The Moon does not cause tides: John99 proves science wrong.

To clarify my position.
I do not agree with these statements.

According to dynamic systems theory the systems are oscillating or damped (non-oscillating).
Mechanical systems, are usually oscillatory systems.

Question:
What if the Moon would suddenly disappear?Stop suddenly the tide?In my opinion, no.

In the tide is a huge amount of stored energy that can not just disappear.
It loses energy through friction, which means heat.
I do not think that all this energy is transformed into heat in 24 (12) hours.
So the system starts to oscillate amortized and oscillations (progressively smaller) will be a period of time.

It may be that now we have an oscillating system maintained by the force of attraction of the moon and the earth's rotation.
The energy needed to maintain an oscillation is much smaller than the energy producing oscillations, especially if they are in resonance.
Also explain the tidal symmetry on both sides of the globe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This part is easy to explain. Gravity weakens as the inverse square of distance, so the water on the far side of the earth is "pulled" towards the moon less than the earth itself, which in turn is pulled on less strongly than the water on the near side to the moon. It is a result of the aptly named "tidal forces" induced by gravity

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Although I just notice that lots of people already told you this, what don't you like about it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmmm, let's see now... Suppose a point on Earth is distance \(r_o\) from the moon. Now scale that distance as \(r_o\to kr_o\), where \(k\) is the scaling constant, and scale the moon's volume accordingly while keeping its density constant. Then the mass of the moon scales as \(M_o\to k^3M_o\), with \(M_o\) being the original lunar mass in the unscaled system.

By Newton's law of gravity, the acceleration of the surface point due to the unscaled moon's gravity is: \(a_o=\frac{GM_o}{r_o^2}\), where \(G\) is Newton's gravitational constant.

The acceleration in the scaled system, \(a\), is then: \(a=\frac{k^3GM_o}{k^2r_o^2}=ka_0\). As the size of the "scale model" increases, so do the accelerations and hence the tidal forces.

So a big fat

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

uke: to john99's :soapbox:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dont forget there's an assymetrical effect of the correolis force as you get nearer the equator.

 

Oh come on!
You write a load of technical stuff and don't even mention the green.
How are we supposed to believe you?
Tch.

 

If i get permission to respond i will gladly field questions. As far as i know (as per instructions in private), i cant respond. These are thought inside my head, how can a thought be radical. I didnt do anything but think.

 

Incorrect.
You made a claim you didn't support (despite saying you would).
And you didn't actually think, either.

 

Suffice it to say, this thread ha a sister thread:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90006

 

We need to consider all the facts. All the evidence. At this point i can only give superficial responses. You sais i am going to get banned. You put that in the PM.

 

John, do yourself a favour. Do some grade-school study, and you'll find the evidence is not at all superficial. By all means think radical, that's good, but to say you're gonna give evidence against accepted fact and then not - well it kinda leaves you open to attack. Think it, then post it as a question, not a fact. Comprende?

 

Correct.
Fact 1: you made this claim TWO YEARS AGO (per the thread linked to by you in post #63) and were shown to be wrong then.
Fact 2: apparently in that two years you have done nothing whatsoever to gather support for your claim (otherwise you'd be able to give more than a "superficial response").
Fact 3: there is no evidence whatsoever for your contention and a huge body of work, observation and experiment contradicting you.

The major piece of evidence is that you are prone to making erroneous/ ignorant claims and then either back-pedalling or posting information which you don't understand as support while failing consistently to show how (or why) that material should/ does support your claim. For example this thread/ claim. (Oh yeah, there's a response required in that thread if you hadn't noticed).

In short: you're arguing from persistent ignorance - fail.

 

My evidence is questions. I ask\reflect on questions, then i look for the answers.

Here is something else to consider:

http://ask.yahoo.com/20020411.html

 

And another utter failure to provide any attempt at a rationale as to why that supports your inane position.

 

Lets see what James' response is to that. tbh, i cant find information on it.

 

It's James that's waiting for a response from you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If anyone read the posts they will have to conclude that the sun is 100% efficient. It suffers no loss in energy\heat from what it gives off. It has no other means of replenishment. This makes it 100% efficient.

 

Oh dear.
Goodbye.

Why do you persist in commenting on things of which you are totally ignorant?
Read James' remark in that thread:-

 

Of course it loses heat energy. That's why you're not at 273 degrees below zero. Think on..

 

Pfft. It's storks, you troll. If you didn't have storks, you'd have no humans, stupid or otherwise.

Let's not get into a watermelon seed-and-stork argument. Obviously each are critically important in human demography.

Don't be dumb. The stork carries you when you're small.