1. Ultimate Gravity

To complete the gravitational theory in physics, we only need to note two points and develop an understanding from these points. The points are;

• There is no difference between G and g.

• The ‘’Energy’’ of stars is supposed to be significant enough to be represented in a gravitational theory subject equation.

There was a confusion with the whole unit thing as assigned by Isaac Newton. Figure 1 is made up of two images (1 and 2), If you can realize the difference between image 1 and 2, you’ll understand that G is basically g i.e. G and g are the same. Regarding the nature of space-time, Figure 1 describes;

Image 1: Nature of space-time at the outer space (outside a planet).

Image 2: Nature of space-time inside a planet.

Figure 1. Zero G vs Free fall

Regarding of the mass involved;

• The mass in image 1 is floating

• The mass in image 2 is dropping

If the planet in Figure 1 is Earth and we swap the nature of space-time in image 1 with that of image 2, it means that the planet in image 1 will drop downwards with an acceleration of and the man in image 2 will float with as an acceleration.

The reason why it’s called ‘’Zero G’’ at the outer space is a hidden secret as the Gravitational constant G is also meant to be represented with the unit of acceleration thereby revealing another explanation of Gravity.

Figure 2. Default Space-time illustration

Newton said gravity is a force, Einstein said it’s a curvature of spacetime. I understand what Newton meant by ‘’force’’, but it’s just a wrong choice of words. Einstein is correct about curvature but that’s because of what a bigger mass does to a smaller mass. However, I’ll tell you where those explanation from Newton and Einstein came from with a new explanation for gravity. This new explanation of gravity is the fact that the definition of gravity is; ‘’Gravity is simply the significance of the density (thickness) of space-time’’. I will use intersecting lines with a thickness which will represent the default nature of space-time (Figure 2).

Figure 3. Presence of a mass on Default Space-time illustration

Pay close attention to the thickness of the lines. Now that a mass is involved, you can observe that the thickness of the lines around the masses reduced because pressure from the masses will stretch/expand the lines (space-time) which will in turn reduce the thickness. You can also see that the lines around the bigger mass is not as thick as the lines around the smaller mass.

Gravity Explanation: The truth that Newton and Einstein never explained is that G can carry a unit of acceleration. So, when we say ‘’Zero G’’, it means that masses will accelerate downwards with an acceleration of which is basically which implies that the planets are not dropping, this is why planets float and don’t drop because the default spacetime nature at the outer space exist with Zero G as the default. Hence, when masses that big in nature applies pressure on the default space-time, because the planet will float and won’t drop an inch, it then creates a curvature as you can observe in Figure 3. Let’s assume the planets are dropping, will they be able to create curvatures on space-time? No. The curvature then affects the movement of any smaller mass around the planet that creates the curvature, thereby leading to rotation/revolution of the surrounding smaller masses. Back to the nature of space-time, if gravity is the significance of the density (thickness) of space-time and the default spacetime goes with Zero G, it means that; as the thickness of the lines (thickness of spacetime) reduces, Zero G deviates from 0 (increases) i.e. If a planet can float on the thickness of the default space-time, imagine if a reduced thickness was present at the outer space instead of the default thickness, this will make the planet to drop downwards, the downward acceleration at which the planet will drop depends on the extent of reduced thickness of space-time. Hence, the reduced thickness of the lines around the masses in Figure 3 implies that the mass of the planet is essential in determining g, this is why we have different g for planets, the bigger the mass, the higher the g. This whole explanation comes down to the fact that Gravity and Space-time are one. G and g is simply a way of measuring the thickness of space-time through acceleration, we can alternatively use S and s read [7].

So, when Newton said it simply means ‘’If a planet with mass M and radius r floats on Zero G (default space-time thickness), what will the new reduced space-time nature (g) be inside the planet? We then procced to insert the mass and radius of the planet with the constant G to get g. This new reduced space-time nature (g) is represented by the reduced line thickness inside the masses in Figure 3. However, there was a loophole.

You might ask; what entire new line of equations? What could be missing in gravity theory? Is there something about Gravity that Newton and Einstein couldn’t tell us? This entire new line of gravity equations resolves the second point which says;

• The ‘’Energy’’ of stars is supposed to be significant enough to be represented in a gravitational theory subject equation.

Hence, we have some digging to do.

