NeoGravity

The verification suite · version 4.2

Every central claim, recomputed by one program.

Nothing in the series is asserted without being computed. One file takes the five postulates and the measured inputs, works out each of the twenty-seven central results, and prints PASS or FAIL beside every one. It exits non-zero if any check fails, so a broken claim cannot pass quietly.

Version4.2
Claims27
Checks45
Failures0
Instruments5
The source on GitHub Zenodo archive 10.5281/zenodo.22080221, awaiting publication at Zenodo

What it does, and what it refuses to do

Adversarial toward the theory it belongs to, on purpose.

The suite marks which quantity is fitted rather than derived, names the results that are not independent confirmation, records one account the series withdrew, and carries a standing rival it does not claim to have settled. Where a result is a model or a postulate rather than a derivation, the claim's own heading says so.

Every claim names where it comes from: the Part of the series, the paper, and the numbered section inside it. Follow any of them and the working is there in full. The table of sources was generated from the papers themselves rather than typed, and a companion check reads the papers back and refuses if a section has been renamed.

The twenty-seven

Filter by instrument or by standing. Filtering changes what is shown, never what was run.

Instrument
Standing

1

Hydrostatic equilibrium of the Ether Plenum

DERIVED

Part III. The Law Gravity as Hydrodynamics, Paper 11
Section 3. Deriving the Index · 3.2 Hydrostatic Equilibrium

rho(r) = rho_0 exp(3GM/rc^2) from the inward load under hydrostatic equilibrium

  • PASS rho(r) = rho_0 exp[+GM/(w c^2 r)]
What the program printed
==========================================================================
CLAIM 1 -- Hydrostatic equilibrium of the Ether Plenum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part III. The Law
  Gravity as Hydrodynamics, Paper 11
  Section 3. Deriving the Index  |  3.2 Hydrostatic Equilibrium
  Recomputes: rho(r) = rho_0 exp(3GM/rc^2) from the inward load under hydrostatic equilibrium
  The Plenum, and its constants  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Undertow is inward (compressive):  w c^2 drho/dr = -rho GM/r^2
Solution : Eq(rho(r), C1*exp(GM/(c**2*r*w)))
Boundary : rho -> rho_0 as r -> oo : 1
[PASS] rho(r) = rho_0 exp[+GM/(w c^2 r)]
[NOTE] Ether Density INCREASES toward the mass. The Plenum is compressed,
[NOTE] not rarefied. That is what an inward reaction load does.
2

The exponential is NOT a 1/r power law

DERIVED

Part X. Evidence, Method and Record Working Backward Through the Maze, Paper 15
Section 5. Step Three: Equilibrium Integrates the Force · 5.3 The Integration

the exponent depends on 1/r; the 1/r potential appears only at first order

    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 2 -- The exponential is NOT a 1/r power law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part X. Evidence, Method and Record
  Working Backward Through the Maze, Paper 15
  Section 5. Step Three: Equilibrium Integrates the Force  |  5.3 The Integration
  Recomputes: the exponent depends on 1/r; the 1/r potential appears only at first order
  The Plenum, and its constants  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
rho(r)/rho_0 = exp(+A/r)
Large-r expansion: 1 + A/r + A**2/(2*r**2) + O(r**(-3), (r, oo))
[NOTE] The 1/r dependence lies in the EXPONENT.
[NOTE] A 1/r perturbation emerges only at FIRST ORDER.
[NOTE] Correct phrasing: integrating the 1/r^2 load yields a profile whose
[NOTE] exponent depends on 1/r, which at first order produces the required
[NOTE] 1/r potential perturbation.
[NOTE] Any manuscript saying 'produces a 1/r profile' unqualified is wrong.
    3

    Equation of state, w = 1/3. DERIVED, NOT FITTED

    DERIVED

    Part III. The Law Gravity as Hydrodynamics, Paper 11
    Section 3. Deriving the Index · 3.3 The Equation of State Is Not Free

    w = 1/3 from the tracelessness of a massless stress tensor

    • PASS w = 1/3, i.e. P = rho c^2 / 3
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 3 -- Equation of state, w = 1/3.  DERIVED, NOT FITTED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part III. The Law
  Gravity as Hydrodynamics, Paper 11
  Section 3. Deriving the Index  |  3.3 The Equation of State Is Not Free
  Recomputes: w = 1/3 from the tracelessness of a massless stress tensor
  The Plenum, and its constants  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Massless field  =>  traceless stress tensor:  T^mu_mu = -rho c^2 + 3P = 0
                =>  P = c**2*rho/3
Writing P = w rho c^2 :   w = 1/3
[PASS] w = 1/3, i.e. P = rho c^2 / 3
[NOTE] DERIVED. Nothing is tuned here. Tracelessness is a property of any
[NOTE] massless field, and it fixes w before any observation is consulted.
[NOTE] SUPERSEDES v2.0, which reported w = 1/4 CALIBRATED from the light
[NOTE] deflection and asked why it was not 1/3. This is the answer.

Substituting w = 1/3 into Claim 1:
     rho(r) = rho_0 exp[ 3GM / (r c^2) ]
    4

    Ambient density rho_0 from the CMB. DERIVED

    DERIVED

    Part II. The Plenum Reclaiming the Ether Plenum, Paper 9
    Section 3. The Calculation · 3.2 Mass Equivalence

    rho_0 = a T_CMB^4 / c^2, the measured ambient mass-equivalent density

    • PASS rho_0 = 4.6451e-31 kg/m^3, corpus states 4.645e-31
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 4 -- Ambient density rho_0 from the CMB.  DERIVED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part II. The Plenum
  Reclaiming the Ether Plenum, Paper 9
  Section 3. The Calculation  |  3.2 Mass Equivalence
  Recomputes: rho_0 = a T_CMB^4 / c^2, the measured ambient mass-equivalent density
  The Plenum, and its constants  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Radiation constant a = 4 sigma / c   = 7.56573e-16 J m^-3 K^-4
CMB temperature      T               = 2.7255 K   (Fixsen 2009)
Energy density       u = a T^4       = 4.17480e-14 J m^-3
Mass density         rho_0 = u / c^2 = 4.64509e-31 kg m^-3
[PASS] rho_0 = 4.6451e-31 kg/m^3, corpus states 4.645e-31
[NOTE] DERIVED from a measured temperature by Stefan-Boltzmann and E=mc^2.
[NOTE] The framework does not get to choose it.
    5

    Optical exponent k = 2/3. THE ONE FITTED CONSTANT

    FITTED

    Part III. The Law Gravity as Hydrodynamics, Paper 11
    Section 3. Deriving the Index · 3.4 The Optical Relation and the Single Constrained Ratio

    k = 2/3 from 3k = 2; the one fitted quantity, numerically the PPN gamma

    • PASS k = 2/3
    • PASS reproduces the measured 1.75 arcsec (1.7512)
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 5 -- Optical exponent k = 2/3.  THE ONE FITTED CONSTANT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part III. The Law
  Gravity as Hydrodynamics, Paper 11
  Section 3. Deriving the Index  |  3.4 The Optical Relation and the Single Constrained Ratio
  Recomputes: k = 2/3 from 3k = 2; the one fitted quantity, numerically the PPN gamma
  The Plenum, and its constants  |  FITTED
==========================================================================
n(r) = (rho/rho_0)^k = exp[ 3 k GM / (r c^2) ]
First-order coefficient in m = GM/c^2 : 3*k/r
Require = 2/r, to reproduce the measured 1.75 arcsec  =>  k = 2/3
[PASS] k = 2/3
[NOTE] CALIBRATED, not derived. Numerically this is the parametrized
[NOTE] post-Newtonian gamma, which every metric theory of gravitation
[NOTE] carries and none derives from first principles.
[NOTE] THIS IS THE ONLY FITTED QUANTITY IN THE FRAMEWORK.

Composite index:  n(r) = exp[ 2 GM / (r c^2) ]

Solar limb:  x = GM/(c^2 R) = 2.122503e-06
Deflection   4x             = 1.7512 arcsec
[PASS] reproduces the measured 1.75 arcsec (1.7512)
    6

    Second-order divergence from GR. THE FALSIFIABLE PREDICTION

    PREDICTED

    Part X. Evidence, Method and Record Working Backward Through the Maze, Paper 15
    Section 8. The Falsifiable Prediction

    the second-order deflection difference at the solar limb, 0.73 microarcsec

    • PASS the two indices agree at first order and diverge at second
    • PASS 0.73 uas at the solar limb (0.7298)
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 6 -- Second-order divergence from GR.  THE FALSIFIABLE PREDICTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part X. Evidence, Method and Record
  Working Backward Through the Maze, Paper 15
  Section 8. The Falsifiable Prediction
  Recomputes: the second-order deflection difference at the solar limb, 0.73 microarcsec
  The solar system  |  PREDICTED
==========================================================================
n_ether(r) = exp(2u)                 ->  a2 = 2
n_GR(r)    = (1+u/2)^3 / (1-u/2)     ->  a2 = 7/4
difference                               DELTA_a2 = 1/4
[PASS] the two indices agree at first order and diverge at second

DELTA_theta = pi * DELTA_a2 * x^2 = 0.7298 microarcseconds
[PASS] 0.73 uas at the solar limb (0.7298)
[NOTE] Roughly thirty times below current astrometric precision.
[NOTE] 0.23 uas is DELTA_a2 * x^2, the ray integral's pi factor dropped.
[NOTE] 0.58 uas, which appeared in earlier drafts, has no reconstructible
[NOTE] derivation and is retired. See ERRATA section 2.
    7

    Mercury perihelion, independent of the calibration

    DERIVED

    Part VI. The Strong Field A Classical Hydrodynamic Paradigm, Paper 13
    Section 5. Perihelion Advance

    Mercury's perihelion advance, 42.98 arcsec per century, with no calibration used

    • PASS 42.98 arcsec/century, observed 42.98
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 7 -- Mercury perihelion, independent of the calibration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part VI. The Strong Field
  A Classical Hydrodynamic Paradigm, Paper 13
  Section 5. Perihelion Advance
  Recomputes: Mercury's perihelion advance, 42.98 arcsec per century, with no calibration used
  The solar system  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Delta_phi = 24 pi^3 a^2 / [ T^2 c^2 (1 - e^2) ]  per orbit
per orbit   = 5.0187e-07 rad
per century = 42.98 arcsec
[PASS] 42.98 arcsec/century, observed 42.98
[NOTE] This follows from the derived profile and does not use k.
    8

    Gravitational redshift and Shapiro delay

    DERIVED

    Part VI. The Strong Field A Classical Hydrodynamic Paradigm, Paper 13
    Section 4. Light Deflection and Shapiro Delay

    the solar gravitational redshift and the Shapiro delay at superior conjunction

    • PASS z = 2.455e-15 reproduces the corpus's 2.459e-15
    • PASS 232.6 us reproduces the corpus's 232.6 us
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 8 -- Gravitational redshift and Shapiro delay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part VI. The Strong Field
  A Classical Hydrodynamic Paradigm, Paper 13
  Section 4. Light Deflection and Shapiro Delay
  Recomputes: the solar gravitational redshift and the Shapiro delay at superior conjunction
  The solar system  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
REDSHIFT, over the tower the measurement was actually made on:
     z = g h / c^2 = 9.80665 * 22.5 / c^2 = 2.4551e-15
[PASS] z = 2.455e-15 reproduces the corpus's 2.459e-15
[NOTE] Measured 2.57 +/- 0.26 e-15 (Pound and Rebka, 1960): the computed
[NOTE] value sits inside the measurement's own error bar.

     for reference, at the solar surface z = GM/(Rc^2) = 2.1225e-06
[NOTE] That solar figure is COMPUTED here and is not quoted by any paper.
[NOTE] Version 4.0 checked it against a 'measured' value the corpus does
[NOTE] not state. The check is withdrawn; the number is kept as context.

SHAPIRO DELAY, the same parameter probed at a different geometry:
     Dt = (4GM/c^3) ln( 4 r1 r2 / b^2 )
     r1 = 1 AU, r2 = 0.72333 AU (Venus), b = R_sun
     Dt = 232.6 microseconds
[PASS] 232.6 us reproduces the corpus's 232.6 us
[NOTE] Measured as a ratio of observed to predicted delay, 1.015 +/- 0.05.
[NOTE] The deflection CALIBRATES the optical exponent; the Shapiro delay
[NOTE] probes the same parameter at a different geometry, so it is a
[NOTE] consistency check and not an independent prediction. Paper 13 says so.
[NOTE] The redshift is a temporal input to the calibration, not an
[NOTE] independent confirmation of it. Stated as such in Paper 13.
    9

    Photon-capture diameter. A NEAR-TERM DISCRIMINATOR

    PREDICTED

    Part VI. The Strong Field The Dark Circle Around a Black Hole, Paper 30
    Section 2. The Derivation, Whole

    the photon-capture diameter, 4.63 percent above the Schwarzschild shadow

    • PASS shadow 4.63 % larger than the GR value
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 9 -- Photon-capture diameter.  A NEAR-TERM DISCRIMINATOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part VI. The Strong Field
  The Dark Circle Around a Black Hole, Paper 30
  Section 2. The Derivation, Whole
  Recomputes: the photon-capture diameter, 4.63 percent above the Schwarzschild shadow
  The strong field  |  PREDICTED
==========================================================================
framework  b_c = 2e   GM/c^2 = 5.436564 GM/c^2
GR         b_c = 3sqrt3 GM/c^2 = 5.196152 GM/c^2
excess                          = 4.63 %
[PASS] shadow 4.63 % larger than the GR value
[NOTE] Within reach of next-generation horizon-scale imaging.
    10

    Frame dragging: TOPOLOGY, and R_eff is DEFINITIONAL

    DEFINITIONAL

    Part V. Dynamics How Spinning Masses Stir the Ether Plenum, Paper 26
    Section 3. The Amplitude, and the Dissolution of the Fitted Length

    R_eff by Omega R_eff^3 = 2GJ/c^2; a definition, not a second fitted constant

    • PASS identical DIPOLE TOPOLOGY: both go as sin(theta)/r^2
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 10 -- Frame dragging: TOPOLOGY, and R_eff is DEFINITIONAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part V. Dynamics
  How Spinning Masses Stir the Ether Plenum, Paper 26
  Section 3. The Amplitude, and the Dissolution of the Fitted Length
  Recomputes: R_eff by Omega R_eff^3 = 2GJ/c^2; a definition, not a second fitted constant
  The solar system  |  DEFINITIONAL
==========================================================================
Stokes rotating sphere : v = Omega R^3 sin(th) / r^2
GR Lense-Thirring drag : v = 2 G J sin(th) / (c^2 r^2)
[PASS] identical DIPOLE TOPOLOGY: both go as sin(theta)/r^2
[WRONG] the two are NOT 'algebraically identical' physical fields.
[NOTE] Stokes flow requires viscosity and a no-slip boundary at r=R.
[NOTE] Kerr is a VACUUM solution (T_munu = 0). The two accounts differ.

Earth: I = 0.3307 M R^2  ->  J = 5.8457e+33 kg m^2 / s
       R_eff = 4919.6 m = 4.92 km
[NOTE] Using the uniform-sphere I = (2/5)MR^2 overstates J by 21% and
[NOTE] yields an incorrect R_eff near 5.24 km. Do not use it.
[NOTE] R_eff IS DEFINITIONAL, NOT A SECOND FITTED CONSTANT. It is defined
[NOTE] by Omega R_eff^3 = 2GJ/c^2 and carries no independent content: the
[NOTE] ratio returns 1 by construction because the definition makes it do so.
[NOTE] A quantity introduced by definition is not a fit. It was reported as
[NOTE] a fitted constant in Paper 12 and has since been retired as
[NOTE] definitional.
[NOTE] SUPERSEDES v2.0, which printed 'TWO fitted constants. Not one.' and
[NOTE] 'Any claim of a single calibrated constant is FALSE.' Both are wrong.
    11

    The coupling tracks mass-energy, not thermal output

    DERIVED

    Part III. The Law The NeoGravity Theorem, Paper 3
    Section 5. Two Quantitative Constraints · 5.2 The Coupling Cannot Track Thermal Luminosity

    the coupling tracks mass-energy and not thermal luminosity

    • PASS a thermal-output coupling is excluded on the conservative reading too, by a factor near ten thousand against MICROSCOPE's 1e-15
    • PASS radiation pressure is some 6e13 times too weak, and points the wrong way
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 11 -- The coupling tracks mass-energy, not thermal output
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part III. The Law
  The NeoGravity Theorem, Paper 3
  Section 5. Two Quantitative Constraints  |  5.2 The Coupling Cannot Track Thermal Luminosity
  Recomputes: the coupling tracks mass-energy and not thermal luminosity
  The solar system  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Sun   L/M                    = 1.9247e-04 W/kg
Earth L/M, internal heat     = 7.8698e-12 W/kg  -> ratio 2.446e+07
Earth L/M, total IR radiated = 2.0428e-08 W/kg  -> ratio 9.422e+03   <- conservative, and the figure the FAQ quotes
MICROSCOPE bounds composition-dependent free fall at 1e-15 (Touboul 2022).
[PASS] a thermal-output coupling is excluded on the conservative reading too, by a factor near ten thousand against MICROSCOPE's 1e-15
[NOTE] The coupling must track TOTAL MASS-ENERGY. This does not eliminate
[NOTE] the hypothesis; it selects among versions of it.

Sun on Earth, gravitational pull vs solar radiation pressure:
     F_grav = 3.5416e+22 N
     F_rad  = 5.7897e+08 N   (momentum flux on the disc pi R_e^2)
     ratio  = 6.117e+13
[PASS] radiation pressure is some 6e13 times too weak, and points the wrong way
[NOTE] The Undertow is the reaction load, not the outward push. Anyone
[NOTE] reading it as radiation pressure has the sign and the magnitude wrong.
    12

    Hellings-Downs correlation from the transverse-traceless family

    DERIVED

    Part V. Dynamics Waves in the Ether Plenum, Paper 24
    Section 3. The Transverse Branch and the Tensor Solutions

    the Hellings-Downs correlation from the transverse-traceless family

    • PASS quadrupolar signature: positive at small separation, negative near 90 deg
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 12 -- Hellings-Downs correlation from the transverse-traceless family
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part V. Dynamics
  Waves in the Ether Plenum, Paper 24
  Section 3. The Transverse Branch and the Tensor Solutions
  Recomputes: the Hellings-Downs correlation from the transverse-traceless family
  Waves, and the bounds they set  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
  angle (deg)   HD correlation
        5.73      +0.47692
       45.00      +0.04138
       90.00      -0.14486
      135.00      +0.08387
      174.27      +0.24688
[PASS] quadrupolar signature: positive at small separation, negative near 90 deg
[NOTE] The Plenum's elastic wave equation admits the transverse-traceless
[NOTE] family EXACTLY, so the plus and cross states and this correlation are
[NOTE] DERIVED rather than assumed. The arrays' preference for the tensor
[NOTE] pattern is what the framework predicts.
    13

    The compression residue kappa_L. BOUNDED BY THE TEST, DERIVED ABOVE THE BOUND

    DERIVED

    Part V. Dynamics The Binary Pulsar Test, Paper 25
    Section 5. Part C: The Two Leakage Channels

    kappa_L < 1.3e-4 measured; (c/c_L)^7/18 = 9.3e-3 to 0.23 derived, above it

    • PASS bound matches Kramer's own published precision
    • PASS the derived share lies ABOVE the bound the double pulsar sets
    • PASS control: at c_L = c with coupling c^2 the same computation returns the scalar quadrupole 1/30 against the tensor 1/5
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 13 -- The compression residue kappa_L.  BOUNDED BY THE TEST, DERIVED ABOVE THE BOUND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part V. Dynamics
  The Binary Pulsar Test, Paper 25
  Section 5. Part C: The Two Leakage Channels
  Recomputes: kappa_L < 1.3e-4 measured; (c/c_L)^7/18 = 9.3e-3 to 0.23 derived, above it
  Waves, and the bounds they set  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Kramer et al. (2021), PRX 11, 041050, Table V and Eqs. (44), (47), (48):
     observed  Pb_dot = -1.247782e-12
     GR        Pb_dot = -1.247827e-12
     quotient          = 0.9999639   (article prints 0.999963)

2-sigma allowance = 1.260e-04  ->  kappa_L < 1.3e-4
[PASS] bound matches Kramer's own published precision
[NOTE] This is not an independent computation. It is the primary source's
[NOTE] own 95%-confidence figure, correctly applied, and is cited as such.

WITHDRAWN, order-counting, kappa_L ~ GM/(a c^2), double pulsar J0737-3039:
     a       = 8.78912e+08 m
     kappa_L ~ 4.348e-06   (4.35 parts per million)
[NOTE] This estimate stood in versions up to 4.1 and is withdrawn. The computation
[NOTE] from the framework's own equations, below, does not bear it out.

DERIVED from P1-P5, the orbit's loss to the compression branch:
     c_L     = sqrt(5/3) c = 3.8703e+08 m/s
     kappa_L = (c/c_L)^7/18            = 9.295e-03   (Newtonian body force)
     kappa_L = 25 x that               = 0.232     (full-profile drive)
     against the measured bound 1.3e-04: over by 72x and 1788x
[PASS] the derived share lies ABOVE the bound the double pulsar sets
[PASS] control: at c_L = c with coupling c^2 the same computation returns the scalar quadrupole 1/30 against the tensor 1/5
[NOTE] THE CLAUSE IS MET. Paper 25 Section 5 states that a future derivation of
[NOTE] kappa_L from the postulates exceeding 1e-4 falsifies the framework
[NOTE] retroactively. This is that derivation. The formulation AS FIRST WRITTEN
[NOTE] fails the double pulsar on its compression branch.
[NOTE] THE SUCCESSOR, adopted 17 September, narrows the reading law of P5: matter
[NOTE] reads the settled profile a mass carries and NOT the compression wave, which
[NOTE] it sources and which light reads through the index. The branch's reaction on
[NOTE] the bodies is then not exerted, the orbit loses nothing to it, and the pass
[NOTE] stands on the tensor branch as calculated.
[NOTE] WHAT THE SUCCESSOR CONCEDES: the third law between body and Plenum for that
[NOTE] wave alone, at 9.3e-03 of the tensor power. For the settled profile,
[NOTE] where the Undertow lives, the law holds exactly.
[NOTE] WHAT IT PREDICTS, and this claim can fail on it: the timing arrays read the
[NOTE] compression branch by light alone, a dispersive scalar admixture near
[NOTE] 3.6e-03 of the tensor power (Newtonian drive) or 0.09 (full-profile drive),
[NOTE] angular factors of order one dropped. A bound on a frequency-dependent scalar
[NOTE] component below 3.6e-03 in power refutes the successor with the Newtonian drive.
[NOTE] The pulsar timing arrays give a SECOND and independent handle, in a
[NOTE] band four decades lower, bounding the scalar-longitudinal amplitude
[NOTE] of the background below 4.2e-17 (Wu et al. 2022).
    14

    Withdrawn: the vorticity account of galactic rotation

    WITHDRAWN

    Part VIII. The Limits of the Postulates Galaxies and the Missing Mass, Paper 27
    Section 4. The Result: Newton at Galactic Scale

    the vorticity account of galactic rotation, recorded as withdrawn

    • PASS the shortfall is (3/4)(c/v)^2, between one and ten million
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 14 -- Withdrawn: the vorticity account of galactic rotation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part VIII. The Limits of the Postulates
  Galaxies and the Missing Mass, Paper 27
  Section 4. The Result: Newton at Galactic Scale
  Recomputes: the vorticity account of galactic rotation, recorded as withdrawn
  Galaxies and the expansion  |  WITHDRAWN
==========================================================================
The vorticity account fails by six orders of magnitude and is withdrawn.
     entrainment deep inside the source  (4/3)v^3/c^2 = 0.158 m/s
     against the observed                              2.2e+05 m/s
     shortfall = (3/4)(c/v)^2                        = 1.393e+06
[PASS] the shortfall is (3/4)(c/v)^2, between one and ten million
[NOTE] The failure is in the AMPLITUDE, not the shape. An earlier statement
[NOTE] that the radial profile is also wrong evaluated an exterior solution
[NOTE] inside the source; summed properly the profile is far flatter than
[NOTE] 1/r^2 across the disk. That clause was withdrawn on 16 September 2026.
[NOTE] Closing the shortfall would need v = 0.87c. No disk galaxy rotates
[NOTE] at more than about 0.001c, so the failure is structural.
[NOTE] Within its postulates the framework predicts NO galactic anomaly and
[NOTE] stands with Newton at galactic scale. This is stated wherever the
[NOTE] galaxies are discussed, not buried.
    15

    A potential body force sources the compression branch only

    DERIVED

    Part V. Dynamics Waves in the Ether Plenum, Paper 24
    Section 5. Two Source Theorems, and the Residue

    curl(grad Phi) = 0: a potential drive sources the compression branch only

    • PASS curl(grad Phi) = 0: a potential drive cannot radiate a transverse wave
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 15 -- A potential body force sources the compression branch only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part V. Dynamics
  Waves in the Ether Plenum, Paper 24
  Section 5. Two Source Theorems, and the Residue
  Recomputes: curl(grad Phi) = 0: a potential drive sources the compression branch only
  Waves, and the bounds they set  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
[PASS] curl(grad Phi) = 0: a potential drive cannot radiate a transverse wave
[NOTE] The tensor branch therefore needs a solenoidal source. Within P1-P5 the
[NOTE] candidates are the velocity couplings of P4; see Claim 19 for the numbers.
    16

    Withdrawn: the relaxational source rule for kappa_L

    WITHDRAWN

    Part V. Dynamics Waves in the Ether Plenum, Paper 24
    Section 7. Status Updates

    the relaxational source rule, recorded as withdrawn: its tau_s has no home

    • PASS double pulsar bound reads tau_s > 3 x 10^4 s
    • PASS WITHDRAWN: neither the postulates nor the sourcing supplies the settling time the rule needs
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 16 -- Withdrawn: the relaxational source rule for kappa_L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part V. Dynamics
  Waves in the Ether Plenum, Paper 24
  Section 7. Status Updates
  Recomputes: the relaxational source rule, recorded as withdrawn: its tau_s has no home
  Waves, and the bounds they set  |  WITHDRAWN
==========================================================================
omega_gw = 2 omega_orb = 1.422e-03 s^-1;  kappa_0 = 0.232
kappa_L < 1.3e-4   <=>   tau_s > 2.970e+04 s  (8.2 h)
kappa_L ~ 4.3e-06  <=>   tau_s ~ 1.624e+05 s  (1.9 d)
[PASS] double pulsar bound reads tau_s > 3 x 10^4 s

What would have to supply tau_s > 3.0e+04 s:
     the Plenum's own settling, a/c_L        = 2.27 s   (short by 4.1 orders)
     a sourcing-side lag, trailing the Moon  = 3.0e+07 m  (LLR resolves 1e-03 m)
     lunar laser ranging therefore allows    tau_s < 9.8e-07 s
[PASS] WITHDRAWN: neither the postulates nor the sourcing supplies the settling time the rule needs
[NOTE] Recorded as withdrawn rather than deleted. The arithmetic above is the
[NOTE] arithmetic that withdrew it, and Claim 13 now derives kappa_L directly,
[NOTE] with no settling time in it at all.
    17

    The wave-sector energy is NOT the Plenum's inertia. POSTULATE RECORDED

    POSTULATED

    Part V. Dynamics Waves in the Ether Plenum, Paper 24
    Section 7. Status Updates

    the wave-sector energy as coupling-set field energy, (c^2/16 pi G) h_dot^2

    • PASS a Plenum of density rho_0 cannot carry the binary's luminosity as kinetic energy
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 17 -- The wave-sector energy is NOT the Plenum's inertia.  POSTULATE RECORDED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part V. Dynamics
  Waves in the Ether Plenum, Paper 24
  Section 7. Status Updates
  Recomputes: the wave-sector energy as coupling-set field energy, (c^2/16 pi G) h_dot^2
  Waves, and the bounds they set  |  POSTULATED
==========================================================================
rho_0 = 4.6451e-31 kg m^-3
F_el / F_GR at the double pulsar = 16 pi G rho_0 / omega^2 = 7.70e-34
the two agree only at omega = 3.95e-20 s^-1, a period of 5043 Gyr
[PASS] a Plenum of density rho_0 cannot carry the binary's luminosity as kinetic energy
[NOTE] The energy law adopted is field energy set by the coupling, (c^2/16 pi G) h_dot^2,
[NOTE] the electromagnetic reading; four readings from the Plenum's own mechanics
[NOTE] It is a postulate, entered as one. kappa_L, a ratio of amplitudes, is unaffected.
    18

    The relaxation window's top is the Hubble time; a galaxy lies below it

    MODEL

    Part III. The Law Newton's Formulas Corrected, According to NeoGravity, Paper 39
    Section 3. The First Law · 3.5 A Question the Constants Raise

    the relaxation window top at 1/H0, and a galaxy crossing De = 1 at 4.6e15 s

    • PASS the printed upper bound 1e17 s is the Hubble time to within a factor of five
    • PASS crossing time 4.629e+15 s reproduces Paper 39's 4.6e15 s
    • PASS the galactic crossing lies inside the window, below its top
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 18 -- The relaxation window's top is the Hubble time; a galaxy lies below it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part III. The Law
  Newton's Formulas Corrected, According to NeoGravity, Paper 39
  Section 3. The First Law  |  3.5 A Question the Constants Raise
  Recomputes: the relaxation window top at 1/H0, and a galaxy crossing De = 1 at 4.6e15 s
  Galaxies and the expansion  |  MODEL
==========================================================================
H0 = 67.4 km/s/Mpc:  1/H0 = 4.578e+17 s  (window top printed as 1e17 s; ratio 4.6)
H0 = 73.0 km/s/Mpc:  1/H0 = 4.227e+17 s  (window top printed as 1e17 s; ratio 4.2)
galactic Deborah crossing R/v = 4.63e+15 s (Paper 39: 4.6e15 s)
[PASS] the printed upper bound 1e17 s is the Hubble time to within a factor of five
[PASS] crossing time 4.629e+15 s reproduces Paper 39's 4.6e15 s
[PASS] the galactic crossing lies inside the window, below its top
[NOTE] MODEL: if the drift of O7 is the Plenum's Maxwell flow, tau sits near 1/H0 and every
[NOTE] galaxy is treated elastically (no bulk dissipation), consistent with Newton at galactic scale.
[NOTE] Gauge: observed galactic-scale Plenum dissipation would refute the reading.
    19

    The transverse source: what the Plenum needs, and what P4 entrainment gives

    DERIVED

    Part V. Dynamics Waves in the Ether Plenum, Paper 24
    Section 5. Two Source Theorems, and the Residue

    the solenoidal force the tensor branch needs, against what P4 entrainment gives

    • PASS the dipole requirement exceeds the equivalent point force by 1/(k a)
    • PASS Paper 26's slip fraction and its dissolved length R_eff are one statement
    • PASS the slip fraction is Paper 26's twelve percent for the A star
    • PASS CONTROL: the elastic stiffness reduces to 6 pi mu R when the Plenum is incompressible
    • PASS the shortfall is a small factor, not the 1e11 to 1e20 of version 4.0
    • PASS and it is a shortfall: this claim does not close the ninth problem
    • PASS CROSS-CHECK: the requirement agrees with transverse_source.py's independent moment-tensor route, 3.52 N; a factor slipped anywhere in the four lines above breaks this
    • PASS and the shortfall is the factor of ten the papers now carry
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 19 -- The transverse source: what the Plenum needs, and what P4 entrainment gives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part V. Dynamics
  Waves in the Ether Plenum, Paper 24
  Section 5. Two Source Theorems, and the Residue
  Recomputes: the solenoidal force the tensor branch needs, against what P4 entrainment gives
  Waves, and the bounds they set  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
equivalent point force (what 4.0 compared) = 7.338e-03 N
k a = 4.170e-03, so the per-star dipole requirement F = 3.52 N
[PASS] the dipole requirement exceeds the equivalent point force by 1/(k a)
[PASS] Paper 26's slip fraction and its dissolved length R_eff are one statement
[PASS] the slip fraction is Paper 26's twelve percent for the A star
[PASS] CONTROL: the elastic stiffness reduces to 6 pi mu R when the Plenum is incompressible
full no-slip elastic grip k u = 3.082 N
at Paper 26's slip fraction 0.1153:  F = 0.3553 N
SHORT BY A FACTOR OF 9.9
[PASS] the shortfall is a small factor, not the 1e11 to 1e20 of version 4.0
[PASS] and it is a shortfall: this claim does not close the ninth problem
[PASS] CROSS-CHECK: the requirement agrees with transverse_source.py's independent moment-tensor route, 3.52 N; a factor slipped anywhere in the four lines above breaks this
[PASS] and the shortfall is the factor of ten the papers now carry
[NOTE] MODEL: the stiffness is a small-displacement result used at u/R = 3.5e+04, and Paper 26 derives the slip fraction for ROTATION at zero frequency.
[NOTE] Both make the figure generous, so the shortfall is a floor. The residue is carried
[NOTE] in the working draft and not in a paper, under the rule that an unexhausted
[NOTE] failure is not published until the research on it is exhausted.
    20

    Nonlinearity parameter beta = 1. DERIVED from the perihelion coefficient

    DERIVED

    Part 0. The Program The Central Roadmap, Paper 20
    Section 3. What Follows Without Further Assumption · 3.2 Motion

    beta = 1, read off the perihelion coefficient

    • PASS beta = 1 follows from the perihelion coefficient and gamma = 1
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 20 -- Nonlinearity parameter beta = 1.  DERIVED from the perihelion coefficient
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part 0. The Program
  The Central Roadmap, Paper 20
  Section 3. What Follows Without Further Assumption  |  3.2 Motion
  Recomputes: beta = 1, read off the perihelion coefficient
  The Plenum, and its constants  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
PPN perihelion advance = [(2 - beta + 2 gamma)/3] * 6 pi GM / [a c^2 (1 - e^2)]
Claim 7 reproduced the GR coefficient exactly, so the bracket equals 1.
With the framework's gamma = 1 (Claim 5):   beta = 1
[PASS] beta = 1 follows from the perihelion coefficient and gamma = 1
[NOTE] beta is therefore not an independent fit. The one fitted quantity
[NOTE] remains k = 2/3, equivalently gamma.
    21

    Shear modulus mu = rho_0 c^2. DERIVED at rho_0

    DERIVED

    Part II. The Plenum The Law of the Ether Plenum, Paper 21
    Section 4. The Constitutive Law

    mu = rho_0 c^2, fixed by transverse waves propagating at c

    • PASS mu(rho_0) = rho_0 c^2
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 21 -- Shear modulus mu = rho_0 c^2.  DERIVED at rho_0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part II. The Plenum
  The Law of the Ether Plenum, Paper 21
  Section 4. The Constitutive Law
  Recomputes: mu = rho_0 c^2, fixed by transverse waves propagating at c
  The Plenum, and its constants  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Transverse wave speed in an elastic medium:  c_T = sqrt(mu / rho)
The framework requires c_T = c at the ambient density:
     sqrt(mu / rho_0) = c    ->    mu = c**2*rho_0
[PASS] mu(rho_0) = rho_0 c^2
[NOTE] READ THE CONDITION WHERE IT IS IMPOSED. Both derivations in the corpus
[NOTE] (The Law of the Ether Plenum, Paper 21, para 70; Waves in the Ether Plenum,
[NOTE] Paper 24, para 31) write sqrt(mu/rho_0), at the AMBIENT density. What is
[NOTE] derived is therefore the NORMALISATION mu(rho_0), not the density
[NOTE] dependence mu(rho). Nothing in P1-P5 supplies mu(rho) away from rho_0.
    22

    Finding A6.1: steady amplitudes are viscosity-independent

    DERIVED

    Part V. Dynamics How Spinning Masses Stir the Ether Plenum, Paper 26
    Section 5. Finding A6.1: The Viscosity Cancels from Steady Turning

    Finding A6.1: steady amplitudes are independent of the viscosity

    • PASS the steady solution satisfies the equation for ANY eta and contains none
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 22 -- Finding A6.1: steady amplitudes are viscosity-independent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part V. Dynamics
  How Spinning Masses Stir the Ether Plenum, Paper 26
  Section 5. Finding A6.1: The Viscosity Cancels from Steady Turning
  Recomputes: Finding A6.1: steady amplitudes are independent of the viscosity
  Waves, and the bounds they set  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Steady Stokes field of a rotating sphere:  v_phi = Omega R^3 sin(theta) / r^2
     the azimuthal Stokes operator applied to it = 0
     free symbols of v_phi: ['Omega', 'R', 'r', 'theta']
[PASS] the steady solution satisfies the equation for ANY eta and contains none
[NOTE] A rotation experiment measures this amplitude, so it cannot measure eta.
[NOTE] Finding A6.1. The eta determination is displaced to relaxation phenomena
[NOTE] (What the Ether Plenum Is Made Of, Paper 35), where the time constant enters.
    23

    Finding A6.2: the barotropic law annihilates the baroclinic source

    DERIVED

    Part V. Dynamics How Spinning Masses Stir the Ether Plenum, Paper 26
    Section 6. Finding A6.2: The Plenum Turns Only as Matter Turns It

    Finding A6.2: the barotropic law annihilates the baroclinic source

    • PASS the baroclinic source vanishes identically, for every density field
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 23 -- Finding A6.2: the barotropic law annihilates the baroclinic source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part V. Dynamics
  How Spinning Masses Stir the Ether Plenum, Paper 26
  Section 6. Finding A6.2: The Plenum Turns Only as Matter Turns It
  Recomputes: Finding A6.2: the barotropic law annihilates the baroclinic source
  Waves, and the bounds they set  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Baroclinic vorticity source:  (grad rho) x (grad p) / rho^2
With the barotropic law p = p(rho), grad p is parallel to grad rho:
     (grad rho) x (grad p) = Matrix([[0, 0, 0]])
[PASS] the baroclinic source vanishes identically, for every density field
[NOTE] Finding A6.2. The classical mechanism for generating vorticity is not
[NOTE] available to this Plenum at all, which is why the galactic vorticity
[NOTE] account had to be withdrawn rather than repaired (Claim 14).
    24

    Finding A8.1: the inflow is strictly subluminal. NO ACOUSTIC HORIZON

    DERIVED

    Part VI. The Strong Field Black Holes Without Horizons, Paper 28
    Section 4. Finding A8.1: No Acoustic Horizon Either

    Finding A8.1: v/c = sqrt(1 - e^(-2x)) = 0.795 at the capture surface

    • PASS v/c = 0.7951 at the capture surface, as Paper 28 states (0.795)
    • PASS v < c at every finite radius; c is approached only asymptotically
    • PASS the Schwarzschild river REACHES c at r_s; this profile never does
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 24 -- Finding A8.1: the inflow is strictly subluminal.  NO ACOUSTIC HORIZON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part VI. The Strong Field
  Black Holes Without Horizons, Paper 28
  Section 4. Finding A8.1: No Acoustic Horizon Either
  Recomputes: Finding A8.1: v/c = sqrt(1 - e^(-2x)) = 0.795 at the capture surface
  The strong field  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Time factor of the exponential metric:   exp(-x),  x = GM / (r c^2)
River-form inflow speed:                 v/c = sqrt(1 - exp(-2x))
     capture surface r = 2GM/c^2  ->  x = 1/2  ->  v/c = 0.7951
     limit as r -> 0 (x -> oo):        v/c -> 1
[PASS] v/c = 0.7951 at the capture surface, as Paper 28 states (0.795)
[PASS] v < c at every finite radius; c is approached only asymptotically

The standard river, for comparison:      v/c = sqrt(r_s / r)
     at r = r_s:                         v/c = 1  (a sonic surface exists)
[PASS] the Schwarzschild river REACHES c at r_s; this profile never does
[NOTE] Finding A8.1. There is no sonic surface and no acoustic black hole in
[NOTE] the framework's profile. The Unruh-Visser analogue construction is cited
[NOTE] throughout NeoGravity for what it proves about media reproducing horizon
[NOTE] kinematics; this profile does not reproduce them, and the metaphor is
[NOTE] demoted by the framework's own arithmetic.
    25

    The areal radius, and the wormhole rival. THE RIVAL STANDS

    RECORDED

    Part II. The Plenum The Law of the Ether Plenum, Paper 21
    Section 7. Prior Art and Counter-Evidence

    R(r) = r e^(m/r) is stationary at r = GM/c^2; the wormhole rival stands

    • PASS the areal radius has a stationary point at r = GM/c^2, as Boonserm et al. show
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 25 -- The areal radius, and the wormhole rival.  THE RIVAL STANDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part II. The Plenum
  The Law of the Ether Plenum, Paper 21
  Section 7. Prior Art and Counter-Evidence
  Recomputes: R(r) = r e^(m/r) is stationary at r = GM/c^2; the wormhole rival stands
  The strong field  |  RECORDED
==========================================================================
Areal radius of the exponential metric:  R(r) = r exp(m / r),   m = GM/c^2
     dR/dr = (-m + r)*exp(m/r)/r
     stationary at r = m  =  GM/c^2
     the capture surface lies at r = 2GM/c^2, so the stationary point is inside it
[PASS] the areal radius has a stationary point at r = GM/c^2, as Boonserm et al. show
[NOTE] THIS SUITE DOES NOT SETTLE THE QUESTION, AND SAYS SO. The stationary
[NOTE] point is a property of the metric. Whether it is a traversable throat
[NOTE] depends on what sources the geometry: a phantom scalar in the geometric
[NOTE] reading, the Ether Plenum's equilibrium in this framework's. That is a
[NOTE] question about stress-energy, not about R(r), and it is argued in Paper 29.
[NOTE] Paper 28 records the rival as standing. Nothing here promotes or retires it.
    26

    Finding A12.1: the constitutive arrow. NO TIME-REVERSED THRESHOLD

    DERIVED

    Part VI. The Strong Field Black Holes and White Holes, Paper 32
    Section 3. Finding A12.1: Two Exclusions

    Finding A12.1: the constitutive arrow; no time-reversed threshold

    • PASS relaxation has no inverse: the constitutive law is not time-reversal invariant
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 26 -- Finding A12.1: the constitutive arrow.  NO TIME-REVERSED THRESHOLD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part VI. The Strong Field
  Black Holes and White Holes, Paper 32
  Section 3. Finding A12.1: Two Exclusions
  Recomputes: Finding A12.1: the constitutive arrow; no time-reversed threshold
  The strong field  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Maxwell element, deviatoric stress relaxing with time constant tau > 0:
     Eq(Derivative(sigma(t), t) + sigma(t)/tau, 0)
     solution: Eq(sigma(t), C1*exp(-t/tau))
Send t -> -t. The same equation becomes  d(sigma)/dt - sigma/tau = 0,
whose solution grows without bound: stress un-relaxing of its own accord.
     forward at t = 1:  0.367879
     reversed at t = 1: 2.718282
[PASS] relaxation has no inverse: the constitutive law is not time-reversal invariant
[NOTE] Finding A12.1. A white threshold is the time-reverse of a threshold, and
[NOTE] P4 gives the Plenum an arrow. The exclusion is unconditional for any
[NOTE] tau > 0, so it does not depend on where in the window tau falls (Claim 18).
[NOTE] With Claim 24 this gives the framework's two clean negative predictions:
[NOTE] no echoes, because there is no membrane to reflect from, and no white holes.
[NOTE] Either is falsified by a single confirmed observation.
    27

    Finding A13.1: the conformal mapping, and the three inherited tests

    DERIVED

    Part VII. Cosmology and Constitution Cosmic Expansion in the Ether Plenum, Paper 33
    Section 2. Finding A13.1: The Density Drift, as a Mapping

    Finding A13.1: the conformal mapping, and the three inherited tests

    • PASS dilation, Tolman dimming and the blackbody scaling all follow from the factor a
    What the program printed
    ==========================================================================
CLAIM 27 -- Finding A13.1: the conformal mapping, and the three inherited tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Part VII. Cosmology and Constitution
  Cosmic Expansion in the Ether Plenum, Paper 33
  Section 2. Finding A13.1: The Density Drift, as a Mapping
  Recomputes: Finding A13.1: the conformal mapping, and the three inherited tests
  Galaxies and the expansion  |  DERIVED
==========================================================================
Flat expanding line element in conformal time:
     ds^2 = a(eta)^2 [ -c^2 deta^2 + dx^2 ]
A null ray has dx/deta = c, independent of a: the conformal factor rescales
all wave speeds, clocks and rulers together, which is a homogeneous Plenum
whose index drifts secularly. The framework's knob is the ambient density rho_0.

The three tests that kill every static-medium redshift, inherited exactly:
     time dilation        Dt_obs / Dt_em = z + 1
     surface brightness   S ~ (z + 1)**(-4)
     blackbody            T_em / T_obs = z + 1
[PASS] dilation, Tolman dimming and the blackbody scaling all follow from the factor a
[NOTE] Finding A13.1, and it is a MAPPING, not a driver. What makes rho_0 drift
[NOTE] is not supplied by P1-P5: Status Register row 15 reads 'Unsupplied; the
[NOTE] expansion history is adopted, not derived'. The suite checks the
[NOTE] kinematic side and says plainly that the dynamic side is absent.
[NOTE] Scattering-based redshifts smear the blackbody; a conformal rescaling
[NOTE] does not, which is the whole of the separation argument.

    Where each result stands

    Generated from the same register the claims above are, so it cannot disagree with them.

