The moon doesn't cause ocean tides, claims UKIP MP Carswell

The moon doesn't cause ocean tides, claims UKIP MP Carswell

Author
Discussion

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Tuesday 20th September 2016
quotequote all
don4l said:
Oh... this is a contentious subject.

If it was simply the gratitational effect of the moon, then high tides would only occur on the side facing the moon.

The Earth and moon orbit as a bound pair. The centre of rotation is beneath the Earth's surface. The resulting wobble means that centrifugal forces chuck the water out on both sides.
It's never good when your version of reality requires a fictitious force.

TankRizzo

7,247 posts

192 months

Tuesday 20th September 2016
quotequote all
eharding said:
hehe

It's like Carl Sagan just walked into the thread. Astounding.
rofl

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Tuesday 20th September 2016
quotequote all
Starfighter said:
About right. It is also around 400 times further away which is why the solar eclipse does what it does. Gravity is an inverse square law so effect is quartered as distance doubles. As the sun is much larger than the moon but massively further away the gravitation effect is reduced so the moon can pull the tides but the sun has a marginal effect.
What about density/mass?
Isn't the sun vastly more sense than the moon?

chow pan toon

12,356 posts

236 months

Tuesday 20th September 2016
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Starfighter said:
About right. It is also around 400 times further away which is why the solar eclipse does what it does. Gravity is an inverse square law so effect is quartered as distance doubles. As the sun is much larger than the moon but massively further away the gravitation effect is reduced so the moon can pull the tides but the sun has a marginal effect.
What about density/mass?
Isn't the sun vastly more sense than the moon?
6x more. Ignore these fools, nothing could be 400 times bigger than the moon. Its bloody huge ffs

eharding

13,600 posts

283 months

Tuesday 20th September 2016
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Starfighter said:
About right. It is also around 400 times further away which is why the solar eclipse does what it does. Gravity is an inverse square law so effect is quartered as distance doubles. As the sun is much larger than the moon but massively further away the gravitation effect is reduced so the moon can pull the tides but the sun has a marginal effect.
What about density/mass?
Isn't the sun vastly more sense than the moon?
I think you mean 'dense' rather than 'sense'....

...and as a result of this thread, a lot of our gravitational models may have to be revised, given that a number of contributors appear to be the most dense objects yet discovered this side of the Oort Cloud, and probably for about 250 light years beyond.

s2art

18,937 posts

252 months

Tuesday 20th September 2016
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Starfighter said:
About right. It is also around 400 times further away which is why the solar eclipse does what it does. Gravity is an inverse square law so effect is quartered as distance doubles. As the sun is much larger than the moon but massively further away the gravitation effect is reduced so the moon can pull the tides but the sun has a marginal effect.
What about density/mass?
Isn't the sun vastly more sense than the moon?
Yes, but irrelevant. Only the distance and mass are the important variables. And its proportional to distance cubed (approx) for tidal effects.

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Tuesday 20th September 2016
quotequote all
chow pan toon said:
Welshbeef said:
Starfighter said:
About right. It is also around 400 times further away which is why the solar eclipse does what it does. Gravity is an inverse square law so effect is quartered as distance doubles. As the sun is much larger than the moon but massively further away the gravitation effect is reduced so the moon can pull the tides but the sun has a marginal effect.
What about density/mass?
Isn't the sun vastly more sense than the moon?
6x more. Ignore these fools, nothing could be 400 times bigger than the moon. Its bloody huge ffs
So it's c400x the diameter but like for like size it's 6x more dense.

Big fker.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 20th September 2016
quotequote all

Meridius

1,608 posts

151 months

Tuesday 20th September 2016
quotequote all
Somethings clearly having an immense gravitational pull on the side of his face as well.

XM5ER

5,087 posts

247 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
steveT350C said:
Sun and Moon....

"The theoretical amplitude of oceanic tides caused by the moon is about 54 centimetres (21 in) at the highest point, which corresponds to the amplitude that would be reached if the ocean possessed a uniform depth, there were no landmasses, and the Earth were rotating in step with the moon's orbit. The sun similarly causes tides, of which the theoretical amplitude is about 25 centimetres (9.8 in) (46% of that of the moon) with a cycle time of 12 hours. At spring tide the two effects add to each other to a theoretical level of 79 centimetres (31 in), while at neap tide the theoretical level is reduced to 29 centimetres (11 in). Since the orbits of the Earth about the sun, and the moon about the Earth, are elliptical, tidal amplitudes change somewhat as a result of the varying Earth–sun and Earth–moon distances. This causes a variation in the tidal force and theoretical amplitude of about ±18% for the moon and ±5% for the sun. If both the sun and moon were at their closest positions and aligned at new moon, the theoretical amplitude would reach 93 centimetres (37 in)."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

Edited by steveT350C on Tuesday 20th September 20:47
Shhh! Don't let the facts spoil a good argument.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
XM5ER said:
Shhh! Don't let the facts spoil a good argument.
Facts never spoil a good argument on PH...

Riley Blue

20,915 posts

225 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
Carswell sounds like a bit of a Canute to me.

Mafffew

2,149 posts

110 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
So Carswell is just confirming what everyone knew already, he's fking idiot.


Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
don4l said:
If it was simply gravity, then how do you explain the "bulge" on the opposite side of the planet?

The moon seems to suck the water on the side of the planet that the moon is facing.

How do you explain the fact that the moon appears to push away the water on the other side? Gravity doesn't do that!
Tidal effects pull on ALL of the earth, i.e. the whole planet, not just the oceans. Also, the side of the earth directly opposite the moon is elongated to a larger extent on the side facing towards the moon than the side facing away from the moon. Therefore the earth is stretched into an elipsoid shape i.e. it has two bulges - one on the face towards the moon and one on the face away from the moon.

The earth rotates on its axis once every 24 hours. It obviously carries its oceans with it as it rotates. Therefore, the earth rotates through these two bulges twice every 24 hours. When the oceans pass through these bulges, we experience two high tides - which are most noticeable along the coast.
Local geographical factors and the direction of flow of ocean currents cause variations in the height of these tides so they don't all happen exactly at the same time.

Because the moon orbits the earth every 28 days or so, its position changes from day to day. This causes the timings of the two high tides to change every day as the tidal bulges "follow" the moon as it orbits the earth.

Duncan Carswell is obviously a fool.

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

243 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Duncan Carswell is obviously a fool.
Who he? Douglas Carswell would appear to have got this one wrong.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
The terrifying thing is that such ignorance is hardly unique to him. Not knowing of or misunderstanding the inverse square law is worrying. We have climate change deniers in parliament, and in places of particular authority. We have MPs who not only support homeopathy but believe the rubbish as well. Look across the pond to be really terrified. There are mormons, creationists and other idiots who seem proud of their ignorance.

It's a scary place, this world.


number 46

1,019 posts

247 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
It's a scary place, this world.
Scary perhaps, but it could be worse, imagine if the world was round!!!!!!!!........

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
Eric Mc said:
Duncan Carswell is obviously a fool.
Who he? Douglas Carswell would appear to have got this one wrong.
Yeah - Douglas (and probably Duncan too).

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
The terrifying thing is that such ignorance is hardly unique to him. Not knowing of or misunderstanding the inverse square law is worrying. We have climate change deniers in parliament, and in places of particular authority. We have MPs who not only support homeopathy but believe the rubbish as well. Look across the pond to be really terrified. There are mormons, creationists and other idiots who seem proud of their ignorance.

It's a scary place, this world.
I blame the internet, the democratisation of knowledge has been an bloody disaster for the type of folks who used to run the show on nothing but bluster, slick hair styles and family ties.

When you have politicians both sides of the atlantic declaring that 2people have had enough of experts" you know civilisation has jumped the shark.

The robot overlords can not come soon enough in my opinion.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Wednesday 21st September 2016
quotequote all
FredClogs said:
When you have politicians both sides of the atlantic declaring that "people have had enough of experts" you know civilisation has jumped the shark.
I didn't read this but was told it by a friend. I don't like Gove, but he's no fool and I said that he'd been misquoted.

It is terrible that I was wrong. He meant what he said.

Explains a lot about him though.