Other than terrestrial water and tidal flex heating

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 20, 2:33 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 19, 10:20 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article

om,

BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:14 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article

s.com,

BradGuth wrote:
Is your "large Jupiter" a new kind of scientific
statement as to the specific size of the solid portion of
Jupiter that's relatively uniform?

No.

Exactly how large is the solid portion or gravity made as
a dense/ solid surface of Jupiter,

What the hell does that mean?

Are you suggesting the surface of Jupiter is only that of a
highly compressed gas?

Are you suggesting that I'm suggesting that the surface of
Jupiter is only that of a highly compressed gas?

No, I'm not suggesting that. You need to stop jumping to
conclusions.

But that's what I do best, deductively connecting dots and thus
jumping to a conclusion.

No, it's what you do the most. If the quality of your work is to be
judged by how well the conclusions match reality, you suck at it.

Because if so there shouldn't be any uneven gravity/ mascon
issues worthy of tidal flexing the likes of Io, other than
its extremely slight elliptical orbit.

Why don't you just look it up on
Wikipedia?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating

and how nonuniform is its gravity or that
of its surface of mascons??

I don't know.

Me neither, that's why I was asking.

Jupiter is mostly gas; it's not clear whether it has a solid or
liquid core. Jupiter is mostly gas and liquid; it is not
expected to have any mass concentrations the way our lumpy moon
does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Internal_structure

Or the way Earth's crust is so misshapen and thus mascon uneven,
thus more capable of tidal flex heating of our Selene/moon.

Maybe rather than just saying that, you could show a map of
gravitational anomalies for the Earth and one for the moon, and
compare them.

Are you saying that a "large Jupiter" of being such a gas
giant planet has unusually uneven gravity that's capable
of tidal flexing its near circular orbiting moons to
death?

No.

Well then, what's keeping Io and a few other moons so gosh
darn active?

Their gravitational interactions with each other as they orbit.

I think you overrate the moon's mascons. They were noticed by
the Apollo astronauts because of slight changes to their orbit
from what was expected. From father away, the mascons would not
be sensed as easily. Certainly the Earth's distance from the
moon, they're not measurable.

I never stated that from Earth they were affecting us. Obviously
I'm not the only one jumping to those pesky conclusions.
However, Earth's mascons are likely adding tidal flex heating to
our Selene/moon as well as its elliptical path migrates around
Earth and our sun should cause a measurable degree of geothermal
heating within our Selene/ moon.

Well, then. Show the measurable heating.

That's rather easily accomplished from the Selene/moon L1, and only
easier yet from deep within our Selene/moon.

Oh, so it's not measurable after all. And you don't even have any idea
about what that heat input should be.

Are you saying that the very same kind of orbital
mechanics and physics doesn't apply to our Selene/moon or
to that of Earth getting tidal flex heated?

No.

That's good to hear.

It's good for your that you couched that rhetoric in the form
of a question. That way you can wiggle out and say you were
only asking. But you should really not jump to such
conclusions. I know it's a deeply ingrained habit with you, but
you should get over it. It leads you to a lot of crazy places.

You mean like other intelligent life existing/coexisting on
Venus, or that of our intelligent species originating from the
Sirius B solar system, or that of my LSE-CM/ISS utilizing our
Selene/moon L1, or how about the crazy but cool POOF city at
Venus L2, and don't forget the crazy relocation of our
Selene/moon as moved out to Earth L1.

Yes.

So, you're another stay-at-home kind of guy, deathly afraid of
whatever's dark and scary, but then you'll gladly accept and/or do
whatever your faith-based government is telling you to do or to
accept as their one and only word of God.

More foolish conclusions.

In other damage-control words of your silly
mindset, the laws of physics simply do not apply
off world, or even as to that of our Selene/moon
global warming Earth via tidal flex forces that
can't possibly avoid becoming thermal energy.
Are you certain about that?

They're talking about the moon not being heated.

