Science Forums

# Earth axis

## Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Dandav said:

Dear Moontanman

I fully agree with the idea that the moon gravitational force is vital for the Earth stability, but there is no explanation for how the steadily orbiting moon’s gravitational tug can counteract these disturbances.

You seem to caught in a causality loop, you ask how the moon stabilizes the Earth, the answer is the Moon's gravitational pull, then you ask how the Moon's gravitational tug stabilizes the earth's axis and you get back The Moon stabilizes the Earth's axis via tidal interactions... which of course means "the Moon's gravitational pull" I would imagine it will take some rather specific mathematics to explain it in detail but the gist of the matter is the Moon's gravitational pull stabilizes the Earth's rotational axis via tidal interactions. This seems to be the consensus at this time.

10 hours ago, Dandav said:

• Replies 38
• Created

#### Popular Days

On 12/14/2023 at 4:18 PM, Moontanman said:

The Moon stabilizes the Earth's axis via tidal interactions... which of course means "the Moon's gravitational pull" I would imagine it will take some rather specific mathematics to explain it in detail but the gist of the matter is the Moon's gravitational pull stabilizes the Earth's rotational axis via tidal interactions.

Thanks

I agree that the Moon's TIDAL stabilizes the Earth's rotational axis.

However, it is our obligation to understand how this tidal process really works.

Therefore, let me offer the following explanation:

Tidal force is a combination of Horizontal and vertical tidal forces as follow:

The vertical Tidal force sets severe pressure on the Earth poles and changes its shape to oval.

Those tidal forces are also called:

"So gravity "stretches" and "squashes" a moon.

"stretches" = Horizontal tidal force

"squashes" = vertical tidal force

We can consider it as a long moon' gravitational arm that squashes the Earth by its poles and stabilizes its motion as it crosses the space

If we would cancel the Vertical tidal force and keep only the Horizontal tidal force, the Earth would lose its stability and flip constantly as it orbits around the Sun due to the Gyro torque phenomenon

Therefore, do you agree that the vertical tidal force is the main force that stabilizes the Earth's rotational axis?

Edited by Dandav
##### Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Dandav said:

Thanks

I agree that the Moon's TIDAL stabilizes the Earth's rotational axis.

However, it is our obligation to understand how this tidal process really works.

Therefore, let me offer the following explanation:

Tidal force is a combination of Horizontal and vertical tidal forces as follow:

The vertical Tidal force sets severe pressure on the Earth poles and changes its shape to oval.

Those tidal forces are also called:

"So gravity "stretches" and "squashes" a moon.

"stretches" = Horizontal tidal force

"squashes" = vertical tidal force

We can consider it as a long moon' gravitational arm that squashes the Earth by its poles and stabilizes its motion as it crosses the space

If we would cancel the Vertical tidal force and keep only the Horizontal tidal force, the Earth would lose its stability and flip constantly as it orbits around the Sun due to the Gyro torque phenomenon

Therefore, do you agree that the vertical tidal force is the main force that stabilizes the Earth's rotational axis?

It sounds reasonable i admit but so fat your evidence is pretty slim... even if you are correct you have yet to establish why you are correct. Nice illustration but no reason to believe it other than your word?

##### Share on other sites

On 12/16/2023 at 3:43 PM, Moontanman said:

Thanks

On 12/16/2023 at 3:43 PM, Moontanman said:

but so fat your evidence is pretty slim... even if you are correct you have yet to establish why you are correct. Nice illustration but no reason to believe it other than your word?

Is there any possibility to stabilize an object in space by one force that works in only one line of direction?

Don't you agree that there is a need for at least two differential forces that are orthogonal to each other and that is exactly the meaning of Tidal.

In the article about the Tidal it is stated:

"If we subtract the center of mass force, we see the differential force acting on it

Therefore, gravity by itself isn't good enough.

The vertical tidal force is a game changer. I wonder how the science could ignore the key impact of that force?

In any case, the next key question is:

How the Earth could keep its spinning motion for billion years while it is losing spinning motion due to the Gyro torque and due to the Bulge?

Don't you agree that somehow new energy is needed to keep the spinning motion of the Earth for so long time?

Edited by Dandav
##### Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dandav said:

Thanks

Is there any possibility to stabilize an object in space by one force that works in only one line of direction?

Don't you agree that there is a need for at least two differential forces that are orthogonal to each other and that is exactly the meaning of Tidal.

In the article about the Tidal it is stated:

"If we subtract the center of mass force, we see the differential force acting on it

Therefore, gravity by itself isn't good enough.

The vertical tidal force is a game changer. I wonder how the science could ignore the key impact of that force?

In any case, the next key question is:

How the Earth could keep its spinning motion for billion years while it is losing spinning motion due to the Gyro torque and due to the Bulge?

Don't you agree that somehow new energy is needed to keep the spinning motion of the Earth for so long time?

How fast would you expect the Earth to lose it's spin?

##### Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Moontanman said:

How fast would you expect the Earth to lose it's spin?

1. Do you confirm that the current total Earth' rotational kinetic energy is 2.14×10^29 J?

"The Earth has a moment of inertia, I = 8.04×10^37 kg·m2.[3] Therefore, it has a rotational kinetic energy of 2.14×10^29 J."

2. Do you confirm that the "Earth itself acts like a gigantic gyroscope"?

"Earth itself acts like a gigantic gyroscope"

3. Do you confirm that the value of the Earth' torque is 1.39 × 10^22 N  m?

(b) What is the average torque producing this change in angular momentum?

The answer is: (b) 1.39 × 10^22 N  m

4. Do you confirm that this torque represents the energy per sec. that is taken from the total Earth' rotational kinetic energy and therefore it slows the Earth Rotation?

5. Do you confirm that the Tides also Slows the Earth Rotation?

### Tides Slow Earth Rotation

As the Earth rotates beneath the tidal bulges, it attempts to drag the bulges along with it. A large amount of friction is produced which slows down the Earth's spin. The day has been getting longer and longer by about 0.0016 seconds each century.

6. However, as the tides impact on the Earth slow rotation is quite neglected, I will focus on the torque impact.

Edited by Dandav
##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dandav said:

1. Do you confirm that the current total Earth' rotational kinetic energy is 2.14×10^29 J?

"The Earth has a moment of inertia, I = 8.04×10^37 kg·m2.[3] Therefore, it has a rotational kinetic energy of 2.14×10^29 J."

2. Do you confirm that the "Earth itself acts like a gigantic gyroscope"?

"Earth itself acts like a gigantic gyroscope"

3. Do you confirm that the value of the Earth' torque is 1.39 × 10^22 N  m?

(b) What is the average torque producing this change in angular momentum?

The answer is: (b) 1.39 × 10^22 N  m

4. Do you confirm that this torque represents the energy per sec. that is taken from the total Earth' rotational kinetic energy and therefore it slows the Earth Rotation?

5. Do you confirm that the Tides also Slows the Earth Rotation?

### Tides Slow Earth Rotation

As the Earth rotates beneath the tidal bulges, it attempts to drag the bulges along with it. A large amount of friction is produced which slows down the Earth's spin. The day has been getting longer and longer by about 0.0016 seconds each century.

6. However, as the tides impact on the Earth slow rotation is quite neglected, I will focus on the torque impact.

So you don't have a figure?

##### Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So you don't have a figure?

The figure is as follow:

I hope that we accept the following data that were found in the web:

Earth' total rotational kinetic energy = 2.14×10^29 J

Earth' Gyro torque per second = 1.39 × 10^22 N  m

Hence,

T = Earth' rotational kinetic energy / Earth' torque per second = 2.14×10^29 J / 1.39 × 10^22 N  m = 1.54 10^7 seconds

There are 2 629 743.83 seconds per month.

T = 1.54 10^7 seconds / 2,629,743 = 5.8 Month

Therefore, in only about 6 month the Earth should lose most of its rotational kinetic energy due to this Gyro torque.

I wonder how the science community could claim that Tides Slows the Earth Rotation, but totally ignore the key impact of the torque.

Edited by Dandav
##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dandav said:

The figure is as follow:

I hope that we accept the following data that were found in the web:

Earth' total rotational kinetic energy = 2.14×10^29 J

Earth' Gyro torque per second = 1.39 × 10^22 N  m

Hence,

T = Earth' rotational kinetic energy / Earth' torque per second = 2.14×10^29 J / 1.39 × 10^22 N  m = 1.54 10^7 seconds

There are 2 629 743.83 seconds per month.

T = 1.54 10^7 seconds / 2,629,743 = 5.8 Month

Therefore, in only about 6 month the Earth should lose most of its rotational kinetic energy due to this Gyro torque.

I wonder how the science community could claim that Tides Slows the Earth Rotation, but totally ignore the key impact of the torque.

No, I do not accept that data as true, you need to provide links to that info. Simply stating something as true will not cut it. Now provide links to that info so that anyone can see the truth of it, this is not your personal log, when you state something as true you have to show it is true. You are trying to state as fact something that does not conform to reality. The reality is that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, to state the the Earth would slow down significantly over 6 months makes no sense.

##### Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Dandav said:

The figure is as follow:

I hope that we accept the following data that were found in the web:

Earth' total rotational kinetic energy = 2.14×10^29 J

Earth' Gyro torque per second = 1.39 × 10^22 N  m

Hence,

T = Earth' rotational kinetic energy / Earth' torque per second = 2.14×10^29 J / 1.39 × 10^22 N  m = 1.54 10^7 seconds

There are 2 629 743.83 seconds per month.

T = 1.54 10^7 seconds / 2,629,743 = 5.8 Month

Therefore, in only about 6 month the Earth should lose most of its rotational kinetic energy due to this Gyro torque.

I wonder how the science community could claim that Tides Slows the Earth Rotation, but totally ignore the key impact of the torque.

The above post is Complete nonsense!

The gyro torque does not change the magnitude of angular momentum of the earth; only the direction of the angular momentum changes as the earth precesses. Quote: "The Earth’s axis slowly precesses, always making an angle of 23.5° with the direction perpendicular to the plane of Earth’s orbit. The change in angular momentum for the two shown positions is quite large, although the magnitude L is unchanged." Unquote

The tidal torque on the Earth is estimated at 4.83E16 Nm and this does change the earth’s rotational kinetic energy over very long time spans.

How about we go through this step by step, and show the math?

To estimate the rotational energy for the Earth, we need to first find out the moment of inertia I of the Earth: I = 0.33MR^2

Where R is the radius of the earth. Average radii of the Earth are about 6.371E6 meters. M is the mass. Current best estimate for Earth’s mass is 5.9722E24 kilograms.

This gives a figure of ~ 8E37 kgm^2 for the earth’s moment of Inertia.

Now, we are able to compute the total rotational energy for the Earth given by:

KEe = 0.5 I ω^2

KEe is the rotational kinetic energy and ω is the angular velocity. The rotation period of the Earth is 23.93 hours, for an equivalent angular velocity of 7.29E-5 rad/s. Placing the moment of inertia 8.E37 Kgm^2 into the equation, we come to the total rotational energy of the Earth ~ 2.137E29 Joules.

To calculate the change in the earth’s rotational kinetic energy we can use the fact from Wikipedia that one earth day will be one hour longer in 180 million years.

If a rotating object changes rotational speed from ω1 to ω2, the change in rotational kinetic energy will be:

ΔKErot=1/2 I [ω1^2−ω2^2]

ω1, based on 23.93 hour day is 7.29E-5 rad/s and ω2, based on a 24.93 hour day is 6.997E-5 rad/sec

Plugging in these numbers, the change in rotational KE is  1.7E28 joules over 180 million years. Dividing this by 180 million years yields 3.0E12 watts, which is consistent with the 3.75E12 watts currently dissipated by the ocean tides, considering the decrease over time in the power dissipation as the Moon recedes from the Earth and tidal friction decreases.

If we stay with that average dissipation of 3.0E12 watts (3.0E12 joules/second) the earth’s rotational kinetic energy of 2.137E29 joules will last for 7.12E16 seconds or more than 2.2 billion years.

It is estimated that the oceans will begin to boil off in one billion years due to increased solar temperature, so the tides will cease to exist and so will all life on earth, long before the earth runs out of rotational kinetic energy.

##### Share on other sites

This thread needs to be moved to silly claims due to the amount of nonsense in it.

##### Share on other sites

On 12/22/2023 at 4:52 AM, Moontanman said:

The reality is that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, to state the the Earth would slow down significantly over 6 months makes no sense.

Yes, I fully agree with you.

On 12/22/2023 at 3:05 PM, OceanBreeze said:

we come to the total rotational energy of the Earth ~ 2.137E29 Joules.

This is similar to the data that I have found:

On 12/21/2023 at 9:47 PM, Dandav said:

Earth' total rotational kinetic energy = 2.14×10^29 J

On 12/22/2023 at 3:05 PM, OceanBreeze said:

Plugging in these numbers, the change in rotational KE is  1.7E28 joules over 180 million years. Dividing this by 180 million years yields 3.0E12 watts, which is consistent with the 3.75E12 watts currently dissipated by the ocean tides, considering the decrease over time in the power dissipation as the Moon recedes from the Earth and tidal friction decreases.

However, how do we know for sure that that one earth day will be one hour longer in 180 million years.?

How do we know for sure that The Earth Axis complete one rotation in 25,780 y?

As shown in Figure 6, this axis precesses, making one complete rotation in 25,780 y.

What kind of real evidence do we have with regards to the Earth axis or its magnetic axis?

We have clear evidences that occasionally the North and South geomagnetic poles trade places:

Although generally Earth's field is approximately dipolar, with an axis that is nearly aligned with the rotational axis, occasionally the North and South geomagnetic poles trade places. Evidence for these geomagnetic reversals can be found in basalts, sediment cores taken from the ocean floors, and seafloor magnetic anomalies.[

The last full reversal of the Earth’s geomagnetic field took at least 22,000 years to complete, researchers from the US and Japan have revealed.

Don't you agree that this might set a severe error in the idea that the The Earth Axis complete one full rotation in 25,780 y

On the other hand, how do we know if just the internal magnetic dipole flips or the whole Earth flips?

Can we estimate the energy torque lost due to this activity?

Don't you agree that there could be some other sources for earth spinning energy lost energy?

For example, the lost due to the Earth EM energy creation?

If we assume that the current Earth spinning motion is only due to the activity that took place 4.5 B years ago, then why the earth rotation axis isn't fully aligned with the magnetic axis?

Don't you agree that this observation proves that there are significant forces that are working on the different axis of the earth as Tidal forces?

Therefore, why do we refuse to accept the idea that somehow the earth must get new energy for its lost spinning motion by the tidal forces.

Edited by Dandav
##### Share on other sites

How about you start by answering my question? You keep talking about the rotation of the Earth as though it's inexplicable. All bodies in the universe rotate, they get this rotational energy though accretion. Spin is always conserved, accreted matter transfers spin to the larger body from the small one. Do you understand this concept? This why stars and planets spin. Now... let us continue.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

How about you start by answering my question? You keep talking about the rotation of the Earth as though it's inexplicable. All bodies in the universe rotate, they get this rotational energy though accretion.

I agree with the following:

All bodies in the universe started to rotate, due to rotational energy though accretion.

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Spin is always conserved, accreted matter transfers spin to the larger body from the small one.

Sorry.

You miss the spin energy lost due to several factors.

1. Gyro Torque.

2. Tidal bulge

3. Internal friction

4. EM energy creation

5. The tidal squashes

On 12/15/2023 at 9:17 PM, Dandav said:

:

"So gravity "stretches" and "squashes" a moon.

"stretches" = Horizontal tidal force

"squashes" = vertical tidal force

If you try to hold a spinning ball between your fingers and squash it by its poles. What would be the outcome?

Don't you agree that it would convert its shape to oval and also creates a friction that would stop its spinning motion?

We might think that each one of the above obstacles for the spinning motion by itself is not a fatal problem.

But when we add the total impact of all of them (and more) we might find that it is just not realistic to believe that the Earth could maintain its spinning motions for billions of years.

There must be a solution how the Earth regain the lost spinning motion.

That solution is clearly base on Tidal.

So, tidal set the "squashes", but at the same time it help the earth to get new spinning motion.

The key issue is the solid core.

In the following article it is stated:

The inner core’s outer shell and its newly confirmed innermost sphere both are hot enough to be molten but are a solid iron-nickel alloy because the incredible pressure at the center of the Earth renders it a solid state.

So, we understand that molten core is solid due to the incredible pressure.

However, the science community just think about the gravity pressure and therefore, they think that the solid core is a ball.

"Scientists discover core deep inside Earth — a solid ball of iron and nickel"

However, a solid ball would flip easily in all directions and we won't get a stable magnetic axis.

Please be aware that in order to achieve this goal, there is a need for a magnetic dipole (or bar)

Dipole can't be a ball.

Therefore, the Earth MUST have a solid dipole/bar and not a solid ball.

The only force in the nature that can set this dipole (in a bar shape) is the "squashes" = vertical tidal force by its incredible vertical pressure.

Once you accept this idea, you have already solved 90% of the Earth spinning energy lost and the Earth EM enigma.

Edited by Dandav
##### Share on other sites

You do realize that the slowing down of the Earth's rotation is not consistent and that it has been going on for 4.5 billion years... right? There is no way to accurately predict the slow down of rotation over time. As continental drift changes the positions of the continents the rate of slow down changes. You can make all the claims you want about rates of slow down but you cannot predict those rates over time. Then you have the rain of debris over time that continues to add spin energy. The collision with Thea that produced Luna probably sped up the rotation of the Earth considerably.

So again I ask What exactly (in respect to the Earth's rotation) do you expect to see over time that is not currently being addressed?

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So again I ask What exactly (in respect to the Earth's rotation) do you expect to see over time that is not currently being addressed?

I would expect to fit a theory to the observation and not vice versa.

"Planet Earth is surrounded by a magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field is almost the same shape as the magnetic field around a bar magnet, so it is called a "dipole field" (two poles). Swirling motions of molten iron and nickel in Earth's core generate our planet's magnetic field.

Earth's magnetic field is NOT exactly aligned with the geographic North and South Poles. The magnetic field is tilted about 10 degrees away from the geographic poles."

This observation proves that different forces are working on the earth rotation and there is a need for internal solid dipole (magnet bar) and not any sort of a solid ball.

It is our obligation to fit a theory to this observation and not just fit the observation to our hope that somehow all the activities that we observe with all the complexity is only due to a first spinning motion that took place 4.5 Billion years ago.

There is a need for external force in order to maintain that "Swirling motions of molten iron and nickel in Earth's core" for so long time. So, it isn't just the earth axis rotation motion, it is also the internal Swirling motion.

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

You do realize that the slowing down of the Earth's rotation is not consistent and that it has been going on for 4.5 billion years... right?

If the spinning motion of the Earth would ONLY base on its first spinning that took place 4.5 B years ago than the expectation would be a consistent slowing down.

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

There is no way to accurately predict the slow down of rotation over time.

If we would use the correct theory for the current Earth rotation, you can predict the slowdown of rotation over time.

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The collision with Thea that produced Luna probably sped up the rotation of the Earth considerably.

Thea is hypothetical idea / imagination.

If a massive object would collide with Earth, they both would break down to pieces.

We have a perfect example for similar collision - The asteroid belt

"The asteroid belt is a torus-shaped region in the Solar System, centered on the Sun and roughly spanning the space between the orbits of the planets Jupiter and Mars. "

If we could go back in time, we would find that there was a planet between Mars and Jupiter.

Unfortunately, a collision with a massive object (even smaller than Thea) broke it completely.

Please also be aware that the gravity force between the Moon to the Sun is stronger by about 2.2 than the gravity between the Moon to Earth.

If Thea was real, and somehow the collision was not too fatal, then it is expected that Thea would continue its motion around the Sun.

Therefore, it is our obligation to find the force that drives the rotation of the Earth axis, its nearby magnetic axis (the magnet bar), the internal Swirling motion and the earth stability.

It is a severe mistake to explain only one aspect of the observations (as Earth rotation) and ignore all the others.

We have to find a solution for all the above observations in one single shot.

Tidal gravity is the only force in the nature that can do all of this job.

Edited by Dandav
##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

I would expect to fit a theory to the observation and not vice versa.

As would I

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

"Planet Earth is surrounded by a magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field is almost the same shape as the magnetic field around a bar magnet, so it is called a "dipole field" (two poles). Swirling motions of molten iron and nickel in Earth's core generate our planet's magnetic field.

Earth's magnetic field is NOT exactly aligned with the geographic North and South Poles. The magnetic field is tilted about 10 degrees away from the geographic poles."

As are other planets, in fact one has it's magnetic field nearly parallel to the plane of the ecliptic.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

This observation proves that different forces are working on the earth rotation and there is a need for internal solid dipole (magnet bar) and not any sort of a solid ball.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a solid bar magnet that pierces the Earth from the north to south poles?

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

It is our obligation to fit a theory to this observation and not just fit the observation to our hope that somehow all the activities that we observe with all the complexity is only due to a first spinning motion that took place 4.5 Billion years ago.

No, the spin of the Earth increased as the Earth accreted mass, at no one point did the Earth suddenly start spinning. There was not and could not have been a first spinning motion that took place 4.5 billion years ago.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

There is a need for external force in order to maintain that "Swirling motions of molten iron and nickel in Earth's core" for so long time. So, it isn't just the earth axis rotation motion, it is also the internal Swirling motion.

You need a citation for this assertion.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

If the spinning motion of the Earth would ONLY base on its first spinning that took place 4.5 B years ago than the expectation would be a consistent slowing down.

As is observed.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

If we would use the correct theory for the current Earth rotation, you can predict the slowdown of rotation over time.

No, since it is true that the Earths rotation and slow down is not consistent you cannot accurately predict that slow down over time to anything but an approximation.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

Thea is hypothetical idea / imagination.

As are your assertions but computer models do support the idea of the large impact theory of the Moons formation. Do you have computer models that support your assertions or are they baseless?

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

If a massive object would collide with Earth, they both would break down to pieces.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

We have a perfect example for similar collision - The asteroid belt

"The asteroid belt is a torus-shaped region in the Solar System, centered on the Sun and roughly spanning the space between the orbits of the planets Jupiter and Mars. "

If we could go back in time, we would find that there was a planet between Mars and Jupiter.

Unfortunately, a collision with a massive object (even smaller than Thea) broke it completely.

Your citation does not support your assertion, in fact it negates it completely!

Quote

The asteroid belt formed from the primordial solar nebula as a group of planetesimals,[8] the smaller precursors of the protoplanets. Between Mars and Jupiter, however, gravitational perturbations from Jupiter disrupted their accretion into a planet,[8][9] imparting excess kinetic energy which shattered colliding planetesimals and most of the incipient protoplanets. As a result, 99.9% of the asteroid belt's original mass was lost in the first 100 million years of the Solar System's history.[10] Some fragments eventually found their way into the inner Solar System, leading to meteorite impacts with the inner planets. Asteroid orbits continue to be appreciably perturbed whenever their period of revolution about the Sun forms an orbital resonance with Jupiter. At these orbital distances, a Kirkwood gap occurs as they are swept into other orbits.[11]

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

Please also be aware that the gravity force between the Moon to the Sun is stronger by about 2.2 than the gravity between the Moon to Earth.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

If Thea was real, and somehow the collision was not too fatal, then it is expected that Thea would continue its motion around the Sun.

Again computer models and math do not support this assertion.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

Therefore, it is our obligation to find the force that drives the rotation of the Earth axis, its nearby magnetic axis (the magnet bar), the internal Swirling motion and the earth stability.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

It is a severe mistake to explain only one aspect of the observations (as Earth rotation) and ignore all the others.

I see no one ignoring anything, I do see you asserting things you cannot support.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

We have to find a solution for all the above observations in one single shot.

Feel free to do so.

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

Tidal gravity is the only force in the nature that can do all of this job.

Again you make an assertion that is nonsensical, there is only gravity, to try and name tides as separate from gravity is nonsensical.

Either start making your case with something besides baseless assertions or this thread will be closed. This not your personal log, you do not get to simply preach to us.