neuvophysics.com

The gravitational acceleration rate enigma.
The

Support for the new G theory gravitational
formula without utilizing the big G fudge. The following equation demonstrates
the SEO violation at Earth's surface. This well known -but glossed over- SEP
violation becomes solid proof for the push gravity model proposed herein.

How is
it possible that thinking scientists can consider utilizing a single

In any
case when the
expected fall of a 1kg (or any weight) object over 1m failed
to reach the expected 1m or really over one second failed to reach 10m.s.s
and only got to 9.81m.s.s it is very obvious that he had to convert to either
1kgF=0.981 of a Newton or it would be 9.81 Newtons. He went for the less wieldy
latter unit which we use today. G =1kF.kg=9.80665N.kg

Because
1kg force of weight in the gravitational field of earth gives an acc rate of
only almost 10m.s.s to a 1kg object; it is entirely unreasonable to suggest
that the unit was derived in any other manner so now speciously that 1N is now
going to be the new force to derive 1m.s.s for 1kg mass over one second in the
sideways case??? That would only derive; by a=F/m =0.1/1= 0.1 m.s.s--- Wrong!

Therefore we are forced to consider that If
Newton had first experimented with sidewise motion HE WOULD HAVE BEEN USING THE
FORCE UNIT OF kgF in which case 1kg force is able to derive the correct results
in the gravitational case as well. One

The
modern IDEA that the force is 1

What is more
unreasonable are the sleights of hand that end up with E=mv^{2}: First
of all. Let it be declared to all and sundry that m.s is just the
conceptualization in shorthand of a rate of motion. Likewise m.s.s is ditto but
now for a rate of change of motion per second.

m.s.s
is not an equation
SO IT CAN
'
T EVER BE RATIONALLY CONCLUDED TO BE
m.s squared.

Therefore
the derivation which attempts to relate the incorrectly utilised term unit the

1N=1kg.m.v^{2}
-because the v^{2} -or s^{2}- is supposed to be from the
invalid meters per
'
second
squared
'-
is laughable and incorrect.

The true
facts -Which are born out in practice- are as shown in the article below.

Calculus
can show that -regardless of the time taken and as long as a never decreasing
force is being continuously applied to an object in a sidewise direction- it
will reach an energy calculable by E=mv and also use one Joule of energy after
a distance of one meter. So if E is unity with one kg then the only variable is
v. If we change the F in F=ma back to one

This
energy is only brought to the terms of one second by the constant application
of any particular force. Because gravity is considered to be a continuous force
for this exercise than it is that continuos force which is the subject of this
article.

1/ This
following concept is one of the most difficult to understand in all of physics.
This is because it matters not what the force
is or the duration when E=Fd is the equation being used.

It is
concluded to be a fact 1/ So long as the acceleration rate never decreases then regardless of the
force or the time it takes; if an object is moved a distance of one meter
sideways it will use and store -as either Ek of momentum, or expend against
some wall; either of which occur at the end of the meter distance- exactly 1J
of energy or conditionally do 1J of work respectively.

The only
thing that changes is the time so you can use your

Now to
the gravitational case: If we take that apparatus and we place it in a
vertically up orientation and remove the gravitational force then the same
calculus applies. It is still appreciable as being the same situation. It has
some work potential in moving the distance of the height by W=m.h.

Therefore
2/ The same object having been moved from the ground to a height of 1m will
also use and store 1J of work-energy. NOW IT DOESN
'
T MATTER WHETHER THE OBJECT WAS
LIFTED, OR BROUGHT IN FROM THE SIDE OR DOWN FROM OUTER SPACE. THE ENERGY
SOLUTION REMAINS THE SAME. THE POTENTIAL ENERGY -ignoring any gravitational
differential as being insignificant- IS THE SAME: Which is 1J.

Therefore
3/ Both the potential energy and also the energy stored as Ek at terminal
velocity exactly prior to slamming into the horizontal wall in this case that
we call the ground- is going to be exactly the same. That is 1J.

This is
because the strong equivalence principle (SEP) says so. A force is a force is a
force. Whether it
'
s a gravitational
force or a mechanical pushing force doesn
'
t matter at all. The only thing to derive here is the Energy
equation. Without splitting hairs: Is it E=m.v--- m.v^{2} or 1/2m.v^{2}?
From that it appears that it
'
s
going to be m.v or arguably -but with difficulty- E=9.8m.v but not any of the
squared deviants.

The
mistake

But right
here we find the next most difficult concept in physics. I will reiterate using
approximations and assumed calculations for simplicity:
Note: Please ignore
the

1kgF=10N---
therefore and we know that---

(a)1kgF
gives a TV of 10m.s after a fall of 1 sec--- therefore---

(b)1kgF
gives a TV of 1m.s after a fall of 0.1sec- therefore because of (a)-

10N gives
a TV of 10m.s after a fall of 1sec- therefore because of (b)- and also---

10N
gives a TV of 1m.s after a fall of 1sec
WTH?? You thought that 1N gives 1m.s after 1sec didn
'
t you? Sorry the gravitational force
(10N) never changes here. So they're both wrong!

Get it
please--- See: It
'
s 10N
that gives an acceleration of 10m.s.s NOT 1N AS IS ERRONEOUSLY TAUGHT AND
THOUGHT!!! One

Remember
the strong equivalence principle (SEP) declares that gravitational inertia is
the same as sidewise mechanical inertia so the previously stated derivation of ten
Joules and 10m.s after 1sec with a 1kgF and NOT A NEWTON stands as 10J=1kg
x a terminal velocity of 10m.s. in that
case the force becomes inferred so we
'
ll try another tack.

Go on
Google it. The definition of 1Joule is supposed to be the work done or the
energy stored when 1kg is moved over a distance of 1m with a constant force of
1N.

If you
follow E=mgh then THAT HAS JUST BEEN SHOWN TO BE WRONG by the SEP.

If you do
the E=mv terminal velocity calcs you will see more proof of the veracity of my
claim. Now according to SEP and math-

Gravitational:
after 1sec--- v=10m.s--- E=mv =1 x 10=10J. After 1sec--- E=10J

Having
discovered that W=f.d in the sidewise case; it matters little whenever the force
is unity because who cares if it
'
s one apple or orange or a

That
'
s not the end of the matter: It gets
worse because

What

Now of
course it stands to reason that if
'
a
'
were to
be couched in units of m.s.m then no time relationships in any fall will be
calculable -without calculus etc- only calculable distances per second.
Therefore
the

In
conclusion I will conclude that the terms of acceleration in the sidewise case
with a force of 1kg must be in terms of E=mv and 2mv (approx) in gravity; and
be further demonstrating how the 1N -which supposedly cause an energy of 1J in
over one meter in the sidewise experiment being described- has been erroneously
supplanted instead of the true 1kgF and one second ---and also that the true
equation for energy of consistent motion or complete usage to zero velocity is
E=mv full stop. E=m.d. case specifically. Talk about a confusion of terms. The
acc rate is in m.s.s and
not in m.s.m. The same force as 'g' sidewise gives
the same result of 0.45 meters in 1sec for a TV of 1m.s. E=mv =1J. That's only
about half the expected energy. What can be wrong?

There appears to be a SEP violation where the
work in no way shape or form agrees with any velocity energy equation at all!!!

Maybe we
can find a solution such as--- The work is from W=f.d is about a half a Joule.
Therefore we need to understand that half of the energy in the side push is W
and half is E. It's actually about 2J as in the gravitational case. The Object
needs to splat into a wall to release that energy.

*This
demonstrates the unity relationships between the meter, liter, kg, second and
Joule. That's how it was first configured. Not
that it's all really accurate but good enough
for our purposes in this energy system.

Having
said all that -and because of the argument that objects being lifted incur
extra energy as potential energy in the gravitational case- I have followed
that solution in the pages on this website*. The possible resulting equation is
2mv but still not squared.

The
damage is done and there is no point in changing it now. However this is all
leading up to solutions regarding more problems with other flawed equations
ahead. Those are the ones that need to be fixed so that they finally become
useful.

