Polar Ice sets new minimum

[Devonian]

It's a rather difficult problem, this one. Although any given gravitational field may be small it does not necessarily follow that its effect is negligible. I certainly don't believe that the planets control our destinies, as astrologers would have us believe, but that isn't to say that there is no physical effect from other gravitational fields.

I didn't say otherwise. But I do say their effect is negligible - in part because only a few astrologers think otherwise. The planets are simply staggeringly far away and tiny compared to the sun - their effect is negligible - unless you can show otherwise (and your link doesn't as far as I can tell).

It is both subtle and complex - in physics it is called the three-body problem - here's a link to the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_body_problem

Bearing in mind, also, that we're not just talking about nine planets and the sun (or eight planets if you accept the recent ruling on Pluto's planetary status), but also the moon...

Erm, excuse me CB, but I said planets and that's what I meant. Of course the moon has a profound effect.

The moon of the other planets? Even less effect than the planets.

[Admiral_Bobski]

How is that related to climate though?

I would think that it takes far less gravitational force to create eddies in the air than it takes to pull up several billion tonnes of water, yes?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I would think that it takes far less gravitational force to create eddies in the air than it takes to pull up several billion tonnes of water, yes?

CB

Magpie, what he said !!!!

[jethro]

Of course other planets affect the Earth, but the forces are surely far far too small to make any kind of noticeable difference to anything here. Even if they did have a reasonable effect, like the Moon, through what sort of process would they affect our weather and climate? I'm not aware of the Moon affecting our climate, and its effect on the Earth is many orders of magnitude greater than any other body, apart the Sun.

It's a wild muse really, one with no evidence.

Magpie, I raised the question of planets having an effect on ocean currents with reference to Ice loss. There is growing evidence that the dramatic decline in ice is more as a result of warmer ocean currents than warmer air and increased albedo. The Moon drives tides, if other planets and their alignment to the Moon have changed, could this result in changes of tidal influence from the Moon. My knowledge of this is scant to say the least, but it would appear from what GW said, the basics of Physics laws do support this.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I didn't say otherwise. But I do say their effect is negligible - in part because only a few astrologers think otherwise.

I'm not talking about destiny or fate or the kinds of things astrologers talk about - I'm talking about distinct physical effects; the stuff that astronomers talk about. There is a significant difference (the difference between hard science and pseudo science).

The planets are simply staggeringly far away and tiny compared to the sun - their effect is negligible - unless you can show otherwise (and your link doesn't as far as I can tell).

Since it is you who seek to dismiss these gravitational influences out of hand, I would think the onus is on you to show how they can't have an effect. The link I posted is a description of the three-body problem - the three-body problem exists, to some extent, regardless of distance - obviously the effect becomes more pronounced and complicated as the proximity of the bodies closes, but gravitational effects exist regardless of distance. If there's enough mass in the universe then the whole thing will collapse one day, despite the fact that each gravitational source may be many billions of light years apart.

Erm, excuse me CB, but I said planets and that's what I meant. Of course the moon has a profound effect.

The moon of the other planets? Even less effect than the planets.

Yes, I know exactly what you said, but I'm saying you can't dismiss gravitational effects on the basis that they are too small to be of any concern - every gravitational influence has some effect...even you and me...

CB

[Devonian]

Since it is you who seek to dismiss these gravitational influences out of hand, I would think the onus is on you to show how they can't have an effect.

CB

This is prove a negative stuff. You've tried it twice, in two days - much better to Occam it imo.

[Admiral_Bobski]

This is prove a negative stuff. You've tried it twice, in two days - much better to Occam it imo.

I've not "tried" anything twice in two days - you always seek for your opponent to offer proof, yet you never offer any of your own.

I am not saying that "X is true because there is no proof that X is false." I'm saying that X is true because gravity always exerts some influence. I am asking you to show me some proof that this influence is negligible.

You can't try and get me like that, you know!

CB

PS - Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation - well, what could be simpler than "Everything Exerts a Gravitational Influence on Everything Else"?

[pottyprof]

CB... I think that Dev must be acknowledging that the effects of gravity have some influence as he says 'negligible' Which means that he has proof that these effects are negligible...

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB... I think that Dev must be acknowledging that the effects of gravity have some influence as he says 'negligible' Which means that he has proof that these effects are negligible...

