neuvophysics.com

 

 

The gravitational acceleration rate enigma. The Newton kgF enigma. Please refer to the Newton 's bad day tab first.

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.

 

Newton could only have derived his term/unit the Newton from experimenting in gravitational freefall. This is because the Newton is not directly term related to the meter, weight/mass, volume etc and -by consequence the joule- while the Kg is.

How is it possible that thinking scientists can consider utilizing a single Newton of force as being directly related to these other units and even generating a correct result? That is ludicrous. FIX IT UP!

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 Newton per kg cannot. So in that manner -using calculus or whatever- he might have initially and wrongfully concluded that a Joule of energy was derived by the terminal velocity at one meter d of 1m.s by an acc rate of 1m.s.s imparted to a one kg object by being subject to a continuous force of 1kgF. Again that is wrong.

The modern IDEA that the force is 1 Newton is also incorrect and untenable because 1N in gravity only gives a velocity to a 1kg weight of 0.1m.s. in one second. More proof of that 1kg relationship with the Joule of electrodynamics is undertaken in that relevant section also.

What is more unreasonable are the sleights of hand that end up with E=mv2: 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 Newton to being somehow squared; being stated thus---

1N=1kg.m.v2 -because the v2 -or s2- 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 Newton then the 'a' becomes variable and the 'v' will be substantially less as well.

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 Newton if you like but it will take some significantly greater time to get there!

 

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.v2 or 1/2m.v2? 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 Newton made to go back and change the 1kgF to 1N in the sidewise case is proved in the Newton ' s bad day Tab.

 

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 Newton units required for F=ma (F=mg) at this juncture--- All will be explained below. Also ignore other considerations this is just terminal velocities (TV) we are looking at, and the WEP is still at work.

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 Newton won't even give 1m.s.m. That's wrong too!

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 Newton or a kgF? That ' s why no one has picked this problem up really.

 

That ' s not the end of the matter: It gets worse because Newton is now going to cement that Newton term/unit problem in place, by use of the incorrect equation F=ma. Well it’s not exactly wrong but there is a problem with ' a ' . This is why:

Newton tested a Force acceleration relationship formula which he figured would be mass times the acceleration. So he tried F=ma and with mass being 1kg and acceleration assumed to be 10 m.s.s the answer after one second of fall was surprise surprise not 10  but 9.81m.s.s. WTH. The actual gravitational force was already known to be 1kgF and now he ' s got an answer of 10 (9.81) which show an actual force of 9.8 somethings instead of one--- So what does he do? Somehow or another after he ' d been confused by the 4 odd meters of fall in the free fall situation he figured he ' d just call the somethings Newtons and then just have an easy conversion to 1kgF. Now we might have the answer to why Newtons : --- That would be bad mistake but why would he do that? Hint: It could be to do with F=ma but it was probably for another reason, as we will shortly discover.

What Newton should have done instead: The Newtons should never have been invented for other reasons like unit and term confusion all over the place as well. There was a problem with his equation and it was in the units of acceleration.

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 Newton is actually required for linear accelerative time calculations. It is the blanket use of Newtons -although widespread and even utilized in Sir Isaac ' s big G fudge- which is questionable in the problematical case being examined.

 

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 Newton ' s bad day tab first.

 

Every grad student of physics knows that there are problems with Newton 's version of gravity. You might arrive at the conclusion that these quirky problems often get fobbed off with lame excuses. You would be right! If you're a student reading this--- if you are suitably astounded by the claims and deductions made in here; Why don't you inform your Professor that there is a gravitational theory and a revamped physics solution which accurately predicts the problems -which after all could make a worthwhile student study- and see if he's just there holding up the furniture or not. 

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 Newton had both the KgF and the Newton at his fingertips in the day!- and the two gravitational models we have at the moment cannot provide an answer either, so it appears that both of them are likely to be wrong.

 

 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 Newton knew after some serious analysis that the acceleration rate 'g' would be calculable at two seconds by a=1/2d. That's where 9.81 comes from.

 

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 Newton 's big G- is too slight to account for this problem. The problem shows up in extremely short low altitude free-falls where the gradient is essentially non existent. As well as that the weight of an object at ten meters of altitude is essentially the same as on the surface but the sums just don’t add up. 

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 Newton crazy; -maybe not literally but he was quoted as saying -'It maketh my head to hurt'- and although able to be lived with in everyday applications, it hasn't gone away. This all stands to this day as some of the many unanswerable enigmas of physics; many of which just toppled like dominoes once the true gravitational model of G-theory was deduced. 

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=mv2/2, 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---

 Fg   = (   sqrt   mb)   ms  4z*/   d

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 Newton did and go and think about it all ways till Sunday. However I assure you that better minds than yours and mine have been studying this for a very long time without a solution that you can take home to Momma.

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 Newtons energy equations etc.

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=mv2/2 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