Lauer

IRAS Survey-Mode Observations of Pluto–Charon, Icarus, Volume 142, Issue 1, November 1999, Pages 155-159
Mark V. Sykes

Bigjnorman You can try two masses the same size here on earth. Remember that two masses the same size are not a large mass and a small mass but no attraction should be the result. You would want to be careful magnetism or electromagnetism wasn’t involved.

You stated there can be degrees of infinity. This end states that a degree of infinity is not infinite. It is finite. Perhaps you best change suppliers. A degree of infinity is the contradiction of terms. You can't be spaced out enough.

Pete, the Pluto Charon relationship goes with equal and opposite tides. Similar to the tidal bulge under the moon not being evidence of the moon pulling the earth when you do your thorough arithmetical analysis, the synchronization of Pluto and a moon is not either.
The evidence is the two gravity fields are turning like a disconnected dumbbell as the Pluto Charon system moves around the galaxy. Similar to be the moon being out side the earth’s gravity field (the earth’s gravity extends 260,000 km the moon is never closer than 350,000 km) without knowing the gravity strengths, the evidence would be Charon is out side the Pluto field. If it wasn’t the synchronization wouldn’t exist from Pluto’s side. That is a rotation of the Charon gravity field could not be influential to a rotation of the Pluto gravity if Charon was within the Pluto field.

During a Charon eclipse of Pluto, the Sun Pluto tidal axis goes through the Charon gravity field. As Charon moves beyond the eclipse the evidence would be that Charon turns the Pluto tidal axis. Sketch diagram on the below link. In contrast a common centre inside Pluto could not be expected to turn Pluto could it. One set in space between the two bodies, where would the impetus for rotation come from.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/siewk/pc/

Are you aware of Roland Eotvos's experiements?

Do you explain away every lab-gravity experiment that confirms the value of G to "electromagnetic effect" (that miraculously have exactly the same value as what we expect from gravity)?

How about this one: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2001/1022/Story1.html

Pete Eotvos experiments do little more than demonstrate how blind so called mathematical physicists are. All the experiments ever do is prove that mass equals mass.

An acceleration due to gravity is compared to an acceleration not due to gravity(centrifugal) on the basis that m.a = m.g The two mass's are the one but in the first instance the mass is supposed to be inertial mass, the second gravitational mass.

Study the experiments. To say they prove more than quantity = quantity is not comprehendible without shown credibility of how mass is able to take on varied formats at Eotvos’s whim. Placing great emphasis on proving something equals its self is not high grade work is it.

On what you suggest as an explain away, it is not expected that an acceleration between identical masses exists. One gravity field needs to encompass another for one to accelerate towards the other. That is the basic principle.

With your link to an experiment, there does not appear to be a suggestion of anything accelerating towards the mirror, which would be required if the small did actually “pull” the large mass.


leeaus

:rolleyes:
You're an entertaining poster, leeaus.

Pete, there is a full awareness that what is being stated is Newton’s first law of motion is not a law of physics. Belief that it is law of physics is arguable the worst thing on this planet. Worse than believing in universal gravitation.

The so called law is a statement about Newton’s second law under the condition of zero unbalanced force. The way mathematical physicists read inertial force into such a statement is pathetic lonely boy science, learning something by rote to pass exams and carrying forth with the belief from there for the journey of life.

Inertial force supposedly existing to maintain constant or unchanging momentum is a force without an opposite and thus a blatant contradiction of the third law. If there is zero unbalanced force nothing changes speed, you have not need to invent a force not causing the change.

Naturally no-one is compelled to show that inertial force is not a pseudo science. But it is. There is not a situation in the universe that cannot be explained by Newton’s second and third laws alone. Its a shocker.

leeaus

OK leeaus, you have now amply demonstrated that you cannot understand physics. That's no problem, lots of people live long and fulfilling lives without it.

However, I suggest you avoid debates on the subject, since they make you seem incredibly dense.

Good luck!

Hans

"Remember that two masses the same size are not a large mass and a small mass but no attraction should be the result."

more infinite convergence wisdom huh....

are you saying that 2 objects of exact same mass would have no gravitational influence on each other?

Are you surprised? I don't see why. It makes as much sense as anything else he says.

Hans

Hans what grounds do your base your judgment. You seem a bit on the cheap side hiding behind the old chestnut of accepted science not needing justification or being in need of explanation to anyone. Take that away from you and what’s left. A pathetic shell of intellect it would seem not able to consider anything from own faculty. Apologies if such is not the case but you don’t deal with issues from your own intellect.

At no stage have you supplied evidence of a small mass attracting a large mass. Either you have a way of supplying such proof or you don’t. (From here it seems that you lack ability to add and subtract with purpose or discipline before you even worry about experimental evidence.)

To academically justify a smaller mass attracting a larger mass you have need to show how a direction of gravity survives through a resultant zero gravity. All the reasoning is laid out in this oft mentioned page.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/siewk/INFINITE%20CONVERGENCE/mirror%20tides.htm

If you can’t fathom what is upon it in an intelligent way, the problem lies with your savvy of how to methodically add and subtract finite numbers.

