Does Newton's Theory Explain Tides?

[nick c]

The following is sourced from Newton, Einstein, and Velikovsky, Charles Ginenthal (2015)

Tides are often cited as a confirmation of Newtonian mechanics. But is that justified?
Are tide tables derived from calculations of the gravitational effects of the Moon and Sun upon the oceans? No, they are not.

Harlow Shapley (Harvard Astronomy) in a letter written (May 1950) to Horace Kallen (Dean of the Graduate Faculty of the New School of Social Research) concerning the recently published Worlds In Collision, wrote:

Dr. Velikovsky's claim...If in historical times there have been these changes in the structure of the solar system, in spite of the fact that our celestial mechanics has been for scores of years able to specify without question the positions and motions of the planetary system for many millennia fore and aft, then the laws of Newton are false. The laws of mechanics which worked to operate tides...are fallacious. But they have been tested competently and thoroughly. In other words, if Velikovsky is right the rest of us are crazy....

Velikovsky answered Shapely's attack with a quote from A. O. Woodward's Principles of Geology (1951):

So complex is the real Earth as compared with the idealized Earth assumed by astronomers and physicists that we have, as yet, no general [gravitational] theory that permits tidal forecast for any point on an ocean. Tides are, of course, predicted with great accuracy for all principle ports; these are not computed from general [Newtonian] theory, however, but from the analysis of tidal records over a long period of years at the particular port concerned.

The assertion that tides are predicted by Newtonian mechanics is patently false. Tide charts have nothing at all to do with Newtonian calculations, and with good reason. The actual tide timing does not follow the calculations. Charts are based on empirical evidence, that is, observations of the timing of past tides for a particular port or location over a period of many years. Apparently, empirical verification of his theories was not something for which Newton was much concerned.

In fact, it has been shown that Newton repeatedly and intentionally fudged the data to make it appear that his theory could predict tides.
see: Hans C. Ohanian, Einstein's Mistakes....(NY 2008) pp71-72

His [Newton's] acts of fraud occurred repeatedly...
....we have documentary evidence from letters between Newton and Roger Cotes, the editor of the 2nd edition of the Principia, that they engaged in collusion to 'mend' the numbers. Cotes would propose some fraudulent adjustment of the observational data...and Newton would do Cotes one better by contriving some fudge factor that suited the occasion.

While there is definitely a connection between lunar positions and the tides, there is no apparent ability to predict tides with only Newtonian mechanics. The implication is that there must be some other force or forces at work.

Typically there are two tide cycles per day, but some ports in the Gulf of Mexico and other places have only one tide cycle per day. These are written off as caused by water depth, topography, or Coriolis Effect anomalies, but nevertheless it is not expected by Newtonian tidal theory, and there is no quantification of just how these anomalies act to distort the tide cycles.
https://www.chaseday.com/where-in-the-w ... -one-tide/

There are also cases where the high tide occurs many hours after the Moon has passed the zenith, and cases where the two daily tides are of notably different heights. There are also seasonal variations, which should have nothing to do with the tides if they are solely governed by gravitational effects. That is, the distance between the Moon and the position on the Earth should be the only (Newtonian) factor at a particular location.

If the Moon is the source of tides, then one has to explain how it can lift the sea thirty feet or more above its natural level yet it cannot lift a feather? Or why doesn't my weight as measured on a scale change with the position of the Moon? The common explanation is that water somehow behaves differently under the Moon's gravity than do solid objects due to the fluidity of the oceans. But then why does not the Moon act the same way on the atmosphere as it does to the ocean? There are atmospheric tides but they do not correlate to lunar positions. It is thought that the reason atmospheric tides do not behave like the ocean tides is due to heating of the atmosphere by the Sun. Again Newtonian mechanics does not account for tides without the addition of another factor.

The NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) website informs us on how the Moon control's the tides, but note the caveat in italics (as written on the web page):

Tides originate in the ocean and progress toward the coastlines, where they appear as the regular rise and fall of the sea surface. Thanks to Sir Isaac Newton’s 1687 discovery, we know that tides are very long-period waves that move through the ocean in response to forces exerted by the moon and sun. However, these gravitational forces do not control when high or low tide events occur.

