Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: like stormfront but less obvious about it

Topic: The Tides ... Take 5 (Read 3157 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #150
You provided one oceanography textbook, which has since corrected its error. 
Now that is just flat out trolling.  Or you are actually that stupid, and you actually believe what you wrote.  (trolling makes more sense, you can't be that dishonest and stupid)

What I said is exactly what happened.  What makes it really ironic is the error was corrected because you brought it to my attention in an attempt to prove me wrong.

But go ahead, explain to us what really happened.  We're waiting...

  • uncool
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #151
For anyone else reading, the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction
The problem with you two idiots is the stupid shit you claim turns up no search results at all.  Because it's only you claiming it.

"the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction"
Are you joking with this link?

Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #152
 :facepalm:

For anyone else reading, the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction
The problem with you two idiots is the stupid shit you claim turns up no search results at all.  Because it's only you claiming it.

"the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction"
Are you joking with this link?

He's not, he's really that stupid.  He did exactly the same thing the last time he posted a link that was supposed to prove me wrong. 

Did you look at the first hit when you click your link, F Xtard?

Edit - or the second or the third or the fourth or the fifth?  lol
  • Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 05:31:53 PM by cold one

Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #153
For anyone else reading, the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction
The problem with you two idiots is the stupid shit you claim turns up no search results at all.  Because it's only you claiming it.

"the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction"
Are you joking with this link?
Oh that's one of his old favorites!

See this fun old example from Zombie TR:
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=2612796#post2612796
He even inserted his dumbass link into the post of mine that he was quoting!

And a more recent one here...
The Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza board is for the discussion of alternative POVs on science, such as the idea that climate science is bullshit. It's the appropriate forum for this discussion.
Only you have used the phrase "climate science is bullshit"

Thanks for that bit of pedantry.
A search of the entire internet shows how idiotic your claims are.

You are the only person (that Google can find) that has ever even typed out "the idea that climate science is bullshit"

Now that is priceless.


It hasn't gotten any less stupid with age.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #154
See this fun old example from Zombie TR:
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=2612796#post2612796
Thanks for that link.  I forgot all about that topic, and it has GISS images from the past. 
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #155
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #156
For anyone else reading, the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction
The problem with you two idiots is the stupid shit you claim turns up no search results at all.  Because it's only you claiming it.

"the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction"

While I base my comments on what science tells us about reality.  Bottom friction or seabed friction is a common term, and is part of equations to determine shallow water wave speed.

lol

Just for giggles, here's a scan down the list of hits for that search:

(1) "In the foregoing analysis of refraction and shoaling it was assumed that there was no loss of energy as the waves were transmitted inshore.... Except for large waves in shallow water, seabed friction is of relatively little significance."

(2) "Evidently for fluids having small viscosities, such as water, the velocity of the wave and the relationship between depth, length,
and period are unaltered by internal friction."

(3) "...if propagation distances are not too long and the bottom is not too rough, bottom friction energy losses can be neglected."

(4) "We also neglect friction in order to avoid the complication of wave damping."

I predict F X's next screwup will be to confuse amplitude for wavelength.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #157
What I said is exactly what happened.
Hahahaha
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #158
Still feeling that "bottom friction" burn, F X?

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #159
Hahahaha  You really are unable to see what is in front of you.  It's not that you are trolling, or stupid, you imply can't see it.
For anyone else reading, the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction
The problem with you two idiots is the stupid shit you claim turns up no search results at all.  Because it's only you claiming it.

"the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction"

While I base my comments on what science tells us about reality.  Bottom friction or seabed friction is a common term, and is part of equations to determine shallow water wave speed.

lol

Just for giggles, here's a scan down the list of hits for that search:

(1) "In the foregoing analysis of refraction and shoaling it was assumed that there was no loss of energy as the waves were transmitted inshore.... Except for large waves in shallow water, seabed friction is of relatively little significance."

Anyone of reasonable intelligence can fathom what the article is saying.  None of it is unclear or hard to follow.