Bigjnorm, No wish to get to far away from what is sort is evidence of a small mass attracting a large mass. Han’s and presumably most others stated belief is “When an apple falls to the ground, Earth rises to meet it. “
That is what Hans says and that is what the proof of is being sort. Seems legitimate if someone states it that they supply at least some form of evidence of such.

However, two masses being identical in nature hung side by side at identical distances from the centre of the earth should not clang together because of their respective gravities.

It is stressed that such is a side issue compared to the preposterous Hans statement about the earth rising towards an apple. It would be descending towards for a start. Experimental evidence would be required to make the statement legitimate but what mathematical model could you propose to show that the apples gravity reaches to the other side of the earth as would be needed if the apple were to cause the earth to accelerate towards it.

It has already been stated on this thread that an asked person on a street resoundingly says an apple would not pull the earth. Try it sometime if your game. It is so senseless. If it were true the earth would be accelerating towards the apple before the apple fell. The apple is weighted towards the earth before it falls so what would cause the earth to do its “rising towards the apple" at the behest of the apples stem breaking. The earth falling towards an apple is nothing more than medieval nonsense of the witch craft order. You and others beieving in apple gravity have need to come out of the occult and enter the real world.

Leeaus

I hesitated to join this discussion but I just couldn't resist. :D

While I almost regret to say that I must side with my detractors on this one; with a couple of caveats.

1 - Newtonian m1.m2 provides no cause and in that regard I consider it an algorithum not physics. That doesn't make its predictions any less useful.

2 - I favor "Pushing Gravity" over "Attracting Gravity" for the same reason. There are many pushing gravity concepts, gravitons is the most recoginized but they all provide a "Cause" and for that reason I view them as being more physical reality, albiet we don't have all the answers yet.

3 - The following is a response I received regarding UniKEF.
[Moderator note: Advertisement for UniKEF deleted. This is off-topic for this thread.]

4 - The point has already been made that two large moons still attract. Add to that two small plates also attract (Casmir)

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Mac could you point to the evidence of two small plates attracting. Is it like masses or one larger than the other. Evidence of two moons attracting has not been cited. Pete suggested Charon attracts Pluto because the same longitude of each always faces each. It wasn’t shown that this synchronization was due to mutual attraction.

Regards

leeaus

leeaus,

http://www.tewari.org/cosp/cosp.html

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Mac
Checking out your link to Indian space conference. (Bit troubled by genius being picking and choosing known wisdom. Such wouldn’t account for original genius would it. Would more likely account for regurgitation at a rough guess.)


Leeaus

leeaus,

Let me suggest that you just search the topic "Casmir Effect". Plenty available, I just grabbed one of the first ones.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MAC hello. Think you may have left an i out of the Ducthman’s name.

Two things, first quite obviously what is being referred to as a vacuum in a Casimir effect is not a vacuum. There has to be something in there, the mirrors included.

Secondly, if the reduction of energy between the mirrors is a correct interpretation of what occurs as the mirrors are moved closer together, then it would not be the mass of the mirrors attracting each other as in their gravities. It would be the reduction of energy between causing any unaccounted motion of the mirrors towards one another. Or the creation of a further vacuum (sic) between the mirrors which amounts to a push on the back of the mirrors by the greater magnitude of energy behind each mirror. Hard to see how any interpretation of such a system can be clutched at as evidence of a mutual gravitational effect. The apple don’t attract the planet. Has a good historical ring to it that THE APPLE DON'T ATTRACT THE PLANET Good for the ears of all.

Regards
leeaus

leeaus,

We all understand that the Casmir Effect is the spacing to prevent energy Wave lengths from existing between the plates.
And that what was considered "Void or Vacuum" isn't actually empty at all but is full of energy.

While other might not see the gravity relationship, in "Pushing Gravity" concepts masses are being pushed together, not attracted, due to attenuation and/or absorbtion of energy flowing theough the masses. There ends up being more energy pushing together that pushing apart because of the interaction with the field or flux. That is the same principle that powers the Casmir
Effect.

As far as your view that an Apple doesn't "attract" the Earth, I fail to see how you can justify that view but each to their own. :bugeye:

The simple fact is that two steel balls suspended by long fibers inside a vacuum tube WOULD be gravitated togther" wihtout any doubt what-so-ever.

You should consider that water is made of atoms and atoms are made of sub-atomic particles. The moon gravity raises the oceans waters in tides (in opposition to earth's gravity). The tidal affect on the moon has been measured. Its orbit is increasing because theses molecules of water are pulling back on the moon causing a drag . Granted there are a lot of them but any mass however large is made of atoms. Just more or less of them.

But in the case of the tides the oceans mass is far less than the moons mass. And our oceans are affecting the moon by there gravity pull.

What "i" out of what Dutchman?

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Casimir is Dutch not spelt Casmir is the way it is being got here was all that meant.

Fail to see how a Casimir observation can be construed as evidence of an apple attracting the earth was what was stated.

The simple fact is that two steel balls suspended by long fibers inside a vacuum tube WOULD be gravitated togther" wihtout any doubt what-so-ever.

Would like serious justification of this statement. We have agreement that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum in space so where you begin your belief is difficult to ascertain. Do you mean a large and a small steel ball. The way you emphasize the word would indicates that your statement is not empirical.

The question, junior as it may seem, is, in your view of lunar gravity stretching to all the particles of the earth, how does the lunar gravity latch onto a particle and lift it up a little. Which is not really the accepted view, anyway when tidal explanation always end up as an arithmetical affect on the earth 9.8 m/s/s gravity, not a direct connect of lunar gravity to individual earth particles.

All that is being done is a questioning of academic interpretation of observations, including why the moon is moving away from the earth if you like. If you can arithmetically comprehend an apple moving the earth towards it self or indeed every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe it would be a surprise to all, dare say your self included. Once you deduct such things as equal and opposite accelerations due to gravity anywhere in space you are arithmetically compelled to suspect that gravity is not in fact a universal affect. Just basic arithmetical honesty. Not even an argument about what is known and what is not known.

Regards leeaus

leeaus,

Originally posted by leeaus
Casimir is Dutch not spelt Casmir is the way it is being got here was all that meant.

ANS: I stand corrected on the spelling.



Fail to see how a Casimir observation can be construed as evidence of an apple attracting the earth was what was stated.

ANS: I would not attempt to teach "Pushing Gravity" here but gravity in my opinion (and many others) is not an attraction of every particle of mass to every other particle of mass throughout the universe. That view is "Action without a cause".
Newton describes the action but not the cause.

"Pushing Gravity" concepts supply a cause and the same "Apparent" attraction affect. It is less energy between two objects pushing them apart than there is in the universe external to the zone between them and as a consequence they are pushed, not pulled, together.

Now I take this a bit farther and suggest that Newton's description of gravity on a macro-scale falls apart. In my view the universe is finite and expanding.

As a consequence of that when you begin to reach objects near the edge of the universe there is now more energy pushing them outward than there is pushing them together and as a consequence you have an accelerating expansion of the universe.

Currently science is trying to invent another force "Dark Energy" with anti-gravity properties. When according to UniKEF gravity and the accelerating expansion are the consequence of the same energy field and processes.

BTW I predicted the accelerating expansion in 1954. Along with almost a dozen other "Priori Predictions." While UniKEF is not favored here because it is mostly ideas without mathematical support, etc, "Priori Predictions" are supposed to lend credence to a concept.

How many "Priori Predictions have you made with your theory?

The simple fact is that two steel balls suspended by long fibers inside a vacuum tube WOULD be gravitated togther" wihtout any doubt what-so-ever.

Would like serious justification of this statement. We have agreement that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum in space so where you begin your belief is difficult to ascertain. Do you mean a large and a small steel ball. The way you emphasize the word would indicates that your statement is not empirical.

ANS:Technically you are correct. I have never suspended two weights of any material or size and observed them moving together. But I also have no doubt they will and that is based on emperical testing. I have spent months running tests that were operating on forces on the order of 1/60,000,000,000,000ths of a pound. Do you have any hands on experience doing research?

I have done my own research and have seen something that only I and my partner have seen. It involved a modified cavendish balance 3 foot wide. Equal masses but with one 3/8 of an inch closer to the center suspension fiber.

As counter intuitive as it may appear it tracked the sun and moon without fail for months. The only problem is it was the shorter arm that did the tracking!!! Now my theory (UniKEF) explains the reason for that. I challenge You, Newton or Einstein to do the same.

If you are courious you can visit UniKEF at:

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm and look over the photo album of gravity testing.

The question, junior

ANS: I haven't been called "Junior" in more years than you have been out of diapers, "Junior" but I don't mind. I accept your tendancy to believe you are right and the world is wrong.

Been there - Done that. But as you learn something from hands on experience (assuming you do) that will change or should.

as it may seem, is, in your view of lunar gravity stretching to all the particles of the earth, how does the lunar gravity latch onto a particle and lift it up a little. Which is not really the accepted view, anyway when tidal explanation always end up as an arithmetical affect on the earth 9.8 m/s/s gravity, not a direct connect of lunar gravity to individual earth particles.

ANS: No arguement there. There is no such thing as gravity attraction. So I agree an apple doesn't pull the earth BUT NEITHER DOES THE EARTH PULL THE APPLE .

They are being pushed together and the earth does move toward the apple but unfortunately (without working out ridiculus mathematics lets say "hypothetically" the earth might move one planck length when the apple moves several miles in free fall.

Now before you go off half cocked and yell that I can't prove that, I must also remind you that you can't prove it doesn't either.


All that is being done is a questioning of academic interpretation of observations, including why the moon is moving away from the earth if you like. If you can arithmetically comprehend an apple moving the earth towards it self or indeed every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe it would be a surprise to all, dare say your self included. Once you deduct such things as equal and opposite accelerations due to gravity anywhere in space you are arithmetically compelled to suspect that gravity is not in fact a universal affect. Just basic arithmetical honesty. Not even an argument about what is known and what is not known.

ANS: I'll not comment here in that I don't view gravity as an attraction at all and my other basis of differences here have already been stated.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Mac

The question, junior as it may seem, referred to the question as being a junior question. Please read it from that perspective Mac.

Quite at ease with the idea of gravity being a push and not a pull. It is the origin or the cause of the push you need. No-one has ever explained the physics of a pull as yet. Whenever you hear a mathematical physicists use the word “pull” you know he or she is shy of the truth and clutching at straws.

Outside gravity, magnetic and electromagnetic phenomena we know all concepts of a pull reduce to a push. EG a car tow ball pushes on a trailer coupling. We say the car pulls the trailer because it is essentially behind the car. The front of the coupling is in front of the ball of the car though so in reality it is push that causes the forward motion of a trailer. An example that it is sure you are familiar with.

When we can’t fathom or demonstrate a pull with a vector applied to mass, it is more prudent to consider that gravity and a push are bedfellows than gravity and a pull being of the same relationship.

At this stage what we know of gravity is an acceleration through space towards mass. Whether or not you are right or wrong with Push Gravity, it sounds as if you appreciate that what we look for is cause and affect. Saying mass is the cause of the affect (the acceleration towards mass) lacks mechanical description of how a non vector quantity causes a vector towards its self at this stage. Obvious to a discerning mind that something is missing. Newton for one specifically wrote that he didn’t know how mass caused gravity. You are unlikely to find anyone much on this forum with much clue either.

Not big on priori predictions. Historically they have produced unwarranted science ego. What is more relevant is not worship of some one who apparently has predicted something with success but the understanding of the something. Always reminded of what drew Tyco Brahe to astronomy. It was a successful prediction of a lunar eclipse when Brahe was 14. At the time the earth was believed to be the centre of the universe. The point being successful predictions aren’t guarantees of physical understandings in any shape or form.

We agree that neither the earth pulls the apple or the apple pulls the earth. The apple accelerates towards the earth. That is what we know. On some web page or other there is answer to the acceleration given to do with the earth pushing (compressing) space into space so as to create a space density gradient around the earth. So as an apple has moved from a higher space density region to a lower space density region when it thuds to the base of the tree. Such is a full mechanical explanation without any unexplained pull hokus pokus in sight.

The pretext that mathematical support is required as a basis of truth seems amongst the largest of world problems. Possibly the fact that gravity works to an inverse square allows mathematicians disproportionate arbitration over what makes sense. Rest assured, your push theory would be judged by us on cause and affect rationale, not because it doesn’t involve one side of an equation being found to equal the other side.

It is stressed that some one believing the world wrong would not intone that a gentle person like your self to be a junior, whatever the relative chronologies were. Your moon sun tracking sounds interesting. Will have a look.

Regards leeaus.

James R.,

3 - The following is a response I received regarding UniKEF.

[Moderator note: Advertisement for UniKEF deleted. This is off-topic for this thread.]

ANS: This is not a loud complaint about the graphics being deleted but I did want to respond that I do not believe it was off topic. It was VERY MUCH on topic in that "Others" had shown UniKEF's prediction of the tide issue with graphics.

I won't apologise that it supported the UniKEF view and I think you errored by removing it. But I don't see posting supporting material for a concept as advertising, I see it as an avance in understanding and of good value overall. This seems to be a never ending problem.

If I say something as an idea or concept that isn't fully supported, then it isn't science and shouldn't be talked about. If I post something that supports the concept then it is advertising.

So basically my interpretation is that this forum wants nothing but acceptd text book responses and nothing new (accept as generally accepted world wide and or favored by current SciForums members) should ever be seen here.

I think that would be a loss.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by leeaus
Hans what grounds do your base your judgment.

Judgment on what? You? You sem impervious to arguments. Just see how you go on and on.

You seem a bit on the cheap side hiding behind the old chestnut of accepted science not needing justification or being in need of explanation to anyone. Take that away from you and what’s left. A pathetic shell of intellect it would seem not able to consider anything from own faculty. Apologies if such is not the case but you don’t deal with issues from your own intellect.

I have examined science using my own intellect.

At no stage have you supplied evidence of a small mass attracting a large mass. Either you have a way of supplying such proof or you don’t. (From here it seems that you lack ability to add and subtract with purpose or discipline before you even worry about experimental evidence.)

I do not intend to prove basic science to you, for two reasons:

1) I do not care enough about wether you believe it or not. If you want this evidence, find it for yourself.

2) It is irrelevant for this debate. We are not debating conventional science, we are debating your thesis. You provide evidence.

To academically justify a smaller mass attracting a larger mass you have need to show how a direction of gravity survives through a resultant zero gravity. All the reasoning is laid out in this oft mentioned page.

