Quote (nineinchnailz @ Sep 1 2016 02:37am)
1) the map is 2d so we can look at it on paper.
2) no it's not an example of anything. You can see the effect of the moon's gravity if you compare the position of the moon to tide level closest to it, while adjusting for the rotation of the Earth. WHat your map demonstrates is what level those tides will reach when the moon is in the correct position. It's proof against your own fucking argument.
This is obvious to any intellectually honest individual, but as I said before, you have a psychological need to reject evidence that is clear as day to all others. I'm done talking to you now, please take your bullshit to an appropriate thread.
1)So if its just an approximation of what the Earth looks like and since we have never taken a whole picture of the Earth - even the "pictures" you think are of Earth are 1000s of high altitude shots just digitally stitched together as stated by Nasa itself.
So if it s just a 2 d approximation, the idea that it can only be an approximation of globe earth is moot, because it can be adapted to whichever model you prefer.
2) Clear as day, is more than stating a myth, for example - if a tide is caused by the bulge of the cosmic ballet of gravity and centrifugal force, then why do tides have such different effectiveness in different locations and why is the amount of shift in water elevation not consistent with lunar paths, like why doesn't the tide effect the same water rise along each latitude as the moon passes over it. There is a difference between stating what is centuries old scientific mythical assumption and what is actual observed data and really you dont understand the difference and are simply resistant to change and learning that what you thought was science is just common place assumption.