There are two views here. The basic view is a linear attentuation function vs mass. In that view you still need to have the product of PM1 * PM2 or an effective mass squared function. The alternative (and my preferred view) is of an energy based attentuation. That is the amount of resistance to passage is a function of the energy level such that the barns cross-section changes with the attentuation. This vastly complicates matters but yields gravity as a function of total mass and not mass squared. For current mathematical efforts one should stick with the first basic view where mass squared is still involved. See above. However, the issue is not the attenuation but the exposure via the CoS. If two spheres are in surface contact their centers are 1 sphere diameter apart and the CoS encompasses 180 degrees. That is the entire universe provides source energy (even though at reduced effectiveness with the increasing trig angle to the line of gravity between centers). Keeping the same mass and reducing the spheres to 1/2 that diameter but retaining the center distance you now have the same mass but the CoS is only 60 degrees. The same mass has less exposure to the UniKEF energy sources. Newton says Fg = G * m1*m2 / r^2. Note that neither M nor r have changed in the two cases cited above but in UniKEF I predict that a detailed calculation (and precison test) will show a slight differance in the gravity of the two cases. Not a problem. Just don't jump on Billy's band wagon so quickly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!