[b]There is no such thing as a resultant zero gravity. There is a balance of forces. If you pull at both ends of a string and it does not move, does this mean that there is no pull?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/siewk/INFINITE%20CONVERGENCE/mirror%20tides.htm

If you can’t fathom what is upon it in an intelligent way, the problem lies with your savvy of how to methodically add and subtract finite numbers.

I can fathom it in an intelligent way, and I find it seriously flawed.

*snip*



Hans

Hans if you persist with playing the man and not the ball you shall continually find your self out of your depth.

The old ground of not needing to justify what you say is hardly worth visiting again. Don’t show the existing idea of gravity being an indefinite extension to be true for the sake of ridding the universe of an incorrect theory that annoys you. Show it to be true because it is true. Eliminate the existence of what you have labeled an incorrect theory from your being. Then provide empirical and or theoretical evidence of gravity being an indefinite extension because such is the truth. You probably know by now that you can't do it.

If you had read the previous post (leeaus) you would have seen clear logic about there being no such as a pull in the mechanical world. In a tug of war, as you offer in example, the rope is not pulled. Hands push the rope and feet push the ground.

And yes, at a point in the middle of the rope there is a point of zero resultant force per unit time. If you have two hands clasp the fingers of each together and exert force both ways. Firstly you will find your fingers are pushing on each other. Secondly where the force alters direction there has to be zero force per unit time if the force alters direction. In one millisecond the force will be one way on a particle, in next the other. At the micro level it would have to be the displacement of an electron from side to side of an orbit that allows this. On one side of the orbit the push is towards one hand, on the other side of the orbit the push is towards the other hand. Like two bulls pushing at a rock between their heads at a more macro level. Sometimes the rock moves one way, sometimes the other way, with each movement the force on a part of the rock changes direction.

Once again, at a point in between the earth and the moon you are mistaken to describe gravity as force directed towards the centre of a body. A force is the exertion of matter upon matter. What you know about between the earth and the moon is a rate of acceleration, either directed towards the earth or the moon.

Play the ball and not the man please Hans. If you find something seriously flawed elaborate. What is seriously flawed is your reversing of the direction of lunar gravity on the far side of the earth. Go to the low tides positions on the surface of the earth on your diagrams. The moon gravity is at a virtual right angle to earth gravity at the low tides according to thou. What’s more, according to you, it somehow reverses to cause an acceleration away from the moon at the low tides. You have water moving against lunar gravity from the low tides to become a high tide on the far side of the earth.

JR, is the suggestion that the UniKEK theory is subject to commercial gain. Advertising seems the wrong word.

Regards

leeaus

Originally posted by leeaus
Hans if you persist with playing the man and not the ball you shall continually find your self out of your depth.

*snip*

Play the ball and not the man please Hans. If you find something seriously flawed elaborate.

My friend, it is you who are playing, not the man, but the wrong ball. You are constantly asking me to produce evidence for the theory I support, but this is irrelevant. We are discussing YOUR theory. However, as you are obviously a nice and decent person, I'll play along to some extent. ;)

What is seriously flawed is your reversing of the direction of lunar gravity on the far side of the earth. Go to the low tides positions on the surface of the earth on your diagrams. The moon gravity is at a virtual right angle to earth gravity at the low tides according to thou. What’s more, according to you, it somehow reverses to cause an acceleration away from the moon at the low tides. You have water moving against lunar gravity from the low tides to become a high tide on the far side of the earth.

See below.

*snip*

Regards

leeaus

I'm not reversing the lunar gravity. At any point in the vicinity of Earth and the Moon (actually all over the universe, but that is academic), there are two gravitational force vectors, on pointing at the moon, another pointing at Earth. The direction and strength of the resultant vector is the actual gravity at any point. In effect, any object is pulled towards an imaginary object at the end of the resultant vector. At the "zero gravity point", somewhere between Earth and the Moon, those vectors cancel out, exactly. This does not mean that the gravities are nonexistant at this point, but their pulls are exactly equal and in opposite directions (and an object in that point will attract Earth and the Moon equally ;) ).


Now for tides. At the side of Earth facing the Moon, Earth Gravity pulls down, and Moon gravity pulls up, the resulting gravity thus becomes less, and the pressure of the heavier water at the sides (having the lunar gravity at more or less right angles) pushes the "lighter water" under the Moon up.

On the other side of the planet, facing away from the moon, the water feels the combined gravity of the Earth and the moon, but because the imaginary object at the end of the gravity vector is farther away, it is still lighter than the water at the "sides".

This explanation is consistent with observations and calculations according th Newton's laws, and it can be experimentally supported with computer simulations.

Now, I have explained the conventional theory in some more detail. This also shows youthat I have confidence in that theory. However, you opened this thread to present YOUR gravity theory, so we should not be discussing possible shortcomings of conventional theory, we should be discussing the merits of YOUR theory. After all, you are not the only one with an alternative theory, just ask Zarkov ;).

Hans

Hans good that you have calmed down. Have been worried about your life structure.

Mass subject to gravity we know to be forceful. We do not know that gravity is a force. We observe an acceleration through space towards mass and that is what we know. We do not know that this observed acceleration is due to a force acting towards the centre of mass. That is supposition. A force requires an action for explanation. It has been mentioned that Newton specifically said he did not know what gravity was, how an action at a distance was performed. As far as academia goes, there has been no clear advance on this that can be pointed to.

If a direction of acceleration towards the moon could be shown to survive beyond what you call a balance out, your description of the high tide on the moon side of the earth would be sensible.

You can’t really be serious with this though. On the other side of the planet, facing away from the moon, the water feels the combined gravity of the Earth and the moon, but because the imaginary object at the end of the gravity vector is farther away, it is still lighter than the water at the "sides".

You are combining earth and moon gravities and making the result less than the result you get. It is presumed your somewhat vague unclear description means “farther away from the moon” .

Say the earth gravity is 100 at the surface of the earth and the moon gravity is 2 on the moon side of the earth and 1 on the far side of the earth.

Under the moon the combined gravity is 98 towards the centre of the earth. On the far side the combined gravity is 101 towards the earth. The far side of the earth should be the lowest of low tides. And at where the low tides are actually observed it is 100. Those figures are not actual but the relative magnitudes are in accordance with reality. Thus your methodology does not fit with tidal observations. Your logic would produce a diurnal lunar tide. Unless you reverse the 1 and then it is 99 which still arithmetically unsound.

If you go to the following link you will see an academic who at least admits to reversing the lunar gravity on the far side of the earth in a way that makes arithmetical sense. And also offers explanation of why the lunar tides are equal in magnitude which your explanation doesn’t.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html

There is still a few unexplained bits and pieces and do not for a moment believe that the explanation is considered credible. It has a little more vector honesty that what you have been able to achieve. That is all. It is the analysis that was put on ACROSS THE CORE OF THE EARTH as the existing idea. At least you can see some arithmetical integrity to it.

The following link is to tidal predictions. Most every other web explanation of the tides cites the solar tides as semi diurnal tides. From the predictions this is wrong. Predictions are not observed records. However shipping and fishing industries live by tidal prediction and there isn’t evidence of tidal predictions being unreliable in the eyes of these industries.

http://www.ntf.flinders.edu.au/

East Coast Australian tides are good to consider as an east coast with much eastern distance to another land mass allows a consistency of tides. You don’t get earth made tides like the Bay of Fundy in Canada where there is sixty foot tide due to locked water.

You will notice a difference between like consecutive semi diurnal tides. This is evidence of the a diurnal tide or a tidal variation with a 12 hour frequency. Which says the solar tides are diurnal not semi diurnal as you previously seemed to favour. Possibly this mistaken view all over the web is an indicator of how poor academic understanding of the tides is. If you study 365 days worth of predictions you also find a diurnal tide with 182 day period.

Thanks for offering your explanation of the semi diurnal tides. It doesn’t stand up to arithmetical reasoning is the problem.

You wish to discuss the merits of this side of things. Plausibly the greatest virtue on this side is existing physics is used. It is not a new theory as you say from that point of view. There is an equal and opposite force to every force is the existing physics. Apply this across the core of the earth and you can see at last why water rises against the direction of the lunar gravity. If opposite sides of the earth are not bound to an equal and opposite force system, the earth would be in contravention of existing physics. Quite meritorious, you will agree it is sure when you see the beauty of cause and affect from China to Chile, not around the circumference but across the diameter.

Regards

leeaus

Hans you may have to click around a bit to open the tidal predictions

leeaus

Originally posted by leeaus
Hans good that you have calmed down. Have been worried about your life structure.

Pal, the only health risk you pose is that I might die laughing.

Mass subject to gravity we know to be forceful. We do not know that gravity is a force.

We really should stop here. If gravity is not a force, pray tell what it is.

We observe an acceleration through space towards mass and that is what we know. We do not know that this observed acceleration is due to a force acting towards the centre of mass. That is supposition.

Gravity in one of the four fundamental forces in the universe.

*snip*

If a direction of acceleration towards the moon could be shown to survive beyond what you call a balance out, your description of the high tide on the moon side of the earth would be sensible.

Since we do have tides, it obviously does.

You can’t really be serious with this though.*snip* Unless you reverse the 1 and then it is 99 which still arithmetically unsound.

I was seriously trying, for the third time, to explain it in a new way in hopes of giving you some understanding.

If you go to the following link you will see *snip* At least you can see some arithmetical integrity to it.

Yes, the Bad Astronomer is very good at explaining things. much better than I, since I'm slightly out of bounds on astronomy. I'm glad to see you are seeking information for yourself, that is what I have told you to do all the time.

Unfortunately, you still make your basic, flawed, assumption:
Whatever you do not understand, you assume to be wrong.

The following link is to tidal predictions. *snip*

Thanks for offering your explanation of the semi diurnal tides. It doesn’t stand up to arithmetical reasoning is the problem.

No, the problem is that you do not understand it. The inability to explain in a way you can understand might be my fault, but remember, it was YOU who insisted that I educate you.

*snip*

Regards

leeaus [/B]

Let me put this in an entirely different way: Scientists have been working on this for centuries. Do you really think YOU have spotted a fundamental flaw that has eluded the world's best scientific minds (in which category I certainly do not include myself) for all that time? Do you think they could have sent spaceships to the Moon and probes to every body of importance in the Solar system, all based on a basically flawed knowledge of gravity?

Do you think that you, of all people have found the real way to understand gravity?

If your answer to the above is yes, I suggest you stop wasting your time with people who have no better to do than to post on internet message boards, and instead submit your paper to a scientific journal. If you are right, the Nobel Prize will be the least of the celebrations awaiting you.

Hans

Hans not interested in a nobel prize. Just interested in common sense.

Gravity causes force. To demontrate that a cause of force is a force you have some explaining to do. Forces comes in opposites, that is accepted science. Your implying force causes a like directed force. Which is ok as long as you explain just how.

When you draw on space ventures and hundreds years of science to strengthen your stand point you are recognizing doubt inside your self.

All that is questioned is an apple pulling the earth, not a man walking on the moon or three hundred years of mathematics. Go through this thread. You will not find evidence of an apple pulling the earth as yet. That is what is being questioned.

(It was stated that the tide under the moon would be sensible in your logic if an opposite direction of gravity survived through zero gravity. It was not stated that the tides (plural) would be sensible. Please read more carefully.)

leeaus

leeaus

Originally posted by leeaus
Hans not interested in a nobel prize. Just interested in common sense.

Sure. Convince the world of your "common sense" and you can always refuse the Nobel Prize.

Gravity causes force.

No. Gravity IS a force.

To demontrate that a cause of force is a force you have some explaining to do. Forces comes in opposites, that is accepted science. Your implying force causes a like directed force. Which is ok as long as you explain just how.

Yes, they come in opposites. That is why the apple atracts Earth (extremely simplified).

When you draw on space ventures and hundreds years of science to strengthen your stand point you are recognizing doubt inside your self.

Not at all, I am appealing to authority. Which is not a fallcy if the authority is relevant.

All that is questioned is an apple pulling the earth, not a man walking on the moon or three hundred years of mathematics. Go through this thread. You will not find evidence of an apple pulling the earth as yet. That is what is being questioned.

The evidence is not in this thread, it is out there in the real world. Go find it.

(It was stated that the tide under the moon would be sensible in your logic if an opposite direction of gravity survived through zero gravity. It was not stated that the tides (plural) would be sensible. Please read more carefully.)

No, you go read the explanations out there more carefully, if you need to know.

leeaus [/B]

I notice that you are still evading any challenge to produce evidence for YOUR thesis. Instead you persist in irrelevant attacks on the accepted theory.

Hans

Hans thanks for your unsupported bland statements, each of which has already been shown to lack either sense or depth of consideration. You haven’t even described the mechanics of a pull yet so obviously you have a way to go to substantiate that gravity is a force.

The evidence of the theory about the centre of the earth being subject to an equal and opposite force system is abundant and been about for centuries.

It is predicted by the theory that there should be like tides on direct opposite sides of the earth. Observe the tides and you will find that prediction in fact is in accordance with results.


Once again gravity causes Hans to be a force (directed towards the centre of the earth.) How does gravity cause Hans to be a force. That is your question. You say it is because gravity is a force therefore it makes Hans a force. You offer no explanation of how beyond the bland unsupported “gravity is a force”.

Please note that evidence supporting the centre of the earth being subject to an equal and opposite force system is plentiful. You can move on from there.

Regards

leeaus

I suggest you go play with Dwayne. You are basically equally impenetrable.

Good luck.
Hans

Hans who is Dwayne. I doubt that you mean Dwayne Russell the football commentator.

Anyway thanks for acknowledging you couldn’t penetrate equal and opposite tidal logic. When something is right, that is the way it goes. It just can’t be shown to be wrong.

Thanks for your endeavours to try and find error anyway. What do you suggest is done now that you find the equal and opposite logic impenetrable.

PS When the moon’s gravity is pointed the wrong way to cause a high tide on the far side of the earth your wrongdoing was quite easy to establish. Gloating is not intended but the cause of the second high tide being the first is a good step forward, isn’t it.

Good luck to you to

Leeaus.

"The evidence of the theory about the centre of the earth being subject to an equal and opposite force system is abundant and been about for centuries."

Perhaps in the year 4203 it will have been replaced by something better, but in good ol' 2003, this is still the theory of what happens at the center of the earth. The resulting gravity there is zero, as all sides of the earth attract the mass equally (assuming the earth is a perfect homogeneous sphere, but I doubt you are talking about the tiny imperfections on the earth's surface here).

Leeaus, Hans has explained to you what is considered to be the "de facto" explanation of tidal workings. It works perfectly, but you seem to have a problem with the Newtonian modelling of gravity as a force ? Don't like that, fine, let's talk general relativity then, where gravity is the geometry of spacetime.

