Gravity Problem Solved

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by common_sense_seeker, Sep 2, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Professor Brain Cox of CERN and TV fame has expressed his concern that a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity seems increasingly likely, especially if the results of the forthcoming LHC experiment turn out to be unexpected. I am convinced that I have found the stumbling block of modern physics:

    The OBVIOUS reason of how the moon causes the ocean tides is by it pulling on the Earth's inner core, creating a flexure of the lithosphere, rather than acting on the seawater directly itself. Hence Newton's law of universal gravitation must be wrong. Once you get the simple picture in your head, there's no going back. You'll never look at the sea the same again.

    Modern satellite technology has shown that the seafloor rises by about a meter. The mountains and ocean are also seen to be affected by the moon's gravitational influence, but NOTHING ELSE. It explains why it doesn't get windier on a high tide and why dust isn't affected by the moon's gravity for example.

    I have a scientific background to substantiate my breakthrough, the culmination of over 25 years work.

    BSc Astronomy with Computing, former computer modeller for the MoD, Defence Research Agency, Farnborough, UK.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,702
    If you have a BSc in astronomy, you'd know your 'explaination' is completely crap, because it's not able to predict anything quantitative. Go on, post the scientific background. And being a computer modeller doesn't make you right. My father is a professor in computational fluid dynamics and have done contract work with Lockheed, Boeing, Airbus, the eurofighter and the supersonic car and he doesn't know the first thing about this kind of physics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    WTF, I hope your not suggesting that the moon gravity does this.. on the open ocean the tidal forces only raise the ocean by just over a mm, large tides are the result of the water being funneled into shallow and restrictive waters.

    With your BSc you should be able to do the simple mathematics to work it out your self.. So give it a go and present it here, or are your full of shit... (sorry mods but he is)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    This is the only thing the OP (who definitely is not a common sense seeker) has right.

    The OP posted the exact same garbage in at least one other forum. In that forum I have the magical power of moving pyschoceramic postings into thePseudoscience section. I did exactly that. Here is what I wrote:

    To the OP:

    Two pertinent, pithy quotes apply here. "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." and "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You have made some fantastic claims. You had dang well better back them up.


    To everyone else:

    The Moon of course pulls on the "solid" Earth and on the oceans. The Earth is not truly solid. Most of the Earth is molten rock, so the Earth as a whole does indeed undergo tidal motion. The Earth's relatively thin crust does little to hinder this motion. This wikipedia article on Earth tides provides a good lay overview of the concept.

    The standard formalism for describing the Earth's (or any other planet's) solid body tides was developed by AEH Love over 100 years ago and is thusly called the "Love number formalism". (I recommend against googling the phrase "Love number" as it results in far too much information.)

    The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (Web site: www.iers.org) is *the* definitive source on Earth rotation models and on reference systems used by scientists worldwide. For those of you who want a technical description of the Earth's solid body tides, refer to IERS Technical Note 32. Section 6.1 covers the topic at hand.

    The solid body tides and ocean tides share the same underlying mechanism, which is the second gradient in the Moon's and the Sun's gravitational potential (a tensor). Another way of putting this is that the gravitational pull toward the Moon (or Sun) is a bit stronger on the side of the Earth facing toward the Moon (or Sun) versus the side facing away from the Moon (or Sun). While the two kinds of tides result from the same mechanism, the responses are quite different. While the Earth's crust does little to hinder the solid tides, the Earth's crust obviously has huge effect on the ocean tides.
     
  8. matthyaouw Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    162
    That's great, but I'd rather see scientific evidence to substantiate your breakthrough. If you have any, please share.


    No it is not. The mantle is very hot solid rock. It is able to deform plastically over long periods, but it is not a liquid. Think silly putty- pull it slowly and it stretches and deforms, but pull it quickly and it snaps.
     
  9. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    I'll admit I was a bit loose with the term "molten". I should have used "plastic". My poor wording aside, that the Earth deforms as a body due to tidal effects is confirmed 100+ year old science. The tidal bulges even cause measurable perturbations in a satellite's orbit; in fact the perturbations on a satellite's orbit induced by the solid body tides are an order of magnitude greater than those induced by the ocean tides. Did you read any of the links I supplied?
     
  10. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Forgive me if I am way off; but doesn't at least some of the lifting have to do with the fact water was transported away from the location?
     
  11. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    The OP was a bit off in the magnitude of the Earth tides. They reach a maximum height of 30 cm high when the Earth, Moon, and Sun are aligned: The spring Earth tide.

