'quantification of claims is a matter of res ipsa loquitor.'
Yes, it's that I require more than just a baseless assertion, I require that you demonstrate your claim. The fact of the matter is mainstream gravitational models, like those of Newton or Einstein, are very good. They are demonstrably accurate when it comes to describing such things as the tides. Heck, 'tidal forces' are something every student learns about
The thread as confined to a vector analysis of mutually attracting forces of gravity. In this regard the analysis was flaw free. Me thinks that an exception to a million experimental results consistent with the known gravity model has just been realized,so sad.
You haven't done an analysis. You haven't used any vectors. You haven't shown anything.
All you've done is show you don't understand the thing you're rejecting. The modelling of tides is well understood and accurate. We even use it to understand things like the volcanic eruptions of Io, which is driven by tidal forces from Jupiter.
You seemede to nclaim yourself as knowledgable in this matter, present one, just one and I will slay your dragon.
You're the one making the claim here. You've claimed that models used by the mainstream to
accurately describe the behaviour of oceans and even techtonic plates, is wrong. You haven't shown it, you haven't explained why the models accurately describe reality despite, so you claim, being wrong and inconsistent with the behaviour of said oceans.
Take an easy problem here and find a mathematical or physical flaw from within the thread. Or develop a model yourself that is unambiguously flawless.
You haven't given anything mathematical or physical. You've simply asserted something incorrect about a model you haven't understood.
You're the one claiming models used to years are inaccurate, despite them being used to accurately model things. You're, therefore, the one who has to justify his claim.
If current models don't consistently describe the tides then you need to show it explicitly. Pick a particular phenomenon, give the mainstream model description, demonstrate the prediction doesn't match observation and then demonstrate why. That's what your opening post should have contained.
Instead it contained nothing mathematical and nothing physically viable. Your reply to me shows a lot of intellectual dishonesty and a profound ignorance of reality. I asked you to justify your initial claim and rather than doing so, as anyone rational making such a claim would do automatically, you've refused (because, as you're well aware, you're incapable of doing so) and tried to turn it around on me. Mainstream models of tidal behaviour work. They are used all the time by groups like shipping companies, climate scientists, wildlife scientists, even people running major ports. They need accurate models and they have them. You're claiming they don't. You have failed on every level to justify your position and you've been dishonest in trying to shift the burden of proof.
It's sad that you spend so much of your life in an ignorant haze, occasionally sticking your head above ground to delude yourself you're anything other than completely lacking in understanding on this stuff. In the many years you've been whining about imaginary problems (all the problems are in your head, in both senses of the phrase) you could have actually learnt the models in question, like Newtonian gravity, and see for yourself how it works. Instead you're tilting at windmills.
Of course that presumes you possess the intellectual capacity to grasp the models if you tried. I don't believe that to be the case.
/edit I just saw your new post
I received my epiphany when considering the DNA component of human thought.
Now I
know you don't possess the intellectual capacity and the problems really are
in your head.