...point zero zero one and a few zeros more before we get to numbers? Recall this?
73,470,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg (M)
_____________________________________________
147,761,591,201 km2 (square of r)
minus
73,470,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg (M)
___________________________________________________
152,706,741,884.41 km2 (square of r+a)
Should give the same value as:
937,198,014,000,000,000,000,000,000 kgkm (2Ma)
______________________________________________________
56,799,407,896,273,199 km3 (r3)
Recall how I got it pretty wrong using the calculator function on the computer? Well, now I did it on paper, dividing upper and lower parts of each division with a million first:
73,470,000,000,000,000 kg (M)
_____________________________________________
147,762 km2 (square of r)
minus
73,470,000,000,000,000 kg (M)
___________________________________________________
152,707 km2 (square of r+a)
Should give the same value as (but here I divided up and down by a milliard, which some US folks call a billion):
937,198,014,000,000,000 kgkm (2Ma)
______________________________________________________
56,799,408 (r3)
What I got was, for first difference between two ratios, each of which is an inversed square rule:
16,101,065,993 g/m2 = 16,101,066 kg/m2 = 16,101 tons/m2
... and for second try, the ratio that is an inversed cube rule:
16,502,191,642 g/m2 =16,502,192 kg/m2 = 16,502 tons/m2.
Now, remember, this is not the actual tidal generation force. You must multply that by mass of earth and by gravitational constant.
Guess you see now that gravitational constant must be a very low decimal, so that multiplying by it equals dividing by a very large number.
Because when we are only dealing with this formula, without multiplying by f, we get a pressure upwards and westwards which in combination would far outweigh the one atmosphere pressure downwards which we get at sea level.
Of course, multiplying by mass of earth, which is in kg, would involve multiplying kg by kg. Is there any kind of scientific unit that goes with kg2/m2 rather than with kg/m2? Would gravitational constant have an implied .../kg so as to avoid the kg2? I quite frankly do not know, only that if this works out, the gravitational constant must be very many magnitudes below the proportion "*1".
I also know that the very exact nature of the gravitational constant is one of the things that, on any Newtonian view, makes the Universe function, and is therefore one of the arguments given for an intelligent creator.
Now, I am not sure whether this works out with modern science in general, or not. Some scientist is bound to know.
However, assuming it works, we still have the conundrum how the physics work. Especially neap tide physics with heavenly body in nadir. Lalande's explanation that earth withdraws from waters opposite star (in case of spring tides) implies (at a first glance, which may be corrected) that in neap tides earth withdraws in two different directions at once. Sir George Darwin's explanation of Earth having a centrifugal force equal to the Lunar Gravitational Pull (M/r2) because the common centre of Earth and Moon is within the Earth poses the problem that there is no symmetry with the explanation for Solar Tides, since the common centre of Earth and Sun is - on Newtonian and Heliocentric views - not in the Earth but in the Sun.
And if we assume spiritual and therefore intelligent and voluntary explanations, we may assume that they are able to do something which looks like the math we have been dealing with, without those conundra in the explanation.
The best I can get without directly involving the supernatural would be to say that Lunar and Solar gravity differences towards the heavenly bodies provoke the principal waves as such, but that they are occurring one octave above the source of the oscillation, i e with twice as many wave tops. Mechanism for which is not known. But final purpose of which (assuming there to be minds or a mind behind it) is: not to disrupt Earth by fewer and more profound tidewaves than we actually get.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
La Clairière
St Martin I, Pope and Martyr
12-XI-2012
Update, Gaudete Sunday, 16-XII-2012:
The gravitational constant is indeed below zero .... point zero, zero, zero one. I looked it up, and if the sudokuable numeral at its start is followed by decimals, you need to "multiply by 10- 11" or more properly speaking divide by 1011. It also includes multiplications and divisions by certain basic units (If anyone wonders, no: I still do not think that decimal fractions are numbers, the gravitational constant, if there is such a thing, is obviously not a number but a proportion, those too are written with numerals)./HGL
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire