Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #647406 > unrolled thread

Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-27 09:34 +0000
    Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-27 09:44 +0000
      Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-27 22:09 +1000
        Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-27 15:20 +0000
          Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-28 14:38 +1000
            Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-28 19:04 +0000
              Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-29 14:46 +1000
                Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-29 09:28 +0000
                  Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-29 22:07 +1000
                    Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-29 16:36 +0000
                      Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-30 10:18 +1000
                        Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-31 06:17 +0000
                          Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-31 17:10 +1000
                          Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 02:11 -0500
    Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-31 08:29 +0000
    Re: Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 03:06 -0700

#647406 — Tidal Forces - revisited, still unanswered

Without further redo, they are proclaiming, that my Divergent Matter of 
the Moving Bodies Model would be inconsistent, since it can't EXPLAIN 
Tidal Forces - otherwise extremely correct (my theory).

However, they willingly forget their own theory, Relativity, is incapable 
when it comes to the above Tidal Forces. It can't explain it, since the 
curvature is about the observers geometrical projections and nothing else.

Hence the punch, a Geometrical Projection cannot possibly make a region of 
water to arise above or below a certain level. (without further redo, the 
thing is about Forces and Densities).

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#647408

Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:

> Without further redo, they are proclaiming, that my Divergent Matter of
> the Moving Bodies Model would be inconsistent, since it can't EXPLAIN
> Tidal Forces - otherwise extremely correct (my theory).
> 
> However, they willingly forget their own theory, Relativity, is
> incapable when it comes to the above Tidal Forces. It can't explain it,
> since the curvature is about the observers geometrical projections and
> nothing else.
> 
> Hence the punch, a Geometrical Projection cannot possibly make a region
> of water to arise above or below a certain level. (without further redo,
> the thing is about Forces and Densities).

Thank you for listening to my little story, about Tidal Forces in 
Relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647413

On 27/08/2017 7:44 PM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> 
>> Without further redo, they are proclaiming, that my Divergent Matter of
>> the Moving Bodies Model would be inconsistent, since it can't EXPLAIN
>> Tidal Forces - otherwise extremely correct (my theory).
>>
>> However, they willingly forget their own theory, Relativity, is
>> incapable when it comes to the above Tidal Forces. It can't explain it,
>> since the curvature is about the observers geometrical projections and
>> nothing else.
>>
>> Hence the punch, a Geometrical Projection cannot possibly make a region
>> of water to arise above or below a certain level. (without further redo,
>> the thing is about Forces and Densities).
> 
> Thank you for listening to my little story, about Tidal Forces in
> Relativity.
> 

General relativity covers tidal forces.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647420

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 27/08/2017 7:44 PM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
>> Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
>> 
>>> Without further redo, they are proclaiming, that my Divergent Matter
>>> of the Moving Bodies Model would be inconsistent, since it can't
>>> EXPLAIN Tidal Forces - otherwise extremely correct (my theory).
>>>
>>> However, they willingly forget their own theory, Relativity, is
>>> incapable when it comes to the above Tidal Forces. It can't explain
>>> it, since the curvature is about the observers geometrical projections
>>> and nothing else.
>>>
>>> Hence the punch, a Geometrical Projection cannot possibly make a
>>> region of water to arise above or below a certain level. (without
>>> further redo,
>>> the thing is about Forces and Densities).
>> 
>> Thank you for listening to my little story, about Tidal Forces in
>> Relativity. 
>
> General relativity covers tidal forces. Sylvia.

Would you swear that it is as you say? Okay then, I believe you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647522

On 28/08/2017 1:20 AM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>> On 27/08/2017 7:44 PM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
>>> Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
>>>
>>>> Without further redo, they are proclaiming, that my Divergent Matter
>>>> of the Moving Bodies Model would be inconsistent, since it can't
>>>> EXPLAIN Tidal Forces - otherwise extremely correct (my theory).
>>>>
>>>> However, they willingly forget their own theory, Relativity, is
>>>> incapable when it comes to the above Tidal Forces. It can't explain
>>>> it, since the curvature is about the observers geometrical projections
>>>> and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>> Hence the punch, a Geometrical Projection cannot possibly make a
>>>> region of water to arise above or below a certain level. (without
>>>> further redo,
>>>> the thing is about Forces and Densities).
>>>
>>> Thank you for listening to my little story, about Tidal Forces in
>>> Relativity.
>>
>> General relativity covers tidal forces. Sylvia.
> 
> Would you swear that it is as you say? Okay then, I believe you.
> 

Yes.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647613

Sylvia Else wrote:

>>>> Thank you for listening to my little story, about Tidal Forces in
>>>> Relativity.
>>>
>>> General relativity covers tidal forces. Sylvia.
>> 
>> Would you swear that it is as you say? Okay then, I believe you.
>
> Yes. Sylvia.