So, our Selene/moon is somehow the one and only such
moon that's not the least bit tidal flex heated?

Our intelligent Timberwoof stated that the
insignificant tidal heating of the earth is
insignificant.

The hell you say, 0.05% of 2e20 N/sec is "insignificant"?

Yes. How much heat does it produce? What's the rate, in
watts, of heat production? Compare that to the rate, in
watts, of heat production by radioactive potassium, and to
the rate, in watts, of the the earth's heat loss to space.

A substantial core of thorium would tend to represent a
rather impressive natural source or cache of radioactive
produced thermal energy, of which has to eventually migrate
to the nearly 15 km average terrestrial crust, and then ever
so slightly filter its way through this crust before
radiating through our wet atmosphere and off into space.

You left out a necessary adjective: Surely you mean "off into
empty space".

Space isn't empty, because it's absolutely chuck full of photons,
dark matter and dark energy. Even our Selene/moon L1 of 1e-21
bar vacuum isn't the least bit empty.

The Earth is a big place, with lots of radioactive material,
and a whole lot of time for it to conduct its heat outwards.

I agree, that Earth's core of thorium and subsequent radioactive
byproducts is good to go for billions of years.

I always thought the core was of iron.

Perhaps you and countless millions of others thought wrong, unless
iron is long-term radioactive. Is highly compressed iron heavier
than highly compressed thorium? (I don't think so)

All you have to do is show your sources for this information. But
instead, you just yell at me and say I'm wrong.

At the R-factor of a little better than 1/m3, suggesting an
average crust insulation that's worthy of perhaps R-2048000,
thereby representing a thermal conductivity coefficient of
.0000004882, however the substantially thinner crust under
our oceans might tend to bring the global average of crust
insulation down to R-1024000, or thermal conductivity
coefficient of .0000009765.

Either way that's suggesting upon Earth having either a
thorium core, and/or added thermal energy of tidal flux
working along with our radioactive core.

Huh. I don't believe you. Mostly because you didn't answer my
question.

How good is the average thermal insulation worth of Earth's
crust?

Supposedly the thinnest crust is found under our oceans, at an
average of perhaps 5 km thickness. Earth is after all at least
98.5% fluid.

The small size of our small earth and its small effect
on the moon make any tidal heating of our small moon
small, probably insignificant.

And vise versa, like I'd specifically asked about how
much our moon tidal flexes Earth as becoming unavoidably
hotter because of our 98.5% fluid world having that
Selene/moon to continually deal with, as well as in its
highly elliptical orbit adding additional factors of
tidal flex that by rights should go either way.

You're the one claiming that the heating is significant.
You can do the calculations, or look them up, and say how
much heat is being generated by that process.

I haven't found research that's in sufficient agreement with
any other soul on Earth. It's as though there's a lot of
mainstream puppeteering and swag going on

Oh, good grief, now we're off into conspiracy theories again.

No "good grief" about it. I noticed that you haven't posted
links of different research groups that concur as to having the
same outcome.

The tidal flex heating of Earth via our Selene/moon is measurably
significant.

So show the measurements.

I already did just that, and having accomplished such entirely within
my budget of zilch.

No, you didn't. And now you're whining that you have no scientific
budget ... which means you have no source for real measurements, which
means you have nothing.

in order to continually avoid or simply exclude whatever our
Selene/moon might have to contribute towards global warming.
However, I've conservatively done just that, by having
interpreted a mere 0.05% of the 2e20 N/sec of the available
tidal force converted into thermal dynamic energy (100
microwatt/m3). Wouldn't you tend to favor that it's actually
of a greater percentage?

Where did you get 2e20 N/sec? That number is not a measure of
power. Newtons are a unit of force, like pounds. N/sec is a
mysterious unit of measure; I'm not sure what it means. So that
number is useless as a way to calculate what you want.

The centripetal force that counteracted upon by the mutual
gravity of attraction is what gives us that number of 2e20 N. If
converting any of that continual tidal force into energy, it has
to be taken as N/ sec.

