so where would the calculation be done. At the ocean. If you did this you would get an answer that explained the high tide under the moon. The rate of fall towards the earth because of the earth at the ocean is 9,8 m/s/s. Using the known moon parameters of its radius and surface fall rate, when the earth and moon are at their average separation of 384.400 km, the fall rate towards the moon at the ocean is. 0.0037 subtract this from 98.8. You have a mathematical explanayopn of the high tide under the moon. 

This gravity theory was born out of disbelief in the existing academic explanations of the second high tide. The high tide that is synchronized to the moon but is an ascension of water away from the moon. This one here. It was decided this first  would require certainty about how the moon was causing the moon close high tide. This one here.

So. before going to sleep one night, the opposite directions of earth and moon gravities were visualized. When this was done, Newton's concept of the moon pulling the ocean up towards the moon quickly vanished. The disappearance caused these words to be uttered, 'I see. It isn't the moon's mass pulling on the mass of the ocean at all. The earth and moon's gravities are pulling on each other' .

Next day the mathematics of the interaction were studied.  deemed inappropriate. It was removed. Subtraction wasn't a pull. Once actual subtractions were done two things quickly became apparent. Firstly Newton was wrong. Every particle in the universe could not be attracting every other particle in the universe. Once you started the subtraction process seriously, your mathematics plainly demonstrated that directions of fall towards a particular mass have terminal points. So that is a post Newton happy. Every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe was a little too big for normal comprehension. And if had of been true, how would anything have ever moved. The actual structure of Newton's formula needed examination. Secondly that puzzling second high tide had an obvious solution. Beyond Newton's gravity mistake of the moon's gravity actually reaching the earth to explain the high tide under the moon and the recognition of the terminal point of a direction of fall towards the moon, the earth, it's gravity field  and its tides were also isolated .  With sun left out of the picture, the high tide under the moon was simply a relative effect induced in the earth's gravity field. At the distance above the earth of the earth moon terminal point along the earth moon axis but a right angle to the earth moon axis, there was a rate of fall towards the earth. Mathematically it was the difference between these two fall rates here and here that were the low tides and the high tide. 

From there when you follow theses right angled relative fall rates down to the center of the earth as weight, Newton's third law simply says to you and anyone who will listen that the reason one high tide is an ascension of water away from the moon is it is the equal and opposite force to the one on the moon close side of the earth. And you know that if Newton's second law is a legitimate way of measuring weight and Newton's third law is true law of physics, this solution cannot be wrong. For George this happened forty years ago and, from his uneducated position in life, he has felt duty bound to find a way of telling the academic world about Newton's mistake ever since. 

So. The Newton perspective was the moon pulls the ocean. 

Reached what? 

Well the theory of gravity is motion is only possible in one direction at once. Where you begin is where Newton didn't begin and Einstein definitely begin. You calculate the size and shapes of adjacent gravity fields. 

Except for natural occurring calculations things would be falling in every direction is a false theory of the universe. That was Sir Isaac Newton's theory. Every particle in the universe is exerting a force on every other particle in the universe. Albert Einstein was not too keen on this theory. Like Newton and us, he believed a mass causes an acceleration towards itself. Unlike Newton, Einstein brought the speed of light into the relationship between mass and acceleration towards mass. How about that. In some ways this theory of ours takes bits and pieces from both the Einstein theory of gravity and the Newton theory gravity. Newton had the mathematical structure of space around a mass being an inverse square. Pursuant 0f Kepler's third law, this has always made complete sense. What didn't make sense in Newton's world was multiplying masses together. If he had not of done that and use his mathematics to calculate the size and shapes of gravity fields, there would have been no Einsteinian theory of gravity.

Well before the life and times of Sir Isaac Newton, the link between the moon and the high tides was established. 

IAt this early stage, best to get big elephants out of lecture theaters. [short pause] In this video Albert Einstein is considered to be a crackpot physicist. [short pause] For all his foibles, Sir Isaac Newton was more honest.[short pause] This is what Google AI says about where the subtractive approach to gravity and the tides meets Einstein's space time nonsense. [short pause] Bluntly put, if mass equals space time floats your boat, see you later alligator! [short pause] The tides through simple mathematical physics will never be for you. [short pause] Enjoy the fairies. [pause][sighs]They are at the end of the garden.[short pause]. [long pause] [sighs] Edit off. was 

When this gets to be all said and done, it does appear that the moon has already left the earth's gravity field. So we must  hope all this is wrong. To a big jolt for professors to handle that departure would be. A big a one as the much lauded Copernican revolution apparently was. As mentioned in the last video the earth experiences high tides that are on direct opposite sides of the earth. The way the email professor of the introductory video was to be told the high tide under the moon should be taught is an induced relative effect. Before worrying about the differences between Einstein's and Newton's approach to the tides, lets explain just what that means.

Even though Einstein said it's  wrong, most school teachers still say to their class the moon pulls the ocean under the moon to cause a high tide under the moon. More than wrong, mathematically it is completely wrong. It is a hangover from Newton's edict about every particle in the universe attracting every other particle in the universe. When capsules get sent to the moon, a calculation is done to work out where the capsule will leave the earth

So goodbye and good luck, The tides through moonshot arithmetic and Newton's third law next. That should be a turning point of world sexpot history

[long pause] [clears throat] Hello. [long pause] One slight exception to approximate tangents is the earth with respect of Venus. [thoughtful] Venus is more significantly past [alluring] the quarter orbit position. [short pause] Venus does have the orbit closest to a circle, though. [short pause] Also Jupiter has not quite moved through a quarter orbit when arriving at the Mars tangential position. [short pause] So where we have the planets stopping on these illustrations is that tangential position. [pause]The theory is this. [pause]  Thee way the solar system has balanced is that the axis that passes through an inner planet gravity field at an alignment has become a mid tide axis of the outer planet.[pause] One  that connects adjacent planets together in a loop as its returns around the orbit of the inner planet to the outer planet as the balance mid tide axis of that planet. [pause]The speed of travel of this loop axis is somewhere between the Kepler third law speeds of adjacent planets. [pause]Meaning the inner planet gravity field is travelling along an axis that is travelling slower than its Kepler third law speed.[pause] And the outer planet of the pair has the faster speed of the inner planet being applied to its slower moving self.[pause] That extra speed is taken up as the turn rate of a planet and the planet's Kepler second law positioning in the solar system.  [pause]This theory is unlikely to be sensible if infinite three dimensional distance exists. [pause] No one knows that infinite space exists and geometrically a unified three dimensions are always sub infinite..[pause]So it is worth presenting as a theory. [pause] It does begin to deal with the twenty four hours in an earth day as an active event.[pause]Not a remnant of a big bang theory.[pause] So that's something. [short pause] [long pause] Edit off. [short pause]

Click here to start customizi . The significance of the tangential position is this. [ pause] As you see on the [sexily]illustrations, it is where the post alignment joining axis of an outer planet enters the orbit of the next planet in and also leaves the [alluring]orbit of that inner planet to return to the outer planet on the [alluring]other side of the orbit. [pause]These axes are or have become the regional mid tide axis of the outer planet of an adjacent pair. [pause] If you can entertain the concept of gravity fields being particles, the dynamic is [alluring]adjacent planets have a wave running around in a circle between them. [pause] One that is following the indicated path. [pause]The driver of the wave being the superior Kepler third law speed of the inner planet of an adjacent pair. [pause]As you can see on the [alluring]illustrations, the low solar tide axis of a planet [sexily] is the  orbital path of a planet. [pause]The dissipation of the wave  is the rotation rates of the planets and also the structure of Kepler's second law. [long pause]Moons are also left out of the reasoning at this stage.[pause] Only a burgeoning non equation theory, one endeavoring to mechanically explain the rotation rates of the planets through [alluring]properly understood tides. [pause]Obviously if the theory is sensible, it will bring on world romance and a fresh lust for life on earth.[pause]These animations conclude this[sexily] introduction into non mathematical physics. [pause]The next video will relax back to explaining the tides. [chuckles] Oh. [small pause]Of course hats off to Newton [sexily]for his revolutionary method of calculating the inexact finite never ending ratio of a circumference to a diameter that we call Pi.. [sighs] Unfortunately, though, any genius he had for gravity went awry when his preoccupation became what lies on either side of an equation.ng

Click here to start cust[pause] Hello. [long pause]The elliptical path's that the [alluring]planets follow are ignored. [pause]The slight variation of orbital plane's of the planets from one another [slight pause][alluring]that you see here is also ignored. [pause]When future astronomers are able take  those factors into [sexily]account, that should be class room interest.[pause] Average Kepler third law speeds are used. [pause]With those allowances and  as you will see, after an inner planet has [sexy smile]moved just over a quarter of an orbit past an alignment with the sun and the next planet out, the next planet out is just past the tangential position. [long pause] edit off [pause]omizing

The slight exceptions are the earth with respect of Venus. Venus is more significantly past the quarter orbit position. Venus does have  the orbit closest to a circle, though.  Also Jupiter has not quite moved through a quarter orbit when arriving at the Mars tangential position. The significance of the tangential position is this.  It is where a mid tide axis of an outer planet enters the orbit of the next planet in and also leaves the orbit of inner planet to return to the outer planet of the other side of the orbit. One mid tide axis is projected at the lesser speed of the outer planet to the inner planet. The other mid tide axis is a projection back to the outer planet at the superior relative speed of the inner planet. And, as you can see on the animations, the low tide axis of a planet it its orbital path. The idea or theory is a there is a force resolution between adjacent Kepler third  law relative speeds that is the rotation rates of the planets and also the explanation of Kepler's second law. Moons are also left out of the reasoning at this stage. This is only a burgeoning non equation theory, one endeavoring to mechanically explain the rotation rates of the planets.  These animations conclude this introduction into non mathematical physics. The next video will relax back to explaining the tides as Newton should or could have.  Hats off to Newton for his revolutionary method of calculating pi, the inexact finite never ending ration of a circumference to a diameter. Unfortunately, though his genius for gravity went awry with his mathematics.

One exceptions to approximate tangential position is the earth with respect of Venus. [pause]Venus is more significantly past the quarter orbit position. [pause]Venus has the orbit closest to that of a circle and the Venus tangents are in the true mid tide positions. [pause]Venus does have the orbit closest to that of a circle, though. [pause]Also Jupiter has not quite moved through a quarter orbit when arriving at the Mars tangential position.[pause] [thoughtful] The significance of the tangential position id this. [pause]The solar low tide axis of a planet is it's orbital path. [pause]The tangential position is where an axis between the high and low tide axis of an outer planet enters the orbit of the next planet in and also leaves the orbit of an inner planet to return to the outer planet of the other side of the orbit. [pause]One mid tide axis is projected at the lesser speed of[alluring] the outer planet to the inner planet. [pause]The other mid tide axis is a projection back to the outer planet at the superior relative speed of the inner planet. [pause][whisper] The idea or theory is there is a force resolution between adjacent Kepler third law relative speeds that is the rotation rates of the planets and also [sexy]the explanation of Kepler's second law. [pause]Moons are also left out of the reasoning at this stage. [pause]It would appear that the base tides are the solar tides. [pause] Moons add to these tides and moves the addition around the planet.[long pause]Just a theory that can be investigated further by physicists and astronomers wishing to.[pause]Understanding rotation rates is a necessary along the road to understanding the universe.. [pause]On a side note, mathematical physics, will never mechanically explain the rotation rates of the planets with equations and quasi infinite gravity fields. [pause][sighs] These animations conclude this introduction into non mathematical physics. [pause]The next video will quite confidently explain the tides as Newton should have, or, [sweetly]could have. [pause]Plausibly we would all have understood the reason of the universe long ago if Newton had of used his undoubted genius to understand the tides properly. [pause] [long pause] edit off..

Average Kepler third law speeds are used. [pause]With those [sexily]allowances, after an inner planet has moved just over a quarter of an orbit past an alignment with the sun and the next planet out, the next planet out is just past the tangential position.[pause] One exceptions is the earth with respect of Venus. [pause]Venus is more significantly past the quarter orbit position. [pause]Venus has the orbit closest to that of a circle and the Venus tangents are in the true mid tide positions. [pause]Also Jupiter has not quite moved through a quarter orbit when arriving at the Mars tangential position.[pause] [thoughtful] The significance of the tangential position. [pause]The solar low tide axis of a planet is it's orbital path. [pause]The tangential position is where an axis between the high and low tide axis of an outer planet enters the orbit of the next planet in and also leaves the orbit of an inner planet to return to the outer planet of the other side of the orbit. [pause]One mid tide axis is projected at the lesser speed of[alluring] the outer planet to the inner planet. [pause]The other mid tide axis is a projection back to the outer planet at the superior relative speed of the inner planet. [pause][whisper] The idea or theory is there is a force resolution between adjacent Kepler third law relative speeds that is the rotation rates of the planets and also [sexy]the explanation of Kepler's second law. [pause]Moons are also left out of the reasoning at this stage. [pause]It would appear that the base tides are the solar tides. [pause] Moons add to these tides and moves the addition around the planet.[long pause]Just a theory that can be investigated further by physicists and astronomers wishing to.[pause]Understanding rotation rates is a necessary along the road to understanding the universe.. [pause]On a side note, mathematical physics, will never mechanically explain the rotation rates of the planets with equations and quasi infinite gravity fields. [pause][sighs] These animations conclude this introduction into non mathematical physics. [pause]The next video will quite confidently explain the tides as Newton should have, or, [sweetly]could have. [pause]Plausibly we would all have understood the reason of the universe long ago if Newton had of used his undoubted genius to understand the tides properly. [pause] [long pause] edit off..

This introduction to non mathematical physics concludes with ratio emphasis. The tides through simple arithmetic and Newton's third law is for the next video. The difference between sidereal days and solar days. A solar day is when a planet has rotated so as the same face of that  planet is back facing the sun again. In contrast a sidereal day is when a planet has rotated once with respect of the background stars. For the outer six planets, the time difference between a solar day and sidereal day is marginal. That is because they have many rotations during an orbit. Alternatively, Mercury and Venus have rotation  periods of the order of their orbital periods. When using the term orbit, the reference is to when a planet has returned to an original position relative to the sun. It does not refer to a closed circle relative to the sun. So the ratios.  Mercury nigh precisely has two solar orbits for each of its solar days. During that time, Mercury has turned three times on its axis from the view point of the background stars. Which suggests that the Mercury rotation rate is influenced by the Mercury sun axis and also the Venus Mercury axis. Meanwhile Venus experiences  three sidereal days to every two earth years and, when Venus passes between the earth and the sun every five hundred and eighty five days, Venus has experienced 5 solar days. All put together suggests the Venus rotation rate is governed by the Venus sun axis, the earth Venus axis and the Venus mercury axis. These ratios are so close to the exact that they cannot be dismissed as an interesting series of coincidence of the universe.

Hello. [long pause]This introduction to non mathematical physics concludes [alluring]with an emphasis on day lengths. [pause]The tides through simple arithmetic and Newton's third law, that's for the next video. [pause] What follows is demonstrated with the sun fixed. [long pause]The difference between sidereal days and solar days. [pause]Sidereal means pertaining to the [sexy]stars. [pause]Thus a sidereal day is when a planet has rotated once with respect of the background stars.[pause] A solar day is when a planet has rotated so as the same face of that planet is back facing the sun again.[pause]A planet advances relative to the sun as it rotates, so a solar day is of a different duration to a sidereal day.[pause] As just seen for the earth, the time difference between a solar day and a sidereal day is marginal for the outer six planets. [pause]These planets only progress  a minor portion of their orbit during a sidereal day. [pause]Alternatively Mercury and Venus progress through large sections of their orbits during their sidereal days.[pause] Thus their sidereal days and solar days are noticeably of different durations to the outer six.[pause][thoughtful].[long pause]The ratios. [pause]Mercury [smiling][sexily]nigh precisely has performed two orbits for each of its solar days. [pause]During that time, Mercury has turned three times [alluring]on its axis from the view point of the background stars. [pause]Meaning Mercury experiences three sidereal days for each of its solar days. [pause]Concurrently [sexily]Venus experiences one solar day for every two Mercury sidereal days and three sidereal days to every two earth years.[pause]Venus passes between the earth and the sun [alluring]every five hundred and eighty five days.[pause] During this period Venus has experienced a precision of 5 solar days.[pause] All put together, this suggests the Mercury rotation rate is governed by the actions of the Mercury sun axis, and the Mercury Venus axis. [pause]It implies the Venus rotation rate is governed by the actions of the Venus sun axis, the earth Venus axis and the Venus mercury axis. [thoughtful] Mainly, these ratios are so close to  exact that they cannot be and should not be dismissed as an interesting series of coincidences of the solar system and the universe.[big smile][pause][long pause]edit off

The tides through simple arithmetic and Newton's third law in the next video. To finish this introduction to why Venus turns backwards off, some emphasis goes onto these ratios. If your understanding of the universe to does not carry an explanation of the ratios, it is not yet  an understanding of the universe. Doing the tides through simple arithmetic and Newton's third law quite leads to a insight into how and why the rotation rates  of the planets This introduction to non mathematical physics for tomorrow concludes with tare all codependent. Adjacent planets have their Kepler third law relative speeds running through each others orbit is all the insight is. With the table, the difference between a sidereal day and a solar day.  A solar day is when the same face of a planet is facing the sun once again.  In contrast, a sidereal day is when the same face of a planet is facing the same background stars again. With the outer six planets turning many times during each of their orbits of the sun, the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day isa marginal duration. Whereas Venus and Mercury have rotation rates of the order of their orbital periods. In fact Mercury nigh precisely has two solar orbits for each of its solar days. During that time, Mercury has turned three times on its axis from the view point of the background stars. Which suggests that the Mercury rotation rate is influenced by the Mercury sun axis and also the Venus Mercury axis. Meanwhile Venus experiences  three sidereal days to every two earth years and, when Venus passes between the earth and the sun every five hundred and eighty five days, Venus has experienced 5 solar days. All put tohis suggests the Venus rotation rate is governed by the Venus sun axis, the earth Venus axis and the Venus mercury axis. These ratios are so close to the exact that they cannot be dismissed as an interesting series of coincidence of the universe.ides through moonshot arithmetic  and Newton's third law in the next video. To finish this introduction to why Venus turns backwards off, some emphasis goes onto these ratios. If your understanding of the universe to does not carry an explanation of the ratios, it is not yet  an understanding of the universe. Doing the tides through simple arithmetic and Newton's third law quite leads to a insight into how and why the rotation rates  of the planets 

Hello.[long pause]At the bottom of this table you can notice a diagram. [pause]It is suggesting at least theoretically where Venus gets its impetus to be doing its backwards rotation. [pause]During a solar alignment of Venus, earth  and the sun, the earth sun high tide axis is passing through the Venus gravity field. [pause] Now Venus has the superior relative or Kepler third law speed of these two planets. [pause]So, as Venus advances beyond the alignment, this axis gets carried from its [sexily]straight line path to the sun. [pause]The consequence of this is an original impetus for both the earth and Venus gravity fields to turn backwards as each progresses further around the galaxy. [long pause]If you can take that in, that's the [sexily]Australian beginning of the idea of why Venus is turning backwards relative to most other solar system planets. [pause]The first glance implication or meaning is Mercury and Venus are celestial bodies akin to the moon. [pause]The rotation rates of those bodies is quite or more directly controlled by the rotation rates of their gravity fields. [pause]No equations, that is the way it has started to appear to [alluring]celestially be from down under here.[pause] [long pause] edit of.zing

Click here to start customiVenus has the superior relative or Kepler third law speed of the two bodies. [pause]So, as it advances beyond the alignment, this axis gets bent and  deviates from its [sexily]straight line path to the sun. [pause]This causes an original impetus for both the earth and Venus gravity fields to turn backwards as each progresses further around the galaxy. [long pause]If you can take that in, that's the [sexily]Australian beginning of the idea of why Venus is turning backwards relative to most other solar system planets. [pause]The first glance implication or meaning is Mercury and Venus are celestial bodies akin to the moon. [pause]The rotation rates of those bodies is quite or more directly controlled by the rotation rates of their gravity fields. [pause]At least that is the way it has started to appear to [alluring]celestially be from down under here.[pause] [long pause] edit of.zing

