Yeah, fair enough. If there is a high quality video or website I am always willing to check them out. I do agree that it is not reasonable to ask you to actually write out the experiment and expected observation in this forum because it requires diagrams and mathematical arguments. I don't mind physical and mathematical arguments at all. I prefer them and generally I look down on the various FEers because they won't make these arguments. But yes, a Reddit style forum is not the place for them.
Regarding the long distance observations over water, yes I am aware of that and I actually consider this FEs strongest argument. The fault is squarely the various "science ambassadors" who claim (falsely) that when ships sail away we see them disappear bottom up over the horizon. This is a ludicrous claim which people can find demonstrations falsifying all over the place, as you are stating here. In reality, without further information, we have no idea what we will see when we look at a ship 3+ miles away.
The thing is, the appeals to refraction are not really wrong. We have all seen on hot days what aerial refraction does to light rays within 10s - 100s of feet, so it is anyone's guess what can happen in normal weather over scales of miles, especially when your target of study is a 1/4000mi curvature claim. It takes painfully little refraction to render observations of the curvature impossible. If you are interested in details about all this, it is generally findable in books with names like "atmospheric optics."
I would look at someone claiming a sun or moon observation that violates standard astronomy. I generally view astronomical observations as an area that FE has a hard time dealing with, while conventional astronomy has all such observations (certainly within the solar system) down to incredible precision. That does not mean their model is right, of course. Any model can be wrong but get certain predictions correct. But I would love to see a sun / moon observation that violates the Newtonian / heliocentric / globe model.
I assume by "four tides per day" you mean "high - low - high - low" and by saying "if the moon were causing tides, there would be two" you mean "high - low." This is absolutely true if the tidal mechanism is the bullshit you see in pop science videos where they put iron shavings on a table and hover a magnet overhead, causing a bulge that follows under the magnet. However, the globe / Newtonian / gravity explanation of the tides is not a flat earth with a magnetic moon and ferrous water.
The naive / simplified demonstration of tides under Newtonian mechanics predicts four per day. I know you are saying "think about it, it would be two" and I can assure you I have. As a young student this question really bothered me. I obviously got the tide under the moon, but why is there one on the other side? This bothered me for such a long time (I am a little embarrassed about it now, tbh). Anyway, you can read about it if you want, but any text with a name like "celestial mechanics" will demonstrate the 4 tide per day result.
As for why real tides are so irregular, the simplified tidal analysis is just predicting the equilibrium orientation of level surfaces on earth due to lunar influences using a very simplified math model. Oceanic tides are not mediated through a magical substance that just arranges itself according to this level surface. It is mediated by water that must flow according to the mechanical properties of water within a container with a very complicated boundary (the ocean). Why some areas of the earth have nearly no tide while others have 3x or more the naively predicted tidal swing, and some areas have tides at times that would not be expected, is a very complicated area of study. It is not something I have really studied myself, but if you are interested this sort of thing is in books with names like "geophysical fluid dynamics."
I hear this thing about gravity / magnetism / and buoyancy all the time but no one ever develops a rigorous system that we can do anything with. If someone has a detailed explanation for the behavior of falling or planetary motion or the tides, I will check it out, but I never see one. Some physicists also claim that gravity does not exist, or at least is not a force (I guess they will say it exists). I find people who say this pedantic, because they are using the fact that we have a geometrical explanation for gravity to say it is not a force. This sounds silly to me.
Yeah, fair enough. If there is a high quality video or website I am always willing to check them out. I do agree that it is not reasonable to ask you to actually write out the experiment and expected observation in this forum because it requires diagrams and mathematical arguments. I don't mind physical and mathematical arguments at all. I prefer them and generally I look down on the various FEers because they won't make these arguments. But yes, a Reddit style forum is not the place for them.
Regarding the long distance observations over water, yes I am aware of that and I actually consider this FEs strongest argument. The fault is squarely the various "science ambassadors" who claim (falsely) that when ships sail away we see them disappear bottom up over the horizon. This is a ludicrous claim which people can find demonstrations falsifying all over the place, as you are stating here. In reality, without further information, we have no idea what we will see when we look at a ship 3+ miles away.
The thing is, the appeals to refraction are not really wrong. We have all seen on hot days what aerial refraction does to light rays within 10s - 100s of feet, so it is anyone's guess what can happen in normal weather over scales of miles, especially when your target of study is a 1/4000mi curvature claim. It takes painfully little refraction to render observations of the curvature impossible. If you are interested in details about all this, it is generally findable in books with names like "atmospheric optics."