Where did you get .05%?

That's just my best conservative swag. Why, do you have a better
swag?

Oh. So you have no measurements. So much for that.

I obviously have at least 100% more than anything you've got to
offer.

No, you don't.

Where does the rest go?

You got me on that one, as I can't figure our where all of that
2e20 N/ sec of force is going,

N/sec is not a measure of force. N is a measure of force. And it's
not the same thing as energy.


It is whenever converting any portion of N into energy. N as applied
for what amount of time = energy

No, it isn't.

Are we talking about our Selene/moon representing 2e20 N/year, N/
month, N/day or N/second that's responsible for holding onto our
moon? (I think it's taken as a force of N/sec, especially if it were
being converted into raw energy)


unless it's transferring back and forth as tidal flex heating,
possibly as heating some portion of our 100% fluid and otherwise
gaseous sun.

Hah!

Don't tell me that our sun is also immune from tidal flex heating.

Once again you jump to idiotic conclusions. I'm not telling you that.
But you're being silly. The amount of heat generated from that source is
insignificant to the point of silliness compared to the heat generated
from fusion. But then, the concept of using mathematics to quantify
things has always been beyond you.

And what's the rate of heating from radioactive materials in
the Earth? Until you come up with that, you have no basis for
comparison with anything.

That's true, but thus far there's no finite (all-inclusive)
agreed upon conclusion as to the radioactive bulk of materials
within Earth's core, much less the low density core of our highly
unusual moon.

You certainly don't agree with the composition of the Earth's core.
Thorium indeed.

Why not thorium? Do you have something other that's heavier and
long- term radioactive to suggest?

Because the earth's density is not that of thorium.

Notice that I never excluded iron, or having excluded any number of
raw elements. Of how much of Earth's core is thorium is anyones best
swag. Perhaps within a million years we'll have enough technology
for extracting a direct sample of Earth's core, as our objective
proof positive about what it's made of,

Now you're quibbling. Again.

and by then we should also be
walking safely within our moon, but according to your mindset we'll
still be entirely ET racist against those of any other intelligent
life existing/coexisting on Venus.

Hunh? Now you're being silly.

Any way you¹d care to slice and dice it, it seems
continually moving and/or distorting the crust of
Earth by 55 cm via tidal flexing is going to
create a little unavoidable geothermal heat via
friction.

Sure. Maybe you could calculate it. One could use a
slide rule. No supercomputer needed.

Perhaps a "slide rule" with a few spare CPUs attached
and a healthy dose of complex physics software might
do the trick. Are you going to show us how simple
that is?

Our uneducated Brad doesn't know enough about physics
to do simple calculations. Our befuddled Brad has never
considered how our genius physicists ever got any work
done before the invention of complex software to run on
multiple-CPU supercomputers.

And you have no such intentions of ever knocking our
socks off with your superior expertise, or even that of
offering your best swag because????? (DARPA and most
everyone else of their brown-nosed kind would kick your
butt)

Because our ignorant and obstreporous Brad doesn't pay any
attention when anyone does try to tell him anything about
real science. Our kooky Brad always prefers his own
pseudoscientific, nonnumeric, adjective-laden,
paranoia-based fairy-takes.

Then you'd knowingly support anything mainstream Zionist/Nazi
and of their New World Order that's essentially in charge of
most everything that matters, even if it were based upon yet
another lie or total fabrication or distortion of the actual
facts that would be telling us otherwise. Does this mean
evidence exclusion and conditional physics follows suit in
all areas of your supposed expertise?

I don't know what you're talking about. Whenever you go off
into that patch of weeds, I just think, what a barking lunatic
you are.

So, you think there's no one swarm of any faith-based/political
cult or group in charge of anything that goes badly or for the
better here on Earth? (it's all purely random happenstance that's
always perfectly fair and square with the rest of us village
idiots?)

