«S represents the light source, while r represents the measured points. The lines represent the flux emanating from the source. The total number of flux lines depends on the strength of the source and is constant with increasing distance, where a greater density of flux lines (lines per unit area) means a stronger field. The density of flux lines is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source because the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the radius. Thus the strength of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source». Look at link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
Here it is very important to note that the field lines (their power, if one can say so) do not decrease from the distance (that is, they do not change at a distance, only their amount per unit area changes). It can be assumed that, on the basis of the inverse square law, Newton formulated the law of gravity, which has been verified experimentally, and its correctness does not cause any doubt. But here it is necessary to take into account one fact. When studying the dependence of the intensity on the sphere from a source (placed at the center), we actually have 3D (motion in 3 dimensions). But when moving, for example, the Earth around the Sun, we have 2D (motion in 2 dimensions), which confirms the law of conservation of angular momentum, which in fact in a closed system (for example, the Sun-Earth) prohibits motion in 3 dimensions, so we have a movement in 2 dimensions.
Therefore, here it is logical to place the light source in the center of the circle, and then to see how the dependence of the light intensity in 2D decreases. But, we know for sure that it decreases according to the inverse square law. Therefore, if all this is modeled on a circle (2D), then the intensity will depend on the length of the circle (the longer the circle (the greater the radius), the smaller the density of the lines of force per unit length), this is 1/r. But once again I remind you that we know for sure that the intensity of the gravitational field changes as F = f (1/r^2). Therefore, we have to assume (we are actually faced with the fact) that the intensity of the force field (the gravitational field), more precisely the beam itself, also varies according to the 1/r law, and only now we will have the law of inverse squares. That is, we have obtained that the intensity of the "ray" of the gravitational field decreases according to the law 1/r, to this the dependence on the length of the circle is added and we obtain F = f (1/r^2).
This result is rather unexpected, but if we consider the general theory of relativity, then everything should be so. After all, according to GT Einstein, gravity is the curvature of space-time. But it is easy to see that if we have a curvature from a certain mass m1, then with a distance this curvature (that is, the gravitational field) will decrease according to a definite law (the mathematical formulation of the law is now not important), and at any arbitrarily large distance the gravitational field will be zero. This is logical, there is no curvature of space-time, there is no attraction. Using the law of gravitation of Newton this can not be obtained, since there will always be a force (arbitrarily small) attraction. But if gravity is a curvature of space-time, then the attraction of two masses will depend on the curvature of space-time, and not on distance. If we represent two masses m1 and m2 located at a certain (small) distance r, and if we assume that some angel of Einstein will not allow the curvature of space-time from these masses, even though they will be placed at a distance of 1 meter (or 1 millimeter, etc.), there will be no attraction.
Therefore, we must recognize the obvious fact that the gravitational attraction does not depend on the distance between the bodies a from the curvature of space-time between them (which is confirmed by GR). Moreover, at a certain distance (arbitrarily large) from the large body M1 there will be a point in which a small body (in comparison with M1) m1 will not experience gravitational attraction to M1. Suppose (for convenience) that a small body m1 does not warp space-time, and the curvature of the body M1 is already zero. In this case, the attraction between them will be zero.
Moreover, if we take the trial body m1 (which does not warp space-time) and remove it from the body M1, then it is understood that the curvature of space-time will decrease, and hence the gravitational force, for example, will decrease to a small body ( in comparison with M1) m2. And especially we note that from nowhere it does not follow that the gravitational force should decrease according to the law of inverse squares at any distances, it will entirely depend on the metrics of space-time. But using Newton's formula, and considering that the "power, density" of the "ray of gravity" will decrease as 1/r, we can draw certain conclusions.
So, if the motion is in 2D, that is, in a circle, then we get the dependence of the gravitational force on the distance as a function of F = f (1/r^2). If, however, the distances between the bodies are so great that the motion along the circle is already impossible (no "gravitational beam" falls on the unit of the length of the circle), then the motion becomes 1D, that is, one-dimensional (there or vice versa).  And then the gravitational force from the distance will change as a function of F = f(1/r).  And only after that, at a certain distance, there will be a point where the gravitational attraction to the test body m1 (which does not bend) will be zero. Naturally, only at very large distances the function will be "pure", that is, exactly correspond to the formula F = f(1/r).  At much smaller distances (there will actually be a "mixture of two dependencies", if one can say so: F = f(1/r^2) and F = f(1/r)), this will be fixed as "anomalies" of the gravitational force (see effect "Pioneer" Pioneer anomaly - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly ). But this is just a change in the curvature of space-time from distance according to Einstein'sn General Relativity.
It should be noted that if the motion is in 3D (in 3 dimensions, for example, in black holes, stars, etc.), then we get the dependence of the gravitational force on the distance as a function of F = f (1/r^3).
As already mentioned above, at a certain distance (arbitrarily large) from a large body M1 there will be a point (let's call it point A) in which a small body (in comparison with M1) m1 will not experience gravitational attraction to M1. Now on this line (remember that this is 1D), arbitrarily far from the point A in the other direction we place another large body M2 (the masses M1 and M2 are comparable), whose curvature at the point A will also be zero.
As we see, since the bodies M1 and M2, strongly curving space-time near themselves, and further weaker and even weaker, between them actually formed a bump of curved (and not curved) space-time. Assuming that space-time has such a characteristic as "elasticity," it will try to "straighten up", which in fact will mean "repelling" of bodies M1 and M2, that is, their acceleration. Moreover, as they are removed, the "amount" of space-time between them (M1 and M2) will increase, that is, the "pushing force" will increase. Thus, it can be concluded that the dark energy is the energy of the space-time curved in a certain way between strongly removed and massive bodies, that is, galaxies. It follows that the dispersal of galaxies is a consequence of the gravitational repulsion of galaxies at very large distances, when objects move in fact in 1D (in one-dimensional space).
This model can also explain the dark matter: the galaxy can form a uniform curvature of space-time and then the velocities of the objects will be almost the same (the curvature is the same, and hence the gravitational attraction is also the same).
P.S. It is obvious that the motion in galaxies and solar systems (at typical distances for them) will be basically 2D, and between galaxies (at many large distances) will be 3D. If we consider the general case, then strictly speaking the values for the degrees are not so important (F = f(1/r^2) and F = f(1/r)), it is important that the force of attraction between the masses depends on the curvature (metrics) of space-time between them (mathematical equations at different distances can (and should) be in the general case different). The cardinal change in the metric of space-time will be reflected not only by a change in the mathematical equation but also by a change in the direction of the force (attraction-repulsion).
Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond:
See new theoretical model of the chemical bond is proposed based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle pp. 92 - 103 Review (135 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond).
http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v3.pdf
1. Structure of the benzene molecule on the basis of the three-electron bond.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0152v1.pdf    
2. Experimental confirmation of the existence of the three-electron bond and theoretical basis ot its existence.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0151v2.pdf
3. A short analysis of chemical bonds.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0149v2.pdf
4. Supplement to the theoretical justification of existence of the three-electron bond.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0150v2.pdf
5. Theory of three-electrone bond in the four works with brief comments.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1607.0022v2.pdf
6. REVIEW. Benzene on the basis of the three-electron bond (93 p.).
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0018v5.pdf
7. Quantum-mechanical aspects of the L. Pauling's resonance theory.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0333v2.pdf
8. Quantum-mechanical analysis of the MO method and VB method from the position of PQS.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0068v1.pdf
9. Review (135 pages, full version). Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v3.pdf
Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra): 
http://vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych
This screenshots (foto) (most with explanation) see by this link. Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (archive.org):
https://archive.org/details/@threeelectronbond