Re: Tides.
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2018, 11:29:26 PM »
According to the Wiki, tides in the FE theory are due to gravity from the sun and moon.

How does this explain that there are TWO lunar tides in each 24 hour period?  In the RE model, the Earth/Moon system orbit around a point a little off-center from the center of the (round) Earth. The tide that happens when the moon is overhead is just gravity, same in FE and RE physics.  But the second daily tide (which happens in RE theory because centrifugal force produces that second tide due to the off-center rotation of the Earth.

What is the FE explanation for that second daily tide?
Easy.  Both the Sun and the Moon exert an influence on the water, thus there are two high tides each day since both the Sun and the Moon cross the dome once a day.  C'mon, ask a tough one.  :D

This isn't possible. If there is gravity between the Earth and sun/moon, they would all collide. Orbits work because the orbiting body is always falling over the horizon, so to speak. With no orbit around the Earth the Sun/moon would be drawn in by the gravitational pull.
Ha. Well, also. I thought gravity didn't actually exist and what we feel as gravity is actually only caused by Universal Acceleration.
If gravity does exist after all then as well as "well, why hasn't the moon or sun fallen on us then?", I guess the centre of gravity of the disc we live on would be near the centre so why aren't we all being dragged towards that?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Re: Tides.
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2018, 09:19:43 AM »
I found the answer to my question in the Wiki. Celestial Gravitation.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
So the moon does have a gravitational attraction but, for no well explained reason, the earth does not.
You really couldn't make this stuff up...well, apparently someone could.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 4179
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Tides.
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2018, 09:28:32 AM »
I don't know how that junk got in there.

But the proper answer is in the Good Book if you take a moment to read it.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Tides.
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2018, 02:00:33 PM »
I don't know how that junk got in there.

But the proper answer is in the Good Book if you take a moment to read it.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm
Firstly, his 'rejection' of the Moon tides is nothing more than a logical fallacy. Not understanding how something works does not make it false.

Beyond that, yes there is a shift in atmospheric pressure (a measurable one) throughout the day. But it doesn't correspond to the timing of the tides. This is a prime example of the age of the book having an impact on the usefulness of it's information and conclusions. He cites an irregularity in the tides, but it's one now well known and documented as tides don't occur in what we would call a 'regular' cycle based on hours of our clock. He cites the movement of the pole star, but it's not a movement up and down, but one around in a circle, Not something easily seen without long exposure camera equipment. We have him not understanding how gravity works (not surprising when his very first rebuttal is clearly from a point of ignorance on the subject).

All told his 'information' shows a serious lack of anything beyond the most basic knowledge of the subject he's dismissing i.e. "Big things pull stuff, the bigger and closer the harder they pull."

As an aside, I would suspect Celestial Gravitation came about due to the fluctuations in gravitational pull measured across the Earth's surface. But I can't be positive on that.

Re: Tides.
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2018, 04:33:25 PM »
From Zetetic Astronomy:

Quote
2nd. The earth is affirmed to be much larger than the moon ("The mass of the moon according to Lindenau is 1/87 of the mass of the earth" 1), and therefore to have much the greatest attractive power. How then is it possible for the moon with only one eighty-seventh part of the attractive power of the earth, to lift up the waters of the ocean and draw them towards herself? In other words, how can the lesser power overcome the greater?

3rd. It is affirmed that the intensity of attraction increases with proximity, and vice versâ.

p. 159

How, then, when the waters are drawn up by the moon from their bed, and away from the earth's attraction,--which at that greater distance from the centre is considerably diminished, while that of the moon is proportionately increased--is it possible that all the waters acted on should be prevented leaving the earth and flying away to the moon?

This is hilarious. I just imagine him getting home to his wife after getting punched in the face by a smaller man in a bar fight. "First of all, I'm 7 inches taller and two stone heavier than that gentleman. How can the lesser man overcome the greater man? And if he did punch me in the face, my head would have exploded. Since my head didn't explode, we must seek alternative explanations for my bloodied nose."

