[rmolnav]

Fluctuation of the amplitude of tides during the month is a rather complex phenomenon of nature and it will be rather difficult to explain it without a model of the solar system.
This is due to the oscillation of the orbital velocity of the earth, and the complex trajectory of the earth's motion in orbit, because of the barycenter.

I partially agree with first paragraph. Moon tidal effects are the biggest, and what we see are their daily changes due to Earth spin, though they include kind of hidden Sun tidal effects.
"Fluctuation of the amplitude of tides during the month is a rather complex phenomenon of nature",
right, but only if we want to be very precise ...
Because the bulk of that oscillation is due to a very simple cause: individual Moon and Sun effects add up as two vectors do, when their relative angle oscillates from 0º to 360º during each Moon cycle (new Moon to next new Moon).
Your last paragraph, "This is due to the oscillation of the orbital velocity of the earth, and the complex trajectory of the earth's motion in orbit, because of the barycenter", seems to be unfinished (because of "the barycenter" ... ??). I couldn´t say whether I think that is also right or not ...
   

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Fluctuation of the amplitude of tides during the month is a rather complex phenomenon of nature and it will be rather difficult to explain it without a model of the solar system.
This is due to the oscillation of the orbital velocity of the earth, and the complex trajectory of the earth's motion in orbit, because of the barycenter.

Your last paragraph, "This is due to the oscillation of the orbital velocity of the earth, and the complex trajectory of the earth's motion in orbit, because of the barycenter", seems to be unfinished (because of "the barycenter" ... ??). I couldn´t say whether I think that is also right or not ...
 

Done right:
The center of the earth can be imagined as a material point that moves in orbit at a speed of about 30 km / s, while the Bay of Fundy revolving around this point at a speed of 1,700 km / h, moves relative to the sun, then forward and backward, then tops downwards, which adds additional complexity.

[Bored chemist]

Do we see evidence of rotating planets/satellites with gaseous atmospheres that behave tidally because of their spins?

...Beyond Earth of course....

Yes
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-research-reveals-fluctuating-atmosphere-of-jupiter-s-volcanic-moon

[rmolnav]

Done right:
The center of the earth can be imagined as a material point that moves in orbit at a speed of about 30 km / s, while the Bay of Fundy revolving around this point at a speed of 1,700 km / h, moves relative to the sun, then forward and backward, then tops downwards, which adds additional complexity.

You seem to forget that what actually moves in elliptical orbit around our Sun is the Earth-Moon common center of mas (barycenter) ... Earth´s c.g. has an additional movement of revolving around that point. The addition of both movements results in a curled path of Earth c.g. ... and with oscillating linear velocity: maximum when new Moon, and minimum when full Moon !!
Rather a complicated movement ... But it, and its effects, can be analyzed separately: the annual revolving around the Sun, and the app. monthly revolving around Earth-Moon barycenter.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

This section of the forum was created so folks can air a non-standard theory. Your’s certainly generated a lot of interest even though very few agree with you.

https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Saint-Malo-France/tides/latest
 http://geosfera.org/evropa/718-la-mansh-proliv-mezhdu-angliey-i-franciey.html
This link shows that the height of the tides in the Gulf of Saint-Malo can determine the speed of the current in the Bay of La Mancha.
This month, the average height of the tides is about 10 meters and the speed of the current should be about 10 km / h.
If these numbers do not coincide, then the whirlpool theory can be considered a mistake.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

few agree with you.

Ask questions, I am ready to answer all questions.
(The more errors in the theory, the easier it is to refute the theory. The more experienced an opponent, the easier it is to convince him).

[Colin2B]

This link shows that the height of the tides in the Gulf of Saint-Malo can determine the speed of the current in the Bay of La Mancha.
This month, the average height of the tides is about 10 meters and the speed of the current should be about 10 km / h.
If these numbers do not coincide, then the whirlpool theory can be considered a mistake.

Last time I gave you figures showing your ‘calculations were wrong you just changed your guess, so I don’t intend to to give you the actual figures.
10km/h is 5.4kts, I checked the dates you gave and the current is nowhere near that value.
So, “the whirlpool theory can be considered a mistake”.
No point wasting more time on it, bye.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

So, “the whirlpool theory can be considered a mistake”.
No point wasting more time on it, bye.

Name other numbers, and I will not lose your and your precious time:
Table: The dependence of the amplitude of the tides of the Bay of Fundy, on the flow velocity in the north of the Gulf of Maine.
1 km / h - 5 m
5 km / h - 10 m
10 km / h - 15 m
15 km / h - 20 m

The average speed of the current in the Channel is 12-13 km / h.
The maximum height of the tides is 15 m (the city of Saint-Malo, France).

http://geosfera.org/evropa/718-la-mansh-proliv-mezhdu-angliey-i-franciey.html
https: /.../ m.youtube.com/watch?v=M44miAiHhrk

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The waters of the North Sea rotate counter-clockwise, and the rotation speed of water depends on the speed of the current in the La Mancha. https://goo.gl/images/RaQSkm

[Bored chemist]

I'm just wondering.
Did you not read this, or did you not understand it?

So, “the whirlpool theory can be considered a mistake”.
No point wasting more time on it, bye.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Even if I want to give up this theory, most of the people in the forum will not support me.

[rmolnav]

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. 
When discussing with somebody else things said on the very interesting articles (because I don´t agree with many things said there):
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm#centrip
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/centrip.htm
he asked me what below. 
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 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 !!

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The opening was published in the Russian-German scientific peer-reviewed journal "Eastern European Scientific Journal" No. 3/2015. 64. June
http://www.auris-archiv.de/journal.html
Scientific journal "NBIX-Nauka. Technology" No. 4/2018. Page 104.
(Nanotechnological Society of Russia)
http://www.rusnor.org/pubs/articles/15638.htm
A positive review was also received from the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

I think the magazines that published the theory knew what kind of responsibility they bear if they make a mistake.

[rmolnav]

For those not interested on a thorough explanation of the two daily high 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 in the explanation of the very article author´s of the so called equatorial bulge:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/centrip.htm
where explaining why on the equator we weigh less than at higher latitudes, he says (see image at linked site): 
"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".
Why "on earth" we, as NOAA scientists do, could not call those water weight lightenings "inertia related forces", or even "inertial forces" ??
NOAA scientists 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 precise "dance" for billions of years... Moon (or its material) either would have gone away to the space, or would have fallen back onto the Earth, long, long ago !!

[opportunity]

a rotating planet usually does its stuff.....when a satellite comes into play, it plays, right?

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The opening was published in the Russian-German scientific peer-reviewed journal "Eastern European Scientific Journal" No. 3/2015. 64. June
http://www.auris-archiv.de/journal.html
Scientific journal "NBIX-Nauka. Technology" No. 4/2018. Page 104.
(Nanotechnological Society of Russia)
http://www.rusnor.org/pubs/articles/15638.htm
A positive review was also received from the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

I think the magazines that published the theory knew what kind of responsibility they bear if they make a mistake.

I think many institutes gladly published this theory on their websites and magazines, if they knew that there is such a theory.

[opportunity]

Water is one thing, what about tectonic movement?

[Colin2B]

Water is one thing, what about tectonic movement?

Influence of moon sun combination causes a regular 12 hr shift of earth’s surface by up to a metre. Can influence volcanic eruptions.

[opportunity]

Yes....this discussion we should consider vulnerable to basic planetary issues?

Someone leaving:

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The earth as any living organism grows mainly due to the mass of light, as the planet's mass increases, the temperature of the planet also rises.
For this reason, there is a movement of continents and earthquakes.
If South America and Africa were a single continent, then where the two largest rivers, Amazon and Congo fell, and whether there were any traces from the sea.
In the formation of planets, the laws of celestial mechanics are involved, which have not yet been fully studied. (The three-body problem, and the cause of the axial and orbital rotation of the planets is not yet revealed).
And tectonic plates, in my opinion, can not be formed.