Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Don't be all aspie over this, because things like this go to shit when we let that happen.

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
Science / Re: Uncrypting cryptids
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44243644

Wolf/dog/coyote hybrid? Would love it to be something extinct like an Amphicyonid (or someone thought 'Dire wolf') but unlikely in the extreme
Waheela or Shunka Warakin
2

The wind does not have a hole in it from reacting with the cart; that is only true in crackpot land.

Wow.  That made me realize when we see races using these cats, the person behind another cart could be described as taking the wind out of his sails, or rather taking wind out of his prop.
3
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
"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.
4
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
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

5
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
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.
6
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
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.
7
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
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
8
Honestly, I think Heinz is far more consistent than humber or Harold.


Has he ever actually answered a question, or simply insisted that you answer his questions?
He was very intelligent and reasonable in one of the tide discussions many years ago.  It's why I doubt very much it's a Humber sock.  But who the fuck knows. 
9
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
What I said is exactly what happened.
Hahahaha
10
The second also works by asking a question.
Keep in mind - humber doesn't answer questions under any circumstances.  He knows he will very easily become cornered.  He just asks questions and then screams and yells, insisting that you answer his questions.

Do you think Heinz is Humber?
12
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
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. 
13
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Let me try one more time.



Not that I have any hope it will matter.

14
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
I used to think the tides was like the DDWFTTW issue.  But by now most people know DDWTTW is reality.  While a lot of people still think there are two bulges travelling at 1000 mph, following the moon.

And, it seems a few people still don't understand shallow wave theory, or why tides are always shallow water waves.
15
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Your link got broken.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22bottom+friction%22+tides
Well yours works.  Anything to say about the really obvious problem of some internet crank claiming bottom friction isn't a valid term?
16
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
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.

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,
http://marinespecies.org/introduced/wiki/Shallow-water_wave_theory#Seabed_Friction

That you can't get this is just too much fun.

Quote
Shallow-water waves

Shallow-water waves are waves traveling in water where depth is less than one-twentieth the wavelength (D < 1/20 L). Shallow-water waves include wind-generated waves that have moved into shallow, nearshore areas, tsunamis (seismic waves) generated by disturbances in the ocean floor, and tide waves generated by the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon.
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/waves/wave-energy-and-wave-changes-depth

There literally thousands of textbooks, papers and studies that use and calculate and explore how waves are slowed by bottom friction, and use the formulas to calculate exactly what happens.  But you two morons keep insisting you know better, and everyone else is wrong.

You read "Shallow-water waves include wind-generated waves that have moved into shallow, nearshore areas, tsunamis (seismic waves) generated by disturbances in the ocean floor, and tide waves generated by the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon", which is found everywhere, in all kinds of sources, but you can't get it.

That's the fascinating part of this.  Not shallow water waves, shallow water equations,  or any of the other well know facts about tides.

.

17
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
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)
You provided no other expert sources at all.  If I'm wrong, post them again and I'll get them corrected too.
In what Universe do you mistake your made up nonsense with a scientific discussion?  Seriously.  After you claimed the term "bottom friction" was wrong (which is hilarious), I showed you thousands of scientific papers that use the term, show how it applies to tides, even showed you the formulas that include the term, and you just repeat your idiot claim, like none of it matters at all.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q="bottom+friction"+tides&hl=en&as_sdt=1,43

What you are doing is amazingly idiotic, it's become fascinating.
18
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Quote
"speed determined by depth of water" is also true.

No, it is not true.
OK at least we are making progress.  Now is when you explain what you think limits wave speed, when a wave (forced or unforced) is a shallow water wave.
I don't understand the question. So show me how you would answer a similar question. Namely:

What do you think limits the wave speed of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum (i.e. a free electromagnetic wave)?

It's certainly not friction.
I can't tell if you are mentally deficient, or deliberately obtuse, or simply dishonest.  If you actually don't understand the question, then you are just stupid.  That you think your questions is similar shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue here.
Quote
I used 28 mph forced deep water waves as an example. What do you say happens when they enter shallow water?
Depends on several things.
No, and this is why you seem like an idiot.  Of course it can be explained to you, but the last two times it didn't make any difference at all.  I'm sure this time will be no different.
19
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Your question fails to provide: 1) The deep depth, 2) the shallow depth, 3) the way in which the depth interpolates, and 4) the forcing. All of these affect the outcome.
Not really.  You just don't actually know enough to figure out why the question is simple, and the answer straightforward.
20
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Quote
"speed determined by depth of water" is also true.

No, it is not true.
OK at least we are making progress.  Now is when you explain what you think limits wave speed, when a wave (forced or unforced) is a shallow water wave.
I don't understand the question. So show me how you would answer a similar question. Namely:

What do you think limits the wave speed of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum (i.e. a free electromagnetic wave)?

It's certainly not friction.
Quote
I used 28 mph forced deep water waves as an example. What do you say happens when they enter shallow water?

Depends on several things. With that generic a question, I can only give a generic answer:.
It's not "generic", it's an exact and simple example, with a simple question, and a very simple answer.  But since the last two times I asked you the same question you avoided simply answering, your response is no surprise.
21
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
I may occasionally confuse cold one and uncool (I did it in the past) and for that I apologize.  It's not intentional.
It might help if, instead of posting in response to old posts, you responded directly to what was posted here. That doesn't preclude links to old posts, but as it stands it looks like you brought up an old post for no reason.
If you read the exchange I linked to, it makes sense, in context.
22
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Quote
"speed determined by depth of water" is also true.
No, it is not true.
I understand that you disagree with pretty much everyone else in the world on this physics law. 

Quote
Waves in "shallow" water (meaning water that's not as deep as the wavelength) approximately obey a law  that says that their speed is proportional to the square root of the water depth(until it gets deeper than the wavelength, then it's the root of the wavelength).

It's actually considered a law of physics, and it applies to all ocean waves, forced, free, tsunamis, tides, gravity waves, which is what makes your position so delightful.  I provided dozens of sources now, and yet you persist. 


23
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
I may occasionally confuse cold one and uncool (I did it in the past) and for that I apologize.  It's not intentional.
24
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
If you follow the links it will become clear.  It's old posts to cold one.
25
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
I used this exact same example many years ago.  Do you want me to post the link?