The tide doesn't actually come in and out

[-FX-]

Indeed. The solid earth tides act much more like the twin bulge idea, but when we look at them plotted, we see the other wrongness about the twin bulge idea.

[But]

This one is pretty good.

What Physics Teachers Get Wrong About Tides! |...

[LarsMac]

That was a hoot
Thanks for sharing

[-FX-]

What Physics Teachers Get Wrong About Tides! |...

He is wrong about this part right here. (video should start at 66 seconds in)

Even with all that, there would be no twin bulges. This is due to the two main factors that prevent this.

[-FX-]

Here is a great animation, with the VO being wrong about the twin bulges. (of course)

Global Ocean Tides - YouTube

And a good stack exchange that answers most questions about why there are no twin bulges, and why there never could be.

Forbidden - Stack Exchange

And remember, “the tomb of human curiosity”

[ceptimus]

Richard Feynman tries to teach Bill O'Reilly...

[-FX-]

studying the tides is the tomb of human curiosity

[-FX-]

Newton's big mistake was not even traveling around England, and looking at the tide tables that existed. He literrally thought the tides were twice a day everywhere, based on second hand knowledge. He never even visited a beach or saw the ocean. (that we can know of)

If he had studied the tides just happening right in his own country, he would have known the twin bulge "theory" was nonsense.

That being said, we now have tide tables for almost everywhere, satellite data on the actual oceans, advanced models of the tides worldwide, and still, even so, most people on the planet think there are twin bulges.

Including Neil deGrasse Tyson. One can understand Newton being wrong, but modern day scientists? How is that even possible?

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by -FX-

One can understand Newton being wrong, but modern day scientists? How is that even possible?

I may have the answer to that question. While to the casual observer it seems obsessive, even slightly crackpot, to want to know the answer to a question about nature, or the Universe at large, I view it as the basis of science.

And rather than simply as others, a scientists might try and find out on his own. Which is exactly what I have done.

[mickthinks]

I may have the answer to that question ["How is it possible for modern day scientists to be wrong?"]
Okay ...

While to the casual observer it seems obsessive, even slightly crackpot, to want to know the answer to a question about nature, or the Universe at large, I view it as the basis of science.
That doesn't offer an answer the question.

And rather than simply as others, a scientists might try and find out on his own.
Neither does that.

So another classic Effie shitpost.

[LarsMac]

Pointedly pointless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBLbdDAzNfM

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by Ari

The drawing does depict a flat earth, which is correct, so I’ll give them that!

I see what you did there

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

I agree that the "Twin Bulges" notion is one of the more poorly expressed attempts.

The entire crust of the Earth is affected by the "Gravitational attraction" between the Moon and Earth, as well as the same between the Sun and Earth.
Being more malleable, the waters exhibit a more detectable reaction. What we call Tides are a manifestation of the process.

And, the Earth is not alone in the story, by any means. We can see similar behavior on Jupiter, Neptune, and Saturn. It is not about Water, at all, really.

What I have found in this matter, is that when faced with the reality about the ocean response to the tidal forces, a lot of smart people jump to the conclusion it's somehow an attack on the theory of gravity, which it is not.

It's definitely making Newton look bad, but he could give a fuck.

My hypothesis on the over reaction, or dismissal, or nasty commentary from smart people, is that it is the old argument hardwiring kicking in.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by fragment

He's right that there's no bulge of water traversing the globe underneath the moon, but he only starts (and continues for decades) these threads to troll.

Nah. In fact I accidentally got into an insipid argument over the ocean tides back in 2009.

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I may have the answer to that question ["How is it possible for modern day scientists to be wrong?"]
Okay ...

While to the casual observer it seems obsessive, even slightly crackpot, to want to know the answer to a question about nature, or the Universe at large, I view it as the basis of science.
That doesn't offer an answer the question.

True.

Originally Posted by -FX-

My hypothesis on the over reaction, or dismissal, or nasty commentary from smart people, is that it is the old argument hardwiring kicking in.

The "argument hardwiring" is a brain thing, studied by MRI imaging, which seems to show once a belief is hardwired in, any challenge to the belief doesn't make it past the hardware. It's not as if information gets in, is processed and then a rebuttal is generated. Instead the information never makes it to the brain hardware to even be viewed.

Most think I am being sardonic, or something, when I state clearly, "The facts are the last thing that will matter", or "the facts are the last thing that will change your mind", when in reality I am stating my scientific opinion, based on research.

Cognitive biases and brain biology help explain why facts don’t change minds

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker

Why don't people's minds change when their arguments are refuted? - Quora

And it's not because you are stupid either

https://medium.com/discourse/you-can...t-8036a0525b2b

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

The complete irony is that these facts, about how our brain and minds actually work, will not matter. Not even a little bit.

[LarsMac]

Understanding something is one thing. Defining it so others will understand is entirely something else.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Understanding something is one thing. Defining it so others will understand is entirely something else.

I would say "explaining a matter, so that others can understand the matter, is important."

Experience has shown that it is very easy to explain and demonstrate a scientific matter, to somebody who knows little about it. And impossible to explain to someone who knows everything about it.

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by -FX-

I would say "explaining a matter, so that others can understand the matter, is important."

Experience has shown that it is very easy to explain and demonstrate a scientific matter, to somebody who knows little about it. And impossible to explain to someone who knows everything about it.

That's reminiscent of my daughter's PhD research project. She scripted and filmed videos intended to teach non-literate villagers how to do things (e.g., how to make fertilizer, how to create saleable merchandise from discarded plastic bags)--two different versions of each video: one with just the basic information, and a second with added commentary based on the actual local context. Her initial inquiry was whether the added, particularized, information would make it easier for viewers to retain the lessons; one of her findings was that villagers with no prior experience in the subject matter of a video found it easier to absorb the information than those who did have prior experience--fitting the information into their preexisting knowledge landscape increased their cognitive load and impeded learning.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

That's reminiscent of my daughter's PhD research project. She scripted and filmed videos intended to teach non-literate villagers how to do things (e.g., how to make fertilizer, how to create saleable merchandise from discarded plastic bags)--two different versions of each video: one with just the basic information, and a second with added commentary based on the actual local context. Her initial inquiry was whether the added, particularized, information would make it easier for viewers to retain the lessons; one of her findings was that villagers with no prior experience in the subject matter of a video found it easier to absorb the information than those who did have prior experience--fitting the information into their preexisting knowledge landscape increased their cognitive load and impeded learning.

That is an amazing post. I sincerely thank you for it. I assume your daughter got her PhD, so congrats to you, and thank you for being a parent.

My commentary was based on decades of experience, not actual research.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

That is an amazing post. I sincerely thank you for it. I assume your daughter got her PhD, so congrats to you, and thank you for being a parent.

My commentary was based on decades of experience, not actual research.

My experiences with providing technical and engineering support training to technical service managers concurs with much of that. The more that they think they know about a subject, the harder it is for them to absorb new information.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Yep. And I will bet actual money he might change his mind after he understands why he is wrong.

This part, "he might change his mind after he understands why he is wrong", is simplistic. The hard part of "understanding" that he is wrong, is why the "twin bulges following the moon" is a fiction.

But to "see" that they do not exist is easy. We have satellite data, and advnced models based on that data, as well as tide gauges, so it's easy to "see" they do not exist. But understanding "why" is very difficult.

The more somebody already knows, especially in this case, the harder it is for them to understand it's wrong.

It certainly doesn't help that there are a hundred official sources that are all wrong.

[-FX-]

For the true seeker, with an open mind, it's very easy.

Once you learn about the Dynamic theory of tides it's possible to realize what really happens. It's rare, but it can happen.

Theory of tides - Wikipedia


While Newton explained the tides by describing the tide-generating forces and Daniel Bernoulli gave a description of the static reaction of the waters on Earth to the tidal potential, the dynamic theory of tides, developed by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1775,[31] describes the ocean's real reaction to tidal forces.[32] Laplace's theory of ocean tides takes into account friction, resonance and natural periods of ocean basins. It predicts the large amphidromic systems in the world's ocean basins and explains the oceanic tides that are actually observed.[33]


The satellite data confirmed, with no doubt, that LaPlace was right, decades ago. I find it deeply amusing that such knowledge is taking a very long time to replace the twin bulge idea. This argument was going on 1776. That it is still a thing is quite amazing.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

For the true seeker, with an open mind, it's very easy.

Once you learn about the Dynamic theory of tides it's possible to realize what really happens. It's rare, but it can happen.

Theory of tides - Wikipedia


While Newton explained the tides by describing the tide-generating forces and Daniel Bernoulli gave a description of the static reaction of the waters on Earth to the tidal potential, the dynamic theory of tides, developed by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1775,[31] describes the ocean's real reaction to tidal forces.[32] Laplace's theory of ocean tides takes into account friction, resonance and natural periods of ocean basins. It predicts the large amphidromic systems in the world's ocean basins and explains the oceanic tides that are actually observed.[33]


The satellite data confirmed, with no doubt, that LaPlace was right, decades ago. I find it deeply amusing that such knowledge is taking a very long time to replace the twin bulge idea. This argument was going on 1776. That it is still a thing is quite amazing.

While all of that is very interesting, and educational, it means nothing to the average Waterman whose living depends on the ebb and flow of the tides. Or to the boat captain who plans his arrival and departure to the same.

And spend some few weeks near any river or estuary by the sea, and you will eventually agree that the Tide does, indeed, "come in and out"

And, the "Twin Bulges" notion is not really a "Thing" other than as a logic tool created by scientists trying to develop analogies to help explain the phenomenon to the simple laymen.

So, question:
IF you wanted to explain the grander concept of the tides to your four-year-old nephew, would you present them with "LaPlace", or with the "Twin Bulges"?

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

So, question:
IF you wanted to explain the grander concept of the tides to your four-year-old nephew, would you present them with "LaPlace", or with the "Twin Bulges"?

That is an excellent question. I am now working on an excellent answer to it.

[-FX-]

Or more accurately, I am typing that shit out and editing. If I was simply talking it would be done in 5 minutes

[LarsMac]

Them "Tidal Bulges" explained pretty...

Be patient through the beginning sequences. They're a bit hokie.