The moon doesn't cause ocean tides, claims UKIP MP Carswell
Discussion
CoolHands said:
I suspect humans aren't yet clever enough to understand how tides are created.
Good job then that 2 minutes on Youtube will enable them to understand. We're not talking cutting edge science here. This isn't the Large Hadron Collider. A masters degree from Harvard in particle acceleration is not required to understand how the tides work. Jesus titty f
king Christ. I understand tides fine, but the comments on this thread in a 21st C developed country are beyond me. 
Alpinestars said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jesus titty fking Christ. I understand tides fine, but the comments on this thread in a 21st C developed country are beyond me.
Whilst I agree with you, you're showing a lack of understanding of the WORLD WIDE web king Christ. I understand tides fine, but the comments on this thread in a 21st C developed country are beyond me. 
johnxjsc1985 said:
anybody mentioned how the wind and high and low pressure affects the tides?.
No.And you are absolutely correct.
There seems to be an awful lot of people on this thread who have never sailed, and who also know sod all about physics.
It doesn't seem to stop them from posting.
don4l said:
I'll try one last time.
I'll be upset if this really is the last time. don4l said:
Imagine two baloons filled with water. One is much bigger than the other.
Okay!don4l said:
They are connected with a stick that is glued to each of them.
Oookay... don4l said:
Now imagine that we have a nother stick.
Stick number 2 ready.
don4l said:
It is at right angles to the first stick.
Err, ok. But you haven't said how the first stick is positioned, or what plane the second stick is in. Maybe that will become clear... don4l said:
If our two baloons are on a desk, our new stick is pointing from above.
A-ha! So stick number 1 is horizontal. And stick number 2 is vertical, and above stick number 1. Got it! don4l said:
This new stick
Stick number 2, right? don4l said:
is stuck through our large balloon
Err, that's made a big mess on the floor. The large balloon has burst and there's water everywhere. Is this part of the experiment?don4l said:
a little bit from the centre
I don't think that would have stopped the big balloon bursting. don4l said:
in the direction of the smaller balloon.
"In the direction of the smaller balloon". So parallel to stick number 1, which connects the larger balloon to the smaller balloon. But also at right angles to stick number 1. This sounds like non-Euclidian geometry to me. Never mind. If I snap stick number 2, perhaps the experiment will still work. don4l said:
Now, we take the stick between our thumb and forefinger
Which stick? don4l said:
, and we spin it.
I'm swinging a balloon full of water that's on the end of a stick. And I've got another stick that's broken. I can't think this will end well. don4l said:
What happens to the shape of the balloons?
The first one is in pieces on the floor because you told me to put stick number 2 through it. So mostly flat. Balloon number 2 is an odd shape, but I'm too dizzy and it's moving too fast for me to see it. don4l said:
Is this the result of gravity, or centrifugal (doesn't exist) force?
Good question! Inertia, I think. Are you trying to prove that the seas are all thrown onto the side of the earth that's furthest from the sun? Sounds like we might have some very dry days and very wet nights from now on. I wonder how that stacks up with the empirical data. don4l said:
You can, of course replicate this experiment without the second, smaller balloon.
You mean just the stick, and a burst balloon, and a puddle. Is that a double blind test? don4l said:
The result is the same.
That much I can well believe. 
don4l said:
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.
Edited to add. Of course you can tell when high tide is by looking at the moon, as long as you know the approximate lag for a given location. With no lag it would be when the moon is as close to directly overhead as possible. This is a gravitational effect not a barycentre effect.
Edited by s2art on Wednesday 21st September 22:28
rohrl said:
The sun does have a small effect on tides but, contrary to Carswell's claims, the moon is in fact the major driver behind the tidal motion of the oceans, as everyone except him knew already.
Solar 'bulges' are >40% of lunar, so the sun's influence is far from small.https://youtu.be/FtFn6Y1QDyk
Greg66 said:
don4l said:
I'll try one last time.
I'll be upset if this really is the last time. don4l said:
Imagine two baloons filled with water. One is much bigger than the other.
Okay!don4l said:
They are connected with a stick that is glued to each of them.
Oookay... don4l said:
Now imagine that we have a nother stick.
Stick number 2 ready.
don4l said:
It is at right angles to the first stick.
Err, ok. But you haven't said how the first stick is positioned, or what plane the second stick is in. Maybe that will become clear... don4l said:
If our two baloons are on a desk, our new stick is pointing from above.
A-ha! So stick number 1 is horizontal. And stick number 2 is vertical, and above stick number 1. Got it! don4l said:
This new stick
Stick number 2, right? don4l said:
is stuck through our large balloon
Err, that's made a big mess on the floor. The large balloon has burst and there's water everywhere. Is this part of the experiment?don4l said:
a little bit from the centre
I don't think that would have stopped the big balloon bursting. don4l said:
in the direction of the smaller balloon.
"In the direction of the smaller balloon". So parallel to stick number 1, which connects the larger balloon to the smaller balloon. But also at right angles to stick number 1. This sounds like non-Euclidian geometry to me. Never mind. If I snap stick number 2, perhaps the experiment will still work. don4l said:
Now, we take the stick between our thumb and forefinger
Which stick? don4l said:
, and we spin it.
I'm swinging a balloon full of water that's on the end of a stick. And I've got another stick that's broken. I can't think this will end well. don4l said:
What happens to the shape of the balloons?
The first one is in pieces on the floor because you told me to put stick number 2 through it. So mostly flat. Balloon number 2 is an odd shape, but I'm too dizzy and it's moving too fast for me to see it. don4l said:
Is this the result of gravity, or centrifugal (doesn't exist) force?
Good question! Inertia, I think. Are you trying to prove that the seas are all thrown onto the side of the earth that's furthest from the sun? Sounds like we might have some very dry days and very wet nights from now on. I wonder how that stacks up with the empirical data. don4l said:
You can, of course replicate this experiment without the second, smaller balloon.
You mean just the stick, and a burst balloon, and a puddle. Is that a double blind test? don4l said:
The result is the same.
That much I can well believe. 
I hope poor don4l doesn't sail!
Derek Smith said:
CrutyRammers said:
The quote was:
" I think the people of this country have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong"
In the context of a discussion about economists, who, to be fair, are a group of experts who don't have a great track record at predicting stuff in the recent past.
Suggesting, as you have, that well modelled areas of science and engineering such as newtonian mechanics and electronics are in the same league is highly disingenuous.
The implication of that statement was that he thought he knew better than experts from organisations. " I think the people of this country have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong"
In the context of a discussion about economists, who, to be fair, are a group of experts who don't have a great track record at predicting stuff in the recent past.
Suggesting, as you have, that well modelled areas of science and engineering such as newtonian mechanics and electronics are in the same league is highly disingenuous.
...
We don't have to follow the suggestions of experts but we do need to listen to them.
His comment that people generally are fed up with people described as experts telling them what to do appears to have been somewhat true in the light of the referendum, regardless of your personal dislike of the man.
I can't tell if he's mental purple track suit wearer or he really is a tidal expert talking about deeper cutting edge physics he's spent years looking into and the science is just about to recognise hip..
Anybody help me out? I'm leaning one way at the moment but we mock what we do not understand. So is there about to be a new breakthrough in science?
Anybody help me out? I'm leaning one way at the moment but we mock what we do not understand. So is there about to be a new breakthrough in science?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff