How do tides work on a flat earth

I posted a paper which answers pretty much all questions about tides on a spherical Earth, which of course has been completely ignored. So I post it again.
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/119157/1/sea-level.pdf
It answers the questions asked. Can you post something equally or more detailled than that paper explaining tides for the flat Earth?

The tidal bulges for example are explained in chapter 5 page 142 as numbered in the document or 156 as numbered in the pdf.

The Equilibrium  Tide  developed  from  Newton's  theory  of gravitation  consists of two symmetrical tidal bulges, directly under and  directly opposite the moon or  sun.  Semidiurnal  tidal  ranges  would  reach  their  maximum  value  of  about 0.5 m  at  equatorial  latitudes.  The  individual  high  water  bulges  would  track around  the  earth,  moving  from  east  to  west  in  steady  progression.  These characteristics  are  clearly not  those  of the  observed tides.
The  observed  tides  in  the  main  oceans  have  mean  ranges  of  about  0-1 m (amplitudes  0-0.5 m), but  there are considerable  variations. The  times of  tidal high  water  vary  in  a  geographical  pattern,  as  illustrated  in  Figure  5:1, which bears  no  relationship  to  the  simple  ideas  of  a  double  bulge.  The  tides  spread from  the  oceans onto  the  surrounding  continental  shelves, where much  larger ranges are observed. In some shelf seas the spring tidal ranges may exceed  10 m: the  Bay  of  Fundy,  the  Bristol  Channel,  the  Baie de Mont  St  Michele  and  the Argentine  Shelf  are  well  known  examples.  In  the  case  of  the  North West European  shelf tides approach  from  the Atlantic Ocean in a progression to the north and to the east, which is quite different  from  the Equilibrium hypothesis.
Some indication of the different  tidal patterns generated by the global and local ocean  responses  to  the  tidal  forcing  are  shown  in  Figure  1:1. The  reasons  for these complicated  ocean  responses may  be summarized  as  follows:
(1)    Movements  of  water  on  the  surface  of  the  earth  must  obey  the  physical laws  represented   by  the  hydrodynamic   equations   of  continuity   and momentum  balance: we shall  see that  this means  they must propagate  as long waves. Any propagation  of a wave from  east to west around the earth would  be  impeded  by  the north-south  continental  boundaries. The  only
latitudes  for  unimpeded  circumpolar  movement are around  the Antarctic continent and in the Arctic basin. Even around Antarctica the connection is  very  restricted  through  the  Drake  Passage  between  Cape  Horn  and Graham  Land.

(2)  Long   waves   travel   at   a   speed   given   by   (water   depth  x  gravitational
acceleration) 5.  Even  in the absence  of barriers  it would  be impossible  for  an Equilibrium  Tide  to  keep up  with  the moon's  tracking,  because  the  oceans are  too  shallow.  Taking  an  average  depth  of  4000 m  the  wave  speed  is 198 m s~\  whereas at  the equator  the sub-lunar  point  travels  westwards  at an  average  speed  of  450 ms"1.  Around  Antarctica,  however,  at  60°S  the
speeds  are  nearly  equal.  At  one  time  it  was  thought  that  the  tides  were generated  in  these  latitudes,  from  where  they  spread  to  other  areas.  This was  supposed  to  explain  the  age  of  the  tide:  the  time  between  new  or  full moon  and  the maximum  observed  tides  in northern  latitudes; however,  we now  know  that  the responses  are more complicated  than  these simple  ideas suggest.

(3)  The  various  ocean  basins  have  their  individual natural modes of  oscillation which  influence  their  responses  to  the  tide  generating  forces.  There  are many  resonant  frequencies,  but  the whole  global  ocean  system  seems to  be near  to  resonance  at  semidiurnal  tidal  frequencies  and  the  observed  tides are substantially larger than  the Equilibrium Tide. The responses to  forcing
at  diurnal  tidal  frequencies  are  much  weaker,  as  shown  in  Figure  4:2  for Ilfracombe.  However,  the  local  responses  of  each  area  of  the  continental shelf  to the driving  by the  ocean  tides  allow  a  different  set of  resonances  to apply.  In  some cases  there  is a  local  amplification  of the diurnal  tides  as  in the  Gulf  of Tongking  and  the Gulf  of Carpentaria  (see Karumba  in  Figure 1:1  and  Castletownsend  in  Figure  4:2).

(4)  Water  movements  are  affected  by  the  rotation  of  the  earth.  The  tendency for  water  movement  to  maintain  a  uniform  direction  in  absolute  space means  that  it  performs  ,a  curved  path  in  the  rotating  frame  of  reference
within  which  we make observations. Alternatively, motion  in a straight  line on  a  rotating  earth  is  curved  in  absolute  space  and  must  be  sustained  by forces  at  right  angles  to  the  motion.  These  effects  are  represented  by  the Coriolis  accelerations  in the  hydrodynamic  equations. The  solutions  to  the equations  show  that  certain  modified  forms  of  wave  motion  are  possible, the  most  important  of  which  have  a  form  described  as  Kelvin  waves.

(5)  The  solid earth  responds elastically to the imposed tidal  forces,  as discussed in  Section  3:2:3. The  extent  of  this  response  is  described  in  terms  of  Love numbers. Although  the response  of the solid earth to the direct tidal  forcing is well described  in  these terms, there are local  effects  due  to the  depression of  shallow-water  areas  and  the  surrounding  land  by  the  tidal  loading.  The
tide measured at  a coastal  station, or  by a pressure sensor on the sea-bed,  is the  difference   between  the  change  in  the  geocentric  position  of  the  sea surface,  and  the  geocentric  position  of  the  land  surface  reference  point.
Altimetry  measurements  give  the  strictly  geocentric  displacements  of  the sea  surface.

For more details consult the paper I provided you. Everything is explained there, including the calculations.

Oh, i thought that was the commonly accepted cycle time. Actually, RAB is right. It's 12.25 not 12.5. I just looked it up. (that means it needs more celerity! Bad news!) Do you have your own tidal cycle value?

Not quite, I posted

The main driving force has its period of close to 12 hr 24 mins, though there is a 24 hour component.

I was going from memory and  Marine Science Australia says

Semi-Diurnal tides
A semi-diurnal tide occurs generally when there are two high waters (tides) and two low waters (tides) per day.  Typically the time between each successive high or low tide is 12 hours 25 minutes, this is half of one lunar day.

That's not a bad reference, though it doesn't go much into the theory.

And why should it mean that?
You are still focusing on velocity rather than period.

Sorry, you've asked me repeatedly about two bulges. I've asked repeatedly to demonstrate the physical possibility of the bulges using arithmetic because you have indicated you (indeed someone else, presumably, copied by you) solved the problem using viscosity and inertial flow.  Please demonstrate your claim. Or admit you have fabricated it.

We know the period. It's slightly over twelve hours, half a lunar day, you've told me.

Or other perturbing forces.
I don't think I ever mentioned viscosity.

Oh, by all means, use whatever variables you feel necessary. Just give us an accounting of them!

Quote from: Ski

that shows a tidal bulge with a 20000km wavelength travelling 20000km across Earth's ocean in 12.25 hours.

where was this claimed?

In general, you have a high tide almost under the moon and one on the opposite side of Earth.

This is where you again start to show you have no idea what things actually mean. You just copy and paste "answers".
The position of the two waves(crests/bulges) are antipodal. The circumference is 40000km. The wavelength then is 20000km. We know the period must be half a lunar day (12 some hours). The distance travelled (by crest) in that period is 20000 km.

And again, why not answer the main question?
How does FE account for the second bulge?

Shouldn't we first demonstrate it is a physical possibility? Using physics? Then when you demonstrated that we have one more step. And then we can gleefully (or resignedly) return to my "random words" and see if we can puzzle out why they are applicable. I'll help.

Everything is explained there, including the calculations.

There is some good stuff in there, and I will return to it it after Jack has demonstrated the second of two challenges. Using physics, not "random words" and assertions. We're still on step one: "demonstrate how this idea you keep presenting is possible given what we know about wave celerity." Then step two, because there are two fatal flaws in Jack's position from the outset.
I don't see that addressed in the portion you quoted, and I admit to not looking within the .pdf.  I'm waiting to be spoonfed because I already know the real answer, and have already given it.

Then we'll return to flat earth's second bulge.  I think I already answered that, but I'll do it again very explici for the kids not paying attention at the back of the class. We'll need to demonstrate two things for Jack's position to make sense.

Sorry, you've asked me repeatedly about two bulges.

And you have repeatedly refused to answer, so are you going to bother trying now?

I've asked repeatedly to demonstrate the physical possibility of the bulges using arithmetic because you have indicated you

Stop lying. I never indicated I solved the problem.
You never indicated there was a problem.

Quote from: Jack

Quote from: Ski

that shows a tidal bulge with a 20000km wavelength travelling 20000km across Earth's ocean in 12.25 hours.

where was this claimed?

Quote from: Jack

In general, you have a high tide almost under the moon and one on the opposite side of Earth.

This is where you again start to show you have no idea what things actually mean.

No, it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
The 2 points are not directly antipodal. We know there is some variation.
Regardless, we also know there is land in the way, so it is not a simple case of a single wave.

So again, where was the 20 000 km wavelength ever claimed?

Quote from: Jack

And again, why not answer the main question?
How does FE account for the second bulge?

Shouldn't we first demonstrate it is a physical possibility?

We already have by examining the tidal forces of the moon. This should produce a bulge near the moon and one opposite the moon for a RE.
You are focusing on the propagation of these bulges.

So why don't you now try and explain the 2 bulges under FE?
And then we can move on to how they propagate.

I did give answere. You called them random words and then doubled down on showing the depth of your understanding.

"Jackalopes travel faster than the speed of light. How does globalism explain that?!"

I'd think you'd want me to demonstrate at least two things before you spent any more energy answering.

First, "is that even possible (Possibly by returning to Newtonian physics and abandoning SR or by invoking an arbitrary coordinate system where the jackalope is travelling faster than the speed of light in respect to another object, for example)?"

Second, "if it is possible, does this actually reflect events in reality ( ie are there jackalopes somewhere out there travelling faster than the speed of light)?"

And finally, "is this a legitimate criticism of the globular model (ie is there an actual difficulty presented by their existence)?"

So again, where was the 20 000 km wavelength ever claimed?

Here:

In general, you have a high tide almost under the moon and one on the opposite side of Earth.

Annd here:

This should produce a bulge near the moon and one opposite the moon for a RE.

A few other places as well; that's just the last couple posts.

Regardless, we also know there is land in the way, ...

If you want to make the wave length longer to account for the longer distance travelled, feel free. I was trying to keep to your simplified model.  How long do you think the two crests have to travel instead? We can set the new wave length based on that and you can show the maths demonstrating even higher celerity to account for that longer distance instead. The problem as demonstrated is wavelength independent, but feel free to use whatever value you believe reflects reality.

. This should produce a bulge near the moon and one opposite the moon for a RE.
You are focusing on the propagation of these bulges.

You want me to believe that two antipodal bulges exist and propagate at speeds impossible with known physical characteristics of water waves. 
Or are you suggesting the bulges don't propagate?
If you have evidence this is possible, please provide your groundwave-breaking work. You already said it has been provided, but I don't see it. Please do your CTRL+C magic one more time, so I can see the math.

Thanks!

I did give answere. You called them random words and then doubled down on showing the depth of your understanding.

You failed to provide any actual answer.
You continually avoided it.
A word, even if it is involved in the answer, is not an answer.

For example, if you asked how it works in the RE model, gravity would not be an answer, nor would the moon. They are merely parts of the answer.

"Jackalopes travel faster than the speed of light. How does globalism explain that?!"
I'd think you'd want me to demonstrate at least two things before you spent any more energy answering.
First, "is that even possible (Possibly by returning to Newtonian physics and abandoning SR or by invoking an arbitrary coordinate system where the jackalope is travelling faster than the speed of light in respect to another object, for example)?"

Nope. First I would want you to demonstrate that it actually happens.
Appealing to models of physics where it may or may not be possible is quite irrelevant until it can be shown to actually occur. (unless the proof that it is fine with the globe model is easy enough).

Only after that would I get to dealing with how each model explains it and if it is a problem.

Now RE can easily explain why there are 2 bulges. FE cannot.

Quote from: Jack

So again, where was the 20 000 km wavelength ever claimed?

A few other places as well; that's just the last couple posts.

Do you understand English?
Those quotes do not indicate that there is a 20 000 km wavelength.
If there was only a single ocean with no land, then you might have an argument.

Quote from: Jack

Regardless, we also know there is land in the way, ...

If you want to make the wave length longer to account for the longer distance travelled

And why should it make the wavelength longer?
The point is it isn't a simple case of a wave propagating around Earth.
Stop pretending like it is.


Now can you address the question of why there is a second bulge for a FE?

Nope. First I would want you to demonstrate that it actually happens.

Oh, you've failed to do that also, as I demonstrated a few days ago, but you're skipping ahead.

Those quotes do not indicate that there is a 20 000 km wavelength.
If there was only a single ocean with no land, then you might have an argument.

If you need to adjust the distance/wavelength to reflect the proper distance travelled each cycle, feel free. Still waiting for your new physics to appear. Where's it at? You said it was posted already...

And why should it make the wavelength longer?

Because that's the definition of wavelength, Jack. The distance over which the waveform repeats. You have proposed a cycle of ~12 hrs and a distance of 20000km. Now you are suddenly adjusting it up with the addition of barriers, but that makes your celerity problems/deficiency worse, not better. I'd stick to the simpler and more friendly oceania verison, but feel free to adjust as I said.

The point is it isn't a simple case of a wave propagating around Earth.

That's exactly what it is.    Feel free to graph it if it will help you grasp this simple concept.

Because that's the definition of wavelength, Jack.

No it isn't.
You are assuming that the wave needs to travel that distance. No one has it been stated it must nor have you been able to explain it must.

Again if the world was purely ocean, you might have a point, but it is not, so you do not.

Now can you actually answer the question for once?
What causes the second bulge for FE?

It's obvious ...

Like on a flat tray of water, someone keeps on tipping one end up and down, and the water sloshes back and forth ...

Simple, innit?

 

Quote from: Ski on June 13, 2018, 06:36:08 PM

Because that's the definition of wavelength, Jack.

No it isn't.
You are assuming that the wave needs to travel that distance. No one has it been stated it must nor have you been able to explain it must.

You've been saying the tide follows the moon. The moon moves. Silly me, I thought the tide must move, too.  So tides now don't move. How does that work?

You've been saying the tide follows the moon.

Nitpicking much?
The tide doesn't need to move that distance in that time, because as we have both acknowledged, the tides are not perfectly under the moon.

Now can you explain the origin of the second bulge on a FE?

These hypothetical tidal bulges of yours are moving, are they not?

If you want to make allowances for preceding or following the time of the moon's position at zenith, I'm open to you demonstrating that. Given that it still has a roughly 12.25 hr cycle time and the distances travelled aren't really variable, I'm not sure why you think how closely it leads or follows the moon matters. But go ahead, show that, too, if you think it resolves the fundamental problem of propagation your pet theory has.

Given that it still has a roughly 12.25 hr cycle time and the distances travelled aren't really variable, I'm not sure why you think how closely it leads or follows the moon matters.

It is quite simple - The tides do not just circle around Earth as a single wave (or 2) propagating around it. Instead they are restricted by land. Even the animation your provided shows this. This means you can have 2 separate waves for 2 separate regions of water. This means that 2 periods no longer has to require the wave to travel all the way around Earth.

As you are the one repeatedly claiming it is impossible for it to match, the burden of proof is on you, unless you want to show how it is possible for the wave to propagate for a FE.

Meanwhile, RE has an explanation for 2 tidal bulges, while you are yet to provide one for a FE.
Can you provide an explanation?
As you seem to not want to put in any effort at all to explain that, i see no reason why I should put in any effort to do the complex math to try to disprove your baseless claim.

I'm not the one advancing the tidal bulge theory.

And you're right, I did post an animation that completely destroys your elementary school model of bulge and antipodal bulge (which is both physically impossible due to physics themselves, and not representative of reality).

So the questions then remain, why do you keep asking me to describe FE's explanation of it, you scientifically illiterate hack? And why did it take you a week to finally realize it?

And you're right, I did post an animation that completely destroys your elementary school model of bulge and antipodal bulge (which is both physically impossible due to physics themselves, and not representative of reality).

No, you posted an animation which destroys a overly simplified view, not the actual one.
You have been repeatedly ignoring what I have actually said.

Now, what is the FE explanation?

I don't know if you've noticed after a week, but the jackalope doesn't exist. Nor is it possible.

Jack, you have the be dumbest person to continually come here and try to prove us wrong. Not only do you seldom achieve this, a feat that should be simple if the Earth is indeed round, but you also somehow manage to make yourself look less intelligent each time. One has to wonder, what could possibly in it for you.

Jack, you have the be dumbest person to continually come here and try to prove us wrong. Not only do you seldom achieve this, a feat that should be simple if the Earth is indeed round, but you also somehow manage to make yourself look less intelligent each time. One has to wonder, what could possibly in it for you.

And there you go with more insults, and still no explanation.

Quote from: John Davis on June 18, 2018, 08:07:46 AM

Jack, you have the be dumbest person to continually come here and try to prove us wrong. Not only do you seldom achieve this, a feat that should be simple if the Earth is indeed round, but you also somehow manage to make yourself look less intelligent each time. One has to wonder, what could possibly in it for you.

And there you go with more insults, and still no explanation.

