Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


troy

science vs religion

1,123 posts in this topic

if theres no god, how come shrooms make me think there is?

Share this post


Link to post

Any force, gravitational or magnetic, by definition causes accelaration though. The indistinguishability between being acted upon by a gravitational field and being in an accelarated frame of reference was Einstein's insight with regards to General Relativity.

I agree, I am happy that a force causes the acceleration, but I think it is something else apart from gravity, imo gravity does not exist, but I also disagree with Einstein, primarily because of his 4d time-space crap, imo time is not a dimension, again in my model time does not exist as it is a human construct, it is just the continuing now, and things happen over what we call time.

But I'm not really wanting to discuss my model, it is only a model, I'm still questioning the currently accepted model, starting with gravity

We have this theory of gravity, is it possible to make predictions using this theory, and then check reality to see if it is confirmed in nature?

Take the theory of tides as an example, the whole thing is pinned on the moons gravity attracting the oceans.

So surely it should be possible to take that theory, look at the position of the moon, and predict the highest tidal ranges?

If I was to give you a moon position over the Earth, say 15N 65W, using the theory of tides where would you predict the highest tides to be?

:)

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, I am happy that a force causes the acceleration, but I think it is something else apart from gravity, imo gravity does not exist, but I also disagree with Einstein, primarily because of his 4d time-space crap, imo time is not a dimension, again in my model time does not exist as it is a human construct, it is just the continuing now, and things happen over what we call time.

But I'm not really wanting to discuss my model, it is only a model, I'm still questioning the currently accepted model, starting with gravity

We have this theory of gravity, is it possible to make predictions using this theory, and then check reality to see if it is confirmed in nature?

Take the theory of tides as an example, the whole thing is pinned on the moons gravity attracting the oceans.

So surely it should be possible to take that theory, look at the position of the moon, and predict the highest tidal ranges?

If I was to give you a moon position over the Earth, say 15N 65W, using the theory of tides where would you predict the highest tides to be?

:)

Not sure. I'm by no means an expert. Even using Newtons laws to try and predict the motion of N number of masses for N = 3 and higher, can quickly fail as the system becomes more prone to being chaotic the more masses you add (albeit dependent on initial conditions).

I'm sure the tides is considered choatic (similar to the weather) with many variables to consider - the shape of particular coastline, the effect of the sun's gravity aswell as the moon's, Earths rotation/Coriolis effect, frictional effects, tilt, how much the Earths crust is also pulled upwards by the gravity, weather system such as storms, temperature, etc etc etc. However I'd predict the main tidal bulge to be somewhere around 15N 65W, although the Earth's rotation does have the effect of tugging the bulge forwards away from the Moon direct overhead position as I understand it.

The tide was stonkingly high here during the eclipse though! (Vaguelly assume not just coincidence)

Edit:- If you're asking me to take General Relativity and use it to predict motion of the tides, I'm not profficient enough at physics to be able to do that personally.

Edited by Galactic

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure the tides is considered choatic (similar to the weather) with many variables to consider - the shape of particular coastline, the effect of the sun's gravity aswell as the moon's, Earths rotation/Coriolis effect, frictional effects, tilt, how much the Earths crust is also pulled upwards by the gravity, weather system such as storms, temperature, etc etc etc. However I'd predict the main tidal bulge to be somewhere around 15N 65W, although the Earth's rotation does have the effect of tugging the bulge forwards away from the Moon direct overhead position as I understand it.

The tide was stonkingly high here during the eclipse though! (Vaguelly assume not just coincidence)

So, you accept the model, and predict the highest bulge at that long lat... with a few degrees W subtracted (that is, to the East) to account for the rotation of the Earth

That is, you are saying the highest tide will be at 15N, because that LAT is where the moon is overhead....

Then you say that your tide was high during the eclipse.... I'm guessing you are in UK, perhaps a bit northern...what latitude? Was the moon overhead at your latitude?

I suggest you research the heights of tides on those Caribbean islands at the lat/long I gave you, see how high the tidal bulge was.... and compare it to how high your tide gets... I know you will find the height of the bulge around the Caribbean islands to be quite modest, but your local tides will be quite high, much higher than any tidal bulge in the Caribbeans.

I will make a prediction here, on the lat long I gave you earlier...

At 15N 65W, underneath the moon, it will be low tide, and the high tide will be at around 45N 65W... in the Bay of Fundy.

Edited by Rex Mundi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

if theres no god, how come shrooms make me think there is?

It`s because man made the idea in the first place, also if you apply strong magnets to a certain part of the brain it gives you the feeling of a divine presence

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

So, you accept the model, and predict the highest bulge at that long lat... with a few degrees W subtracted (that is, to the East) to account for the rotation of the Earth

That is, you are saying the highest tide will be at 15N, because that LAT is where the moon is overhead....

Then you say that your tide was high during the eclipse.... I'm guessing you are in UK, perhaps a bit northern...what latitude? Was the moon overhead at your latitude?

I suggest you research the heights of tides on those Caribbean islands at the lat/long I gave you, see how high the tidal bulge was.... and compare it to how high your tide gets... I know you will find the height of the bulge around the Caribbean islands to be quite modest, but your local tides will be quite high, much higher than any tidal bulge in the Caribbeans.