Fair play, but I wondered where I might find this proof...

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Fair play, but I wondered where I might find this proof...

CB

Sadly I think the whole 'lunar influence' thing has been tainted by astrology and so most 'shy' away from serious observation study in case they are labelled 'Lunatics'. The fact it lifts the oceans and makes you a 1lb lighter when overhead is something no-one seems to want to pursue.

If so many species (including ours) regulate their bodies to the rhythm of the moon then why so bizarre that our biosphere/atmosphere should do likewise? (or am I being too 'Ken' about it all?)

[jethro]

Sadly I think the whole 'lunar influence' thing has been tainted by astrology and so most 'shy' away from serious observation study in case they are labelled 'Lunatics'. The fact it lifts the oceans and makes you a 1lb lighter when overhead is something no-one seems to want to pursue.

If so many species (including ours) regulate their bodies to the rhythm of the moon then why so bizarre that our biosphere/atmosphere should do likewise? (or am I being too 'Ken' about it all?)

Not for my way of thinking you're not. More staff rostered on for all emergency services during full moon period. More babies born at full moon, menstral cycles in sync with Lunar cycles etc; just the beginning of a long list of things influenced by it.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sadly I think the whole 'lunar influence' thing has been tainted by astrology and so most 'shy' away from serious observation study in case they are labelled 'Lunatics'. The fact it lifts the oceans and makes you a 1lb lighter when overhead is something no-one seems to want to pursue.

If so many species (including ours) regulate their bodies to the rhythm of the moon then why so bizarre that our biosphere/atmosphere should do likewise? (or am I being too 'Ken' about it all?)

It all seems quite possible to me, GW. (It's quite nice, if unusual, for us both to be on the same side for a change, eh?! )

It is similarly a shame that there are few serious scientists who study the supernatural or paranormal - the fact that there are so many stories (ghost stories or whatever) around suggests that there may be something worth looking into, yet "serious science" frowns on studying these areas.

A long time ago a serious scientist decided to perform a series of experiments to determine the weight of the human soul. He conducted his experiments with painstaking accuracy and found that humans inexplicably lose an eighth of an ounce (I think) when they die. It doesn't matter how big or small the person, the weight loss was always in the region of an eighth of an ounce - interestingly, when he performed the experiment on animals there was no weight loss. Amazingly, nobody has ever tried to repeat his experiment, so it is impossible to tell whether he was right or wrong, honest or fraudulent - it's a taboo area of science, apparently...

Anyhoo, I'm going WAY off topic now...!

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

It all seems quite possible to me, GW. (It's quite nice, if unusual, for us both to be on the same side for a change, eh?! )

It is similarly a shame that there are few serious scientists who study the supernatural or paranormal - the fact that there are so many stories (ghost stories or whatever) around suggests that there may be something worth looking into, yet "serious science" frowns on studying these areas.

A long time ago a serious scientist decided to perform a series of experiments to determine the weight of the human soul. He conducted his experiments with painstaking accuracy and found that humans inexplicably lose an eighth of an ounce (I think) when they die. It doesn't matter how big or small the person, the weight loss was always in the region of an eighth of an ounce - interestingly, when he performed the experiment on animals there was no weight loss. Amazingly, nobody has ever tried to repeat his experiment, so it is impossible to tell whether he was right or wrong, honest or fraudulent - it's a taboo area of science, apparently...

Anyhoo, I'm going WAY off topic now...!

CB

And to straty even further C.A.T. scans show that brain fuctions, at the point of death, concentrate briefly at a point just below and behind the right frontal lobe.......download for heaven anyone?

EDIT: It wouldn't be a C.A. T. scan would it? whatever measures electrical activity is what I realy meant!

Edited September 18, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Bobby]

We really should be dealing with evidence here rather than speculation. To say that the planets affect our climate is speculation. There is absolutely no scientific evidence at all to say that this is the case. Nobody is denying that the planets do have a gravitational effect on the Earth, but there is no evidence to suggest that they affect our climate in any way. Comparing it to the moon isn't a valid comparison as the Moon is much closer and has a much bigger gravitational pull than any of the planets. And there isn't even anything to suggest as far as I'm aware that the moon affects our climate.