    DERIVEDClaim 1 rho(r) = rho_0 exp(3GM/rc^2) from the inward load under hydrostatic equilibrium
    Claim 2 the exponent depends on 1/r; the 1/r potential appears only at first order
    Claim 3 w = 1/3 from the tracelessness of a massless stress tensor
    Claim 4 rho_0 = a T_CMB^4 / c^2, the measured ambient mass-equivalent density
    Claim 7 Mercury's perihelion advance, 42.98 arcsec per century, with no calibration used
    Claim 8 the solar gravitational redshift and the Shapiro delay at superior conjunction
    Claim 11 the coupling tracks mass-energy and not thermal luminosity
    Claim 12 the Hellings-Downs correlation from the transverse-traceless family
    Claim 13 kappa_L < 1.3e-4 measured; (c/c_L)^7/18 = 9.3e-3 to 0.23 derived, above it
    Claim 15 curl(grad Phi) = 0: a potential drive sources the compression branch only
    Claim 19 the solenoidal force the tensor branch needs, against what P4 entrainment gives
    Claim 20 beta = 1, read off the perihelion coefficient
    Claim 21 mu = rho_0 c^2, fixed by transverse waves propagating at c
    Claim 22 Finding A6.1: steady amplitudes are independent of the viscosity
    Claim 23 Finding A6.2: the barotropic law annihilates the baroclinic source
    Claim 24 Finding A8.1: v/c = sqrt(1 - e^(-2x)) = 0.795 at the capture surface
    Claim 26 Finding A12.1: the constitutive arrow; no time-reversed threshold
    Claim 27 Finding A13.1: the conformal mapping, and the three inherited tests
    not separately numbered temporal response coefficient, from energy conservation
    not separately numbered density-gradient law g = -(c^2/3) grad ln rho
    not separately numbered inverse-square form of the Undertow (shell geometry)
    FITTEDClaim 5 k = 2/3 from 3k = 2; the one fitted quantity, numerically the PPN gamma
    DEFINITIONALClaim 10 R_eff by Omega R_eff^3 = 2GJ/c^2; a definition, not a second fitted constant
    PREDICTEDClaim 6 the second-order deflection difference at the solar limb, 0.73 microarcsec
    Claim 9 the photon-capture diameter, 4.63 percent above the Schwarzschild shadow
    BOUNDEDnot separately numbered scalar-longitudinal amplitude < 4.2e-17 (pulsar arrays)
    MODELClaim 18 the relaxation window top at 1/H0, and a galaxy crossing De = 1 at 4.6e15 s
    POSTULATEDClaim 17 the wave-sector energy as coupling-set field energy, (c^2/16 pi G) h_dot^2
    RECORDEDClaim 25 R(r) = r e^(m/r) is stationary at r = GM/c^2; the wormhole rival stands
    WITHDRAWNClaim 14 the vorticity account of galactic rotation, recorded as withdrawn
    Claim 16 the relaxational source rule, recorded as withdrawn: its tau_s has no home

    Checked outside the twenty-seven

    Negative predictions, clean and falsifiable

    What is not settled

    The register is Paper 21's, section 8, not a list of this program's own. Nine are not derived, and three of them decide whether the postulates are a physics or a description.

    1

    The asymptotic density rho_0

    Unknown

    Not a number waiting on a better instrument: scaling rho and rho_0 together leaves eleven of the listed quantities invariant and moves only controls, so rho_0 is the scale of an invariance of P1-P5. Observation can give a lower bound and nothing else, and the CMB gives it: rho_0 >= 4.645e-31 kg/m^3. Determination falls to Paper 35 and nowhere else.

    2

    The optical exponent k = 2/3

    Fitted

    Paper 21 para 99 says this is problem 8 approached from the other side, and it is: with mu proportional to rho^a, k = (1 - a)/2 and a = 1 - 4w, so w = 1/3 forces a = -1/3. That re-expresses the fitted constant rather than deriving it. Still exactly one fitted quantity.

    3

    The relaxation time tau

    BoundedDecider

    Pulsar timing puts the floor near 1e8 s and cosmological fluidity the ceiling near 1/H0, which is 9.7 decades. The transmission bound of Paper 24 Section 3, that a transverse wave loses one factor of e over 2 c tau, leaves 0.65 decades on its own. The corpus carries the full nine through the rest of the framework on purpose, because that bound rests on one argument.

    4

    The fate of the longitudinal mode

    Answered, at a price

    The compression sector is bounded by the double pulsar at kappa_L < 1.3e-4 and DERIVED, at (c/c_L)^7/18 = 9.3e-3 to 0.23, above that bound. The formulation as first written therefore fails there, and the successor has matter read the settled profile and not the compression wave, which gives up the third law between body and Plenum for that wave alone. What is now open is why the wave a body sources is not read by it. Claim 13.

    5

    Collins's objection: the preferred frame and particle physics

    UnansweredDecider

    It divides, and the classical half no longer has the answer it had. The estimate that passed rested on the relaxational source rule, which Claim 16 withdraws, so the classical leak is once again unanswered rather than answered cheaply. The RADIATIVE leak, which is what Collins et al. computed, cannot be posed at all without a quantum matter sector.

    6

    What a mass does to maintain the P5 profile

    UnsuppliedDecider

    P5 states the equilibrium profile as a boundary condition and does not derive how a mass holds it, and the successor of Claim 13 adds a second question to it: why matter reads the settled profile and not the compression wave it sources. The settling time tau_s that once joined this problem to the residue is withdrawn with Claim 16.

    7

    What drives the drift of the ambient density

    Unsupplied

    Nothing in the postulates drives rho_0 in time; the expansion history is adopted rather than derived. Paper 33 Section 4 states what is missing exactly: the late acceleration requires an effective pressure of the opposite sign, which in a fluid is a bulk dissipative term. With problems 4 and 6 this is one absence seen three times. Claim 27 checks the kinematic side and says plainly that the dynamic side is absent.

    8

    The shear modulus against the fitted optical exponent

    In conflict

    P4 fixes only mu(rho_0) = rho_0 c^2, a normalisation and not a density dependence, and the conflict appears only when mu is carried across the wave zone as a constant. The admissible family is mu = rho_0 c^2 (rho/rho_0)^a with a undetermined by P1-P5, and the measured deflection alone forces a < 0: the Plenum must soften under compression.

    9

    The coefficient of rotational entrainment

    Unsupplied

    A bound binary exerts no net force on the Plenum, so its drive is a force dipole and not a point force: Paper 20 Section 3.3 forbids the dipole for a bound system and that premise says nothing about branches. Each star must press on the Plenum with about 4 N at twice the orbital frequency. P4 entrainment at the slip fraction Paper 26 Section 3 derives supplies about a tenth of it, so what is open is the value of one coefficient and a factor of about ten, not whether the Plenum can carry it at all. Claims 15 and 19 are this problem.

    The parametrized post-Newtonian table is incomplete. Not a problem of the postulates, but it belongs beside them: gamma is calibrated at unity and beta derived at unity, and xi, the preferred-frame parameters alpha_1, alpha_2 and alpha_3, and the conservation-law parameters zeta_1 to zeta_4 are not computed. A plenum with a preferred foliation will be asked about alpha_1 and alpha_2 before it is asked about anything else.

    Not on the register, and kept off it on purpose

    Scope limits, which the framework does not attempt

    • the strong field
    • a quantum treatment of the Plenum

    Tasks for this program, which are not problems of the postulates

    • the radiated power computed from scratch rather than inherited
    • the threshold ringdown spectrum
    • the exponential-profile imaging calibration
    • the rotating threshold
    • the radiative-transfer account of the darkness

    One fitted constant: the optical exponent k = 2/3. w = 1/3 is derived. R_eff is definitional.

    Run it yourself

    This page was built from the output of the last line.

    pip install sympy numpy
python3 verify_neogravity.py                  the verification
python3 verify_neogravity.py --register       the claim register, then stop
python3 verify_neogravity.py --family strong  report one instrument
python3 verify_neogravity.py --claim 9        report one claim
python3 verify_neogravity.py --json           register and results, machine-readable

    The program always computes all twenty-seven, because the later claims use the earlier ones' values. The flags select what is reported, and a filtered run prints a banner saying it is not the verification.