The futility of arguing about science

We are the Borg.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

As the Moon moves around the Earth, it creates a bulge of water on the Earth's surface which follows its movements. A corresponding bulge appears on the opposite side of the Earth, thanks to the centrifugal forces generated by the Earth's rotation.

https://www.allthingsnature.org/how-do- ... s-work.htm

Not one part of that is true
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

The Earth rotates on its axis in just under 24 hours, whereas the Moon takes 27.5 days to complete an orbit of the Earth. Because the Earth rotates on its axis faster than the Moon revolves around the Earth, the tidal bulge is always a little bit ahead of the Moon.

https://explainingscience.org/2020/06/0 ... ides-work/


That is not correct either. There is no tidal bulge, much less two of them.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

One thing that is certain, there are a lot of scientific pages on the internet, that are wrong about the ocean tides.

And arguing with experts about being wrong about the tides is futile.
xouper
Posts: 11741
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 »

https://xoup.net/humor/reasoning-with-i ... 00x340.jpg

More here: https://xoup.net/humor/reasoning-with-idiots/
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

The only way to win is to not argue
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

Ha! That’s the essential message of that link

(I posted before I read it)
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

I like the story about Jack
DJ
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:30 pm

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by DJ »

Bah!
xouper
Posts: 11741
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 »

:bigthumb:
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

robinson wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 5:37 am Here's the really obvious and annoying ones.

All of the following is just not true.

There are two tides a day, because there is a bulge on the other side of the earth from the bulge under the moon.
This one is especially annoying because there are two different wrong explanations. And the pages that explain why one of them is wrong, they are using the other wrong reasoning, which is pretty fucking amusing, but also annoying, to a scientist.

Ocean tides are very complex, and that is an understatement. Most freshman-level textbooks ignore the subject entirely. Even some advanced undergraduate level mechanics texts don't get into it, which is a good move. No seriously, it's the best move.

The "explanings" that debunk the rotation of the earth as a cause then go on to explain it with even worse explainings.
In the discussion about what
causes the two bulges of water you
must completely ignore the rotation
of the Earth on its axis
https://noc.ac.uk/files/documents/busin ... nation.pdf

So we get the following
The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the moon is strongest on the side of the Earth that happens to be facing the moon, simply because it is closer. This attraction causes the water on this “near side” of Earth to be pulled toward the moon. As gravitational force acts to draw the water closer to the moon, inertia attempts to keep the water in place. But the gravitational force exceeds it and the water is pulled toward the moon, causing a “bulge” of water on the near side toward the moon
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education ... avity.html

And of course there are all the images used, showing twin bulges (which do not exist)

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education ... 03_480.gif

Every skeptical student that is subjected to this quite rightly sees a problem, the second bulge. I mean, most can understand the bulge under the moon (which does not exist), but the one on the other side seems impossible (it is)

No matter, experts and authorities blindly teach it as fact, because somebody told them it was, and it's complete bullshit. Not just a little, complete bullshit. Then it gets worse.
This pair of bulges is the Earth’s twin high tides, and they stay put, aligned with the Moon – it is the Earth and ocean rotating beneath them that causes the ocean to rise and fall twice a day in any given place.

It’s not just the Moon that pulls on our oceans. The Sun’s gravity affects our tides, too. For the same reasons given above it creates two bulges with an effect half as strong as that of the Moon.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/w ... tides-day/

Now there are four bulges. Fucking madness.

To make it even worse, oh so much worse, the solid earth is does deform like the diagrams showing the oceans. But the ocean loading (the weight of the water) is much greater than the solid earth tide, and at this point what actually happens is so complicated, we are back to "advanced undergraduate level mechanics texts don't get into it"

And because the bulges are imagined to exist, other experts teach the bulges are either ahead of, or behind the moon (imagining the moon is directly over the bulge), with more explainings about why that happens.

Arguing about almost every bit of this is futile.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

If you read all that, then you are fucking awesome. If you understand it, you are a fucking genius. No seriously. The vast majority of the humans alive quite simply don't give a single fuck, and never will.
Fid
Posts: 1601
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:45 pm
Location: The island of Atlanta

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by Fid »

Billo had a tough time with that too. You're in good company.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

What the ocean tides actually look like is quite fascinating
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

Because of the TOPEX data we actually know what the real tides look like, and advanced models combining the data are used to subtract the tidal changes, in order to be able to measure sea level by satellites.

Despite actual data, and the ability to view the actual real world, billions of people are still taught there are two bulges.

And nothing, especially not reality, reason logic and science, will change their minds.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uLH0SG9Vdmo/V ... ayanim.gif
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

The futility of arguing is simple enough. Most people are taught, conditioned, while young, to believe authorities, teacher, experts, and any questioning encountered, after the conditioning is complete, is met with absolute resistance. It's literally unthinkable to the conditioned mind that the authorities might be wrong.

Unless it comes from the same authorities, where they change the narrative, nothing that challenges the consensus is even processed. It's not like the information goes in and is considered, it never makes it past the gatekeeper.

This is literally the mechanism, it's even been measured by MRI experiments. The information never makes it to the part of the brain that thinks about information.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

The complete irony, is that most people won't process the above information.
sparks
Posts: 17370
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 »

The futility is that you've got to post multiple times just to make a lame point.

But we love you anyway. :) Keep up the good work.

Debate in science is the essence of it and you bloody well know this. Saying otherwise is just so much fart gas.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

The idea/theory/thesis known as "cultural cognition of scientific consensus", advocated by Dan Kahan, is called a "thesis" by those who believe in the gateway belief model, which they describe as "a theory".

It's a subtle thing, calling a set of ideas a thesis, a model, or a theory.

Sort of like the difference between "debate" and "argument"
sparks
Posts: 17370
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 »

Bugger off.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

The two concepts mentioned were not brought up at random.
ed
Posts: 41470
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

robinson wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:56 pm As the Moon moves around the Earth, it creates a bulge of water on the Earth's surface which follows its movements. A corresponding bulge appears on the opposite side of the Earth, thanks to the centrifugal forces generated by the Earth's rotation.

https://www.allthingsnature.org/how-do- ... s-work.htm

Not one part of that is true
Easy to prove.

Post the high tide time for a given location and the high tide time for it's antipode.

Bidda bang. Done. No yammering, just data.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=equatorial+hi ... ave&ia=web

A morass of turgid, impenetrable, stultifying crap which might be of interest to some. No one I would care to associate with though.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

Your simple childlike view of the world is endearing
sparks
Posts: 17370
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 »

And you of course, have a much better explanation.


We're waiting to hear it.

Dipshit.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uLH0SG9Vdmo/V ... ayanim.gif

While Newton was right about the tidal forces, he was dead wrong about how the oceans respond to them.

In 1775 Laplace came up with the correct equations and did a good job of describing how the oceans actually are influenced, something the TOPEX data confirmed.

Rather than twin bulges racing around the world at hypersonic velocities, it’s amphidromic system’s causing the observed tides.
ceptimus
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ceptimus »

No appreciable tides in the Mediterranean, because water can't get in or out fast enough through the Straits of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal.
sparks
Posts: 17370
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 »

robinson wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 2:17 am http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uLH0SG9Vdmo/V ... ayanim.gif

While Newton was right about the tidal forces, he was dead wrong about how the oceans respond to them.

In 1775 Laplace came up with the correct equations and did a good job of describing how the oceans actually are influenced, something the TOPEX data confirmed.

Rather than twin bulges racing around the world at hypersonic velocities, it’s amphidromic system’s causing the observed tides.
OK, thanks. I'll follow it up and let you know, not that it really matters. :)
ed
Posts: 41470
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

An amphidromic point, also called a tidal node, is a geographical location which has zero tidal amplitude for one harmonic constituent of the tide. The tidal range (the peak-to-peak amplitude, or height difference between high tide and low tide) for that harmonic constituent increases with distance from this point.
:roll:

meanwhile I offered a simply refutable experiment. It requires tide tables is all. I am waiting.
xouper
Posts: 11741
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: Mon Aug 23, 2021 4:57 pm
An amphidromic point, also called a tidal node, is a geographical location which has zero tidal amplitude for one harmonic constituent of the tide. The tidal range (the peak-to-peak amplitude, or height difference between high tide and low tide) for that harmonic constituent increases with distance from this point.
:roll:

meanwhile I offered a simply refutable experiment. It requires tide tables is all. I am waiting.
That sounds like a lot of work. Like, hours and hours of work.

You might be waiting a long time unless someone has already done it and it can be easily found on the internet.

I would be tempted to do it just for my own edification, but it sounds like a lot of work.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/a0/a0ed68c ... 9aaa99.jpg

:P
ed
Posts: 41470
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

Well then, you better get started.
xouper
Posts: 11741
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: Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:24 pm Well then, you better get started.
:bigthumb:

I would, if it were a project for grad school, but I got two other (more important) projects already in progress, that I should be working on instead.



:dt:
ed
Posts: 41470
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

Here
https://www.tide-forecast.com/
off you go now.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

Because the actual ocean tides are incredibly complex, nothing at all like Newton’s twin bulges, there has been thousands and thousands of papers, tide charts, diagrams and arguments over the tides. Despite the modern satellites measuring them, and the many advanced models showing the actual real way tides behave, there are people still, who just can’t get that there are no bulges.

It doesn’t help that there are hundreds of “respected” science web sites still explaining the tides by using twin bulges.

Where Newton lived the tides are complex, so much so that at any time of day or night, there is someplace that has a low tide or a high tide. Even worse, if it’s high tide somewhere in England, going 50 miles down the coast it will be high tide.

On one side of the English Channel it’s high tide, while at the exact same time it’s low tide on the other side. This is hard to visualize, but thanks to modern tide models, it’s easy to watch.



A closer look



And the entire planet



Hard as it may be to believe, most people on the planet do not know these things.

And it’s futile to argue with them.
robinson
Posts: 16834
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Sardonic asshole
Location: USA

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by robinson »

And this is hard science, physics and actual measurements. The more fuzzy stuff, forget about it.
ed
Posts: 41470
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

So showing tide charts that support the claim should be no problem, right?

What you are doing is called "misdirection".

You are one of them.
xouper
Posts: 11741
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 11:54 am What you are doing is called "misdirection".
Not if what he says is factual.

I'm not taking sides here.

I grew up believing what they told me about Newton's tides, and how Columbus proved the world was round to a skeptical church, and many other things.

It was a long time before I found out the Church had adopted Aristotle's round earth long before Columbus was born. It was common knowledge in Columbus's day that the Earth was round, and yet the myth still persists to this day that Columbus proved them all wrong. In fact it was Columbus who got it wrong because he thought the Earth was much much smaller than it really is.

So I would not be surprised if Robinson is reporting factual stuff about the tides. He has at least piqued my curiosity, and I will now reserve judgment until after I learn more.
xouper
Posts: 11741
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 11:54 am So showing tide charts that support the claim should be no problem, right?
If Robinson is correct, then that has probably already been done.

I don't have enough time in my schedule to chase this down right now, but it is on my to-do list.
ed
Posts: 41470
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: The futility of arguing about science

Post by ed »

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.
sparks
Posts: 17370
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 »

I blame those damned Bill Gates chips in the vaccines.
xouper
Posts: 11741
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 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.
xouper
Posts: 11741
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 »

sparks wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:59 pm I blame those damned Bill Gates chips in the vaccines.
:roll: