NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
• On the sun, moon and tides...(Score:1)

by mugwumpjism (1871) on 2005.04.02 1:10 (#39364) Homepage Journal

The mathematician is Ken Ring - his site is at http://www.predictweather.com/ [predictweather.com], and he mentioned the 1833 earthquake in his December 29, 2004 e-zine [topica.com]. 1833 + 19 * 9 is indeed 2004.

Turns out I misinterpreted what Ken said... the moon is actually 1/80th the mass of the earth, not 1 tenth, and the gravitation effect thing is a net measurement of the effects on the ocean. The reasoning is that because the tides are predominantly affected by the moon and not the Sun, that the net force created by the moon must be more. According to textbook gravitational equations, and estimated values for the mass of the Sun, Earth and Moon (actually, these values are derived from the result, but we'll ignore that for now) - the sun exerts about 100 times the gravitational force compared with the sun. Yet we do not see a lunar tide 1/100th the size of the tide from the sun. Confused? Not as much as psysicists should be :-).

• minor correction(Score:1)

s/(100th the size of the tide from the) sun/\$1 moon/
• Re:minor correction(Score:1)

You mean?

the sun exerts about 100 times the gravitational
force compared with the moon. Yet we do not see
a solar tide 100 times the size of the tide
from the moon.

The solar tide is what we see with spring and
neap tides, I think. Spring tides are higher and
lower than neap tides, because the moon is new or
full.

But how do we separate out the variation in water
movement due to the moon and that due to the sun?

Some places on