>Dean,
>
> Everytime I see talk about why the sun doesn't have the effect
on
>the
>tides compared to the moon and set forth as a comparison of gravitational
>
>forces, my eyes roll. I had been working on an explanation htm page that
>
>explains all of this in a way that I have not seen elsewhere yet, but, I
>ran
>into some problems trying to construct what I feel are the necessary
>graphical
>animations that illuminate my view. You had a discussion going on about
>Cater's soft particle gravity radiation and how these conditions change
>making some of the difference but I don't consider this correct.
> The whole error as I see it in this deliberation is that you are
>trying to
>compare apples and oranges. The tide effect in my opinion has nothing to
>
>do whatsoever with this soft particle business or for that matter a
>static
>force formula.
> The moon orbits us (the earth) and though both are equally
>involved
>moving along in their orbital system of the sun, the forces that act
>between
>the two of them are in a relativistic view that of a moving body, the
>moon,
>orbiting a nearly stationary object, the earth. If the earth and the
>moon
>were the only two observable objects in the universe from our
>perspective,
>would it not be correct that the moon is the more dynamic of the two at
>least
>where motion is concerned?
> To my mind, the gravitational force of the moon is likened to a
>flashlight
>that beams its rays toward an object that compared to itself is moving
>only
>in minute fashion compared to the moon. This implies that the full force
>of
>the gravity force emanating from the moon itself acts upon objects on the
>
>earth itself such as our tides.
> You must be aware of centripetal force. Taking a pail of water
>and
>swinging it above and below your head at some speed holds the water to
>the
>bottom of the bucket with none of it splashing or falling down on the
>person
>that swings it even though there is a direct unimpeded vector for doing
>so.
> Now I hope you will bear with me because I am certain that the
>paucity
>of the sun's force or influence on earth tides has neither anything to do
>with
>soft particles of gravitational radiation nor the static force equation
>that is
>suggested by Newton that is so much larger than that of the moon.
> THE EARTH ACTS LIKE THE SWINGING BUCKET, because although
>the force of gravity that suggests that the stronger gravitational
>product of the
>Sun and the Earth ought to reflect a higher instead of lower
>gravitational
>influence on ocean tides than the earth, the very velocity of the orbit
>keeps this
>from being the case.
> The Earth / Moon system orbits the Sun at the barrycenter. This
>is the fulcrum
>or balance point between the Earth and the Moon. This BARRYCENTER is the
>basis
>of the consideration for judging the difference between the lunar tides
>and Solar
>tides. If a baseball for example were to orbit the Sun at a position and
>velocity
>equivalent to the barrycenter, ALL THE FORCE OF GRAVITY WOULD BE
>CANCELLED OUT IN THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE GRAVITATIONAL
>FORCE OF THE BASEBALL TO FALL TOWARDS THE SUN AND THE LAWS
>OF INERTIA TO AT ANY POINT IN TIME FLY OFF IN A STRAIGHT LINE
>AND LEAVE THE SOLAR SYSTEM FOREVER.
> For all objects like the ocean waters situated on the Earth's
>surface, it is only
>the degree by which they differentiate from the barrycenter that provides
>any tendency
>to "react" to the Sun gravitationally. The Earth Moon system orbits the
>Sun in an
>eccentric orbit. This means that at any point in time, the portions of
>the Earth's surface
>that are closer to the Sun than the barrycenter are prone to sheering
>forces in that direction.
>They are a matter of no more than a thousand miles or so closer to the
>sun than the
>perfect balance point which is the barrycenter. There are actually two
>complex
>motions that change the equatorial deviance in distance to the Sun that
>is contrasted
>to the barrycenter. The entire Earth Moon system rotates slowly so that
>in one half of
>the month, combined in half portions of the day as the planet rotates on
>its axis, an
>equatorial surface location will be closer to the Sun than the
>barrycenter.
