To claim that an explanation is wrong you should either demonstrate
that the result is wrong or that the logic is wrong. You have done
neither.

You mix to different models and claim that because they are different
the "other" model is wrong, or rather that it doesn't explain
the reality (the far bulge) - which it clearly does (or at least
claims to do) within its own framework.

I think you have become hypnotised (or is it paralysed?) by the
centrifugal force, that is part of the model you prefer.

So which part of the explanation do you disagree with?

Peter S/Y Anicula

P.S.
The problem is not that I don't understand the math or "your" model, I
think I do, and in some contexts I even prefer it, but the problem
aparrently is that you don't understand the differential gravity
explanation.




"Nav" skrev i en meddelelse
...
I'm going to give you the benefit of that doubt and hope you are not
just trolling. I'm sorry if you can't understand the maths. It is
not
"differential gravity" -the maths are clear and unambiguous on this
point: Differentiate the gravity field equation and you just get a
monotonic function of distance from the center of system mass so
that
water would only ever move in one direction, namely toward the
center of
the system. It is the centripetal term that introduces the extra
force
required to make a second tidal bulge. So, you need to include
rotation
about the center of mass in any explanation of two tides.

If you still don't follow my argument (and accept the veracity of
the
maths) then I can't help you.

Cheers