[rmolnav]

On #119 it is said:
"The term "free fall" is defined to mean "subject only to the force of gravity."
I know ... But if we are being that precise (considering even the quite negligible difference between gravitational field in the vertically falling man´s feet and head), we should say the man as a whole is in free fall ... but strictly speaking only the horizontal section through his c.g. would actually be in free fall. The rest of his body would be subject not "only to the force of gravity", BUT ALSO to the internal stresses this morning I referred to, and have continuously been referring to since my very first post here, #20 ... three years ago !!

[rmolnav]

...we should say the man as a whole is in free fall ... but strictly speaking only the horizontal section through his c.g. would actually be in free fall

I´m quoting that from my last post, because, even Britannica.com people (who, as most people do, ONLY consider the varying gravitational field as cause of tides, something I consider ERRONEOUS, or at least insufficient), in this "free fall" subject, surprise, surprise, do agree with me:
"Gravitational forces are never uniform, and therefore only the centre of mass is in free-fall. All other points of a body are subject to tidal forces because they move in a slightly different gravitational field. The Earth is in free-fall, but the pull of the Moon is not the same at the Earth’s surface as at its centre; the rise and fall of ocean tides occur because the oceans are not in perfect free-fall"
https://www.britannica.com/science/free-fall-physics 

[rmolnav]

...Britannica.com people (who, as most people do, ONLY consider the varying gravitational field as cause of tides, something I consider ERRONEOUS, or at least insufficient) ...

Many may think "What a stubborn man, he continues to go against most people ... after three years !!).
I already said, on #86:
"Seen from outside, as my stand refutes what so many people (scientists included) say, most probably I "must be" the wrong one ... But there are several details that could explain those so frequent, total or partially  errors: ..."
and then I listed several reasons.
Now I´ll bring up a real case which justifies my stand. We have to take things (at least as far as tides are concerned) with a pinch of salt, even if they come from folks MSc in Physics ...
I´ve seen really surprising errors. E.g.: please kindly have a look at:
http://ipho.org/problems-and-solutions/1996/IPhO_1996_Theory.pdf
3rd problem is about tides … Mathematically seems to be correct … But, leaving aside the centrifugal force issue, its solution has a basic Physics error …
They analyze Earth movement around Earth-Moon barycenter as if it ROTATED (farther points following a bigger circular path), but EARTH ACTUALLY REVOLVES around the barycenter, and ALL its material points follow circular paths with identical radius !!
The dynamics of those movements are utterly different: different distribution of required centripetal forces, different mismatch between them and Moon´s gravitational field, and therefore different distribution of internal stresses that compensate imbalances (real centrifugal forces included) ...
So, any solution to the that way given problem would have nothing to do with reality ... 
And, apparently, neither one of the organizer, nor one among the participants, detected it !!

[rmolnav]

... even Britannica.com people (who, as most people do, ONLY consider the varying gravitational field as cause of tides, something I consider ERRONEOUS, or at least insufficient) ...

I´m quoting that again in order to add something more related to that.
I´ve been discussing that  with more people ... One recently sent a link with an article from some science institution, where according to him (I couldn´t read it because the link didn´t work) only gravitational differences were mentioned (neither centrifugal forces, nor something else related to circular movement). So, he said, "my" theory was wrong ...
What follows was my last reply:
"Another article, now form NASA, where internal stresses related to satellite-planet  dynamics (with circular movements) are mentioned, not just "tidal forces" only due to gravitational differences:
" … Hurford and his team believe the discrepancy can be resolved if Enceladus’
rotation rate is not uniform – if it wobbles slightly as it rotates. Enceladus' wobble,
technically called "libration," is barely noticeable. "Cassini observations have ruled
out a wobble greater than about 2 degrees with respect to Enceladus' uniform
rotation rate," says Hurford.
… Depending on whether the wobble moves with or against the movement of
Saturn in Enceladus' sky, a wobble ranging from 2 degrees down to 0.75 degrees
produces the best fit to the observed warmest zones," said Hurford.
The wobble also helps with the heating conundrum by generating about five times
more heat in Enceladus’ interior than tidal stress alone, and the extra heat makes
it likely that Enceladus' ocean could be long-lived, according to Hurford ...
The wobble is probably caused by Enceladus' uneven shape. "Enceladus is not
completely spherical, so as it moves in its orbit, the pull of Saturn's gravity
generates a net torque that forces the moon to wobble," said Hurford."

