Talk:Amphidromic point: Difference between revisions
m Article Class improved from stub using AWB |
→no standing waves: *I completely disagree.*/ |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==no standing waves== |
==no standing waves== |
||
Amphidromic points have little to do with standing waves. They do not represent a 3D version of a standing wave either. An amphidromic points has to do with the way the tidal waves travel through the oceans. Due to the coriolis effect and the shape of the ocean basins, the waves do not travel in straight lines but become deflected, in about the same way as air circulation does. In air you see the eye of a low pressure system, which is the point around which the flow circles. This can be seen as an equivalent to the amphidromic point. [[User:Wikiklaas|Wikiklaas]] 00:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
Amphidromic points have little to do with standing waves. They do not represent a 3D version of a standing wave either. An amphidromic points has to do with the way the tidal waves travel through the oceans. Due to the coriolis effect and the shape of the ocean basins, the waves do not travel in straight lines but become deflected, in about the same way as air circulation does. In air you see the eye of a low pressure system, which is the point around which the flow circles. This can be seen as an equivalent to the amphidromic point. [[User:Wikiklaas|Wikiklaas]] 00:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
==Standing Waves== |
|||
First of all there is no such thing as Coriolis Effect. If you have ever watch the cyclogenesis of a tropical storm for example and followed the process through to cyclosis you will realise this. |
|||
:Seeing as we do not fully understand how tides work, it is silly to insist on any belief system about the subject. |
|||
:Air can not possible be in thrall to any pressure system that is alleged to draw it sideways for any reason under the sun. Any pressure change applied to air is immediately tranformed into heat of chill. The gas laws apply. This is regardless of any pocke t of gas that may be said to be a part of an air mass under consideration as in a cyclone or anticyclone. |
|||
: It is all fairly simple schoolboy physics. |
|||
[[User:Weatherlawyer|Weatherlawyer]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 00:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Added online sources == |
== Added online sources == |
Revision as of 00:49, 31 December 2016
![]() | Physics: Fluid Dynamics Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
no standing waves
Amphidromic points have little to do with standing waves. They do not represent a 3D version of a standing wave either. An amphidromic points has to do with the way the tidal waves travel through the oceans. Due to the coriolis effect and the shape of the ocean basins, the waves do not travel in straight lines but become deflected, in about the same way as air circulation does. In air you see the eye of a low pressure system, which is the point around which the flow circles. This can be seen as an equivalent to the amphidromic point. Wikiklaas 00:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Standing Waves
First of all there is no such thing as Coriolis Effect. If you have ever watch the cyclogenesis of a tropical storm for example and followed the process through to cyclosis you will realise this.
- Seeing as we do not fully understand how tides work, it is silly to insist on any belief system about the subject.
- Air can not possible be in thrall to any pressure system that is alleged to draw it sideways for any reason under the sun. Any pressure change applied to air is immediately tranformed into heat of chill. The gas laws apply. This is regardless of any pocke t of gas that may be said to be a part of an air mass under consideration as in a cyclone or anticyclone.
- It is all fairly simple schoolboy physics.
Weatherlawyer (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Added online sources
Because getting out the Oceanography textbooks feels like work man. This is in every modern textbook in the section on tides.FX (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Added one more ref. All of them need tweaking to meet wikipedia standards. FX (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If there are multiple amphidromic systems, meaning multiple nodes, then state your source(s)
Other wise it is original content and will be deleted. Arguing in the comment section is considered bad form. That's what the talk page is for.
FX (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- See e.g. page 34 of: Arthur Thomas Doodson "Tidal Theory." Bulletin of the National Research Council 78 (Chapter II), February 1931, pp. 19–39. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Any text on tides. Doodson works, or I can find more sources if there's a need. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I added a link to a source that says each major tidal component has it's own amphidromic system. The sort of thing I was asking you about. FX (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I already gave sources, but I'm glad you understand it now. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Patent nonsense. FX (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)