singularity

I want to explain my point of view reguarding tidal force in more detail. In a two body system where one body has most of the mass the smaller body orbits according to GM=rv2. The massive body reacts to the gravity field of the smaller body according to the same law. Inertia causes the massive body to resist that law and in resisting the force tides are raised only on the massive body. The fact that tides are higher at full and new moon can be understood to be caused by the inertia being greater when the two bodies are perpendicular to the direction they are moving. When they are aligned with the direction the inertia is less. This effect is also seen in other gravity field structures. Inertia is important and needs to be factored into models if the very tiny effects are to be clearly understood. The sun causes no tide on any of the planets so what ever is now known for sure about solar tidal effects is wrong.

Here at Meta Research, we receive numerous books, papers, emails, web links, and other contributions, many containing private theories. In deciding which are worthy of any further attention, one of our main criteria is the absence of unjustified assumptions. Your ideas (as far as you have revealed them) are likewise based on unjustified assumptions (lacking citation or argumentation for your premises). That is especially unacceptable in the case of tides because the standard model (unlike many standard models in the field) does an excellent job, theoretically and observationally, of explaining and predicting tides. However, not all textbooks are clear on this subject because some of the authors haven't learned the tidal model correctly themselves.

Some of your declarations in your last message are in conflict with observations. Ocean tides do not generally reach their maximum when the Moon is overhead because the maximum tide timing depends on the shapes of the oceans and land masses. "Inertia" is not greater at times of New and Full Moon. The Sun is obviously a factor in causing tides, and the solar component of tides can be shown to be stronger when Earth is closer to the Sun and weaker when it is farther away. The most obvious evidence that Earth affects the Moon tidally is that the Moon's orbit is slowly growing larger with the Moon receding from Earth because of Earth's tidal effect on the Moon.

Moreover, although there is much room for discussion about the role of inertia in gravity, one of the most basic and remarkable properties of gravity is that it seems to be an entirely non-inertial force. For example, bodies of all masses and inertias, big and small, fall with the same acceleration (neglecting air drag) in the Earth's gravitational field, as Galileo showed with his "Tower of Pisa" experiment.

More than that, your formula can work only for circular orbits. But the orbits of Earth and Moon are elliptical, as are all others to some degree. When the Earth speeds up by 3% every July, your formula is no longer correct.

Having a theory is fine. But if it is intended for more than entertainment or self-gratification, you must do what scientists are trained to do, which is to tear at it from every direction and do your best to shred it. If you don't, other scientists will. Only theories that can survive such close scrutiny without needing any patching up are worthy to survive.

One of the big surprises that most trained scientists learn early is that most of our greatest inspirations have been thought of before, and most of them have already been shot down for good cause. To be a good theory developer, you also need to become a good theory critic, and also to read what has already been thought and tested by the many others with similar ideas. -|Tom|-

I do not want to suggest I'm inventing any new theory-I am in full aggreement that models of the tide are very accurate. The thing is if you want to get into fine details inertia is missing from models. It is not gravity that causes this force. Newton's 1st law is a much more accurate statement of the force of inertia. It is too bad Newton did the current tide model, but, he never said the sun causes tides on Earth as far as I can find. The history of all this is for some other place however.

About inertia's effect on the tides of Earth, the total force is caused by the moon and there is no reason to go into the details of the oceans reaction to the force to resolve this as fact. The belief that the sun causes tides is well rooted in history, but, in fact is poor science. There is zero science in this theory and observations do not prove that the sun causes tides to rise. There is no proof that I can find that indicates a solar tide force is a real force. This is why it would be a good thing if the tides on the moon were measured rather than simply assuming they exist.

About tidal friction, there is a growing body of evidence from geology that indicates the moon has been where it is now for a few billion years and has not been slowing so, maybe this is still another baseless thoery that is well rooted in history. Tidal friction and the drift of the moon seem to have no observed reason to exist in a scientific environment. It makes a nice neat story though.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]: I do not want to suggest I'm inventing any new theory-I am in full aggreement that models of the tide are very accurate. The thing is if you want to get into fine details inertia is missing from models. It is not gravity that causes this force. Newton's 1st law is a much more accurate statement of the force of inertia. It is too bad Newton did the current tide model, but, he never said the sun causes tides on Earth as far as I can find. ...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

But you did suggest an explanation for tides radically different from the one presently accepted by astronomers and physicists. So what do you mean when you say you are not inventing a new theory?

I also don't understand unexplained declarations such as "It is not gravity that causes this force" when the rest of the scientific community seems convinced that it is gravity that causes tides. Moreover, as I explained, gravity is a non-inertial force, which is why inertia as such is not needed in tidal theory.

Newton did not formulate cirrent tidal theory. That was done by Sir Herald Jeffreys in 1931. Newton's understanding of tides was relatively primitive.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]: About inertia's effect on the tides of Earth, the total force is caused by the moon and there is no reason to go into the details of the oceans reaction to the force to resolve this as fact. The belief that the sun causes tides is well rooted in history, but, in fact is poor science. There is zero science in this theory and observations do not prove that the sun causes tides to rise. There is no proof that I can find that indicates a solar tide force is a real force. This is why it would be a good thing if the tides on the moon were measured rather than simply assuming they exist.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The observational connection between solar tides and lunar tides are comparably strong. There is no more reason to doubt the tides that are in-phase with the Sun than those in-phase with the Moon. When these two separate tides get together, as they do twice each month, the combined tides are extra high. I again don't understand your declarations contrary to fact such as "There is zero science in this theory and observations do not prove that the sun causes tides to rise." Both theory and observations are in excellent agreement about the solar tides -- both solid body and ocean tides. In connection with your last sentence, the one Earth-tide on the Moon (a permanent bulge) is measured. Actually, there is more: The mini-tides caused by libration (wobble) of the Moon because of ellipticity of its orbit can now be detected in laser ranging data, even though some of these are only a centimeter or less. I think the solar tide was also seen in that data, but my recollection could be wrong about that.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]:
About tidal friction, there is a growing body of evidence from geology that indicates the moon has been where it is now for a few billion years and has not been slowing so, maybe this is still another baseless thoery that is well rooted in history. Tidal friction and the drift of the moon seem to have no observed reason to exist in a scientific environment. It makes a nice neat story though.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Unfortunately, reality is just the opposite of your description. The geological evidence is extensive, especially from paleontology, where coral fossils have growth patterns correlated with tides clearly showing that the day and month were both much shorter in the distant past. In fact, I'm unaware of any credible geological evidence inconsistent with the Moon having originated from very close to the Earth (orbital period about 2 hours) 4.6 billion years ago.

Additional confirming evidence comes from lunar occultation timing data and lunar laser ranging data, both of which confirm with high precision what Laplace worried about 200 years ago -- the Moon is accelerating (slowly). It is now clear that its orbital period progressively lengthens, just as the Earth's spin period is progressively lengthening. That is happening right now, before our eyes. (No need for geological records to confirm.) Taking that orbit expansion back in time over billions of years shows that the Moon must have been very close at one time, just as tidal theory predicts and paleontological data confirms.

I say again that you really need to read up on this subject. I think it is not just bias that leads me to suggest my book as a good place to start. Other readers have been especially complimentary of the clarity of that whole chapter 6 about how gravity creates orbits and tides. Check your local library for a copy, or have them order one on interlibrary loan. -|Tom|-