Kilopi,
I accept your point about the effect of the Earth's rotation on its shape, and accurate satellite observations have confirmed that the Earth is 'shorter that it is wide'. But I cannot work out how closely that observation coincides with the predicted flattening from rotation. Anyway, that flattening is at right angles to the tidal effect, which will be superimposed on the equatorial bulge.

I have to confess that I have only today read Sawicki's explanation of tides ("gravity vectors"?). I noted two things, first he makes clear that he neglects the effects of the Earth's rotation "as they do not affect our conclusions" and that his model is of an Earth free-falling towards the Sun, not one in orbit. This is a model some way short of reality and of the model expressed so well by Eroica, although by not relying on an object being in orbit, it is simpler than a "different orbits" model. Sawicki's mathematics are beyond me, so I cannot criticise them.
Maybe that is why I favour "different orbits", a more intuitive way of thinking about tides that does not need mathematics, though as Eroica shows, the maths work out, confirming intuition.


Eroica.
Thank you! You have perfectly expressed my point of view, in a model better than the binary one I suggested. I fear, however, that this is a set-up to a devastating, knock-down, counter argument. No matter, truth will out, and I await your broadside with eager anticipation!

In case you are not plotting my downfall (!), will you please try to reconcile these two views? Can you calculate from this model the size of the force 'lifting' the ocean into the tidal bulges? If this value corresponds with Sawicki's calculated 0.515 x 10^-7g, then either point of view is just that, a point of view, a world-picture, NOT a "New Theory Of Tides".
John