Hi, I'm A Non-Mathematical TOE Modeller

[dleviwing]

You are; I’m NOT.
You're also posting in someone else's introduction thread.

[ggullet]

You are; I’m NOT.
You're also posting in someone else's introduction thread.

and your definition of subjective would be?
and your point is?

[dleviwing]

OBJECTIVE: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

SUBJECTIVE: opposite of OBJECTIVE.

[ggullet]

OBJECTIVE: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

SUBJECTIVE: opposite of OBJECTIVE.

very well. now let's take it slow. define personal feelings

[G_burnett]

I know exactly what you mean. I used to do the same thing. First time I've ever heard anyone describe it so effectively.

Hi Common

TY for the reply

I take it from your posts you are leaning toward gravity as being a push in effect with rise of substance effected based on its molecular number .. to change density local. Tidal, core... atmospheric events. The more push in effect or pressure in a given local against the sun for example would effect the local in the same medium to lets say facings of the earth to the sun giving a more push in effect on the earth ... if this not the case your speaking of I am having a hard time with what you are saying.

I have found in geometry designation there are benefits to both push in and attraction platforms in varied ponder with our friend Vincent Wee Foo on his own thread who has the added spin factor to the push in platform but they may be irrelevant argument when getting into Dave's FS ponders to understand the substance in the aether and in composite of clump .. containment, of the substance not effect to FS. (I hope I said that right Dave) lol.

I see varied difficulties in quanta dimensions on the attraction platform that perspectively go away with a push in effect ... Proof ? Hoggs Bosun and maybe some more .... surprises .. ? I think they will get more then they know now out of it but not so much what they expect.

...the fluidity of the substance but not so to itself the ease of fluidity ... sort of ponder right now for me. What are your thoughts on this platform variation or are you sort of riding the fence?

Newton had some reservation ponders on his own formulas taken as they were to others reverence. I am still researching it.

Kind regards graham.

[quanta07]

Hello to all you other fruit and nut cases. I've been hooked since my school days when my physics teacher said that the moon pulls the oceans to create the tides. I replied that it didn't make any sense why only the seawater was affected. He didn't have an answer. He also stated that every object attracts every other object according to Newton's law. Why then don't we see everyday objects being attracted to other objects. He didn't have an answer.

I went to work for the Defence Research Agency at Farnborough and obtained a BSc Astronomy with Computing. After eight years I left to go travelling and ponder the great mysteries.

Three years ago I had an epiphany-like experience when I pictured a new geometric way of how existence was created out of nothing. It explained the cosmological expansion, the inflationary period and the asymmetry of the observable universe. I still was flummaxed with the childhood physics problem on gravity. How could everyoone else be so wrong and me be right??

Then I cracked it. Another epiphany-like experience later and I had it. The moon doesn't pull the seawater, it pulls on the Earth's inner core which create a flexure of the Earth's crust which in turn creates the ocean tides. See topic 'Gravity Problem Solved' in Forces Of Nature.

Email me: amlowey@hotmail.co.uk

Both the earth and moon have a spherical acceleration fields, 'gravity'.
If we examine a line from earth center to moon center, along this line the moons gravity has maximum effect.
Where this line intersects earth surface,
there is a reduction in intensity of acceleration at this point,
Earth 'gravity' is weakened.
This results in a 'rising' of sea level and a 'bulging' of upper atmosphere surface as the moon is directly overhead.
The presence of the moon reduces the effects of earth 'gravity', while passing overhead, creating sea swells that follow the moons orbital position, tides.

http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathem...pace-time.html

Welcome to ToeQuest........

Happy Thoughts....Q7

[Bruce Ralph]

Yes, OK. I am a fan of epiphany, but if you have too many of them sometimes it does'nt add up. The whole tidal thing is pretty much explained by the difference between a fluid and a solid. Ocean = fluid , crust =solid. Gravity can keep that large volume of fluid sloshing back and forth pretty easily without bending the the earths crust as well. Cheers.

[diserius]

Tides occour exactly as the poster above said, water doesnt have to overcome much in terms of intermolecular forces so can move pretty freely, unlike a solid (by definition here).

And of course one kilogram of earth's crust is going to be as attracted to the moon gravitationally as a kilogram of water! That's like asking which one of the two is heavier! Note: (ok, assuming newtonian gravity here which is pretty appropriate) F=GMm/(r^2) The only thing determining the magnitude of the gravitational force is the masses of the two objects, the square of the distance between them and a constant.

The reason why we dont feel much in terms of gravitational attraction: put in a typical mass of a human into the aforementioned equation and compare it to the same force when you put the mass of the oceans into it. Also note, for a lake, the mass is a whole lot smaller again! We dont feel any gravitational attraction because WERE NOT VERY BIG!