Jump to content

Talk:Theory of tides

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mistake in one of the equations?

[edit]

Where it says:

Then the force on the point is
where

should not it be the "gravitational potential", rather than the "force", on the point? --151.50.29.177 (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dimensions of the right hand side of the equation are acceleration (not potential). There are also other weird things going on in the section on "tidal forces". is defined and never used. is defined as angular momentum, and then used as angular velocity. And that is just the stuff that I noticed! I feel this section needs to be completely rewritten. If I hear no objections I may start doing it myself. Anorderofmagnitude (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seleucus

[edit]

Seleucus also referred to the tides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.132.85 (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Grisogono also referred to the tides in 1528. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.132.85 (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a separate article about Grisogono. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.132.85 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from "Dynamic theory of tides"

[edit]

In August 2012 at "Articles for deletion" it was decided to merge the article "Dynamic theory of tides" to the article "Theory of tides". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it in.North8000 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As written, that section doesn't make much sense. It's discussing the same theory of tides the rest of the article discusses (the one first written down by Laplace), but it's tacked onto the end of the article without referring to the rest. I think most of the material in there should be deleted as redundant (and in some cases wrong or misleading), with perhaps a stub left pointing to amphidromic point (the only thing in there that isn't in the rest of the article). I'll do those edits at some point unless there are objections. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your points were the same ones that I made at AFD so no argument there. Regarding integration into the article I think that that is a good idea too, but despite it's shortcomings, we should regogize there areas where the "Dynamic theory" article was better and try to retain those:
  1. The "Dynamic ......" article had some practical explanatory statements of the type that the "theory of tides" article was short on. (This one looks a bit impressively written for the people who already know the topic vs those that don't.) Including some practical notes on ramification and observations for the most prevalent use and observation......water tides on earth.
  2. The "Dynamic...." are had plenty of references, even more so for its sized. The "Theory of tides" article was short on references.
So IMHO it would be good to try to retain some of that in the more fully integrated article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm referencing the line: "For a circular orbit the angular momentum centripetal acceleration balances gravity at the planetary center of mass"

When reading through it, I was curious what centripetal acceleration was. It might be helpful to others like me if it linked to a wiki article on the topic, no? The best I could find was centripetal force, but within it there is a hint at how to derive the acceleration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.250.187 (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

source of last ref added

[edit]

"Although this theory successfully explains the period of semidiurnal tides (two high tides and two low tides per day) as well as the spring tides and neap tides, the dynamic theory of tides which incorporates the hydrodynamic effect of the fluid as well as the Earth’s spin was first introduced by Laplace (1775) who attempted to explain diurnal tides, mixed tides, and the amplitude of tides observed in reality." http://ocean.kisti.re.kr/downfile/volume/kess/JGGHBA/2009/v30n5/JGGHBA_2009_v30n5_671.pdf

Fxmastermind (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really an expert source? The author refers to the equilibrium theory by Newton, while it was Bernoulli who invented this concept, 60 years after the first edition of the Principia.  Wikiklaas  23:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. What was authored by Bernoulli is the "Equilibrium Tide", which is a complement to Newton's Equilibrium Theory, and also replaces some erroneous concluding assertions left by Newton in his Principia. Bernoulli himself did not fail leaving some of his own conclusions to be contradicted later in fact. --Askedonty (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point out where Newton published the term equilibrium theory or the idea of the same? I don't mind whether you choose the English or the Latin version of the Principia; I can read both. It's also up to you to choose the edition (1st, 2nd or 3rd).  Wikiklaas  22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may be not very articulate however if I wanted to read them in English I would, and I'd need not any updated edition besides.
But could it be that you've overlooked the Analytical View of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia, by Henry Lord Brougham ? "After Newton the chief writers on Hydrodynamics were the Bernouillis, Maclaurin, d'Alembert. The equations which the latter obtained are the foundations of modern Hydrodyñamics." With plenty of considerations regarding equilibrium, even though not each attributed solely to Isaac Newton. --Askedonty (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Theory of tides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

[1]


Much less how to fix it

  1. ^ "Dynamic Theory of Tides".

Fxmastermind (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Seems to be working for me. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK good to know Fxmastermind (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_tides&oldid=1195079765"