    Some references:

    Equipment to measure Earth tides:
    http://www.aiub.unibe.ch/content/zimmerwald/current_activities/earth_tide_observatory/index_eng.html

    The International Center for Earth Tides:
    http://www.icsu-fags.org/ps04icet.htm

    A conference that started yesterday:
    http://www.ets2008.de/frontend/index.php?folder_id=14
    Technical sections ETS-3 and ETS-6 cover Earth tides and tides on other planets (including the Moon).

    The USGS is quite interested in Earth tides because it appears Earth tides may trigger vulcanism:
    http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_05_28.html
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022103948.htm
    http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_04_12.html

    A seminal paper:
    Dehant, V., "Review of the Earth Tidal Models and Contribution of Earth Tides in Geodynamics", J. Geophys. Res., 96, pp. 20235-20240, 1991.
     
  12. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Here's a question for all you geniuses:

    Here's a question for all you geniuses:

    If you look up, you'll find that the moon travels from east to west across the sky. If the moon pulls the seawater like you say, then you would expect the highest tides to be on the east coast. But why are the greatest tidal ranges of around 12 meters always found on the west coast of a continent, which is counter-intuitive?

    My theory predicts this effect, due to the pressure wave accelerating after travelling under the extra weight and stiffness of the continental crust resisting it. The release of the pressure wave causes a greater flexure of the crust on the west coast and therefore produces a higher tidal range.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2008
  13. matthyaouw Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    162
    I think I came across the wrong way there. I did read your links and I don't doubt that solid body tides are real. It's just a pet peeve of mine to see that little misconception crop up as in the long run it tends to lead to even more misunderstandings.

    Like at the Bay of Fundy, Eastern Canada?
     
  14. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    The Bay Of Fundy is an exception to the rule, due to it's unique topological location combined with a shallow shelf inlet facing the oncoming Gulf Stream.
     
  15. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    One of the most obvious reasons of why Newton's universal law of gravitation must be wrong is the simple fact that everyday objects simply don't stick to one another in a gravitational manner, even in a vacuum. I've seen televised zero-gravity experiments aboard the shuttle, where rocks were fired at one another to see whether they would coalesce, simulating the accretion of micro-asteroids to form larger ones. ABSOLUTELY ZERO SUCCESS. Surprise, surprise. Still the penny doesn't drop.
     
  16. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I've seen video's too, of water collating together in zero-gravity, perhaps the experiments are flawed by using cooled "projectiles" and should be concentrating more on gas formations. (Considering most of the known universe is based on gas composites and the theory of the Big Bang works on the cooling of Plasma.)
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    The gravitational forces involved on objects of everyday size are much smaller, by many orders of magnitude, than the forces involved in normal kinetic interactions. Hence the motion objects have is enough to overwhelm gravitational forces.

    Newtonian gravitational models predict precisely what is observed (up to small relativistic corrections). The fact you bring up such a thing demonstrates you don't even know about gravitational models.
    That is surface tension. As soon as the water droplets touch, the water tension is strong enough to pull the 'blob' into a sphere. Normal dust-like solids don't have such a thing. If you were working with a fluid with much much lower surface tension then you'd find that it doesn't have such a pronounced effect. But such liquids are usually not healthy for astronauts to be splashing about the shuttle.
     
  18. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    If you're so convinced that Newton's law of universal gravitation is 100% correct, why is the moon moving further away from Earth, then???

    YOU MUST BE WRONG
     
  19. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Firstly, I didn't say it's 100% correct, since we know relativity is better than Newtonian gravity and I happen to be very familiar with both, conceptually and algebraicly.

    Secondly, Newtonian physics predicts the Moon and the Earth move away from one another see here, precisely because it models the interactions between the Earth, the Moon and the tides so well.

    So yet another demonstration you haven't put any effort into learning or understanding any of this area of physics.
     
  20. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    The Wiki explanation seems very wishy-washy to me and could have been written by anyone. Do you have a reference which is a bit more convincing?
     
  21. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Wikipedia is written by 'anyone' - that's what it is.
    You should be able to find this stuff in any first-year university physics textbook. Or maybe there's something written by a physics prof available through google. The earth-moon system exchanges momentum, which explains the slight drift in orbital distance - this is because of tides that distort both bodies and introduce asymmetries, and because both are rotating at different speeds.
     
  22. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Why don't everyday objects attract one another then? Even in a vacuum?

    My explanation is that it is because GRAVITY IS DIRECTIONAL and the net gravitational field is zero due to the mix of orientation at a quark level. The inner core of the Earth is uber-condensed and ALIGNED so that a strong field of attraction is generated, but is only strongly felt by objects that have uber-condensed and aligned inner cores, such as that of the Moon.
     
  23. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Are you serious?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
    It's a standard senior-school demonstration (or was when I was younger).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page