You'll find that it predicts the same tidal workings, and reduces to the Newtonian picture in the end.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp Thanks. You to recognize the reason water rises against the direction of the moon’s gravity on the far side of the earth is Newton's third law at work. The force on the moon side decreasing means the force on the direct opposite side must also reduce. Thus we have equal and opposite high and low tides and at last an explanation of how and why water rises against the direction of the moon's gravity.

Not sure why you refer back to Hans description, particularly as he has found the equal and opposite tidal logic impenetrable.

Space time is a worry isn’t it. Time is not a physical quantity. Glad you realize that the second high tide is explained by Newton’s third law, anyway.

Regards

Originally posted by leeaus
*snip*
Not sure why you refer back to Hans description, particularly as he has found the equal and opposite tidal logic impenetrable.

*snip*

Regards That is a lie. I explained it three times to you in three different ways. I found YOU impenetrable to logic.

I have given up on you and prefer to leave you alone, but do not claim that I found your arguments impenetrable, because that is not the case.

Hans

Hans the centre of the earth being subject to Newton’s third law is not a lie. You work out where you wish to stand with respect of such truth. (There is no personal wish to be impenetrable. Could only assume you meant the topic under discussion when you chose to use that word.)

If you are stating that you prefer your three time displayed mathematical dishonesty about calling a subtraction of lunar gravity on the far side of the earth (that you do)an an addition to the mechanics of equal and opposite tides you are not a fully fledged mathematician and that is about where it ends for you. Although appreciate your wish to bow out anyway. All can if they want. This forum is not about the mathematical integrity of Newton’s third law it would seem although Crisp has at least seen that this particular law is in need of appreciation across the centre of the earth. It explains why there is equal tides on direct opposite sides of the planet. Plausibly no-ones understand Newton's third law. It's a mystery as to why supposedly sound minds can't at least consider Newton's third law as the explanation of why water rises against the direction of lunar gravity.
The only conclusion can really be the minds are actually unsound.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/siewk/INFINITE%20CONVERGENCE/

Only sensible replies please.

Leeaus.

Not in equal and opposite tides but in the diurnal tides there has been a mistake. The sun-earth axis produces equal and opposite tides. The diurnal solar tide has to do with the tilt of the earth. For your information.

leeaus

"Plausibly no-ones understand Newton's third law."

I think I have a pretty fair understanding of Newton's third law. It is a prescription on how to deal with interaction forces when transferring from one reference frame to another.

There is no transfer of reference frame required to explain tides (by which I mean, you don't have to go from the earth to the moon). Hence Newton's third law does not even come into play to explain the tides. The reason why it is usually mentioned in tidal explanations is to stress that the earth attracts the moon, but also the other way around.

"Crisp Thanks. You to recognize the reason water rises against the direction of the moon’s gravity on the far side of the earth is Newton's third law at work."

I did not say that, and I do not agree with it either. See above for what Newton's third law means. Reread Hans' explanation for what I think is the explanation for the tides.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp did ask for sensible replies only.

It has been explained to Hans that he subtracts the moon gravity from earth gravity on the far side of the earth. The gravities are like directed and thus are subject to addition not subtraction. Fundamental error that both you and he make. (what you and Hans are doing is wrongly convincing your self that a decrease of lunar gravity magnitude across the diameter of the earth is an acceleration away from the moon. Your confusion between decrease and opposite direction has been explained many times in this thread. Subsequent to the explaining of your confusion, no-one has placed evidence to support why a decreasing gravity magnitude (the moons) is subtracted from a like directed gravity (the earths).)

Newton’s third law means that there is an equal and opposite force to a force. What that means with respect of the tides is this. If there is a high tide under the moon (on the moon side of the earth) there is a lesser force concentrated on the centre of the earth on that side of the earth. By dint of Newton’s third law this means that there must be a lesser force on the direct opposite side of the earth. I.E A high tide on the direct opposite side of the earth.

Such is irrefutable logic or, if it is refutable, it has not been refuted on this thread. Just something you have never considered and evidently to lazy a brain to consider gauging from your recent post.

As stated on the previous leeaus post, there has been a misapprehension about the nature of the solar tides. It was not realized that the sun to was producing an equal and opposite tide. On request a normal tidal analyst has been kind enough to point this out.

On first glance the correcting of the nature of the solar tides strengthens many fold the logic of Newton’s third law being the explainer of why water rises against the direction of, as it is, the solar and lunar gravities on the far side of the earth.

Allowing that first glances aren’t everything the ideal is to let it rest for a few years. As well the desire is to get across the relative magnitudes of solar and lunar equal and opposite tides. To see if the termination of gravities adds up as the base cause of the tides on the moon and sun sides of the earth.

With that said, a keen student of the web page behind this thread would realize that the web page was a reaction to terrorism. So if anyone wishes to approach the page in that light they are welcome. Outside that no point in going around in silly circles about a subtraction being an addition.

As a point of amusement, it is wondered why the self proclaimed tidal experts of this thread were unable to point out that it’s the tilt of the earth’s axis that is responsible for the solar diurnal tide.

leeaus