If you surf the internet and google 'why the Earth has two tides' you will come up against a host of differing theories (and including the one found on Wikipedia), none of which are based on the factually known scientific understanding of gravity and/or the mechanics of classical physics.

There is none so unappealing as the theory which assumes that a graviton having a spin moment of two can cause two tides a day. That really stretches the phenomenological ballon! Note: I am going to speak of the Moon moving around the Earth during an approximate twenty four hour day in order to keep out of the unnecessary weeds. Also note that regardless of any phenomenological theory of gravity we are always able to subjectively consider gravity to result in what appears to us as a force of attraction.

We should all understand that inertia causes an object (or in this case an ocean of water) to resist by force any other force which attempts to change its linear state of motion (essentially momentum) and if it is forced it will only move with acceleration in this case gravitational acceleration. In other words any resulting motion will be delayed and limited by other forces, not withstanding the fact that a moving ocean of water will also build up its own momentum of motion under varying conditions of friction which interacts with the gravitational phenomenon explained below. If the gravitational relationships are fairly steady and periodic then we can expect any affect of such interactions to also be steady and harmonic and this frictional phenomenon can be safely ignored for the intent of the following explanation. Tidal mechanics is a highly complex issue but we can simplify it for ease of understanding.

Next we should mentally stand away from the Earth and consider that the gravitational relationship that causes the actual observed tides is fundamentally derived from a Solar System n-body problem. This phenomenon in collusion with the previously noted inertial-friction mechanics accounts for most of the noted harmonic variations in the tidal solution. We can however even more simplistically evaluate the Earth's tidal characteristics to be mostly derived from the solar, lunar and terra gravitational relationship and we can simplify this even further to a lunar-terra two-body problem.

Under this Earth-Moon gravitational relationship, let's consider an object sitting on the surface of the Earth and we declare it to have a known and measurable weight. In accordance with the proposed two-body gravitational problem analysis, if we weigh it when the Moon is directly overhead it will actually weigh a little less. When the Moon is on the opposite side of the Earth it will weigh a little more by the same solution.

Any expected flattening of the ocean on the opposite side of the Earth relative to the Moon is far outweighed by the effects of inertia, whereby the ocean can be seen to be trying to remain in the same position (or actual state of motion, as a friction reduced resultant motion of momentum) on a continual basis. I will explain this: The proposed inertia is caused by the fact that as the Moon orbits the Earth, the Earth also sees its axis moving around a circular Moon-tracking barycenter inside the Earth while it is also spinning with much faster angular momentum. In other words if you could observe from a fixed relative position at a distance you would notice that as well as spinning on its axis the Earth and its axis actually wobbles (relative to its solar orbit track) or follows a circular motion similar to that of a fist stirring a spoon in a bowl, where the spoon represents the axis and the fist is the Earth (not spinning of course). So the barycenter is the center of gravity for the lunar-terra system and the Earth and Moon orbit this center which as the center point of the Earth orbits it traces a circle which can be located within the Earth itself.

The inertial affect on a tide can be likened to swirling water around in a bucket by utilizing the same motion. Surprisingly, although this phenomenon is supportive of the lunar gravitational force and therefore actually affects the tides, as an aside it also provides a force of momentum which gives a directional bias to the oceanic conveyer current.

This is fundamentally caused by the fact that the inertial affect is greater at the surface of the ocean than at the bottom where the radius of the action is less. None of this affects the rotation of the Earth because all else being equal, whilst the tidal fiction is real, it is pretty much a zero sum game with respect to the energy losses in the forward and reverse tidal flows being equal.

This barycenter orbiting wobble would be much greater than we actually observe if it wasn't that tidal friction coverts much of the mechanical energy of the lunar gravitational acceleration force to heat with consequently expected dampening affects in accordance with the law of the conservation of mechanical energy. However the phenomenon conditionally gives positive harmonic wave front reinforcement by reason of the inertial forces which are caused by a rotating Earth undergoing such barycentric spin eccentricity by being continually pulled towards its lunar adjacent (24 hour period approx.) high tidal region by the gravitational acceleration force of what is essentially a stationary Moon.

Now when the Moon is overhead and the Earth and the tide are moving towards it, we are able to also consider that the underfoot side of the Earth is being pulled away from the body of water (ocean) on that side which is intent on staying back due to its inertia and the lower gravitational attraction on it, compared to that affecting the 'Moon overhead' side. Inertia also effectively dampens the otherwise higher tide that we would expect on the 'Moon overhead' side and the same inertial affect conditionally tends towards causing a high tide appearing on the underfoot side without the requirement for any 'gravity differential' or fictitious force. It must be understood that inertia presents a very real force. The mechanics of classical physics being described here is also conditionally aided by phenomenologies explained in the following assertation. Note I say conditionally because many other retarding or supporting factors exist, e.g. Bathymetric friction.

If you investigate the traditional explanations given for the cause of two tides during one day you will most often come up against the disclosure of the idea of a gravity differential, being a force which (without any physics in sight) supposedly provides for a sufficient attractive force of gravity on the 'underfoot' side when the Moon is overhead.

That idea of any other fictitious gravitational force is absurdity! There is no lunar gravitational force on the opposite side, Lunar gravitational force is only directly from the Moon itself (all else being equal).

The Moon's (Earth-Moon) gravitational centripetal force causes a time delayed primary tide as a heaping up of water on the moonlit side of the Earth. As I just described, this heaping is actually assisted by the inertial affect caused by the relative position on Earth moving away from the Moon in the same direction. Simultaneously the inertia caused by that very movement causes the ocean to advance back (with accelerative delay) caused by that motion of the point the Earth under consideration away from the Moon.

The second tide which is noted to occur is erratic in height and timeline across the planetary bathyscaph.

 Empiricism disallows the existence of a virtual or fictitious* gravitational force of any description so we are logically constrained to look deeper into classical physics to search out the factual reasons for the second tide or not as the case may be.

We can analyze the true forces at work across bodes within the affects of the gravitational fields of other bodies. If we study an object falling in a gravitational field we would notice a very small and probably insignificant altitude related force differential. This is the differential which violates and refutes Einstein's equivalence principle and though small it dose exist.  That differential is being proposed in the article as the total cause of the tidal force. That isn't the case.

The facts are to be found if we first analyze a body orbiting another body such as the Earth orbiting the Sun. If you study the Earth you will find that its center of mass (gravity) appears to be held in orbit by two forces that are recognized in the physics. One of them is gravitational centripetal force which is the force of gravity acting between the bodies which is attempting to pull the Earth in towards the Sun. The other is inertial centrifugal force which applies an equal and opposite force thus keeping the Earth in orbit at the required distance from the Sun.

If we analyze the axial forces from the center of the sun through the Earth we will find that the centripetal force on the Sun facing side is greater than in the middle because it is closer to the sun. The opposite is the case on the outside of the Earth relative to the sun but we now find that the centrifugal force out there is greater. In that case we would see two equal tides on the Earth; one facing the Sun and one further away.

This is because the whole Earth is now experiencing a 'pulling apart' kind of tension of opposite forces but not by the gravitational differential that has been proposed in the article. If the Earth was freefalling at that orbital distance we would observe no centripetal centrifugal force, and whilst the differential would be observed to exist because of the variations in solar altitude of the Earth's particles we would notice it to be much smaller than the tension of forces now being caused by the more energetic orbital mechanics, which by the way is being continually reenergized by gravity itself. Note: How? Refer to the thesis.

The Earth and Moon are essentially orbiting each other and the result is similar in those fundamentals. The centrifugal force which causes the 'underfoot' high tide has its energy converted to inertial energy against a seashore and it then rebounds by the mechanics described herein, which in turn causes a reinforcement that amplifies the height of the tide otherwise because the gravitational pull on the inner orbit side of a body is greater than the centrifugal force on the outer orbital side of a body (the Earth) and we would never see an 'underfoot' tide that was the same as the 'overhead' tide.

This force differential exists because the inner orbital side is closer to the body being orbited (the Moon) with an increased resultant force being applied to the ocean there, whilst the centrifugal force on the outside is less because the diameter of the orbit is greater resulting in a lesser force according to the centrifugal force equation. The result of this is that the center of orbit is not the center of the orbiting body's mass and the centrifugal and centripetal forces are only equal at the center of the orbital line situated within the Earth but that is of no consequence for this exercise. The salient point is: Of the two forces which are capable of causing tidal water columns the greatest is on the inside than the outside of the orbiting body. If you have a problem with this, please argue with the 'r' in the standard centrifugal force and other relevant equations not me. The equality of forces is there to provide the necessary orbital stability. It is only equal right where it needs to be and not on the solar axial cross points on the Earth's surface.

In regard to the further phenomenologies at work: Firstly we must understand the physics of wave motion. The mountain of water contained in the tide is not flowing as such. It is moving as a low pressure wave but of course with some lateral motion of water molecules and consequent friction.

It is the positioning of the land masses (Americas, Afro-European and Australasian tidal blocking systems) which causes the mountain of water (tidal column) to 'lap' up against those shores in a timely manner resulting in the failed effort of the water column to continue to track the Moon. As the Moon continues to travel away towards the western horizon the gravitational affect becomes lessened and the featured 'tidal wave' now begins to ebb in accordance with the normal physics of wave motion against seashores.

