# Tides and Catastrophism ## Tides and Catastrophism

Hey Guys, would you all like to discuss tides and other astronomical effects with me? I'm working with the author of the http://NewGeology.us site on a paper about Earth's sedimentary rock strata, which likely was deposited in short time spans by megatsunamis. Could we discuss Mathis' Tides papers and similar papers here or somewhere else? Maybe we can help each other understand such astronomical effects better. Right?

My main interest here is trying to determine if an asteroid or planet temporarily orbiting Earth elliptically would produce tsunamis at perigee over one or two kilometers high and, if so, how close and large the object would need to be.

Below are a bunch of excerpts from Mathis on Tides and the Roche Limit. Can anyone help me find a way to calculate from this the perigee and size of an object to raise such tides?

OCEAN TIDES
http://milesmathis.com/tide2.html
E/M FIELD
The most astonishing thing I have discovered in my Unified Field is that small objects have stronger E/M fields than larger ones. Given two spherical objects of equal density and make-up, the smaller of the two will have a stronger E/M field, not just relatively, but absolutely. The Moon has a field that is 110 times stronger than the Earth's field. ... This is due to the ratio of the surface area to the volume, of course. A smaller sphere will have the same ratio of mass to volume as a larger sphere, by the definition of density. But it will have a larger ratio of density to surface area, which proves my point.
[But doesn't the Sun have a much stronger E/M field than any planet?]

TIDAL E/M PUSH
... The gravitational force pulls us down, as an effect, and the E/M field pushes us up, as an effect, so the result is mostly down, to the tune of 9.8. But now I am saying that instead of subtracting, we add. The Moon causes the vector situation to switch. So now, directly under the Moon, we have about 9.82 m/s2 as our resultant acceleration. And this makes the tidal acceleration
.009545 x 2 = .0191 m/s2
And that is 572 times the maximum tidal force from gravity. So, yes, you would weigh about .2% more directly under the Moon.

ORBITAL DISTANCE
... the orbital distance of the Moon is not a coincidence. ... the orbital distance, which we are calling R here, is a direct outcome of the two fields, E/M and acceleration (gravity). These two fields cause the orbital distance. The acceleration creates an apparent attraction, and the E/M field keeps the Moon from being caught. The Moon's "innate" velocity is also involved, of course, but the two fields determine this as well, after any amount of time.3 So R is completely determined by the size of the bodies and their densities. The Moon must orbit at (or near) that radius where its field intercepts 1/3 of the Earth's sphere. ... In the center of the circle the force is radial. In other words, it comes straight down upon the ocean. ... You can see that the initial force will change from radial to tangential as we go out from the center of our circle.

OCEAN WATER PILE
... Now, if we look just beyond the tangent — which is to say just beyond our circle of initial influence — we find water that has not been touched by any force at all. It is completely unaccelerated. As our accelerated water meets this unaccelerated water, it will pile up behind it, causing a swell. This is one of our high tides. In the initial stages of our analysis, it must be a complete circle of high tides, with a diameter on the curved surface of the Earth equal to 1/3 the circumference of the Earth. It will travel at some velocity around to the far side of the Earth, until blocked by a land mass or resisted by a reverse tide.

But let us return to our central force. ... It hits the Earth like a radial meteor, except that this meteor has a radius of 378,000km. It is like a meteor with a very low density. The main difference between our force from the Moon and a real meteor is that our force keeps arriving continuously. ... although the force is radial, the motion created is tangential. The water does not want to move down, and at greater depths it does not want to move sideways, either. So the result is motion sideways nearer the surface. Another circular wave is created, traveling out from the center. Initially this central wave is 60o behind the outer wave, and unless we show that it is moving faster than the outer wave, it will stay 60o behind it.

MAGNETIC FORCE
... By the right hand rule, if the electrical force is radial down, then the magnetic force will be clockwise, looking down on the ocean. Toward the center of our circle, this should have a magnifying effect on the electrical force, giving it the effect of a screw instead of a nail. ... The screws therefore cause a spreading, which magnifies the lateral forces already in play with the electrical field. The magnetic field and the electrical field work in tandem to produce the central wave.

SOLAR WIND EFFECTS
http://milesmathis.com/tide3.html
... What really causes the spring and neap tide variation is the Solar Wind.

ARCHIMEDES EFFECT
http://milesmathis.com/tide5.html
... If the Moon is directly above you, you are at the center of the depression. You are lower than the mean sea level (sea levels without a Moon), but the rest of the world is at high tide (or would be, minus time lags). This is because the mechanism of tide creation is relatively simple: when the Moon is over water, it creates a lower sea below it, and this forces all the other water higher. Just take a beach ball into the bathtub, press it down ... The tangential velocity of the Moon is already said to balance the gravitational forces between the two bodies, so there is no leftover force to create tides. ...  Not only is the Moon not oblate to any degree, with apsides pointing anywhere, if anything the Moon shows a negative tidal bulge on the front.

... the force arriving from the Moon is neither negative nor positive. It is photonic, not ionic, in the first instance. However, once it arrives, it must act by driving free ions. That is how the charge field becomes active in the E/M field. The photons drive ions.

BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
http://milesmathis.com/tide4.html
... What we now call the gravitational field is actually a differential field made up of both the gravitational pseudo field and the E/M field. All fluctuations belong to the E/M component; none to the gravitational component. This makes it so much easier to explain the menstrual cycle, as well as to test the theory. We already know that the brain and nervous system work in large part on electrical impulses. The body, like the oceans, is mostly saltwater: therefore it is a lovely conductor. These and many other facts, too obvious to dwell on, lead directly to confirmation of my theory. We also know that manmade electrical fields can upset animal and plant cycles, including the human menstrual cycle.

---

ELECTROSTATIC TIDES
Charles Chandler thinks tides are electrostatic (See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9925 regarding crustal tides). So does Miles Mathis in a sense. Charles said privately yesterday: "The formula for calculating tidal forces was heuristically deriven, since Newtonian mechanics doesn't predict tides as strong as they actually are. And heuristic formulas don't scale well — there's no guarantee that the results will be correct. If I'm right, that tides are electrostatic, the existing heuristic formula for tides won't predict the forces at different distances at all."

---

ROCHE LIMIT MYTH
Mathis says the Roche limit is a myth, quoting below. Maybe that means an asteroid could make a relatively soft landing on Earth to form the supercontinent. Several moons are known to be within the supposed Roche limit.

A RECALCULATION OF THE ROCHE LIMIT
http://milesmathis.com/roche.html
["E/M field" means the field of mass-containing photons received and emitted by all matter.]
Now let us calculate the first new Roche limit, where the E/M field balances the gravity field. Using the equations from my UFT paper, we just set the two fields to equal one another:

m(A + a) = [GMm/R2 ] – [m(A + a)]
2(A + a) = GM/R2
R = √{GM/[2A + 2a]}

For the Earth and Moon, that distance would be about 4,006 km. To find that number, I used my new accelerations for Earth and Moon. In those equations, the accelerations are for the solo gravity field, not the unified field, so standard-model numbers are not what we want. Current numbers are calculated from Newton's unified field equation, and are field differentials. In other words, I used the number 2.67 for the Moon, not 1.62.

What I just found is a Roche limit assuming the Moon has no tangential velocity.

... So let us calculate a new Roche limit assuming the Moon keeps its current orbital velocity. We will assume, like Newton, that the Moon has an “innate” tangential velocity, uncaused by the field itself. I have shown that this is not the case, but we can choose any velocity we like to develop an equation, and the current one is as good as any.

[m(A + a)] – mv2 /2R = [GMm/R2 ] – [m(A + a)]
4R2 (A + a) – v2R – 2GM = 0
R = v2 + √[v4 + 32GM(A + a)]
8(A + a)
For the Moon, that would be
R = 4,023km

... But let us move on to look at the second sort of Roche limit, the one that mirrors more closely the current one. We want to find a distance at which the E/M field would break up an orbiter. As should already be clear from our analysis of Pan above, this limit is a phantom. If Pan is still experiencing accretion when it is so near the surface of a huge planet, then we may assume that the tidal Roche limit is a complete myth. The E/M Roche limit would also be a myth, in that case, because we can see from Pan that neither field is strong enough to disintegrate a moonlet, even when it is low density and hammered by collisions.

The E/M field would tend to bounce a large body out of a low orbit, because a level of balance would be impossible to find in a natural way. Large bodies simply don't settle into low orbits with little or no impact trajectory. If they have high incoming velocities, the primary bounces them away with a quick increase in the E/M field. If they have low velocities, the E/M field keeps them at a greater orbital distance.

This is why only very small bodies are found in low orbits. They encounter a small section of the charge field [E/M field], feel a much smaller repulsion, and settle into orbit much more slowly. This is also why they can exist in these low orbits: using their own charge fields, they funnel the primary's charge field around them, encountering a smaller effect. Larger bodies can't do this nearly as efficiently.

... Now let us look at a near approach of Jupiter and Saturn, using these new equations. How close did the two great planets come millions of years ago, in order to create a resonance? We can now find out.

To use my new equation, we have to first calculate new accelerations for Jupiter and Saturn, based only on their radii. We do that with a proportionality with the Earth.

9.81/RE = x/RJ = y/RS
x = 110.7
y = 92.7

R = √{GM/[2A + 2a]}
R = 18,110 km

Saturn may have come that close to Jupiter, in being bounced away by the combined E/M fields (supposing the planets had no tangential velocities relative to one another). That was a very close call, and a much closer pass or a hit might have upset or destroyed the entire Solar System. Our entire history may have depended on that near pass. And in millions of years, when the resonant cycle returns to that near pass, the Solar System will once again hang on the outcome.

This means that the rings and satellite systems of Jupiter and Saturn must have re-formed since that close pass.

[Ancient myths suggest that the two gas giants and the inner rocky planets were all involved in close encounters about the time before the Great Flood.]

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Tides and Catastrophism

LloydK wrote:OCEAN TIDES
http://milesmathis.com/tide2.html
E/M FIELD
The most astonishing thing I have discovered in my Unified Field is that small objects have stronger E/M fields than larger ones. Given two spherical objects of equal density and make-up, the smaller of the two will have a stronger E/M field, not just relatively, but absolutely. The Moon has a field that is 110 times stronger than the Earth's field. ... This is due to the ratio of the surface area to the volume, of course. A smaller sphere will have the same ratio of mass to volume as a larger sphere, by the definition of density. But it will have a larger ratio of density to surface area, which proves my point.
[But doesn't the Sun have a much stronger E/M field than any planet?]

There are a few things in play here that need to be taken into consideration. The Sun has less curvature than the planets which means its charge field does not dissipate as quickly as their's do. This means it has more reach. Small objects might have higher charge field densities at their surface, but they will quickly spread out because of the curvature of that surface. Miles is also talking about 2 bodies with the same density and different sizes but you are not. The Sun is said to be a very low density but very large in size where-as the planets are high in density and low in size (by comparison).

You need to work backwards to solve your problem. Figure out the charge density that could cause the effects you want it to and then find the range of size/density/distance from body that can produce that charge. You will need to find the equation that links size, density and distance for a charge field. It will put the surface area equation, charge density equation and charge drop-off equation into one big equation that is equal to the force felt at that distance. You know the force you want so just start adjusting the size, density and distance (one at a time) until you find the values that equal your force.

Example (not real formula):

Let:
F = force
S = surface area
C = charge density at surface
D = charge drop-off

S is a function of radius
C is a function of radius and density
D is a function of radius, density and distance

If:
F = C/S - D

Then:
Find the ranges of S, C and D which is really finding the ranges for radius, density and distance.
This gives us Smin, Smax, Cmin, Cmax, Dmin, Dmax.
We want to increase these values from min to max by some constant factor.
Let s, c, d be the factor for S, C and D respectively.
Now build a table like this:

 Force Size Charge Distance F Smin Cmin Dmin F Smin Cmin Dmin + d F Smin Cmin Dmin + 2d F Smin Cmin Dmin + ... F Smin Cmin Dmax F Smin Cmin + c Dmin F Smin Cmin + c Dmin + d F Smin Cmin + c Dmin + 2d F Smin Cmin + c Dmin + ... F Smin Cmin + c Dmax F ... ... ... F Smax Cmax Dmax
You do the same for S. Notice that we are only changing 1 value at a time. Once we exhaust that value, we increment the next column and start again on the previous. This will give you all of the combinations of S, C and D that equal F (or are within a given amount).

That should get you started. I'm interested to see that equation. Keep us informed on your progress.

Last edited by Nevyn on Tue Feb 14, 2017 8:16 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Made the table clearer) Nevyn

Posts : 1759
Join date : 2014-09-11 ## Re: Tides and Catastrophism

I don't expect to make any progress with that, since I'm not that proficient at math or programming.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Tides and Catastrophism

.
Hey Lloyd, I, for one, haven't been able to even properly read through your post yet. There's a lot of material there. Who wouldn't enjoy understanding celestial charge interactions? Nevyn has recommended equations that sound challenging all right, I was wondering what it would take to build his suggested calculator, but please no, I take on more taskings than I can accomplish lately.

Does the author know of, or agree with Miles? Any additional info?
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1414
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Tides and Catastrophism

Haha, fair enough. You have me intrigued but I'm flat-out on other projects at the moment. I'll keep it in mind though, in case I find myself wanting something to distract me. I have given it some thought since that post and I think it only needs the density drop-off equation as that contains the radius, density and distance already. In fact, I think it is already the amalgamated equation I was thinking of above. If anyone wants to look into finding that equation, I suggest reading Miles paper called 'The moon gives up a secret' as this contains at least some of that math. Another paper worth a look at is 'How to calculate the magnetopause'. I'm not sure how to find the required force to cause a tsunami though. That may become more obvious given the density drop-off equation. Nevyn

Posts : 1759
Join date : 2014-09-11 ## Re: Tides and Catastrophism

The author of the NewGeology.us site is Mike Fischer. I told him Mathis' idea that photons have mass and all matter receives and emits photons, which cause the tides. I mentioned Miles' example of a beach ball in a bathtub. But Mike believes in a wave theory of light and an ether theory. He believes gravity causes the tides. I plan to look through MM's papers on Problems with Tides and see if any of it is easily persuasive. I think the fact that tides are very low at the equator is a good start. I think Mike said water levels under the Moon have been found to be higher than normal, not lower. But he didn't give me a source on that so far. He also believes in the Roche limit, despite what I mentioned from MM's paper that includes the fact that several moons are within their Roche limits.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Tides and Catastrophism 