April 28th, 2011, 12:44 AM
Tides on Earth, I think, is a consequence of increased air as a result of heating by solar radiation. Expanding air pressure on the water, causing it to "surge" to the land. So is the tide. Including occurs and the redistribution of water in the oceans that causes the water to the daily rush of the night side - and there is observed the night tide.
And the moon is completely innocent.
how do you account for the centuries of documented correlation between tide heights and the phases of the moon? (for one example)
Paleoichneum wrote: how do you account for the centuries of documented correlation between tide heights and the phases of the moon? (for one example)
Yes, you're absolutely right, moon phases play a role in the height of the tides. However, there is not as simple as it seems at first glance.
The moon is important. However, not its very gravity pulls the water up the Earth. No, this is the case in the influence of gravity on the moon streams of elementary particles moving with the sun. The attraction of the moon supports and accelerates their movement and contributes to the fact that more of them reaches the Earth. That's when the moon is on the line connecting the centers of Earth and the Sun, its gravity can increase the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth.
When I wrote that the pressure of the expanding heated air causes the water to surge, still. And the more solar radiation reaches the ground, the more heated atmosphere, and the more it will put pressure on the water, and the higher the tide.
So this is why the full moon and new moon tides the highest.
Your assertions are absurd. Gravity is well understood and clearly explains the tides.
This belongs in Pseudoscince.
MeteorWayne wrote: Your assertions are absurd. Gravity is well understood and clearly explains the tides.
This belongs in Pseudoscince.
When a person is not of arguments, he starts to often repeat the words - an absurd, nonsense, pseudoscience. In my opinion, you are not going particularly into the details of what is happening - I mean the mechanism of tides - just defending the point of view, which is infused into you from youth.
Are you not surprised by the fact that the moon, while on the one hand, the tide is at the same time and on the opposite side of Earth. That is the real absurdity. After all, the attraction of the moon, by contrast, should enthrall all in one direction, namely, to the moon. And then it turns out that the Moon "draws on its own." This nonsense you surprised?
The Sun produces 25% of the Tidal effect on it's own.
Weather mostly occurs in the Troposhere.
What in your opinion the nature of atmospheric pressure? What is it?
I believe that pressure - it is nothing like the energy, air, electromagnetic field, call it what you want, which is produced by heat-generating chemical elements, in this case. elements of the atmosphere. That is electromagnetic, energy, ether field and putting pressure on all the planet's surface, including water.
It is comforting to know that silly ideas are not the sole provenance of Americans. An international, ecumenical, eclectic take on irrationality is heartwarming to see.
Well, if so Lord thinks. then where do we up to it with our "brains Freshmen" ...
Может быть, небо более синим в Тамбо́вская о́бласть.
:wink:
I am tempted to blame Lysenko.
For which we should really blame Stalin who supported his warped science. And in turn that means blaming Karl Marx for laying the groundwork of Socialism that Stalin happily paid lip service to. So that means we should blame the British Museum for allowing Marx access to their library while he was developing his political philosophy. Of course the British Museum was founded on the collection of Sir Hans Sloan who was President of the Royal Society, as was Lord Rayleigh. Which brings us full circle.Originally Posted by KALSTER
How about that.
Let's blame the seemingly common condition "Shit-for-brains" then.
ROFL.
--
It does belong in Pseudoscience
Ñïàñèáî çà ðóññêèé.
Once upon a time, when the Tambov region was much larger forest, the sky was blue. But now, as everywhere else. But I am from Murmansk, and there is less oxygen - and the sky more pale, saves only a cold climate - the cold weather the sky is always bluer than in hot.
I did not understand what you blame Lysenko? The fact that some Russian born "funny" in your opinion hypothesis? Or that in the Tambov sky blue?
Actually, if you go in the history of science, you can see that the process of forming new hypothesis is always fraught with rejection from the surrounding public. Man, take on new challenges are always at risk of being ridiculed, especially at first. Read about Newton, about his discovery. He wrote that he spent most of the forces not to open, and to protect them from society. "Every truth is born as a heresy and dies as a superstition," Hucksley.
What are you talking about?Murmansk, and there is less oxygen
The major components of the atmosphere are very well mixed in the lower atmosphere with the exception of water vapor.
You wouldn't have less oxygen anywhere on the surface unless you're near a huge forest fire or perhaps massive combustion based industry.
There is no change to solar radiation reaching the earth from the sun tied to the relative position of the moon unless the moon is blocking the sun.
I've also never seen any tidal effect on atmospheric pressure or winds. If your hypothesis were correct there would be large changes in both.
