Numbers are a dead language to me.

Numbers are a dead language to me. So can we have an argument about
tides and lunar algorithms that explains for us dunces how an
inexplicable branch of science (such as astrometry with its chaos theory
and complex dynamics and hideously difficult algorithms) can come up
with such easily grasped concepts straight out of linear systems that
explain the way the moon lifts aggregations of miniscule water droplets
many feet, without detracting from the overall weight of said particles?

And can we post all the flames and trolls to sci.physics not sci.astro
or sci.geo.earthquakes, please?


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In article lgate.org,
"Michael McNeil" wrote:
snip

And can we post all the flames and trolls to sci.physics not sci.astro
or sci.geo.earthquakes, please?

gasp You want the trolls segregated? That's not PC of you.

(And I'm posting from s.p.)

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Dear Michael McNeil:

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
news:d1d1425b593d385c62c8a10b983396c4.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...
Numbers are a dead language to me. So can we have an argument about
tides and lunar algorithms that explains for us dunces how an
inexplicable branch of science (such as astrometry with its chaos theory
and complex dynamics and hideously difficult algorithms) can come up
with such easily grasped concepts straight out of linear systems that
explain the way the moon lifts aggregations of miniscule water droplets
many feet, without detracting from the overall weight of said particles?

Look at the Earth-Moon system at any instant. Imagine that gravity can be
likened to action at a distance. Draw a free body diagram of six "slugs"
of water located at the surface of the Earth. Their locations are North
pole (N), South pole (S), located where the line connecting the Earth
center and Moon center pass through the surface of the Earth (2 places)
(N1,N2), and the last two at 90° to the others (P1,P2).

You will note that the action of "gravity" due to the presence of the Moon
on N, S, N1, and N2 is perpendicular to the action of "gravity" due to
their Earth weight, and any motion towards or away from the Moon would only
be retarded by friction or pressure. So "lobes" build up to increase the
pressure, and counter this "force" by the Moon.

David A. Smith

In article iGROb.7190$bg1.3334@fed1read05,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear Michael McNeil:

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
news:d1d1425b593d385c62c8a10b983396c4.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...
Numbers are a dead language to me. So can we have an argument about
tides and lunar algorithms that explains for us dunces how an
inexplicable branch of science (such as astrometry with its chaos theory
and complex dynamics and hideously difficult algorithms) can come up
with such easily grasped concepts straight out of linear systems that
explain the way the moon lifts aggregations of miniscule water droplets
many feet, without detracting from the overall weight of said particles?

Look at the Earth-Moon system at any instant. Imagine that gravity can be
likened to action at a distance. Draw a free body diagram of six "slugs"
of water located at the surface of the Earth. Their locations are North
pole (N), South pole (S), located where the line connecting the Earth
center and Moon center pass through the surface of the Earth (2 places)
(N1,N2), and the last two at 90° to the others (P1,P2).

You will note that the action of "gravity" due to the presence of the Moon
on N, S, N1, and N2 is perpendicular to the action of "gravity" due to
their Earth weight, and any motion towards or away from the Moon would only
be retarded by friction or pressure. So "lobes" build up to increase the
pressure, and counter this "force" by the Moon.

That's not how it works. (Even if you correct your explanaiton and say
that the moon's gravitational vector is at right angles to the Earth's
for N, S, P1, and P2.)

Let's say N1 is the point on the Earth closest to the moon and N2 is the
point farthest away. C would be the Earth's center of gravity. From each
of those three points, draw a vector to the moon representing the moon's
attraction at that place. N1 will be a little longer than C, and that
will be a little longer than N2. (The vectors at N, S, P1, and P2 will
all be the same length as the one at C.)

Now subtract the length of C from all the vectors. (You can do this
because the Earth is in orbit around the center of the Earth-moon
system, and its motion creates an acceletation in the opposite direction
from the moon's gravity.) The vectors at C, N, S, N1, and N2 all become
zero. Now pay attention: the vector at N1, the point closest to the
moon, is minuscule but points to the moon. The vector at N2, on the far
side, is about the same size but points away from the moon. These tiny
gravitational vectors try to stretch the Earth apart. Being made of
rock, it's strong enough not to react much. But water flows and reacts
by creating lobes exactly at those places.

(The sun, by the way, also creates its pair of lobes the same way. These
four lobes interact to create big and small tides through the course of
a month.)

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com
http://www.timberwoof.com

Dear Timberwoof:

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article iGROb.7190$bg1.3334@fed1read05,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear Michael McNeil:

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
news:d1d1425b593d385c62c8a10b983396c4.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...
Numbers are a dead language to me. So can we have an argument about
tides and lunar algorithms that explains for us dunces how an
inexplicable branch of science (such as astrometry with its chaos
theory
and complex dynamics and hideously difficult algorithms) can come up
with such easily grasped concepts straight out of linear systems that
explain the way the moon lifts aggregations of miniscule water
droplets
many feet, without detracting from the overall weight of said
particles?

Look at the Earth-Moon system at any instant. Imagine that gravity can
be
likened to action at a distance. Draw a free body diagram of six
"slugs"
of water located at the surface of the Earth. Their locations are
North
pole (N), South pole (S), located where the line connecting the Earth
center and Moon center pass through the surface of the Earth (2 places)
(N1,N2), and the last two at 900 to the others (P1,P2).

You will note that the action of "gravity" due to the presence of the
Moon
on N, S, N1, and N2 is perpendicular to the action of "gravity" due to
their Earth weight, and any motion towards or away from the Moon would
only
be retarded by friction or pressure. So "lobes" build up to increase
the
pressure, and counter this "force" by the Moon.

That's not how it works. (Even if you correct your explanaiton and say
that the moon's gravitational vector is at right angles to the Earth's
for N, S, P1, and P2.)

Let's say N1 is the point on the Earth closest to the moon and N2 is the
point farthest away. C would be the Earth's center of gravity. From each
of those three points, draw a vector to the moon representing the moon's
attraction at that place. N1 will be a little longer than C, and that
will be a little longer than N2. (The vectors at N, S, P1, and P2 will
all be the same length as the one at C.)

Now subtract the length of C from all the vectors. (You can do this
because the Earth is in orbit around the center of the Earth-moon
system, and its motion creates an acceletation in the opposite direction
from the moon's gravity.) The vectors at C, N, S, N1, and N2 all become
zero. Now pay attention: the vector at N1, the point closest to the
moon, is minuscule but points to the moon. The vector at N2, on the far
side, is about the same size but points away from the moon. These tiny
gravitational vectors try to stretch the Earth apart. Being made of
rock, it's strong enough not to react much. But water flows and reacts
by creating lobes exactly at those places.

(The sun, by the way, also creates its pair of lobes the same way. These
four lobes interact to create big and small tides through the course of
a month.)

That *is* better! I was getting sloppy...

And the lobes are a little offset (the peak tide is not in sychronization
with N1 and N2) because more pressure is required to drive the fluid
against the "pull" of the Moon, and drive it around the far side of the
Earth.

David A. Smith

In article At2Pb.7376$bg1.4341@fed1read05,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear Timberwoof:

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article iGROb.7190$bg1.3334@fed1read05,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear Michael McNeil:

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
news:d1d1425b593d385c62c8a10b983396c4.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...
Numbers are a dead language to me. So can we have an argument about
tides and lunar algorithms that explains for us dunces how an
inexplicable branch of science (such as astrometry with its chaos
theory
and complex dynamics and hideously difficult algorithms) can come up
with such easily grasped concepts straight out of linear systems that
explain the way the moon lifts aggregations of miniscule water
droplets
many feet, without detracting from the overall weight of said
particles?

Look at the Earth-Moon system at any instant. Imagine that gravity can
be
likened to action at a distance. Draw a free body diagram of six
"slugs"
of water located at the surface of the Earth. Their locations are
North
pole (N), South pole (S), located where the line connecting the Earth
center and Moon center pass through the surface of the Earth (2 places)
(N1,N2), and the last two at 900 to the others (P1,P2).

You will note that the action of "gravity" due to the presence of the
Moon
on N, S, N1, and N2 is perpendicular to the action of "gravity" due to
their Earth weight, and any motion towards or away from the Moon would
only
be retarded by friction or pressure. So "lobes" build up to increase
the
pressure, and counter this "force" by the Moon.

That's not how it works. (Even if you correct your explanaiton and say
that the moon's gravitational vector is at right angles to the Earth's
for N, S, P1, and P2.)

Let's say N1 is the point on the Earth closest to the moon and N2 is the
point farthest away. C would be the Earth's center of gravity. From each
of those three points, draw a vector to the moon representing the moon's
attraction at that place. N1 will be a little longer than C, and that
will be a little longer than N2. (The vectors at N, S, P1, and P2 will
all be the same length as the one at C.)

Now subtract the length of C from all the vectors. (You can do this
because the Earth is in orbit around the center of the Earth-moon
system, and its motion creates an acceletation in the opposite direction
from the moon's gravity.) The vectors at C, N, S, N1, and N2 all become
zero. Now pay attention: the vector at N1, the point closest to the
moon, is minuscule but points to the moon. The vector at N2, on the far
side, is about the same size but points away from the moon. These tiny
gravitational vectors try to stretch the Earth apart. Being made of
rock, it's strong enough not to react much. But water flows and reacts
by creating lobes exactly at those places.

(The sun, by the way, also creates its pair of lobes the same way. These
four lobes interact to create big and small tides through the course of
a month.)

That *is* better! I was getting sloppy...

And the lobes are a little offset (the peak tide is not in sychronization
with N1 and N2) because more pressure is required to drive the fluid
against the "pull" of the Moon, and drive it around the far side of the
Earth.

No,that's not it at all. Remember what I wrote ... the water on the near
side of the Earth is being pulled towards the moon. However, the water
on the far side of the Earth is also getting pulled towards the moon ...
only not as much, so the effect is that it is getting pulled away.

Think of the tides induced by the sun. This is easier because most of
the mass in the Earth-Sun system is in the sun. And as it tuns out the
Sun's tides are about as big as the Moon's. Consider the Earth's orbit
around the sun: the Earth's center of gravity is in that orbit, but the
N1 and N2 points (closest and farthest away form the sun) are just a
little inside and just a little outside of that orbit. Since they have
to move at the same speed as the Earth, not faster or slower the way
actual particles in orbit there would, they get drawn into the sun by
its gravity or flung out by the orbital speed.

It's the difference in orbital speed that causes the tides, not any sort
of fluid pressure...

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com
http://www.timberwoof.com

Nothing is being pulled my dear friends and in this you are completely
deluded indeed, like of course all of your little mates, including Uncle
Al.
The Tides are due not to the pulling effect of the Moon or to the pulling
effect of the Sun, but to the Pressure of the Sun and to the Screen effect
of the Moon.
Your way of thinking is completely devilish since the complete opposite of
reality... and further evil in the sense that you thrive tossing with such
dreamland concept

ERRARE HUMANUM EST !
PERSEVARE DIABOLICUM !

The question which I put to you all in the post below was :

What was the mode of action of the at alleged pulling force of the Moon ,
magnetic, electric or mesonic ?

OR was is that force in fact due to action of beautiful invisible Fairies
hands ?

Instead of spouting forth things you have been force fed and which are still
indigested ( and never will of course ), it should be high time at you age
that you strart to think for yourself. Hey
In this regards Timberwoof is unable to understand how a 20 cm dia. silicate
rounded pebble is extracted of his say Quartzite matrix. Of course likewise
all of the other Gogologist from Oxford to the ANU is able to do it either !
.... but it's so nice when not being able to work out basic things of the
True Geology, to go tossing metaphysical problems; a perfect smoke screen to
one's ignorance! Hey ?


NOW, WOULD IT BE A MIRACLE OF NATURE that MR DAVID A.SMITH, a World Wide
Renowned Scientist of Uncle Class & a most brilliant PhD Physicist from the
MIT, should be able to tackle that most elementary problem of True Geology,
which leaves at the present time Timberwoof completely lost for words on his
hoofs ? ... as well as thousand of his little mates gasping for that answer
!

Wondering if I by chance there does exist in the world a Universities
trained Physicist, able of a trademan appproach and of some common sense
indeed
Could it be you at long last, MR DAVID A.SMITH

Praying and Hoping !

--
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australian Mining Pioneer
Hydro & Mining Prospector _ Senior Geologist
Discoverer of Telfer; Kintyre & Nifty Mines_ Great Sandy Desert.of Australia
Discoverer of the South Atlantic Submarine Gold Placers
( 40 Millions Tons estimate )
Founder of the TRUE GEOLOGY

~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~


"Timberwoof" a écrit dans le message de
...
In article At2Pb.7376$bg1.4341@fed1read05,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear Timberwoof:

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article iGROb.7190$bg1.3334@fed1read05,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:

Dear Michael McNeil:

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
news:d1d1425b593d385c62c8a10b983396c4.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...
Numbers are a dead language to me. So can we have an argument
about
tides and lunar algorithms that explains for us dunces how an
inexplicable branch of science (such as astrometry with its chaos
theory
and complex dynamics and hideously difficult algorithms) can come
up
with such easily grasped concepts straight out of linear systems
that
explain the way the moon lifts aggregations of miniscule water
droplets

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article At2Pb.7376$bg1.4341@fed1read05,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear Timberwoof:

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article iGROb.7190$bg1.3334@fed1read05,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:

Dear Michael McNeil:

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
news:d1d1425b593d385c62c8a10b983396c4.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...
Numbers are a dead language to me. So can we have an argument
about
tides and lunar algorithms that explains for us dunces how an
inexplicable branch of science (such as astrometry with its chaos
theory
and complex dynamics and hideously difficult algorithms) can come
up
with such easily grasped concepts straight out of linear systems
that
explain the way the moon lifts aggregations of miniscule water
droplets
many feet, without detracting from the overall weight of said
particles?

Look at the Earth-Moon system at any instant. Imagine that gravity
can
be
likened to action at a distance. Draw a free body diagram of six
"slugs"
of water located at the surface of the Earth. Their locations are
North
pole (N), South pole (S), located where the line connecting the
Earth
center and Moon center pass through the surface of the Earth (2
places)
(N1,N2), and the last two at 900 to the others (P1,P2).

You will note that the action of "gravity" due to the presence of
the
Moon
on N, S, N1, and N2 is perpendicular to the action of "gravity" due
to
their Earth weight, and any motion towards or away from the Moon
would
only
be retarded by friction or pressure. So "lobes" build up to
increase
the
pressure, and counter this "force" by the Moon.

That's not how it works. (Even if you correct your explanaiton and say
that the moon's gravitational vector is at right angles to the Earth's
for N, S, P1, and P2.)

Let's say N1 is the point on the Earth closest to the moon and N2 is
the
point farthest away. C would be the Earth's center of gravity. From
each
of those three points, draw a vector to the moon representing the
moon's
attraction at that place. N1 will be a little longer than C, and that
will be a little longer than N2. (The vectors at N, S, P1, and P2 will
all be the same length as the one at C.)

Now subtract the length of C from all the vectors. (You can do this
because the Earth is in orbit around the center of the Earth-moon
system, and its motion creates an acceletation in the opposite
direction
from the moon's gravity.) The vectors at C, N, S, N1, and N2 all
become
zero. Now pay attention: the vector at N1, the point closest to the
moon, is minuscule but points to the moon. The vector at N2, on the
far
side, is about the same size but points away from the moon. These tiny
gravitational vectors try to stretch the Earth apart. Being made of
rock, it's strong enough not to react much. But water flows and reacts
by creating lobes exactly at those places.

(The sun, by the way, also creates its pair of lobes the same way.
These
four lobes interact to create big and small tides through the course
of
a month.)

That *is* better! I was getting sloppy...

And the lobes are a little offset (the peak tide is not in
sychronization
with N1 and N2) because more pressure is required to drive the fluid
against the "pull" of the Moon, and drive it around the far side of the
Earth.

No,that's not it at all. Remember what I wrote ... the water on the near
side of the Earth is being pulled towards the moon. However, the water
on the far side of the Earth is also getting pulled towards the moon ...
only not as much, so the effect is that it is getting pulled away.

Think of the tides induced by the sun. This is easier because most of
the mass in the Earth-Sun system is in the sun. And as it tuns out the
Sun's tides are about as big as the Moon's. Consider the Earth's orbit
around the sun: the Earth's center of gravity is in that orbit, but the
N1 and N2 points (closest and farthest away form the sun) are just a
little inside and just a little outside of that orbit. Since they have
to move at the same speed as the Earth, not faster or slower the way
actual particles in orbit there would, they get drawn into the sun by
its gravity or flung out by the orbital speed.

It's the difference in orbital speed that causes the tides, not any sort
of fluid pressure...

--
Timberwoof

Gentlemen; The difference between a "genius" & a "Idiot" is; The Idiot takes
the simple & makes it complicated" A "Genius takes the complicated & makes
it simple.

The above example is the "simplest" cause/effect explanation for tides I
have personally seen.

Thank you for taking the complicated & making it simple.

As for numbers there must be some way of defining
aspects/differences/relationships within/of/between any given system. I have
yet to see a simpler way to accomplish this than to use numbers.

Can anyone propose a better solution for defining assorted/various
aspects/differences/relationships within/of/between any given system/s.
Ralph Nesbitt

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:57:18 GMT, Timberwoof
wrote:

Think of the tides induced by the sun. This is easier because most of
the mass in the Earth-Sun system is in the sun. And as it tuns out the
Sun's tides are about as big as the Moon's. Consider the Earth's orbit
around the sun: the Earth's center of gravity is in that orbit, but the
N1 and N2 points (closest and farthest away form the sun) are just a
little inside and just a little outside of that orbit. Since they have
to move at the same speed as the Earth, not faster or slower the way
actual particles in orbit there would, they get drawn into the sun by
its gravity or flung out by the orbital speed.

It's the difference in orbital speed that causes the tides, not any sort
of fluid pressure...

No, it's not; orbital speeds have nothing to do with it. The
tides are due to the gradient of the gravitational field. Newton
had it right (naturally) in his Principia.

Consider three balls tied together with a mildly elastic string
in a gravitational field originating below them so that they are
falling downward:

O 1
|
|
O 2
|
|
O 3

Now consider it a constant gravitational field where all three
balls are subject to the same gravitational potential: the
strings will stay slack because all three balls are accelerating
at the same rate.

But now suppose, more realistically, that the field is strongest
at ball 3, middling at ball 2 and weakest at ball 1. The three
alls are now accelerating downward at different rates, so the
strings will have tension on them and balls 1 and 3 will move a
little away from ball 2.

Now substitute the earth for ball 2 and particles of ocean for
balls 1 and 2 with the gravitational attraction of ball 2 on
balls 1 and 3 being their mutual gravity. Result: high tides.

That's all there is to it. No centrifugal/centripetal forces, no
rotation required at all.

The moon and the sun each act on the oceans in the this manner
and the actual tides are the resultant of both gravitational
fields. And, by the by, the sun's gravitational effect at the
earth is considerabley smaller than the moon's for the simple
reason that the field gradient of the sun is rather smaller than
the moon's.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Dear Timberwoof:

"Timberwoof" wrote in message
...
In article At2Pb.7376$bg1.4341@fed1read05,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:
....
(The sun, by the way, also creates its pair of lobes the same way.
These
four lobes interact to create big and small tides through the course
of
a month.)

That *is* better! I was getting sloppy...

And the lobes are a little offset (the peak tide is not in
sychronization
with N1 and N2) because more pressure is required to drive the fluid
against the "pull" of the Moon, and drive it around the far side of the
Earth.

No,that's not it at all. Remember what I wrote ... the water on the near
side of the Earth is being pulled towards the moon. However, the water
on the far side of the Earth is also getting pulled towards the moon ...
only not as much, so the effect is that it is getting pulled away.

Think of the tides induced by the sun. This is easier because most of
the mass in the Earth-Sun system is in the sun. And as it tuns out the
Sun's tides are about as big as the Moon's. Consider the Earth's orbit
around the sun: the Earth's center of gravity is in that orbit, but the
N1 and N2 points (closest and farthest away form the sun) are just a
little inside and just a little outside of that orbit. Since they have
to move at the same speed as the Earth, not faster or slower the way
actual particles in orbit there would, they get drawn into the sun by
its gravity or flung out by the orbital speed.

It's the difference in orbital speed that causes the tides, not any sort
of fluid pressure...

I was not trying to say that pressure *caused* the tides. The pressure's
only function, as I was supposing, was to re-accelerate the flow back
around the Earth. In other words, the pressure was the effect, and not the
cause.

Thanks again for your response.

David A. Smith