Another physics question.

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
rjb
Posts: 7231
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 10:25am
Location: Somerset (originally 60/70's Plymouth)

Re: Another physics question.

Post by rjb »

It's all getting a bit foggy and the foghorns are now sounding. Time to pull the duvet over my head.
At the last count:- Peugeot 531 pro, Dawes Discovery Tandem, Dawes Kingpin X3, Raleigh 20 stowaway X2, 1965 Moulton deluxe, Falcon K2 MTB dropped bar tourer, Rudge Bi frame folder, Longstaff trike conversion on a Giant XTC 840 :D
Stevek76
Posts: 2087
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Another physics question.

Post by Stevek76 »

I mean strictly speaking they're not on an expanding sphere but a rotating, morphing ovoid of sorts. The radius will be a little lower at high tide because they're on a pointier bit which means the horizon will also be a little shorter as a result.

Also likely very small :D
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Mike Sales
Posts: 7898
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Another physics question.

Post by Mike Sales »

Stevek76 wrote: 5 Aug 2021, 1:37pm I mean strictly speaking they're not on an expanding sphere but a rotating, morphing ovoid of sorts. The radius will be a little lower at high tide because they're on a pointier bit which means the horizon will also be a little shorter as a result.

Also likely very small :D
A factor which had not occured to me!
In my defence I was thinking as a practical sailor who would likely be unable to detect such small differences.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Psamathe
Posts: 17703
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Another physics question.

Post by Psamathe »

If you are including "small" factors in the calculation, depending on where on the Earth's surface the lighthouse and observer are and the bearing between the two, high tide will be at a (slightly) different time for lighthouse than for observer.

Ian
wirral_cyclist
Posts: 1025
Joined: 17 May 2010, 9:25pm
Location: Wirral Merseyside

Re: Another physics question.

Post by wirral_cyclist »

High tide is full sun and the lighthouse, lantern and all is lost in the glare?
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 5043
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Another physics question.

Post by Cowsham »

wirral_cyclist wrote: 5 Aug 2021, 11:27pm High tide is full sun and the lighthouse, lantern and all is lost in the glare?
I thought it would be off for energy saving :lol:
I am here. Where are you?
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 5043
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Another physics question.

Post by Cowsham »

I thought of a practical physics question that a cyclist should know the answer to.

How far do you need to fall to have an impact speed of 25 MPH (or 40 Kph) ?

ie when traveling at 25MPH on your bike if you fall off hitting the ground what height of a fall is that equivalent to?

The answer is scary. Little wonder I broke so many ribs.
I am here. Where are you?
DaveBeck
Posts: 109
Joined: 10 Aug 2019, 10:07am

Re: Another physics question.

Post by DaveBeck »

There is a small spit of land between my moored boat and St Mawes Castle in the Carrick Roads, Falmouth.

At low tide I can't see the castle, but as the tide comes in and we move further away from the seabed (whilst the castle doesn't as it is fixed relative to the seabed) the top of the castle becomes visible. It's the equivalent of the boat and I standing on a 15 foot ladder.
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 5043
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Another physics question.

Post by Cowsham »

DaveBeck wrote: 6 Aug 2021, 6:32am There is a small spit of land between my moored boat and St Mawes Castle in the Carrick Roads, Falmouth.

At low tide I can't see the castle, but as the tide comes in and we move further away from the seabed (whilst the castle doesn't as it is fixed relative to the seabed) the top of the castle becomes visible. It's the equivalent of the boat and I standing on a 15 foot ladder.
Don't fall !
I am here. Where are you?
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5839
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Another physics question.

Post by RickH »

wirral_cyclist wrote: 5 Aug 2021, 11:27pm High tide is full sun and the lighthouse, lantern and all is lost in the glare?
High tide is mostly from lunar gravity & happens roughly twice a day.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Another physics question.

Post by 661-Pete »

Assuming that the change in the sea surface's curvature is negligible, the geometry will stay the same. But the lighthouse, being attached to terra firma, will stand lower above the waterline. If it was only just visible at low tide, it will not be visible at high tide.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
DaveReading
Posts: 752
Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm

Re: Another physics question.

Post by DaveReading »

Clearly if the light was sitting just on the horizon at low tide, then when the tide came in the light would be submerged and probably go out.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Another physics question.

Post by 661-Pete »

Mike Sales wrote: 5 Aug 2021, 12:11pm You are on an anchored boat at low tide.
The lantern of a lighthouse is just visible, sitting on the horizon.
At high water, with the boat in the same place, what will happen to your view of the light?
Just occurred to me: if the boat is anchored, and the line is taut at low tide, then the boat will submerge as the tide comes in... :lol: ....and if you can't swim....

Sounds a bit like bad seamanship to me - and I'm not even a seafarer.

On the other hand, why not pose this question on one of the Flat Earth Society forums and see what they say? Good for a laugh! Another question: what causes tides on the Flat Earth.....?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Mike Sales
Posts: 7898
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Another physics question.

Post by Mike Sales »

661-Pete wrote: 6 Aug 2021, 3:29pm Just occurred to me: if the boat is anchored, and the line is taut at low tide, then the boat will submerge as the tide comes in... :lol: ....and if you can't swim....

Sounds a bit like bad seamanship to me - and I'm not even a seafarer.
The question of the amount of anchor cable to let out, known as scope, is one studied by boaters.
The rule of thumb is three times the depth at HW of chain, and five times the depth of rope
One saying, to encourage laying out plenty of cable, is that it is no use in the locker.
The first and easiest remedy to a dragging anchor is to let out more cable.
Looking around at the sea when out on it, it seems to me to be obvious that the sea's surface is convex.
Ships may have their upper works visible, but their hull below the horizon. When they come closer, or you climb the mast, more and more of the hull appears.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56366
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Another physics question.

Post by Mick F »

Anchors are on the the end of cables, not called ropes.
Cables are generally heavy chains, and it's the gravity of the chains on the sea bottom that secure the ship.
The anchor is there to "anchor" the end of the chain and it's designed to slip and drag a bit.

Hauling it back in, the ship is pulled forwards by the capstan(s) until the cable is lifting out the anchor. The whole thing is hauled up until the anchor is seated in the bow and the ship proceeds.
Mick F. Cornwall
Post Reply