Religion and Ethics Forum

General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on September 20, 2016, 05:49:13 PM

Title: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: Nearly Sane on September 20, 2016, 05:49:13 PM
Douglas Carswell and the moon

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/douglas-carswell-tides-ukip-experts-science-mp-a7318461.html
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: Gordon on September 20, 2016, 08:29:46 PM
Surprised he hasn't been head-hunted by NASA!
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: Hope on September 21, 2016, 09:21:00 PM
I suppose Carswell is right, insofar as everything within our solar system is dependent on the sun's activities and gravitational influence.  But questioning the more subtle details seems daft - though I suppose one has to expect that from any UKipper ;D
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: Nearly Sane on September 21, 2016, 09:23:14 PM
I suppose Carswell is right, insofar as everything within our solar system is dependent on the sun's activities and gravitational influence.  But questioning the more subtle details seems daft - though I suppose one has to expect that from any UKipper ;D
and given that isn't what he said, he and you are wrong
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: Hope on September 21, 2016, 09:25:56 PM
and given that isn't what he said, he and you are wrong
I know that that isn't what he said; hence my second point.  But I think it is also true to say that any influence the moon has on the earth or any influence anything has on another part of the solar system and its tides is traceable back to the influence of the sun on that 'actor'. 
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: Nearly Sane on September 21, 2016, 09:28:44 PM
I know that that isn't what he said; hence my second point.  But I think it is also true to say that any influence the moon has on the earth or any influence anything has on another part of the solar system and its tides is traceable back to the influence of the sun on that 'actor'.
which is nothing to do with what he said, so you are still wrong.
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: Enki on September 24, 2016, 04:16:34 PM
As far as I can see, he was trying to claim that the sun was the biggest influence on normal tides, but the moon had a strong influence on Spring and neap tides. I think that he cocked it up, and showed his ignorance because he got the 'moon' and the 'sun'  the wrong way round.
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: L.A. on September 24, 2016, 09:31:13 PM
Douglas Carswell and the moon

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/douglas-carswell-tides-ukip-experts-science-mp-a7318461.html

I've always assumed that his asymmetrical facial expression was the result of a stroke - maybe he suffered more serious brain damage.
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: splashscuba on September 25, 2016, 10:25:22 PM
It's actually slightly more complicated than the moon orbiting the earth, both of them actually orbit a common point (which is at a point just inside the Earth). This is mainly why there is a tide on both sides of the Earth. The one furthest from the Moon is caused by centrifugal force.
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: jeremyp on September 26, 2016, 07:51:10 PM
The one furthest from the Moon is caused by centrifugal force.

I'm afraid that is not true. It's just as much caused by gravity as the one on the near side. One way of thinking of it is that the moon pulls the water on the near side away from the Earth and it pulls the Earth away from the water on the far side.
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: splashscuba on September 27, 2016, 02:32:10 PM
I'm afraid that is not true. It's just as much caused by gravity as the one on the near side. One way of thinking of it is that the moon pulls the water on the near side away from the Earth and it pulls the Earth away from the water on the far side.
Here's an explanation. It's both but the centrifugal force is greater.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/restles3.html
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: jeremyp on September 27, 2016, 09:40:55 PM
Here's an explanation. It's both but the centrifugal force is greater.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/restles3.html
Sorry but it's wrong.

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/tides.html

If you calculate it, the centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation around the Earth-Moon centre of mass is tiny compared with the difference effected by the Moon's gravity.
Title: Re: UKIP and the inverse square rule
Post by: Steve H on October 20, 2016, 12:50:11 PM
I know that that isn't what he said; hence my second point.  But I think it is also true to say that any influence the moon has on the earth or any influence anything has on another part of the solar system and its tides is traceable back to the influence of the sun on that 'actor'.
You're as bad as Carswell: it's solely due to the relative gravitational pull of the two bodies on the Earth.