He has no concept of degree on display in this ludicrous passage - he thinks either the Moon will overcome all of Earth's gravity, or it can have no influence at all. This is the logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

Offline ShowmetheProof

  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • We are fellow scientists, and should act as such.
    • View Profile
Re: Tides.
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2018, 05:39:08 PM »
The tide is either the rising and falling of the water in relation to the land; or the rising and falling of the land in relation to the water; but as it is not at this stage decided which is the case, the following must be the definition of the word tide:

DEFINITION.--Tide is the relative change of level between land and water.-"The Good Book"

So either seawater is such a cold liquid that it is super-fluid and waves are the government lifting metal spikes out of the sea(Also, we are unable to tell the super cold temperature of water and can live while completely submerged in less than 0 degrees Kelvin(K=C-273)) or the earth magically moves up and down at certain times.

Re: Tides.
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2018, 03:44:15 AM »
FACT 1.--There is a constant but variable pressure of the atmosphere upon the surface of the earth and all the waters of the seas and lakes which lie upon and within it, and upon all the oceans which surround it.
PROOF.--The workings of an air-pump, and the readings of the barometer wherever experiments have been made. During storms at sea it has been found that the commotion is almost confined to the surface, and seldom extends to a hundred feet below: at which depth the water is always calm, except in the path of currents and local submarine peculiarities.

Concede as true – Noting that the reading of a barometer is an observation, not an experiment. Not sure what how water being calmer below the surface ‘proves’ anything about a constant but variable air pressure. But let’s explore the quotations:

But first, let’s see what the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science has to say about this:
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/blog/2012/10/22/what-happens-underwater-during-a-hurricane/
“Damaging currents can extend down to at least 300 feet below the surface, capable of dismantling coral reefs, relocating ship wrecks, breaking oil pipelines, and displacing huge volumes of sand on the seabed.”

So:

"It is amazing how superficial is the most terrible tempest; divers assure us that in the greatest storms calm water is found at the depth of 90 feet.” 1
Reference: 161:1 "Chambers’ [sic] Journals," No. 100, p. 379.”
A)   The Chambers’s Journal was a 16-page weekly work of Victorian era fiction, this is like pulling quotes out the ‘Chronicles of Narnia’
B)   There like six No 100, only 2 before 1881 and none seem to have this quoted on page 379 (probably because it was a 16 page weekly journal). The archived arranges them into volume and series, but still I can’t seem to find this on any page 379 of any volume containing No. 100.
C)   “Divers assure us” = Anecdotal narrative that is not consistent with observable evidence.

"This motion of the surface of the sea is not perceptible to a great depth. In the strongest gale it is supposed not to extend beyond 72 feet below the surface; and at the depth of 90 feet, the sea is perfectly still." 1
Reference: 162:1 "Penny Cyclopœdia," Art. "Sea."
A)   The Penny Cyclopœdia wasn’t even important enough to garner a Wikipedia page and Google barely even mentions it in passing. Probably another work of Victorian era fiction, but I was unable to verify the reference.
B)   “it is supposed not to extend” = I’m supposed to get a raise every year, doesn’t mean that’s what actually happens.

"The people are under a great mistake who believe that the substance of the water moves to any considerable depth in a storm at sea. It is only the form or shadow which hurries along like a spirit, or like a thought over the countenance of the 'great deep,' at the rate of some forty miles an hour. Even when the 'Flying Dutchman' is abroad, the great mass of water continues undisturbed and nearly motionless a few feet below the surface." 2
162:2 "London Saturday Journal," p. 71, for August 8th, 1840:
A)   Another work of Victorian era general interest magazine of short fiction and non-fiction pieces.
B)   This quote cannot be found within (admittedly I didn’t kill myself trying though).
C)   Because we should expect a tiny little boat to move a whole ocean?

"The unabraded appearance of the shells brought up from great depths, and the almost total absence of the mixture of any detritus from the sea, or foreign matter, suggest most forcibly the idea of perfect repose at the bottom of the deep sea." 3
162:3 "Physical Geography of the Sea," p. 265. By Lieut. Maury, U.S.
A)   At least we finally reached a work of scientific value. Physical Geography of the Sea is rightfully regarded as the first textbook of modern oceanography and its author often called the "father of naval oceanography."
B)   A good archive was available online at:
https://archive.org/stream/PhysicalGeographyOfTheSea/Physical%20Geography%20of%20the%20Sea#page/n263/mode/2up
C)   Unfortunately, this quote appears nowhere in the book.
There’s a nice poem. Not attributed and no reference provided, this commonly indicates an author’s own work. It’s nice that he wrote a poem.

