neuvophysics.com

unique content

G-theory

A new highly accurate
G-less
N-metric
gravity equation

---replacing

ASSERTATION:

First of all I suggest
that you examine the
Newton's bad day
tab before analysing the following. It
is necessary for it to be understood that he erred in the manner described on
that page as well as his not taking the spin of the Earth into account, Big G
did the job of fudging but we need a new equation which is able to iron out
those wrinkles and in so doing simultaneously provide model support for the
gravitational theory suggested herein and deny support for any inverse square
law model including general relativity.

THE N-METRIC GRAVITATIONAL FORMULA AND THE 'SEP'
VIOLATION DATA!

Back in the day when the early scientists were working out all the terms
and relationships of physics, they seemed to have completed the task of
accurately relating the meter, the second, the kilogram and the joule etc. That
all appeared to be going really fine until they dropped an object in the
Earth's gravitational field and found that it accelerated at a lower rate than
the math predicted.

Let's for a moment pretend we are

Something was wrong; it's quite obvious we now have weight that doesn't
equal mass as we had supposed. This seems to have been completely lost on
everyone who in the main still think that weight and mass are the same thing on
earth.

Now the weight and the gravitational force appear to be the same thing
which is good enough for now! The weight is now only 0.981Kg but unfortunately
we equated that weight to 1kg of mass. So now we might suspect we have... 1kg
mass =0.981kg of weight. What do we do? We've got something wrong in the
derivation of relationships but what.

The equivalence principle says that the inertial and gravitational
acceleration rates are the same so let's use F=ma to find out what's wrong. m=
a/ F

Gravitational
...
Mass=acc rate / Gravitational force (weight) m = 9.81/1 =9.81kg... What the;
now the mass is 9.81kg?

Let's just check that out carefully.

We weighed an object equal to the weight of one litre of water and
called that 1kg... W=1kg and then we affirmed (SEP) to ourselves, in that the
same force applied to W or m would derive the same acc-rate and we subsequently
found that if we applied 1kgF of force to the 1kg mass in space (sideways) it
would achieve an acceleration rate of 10m/s/s and a velocity of 10m/s after one
second and ten meters but the equal weight we call the gravitational force
achieves
less.

Now we might conclude:

Inertial acc rate
...
from F=ma... 10=1x10

Gravitational
...
9.81=1 x 9.81

So now we have inertial mass=10kg and gravitational force (weight)
=9.81kg. What's wrong? The
mass
is still the same as the weight or force
in
either case so the only term we have left which could possibly be wrong is the
second.

Now we discover with a short lived sense of glee that the second is only
arbitrary. After all it's just a number we pulled out of our planetary orbit
hat so we could have something to pin time duration on. You might arrive at the
conclusion that for

You might argue that the second has no bearing in the non gravitational
inertia case. However that only applies if a force is not specified and to
compare both inertial cases we must utilize common values of terms or we might
be accused of committing fraud! Therefore we begin and end with one kilogram
force.

So there was another surprising alternative left for

Obviously the reason must be that the experiment which produced the
inertial terms for the space case wasn't actually correct because it wasn't
actually carried out in space!

So now we conclude that the weight and mass are
not
the same; so now we know that F=1kg,
so W=1kg and m=0.981kg. Aha!

Fundamental note: The real problem (which we can't do anything about
here on earth) is that the weight was measured and given a value that was TOO
HEAVY compared to what it would be if weighed in space. This is because a
serious SEP violation occurs at low altitudes because of proximity effects near
the surface of the earth up to an altitude of around 1000kms after which it
begins to reduce such that at geostationary orbit altitude it is essentially
non existent. So now we see things differently like

So from this we can conclude that mass and weight can only be equal at
some distance above the surface of the earth if at all. Whether or not this is
true or not we will discover in the following, but firstâ€¦

Let's check these term values. F=ma 9.81=1 x 9.81 correct.

What Newton maybe should have done in hindsight I guess, is to keep his
Newtons in his pocket and evaluate the energies involved as though the kgF was
still at home rather than getting confused by the new Newtons, and he would
then have had to simultaneously change the acc rate to be termed in meters per
second... per meter rather than m/s/s. let's have a look.

Then we would have F=ma 1=1 x 1m/s/m...

After one meter 1m/s

After two meters 2m/s

After
3m
3m/s

After
10m 10m/s

We could then leave the acceleration rate as anomalous and just provide
an adjustment for whenever acc-rate was required. However That isn't even
correct and you will soon find that true acc-rate into space is not calculable
by any of

Now we can arbitrarily try and rationalize the energy situation: The
inertial energy used to push the 1kg mass 1m in space was one Joule. The energy
to lift it in earth's gravity was 1J inertial + 1J gravitational (by SEP) =2J.
The energy of the fall is only one joule where did the other one go. Answer: It
went into accelerating the earth away from the object for one second (in
relative terms) because the g-force is still acting during that period. Mmm---
not so much!

When it comes to big G Newton should have derived 'G' with m=1kg, F=1kgF
and =W=1kg.

G=r^{2}/m_{e}

G=4.068e13/5.9736e24

G=7e-11

However even that theoretical -big G- won't be correct. That's because
Newton et al made another mistake in treating the gravities of bodies as point
source effects. G has real problems when it comes to ground proximity affects
and at the center of the earth.
There should be no gravity there. However
even though Big G fails at this, you will see that the G theory N-metric curve
is admiral in this respect. The only way for a G type inverse square law curve
to work inside the earth is to have a steeply falling curve from the surface
which would be ridiculous and you'd find miners floating around underground!

If you found that all to be too confusing; or reckon that all we need to
do is to change the mass to equal the weight to equal the gravitational force
and all will be well, then you need to study the

THE NEW G-less GRAVITATIONAL FORMULA AND THE 'SEP'
VIOLATION BLIP!

If the previous was
either indecipherable or at the very least arguable--- perhaps if an equation
was able to be derived which didn't require big G then that would be proof
enough.

This is then the argument for the case proposing the inability for
classical or G-rel derived equations to calculate true gravitational energy,*
by the derivation of a suitable equation for the purpose. Such an equation will
also show that the gravitational constant is a 'fudge'.
Note: This is supplementary to and complementary with the
'

*Even if they do concur with the centripetal force
equation which is similarly affected by n-metric gravitational perturbations.
To discover the deviations from reality we must first analyze the situation as
a mass/force error, but really there is a significant SEP energy violation which
will be proved in the following...

ABSTRACT

This strong equivalence
principle violation predicts that the gravity near black holes will be far
greater than that which is
currently expected.

Also scientists studying the NEAR, Cassini and Rosetta satellite flybys
recently noticed a serious
enough
gravitational anomaly to consider launching a mission specifically to gather
data to solve the problem and even discover what the problem might actually be,
and whether the SEP, EEP and QEP (principles) are actually correct.

The assertation being explained herein should go a long way to provide
them with predictability of results. This assertation also disallows any
Newtonian, Einsteinen, Lorentzian or dynamical three field theory resolutions.
Note: Refer also to my explanations for the Pioneer anomaly in the
G-theory thesis in the following 'assertation'.

According to a proposal of G-theory, space is full of invisible graviton
flux in the vacuum which offers an inverse-square-law drag force with velocity.
So from the calculations tabled in the thesis we find that -when using a close
but arbitrary speed of unilateral gravitons being c^{2}- the
deceleration rate -with the motive force removed- at a linear object velocity
of 9.155km/s is 6.4e-10 m/s/s. This is surprisingly (and most likely
profoundly) close to the noted deceleration
rate
for Pioneer 11, being
8.74e-10m/s/s. Any mathematician will know that this is essentially the same
deceleration rate as that calculated in that relevant G-theory thesis section
and presented here.

There will be some
significant range of error because the spacecraft is still being affected by
the sun (which is notably not quite directly behind it) by reason that it is
not yet in deep space, and away from the solar gravitational influence. Once
out on its own, deep space will continue to apply a drag force on Pioneer/s
relative to its velocity. Its deceleration rate will reduce rapidly once it
slows by half (which will take a seriously long time) and it will then take
aeons to decelerate much further because once below a couple of kms per second
the drag becomes essentially zero (e.g from the tabled calcs...1e-12N/kg drag).
The takeaway here is that the 'continuum' of momentum is a fallacy, so ditto
for the space time continuum. There is a better science to build on! Assess
G-theory.

By the way fellas; spare us the 'blowing on its own sails' conservation
law busting reason for the slow down! If you keep on absolving physics from any
more laws* there will only be one conclusion left, and that is that everything
occurs by miracles so why bother with science at all?!

*Any un-directed radiation will act in equal
directions on the spacecraft. Last time I looked I didn't see an ion drive unit
on Pioneer.

Moving on: Whenever we attempt to compute gravitational relationships
-except for basic earth surface relationships- we find ourselves having to
utilize the gravitational constant 'G'. We might ask ourselves. "What is
G?"

The answer to that might take various forms but one to be expected is
that 'G' is sort of floating round out there throughout all the gravitational
metric and somehow dynamically affecting the gravitational forces in a constant
non partisan manner.

Is big G some sort of mathematical adjustment tied to the space time
metric? Let's analyse it and discover what it is and how it was derived.

When Newton et al derived the formula for gravitational relationships
he/they began with the premise (assumption) that the gravitational force
between bodies was computable by the product of the two masses and not by
addition, which of course turned out to be wildly erroneous.
However the product computation method wasn't exactly correct either but

Einstein picked up on the fact that Ampere's experiments demonstrated
the force between two wires conducting electricity was by the product of the
currents so he decided to fully agree with

So we are able to conclude, and it will soon be proved that 'G' is
actually a
correction
because the absolutely correct formula was unable to be derived at the
time
.
Which by the way was no fault of

The main reason however was because of the conviction that -'the sum of
the gravities between bodies was computable by the product of the masses of the
bodies divided by the square of the distance between them'- Einstein held to
that idea and in fact it was he who stated it like that. Even though I might
slightly disagree with him but like Einstein has done with his field equations
I have found it necessary to apply 'metric' modifiers but this time closer to
'home' where they belong and without the GR metric or Newton's big G. I.e. If
you get your adjustments corrected at the source of your gravitational affects
then you won't have to adjust the fields after all.

Now we already know that the summation of the gravities is not by the
addition of gravities, even though -by simple vector math- that consideration
is really the intuitive answer; so why not? Answer: You will have to refer to
the following assertation for that but on a summary note it must be clearly
understood that it is neither by the sum or the product but Einstein kept with
Newton's 'fudge' as well as his 'product' methodology.

Therefore if the following assertation is proven by the mathematics
involved which provides fact fitting results without 'G' then we can safely
assume that because Einstein's utilized big G then his field equations are
removed from being any proof that GR is a fact.