But we have no proofs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647710

On 29/08/2017 5:04 AM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>>>>> Thank you for listening to my little story, about Tidal Forces in
>>>>> Relativity.
>>>>
>>>> General relativity covers tidal forces. Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Would you swear that it is as you say? Okay then, I believe you.
>>
>> Yes. Sylvia.
> 
> But we have no proofs.
> 

General relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics for the low gravity 
low speed scenario, and Newtonian mechanics describes tidal effects very 
simply.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647724

Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 29/08/2017 5:04 AM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you for listening to my little story, about Tidal Forces in
>>>>>> Relativity.
>>>>>
>>>>> General relativity covers tidal forces. Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> Would you swear that it is as you say? Okay then, I believe you.
>>>
>>> Yes. Sylvia.
>> 
>> But we have no proofs.
>
> General relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics for the low gravity
> low speed scenario, and Newtonian mechanics describes tidal effects very
> simply. Sylvia.

You seemingly don't know how a Math Proof looks like. Hint: it has to have 
Mathematical Beauty. Until then, we have no choice, but to believe. Start 
with that big GR "field tensor equation", then go down in small steps 
along the road.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647730

On 29/08/2017 7:28 PM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 29/08/2017 5:04 AM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> Thank you for listening to my little story, about Tidal Forces in
>>>>>>> Relativity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> General relativity covers tidal forces. Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you swear that it is as you say? Okay then, I believe you.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Sylvia.
>>>
>>> But we have no proofs.
>>
>> General relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics for the low gravity
>> low speed scenario, and Newtonian mechanics describes tidal effects very
>> simply. Sylvia.
> 
> You seemingly don't know how a Math Proof looks like. Hint: it has to have
> Mathematical Beauty. Until then, we have no choice, but to believe. Start
> with that big GR "field tensor equation", then go down in small steps
> along the road.
> 

Physics is not about proof. No physical theory can ever be proved.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647752

Sylvia Else wrote:

>> You seemingly don't know how a Math Proof looks like. Hint: it has to
>> have Mathematical Beauty. Until then, we have no choice, but to
>> believe. Start with that big GR "field tensor equation", then go down
>> in small steps along the road.
> 
> Physics is not about proof. No physical theory can ever be proved.

You misunderstand the entire procedure. It is not about that. But your 
postulate according to which Relativity can handle Tidal Force. You can't 
pull things out of your ass. Show it mathematically, symbolically to begin 
with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647812

On 30/08/2017 2:36 AM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>>> You seemingly don't know how a Math Proof looks like. Hint: it has to
>>> have Mathematical Beauty. Until then, we have no choice, but to
>>> believe. Start with that big GR "field tensor equation", then go down
>>> in small steps along the road.
>>
>> Physics is not about proof. No physical theory can ever be proved.
> 
> You misunderstand the entire procedure. It is not about that. But your
> postulate according to which Relativity can handle Tidal Force. You can't
> pull things out of your ass. Show it mathematically, symbolically to begin
> with.
> 

What do you want? The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the 
square of the distance. If you have two objects of the same mass in a 
gravitational field, one at distance R + r and one at distance R - r, 
then one experiences a force of k/(R + r)^2 and the other experiences a 
force of k/(R - r)^ 2, where k is a constant of proportionality and R is 
the distance from the source of the field.

If the two objects are attached so that they cannot accelerate at 
different rates, then they experience a force between them of

k[1/(R + r)^2 - 1/(R - r)^2)] [*]

which is the tidal force.

Sylvia.

[*] This is a difference of two squares, and can be simplified.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647993

Sylvia Else wrote:

>> You misunderstand the entire procedure. It is not about that. But your
>> postulate according to which Relativity can handle Tidal Force. You
>> can't pull things out of your ass. Show it mathematically, symbolically
>> to begin with.
>
> What do you want? The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the
> square of the distance. If you have two objects of the same mass in a
> gravitational field, one at distance R + r and one at distance R - r,
> then one experiences a force of k/(R + r)^2 and the other experiences a
> force of k/(R - r)^ 2, where k is a constant of proportionality and R is
> the distance from the source of the field.

