We know that since the earth is round, tides are caused by the gravity gradients of the moon and sun, resulting in bulges on opposite sides of the earth. We also know that tidal force is what caused the moon to always face the earth, similarly with many other moons in the solar system. Furthermore, we know that this same force is responsible for the rings of gas giants, due to those planets' Roche limits where the gravity gradient is too strong and moons would be ripped apart. So what explanation does FE have for these effects? Since gravity is so clearly out of the question, I trust FE has a better explanation?
Celestial GravitationThe seems to be the sole reference to what I would have thought an extremely important topic - surely even Tom Bishop's Monterey Bay has tides!
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
The earth is a vast irregular structure, stretched out upon and standing or floating in the incompressible waters of the "great deep." 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 when, by reaction, the earth slowly ascends, the waters recede, and the result is the ebb tide.
We know that since the earth is round, tides are caused by the gravity gradients of the moon and sun, resulting in bulges on opposite sides of the earth. We also know that tidal force is what caused the moon to always face the earth, similarly with many other moons in the solar system. Furthermore, we know that this same force is responsible for the rings of gas giants, due to those planets' Roche limits where the gravity gradient is too strong and moons would be ripped apart. So what explanation does FE have for these effects? Since gravity is so clearly out of the question, I trust FE has a better explanation?
We know that since the earth is round, tides are caused by the gravity gradients of the moon and sun, resulting in bulges on opposite sides of the earth. We also know that tidal force is what caused the moon to always face the earth, similarly with many other moons in the solar system. Furthermore, we know that this same force is responsible for the rings of gas giants, due to those planets' Roche limits where the gravity gradient is too strong and moons would be ripped apart. So what explanation does FE have for these effects? Since gravity is so clearly out of the question, I trust FE has a better explanation?
Just to be clear, the moon pulling on one side the Ocean, somehow makes the Ocean on the other side of the world rise as well?
An idea I had, that seems plausible on the flat earth, to explain the tides would be the sun moving across the ocean, evaporating large amounts of water. Obviously the other waters would rush in to fill the void created by the evaporation. This could also account for the wind currents, which are the result of the change of air pressure due to the influx of gaseous hydrogen and oxygen.
This is just a thought on how it could work on a flat earth. I'm sure you are anxious to crucify me for having a thought of my own, but just to be clear, I'm not interested in debating the hypothesis.
No, no, no, that can't be right. Rowbotham, in his thoughts about tides (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm), decreed that the land floats upon the sea, and the tides are just the land bobbing up and down! (I wish I were making that up, it's comedy gold!) Surely, any theories which differ from this must be considered heresy by a true follower of Rowbotham, no? He arrived at this conclusion on the support of sixteen 'facts', very few of which are actually factual. The rest are either cherry-picked data and one-off observations, misunderstandings, or outright lies. And choosing 'only' sixteen facts represents him showing restraint: "Many more facts could be added to the foregoing collection, but already the number is sufficient to enable us to form a definite conclusion as to what is the real cause of the tides."
I'll quote the relevant section:Quote from: Rowbotham's Earth Not A Globe, Chapter XIIThe earth is a vast irregular structure, stretched out upon and standing or floating in the incompressible waters of the "great deep." 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 when, by reaction, the earth slowly ascends, the waters recede, and the result is the ebb tide.
Something is deep, that's for sure....
Just to be clear, the moon pulling on one side the Ocean, somehow makes the Ocean on the other side of the world rise as well?
An idea I had, that seems plausible on the flat earth, to explain the tides would be the sun moving across the ocean, evaporating large amounts of water. Obviously the other waters would rush in to fill the void created by the evaporation. This could also account for the wind currents, which are the result of the change of air pressure due to the influx of gaseous hydrogen and oxygen.
That explanation for the tides is incorrect. It's the gravity gradient, not centrifugal force, that causes the antipodal tide. Gravity is strongest at the near side and weakest at the far side. But relative to the center of the earth, the resultant force is outward at those points.Just to be clear, the moon pulling on one side the Ocean, somehow makes the Ocean on the other side of the world rise as well?
