Native wrote:So, how do these informations fits your tidal ideas and hypothesis???
I agree with Dr. Anthoni's approach of dealing with oceanic and crustal tides separately, and with his treatment of oceanic tides as a matter of wave resonance, not just lunar/solar forcing. And he correctly acknowledges that while the oceanic tides are very complex, the crustal tides are simple, and track the Moon's location quite precisely (with roughly a 2 hour lag to the maximum effect, which is to be expected).
But he actually doesn't explain semi-diurnal crustal bulges.
As has been observed with other stellar objects rotating in close proximity, their round shapes become distorted by gravity. Likewise the earth is pulled into a slightly oval form, independently by both the moon and the sun. As the earth rotates, these bulges (crustal tides) travel round the planet in the times calculated above. So the simple two-bulge model is true for the earth's crust. Being 2.8 times denser than water, and much deeper than the oceans, a crustal tide can easily run as a gravity wave at the calculated speeds without losing much energy.
I agree that with <55 cm of deflection, crustal waves are well within the elastic limits, and therefore can propagate without losing much energy. But he leaves the far side bulge up to the imagination, loosely implying that it is just a standing wave. Yet 12 hours isn't a resonance frequency of the crust. Furthermore, the crust has so many irregularities (such as the continents) that waves are refracted and randomized. So the crust doesn't display any of the spherical oscillation modes that we see in other bodies, such as the Sun. Thus Anthoni never directly answers the questions of the two-bulge model.
IMO, semi-diurnal tides can only be explained with electrostatics, within the CFDL model.