[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

According to Newton's static theory, in one turn of the moon the hump makes one turn.
According to the dynamic theory of Laplace, for two turns of the Moon the hump makes one turn.
But in practice this does not work,
The moon itself, the hump itself.
Look at the tide chart, the time of sunset and moons.
https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Fundy-Offshore-1-Nova-Scotia/tides/latest

[Bored chemist]

Answer the question.

how fast does the tip of the hour hand move?

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

According to Newton's static theory, in one turn of the moon the hump makes one turn.
According to the dynamic theory of Laplace, for two turns of the Moon the hump makes one turn.
But in practice this does not work,
The moon itself, the hump itself.
Look at the tide chart, the time of sunset and moons.
https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Fundy-Offshore-1-Nova-Scotia/tides/latest

[Bored chemist]

Look at the tide chart, the time of sunset and moons.

OK
The Sun's a minor effect
Lets look at moonrise and the nearest high tide
17:15   17:58
17:50   18:46
18:22   19:29
18:51   20:10
19:18   20:49
19:45   21:28
20:13   22:05

And, the easiest way to see if there's a relationship between two sets of numbers is to plot them against eachother
So, let's start by converting the times into fractions of a day (because it's easy in Excel)
0.719   0.749
0.743   0.782
0.765   0.812
0.785   0.840
0.804   0.867
0.823   0.894
0.842   0.920

And then plot those pairs of numbers against each other and see what the graph looks like

[Bored chemist]

For those of you unfamiliar with regression analysis, that number R squared = 0.9998 means that 99.98% of the variation in one parameter can be explained by the variation of the other.
So, either the tides cause the moon to rise, or the moon causes both.

What did you think the data showed?

(some people might spot that another explanation is that both tide and moonrise are driven by the same thing- the rotation of the Earth- but if you plot the high tide times vs "date" you don't get such good correlation. The Moonrise  really is a better predictor of high tide than the rotation of the Earth is.)

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

When you find out that you are mistaken, do not forget to thank me.

[Bored chemist]

When you find out that you are mistaken, do not forget to thank me.

I'm hoping to meet someone in the pub tonight. I expect that they will be there. but I haven't checked.
It's possible that I will be mistake in my assumption that they will be there.
If so, will you claim credit for that?


In the meantime, perhaps you can explain why the page you cited has data which shows that you are wrong, but you still think that you are right?

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

I'm hoping to meet someone in the pub tonight. I expect that they will be there. but I haven't checked.
It's possible that I will be mistake in my assumption that they will be there.
If so, will you claim credit for that?

I did not understand this text, please write again.

[opportunity]

I think tides are a great way to accept the idea of gravity between the earth and the moon. One could almost suggest that the water buffers an elliptical orbit with the moon and vice versa, as Newton established with the planets and the sun. Any ideas?

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Other planets that do not have water and the atmosphere move along the ellipse.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Darwin and Laplace, scattered their research beliefs that the moon does not affect the attraction to the barometer readings.
http://www.e-reading.mobi/chapter.php/87995/21/Voroncov-Vel%27yaminov_-_Laplas.html
http:/.../ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/645fall2003_web.dir/Ellie_Boyce/dynamic.htm
Great Pacific garbage patch

[opportunity]

Other planets that do not have water and the atmosphere move along the ellipse.

You're confirming Newton.

[Bored chemist]

I did not understand this text, please write again.

You said

When you find out that you are mistaken, do not forget to thank me.

Well, I may be mistaken about lots of things.
But the evidence you quoted shows that I am not mistaken about the tides being driven by the Moon.

So, I wondered if you were saying I should thank you for any mistake I discover.

[Bored chemist]

Other planets that do not have water and the atmosphere move along the ellipse.

To a good approximation, so does the Earth. (The GoG of the Earth Moon system follows very much closer to an ellipse).

So what?
For a start "planets that do not have water and the atmosphere" don't have much of a tide- so they are hardly relevant to the topic.
And what they do (like the Earth and the Moon) is follow what Newton would have predicted.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The vortex theory of tides can be easily verified by the connection between the height of the tidal wave and the rotation speed of the whirlpools.
The list of seas with an average swirl speed of more than 0.5 km / h, and an average tidal wave height of more than 5 cm:
Irish Sea, North Sea, Barents Sea, Baffin Sea, White Sea, Bering Sea, Sea of ​​Okhotsk, Arabian Sea, Sargasso Sea, Hudson Bay, Maine Bay, Gulf of Alaska. etc..

The list of seas with an average swirl speed of less than 0.5 km / h, and an average tidal wave height of less than 5 cm:
The Baltic Sea, the Greenland Sea, the Black Sea, the Sea of ​​Azov, the Caspian Sea, the Chukchi Sea, the Kara Sea, the Laptev Sea, the Red Sea, the Marmara Sea, the Caribbean Sea, the Sea of ​​Japan, the Gulf of Mexico, etc.
Note: The height of the tidal wave (soliton) and the amplitude of the tides is not the same.

Who can refute this table.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

This theory has very good testability.
If high tides form on that bank where you are standing, it means that the current is moving fast along this bank.
It is easy to check based on a map of the sea currents that are on the Internet.

Approximately the tide chart will look like this:
1 km / h - 1 meter.
2 km / h - 2 meter.
3 km / h - 3 meter.
And so on.
And no philosophy.

[Colin2B]

It is easy to check based on a map of the sea currents that are on the Internet.

Approximately the tide chart will look like this:
1 km / h - 1 meter.
2 km / h - 2 meter.
3 km / h - 3 meter.
And so on.
And no philosophy.

Yes, easy to check and show that it is wrong.
There is little point discussing this if you are going to make things up.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

This theory has very good testability.
If high tides form on that bank where you are standing, it means that the current is moving fast along this bank.
It is easy to check based on a map of the sea currents that are on the Internet.

Approximately the tide chart will look like this:
1 km / h - 1 meter.
2 km / h - 2 meter.
3 km / h - 3 meter.
And so on.
And no philosophy.

The amplitude of the tides also depends on the size of the whirlpools, the amount of water under the whirlpool, the distance from the coast to the whirlpool, and the direction of flow (to the west, east, north, south).

[Bored chemist]

Get back to us when you have a better calculation that the currently accepted model, or can show that the current model has some actual problem.
(Problems caused by you not understanding the current model don't count).

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

This theory has very good testability.
If high tides form on that bank where you are standing, it means that the current is moving fast along this bank.
It is easy to check based on a map of the sea currents that are on the Internet.

Approximately the tide chart will look like this:
1 km / h - 1 meter.
2 km / h - 2 meter.
3 km / h - 3 meter.
And so on.
And no philosophy.

The amplitude of the tides also depends on the size of the whirlpools, the amount of water under the whirlpool, the distance from the coast to the whirlpool, and the direction of flow (to the west, east, north, south).

The only way to refute the whirlpool theory of tides is to name the coast where the current is moving fast, but there are no high tides there.