The moon doesn't cause ocean tides, claims UKIP MP Carswell
Discussion
DMN said:
Only because Don4l is riding like the white knight he is to UKIP's defence.
I haven't mentioned Carswell. I hadn't even read the articles. I didn't comment on his reported theory. I've just read the Independent story, and if it is accurate, he seems to be confusing the Sun's effects with the Moon's.I'm no supporter of Carswell.
The tides are more complicated than most people think. Most people think that the Earth orbits the Sun in a smooth eliptical orbit. It doesn't. It wobbles around, drawing little circles as it goes. The centrifugal (yes, I am fully aware that there is no such force, but people understand what I mean) force plays a large part.
Eric Mc said:
don4l said:
Unfortunately, it makes no sense at all.
On the one hand, it is claimed that the water is being pulled off the Earth. On the other hand, it is being claimed that the moon is pulling the Earth away from the water.
Both options ignore the fact that the Earth has far more gravity than the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/restles3.html
No they don't. The earth does exactly the same to the moon - only more so - precisely BECAUSE the earth is a larger body than the moon and therefore exerts a stronger gravitational pull on the moon.On the one hand, it is claimed that the water is being pulled off the Earth. On the other hand, it is being claimed that the moon is pulling the Earth away from the water.
Both options ignore the fact that the Earth has far more gravity than the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/restles3.html
rohrl said:
ash73 said:
He should join the climate thread he'd feel right at home.
Strangely enough, Douglas Carswell is indeed a climate change sceptic.The rational position in both cases is to look at the data and sound science.
Differential gravity is in play with tides.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.ht...
The lack of any visible causal human signal in any global climate data is in play with climate change and the current best estimate of TOA radiative forcing is negative (cooling) with no CO2 effect seen as modelled. The secondary source at the link has primary source material and links to follow.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/blockbuster-earth...
Whether any individual adopts a rational position with one or both phenomena has no bearing on what the data and sound science have to say in either case.
Playground tactics 0
Science 1
don4l said:
The tides are more complicated than most people think. Most people think that the Earth orbits the Sun in a smooth eliptical orbit. It doesn't. It wobbles around, drawing little circles as it goes. The centrifugal (yes, I am fully aware that there is no such force, but people understand what I mean) force plays a large part.
Yes, there is such a phenomena, but little to do with the tides. For starters it has a periodicity of approx 28 days (lunar orbit), not 24 hours.turbobloke said:
rohrl said:
ash73 said:
He should join the climate thread he'd feel right at home.
Strangely enough, Douglas Carswell is indeed a climate change sceptic.The rational position in both cases is to look at the data and sound science.
Differential gravity is in play with tides.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.ht...
The lack of any visible causal human signal in any global climate data is in play with climate change and the current best estimate of TOA radiative forcing is negative (cooling) with no CO2 effect seen as modelled. The secondary source at the link has primary source material and links to follow.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/blockbuster-earth...
Whether any individual adopts a rational position with one or both phenomena has no bearing on what the data and sound science have to say in either case.
Playground tactics 0
Science 1
ATG said:
turbobloke said:
rohrl said:
ash73 said:
He should join the climate thread he'd feel right at home.
Strangely enough, Douglas Carswell is indeed a climate change sceptic.The rational position in both cases is to look at the data and sound science.
Differential gravity is in play with tides.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.ht...
The lack of any visible causal human signal in any global climate data is in play with climate change and the current best estimate of TOA radiative forcing is negative (cooling) with no CO2 effect seen as modelled. The secondary source at the link has primary source material and links to follow.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/blockbuster-earth...
Whether any individual adopts a rational position with one or both phenomena has no bearing on what the data and sound science have to say in either case.
Playground tactics 0
Science 1
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
It doesn't matter what any number of people think and say, it's what the data says that takes precedence.
Any number of people including scientists can be wrong about anything. At the relevant time, substantial numbers of scientists held opinions about peptic ulcer causation, bat sonar and an invisible (!) atmosphere on the planet Mercury that were subsequently shown to be baseless.
Even when there's a consensus, which is absent in the area you're referring to, the phenomenon of consensus views being wrong is more common than you appear to realise.
If various media say there's a consensus, do you swallow it? Nullius in verba.
There's no merit in taking this thread away from Carswell's tide going out any further than it already is, so please feel free to hop over to the Climate Politics thread. Or not.
turbobloke said:
They don't all think the same way, not even broadly, so your comment falls at the first hurdle - they don't "all" have to be any particular thing. Some may be corrupt, some may be incompetent.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
It doesn't matter what any number of people think and say, it's what the data says that takes precedence.
