"== Barnstar == 

 {| style=""border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"" 
 |rowspan=""2"" valign=""middle"" |  

 |rowspan=""2"" | 
 |style=""font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;"" | The Barnstar of Good Humor 
 |- 
 |style=""vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;"" | LOL Cynical and ironically funny.  ¤   
 |} 

 : Thanks. But there's no cynicism or irony here... just the sober facts.    

 ==Hypocrite?== 
 ""Wasn't Malleus blocked for calling an admin a hypocrite?"" Not as far as I know. I think you're probably thinking of the time he was blocked for calling somebody a sycophant.  |  . 
 : Yes, you are right.    

 == ""Hypothetic nonsense"" == 

 Dear Epipelagic, I recently removed a note from the article Tide, stating thereby that it was ""hypothetic nonsense"". The note read: ""Hypothetically, if the ocean were a constant depth, there were no land, and the Earth did not rotate, high water would occur as two bulges in the oceans' height, one facing the moon and the other facing away from the moon. There would also be smaller, superimposed bulges on the sides facing toward and away from the sun."" Someone had already attached a remark """" to this note, in fact asking for a reference in a very friendly way. 

 It is a very common misconception that the tides only affect the waters on our planet and the note about the hypothetical situation of a non-rotating earth only adds to this confusion. If the earth indeed would not rotate with respect to the moon (that is at least what is meant here by a non-rotating earth), then all off the earth would be deformed in such a way that there were two bulges, one directed towards the moon, the other one directed away from it. It is nonsense to speak of two bulges of ocean water. The tidal forces do not discriminate with respect to the matter upon which they act. A kilogram of sand grains is affected in exactly the same way as a kilogram of water is. Given enough time (which is the idea of a non-rotating earth), they would both deform in exactly the same way. And indeed this happens. It is not the effect of the tides but our earth has indeed a huge equatorial bulge, caused by it's rotation. And it's not just the oceans that react to the rotation but every particle in the earth. If not, we would have oceans of over 20 kilometers depth at the equator, and our polar regions would be totally drained of water.  

 There is no sensible reference where you can find justification for this rediculous hypothesis I removed. If you think there is one, show me! If you can't find one, then just be so kind as to undo your last edit to the article. Best regards,    

  

 :* Wikiklaas, the footnote belongs there and is not nonsense. If anything should be expanded and incorporated in the main text of the article. It is not worded as well is it might be, which is perhaps why you found it confusing. It is normal in mathematical physics to start with simplified models that focus on the most significant or first order effects. Your talk about how the earth itself can deform entirely misses the point. 

 ::Whoever wrote the footnote starts with ""Hypothetically..."". I think that might have mislead you into thinking he was proposing a new hypothesis, which he was not. He is referring to a simplified underlying model of the earth, stripped down to the most relevant factors. This makes it easier to understand how the main events occur. His talk about the ocean being a constant depth and there being no land is also poorly worded. The very simplest model is where the earth can be regarded as composed of water alone, and does not rotate with respect to the moon. You are right in saying that ""the Earth did not rotate"" should mean that the earth did not rotate with respect to the moon. I think the footnote could be worded more like this: 

 ::''""As a simplified model, if the earth were composed of water alone and did not rotate with respect to the moon, then high wate