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20100708-b.html

[rmolnav]

I´ve been discussing that  with more people ...

Another reply I sent refuting that idea that ONLY differential gravity counts:
"You say:
1) "The antipodean bulge, even though it seems to move away from the surface of the earth, is actually accelerating towards the moon in free-fall".
Wrong! That bulge is subject NOT ONLY to Moon´s gravity (free-fall requirement), but also to rest of Earth gravity, its own weight …
3) "Another problem with the centrifugal explanation of tides is that they OPPOSE stretching rather than CAUSING it.  A rigid solid is an example of the strongest internal centripetal-centrifugal force pairs, and yet it exhibits no tidal response at all, assuming perfect rigidity".
Wrong too! At least in REAL cases, because what do you mean with "perfect rigidity" ?? And with "no tidal response at all" ??
However small the elasticity of a real object might be, if it has a circular movement centripetal forces will be required to cause it … And if the source of those forces can´t supply EXACTLY the required centripetal force at each location (either in a case such as the "whip" children game, or one such as Earth revolving, or Moon rotating), contiguous material elements (or other gravity source) will have to give or take the difference, because 2nd Newton´s Law applies.
That originates internal stresses which, please DON´T FORGET, now due to 3rd Newton´s Law, they are exerted on each other of considered contiguos elements, with OPPOSITE senses … And THAT is precisely the root cause of the stretching !!
Sorry if what follows might be considered kind of "too" honest, but to say "Another problem with the centrifugal explanation of tides OPPOSE stretching rather than CAUSING it" shows not only a Physics misunderstanding, but also a rather serious Logics one !!

[rmolnav]

I think it may be interesting to some of you to have a look at what this very morning I sent to same "youtuber" mentioned on my previous post:
"As I already told you, I contacted the author of the interesting article linked by you. He replied, initially with a rather radical attitude, and he continued to say ONLY gravitational gradient matters, and that forces related to Earth revolving don´t interviene in tide generation ... After a few pairs of mutual replies, yesterday I sent him:
 "... In any case, the point I´m bringing up doesn´t require sophisticated calculus, as it is in the realm of the "interface" between inanimate nature (physical objects and their visible movement) and our intelligent mind. But I wouldn´t call that to get phylosofical : before any calculation we have to interpret correctly what we see or experience.
You say: "… ask yourself "Are forces "real"? No, they are mathematical tools for describing how material bodies interact with each other and how they move". I fully agree with you. But they can be directly exerted by an object A on another (or a part of another) B either by contact (internal stresses if parts of a body), or as "tele-forces" such as gravity … BUT for that last type of forces only their masses and distance between each other count, NOT stuff such as "the force that A would exert on B if B were situated where G" (whatever G could be). That is something we can handle, but nature can´t react to, if not present any other kind of hidden "information mechanism".
That is the reason why I asked: "How "on earth" a certain material part of our planet, which can "feel" Moon's gravity at its location, as well as own Earth's gravity there (its weight), but "knows" neither how far from Earth's C.G. it is, nor Moon's gravity there, could react to so called "tidal forces" (differences between gravity vectors at those two positions) ?…"
After writing that I realized you also say in one of mentioned articles:
"The only real forces that act on the body of the earth are:
- The gravitational forces between each part of the earth and every other part, and the gravitational forces on parts of the earth due to the moon, sun, and the nearly negligible forces due to more distant bodies in the solar system.
- Internal tensile forces within the materials of the earth".
Those phrases are very close to my stand:
Internal forces (stresses) - either tensile, compressive, or shear stresses - are exerted between contiguous parts, and a part of them works as follows.
Each part (B) of the Earth is "forced" by the rest (all other parts) to move together, in our case of revolving with no rotation, with identical centripetal force. Where Moon´s (A) pull doesn´t match with that required centripetal acceleration, rest of the Earth gives or takes the difference, through contiguous part direct contact. That difference can be "moon-wards" or outwards.
A correct application of 3rd Newton´s Law would oblige us to separate those two sources of centripetal force on B, because a fraction is exerted by the Moon (A), and another by the part of the Earth which is not B … B would be exerting back a pull on the Moon, an another on the rest of the Earth, through contiguous parts (internal stresses). Those pair of pulls on each other (B, and the rest of the Earth) are, one of the pair "moon-wards" (part of total centripetal force), and the other outwards, "centrifugal" in its more general sense, and "real" in the sense that is according to Newton´s 3rd Law, not just a mathematical tool linked to the chosen reference system …
THOSE internal forces (difference between gravitational force and required centripetal force), as far as I can understand, are the one which directly generate all tidal effects.
Another thing is that, as in the Earth case centripetal force is constant, and at Earth C.G. it is exactly in balance with Moon´s pull there, what the so called standard model does (to subtract Moon´s pull on B if it were at Earth C.G., from Moon´s pull at B actual position), gives equivalent results.
 But that doesn´t mean that model is THE 100% correct one (and no other including those forces linked to the revolving movement). As I already said, it wouldn´t work in an analysis of Earth related Moon tides, or in the analysis of tidal effects in any of the billions of celestial objects that are tidal locked to another in their rotation around their barycenter" TO THAT he replied with a short email piece, saying that he couldn´t write a longer reply due to a family problem, BUT he said my take  IS INTERESTING ... though he added:
"I don't think it is helpful to think of tidal bulges as being caused by tensile forces in earth or water. Rather, dNewtonian dynamics forces earth materials to positions that bring those internal tensile forces to equilibrium. The gravitational field gradient provides the differential force that reshapes earth and water. The tensile forces limit that process”. Much, much “flexible” attitude !
I´ll let him “rest” for a few days, and then I´ll insist with some analogy with some examples he himself explains on his articles ...

[rmolnav]

... he added:
"I don't think it is helpful to think of tidal bulges as being caused by tensile forces in earth or water. Rather, dNewtonian dynamics forces earth materials to positions that bring those internal tensile forces to equilibrium. The gravitational field gradient provides the differential force that reshapes earth and water. The tensile forces limit that process”. Much, much MORE “flexible” attitude !

(edited).
Surely he didn´t read my post carefully, because he says it is interesting, but he insists in what I refuted: "differential force" is an idea of our minds, NOT something inanimate objects can directly react to !!
Internal stresses change due to the mismatch between required centripetal force (constant in Earth case) and Moon´s pull across our planet (with a "gradient"), as I previously explained. Where solid Earth a stretch occurs, and where water pressure distribution changes, and that IS what actually "reshapes water" ...

[rmolnav]

As a continuation of my two previous posts ...
I´m going to reply what I referred to as follows, but not yet because "our man´s" wife was going to have a knee surgery, and he preferred to leave our discussion "stand by" ...
"On the one hand, I´m glad you find "my take" interesting. But on the other I´m kind of sad, because you found necessary to send me Newton´s 3rd Law "properly stated" ... Do you think I had used it wrongly ?.
In "my case" I was very careful with its application ... But it cannot be applied exactly as originally stated, because three "bodies" interviene, rather than just two: Moon (A), a certain part of Earth (considered portion B), and the rest of our planet not included in B.
When a cart is pulled by two horses, if accelerating and supposing no friction losses, 2nd and 3rd Newton´s Laws apply:
- Added pull of the horses on the cart is equal to the mass of the cart multiplied by the acceleration it gets.
- The cart is pulling back EACH horse with same size pull each horse is exerting on the cart.
By the way, I´ve seen you yourself explain a really similar case using EXACTLY same arguments of my take (your article "Tidal misconceptions")
Under the subtitle "Weight" you say:
"Weight may be defined as the force required to keep an object at rest relative to its surroundings. This definition is consistent with most colloqual interpretations of the word (surprise!).
The figure shows the force vectors W and mg, which are the only forces acting on the man. The vector F is their sum. W is directed along the radius of the Earth. Being the radial component of the net force (it is the net force in this case), its size is a = v²/R (the centripetal force). Now compare these two cases. On the non-rotating Earth the man's weight was of size mg. Remember, the weight of an object is the force required to support it, i.e., the force exerted upward by the weighing scale. With the Earth rotating, that force is smaller than before. The contact force between the man's feet and the scale is reduced. But all other such stress forces are reduced as well, within the man, within the scale's springs, within the body of the Earth itself. This causes a slight decompression of these materials, a relaxation of the spring in the scales. In fact, the entire body of the earth expands slightly and the man and scale move outward from the axis of rotation slightly, until forces come into balance with the requirements of rotational stability at the new radius. This is the reason for the equatorial bulge of the Earth due to its own axial rotation".
TAHT CASE is quite similar to "mine", when Earth is revolving around the barycenter. A man on Earth surface where antipodal bulge builds would also experience ALL those changes, due to a lightening equally caused by its circular movement (though much, much smaller).
Unique difference: now we have two "horses" pulling instead of only one ...
IT´S ALSO CLEAR that one of the "horses" (the Moon) pulls Earth massive parts there (B) less than it does on closer parts, but what that actually causes is that the other "horse" (massive parts of Earth not being B) HAS TO pull more, kind of "supply" the difference. And corresponding reaction according to Newton´s 3rd Law, equal but opposite (therefore outward - "centrifugal" in its general sense) and exerted by B ON REST OF EARTH, is also bigger than at closer parts.
And, as you say for equatorial bulge, I can say:
 "This is the reason for antipodal bulge of the Earth due to its revolving around Moon-Earth center of mass".
You also say:
"I don't think it is helpful to think of tidal bulges as being caused by tensile forces in earth or water" ...
It´s not a question about being "helpful" or not ... As far as I can understand, and in line with what you yourself say in the equatorial bulge case, root causes of tidal bulges are several: Varying Moon´s pull, Earth own pull on each of its parts, initial conditions that gave tangential speed to Earth ... and nature motion laws (basically due to the so called "inertia"), as Newton stated.
CHANGES in internal forces where solid Earth (and corresponding stretching), and in pressure distribution where water (and its corresponding pilling up at opposite areas) are nature´s answer to above mentioned causes. They are actually the tides themselves, rather than their cause.

