[Sceptom]

Hello,

what is the explanation for tides in the flat-earth theory?

thanks

[Ghost of V]

The celestial bodies, including the stars, cause variations in the tides. I believe our FAQ explains this as well, which you have been linked to already in a previous thread.

[Thork]

The celestial bodies, including the stars, cause variations in the tides. I believe our FAQ explains this as well, which you have been linked to already in a previous thread.

Ridiculous Copernican nonsense.

Galileo explained this using 'sloshing'. Inspired by the behaviour of water when boats come to a halt, Galileo Galilei concluded that the ebb and flow of the tides resulted, similarly, from the seas and oceans carrying energy back and forth across their surface.

[Sceptom]

The celestial bodies, including the stars, cause variations in the tides. I believe our FAQ explains this as well, which you have been linked to already in a previous thread.

My apologies. I did a research with "tide" in the wiki and nothing came up.

I just redid a research with "tides" and got two links. Only the first provides an "answer":

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

It's actually just a statement, not really an explanation, but fair enough.

I wonder, though, if there is any correlation between the position of "heavenly bodies". Is there some evidence about that?

[Ghost of V]

The celestial bodies, including the stars, cause variations in the tides. I believe our FAQ explains this as well, which you have been linked to already in a previous thread.

Ridiculous Copernican nonsense.

Galileo explained this using 'sloshing'. Inspired by the behaviour of water when boats come to a halt, Galileo Galilei concluded that the ebb and flow of the tides resulted, similarly, from the seas and oceans carrying energy back and forth across their surface.

If his theory was correct there would only be one high tide per day. This is verifiably false.

[Thork]

The celestial bodies, including the stars, cause variations in the tides. I believe our FAQ explains this as well, which you have been linked to already in a previous thread.

Ridiculous Copernican nonsense.

Galileo explained this using 'sloshing'. Inspired by the behaviour of water when boats come to a halt, Galileo Galilei concluded that the ebb and flow of the tides resulted, similarly, from the seas and oceans carrying energy back and forth across their surface.

If his theory was correct there would only be one high tide per day. This is verifiably false.

If as he suspected, the earth was round. Not true on a flat earth. You get a rebound from the ice-wall.

[Ghost of V]

The celestial bodies, including the stars, cause variations in the tides. I believe our FAQ explains this as well, which you have been linked to already in a previous thread.

Ridiculous Copernican nonsense.

Galileo explained this using 'sloshing'. Inspired by the behaviour of water when boats come to a halt, Galileo Galilei concluded that the ebb and flow of the tides resulted, similarly, from the seas and oceans carrying energy back and forth across their surface.

If his theory was correct there would only be one high tide per day. This is verifiably false.

If as he suspected, the earth was round. Not true on a flat earth. You get a rebound from the ice-wall.

Wrong. And Galieo also believed the Earth was round, so I don't see what you're getting at. There is more than one high tide per day, this is verifiable and not up for debate unless you have evidence that my eyes are lying to me or something equally ridiculous. Please present this evidence.

[Sceptom]

The celestial bodies, including the stars, cause variations in the tides. I believe our FAQ explains this as well, which you have been linked to already in a previous thread.

Ridiculous Copernican nonsense.

Galileo explained this using 'sloshing'. Inspired by the behaviour of water when boats come to a halt, Galileo Galilei concluded that the ebb and flow of the tides resulted, similarly, from the seas and oceans carrying energy back and forth across their surface.

Ah! So there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the matter...

About Galileo's idea, he also thought it would explain tides because the earth is actually moving around the sun. It actually was an argument for the earth's movement around the sun (although he was wrong about that, at least for those who have a reality-based science).
So my question is: does the earth move in flat-earth theory? (except for the upwards acceleration, which is perpendicular to earth's plane so it wouldn't affect the movement of seas and oceans). Because if it doesn't move, shouldn't the initial movement be attenuated during the 4 billion years of earth's existence? or maybe the earth isn't 4 billion years old in your theory? And what was the initial movement anyway?

[Ghost of V]

The celestial bodies, including the stars, cause variations in the tides. I believe our FAQ explains this as well, which you have been linked to already in a previous thread.

Ridiculous Copernican nonsense.

Galileo explained this using 'sloshing'. Inspired by the behaviour of water when boats come to a halt, Galileo Galilei concluded that the ebb and flow of the tides resulted, similarly, from the seas and oceans carrying energy back and forth across their surface.

Ah! So there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the matter...

About Galileo's idea, he also thought it would explain tides because the earth is actually moving around the sun. It actually was an argument for the earth's movement around the sun (although he was wrong about that, at least for those who have a reality-based science).
So my question is: does the earth move in flat-earth theory? (except for the upwards acceleration, which is perpendicular to earth's plane so it wouldn't affect the movement of seas and oceans). Because if it doesn't move, shouldn't the initial movement be attenuated during the 4 billion years of earth's existence? or maybe the earth isn't 4 billion years old in your theory? And what was the initial movement anyway?

The Earth moves. It is accelerating upward at 1g.

[Sceptom]

If his theory was correct there would only be one high tide per day. This is verifiably false.

If as he suspected, the earth was round. Not true on a flat earth. You get a rebound from the ice-wall.

Wrong. And Galieo also believed the Earth was round, so I don't see what you're getting at. There is more than one high tide per day, this is verifiable and not up for debate unless you have evidence that my eyes are lying to me or something equally ridiculous. Please present this evidence.

Well it actually depends on the place. In some places, there's no tide, in some other there are two, and in other there's only one.
Tides movements are quite complex because they also depend on the shape of coasts.

[Thork]

I just explained. Galileo could only account for one tide as he thought the earth was round (infinite) and the energy would carry around it once a day. But earth is flat and you get a rebound from the ice-wall.

Energy from the heat of the sun creates a swell once a day because heat causes lower pressure and lower pressure increases the height of the water, we get the rebound 12 hours later.



This is why the second tide is not as large as the first. It loses energy due to the bounces and frictional losses.

[Ghost of V]

If his theory was correct there would only be one high tide per day. This is verifiably false.

If as he suspected, the earth was round. Not true on a flat earth. You get a rebound from the ice-wall.

Wrong. And Galieo also believed the Earth was round, so I don't see what you're getting at. There is more than one high tide per day, this is verifiable and not up for debate unless you have evidence that my eyes are lying to me or something equally ridiculous. Please present this evidence.

Well it actually depends on the place. In some places, there's no tide, in some other there are two, and in other there's only one.
Tides movements are quite complex because they also depend on the shape of coasts.

Well yes. I think we all know this.


Thork, your theory is interesting, but where is the evidence?

[Thork]

If his theory was correct there would only be one high tide per day. This is verifiably false.

If as he suspected, the earth was round. Not true on a flat earth. You get a rebound from the ice-wall.

Wrong. And Galieo also believed the Earth was round, so I don't see what you're getting at. There is more than one high tide per day, this is verifiable and not up for debate unless you have evidence that my eyes are lying to me or something equally ridiculous. Please present this evidence.

Well it actually depends on the place. In some places, there's no tide, in some other there are two, and in other there's only one.
Tides movements are quite complex because they also depend on the shape of coasts.

Well yes. I think we all know this.


Thork, your theory is interesting, but where is the evidence?

Lets put it this way, the theory I subscribe to is way easier to explain than 'uniform star distribution causes non-uniform tidal activity'. But you are free to subscribe to whichever theory you prefer. 

Also Rowbotham said so.

[Sceptom]

I just explained. Galileo could only account for one tide as he thought the earth was round (infinite) and the energy would carry around it once a day. But earth is flat and you get a rebound from the ice-wall.

Energy from the heat of the sun creates a swell once a day because heat causes lower pressure and lower pressure increases the height of the water, we get the rebound 12 hours later.



This is why the second tide is not as large as the first. It loses energy due to the bounces and frictional losses.

Interesting.
Are there calculations on how much energy would be needed for such a phenomenon? Intuitively I'd say it's much greater that what the sun could provide (especially that, in FE theory, the sun is much smaller than in reality-based science). But of course, intuition is not a very reliable tool for knowledge, and such calculations may be quite difficult. Do you know if anyone tried to do them?

[Thork]

First, the sun is much closer in FET and it still puts out the same heat ... obviously.

As mentioned Rowbotham has entire chapters devoted to tides in which he documents the maths in excruciating detail.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

[LuggerSailor]

Has anyone noticed that there are high tides at night when the Moon has been visible at noon? These are Spring Tides.

Spring Tides always occur every 2 weeks when the moon is full or close to new.

Neap Tides always occur between the Spring Tides when the Moon is half illuminated (waxing and waning)

[Sentient Pizza]

First, the sun is much closer in FET and it still puts out the same heat ... obviously.

As mentioned Rowbotham has entire chapters devoted to tides in which he documents the maths in excruciating detail.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

LOL. You guys should really abandon SBR. He demonstrates within the first few paragraphs how little he ever understood.

[Tom Bishop]

First, the sun is much closer in FET and it still puts out the same heat ... obviously.

As mentioned Rowbotham has entire chapters devoted to tides in which he documents the maths in excruciating detail.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

LOL. You guys should really abandon SBR. He demonstrates within the first few paragraphs how little he ever understood.

Such as?

[Tintagel]

First, the sun is much closer in FET and it still puts out the same heat ... obviously.

As mentioned Rowbotham has entire chapters devoted to tides in which he documents the maths in excruciating detail.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

LOL. You guys should really abandon SBR. He demonstrates within the first few paragraphs how little he ever understood.

In lieu of sufficient rebuttal, he sayeth, "LOL."

[Sentient Pizza]

My apologies for the complete lack of explanation. I thought I had already added the explanation in the post but it was lost in a strange login/logout loop I was stuck in. 

How then is it possible for the moon with only one eighty-seventh part of the attractive power of the earth, to lift up the waters of the ocean and draw them towards herself? In other words, how can the lesser power overcome the greater?


The lesser power does not "overcome" the greater. Though pulling great bodies of water a few feet is precisely what we expect to see based on the mathematics of the two masses interacting. In fact we can predict and observe a slight wobble in the earths' path due to the pull of the moon. On top of that we observe a predictable wobble in the path of the sun based on the masses of the bodies orbiting it. This is all well understood after a couple hundred yeas of expanding and deepening our understanding of Newtonian physics.

My point is that SBR clearly overestimates and misunderstands the forces he is trying to discredit. Over and over again in this section alone he demonstrates his complete ignorance and ability to make a solid argument against gravitation.

 I could continue pointing out flaws in his writing if you like. However this thread is not about SBR's mistakes and how you should not quote his texts. This thread is about tides. SBR does not get it nor does he provide a model or a base for making predictions to support his claims. without those kinds of details he may have just said nothing on the matter at all.