no moon=no tides...no tides=no life... Is that entirely correct?? I was recently discussing origins of early life on our planet, the other person stated that he had read (from Prof Brian Cox I think) that: no moon=no tides...no tides=no life. Although our moon is the main influence on our tides, aren't our tides also affected by our sun which we orbit. So if a planet doesn't have a moon, it still has tidal influence from their large mass sun, or star it orbits, although obviousy not as interactive as a smaller but closer moon provides. I believe our moon/sun interaction is somewhere around a factor of 2.2, basically producing solar tides about half that of the moons lunar tidal force. Also I would think any other planets in orbit would also influence the tidal movements to a degree. Would I be correct in assuming the only possible way a planet with liquid oceans could have no, or minimal, tides is if the planet was bound in a "Captured Orbit" just like our moon, which does a full 360 degree rotation, per 1 orbit around our planet ,which is of course why we never view the other side of the moon. So basically, any planet or moon containing liquid ocean, that is in any rotation other then a captured orbit, must have a tidal influence of some degree. I would have thought that tidal influences are more integretal to life evolution from water to land based life forms, rather then just supporting life itself. Sorry if I have posted in the wrong section.