Quote
Seabed Friction
In the foregoing analysis of refraction and shoaling it was assumed that there was no loss of energy as the waves were transmitted inshore. In reality, waves in transitional and shallow water depths will be attenuated by wave energy dissipation through seabed friction. Such energy losses can be estimated, using linear wave theory, in an analogous way to pipe and open channel flow frictional relationships. In contrast to the velocity profile in a steady current, the frictional effects under wave action produce an oscillatory wave boundary layer which is very small (a few millimetres or centimetres). In consequence, the velocity gradient is much larger than in an equivalent uniform current that in turn implies that the wave friction factor will be many times larger.
http://www.marbef.org/wiki/Shallow-water_wave_theory
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #160
Quote
In reality, waves in transitional and shallow water depths will be attenuated by wave energy dissipation through seabed friction. Such energy losses can be estimated, using linear wave theory,

Which is exactly what I have been talking about for 8 years.  That anyone would argue against it still, is just entertaining.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • uncool
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #161
Please define what the word "attenuated" means, as used in the link you quoted.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #162
Please define what the word "attenuated" means, as used in the link you quoted.
You can't be that stupid.  It's just not possible.  Anyone with an education could figure out that the meaning is "weakened in force or effect", which is the definition of the word.  The other meaning, "unnaturally thin" makes no sense in context.  So quit playing stupid.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #163
Because water waves lose energy by bottom friction, when they become shallow water waves, they decrease in speed, increase in height, and lose energy.
"Such energy losses can be estimated, using linear wave theory, in an analogous way to pipe and open channel flow frictional relationships. "

It is in fact this loss of energy from bottom friction that causes the tides to alter the earth's rotation, and change the moons orbit.



It's in the first paragraph

"The energy lost through tidal friction"

This is why I laugh at you

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #164
"the speed of a water wave is normally computed ignoring friction"

(3) "...if propagation distances are not too long and the bottom is not too rough, bottom friction energy losses can be neglected."

http://www.marinespecies.org/introduced/wiki/Waves
Quote
Wave transformation: The types of transformation discussed here are mainly related to wave phenomena occurring in the natural environment. When the waves approach the shoreline, they are affected by the seabed through processes such as refraction, shoaling, bottom friction and wave breaking.


The word "affected" in this context, in regards to bottom friction,  means the wave slows.  The equation to calculate this I posted many times, with many links to it.  That you still don't know this is astounding.
  • Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 02:09:26 PM by F X
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • uncool
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #165
Ah, I see. So you think that the "force or effect" here must be velocity, then?

  • uncool
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #166
Also: did you notice that the "foregoing analdsis" included the derivation of the speed of a shallow water wave, and therefore that seabed friction is not what determines that speed?

Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #167
Still feeling that "bottom friction" burn, F X?

Clearly, it's still burning.

Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #168
Also: did you notice that the "foregoing analdsis" included the derivation of the speed of a shallow water wave, and therefore that seabed friction is not what determines that speed?

He's not capable of noticing.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #169
You provided one oceanography textbook, which has since corrected its error. 
Now that is just flat out trolling.  Or you are actually that stupid, and you actually believe what you wrote.  (trolling makes more sense, you can't be that dishonest and stupid)

What I said is exactly what happened.  What makes it really ironic is the error was corrected because you brought it to my attention in an attempt to prove me wrong.

But go ahead, explain to us what really happened.  We're waiting...
There is little point in repeating anything, since you ignored it all several times before, you will just ignore it again, and try and persuade "us" of your idiot view of the past (who "us" actually is, at this point, is a complete mystery)

What spork said about the cart illustrates the exact problem with trying to discuss anything with you.
Asking nicely while refraining from abuse would be a HUGE start.  A bet is certainly not necessary.

But what I would really want is a clearly defined test, and a predicted result.  That predicted result must determine the difference between our explanation and his.  And he'd have to admit that he would accept the results as meaning exactly that.
  Since you are 100% sure your view is correct, you just reject anything that you don't like, or understand, and then you repeat your idiocy as fact.  With out any agreement on what would be a result you will accept, it's pointless in the extreme.

I mean it.  You claim something, but there is no agreement on what would be evidence to show you are wrong.  So what's the point? For example, you claim
You provided one oceanography textbook, which has since corrected its error. 
which is certainly not true.  That you think it is makes you seem like and idiot.  It's easy enough to show you are either ignorant or a liar, but so what?  You won't accept reality, and nobody else cares.  uncool is the only other spectator/participant, but he seems as blind as you about it.

Then there is the "not even wrong" stuff you have posted, which is nearly impossible to explain to you. No matter the dozens of sources I have used, linked to, even created screen grabs, you just repeat yourself, and act as if none of it matters.

Here's an example, and I chose it for several reasons. You are actually responding to uncool in the example below.

Quote
If the source you're discussing is this one http://www.uaf.edu/files/sfos/Kowalik/tide_book.pdf, it says on p.15 that the tides in a channel would move just as fast as the sun and the moon, much faster than the free wave speed if the channel is of reasonable depth, but with a time-delay so they lag behind the position of the sun/moon at any given time - precisely what you and I have been saying for years, and is impossible according to the laws of FysiX.
http://talkrational.org/archive/showpost.php?p=2583461&postcount=1137

Here is page 15 of the linked book



The mistake you made is because you don't actually understand the physics of ocean waves. 





"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #170
The problem is you don't understand enough about waves to be able to see what you are doing.  Even if I break it down for you, you can't understand the explanation, because you don't know enough about water waves to get it/

Quote
If the source you're discussing is this one http://www.uaf.edu/files/sfos/Kowalik/tide_book.pdf, it says on p.15 that the tides in a channel would move just as fast as the sun and the moon
No, it does not say that.  It asks the question, "For now let's consider a channel along the earth's equator and ask a question whether the tide generated by Moon or Sun in this channel will follow the Moon or Sun without delay?"

Then he explains that with the right depth, it could. Where you go wrong is what you say next
Quote
much faster than the free wave speed if the channel is of reasonable depth

That's just wrong.  A non forced wave would also travel at the same speed.  As he notes, depth determines speed.  Forced or not, a wave with a length of half the earth's circumference would travel at 1000 mph if the depth is right.  Then you go so wrong it's not possible to counter your assumption, because it's not even wrong.

Quote
but with a time-delay so they lag behind the position of the sun/moon at any given time
What you ignore is "This simple example demonstrates that the tide wavelength is much bigger than the ocean depth. For such long waves the motion will be influenced by the bottom drag thus slowing the progression of the wave forced by the moon (or sun) attraction."

Which is what I have been showing you for years.  Then you make the big mistake

Quote
precisely what you and I have been saying for years, and is impossible according to the laws of FysiX.

Nobody ever said it's impossible, especially not my humble self.  What I have stated, many times, is that if the canal isn't deep enough, the tide wave can't keep up.  Exactly what that source states.  Which is why I used it as a source to show you why I say this.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #171
When he writes "This simple example demonstrates that the tide wavelength is much bigger than the ocean depth. For such long waves the motion will be influenced by the bottom drag thus slowing the progression of the wave forced by the moon (or sun) attraction.", it is exactly what all the sources I have used is telling us.  Bottom drag (or bottom friction) is a real thing, and it is exactly why waves slow in shallow water, and a tide is so long it is always a shallow water wave.  So in an ocean of an average depth of 4 km it can't keep up with the forcing.

Which is exactly what I showed you 8 years ago.  From a dozen sources.

But the really wrong part you just don't get, is the speed of a free wave. As well as your thinking "because it (the tide) is a forced wave it can go as fast as it wants, no matter the depth", which is both wrong, and shows you just don't think about these matters.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • uncool
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #172
Whatever you say.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #173
Whatever you say.
That's what makes it so damn funny.  You and cold one seem to think I came up with this stuff.  Even when I link to the source I used to post.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • uncool
Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Reply #174
We think you have read sources and misunderstood them because you lack the understanding of basic wave theory. You are acting much like Schneibster - saying that you are right because you have read books.

Prove me wrong. Easiest way to do so: solve this equation for the most general form of solution.

df/dx - 3 df/dt = sin(x - 4t)

Then tell me 1) the speed of the free wave, and 2) the speed of the forced wave.
  • Last Edit: May 29, 2018, 12:29:43 PM by uncool