You're saying that job security, public funded benefits, vast
corporate and political profits and bragging rights that'll suit
their given faith-based mindset never account for squat. Now
that's interesting as hell.

It's boring as a ... very boring thing.

Your perpetual nayism on most every conceivable topic that doesn't
100% coincide with your mainstream status quo mindset, seems that's
about as DARPA or bust as it can get, is noted.

Your excluding evidence and denying them pesky laws of physics that
so happens to rock your boat is also noted. I bet you never once
considered as to why your eye-candy and media packaged science on
behalf of entertaining such an infomercial impressed nose was so
brown. Perhaps now you know.

Please **** off.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Need we bother to say anything more?

Timberwoof wrote:

Please **** off.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." �Chris L.

You're so resource pathetic that you require my link for centripetal
force of our moon orbiting Earth?

Are you actually certain that I'm the one with the dim bulb?

It seems you're the one making those wild and unsubstantiated claims
that Earth isn't the lest bit measurably tidal flex affected by our
7.35e22 kg Selene/moon.

How the hell can one continually flex/distort the outer crust of Earth
by 55 cm (plus having to affect by way of motivating most of
everything underneath) without creating heat?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

Need we bother to say anything more?

No, considering the wild conclusions you keep leaping to.

Timberwoof wrote:

Please **** off.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.

You're so resource pathetic that you require my link for centripetal
force of our moon orbiting Earth?

Please **** off.

Are you actually certain that I'm the one with the dim bulb?

Yes.

It seems you're the one making those wild and unsubstantiated claims
that Earth isn't the lest bit measurably tidal flex affected by our
7.35e22 kg Selene/moon.

I didn't make that claim.

How the hell can one continually flex/distort the outer crust of Earth
by 55 cm (plus having to affect by way of motivating most of
everything underneath) without creating heat?

I don't grant your premise. Please **** off.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

On Jul 20, 7:23 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Need we bother to say anything more?

No, considering the wild conclusions you keep leaping to.

Timberwoof wrote:

Please **** off.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.

You're so resource pathetic that you require my link for centripetal
force of our moon orbiting Earth?

Please **** off.

Are you actually certain that I'm the one with the dim bulb?

Yes.

That figures, that of one DARPA bulb calling most any other bulb dim.


It seems you're the one making those wild and unsubstantiated claims
that Earth isn't the lest bit measurably tidal flex affected by our
7.35e22 kg Selene/moon.

I didn't make that claim.

You also didn't even try to support or much less polish my claim, of
which at least my analogy agrees with the regular laws of physics and
best available science that can be run in a public owned supercomputer
simulator of planetology and basic geology physics.


How the hell can one continually flex/distort the outer crust of Earth
by 55 cm (plus having to affect by way of motivating most of
everything underneath) without creating heat?

I don't grant your premise. Please **** off.

DARPA doesn't grant any premise that doesn't suit their Zionist/Nazi
mindset. So, what if anything makes your naysay mindset any
different?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

In addition to your having essentially specified there are no such
long orbital period binary or any other such complex groups of
interstellar tidal radius factors to behold, and saying a nearby
Sirius star/solar system of 7+ solar mass isn't worthy of once having
our Sol within it's tidal radius, you’re going on public record as per
stipulating that our Selene/moon contributes nothing measurable as to
the tidal flex and subsequent global warming of mother Earth.

Your Zionist/Nazi DARPA of nayism doesn’t get any better than that,
does it.

Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth



On Jul 20, 7:23 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Need we bother to say anything more?

No, considering the wild conclusions you keep leaping to.

Timberwoof wrote:

Please **** off.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.

You're so resource pathetic that you require my link for centripetal
force of our moon orbiting Earth?

Please **** off.

Are you actually certain that I'm the one with the dim bulb?

Yes.

It seems you're the one making those wild and unsubstantiated claims
that Earth isn't the lest bit measurably tidal flex affected by our
7.35e22 kg Selene/moon.

I didn't make that claim.

