Nav wrote:
The earth-moon body rotates around a common point and water tries to
move away from the centre (water in a bucket swung on a rope
analogy).
The moon exerts gravity which is stronger on the side of the moon.
Thus
water forms two bulges on opposite sides and makes two tides as the
earth rotates...


You make it sound as if the gravitational forces explains the bulge
under the moon and the centrifugal forces explains the bulge on the
side of the earth that turns away from the moon.
That is not right.

The gravitational difference alone can explain that there are bulges
on both side of the earth. That's why it is sometimes the only factor
mentioned when trying to keep the explanation simple.
The centrifugal element can only explain that there is a bulge on the
part of the earth that turns away from the moon.
That is why it is one of the elements (and there are others), that is
sometimes left out of the explanation.

While I think that in some cases it is a good idea to include the
centrifugal element in the explanation, I don't know exactly how many
elements one should include to make it a good explanation - but I
haven't yet seen a complete explanation in a popular publication.

Peter S/Y Anicula





"Nav" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Jeff,

I think the term centrifuigal is appropriate in this context. It is
a
term in the system that can be appreciated without needing to
consider
Newtonian forces. To understand centripetal forces is a lot harder
than
just demonstrating the effect. similarly gravity can be demonstrated
without maths. Thus the explanation becomes really simple e.g.:

The earth-moon body rotates around a common point and water tries to
move away from the center (water in a bucket swung on a rope
analogy).
The moon exerts gravity which is stronger on the side of the moon.
Thus
water forms two bulges on opposite sides and makes two tides as the
earth rotates...


Cheers

Nav wrote:
And your point is what, that I was describing a different ship with a
very similar name?

No, my point is that you have no clue.

Again.

DSK

Nav wrote:
Hey, we were talking at crossed prurposes.

No, you just plain didn't know WTF you were talking about.

... I mentioned Baltimore several
times

Actually, you didn't. Jeff and I both mentioned Boston several times and
you apparently either missed it (poor reading skills) or were trying to
fake your way out of it.

... I think it's much more revealing how certain
people crow on about an innocent mistaken identity don't you?

You mean, certain people (or one person in particular) crowing about
their (his) tremendous knowledge & expertise when they've made...
repeatedly... a very obvious mistake in identity, and clearly don't know
diddley-squat?

DSK

DSK wrote:

Nav wrote:

Hey, we were talking at crossed prurposes.


No, you just plain didn't know WTF you were talking about.

... I mentioned Baltimore several times


Actually, you didn't. Jeff and I both mentioned Boston several times and
you apparently either missed it (poor reading skills) or were trying to
fake your way out of it.

... I think it's much more revealing how certain people crow on about
an innocent mistaken identity don't you?


You mean, certain people (or one person in particular) crowing about
their (his) tremendous knowledge & expertise when they've made...
repeatedly... a very obvious mistake in identity, and clearly don't know
diddley-squat?


Now if you think my mistaking the Constitution for the Constellation is
a big deal then so be it. I think to anyone else it would be an obvious
minor error -after all their names are very similar and they were both
rotting on the East coast at the same time. But to you it seems like
such a big thing to try to make me look ignorant. Now why would that be?

Look Doug, get used to it, I have a wonderful rich life and enjoy a good
argument. In fact I even deliberately provoke it. But your childish
scampering around this playground does you no good. You seem to like to
BS almost all the time but it's so easy to catch you out. So just try to
stick to tips on sail trim and boat cleaning and you'll do much better.

This advice really is in your best interest -you don't want your blood
pressure to get worse do you? People would miss you if you had a cardio.

Cheers

Yes, how about that? Care to comment Donal?

Cheers

Thom Stewart wrote:

Donal,


Any ideas


How about the Increase of Tidal Flow and height during Hurricanes?

Ole Thom

You mean, certain people (or one person in particular) crowing about
their (his) tremendous knowledge & expertise when they've made...
repeatedly... a very obvious mistake in identity, and clearly don't
know diddley-squat?


Nav wrote:
Now if you think my mistaking the Constitution for the Constellation is
a big deal then so be it.

No, I think your mistaking the Constitution... and Boston... when both
are spelled out at least a half dozen times... for the Constellation &
Baltimore, is typical for you. To be charitable, it could be an example
of poor reading skills.

To then go on & crow about your superior knowledge, and freely insult
everyone who disagrees with you, and then boldly deny you ever made a
mistake at all, is the kind of behavior that ill-mannered children
should be corrected for. It's a shame that you suffer under the handicap
of never learning better.

DSK

Nav,

Don't you think you are overstating the obvious? The Tide is a dynamic
action of water caused by the moon. The height of the Tide and the Tidal
flow are dependent on one another. The location of the rise in the Tide
is determined by the speed of the earths rotation and the revolving of
the moon. The height of the Tide determined by the Phase of the Moon.
The higher the Tide rise the greater the Tidal Flow

I hope this meets with your approval. I'm very sure we all have
overstated what Scott wanted to know about riding the Tide.

Ole Thom
P/S Donal give him the full point. He gave the answer to the moving
tide, making a tide ride possible

Nav,

Why wouldn't you use a RMS relationship if it close to a sine wave?

Ole Thom

"Nav" wrote in message
...
Yes, how about that? Care to comment Donal?


Hey, I ain't an expert on these things.

Why don't you tell us what might have caused it.

I've already expressed the sum total of my knowledge on this subject. Ie,
it might have been caused by pressure systems.

If you think that my opinion is stupid, then you should have the courage to
say so.

If you actually know what caused it, then I'd be grateful if you would share
your knowledge with us. After all, this is a "group". Are you are member,
or not?


Regards


Donal
--

SDK wrote:



To then go on & crow about your superior knowledge, and freely insult
everyone who disagrees with you, and then boldly deny you ever made a
mistake at all, is the kind of behavior that ill-mannered children
should be corrected for. It's a shame that you suffer under the handicap
of never learning better.


You think I crow or is it could it be that I question in a way designed
to disclose ignorance? If you mistake my comments for crowing so be it,
but I think that just reflects your jealousy of the wonderful life I
lead. Now, I freely admitted my simple mistake about the Constellation
when Jeff identified it. It was you that then "crowed" about it like a
child isn't it? In fact I've always acknowledged when I'm wrong -but the
discussant has to show why I am and not simply naysay (like you). I
don't resort to ad hominems or insults until I'm insulted (I treat like
with like and if people are polite then so am I)-but the record shows
that you frequently start insulting people who disagree with you. So
what is this post except more bile from you? Like I said, _you_ are the
one who makes yourself look bad.

Cheers