I would look at someone claiming a sun or moon observation that violates standard astronomy. I generally view astronomical observations as an area that FE has a hard time dealing with, while conventional astronomy has all such observations (certainly within the solar system) down to incredible precision. That does not mean their model is right, of course. Any model can be wrong but get certain predictions correct. But I would love to see a sun / moon observation that violates the Newtonian / heliocentric / globe model.
I assume by "four tides per day" you mean "high - low - high - low" and by saying "if the moon were causing tides, there would be two" you mean "high - low." This is absolutely true if the tidal mechanism is the bullshit you see in pop science videos where they put iron shavings on a table and hover a magnet overhead, causing a bulge that follows under the magnet. However, the globe / Newtonian / gravity explanation of the tides is not a flat earth with a magnetic moon and ferrous water.
The naive / simplified demonstration of tides under Newtonian mechanics predicts four per day. I know you are saying "think about it, it would be two" and I can assure you I have. As a young student this question really bothered me. I obviously got the tide under the moon, but why is there one on the other side? This bothered me for such a long time (I am a little embarrassed about it now, tbh). Anyway, you can read about it if you want, but any text with a name like "celestial mechanics" will demonstrate the 4 tide per day result.
As for why real tides are so irregular, the simplified tidal analysis is just predicting the equilibrium orientation of the earth due to lunar influences using a very simplified math model. Oceanic tides are not mediated through a magical substance that just arranges itself according to this level surface. It is mediated by water that must flow according to the mechanical properties of water within a container with a very complicated boundary (the ocean). Why some areas of the earth have nearly no tide while others have 3x or more the naively predicted tidal swing, and some areas have tides at times that would not be expected, is a very complicated area of study. It is not something I have really studied myself, but if you are interested this sort of thing is in books with names like "geophysical fluid dynamics."
I hear this thing about gravity / magnetism / and buoyancy all the time but no one ever develops a rigorous system that we can do anything with. If someone has a detailed explanation for the behavior of falling or planetary motion or the tides, I will check it out, but I never see one. Some physicists also claim that gravity does not exist, or at least is not a force (I guess they will say it exists). I find people who say this pedantic, because they are using the fact that we have a geometrical explanation for gravity to say it is not a force. This sounds silly to me.
Yeah, fair enough. If there is a high quality video or website I am always willing to check them out. I do agree that it is not reasonable to ask you to actually write out the experiment and expected observation in this forum because it requires diagrams and mathematical arguments. I don't mind physical and mathematical arguments at all. I prefer them and generally I look down on the various FEers because they won't make these arguments. But yes, a Reddit style forum is not the place for them.
Regarding the long distance observations over water, yes I am aware of that and I actually consider this FEs strongest argument. The fault is squarely the various "science ambassadors" who claim (falsely) that when ships sail away we see them disappear bottom up over the horizon. This is a ludicrous claim which people can find demonstrations falsifying all over the place, as you are stating here. In reality, without further information, we have no idea what we will see when we look at a ship 3+ miles away.
The thing is, the appeals to refraction are not really wrong. We have all seen on hot days what aerial refraction does to light rays within 10s - 100s of feet, so it is anyone's guess what can happen in normal weather over scales of miles, especially when your target of study is a 1/4000mi curvature claim. It takes painfully little refraction to render observations of the curvature impossible.
I would look at someone claiming a sun or moon observation that violates standard astronomy. I generally view astronomical observations as an area that FE has a hard time dealing with, while conventional astronomy has all such observations (certainly within the solar system) down to incredible precision. That does not mean their model is right, of course. Any model can be wrong but get certain predictions correct. But I would love to see a sun / moon observation that violates the Newtonian / heliocentric / globe model.
I assume by "four tides per day" you mean "high - low - high - low" and by saying "if the moon were causing tides, there would be two" you mean "high - low." This is absolutely true if the tidal mechanism is the bullshit you see in pop science videos where they put iron shavings on a table and hover a magnet overhead, causing a bulge that follows under the magnet. However, the globe / Newtonian / gravity explanation of the tides is not a flat earth with a magnetic moon and ferrous water.
The naive / simplified demonstration of tides under Newtonian mechanics predicts four per day. I know you are saying "think about it, it would be two" and I can assure you I have. As a young student this question really bothered me. I obviously got the tide under the moon, but why is there one on the other side? This bothered me for such a long time (I am a little embarrassed about it now, tbh). Anyway, you can read about it if you want, but any celestial mechanics text will demonstrate the 4 tide per day result.
As for why real tides are so irregular, the simplified tidal analysis is just predicting the equilibrium orientation of the earth due to lunar influences using a very simplified math model. Oceanic tides are not mediated through a magical substance that just arranges itself according to this level surface. It is mediated by water that must flow according to the mechanical properties of water within a container with a very complicated boundary (the ocean). Why some areas of the earth have nearly no tide while others have 3x or more the naively predicted tidal swing, and some areas have tides at times that would not be expected, is a very complicated area of study. It is not something I have really studied myself, but if you are interested this sort of thing is in books with names like "geophysical fluid dynamics."
I hear this thing about gravity / magnetism / and buoyancy all the time but no one ever develops a rigorous system that we can do anything with. If someone has a detailed explanation for the behavior of falling or planetary motion or the tides, I will check it out, but I never see one. Some physicists also claim that gravity does not exist, or at least is not a force (I guess they will say it exists). I find people who say this pedantic, because they are using the fact that we have a geometrical explanation for gravity to say it is not a force. This sounds silly to me.
Yeah, fair enough. If there is a high quality video or website I am always willing to check them out. I do agree that it is not reasonable to ask you to actually write out the experiment and expected observation in this forum because it requires diagrams and mathematical arguments. I don't mind physical and mathematical arguments at all. I prefer them and generally I look down on the various FEers because they won't make these arguments. But yes, a Reddit style forum is not the place for them.
Regarding the long distance observations over water, yes I am aware of that and I actually consider this FEs strongest argument. The fault is squarely the various "science ambassadors" who claim (falsely) that when ships sail away we see them disappear bottom up over the horizon. This is a ludicrous claim which people can find demonstrations falsifying all over the place, as you are stating here. In reality, without further information, we have no idea what we will see when we look at a ship 3+ miles away.
The thing is, the appeals to refraction are not really wrong. We have all seen on hot days what aerial refraction does to light rays within 10s - 100s of feet, so it is anyone's guess what can happen in normal weather over scales of miles, especially when your target of study is a 1/4000mi curvature claim. It takes painfully little refraction to render observations of the curvature impossible.
I would look at someone claiming a sun or moon observation that violates standard astronomy. I generally view astronomical observations as an area that FE has a hard time dealing with, while conventional astronomy has all such observations (certainly within the solar system) down to incredible precision. That does not mean their model is right, of course. Any model can be wrong but get certain predictions correct. But I would love to see a sun / moon observation that violates the Newtonian / heliocentric / globe model.
I assume by "four tides per day" you mean "high - low - high - low" and by saying "if the moon were causing tides, there would be two" you mean "high - low." This is absolutely true if the tidal mechanism is the bullshit you see in pop science videos where they put iron shavings on a table and hover a magnet overhead, causing a bulge that follows under the magnet. However, the globe / Newtonian / gravity explanation of the tides is not a flat earth with a magnetic moon and ferrous water.
The naive / simplified demonstration of tides under Newtonian mechanics predicts four per day. I know you are saying "think about it, it would be two" and I can assure you I have. As a young student this question really bothered me. I obviously got the tide under the moon, but why is there one on the other side? This bothered me for such a long time (I am a little embarrassed about it now, tbh). Anyway, you can read about it if you want, but any celestial mechanics text will demonstrate the 4 tide per day result.
As for why real tides are so irregular, the simplified tidal analysis is just predicting the equilibrium orientation of the earth due to lunar influences using a very simplified math model. Oceanic tides are not mediated through a magical substance that just arranges itself according to this level surface. It is mediated by water that must flow according to the mechanical properties of water within a container with a very complicated boundary (the ocean). Why some areas of the earth have nearly no tide while others have 3x or more the naively predicted tidal swing, and some areas have tides at times that would not be expected, is a very complicated area of study. It is not something I have really studied myself.
I hear this thing about gravity / magnetism / and buoyancy all the time but no one ever develops a rigorous system that we can do anything with. If someone has a detailed explanation for the behavior of falling or planetary motion or the tides, I will check it out, but I never see one. Some physicists also claim that gravity does not exist, or at least is not a force (I guess they will say it exists). I find people who say this pedantic, because they are using the fact that we have a geometrical explanation for gravity to say it is not a force. This sounds silly to me.
Yeah, fair enough. If there is a high quality video or website I am always willing to check them out. I do agree that it is not reasonable to ask you to actually write out the experiment and expected observation in this forum because it requires diagrams and mathematical arguments. I don't mind physical and mathematical arguments at all. I prefer them and generally I look down on the various FEers because they won't make these arguments. But yes, a Reddit style forum is not the place for them.