The quandaries existing regarding the gravitational interaction between
bodies is that even if we remove 'n' and 3 body problems from the equation* we
still have the unresolved problem that gravitational affects can't be generated
from 'point' source centers. Rather the complex relationships are via external
and affect-able gravitational flux acting variably and proportionally by
gravitational shadowing; and acting in similarly variable regard to different
sized bodes and objects which thereby have proportionately variable affects on
each other which are
not
completely
predictable by the
Newtonian or Einsteinian models regardless of the expected lies.

*We should be able to determine what the totality of these might be if
we hold to the first principles of the equivalence of gravity and inertia and
the laws of thermodynamics and energy-momentum conservation.
Asidenote: If light crosses a geodesic warp without
changing frequency then there is an energy conservation violation.

The first thing we might consider is that bodies/objects have differing
affects on each other consistent with distance and size differential. The size
(mass density related) differential has an inverse square relationship with
increasing distance quite in addition to the normally accepted inverse square law
discovered by Newton. On top of that -and never recognized as far as I know- is
that there is also another inverse square law relationship with size difference
at the
same
distance away. This then argues
for a new equation but how do we derive it?

The famous grandfather of gravity did actually think of such things as
these in his agonizing but in the end he ignored all of them except one. The
whole relationship which has been swept aside all acts in collusion with the
invariant
inverse square law, and it is the relationship summed up as--- 'the
distance between bodies with relevance to the size differential plus the
inverse square
affect
of that with the distance'. If
this is confusing then wait for the assertation and the new and accurate
gravitational equation.

The equation takes care of the three (three now?) inverse square law
relationships but runs into a few tiny problems with the 'traditionally'
calculated values (which I deem to be generally acceptable for the current
purposes). Firstly there is a problem because

This problem -which doesn't project linearly to make Newtonian mass
computations proportionally less for distant bodies
even though there is a slight lessening by
inverse square law- is totally overcome by separating the equation into two
parts: The first part is that which agrees with the Newtonian solution on the
earth's surface -still without 'G'- and the second part which can be used at
distances from the earth and beyond about two or three diameters solves for the
Einsteinian errors as well*. By ignoring very slight -statistically correct but
more accurate- mass difference at lower attitudes, accurate orbital altitude
data is now able to be computed at those traditionally problematic low
altitudes.

Apart from for these applications the traditional methods are fine.
However it should now be understood that at distances close to the earth (until
about geostationary orbit altitudes)
even
the centripetal equations will not be accurate
because the gravitational metric is
not an 'even' inverse square law point source phenomenon as understood to be
like a ball going around on a string!
Note: It will for all measurement, intents and
purposes
be
an inverse square function but the
noted derivatives of the function
vary
with altitude.

I have called this whole gravitational perturbation phenomenon the
'N-metric' problem and I suggest that you look forward to discovering that the
gravitational solution is neither the product nor the sum of gravities but
somewhere in between.

*Even though Einstein solved the distance
relationships. His calculated masses of bodies is in error because he held with
the same fundamental default 'fault' of considering point source gravitational
relationships by utilizing 'G' and now the GTR geodesic is about to be drawn
and quartered. If you don't wish to witness the execution then I suggest you
leave now.

ASSERTATION

We have considered and
must soon conclude that the values attributed by 'G' and centripetal force
equations to the masses of planets are incorrect because -even though the fixes
are now in- they are well known to not allow a true calculability of orbital
and planetary gravitational behaviour. Likewise the computed centripetal force
values only begin to become correct after about three earth diameters distance.
This is probably why scientists have trouble calculating true orbit data for
close earth orbits and launch energy requirements, and why the close orbit
satellites and flying-by spacecraft choose to ignore the traditional mathematics.
That points to a faulty paradigm and we can solve that with a true equation.

Revised values are fortunately able to be calculated by the equation to
be derived. That formula solves for all the results of the relevant equations
except Einstein's field equations which are fudged in their own way by the
valid technique of 'reverse engineering'. The herein featured revisionist
approach doesn't propose or otherwise cause any violation or adjustment to any
laws of classical physics, and such a correlation of gravity with the
fundamentals will uphold and promote the classical physics resolution of
gravitation mechanics over all others forms.

The likelihood that the
gravity on the surface of the earth is further removed than expected (by any
recognized n-body problem) from the gravity values expected relative to the
inverse square law in space, can be indicated by the idea that because an
object is at rest on the Earth's surface, some gravity (graviton transitions*)
is arriving through the forward overhanging 'shoulders' of the earth so to
speak. This is subjectively relative to gravity noted to be travelling in a
more parallel vector when otherwise evaluated with respect to a distant body.

In the real world we are able to disregard any size disparity metric
which doesn't affect our earth bound situation but this the affects the space
case. Apart from that we should realize that such gravity modification does not
occur once an object is several earth radii from the surface so it stands to
reason that we might now be able to tentatively toy with the concept of another
gravitational variable operating within a required and definable mathematical
relationship that would exist between the earth surface case and the infinite
distance, which effectively results in a de-rated gravitational affect.
N.B.
This unrecognized phenomenon would have been responsible for Cavendish's famous
experiment yielding an errant result for 'G' and the mass of the earth;
and also in his case the size disparity between the balls has relevance
in a metric which wasn't taken into account even though it will also affect the
experimental resolution in that particular case of close proximity:
Specifically with the bulk of the earth, from which erroneous mass evaluation
'G' was subsequently derived to compensate.

It must be understood that Cavendish's experimental results were
painstakingly derived and weren't incorrect per se. It's just that without
knowledge of the correct gravitational paradigm, his results 'are' the expected
results. I.e. the problem lay in the interpretation of prior findings and the
consequentially incorrect calculation of the mass of the Earth. This was only
by reason of the fact that any idea of such a distorted 'N-metric proximity
relative gravity field adjustment' and a shifted apparent center (apacenter)
was never conceived of! Such, unfortunately or fortunately
-depending on your point of view- is the nature of the search for
knowledge.

*G-theory.
Note:
Discover more valid reasons for the refutation of the Cavendish results in the
thesis.

Once defined, this gravitational affect is concluded to be primarily
effective for objects on or near the surface of the earth -any body- and the
affect causes a resultant extra vector force through surface objects which acts
vertically downwards through the object, consequently
increasing
the weight that would be realized
without such a phenomenon being at work. Such a vertical
weight increasing
force* remained unrecognized during
the time F_{g}
and
'
g'
were being calculated. So because the
values of those terms have historically been (are being) accepted as factual
this will result in an inter-body 'G' which will be inaccurate even though such
measurements as the lunar orbital 'r' and earth 'r' have been pegged down and
also accepted as fact. So in that case, the lunar mass, as well as all other
astronomical mass 'calcs' will by consequence, also be out of whack. As we have
seen this also upsets the mass-weight relationship--- Even at sea level.

*It's still one kilogram but it would be less than
expected if we were able to weigh it relative to a real point source mass that
existed at one earth radius from it; so the weight and consequently the mass is
measurably greater than the masses of equivalent bodies/objects in space so we
can expect those masses to be derated to some degree.

This previously unrecognized weight increase* which results in incorrect
comparative relationships between earth surface values and space values,
results (among other things) in a shift of the perceived center of gravity of
the earth. This makes a virtual center that appears to be closer to any
adjacent surface or close other-object/body being assessed in the vertically
downward direction.

Altitude changes alone slightly shift this apparent 'virtual' gravity
center from the geometric center radially and with inverse proportionality
towards or away from any object at rest or near the Earth's surface. I.e. when
an object gains or loses height; then the apacenter moves back towards and away
from the geocentric respectively, by inverse square law over altitude
(distance). When the two are at an infinite distance apart the apacenter and
the geocentric are relatively united.

In other words the gravity of an intimately associated large body does
NOT exhibit geocentric point source gravity parameters as referenced by the
small object. This of course makes 'male bovine digested hay' of both the
inverse square law and

The resulting surface gravity increase is degraded in space by 1/r^{2}
law -suggested and checked- over
increasing distance such that at about three to five earth orbitals it becomes
insignificant out to infinity.

*Reiterating another way: You will still weigh the
same but the gravity relationship between earth surface computations compared
to similar calculations in higher altitude space requires a further
proportional change by consequence. This is essentially addressing
perturbations under the new n-metric problem. Such problems are notable with
respect to low orbit satellites.

REEVALUATING AND RECALCULATING WITH THE AVAILABLE DATA

Even though the vector sum relationship for the extra gravity acting on
an object resting on the surface of the earth proved to defy computation by
your humble 'math student', I have used calculus to attempt to compute this
apparent gravity center shift by analyzing the earth gravity being affected by
the integral of the arc of significance through which the extra graviton
transitions occur. I have estimated it to be from 85 to 95% of the Earth 'r' of
6378100m, which is roughly 5000000m.
Note
whoops: it turned out to be conditionally about
6255468
m down. I
forgot to adjust by square law!
This
means that for a grounded object the apacenter is about 98% of the distance to
the geocenter. Remember gravity affects from the whole earth act by modified
inverse square law with distance across the diameter of the earth as well*.
This will have to be computed by the
new 'N-metric' equation alone---
It
was.
I looked forward to
checking back at this original prediction---
I
did.
Note also: the
gravity passing through the volume of the arc of the 'shoulders' is considered
to be increased by the transition but it is omnilateral and therefore vector
summed as a force acting downward through objects on the surface of the earth
and at low altitudes by 1/r^{3}
law
with distance from that new'
apacenter'---
I was right!

*By Gauss' 'even gravity' flux theorem. Note also the
difference is small but not insignificant when accuracy is called for to
support a mathematical geodesic.

There exist other perturbative n-body and N-metric factors, the latter
which are yet to be addressed but more significantly there is another
phenomenon which will be automatically included in the evaluation; one which
perturbativly readjusts and promotes the gravity center shift in the same
direction to some degree. That is likely to be the density metric which
summates density variations within the earth which (through information gleaned
from Wikipedia) I have estimated to be around 70-80% of 'r'. We should soon see
the reason why we will be able to peg this combination affect down to a true
percentage. This center is then adjusted further until the virtual 'r_{2.0}'
is approximately 98% of 'r'.

If we can't somehow adjust the notional constant big G in this gravity
revision case then the resulting value of F_{g}
in Newtons relative to 1kgF of
'holding' gravitational force (also in N per kg) would necessarily then become
the variable with a new value of F_{g}
being 9.39615N per kg. This is not an
option because the gravitational accelerative force of 9.81N always remains the
observed acceleration rate of freefall by a=F/m. so in effect '
g'
is a constant and so is an F_{g
}of 9.81N per kg unless we
ridiculously decided to readjust the kilogram.
Note: That might be logical but not a very appealing option for obvious
reasons. In some cases practicality trumps science! This problem should have
been fixed centuries ago and we wouldn't have to deal with it today.

However it might become reasonable -and also an apparent escape from the
incorrect Earth-mass problem- to expect that in order to correlate the
calculated results with observed experimental results we will be forced to
-case specifically- reevaluate 'G' which, -apart from notionally being expected
to affect calculations of inertial acceleration in space- is of course going to
affect the mass calculations of the moon, the solar system and of the sun for a
start, and unfortunately -for our short lived escape from mathematical harm-
also that of the Earth as well.

However apart from the sheer and considerable annoyance of having to
make changes to the literature etc, the solar-lunar cases are not a problem
because the (gravity/mass) of the sun is a nebulous concept by all accounts.
The exact measurements of the distance to planets has been achieved; but not
(exactly) to the sun whose 'size' halo, the actual circumference of the orbit
of the earth and therefore its mass are an educated guess, and this situation
becomes aggravated because common to every other planet and body the estimated
solar mass is also determined by beginning with the assumed mass of the earth
in any case and you know what happens when first assumptions are wrong!!

Of course with the new formula (based on fairly accurate closer to home
measurements) we will be able to resolve all of those values to the degree
reliant on the accuracy of the data in the record. Future adjustment to values
will be necessary, but not for the equation.

Please don't fret about this, because we are able to reverse calculate
the masses of the planets and the Earth by similar juxtapositions of values in
a circular manner with ever decreasing errors over time and after that we
should be able to reach a better consensus on the mass of the sun.
Note: I'm just going to deal with the earth, moon and a couple of
representative man made satellites with known parameters. I'll leave you to
recalculate every other mass to your hearts content.

So for now we will accept the geometric measurements of the earth as
being factual and we will have to live with the traditional assumption of its
mass just for now. Let's begin with an 'educated guess' calculation that
replaces the gravity geocenter of the earth with the adjusted apparent
gravitational center (apacenter)* and apply it to the Newtonian formula for gravitational
force on the surface of the earth ...answer in

1/ F_{g}=Gm_{e}m_{o}/r_{e}^{2}
(m_{o}
is the mass of the object which has a
mass of 1kg) then we have---

F_{g}=Gm_{e}/r_{e}^{2}
so by transposition of 'r' with
5747929.78M...

G=F_{g}r_{e}^{2}/m_{e}

G=9.81 x 5747929.78^{2}/5.9736e24 (N.kg.m)

G_{2.0
}=5.4257e-11

Well of course we get an incorrect value for 'G'. I don't expect
anyone's going to accept that. However I intend to make very clear that 'G' is
already easily calculated 'fudge' -that any school student can do- which is
there because the correct formula for universal gravitation has never been
discovered up to this point.

Because we live in a world of physics where the diameters and distances
to the closer bodies is now quite accurately known, that is able to be changed
but as for the mass calculations with the much revered 'G'; well they are all
over the place. The mass and orbitals not only don't work out with any harmony
at all with reference to the centripetal force equation or even Kepler's third
law equation but even going long hand via calculating angular velocities and
then transposing into other pertinent formulas doesn't do the trick either. It
seems that all those equations are colluding together to paradoxically give
accurate results that are all wrong. Take the next example for instance.

Visit
http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/5Page19.pdf

The featured formula is Kepler's third law equation...

m_{m}=4pi^{2}
r^{3}/GT^{2}.

YOU SHOULD NOTICE THAT BY UTILIZING THE POPULAR VALUE FOR 'G' OF
6.67e-11 NASA ARRIVED AT AN ANOMALOUS VALUE FOR LUNAR MASS OF 5.97e22kg when
the accepted value is around 7.4e22!! That really should have 'raised' more
than a few eyebrows. Instead NASA eventually came out with some lame brained
excuse which was still on that URL when last I looked.

THE REMOVAL OF big G... ?

Now I've always thought that a constant for no good
reason is likely to turn out to be a fudge. So we could now go with the idea
that we didn't need 'G' in the first place. Well we didn't, but in the end we
would have had to invent another constant value like it for ease of
calculations. That big fat fudge hides many a perturbative phenomenon but so
does the centripetal force equation; so the two have a nice marriage of
convenience that works; the 'spinner' and the 'fudge'.

However you can hide but you can't run. Neither of
those equations are able to calculate the true gravitational force they just so
happen to arrive at other correct results because
_{g}
at any altitude and between any body
is shown in the section that follows.

We will be deriving an apacenter* adjustment
for the earth as proposed in the supplement section above. From the equations
below we derive and triple check revised masses of the earth and the moon. We
can embark upon this process by beginning with the known accurate earth moon
geometric distance measurements and relating them with APOLLO 11 orbital data.
Note: with what I now know; in retrospect I should have begun with
geostationary earth satellite data because they are almost out of range of the
apacenter adjustment phenomenon. However this lunar method only results in a
slight inaccuracy of results. Please note also that the purpose of this
exercise is not to usurp Newton but to demonstrate that the much lauded
Einsteinian field equations are just as wrong as Newton's because they rely
on big G
which
of course becomes ratified by the metric adjustments in those equations. Once
we get to the geostationary orbit calculations you will see how accurate the
new equation is and if we reverse engineer from that we can readjust the moon
data slightly.

Exact solutions for Einstein's field
equations rely on symmetry when G-theory predicts there is no exact symmetry in
the Minkowski resolution of the weak gravitational metric of our solar system.
Both

*apparent center

Now we can get into the calculation proper by beginning with the well
known formula...

m_{m}=4 pi^{2}
r^{3}/GT^{2}.

(a1)
Moon mass
from APOLLO 11 data... (1) T=7200 (T^{2}
51840000)

orbital r=1737000* (2)
r=1843100 spacecraft mass=28801kg altitude 80-100km?

m_{m}=5.97e22kg
(from
the NASA URL)
Note: The first data set is from Apollo 11. This is
the one that NASA used so I just went out on a limb and followed suite. Their
data did not disappoint. The other set is from a later mission which gave
orbiter mass information which we can use for another purpose and to double
check.

*Note also: the orbiter appears to be orbiting below
the surface of the moon under the currently accepted moon radius of 6378100m.
This is not a mistake by NASA. The orbital radius is correct. The problem is
that the moon radius was wrong and it can now be adjusted because we have the
orbiter mass and radius data and a new equation which you'll probably just want
to see turned on in a real world exercise straight up. I will not disappoint
either. It's coming right up.

Also I was so fortunate that big G
had been derived from incorrect radius and mass evaluations for the earth and
moon. This is because of the fact that there was no large 'd' involved when
NASA used the K3 law equation to calculate the moon mass. It turned out to be
perfectly correct in spite of 'G'. This is because at very close distances and
disparate masses big G is accurate if there is no density stratification, and
the closer the distance the better. Because it was close to lunar surface
distance the one hundred meters underground (undermoon) error was paradoxically
a fantastic bonus for accuracy as you will soon see.

(b1)
Earth-moon centripetal force
(INTRACTABLE) based on the mass calculated above and the known earth moon 'd'
of 3.84995e8

F_{g}
=m_{m}r.4
pi^{2}/T^{2}
we
get...

=5.97e22 x 1.5199e10/5.8525e12

1.55041e20N
1.581e19kgF

F_{g}
_{
}
= (
sqrt
m_{b)}
m_{s}
4z*/
d^{2
}
(b =big, s=small)

That's it... no fanfare or sirens; just it! "What?..
that's all?"

Well not exactly... there is another tack-on modifier shown in the equation
and calculation which follows.

Let's have some fun with this full equation and compute the true radius
of the moon
without big G...
Note: we will take this N-metric formula from the moon to the Earth and
apply it to geostationary
(geosynchronous)
orbital data and notice astounding accuracy later on. Whether astounding
accuracy constitutes proof is for you to decide. If you want your proof now
then ctrl click...

http://neuvophysics.com/index.php?p=1_18

Using the abridged N-metric formula...

Fg is also the Force calculable as the averaged gravitational
force being equivalent to the averaged weights so...

Me/mm = Fgr ratio or just Fg

Fg=9.95162e23/
5.97e22

Fg=(
sqrt
m) x 4z/r^{2}

r^{2}
= (
sqrt
me) x 1.19335* x 4z/
Fg

=9.9757e11 x1.19335 x 39.47/16.6693 =1678921m

The moon radius is 1678.921km. You can take this to the bank! If you
compare this with the Apollo data you should appreciate how good the
measurements and data taken from the lunar orbits were. The only problem we had
with that was; we didn't know the exact mass of the orbiter but now you can
calculate that if you like.
Note: this puts the
orbital altitude at 58.079kms which was most likely correct for the first
Apollo. I couldn't verify this but I thought I remembered a figure of 60 kms.
This can be argued until you are blue in the face but go and check out the crux
of the matter--- The accurate calculation of the measured Earth geostationary
orbit data by taking this calculated lunar data and applying the results on
Earth.

*Earth mass/density deviation (n-metric problem)

New Earth mass calculation from the lunar data---

For objects resting on the surface of the earth the apparent center of
gravity is somewhat closer than the actual center underneath them. From this we
realize that there is also an inverse square law with distance for the earth
apacenter radius measurements. Beside the other notable reason; because of this
alone the results will begin to deviate from the Newtonian big G values close
to Earth surface.

The Newtonian equation and centripetal force formula -which only applies
to things whirling around on a string etc- will somewhat concur down here but
they are both incorrect together because neither of them take the perturbative
gravitational effects into account. THEY ARE A GOOD GENERAL APPLICATION TOOL
BUT THE EQUATION DERIVED HEREIN IS ACCURATE FOR ALL SITUATIONS even though
cumbersome at real world altitudes where not even big G is generally utilized
in any case.

The N-metric equation works at all distances and for all bodies and
objects and is more accurate than GTR which also runs off 'Newton's fudge' and
which is only fairly accurate once past more than three or so earth diameters
but not out past millions of kilometers where the featured N-metric equation
will be shown to still be accurate where both the GTR and Newton's formulas
fail.

If you want to work in parsecs or whatever it will still be accurate. If
you want to work from different stellar or planetary systems, it will still be
accurate.
Note: Binary pulsars and close large orbiting bodies require a different
modifying function because they are dragging each other's apparent gravity
centers. This has been taken into account herein.

We will also address the subsequently inaccurate 'G' calculated mass
values which even though they fit with the centripetal force equations of
classical physics ARE NOT CORRECT because objects and bodies are not point
source masses spinning around on strings! Kepler's third law equation is
another formula based on big G for no valid empirical reason.
NOTE: There is no violation of the weak equivalence principle.

In keeping with empiricism, the first thing required after nailing the
earth-moon distance by the inclusion of the required and previously discovered
energy loss adjustment which appears to be almost four times 9.80665 or
close to 4pi squared* (which any thinking person would find difficult to
conclude to be a coincidence except that the action of gravity is spherical!)
was to derive a range of testable g-force and mass values from the equation,
and these you will find below.

We could jump straight into the pi conclusion because the bodies are
spherical but that soon changed my first consideration because bodies can have
variable density strata. It turns out though that gravity takes that all into
account and you will see from the derivation of 4z later on a surprising and
profound relationship and that is the reason for 4z not being exactly 4pi
squared.

There is however a squared relationship between the density volume size
disparity ratio which becomes accounted for by the square root of the larger
body's mass times the mass of the smaller times four times the energy constant
divided by the square of the distance between them. This doesn't include the
apacenter deviation function so it is that equation which shows up the SEP
violation.

If you should doubt the veracity of the proposed equation you should
note that I have derived it from the Apollo 11 moon orbital data--- then I have
taken that to derive the mass etc of the moon--- transferred that to the
derivation of the mass of the earth and then by using the
same equation
and checking that against the known
orbital data of geostationary orbits, it turns out to give
exactly the required result
with
no 'G'
in sight. Scratch your head over that!
You can wait until it is checked against the up and coming spacecraft fly-by
data if you like but in the meantime check out the exactitude of results below
and refer to the subject continuation in the 'follow-on' tabs.

It is a known fact that both

Earth moon gravitational force
F_{g}

F_{g}= (
sqrt
m_{b})m_{s}.4z*/
d^{2}

(c1) F_{g
}=9.9757e11x
5.97e22 x 39.2262 /1.47763e17

=1.58098e19
(exactly correct, check b1)

Earth mass...

Sqrt
m_{e}= F_{g}
x
d^{2}/4z.m_{s}

=
1.581e19
x 1.47763e17/
5.97e22
x 39.2262

sqrt
m_{e
}=9.9757e11

m
_{
}_{
e}
=9.95162e23kg
(note
the difference? No biggie... compare with... 5.9736e24. There goes the Gaussian
gravitational constant that's all! We don't need that any more either.

As with all mathematics; care must be taken that you are not proving
yourself with yourself--- so to speak.

No big G was used in any valuations so far. The relationship between
masses and diameters is by the inclusion of centripetal force law only.

You may then draw the conclusion that the equation will work for
geostationary orbit results because of that relationship. That is not the case
however. It turns out that if the mass of the Moon and Earth are different in
any way from these calculated results the equation will not work at all.

This means that if the Apollo 11 orbital data was inaccurate then the
incorrect moon mass would have been incorrect and this equation would never
have seen the light of day. In hindsight I can see how it is able to be
developed from the Earth geostationary orbit data but I wasn't 'fiddling' with
that information at the time of the fortuitous discovery.

Summary note to point

There appears to be a possible problem with these new values as
follows...

If we attempt to calculate a new G (Gn) from these results then we
find the following...

Gn= r^{2 }
x
Fg/ m1.m2

=1.4776e17 x 1.55041e20/
5.97e22
x
9.95162e23

Gn=3.86e-10

Then if we attempt to derive the g-force on 1kg at earth surface...

Fg=Gn.Me/re2

Fg=3.86e-10 x 9.95162e23/4.068e13

Fg=9.44278N

This is so obviously incorrect that any thinking person would likely
reject the data from the Apollo 11 mission as flawed. However in consideration
of the previous results, I would like to think that more thought is what is
required; not less. We should see that another 'G' is not what we need at all,
rather a new gravity formula.
In fact this whole
assertation is based on proving that there is NO 'G' AT ALL capable of deriving
the correct EARTH g-FORCE from values measured in space. This is because of the
proposed SEP violation. I will prove that if you derive Fg from
'g' (acc rate) on earth
then you will calculate a severe WEP anomaly when the masses are not so
disparate. This is what we actually find and the proof will be forthcoming.

I also intend to prove that big G is only really associated with the
earth and not the universe! Once a relative body is larger than the earth, the
earth 'G' becomes subjugated to the new 'G' which is related to the more
massive body. yes the G you would calculate on the sun would be completely
different than big G.

CONCLUSION

Fg is true, 'g' is true and the use of a fudge called big G
becomes more invalid as the relative sizes approach equal and especially in
close proximity. This is not a problem in the general usage where big G is fine
to use so long as the bodies are distant and disparate. However there is an
anomaly and this exactly points to the n-metric proximity caused...
SEP violation.

The N-metric problem is shown to be a fact by the following analysis:

EARTH SURFACE CASE
by way of some iteration for clarity.

An object of less than 1kg mass gets inadvertently weighed
as 1kg. The latter's true value should be equivalent to 1kgF (gravitational)
and give an acc rate of 10m/s/s from ten meters or else given a rate in m/s/
m.

That same true mass object is then declared to use 1J of energy in the
inertial case and achieve the expected acc rate (inertial).

So what we really have in the theoretically perfect case is... 1kg of
mass producing 1J inertial. Therefore 1kg mass uses 1J inertial.

The 1kg mass we weighed in the first instance gets dropped from ten
meters and somehow achieves the unexpected 9.81m/s/s acceleration rate. F=W so
0.981kgF must be the actual weight which is disconcertingly the same as 1kg of
mass.

THE SPACE CASE

The object
weighed
on earth as 1kg gets taken into a non orbiting space situation (sky
hook!) where its real weight and mass of 0.981kg become realized by a spring
scale
(not a beam
balance if you took the counter-weights with you from earth!).
So now we recognize that the
energy used (inertial) is only 0.981J because the weight now equals the reduced
mass.

Therefore if that is the theoretical case then 9.81N does not equal 1kgF

Instead 9.81N only equals 0.981kgF; so the true conversion is kgF x 10.

The problem now is that big G thinks that mass=kg=kgF=9.81N and we have
a SEP violation and the big G inverse square curve will be incorrect.

Mathematical proof

The accepted facts we have to hand: These facts are true enough for the
purpose. The meter is exactly related to the volume of water from which the
measured weight of 1kg was derived; so...

The meter... fact

The second... fact

The measured gravitational acc rate
'g'
of 9.81m/s/s... fact

The unsung but potently profound '
g'
of 0.981m/s/m... fact*

The measured weight of 1kg related to the joule... fact

Weight is equivalent to gravitational force and mass... fact

F=ma... fact

F_{g}=m.
g
...
fact

F_{g}=W=m... fact

'v' after one meter with inertial force of 1kgF on 1kg=1m/s... fact

E=mv =1J -arguable but not relative

a=F/m and
g
=F_{g}/m... fact

So from a=F/m we should find that 0.981m/s/s=1kgF/1kg...
but we find that
it
'
does not
compute'!
So
instead of just chucking a moniker called a

If we assume the mass to be correct because 1kg mass uses 1J because one
kgF produces an acc rate of 1m/s/s inertial, then it stands to reason that the
F from 0.981=1 x 0.981 is 0.981kgF. Unfortunately this consequently means that
the weight is now a false 0.981kg.

*After 9.81 meters free fall we have 9.81m/s/9.81m
which just so happens to take one second... fact

CONCLUSION

Now from the above we have the fact F=W ...so we can now conclude that
the weight is actually only 0.981kg because there is a SEP violation by reason
that the mass is still 1kg.

The E=mv problem has been analyzed in a preceding section. Needless to
say that if we want to hold with the weight being 1kg and not 0.981kg then the
mass or the energy becomes changed by consequence. It should be the energy of
course because we all know that convention declares that F=W=m at earth
surface.
Note: I will
also prove that the energy-mechanical is therefore deviated from the
energy-electrodynamics.

But we might be of the opinion that the energy is also sacrosanct
so even though mass remains falsely declared to be 1kg; it actually
becomes (unsaid) a true mass of 0.981kg producing 1J of energy which of course
is foolish and should now be 0.981J but we then have F=W not m. This is a
complete disaster but the 0.981J of energy which was used to move an object
weighing 1kg in the inertial case gradually does become 1J with increase in
altitude until at a particular altitude (which is to be calculated later) the
SEP violation becomes fully abrogated out to infinity but the weight is still
incorrect.
Note: However in non orbital space its mass/energy we have to do with
and a recalculation of weight for orbital purposes is simple. I.e. Kg x
0.980665. in other words whatever the ship weighed on earth becomes derated for
space travel.

E=mv 1= 0.981 x v? E=0.981J earth surface. That's an unfortunate fact
but if we are to remain with convention (as we should) then a different 'a' and
terminal 'v' in the inertial case must be concluded to be necessary.
Something's got to give! This means that by v=E/m we get v=1/1 instead of
1/0.981 so to reach any given velocity in the inertial case requires/uses less
energy than the convention suggests or calculates. E=1 x 1 (wrong but accepted)
E= 0.981 x 1 (correct) and this energy gradually increases with altitude and it
will be shown to increase most significantly from around 10km to 15km high
after which the energy required to fly becomes actually 1J/kg/m at around
10,000kms.

You can see from the following analysis that no conventional terms other
than this 'fudged' energy-velocity relationship are affected or changed
whatsoever, even though the notional treatment of terms for the necessary
purpose of proving a SEP violation might seem to infer such an attempt.

There is another conceptual objection likely at this point. That is that
objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass so it doesn't matter
what value the mass of the object is, we will still have that same
gravitational acc rate so where's the problem?

The problem is that if you don't adjust the true weight to actually
equal the g-force you have to fudge something else. I'm not changing the force;
and the concept that objects fall at the same rate because they have the same
force acting on them is dangerously simplistic. The objects fall at the same
rate because they have the same force=weight per mass value on them whatever
that value may be even if it isn't equivalent to the weight. The situation of
F=W not=m is valid but F not=W=m is not valid because g-force and weight
are synonymous by convention. If we went with F not=W=m the whole of
physics would change. Refer to the above.

As it is; the fact that the Joule is now determined to not be derived
from one kg x 1m is bad enough but it is the lesser of two evils because we
know that isn't the true case at all. What a pickle! The courageous thing for
physics to do might be to actually change the kg weight to be 0.981kg and call
that a 'geogram' or something and be done with it. The

The problem now is that big G thinks that mass=kg=kgF=9.81N and we have
a SEP violation, and the big G inverse square curve will actually be incorrect.
It will be shown to be significantly incorrect in some gravitational
situations but we need it to be useful for real world calculations which it is.
So we'll leave that alone too and just understand why it is incorrect when it
is an this will be analyzed in minute detail.
Note: the problem with... "It will be useful for
earth situations" is that it has no use here apart from 'in the
schoolhouse' on Earth. It's main use is supposedly for space and this is where
the n-metric equation is
so accurate
and
simple it shines!

This is what I contend
for with many proofs and that the violation noted by my theory and equations is
mostly camouflaged by the inaccurate Newtonian curve. If you adhere to 'G' like
Einstein has, you will never see the blind error and you will be the blind
leading the blind! The conceptual error of pull gravity has disabled physics
from reaching a fuller understanding of the reality of the nature of things and
relativity has and hasn't helped at the same time. That's a paradox worth
exploring.

"The magnificence of wrong science is almost as magnificent as the
next wrong science!"

For further mathematical proof and comparative evidences visit---
the gravity formula proof tab.

neuvophysics.com