He only stated some well known facts. I know you think everyone should bow in reverence to you but you have to understand, people in the real world will tell things how they are. You were probably brought up coddled and nanny controlled. Given a medal for last place and told you were special and important even though you weren't, so your behaviour here might not be entirely your fault. But get used to being called wrong when you are.

If your only argument and defense is complaining others are just insulting you, you must have a very weak foundation for your arguments. Is what people call you really so shocking?

Quote from: JackBlack on June 18, 2018, 02:08:32 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 18, 2018, 08:07:46 AM

Jack, you have the be dumbest person to continually come here and try to prove us wrong. Not only do you seldom achieve this, a feat that should be simple if the Earth is indeed round, but you also somehow manage to make yourself look less intelligent each time. One has to wonder, what could possibly in it for you.

And there you go with more insults, and still no explanation.

He only stated some well known facts. I know you think everyone should bow in reverence to you but you have to understand, people in the real world will tell things how they are. You were probably brought up coddled and nanny controlled. Given a medal for last place and told you were special and important even though you weren't, so your behaviour here might not be entirely your fault. But get used to being called wrong when you are.

If your only argument and defense is complaining others are just insulting you, you must have a very weak foundation for your arguments. Is what people call you really so shocking?

And there you go with more insults, and still no explanation. It's seems to be all you ever do.

How about you, the self proclaimed annihilator of all and sundry, giving is the correct answer to us "How do tides work on a flat earth?"

Quote from: Shifter on June 18, 2018, 05:41:02 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 18, 2018, 02:08:32 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 18, 2018, 08:07:46 AM

Jack, you have the be dumbest person to continually come here and try to prove us wrong. Not only do you seldom achieve this, a feat that should be simple if the Earth is indeed round, but you also somehow manage to make yourself look less intelligent each time. One has to wonder, what could possibly in it for you.

And there you go with more insults, and still no explanation.

He only stated some well known facts. I know you think everyone should bow in reverence to you but you have to understand, people in the real world will tell things how they are. You were probably brought up coddled and nanny controlled. Given a medal for last place and told you were special and important even though you weren't, so your behaviour here might not be entirely your fault. But get used to being called wrong when you are.

If your only argument and defense is complaining others are just insulting you, you must have a very weak foundation for your arguments. Is what people call you really so shocking?

And there you go with more insults, and still no explanation. It's seems to be all you ever do.

How about you, the self proclaimed annihilator of all and sundry, giving is the correct answer to us "How do tides work on a flat earth?"

Why haven't you? Where is your or where is Jacks explanation on "How do tides work on a flat earth?"

Quote from: rabinoz on June 18, 2018, 08:00:53 PM

How about you, the self proclaimed annihilator of all and sundry, giving is the correct answer to us "How do tides work on a flat earth?"

Why haven't you? Where is your or where is Jacks explanation on "How do tides work on a flat earth?"

I don't know about Jack, but I have no answer to "How do tides work on a flat earth?"

That's why I  asked you with your privileged access to the ASI.

Quote from: Shifter on June 18, 2018, 08:04:02 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 18, 2018, 08:00:53 PM

How about you, the self proclaimed annihilator of all and sundry, giving is the correct answer to us "How do tides work on a flat earth?"

Why haven't you? Where is your or where is Jacks explanation on "How do tides work on a flat earth?"

I don't know about Jack, but I have no answer to "How do tides work on a flat earth?"

That's why I  asked you with your privileged access to the ASI.

The ASI says the Earth is not flat so the question is invalid

The ASI says the Earth is not flat so the question is invalid

That's the message I'm trying to get over.

He only stated some well known facts. I know you think everyone should bow in reverence to you but you have to understand, people in the real world will tell things how they are. You were probably brought up coddled and nanny controlled. Given a medal for last place and told you were special and important even though you weren't, so your behaviour here might not be entirely your fault. But get used to being called wrong when you are.

If your only argument and defense is complaining others are just insulting you, you must have a very weak foundation for your arguments. Is what people call you really so shocking?

And even more insults and lies, and still not explanations.

My argument is not that people are just insulting me. It is that they aren't providing explanations.
If there only argument is insulting me, it shows they have no foundation.

There you were after 18 days still demanding how a phenomena that does not actually occur could possibly be explained if the earth were flat.

It's like a sad parody of itself.

still demanding how a phenomena that does not actually occur

You mean a phenomena that does occur.
Or are you going to pretend that no where ever receives 2 tides a day?

It being more complex than a simple case of one bulge directly under the moon and one bulge directly opposite doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

There is no antipodal tidal bulge.

There is no antipodal tidal bulge.

So rejecting reality. Got it.