Hello.[long pause]At the bottom of this table you can notice a diagram. [pause]It is suggesting at least theoretically where Venus gets its impetus to be doing its backwards rotation. [pause]During a solar alignment of the earth, Venus and the sun, the earth sun high tide axis is passing through the Venus gravity field. [pause]Venus has the superior relative or Kepler third law speed of the two bodies. [pause]So, as it advances beyond the alignment, this axis gets bent and  deviates from its [sexily]straight line path to the sun. [pause]This causes an original impetus for both the earth and Venus gravity fields to turn backwards as each progresses further around the galaxy. [long pause]If you can take that in, that's the [sexily]Australian beginning of the idea of why Venus is turning backwards relative to most other solar system planets. [pause]The first glance implication or meaning is Mercury and Venus are celestial bodies akin to the moon. [pause]The rotation rates of those bodies is quite or more directly controlled by the rotation rates of their gravity fields. [pause]At least that is the way it has started to appear to [alluring]celestially be from down under here.[pause] [long pause] edit of.

During a solar alignment of the earth, Venus and the sun, the earth sun high tide axis is passing through the Venus gravity field. [pause]Venus has the superior relative or Kepler third law speed of the two bodies. [pause]So, as it advances beyond the alignment, this axis gets bent and  deviates from its [sexily]straight line path to the sun. [pause]This causes an original impetus for both the earth and Venus gravity fields to turn backwards as each progresses further around the galaxy. [long pause]If you can take that in, that's the [sexily]Australian beginning of the idea of why Venus is turning backwards relative to most other solar system planets. [pause]The first glance implication or meaning is Mercury and Venus are celestial bodies akin to the moon. [pause]The rotation rates of those bodies is quite or more directly controlled by the rotation rates of their gravity fields. [pause]At least that is the way it has started to appear to [alluring]celestially be from down under here.[pause] [long pause] edit of.

The earth experiences two high and two low tides a day. If we have a quick look at the basis of finite inverse square law theory, you can see that the earth's gravity field shape goes some way towards  mirroring  the tidal shape of the earth.  The next part of the theory is gravity fields have intertwined turn rates that govern the day lengths of the planets that they contain. If such is right and  treated well by the academic world, it could result in a healthy dose of world betterment. If it is right, the reason of the universe is getting to be in the range of being understood. First have a look at these tables. What is the probability of the near exact ratios that exist between the inner three planets. Then the outer six planets in pairs all have similar day lengths. First Earth and Mars with approximately 24 hours in a day each. Then Jupiter and Saturn with the approximate 10 earth hours each. Lastly Uranus and Neptune ranging between 16 and 18 earth hours. Like Venus, Uranus turns backwards relative to the other planets. As you can see is theoretically suggested at the bottom of the table, this table is a consequence of an the solar tidal axis of an outer planet passing through and providing a rotational impetus of the gravity field of the next planet in.  The overall result being the Kepler third law speed of an outer planet becoming embedded in the path around the sun the next planet in is following. In two dimensions and ignoring the ellipses but otherwise to scale you get a solar system rotational mechanics like appears here.

As you will have noticed. that apple was descending directly along the path of the earth. In reality all descents follow a curved paths through space. They  have accelerations or decelerations in all three dimensions. One dimension is the path of a gravity field. The other two are the dimensions at a right angle to that path. More about this later. At this stage we will just mention that professors around the world have a little book keeping to do for the sake of not teaching lies at the lower levels of learning. It  was in 1783 that William Herschel  effectively demonstrated that the Copernican revolution had made a mistake. The revolution had mistakenly fixed the sun in the center of the universe. Both Galileo and Newton had developed a rationale of how the earth could be suspended above a stationary sun gravity field . Their rationale was tangled in with Galileo's correction of Aristotle's idea of force being required for a motion to exist. They had not realized that had the planets ascending in the sun's gravity field as part of their solution. Suffice to say at this stage junior class rooms need to be taught the progression from the fixed earth belief to the fixed sun belief to the moving sun appraisal. In reality the earth and other planets would spiral into the sun if its fravity field was fixed in the center of the universe of anywhere else.