Has nothing to do with, something that rather resembles Newton. It's about 
Relativity and Tidal Forces, lady. I must insist, start with that BIG, FAT 
tensor GR equation, and work your way down to Tidal Forces. Or up. This 
lady is stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647995

On 31/08/2017 4:17 PM, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
>>> You misunderstand the entire procedure. It is not about that. But your
>>> postulate according to which Relativity can handle Tidal Force. You
>>> can't pull things out of your ass. Show it mathematically, symbolically
>>> to begin with.
>>
>> What do you want? The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the
>> square of the distance. If you have two objects of the same mass in a
>> gravitational field, one at distance R + r and one at distance R - r,
>> then one experiences a force of k/(R + r)^2 and the other experiences a
>> force of k/(R - r)^ 2, where k is a constant of proportionality and R is
>> the distance from the source of the field.
> 
> Has nothing to do with, something that rather resembles Newton. It's about
> Relativity and Tidal Forces, lady. I must insist, start with that BIG, FAT
> tensor GR equation, and work your way down to Tidal Forces. Or up. This
> lady is stupid.
> 

See

http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/REUPapers/Tolish.pdf

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647996

Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >
> > > You misunderstand the entire procedure. It is not about that.
> > > But your postulate according to which Relativity can handle
> > > Tidal Force. You can't pull things out of your ass. Show it
> > > mathematically, symbolically to begin with.
> >
> > What do you want? The force of gravity is inversely proportional
> > to the square of the distance. If you have two objects of the
> > same mass in a gravitational field, one at distance R + r and
> > one at distance R - r, then one experiences a force of
> > k/(R + r)^2 and the other experiences a force of k/(R - r)^ 2,
> > where k is a constant of proportionality and R is the distance
> > from the source of the field.
>
> Has nothing to do with, something that rather resembles Newton.
> It's about Relativity and Tidal Forces, lady. I must insist,
> start with that BIG, FAT tensor GR equation, and work your way
> down to Tidal Forces. Or up. This lady is stupid.

Bunkum. She's absolitely right. You should get it into your head
that there's no such thing as "tidal force"; what you and others
*call* "tidal force" us nothing more than a difference in
gravitational forces over distance.

If you want symbols, try the derivative: delta F / delta d

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648000

JanPB wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:15:09 PM UTC-7, Bídníkùm Laterá
> wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 2:34:13 AM UTC-7, Bídníkùm Laterá
>> > wrote:
>> >> Without further redo, they are proclaiming, that my Divergent Matter
>> >> of the Moving Bodies Model would be inconsistent, since it can't
>> >> EXPLAIN Tidal Forces - otherwise extremely correct (my theory).
>> >> However, they willingly forget their own theory, Relativity, is
>> >> incapable when it comes to the above Tidal Forces. It can't explain
>> >> it,
>> >> since the curvature is about the observers geometrical projections
>> >> and nothing else.
>> > 
>> > Not even wrong. Nonsense.
>> 
>> For the incompetent and uninitiated, absolutely.
> 
> No. What YOU wrote is pure gobbledygook. Sorry.

aHmmm?? At your age you didn't find out that your curvature is nothen but 
a geometrical projection, a visual since you insist.

Nevermind this nonsense, just explain it, in your severely restricted 
vocabulary, the Tidal Forces in Relativity, by using that BIG, FAT tensor 
populated GR one. You may abuse your fingers and your toes in doing that. 
You can't do it. Beyond your "gobbledygook" you can't accomplish anything 
in Mathematics. I see no proofs around me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648113

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 12:34:15 PM UTC+3, Bídníkùm Laterá wrote:
> Without further redo, they are proclaiming, that my Divergent Matter of 
> the Moving Bodies Model would be inconsistent, since it can't EXPLAIN 
> Tidal Forces - otherwise extremely correct (my theory).
> 
> However, they willingly forget their own theory, Relativity, is incapable 
> when it comes to the above Tidal Forces. It can't explain it, since the 
> curvature is about the observers geometrical projections and nothing else.
> 
> Hence the punch, a Geometrical Projection cannot possibly make a region of 
> water to arise above or below a certain level. (without further redo, the 
> thing is about Forces and Densities).
===================================
MASS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL!! FORCES INCLUDING GRAVITY !
=====================================================

and please don't for get who told you that the first time 
==
TIA
Y.Porat
==============================

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web