Dynamic theory of tides was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 23 August 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Theory of tides. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Talk:Theory of tides is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
oceans,
seas, and
bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from
Aral Sea; check
La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from
MS Estonia
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
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
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:
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.
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
Could it link to centripetal acceleration? (or centripetal force)
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
"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
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. Wikiklaas23:26, 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). Wikiklaas22:48, 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
External links modified (January 2018)
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.