Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Where everybody votes on every last fucking thing.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - F X

1
welcome to the eternal internet argument
2
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
If there is no energy lost from bottom friction, what would happen?  Either in a real ocean or a magic canal? 
As always, you avoid simply answering this straight forward question.  The answer was mentioned in several books I linked to,  It's directly part of the argument you are putting forward, especially in regards to the hypothetical canal circling the earth.
And this new thing may or may not be connected to the canal problem.  Which you still have avoided answering.
3
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
There are certainly a lot of wrong things on the internet. 
It's determining the correct explanation and physics that is interesting.  Thanks to this never ending argument, I have stumbled across something remarkable, that has not come up yet. At least here.

And it's a real brain teaser.
4
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
You actually seem to think friction can't slow tides, but you don't offer any physical explanation for what you think does happen. In your magic world where friction doesn't matter because of tidal forcing, where does the energy go? 
Quote
When tidal motions run into the shallow waters of the continental shelf, their rate of advance is reduced, energy accumulates in a smaller volume, and the rise and fall is amplified.
https://www.britannica.com/science/tide
Just ignoring the source, or saying "That is wrong" is not an argument.
5
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
If there is no energy lost from bottom friction, what would happen?  Either in a real ocean or a magic canal? 
As always, you avoid simply answering this straight forward question.  The answer was mentioned in several books I linked to,  It's directly part of the argument you are putting forward, especially in regards to the hypothetical canal circling the earth.


6
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
If Harold had been just confused and didn't understand it, one might have some sympathy.  But at every opportunity he became a flaming asshole with insults all around,
Nothing says "I are smarter than you" than constant insults.
7
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
For your edification (which is akin to teaching a pig to sing), there is energy lost from both the tide wave, and tidal currents. I have avoided the currents issue, because you seem to be unable to grasp the simple part of the equations.  A massive amount of water actually moves horizontally due to the tides. You seem to think only the vertical displacement matters.
8
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Your own source says forced waves can go with a speed corresponding to that of the force.
You haven't read all of the text, that much is obvious.  It's a shame it's not all online, but if you read Chapter 14 you might realize there is more to the issue than a" one sentence hypothetical statement" that is the part of a very long discussion.

What you simply refuse to think about is the facts of how tides actual behave in the real world. You actually seem to think friction can't slow tides, but you don't offer any physical explanation for what you think does happen. In your magic world where friction doesn't matter because of tidal forcing, where does the energy go? 
Quote
When tidal motions run into the shallow waters of the continental shelf, their rate of advance is reduced, energy accumulates in a smaller volume, and the rise and fall is amplified.
https://www.britannica.com/science/tide

After all these years, it's obvious you never continue on with your train of thought, nor can you fathom what you are reading.  If there is no energy lost from bottom friction, what would happen?  Either in a real ocean or a magic canal? 


9
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Or shame
10
Most animals understand nothing
11
Bees, motherfucker.
Quote
The bees understood that this card represented zero,
That's quite a leap
12
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Hard to say if we have multiple deniers.  Are harold, heinz, and humber more than a single troll?
Based on the reaction from one lone doubter on the SGU forums, I think some people just flat out don't believe it, and for some reason nothing can sway them.
13
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
The right way to understand things is to start simple and gradually add complexity.
Stating something that is well known is a meaningless statement. 

Here's a simple start, which I used years ago, to explain why a tide can't move at 1000 mph.  (I usually say "because physics")



See?  That you think I came up with this is hilarious. 




14
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
15
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
  The irony here is, by posting them because they support you,
There you go again.  It's like you think I came up with the idea, then after the fact went looking for sources to support my idea.  Trust me, and you should know this by now, I ain't that smart. I got the idea from the sources.
16
"There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"
17
So the oral vaccine is still around in some capacity.
So is circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV)

http://www.who.int/features/qa/64/en/
18
I have the 1960 medical reference that explains in great detail the treatment to be used for children who got polio from taking the polio vaccine. As well as treating unvaccinated patients who got polio from the children shedding the live polio virus after taking the live vaccine.  It's not an unheard of problem.
19
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
that oceanography textbook you quoted while flailing around trying to support your FysiX? 
While I find it amusing (but ultimately boring) to watch you make shit up, I actually find your hard nosed math only approach to tides interesting. I posted this link many times, and it agrees with the Gravity book, which has also been posted multiple times.
Quote
Under these idealized conditions, we find that the moon's gravity attracts the surface of the ocean toward the moon. This creates a tidal bulge on the side of the Earth that faces the moon, like in the image below.