How the hell can one continually flex/distort the outer crust of Earth
by 55 cm (plus having to affect by way of motivating most of
everything underneath) without creating heat?

I don't grant your premise. Please **** off.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 20, 7:23 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Need we bother to say anything more?

No, considering the wild conclusions you keep leaping to.

Timberwoof wrote:

Please **** off.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.

You're so resource pathetic that you require my link for centripetal
force of our moon orbiting Earth?

Please **** off.

Are you actually certain that I'm the one with the dim bulb?

Yes.

It seems you're the one making those wild and unsubstantiated claims
that Earth isn't the lest bit measurably tidal flex affected by our
7.35e22 kg Selene/moon.

I didn't make that claim.

How the hell can one continually flex/distort the outer crust of Earth
by 55 cm (plus having to affect by way of motivating most of
everything underneath) without creating heat?

I don't grant your premise. Please **** off.

In addition to your having essentially specified there are no such
long orbital period binary or any other such complex groups of
interstellar tidal radius factors to behold,

I never said that. I don't even know what the hell that means. What's a
"tidal radius" anyway? Is that like the size of a gravitational field?

and saying a nearby
Sirius star/solar system of 7+ solar mass isn't worthy of once having
our Sol within it's tidal radius,

I never said that either. I'm not sure what that means, either. I wonder
why you think I pass moral judgments on stars. "Worthy"?

you¹re going on public record as per
stipulating that our Selene/moon contributes nothing measurable as to
the tidal flex and subsequent global warming of mother Earth.

Now that I'll agree with. There's no reason, even with your goofy idea
that the moon just got here 12,500 years ago, to think that the moon
caused the global warming effects we've been seeing for the past, oh,
twenty years.

Your Zionist/Nazi DARPA of nayism doesn¹t get any better than that,
does it.

What is the point of harping on "Zionist/Nazi DARPA Š nayism"? It makes
you look like someone pleadingly desperate to be mistaken for a
round-the-bend kook.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what¹s accepted by
the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.

On Jul 22, 6:44 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,



BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 20, 7:23 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Need we bother to say anything more?

No, considering the wild conclusions you keep leaping to.

Timberwoof wrote:

Please **** off.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.

You're so resource pathetic that you require my link for centripetal
force of our moon orbiting Earth?

Please **** off.

Are you actually certain that I'm the one with the dim bulb?

Yes.

It seems you're the one making those wild and unsubstantiated claims
that Earth isn't the lest bit measurably tidal flex affected by our
7.35e22 kg Selene/moon.

I didn't make that claim.

How the hell can one continually flex/distort the outer crust of Earth
by 55 cm (plus having to affect by way of motivating most of
everything underneath) without creating heat?

I don't grant your premise. Please **** off.
In addition to your having essentially specified there are no such
long orbital period binary or any other such complex groups of
interstellar tidal radius factors to behold,

I never said that. I don't even know what the hell that means. What's a
"tidal radius" anyway? Is that like the size of a gravitational field?

As one star's gravity influence might sufficiently interact along with
or impose upon another stellar source of gravity, whereas this might
be called the mutual or combined gravitational field radius (aka tidal
radius), outside of which such items would not become attracted to or
having their trajectory the least bit modified by one another, and as
such forever go their independent ways without any chance of seeing
any future return encounter.


and saying a nearby
Sirius star/solar system of 7+ solar mass isn't worthy of once having
our Sol within it's tidal radius,

I never said that either. I'm not sure what that means, either. I wonder
why you think I pass moral judgments on stars. "Worthy"?

worthy = capable or viable (sorry about that)


you¹re going on public record as per
stipulating that our Selene/moon contributes nothing measurable as to
the tidal flex and subsequent global warming of mother Earth.

Now that I'll agree with. There's no reason, even with your goofy idea
that the moon just got here 12,500 years ago, to think that the moon
caused the global warming effects we've been seeing for the past, oh,
twenty years.

