Earthlings, this Sir Isaac Newton of yours used sleight of hand magic to explain high tides to himself and his peers of the day. This chicanery did not involve the in his name naughty law of gravity that you have subsequently persisted with right up to now.

Sir Isaac Newton's original explanation. As distance from the moon increases, the rate of fall towards the moon decreases. This meant to your inverse square law hypnotist that an ocean further from the moon rises relative to one closer to the moon.

Sir Isaac Newton's original explanation. As distance from the moon increases, the rate of fall towards the moon decreases. This meant to your inverse square law hypnotist that an ocean further from the moon rises relative to one closer to the moon.

In case you didn't see it, the small black arrow is pointing in the wrong direction to cause a high tide on the side of your planet away from your moon.

What you should have done for yourselves long ago is introduce relevant earth and moon inverse square law magnitudes into Sir Isaac's original explanation. Inverse square law magnitudes are the measure of a rate of acceleration towards a body at a particular distance from the body. The greater the distance from the body, the less the rate of acceleration towards the body.

In case you didn't see it, the small black arrow is pointing in the wrong direction to cause a high tide on the side of your planet away from your moon.

What you should have done for yourselves long ago is introduce relevant earth and moon inverse square law magnitudes into Sir Isaac's original explanation. Inverse square law magnitudes are the measure of a rate of acceleration towards a body at a particular distance from the body. The greater the distance from the body, the less the rate of acceleration towards the body.

So, for the sake of your Sir Isaac's naughty summation of the universe, we allow that the moon's inverse square law actually extends to your beautiful earth. Then, using a lunar surface inverse square law magnitude of 1.6 metre/second/second and using earth checkable basic inverse square law calculations, at the average separation of your earth and moon, the magnitude of the moon's inverse square law at the large black arrow is or would be 0.000033 m/s/s. And the magnitude of the moon's inverse square law at the small black arrow is or would be 0.000031 m/s/s.

The magnitude of your planet's inverse square law at both the small and large black arrows is 9.8 m/s/s. Subtracting the large black arrow from 9.8 m/s/s, the result is a rate of acceleration towards your planet of 9.799967 m/s/s. Except for the middle of your planet moving towards its moon as part of the stretch when it is being used as a fixed point of reference, a high tide under your moon relative to 1 and 2 would be arithmetically explained to you by your Sir Isaac Newton.

At the small black arrow the direction of fall towards your earth and moon is coincidental. On that side the small black arrow magnitude is thus added to your planet's 9.8 m/s/s. Not subtracted. This yields a resultant rate of acceleration of 9.800031 m/s/s directed towards your beautiful planet. Which would be the lowest of low tides, not the high tide that Sir Isaac's lunar relativity required. Workable arithmetic involving both earth and moon inverse square laws was always absent from your Sir Isaac's thought patterns. He hasn't realised the introduction of your earth's inverse square law would make lunar relativity the impossible high tide explanation that it was.

As on your YouTube explanation above, in his abstract world what Sir Isaac did for you was entertain a theoretical situation outside his own law of mutual gravitation. With respect of your moon, Sir Isaac treated your earth as a celestial mass and a celestial mass alone. His lunar relativity was respect absent of your beautiful earth's inverse square law. Also the fact that Sir Isaac did not use his own law of gravity to explain high tides should tell you that falling fruit does not necessarily produce an understanding of a universe.

As your scholarship progressed beyond the life of Sir Isaac, his lunar relativity idea became a little less than complete sense for some of your great earth scholars. At the same time, you were finding that your earth's orbit of the sun adjusts in distance from the sun as the moon orbits the earth.

So another explanation of the high tide rising against the direction of fall towards the moon came to be. This next choice used Sir Isaac's law of gravity at a level above where Sir Isaac had left it. Sir Isaac had not envisaged a universe endowed with myriads of joint centres of gravity. So, using the adjustment of your earth's orbit around the sun as the moon orbits the earth as satisfactory proof of almost all things Newton, another explanation came to be on this beautiful planet of yours. The basis of this other explanation is your earth and moon are rotating around a joint centre of gravity that is within the earth and on the moon close side of the earth. This creates a centrifugal force on the far side of the earth that is throwing water out. Or so some of your great modern scholars say. This next choice continued in the vein of disrespecting the fact that your beautiful earth has an inverse square law.

As evidenced by the YouTube explanation above, this centrifugal idea did not cause you to destroy Sir Isaac's original idea. Including your Albert Einstein during his lifetime, some of your academics swore by simple lunar relativity and found their inventive ways and words to demonstrate that it was vector sound after all.

With this subsequent centrifugal idea, the implication is there is a gravity field centre to one side of your earth that is bigger than the earth's gravity field itself. Much more work would be needed to be done to demonstrate how that could be so.

On this particular diagram, the centrifugal force is in the wrong direction on the moon close side of the earth.

There is no articulated correlation with the spring - neap aspect of the tides (the implication is there is an earth-sun joint centre of rotation within the sun that would be causing a gigantic centrifugal force through your earth).

There is no explanation of how your joint earth-moon centre constantly relocates as your earth turns on its central axis. Or how a point inside your planet can be an axis of rotation of the two bodies. Or what happens when a joint centre of gravity mathematically occurs outside of each body. Then, if the moon was a little more massive, the joint centre would be occurring outside of both the earth and the moon. Would that be even possible? A pivot point of celestial bodies outside the bounds of matter?

In the first place your centrifugal idea was dependent on a joint centre of gravity between the earth and the moon being the explanation of the adjustment of your earth across its solar orbit as the moon orbits your beautiful earth. When you get to planetary motion through the motion of the sun's inverse square law and to the quadrant nature of inverse square laws, you should easily be able to see that the adjustment has a more plausible otherwise explanation. Like, as they fall around the galaxy, pushes between the inverse square laws within the overall motion of the sun's inverse square law.

With this subsequent centrifugal idea, the implication is there is a gravity field centre to one side of your earth that is bigger than the earth's gravity field itself. Much more work would be needed to be done to demonstrate how that could be so.

On this particular diagram, the centrifugal force is in the wrong direction on the moon close side of the earth.

There is no articulated correlation with the spring - neap aspect of the tides (the implication is there is an earth-sun joint centre of rotation within the sun that would be causing a gigantic centrifugal force through your earth).

There is no explanation of how your joint earth-moon centre constantly relocates as your earth turns on its central axis. Or how a point inside your planet can be an axis of rotation of the two bodies. Or what happens when a joint centre of gravity mathematically occurs outside of each body. Then, if the moon was a little more massive, the joint centre would be occurring outside of both the earth and the moon. Would that be even possible? A pivot point of celestial bodies outside the bounds of matter?

In the first place your centrifugal idea was dependent on a joint centre of gravity between the earth and the moon being the explanation of the adjustment of your earth across its solar orbit as the moon orbits your beautiful earth. When you get to planetary motion through the motion of the sun's inverse square law and to the quadrant nature of inverse square laws, you should easily be able to see that the adjustment has a more plausible otherwise explanation. Like, as they fall around the galaxy, pushes between the inverse square laws within the overall motion of the sun's inverse square law.