THE SEP VIOLATION
and the requirement for a new gravity formula

Note: Except for a couple of inaccurate
equations, this section changes nothing in actual classical physics*. This is
simply proof that we have got the kg as -being both weight and mass- correct at
the surface of the Earth and the force of gravity is 1kg per kg or g=9.80665N
per kg. The gravitational equation developed without the use of big G
-elsewhere on this site- depends on that being the fact which is currently
assumed.

*Refer to the

Every grad student of physics knows that there are
problems with

That's the likely takeaway because in case you
haven't noticed lately; the scientific method in physics has be thrown by the
wayside and agenda driven science now rules. It has even been stated that
philosophical ideas should be allowed free reign in physics as an addition to
the empirical scientific method. Perhaps this has been said with the idea that
if we come up with enough fanciful ideas then one of them might turn out to be
right. What do you mean we? And I wouldn't let you bet my money on
that, mister physicist!

Why don't we all get back to dropping our
agendas and let the truth take us where it will. Let evidences speak and drive
the conversation going forward in the spirit of the true scientific
method.

The takeaway at this juncture is that I too,
obviously have an agenda or I wouldn't likely be doing this at all. Granted;
but it's an agenda for the truth without pecuniary interest. Now just like
everyone else I'm of course going to solidly assure you that my new theory is
the truth! Before you laugh too much, I might ask you this. Does everyone
else's theory fit the vast majority of the facts and predict the enigmas we see
all over and through physics? Can they predict the featured
gravitational anomaly? Can they predict the enigmatic gravitational
freefall acceleration? I would suggest not. G-theory does!

The following
occurs in an assumed vacuum blah de blah!

Now in case you aren't aware of the problem I'm
referring to: I'll just take a few moments and reveal it. I'm not presenting a
revamped physics theory at this juncture, rather I would like to let you in on
this little secret. That is; that there is this one verdict clinching evidence
lurking in physics which actually points to the traditional gravitational
models being flat wrong, just like the flat-Earth idea was/is wrong- flat-out
wrong!

How can you say that? You might ask dubiously:
Answer; because for a start there is a gravitational anomaly that we are mostly
all aware of that everyone just ignores instead of letting it lead them to the
truth. Secondly the acceleration- 'g' -dilemma also points to the true physics
model of G-theory. I'm not smarter than everyone else by a long shot. All I did
was follow those G-theory leads to their logical solution. This is what I'm
talking about and for reasons of clarity I will be using kilograms and not
pounds.

We all know that the acceleration rate in
gravity at the surface of the Earth is only 9.81m.s.s when it should actually
be 10m.s.s. that's a fact; so shouldn't we be asking what that could
be telling us?

Imagine a liter of water in a weightless
container. If we analyse the historical derivation of one kg of mass it relates
to the weight of that liter of water and NOT as we might expect to some carved
out kilogram weight. However that weight -copied by beam balance- comes into
the picture for all objects at Earth's surface in any case. According to the
strong equivalence principle we should be able to call the mass the weigh and
the force -both gravitational inertial and mechanical inertial- on the surface
of the earth; which is what we do.
Note: All objects
fall at the same rate because the force is directly proportional to the mass-
WEP.

There is a problem however in that there appears
to be a violation of the SEP -strong-equivalence-principle- because even
thought we have a one kilogram weight of water -because a notionally 1kg force
is acting down on it- the acceleration rate in a gravitational freefall is -as
we well know- less than it should be. It's actually 9.81m.s.s instead of the
expected 10m.s.s as in the Newtonian inertial sideways or space case.

Scientists have been unable to explain this
-except that you would likely have been told that its just because of changing
units over time, which is pretty ludicrous considering that

What follows is the solution I was
evaluating when it struck me! I'll explain 'it' further down.

At first I thought that the answer actually lay
dormant in the fact that the gravitational force was really less than it should
be according to the traditional gravity models -even though we have in all good
faith called the weight a kilogram- However in Newtons we can see that the
force is only 9.81N and not the expected 10N. The fudge undertaken by science
is to just somehow weld the two together by a giant sleight of hand, so that
1kgF is supposed to equate to 9.81N. this however doesn't get rid of
the annoying thing called a fact!

It's obvious to me that

The fact is-

That the gravitational acceleration rate just
won't play ball. It's less than it should be and the energy results down near
the surface don’t match up and that's a fact. By the way; the standard
gravitational metric gradient -by general relativity or

You probably think that such a Newtonian fudge
sounds so weird and sneaky that a lesser gravitational force has got to be true:
However it is weird and sneaky; but prizing that little gem out of the weeds leads
straight to an alternative gravitational paradigm which seemed -on the surface-
to actually predict the lesser
gravitational force that we have just deemed to be a fact. I'll continue to
explain how I was attempting to deal with this Newton-kilogram force enigma in
greater detail and ran into further problems with the SEP.

Throughout history there has never been a valid
explanation to date; as to why a one kilogram object falls at an acceleration
rate of only 9.8m.s.s instead of the calculated 10m.s.s. In fact there appears
to be a strong equivalence principle violation in that the Newtonian et al
earth surface inertial experimental results do not match up with the
gravitational inertial experimental results. Newton simply threw his hands in
the air, ignored the first 20m of freefall and seemed to solve the problem by
calling what should have been one kilogram force- 9.81 Newtons; which is
ostensibly a lesser force but don't tell anyone and the problem will just go
quietly away. No he didn't solve it at all he was just trying to validate his
F=ma and make it workable by increasing the unity to ten basically; and he
didn't really solve that either.

However those problems actually drove

Sorry I digress, now getting back to the
subject: This enigmatic problem all means that the gravitational force which
causes the appearance of the correct weight is -very strangely- not actually
the same as the weight or the mass. This is an apparent absurdity which has
been shoved on the shelf because no one else wanted to go crazy and there is no
known reason for the enigma up to date, and considering how physicists ignore
the massive SEP violation at the level of energy with E=mv^{2}/2,
especially when compared to the work energy computations at low altitudes, then
there's little wonder that they ignore this SEP violation.

However I thought there should be a simple
explanation for it but in order to discover it you would first need to have the
correct gravitational model. To do that we would have to throw out the
Newtonian -pulling from the center of bodies- style gravity as well
as the Einsteinian general relativistic model which although correctly being a
push gravity model cannot solve this problem because the GR metric is just a
mathematical concoction which doesn't take real locally distorted physics into
account either.

The proprietary G-theory model of gravity which
I am promoting seemed to have the ability to produce the answer for the severe
exponentially effective with altitude SEP violation. I thought it was
this: All objects on the surface of the earth -say- are affected by less
gravity than that which the inverse square law dictates. This is because the
objects are in the vector shadow of the parts of the earth which are to the
side of the object all around. This shadowing effect reduces by degrees with
increasing altitude -describable by a mathematical equation given on the (big)
G-less gravity formula tab- such that at geostationary orbit altitudes and
beyond there is no longer any noticeable effect.
Note: Point source gravity and
relativistic metric models fail on this point. The mathematics of the latter
can't account for the problem. It's a false theory. They both are!

*That part is actually true but it doesn't solve
our 'g' enigma.

The problem is not really apparent in the
vertical direction until we drop the ball -so to speak- because the
gravitational force is the weight. The two are always synonymous. To get to the
crux of the problem Let's do a little mind experiment and asses the
outcome: Imagine a one kilogram object. When it comes down to its mass,
you might suspect that instead of the 1kg mass we think we have; we actually
have a 0.981kg mass; which has a force ostensibly acting downwards on it of
only 0.981kgF as well. -remember the two are always the same- This might cause
the object to have a lighter mass than what we actually refer to as a 1kg
weight. But is it really? How can that possibly be? -because then it would also
be a lighter mass for the Newtonian mechanical inertial solution.

So we can also understand that to not be the
case at all for another reason--- i.e. because the mass was derived from
weighing the one liter volume of water which is related to everything else
meters, joules etc. -but that's a far more in depth subject that I'm not
delving into here. You'll just have to take my word for it- So we still have
the problem that something's causing a particular object -we weighed in at one
kilogram, and one which we tested in the sideways direction and calculated to
have a mass of one kilogram and which accelerated to 10m.s and to move that 10
meter in one second over only about 5 meters- to not accelerate as fast as it
should according to the math. You know F=ma versus F=mg.

Let's take the whole shebang into space and
examine what we've got out there. If we could find an area in interplanetary
space away from any bodies; an area that has exactly the same gravitational
force as we have on earth and weigh our liter of water out there in space; what
we would expect to find is that it would in that case turn out to weigh exactly
1kg also. When we did the inertial test in space we would expect it to agree
with the experimental results on Earth and the acceleration rate would be the
same also. We would still be pushing a 1kg mass to a velocity of 10m/s
over ten
meters over a time duration of one second with a force of one kg -KgF not
Newtons because that's a fudge- So we would declare it to have a mass of one kg
and ten joules of energy would be used and converted to kinetic energy and all
that. In the freefall case the force of gravity should be the same and 'g' should
be the same. But it's not. There is a SEP problem.

That is exactly the case so there is no new
answer to be found out in space. Now if we dropped the object from
geostationary orbit height we would however observe something very strange
indeed -and this is predicted by the G-theory gravity model- We would observe
-because of the weak equivalence principle- that no matter what its perceived
weight or mass it would fall at an initial acceleration rate relatable to 10m.s.s
which would gradually fall away to become more relatable to 9.81m.s.s as it
approached earth and a serious SEP violation would show up near the surface.
What the??

Yes because there is a gravitational anomaly
with altitude and don't be confused by the preceding space experiment. Remember;
the criteria we had to find in space in that experiment was to locate exactly
the same gravity solution as we find on earth. The idea was to show that
gravity in space is definitely locality dependent. We don't truly find that
same solution to be applicable between the ground up to almost geostationary
orbit height. This means that the 'gravitational constant' is a fudge!
Note:
to clarify all this visit the G-less gravity equation tab, and the two proofs
tabs.

So in other words; if we bring that 1kg object
to earth. It only actually has a gravitational force of 0.981kgF or 9.81N SO IT
ONLY ACTUALLY WEIGHS 0.981kg on earth yet we erroneously referred to it as 1kg
weight. Or do we?

Now that anomalous enigma is only relative to
altitude and it offers no solution to our gravitational-acceleration-predictive
SEP violation problem although it provides answers to other problems known to
space science because of an additional SEP violation with altitude this time,
-oh what a tangled web we weave- but it all offers serious support for the
G-theory gravitational model.

This all appears to be a mind boggling disaster
of physics but if we put our minds to it we should be able to come up with some
good physics obeying reason to solve this problem. Perhaps we can't possibly
abide a SEP violation so maybe by just adjusting the weights and forces as
required we can make the problem vanish. That is actually what is being
attempted in physics.

Perhaps it might be, that if we had only
realized where this problem lies then we could have increased the size of the
object to 1.019kg mass in the first instance and then when we pushed sideways
with a force of 1kgF it would only then achieve a velocity of 9.81m/s in one
second, all else being equal. This would then match the gravitational
acceleration. Sorry it won't! Reason: The weight would be different and as we
already know; the weight
is
the gravitational force which would
then by reason be proportionally different, and we would end up with the same
result and we can keep chasing that donkey round in circles all day long.

Well maybe you might think very deeply and if
sanity prevails then you might consider that the problem could perhaps be
solved by a differential solution. One half of the discrepancy off the force
and one half off the mass. No; W is still 'g' and all you're doing then is
splitting the difference and making things worse. In practice we can leave well
enough alone.

This whole enigma though minor, stands as strong
support that the G-theory push gravity model is the correct model, which
actually predicts -with extreme accuracy I might add: Among other calculated
losses, G theory also predicts this apparent strong equivalence principle
violation which is what we do observe and have to live with and this whole
discourse is being carried out to provide proof of my new gravity formula---

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

Most scientists who've reached this
understanding insist that it's not really an equivalence principle violation
and that it's just an inexplicable gravitational anomaly. Well yes it certainly
is! but now it's able to be fully explained and the explanation then leads to
the support of a new theory of gravity.

Now if you simply don't believe that this enigma
can't be solved under the current gravitational models; then why don't you do
like

There is no solution to be found in the
classical or post Newtonian physics to date and it will likely drive you
bonkers if you persist and just about every one ignores it. The fact still
remains that there is always a relationship anomaly between the Newtonian
'inertial' and the gravitational 'inertial' on and near the surface of the
Earth -predictably including in space- as probably being typical of other body
gravities as well.

The problem in a nutshell and the solution

First we must understand that the downward
acting force we call gravity is fully identifiable as weight! That is an
absolute and unassailable fact to any sensible mind. That
never
changes.

So we have an object with 1kg of weight which is
1kg of gravitational
force.

We take that exact
force and push the
same 1kg object sideways (in space preferably) with it and we will measure an
acceleration rate that is greater than the acceleration rate we observe under
the
exact same force (weight!) in a gravitational freefall at earth surface
where we measure a comparably lesser acceleration rate. THE ONLY THING THAT IS
POSSIBLY CHANGEABLE IS THE
MASS!

What the?? you protest. That
'
s impossible because
mass is mass. It can
'
t change.

Answer: YES IT CAN!!! ---because we are talking
about two DIFFERENT masses. One is Newtonian inertial mass and the other
is gravitational inertial mass.

The difference lies in the different inertia
unleashed by the DIFFERENT forces. They are qualitatively dissimilar so they
are also different quantitatively.

The fact now stands that we appear to have a
strong-equivalence- principle violation.

Answer: No it
'
s worse than that! The fact truly is that the principle
isn't
declarable at all;
and we have just seen the proof.

So of course you will now be asking. How is this
possible?

Answer: There isn
'
t any answer in classical physics as we have just seen. However we
are now many centuries advanced in our scientific knowledge and the bulk of the
answer lies in the quantum world.

In essence the object appears to be more 'massive'
to the gravitational inertial force than it does to the Newtonian inertial
force. This results in a lesser gravitational acceleration rate.

G-theory already predicted the SEP violation and
the sub particle inertial violation. It proposed that gravitational force would
still affect particles within atoms that are already KNOWN TO NOT BE SUBJECT TO
NEWTONIAN INERTIA so the mass appears to be less in the sideways Newtonian
inertial case. The force is the same but the actual inertial mass is different
because about two percent of the particles that are affected by gravity and
contribute to weight don't contribute to inertia because some quantum particles
are not subject to Newtonian inertia*. The correctly derived fundamental
scientific model structure was the reason why the G-theory model had already
separated total T-mass into three different types of mass. P-mass, G-mass and
N-mass, in the first place. WTH

*Some particles aren't affected by gravity
either but the difference turns out to be the two percent (approx) we are
referring to.

The G-theory model has predicted this
phenomenon. Study the thesis and you will understand that this is the case.
G-theory is hereby up for negation but I seriously doubt that it is able to be
negated or refuted without bias and excuses!

G-theory answers too many scientific
enigmas to let it slip under the radar. I
'
m not being prideful when I say that the
physics establishment should take a long hard look at G-theory, albeit at the
risk of having to toss out some metaphysical dogma that physics has become
mired in.

As an afterthought: We can now suspect that the
quantity of those inertially diverse fundamental particles in atoms is around
1.9 percent of any atomic matter object. G-theory has already concluded this to
include the quark lattices in atoms which in itself doesn
'
t preclude other sub fundamental particles such
as electrons from exception also.

Conclusions

My original analysis led to the credence that
there was another SEP violation also and that it would show up in the
gravitational N-metric equation which is fully proven in my new G-less gravity
formula tab.

It took me a while but I soon discovered that
the G-theory quantum physics had already predicted the second apparent SEP
violation as evidenced in the G-theory thesis. So because of this we can
conclude the following.

1/ The Newton term and unit stand as a fact of
physics but now we know the reason.

2/ There is a quantum related SEP violation and
an altitude related SEP violation which accounts for the 'fly by anomaly' but
no indication of WEP violation in both cases.

3/ The reason for the difference in the
acceleration rates is due to inertial difference between gravity acting through
every nucleon within an object versus the inertial effect of a mechanical push
to the side of an object not being fully transferred through every particle
within the object.

4/ The SEP can't even be concluded to be a
principle let alone a law. This also destroys Einstein
'
s equivalence principle.
Refer to The Einstein
'
s lift tab.

All of this is predictable by G-theory, and the
altitude related gravitational anomaly is accurately calculable by the G-theory
model. If you wish to discover more of this new science and its accurate
gravitational equation that doesn't stoop to utilizing fudges like
the Newton and 'big G' -or as most of us know the latter as; the gravitational
constant- then please feel free to browse.

Footnote

Under the traditional gravitational paradigm
-and its featured Newtonian and Einsteinian 'big G' fudge- there can be no
predictability of true gravitational force related to altitude. This has been
noticed by the space scientists and astro-physicists. They have historically
reacted to this by just fudging things to fit and have utilized trial and error
adjustments along with course corrections and have historically utilized other
methods -such as thrust calcs- instead of using

When it comes to the traditional kinetic energy
equation, Engineers who have tried and failed at having things work well
according to the Newtonian tradition for calculations of energy, have had to
develop their own tables of results and predictions. A hydroelectric dam was
built once according to the E=mv^{2}/2 but the energy produced was so
small that the project was a failure--- but that's another subject---

but on the same thread--- Space scientists have
had great trouble -with not only launch energy problems but also- with
calculations for close earth orbits. To reiterate: Other anomalies have been
noticed with observed trajectory deviation of spacecraft flybys of Earth.

FUNDAMENTAL NOTE 1

The only way that some particles are able to be
exempted from being involved in inertial mass -if they are travelling with the
object in question- is if the inertial mass is in fact anchored at the nucleon
EWF Higg's superstruct as theorized in
G-theory.
Visit The derivation of mass tab.

This is to say that mass has got nothing to do
with some supposed 'weightiness' or 'massiveness' of an object. It is a
quantum/cosmea force phenomenon as described in the thesis.

The previous analysis is fully supportive of
G-theory only.

FUNDAMENTAL NOTE 2

To get an idea about how some particles are not
contributive to inertial mass even though they are being transported along with
particles that are; we are able to consider the derivation of mass and the
exhibition of inertia which promotes a rate of acceleration.

Consider
that mass is realized as a kind of drag friction on a bunch of inter-connected
particles which is caused by a drag force on some of them but not others. This
is a bit like a braking tire dragging on the asphalt. The lands of the tire are
the only parts which are being friction dragged but the rest of the tire which
isn't involved is being carried along also. This is exactly the same phenomenon
which is occurring in a nucleon and by extension the whole higher order object.

NB There is another WEP violation cause at low
altitudes. Refer here.

http://neuvophysics.com/index.php?p=1_17

FINAL CONCLUSION

This gravitational weight problem can be argued
against because the weight is the weight is the weight! and therefore it is
just an idea which has not been proved here. It could actually be that the
Newtonian inertia not affecting some sub quantum particles theory might hold
water. This means that the 1kg object gets pushed further in the sidewise case
in order to develop the velocity and a Joule. This is because under that theory
it actually has less mass than at first realised from the weight so it gets
pushed 10 meters instead of the 9.81 it would have otherwise. 9.81 is fine. The
meter unit is not necessarily a correctly related measurement. No we don't need
to change anything. This is all just explanatory.

So we need some more proofs and these as well as
many supporting propositions are presented throughout this work in progress. It
does appear to be that the weight of an object of 1Kg on Earth surface is also
its mass under general classical physics but not as an actual fact. It appears
that the mass will be different in space as it is in the sideways experimental
case!

neuvophysics.com