Any number of people including scientists can be wrong about anything. At the relevant time, substantial numbers of scientists held opinions about peptic ulcer causation, bat sonar and an invisible (!) atmosphere on the planet Mercury that were subsequently shown to be baseless.
Even when there's a consensus, which is absent in the area you're referring to, the phenomenon of consensus views being wrong is more common than you appear to realise.
If various media say there's a consensus, do you swallow it? Nullius in verba.
There's no merit in taking this thread away from Carswell's tide going out any further than it already is, so please feel free to hop over to the Climate Politics thread. Or not.
What? No fictitious turbographs (TM)? I'm very disappointed.http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
It doesn't matter what any number of people think and say, it's what the data says that takes precedence.
Any number of people including scientists can be wrong about anything. At the relevant time, substantial numbers of scientists held opinions about peptic ulcer causation, bat sonar and an invisible (!) atmosphere on the planet Mercury that were subsequently shown to be baseless.
Even when there's a consensus, which is absent in the area you're referring to, the phenomenon of consensus views being wrong is more common than you appear to realise.
If various media say there's a consensus, do you swallow it? Nullius in verba.
There's no merit in taking this thread away from Carswell's tide going out any further than it already is, so please feel free to hop over to the Climate Politics thread. Or not.
You can laugh at him but the Climate debate on here has gone on for more words than the entire 1986 version of the Encyclopedia Britannica and yet still the skeptics have not been able to put those pesky scientists to bed.
In this modern world there is an awful lot of people who don't know the actualities but more than happy to spout!
No editorial control
In this modern world there is an awful lot of people who don't know the actualities but more than happy to spout!
No editorial control
TwigtheWonderkid said:
s2art said:
You really, really dont understand. Newton figured all this out hundreds of years ago. Find a physics textbook and read up on the subject.
It's unreal. People are actually arguing about something that was proved beyond all doubt several hundred f
king years ago!!!!Brian Cox explains it here in a way that my cat could grasp.
Ffs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGKgKayuC2M
That is why science constantly is proven wrong, the whole point of science is just because you agree with something doesn't mean there shouldn't be people constantly trying to disprove the theorem.
s2art said:
don4l said:
The tides are more complicated than most people think. Most people think that the Earth orbits the Sun in a smooth eliptical orbit. It doesn't. It wobbles around, drawing little circles as it goes. The centrifugal (yes, I am fully aware that there is no such force, but people understand what I mean) force plays a large part.
Yes, there is such a phenomena, but little to do with the tides. For starters it has a periodicity of approx 28 days (lunar orbit), not 24 hours.In fact, I can look at the moon and tell you what time High Water will occur.
I'll try one last time.
Imagine two baloons filled with water. One is much bigger than the other. They are connected with a stick that is glued to each of them.
Now imagine that we have a nother stick. It is at right angles to the first stick. If our two baloons are on a desk, our new stick is pointing from above. This new stick is stuck through our large balloon a little bit from the centre in the direction of the smaller balloon.
Now, we take the stick between our thumb and forefinger, and we spin it.
What happens to the shape of the balloons?
Is this the result of gravity, or centrifugal (doesn't exist) force?
You can, of course replicate this experiment without the second, smaller balloon. The result is the same.
Gandahar said:
You can laugh at him but the Climate debate on here has gone on for more words than the entire 1986 version of the Encyclopedia Britannica and yet still the skeptics have not been able to put those pesky scientists to bed.
In this modern world there is an awful lot of people who don't know the actualities but more than happy to spout!
What actually you mean is that the climate scientists have yet to prove what they claim, while the data continues to prove the opposite?In this modern world there is an awful lot of people who don't know the actualities but more than happy to spout!
elster said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
s2art said:
You really, really dont understand. Newton figured all this out hundreds of years ago. Find a physics textbook and read up on the subject.
It's unreal. People are actually arguing about something that was proved beyond all doubt several hundred fking years ago!!!!Brian Cox explains it here in a way that my cat could grasp.
Ffs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGKgKayuC2M
That is why science constantly is proven wrong, the whole point of science is just because you agree with something doesn't mean there shouldn't be people constantly trying to disprove the theorem.
And how is science constantly proven wrong? Is the world actually flat then, and does the Sun orbit the Earth. Science says not, when do you think it will be proven wrong?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff