Sir Isaac Newton did understand a true law of 'gravity'. He then directed this new found earth relationship with space into an ongoing intellectual mess. If it wasn't Newton who originally provided the true law, it would have been someone of his era. Here it is.
With the large masses fixed in Cavendish experiments, a Cavendish experiment is not a demonstration of a mutual gravitation between M and m. M x m/d/d is an ornament made useful when set equal to Newton's second law and the subsequent cancelling out of small masses (to yield a true proportion).
No one on the planet can ever mathematically demonstrate that every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe. When some go on to be professors, teaching this as an unquestionable truth of the universe to adolescents only serves to unnecessarily perpetuate an academic myth.
This is or will be how Sir Isaac Newton came up with his every particle in the universe attraction notion. Through his second law twice = twisted logic unfit for the junior school class room, etc.
This is or will be how Sir Isaac Newton came up with his every particle in the universe attraction notion. Through his second law twice = twisted logic unfit for the junior school class room, etc.
The false science of M.m/d/d is obscuring an understanding of both high tides. (Sun's inverse square law left out of picture. Two body inverse square law principles unaffected.)
Draw dropping for academia as it is. Explaining to lower school students (preferably posthaste) that the moon does not mathematically weight any earth oceans towards itself is absolutely essential to the future of both academia and the world.
All that needs to be elucidated is that opposite directions of earth and moon fall cause a relative right angled effect within the earth's inverse square law. Thus the high and low tides. The irony for academia being that Sir Isaac Newton tried to explain the second high tide by imposing a lunar longitudinal effect in the earth's inverse square law.
Beyond understanding the second high tide through Newton's third law applied across the centre of the planet, not all that hard to do the earth moon subtraction in the right place for junior class rooms. Just a matter of calculating where a moonshot leaves the earth's inverse square law and enters the moon's inverse square law, etc.
All that needs to be elucidated is that opposite directions of earth and moon fall cause a relative right angled effect within the earth's inverse square law. Thus the high and low tides. The irony for academia being that Sir Isaac Newton tried to explain the second high tide by imposing a lunar longitudinal effect in the earth's inverse square law.
Beyond understanding the second high tide through Newton's third law applied across the centre of the planet, not all that hard to do the earth moon subtraction in the right place for junior class rooms. Just a matter of calculating where a moonshot leaves the earth's inverse square law and enters the moon's inverse square law, etc.
1/ If Newton's third law is a true science
+
2/ If Newton's second law is a legitimate weight measuring axiom
then
3/ Newton third law equal and opposite forces / weights across the centre of the earth is the correct explanation of observed concurrent like opposite tidal pairs up here on the surface of the earth.
+
2/ If Newton's second law is a legitimate weight measuring axiom
then
3/ Newton third law equal and opposite forces / weights across the centre of the earth is the correct explanation of observed concurrent like opposite tidal pairs up here on the surface of the earth.
Beyond M x m being known not to be a mutual force between M and m, a relationship between day lengths and gravity field turn rates is where school kids/school teachers can venture. These telescopically procured charts are pointing towards a turn rate probability. Nothing definite but pointless having telescopes and ignoring revealed data about the solar system. Plus fits as a societal stabilizer to fill any void left beyond knowing M.m/d/d is an overarching academic mistake.
(Also a relationship between turn rates of inverse square laws and the turn rate of the celestial body within starkly tells us why the same face of the moon is always towards the earth. The moon's inverse square law is precisely turning the moon. The planets closest the sun, Mercury and Venus, are similar to the moon in that they have turn rates of the order of their orbital periods. But have various influences impacting on their turn rates. Further out where inverse square laws extend further from planets, the planets appear to be turning through their inverse square laws but have their actual turn rates governed by an adjacent planet. Fuel for new and exciting student thought about our relationship with space.)
(Also a relationship between turn rates of inverse square laws and the turn rate of the celestial body within starkly tells us why the same face of the moon is always towards the earth. The moon's inverse square law is precisely turning the moon. The planets closest the sun, Mercury and Venus, are similar to the moon in that they have turn rates of the order of their orbital periods. But have various influences impacting on their turn rates. Further out where inverse square laws extend further from planets, the planets appear to be turning through their inverse square laws but have their actual turn rates governed by an adjacent planet. Fuel for new and exciting student thought about our relationship with space.)
These approximate 1/4 cycle post transit geometric coincidences between adjacent planets may mean nothing. The Venus  earth relationship is the odd one out. The Venus orbit is the one closest to a circle. Who know how it appears when all the ellipses are factored on.
Mathematically, the smaller of adjacent inverse square laws resides within a larger. When Newton confessed to not being able to understand force at a distance, that is what he was missing. He missed the terminating arithmetic of opposite fall directions. When that arithmetic is indulged, mathematical pictures of inverse square laws in space emerge. New world/academic culture is available etc. When you get to inverse square law shapes and sizes you can see why there would be relationships between inverse square law turn rates and the turn rate of the celestial body within.
The evidence supporting weightless cores is the rate of acceleration towards the centre of the earth is measured as diminishing in underground ore extraction exercises. (link) Gold mines, etc. If that is held true by dedicated measuring, it fits with Newton's third law. Meaning not only do inverse square laws arithmetically conclude / are interrupted where they meet an adjacent one in space. Going down from the surface of the earth, the arithmetical expectation is the rate of fall tapers to conclusion across the centre of the planet.
Pity to waste the planet on an errant M x m/d/d mathematical regime when we don't have to.
Pity to waste the planet on an errant M x m/d/d mathematical regime when we don't have to.
The common decency chore for a M x m = mutual force physicist is to demonstrate how oppositely directed inverse square laws mathematically survive within each other. No demonstration forthcoming it's happily onto the tides through Newton's third law. Believing M x m is a mutual force is a roadblock of planet earth, etc.
Mass of 10 kg. Divided into 9kg and 1kg = mutual gravitation factor of 9 for a separation of 1 between the 9 kg and the 1 kg.
Same 10 kg divided into 6kg and 4kg = mutual gravitation factor of 24 for a separation of 1 unit between the 6kg and the 4 kg.
Same 10 kg divided into 6kg and 4kg = mutual gravitation factor of 24 for a separation of 1 unit between the 6kg and the 4 kg.
If mutual force does or did vary with the distribution of mass between two masses as demonstrated above, how so has to be part of junior school curricula. (According to current scholarship, the mutual gravitation factor between the earth and moon was increased by Neil Armstrong and crew leaving the earth's inverse square law and landing on the moon. Is that sensible to a professor?)
At worst school teachers now have a third alternative to offer as the second high tide solution. With high scholarship still allowing the teaching of conflicting solutions as to why one high tide is an observation of an ocean rising away from the moon, there is little scholastic choice but to work on the second high tide etc. Link to Newton second high tide explanation. Another link to the same explanation. The problem was always a decreasing rate of fall towards the moon is still a rate of fall towards the moon. For Newton's idea to be sensible it would require demonstration as fact without the presence of the earth. That is a reversal of direction of fall towards the moon simply because of a decreasing rate of fall towards the moon. Newton himself knew that his idea was weak. Link to explanation involving a barycentre. Both explanations are dependent on or involve M.m/d/d. (The barycentre explanation or the observation of the earth  moon system varying in distance from the sun as the earth  moon system orbits the sun so far has not considered the changing relative positions of inverse square laws as they progress around the galaxy. Perturbations of orbits need the same consideration.)
In this time of confusion of purpose on earth, this third or Newton third law explanation of the second high tide has the potential to give the spirit of the world a lift/direction, etc.
Hint. The first top scholarship thing to do is define weight as the potential acceleration of mass. Then using Newton's second law to measure a Newton third law force becomes scholastically coherent. Also Newton's first law of motion is a drawing together of two other laws. It is not a law in its own right. Bigger topic for another day. George Kingston. Retired farmer. Earth lover, war hater, etc. Go Volodymyr.
In this time of confusion of purpose on earth, this third or Newton third law explanation of the second high tide has the potential to give the spirit of the world a lift/direction, etc.
Hint. The first top scholarship thing to do is define weight as the potential acceleration of mass. Then using Newton's second law to measure a Newton third law force becomes scholastically coherent. Also Newton's first law of motion is a drawing together of two other laws. It is not a law in its own right. Bigger topic for another day. George Kingston. Retired farmer. Earth lover, war hater, etc. Go Volodymyr.
There is a prevailing world attitude that truth is already known. It's not. Squeeze a balloon. Analogy not perfect but demonstration of equal and opposite forces and the tidal shape of the earth we observe appears. All we have to do to get on the right page is start squeezing balloons or balls, etc.
Context for professor(s) It was somewhere between the taking of these two photos that classrooms were left aghast with what the school teacher had taught about the tides and also about a multiplication of two masses as the explanation of the gravity of the universe. Being an already entrenched lover of the Copernican revolution, just couldn't believe it. Then there was the Newton first law explanation of planetary motion that was equally problematic. Wishing you well in your realizations of Newton's mistake and all the tides afresh. Go democracy. G.K. 0413 167 909. riachella68@gmail.com

Not one of this small sample of (Melbourne university) students would understand why we observe like tides on direct opposite sides of the planet. Get the right answer in secondary schools and tomorrow's university students can only lead the world to better times. In the meanwhile, we all live in an ignorance. Not a tip top academic situation, etc.