The title of this video comes from this email. The old man who received it had wished to explain to a physics department that you understand the tides through moonshot arithmetic and Newton's third law.

The professor had not been presented with a theory of gravity and the old man didn't really have one beyond what logically followed from understanding the tides through moonshot arithmetic and Newton's third law.   All he was saying was the government should not be teaching every particle in the universe is attracting every other particle in the universe as the truth of the universe.  And that it was that teaching that obscuring understanding the tides through moonshot arithmetic and Newton's third law.

So, post the email, the exercise was to put the theory together. If the choice comes down to being between finite inverse square law gravity theory, which is what theory is, and Einstein's space time continuum, the finite gravity easily has the edge when  Occam's razor is applied. For those not familiar with it, Occam's razor, it  is, when faced with a complex solution and simpler solution,  the most probable right answer between is the simpler one. This diagram here is the mathematical basis of the finite gravity field theory. Smaller gravity fields are contained within larger gravity fields. The razor aside, if such containment is right, Albert Einstein has missed the mark by a fair bit.

It does this by recognizing that descent is a motion relative to the motion of its cause. [pause]To be clear with terminology being used, [sexily]an inverse square law and a gravity field are one and the same. [pause]The structural nature of the inverse square law will be shown shortly. [pause] When Sir Isaac Newton saw his apple fall, unbeknownst to him and his legion of followers since, there is a 500 50 chance the apple lost momentum, that is slowed down, as it fell. [pause] Then regained that lost momentum as it landed on its English soil.[pause] Understanding that a descent can either be a loss of momentum or a gain of momentum is the key to understanding how a moving gravity field can cause a suspension above its self.[pause] This illustration or animation is exaggerated, the earth is moving too slow in relative terms, but notice how the apple slows down as if suspended during its descent. Then regains that lost speed  upon impact. [pause]So that is the second part of the theory.[pause] Descent is a motion relative to its cause. [pause] Both of Newton's and Einstein's theories are unfortunately ignorant in this area.[long pause] [long pause] edit off [short pause]

And few other things if time had of allowed.

The old man had only wanted to deal with the mistakes of Sir Isaac Newton. After the meeting the professor's all other pointed to Albert Einstein and his space time continuum.  Understanding the tides in this through 

If there was time in the three quarters of an hour allotted for the meeting to explain that you understand planetary motion through the motion of the sun's gravity and not through Newton's first law of motion. Then if things were going okay there, what follows is you understand the day lengths of the planets through the turn rates of their gravity fields. That could be going a bit far as that only really made sense if the universe and matter its self was a consequence of the end of space.

That little lot is very much Newtonian physics and its two main mistakes. The first of multiplying masses together to explain a mutual gravitation running throughout the universe. The second of believing Newton's first law was more than statement of fact. That somehow it explained why the earth does not fall into the sun amongst other things. Doing that is relatively straight forward. It would have been hoped with that done Einstein's theories would fall where they did. 

Well that's the email. If the sentiment had of been registered before the advent of Albert Einstein, there is a chance it may have done the world a bit of good.  Because arguments in favor of Einstein are so well honed, whether Einstein be right or wrong, it is almost impossible for his gravity theory to be wrong on earth. A while after the receival of this enail, t least in part, this is where an old man questioning Einstein through AI ended up.

 Your skepticism is entirely warranted. A mathematical symbol cannot cause time to exist, nor does it perfectly capture what time actually is. If you ask a physicist, "What is time fundamentally?" the honest answer is that we do not know. General Relativity does not explain the underlying physical nature of time; it only provides a highly accurate mathematical map of how time behaves when you move mass around. The minus sign is just the ink on that map that keeps the math from breaking the speed limit of light.

The background to this email is someone who is an old man now having seen problems within the physics of Sir Isaac Newton when at school. Prior to the meeting, this is the old man endeavoring to get through to see a physics professor. As evidence that he was at least trying while the international world was going half mad, he recorded the call. 

It wasn't that phone call that resulted in the meeting but that is not important. Beyond that recording the old man does not see him self as much to listen to or look at to explain to the world where well, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein have created an unnecessary mess for us to be living through. The mess really traces back at least as far as Aristotle but Newton and Einstein are the reference points for understanding what we are calling gravity.

The old man was not educated in the work of Einstein. Photo's of the old man are not plentiful but this one would be taken a little prior to realizing that both Galileo and Newton were having an impossible solution to planetary motion taught. And, In Newton's case. the same impossible deal for the tides. The year is known to be 1971 for this photo. At the time of the taking of the photo, he would not have been standing there thinking Newton and Galileo are wrong. Never the less he knew they were at the time.

The old man did do okay at secondary school. In particular at physics. He lost a few marks in his physics exam at the end of the secondary school for leaving units off.  Otherwise it was a perfect score according to the state government of Victoria at the time. So that is his qualification for saying both Newton and Einstein made mistakes that are holding the world separate from truth.

Until sometime after receiving the professor's email, he had little interest in grappling with the work of Einstein. After pointing out Sir Isaac's mutual gravitation mistake, all he wanted to do was tell the professor that you understand the tides through moonshot arithmetic and Newton's third law. Mainly that. In the background was also the superior motion of the sun's gravity field explaining planetary motion relative to the sun and not the impossible Newton first law of motion fixed gravity field one that was still being taught at secondary school. And then there was something that should be able to balance the mess of mutual gravitation and fixed gravity field orbital motion if things got that far. And that is these tables here. Once you are seeing the tides through moonshot arithmetic and Newton's third law, it is almost impossible to not consider that the tides of one planet are running through the orbit of an adjacent planet so as there day length relationships between the planets.

During the short meeting with the professor, it was found that he was not really listening to what was being said to him about mutual gravitation being a mathematical impossibly. He was fishing around for things to say in its favor while the old man was explaining the impossibility on the whiteboard.

So the next day email came as a bit of surprise. Perhaps it shouldn't have. On the drive home, the old man realized he had not drawn attention to the probability of gravity field turn rates being the explainer of the day lengths of the planets.  So he emailed the professor that night asking him to scroll down to the bottom of the webpage that he had all his explanatory diagrams on. So it can only be presumed that the table somehow captured the professor's attention. Obviously, if it is right, it is big news.

The truth of the meeting would be both men were out of their depth at the time about the historical relationship between Newton and Einstein. The professor can speak for himself on that, according to the old man's replacement professor, Gemini, AI, he is still head of Melbourne physics department in 2026. Meeting with physic's professors are very hard to get and, as long as AI is able to produce a reasonable representation of where the world of mathematical physics is at, it is much easier to get along with. The old man has found that you can actually reason with AI and he gets a little chuffed and quite encouraged when AI agrees with all the problems and contradictions he points out in the world of mathematical physics.

The old man's position with Einstein had been show that mutual gravitation is wrong and let general relativity fall where it does. He had no governmental relationship with Einstein. Only his one with Newton that traced back to the late sixties of last century. He had no wish to become preoccupied with Einstein and really just wanted to see a little more of the world than what he had in his old age.  This is where AI ended up with the old man questioning Einstein.  Your skepticism is entirely warranted. A mathematical symbol cannot cause time to exist, nor does it perfectly capture what time actually is. If you ask a physicist, "What is time fundamentally?" the honest answer is that we do not know. General Relativity does not explain the underlying physical nature of time; it only provides a highly accurate mathematical map of how time behaves when you move mass around. The minus sign is just the ink on that map that keeps the math from breaking the speed limit of light.

If gravity field turn rates explain why we live 24 hours in a day, there is no such thing as a space time continuum. The implication being what is referred to as time dilation is either changes in either gravity or changes in a state of motion altering atomic clocks. Today's physicists are convinced that is not possible. That can be left at that and the future can decide. Here we will just rewrite secondary school physics.  Suffice to say, if Sir Isaac Newton had not multiplied two masses together to explain the gravity of the universe back in his day, there would have been Einstein or space time continuum today. Mathematical physics likes to say Newtonian gravity is an approximation of Einstein's work. That way Newton doesn't get thrown out. But Einstein completely disavowed mass multiplication. Gravity travelling instantaneously as in the Newtonian world and gravity travelling at the speed of light are not approximately the same. His mass multiplication aside, in this rewrite Newton was closer to the mark than Einstein. Both both wrong when seeing gravity as a transmission.