Since this series on tides in still in progress, I am adding this postscript a bit prematurely, some might say. But since it contains and requires no math, it was easier to complete than other parts; and so I thought I would go ahead and post it. It acts as both proof and extension of the theory, so I could have just as easily titled and published it as a Preface. But, for now, I will let it stand like this, as an added suggestion.
The primary piece of evidence we have concerning tides is their lunar cycle. Though the mechanism remained mysterious for centuries or millennia, it was always clear that the Moon was the overriding cause. Well, there are many other cycles that follow the lunar cycle, and these have remained just as mysterious. There are myriad animal and plant cycles that follow the Moon*, but I will mention only one here: the human menstrual cycle. Like the terrestrial tides, it is clear that the menstrual cycle is led by the Moon. No one doubts this. But how is this achieved, mechanically? No one, till now, knew. With gravity as the proposed cause of lunar influence, it was thought that gravitational fluctuations must be felt by the female body in some fashion. But no mechanism, save perhaps gravitons, has ever been provided. And since gravitons have never been discovered, we can say that no possible mechanism has ever been shown. All the theories therefore take the form of magic. Without a physcial mechanism, you are dealing with magic, no matter how much up-to-date jargon you use.
But my theory solves this problem at one pass. We have ample proof of the electric and magnetic field, and its direct effect on the human body. What is more, we have a simple way of expressing the mechanism of the E/M field, which is photon bombardment. This must mean that it is the E/M field that sets the menstrual cycle, not the gravitational field. The Moon affects this cycle by affecting the E/M field of the Earth, not by any fluctuations in a gravitational field.
I have shown that the gravitational field is an acceleration field which creates a pseudo-force field, and that this pseudo-field cannot fluctuate in the way we have thought it could. All possible fluctuations of this sort must be given to the E/M field. What we now call the gravitational field is actually a differential field made up of both the gravitational pseudo field and the E/M field. All fluctuations belong to the E/M component; none to the gravitational component.
This makes it so much easier to explain the menstrual cycle, as well as to test the theory. We already know that the brain and nervous system work in large part on electrical impulses. The body, like the oceans, is mostly saltwater: therefore it is a lovely conductor. These and many other facts, too obvious to dwell on, lead directly to confirmation of my theory. We also know that manmade electrical fields can upset animal and plant cycles, including the human menstrual cycle. Many simple experiments immediately come to mind, for those who are not convinced. Many have already been done, and have been sitting around waiting to be included in my theory. In fact, the connection is so stunningly obvious, it is nearly beyond belief that it hasnít been made before.
The connection hasnít been made, since it requires a rather bold new theory of Earth/Moon interaction; but the suggestion that the menstrual cycle is mainly or partly led by the E/M field has been made before. But in order to make the connection I have made, one would need to be both physiologist and theoretical physicist. Thanks to specialization, that hasnít happened in recent times. The connection therefore had to be made by a marginalized generalist with no science or medical career to jeopardize by making connections.
Theoretical physicists arenít going to take far-reaching suggestions from physiologists who can only make half the connection, but it is hoped they will take a suggestion from a generalist who has done the physical and mathematical work for them as well. My work now fills a huge whole in both celestial mechanics and physiology, and only the most purblind careerists could continue to ignore it.
*For other phenomema that follow these cycles, you may read this interesting paper from sciencedirect.com. They assume, without any evidence, that these cycles follow gravity, but I have shown in a series of papers that these kinds of cycles follow charge. Gravity has no mechanism to cause these cycles, while charge does.