As the high tide ebbs away from the shore it loses momentum by friction but then an amazing but fully predictable thing happens. Just like any typical seashore wave, the wave (which previously stored energy on the run up now returns to the ocean but in its attempt to reach equilibrium it travels further out to sea than it should have, all because of its normal inertia. This expected inertia now becomes amplified however by the inertia described earlier which is being caused by a different part of the Earth now moving closer to the Moon as it moves over head as the Earth tracks it in orbiting around its internal barycenter.

Similar in a way to a compressed spring the water column now has the additional stored energy due to both the ebb in the out to sea direction which includes the inertia of the fall back from the shore plus the inertia caused by the Earth's surface accelerating away from underneath it towards the Moon as it (Earth) moves around the barycenter*. So at some stage in the process it temporarily finds itself positioned between two low tides on its way towards attempted equilibrium. Of course with all else being equal it begins to do what water does when it tries to 'seek is own level', it begins to flow back to the lower tidal regions and if the forces were to remain constant we would expect in both directions towards the low tides now existing at both the east and west shores.

*Any given point on the Earth's surface can be declared to wobble relative to a fixed orbital locus called the barycenter. This creates inertia from that motion away from a fixed point of angular momentum. So we should now understand that the Earth is not in momentum around a fixed axis at all. This then alters the gravitational and centrifugal force relationship on a continuing but shifting basis according to the lunar-terra positional relationships.

Relative to each other, on the whole there is no perceived change in the distance between them but it must be understood that the Earth is not spinning about a fixed axis relative to the Moon, so that particular solution doesn't apply to any given point on the surface of the Earth. Such a point has a non concentric relationship with both the Moon and the orbital loci of both centers of mass.


But the inertial forces don't remain constant and for an equal size high tide to occur on the underfoot side we need to see wave reinforcement to the ebbing inertial tide we have just been describing. The centrifugal force is now lessening but in this case the Moon is now conditionally in such a position that the ebbing high tidal-column begins to 'see' the Moon through the Earth (in a gravitational summation and loss of centrifugal force sense) and the lunar gravity now slightly attracts the tide in a vector angle back towards the shore which it just retreated from, so this angled lunar gravitational attraction aids in the return of the tidal flow towards the lowest tidal levels but now with a strong bias back towards the same landmass once again and the end result is that with the gravitational/centrifugal force resolution acting in combination with the inertial forces we notice a second but perhaps lower (or conditionally none) high tide after the Moon has gone well past, and even possibly when the Moon is almost underfoot.

This is essentially a strongly attenuating wave oscillation which is provided with a singular harmonic supportive gravitational/centrifugal force vector summation with a directional resultant in the wave supportive direction. This is a bit similar to the magnetic attractive pulse give to an electric pendulum clock and it is harmonically and positively summative (conditional) to the inertial wave motion mechanics.

When the water ebbs once again (but this time when the Moon is continuing on around the other side of the Earth past its relative apex) the tide remains gravitationally tracking the Moon constantly through the Earth but this time the direction of the biasing force now sends the column back across the ocean to the opposite shore and even before moonrise the low tide there begins to be replaced as the high tide on that opposing land mass now begins to build as the Moon ascends to the overhead position and the semi diurnal process is now occurring on the opposite side of the Earth and the tidal ebbs and flows repeat daily ad infinitum. Note: Non twenty four hour synched lunar cycles is another subject altogether.

So we can see that the phenomenon of two (semi-diurnal) tides essentially involves the mechanics of two-body gravity, momentum, wave motion, harmonic reinforcement, inertia and not to forget, friction. It's just physics!

I'm probably not the first to arrive at this conclusion but I'm giving this example to demonstrate the propensity for post Newtonian science to somehow accept the existence of fictitious forces such as the ridiculous idea of a 'gravitational differential' causing a fictitious attractive force** to appear in space on the 'underfoot' side which is capable of producing an equal high tide on that side. If we take that to its full extent we will end up with a flat Earth! Where has empirical science gone? Where are the true thinkers? Is it perhaps that science is presumptively resting on its laurels while sipping on a Pina-Colada beside the pool? Possibly, but in any case I have gone to great lengths to reexamine many a supposed scientific 'fait accompli' in the thesis with some astounding outcomes that may well have shocked you!





Considering that this article concludes, "--- and the Moon pulls least of all on the far oceans (on the other side of the planet), so they stay behind more, causing another high tide at the same time." I would suggest that even though the writer might have the right idea in principle, this is unclear and the article needs some editing because 'staying behind more' can't cause a high tide only a retarded low tide.


The simple argument against the 'stretched gravitational field' being proposed as the main contender for the two tides in the article is--- THE EARTH IS NOT BULGING AS THOUGH IT WAS MADE OF WATER. That is what would be required to see a sufficient apacenter (apparent center) shift in the Earth's center of gravity to produce the 'ovoid' required for such a proposed opposite high tide to become exhibited! There would be no second high tide if the Earth was theoretically a smooth ball covered with an even ocean. That would only result in a low tide.

The idea of the gravity field depicted in the article might be thought to be easily refutable because it fails to take into account the fact that equilibrium in the field has been reached because of centrifugal-centripetal force equilibrium in the lunar-terra system solar orbit analysis and therefore the resulting field strength of forces is zero.

 The semi diurnal tide in a non barycentric model might be thought to be caused by reasoning that the center of equilibrium is in reality the center of the earth-ocean-atmosphere system mass and the centripetal force of the Moon side is greater than at the center and less on the opposite side. Then however if no other forces were considered to be involved we would actually notice a low tide and not a high tide.

The featured gravity field in the article which is depicted as exhibiting a fictitious underfoot gravitational force is impossibility, but it should be noted that the previous equilibrium argument is not valid because equilibrium is actually taken care of by the center arrow in fig.4. Notwithstanding this, a slight force differential is shown to remain but an argument destroying problem arises because the vector math in fig.4 is in error. According to the negative sign obtained by the 'big G' equations and even more easily realizable by some visual 'arrow' summation with the center (equilibrium) arrow, it becomes obvious that if you insert the dynamics of the Earth moving towards the Moon instead of being relatively 'fixed' by a static gravitational resolution as speciously analyzed in the article, by simple vector resolution the left arrow could then be turned to point towards the right and not to the left as depicted. Once again this would then only be consistent with a low tide on the underfoot side unless the inertia of that motion plus the gravitational acceleration via the Moon caused a high tide, which in some cases it does!

This demonstrates a lapse in scientific conceptualism whereby the graphical and mathematical analysis diverges from the stated case in a serious model challenging manner.

It is also notable that a water drop exhibits a tidal affect when it is hanging from a tap and even though it is obviously elongated, none of the elongation is retrograde. If it were to fall in a gravitational field in a vacuum it would still remain slightly elongated in complete contradiction of Einstein's equivalence principle.

Also notable is the statement in the article which flies in the face of Einstein's equivalence principle: "Tidal acceleration does not require rotation or orbiting bodies; for example, the body may be freefalling  in a straight line under the influence of a gravitational field while still being influenced by (changing) tidal acceleration."

This means that if we were to observe a sphere of water falling in a gravitational field then (disregarding surface tension forces) it would be observed to be egg shaped, with the length being aligned with the vertical. This is because of altitude related gravitational inertial force differential. Basically by F=ma we can see that the bottom of the object is attempting to accelerate at a faster rate than the top because of the inverse square law of gravitational force strength with increasing altitude.







So with all due respect we are able to conclude that all non:- (barycentric/centrifugal/inertial/gravitational) physics proposals that only represent (whether descriptively, mathematically or graphically) a static gravitational relativity are incapable of explaining the semi-diurnal tide phenomenon without erroneous sleight of hand typified by the article we have just analyzed. Note: None of this is defamatory of 'Wikipedia' because its articles are always open to amendment. I'll pass this baton onto whoever wants to take it up and run with it.

So we can also conclude that the tides are caused by a dynamic interaction of gravitational differential force as well as the summative and dynamic relationships between the centripetal and centrifugal forces and inertia.

When the Moon orbits the Earth then from a different frame of reference the Earth also orbits the Moon around a barycenter which is facing the Moon but some distance within the Earth itself. This causes a negative summation of centrifugal forces to be necessitated. The resultant is equal to the centripetal gravitational force between the Earth and the Moon. However even though there is a summation there is also a difference in the forces so summed and these are the greater centrifugal force on the overhead side as well as the significantly lesser centrifugal force on the underfoot side.

In a pragmatic sense it matters not what the cause of semi-diurnal tides is but the flawed scientific evaluative technique and the obvious lack of consensual agreement is quite telling. The main thrust of this argument is against Einstein's equivalence principle. The prevenient question is; why has the scientific community not concentrated a great deal of resources into any serious study of gravity?

There are numerous other enigmatic problems whereby quantum physics seems to not be compatible with any other physics and many weird explanations are given or ignored. I have dealt with hundreds of these and G-theory has been up to the challenge so I am confident that without sending myself totally round the bend by extending this thesis fourfold I intend to stop here knowing that G-theory will be able to provide answers to all of those other problems as well.