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
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
···
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.