Talk:Tide

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tied. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 25#Tied until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have just removed the following text block from sea from the section on "tides". Maybe some of it could be useful for this article? Here it is:

Tidal flows of seawater are resisted by the water's inertia and can be affected by land masses. In places like the Gulf of Mexico where land constrains the movement of the bulges, only one set of tides may occur each day. Inshore from an island there may be a complex daily cycle with four high tides. The island straits at Chalkis on Euboea experience strong currents which abruptly switch direction, generally four times per day but up to 12 times per day when the moon and the sun are 90 degrees apart.^[1] Where there is a funnel-shaped bay or estuary, the tidal range can be magnified. The Bay of Fundy is the classic example of this and can experience spring tides of 15 m (49 ft). Although tides are regular and predictable, the height of high tides can be lowered by offshore winds and raised by onshore winds. The high pressure at the centre of an anticyclones pushes down on the water and is associated with abnormally low tides while low-pressure areas may cause extremely high tides.^[2]

In 1900, Galveston, Texas experienced a 15 ft (5 m) surge during a hurricane that overwhelmed the city, killing over 3,500 people and destroying 3,636 homes.^[3] EMsmile (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

In the section Lunar distance

causing tidal differences of inches at most.

is not supported by the reference.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Found a reference at NOAA which says just the opposite and changed the section. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please replace the outer pair of round brackets on the right-hand side of

<math> A(t) = A\bigl(1 + A_a \cos\,(\omega_a t + p_a)\bigr) </math>

${\displaystyle A(t)=A{\bigl (}1+A_{a}\cos \,(\omega _{a}t+p_{a}){\bigr )}}$ 

with square brackets (as is already the case in the following line). The brackets on the left-hand side are meant to be functional - A, a function of t - the ones on the right-hand side algebraic - A, a constant, times one plus something - but the apparent symmetry makes it very tempting to misread the latter for the former here, IMO, and using square ones instead would make it less so. Thanks!

- 2A02:560:42CD:C900:9D0D:A434:8FE6:B166 (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Partly done: - We see functional and multiplicative brackets together all the time and it's not a big deal. I think the bigger cause of the confusion you've quite correctly identified is that "A" is carrying way too many meanings here. I've replaced the static amplitude of the first term with ${\displaystyle A_{o}}$  instead of A, and hopefully that helps distinguish between constants and functions. This section is still a bloody mess, however. PianoDan (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

True, that is a nicer solution. Cheers!

- (OP) 2A02:560:4289:4400:74AD:D1B:3041:9D01 (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to improve the format of the subscripts in subsection "Analysis" of section "Observation and prediction", namely change every occurence in the text of "A_o" and "A_o" with "A_o". Also, replace "A" with "A" at one point in the same subsection. Here are the full current and proposed versions:

Current

where

• A_o is the amplitude.
• ω is the angular frequency, usually given in degrees per hour corresponding to t measured in hours.
• p is the phase offset with regard to the astronomical state at time t = 0 .

There is one term for the Moon and a second term for the Sun. The phase p of the first harmonic for the Moon term is called the lunitidal interval or high water interval.

The next refinement is to accommodate the harmonic terms due to the elliptical shape of the orbits. To do so, the value of the amplitude is taken to be not a constant, but varying with time, about the average amplitude A_o. To do so, replace A_o in the above equation with A(t) where A is another sinusoid, similar to the cycles and epicycles of Ptolemaic theory. This gives:

${\displaystyle A(t)=A_{o}{\bigl (}1+A_{a}\cos \,(\omega _{a}t+p_{a}){\bigr )}}$ 

which is to say an average value A_o with a sinusoidal variation about it of magnitude A_a, with frequency ω_a and phase p_a. Substituting this for A_o in the original equation gives a product of two cosine factors:

Proposed

where

• A_o is the amplitude.
• ω is the angular frequency, usually given in degrees per hour corresponding to t measured in hours.
• p is the phase offset with regard to the astronomical state at time t = 0 .

There is one term for the Moon and a second term for the Sun. The phase p of the first harmonic for the Moon term is called the lunitidal interval or high water interval.

The next refinement is to accommodate the harmonic terms due to the elliptical shape of the orbits. To do so, the value of the amplitude is taken to be not a constant, but varying with time, about the average amplitude A_o. To do so, replace A_o in the above equation with A(t) where A is another sinusoid, similar to the cycles and epicycles of Ptolemaic theory. This gives:

${\displaystyle A(t)=A_{o}{\bigl (}1+A_{a}\cos \,(\omega _{a}t+p_{a}){\bigr )}}$ 

which is to say an average value A_o with a sinusoidal variation about it of magnitude A_a, with frequency ω_a and phase p_a. Substituting this for A_o in the original equation gives a product of two cosine factors: Pattedetable (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Done Basedeunie042 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Has anyone considered that magnetism, rather than gravitation, might be the prevailing causation attributable to the tides lesson today? Geometrically, angular momentum exerted directly upon the Earth by the Moon occurs quite minimally during an ordinary orbital period; circulation within Earth atmosphere allows this force to continue ordinarily until the next magnetic moment between the two celestial bodies which, as we have learned travel at constant rates around the sun each orbital period uniformly.

Also, is there a Motion-Picture-Projects-Group within Wikimedia Fdtn who may wish to be added to this page's articles-of-interest list? People like Chris Nolan [this is professional outreach, not a "personal attack"] are allowed to publish "original work" on Wikipedia and promote themselves and their business; the integrity of our science and math on pages like this {Tides} is lacking relative to the PR biz. Ie. No one can consider representing me and/or any of my original work via a Wiki "sphere" in or outside of the U.S. Wikimagcarta (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you want to mention something about magnetism here, you need to be able to cite a reliable source, which you have not done.

If there is original research or self-promotion published in an article, it should be removed. Would you kindly point it out?

And why would this article have any relation whatsoever to the "PR biz"? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your swift response, Anachronist. Stephen Hawking's CMB equation is a good reference and reliable source which, while depicting background T universally, expresses no systemic properties, whether constant or variable, related to magnetism; so the proof with this reliable source is the process-step missing.

As for Public Relations biz, please see my text regarding Chris Nolan. Do I have to include the WikiPR page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Nolan

Gravitation, pointedly, as a basis here for our tides, is anachronistic. Wikimagcarta (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

You still haven't provided a reliable source in the context of this article. If you find anything that directly links magnetism to tides, then suggest it for inclusion in this article.

If you're referring to Christopher Nolan the filmmaker, I don't see the connection to this article or to public relations. If you see a problem with the Christopher Nolan article, such as PR in the article, then remove it or point it out on that article's talk page; it isn't relevant on this talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ana, I understand that you and your colleagues are incredibly opportunistic and have taken advances in computer science and imaging (whether one abides by an adage that "image is everything" or not is irrelevant) and capitalized upon them, and that is your choice and I have no problem with that, but computer science does not replace, nor does it augment, basic science and math from advancing--it should not, anyway. The very first thing you have accomplished since my first post this morning is personally attack me: I had asked if "anyone" has considered magnetism on the "Talk" section of the "Tides" page, a page that has been "generously" edited, dramatically rather, in the past 6 months without any real actual reference and citation. Worse, it is a deplorable mess, in terms of the present time we are living in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#/media/File:VFPt_Earths_Magnetic_Field_Confusion.svg is a link--the Earth's magnetic field lines lesson(s) in general, within this "WikiSchool" that are an as-equal reference and proof to the antiquity of these lessons. While incredible depth of field advances, GPS advances, Internet and tech advances have been made, it should not excuse these lessons "writers" from someone else's hard-earned "day at work". These pages, too, are a mess; they suggest no real, actual relationship between Earth's magnetic field lines, her tides, and, as it is recorded by many and laboriously, meticulously so, her "elements" within the only biosphere we know of with life as "intelligent" as we claim it to be.

Regarding Christopher Nolan, the connection is this: a Hollywood director gets to lend voice to the masses, outside of school systems, about energy in 2023 through the prism of an antiquated "history tale" while I get to wrestle with a gremlin on a "web" "site" and the entire real lesson is vacated, vacuated, and inoculated from where it is really needed--the schools. I am not personally attacking anyone, and I will finish this Post-It with a claim that a professional assault should be made against the Powers That Be In Publishing immediately, because they are losing a lot of people. Wikimagcarta (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Earth's field line lessons are 70 years old, colored in to look "modern", and not annotated sufficiently at all. Wikimagcarta (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Where have I made a personal attack? On the other hand your assumptions about me, calling me "opportunistic" and somehow thinking my background is in computer science, could be considered a personal attack. All I have done to you is informed you that (a) Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion, they are for improving articles, and (b) you are required to provide sources to back up assertions you want the article to make. After multiple exchanges, both pieces of advice are being ignored.