Regarding the long distance observations over water, yes I am aware of that and I actually consider this FEs strongest argument. The fault is squarely the various "science ambassadors" who claim (falsely) that when ships sail away we see them disappear bottom up over the horizon. This is a ludicrous claim which people can find demonstrations falsifying all over the place, as you are stating here. In reality, without further information, we have no idea what we will see when we look at a ship 3+ miles away.
The thing is, the appeals to refraction are not really wrong. We have all seen on hot days what aerial refraction does to light rays within 10s - 100s of feet, so it is anyone's guess what can happen in normal weather over scales of miles, especially when your target of study is a 1/4000mi curvature claim. It takes painfully little refraction to render observations of the curvature impossible.
I would look at someone claiming a sun or moon observation that violates standard astronomy. I generally view astronomical observations as an area that FE has a hard time dealing with, while conventional astronomy has all such observations (certainly within the solar system) down to incredible precision. That does not mean their model is right, of course. Any model can be wrong but get certain predictions correct. But I would love to see a sun / moon observation that violates the Newtonian / heliocentric / globe model.
I assume by "four tides per day" you mean "high - low - high - low" and by saying "if the moon were causing tides, there would be two" you mean "high - low." This is absolutely true if the tidal mechanism is the bullshit you see in pop science videos where they put iron shavings on a table and hover a magnet overhead, causing a bulge that follows under the magnet. However, the globe / Newtonian / gravity explanation of the tides is not a flat earth with a magnetic moon and ferrous water.
The naive / simplified demonstration of tides under Newtonian mechanics predicts four per day. I know you are saying "think about it, it would be two" and I can assure you I have. As a young student this question really bothered me. I obviously got the tide under the moon, but why is there one on the other side? This bothered me for such a long time (I am a little embarrassed about it now, tbh). Anyway, you can read about it if you want, but any celestial mechanics text will demonstrate the 4 tide per day result.
As for why real tides are so irregular, the simplified tidal analysis is just predicting the equilibrium orientation of the earth due to lunar influences using a very simplified math model. Oceanic tides are not mediated through a magical substance that just arranges itself according to this level surface. It is mediated by water that must flow according to the mechanical properties of water within a container with a very complicated boundary (the ocean). Why some areas of the earth have nearly no tide while others have 3x or more the naively predicted tidal swing is a very complicated area of study. It is not something I have really studied myself.
I hear this thing about gravity / magnetism / and buoyancy all the time but no one ever develops a rigorous system that we can do anything with. If someone has a detailed explanation for the behavior of falling or planetary motion or the tides, I will check it out, but I never see one. Some physicists also claim that gravity does not exist, or at least is not a force (I guess they will say it exists). I find people who say this pedantic, because they are using the fact that we have a geometrical explanation for gravity to say it is not a force. This sounds silly to me.
Yeah, fair enough. If there is a high quality video or website I am always willing to check them out. I do agree that it is not reasonable to ask you to actually write out the experiment and expected observation in this forum because it requires diagrams and mathematical arguments. I don't mind physical and mathematical arguments at all. I prefer them and generally I look down on the various FEers because they won't make these arguments. But yes, a Reddit style forum is not the place for them.
Regarding the long distance observations over water, yes I am aware of that and I actually consider this FEs strongest argument. The fault is squarely the various "science ambassadors" who claim (falsely) that when ships sail away we see them disappear bottom up over the horizon. This is a ludicrous claim which people can find demonstrations falsifying all over the place, as you are stating here. In reality, without further information, we have no idea what we will see when we look at a ship 3+ miles away.
The thing is, the appeals to refraction are not really wrong. We have all seen on hot days what aerial refraction does to light rays within 10s - 100s of feet, so it is anyone's guess what can happen in normal weather over scales of miles, especially when your target of study is a 1/4000mi curvature claim. It takes painfully little refraction to render observations of the curvature impossible.
I would look at someone claiming a sun or moon observation that violates standard astronomy. I generally view astronomical observations as an area that FE has a hard time dealing with, while conventional astronomy has all such observations (certainly within the solar system) down to incredible precision. That does not mean their model is right, of course. Any model can be wrong but get certain predictions correct. But I would love to see a sun / moon observation that violates the Newtonian / heliocentric / globe model.
I assume by "four tides per day" you mean "high - low - high - low" and by saying "if the moon were causing tides, there would be two" you mean "high - low." This is absolutely true if the tidal mechanism is the bullshit you see in pop science videos where they put iron shavings on a table and hover a magnet overhead, causing a bulge that follows under the magnet. However, the globe / Newtonian / gravity explanation of the tides is not a flat earth with a magnetic moon and ferrous water.
The naive / simplified demonstration of tides under Newtonian mechanics predicts four per day. I know you are saying "think about it, it would be two" and I can assure you I have. As a young student this question really bothered me. I obviously get the tide under the moon, but why is there one on the other side? This bothered me for such a long time (I am a little embarrassed about it now, tbh). Anyway, you can read about it if you want, but any celestial mechanics text will demonstrate the 4 tide per day result.
As for why real tides are so irregular, the simplified tidal analysis is just predicting the equilibrium orientation of the earth due to lunar influences using a very simplified math model. Oceanic tides are not mediated through a magical substance that just arranges itself according to this level surface. It is mediated by water that must flow according to the mechanical properties of water within a container with a very complicated boundary (the ocean). Why some areas of the earth have nearly no tide while others have 3x or more the naively predicted tidal swing is a very complicated area of study. It is not something I have really studied myself.
I hear this thing about gravity / magnetism / and buoyancy all the time but no one ever develops a rigorous system that we can do anything with. If someone has a detailed explanation for the behavior of falling or planetary motion or the tides, I will check it out, but I never see one. Some physicists also claim that gravity does not exist, or at least is not a force (I guess they will say it exists). I find people who say this pedantic, because they are using the fact that we have a geometrical explanation for gravity to say it is not a force. This sounds silly to me.
Yeah, fair enough. If there is a high quality video or website I am always willing to check them out. I do agree that it is not reasonable to ask you to actually write out the experiment and expected observation in this forum because it requires diagrams and mathematical arguments. I don't mind physical and mathematical arguments at all. I prefer them and generally I look down on the various FEers because they won't make these arguments. But yes, a Reddit style forum is not the place for them.
Regarding the long distance observations over water, yes I am aware of that and I actually consider this FEs strongest argument. The fault is squarely the various "science ambassadors" who claim (falsely) that when ships sail away we see them disappear bottom up over the horizon. This is a ludicrous claim which people can find demonstrations falsifying all over the place, as you are stating here. In reality, without further information, we have no idea what we will see when we look at a ship 3+ miles away.
The thing is, the appeals to refraction are not really wrong. We have all seen on hot days what aerial refraction does to light rays within 10s - 100s of feet, so it is anyone's guess what can happen in normal weather over scales of miles, especially when your target of study is a 1/4000mi curvature claim. It takes painfully little refraction to render observations of the curvature impossible.
I would look at someone claiming a sun or moon observation that violates standard astronomy. I generally view astronomical observations as an area that FE has a hard time dealing with, while conventional astronomy has all such observations (certainly within the solar system) down to incredible precision. That does not mean their model is right, of course. Any model can be wrong but get certain predictions correct. But I would love to see a sun / moon observation that violates the Newtonian / heliocentric / globe model.
I assume by "four tides per day" you mean "high - low - high - low" and by saying "if the moon were causing tides, there would be two" you mean "high - low." This is absolutely true if the tidal mechanism is the bullshit you see in pop science videos where they put iron shavings on a table and hover a magnet overhead, causing a bulge that follows under the magnet. However, the globe / Newtonian / gravity explanation of the tides is not a flat earth with a magnetic moon and ferrous water.
The naive / simplified demonstration of tides under Newtonian mechanics predicts four per day. I know you are saying "think about it, it would be two" and I can assure you I have. As a young student this question really bothered me. I obviously get the tide under the moon, but why is there one on the other side? This bothered me for such a long time (I am a little embarrassed about it now, tbh). Anyway, you can read about it if you want, but any celestial mechanics text will demonstrate the 4 tide per day result.
As for why real tides are so irregular, the simplified tidal analysis is just predicting the equilibrium orientation of the earth due to lunar influences using a very simplified math model. Oceanic tides are not mediated through a magical substance that just arranges itself according to this level surface. It is mediated by water that must flow according to the mechanical properties of water within a container with a very complicated boundary (the ocean). Why some areas of the earth have nearly no tide while others have 3x or more the naively predicted tidal swing is a very complicated area of study. It is not something I have really studied myself.
I hear this thing about gravity / magnetism / and buoyancy all the time but no one ever develops a rigorous system that we can do anything with. If someone has a detailed explanation for the behavior of falling or planetary motion or the tides, I will check it out, but I never see one. Some physicists also claim that gravity does not exist, or at least is not a force (I guess they will say it exists). I find people who say this pedantic, because they are using the fact that we have a geometrical explanation for gravity to say it is not a force. This sounds silly to me.