The futility of arguing about science

We are the Borg.
ed
Posts: 41243
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

xouper wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:18 pm
ed wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:19 pm And how many Flu cases have been reported?

First they misdirect with tides then they create a non-existent epidemic. Then they implant things.

You are a tool.
Are you calling me a "tool"? :P

If you are claiming Robinson is wrong about the tides, then you are making a claim where the burden of proof is now on you. Applied skepticism does not render a claim automatically false simply because you haven't yet seen all the evidence you require.

In any case, I don't understand why you keep insisting that it is "misdirection" to discuss how the tides work. What am I missing here? What are you trying to tell me, Ed? Please, connect all the dots for me as you see them.
Dots.

If only it were that simple, "connect the dots". The "Dots" are moving, don't you see? Randomly. Or ... apparently randomly. That is the point.

Do you see now, just a little?
robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

ed wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 11:54 am What you are doing is called "misdirection".
ed wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:19 pm And how many Flu cases have been reported?
Note how ed tries to misdirect the topic suddenly.
robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

While the tides are sort of innocuous, not really going to matter much either way, when a scientific issue actually impacts your life, and your pocket, then things really get nasty.
robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

But even so, the level of acrimony, venom and immature anger over the tides is really something else. I'm not joking. Assburger skeptics will rage on the keyboard over the tides, and the more the illusion of twin bulges chasing the moon starts to crumble, the more anger arises.
ed
Posts: 41243
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

Sudden misdirection shows command of the process.
xouper
Posts: 11528
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by xouper »

ed wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:36 pm
xouper wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:18 pm
ed wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:19 pm And how many Flu cases have been reported?

First they misdirect with tides then they create a non-existent epidemic. Then they implant things.

You are a tool.
Are you calling me a "tool"? :P

If you are claiming Robinson is wrong about the tides, then you are making a claim where the burden of proof is now on you. Applied skepticism does not render a claim automatically false simply because you haven't yet seen all the evidence you require.

In any case, I don't understand why you keep insisting that it is "misdirection" to discuss how the tides work. What am I missing here? What are you trying to tell me, Ed? Please, connect all the dots for me as you see them.
Dots.

If only it were that simple, "connect the dots". The "Dots" are moving, don't you see? Randomly. Or ... apparently randomly. That is the point.

Do you see now, just a little?
What I'm seeing is someone who doesn't want to answer my question in a clear and unambiguous manner.

Which is fine. I don't really care. I just figured if there's something you wanted me to understand, you'd explain it. I apologize for wasting your time with such questions.
ceptimus
Posts: 1430
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ceptimus »

The twin bulges thing is just an oversimplified model - it's true in essence, but then the complications of coastline, variable depth of oceans and seas, etcetera, modify the tides at any specific location in important ways. The model does however explain why almost every coast experiences a high tide, low tide cycle roughly every twelve hours, and why the highest and lowest tides (so called spring tides) occur at full moon and new moon, and the tides with a smaller range (neap tides) occur at waxing and waning half moon, midway between the spring tides.

Oversimplified models are at the heart of science, and the best way of grasping and teaching concepts. So we teach children that the Earth goes around the sun in a circle, and then later we tell them that it's not quite a circle - actually nearer an ellipse - and that its speed varies as it goes around - and that it actually deviates from the ellipse a little due to the gravitational attractions of the moon and other planets, and so on...

Often you need a simple model to grasp the concept, and even when you have a more accurate model available, you don't need to bother with all the complicated details. NASA still uses the Newtonian model of gravity when calculating the paths of most of its space probes - NASA knows that the Einsteinian model is more accurate, but the Newtonian one is good enough for most practical purposes, and it's quicker and easier to use that to do the calculations.
DJ
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:30 pm

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by DJ »

:figamagee:


The how to explain the skepticism process without actually having to explain the skepticism process award goes to ceptimus.
ed
Posts: 41243
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

xouper wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:09 pm
ed wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:36 pm
xouper wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:18 pm
ed wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:19 pm And how many Flu cases have been reported?

First they misdirect with tides then they create a non-existent epidemic. Then they implant things.

You are a tool.
Are you calling me a "tool"? :P

If you are claiming Robinson is wrong about the tides, then you are making a claim where the burden of proof is now on you. Applied skepticism does not render a claim automatically false simply because you haven't yet seen all the evidence you require.

In any case, I don't understand why you keep insisting that it is "misdirection" to discuss how the tides work. What am I missing here? What are you trying to tell me, Ed? Please, connect all the dots for me as you see them.
Dots.

If only it were that simple, "connect the dots". The "Dots" are moving, don't you see? Randomly. Or ... apparently randomly. That is the point.

Do you see now, just a little?
What I'm seeing is someone who doesn't want to answer my question in a clear and unambiguous manner.

Which is fine. I don't really care. I just figured if there's something you wanted me to understand, you'd explain it. I apologize for wasting your time with such questions.
I apologise, I was feeling contrary and just wrote shit for the hell of it. Nothing personal, just me. Sorry.
sparks
Posts: 17324
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by sparks »

That is what we call sarcasm xoup. :)
ed
Posts: 41243
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

Actually, no. That is sincere. i felt bad.
xouper
Posts: 11528
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by xouper »

ed wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:18 pm Actually, no. That is sincere. i felt bad.
No need to feel bad. Really. No harm done. We're good. I'll still buy you a beer next time I'm in Florida.

You've always been one of the good guys here and this little (and inconsequential) thing doesn't change that.

:BananaCheers:
Doctor X
Posts: 74697
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by Doctor X »

DJ wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 11:24 pm :figamagee:


The how to explain the skepticism process without actually having to explain the skepticism process award goes to ceptimus.
Meanie.

– J.D.
Ben Trovado
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:08 pm
Title: Ex Avenger

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by Ben Trovado »

xouper wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:05 pm
ed wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:18 pm Actually, no. That is sincere. i felt bad.
No need to feel bad. Really. No harm done. We're good. I'll still buy you a beer next time I'm in Florida.

You've always been one of the good guys here and this little (and inconsequential) thing doesn't change that.

:BananaCheers:
Damnit. I came here for a Rhubarb.

Git Fightin'!
Carr
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:01 am
Title: Floor Walker
Location: Road Prison 36

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by Carr »

There's no fighting in the building!
robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

ceptimus wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:38 pm The twin bulges thing is just an oversimplified model - it's true in essence, but then the complications of coastline, variable depth of oceans and seas, etcetera, modify the tides at any specific location in important ways.
Here's the problem, to even be able to respond to your claim.

It's not possible to even know what you are claiming is "an oversimplified model", much less to know if " it's true in essence".

There are three different "explainings" to say there are twin bulges. (and all are wrong)

There is inertia (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education ... avity.html)

There is "less pulling" (https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-two ... -Dav%C3%A9)

And there is "centrifugal force" (https://scienceblogs.com/startswithaban ... g-the-moon)

And to make it worse, some "explainings" combine them all (https://noc.ac.uk/files/documents/busin ... nation.pdf)

There are hundreds of other examples online. They are all wrong, even if you use a hypothetical planet that is all ocean, and deep enough oceans to allow a tide to keep up with the moon.

Laplace explained all of this in 1775, and it has all been confirmed by direct measurement of the real oceans.

The lunar influence does not cause twin bulges, neither does the solar influence cause two different bulges. The model", for whatever reason is used to try and say there are two bulges, is completely wrong. It's wrong for whatever reason is used.

The mind fuck part, is that most bulge believers read that, and think it means the gravitational effect isn't real, which is not what it means.

It can't be made any simpler.

Most die hard believers can understand that if the moon was on a long tower, so it did not orbit, and the earth did not spin, there would be a bulge towards the moon, underneath the tower, because of gravity.

But there would not be a bulge on the other side of the planet.

Most can understand this. But somehow, when the earth and moon are moving, gravity is completely different, and there is now a second bulge opposite the moon. Which is absolutely not true.

There is no second ocean bulge, for any reason. In fact, there is no bulge under the moon either. Newton was wrong. That is not how it works.

I'm not exaggerating when I say people almost lose their minds over this.
robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

The obvious objection is obvious.

Explaining why the objection is wrong is very difficult, especially when the audience knows almost nothing of the actual tides.

Here is an animation, showing the major amphidromic systems (this is how the tides actually look)

https://i.imgur.com/rXGQu.gif

The moving white bars are the moon, the thicker bar, and the other side of the world from the moon, the thin bar.

The red dots are the amphidromic points, the center of the amphidromic systems. (only the major ones are shown)

Light blue is high tide, dark is low tide.