On the opposite side of the earth, another tidal bulge also is created. This is because the centripetal force of the rotation of the earth and moon "throws" water to this side of the Earth to balance the center of mass.

So what causes the other bulge? And since there isn't actually two bulges, why are there so many different sources explaining a non-existent two bulge situation?  And along with  all that, why are there different claims about the bulges?  Some claim they are ahead of the moon, others claim they are lagging behind the moon.  It's all so fucked up.  It really is.
20
Fuck fuck fuckity fucking fuck.



How? I mean, under-vaccinated, yes, but how did they even get exposed?

Quote
The attenuated poliovirus(es) contained in OPV are able to replicate effectively in the intestine, but around 10,000 times less able to enter the central nervous system than the wild virus.

http://polioeradication.org/polio-today/polio-prevention/the-vaccines/opv/


21
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Here. let me remind you.

that oceanography textbook you quoted while flailing around trying to support your FysiX? 
See how easy that is?  You posted something stupid and wrong, and I explain why you are an idiot.
22
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Well done!
I posted all of those almost 10 years ago.  Which is why your idiot claim (that I quoted in the OP) is so damn funny.
23
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
In your seemingly, magic world, because tides don't slow based on ocean depth, much of what we know happens due to the changes in ocean depth just couldn't happen.  I find that fascinating, that you still think that.
24
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
You know F X, if you were correct about the speed of tidal waves,
There you go again.  You keep claiming it's "my view" of how physics and the world actually works.  Do you really think I came up with any of this?  (I did not of course) I have done nothing but use source after source to explain why I write things out about the tides.

Quote
In shallow water the tide and the tidal currents will be modified by the friction to which the waters are subjected when moving over the bottom. This bottom friction influences the currents to a considerable distance from the boundary surface, owing to the turbulent character of the flow (p. 480).
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=kt167nb66r&chunk.id=d3_6_ch14&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch14&brand=eschol

Quote
On the equator where the planet's circumference is about 38,700 km (24,000 mi), the tide crest would travel at about 1600 km (1000 mi) per hr. On the real Earth, continents break up the ocean into separate basins and the ocean has a finite depth. Tides are shallow water waves so that wave celerity depends on water depth. For an average ocean depth of 4000 m (13,000 ft), the tidal celerity is about 200 in per sec (444 mi per hr).
http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/tides.htm

Quote
From this Earth-centric reference frame, in order
for the sea surface to "keep up" with
the forcing, the sea level bulges need
to move laterally through the ocean.
The signal propagates as a surface
gravity wave (influenced by rotation)
and the speed of that propagation is
limited by the shallow water wave
speed, C = gH , which at the
equator is only about half the speed
at which the forcing moves.
https://faculty.washington.edu/luanne/pages/ocean420/notes/tidedynamics.pdf

There is just so much wrong on the internet about tides.  Even an article about what is wrong about tides (Butikov mentioned the following ) has wrong shit in it, which is ironic.

Quote
You might think that with global positioning satellites we'd know the measurements of water and land tides accurate to a fraction of a smidgen. You'd be wrong.
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm

Granted back in 2003 the esteemed Donald E. Simanek might not have known about the TOPEX data, but certainly in 2018 he could edit his page to reflect that we know a lot about the actual ocean tides now.

Even a hundred years ago actual research showed the depth of the ocean is what limits the speed of the tide, and shallow areas of the worlds oceans are where most of the tidal energy is lost to friction. Currently (as I showed in several links) there are calculations of how much energy is lost, and where it happens, which results in the changing of the earth's rotational speed, and the acceleration of the lunar orbit.  Because friction matters.  A lot.




25
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
As for Butikov's papers, he is trying to explain the ideal tidal forces, not what actually occurs.