I will make a prediction here, on the lat long I gave you earlier...

At 15N 65W, underneath the moon, it will be low tide, and the high tide will be at around 45N 65W... in the Bay of Fundy.

Moon was not directly overhead in UK during eclipse.

Interesting about the Carribbean tidal ranges. What's the reason? Geography means the body of water isn't large enough? Bulge of Earth at equator? Though I accept it's a simple tidal model with discrepencies like I mentioned, I accepted the general principles here and didn't expect such a demonstrable large deviation (even though tides have huge variation between locations in very close proximity in my locality). It was clearly foolish to make a prediction of bulge at 15N without researching deeper into local factors/variables though.

Share this post


Link to post

Moon was not directly overhead in UK during eclipse.

Interesting about the Carribbean tidal ranges. What's the reason? Geography means the body of water isn't large enough?

I'll leave you to think on it for a while, sleep on it please... but, no the size of the body of water is not the cause of such a low tidal range.

For example, what if you look at the tidal range of the Islands in the tropical pacific?

I'll make a broader prediction, on my 65W longitude...

obviously the moon travels over a month, and we know of the tropics, due to the 23.5* tilt of the Earth, but the moons orbit is a further 5* tilt, so the moon migrates between 28.5*N and 28.5*S

I will predict that wherever the moons latitude is, N or S, when the moon is overhead at 65W long, it will be a high tide in the Bay of Fundy... and the highest tides in that bay will be when the moon is on it's most Northerly lat.

eta.... the moon is NEVER directly overhead UK, we are at 50*N ish

Edited by Rex Mundi
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

@@Galactic

an empty universe which contains nothing wouldnt be a universe it wouldnt be anything

as for imagining nothing i dont see it as possible ,nothing doesnt exist ,soon as you label something nothing it becomes a thing in itself so its not what we would call nothing ,we could point to it and say thats nothing ,if we can do that then its something

nothing is an interesting concept but completely useless in practice

Share this post


Link to post

I'll leave you to think on it for a while, sleep on it please... but, no the size of the body of water is not the cause of such a low tidal range.

For example, what if you look at the tidal range of the Islands in the tropical pacific?

I'll make a broader prediction, on my 65W longitude...

obviously the moon travels over a month, and we know of the tropics, due to the 23.5* tilt of the Earth, but the moons orbit is a further 5* tilt, so the moon migrates between 28.5*N and 28.5*S

I will predict that wherever the moons latitude is, N or S, when the moon is overhead at 65W long, it will be a high tide in the Bay of Fundy... and the highest tides in that bay will be when the moon is on it's most Northerly lat.

eta.... the moon is NEVER directly overhead UK, we are at 50*N ish

I was wrong regarding my earlier statement about 'tides' being a chaotic system akin to the weather - it is clearly very deterministic as tides are predictable to a high level of accuracy by knowing the position of moon and sun (i.e. gravitational influence), and the local effects of geographical features (resonances, etc.)

(What I should have said in relation to some of the variables I listed was that they don't contribute to a chaotic system per se, but simply that they add another layer of factors to consider when making the foresaid accurate predictions.)

My knowledge on the particular oceanographic (heck, even astronomical) details is admittedly poor, particuarly so in comparison to yours, but I guess this is besides the main point you're making - which, unless I am mistaken, is that the theory of gravity works as it makes practical predictions, with some local caveats based on some other physics in relation to particular geographical features and other physical factors (or were you implying the opposite? not sure now)

Share this post


Link to post

@@Galactic

an empty universe which contains nothing wouldnt be a universe it wouldnt be anything

as for imagining nothing i dont see it as possible ,nothing doesnt exist ,soon as you label something nothing it becomes a thing in itself so its not what we would call nothing ,we could point to it and say thats nothing ,if we can do that then its something

nothing is an interesting concept but completely useless in practice

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post

(or were you implying the opposite? not sure now)

I made a prediction, based on my own model.

In my model, gravity is not a force, it does not exist. Neither do I have Einsteins 4d space-time warping codswallop in my model.

So I guess I'm implying the opposite of what you said.

Edited by Rex Mundi

Share this post


Link to post

I made a prediction, based on my own model.

Is your own model not using any of the concepts from the Electric Universe theories, forum and publications that you embraced so much when you were using your other account? If not then fair play to you for starting your reasoning from scratch rather than plagiarising

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Share this post


Link to post

Is your own model not using any of the concepts from the Electric Universe theories, forum and publications that you embraced so much when you were using your other account? If not then fair play to you for starting your reasoning from scratch rather than plagiarising

i have mentioned EU stuff before, but I am confused... what other account?

As it happens, my model has nothing to do with the EU stuff at all... If I recall correctly, I have only ever used the EU stuff to demonstrate that there are other models out there... but it is not my model.

Look, I'm more than willing to talk about my model, I have tried before ages ago, but when people start using words like "conspiracy" against me, I tend to not bother going any further.

So, first, other account, now plagiarism..... elsewhere it has been tory scum and grass.

Okay folks, I get the message.

Share this post


Link to post

... :lookaround:

Edited by gb1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now