Solar flare threatens to disrupt Earth's communications and power

In message , Richard Tobin
writes:
[]
But the size of the tide is not determined by the strength of the
gravitational attraction, but by the difference in that attraction on
the near and far surfaces of the earth. That difference varies as
1/r^3, and that is why the sun's tidal effect is *less* than the
moon's.

-- Richard

Ah, related to spaghettification!

Though I never quite understood why there is a bulge on both the near
_and the far_ side.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who's General Failure & why's he reading my disk? (Stolen from another .sig)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:11:58 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Richard Tobin
writes:
[]
But the size of the tide is not determined by the strength of the
gravitational attraction, but by the difference in that attraction on
the near and far surfaces of the earth. That difference varies as
1/r^3, and that is why the sun's tidal effect is *less* than the
moon's.

-- Richard

Ah, related to spaghettification!

Though I never quite understood why there is a bulge on both the near
_and the far_ side.

This attempts to explain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides#Forces


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Andy Wade wrote:
On 11/06/2011 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Ah so that's why elephants and mice react differently when they hit the
ground...

Surely you meant surprised sperm whales and bowls of petunias. The
mice, after all, would be observing from a safe distance... :~)

Ah yes. Thank you Doug.

Bill

Peter wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:14:16 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:


No-one forced the working classes to leave the fields and go down the
mines.
Bevin boys?


Few Bevin Boys were recruited from farms because in general agriculture
was a protected occupation.

My father nwas in a protected occupation, but that bwasn't a guarantee
against being called up - as he found out in 1940

No, they ate into the reserved occupations as circumstances dictated.

Bill

In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Though I never quite understood why there is a bulge on both the near
_and the far_ side.

The simplest way to think of it is that the moon pulls the water away
from the earth on the near side, and the earth away form the water on
the far side. Or that it pulls the whole thing into a roughly
ellipsoidal shape, with the spherical earth in the middle.

-- Richard

Albert Ross wrote:


Taking Africa as an example, they are rich in natural resources, yet
despite all the help given by the west are still not operating
efficiently enough to feed and clothe their people properly. Why this is
I can't imagine, but in any case it's their own fault so there's no
reason we should be levelled down.

The White Man pays them peanuts for their resources, takes them away
and "adds value" in their own countries

That can only be, then, because the white man has got more about him.
Otherwise they would set up their own factories and export finished
goods. Like the Chinese for instance.

Bill

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:27:57 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Though I never quite understood why there is a bulge on both the near
_and the far_ side.

The simplest way to think of it is that the moon pulls the water away
from the earth on the near side, and the earth away form the water on
the far side. Or that it pulls the whole thing into a roughly
ellipsoidal shape, with the spherical earth in the middle.

The latter, I think.

At first glance it seems not to make sense. On the Moon's side of the
Earth the pull of the Moon partly cancels the pull of the Earth so the
water bulges away from the Earth a bit. On the other side the pull of
the Moon is added to the pull of the Earth so we might expect the water
to be shallower than normal rather than to bulge.

However, the Moon is close to the Earth, only about 30 times the
diameter of the Earth away. So the gravitational pull of the Moon will
be noticeably less on the far side of the Earth than on the near side.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:42:23 +0100, Albert Ross wrote:

The White Man pays them peanuts for their resources, takes them away and
"adds value" in their own countries

This was clearly the case in the 19th and early 20th century.

In the 21st century it is the Chinese who are rapidly becoming the new
colonial masters in Africa, although they are being rather more generous
than paying peanuts.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:19:36 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:


Taking Africa as an example, they are rich in natural resources, yet
despite all the help given by the west are still not operating
efficiently enough to feed and clothe their people properly. Why this is
I can't imagine, but in any case it's their own fault so there's no
reason we should be levelled down.

That varies from country to country and region to region.

In the UK our view of the success or otherwise of African countries is
heavily influenced by charity fundraising events such as Comic Relief
and Sport Relief. The images we see are of failing black communities. It
is very easy for viewers to get the unintended message that all black
communities in Africa are failures. Thay are not.

The natural resources in many African countries are under the control of
outsiders - multinational companies. Also local people do not gave
access to the investment necessary to compete.

Just one example. Cocoa is grown in parts of Africa. After harvesting
and drying the beans are shipped to Europe and the US. The multinational
companies that control the trade then process the beans into chocolate,
etc. in factories outside Africa. The companies refuse to locate
processing factories in Africa. The local growers of cocoa beans could
not break away from this link to the multinationals even if they had the
will to grow the raw material and the skill to produce chocolate
products for retail sale. The competiton from the multinationals would
be just too great.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:23:54 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

do not gave

do not have

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)