Figure 4. Planet formation process

Listen, we use Newton subject equation to do calculations for a normal planet, and we also use this same Newton subject equation to do calculations for a star, where was the mistake? The loophole leads us straight to resolving this point because this entire new line of equations justifies gravity through energy, which was carried by planets at the point of creation. We had evidences like erupting volcanoes, lava etc. which proves that our planet Earth was hot back at the point of creation i.e. it carried an energy(c) just like the stars. This justification of gravity through energy is as a result of how planets were formed during creation. Planets default form was energy, from energy to matter (mass). Energy conversion to matter according to Einstein, is done with through , this was how planets were formed. However, after formation into a mass, the mass still harboured energy just like the appearance of the sun presently. This mass with harboured energy still needs complete formation whereby the energy disappears (cools) which further completes the formation. To enable this energy to cool/disappear with time, we need the help of gravity through the fine structure constant. Theoretically, the reason why we need the fine structure constant is that; the fine structure constant represents the absorption of a photon by an electron. The energy harboured by the planets are photons in quantum form, the already formed mass (matter) are represented by electrons in quantum. We then remember that when an electron absorbs a photon, the photon disappears and the electron moves to a higher state, this represents the reason why formed planets don’t harbour energy presently. The energy cooled off (disappeared) with time with the help of gravity (curvature), assisted by the fine structure constant.

The issue is that; other than Newton’s subject equation there was another way to describe gravity and it is through the presence of energy carried by stars but it will mean one thing. If Newton gravity Equations can be used for both planets and stars, and Jessii’s Equations used to justify gravity through energy, it only means one thing which is the fact that all formed planets presently were once stars, with gravity having a two-face subject equation. This fact will then imply that Jessii’s subject equation can also be used for planets and stars.

First Face (Newton);

Second Face (Jessii);

The bridge between Newton gravity subject equation and Jessii gravity subject equation is;

You can see a in the first face and a in the second face, that’s the bridge. This is no ordinary bridge in physics, this bridge revelation is the root of the Jessii’s new line of gravity equations which also reveals a big secret in physics/astrophysics. Use the illustration/calculations and description below for Step 1 to Step 7. Read [2] for more.

Step 1: We can cross multiply the bridge to form an equation as . We then realise that two constants represent the radius of a planet, why? Curiosity will lead us to the fact that there are two major scales in physics (quantum/microscale and macroscale), and there are lots of particles in quantum but only the values for an electron can be directly gotten by combining physical constants, thereby making an electron the particle for unification in physics, values for an electron then leads to a photon value. Back to the macroscale, the only possible planet that the physical constants of the universe could lead to, is planet Earth. When deriving formulars, I had to be so sure that it is planet Earth, I then proceeded to find the acceleration due to gravity of this planet.

Step 2: g will be justified if the planet has formed completely, justification of g means internal cooling of energy. Rotation will enable this internal cooling as derived in [2]. reveals g for this planet as .

Step 3: Values of r and g for this planet aren’t enough to conclude that the planet is Earth, we have to find the mass. To find the mass, we can use both the first face subject equation (Newton) and the second face subject equation (Jessii), both gives the same result. The Mass of this planet was gotten as .

Step 4: I explained in [2] the reason why the fine structure constant as an absorption factor is a member of the gravity family, it is the most powerful parameter relating to Time when it comes to gravity. Because the macro is made up of the micro, the fine structure is not only for the quantum, but for the macroscale also. We can’t get anything ‘’Time’’ as related to planets at the outer space without the help of an absorption factor (fine structure constant). No scientist knew this because they all neglected the fact that it is obvious that planets were formed from a process, energy to matter which also needed absorption. Hence, energy disappearance was needed through cooling for complete planet formation. For cooling, we have internal and external cooling of energy. Rotation aids internal, revolution aids external. The absorption of a photon by an electron (represented by ) in a planet is answerable to one complete spin and one complete revolution of that particular planet. With this knowledge, we can all smile because through the absorption constant, we can calculate the time it takes for our planet to complete a full spin and to complete a revolution around the sun. For rotation, we have;

See [2] for derivation.

Step 5: By appearance, a planet might seem to harbour energy but it could just be at the surface to some extent, thereby affecting its appearance. Meanwhile, internally would seem to be no energy present. Hence, revolution is needed for the external. Revolution of a planet means we need the help of the planetary body (sun) causing the curvature. Step 5 formula is a confirmation that Step 7 is correct, they both go together. For Earth, because we already know the value of our absorption factor (the fine structure constant), we can proceed without important details like distance apart and force of attraction, with the short formular as;

The reason is that the absorption factor is a combination of factors like distance apart, attraction, rotation etc. Hence, the absorption factor as a value can increase or decrease.

Step 6:

The Sun represents the body causing the curvature while the Earth represents the planet affected by the curvature. Hence, we can also use the above formula for situations like a planet and a moon (Earth and the Moon). Perhaps, the most important in the equation is the absorption factor (fine structure constant). The aim is to get the absorption factor (fine structure constant) not the distance apart (orbit radius), because the fine structure constant as an absorption factor determines the revolution period. You have to insert the distance apart to get the absorption factor , so that you can use this absorption factor to get the revolution period for any planet. Hence, the absorption factor as a value will change for other planets and their distance apart. The reason why I did the reverse is because values for Earth aligns with the physical constants, so I already knew that for Earth, the absorption factor as a value will be the fine structure constant, I just wanted to get the accurate distance apart from the Sun to the Earth since I don’t have an idea of the force of attraction. It is only Earth that I can get its accurate distance apart without NASA’s help or doing an observation because Earth aligns with the physical constants. Hence, for other planets, when you know what the distance apart is, make the subject of the formula, find as;

Once you have gotten the absorption factor all other issues are automatically solved. Note: is the distance apart.

In [2], exact values for the Sun (Table 1) were gotten through exact values for Earth. Read [2] to see how the tracing was done.

Table 1. Values for Sun

Step 7: If you think Newton’s force of attraction doesn’t have any further progress, you’re wrong because with my line of equations, in another way, we need Newton’s force of attraction to also get the revolution period of a planet. The reason is the full description as Figure 5 and 6.

Figure 5. Planet formation through revolution I (Before)

Figure 6. Planet formation through revolution II (After)

All planet/planetary body appearance was like the sun (Figure 5) i.e. all planets were stars before complete formation (Figure 6). The question is; why did some planets remain as stars up to this present time? the answer is revolution. Any planet still in form of a star means they are the cause of curvature and they don’t revolve round any, meanwhile any planet in constant revolution will change (transform) with time. Precisely constant revolution through a curvature causing an attraction between both planets with a distance apart , aiding energy cooling through an absorption factor hence the smaller planet affected by the curvature rotates while revolving around the bigger mass. This explanation leads to a formula as;

Whereby is Newton’s force of attraction by using;

This method is kind of a longer route. Alternatively, the absorption factor represents a combination of other factors like distance apart, attraction, rotation etc. Hence, we can get the absorption factor and go straight to get the revolution period with;

Both ways produce the same result.

Figure 7. Planet’s Time

Note: The time gotten will be in the planet’s time i.e. Earth for Earth days, Mars for Mars days, Neptune for Neptune days etc. Currently, NASA doesn’t have results for time as a planet’s time, they have results for how long it takes a planet to rotate/revolve in Earth’s time. The reason is because we haven’t been to these other planets, so don’t use NASA values to compare your results for other planets. See [2] for how other results for other planets were gotten.

For example;

On Earth, we observe the Sun rise to Sun set period, try to break it down in hours to minutes to seconds, getting 86400seconds, this resulted to using 3600 for division to get a complete day. In [2], the result for Mars in Mars Time was calculated as 37500seconds for a full spin and 328.05Mars Days for revolution. On Mars, it won’t be 3600, it might be a lesser value, 1 seconds as compared to Earth might be longer but however it goes, calculations through these formulars tells us that a full spin on Mars Time as related to the time it will take Mars to revolve round the sun is 328.05 Mars Days.

Note: Only Earth values gotten through the physical constants are 100% accurate. The values for other planets will have to be confirmed observationally after arrival.

The conclusion of all these calculations is that; If we look deep, we see that without the exact Pi value, we can’t get the exact values for the physical constants. Also, without the exact values for the physical constants, we can’t get exact values for planet Earth.

See [2] for complete derivation of all formulars with complete explanation.

2. Wrap Up

Everything in this paper has already been explained/revealed in [2], check it out. My Grand Theory (Ultimate Relativity) opposes a lot of established theories/values (lies) in physics including the CODATA values, NASA values, the Pi value and its definition, the Riemann hypothesis about prime numbers and many more. Just because I would want my theories to go viral, you don’t expect me to dance to these tunes that the physics community play, when we all know they are all lies. It is not my fault that these already established theories and values are wrong and I tried as much as possible to see if they were correct, but many didn’t align with the truth but some did, like Newton equations, Einstein descriptions, Babylonians Pi value discovery etc. People can only be deceived for some time but not forever unless they are fools. The truth (Ultimate Relativity) in physics is out there and the lies are also out there. Doesn’t matter how long it takes, it’s only a matter of time before people hate the lies and turn to the light in truth.

All theories and new equations in this paper are novel, all proposed by Prince Chimobi Igboejesi.