If you have questions about the topic, and whether scientists may have considered magnetic fields being related somehow to tides, the place to ask is at WP:REFDESK. If you're on this talk page, you're expected to discuss improving this article. Article talk pages aren't forum discussions. See the WP:NOTAFORUM policy. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay back to one: my very first statement, "Has anyone considered that magnetism, rather than gravitation, might be the prevailing causation attributable to the tides lesson today?" was ignored and re-directed by you into an expressed assumption that I have not learned the rules of posting on Wikipedia "Talk" nor followed them.

It may be a good idea to implement a method similar to that of San Jose's Zoom company inline with Wikipedia "contributors" so that horribly incorrect statements (such as the planets' tidal nature) can be as modern as say, Black Magic or Red motion picture instruments. Wikimagcarta (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is not an attack, that is pointing out what this talk page is for, based on a clearly not having acutally "learned the rules of posting on Wikipedia 'talk' pages nor followed them" as demonstrated by every comment you have made so far. Are you going to suggest anything specific to change, add, or remove? Are you going to offer any reliable sources? So far, you seem intent on using this talk page as a discussion forum, which it is not. Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or not? I'm happy to entertain specific suggestions for improvement, but so far you have not provided any, in spite of my patient encouraging you to do so. I am still waiting. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reading one sentence at a time …

Has anyone considered that magnetism, rather than gravitation, might be the prevailing causation attributable to the tides lesson today?

Possibly. Has anyone done the math to describe such an interaction, with force vectors and all that sciencey stuff? Better places for that question include physics.stackexchange.com and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.

Geometrically, angular momentum exerted directly upon the Earth by the Moon occurs quite minimally during an ordinary orbital period;

True, that's why the slowing of Earth's rotation is very slow. What's your point?

circulation within Earth atmosphere allows this force to continue ordinarily until the next magnetic moment between the two celestial bodies which, as we have learned travel at constant rates around the sun each orbital period uniformly.

er what? For one thing, magnetic moment is not a point in time.

Also, is there a Motion-Picture-Projects-Group within Wikimedia Fdtn who may wish to be added to this page's articles-of-interest list?

Why do you think Wikipedia:WikiProject Film might be interested in tide?

People like Chris Nolan [this is professional outreach, not a "personal attack"] are allowed to publish "original work" on Wikipedia and promote themselves and their business;

If Chris Nolan (either the filmmaker or the poet) is editing Wikipedia articles about his own work, that is a violation of WP:COI.

the integrity of our science and math on pages like this {Tides} is lacking relative to the PR biz. Ie. No one can consider representing me and/or any of my original work via a Wiki "sphere" in or outside of the U.S.

Because Wikipedia's job is to cover subjects that have achieved independent notability; that means, for one thing, they have already been written about by people not paid by them. We're not here to promote anyone, no matter how deserving. —Tamfang (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bold Let's invite Chris Nolan to this Talk. We can call it WikiX! Wikimagcarta (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Tide changes proceed via the two main stages:

• The water stops falling, reaching a local minimum called low tide.
• The water stops rising, reaching a local maximum called high tide.

In some regions, there are additional two possible stages:

• Sea level rises over several hours, covering the intertidal zone; flood tide.
• Sea level falls over several hours, revealing the intertidal zone; ebb tide.

Between extremes, there is change. So – call me thick – if a region has the first two, how can it not have all four of these stages? —Tamfang (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what this section of text is saying. You don't get to high tide stage without a flood tide and you don't get to a low tide without an ebb tide - and why the links to 'local minimum' and 'local maximum'? - these links are simply descriptions of how mathematicians put graphs together. Perhaps someone else will get around to sorting this out before I do. Geopersona (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

A local minimum is a point where a value is lower than elsewhere in its neighborhood. The term is presumably used here to suggest that a "low tide" may be higher than the low tide of a week earlier, without invalidating its claim to be "low tide". —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Boldly changed. —Tamfang (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

In a few places, the relative contributions from the Moon and the Sun to the tides are compared, saying that the Sun's is "much smaller" than the Moon's. A simple evaluation of the formula given there gives a ratio of tidal forces of roughly F_M : F_S = 2.2 : 1. This is not "much smaller" at any rate. This is particularly important as there are indeed effects that are "much smaller", for example the influence of Jupiter or even the explanations for the spring and neap tides across the seasons, equinoxes etc.

I therefore made a few edits replacing "much smaller" by "smaller" in the relevant places (simply searching for "much").

DieHenkels (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply