Ocean Tides Explained
This video is the result of Arthur Peck’s sabbatical research into some of the lesser-known aspects of ocean tides (but also covers the basics).
This research was conducted in Oregon in the Spring of 2022, and here’s what was found. Coastal peoples have been observing this rising and falling of the waters for millennia, and most cultures have figured out that the timing of it has something to do with the passing of the moon.
Beyond that, there are a lot of questions to explore, including why are there tides in the first place?
Source: YouTube
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Michael Detrick
| #
I was impressed with the good explanations and graphical presentations. Then you ruined the entire video by mentioning how deeply brainwashed you are by the bought-off fake scientists who try to get us to buy into their fear porn about CO2. Sad. Unprofessional.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Objects do not radiate mass, so mass is constant. The variations in tides is because gravity is a function of the energy associated with masses not their mass, which produces inertia. When the energy radiated by an object encounters equal energy being radiated from another object it continues to flow but does not decrease,. The high tide on the opposite side of the Earth from the moon is a result of water trying to equalize with their combined energy fields The phases of the moon does not change the mass of the moon but the energy field coming from the moon.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi all PSi Readers and Michael,
Arthur gives us an example of real SCIENCE (data) and Michael doesn’t seem to really appreciate it for something I have not read Michael and other PSI readers trying to correct.
I have pointed out in PSI articles that the atmosphere’s temperature (AT) and the atmosphere’s dew point temperature (ADPT) are commonly measured at the same place and time. And I have pointed out that the AT has never been found to be less than the ADPT. Hence, I have pointed out the measured AT can never be 33C (58F) less the AT measured. And I have pointed out this commonly observed data absolutely refutes the prediction of the carbon dioxide Greenhouse Effect theory. But it seems no one, PSI founders even, has paid any attention to this information published here at PSI.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
People have disputed your nonsense law but you again are unable to comprehend. Please explain to all how a supposed minimum of temperature disproves that something can make the temperature higher.
Here’s an observation I have made that I am turning into an indisputable law. NO MATTER WHAT THE SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE JERRY’S COMMENT WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
One cannot dispute reproducible DATA. Which is what a SCIENTIFIC LAW summarizes!!! Hopefully hen you write what you just have done, some readers will recognize that you don’t know much about what SCIENCE has been. Scientist are human and make mistakes, but it seems you believe you don’t.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
I now see I just made several and the biggest one was that I should have written: Scientist are human and WE make mistakes.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Dew occurs because the temperature of the air drops below the dew point. If the temperature is controlled by the dew point, as you seem to believe, there could never be any dew formed.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
I make mistakes, one of which I will correct after this response. You are like a small child running around the playground yelling “Look at me. Look at me.” believing that all should stop what they are doing and pay attention to them. I will no longer do that. Humoring a fool only results in more foolishness.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Arthur,
Because your article is now on page 2, it becomes more likely current PSI readers will not become aware of its existence unless some frequent comment will refer to it. Hence this comment is an attempt to give these current readers aware of your very signifiant scholarly efforts to inform others about tides and tidal currents.
A second reason concerns Herb’s comments. For he is wasting his time for long ago I admitted to my stupidity, (https://principia-scientific.com/dr-jerry-l-krause-how-stupid-am-i/) And for some reason this essay still has readers’ and my comments still attached.
Since there are no Herb comments I assume he hasn’t read it yet and he needs to know that he is wasting his time, for I already know how stupid I am.
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry. The title suggests you have to be stupid to read your article. My understanding is John Osullivan advised against the title.
Something positive in the title may have attracted readership.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
“My understanding is John Osullivan advised against the title.”
From what (where) did this “understanding” come. You did not make any comment just after John published (posted) this article. I did not submit any images with my text for I did not know how to do this and I still do not know how. John embellished my text with the images he found that were available. I never have submitted a text with any reference to my academic degree, so you are right that John altered the title of my essay.
And I consider because of what John did, one can Google: “Jerry Krause Science” and be directed to this essay.
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
I was checking the global sea surface pressure map and noticed the unusually intense large low pressure system of the west coast of Seattle and Canada.
I searched news reports which stated it was technically a weather bomb.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/global/gmslp.000.shtml
We have the roaring forties return where I live after an 18 month absence. Further South on the East coast a part of New Zealand was recording 240 Kilometer an hour winds from a standard roaring forties wind. Only 120 KPH today further South.
I do not think I knew of PSI when you published the article you mentioned. I have read it.
Best wishes.
Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
I have been learning a lot here at PSI this morning. It started when I couldn’t spell a word that James McGinn often used to describe water’s physical properties. And Herb had written that he had used PSI”s find app to discover previous essay’s I had written years ago by typing “by Jerry Krause”. So to possibly find the word I couldn’t spell; I typed “by James McGinn” just to see what results I might get. I doubt you could never guess what the result was! The result was article after article written by Herb Rose and I confirmed that one had no mention of James even making a comment.
I ask: Does AI know something which maybe PSI editors don’t know?
Have a good day
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Looked at you link and I have no idea or what “Global MSLP Thickness +000hrs” is. Could you enlighten me?
Have a good day
Reply
MattH
| #
Hello Jerry.
Mean Surface Level Pressure. The thickness is not referring to you or me but to the 1000HPa to 500HPa atmospheric zone in light blue.
I note the weather bomb west of you has diminished in area but I noticed on fox news an article said the weather bomb was throwing things around in the air, of all places.
The North Atlantic High Pressure system has been blocked from extending up to Norway your whole past Northern Hemisphere summer by low pressure systems which is like one of the seven wives misbehaving.
Okay then.
Reply