> I see a complex dual rotation which actually has the effect of
>placing portions
>of the earth's surface and the related ocean waters in an artificial or
>assumed eccentric
>orbit which is slightly steeper in relationship to the sun than the
>barrycenter and by
>inferring that model of orbital acceleration curve we find that an extra
>foot or so of
>acceleration toward the Sun would be expected from any object that had
>been traveling
>there. A friend pointed out in objection to this idea that an object
>could not assume
>its own orbit of the Sun while still a member or part of the mass of the
>Earth. This is
>correct to some extent, but I suggest that the orbital acceleration
>stresses on a free
>falling body that parallels this course could still be realized.
> It is also notable that the tide charts for different areas of
>the globe are ALL OVER
>THE PLACE and that these vary with season, latitude and day of the month.
> These
>differences are not perhaps so mysterious as one might think if my theory
>on the Solar
>Tides is correct. If one plotted all the pertinent variables in a
>complex computer program
>that supports my theory, it would not surprise me to find that some tides
>that are 12 hours
>apart actually oscillate during the cycle set out in a dual rotational
>model of planetary
>swivel around the barrycenter and planet rotation on its axis. Some
>instances of Solar
>tides actually would be barely within the barrycenter when the
>barrycenter is only a
>thousand miles further away from the Sun than the earth's nearest
>equatorial exterior
>surface. Other instances of the tides would be 6 to 7 thousand miles
>farther away from
>the sun than the nearest equatorial Earth exterior surface at their peak
>Solar tide.
> One prediction of my tide theory would be that dependent on the
>orientation of the
>moon which stipulates the location of the barrycenter, the same exact
>place on the globe
>would during the different phases of the moon alternate between being
>higher on the
>near side of barrycenter to the Sun and being higher on the farther side
>away from the
>Sun two weeks later. I would expect that these two tidal heights that
>are attributable to
>the moon would roughly swap values.
> I am strongly convinced that I am right in my theory of Solar
>tides. Lack of
>knowledge in some matters may trip one up. At this point in time,
>however, nothing I
>can conceive of would interfere with the acceleration curve comparison
>between the
>barrycenter and the assumed artificial orbit caused by planetary and
>other system
>oscillations of a surface area attributed with a slightly different
>acceleration curve.
>This is fundamental physics even further beyond refute than that of
>Newtons famed
>force equation for the product of masses inversely squared.
> Another point ought to be made. The tides are not a vast
>difference but are made
>manifest in subtle terms. Furthermore, the static force of gravity
>between two bodies
>has in no way accounted for the oddity of Solar tides that peak actually
>before the direct
>alignment toward the Sun at its closest measurement. Again my prediction
>is that this
>is because the peak sheering force upon ocean waters occurs before this
>point.
> Lastly, it is notable when one looks at the rotating planet
>earth, any GP or ground
>position on the earth's surface, it would appear that the GP actually
>decelerates to a
>high degree. After all, the planet at the equator is moving just over a
>quarter mile per
>second and suggests the illusion of moving backwards in the orbit. This
>is not the
>true picture since the earth is orbiting the Sun at roughly 18.5 miles
>per second and
>over the course of half a day moves over 800,000 miles along in its
>orbital path. It is
>more correct to envision a leaf floating to and away from the sun in very
>slight motions
>and overall velocities. We know that the Sun can never actually pull the
>water up and
>away from the Earth's gravity well. It can only well up the ocean water
>at a certain
>point where the sheering occurs. Then as any tidal effect is overcome
>and eventually
>lessened, the direction of the artificial acceleration curve is reversed
>and 1/2 day later
>finds a reciprocal sheering reaction on the opposite side of the planet.
>
>OTHER ITEMS:
>
> At present I am involved in actually measuring with the
Newtonian
ยทยทยท
>mass equation
>what the actual cause of the Plumbob divergence actually is. This is my
>version of
>blowing my own mind for the month and I have made big strides recently in
>perfecting
>a computer program that will do just that. I consider with all respect
>to Mr. Cater and
>Dean that it makes little sense to jump ship on Newtonian force equations
>in explaining
>some of these concepts like the plumbob paradox without at least having
>first tried to
>measure these phenomena with currently accepted tools. Already, I have
>gained an
>enhanced view of what is going on although admittedly, I have a long way
>to go.
>
>Scott