[Round Eyes]

Question for the FE experts.  I have read the wiki’s explanation for Tides and there isnt much information.
How exactly does the FE Model explain observed ocean tides??   We all know the RE answer at it relates to rotation of the earth, location of the moon, sun and the gravitation pull between those objects.  Tides can be easily observed at any beach, and you can plot the time vs depth to visually see the bulge of water moving across your location.  I have read the alt-gravity theories on FE about density, acceleration, etc…but that does explain tides.  The water is all at the same density so why a considerable bulge of water easily observed?  Why would these tides be much more extreme when the sun and moon are aligned (full moon) than when they are 90 degree offset?

[sandokhan]

The trouble with tides:

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (pages 9 - 24)


FE tides:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127

[Round Eyes]

The trouble with tides:

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (pages 9 - 24)


FE tides:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127

whoever wrote that book (i read the pages you mentioned) has a very flawed understanding of Newtonian and Einstein mathematics.  For example, on page  18 in decrediting Einstein they wrote "with respect to Einstein's theory, how does it create tides when Einstein claims a body in curved space feels for force?"  huh?  They totally missed the point of GR…Einstein realized that gravity and acceleration are the same thing, and that gravity was not a force of attraction, but a curvature in space-time.  Both objects (Earth and moon) most definitely feel a force (gravitational pull) and its that force that pulls them together and allows for orbit… Two objects of no mass in this curved space-time will not “feel” any forces, that is how curved space-time works as opposed to Newtownian physics that have an attractive force associated with gravity.

On page 19 they begin to explain tides due to electromagnetic effect and since the oceans are saltwater they are electrified.  Trying to follow along here.  The Great Lakes (fresh water) also have tides, albeit very small height fluctuation.

On page 20 they then say that “water will often, as it slows or stop flowing, create an electromagnetic field” – I would like to see more documentation on this, I am not aware of this phenomenon but seems easy enough to test.  I couldn’t locate any information/experiments on this.

[sandokhan]

You are going to have to explain RE tidal waves without resorting to either Newtonian mechanics or Einstein's TR.

Both these hypotheses are being defied on a grand cosmic scale by Dark Flow:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

‘Because the dark flow already extends so far, it likely extends across the visible universe’

Dr. A. Kashlinsky (PhD Cambridge, England), a senior staff scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland

"According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old; yet the gravitational attractor, tugging only on galaxy clusters, is some 32-34 billion light years away. Additionally, this gravitational force is unique and selective in its action; only affecting galaxy clusters, but not everything else. Gravity undoubtedly must affect the motion of all massive bodies and, therefore, since it is pulling the galaxy clusters, it should be pulling everything else to it, not just galaxy clusters, based on Newtonian Law.

In terms of Einstein, the identical problem exists. A massive object outside the Universe has warped space to cause galaxy clusters to move toward or away from it; that warping of space should do the same for all matter in the Universe. "

It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.

[sandokhan]

But you cannot use a flawed hypothesis.

Here is the total demolition of TSR/TGR:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750 (don't miss how the data for the 1919/1922 solar eclipses was faked)

The easiest way to see that TGR is totally incorrect, is to examine the original set of Maxwell's equations, which are invariant under Galilean transformations:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9797.msg153951#msg153951

[Djdelacruz82]

They’re caused by the sun heating & dispersing the water the heat causes the tides

[HorstFue]

They’re caused by the sun heating & dispersing the water the heat causes the tides

The rhythm of high/low waters is dictated by a lunar day cycle, which is 24 hours and 50 min.
(the time, the moon needs to appear above the same point of earth again the next day).
So high/low waters are occurring each day about an hour later as the day before. So sun cannot be the main reason for tides.

[Dr David Thork]

Flat Earther's tend to go with Galileo's 'Discourse on the Tides' explanation.

A summary
Galileo compares the ocean's waves to the disturbances in a vase of water, which move for three reasons: the slope of the vase, external forces exerted on the vase-water system, and the possible acceleration of the vase itself. Comparably, the ocean's tides are due to Earth's terrain, wind currents, and circular accelerations. Positive and negative acceleration is generated that influences bodies of water to rock back and forth, creating the tides. Though these opposing accelerations cannot be observed, large bodies of water containing points of location far away enough to experience significantly different vectors of acceleration would necessarily contour into waves.

The tl;dr
Sloshing.

[Chris_Thompson]

The trouble with tides:

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (pages 9 - 24)


FE tides:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127

whoever wrote that book (i read the pages you mentioned) has a very flawed understanding of Newtonian and Einstein mathematics.  For example, on page  18 in decrediting Einstein they wrote "with respect to Einstein's theory, how does it create tides when Einstein claims a body in curved space feels for force?"  huh?  They totally missed the point of GR…Einstein realized that gravity and acceleration are the same thing, and that gravity was not a force of attraction, but a curvature in space-time.  Both objects (Earth and moon) most definitely feel a force (gravitational pull) and its that force that pulls them together and allows for orbit… Two objects of no mass in this curved space-time will not “feel” any forces, that is how curved space-time works as opposed to Newtownian physics that have an attractive force associated with gravity.

On page 19 they begin to explain tides due to electromagnetic effect and since the oceans are saltwater they are electrified.  Trying to follow along here.  The Great Lakes (fresh water) also have tides, albeit very small height fluctuation.

On page 20 they then say that “water will often, as it slows or stop flowing, create an electromagnetic field” – I would like to see more documentation on this, I am not aware of this phenomenon but seems easy enough to test.  I couldn’t locate any information/experiments on this.

The tides can be understood without reliance on general relativity. In fact, it is almost essential. If you use non-relativistic mechanics and simply add the vectors, taking into account centripetal acceleration, then it becomes quite clear what happens. The side of the Earth closest to the moon is pulled towards it, while the far side is pulled away. Let me come up with a graphic to show this claim, and I will post it soon.

In fact, it is incorrect to employ general relativity in this case. The Earth falls under the regime of the weak-field limit, whereby general relativity merges with non-relativistic mechanics.

As for page 19 and 20, I echo your confusion.

[Chris_Thompson]

Here is that analysis without general relativity. It is attached.

[HorstFue]

Here is that analysis without general relativity. It is attached.

That's only  the explanation of the, I would say, the "initial forces", gravity and centrifugal forces.
This 'static' approach can only explain tides up to 0.8m.
After this come complicated effects like wave propagation, bathymetry - influences of the shape of the sea ground and the coast line - and resonance.

A short "uneducated" explanation, I put together for me. I'm not claiming that this is scientifically correct:
The tidal waves - yes, waves is the best model for it - are initially build as ultra long waves on big oceans. A low (0.5m) but very wide (thousands of square miles) bulge of water, following the attraction of the moon. It's a bit like a tsunami. As these waves approach the coast, these are "compressed" by the rising sea ground and in places additionally by the form of the coast (e.g. Bristol Channel). The waves are getting shorter, but to compensate for this, much higher.
In other places a tidal wave of one high water may be reflected on the coast or diverted, so that it overlaps with the next tidal wave, building a even higher tidal wave by resonance (Bay of Fundy, also North Sea).

[Chris_Thompson]

Here is that analysis without general relativity. It is attached.

That's only  the explanation of the, I would say, the "initial forces", gravity and centrifugal forces.
This 'static' approach can only explain tides up to 0.8m.
After this come complicated effects like wave propagation, bathymetry - influences of the shape of the sea ground and the coast line - and resonance.

A short "uneducated" explanation, I put together for me. I'm not claiming that this is scientifically correct:
The tidal waves - yes, waves is the best model for it - are initially build as ultra long waves on big oceans. A low (0.5m) but very wide (thousands of square miles) bulge of water, following the attraction of the moon. It's a bit like a tsunami. As these waves approach the coast, these are "compressed" by the rising sea ground and in places additionally by the form of the coast (e.g. Bristol Channel). The waves are getting shorter, but to compensate for this, much higher.
In other places a tidal wave of one high water may be reflected on the coast or diverted, so that it overlaps with the next tidal wave, building a even higher tidal wave by resonance (Bay of Fundy, also North Sea).

There is quite a bit that is correct in what you say; your instincts are good. There are many additional factors that come into play. Remember, I assumed the Earth was entirely covered with a uniform layer of water. That is obviously not reality.

What I have not proven with my (very crude) assessment is that all these factors add correction terms to my analysis. By that I mean the correction terms are smaller than the zero order approximation. It is difficult to explain with equations that the uneven sea floor, the existence of land-masses, etc., add diminishing contributions to the overall pattern I showed. So I do not blame you if you do not take my word for it.

I think I have shown that, if the Earth was entirely covered with a uniform layer of water, and given an even sea-floor, then we would experience 2 tides per 24 hours. The question now is: do the ways in which the Earth deviates from this assumption result in changes that are larger than the zero order approximation?

I can try to perform an analysis for that, but it will be much more complicated and difficult for me.

[Chris_Thompson]

The trouble with tides:

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (pages 9 - 24)


FE tides:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127

whoever wrote that book (i read the pages you mentioned) has a very flawed understanding of Newtonian and Einstein mathematics.  For example, on page  18 in decrediting Einstein they wrote "with respect to Einstein's theory, how does it create tides when Einstein claims a body in curved space feels for force?"  huh?  They totally missed the point of GR…Einstein realized that gravity and acceleration are the same thing, and that gravity was not a force of attraction, but a curvature in space-time.  Both objects (Earth and moon) most definitely feel a force (gravitational pull) and its that force that pulls them together and allows for orbit… Two objects of no mass in this curved space-time will not “feel” any forces, that is how curved space-time works as opposed to Newtownian physics that have an attractive force associated with gravity.

On page 19 they begin to explain tides due to electromagnetic effect and since the oceans are saltwater they are electrified.  Trying to follow along here.  The Great Lakes (fresh water) also have tides, albeit very small height fluctuation.

On page 20 they then say that “water will often, as it slows or stop flowing, create an electromagnetic field” – I would like to see more documentation on this, I am not aware of this phenomenon but seems easy enough to test.  I couldn’t locate any information/experiments on this.

I am curious what you think of my analysis, since you appear to be well educated. Your comments are welcome.