[rmolnav]

As a continuation of my two previous posts ...
I´m going to reply what I referred to as follows, but not yet because ...

As a further continuation to my last posts, just to say I´ve already sent mentioned message, adding what follows:
"By the way, apart from nature itself (and its own motion laws), mentioned
tangential speeds could be considered the actual cause of tides, whatever the energy source that made those speeds possible.
Without those initial speeds, and Moon-Earth "dance" originated by them, tides wouldn´t have been happening for billions of years as they have !"

[rmolnav]

As a further continuation to my last posts ...

I got a rather sad reply from our man, the author of the very interesting works I referred previously to:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm#centrip
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/centrip.htm
He is 81, his wife 80, the surgery went well, but they have no other family help, and among other things he told me:
"So I'll be quite busy helpling her for a few weeks, so don't expect a reply for a while"
After that I asked him if he has some kind of team right hand colleague which could continue our discussion. I feel pretty sure I could get them at least accept some of the errors in the above linked works ... But no answer so far.
Apart from what I said from nine to five days ago, he said some absurd things, I think mainly due to the fact that he frequently makes titanic efforts to avoid the use of anything related to centrifugal (or even simply "outward") forces, and/or Earth revolving ... Kind of viscerally biassed reasoning ! And he critics many other works biassed ...
E.g. ("exam" ):
"Question 10: The picture (not copied here) and text below are from the NOAA-NOS website. Your tax dollars at work to propagate misconceptions (!!)
Gravity and inertia are opposing forces acting on the earth's oceans, creating tidal bulges on opposite sides of the planet. On the "near" side of the earth (the side facing the moon), the gravitational force of the moon pulls the ocean's waters toward it, creating one bulge.
On the far side of the earth, inertial forces dominate, creating a second bulge.
Identify the specific misconceptions in the picture and the text. 
Answer 10. The picture suggests that the near bulge is only (or "mainly", isn´t it) due to gravitation, the other one only due to "inertial forces". The text speaks of "inertial forces", without saying that such a term has no meaning (??) except in a non-inertial coordinate system. The phrase "pulls the ocean waters toward it" implies "motion toward it" (or "deformation", does´t it?). The moon exerts gravitational forces on the far side bulge not much smaller than on the near side, and if these forces are "pulling" toward the moon on the near side, they are also pulling toward the moon on the far side. No mention is made of that (but they say "inertial forces dominate" !!.)