So, after filtering out the garbage, we’re left with this [yes, air-pumps work].

FACT 1.--There is a constant but variable pressure of the atmosphere upon the surface of the earth and all the waters of the seas and lakes which lie upon and within it, and upon all the oceans which surround it.
PROOF.--The workings of an air-pump, and the readings of the barometer wherever experiments observations have been made.

FACT 2. Water is (except to a very small degree), incompressible.
PROOF. Globes of metal--of gold and silver, of lead and of iron, the last a large bomb-shell, have been filled with water, and subjected to the force of powerful hydraulic machinery, and in every instance it was found impossible to make them receive any appreciable addition. In some
p. 163
instances, when the hydraulic pressure became very great, the water, instead of exhibiting any signs of compression, was observed to ooze through the pores of the metal, and to appear on the outer surface like a fine dew or perspiration.

The fact is true. Non-gaseous fluids are not very compressible.

Wikipedia:
“The low compressibility of non-gases, and of water in particular, leads to their often being assumed as incompressible. The low compressibility of water means that even in the deep oceans at 4 km depth, where pressures are 40 MPa, there is only a 1.8% decrease in volume.

FACT 3. The atmospheric air is very elastic and greatly compressible.
PROOF. The condensation of air in the chamber of an air-gun; and numerous experiments with an air-pump, condensing syringe, and similar apparatus.

The fact is true. Gaseous fluids are generally compressible.

FACT 4. If a raft, a buoy, a ship, or any other structure which floats on the open sea, is carefully observed, it will be seen to have a gentle and regular fluctuating motion.
PROOF. However calm the water and the atmosphere, this gradual and alternate rising and falling of the floating mass will generally be visible to the naked eye. But a telescope (which magnifies motion as well as bulk) will show its existence invariably.

So, this is not true. Tell three truths then lie is a classic.
On perfectly calm water there will be no rise and fall of the floating mass. This can’t actually be proven either way though, because perfect calm at sea really doesn’t exist. In a controlled environment (called a laboratory) this would easy to validate at a smaller scale.

I wouldn’t call this a “gentle and regular fluctuating motion” :


Also what fluctuating motion are you talking about? Are you talking front to back, left to right or up and down? And what do ocean swells have to do with tides anyhow? And what is the period of this fluctuation?

FACT 4. Floating masses of different sizes and densities, being in the same waters, and acted upon by the .same influences, fluctuate with different velocities.
PROOF. Observation with the naked eye and with the telescope.

Aside from being Fact 4 - Volume 2, that’s ad hominem, but as a matter of humor, accidentally repeating a number is no big deal.

I concede Newton’s second law of motion holds true for floating masses.

FACT 6. The largest and heaviest floating masses fluctuate less rapidly than the smallest and lightest.
PROOF. Observation as above. A very striking illustration of the facts 4, 5, and 6, was observed by the author and many friends in Plymouth Bay, in the autumn of 1864. He had previously .delivered a course of lectures

Apparently we don’t get an Fact 5.

I concede Newton’s second law of motion holds true for floating masses.

I’d like to note that the ‘proofs’ on these suck. Telling me what I see is not proof, you need to tell me why this is what I see. An observation is not a proof. (If you doubt that, youtube some optical illusion videos).

FACT 7. Wherever the general pressure of the atmosphere is greatest or least, so are tides in the ocean less or greater than usual.
PROOF. The records of self-registering barometers in use in various parts of the world.

Blatantly false. Analysis of barometric pressure reveals no correlation to tidal heights. No references provide = none given.

FACT 8. The velocity of a flood-tide increases as it approaches land.
PROOF. Actual experiment. It is also a fact well known to sailors engaged in coasting service.

I concede Bernoulli's principles holds true for fluids.

FACT 9. If we go out in a boat with an ebb tide, we find the velocity decreasing as we leave the shores and channels, until we reach a certain point where the water is found to merely rise and fall but not to progress.
p. 165
PROOF. Actual experiment, often tried by, and well known to, pilots and masters of tug steamers.

I concede Bernoulli's principles holds true for fluids.

FACT 10. The times of ebb and flood tide at any given part are not regularly exact, often being from half-an-hour to one hour or more before and after the "Port Establishment time."

Re: Tides.
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2018, 03:44:37 AM »
The times of ebb and flood and the altitude of the tides all over the known world are very various and irregular. Sometimes running up at one end of a river and down at the other, as in the river Thames. Sometimes the flood
p. 166
tide returning shortly after the usual and expected tide, as in Southampton waters, the St. Lawrence, the Amazon,, and other rivers.
PROOF. The hydrographic records of various governments--notably the English and American.

I’ve already conceded Bernoulli's principles holds true for fluids. This applies here as the incoming tide is being funneled into a river, the current speeds up overwhelming the outward flow of the river, creating a tidal surge. This surge can pick up quite a lot of velocity as the tide drives in, in shouldn’t be surprising that via Newton first law, this momentum will be conserved during and after slack water, only reversing direction once the outward flow of the river has exerted sufficient force upon it.

Again, sucky proof. Here’s an experiment you can do to validate my conjecture though.

1)   Get or make some playdough
2)   In a baking sheet, make two banks of a ‘river’ opening into a ‘sea’.
3)   Add some water
4)   Tilt the sheet to cause High tide at the river mouth. Note the tidal surge.
5)   Un-tilt and note the tidal surge. Notice how it take longer to drain than the ‘tide’? If you really good, you might even be able to see the tidal surge continue for moment after untilting.

FACT 11. Every ship, raft, or other floating mass, in addition to its visible fluctuation, has a tremulous motion or tremor of the whole body.
PROOF. On the deck of any vessel or other floating body let the most delicate instruments be placed, such as spirit-levels, poised compasses, &c., and the tremulous motion will easily be recognised.

FACT 12. The earth has a tremulous motion more or less at all times.
PROOF. If a delicate spirit-level be firmly fixed on a rock or on the most solid foundation it is possible to construct, and far away from the influence of any railway, or blasting or mining operations, the curious phenomenon will be observed of continual but irregular change in the position of the air bubble. However carefully the level may be adjusted, and the instrument protected from the atmosphere, the "bubble" will not maintain its position long together. A similar effect is noticed in the most
p. 170
favourably situated astronomical observatories, where instruments of the very best construction, and placed in the most approved positions, cannot always be relied upon. without occasional and systematic readjustment.

11 and 12 – Lovely, you detected the tectonic movements of Earth.

FACT 13. Tides in the extreme south are very small, and in some parts are scarcely perceptible.
PROOF. "The rise and fall of tide in Christmas Harbour, latitude 48° 41´ S, longitude 69° 3´ 35″ E., is remarkably small; not on any occasion amounting to more than 30 inches and the usual spring tides are generally less than two feet. The neap tide varies from four to twelve inches, and the diurnal inequality is, comparatively, very considerable." 2

I'll concede that tides a generally smaller as one gets nearer to the poles.

FACT 14. The tide generally turns a little earlier below than it does above.
PROOF. Colonel Pasley, when operating on the "Royal George," the war-ship which sunk at Spithead, was the first 'who observed and recorded this peculiarity, which has also
p. 172
been noticed during diving operations in Liverpool Bay and other places. 1
172:1 In "Household Words" for October 18th, 1856, the subject is referred to.

Yet another Victorian era weekly magazine, whose editor was Charles Dickens. I’m not really even sure what this is getting at…

FACT 15.--Many large inland seas or lakes are entirely without tide, while several wells of only a few feet in diameter have a considerable rise and fall in the water corresponding in times to the tide in a distant tidal sea.
PROOF---Many cases may be found in works on geography and geology.

Clearly, it was time to slip in half-truths. This is a very broad ‘fact’, like saying ‘Many large birds can’t fly, while several very small one can.’ Alternately, many large inland sea and lakes do exhibit tides, while many wells a few feet in diameter don’t. Circular argument…

FACT 16.--If, at any hour of the night, a telescope is firmly fixed, securely lashed to any solid object, and turned to the pole-star, it will be found on continuing the observation for some hours that the star "Polaris" does not maintain its position, but seems to slowly rise and fall in the field of view of the telescope. The line-of-sight will be sometimes above it; in about twelve hours it will be below it; and in another twelve hours it will again be above the star.

Interestingly, no proof given. There’s a nice diagram, however, this ‘fact’ is very misleading. Yes, Polaris is not exactly at the celestial pole. It will have an apparent motion of circling the pole and the period will be twenty-four hours. If you discuss only two points in time 12 hours apart, the motion would appear on up and down, but in reality it circular.

Thankfully, we get past that exhaustion of fantasy and start looking at how these ‘facts’ result in the tides. So let’s start dissecting this.

"The facts 1 to 7 fully enable us to establish syllogistically the groundwork of the reply. All bodies floating in an in-compressible medium, and exposed to atmospheric pressure, fluctuate, or rise and fall in that medium." [sic]

Well, we already determined number 7 was total crap and shown the “gentle and regular fluctuating motion” (Number 4 -1) is caused by the frequency and amplitude of surface waves.

Number 1, while true does not affect a floating body’s ability to ‘bob’ in an [nearly] in-compressible medium. The compress-ability of the less dense fluid also makes no bearing on this (Number 3) and actually the compress-ability of the fluid (number 2) of higher density is also irrelevant. Experiment time…

1)   Find a tealight candle that floats on water and sinks in Isopropyl alcohol (most do)
2)   Fill a drinking glass ¼ the way with water
3)   Add the candle
4)   Add a fair layer of with mineral or vegetable oil (this keeps the water and alcohol from mixing) you can repeat with different amounts of oil if you like.
5)   Fill ¼ the way with Isopropyl alcohol
6)   Gently swirl and note the bobbing of the candle as it floats in water (in an [nearly] in-compressible medium), with another in an [nearly] in-compressible medium (Alcohol)

Even cooler… … fill ¼ way with Sulfur Hexaflouride (a compressible gas) then float a small paper boat on it (that the cool part BTW). The rest is already filled with air and the gases won’t mix readily. Now you can make a boat, which is floating in mid-air bob.

This mostly proves that the compress-ability or lack thereof of either medium has anything to do with this. We didn’t do a compressible medium under an [nearly] in-compressible one, but liquids tend to be more dense than gases which makes it real hard to keep them on top.  Basically,  we just had our time wasted reading 5 out of 7 ‘facts’ that add no value to this. The end result being this assertation basically saying:

Newton’s second law of motion enables us to say, all bodies floating in a medium fluctuate, or rise and fall in that medium proportionally to the amplitude (measured in meters traveled per second per each second traveled) of the surface wave divided by their mass with a period defined by the frequency of the wave lengths.

Unless you’re suggesting there are two ocean waves perpetually circling around that cause the tides, this is not some sort of brilliance that helps us.

"The earth is a vast irregular structure, stretched out upon and standing or floating in the incompressible waters of the "great deep."
Ergo--The earth has, of necessity, a motion of fluctuation."

This is really open ended, and I’m not sure exactly what it’s trying to say.
 
"The earth is a vast irregular structure, [Yes, we all agree on that]
stretched out upon [not sure what stretching has to do with this, the only elasticity mentioned to this point was that of air]
and standing or floating in the incompressible waters of the "great deep."

….

….

Is it standing or floating?

Because if it’s standing, why the hell did we spend a FREAKING hour discussing how boats floats on the ocean!??!! More on that thought in a second though…

"Hence, when by the pressure of the atmosphere, the earth is depressed or forced slowly down into the "great deep," the waters immediately close in upon the receding bays and headlands, and produce the flood tide; and
p. 174
when, by reaction, the earth slowly ascends, the waters recede, and the result is the ebb tide."

We need stop right here for a little reality check.

Do churches float in water? No, they don’t … …because they are made of rocks. The surface of the Earth is essentially made of rocks. (Sprinkle a little logic on that) Ergo – the Earth does not float in water.

Why the hell did we spend a FREAKING hour discussing how boat floats on the ocean, when your end game was ‘The Earth floats in water’? I wish we could have just skipped to this part because I could have immediately told you "Um, no, rocks generally don’t float", especially ones that take on water.

Oh, BTW, if the continent are affixed to the seafloor, and thus together, why aren’t they floating around like bath bubbles, or are you suggesting the seafloor floats in the great deep, like floating

Re: Tides.
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2018, 03:47:34 AM »
a bowl in water, but it’s more like a colander so the great deep waters can get to rise the tides? (Ever try floating a colander?)

Let’s try to move on.

"Facts 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16, show results that must necessarily follow this fluctuation of the earth. The velocity of the flood is greatest as it approaches land. If the waters were put in motion by the moon, the velocity would be greatest where the altitude was greatest or nearest the moon, and least the farthest from it or nearest the shores. The reverse is the case in nature.
The line of sight being at a given time above the pole-star, as shown in fact 16 (fig. 67), and in twelve hours afterwards below it, as shown in fig. 68, is exactly the result which must follow a slowly rising and falling earth.
Number 16 is a false claim. It’s been shown to rotate in a tight circle around, not vibrate up and down at, the northern celestial pole.
How does a slight trembling in a spirit level (11 and 12) relate to the velocity of an incoming tide? 8 and 9 are about Bernoulli's principle. The quick nutshell version is the this incoming water is getting squeezed between the seafloor and the atmosphere, we have every reason to expect the velocity to increase close to shore, and even faster as it’s pressed into a narrow river mouth, and this was demonstrated earlier."

This is blah, blah, something, something, forget about Bernoulli's principle, and make a statement that isn’t supported by any of the facts we spent a FREAKING hour discussing.

No part of this supports any argument.

"Facts 11 and 12 are also consistent with and necessarily attach to a slowly fluctuating elastic mass like the earth."

We discussed a slight trembling in a spirit level (11 and 12), not a 12 hour period of motion. Sorry, slight trembling does not equal 12 hours.

"In fact 10 we see the irregularity of time in flood and ebb, which arises from the irregular form of the bed of the waters. The submarine channels, banks, and depressions which exist in all directions, the action and reaction, mounting and "back-lashing" of the waters, produce the irregular times and altitudes of the tides observed and recorded in the hydrographic offices of different nations."

Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. The submarine channels, banks, and depressions, accelerate the inward (the action and reaction) via Bernoulli's principle, creating a tidal surge ("back-lashing" of the waters). Is there a particular reason Bernoulli's principle doesn’t work if the initial motion of the water if derived from gravitational energy as opposed the buoyancy energy (In case you missed it, I’m being sarcastic, as buoyancy requires an accelerator, this devolves into gravity or other gravity like force).

End result here, is both models predict this will happen and it does, so neither model can be proven invalid by it. (I.e. another hour of my life I’ll never get back).

"In fact 13 we see that out of the reach of the great bulk of the fluctuating earth the waters are but little disturbed; but if the waters were lifted up by the moon they would flow towards and flood the southern or antarctic lands as readily and to as great an extent as the land in the equatorial and northern regions."

Um, no. You’ve seemed to have confused your model for my model. See in you model, basically an earth bobbing up in down in the ocean, the tides would be fairly consistent everywhere, unless you’ve somehow figured out how to sink boat from the two places near the middle, while the actual middle and side don't sink in only two places at a time.

Don’t believe me, grab a paper plate. Make it into a colander. Now try to sink just two places, in the equatorial region, while keeping the center and edges dry. Good Luck.

Real Earth predict the greatest tides wherever the moon my roam. Given the Earths axial tilt plus the  Moons orbital inclination, that should be contained between 28.58 degrees North and South. That means they should be the least near the poles. Exactly as observed. Wiki it.

"In fact 14 we have a phenomenon which could not possibly exist if the tides arise from the action of the moon
p. 175
upon the water; for as the action would first be on the surface, that surface would be the first to show change of motion, and the bottom the last."

Oh, I get what he’s saying now. Undertow starts first. Because gravity isn’t inversely proportional to the square of the distance or anything. Why shouldn’t the water closer to the center of the Earth’s mass accelerate faster than water at the surface (just like gravity suggests)?

Remind me again how your colander boat Earth manages to both take on water and not sink at the same time?

"In fact 15 we see what could not be possible if the moon were the cause of tidal action by lifting the waters underneath her from their normal position. If the moon's attraction operates in one place, what can possibly prevent its action in all other places when and where the relative positions are the same? No direct explanatory answer has yet been given. If, however, the great inland lakes and seas are simply indentations in and upon the land, the water contained in them of course rises and falls with the earth on which they lie; there is no change in the relative level of land and water, and therefore no tide. Just as the fluctuations of a ship would show rising and falling, or ebb and flood tide outside the hull, any vessel on the deck, filled with water, would rise or fall with the ship, and would therefore exhibit no change of level--no tide."

Exactly, how much tide are you expecting in a lake? There’s not a whole lot of water to move around there. The Great Lakes only get a few inches of tide and they are huge!!!?!! Apparently someone has no idea how big an ocean is or realize that you can't actually make a mountain out of a mole hill.

On an interesting side note, the groundwater aquifer is subject to tidal forces. This is also unsurprising unless you think gravity stops at the surface, and accounts for tides in wells. The well is but a small window into that aquifer.

"Thus we have been carried forward by the sheer force of evidence to the conclusion that the tides of the sea do not arise from the attraction of the moon, but simply from the rising and falling of the floating earth in the waters of the "great deep." That calmness which is found to exist at the bottom of the great seas could not be possible if the waters were alternately raised by the moon and pulled down by the earth. The rising and falling motion would produce such an agitation or "churning" of the water that the "perfect repose," the growth of delicate organic structures, and the accumulation of flocculent matter called "ooze," which has been so generally found when
p. 176
taking soundings for deep-sea cables, could not exist. All would be in a state of confusion, turbidity, and mechanical admixture."

A) No, I have not been carried away by the shear force of evidence, mostly because it's all antedate stories from 1800's weekly fiction literature, not applicable or a fact supported in both theories (i.e. a wash).
B) Most of my observations involving a colander tell me the conjecture that the Earth is colander bobbing in a ocean, is hog-wash. Mostly because colander sink, not bob.
C) And a model that has water rushing in and out of holes in the seabed (I think?) doesn't seem like it would be the one to creates a calm seabed?

Hey let’s try it… Grab your paper plate, and let’s put some dirt on it. Now move it up in down in you water, sinking it in just two places, only in the equatorial region, while keeping the center and edges dry and not disturbing the dirt...

Lastly, in closing…

"The question: What has the moon to do with the tides? need not entirely be set aside. It is possible that in some at present unknown way this luminary may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the earth in the water; but of this there is not yet sufficient evidence, and therefore the answer remains for the future."

…whatever.

No, the proper answer is NOT in the “Good Book”.

Mostly it seems to say, Newton’s second law of motion and Bernoulli's principle are responsible for the tides, because the Earth floats in water, which floods up from holes in the seafloor, in a way creates two antipodal two high tides and two antipodal low tides, only near the equator whilst not creating the least bit of current on the seafloor, because spirit levels tremble and boats bob while floating in the ocean. Then, (although I’m not quite sure how) the sinking Earth, somehow (despite being holey like a colander, and having taken on water) doesn’t sink, but floats up to rinse and repeat, but with high in low tides slightly clockwise of their position for some reason that wasn't addressed.

Offline blun

  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Tides.
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2018, 04:51:11 AM »
Yes but that is because the sun also has an effect on tides...

"t is a result of the attractive forces of the moon and sun’s gravitational fields, combined with the centrifugal force created by the earth’s rotation pull on different parts of our planet. Despite being around 1/100th the mass of the earth, the moon has enough gravity to affect the earths oceans. In fact the moons gravity is so powerful it even pulls on the earths landmass, yet not enough for us to feel this."

https://www.tideschart.com/blog/tides/what-is-the-cause-of-tides/

Re: Tides.
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2018, 06:21:53 PM »
Honestly, Chapter XII (or whatever it is) is an untenable argument, maybe it was OK 150 years ago, but now it's bunk. FE needs to consider updating it's conjecture. Personally, the best FE explanation I've seen went like this:

The lunar gravity differential field at the Earth's surface is the primary mechanism that drives tidal action.
The gravity differential field at the Earth's under-surface, caused by an 'Under-Moon', circulating 180 degree out of phase but otherwise identically to the 'Over-Moon', is the primary mechanism that drives antipodal tidal bulge.
Together their action accounts for two daily high waters.

(Personally, I'd go with this, as it fits the observed tidal effects and is impossible to disprove if you reject space travel)