Simply put your hypothesis does not match observations and should be discarded until modified or empirical evidence supporting the idea is brought forward.
There is a well-known diurnal change of a few mb of pressure due to solar heating and cooling at night.
>>>>Pseudo science..............
I am very well aware of the fact that we have in Murmansk, a lack of oxygen, held a conference on this issue. And all because of the lack of vegetation. Would be asked before so actively oppose.
As for the dependence of the total solar radiation reaching the Earth, the position of various celestial bodies, on this the way all astrology is based. For example, a full moon, the total amount of solar radiation reaching the earth is more likely than other days of the month. That is why the full moon days so notorious - the energy of our body gives the inhaled oxygen. But oxygen is just accumulates (accumulates), solar radiation, but like any other chemical elements. But it gives oxygen easily - iron hemoglobin. And the full moon of this energy (solar radiation), oxygen accumulated particularly large. Hence, all of these acute illnesses in those days.
Not pseudoscience, but Antiscience. Antiscience because modern science is too pseudoscientific. And your point of view is an example.
So where's your proof that it's lower there? What's the average % of O2 there?
--
More likely? You mean to count the less than 1W/m^2 from the moon as important compared to the 1000m/M^2 from direct sunlight?As for the dependence of the total solar radiation reaching the Earth, the position of various celestial bodies, on this the way all astrology is based. For example, a full moon, the total amount of solar radiation reaching the earth is more likely than other days of the month.
Huh?That is why the full moon days so notorious - the energy of our body gives the inhaled oxygen.
And what does this have to do with tide?
You don't even have a coherent hypothesis.
Lunatic forum
All I need is expressed earlier in the posts. You think of yourself and do not want to look for, wait for a plate bordered with blue?
I do not know the numbers. However, in Murmansk - a popular topic that is often discussed, even by doctors.
In other word you don't have any credible evidence to support your position.
Nor does this seem to have anything to do with tides.
(whispers)
Pssstt....this is a science forum
In the subject of tides on the discussion of the blue sky first moved I did not - go back and see.
In general, if you do not like my idea - and so it should make all things new, that's the human nature - I do not care. I have expressed, you have not, you stayed at your and I'm in my opinion.
somewhat belatedly (having just returned from my hols), seeing that this thread has not been live for the best part of a week, i move this topic to pseudoscience
East or West, home is still better. We have forums and prettier yous.
Adiós, amigos! 8)
Clearly there's less total oxygen, but not expressed as a % of the total. There's less of everything else, too. Danina's conclusion shows us the problem with taking 1/2 of what a group of scientists say, and forming a theory from it.So where's your proof that it's lower there? What's the average % of O2 there?
--
Huh?That is why the full moon days so notorious - the energy of our body gives the inhaled oxygen.
And what does this have to do with tide?
You don't even have a coherent hypothesis.
It would be good if we could try and refrain from ridiculing everyone who posts an incorrect idea. Danina is clearly wrong in her hypothesis, but at least she opened up an interesting topic for discussion which the rest of us can provide facts for, and then it would become informative. Why resort to unkindness when an idea is so far off base that it is easily refuted using logic and polite discussion? (Ideas that are close to the truth are the dangerous ones.)
We don't want science illiterate people to see the thread, read the OP, and then stop reading half way through the thread before they learn any real information because they see a bunch of negativity directed at the poster and decide they don't have time for this. Let us try and behave as adults. Catch more flies with honey,.... etc. I'll miss Danina if she leaves.
That is the dumbest monkey asshat of an idea I've ever heard. You must be some kind of mouth breathing paste eater who can't even properly latch velcro shoes to put forth such a moronic nonsensical fuckwit of a suggestion. Hey, kindergarten called, they said they want their diploma back. Seriously, why don't you go play in traffic or something? (sorry... couldn't resist).
More to the point, I think you'll find fairly consistently and almost without fail that people are treated kindly and with respect almost across the board, and it's only when the poster shows they are merely posting ideologically, or refuse to engage the discussion in good faith, or seem to lack academic integrity will the responses tend toward ridicule.
While there are exceptions, as a general rule posters here are not ridiculed "for posting an incorrect idea." They are challenged on their ideas and treated according to how they respond to those challenges.
I'll share the obligatory peer review image now to reinforce the point:
FYI - You actually catch more flies with vinegar. Sorry. And, if you really want to go all out... You actually catch the most flies with something like horseshit (and, frankly, danina has already posted enough of that to this forum for all of us).
| « Possibly, human brain has a defect. | Superior Intelligence and it's implications and applications » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