[rmolnav]

I´ll continue to refute what dealt with on my last posts.
One of first paragraphs of “Misconceptions about tides” (“lockhaven.edu-dsimanek” previously linked sites), says:
"One of the few books that clearly defines "tide" at the outset is The Planetary System by Morrison and Owen [1966]: "A tide is a distortion in the shape of one body induced by the gravitational pull of another nearby object." This is definition (2) above. It clearly says that tides are the result of gravitation, without any mention of rotation of the earth”.
That last comment seems to show the author is biassed: he starts considering rotation (“revolving”, rather) has nothing to do with tides …
With that fixed idea, his reasoning may be kind of distorted, reaching erroneous conclusions !!
Further comments we can do about it:
1) If only "the gravitational pull of another nearby object” (the Moon in our case) counted, Moon and Earth would have fallen onto each other long, long ago …
2) I know standard Physics says: but they both rotate/revolve around the barycenter, and that prevent them to fall onto each other !!
3) Right. Therefore, without that rotation/revolving we wouldn´t have had the tides we´ve had for billions of years !!
4) And as Moon´s gravitational pulls on farthest hemisphere ocean water “units" are insufficient to cause required centripetal acceleration at their place, those water “units" tend to follow in the direction of their tangential speed (logically, due to the “inertia” phenomenon). Part of own Earth pull on that water has to be “used” to produce that centripetal acceleration deficit.
5) The author himself says on https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/centrip.htm
that (explaining why on the equator we weigh less than at higher latitudes, being our weigh maximum at both poles): 
"The figure shows the force vectors W and mg, which are the only forces acting on the man. The vector F is their sum. W is directed along the radius of the Earth. Being the radial component of the net force (it is the net force in this case), its size is a = v2/R (the centripetal force). Now compare these two cases. On the non-rotating Earth the man's weight was of size mg. Remember, the weight of an object is the force required to support it, i.e., the force exerted upward by the weighing scale. With the Earth rotating, that force is smaller than before. The contact force between the man's feet and the scale is reduced. But all other such stress forces are reduced as well, within the man, within the scale's springs, within the body of the Earth itself. This causes a slight decompression of these materials, a relaxation of the spring in the scales. In fact, the entire body of the earth expands slightly and the man and scale move outward from the axis of rotation slightly, until forces come into balance with the requirements of rotational stability at the new radius. This is the reason for the equatorial bulge of the Earth due to its own axial rotation".
EXACTLY THE SAME happens (why it wouldn´t? …) to water further from the Moon due to Earth revolving around Moon-Earth barycenter, because its weight there has same direction and sense as required centripetal force.
And that water lightening there, together with the displacement of water from rest of further hemisphere (caused similarly, but with different angles between weight and required centripetal forces) is actually the reason of the antipodal bulge formation !!
The varying Moon´s pull also intervienes, but only causing previously mentioned centripetal force “deficit” !!
Another thing is that, as Earth revolves without rotation (in its “dance” with the Moon), required centripetal force is constant across it. And as at Earth c.g. it is in balance with Moon´s pull there, the “fields” of gravitational differences, and the one of differences at each place between required centripetal force and gravity, are equivalent !!
That fact keeps kind of hidden to many the error of thinking Earth revolving has nothing to do with tides formation … The so called “standard model”, considering only gravitational gradient, would give erroneous results when analyzing e.g. Earth tidal effects on the Moon, or on any of the many billions of celestial objects tidal locked to another !!   

[rmolnav]

I´ll continue to refute what dealt with on my last posts.

They author of the articles I´m referring to also says:
“ … Once they launch into the rotating coordinate mode and start talking about centrifugal forces … They also forget that the non-uniformity of moon's gravitational field over the volume of the earth is alone sufficient to account for both tidal bulges, bulges that would be essentially the same if ... the earth and moon were not moving relative to each other”.
HE is the one who apparently forgets that hypothetical case is NOT possible … unless some other external force were countering the gravitational attraction between both celestial bodies !!
Let us “play” with our imagination. Some “possible” (?) cases could be:
1) A kind of “cosmic" superman were able to keep them separated their current distance, pushing them outwards on their inner sides. Earth would not get tidal bulges but quite the opposite: it would become slightly flatter (internal compression stresses increase)
Similar situation, but pulling outwards from their outer sides (where strong solid parts in the Earth side ...). Kind of bulges would build, but outer one would be quite different, depending on the way our superman could  "grasp" the Earth … (internal tensile stresses increase)
Some “ miraculous” outward forces were applied directly on Moon and Earth respective centers of mass, countering mutual gravity attraction … Earth inner hemisphere would get an ovoid shape, kind of bulge (internal tensile stresses increase), but outer hemisphere would experience the opposite type of deformation: it would get slightly flater (internal compression stresses increase).     
THEREFORE to get our real bulges it is paramount the way Moon-Earth mutual attraction is countered to keep actual distance … And the real way is their rotation/revolving around their barycenter !! THAT EARTH REVOLVING implies inertia related outward forces, quite an intervening fact in bulges formation, as explained on my last post.
So, to say “… bulges that would be essentially the same if ... the earth and moon were not moving relative to each other” is erroneous, or at least pointless, because it compares something real with something impossible ...

[rmolnav]

Sorry there should be:
"2)" before "Similar situation, but pulling outwards ..."
"3)" before "Some “ miraculous” outward forces were applied ..."

[rmolnav]

When discussing with somebody else things said on the very interesting articles I´m lately referring to:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm#centrip
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/centrip.htm
he asks me what below.
I´ve seen many people somehow have rather confused ideas about daily manifested tides (does Earth daily spinning cause tides ??), when Moon-Earth "dance" movements have almost a month period ...   
That´s why I´ve decided to send this post.
I answered what follows.
"Your question:
" ...(I had previously said)  DAILY Earth spinning causes the "permanent" equatorial bulge, but it has NOTHING to do with Moon-Earth dynamics ... Does this mean that you also agree that the earth's spinning has nothing to do with tides?"
My answer:
I chose carefully my words. There is a trick is in the way you put the question ... The earth's spinning has nothing to do WITH THE ROOT CAUSE OF TIDES, but it does with the way they manifest ...
When we say "tides", in its global sense (local changes of sea level can have other causes), we refer to the cyclical change of sea level related mainly to Moon position in its monthly rotation. To analyze their actual causes, we have to disregard the daily spinning of our planet (imaging we check the position of the bulges everyday at same time). That way we would have the bulges, always in line with the Moon, "moving" around our planet in an app. 28 days "two-parts" cycle ...
THAT IS the basic phenomenon of tides.
BUT, as Earth does spin daily, its meridian in line with the Moon changes continuously, and though bulges maintain its position relative to the Moon, they continuously change meridian too. And Moon related tides SEEM to have an app. 12+12 h. cycle ...
BUT THAT SPINNING doesn´t cause the tides, though it causes the so called equatorial bulge, easily explainable as done on  “lockhaven.edu-dsimanek” previously linked sites, when analyzing how we weigh less on lower latitudes, especially on the equator: 
"... Now compare these two cases. On the non-rotating Earth the man's weight was of size mg. Remember, the weight of an object is the force required to support it, i.e., the force exerted upward by the weighing scale. With the Earth rotating, that force is smaller than before. The contact force between the man's feet and the scale is reduced. But all other such stress forces are reduced as well, within the man, within the scale's springs, within the body of the Earth itself. This causes a slight decompression of these materials, a relaxation of the spring in the scales. In fact, the entire body of the earth expands slightly and the man and scale move outward from the axis of rotation slightly, until forces come into balance with the requirements of rotational stability at the new radius. This is the reason for the equatorial bulge of the Earth due to its own axial rotation".
ANOTHER THING is that the monthly revolving of the Earth in its "dance" with the Moon, also causes similar inertia related effects (not to use tricky concept "centrifugal forces"), which actually are one of the causes of tides, especially on the hemisphere further from the Moon, where antipodal bulge appears ...
On closer hemisphere, though those inertial effects have also an outward direction, as Moon´s pull there is higher, the later prevails and the better understood bulge builds towards the Moon !!

[rmolnav]

For those not interested on a thorough explanation of the two daily hight tides, A REALLY SIMPLE one is what said by NOAA, "question" nº 10 as on:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm#centrip 
"Gravity and inertia are opposing forces acting on the earth's oceans, creating tidal bulges on opposite sides of the planet. On the near side of the earth (the side facing the moon), the gravitational force of the moon pulls the ocean's waters toward it, creating one bulge.
On the far side of the earth, inertial forces dominate, creating a second bulge" (see figure on linked site).
All that is RIGHT, though not complete. Across the oceans both moon´s gravitational forces and inertial forces act ... BUT we have to understand the term "inertial forces" as "inertia related forces", NOT in the restricted sense "dsimanek" article author says:
" The text speaks of "inertial forces", without saying that such a term has no meaning except in a non-inertial coordinate system" ...
WHATEVER the reference system, the revolving of earth around the barycenter makes ALL its parts follow identical circular paths. That implies a "tendency" (due to INERTIA) of water to follow the tangent ... On the far side that kind of lightens water, as here several times commented in comparison to the the very author´s explanation of equatorial bulge.
Why "on earth" we, as NOAA people does, could not call those water weight lightenings "inertia related forces", or even "inertial forces" ??
NOAA people also say "On the far side of the earth, inertial forces dominate”…  QUITE RIGHT too,  because there moon´s pull is smaller.
They could also have said "On the near side of the earth, gravitational forces dominate" (there moon´s pull is bigger than "inertial forces"), though they only say "On the near side of the earth (the side facing the moon), the gravitational force of the moon pulls the ocean's waters toward it, creating one bulge".
That is why I consider all that is RIGHT, though not complete ... "Dsimanek" author critic could only be explained as a biassed attitude due to his visceral opposition to anything different to his idea that ONLY gravitational gradient intervienes on bulge formation … IT DOES, BUT IT IS ONLY ONE OF THE SIDES OF THE COIN !!
It could not be otherwise. The absence of those "inertial" forces (not to use the even more controversial term "centrifugal"), would imply no circular movement of the Earth around the barycenter, and Earth and Moon could not have kept their actual "dance" for billions of years !!

