Skip to main content

That 'Oh bugger' moment

It's almost impossible to write a whole book without the odd mistake creeping in. But what really winds me up is when you have a book that isn't printed yet, but has gone past the point of no return, then find out that something you put in it (believing it to be true) is wrong.

So here I am, innocently reading for review a book called What if the Earth had two Moons? when I come across a denouncement of the usual explanation of why the tides are the way they are. As an author, when you can point out a commonly held misunderstanding, it's very satisfying. So, for instance, when I was able to write in The Man Who Stopped Time that most websites and many books got it wrong in ascribing the mechanism for us seeing cinema as moving pictures to 'persistence of vision' (a Victorian concept that was just plain wrong) I felt rather smug. But here was a book denouncing the explanation I'd given for the tides in a book due out this April.

My version of the tides (not to scale)
As it turns out, it wasn't as depressing as I thought. Where the persistance of vision explanation of movies is totally and utterly wrong, the explanation of the tides is really just an over simplification. Which isn't quite so bad. Ignoring the effect of the Sun (which I mentioned) I had put the tides down to the water on the side nearest the Moon where the gravitational pull is stronger being pulled more towards the Moon, making a bulge on that side, plus the water furthest from the Moon bulging away because the pull is weaker. This is true, but also there is also an extra force contributing to the tide due to the Earth's movement around the 'barycentre', the centre of mass of the Earth/Moon system, providing a fairground ride push on the oceans. Oh well. You can't win 'em all.

One small consolation. I've just spotted a mistake in What if the Earth had Two Moons? The author says 'We can only see objects today that are within 13.7 billion light years of Earth.' This would be true if the universe weren't expanding. But because of this the objects we can see whose light has been travelling nearly 13.7 billion years are actually getting on for 40 billion light years away. I don't say this to get my own back, just to point out how easy it is to slip up.

Comments

  1. Ah yes, that second tide. As you say it's all down to simple physics and the combination of forces.

    It would be really interesting to model the effects of a second moon though - I feel a horrible geek mode coming on now....:-)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope