If you are travelling through life married to Sir Isaac Newton's apple folklore, this is only of background importance to your well being. If you are a physicists or mathematical physicists the error in the concept of every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe needs pointing out to you. If you are in the error group you need to admit to the world that you use two laws of gravity. Both will have been nutted out Sir Isaac Newton only one is correct. The law that works the one is used in space shots and the assessement of the masses of other planets. Tthe rate of acceleration g towards a mass M is directly proportional to the magnitude of M and inversely proportional to the square of distance frpm the centre of M that the acceleration is occurring at is the law. It is well proven and the constant of law has been worked out. The constant though is commonly referred to as the constant of the incorrect Newtonian law of gravity. The thing note about the correct law of gravity is it does not deal with force. It only deals with acceleration towards mass, mass and distance from mass. The incorrect law is the idea of the product of two masses divided by the square of the distance between their centres being proportional to a force of attraction between the two particles.

The second law introduces force and a second mass into the original formula. The way Sir Isaac will moved from his original concet

The second law introduces force and a second mass into the original formula. The way Sir Isaac will moved from his original concet

Tides in history

Strong words against mathematical physicist saying they know about stuff light years away but don't understand the tides. where does the buck stop. I guess it stops with me, I wasn't taught the joint centre of gravity centrifugal effect idea about the second high tide at school. If I had I would have had to accept the mass multiplication idea of Sir Isaac which on the surface seemed to be sheer folly. Or a conflict with a direct relationship between I was taught the idea that Sir Isaac came up with himself. The idea that decreasing lunar inverse square law magnitudes across the diameter of the earth would stretch the earth to cause tidal bulges on direct opposite sides of the earth. Which was obviously a mistake of mathematical physics. A lesser 'pull' in any direction was still a pull in that direction. What the right answer was who knew. But on what was given the mathematical effect of the moon on the earth would be a tear drop. Or egg shape with the pointy part of the egg pointing towards the moon. A subtraction of moon gravity from the earth gravity on the moon close side of the earth meant that the moon gravity was added to the earth gravity on the far side. Left school mystified by how the moon causes these high tides. If I had of been taught the joint centre of gravity centrifugal effect to explain the second high would have meant that I would have had to understand how a multiplication of masses produces a a force that can pull two ways at once. The inverse square law seemed right and the idea of mass being the base caise of gravity seemed right. But where Sir Isaac had taken gravity beyond that was beyond comprehension.

The point is you are going to do the physics of what we call gravity, the first thing you have to understand is the tides of the earth. At this point there would not be an accedited physicists on the planet who understands the earth moon tidal relationship. Before talking about the gravity of the universe with any sort of confidence, physicists are duty bound to have one coherent explanation of the tides in the junior school books. The wake call to those who wax lyrical about Albert Einstein is that man live the length of his life on earth without understanding why one high tide rises against a direction of fall towards the moon.

men on the moon 9 x 1

basic flaw is finite extensions of inverse square laws

second law twice

world history depends on mathematical physicts explaining Newton's law of gravity. or apologizing for it.

Strong words against mathematical physicist saying they know about stuff light years away but don't understand the tides. where does the buck stop. I guess it stops with me, I wasn't taught the joint centre of gravity centrifugal effect idea about the second high tide at school. If I had I would have had to accept the mass multiplication idea of Sir Isaac which on the surface seemed to be sheer folly. Or a conflict with a direct relationship between I was taught the idea that Sir Isaac came up with himself. The idea that decreasing lunar inverse square law magnitudes across the diameter of the earth would stretch the earth to cause tidal bulges on direct opposite sides of the earth. Which was obviously a mistake of mathematical physics. A lesser 'pull' in any direction was still a pull in that direction. What the right answer was who knew. But on what was given the mathematical effect of the moon on the earth would be a tear drop. Or egg shape with the pointy part of the egg pointing towards the moon. A subtraction of moon gravity from the earth gravity on the moon close side of the earth meant that the moon gravity was added to the earth gravity on the far side. Left school mystified by how the moon causes these high tides. If I had of been taught the joint centre of gravity centrifugal effect to explain the second high would have meant that I would have had to understand how a multiplication of masses produces a a force that can pull two ways at once. The inverse square law seemed right and the idea of mass being the base caise of gravity seemed right. But where Sir Isaac had taken gravity beyond that was beyond comprehension.

The point is you are going to do the physics of what we call gravity, the first thing you have to understand is the tides of the earth. At this point there would not be an accedited physicists on the planet who understands the earth moon tidal relationship. Before talking about the gravity of the universe with any sort of confidence, physicists are duty bound to have one coherent explanation of the tides in the junior school books. The wake call to those who wax lyrical about Albert Einstein is that man live the length of his life on earth without understanding why one high tide rises against a direction of fall towards the moon.

men on the moon 9 x 1

basic flaw is finite extensions of inverse square laws

second law twice

world history depends on mathematical physicts explaining Newton's law of gravity. or apologizing for it.

This is read out for those in need of admitting to the fact that they believe in a law of mutual gravitation that doesn't make sense. Those not so married to Sir Isaac Newton's apple story can appreciate equal and opposite high and low tides without undue concern about how Sir Isaac came up with a mass multiplication explanation of the universe.

Currently apple story adherents do not endorse one clear lower school explanation about why one high tide ascends against a direction of fall towards the moon.

The simple school boy doubt about Sir Isaac Newton's mass multiplication formula is the predicted mutual force between two bodies varies when mass is moved from the earth to the moon. Or from particale A to Particle. For example consider an over all mass of 10 kilograms. particle A 9 kilograms and particle B is 1 kilogram. The mutual force generated by the two particles is a factor of 9. Then consider the same overall mass of 10 kilograms but this time particle A is 6 kilograms and particle B is 4 kilograms. The overall 10 kilograms is now generating a mutual force with a factor of 24. At that simple level the law simply does not make sense without further explanation from Sir Isaac. If Sir Isaac's formula was true, it would mean that the mutual force between the earth and the moon increased when men were walking upon the moon.

Then when you do the moonshot calculation of where the space capsule will leave the earth's grabity filed and enter the moon's gravity field you understand that inverse square laws are not perfectly continious throughout the universe as they would need to be if inverse square laws were somehow linking every particle in the universe together. The task then is to analyze how Sir Isaac has come up with formula.

The equal and opposite tidal picture of the earth alters from an isolated earth moon picture when the sun's inverse square law is brought into the picture. The arithmetical/physical explanation of the high tides is not impacted by the presence of the sun. It should be noted that, as the school teachers dispaly several possibilities to explain why one high rises against a direction of descent towards the moon, that Albert Einstein's general relativity is not of much help when it comes to understanding the tides.

No the realm of science is endeavour based upon contestability. Sir Isaac Newton's concept of every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe needs to enter the realm of science. It needs contesting.

It would be suspected that Sir Isaac Newton was originally quite competent when dealing with cause and effect and physics. As he became a mathematical genius, though, his problem became allowing cause and effect to interchange across an equal sign.

Sir Isaac's second law is the one that states a rate of change of momentum of a body is directly proportional to a net force applied to a body. Force causes momentum change is the point so the force is cause and the momentum change is effect.

Sir Isaac has competently deduced a simple law of gravity. The original law he deduced is the one commonly used to assess the masses of other planets etc. It is a rate of acceleration due to what he was calling gravity towards a mass M is directly proportional to the mass magnitude of M and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of M that the acceleration is occurring at . acceleration due to gravity (g) is proportional to M/d2.

From there Sir Isaac has said if there is an acceleration it must be caused by a force. At this point he has introduced his second law into one way descent. Using his famous apple story as an example, the momentum change of an apple of mass small m and it falls towards large the mass (M) of the earth is the mass of the apple multiplied by the acceleration equivalent he had deduced in his original law of gravity . Which is (M/d2). This second law quantification of the momentum change of the apple as it is falling is also the structure of his acclaimed law of universal gravitation. It isn't a simple product of two masses as the words of the acclaimed law state, though. The apple mass represents mass. The earth's mass represents acceleration towards mass.

The other half of his universal law comes from his coincidental presumption about the earth accelerating towards the apple. In this case his second law measure of the momentum change of the earth is a mirror image of the momentum change of the apple. In equation form M multiplied by the acceleration equivalent of (m1/d2) . In terms of quantities each momentum change is identical. At this point his peers needed to tell him that he had twin problems if he was going to call his multiplication of masses a force of universal gravitation. Firstly his multiplication of masses was a quantification of the effect of force. Momentum change. Not of force. Newton's confusion of cause and effect is plain.

The other problem is academic when the formula has fallen at first base. That other problem was coupling these two instances of his second law into one instance. In one instance of the uncoupled versions, the mass of the earth represents mass. And in the other version the mass of the earth represents acceleration. The same with the apple but oppositely to the earth. The apple represents acceleration in one uncoupled version and mass in the other.

When the law was later pursued to measure the mass of the earth, it reverted to its more simpler origin. In Cavenidish experiments when the law is set equal to Sir Isaacs second law, the small masses are cancelled out and what is left in the determination of the constant is g is proportional to M/d2 where the acceleration is occurring at. The smaller mass is used to measure g but (obviously) is not part of the cause of itself towards the larger mass. It should be obvious to a mathematician if that Sir Isaac's universal law of gravitation was built out of his second law, that when his second law his set equal to his law of universal gravitation in effect all that is being done is two equal things are being set equal to each other in an equation and what is left is Sir Isaac's original deduction about a proportion between mass, acceleration towards mass and the distance from the centre of the mass that the acceleration is occurring at.

When you do your moonshot or proper tidal calculations you know that inverse square laws are not arithmetically indefinite extensions from their source as they would have to be if they were causing an acceleration towards their source particle through out the light years of the universe.

The personal opinion is Sir Isaac has appreciated himself as a young leader of a revolution after Galileo had taken care of Aristotle. But as his own life has progressed, he has had uncertainty about his physics. And invented his apple story as rhetoric to bolster the revolution. At this point of time what mathematical physicist on earth can explain how you multiply an apple and the earth together and get an understandable answer. We are a revolution and been hoodwinked along the way.

Currently apple story adherents do not endorse one clear lower school explanation about why one high tide ascends against a direction of fall towards the moon.

The simple school boy doubt about Sir Isaac Newton's mass multiplication formula is the predicted mutual force between two bodies varies when mass is moved from the earth to the moon. Or from particale A to Particle. For example consider an over all mass of 10 kilograms. particle A 9 kilograms and particle B is 1 kilogram. The mutual force generated by the two particles is a factor of 9. Then consider the same overall mass of 10 kilograms but this time particle A is 6 kilograms and particle B is 4 kilograms. The overall 10 kilograms is now generating a mutual force with a factor of 24. At that simple level the law simply does not make sense without further explanation from Sir Isaac. If Sir Isaac's formula was true, it would mean that the mutual force between the earth and the moon increased when men were walking upon the moon.

Then when you do the moonshot calculation of where the space capsule will leave the earth's grabity filed and enter the moon's gravity field you understand that inverse square laws are not perfectly continious throughout the universe as they would need to be if inverse square laws were somehow linking every particle in the universe together. The task then is to analyze how Sir Isaac has come up with formula.

The equal and opposite tidal picture of the earth alters from an isolated earth moon picture when the sun's inverse square law is brought into the picture. The arithmetical/physical explanation of the high tides is not impacted by the presence of the sun. It should be noted that, as the school teachers dispaly several possibilities to explain why one high rises against a direction of descent towards the moon, that Albert Einstein's general relativity is not of much help when it comes to understanding the tides.

No the realm of science is endeavour based upon contestability. Sir Isaac Newton's concept of every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe needs to enter the realm of science. It needs contesting.

It would be suspected that Sir Isaac Newton was originally quite competent when dealing with cause and effect and physics. As he became a mathematical genius, though, his problem became allowing cause and effect to interchange across an equal sign.

Sir Isaac's second law is the one that states a rate of change of momentum of a body is directly proportional to a net force applied to a body. Force causes momentum change is the point so the force is cause and the momentum change is effect.

Sir Isaac has competently deduced a simple law of gravity. The original law he deduced is the one commonly used to assess the masses of other planets etc. It is a rate of acceleration due to what he was calling gravity towards a mass M is directly proportional to the mass magnitude of M and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of M that the acceleration is occurring at . acceleration due to gravity (g) is proportional to M/d2.

From there Sir Isaac has said if there is an acceleration it must be caused by a force. At this point he has introduced his second law into one way descent. Using his famous apple story as an example, the momentum change of an apple of mass small m and it falls towards large the mass (M) of the earth is the mass of the apple multiplied by the acceleration equivalent he had deduced in his original law of gravity . Which is (M/d2). This second law quantification of the momentum change of the apple as it is falling is also the structure of his acclaimed law of universal gravitation. It isn't a simple product of two masses as the words of the acclaimed law state, though. The apple mass represents mass. The earth's mass represents acceleration towards mass.

The other half of his universal law comes from his coincidental presumption about the earth accelerating towards the apple. In this case his second law measure of the momentum change of the earth is a mirror image of the momentum change of the apple. In equation form M multiplied by the acceleration equivalent of (m1/d2) . In terms of quantities each momentum change is identical. At this point his peers needed to tell him that he had twin problems if he was going to call his multiplication of masses a force of universal gravitation. Firstly his multiplication of masses was a quantification of the effect of force. Momentum change. Not of force. Newton's confusion of cause and effect is plain.

The other problem is academic when the formula has fallen at first base. That other problem was coupling these two instances of his second law into one instance. In one instance of the uncoupled versions, the mass of the earth represents mass. And in the other version the mass of the earth represents acceleration. The same with the apple but oppositely to the earth. The apple represents acceleration in one uncoupled version and mass in the other.

When the law was later pursued to measure the mass of the earth, it reverted to its more simpler origin. In Cavenidish experiments when the law is set equal to Sir Isaacs second law, the small masses are cancelled out and what is left in the determination of the constant is g is proportional to M/d2 where the acceleration is occurring at. The smaller mass is used to measure g but (obviously) is not part of the cause of itself towards the larger mass. It should be obvious to a mathematician if that Sir Isaac's universal law of gravitation was built out of his second law, that when his second law his set equal to his law of universal gravitation in effect all that is being done is two equal things are being set equal to each other in an equation and what is left is Sir Isaac's original deduction about a proportion between mass, acceleration towards mass and the distance from the centre of the mass that the acceleration is occurring at.

When you do your moonshot or proper tidal calculations you know that inverse square laws are not arithmetically indefinite extensions from their source as they would have to be if they were causing an acceleration towards their source particle through out the light years of the universe.

The personal opinion is Sir Isaac has appreciated himself as a young leader of a revolution after Galileo had taken care of Aristotle. But as his own life has progressed, he has had uncertainty about his physics. And invented his apple story as rhetoric to bolster the revolution. At this point of time what mathematical physicist on earth can explain how you multiply an apple and the earth together and get an understandable answer. We are a revolution and been hoodwinked along the way.

When the sun's inverse square law is brought into the picture, the tidal picture alters from an isolated earth moon one a little. The calculative Newton third law explanation of the high tides doesn't. Beyond the lives There is currently two school book explanations of the second high tide in play three hundred years beyond the life of Sir Isaac Newton and more than sixty years beyond the life of Albert Einstein. Until there is only one, current gravity ideas are not explaining the tides of the earth,

The acceptance of Newton's law of gravity for the last three hundred years is probably a testament against mathematicians. Not the world does not have its law gravity. It does. Within a gravity field the rate of acceleration g towards a mass M at a distance d from the centre of M is directly proportional to the magnitude of M and inversely proportional to the square of d. Newton did know this law and built his mutual law from it.

How he did is not apparent. Texts simply say Sir Isaac Newton told us. The must plausible way he has done it is through his second law.

which brings us to a so called law of physics that says every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe. Safe to say as yet no one has comprehended every particle in the universe. Hats off to Sir Isaac Newton for being a mathematical genius. Developing a binomial theorem to revolutionize the calculation of pi was a cut above the intellectual level of most of us. His physics though, below that of a sound modern tradesman or woman. When you understand through a basic understanding of the earth tides through adjacent inverse calculations, you get to know that gravity is not an extension of indefinite length from its source particle. Such being a basic requirement of every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe. that an inver

The acceptance of Newton's law of gravity for the last three hundred years is probably a testament against mathematicians. Not the world does not have its law gravity. It does. Within a gravity field the rate of acceleration g towards a mass M at a distance d from the centre of M is directly proportional to the magnitude of M and inversely proportional to the square of d. Newton did know this law and built his mutual law from it.

How he did is not apparent. Texts simply say Sir Isaac Newton told us. The must plausible way he has done it is through his second law.

which brings us to a so called law of physics that says every particle in the universe attracts every other particle in the universe. Safe to say as yet no one has comprehended every particle in the universe. Hats off to Sir Isaac Newton for being a mathematical genius. Developing a binomial theorem to revolutionize the calculation of pi was a cut above the intellectual level of most of us. His physics though, below that of a sound modern tradesman or woman. When you understand through a basic understanding of the earth tides through adjacent inverse calculations, you get to know that gravity is not an extension of indefinite length from its source particle. Such being a basic requirement of every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe. that an inver

For scholarship to orientate itself with those given to the craft of mathematical physics simply need to understand the disconnect between accurate predictions and understanding the difference between up and down.

The very nature of science is its contestability

This video is really made for physicists. When it comes to the tides and planetary motion, anyone who understands the exertive difference between walking uphill and then walking downhill should be able to see that Sir Isaac Newton has made critical mistakes with both.

The outstanding problems Sir Isaac bequeathed the world is planets unexplainedly ascending in the sun's gravity and a similar problem about why one lunar high tide is an ascension relative to a direction of fall towards the moon.

At school you might or might notice these asinine problems of Newtonian physics as they are taught to you. Or you might just gloss through them as part of a desire for a pass mark out into the world of mathematical geniuses like Sir Isaac or simply just be in a classroom because you have to be.

The solution to each problem is unheralded at this stage and each has the unfortunate societal consequence of making Einstein and space agencies in general look like kids who don't really know what they are doing. From that point of view it is understandable why grown up physicists willingly use the instruments of government and bureaucracy to hide from the possibility to being less intellectually thorough than what their career path's otherwise suggest.

The solution to the planets ascending in the sun's gravity field is the simply the superior motion of the the gravity field itself. The planets are not falling towards a fixed point as the school teachers endeavour to teach us. They are falling towards a moving point which is the sun itself. All descents are relative motions is the basic that physic school teachers are missing from their computers.

The solution to tides will probably send ripples around the world if it is easily understood. The moon does not pull an ocean at all. Mathematically the interaction of opposing directions of fall in between the earth and moon reduces the fall rate of an ocean towards the earth. In simplicity, that's the high tide under the moon explained and the explanation is in way analogous with a direct pull from the moon. From there the solution to the second high is simply and ironically Sir Isaac Newton's equal and opposite force law at work across the core of the earth. Mistakes in school curricula aside, it would be hoped that true physicists would not stand in the road of at least discussion about the centre of the earth being the missing key of tidal understanding. The knowledge should change a little how everybody feels about life up here a little over 6000 kilometers above where the earth tidal forces are interacting.

The obvious paradox to all this is you don't have to be Einstein to understand either solution. But the fundamental misapprehensions that Sir Isaac has been party to went past Einstein himself. At that level those given to the craft of mathematical physics simply need to understand the disconnect between accurate predictions and understanding the difference between up and down. In days of yon upcoming lunar and solar eclipses were most accurately predicted. The science that allowed these accurate predictions was based upon the earth being fixed in the centre of the universe. The point is there may be useful mathematical procedures contained with Einstein's work that allow such accurate predictions. But his work also carries the same fundamental confusions between up and down that the work of Sir Isaac Newton did. Those who pursue the craft of celestial prediction in ignorance about the motion of the sun just going to boil down to glory seekers. They definietly are not people given to the task of understanding the physics behind the three laws of planetary motion around the sun that Johannes Kelpler and Tyco Brahe procured some 400 years ago.

For the sake of perspective, some fundamental things that Einstein's theories do not predict. For a start there is like tides on direct opposite sides of a planet. Then there is Venus turning backwards as the earth moves forward. Adjacent outer planets having similar turns rates is also not predicted within the work of Albert Einstein.

What we are doing to create a frame work for educationalist to set the Copernican ship right is making 9 statements. After each and all the statements are made, they will be explained in greater detail. My name is George Kingston and I went to school a while ago in a country known as Australia. English is my only language and I am not particularly proficient with it. So we just talk a bit. And then put some music on. Hope you like the chosen virtual background and can also tolerate music from yesterday year. Now well into the second half of my personal time on earth, would just like to get these statements out before the heart stops beating away.

1/ Newton's law of gravity is his second law. Confusing momentum change with a presumed force of mutual attraction. The relevant and already known and oft used law of gravity is a rate of acceleration towards a body is proportional to the mass of that body divided by the square of the distance from the body the acceleration is occurring at. The law was discovered seemingly by accident when Newton's second law set equal to his fictitious law of gravity in what are known as cavendish experiments small masses are cancelled out in that equation of providence.

2/ Inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent only because there is only the mass type of mass. That is inertial mass is an enduring and unneeded scholastic fabrication and gravitational mass is simply mass. Meaning whatever useful mathematical procedures are carried within Einstein's general theory of relativity, it is built upon a meaningless cocnept.

3/ Newton's first law of motion is only the conservation of the momentum of a free travelling body.

4/ The resistance of a body to a change of motion is not inherent of the body. The resistance is the equal and opposite force to the force causing the change and born in coincidence with the force causing the change.

5/ The high and low tides of the earth are explained through lateral relative inverse square law magnitudes and Sir Isaac Newton's equal and opposite force law as applied to the core of the earth.

6/ The planets of the solar system are not falling towards a fixed point. Planetary motion is sinusoidal and a planet's speed relative to the sun is constantly changing speed relative to the sun.

7/ Gravity fields/inverse square laws are particles,. That is we live in a particle

8/ The rotation rates of the planets are governed by the rotation rates of gravity fields.

9/ When all this is added together the universe is a never ending number. 3.1459..... Or the finite and inexact ratio between the circumference and a diameter calculating itself. We don't need supreme creators or big bangs that no one understands to understand why space is not a vast nothing aftercall. All we need is a reinvestigation of the Copernican revolution and a recognizing that the ancients were much closer to understanding our reason why than what they realized. It should me mentioned out the outset that the universe being a never ending number does not necessarily mean that we do not survive our bodies when we die. Also does not mean that the key to biological evolution of animals is prioritised survival of this animal or that animal.

2/ Inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent only because there is only the mass type of mass. That is inertial mass is an enduring and unneeded scholastic fabrication and gravitational mass is simply mass. Meaning whatever useful mathematical procedures are carried within Einstein's general theory of relativity, it is built upon a meaningless cocnept.

3/ Newton's first law of motion is only the conservation of the momentum of a free travelling body.

4/ The resistance of a body to a change of motion is not inherent of the body. The resistance is the equal and opposite force to the force causing the change and born in coincidence with the force causing the change.

5/ The high and low tides of the earth are explained through lateral relative inverse square law magnitudes and Sir Isaac Newton's equal and opposite force law as applied to the core of the earth.

6/ The planets of the solar system are not falling towards a fixed point. Planetary motion is sinusoidal and a planet's speed relative to the sun is constantly changing speed relative to the sun.

7/ Gravity fields/inverse square laws are particles,. That is we live in a particle

8/ The rotation rates of the planets are governed by the rotation rates of gravity fields.

9/ When all this is added together the universe is a never ending number. 3.1459..... Or the finite and inexact ratio between the circumference and a diameter calculating itself. We don't need supreme creators or big bangs that no one understands to understand why space is not a vast nothing aftercall. All we need is a reinvestigation of the Copernican revolution and a recognizing that the ancients were much closer to understanding our reason why than what they realized. It should me mentioned out the outset that the universe being a never ending number does not necessarily mean that we do not survive our bodies when we die. Also does not mean that the key to biological evolution of animals is prioritised survival of this animal or that animal.

**one way descent**

A simple basic mathematical law of descent is worked out around the time of Sir Isaac Newton. The law is saying a rate of fall towards a celestial body decreases in proportion to the increasing surface area of a sphere around the body. As this surface area increases with vertical distance increase above the body, in proportion the rate of fall towards the body is decreasing.

When applied to the earth, this inverse square law of fall rate diminish becomes regularly referred to as the earth's gravity field.

Sir Isaac Newton becomes credited with using this one way law of descent to explain a link between every particle in the universe. Sir Isaac explicitly states he doesn't know how this can be so. An algebraic formula involving force, two masses and their distance apart becomes his revered academic tool. It is assessed to be a fundamental of the universe.

The integrity of this assessment is dependent on the inverse square law of the moon, for example, extending to where ever any other mass in the universe exists.

Academic geniuses subsequent of Sir Isaac were yet to consider the validity of the basic premise Sir Isaac was building from. Which was....

Or, as was appearing in Sir Isaac's formula, how every two inverse square laws in the universe amalgamate into a single two directional inverse square law.

**How inverse square laws can physically or mathematically extend through each other.**Or, as was appearing in Sir Isaac's formula, how every two inverse square laws in the universe amalgamate into a single two directional inverse square law.