Re: Tide Errasta and Summary

["Donald E. Simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>]

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Jim Green wrote:

> 1) In as much as when the word "tide" is used, most of the galaxy thinks of
> water, we should probably use distinctive language for oceanic tides and
> for .... well I don't know what to call them:  "Earth tides" doesn't
> distinguish between water and dirt nor between Earth and other orbs;
> "crustal tides" isn't inclusive enough and doesn't even apply to the likes
> of the Moon; "dirt" doesn't include the magma if any; "solid" is not
> correct at all; I don't know if "plastic" or "elastic" is helpful; so I
> don't know what to use.  BUT "tide" alone should mean water! IMVHO

You've put your finger on the point of confusion. I remember when the
first tide thread surfaced, a year or so ago, I couldn't understand why
people were focusing on *water*. To me tide meant "land tide" and water
was an irrelevant complication, since I grew up in Iowa, attended a
university in Iowa, and hadn't seen an ocean when I first learned about
tides. Indeed, in our physics courses, the profs emphasized that when they
spoke of tides, they *weren't* talking about the rise and fall of water
along shorelines, or the sloshing of the oceans in their basins, matters
of some interest to surfers and seamen, but not to geophysicists.

	-- Donald

......................................................................
Dr. Donald E. Simanek                            Office: 717-893-2079
Professor of Physics                                FAX: 717-893-2048
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745
dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu                 http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek
......................................................................