Translation: Newtonian mechanics cannot predict the tides!
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/moon-tide.html

It is assumed that if it were not for these and other factors, then Newtonian mechanics would easily predict the tides. Yet astronomers initially and ever since, have critiqued Velikovsky by asserting that Newtonian mechanics can predict tides and therefore the type of catastrophic scenario described in Worlds In Collision and Saturn Theory is impossible. That assertion is simply false.

Irving Michelson, Aeronautical Engineer, (PhD, California Institute of Technology) wrote in the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol.30, #3 (March, 1974): "Tide's Tortured Theory"

Pressing questions of Earth's physics, astronomy and the eternal riddle of Solar System formation should be explainable in terms of tidal motions and tidal friction but tidal knowledge always falls short of these expectations in these discussions. Tide theory, condemned by competent impartial experts as being no theory at all, but only a mass of doubtful assumptions obstructing scientific progress is due for a major overhaul.

What Michelson was referring to is the scientific examination of electromagnetism as the modifying force in tidal theory. We are still waiting for that overhaul.

To summarize, the assertion that the prediction of tides verifies Newtonian mechanics and falsifies Velikovsky's theory, is simply not true. Astronomers who have been making those assertions, from Shapely, to Sagan, to Plait and others are either being intentionally deceptive or are themselves ignorant of the facts.


Miles Mathis' critique of tidal theory:
https://milesmathis.com/tide.html
https://milesmathis.com/tide6.html
(note - we may disagree with some of MM's writings, but his analysis of tides is spot on.)





.

[jacmac]

All we need to do is figure out why the text in the M Mathis links
are shifted off the page to the right;
no doubt that will also explain the tidal force.

[Maol]

All we need to do is figure out why the text in the M Mathis links
are shifted off the page to the right;
no doubt that will also explain the tidal force.

A page in Yahoo Sports was doing that a few days ago and a few hours later it was OK. I may have restarted the browser (Mozilla Firefox).

[nick c]

All we need to do is figure out why the text in the M Mathis links
are shifted off the page to the right;

Sometimes I clicked the link and the text fit in fine, then other times they were skewered off to the right. Also, sometimes there is a slider bar on the bottom with which you can use to see the cut off parts. Anyway, with the Google Chrome browser I was able to see the entire text of the MM articles (despite the tidal distortion ) by changing the font size from 100% to 90%. Setting on Full Screen also worked.

[JanPalmer]

After reviewing the extensive mathematical arguments presented by Miles Mathis, it becomes evident that attempts to account for coastal tides through mathematical modeling—whether grounded in Newtonian mechanics or General Relativity—ultimately reach a conceptual dead end. Employing chalkboard mathematics as a primary means of explanation does not, in itself, constitute empirical science.

The notable mathematical misstep by Richard Feynman in his explanation of tidal forces, particularly with reference to the barycenter concept, underscores the limitations of relying solely on mathematical reasoning for understanding such phenomena. Mathematics, while a powerful intellectual construct, is not synonymous with science. It is a cognitive tool—capable, in relatively simple contexts, of approximating observational patterns. However, such an approximation does not equate to a fundamental explanation of reality.

The electric force, both ubiquitous and intrinsically linked with magnetic interactions, plays a governing role in the mechanical behaviors observed across planetary and stellar systems. Despite its foundational nature, this force is frequently overlooked in scientific disciplines outside of electrical engineering and plasma physics.

When we begin to recognize that tidal movement—manifested as large-scale shifts in hydrogen-bonded water molecules, responsive to variations in local electric field strength—is principally an electrical phenomenon, our comprehension of tidal patterns (including high, low, and neap tides) may achieve greater coherence. These phenomena are traditionally attributed to a combination of Earth's axial rotation, gravitational forces, and the dynamic positioning of the Moon and Sun relative to Earth. However, a more electrically grounded framework may offer a deeper, more unified perspective.

While mathematical equations that elegantly model and predict physical behavior may possess aesthetic and practical value, they do not necessarily reveal the underlying physical processes. Much remains to be discovered about the true nature of the forces shaping our world.

[Aardwolf]

Generally high tide follows the moon, however, it makes zero sense for there to be a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth at the same time. If anything it should result in very low tides as the Moon and Earth are pulling in the same direction.

Just another anomaly proving gravity is not based on mass.