As for proving that the planets DON'T affect the our climate/weather, that's like asking someone to prove that there aren't pink polka dot dwarfs living on Pluto. Try to prove that wrong. You can't, because you can't prove a negative, it is up to the claimant to provide proof, not for other people to argue with it. No evidence, me no believe it.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Magpie

[Gray-Wolf]

We really should be dealing with evidence here rather than speculation. To say that the planets affect our climate is speculation. There is absolutely no scientific evidence at all to say that this is the case. Nobody is denying that the planets do have a gravitational effect on the Earth, but there is no evidence to suggest that they affect our climate in any way. Comparing it to the moon isn't a valid comparison as the Moon is much closer and has a much bigger gravitational pull than any of the planets. And there isn't even anything to suggest as far as I'm aware that the moon affects our climate.

As for proving that the planets DON'T affect the our climate/weather, that's like asking someone to prove that there aren't pink polka dot dwarfs living on Pluto. Try to prove that wrong. You can't, because you can't prove a negative, it is up to the claimant to provide proof, not for other people to argue with it. No evidence, me no believe it.

Your dragging us into Chaos theory now aren't you? If you accept the moon has it's influence, i.e. gravity affects climate systems, then surely the same is true of any gravitational influence?

[Admiral_Bobski]

We really should be dealing with evidence here rather than speculation. To say that the planets affect our climate is speculation. There is absolutely no scientific evidence at all to say that this is the case.

Let me clarify - what I have been saying is that there is no reason to suppose that the planets do not affect our climate. This is a rather different thing from saying that they absolutely do affect our climate. A weak gravitational effect is sufficient to disturb the motions of free-moving atoms and molecules; there are a lot of free moving atoms and molecules in our atmosphere, whose movement determines our weather patterns, and these resulting weather patterns determine our long-term climate. This is a logical sequence of events that, while not a watertight scientific theory, seems physically consistent. My argument is that it is wrong to dismiss these seemingly trivial effects on the basis that they are tiny - tiny they may be, but that does not necessarily make them insignificant.

In fact, in these debates I seem to find myself increasingly using the phrase "A does not necessarily mean B". There's a lot of logical leaps in these debates, and I find myself wondering whether they just happen at this level of debate or if they exist higher up the ladder...

CB

Your dragging us into Chaos theory now aren't you? If you accept the moon has it's influence, i.e. gravity affects climate systems, then surely the same is true of any gravitational influence?

...and the more seemingly insignificant effects you throw in, the more complicated the whole debate becomes...!

CB

[pottyprof]

It is similarly a shame that there are few serious scientists who study the supernatural or paranormal - the fact that there are so many stories (ghost stories or whatever) around suggests that there may be something worth looking into, yet "serious science" frowns on studying these areas.

There has been some serious research done regarding the effects of the moon and paranormal experiences. I'll see if I can find a link to the research. The research suggests that around full moon that the number of ghost sightings and other observed paranormal happenings increase. There is also a suggestion that our senses increase around a full moon. Some mediums claim that they are at their best around a full moon.

Okay, it's off topic but if true then perhaps the moon has effects that we don't yet understand and could mean that we are missing another huge piece of jigsaw?

[jethro]

We really should be dealing with evidence here rather than speculation. To say that the planets affect our climate is speculation. There is absolutely no scientific evidence at all to say that this is the case. Nobody is denying that the planets do have a gravitational effect on the Earth, but there is no evidence to suggest that they affect our climate in any way. Comparing it to the moon isn't a valid comparison as the Moon is much closer and has a much bigger gravitational pull than any of the planets. And there isn't even anything to suggest as far as I'm aware that the moon affects our climate.

As for proving that the planets DON'T affect the our climate/weather, that's like asking someone to prove that there aren't pink polka dot dwarfs living on Pluto. Try to prove that wrong. You can't, because you can't prove a negative, it is up to the claimant to provide proof, not for other people to argue with it. No evidence, me no believe it.

Magpie, would you concede that the Moon drives the tides and that other planets all have orbits in relation to those around them? Differing orbits at differing times have different effects, yes? So we are not dealing with speculation here, we are dealing with evidence. If differing orbits have differing effects, why can one of those effects not be that the tidal influence of the Moon also differs?

Potty: I'd be interested in that research if you can find it, curious stuff eh.

Edited September 18, 2007 by jethro

[saint]

so am i right in guessing this is a bad thing

saint

[Gray-Wolf]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070918/tsc...-011ccfa_1.html

Now ,so far as I recall my paleontology exposed remained tend to rot/weather away very quickly especially where 'freeze thaw is taking place. Talk of 'it's all happened before' (opening of NW Passage etc.) doesn't seem to hold much (unfrozen) water when you get reports like this floating around. Of course there may be some magic conveyor pushing up new bones as the old ones rot away.....maybe some kind of 'bone fairy' even???

[jethro]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070918/tsc...-011ccfa_1.html

Now ,so far as I recall my paleontology exposed remained tend to rot/weather away very quickly especially where 'freeze thaw is taking place. Talk of 'it's all happened before' (opening of NW Passage etc.) doesn't seem to hold much (unfrozen) water when you get reports like this floating around. Of course there may be some magic conveyor pushing up new bones as the old ones rot away.....maybe some kind of 'bone fairy' even???

Nope, reckon it's those damn Ruskies, skint for decades, isolated from the world at large they developed some underground nuclear system to thaw the perma frost to sell the bones and melt the Arctic to get to the gas and oil......

[Stratos Ferric]

Not for my way of thinking you're not. More staff rostered on for all emergency services during full moon period. More babies born at full moon, menstral cycles in sync with Lunar cycles etc; just the beginning of a long list of things influenced by it.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthr...ries/s20271.htm

I'd be surprised if our public services really did roster more heavily on a full moon. Is there any evidence for any of that Jethro?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthr...ries/s20271.htm

I'd be surprised if our public services really did roster more heavily on a full moon. Is there any evidence for any of that Jethro?

Would you expect more problems at a 'new moon night' ?(where there is no moonlight and so less visibilty leading to more 'accidents')

[Stratos Ferric]

Unless that is, you don't understand the difference between astrology and astronomy. One is speculation, the other a science discipline.

Jethro, I'm afraid I'm with M and D on this one. The moon does effect our weather, yes; there is a slight 12 hour flux in pressure driven by tidal movement. I wouldn't, though, go quite so far as Mr N.Utter, one time correspondent on these pages, and his chum Ken-how-Wrongcan-Ibe, whose track record in predicting weather based on the moon really couldn't have been much wider of the mark were he making it up. As for the other planets, they are so far away that their gravitational impact is beyond minescule.

We do get a whole host of theories on here for why things are as they oughtn't to be, some more stridently presented than others. The thing that always surprises me is the assumption that in more obvious cases (under water vulcanicity, impact of planets) these potential drivers have not already been dismissed by either by study elsewhere, or else by the fact that there is no discernible pattern.

I forget who it was that said it, though I fancy it was Einstein, that the most obvious cause for something should not be dismissed simply because it is the most obvious cause; very often the obvious cause is THE cause.

[jethro]

Jethro, I'm afraid I'm with M and D on this one. The moon does effect our weather, yes; there is a slight 12 hour flux in pressure driven by tidal movement. I wouldn't, though, go quite so far as Mr N.Utter, one time correspondent on these pages, and his chum Ken-how-Wrongcan-Ibe, whose track record in predicting weather based on the moon really couldn't have been much wider of the mark were he making it up. As for the other planets, they are so far away that their gravitational impact is beyond minescule.

We do get a whole host of theories on here for why things are as they oughtn't to be, some more stridently presented than others. The thing that always surprises me is the assumption that in more obvious cases (under water vulcanicity, impact of planets) these potential drivers have not already been dismissed by either by study elsewhere, or else by the fact that there is no discernible pattern.

I forget who it was that said it, though I fancy it was Einstein, that the most obvious cause for something should not be dismissed simply because it is the most obvious cause; very often the obvious cause is THE cause.

And where abouts in any of this have I said or alluded to the Moon affecting our climate and/or weather. As I pointed out to Magpie and it appears I have to point out to you too, I asked an off the wall question regarding ocean currents in relation to the change in ocean currents affecting the Arctic; no more, no less. When it comes to emergency services, hubby was a copper, got quite a few friends who are coppers, a couple of paramedics, three nurses and a god father who was a long serving fireman until he retired; staffing levels are higher at time of full moon. I've asked why and the replies have varied from people being more accident prone, people getting drunk more easily and apparently more violent. I don't even begin to understand why but there it is.

Perhaps we should ask Roger, he knows more than any of us here.

Edited September 18, 2007 by jethro