Does a tide-locked planet have tides?
Which is what the post he referenced says.
Not to be confused with the “God of the GAPs” theory, which posits that mall fashion trends can’t be explained by science, ergo there must be a God.
Smart? He doesn’t even know how to speak Thai.
There is ‘evidence’ of tides. We call it prints of tides.
Hah. Anyway, no. You still have a tidal bulge, but the planet isn’t rotating with respect to it, so no rise and fall. Of course, if you have more than one tidal influence, you’ll only be locked to the strongest of them; if the Earth were one-face to the Moon, the Sun would still raise tides on the Earth.
throws sh1bu1 into the Bay Of Fundy
(ironic name, don’tcha think?)
Would you like to thai me up with some of your thais, thai?
Any object that extends in space from a source of gravity will experience tidal forces. If the object is in an elliptical orbit, then the tidal force will rise and fall as the distance to the gravitational source increases and decreases, which could allow for tidal movement. So if you were on a hypothetical planet that always kept one face to the sun, you could still have tides as the planet moved closer and farther away.
This isn’t a small effect. I believe Europa’s liquid ocean is the result of the tidal force changing as it moves through its elliptical orbit When it’s close to Jupiter, it gets stretched by the tidal force, and when it’s far away it tried to pull back into a sphere. That causes enough internal friction to melt its icy core.
What a bizarre statement to make. Bricker actually said exactly the opposite of what you are accusing him of, even in the snippet of his post that you quoted from. He’s saying that it would be possible to split hairs and defend O’Reilly, but he wasn’t going to do it because in his heart he believed that the criticism of O’Reilly is valid.
And you turn that into an attack on Bricker on the grounds that he dogmatically defends everyone who is on his side? Your reading comprehension sucks.
I think that you may have misunderstood Hentor’s position (understandably, given the way he expressed it). He seems, to me, to be saying that had O’Reilly been one of Bricker’s “guys”, Bricker would have tried to develop a plausible defence for him – but since he isn’t, he won’t.
Not that I disagree with Bricker on this myself, you understand. I can appreciate the temptation to develop theoretical arguments that might explain what O’Reilly was thinking (people have suggested the Strong Anthropic Principle for instance) – but I get the strong impression that he wasn’t thinking anything.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that nobody who starts out with “Look, you pinheads…” is going to go on to develop a finely-nuanced philosophical argument. That’s the rhetoric of the playground bully – in fact, I’ll go further: a playground bully scripted by Stan Lee circa 1962.
I fully expect to learn that he considers Richard Dawkins a “pantywaist” and Stephen Hawking a “milquetoast”.
Right. And with Earth’s Moon, there’s enough of that effect to cause occasional moonquakes.
If that’s correct, I wonder who “my guys” might be, in Hentor’s mind?
I wondered myself. I thought you might know.
Sort of makes it harder to play the game, if you don’t know who’s side your supposed to be on.
Beats me. I guess I imagined that if I were viewed as an unrepentantly partisan conservative, surely O’Reilly WOULD be one of “my guys.”
First off, you are an unrepentant partisan conservative. And moving your opinion on gay marriage to that of Dick Cheney hardly changes that. I only mention this because you usually rock back on your heels and rub your belly saying, “Oh yeah, I changed my opinion on gay marriage, I’m not partisan.” when someone calls you on it.
That said, I have enjoyed the bullshit astronomy tangent so I forgive you. 
Are you stupid or what. I’ll go with stupid.
His post is a discussion with himself about how to mount a defense of O’Reilly’s words. Most people just look at the content of the words and evaluate them first, concluding that he’s just fucking moronic. They arrive rather quickly at the conclusion “Yeah, that’s pretty fucking stupid and indefensible.”
Bricker tells us here that his first thought is “Hmmm, how could I defend this?” and to start mapping out a defense strategy first, before coming ultimately (in this case) to the reality-based conclusion.
So, sure, I’ll give him some credit that in this case the task was too great even for him. I suppose the real surprise should be that even Bricker has some standards. Next time that Bricker wants to chase some semantic nitpick down the rabbit hole just because there’s been some criticism levied against the right, his post in this thread ought to leap to mind in order to see where the process started (excepting of course, the good judgment to recognize when people on the right are in fact in the wrong).
Can you bat your eyes in a message board post? Who, little ol’ me? Why I do declare!
Someone fetch Bricker a good fainting couch.
Ah… I had that wrong then. My apologies to Sam Stone.
Laf. Most people read Bricker’s original post (basically saying, I can understand BillO’s argument but he’s deluded) and thought: That’s a valid take that’s slightly different than what’s been expressed so far.
But Hentor, you read it and say: Okay, I can use that comment as a way to attack the poster.
You can better do, Mr. Barbarian, and an apology wouldn’t be out of line.