This is what the sun/moon gravity influence causes. (the all white areas are very very complicated areas, which is why they are not shown)

If you want to see those areas, and all the amphidromic systems

see this -> http://fvcom.smast.umassd.edu/wp-conten ... de.mp4?_=3
ceptimus
Posts: 1430
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ceptimus »

It's certainly futile arguing with you about science. You know that high tide - low tide cycles occur roughly twice per day, and more exactly they occur every 12 hours 25 minutes. It takes 24 hours for the earth to rotate so that the sun appears to return to (almost) the same spot in the sky, and it takes 24 hours plus two times 25 minutes for the earth to rotate once with respect to the moon. So there's NO QUESTION that the tides are caused mainly by the moon, and also NO QUESTION that the highest spring tides occur when the sun, moon, and earth are lined up in roughly a straight line, and that the lowest neap tides occur when they are arranged roughly at right angles.

And what is a high tide? It's when the sea water rises higher than the land it's near. A child might describe this as "a bulge of water."

So you know there are two bulges of water that occur at any coastal location between each moonrise at that location, and yet you still wish to argue that there aren't "twin bulges of water."

Can't you see how stupid that makes you appear?

Yes, the tides are more complicated than the simplified "twin bulges" model describes - that is exactly what I said in my post. But to claim that the twin bulge model is actually wrong, is absurd anti-science.
robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

Hahahaha

This subject almost never fails to illustrate the point\
robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

Once somebody digs in their heels about the twin bulges, it is utter futility to argue about it

Meanwhile, in the actual real world, the rotating waves that create the actual tides continue their eternal dance

http://moocs.southampton.ac.uk/oceans/2 ... eal-world/

https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/ ... idal_Lines

https://i.imgur.com/rXGQu.gif
asthmatic camel
Posts: 20026
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:53 pm
Title: Forum commie nun.
Location: Stirring the porridge with my spurtle.

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by asthmatic camel »

So, robinson. what really does cause the tides? The Atheist having yet another hissy fit and all the seawater heading towards New Zealand?
robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

Gravity causes the tides

Laplace figured out how, and why there are no tides, one tide, two tides, or six tides a day

It’s not that the sun and moon don’t cause the tides

It just doesn’t happen like Newton thought

There is no bulge, much less a mysterious second one
Doctor X
Posts: 74697
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by Doctor X »

One of my favorite cartoons:

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-stati ... 7409-3.png

Apparently, Watterson based the "dad" on his own dad.

That cartoon sort of explains why people believe in silly things. "Dad" probably cannot answer the question – he is a patent attorney like Bill's dad – but even if he can he knows his son will not understand it. Calvin accepts this since learning the truth will require a lot of hard work. So he just defaults to the story which he knows is wrong since it is so much easier. He hopes his "friend" will just agree.
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-stati ... 7007-8.png
is now my next favorite.

– J.D.
asthmatic camel
Posts: 20026
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:53 pm
Title: Forum commie nun.
Location: Stirring the porridge with my spurtle.

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by asthmatic camel »

robinson wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 3:45 am Gravity causes the tides

Laplace figured out how, and why there are no tides, one tide, two tides, or six tides a day

It’s not that the sun and moon don’t cause the tides

It just doesn’t happen like Newton thought

There is no bulge, much less a mysterious second one
Understood. Newton was a genius but certainly didn't get everything right: in fact, he got an awful lot wrong. He features in Neal Stephenson's The Baroque Trilogy, recommended elsewhere, and Bill Bryson paints a beautiful picture of this hugely eccentric man in A Short History of Nearly Everything, which also comes highly recommended to those interested in the history of science.
xouper
Posts: 11528
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
Title: mere ghost of his former self

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by xouper »

asthmatic camel wrote: Mon Sep 06, 2021 6:26 am . . . He features in Neal Stephenson's The Baroque Trilogy, recommended elsewhere, and Bill Bryson paints a beautiful picture of this hugely eccentric man in A Short History of Nearly Everything, which also comes highly recommended to those interested in the history of science.
Both of those just went on my to-do list. Thanks.
robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

If we are doing book recommendations

https://www.amazon.com/mc2-Biography-Wo ... 0425181642
ed
Posts: 41243
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com ... f=1&nofb=1

Used this in a speech once explaining how advertising works.
robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

robinson
Posts: 16085
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

The only thing worse is an argument about physics