I'm usually not in agreement with TheTruthIsOnHere, but I have to acknowledge that high tide on the anti-moon side of the earth is a difficult thing to reconcile with the lunar gravity model. For what it's worth, the appropriately named moonconnection.com offers offers an explanation (http://www.moonconnection.com/tides.phtml): Water on the opposite side of Earth facing away from the Moon also bulges outward (high tide), but for a different and interesting reason: in reality, the Moon and the Earth revolve together around a common gravitational center between them, or center of mass...Because the centrifugal force (on the anti-moon side) is greater than the Moon's gravitational pull, ocean water on the opposite side of the Earth bulges outward.
That explanation for the tides is incorrect. It's the gravity gradient, not centrifugal force, that causes the antipodal tide. Gravity is strongest at the near side and weakest at the far side. But relative to the center of the earth, the resultant force is outward at those points.
Just to be clear, the moon pulling on one side the Ocean, somehow makes the Ocean on the other side of the world rise as well?Remember this:
No other FE model can explain the tides.So Sandoval has given his lecture with many of the references made to findings from the dark ages, but failed to actually answer anything.
But I can.
It is the pressure of the ether waves, which causes these tidal effects.
I have already documented the existence of these waves, see the Dayton Miller experiments, and the T. Henry Moray experiments.
Let us remember Dr. Nikola Tesla's words: "Ether will behave as a solid to a liquid, and as a liquid to a solid."
"Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”
As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation."
ATMOSPHERIC TIDE PARADOX
"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation."
First, the correct station pressure data as it is measured all around the world.
First reference.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:
The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm
Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.
Second reference.
GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):
http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)
Third reference.
A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.
http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)
A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.
ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.
EVER.
Fourth reference.
It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.
Fifth reference.
The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001
THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).
The best reference from Soil Engineering.
The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Sixth reference.
The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.
http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF
Seventh reference.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html
Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.
Eighth reference.
http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false
THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.
Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.
Ninth reference.
Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf
U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.
Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am
Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.
http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:
The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.
A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. (Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)
ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.
Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.
BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX
One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.
The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.
If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’
Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.
Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.
Not by a long shot.
Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.
http://cree.rdg.ac.uk/~dynamic/index_files/papers/Woolnough_et_al_2004.pdf
While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.
That explanation for the tides is incorrect. It's the gravity gradient, not centrifugal force, that causes the antipodal tide. Gravity is strongest at the near side and weakest at the far side. But relative to the center of the earth, the resultant force is outward at those points.
Found an interesting website (http://www.vialattea.net/maree/eng/index.htm) supporting that explanation. Frankly, it is beyond my level of math education.
That explanation for the tides is incorrect. It's the gravity gradient, not centrifugal force, that causes the antipodal tide. Gravity is strongest at the near side and weakest at the far side. But relative to the center of the earth, the resultant force is outward at those points.
Found an interesting website (http://www.vialattea.net/maree/eng/index.htm) supporting that explanation. Frankly, it is beyond my level of math education.
Either way, it appears the Jury is still out on how Tides work on a round earth. A little unfair to come here and demand explanations for something on a "theoretical" flat earth when it is clearly not fully understood for the round model either.
But FE has produced no viable explanations. None at all. If aether waves are responsible, why do the tides correlate with the position of the moon and sun?Are you suggesting that correlation implies causation?
In this case, yes. When I said "correlate," I really meant "match perfectly and consistently, excluding local irregularities like geography and air pressure."But FE has produced no viable explanations. None at all. If aether waves are responsible, why do the tides correlate with the position of the moon and sun?Are you suggesting that correlation implies causation?
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them.
In order to meet the lowest standards of qualifications (don't worry, virtually all RE have not met them, we include here Carl Sagan, N. dG Tyson and the rest), you MUST solve the faint young sun paradox.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290)
No RE at the present time can solve the faint young sun paradox: therefore they are not qualified to defend, or speak for, anything pertaining to the RET.
The faint young sun paradox is the most devastating argument to be used against Newtonian astrophysics.
There's no way I have time to read all that.
Great lecturing about initial conditions and the orbit of Venus, but what does that have to do with the tides on earth?You're in the hands of an expert!
Great derailment there!