Talk:2898: Orbital Argument - Revision history

82.132.236.236 at 16:51, 17 March 2026

2026-03-17T16:51:47Z

5.151.198.173 at 10:53, 17 March 2026

2026-03-17T10:53:09Z

92.23.2.228: Moved signature after the thing it was signing... (Not quite sure I can even parse the comment, as intended, but that's the OP's prerogative to write it that way.)

2025-07-15T19:15:58Z

Moved signature after the thing it was signing... (Not quite sure I can even parse the comment, as intended, but that's the OP's prerogative to write it that way.)

Bubli at 12:44, 15 July 2025

2025-07-15T12:44:24Z

Bubli at 12:43, 15 July 2025

2025-07-15T12:43:51Z

VeryPeeved at 15:00, 11 September 2024

2024-09-11T15:00:56Z

108.162.242.37: Added comment.

2024-02-29T01:21:36Z

Added comment.

172.70.86.190: Slip of the keyboard, or neurons.

2024-02-28T19:04:10Z

Slip of the keyboard, or neurons.

172.71.242.55 at 18:51, 28 February 2024

2024-02-28T18:51:37Z

172.70.110.30 at 15:46, 26 February 2024

2024-02-26T15:46:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 17 March 2026
Line 33:		Line 33:
	I don't think that it's really a case of a gettier problem because whilst white hat's belief is true it isn't justified so its just a case of epistemic luck (a lucky true belief) which isn't particulalry problematic for defining knowledge as a justified true belief which is what gettier was arguing against. [[User:Bubli\|Bubli]] ([[User talk:Bubli\|talk]]) 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)		I don't think that it's really a case of a gettier problem because whilst white hat's belief is true it isn't justified so its just a case of epistemic luck (a lucky true belief) which isn't particulalry problematic for defining knowledge as a justified true belief which is what gettier was arguing against. [[User:Bubli\|Bubli]] ([[User talk:Bubli\|talk]]) 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

−	Is the relative masses of Jupiter and the Sun really closer than the moon and earth?	+	Is the relative masses of Jupiter and the Sun really closer than the moon and earth? {{unsigned ip\|5.151.198.173\|10:53, 17 March 2026}}
		+	:No. The Sun is slightly under 1500 Jupiters, the Earth 'only' 81+ Moons. So the Moon is 13ish times more a similar mass to the Earth than Jupiter is to the Sun. IYSWIM.
		+	:But I think you misunderstood the Barycentre thing (that the Sun-Jupiter point is outside the Sun, while the Earth-Moon one is still within the Earth). This isn't a direct ratio to the masses (it's effectively "<the 'far' mass> divided by <the sum of both masses>") and, as a factor of the intervening distance, is independant both of how far apart they are and how large (by radius) either or both masses are... Well, so long as they're not touching, or even poking over the Roche Limit/etc, which changes the whole scenario in other ways.
		+	:The proportion of the Sun-Jupiter distance (centre to centre) that gets you to the Sun-Barycentre point is... hang on, let me just calculate that... 0.00095(ish). Earth-Moon is 0.012ish. (Nearly 13 times further away, proportionately, but a slightly different nearly-13!)
		+	:But Jupiter is far, far further from the Sun than the Moon is from the Earth. Both in absolute terms and by any other useful measure, which makes that smaller offset (from the less similar mass ratios) go further. More importantly in Sun and (respectively) Earth radiuses, there's lot more Sun-radiuses to get to Jupiter than Earth ones to reach the Moon. By a factor a lot more than 13, so the 'mid' point is >1 radiuses, despite being proportionately closer than the case where it's <1 radius.
		+	:'''Think of it this way'''. Two identical masses have an exact mid-way barycentre. Always above the radius of either of them, unless they're somehow touching (then its on the surface, of both at once) or overlapping (in which case, it's 'subsurface'... for both!). If they're a whole universe separated, the point is 'half a universe' above both surfaces. You didn't change their masses, but you changed the position.
		+	:Now choose ''any'' dissimilar masses (but same radius, say, or even the same density so that the larger mass is the larger in size, too). If touching (or 'merged'), the barycentre is clearly within the more massive body, whatever the exact details. At some point between there and sending them to opposite sides of the universe, it's a similar fraction of universe ''above'' the more massive mass's surface. (Unless you're significantly reducing the density to absolutely expand the volume, therefore radius, naturally. Which is a good trick if you can do it. :p )
		+	:We might also guess that the Sun has a relatively smaller radius ''as well'', due to having a greater density... Actually, that's wrong (the Earth is ~4x more dense, what with all that rock (and iron/etc) rather than small-atom gas/plasma (hydrogen, then helium, overwhelmingly). But it's still not enough 'solar expansion' to eat up the orbit-proportioned extra distance up to the barycentre, everything else taken into account.
		+	:You can play around with all the numbers, of course, but that's the principle. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.236\|82.132.236.236]] 16:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:53, 17 March 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:

	I don't think that it's really a case of a gettier problem because whilst white hat's belief is true it isn't justified so its just a case of epistemic luck (a lucky true belief) which isn't particulalry problematic for defining knowledge as a justified true belief which is what gettier was arguing against. [[User:Bubli\|Bubli]] ([[User talk:Bubli\|talk]]) 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)		I don't think that it's really a case of a gettier problem because whilst white hat's belief is true it isn't justified so its just a case of epistemic luck (a lucky true belief) which isn't particulalry problematic for defining knowledge as a justified true belief which is what gettier was arguing against. [[User:Bubli\|Bubli]] ([[User talk:Bubli\|talk]]) 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	Is the relative masses of Jupiter and the Sun really closer than the moon and earth?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:15, 15 July 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:


−	~~[[User:Bubli\|Bubli]] ([[User talk:Bubli\|talk]]) 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)~~ I don't think that it's really a case of a gettier problem because whilst white hat's belief is true it isn't justified so its just a case of epistemic luck (a lucky true belief) which isn't particulalry problematic for defining knowledge as a justified true belief which is what gettier was arguing against.	+	I don't think that it's really a case of a gettier problem because whilst white hat's belief is true it isn't justified so its just a case of epistemic luck (a lucky true belief) which isn't particulalry problematic for defining knowledge as a justified true belief which is what gettier was arguing against. [[User:Bubli\|Bubli]] ([[User talk:Bubli\|talk]]) 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:44, 15 July 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:


−	I don't think that it's really a case of a gettier problem because whilst white hat's belief is true it isn't justified so its just a case of epistemic luck (a lucky true belief) which isn't particulalry problematic for defining knowledge as a justified true belief which is what gettier was arguing against.	+	[[User:Bubli\|Bubli]] ([[User talk:Bubli\|talk]]) 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC) I don't think that it's really a case of a gettier problem because whilst white hat's belief is true it isn't justified so its just a case of epistemic luck (a lucky true belief) which isn't particulalry problematic for defining knowledge as a justified true belief which is what gettier was arguing against.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:43, 15 July 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:

	[[User:VeryPeeved\|VeryPeeved]] ([[User talk:VeryPeeved\|talk]]) 15:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)		[[User:VeryPeeved\|VeryPeeved]] ([[User talk:VeryPeeved\|talk]]) 15:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	I don't think that it's really a case of a gettier problem because whilst white hat's belief is true it isn't justified so its just a case of epistemic luck (a lucky true belief) which isn't particulalry problematic for defining knowledge as a justified true belief which is what gettier was arguing against.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 11 September 2024
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Re: expert averaging, it's non-intuitive to consider that different symbolic statements in text can be averaged, but with a neural predictive model (NN, human brain) this actually is possible. You can average the latent vector representations of two text inputs (x,x') in the (vectorized) latent space of a neural model (z + z'). Latent averaging is often used in ML as an empirical heuristic to improve performance (sentence embeddings, mixture-of-experts models), and can be hypothesized to operate via the mechanism of improving the efficiency of a learned Bayesian circuit that performs abductive reasoning. Averaging is more obviously seen in the output token space, for example, you might symbolically average temperatures from two weather models (formalized as ensemble models, consensus models, etc.). So although it sounds weird at first glance, averaging experts in either latent or manifest space is often a good heuristic for a guess, and is rewarded as a result. Arguably, White Hat is using this algo and actually making a good guess here, although if he can't explain his thought process symbolically (he's just doing it because it feels "nice"), his accuracy may come off as an "accident." Caveats: there are definitely conditions under which averaging experts can go awry in both latent and manifest spaces (false balance, non-expert data, partial observability, etc.), but this arguably isn't the case in either the orbital or wave-particle initial observations.		Re: expert averaging, it's non-intuitive to consider that different symbolic statements in text can be averaged, but with a neural predictive model (NN, human brain) this actually is possible. You can average the latent vector representations of two text inputs (x,x') in the (vectorized) latent space of a neural model (z + z'). Latent averaging is often used in ML as an empirical heuristic to improve performance (sentence embeddings, mixture-of-experts models), and can be hypothesized to operate via the mechanism of improving the efficiency of a learned Bayesian circuit that performs abductive reasoning. Averaging is more obviously seen in the output token space, for example, you might symbolically average temperatures from two weather models (formalized as ensemble models, consensus models, etc.). So although it sounds weird at first glance, averaging experts in either latent or manifest space is often a good heuristic for a guess, and is rewarded as a result. Arguably, White Hat is using this algo and actually making a good guess here, although if he can't explain his thought process symbolically (he's just doing it because it feels "nice"), his accuracy may come off as an "accident." Caveats: there are definitely conditions under which averaging experts can go awry in both latent and manifest spaces (false balance, non-expert data, partial observability, etc.), but this arguably isn't the case in either the orbital or wave-particle initial observations.
	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.37\|108.162.242.37]] 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.37\|108.162.242.37]] 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	"I try to avoid criticizing people when they are right. If they genuinely deserve criticism, I will not need to wait long for an occasion where they are wrong."
		+
		+	-Eliezer Yudowsky, Einstein's Arrogance, Less Wrong
		+
		+	[[User:VeryPeeved\|VeryPeeved]] ([[User talk:VeryPeeved\|talk]]) 15:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 29 February 2024
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Ok, so regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2898:_Orbital_Argument&diff=336067&oldid=336066 this argument], the problem is removing the clarification that this is not subject to consensus 'averaging'. Two totally different opinions which cannot be averaged, merged, subsampled or intermingled. It is maybe useful to mention taking multiple weather predictions and generating the most supported trend, much as natural language processing algorithms, but here the two statements cannot be combined in simple numerical or tokenwise ways (that is the point). Yes, state that mid-point estimations are useful (I'm happy with such a statement, and preserved/enhanced it), but do not remove the salient issue that ''in this case'' it is not a useful process. It's beyond even [[2893: Sphere Tastiness]] illogic. '''Which is the joke'''.... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.55\|172.71.242.55]] 18:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)		Ok, so regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2898:_Orbital_Argument&diff=336067&oldid=336066 this argument], the problem is removing the clarification that this is not subject to consensus 'averaging'. Two totally different opinions which cannot be averaged, merged, subsampled or intermingled. It is maybe useful to mention taking multiple weather predictions and generating the most supported trend, much as natural language processing algorithms, but here the two statements cannot be combined in simple numerical or tokenwise ways (that is the point). Yes, state that mid-point estimations are useful (I'm happy with such a statement, and preserved/enhanced it), but do not remove the salient issue that ''in this case'' it is not a useful process. It's beyond even [[2893: Sphere Tastiness]] illogic. '''Which is the joke'''.... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.55\|172.71.242.55]] 18:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	Re: expert averaging, it's non-intuitive to consider that different symbolic statements in text can be averaged, but with a neural predictive model (NN, human brain) this actually is possible. You can average the latent vector representations of two text inputs (x,x') in the (vectorized) latent space of a neural model (z + z'). Latent averaging is often used in ML as an empirical heuristic to improve performance (sentence embeddings, mixture-of-experts models), and can be hypothesized to operate via the mechanism of improving the efficiency of a learned Bayesian circuit that performs abductive reasoning. Averaging is more obviously seen in the output token space, for example, you might symbolically average temperatures from two weather models (formalized as ensemble models, consensus models, etc.). So although it sounds weird at first glance, averaging experts in either latent or manifest space is often a good heuristic for a guess, and is rewarded as a result. Arguably, White Hat is using this algo and actually making a good guess here, although if he can't explain his thought process symbolically (he's just doing it because it feels "nice"), his accuracy may come off as an "accident." Caveats: there are definitely conditions under which averaging experts can go awry in both latent and manifest spaces (false balance, non-expert data, partial observability, etc.), but this arguably isn't the case in either the orbital or wave-particle initial observations.
		+	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.37\|108.162.242.37]] 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 28 February 2024
Line 19:		Line 19:
	"The Earth-Moon barycenter is located approximately ¾ of the way from Earth's center of mass to its surface, towards the Moon's center of mass. Our tidal bulges (oceanic and otherwise) occur along that line. One bulge is towards the Moon because of the gravitational attraction, and the other is in the opposite direction, by centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation around the barycenter." This is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, both bulges are the result of the same effect, and they would be there even if the Moon and Earth weren't producing centrifugal force by rotating about each other. In the usual explanation of the opposite bulges, you look at the acceleration of a particle on the near side of the Earth towards the Moon by more, the acceleration of the center of the Earth by a medium amount, and the acceleration of a particle on the far side of the Earth by less. Then, to look at things in the frame of reference of the center of the Earth, you subtract the center's acceleration, and find that the near side accelerates toward the Moon by a little, and the far side accelerates away from the Moon by a little. But even that explanation is wrong, or at least, very incomplete - the main driver of the tides is due to the vastly larger volume of water away from the line through the Earth's and Moon's centers; when you do that same vector subtraction of the local acceleration from the Moon minus the acceleration of the center of the Earth, you find that you get a tangential component of acceleration, and since water can flow, it does, until it reaches a surface of constant potential (it's not a lot of distance, but it's a lot of volume moving, so the tidal bulge is a significant volume of water). See https://web.archive.org/web/20220115060446/https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.30\|172.70.110.30]] 15:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)		"The Earth-Moon barycenter is located approximately ¾ of the way from Earth's center of mass to its surface, towards the Moon's center of mass. Our tidal bulges (oceanic and otherwise) occur along that line. One bulge is towards the Moon because of the gravitational attraction, and the other is in the opposite direction, by centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation around the barycenter." This is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, both bulges are the result of the same effect, and they would be there even if the Moon and Earth weren't producing centrifugal force by rotating about each other. In the usual explanation of the opposite bulges, you look at the acceleration of a particle on the near side of the Earth towards the Moon by more, the acceleration of the center of the Earth by a medium amount, and the acceleration of a particle on the far side of the Earth by less. Then, to look at things in the frame of reference of the center of the Earth, you subtract the center's acceleration, and find that the near side accelerates toward the Moon by a little, and the far side accelerates away from the Moon by a little. But even that explanation is wrong, or at least, very incomplete - the main driver of the tides is due to the vastly larger volume of water away from the line through the Earth's and Moon's centers; when you do that same vector subtraction of the local acceleration from the Moon minus the acceleration of the center of the Earth, you find that you get a tangential component of acceleration, and since water can flow, it does, until it reaches a surface of constant potential (it's not a lot of distance, but it's a lot of volume moving, so the tidal bulge is a significant volume of water). See https://web.archive.org/web/20220115060446/https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.30\|172.70.110.30]] 15:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

−	Ok, so regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2898:_Orbital_Argument&diff=336067&oldid=336066 this argument], the problem is removing the clarification that this is not subject to ~~concensus~~ 'averaging'. Two totally different opinions which ~~are canot~~ be averaged, merged, subsampled or intermingled. It is maybe useful to mention taking multiple weather predictions and generating the most supported trend, much as natural language processing algorithms, but here the two statements cannot be combined in simple numerical or tokenwise ways (that is the point). Yes, state that mid-point estimations are useful (I'm happy with such a statement, and preserved/enhanced it), but do not remove the salient issue that ''in this case'' it is not a useful process. It's beyond even [[2893: Sphere Tastiness]] illogic. '''Which is the joke'''.... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.55\|172.71.242.55]] 18:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)	+	Ok, so regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2898:_Orbital_Argument&diff=336067&oldid=336066 this argument], the problem is removing the clarification that this is not subject to consensus 'averaging'. Two totally different opinions which cannot be averaged, merged, subsampled or intermingled. It is maybe useful to mention taking multiple weather predictions and generating the most supported trend, much as natural language processing algorithms, but here the two statements cannot be combined in simple numerical or tokenwise ways (that is the point). Yes, state that mid-point estimations are useful (I'm happy with such a statement, and preserved/enhanced it), but do not remove the salient issue that ''in this case'' it is not a useful process. It's beyond even [[2893: Sphere Tastiness]] illogic. '''Which is the joke'''.... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.55\|172.71.242.55]] 18:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:51, 28 February 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:

	"The Earth-Moon barycenter is located approximately ¾ of the way from Earth's center of mass to its surface, towards the Moon's center of mass. Our tidal bulges (oceanic and otherwise) occur along that line. One bulge is towards the Moon because of the gravitational attraction, and the other is in the opposite direction, by centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation around the barycenter." This is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, both bulges are the result of the same effect, and they would be there even if the Moon and Earth weren't producing centrifugal force by rotating about each other. In the usual explanation of the opposite bulges, you look at the acceleration of a particle on the near side of the Earth towards the Moon by more, the acceleration of the center of the Earth by a medium amount, and the acceleration of a particle on the far side of the Earth by less. Then, to look at things in the frame of reference of the center of the Earth, you subtract the center's acceleration, and find that the near side accelerates toward the Moon by a little, and the far side accelerates away from the Moon by a little. But even that explanation is wrong, or at least, very incomplete - the main driver of the tides is due to the vastly larger volume of water away from the line through the Earth's and Moon's centers; when you do that same vector subtraction of the local acceleration from the Moon minus the acceleration of the center of the Earth, you find that you get a tangential component of acceleration, and since water can flow, it does, until it reaches a surface of constant potential (it's not a lot of distance, but it's a lot of volume moving, so the tidal bulge is a significant volume of water). See https://web.archive.org/web/20220115060446/https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.30\|172.70.110.30]] 15:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)		"The Earth-Moon barycenter is located approximately ¾ of the way from Earth's center of mass to its surface, towards the Moon's center of mass. Our tidal bulges (oceanic and otherwise) occur along that line. One bulge is towards the Moon because of the gravitational attraction, and the other is in the opposite direction, by centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation around the barycenter." This is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, both bulges are the result of the same effect, and they would be there even if the Moon and Earth weren't producing centrifugal force by rotating about each other. In the usual explanation of the opposite bulges, you look at the acceleration of a particle on the near side of the Earth towards the Moon by more, the acceleration of the center of the Earth by a medium amount, and the acceleration of a particle on the far side of the Earth by less. Then, to look at things in the frame of reference of the center of the Earth, you subtract the center's acceleration, and find that the near side accelerates toward the Moon by a little, and the far side accelerates away from the Moon by a little. But even that explanation is wrong, or at least, very incomplete - the main driver of the tides is due to the vastly larger volume of water away from the line through the Earth's and Moon's centers; when you do that same vector subtraction of the local acceleration from the Moon minus the acceleration of the center of the Earth, you find that you get a tangential component of acceleration, and since water can flow, it does, until it reaches a surface of constant potential (it's not a lot of distance, but it's a lot of volume moving, so the tidal bulge is a significant volume of water). See https://web.archive.org/web/20220115060446/https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.30\|172.70.110.30]] 15:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	Ok, so regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2898:_Orbital_Argument&diff=336067&oldid=336066 this argument], the problem is removing the clarification that this is not subject to concensus 'averaging'. Two totally different opinions which are canot be averaged, merged, subsampled or intermingled. It is maybe useful to mention taking multiple weather predictions and generating the most supported trend, much as natural language processing algorithms, but here the two statements cannot be combined in simple numerical or tokenwise ways (that is the point). Yes, state that mid-point estimations are useful (I'm happy with such a statement, and preserved/enhanced it), but do not remove the salient issue that ''in this case'' it is not a useful process. It's beyond even [[2893: Sphere Tastiness]] illogic. '''Which is the joke'''.... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.55\|172.71.242.55]] 18:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 26 February 2024
Line 16:		Line 16:

	I feel there is an additional explanation that White Hat did not intend. The Sun and Earth, the entire Solar system for that matter, orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Which may also orbit the center of the known Universe? I am not an astrophysicist or knowledgeable enough to attempt a proper explanation. [[User:Vampire\|Vampire]] ([[User talk:Vampire\|talk]]) 15:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)		I feel there is an additional explanation that White Hat did not intend. The Sun and Earth, the entire Solar system for that matter, orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Which may also orbit the center of the known Universe? I am not an astrophysicist or knowledgeable enough to attempt a proper explanation. [[User:Vampire\|Vampire]] ([[User talk:Vampire\|talk]]) 15:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	"The Earth-Moon barycenter is located approximately ¾ of the way from Earth's center of mass to its surface, towards the Moon's center of mass. Our tidal bulges (oceanic and otherwise) occur along that line. One bulge is towards the Moon because of the gravitational attraction, and the other is in the opposite direction, by centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation around the barycenter." This is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, both bulges are the result of the same effect, and they would be there even if the Moon and Earth weren't producing centrifugal force by rotating about each other. In the usual explanation of the opposite bulges, you look at the acceleration of a particle on the near side of the Earth towards the Moon by more, the acceleration of the center of the Earth by a medium amount, and the acceleration of a particle on the far side of the Earth by less. Then, to look at things in the frame of reference of the center of the Earth, you subtract the center's acceleration, and find that the near side accelerates toward the Moon by a little, and the far side accelerates away from the Moon by a little. But even that explanation is wrong, or at least, very incomplete - the main driver of the tides is due to the vastly larger volume of water away from the line through the Earth's and Moon's centers; when you do that same vector subtraction of the local acceleration from the Moon minus the acceleration of the center of the Earth, you find that you get a tangential component of acceleration, and since water can flow, it does, until it reaches a surface of constant potential (it's not a lot of distance, but it's a lot of volume moving, so the tidal bulge is a significant volume of water). See https://web.archive.org/web/20220115060446/https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.30\|172.70.110.30]] 15:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)