 

[David Cooper]

You really need to condense all that down into a book (and then get someone to translate it into readable form).

[rmolnav]

You really need to condense all that down into a book (and then get someone to translate it into readable form).

I´m glad you say so, hopping it implies you´ve found things I´ve said are worth a book (though you exaggerate ...) !
But, you know, I type with only two fingers, and not being English my mother tong it would take me “eons” …
Though since my first post here (#20), more than three years ago, I´ve sent a huge number of posts. That moment I could not even imagine I would have to write so much. And I´ve also sent lots of posts to other “The naked scientists” threads, especially "What is centrifugal force?"
I think a big problem has been the fact that many people feel very sure about the correctness of things said by many physicists, for instance what I´ve been refuting lately:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm#centrip
To go “against the grain” is harder than I thought!
And, once and again, I´ve had to send my reasons, putting  them in different ways, looking for success.
The main issue has been the concept of centrifugal force, since my very first post. Many physicists restrict its use to when in an “artificial” scenario, “existing” only inside our minds: the so called “non inertial system of reference” …
But, however we could agree to call them, “outward” forces do exist whenever a massive object follows a curved path, which produce REAL physical effects. They are not just a tendency to follow the tangent, e.g. as we can “feel” when in a car ...
Unless people understand and agree with that, the explanation of the existence of the high tide further from the Moon will be erroneous.
By the way, lately I´ve been ruminating on that concept, "not inertial system of reference”, and how it is most frequently handled … I´ve found what I consider “logical” flaws, but need some more time to prepare a post to properly try and convey that idea. It could be a paramount reason of the enormous existing confusion on both centrifugal force and antipodal bulge issue ...

[David Cooper]

The reasons I suggested that you should condense it all into a book are as follows:-

(1) You've practically written a short book here on the subject already in terms of volume.

(2) If it was turned into a proper book, it would have to be organised into chapters delivering everything in the right order and with no repetition of any of the content and with anything extraneous removed.

(3) If it was a book, it would have a contents list and index making it easy to find the parts of most interest to any specific reader.

(4) If it was a book, it would have an introduction which would set the scene for everything else that follows, and that would make it easier for people to work out why you think centrifugal force has anything to do with tides. I still haven't seen the connection.

If you took away the sun, moon and other planets, the tides would completely disappear even though the Earth's rotation and the centrifugal/centripetal force would continue to apply in full.

If you only had the Earth and the moon and the Earth didn't rotate, you would have no centrifugal force, but you would still have tides: two of them per month.

Due to the lack of an index and proper structure though, I can't find the right place to start reading to get that vital explanation of the part of your argument that I've somehow managed to miss. How does centrifugal/centripetal force do anything other than create a static bulge (all round the equator)? And if you have identified a real effect rather than an imaginary one, how big a percentage would you put on it to represent its role in causation of tides?

Edit:-

I think I've found what I was looking for. In the case where the moon rotates round an Earth that isn't spinning, the moon would move the Earth about in a circle over the course of a month, and that would, I think you're suggesting, create centrifugal force. But does it count as centrifugal force if the Earth isn't rotating? Perhaps it doesn't, but I don't want to rule out an effect on the basis of it being misnamed. The Earth is being caused to move - to accelerate, and to change direction as it does this, which might lead someone to think that the water will be flung out away from the Earth when the Earth changes direction. But the acceleration force is gravity, and that gravity is acting on the water as well as the Earth, so it's all being accelerated in the same direction. The only thing that varies is the strength of that acceleration, and it's stronger on the closer material and weaker on the more distant material. That is not an addition to the normal cause of tides - it is precisely the normal cause of tides and it is not centrifugal/centripetal force.

[rmolnav]

In the case where the moon rotates round an Earth that isn't spinning, the moon would move the Earth about in a circle over the course of a month, and that would, I think you're suggesting, create centrifugal force. But does it count as centrifugal force if the Earth isn't rotating?

Thank you for your ideas about a possible book, but, frankly, I´m afraid it would be too hard a task for me.
What quoted is very important. I´ll answer your question with an analogy.
Imagine we have a bowl with water on the flat surface of a table. Let us make it slowly follow a circular path, trying to maintain the angular speed, and avoid any resonance situation.
The water level will rise at outer side of the bowl, against the water weight ... Here the bowl inner wall "forces" outer water layer to follow a circular trajectory (centripetal force), and as per 3rd Newton´s Motion Law water will "push" outward on bowl inner circular surface ... The same happens between contiguous cylindrical layers of water ... Those outward forces, whether we call them centrifugal forces or not, are quite real, and the result is that water pressure increases outwards, and that makes the water rise there (kind of high tide).
In the case of moon-earth monthly dance, certainly due to mutual gravitational forces (but also to suitable initial speed vectors of both celestial objects), disregarding daily earth spinning, earth is in a similar case to the water bowl analogy.
Now there are no walls to force inwards the water, but own water weight (much, much greater) makes the job keeping farther water "connected" to the rest of the oceans.
But that "tendency" of that water to follow the tangent, kind of lightens its weight, as very well explained on previously linked site:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/centrip.htm
though here is for the daily earth spinning case, what forms the so called equatorial bulge.
And, whatever distribution of moon´s pull across our planet, that water weight (pull from rest of the planet) lightening does intervene on tides, particularly on farther hemisphere bulge formation. 

[David Cooper]

Imagine we have a bowl with water on the flat surface of a table. Let us make it slowly follow a circular path, trying to maintain the angular speed, and avoid any resonance situation.
The water level will rise at outer side of the bowl, against the water weight ... Here the bowl inner wall "forces" outer water layer to follow a circular trajectory (centripetal force), and as per 3rd Newton´s Motion Law water will "push" outward on bowl inner circular surface ... The same happens between contiguous cylindrical layers of water ... Those outward forces, whether we call them centrifugal forces or not, are quite real, and the result is that water pressure increases outwards, and that makes the water rise there (kind of high tide).

The water bulges up at one side of the bowl as you move it in a circle, but it does the exact opposite at the other side of the bowl - not a bulge, but a dip. That doesn't match up with the behaviour of tides.

Imagine that we only have the Earth and the moon, and that the Earth rotates at a speed that keeps the same side facing the moon at all times. What's would be the result? No tides. What you would see is the water bulging up towards and away from the moon, and that bulging is not driven by centrifugal force in any way, but solely by greater gravitational attraction to the moon on one side and less gravitational attraction on the other.

Once you have that picture in your head, you can then create tides by rotating the Earth at any different speed (including zero rotation). Introduce the sun and you have a second pair of bulges which can add to or subtract from the bigger bulges caused by the moon.

If there was a centrifugal effect from the Earth being sent in a circle by the moon, what would happen? There would be an amplification of the height of the tide on one side of the Earth and a reduction of it on the opposite side, but no such effect is measured, and no such effect should apply either. Let me explain why no such effect should apply.

With the moon moving the Earth in a small circle, the moon is directly applying its gravity both to the Earth and to the water - there is no further transfer of that force needed from Earth to water as it is already being applied directly to both. The case of a bowl of water being moved around by you is radically different - you move the bowl and the bowl transfers force to the water. If you were able to apply force to every atom of the water and bowl directly, the water would not slosh around or bulge at all. You could, if you had access to such a force, accelerate a bowl of water sideways in an instant to 100m/s and decelerate it back to 0m/s a moment later, and not a drop would spill - all the water would stay where it is in relation to the container throughout this manoeuvre. Gravity works like that - a falling bowl of water doesn't leave the water behind, but the water falls with it. This is very different from the equivalent in zero G (in a space station) where you could accelerate the bowl "downwards" away from its content by pulling it, leaving the water behind. The moon pulls both the Earth and water at the same time, pulling on every part of it with almost the same force, and the only reason you get two bulges from this is that the force declines over distance as it spreads out further away from the moon.