|
|
Post by TfS on Jul 28, 2008 16:31:31 GMT
This debate is becoming, in a weird way, relevant to the original title. That is, it reminds me of the sort of rambling, never-ending argument that possessed people after a joint. (So I am told, he adds quickly!) Interesting and good fun ‘though. G-E. Well, the thread title is "joint possesive?" so maybe the original intention was that we should all sit around debating whilst enjoying a common spliff.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 28, 2008 18:47:01 GMT
Surely the gravitational pull of the sun is a force, and the gravitational pull of the moon is a force. Of course, there is the gravitational pull of the earth that should be taken into account when looking at the system in which the tides occur. When the gravitational forces are resolved there is an unbalanced force which is what acts on the oceans to cause the tides. Isn't that unbalanced force a net gravitational pull? If it's not, then I am at a loss to know what it is. It's just an unbalanced force, i.e. the mathematical result of resolving the contributory gravitational forces. It is not a gravitational force itself. I think it is not a force at all, just a mathematical resultant vector. Think of the two gravitational fields as being like the ropes between the ponies and the barge. When we resolve the pulls of the ponies, we see that there is no single rope pulling the barge in the direction and with the force of the unbalanced force. Similarly, if gravity is mediated by gravitons (as is the current theory, I believe), then there are no gravitons pulling the Earth's surface water into tides. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 28, 2008 18:49:54 GMT
To say it is not ... a force at all seems to contradict your own reference (link) which says: As mentioned earlier, a net force (i.e., an unbalanced force) causes an acceleration. Isn't that which causes an acceleration, a force? Note also, that the reference says it is the unbalanced force which causes the acceleration. I take your point, although I read this as meaning that the result of resolving the actual forces acting is what we call "the unbalanced force", as a sort of shorthand for that resolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 28, 2008 18:51:27 GMT
Of course, there is the gravitational pull of the earth that should be taken into account when looking at the system in which the tides occur. Of course. Otherwise, all the water would just float off into space!  |
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jul 28, 2008 23:03:55 GMT
Pete, Paul,
I think we should slowly let this argument die. Clearly, we aren't going to convince one another of our particular point of view. We each understand the other's point of view but are unwilling to concede the other view is correct.
We had a similar situation in the computer club recently. For those who wish to consider the situation (but not on this Forum) we were trying to decide what stops the current flowing when an ideal capacitor is connected across a battery. Some might think the answer is obvious, but there were two schools of thought, and again, I was one of the 'combatants'.
The natives are obviously getting restless. I've enjoyed the engagement. Let's now agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 29, 2008 6:19:44 GMT
OK. Thanks, it's been fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Overlord on Jul 29, 2008 8:57:51 GMT
>And shouldn't the UK English spelling be 'anthropomorphise'?<
No it bloody shouldn't!
Buy yourself an Oxford.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jul 29, 2008 11:41:58 GMT
>And shouldn't the UK English spelling be 'anthropomorphise'?< No it bloody shouldn't! Buy yourself an Oxford. Hmmm ... some guest just slammed into the room.  Manners, please!  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jul 29, 2008 14:03:45 GMT
The Oxford shows both the ~ize and the ~ise spellings. I'm disappointed, anyway, that the word isn't anthropomorphosize (which I always thought it was), since the noun relating to the activity is anthropomorphosis.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jul 29, 2008 14:55:21 GMT
Hmmm ... some guest just slammed into the room. Until I had looked to the left, I thought it was Tone's writing! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by TfS on Jul 29, 2008 15:49:51 GMT
Hmmm ... some guest just slammed into the room. Until I had looked to the left, I thought it was Tone's writing! ;D Ah, who knows?  |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 29, 2008 16:28:21 GMT
Ah, who knows? Well, the Administrator has ways of knowing the IP address for every post ... |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 29, 2008 20:34:25 GMT
>And shouldn't the UK English spelling be 'anthropomorphise'?< No it bloody shouldn't! Buy yourself an Oxford. Hmmm ... some guest just slammed into the room. Manners, please! Vv, thank you. Consider yourself exalted, gallant sir! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 29, 2008 20:36:57 GMT
The Oxford shows both the ~ize and the ~ise spellings. Interesting (and I do have an SOED). I thought '-ise' was UK English and '-ize' was US English. Mind you, Microsoft Word is hardly the ultimate arbiter of these things, is it? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jul 29, 2008 20:54:48 GMT
>Hmmm ... some guest just slammed into the room.<And a very astute, if blunt, guest.  >Until I had looked to the left, I thought it was Tone's writing!<Oddly, I tried to post along similar (but, of course, much more polite) lines last might at my usual time, having just seen the relevant post. But the board seemingly went down and was still unreachable by the time that I had to give up. And I, too, always felt that it should have been "anthropomophosize". And I'm sure that I have seen it presented in that manner. Tone
|
|
Manners, please! 
