Vortices from earth rotation (split from Tides)

[studiot]

Like I said, the correct term is tidal stream and you will find them on Admiralty Charts, the Admiralty Tidal Stream Atlas and the Admiralty Manual of Tides.

https://www.admiralty.co.uk/publications/miscellaneous-tidal-publications/admiralty-tidal-stream-atlases

Since the Admiralty did almost all the work, mostly in the 19th century, they are entitled to set the terminology.

 

But as a more pragmatic justification for differentiating between currents and tides.

 

The tidal horizontal movement of water is the result of the vertical movement of the water surface as the rotation of the Moon moves it above the surface, its gravity causing a moving local 'hump'.

Note that the gravitational interaction between the Earth and Moon means that the hump is not directly below the Moon.

Water is drawn in from all directions to service this hump.

So you cannot say the water is moving in a particular direction in quite the same way as a thermally or concentraction (salinity) driven current, which does not in any case lift the surface of the water.

[J.C.MacSwell]

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

Like I said, the correct term is tidal stream and you will find them on Admiralty Charts, the Admiralty Tidal Stream Atlas and the Admiralty Manual of Tides.

https://www.admiralty.co.uk/publications/miscellaneous-tidal-publications/admiralty-tidal-stream-atlases

Since the Admiralty did almost all the work, mostly in the 19th century, they are entitled to set the terminology.

 

But as a more pragmatic justification for differentiating between currents and tides.

 

The tidal horizontal movement of water is the result of the vertical movement of the water surface as the rotation of the Moon moves it above the surface, its gravity causing a moving local 'hump'.

Note that the gravitational interaction between the Earth and Moon means that the hump is not directly below the Moon.

Water is drawn in from all directions to service this hump.

So you cannot say the water is moving in a particular direction in quite the same way as a thermally or concentraction (salinity) driven current, which does not in any case lift the surface of the water.

OK. I understand. Tidal stream is the better and more specific term. 

But seriously "currents" is a very generic term that covers it also. You are welcome to disagree, but also welcome to provide a link with a definition of tidal stream that does not use the word "current" in the definition. (note the Wiki above)

Where I come from tidal currents or tidal stream are almost interchangeable, tidal stream just implying a larger flow (that part totally anecdotal and not that that has any bearing on this whatsoever but I stand by the above, with all due respect have never heard of "currents" being limited as you suggest, and have used and heard the term from many different contexts...I just got home from a shipyard...I don't know what else to say except I would be very interested in being corrected...feel free)

[studiot]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Tidal stream is the better and more specific term. 

Thank you.

You obviously know a lot of shipyard types. (No doubt the salt of the earth and all that)

But you also know a lot of good high level Physics.

Do you never find non scientists using speed when they mean velocity or velocity when they mean speed, or mixing force and energy or power?

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But seriously "currents" is a very generic term that covers it also.

water movement is even more general and covers even more cases, so what.

Science needs to be specific so we can all agree what we are talking about.

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thank you.

You obviously know a lot of shipyard types. (No doubt the salt of the earth and all that)

But you also know a lot of good high level Physics.

Do you never find non scientists using speed when they mean velocity or velocity when they mean speed, or mixing force and energy or power?

water movement is even more general and covers even more cases, so what.

Science needs to be specific so we can all agree what we are talking about.

 

 

I did find this  https://www.naturalnavigator.com/the-library/tidal-streams-and-tidal-currents

Based on that your thinking seems to be a UK thing more so than scientific/non scientific

But it is pretty much regarding our debate. I am still surprised I have never come across it before.

Edited May 1, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Fermer05]

Galileo called the Moon theory of tides, frivolous, sad return to the realm of mystical ravings and preferred to explain the tides, the rotation of the Earth.
D.G. Darwin wrote in 1911: "There is no need to seek antique literature for the grotesque theories of tides." However, sailors manage to measure their height and use the opportunities of tides, without having an idea of the real causes of their occurrence.

[Strange]

5 hours ago, Fermer05 said:

Galileo called the Moon theory of tides, frivolous, sad return to the realm of mystical ravings and preferred to explain the tides, the rotation of the Earth.
D.G. Darwin wrote in 1911: "There is no need to seek antique literature for the grotesque theories of tides." However, sailors manage to measure their height and use the opportunities of tides, without having an idea of the real causes of their occurrence.

Are you just going to keep posting irrelevant comments or are you going to answer the questions asked of you?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

We're done here. Thread closed.