[opportunity]

If there was an answer to the question posted, how many scores is that settling in the bigger picture?

We successfully answer the topic question, then what? Was that an achievement?

So, in simple?

You're asking more questions than I thought were necessary.

C'mon, simplify.

Summarise maybe with a poem....a ballad, a metaphor for Christ's sake.

A solid ball mass with a liquid exterior.

The solid ball rotates faster than the rotation around that ball of a "moon".

A "moon" captures the liquid gravitational pull.

The question is why that pull happens on the other side of the planet?

Am I right?

As dumb as it sounds, having a sea on a planet that rotates is happy with a Moon.

Why would a rock planet, rotating faster than the Moon does around it as compared to the sun, create a gravitational pull not just towards the Moon closest to it but away from it on the other side of the planet, right?

"That" works.....define maybe why it shouldn't if there's a question, right?

The biggest problem for contemporary science is working out how "that" works..........right?

If one is to understand a great deal of things, a certain great deal of things need to be included. One can't deny facts, yet adhere to what appears to be the case.

Am I pulling logs to prove tides?

MOD NOTE: If you wish to add to a previous post please do so by modifying that post rather than producing a chain of posts.

[Colin2B]

It SURPRISES me this thread carries on. Two different phenomena are being discussed, and frequently mixed up due to that …

3 in fact as there are 2 different circulatory phenomena.

And those tides would happen even if Earth did not spin daily, main cause of "whirlpools", as far as I can understand. I have not delved into the existing lot of local cases, but I´ve seen they are very complex, especially on a very long work of NOAA I can´t find now”.

You’ve hit the nub of the problem the OP fails to understand, the ‘whirlpools’ are not the same as the tides.

Spin + moon driven tide gives one ‘whirlpool’ - although this is not a circulating current; wind driven + spin gives another and I think the OP is confusing these 2. But as you say, these are not the cause of the periodic tides.

Long ago when I was a boy, I already realized that, e.g., strongest high tides were always at same time, and when full or new Moon, in Atlantic coast of Spain where I was in summer holiday.
And nowadays, just seeing the Moon in Madrid sky at a certain moment, I can tell how high is the tide at mentioned coast, and also if the tide coefficient is high or low, without any complicated maths or any additional information.

Anyone familiar with the coast or who has sailed on the sea will agree with you. And therein lies the OP’s problem I think.

How “on Earth” the OP can say:
"The gravity of the moon does not reach the Earth”? … (!!!)

Has he never had any experience similar to mine?

The first is lack of knowledge of all the research that has been done and the sophistication of modern instruments and satellites.
The second is a lack of experience of spending time by, on or in the sea. There is also in the OP’s posts a lack of knowledge of basic hydrography and a sad misunderstanding of how gyroscopes work.

PS You say “a very long work of NOAA I can´t find now”. Can you describe what it covers as I might have a copy in my lecture notes.

[opportunity]

Despite how we summarise, questions have answers....ideally.

Are we still asking why the Earth gives itself two tides?

[Colin2B]

Are we still asking why the Earth gives itself two tides?

No, that’s never been the question here.

Just a point of etiquette. If you are posting in someone else’s topic and you want to add another comment before someone else has posted, it is polite to modify your last post rather than create a new post. If you disrupt the flow of a thread moderators will remove posts.

[rmolnav]

You say “a very long work of NOAA I can´t find now”. Can you describe what it covers as I might have a copy in my lecture notes.

Thank you. It was when I posted #13 that I could not find it, but I did localize it:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Tidal_Analysis_and_Predictions.pdf
Most of the work deals about the huge variety of local costal tides, but it also has an interesting part analyzing root Moon and Sun related causes of tides.
I´ve already said on the other thread that, though they explain the issue in a similar way as me, they even go beyond what I say, because they use the term centrifugal force even for the whole Earth revolving ... But on Earth C.G., when considering it as a whole, only centripetal force is exerted (total Moon´s pull), and it is producing the revolving of whole Earth, a kind of free fall ... Any centrifugal force considered acting there would be fictitious, as far as I can understand.
It´s on other points of our planet, where Moon´s pull doesn´t match with centripetal force required for actual revolving, where internal stresses appear, both "moon-ward" and outward, and those last ones are real centrifugal forces.   

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

According to the lunar theory of the tides from east to west at a speed of 1000 mph, a tidal wave does not move but a tidal current moves.
The Canal Theory of Tides and D. Erie
http://ru-ecology.info/term/67339/
https://myzooplanet.ru/okeanologiya-okeanografiya_918/106-kanalovaya-teoriya-18624.html
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=NqDEaFjIXPw

[Colin2B]

According to the lunar theory of the tides  ...

There is very little point quoting lunar theory of tides if you are unable to answer questions about your own theory eg:

What is the height of the tidal hill at the equator?

You really are missing the point here. The question is not the height of any bulge, but the periodicity of the variation in heights. This periodicity is, as explained previously, the combined effect of Moon and Sun.
Please show your calculations to explain spring and neap tides and their exact periodicity.

Are you able to show in detail how your whirlpool theory accounts for spring and neap tides and their periodicity?
I don’t think you can. Until you do there is very little point in posting more as you are just wasting our time.

[rmolnav]

as the planet spins faster than the Moon rotates around it, and both these bodies are "in harmony", maybe the problem of explaining this is how gravity works according to contemporary theory?

I insist: mixing two different phenomena makes errors more likely ...
The Moon and our planet are certainly "in harmony" as you say, but logically with two cyclical movements of identical period of app. 28 days, rotating (the Moon) and revolving (the Earth) around their common center of mass (barycenter).
The daily spinning of our planet has nothing to do with that harmony ... Even we could say that it causes some changes kind of against that harmony, being the root cause of that the friction between water and solid Earth, and internally between different "drops" of water ... But that affects Moon-Earth dynamics significantly only in a very, very long term.   

[rmolnav]

I think we're not thinking out-there enough.
How do liquids separate from solids, and by what tension of viscosity do liquids act like solids, and under what temperature variations, for instance.....

The influence of those factors in the generation of global tides is negligible.
By the way, when do you think liquid water could act as solid, due to high tension of viscosity?.
I hope you are not thinking huge amounts of water could act as water drops due to viscosity ...

[opportunity]

Are we still asking why the Earth gives itself two tides?

No, that’s never been the question here.

Just a point of etiquette. If you are posting in someone else’s topic and you want to add another comment before someone else has posted, it is polite to modify your last post rather than create a new post. If you disrupt the flow of a thread moderators will remove posts.

Why be a ***** Moderator?

You single me out?

I'm worried that's all you do, chase people with ideas you can't grasp other than with your "blockings".

I don't want to say "grow a brain"....but at least allow the possibility.....right?

[opportunity]

"Over time".....a moon and a planet.......things become usual.

Who's asking how that works?

[Colin2B]

in reality the Moon revolving around the Earth, it accelerates that slows down the orbital velocity of the Earth, due to which in the new moon, the orbital velocity of the Earth is maximal, and in the full moon, the minimum.
...
The Moon's role is indirect, creating an uneven orbital velocity of the Earth.
The maximum orbital velocity of the earth happens three days after the new moon.
The minimum orbital velocity of the earth is three days after the full moon.

Once a year, the Earth as close as possible to the Sun (perihelion), while maximizing the Earth's orbital velocity and, as a consequence, the height of the tides increases.

Is that really your best answer? If so it is seriously flawed.
Earth's orbital eccentricity is 0. 0167 and speed at perihelion is 30.3 Km/s and at aphelion 29.3, that is insufficient to account for tides.
Also the periodicities you quote do not match the observed values for spring and neap tides, however, the positions of sun and moon relative to a location on earth do match.

If that’s the best you can do I will leave you to it, you have no viable theory or data to back it up.

[Kryptid]

Marking your own answer as the best answer. Wow.

[Bored chemist]

Marking your own answer as the best answer. Wow.

Marking a  plainly wrong answer as "the best answer"- even more wow!

[Bored chemist]

Once a year, the Earth as close as possible to the Sun (perihelion), while maximizing the Earth's orbital velocity and, as a consequence, the height of the tides increases.

OK, it's an interesting idea, but in reality, perihelion was on the 3rd of  January, and the highest tides (and lowest) correspond with the equinoxes.
So you are simply wrong.
Your idea is so badly wrong that Galileo would have laughed at you.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The most sensitive gravimeter, this is a conventional pendulum clock.
In the phase of new moon and perihelion, the clock will go fast or slow.

[rmolnav]

The moon's gravity does not affect the ebb and flow.
The Moon's role is indirect, creating an uneven orbital velocity of the Earth.
The maximum orbital velocity of the earth happens three days after the new moon.
The minimum orbital velocity of the earth is three days after the full moon.
Once a year, the Earth as close as possible to the Sun (perihelion), while maximizing the Earth's orbital velocity and, as a consequence, the height of the tides increases.

You seem to try and adapt facts to your ideas ... And as they are utterly wrong ("The moon's gravity does not affect the ebb and flow"), you have to say things which can´t match, and contradict yourself.
How could the Moon increase and decrease orbital velocity of the Earth days after new and full Moon, but not ocean water movement, being water so "fluid" and free to move when gravitational combined field (Moon´s, Sun´s and own Earth´s pulls) change???
How a decrease in Moon-Earth distance (perihelion) could increase orbital velocity of the Earth, and due only to that last o.v. increase tides are higher ... but we shouldn´t think tides are higher because Moon´s pull is higher when Moon-Éarth distance is smaller
Physics problems can be tackled, but not together with Logics problems ...
By the way, it is true that orbital velocity of the Earth varies, though slightly, with the phases of the Moon ... But, do you know the root cause of that? ... And if not, how can you argue as you do?   

[Colin2B]

The most sensitive gravimeter, this is a conventional pendulum clock.
In the phase of new moon and perihelion, the clock will go fast or slow.

There are 2 things wrong with this.
First you said the moon’s gravity doesn’t reach earth, so how can it affect a pendulum?
Second a pendulum clock is not the most sensitive gravimeter, that honour is reserved for atom interferometric and atomic fountain based instruments.

Marking your own answer as the best answer. Wow.

Marking a  plainly wrong answer as "the best answer"- even more wow!

Mainly desperation I suspect. I’m leaving it as is because it should be obvious to anyone who reads it that it is seriously wrong.
There only seems to be one person in this thread who is supporting the OP and he has already demonstrated poor understanding of physics in other topics.

Most of the work deals about the huge variety of local costal tides, but it also has an interesting part analyzing root Moon and Sun related causes of tides.
I´ve already said on the other thread that, though they explain the issue in a similar way as me, they even go beyond what I say, because they use the term centrifugal force even for the whole Earth revolving ... ....

Excellent document, I keep a copy with my lecture notes as reference.
I think the problem is that the document is intended as a working manual rather than a physics text. You tend to be at the mercy of the author, who is often an editor drawing material in from different sources. Also organisations like NOAA do not have an overall editorial stance although they do have a very sound review process using both internal and external reviewers. Even so, I know from personal experience that getting a consistent framework in a document of this size very time consuming - there always seems to be something you missed.
I try to read around the differences in viewpoint and terminology as long as I can understand the mechanisms,  but I agree with you a consistency in the descriptions would be of great benefit to all.

PS I agree fully with your comments in #99

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

It is possible to put a question and so:
In the phase of the new moon or full moon, the pendulum clock will go faster.

[Colin2B]

It is possible to put a question and so:
In the phase of the new moon or full moon, the pendulum clock will go faster.

So?
You have already shown that your theory doesn’’t work, no need to post more proof that it is false.