neuvophysics.com

NOTE TO ALL THE NAYSAYERS. I wouldn't have done
all this work if the formula wasn't provable by mathematically accurate
results!!

Newton's
hack 2... continuation

PROOF
THAT THE G-THEORY Nm FORMULA IS MORE ACCURATE THAN THE NEWTONIAN GRAVITY
EQUATION

1/ Universal N-metric Gravitational Formula example calculations:

F_{g}= (
sqrt
m_{b})4z*.m_{s}/d^{2}
(b... big s... small)
Note
*^
: The 'z'
is
the linear stress energy constant. -Refer to the previous tab-. I.e. momentum
is not constant over vast amounts of time (by reason of gravity) and loss of velocity
and energy is proportional to velocity. All the terms matter a great deal and
the following form should be used. All results are correctly termed in kg and
kgF. If you want

I have also concluded that there is an apparent gravitational center in
the Earth which is in reverse proportionality to height. In the beginning I
estimated the first apacenter by calculus. It was thought to be at a radius of
610993 meters, so I tried that in the first calculation with less than accurate
results so to be honest I have reverse engineered the true apacenter. However I
have been able to derive an apacenter modifier to keep track of the changing
radius.

This is the complete N-metric gravity formula.

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

Trial
calculation 1

F_{g}
---
1kg on the ground--- assumed apacenter---
6108993m

=9.9757e11x
39.478/4.068e13

=0.96809kgF (wrong.)

Actual apacenter radius
vertically beneath. = 6255468m

Fg=9.9757e11
x 39.2262**/3.91308e13=
1kgF=
9.80665N

**given
a slight recalculation to 4z later on.

Using the N-metric equation we find that it takes one million kg to see
a 0.2kg reduction in the g-force at earth's surface so this formula might
appear to show that the weak equivalence principle might only be a law for mere
earthlings who play with insignificantly tiny feathers and hammers. Not really.
The equation actually sees the density-radius-distance proportionality and
knows that the object/body's N-metric solution and that if it has mass at the
accepted density then it will also have the proportional 'r' and if we attempt
to subjectively place the object center of gravity on the surface, naturally
the result will be in error. Hint it's that little energy constant that
provides the true baseline while big G which does the same thing is still in
error. This will be convincingly demonstrated.

*Using this equation for a mass of 1kg at
10,000m alt.

Let's calculate the g-force on a 1kg object 10,000M high by Nm...

We get 0.99681...
N-metric 9.77529N--- using
big G... 9.76941

Lets try a 2000kg object at 10,000km...

*F_{g}
=9.9757e11 x 2000 x 39.2262/2.6424e14 =296.17kg

2904.47N
... 'G' (
2972.45N) 303.1kgF

A deviation between the two equations is beginning to show, this will be
taken care of later. The apacenter has moved back towards the geocenter. The
value of the force has now changed from being more than expected by G
calculations for a 1kg object to being significantly less for a 2000kg object.
This means that there is a value of mass for every altitude where 'G' will actually
be correct.

So if the mass of a satellite changes then 'G' will be less accurate. No
wonder the orbital calcs for close orbit satellites is problematic. You should
notice that once we are calculating geostationary orbits the results concur to
a much greater extent. However this will not be the case for much larger
space stations
etc. Of course this also means we need
to check for WEP violation at altitude and with various masses! I did---
there's effectively none!

If we calculate the g-force on a one kg object at a vast distance then
from 'G' we get... 6.7e-31N at 1e20m^{2}... and from G-theory Nm we get
3.91e-8N so it appears that by the Nm calculation the g-force approaches
infinity far less quickly than we would expect until over much more than mere millions
of kilometers 'G' doesn't quite give the required result at all. How on earth
are we hanging on to the sun then?

THERE IS ANOTHER MODIFICATION TO THE EQUATION WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT
THE OTHER DISCREPANCY REGARDING OBJECT-BODY SIZE DISPARITY WITH ALTITUDE BUT
WHICH DOESN'T AFFECT THE 'WEP' BETWEEN TWO DISSIMILAR OBJECTS FALLING IN THE
SAME GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

I.e. the following modifying functor gets subtracted from the d^{2}
in the denominator and it
therefore only has effectiveness for close by and disparately sized objects
such as you and the Earth for instance. Here it is...
rt
(m_{s}/m_{b}
x
d_{s}) e.g...
rt
9.95162e23 /1000
x
4.2e7.
(Note: the 4e27 was calculated from that modifier formula)

For a start we'll check the prior example of a 1kg object at a distance
of 10 billion meters; so I can just fudge this one and not add the radii in...

Utilizing the G-theory N metric equation

Nm-- F_{g}
=9.9757e11 x 39.2262/1e20 = (1 divided by one heck of a lot! This
denominator addition will not affect the equation. There is no change as we
would suspect.)

=
3.913e-7kgF

big G-- Fg
=5.9736e24
x 6.67384e-11/1e20

=
4e-7kgF

Let's say two earth size objects were involved and in this case just
10km apart and I might add, in a great deal of trouble!.. ( d_{s}
is surface to surface distance). First we
will calculate the force without the modifier...

**F_{g}
=9.9757e11 x 9.95162e23 x 39.2262/1.2766e7

=3.05041e30kgF

Check that if we add the mass differential modifier to the denominator
we get the same divisor and no derated g-force because the two masses are
similar and they don't overshadow.

**F_{g}
=9.9757e11 x 9.95162e23 x 39.2262/1.2766e7+
rt
(1/10000)/ 39.2262 (0.01)

=
3.05041e30kgF
Ditto... zero change

Now if we put the twin
bodies out to ten million kms (10b m) apart such that once more the d^{2}
is 1e20---

Nm- F_{g}
=9.9757e11 x 9.95162e23
x 39.2262/1e20 +rt(1/1e200)/ 39.2262 (=0)

=
3.8941e17kgF
---

big G-Fg
=(5.9736e24^{2}
x 6.67384e-11)/ 1e20

=1.5893e29/1e20

=2.38148e19N--- /
9.80665 =
2.38148e20kg/F

Gravitational force is still there and significant at a distance of ten
million kms. If you run through the calculation you should satisfy yourself
that the mass-differential modifier has zero affect at that
difference/distance.
Note: This all
appears to work back the front simply because it appears that the incorrect
weight was initially determined on the surface of the earth.

#
Let's now calculate the
g force at geostationary orbit height...
35786km
(
42164000m--
o.r.)
for a satellite of any mass, say
1000kg

First we'll use the centripetal force formula to find the g force per
1000kg and check that against our new equation.

F =m.r.4pi^{2}/T^{2}

=1000 x 41894987 x 39.4784/7464960000

=22.5915kgF
221.56N
0.22156N/kg

Utilizing the estimated 'z' of 39.2262

Nm-- F_{g}= (
rt
mb) x ms x 4z*/d^{2}

=9.9757e11
x 39.2262/1.7551e15

check with mod factor... 1.7551e15+
rt
(
9.95162e23/1000 x
35786000)/39.2262

1.7551e15+3.5786e10/39.2262

1.7551e15+912298412=1.7551e15 (after checking for
WEP/SEP... no change)

F_{g}=
22.3kgF
218.64N 0.21864N/kg

Nm equation with the newly derived 'z'* and 1000kg...

9.9757e11
x 1000 x
39.47842/1.7551e15

for 1000kg it is 22.438kgF
220.05N
compared to
221.56N
from the CF equation.) 0.22N/kg
This is a statistical match between the Nm
and CF equation results.

#* However--- by the big G equation...

F_{g}
=G m1.m2/d^{2}

=6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 x1000/1.7551e15

=227.1485N
0.2271/kg

(surprised?.. a much greater deviation. Big G isn't looking all that
accurate compared to the new Nm equation)

Comparison table...

CF---
221.56N

Nm---
220.05N

Big G--- 227.15N
Big G is not very accurate at this altitude while the CF and the Nm
concur.

So it appears that something's wrong with big G... not Nm! and that's
only at tens of thousands of km!

Note: Gauss' gravitational equations are also variant at different
altitudes but they use big G as well, so only

*Refer to fundamental note.

Let's now try another example of a geostationary orbit and calculate the
apparent altitude deviation by the N-metric formula.

Nm
--
Orb r =9.9757e11 x 1000
x 39.47842/
22.43866

=41894123 (actual) 41894987
m. This shows
a difference of a mere
864m over forty odd thousand kms which is
statistically accurate. How does that stack up to your accurate 'non
re-calibrated' measurements?

Let
'
s try
big-G

Big-G
--
d^{2}=G.m1.m2/Fg

=
6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 x 1000/227.1485

= 41893922 That's close
as well...
only a little over a kilometre out! Of course that's not fair
it's just the same Big G problem being exposed.

Using 'G' we should be able to calculate the
altitude adjusted mass of an object orbiting at geostationary orbit altitude
because the big G equation has got nothing to do with spatial displacement;
just radius, mass and force.

Checking the kg mass on Earth using the centripetal force
equation---

m1=Fg (
^{2}/G x m2

=0.022438 x 9.80665 x 1.743904e15/3.98694e14 (3.98694e14 when
G=6.67428e-11) which is it? It depends on who you ask!!

##
result
0.96253kg (0.96626kg by Nm at ##)

We can now use this value to assess the earth surface error because
Newton
assumed 1kg.

The apparent orbit radius calculated by the N-metric equation is less
than 0.002% different than the CF formula result. Remember; the actual orbit
value calculation by the centripetal force formula is only almost correct. It's
the apparent centripetal
force
which has really changed but if we adjusted
the kilogram then the result would truly be the same.

THIS ALL MEANS THAT THE ACTUAL
MASS
AFFECT
(both inertial and
gravitational for equivalence) OF THE OBJECT IN SPACE IS DIFFERENT THAN
THAT
MEASURED
ON EARTH; ESPECIALLY AT MID (satellite)
ORBIT ALTITUDES and it begins to come back to exactly normal at a couple of
thousand odd kilometers high. This is the phenomenon which causes errant orbit
calculations for close earth orbit satellites.

What happened is; that the apacenter moved back from the ground zero
case by a small amount. What has really occurred is that the relative mass has
been noticed as being different to the value appreciated in space* and if we were
to readjust the mass in the equation then all would be correct. This applies to
all the examples but big G will have to do for general calculations for around
earth environs. While big G is around, the masses will always remain the same
in actuality when evaluated on earth. The energy we do have a problem with
though but that's no real problem on earth, and thrust calculations work well
for rocket launches.

We are only looking to discover what objects would actually weigh if we
tested their inertial mass and brought them back from space to our back patio
and compared that with what 'G' informs us. Big G predicts they would weigh the
same (in a similar gravitational force and differential) and this is not the
case at all. The featured equation declares the correct centripetal forces and
masses of bodies and objects out there at all altitudes, and it shows a slight
notional deviation in the inverse square law curve and if scientists would stop
fudging the results of noted errant orbits then I could prove it. Even
geostationary orbits are very slightly anomalous.

*Refer to tab 10 -The Newton KgF enigma.

The return argument is going to be that there is a serious SEP violation
in that statement. Yes but there wouldn't be if the inverse square law was
absolutely accurate and Newton's
'G'
curve was
therefore not in violation. The tests for this are difficult to imagine.
However what is not difficult to imagine is that

There mightn't be much deviation in the inverse square law geodesic but
it is there, and it remains hidden by
'G'
. Think about it. If you take any inverse square curve and multiply the
results by anything else at all you are creating a new curve which doesn't
relate to the first because the very first starting point has now been deviated
from by the multiplication of the first number. I.e.
6.67384e-11
in

So if we multiply the one kilogram by 'G' and add that; we find that we
have adjusted the starting value of the weight by a small amount. The
adjustment is small 1kg 1+6.67384e-11 but significant and therefore if the
curve is taken to be the exact inverse square law from 1kg and not from the 1kg
+ G fudged fraction of 1kg then that curve is no longer an inverse square law
curve from 1kg. It has been fudged and has therefore proven that the SEP is
violated and G-rel is also wrong by consequence.

This is what I contend 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!

Leaving that necessary
digression; we should now apply the
modifier
to the previous examples and the expanded
formula is now---

F_{g}= (
rt
m_{b})4z.m_{s}/d^{2}-
rt
(
m_{b}xm_{s}/*d_{s}^{2})/pi (d_{s }is
surface to surface
distance)

*
At zero altitude we
utilize the fine constant as this denominator. (reason given in the following
tab)

For the
following--- The mass of the earth m_{b}
is the newly discovered
9.95162e23kg

(c) **Fg with SEP violation--- 1Kg on earth
surface---

Fg=9.9757e11
x 0.9629* x 38.4784 x 9.80665/3.69609e13

4.068e13 -
rt
(9.95162e23/0.00729)
/3.1416 (0.00729 is the
fine constant.)

4.068e13 -
3.71906e12=2.8996e13

=9.806628N Note: This
form can
'
t be used for accurate calculations without the
apacenter adjustment functor (or the accurate mass for each altitude) which
would make the equation all too unwieldy when big
'
G
'
will do the job locally.

*True actual mass---
0.9629 by Nm equation & 0.9625 calculated at #* by big-G

2000kg at 1,000km...

F_{g}=9.9757e11 x 2000 x 39.2262/5.264e13

(rt(9.95162e23
/2e9)/19.6131=1137327
(no change- so no need for this modifier in the eq)

(aa)=
1486.7kgF
a=5264000
There is insignificant change at this altitude.

Now ditto by big G...

Fg=G.m.m/d^{2
}

=6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 x 2000/5.44363e13

(ab)=
1493.6kgF

now 2000kg at 10,000km

G-th Fg=9.9757e11 x 2000 x 39.2262/2.64239e14

(2.6424e14+ (
rt
(9.95162e23/ 2000 x 1e7)/19.6131

=296.176kgF a=6255400.
There is now no modification whatsoever because the distance between the
disparate mass object-body is too great.

NB
--- Calculated degree of deviations
(not direction specific)...

On earth surface
1.9109%
This is the exact 'g' deviation noted in physics.

1000km 2000kg
--
2.339%

42000km 1000kg-- 1.2935%

Moon-- 20%
(Newton erred when calculating the
mass of the Moon: Ref following section.)

Earth-- 17%

This inadvertent error from Cavendish-ian physics caused by the same N-metric
problem is the reason for the large Earth moon mass deviations. I will try
readjusting 'G' for the new earth mass and we'll run a few calcs shortly.
Note:
...hats off to Cavendish too! There's always 20/20 vision in hindsight.

Calculating big G
version 2--- if we were to envision revising the Earth's mass.

9.80655/9.95162e23/4.068e13

G2=4.00869e-10

Both the big G and the centripetal force equation are beginning to show
their limitations by not being capable of taking into account the predicted and
now (also to be furthermore) proven asymmetry in the Minkowski geodesic
gravitational manifold.

Now it must be understood that the normal method for calculating orbital
heights are fine but where they err is for calculating the actual force and
energy required to put a satellite into the required orbit. We can check this
by tabling different values for the N-metric equation versus the big G equation
for different altitudes and weights but not just yet.

I can't adjust my equation. It won't work at all for any other data sets.
The proverbial horse has bolted but the equation is still useful for gravity
calculations in space. The centripetal force formula also doesn't take any
variation of gravity into account. After all it too treats gravity as though
the satellites are on strings attached to the geocenter of the earth, however
it's all good after about three earth-diameters distance except that now G will
be forever deviant with an error that never quite comes back to true.

Just to double check let's say the satellite weighs 1000kg. The figures
are next to the previous calcs.

All values fit the model and all concur with the moon mass and earth
moon g-force as calculated... No 'G' in sight; and as well as that we have an
accurate equation for all gravitational situations. However it must be said
that big G is the simplest, and best to use for 'down to earth situations' and
most orbit calculations. However the equation derived here is able to be used
with admirable accuracy for calculation of true masses and gravitational
forces.

So it now stands that we are not required to reinvent the wheel. There is
no possibility of utilizing the above results for any purposes other than for
space exploration. This is because the very relationships between the kg-m-s
etc will necessarily be upset and it would become necessary to readjust all the
physics we have to do with and that's not a practical option at all. It should
be a sobering recognition that as far as physics goes we are reliant on
historical estimations and in many aspects we are bound to them by 'factuality'
and not truth.

Gauss' point gravity equation g (
r)=-G.m.
e
^{
r}
/r^{2}
becomes modified as well whereby
e^{r}
is no longer a 'hat over' but a 'dot
product' vector of an integral. This is because it is no longer reasonable to
consider that the gravitational field from the Earth's center point of mass
(traditionally assumed to be the geometric center) is
spherical
with respect to an object resting on or
near the Earth's surface. There is obvious oblateness and the earth can only be
reduced to a perfectly spherical point gravitational source when the altitude
distance is infinity but practically after about three Earth diameters distance.

Including the E=mv^{2}
debacle
examined in the previous assertation; it can be understood that in
consideration of the whole of physics we have an imperfect paradigm to deal
with on a daily basis, and that goes a long way towards recognizing one reason
why the science has met with a significant problem in all previous efforts to
find unification between the various arms of physics. big G

I trust that I have convinced you; not to go out and replace big G but
that Einstein's field equations by their reliance on big G are flawed, and even
though they were never any proof of relativity before (as many erroneously
suppose) they are even less so now.
Note:
if you doubt the validity
of the equivalence
principle violation exhibited, I must point out that any testing can only be
done in deep space momentum and not in an orbital situation which is not an
inertial reference frame.

EQUATORIAL CENTRIPETAL FORCE ADJUSTMENT TO 'g'.

### Let's check what the 'centrifugal' force is on a 1kg object resting
on the surface at the equator.

F =m.r.4pi^{2}/T^{2}

F=1 x 6378110 x 39.4784/ 7.46496e9

F=0.03373kgF =0.33N

That's not much is it? No but it should still have been taken into
account by Newton because it affects the weight of the kilogram! So now we know
that when we weigh a kilogram it actually weighs less than it would if the
earth wasn't spinning. That is just one illegal premise that
Newton
used when evaluating gravity.

##So now we have a notional 1kg mass deviation from-- 1 -
0.03373=0.96626kg. This is now looking suspiciously close to actually causing
an observed acceleration rate of 9.81m/s/s if perhaps your measurement accuracy
was out a bit. The acceleration rate we would expect to observe without every
consideration would be 9.662m/s/s. See below.

(1) THE TRUE
'g'
-Earth gravitational acc rate
.

What we now have for
correct g-force and altitude calculations is a notional weight of
0.9662kg* (0.9629 actual by the Nm
formula). This gives a true g force value giving an acceleration rate
'g'
of 9.806628m/s/s this value is by the N-metric equation
calculation at (c)
.
Note: There
are a few more variables and slight errors which I refer to later which will
account for this slight difference from the 'best measurement' acc rate. Even
so, it is still statistically correct.

We also need to
calculate from the height of ten meters that Newton must have dropped his
object from and timed it with his
'
high
tech
'
stop watch of the day! I
did just that: It
'
s almost exactly the same so we have no need to
take any of that into account.

result-- 9.8696-0.03373
x 2*= 9.80214

expected-- 1N= 9.80655

Perhaps the 0.03373 x
2** could account for energy loss per 1kg mass proportion compared with pi(r_{e})^{2}
pi(r=?)^{2
}i. That's an
unknown in which case we
'
ll use mass/volume
(density) proportionality. The energy used and lost by the Earth
'
s
gravity to hold 1kg down with g-force would have been 0.03373/5.9736e24
=5.6e-27J.s.kg. So energy proportionality is 9.80214/r^{2}
if the densities are assumed to be similar.
9.80214 is the number I maybe should have used for my later calculated
'
z
'*^
value instead of 9.80655. This is only a
difference of 0.04496 percent.

**Twice because we have
to adjust the force and the mass because both are affected.

*^ Refer to the
-derivation of
'
z
'
tab.

True weight
at earth surface might be expected to be derivable from 1kg -0.03373=0.96627kg.
That
'
s close to the 0.9627kg mass which was weighed
as 1kg weight which has been calculated below to conform with the true values
of
'g'
(constant) and
'
F_{g}
'
of
9.4416N
calculated at (c). (refer to (1).

m=F/g 9.4416/9.80665

=
0.9627kg
i.e. 1 divided by 1 is 1. Mass is in kgs and not

Compare
this result with (0.9625kg
by big G at #*). This is statistically
correct within the margin of error and this assertation is further supported by
proof from the centripetal force, N-metric and the big G equations at #. From
### we notice that both the CF and big G equations are in error (different) at
low altitudes.

*Refer to
the -

CONCLUSION

OVERALL THE NEW Nm EQUATION IS MORE ACCURATE THAN
UTILIZING BIG G! However. Big G is accurate enough at real world altitudes but
it becomes woefully inaccurate for solar system or deep space calcs where
Einstein's field equations are used and visa versa.
However the N-metric
equation is truly accurate in both cases while big G is not. Relativity is no
longer required.

The slight difference noted would be caused by the
apacenter shift and unknown density variations within the earth. That's an
almost incalculable N-metric problem but we do know that there is some more
g-force unaccounted for but the mass error (enigma) is
proved
and actually more serious; being
0.9627kg
of notional inertial mass being measured as
1kg of weight or visa versa... 1kg mass being considered to be 1kg rather than
the actual
weight
of 1.0373kg which would make the result low
on the mass side for 1kg weight.
Note:
refer to the -Newton kgF enigma- tab.

This new
weight
must be the so called mass or 'm' term in
the F=mg equation for gravity because the wrongly measured mass being stated as
weight will put our energy calculations for space too low, so the Joules needed
for an actual 1kg of mass will be 1.0373J. The energy on earth for the
gravitational case will remain the same because that's the weight we have
historically aligned with the mass and nothing changes on Earth.
Note: The SEP violations in all these
calculations are being used to exhibit; nothing else but that. I.e. That the
traditional geodesic gravitational models are incorrect; and that includes the
GTR model which by default is also incorrect.

It is important to understand that the mass kg and the
weight kg as well as the joule are the units that we have 'gone' with and
everything else is related to them so they can't be changed other than
notionally and for true calculations, and as well as that we have to live with
the Newton.

Try understanding it like this. We have a kilogram
mass in space which produces one Joule of energy when we push it with
any force
for one meter. We bring it down to earth,
only to find it weighs more than the one kilogram we would have calculated by
the true N-metric equation as well as the space scales we used at 42,000km o.r.
but we know it's still a kilogram of mass because of the measurements of the
force it takes to accelerate it in the gravitational inertial frame on earth
and we also calculate one joule of energy from E=m.d. so we are
forced to conclude
that the earth and space joules are
different and we have a SEP violation.

Continuing with the comparisons for validation of the N-metric
equation for the use it will be put to:

Was Newton's stopwatch wrong perhaps? Don't for a minute think that he
derived 9.80655; that's just from supposedly more accurate experiments and
perhaps a little book cooking! I would suspect that his accuracy couldn't have
been much better than 9.8!

What we can most likely
expect from this now is an attempt to make a change but only to 'G'. don't
waste your time. I'll do it for you!

G=Fg x r^{2}/m

G=9.6626 x 4.068e13/5.9736e24

G=6.5802e-11

Let's check in once more with the geostationary orbit satellite but now
with the new G--- but first by the CF
equation...

F =m.r.4pi^{2}/T^{2}

=1000 x 41894987 x 39.4784/7464960000

=
22.5915kgF
221.56N

Now we'll check with the
new
G
when the mass is the nominal
1000kg.

Fg=
Gm1.m2/d^{2}

Fg=6.5802e-11 x 1000 x 5.9736e24/1.75518e15

=
223.95129N
mmm, still a bit wrong but better
than the 227.15N calculated at #. What can be the problem? Why does the mass
seem to matter with big G? First we need to check what the actual altitude
deviation by the CP formula is for reference against other derived altitude
answers...

Using the new G derived answer...

r=
22.5915
x
7464960000/39478.4 ...(1000 x 39.4784)

=42346888m which is
1.01078% more than expected.

Using the old big G answer...
1.0252% even worse.

At first there might seem to be a violation of SEP and perhaps WEP at
this altitude. (My original prediction was
1.2935%
but that was calculated using the slightly
incorrect
initial 'z' value)*. However in spite of
that; changing big G won't solve anything because we are just changing the value
of the linear fudge for a different inverse square curve so we can reject that
as any solution and stay with the big G form.

Using the N-metric (Nm) equation answer from #... 1.012%. There is no
significant WEP violation.

*Refer to -the derivation of 'z' tab--- Using the new 'z' the error is
now only 0.0098% but this time in the
less
than direction so the true deviation (which very closely agrees with the CP
answer) and deviates further away from the big G answer is 1.035% and that is
by using the equation modifier which turns out to give
no net difference
at this geostationary orbit altitude.

CONCLUSION 1 and a DOUBLE CHECK from Apollo mission data.

This all demonstrates that the big G value is erroneous and that the
true strong equivalence deviation is only between- 0.0098% max & 0.002%
min. In fact that is almost exactly correct and we can conclude that there is
zero WEP or SEP violation
at
geostationary orbit altitudes. If there is any violation to be noticed we
will have to find it at lower altitudes and/or different mass values but first
we must revert back to the mass value of 1kg to avoid any possible mass
disparity issues and then move to evaluating the effects on WEP and SEP with
larger mass values.
Note:
I
didn't begin by hacking this result. Go back and check if you like. This
equation was totally derived from the Apollo data* and the two CF equations.
The accuracy there is reflected in the accuracy here and visa versa. That's why
I said you can take that moon radius value to the bank. In fact you can do that
with all the masses of bodies derived herein.

*Note: The Apollo data can be trusted and it actually turns out the most
astoundingly accurate results right to the correct calculation of the true 'g'
on earth -as we noted in the previous two tabs. This is because there was no
agenda existing at the time for any results to become "re-evaluated".

(a) Values of Fg for 1kg at the accepted geostationary orbital radius of
41894987m...

CF---
Fg
=m.r.4pi^{2}/T^{2}

CF Fg = 41894987 x 39.4784/7464960000

Fg=0.2215N

Big G
---
Fg= 6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24/1.75518e15

=
0.2271N

new G---
Fg= 6.5802e-11 x 5.9736e24/1.75518e15

=0.2239N

nM---
Fg=9.9757e11
x 39.4784/1.75518e15

=0.022438kgF =
0.22--N

Compare the geostationary orbit data once again with the values from #.
(and weep lol) this time with various masses.

1000kg
1kg
10,000kg

CF--- 221.56N 0.22N/kg
0.22N/kg
0.22N/kg

N-m--- 220.05N 0.22N/k
0.22N/kg 0.22N/kg

Big-G--- 227.15 0.227N/kg
0.227N/kg 0.227N/kg

The deviant big-G results are very telling! The accuracy of the Nm
formula is also very telling.

FURTHER TECHNICAL
CALCULATIONS
searching for any WEP
violations under many conditions. There is no need to study these if you accept
that while big G does actually produce WEP violations there are no WEP
violations to be found using the Nm equation under any conditions of disparate
masses and distances.
The Nm equation is the perfectly correct equation.

Does Newton's Big G show
WEP violations? Does the new N-metric equation?

Utilizing big G---

*Earth to 1kg

G.m1m2/d^{2}

6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 (x1)/4.068e13

Earth to 1kg mass
gravitational force =
9.8001N on the one kg mass--- (not on the earth per
kg)

Earth to 1e6kg

6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 x
1e6/4.068e13

=9800110N

Earth to 1e6kg mass
gravitational force = 9800110N

So force between Earth and a
1e6kg body is
9.8001N/kg on the body

Two earth masses

6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24
x5.9736e24 /4.068e13

=5.854e25N

g-force on each kg--- m/F

5.854e25/5.9736e24

=
9.7997N/kg pull/kg on each earth

When a body is larger
than earth--- say 4e30kg (at a greater distance now)

6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 x
4e30 /4.068e20

=3.92e24N

F/kg=3.92e24/5.9736e24

=0.655N
pull/kg on smaller (Earth)

3.92e24/5.9736e30

=0.000000656
smaller pull/kg on larger body (not Earth)

Therefore the following
should be the case for one kg at that distance---

6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 (x1)
/4.068e20

F/kg=0.000000980011N ---there is now far less pull/kg
on the smaller object (1kg).

From *

6.67384e-11 x
5.9736e24/4.068e13

=9.8001N ---there
is far more pull /kg on smaller 1kg from
first derivation at a much closer distance.

Exercises on mass share
ratios--- prepping to search for any WEP violations.

(a)12 x 1/2 = 6N/ to be
shared by 13kg (inverse proportioned)

6/13=0.4615

5.538 N pull on the small

0.4615N/kg on the large

12 x 2/2=
12N to be
shared by
14kg at 1:6 inverse ratio

1.166N pull on the large

6.99N on the small

total N shared =
12N total-kgs=
14kg total-N/kg-shared=
12/14=0.857N/kg
Incorrect.

(b)12 + 1/2=6N/ to be shared
by 13kg

ditto for (a)

12 + 2/2=
7N to be
shared by
14kg at 1:6 inverse ratio

=
1N pull on larger

=
6N on the smaller

total N shared=7N total-kgs
=14N--- total-N/kg-shared=14/7=2N/per kg
correct.

Let's say that a calculation of 1e-9 was the
result required to be verified by measurements. Then like

a x12 x 1/2=1e-9

e= a.b.c/d

a=c.d/a.b

a=2/12 x 1e-9

Gm =1.66e-10

1.66e-10 x 12x5/2

=4.98e-8

Fg= Ga (m1+ m2)/2

Ga= r2 x Fg/ m1+m2

Ga=2 x 1e-8/13

Ga= 13/2x 1e-8

Ga=1.538e-9

1.538e-9(12 +5)/2

1.538e-9 x 17 /2

=1.3073e-8

1.538e-9 x 17 /10

=2.615e-9

Ga=9.80665 x 4.068e13/ 5.9736e24=6.675e-11

6.678e-11 x 5.9736e24
/4.068e13=9.8062

6.678e-11 x 5.9736e24 + 1e10
/4.068e13
Ditto--- so with the Nm
values we find no WEP violation.

(c) 6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 x 1e10/4.068e13 =98001107728
---
no apparent violation.

share ratio
5.9736e24/
1e10 =5.9736e14 : 1

6.678e-11 x 5.9736e24
/4.068e20=9.8062e7--- no violation

6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 /4.068e20=8.8001e7 ---ditto

6.673848e-11 x 5.9736e24 x2
/1.6272e14=4.9N/kg
(exactly correct)

Now for a look at the
actual values---

(d)
6.67384e-11 x
5.9736e24 x 5.9736e24 /1.6272e14=1.4635e25 =1.225N/kg what the? That's
an error.

Now we saw that the total
gravitational force was apportioned to the total masses.

In the 1kg on earth case the
answer was 9.81N which is shared by the ratio 5.9736e24 : 1 ---so we get---

9.81/ 5.9736e24=0.5976e-24
for the earth per kg and 9.81 for the 1kg.

In example (c)
6.67384e-11 x
5.9736e24 x 1e10/4.068e13 =9.8e10N apportioned inversely by the ratio
5.9736e24/ 1e10 =1:597e14N earth:m2

so 98001107728/1e10=9.8001N/kg
pull on the lesser mass and zero N/kg on the earth. That can't be right. What's
wrong?

let's go much bigger for
M2 say 1e20

6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 x 1e20/4.068e13=9.8e20N

so9.8e20/ 1e20 = 9.81N/kg
for the smaller object and once again none for the earth. When the ratio is
5976:1 so 9.8/5976=0.0016N/kg is apportioned to the earth and 9.7983N/kg
apportioned to the other???

Let's take the earth moon
case---

CF equation comparing N-metric
derived values------

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

=5.97e22 x
1.5199e10/5.8525e12

1.55041e20N
1.581e19kgF*# concurs with (Nm)

N-metric------------------------------------------

(Nm) F_{g}
=9.9757e11x
5.97e22 x 39.2262 /1.47763e17=1.58098e19kgF*#

1.58098e19/9.95162e23 + 5.97e22
=0.000014N/kg

CF equation with big G
values---------------

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

=
7.3477e22 x
1.5199e10/5.8525e12

1.8713e21N
1.9082e20kgF

1.8713e21/5.9736e24 +
7.3477e22=0.0003N/kg
(by big G---
0.00003N/kg) see below^

Big
G-----------------------------------------------

6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 x 7.3477e22/1.47763e17

=1.9824e20N---1.9082e20kgF

1.9824e20/5.9736e24 +
7.3477e22
=0.00003N/kg^

CONCLUSION

The Nm concurs exactly
with the CF equation. Unfortunately that even when recalculating for

THE PROOF FOR THE
PROPOSED Nm EQUATION IS ASTOUNDING!

Let's now put the Moon
right on the Earth---

Nm
F_{g}
=9.9757e11x
5.97e22 x 39.2262 /
6.5856e13

=3.5473e22kgF---
3.4787e23N
--- 3.5473e22/
9.95162e23
+
5.97e22

=0.03362
---
0.03362
x 9.80665 x 2=0.65939N. The
straight altitude equation doesn't work here because there is still an N-metric
problem as well as zero altitude. They are essentially one body! In this case we
must use the 'one body' Nm equation---

Fg= 9.97578e11 x
5.97e22 x
9.80665 /
5.95558e34

(/6378100
+1737100 +
9.97578e11 x
5.97e22
= 5.95558e34)

=9.80665N/kg
correct.

When using big G we see a
problem---

Fg=6.67384e-11 x 5.9736e24 x 7.3477e22/
6.5856e13
=4.448e23---
4.44e23/7.3477e22 + 5.9736e24=0.07342N.kg ???

The force per kg is decreasing. Maybe it's
because we are not taking the radius of each of the bodies into account.

Try again 4.068e13 +
6378100 + 1737100 ditto. That's not the answer!

5.97e22--- Fg/kg=
1.58098e19/5.97e22 =0.0002648N/kg.

FUNDAMENTAL CONCLUSION

Big G is the
problem because it finds WEP violations.
The N-metric equation provides the correct answers. There
are no WEP violations.

neuvophysics.com