Re: [Paddlewise] One bright thing pre Y2K

Sorry for being off topic, Bob, I just threw it out as an aside (and maybe
to record my just formed idea--and quite possibly uninformed prediction--in
a public place) but it snowballed into a topic. I'm sorry about that I
wasn't thinking.
I do think I know the reason there are two tidal bulges though, at least if
I remember it right from Willard Bascom's  "Waves and Beaches". It is
because the earth is acted on by the moon/earth force of  gravity more than
the more distant water on the far side of the earth and less than the water
on the moon side. If I was talking about tides I would probably have been on
topic but also I was speculating that gravitational forces operating from
both sides will distort the earth itself more than a force operating from
only one side (since the earth can move some to that side). I may well be
wrong about that though as I haven't carefully though this through nor read
anything that made sense to me pro or con yet. The tides are something Chuck
brought up in claiming that both forces operating from the same side would
be more likely to cause higher tides. I would love to have someone carefully
explain why I am wrong about this but since this is off topic maybe you can
do it in a personal post and we can spare the rest of paddlewise the
details.
But, Bob, why so hostile? There seems to be lots of uninformed suggestions
floating around on paddlewise (or anywhere else for that matter) do they all
bother you this much? To me one of then nice things about paddlewise is that
someone is usually willing to provide the uninformed (and recently
misinformed) members of this list a better explanation.

Matt Broze
http://www.marinerkayaks.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Myers <bob_at_intelenet.net>
To: Matt Broze <mkayaks_at_oz.net>; Paddlewise <PaddleWise_at_lists.intelenet.net>
Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] One bright thing pre Y2K


>Matt,
>
>You don't understand tides in the least if you believe this.
>
>Consider the question: why are there 2 lunar tidal bulges,
>one on each side of the Earth?  If it's just simple matter of the
>Moon "pulling" on one side, why the bulge on the opposite side?
>Tides are usually every 12 hours, not every 24.
>
>Tides *always* are stretching forces, even with only one
>tidal body, or with two on the same side.  Elementary physics,
>look it up.
>
>And please take your spurious earthquake prediction speculations
>to some place where it is on topic.  This is not the right
>forum to discuss this, even if there was the slightest merit
>to your uninformed suggestions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Dec 16, 16:35, "Matt Broze" wrote:
>} Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] One bright thing pre Y2K
>> Chuck Holst wrote:
>> >In reply to Matt Broze, I doubt that the moon's gravitational attraction
>> >will set a 133-year record, since the moon reaches perigee once a month,
>> >though it is true that perigee is not usually aligned with the sun.
>> >(There would be a bigger pull on the earth if perigee coincided with the
>> >new moon.) The spring tide will probably be a little bigger than usual,
>> >but again, I doubt it will be a once in a century tide.
>>
>> I was working from info Ralph quoted (below) and I don't know its
accuracy
>> and this was the first I heard about this event. However, contrary to
what
>> Chuck said, it would seem to me that there would be more distortion of
the
>> earth itself during a full moon than a new moon because the sun and moon
>> would be pulling from opposite directions in a sort of tug of war
stretching
>> it rather than acting together as during a new moon and just pulling it a
>> little closer. Both ways will create big tides but I think the full moon
is
>> will deform the earth more, possibly setting off an earthquake that was
>> nearly ready to let go anyway. In other words, the full moon just may be
the
>> last straw in the earthquake process.
>> Like all predictions you will remember I said it if it even comes close
to
>> happening on the 22nd and (hopefully) will quickly forget I predicted it
if
>> nothing happens. So called "Psychics" get great mileage out of this quirk
in
>> human memory by making a lot of nebulous predictions and letting (or
>> helping) us fill in the blanks with later reality of those few that could
be
>> even close.
>> Matt Broze
>> http://www.marinerkayaks.com
>>
>> > I got this from a friend at UC/Davis who wrote:
>> >
>> > START QUOTED STUFF----------------------
>> > This comes from a fairly reliable source on campus. I'm not sure that
>> > this
>> > full moon will be so much brighter than other December full moons near
>> > perigee, but still, it sounds like a record-setter and a remarkable
>> > sight.
>> >
>> > This year will be the first full moon to occur on the winter solstice,
>> > Dec
>> > 22, commonly called the first day of winter.  Since a full moon on the
>> > winter solstice occurred in conjunction with a lunar perigee (point in
>> > the
>> > moon's orbit that is closest to Earth)  The moon will appear about  14%
>> > larger than it does at apogee (the point in its elliptical orbit that
>> > is
>> > farthest from the Earth)  since the Earth is also several million miles
>> > closer to the sun at this time of the year than in the summer, sunlight
>> > striking the moon is about 7% stronger making it brighter.  Also, this
>> > will
>> > be the  closest perigee of the Moon of the year. On December 21st. 1866
>> > the
>> > Lakota Sioux took advantage of this combination of occurrences and
>> > staged a
>> > devastating retaliatory ambush on soldiers in the Wyoming Territory.
>> >
>> > In laymen's terms it will be a super bright full moon, much more than
>> > the
>> > usual AND it hasn't happened this way for 133 years!
>> >
>> > Our ancestors 133 years ago saw this.  Our descendants 100 or so years
>> > from
>> > now will see this again. I hope someone else might find this
>> > interesting!
>> > Remember this will happen December 22, 1999.
>> > ---------------------END QUOTED STUFF
>> >>Matt Broze wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sounds like a perfect day for a big earthquake. The earth hasn't been
>> tugged
>> >> at this hard for 133 years.
>>
>> >Chuck Holst wrote:
>> >Don't forget that 2000 will also be the year of the solar maximum, which
>> >could affect phone service, satellites, and the power grid. So don't
>> >throw out your old blubber lamp just yet. :-)
>>
>> >In reply to Matt Broze, I doubt that the moon's gravitational attraction
>> >will set a 133-year record, since the moon reaches perigee once a month,
>> >though it is true that perigee is not usually aligned with the sun.
>> >(There would be a bigger pull on the earth if perigee coincided with the
>> >new moon.) The spring tide will probably be a little bigger than usual,
>> >but again, I doubt it will be a once in a century tide.
>>
>> >Chuck Holst
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
***************************************************************************
>> PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and
not
>> to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission
>> Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
>> Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
>> Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
>>
***************************************************************************
>>-- End of excerpt from "Matt Broze"
>
>

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************