Wow! how off-topic or out of context can you get in one pass?

btw, try at least 13,000 years worth of consistent global warming ever
since the very last ice-age Earth w/moon is ever going to see, that is
unless you think Earth is still sufficiently locked within its last
ice-age. Actually, the worse part of the very last ice-age was
supposedly 23,000~25,000 years ago. Do you honestly think our sun was
made that much dimmer as of 25,000+ years ago?


Your Zionist/Nazi DARPA of nayism doesn't get any better than that,
does it.

What is the point of harping on "Zionist/Nazi DARPA Š nayism"? It makes
you look like someone pleadingly desperate to be mistaken for a
round-the-bend kook.

So, you think our mutually perpetrated cold-war DARPA has been stealth
managed by way of heathen Atheists, Muslims, or even by Catholics?

Obviously, you think there's not a faith-based soul in charge of
anything, or having been responsible for any good, bad or simply wrong
doings. What are the odds?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 6:44 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
snip
I never said that. I don't even know what the hell that means. What's a
"tidal radius" anyway? Is that like the size of a gravitational field?

As one star's gravity influence might sufficiently interact along with
or impose upon another stellar source of gravity, whereas this might
be called the mutual or combined gravitational field radius (aka tidal
radius), outside of which such items would not become attracted to or
having their trajectory the least bit modified by one another, and as
such forever go their independent ways without any chance of seeing
any future return encounter.

So, this definition is wrong?
Tidal Radius is :
"The distance from the centre of a planet to the point at which its
gravitational pull equals that of the Sun"

On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Sunny" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Jul 22, 6:44 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
snip

I never said that. I don't even know what the hell that means. What's a
"tidal radius" anyway? Is that like the size of a gravitational field?

As one star's gravity influence might sufficiently interact along with
or impose upon another stellar source of gravity, whereas this might
be called the mutual or combined gravitational field radius (aka tidal
radius), outside of which such items would not become attracted to or
having their trajectory the least bit modified by one another, and as
such forever go their independent ways without any chance of seeing
any future return encounter.

So, this definition is wrong?
Tidal Radius is :
"The distance from the centre of a planet to the point at which its
gravitational pull equals that of the Sun"

I'll buy that one as will, but you're leaving out the orbital velocity
factor of that planet.

Cut that orbital velocity down to 1%, and how much greater is the
tidal radius?

Now give that slower moving planet a substantial elliptical orbit to
start off with (aka Pluto or perhaps Sedna), and now reconsider the
new and improved tidal radius.

btw, unlike yourself, I didn't cut and paste my definition of tidal
radius.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

In article ,
"Sunny" wrote:

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 6:44 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
snip
I never said that. I don't even know what the hell that means. What's a
"tidal radius" anyway? Is that like the size of a gravitational field?

As one star's gravity influence might sufficiently interact along with
or impose upon another stellar source of gravity, whereas this might
be called the mutual or combined gravitational field radius (aka tidal
radius), outside of which such items would not become attracted to or
having their trajectory the least bit modified by one another, and as
such forever go their independent ways without any chance of seeing
any future return encounter.

That definition makes no sense. All massive things attract all massive
things gravitationally with a strength described by Newton's Law.
There's no distance limitation. Whether two things will forever move
away from one another depends on their masses, distance, and relative
velocity.

How about you give us a mathematical definition?


So, this definition is wrong?
Tidal Radius is :
"The distance from the centre of a planet to the point at which its
gravitational pull equals that of the Sun"

That definition doesn't actually mean anything. That point is easy to
calculate for the Earth-Moon system, but it's not anywhere near one of
the Lagrange points: the Moon's orbit around the earth combined with its
gravity changes everything.

And by that definition the Earth and the Moon are outside each other's
"tidal radius", yet the Earth experiences tides from the Moon's orbit.
It gets even worse when you calculate the "tidal radius" that way for
the Earth and sun. That point is very close to the sun, yet the Earth
experiences tides due to its rotation near the sun.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.