I have written a shorter and hopefully a more understandable short essay on Pari Spolter's findings in her book, The Gravitational Force of the Sun, debunking both Einsteins theories, both general and special, of relativity and Newton's second law.
I asked Pari to check it for any errors and here is her response.
Hello John,
I really appreciate your support of my work. I think your Short Essay is very good and should be disseminated.
As you know, I am working on my own. I have no boss. No one can tell me to stop. If I had a job at a university, and wrote a book like mine, I would have gotten fired.
You are also independent, and you have the courage to support and promote the truth.
Regards,
Pari Spolter
orbpublishing@msn.com
Short Essay by John Lear about Pari Spolter's book "Gravitational Force of the Sun" (Orb Publishing 1993 Grenada Hills, CA.
In 1993, Pari Spolter, Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin Madison, self published a book titled "Gravitation Force of the Sun".
Spolters findings regarding the physics of our solar system, including major errors in density of matter, the gravitational force, Einstein's theories both general and special and Newton's second law will toss mainstream science, mainstream scientists and the scientific community itself on their collective ear's for many years to come.
It took Spolter, a native of Iran, to say, "Hold on just a minute..... there seems to be an error here". A talented and accomplished mathematician, she got down the basics of mainstream science, started asking questions, and found herself rearranging if not totally rebuilding our understanding of orbital and planetary physics.
Now, 18 years after she published her book, Gravitational Force of the Sun, (Orb Publishing, Grenada Hill, CA), CERN, who has spent billions of dollars chasing the non-existent large Hadron, have found that neutrinos travel in excess of the speed of light, thus validating her findings.
Her findings will change just about everything.
The two biggest hoaxes in modern mainstream science are (were) Einstein's Theories of Relativity both General and Special, and Newton's Second Law.
Einstein's Theories have recently been invalidated due to the CERN statements that neutrinos have exceeded the speed of light contradicting Einstein's theory that nothing can exceed the speed of light.
In his equation E=mc2, for which Einstein became world famous, he proposed that E (energy) is equal to m(mass) times c2 (the velocity of light squared) wherein c plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can neither be reached nor exceeded by any real body.
4 examples of particles that exceed the speed of light are:
(1) Cerenkov radiation
(2) antimesons,
(3) superluminals, and
(4) neutrinos
Einstein understood mass to be inert matter, the quantity and density of which was proportional to gravitational force.
But mass, (the quantity and density of,) cannot be proportional to gravitational force because:
(1) The sun dos not dole out a specific amount of its attractive force depending on the particular body that orbits it so what is constant for all planets, is the gravitational force of the sun.
(2) Using Newton's equation* the gravitational force of the sun is not constant.
(3) Using Kepler's third law, 'The periodic times of any two planets are to each other exactly as cubes of the square roots of their mean distances' so the gravitational force of a planet is a.A or acceleration times Area.
(4) The mass and the density of celestial bodies are unknown.
(5) The gravitational force is independent of the mass and chemical composition of the attracted body.
(6) Gravitational attraction of a central body that causes a secondary body to orbit is a centripetal force; it is not just a linear pull'.
Spolter does not accept the notion of inert mass causing gravitational attraction and rejects the notion that mass and energy are one and the same. She states that although the mass of a body remains constant, its weight increases when accelerated.
The enormity of the collapse of Einstein's theories and Newton's second law will take probably 20 years, at least, to be noticed by mainstream science. And the reason is practically all other sciences, on earth and in space, almost all equations, will have to be changed including the alleged densities and gravitational force of every planet and moon.
Einstein also accepted Newton's proposal that the size and density of inert matter (mass) was directly proportional to gravitational force.
In "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", Einstein states:
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless."
and:
"Velocities greater than that of light...no possibility of existence".
I agree.
* Orbital velocity semi major (v) times Semi major axis of revolution (r)
John Lear, Las Vegas
January 21, 2011
John,
I have seen this material before, of course, but I love this sort of stuff. Anyone with the guts to challenge convention without blinking like this gets a thumbs up from me. (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/thumbup.gif)
You might be interested in this thread too by our newest member.
The Rings of Saturn and a New Theory of how the Universe works (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=607.msg5327;topicseen#new)
John,
Awesome.
I have always wondered why We must take on faith that matter "bends" space-time. Einstein never explains how or why this is. Doesn't even seem to TRY to.
And any model that, a priori, stipulates something upon which the rest is built, rather makes Me dubious.
I prefer Dr. Paul LaViolette's subquantum kinetics... The model requires nothing be taken on faith, presumes an aether, predicts the lensing of light and the perceived time dilation (and all the other things Einstein manages to predict) AND it predicts the Biefeld-Brown Effect.
Now I'm champing at the bit to read Pari's work!
Quote from: johnlear on January 28, 2012, 11:24:01 AM
Now, 18 years after she published her book, Gravitational Force of the Sun, (Orb Publishing, Grenada Hill, CA), CERN, who has spent billions of dollars chasing the non-existent large Hadron, have found that neutrinos travel in excess of the speed of light, thus validating her findings.
Hmmm... Maybe not John ;)
Faster-than-light neutrinos: was a faulty connection to blame?http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/23/faster-light-neutrinos-faulty-connection (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/23/faster-light-neutrinos-faulty-connection)
Regards,
IRM 8)
Now, 18 years after she published her book, Gravitational Force of the Sun, (Orb Publishing, Grenada Hill, CA), CERN, who has spent billions of dollars chasing the non-existent large Hadron, have found that neutrinos travel in excess of the speed of light, thus validating her findings.
Infraredman is right : faulty connection seem to be reality, for now ... here in
Europe.
But who knows ? ...
Neutrino Speed blamed on cable (http://www.sciencenewsdigital.org/sciencenews/20120407?pg=11#pg11)
Cerenkov radiation doesn't travel faster the c through a vacuum.
Quote from: InfraRedMan on April 18, 2012, 04:28:31 PM
Hmmm... Maybe not John ;)
Faster-than-light neutrinos: was a faulty connection to blame?
So don't you find it fascinating that every time there is some new announcement of something extraordinary, there is always "a faulty connection to blame"
Like NASA ans their arsenic based life forms, Cold Fusion ( yet the NAVY takes it seriously)
There is ALWAYS an accident, wrong data, incorrect readings, etc, etc....
Scientist these days must be really stupid to be making all these errors
::)
There is no quantitative property of the speed of light that would make it the limiting speed
of Cerenkov radiation in or out of a vacuum, or the limiting speed of neutrinos.
The main problem is that the ET's who we have allied ourselves with want to keep
earth in a state of no scientific advancement and have given TPTB a number of advanced
technologies in return for their help in keeping that information from benefiting the publlc.
Another group of ET's want to see scientific advancement for earth at a quicker rate but they,
unfortunately, are not in conntrol.
The ET's who want the scientific advancement for earth will probably take over in the
next 25 years or so.
Mainstream science is doing triple back flips to keep the masses from finding out the truth:
that Einstein was wrong in both of his Theories, General and Special. Newton's Law of
gravitation and Einsteins theories have been shredded by Pari Spolter. Her book, "Gravitational
Force of the Sun", which was published in 1993 does an excellent job of exposing the errors
of Einstein and Newton.
Quote from: johnlear on July 09, 2012, 09:56:02 PM
There is no quantitative property of the speed of light that would make it the limiting speed
of Cerenkov radiation in or out of a vacuum, or the limiting speed of neutrinos.
The main problem is that the ET's who we have allied ourselves with want to keep
earth in a state of no scientific advancement and have given TPTB a number of advanced
technologies in return for their help in keeping that information from benefiting the publlc.
Another group of ET's want to see scientific advancement for earth at a quicker rate but they,
unfortunately, are not in conntrol.
The ET's who want the scientific advancement for earth will probably take over in the
next 25 years or so.
Mainstream science is doing triple back flips to keep the masses from finding out the truth:
that Einstein was wrong in both of his Theories, General and Special. Newton's Law of
gravitation and Einsteins theories have been shredded by Pari Spolter. Her book, "Gravitational
Force of the Sun", which was published in 1993 does an excellent job of exposing the errors
of Einstein and Newton.
The apple that fell and hit Newtons head.
Was previously within the memory field of the tree.
When the apples polarity was changed until it became attracted into the dominant memory field of the planet, it then displaced in space relative to that field it became attracted towards( towards the heart centre )
Newton was positioned upon the mass within His own memory field, this allowed His physical body to have a degree of free will within the dominant heart centred field it was within.
His head offered a resistance to the displacement trajectory of the apple.
I have respect and a high regard for Pari Spolters theories, but I would offer up an alternative over and above that which She rightly states.
It has to do with the dual whorl heart centred method of universe, and how far more enlightened beings utilise this very simple universal method to operate in universe.
I am a very simple person, and therefore observe nature from such a perspective, I have little or no garbage indoctrination over riding what I observe.
The geometry at all scale of a fixed universal substance is that which enables the magnetic based resonance to operate in a descending scalar manner wher the duality confined within its own unique whorl of memory is subjected to the next up in scale field.
The field polarity of whatever...say the apple... can be though locally reorientated if sufficient quantities of the dual magnetic resonances are directed so as to alter their attraction towards whichever dominant field is chosen.
If the apples memory field therefore was reorientated towards the moon....that is what the apple would hit, the apple would fall towards the heart centred attraction of the moon.
Nature demonstrates this constantly, but We are easily persuaded by the consequences because we only see in 3D.
hobbit
Had to throw this in.
(http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Micjer_2009/Einstein_Pari.jpg)
I was having a cordial and interesting exchange with Matrix Traveller a while back. He became upset about something and withdrew.
Shasta
The government sponsored counter-neutrino story sure got the majority of this thread believing it.
Too bad.
Remember that any physical theory or law is only good for this solar system. Beyond is a completely different story.
The Gravitational Force of the Sun Lives!
Well John,
After the government spent MILLIONS of dollars on the DUMAND project and then they discovered that a mild mannered scientist and his other friends had come up with a sensor that could do the same thing.... more accurately..... you have to debunk everything that even mentions the name.....
People laughed at your Dad for mentioning that he had seen certain things in a lab.... and some have had a pretty good time with the things that you have said in the past... I happen to believe both you and your Dad....
So can you teach me more?
Linda
Quote from: johnlear on July 11, 2012, 03:31:48 PM
The government sponsored counter-neutrino story sure got the majority of this thread believing it.
Too bad.
Remember that any physical theory or law is only good for this solar system. Beyond is a completely different story.
The Gravitational Force of the Sun Lives!
Great point, John, it does go way beyond our level of observation!
And BTW, Gravitational Force of the Sun is on the way from Amazon as we post!
Cant wait to check our Pari's hard work..thanks for the bump!
Le
Didn't see anyone put up this link. Some good book reviews.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Pari_Spolter_000.html
This Thread has been Cleansed(http://www.monomachines.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/shredder-paper-300x199.jpg)
We find it very disappointing that people wandered off topic so quickly and talked about Lucy and the Matrix
John was introducing the works of Dr. Pari Spolter, M.S;Ph.D. She was also invited to join this forum, which she did.
I find it DEPLORABLE that only a few even expressed interest in the good doctor and her work. Dr Spolter is a true scientist and does not have a lot of time to waste when coming here
I hope that she will understand we are in the growth stages and still have issues to work out and not write us off just yet.
All off topic posts have been removed...
Thank you for your co-operation...
Pari Spolter - Gravitational Force of the Sun(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Pari_Spolter/Cover_01.png) (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter%2Fdp%2F0963810758&tag=pegasreseacon-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)
Pari Spolter - Gravitational Force of the Sun (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter%2Fdp%2F0963810758&tag=pegasreseacon-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)
Book summaryQuoteThe book presents new concepts in the study of gravitation. A new equation for the gravitational force is introduced, which is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law and which has been verified experimentally to very high precision. The equation is F = a.A, or force = acceleration Area. The book also presents equations for the sequential distances of the planets from the sun and of satellites from the centers of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, with correlation coefficients upwards of 0.99, concluding that gravitation is quantized. A simple and useful equation for eccentricity is presented as the ratio of the sum of perturbations to the gravitational force of the sun. It is shown that Kepler's second law is not a general law; i.e., equal areas are swept in approximately equal intervals of time only near aphelion and perihelion. There is now confusion between the concepts of "force" and "energy." In the last chapter of the book, new units are introduced to clarify the two concepts. Any equation containing "mass" relates to the concept of "energy". Force is independent of mass.
SOURCE (http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Gravitational_Force_of_the_Sun/0963810758/)(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Pari_Spolter/Bio_Clip.png)
EDITORIAL REVIEWS
THE NEXUS MAGAZINE, pages 4-5, December 1996-January 1997.QuoteI am writing to thank you for reviewing a book called "Gravitational Force of the Sun," by Dr. Pari Spolter, in NEXUS, June-July 96 (vol. 3, no.4). I bought the book to find out how to calculate the gravitational force of celestial bodies, for a project I'm working on, thinking it would be a well-understood and thoroughly documented area of research beyond controversy-more fool I!
Dr. Spolter exposes the fundamental mathematical errors in both Einsteinian and Newtonian theory with such elegance and ease that even a mathematical recalcitrant like myself was inspired to recall my high-school mathematics (last used in anger 20 years ago!) to follow her working out. No, I am not making this up: I voluntarily engaged in strenuous mathematics for my own enjoyment!
"Gravitational Force of the Sun" is very focused. Dr. Spolter successfully knocks the pins from under two great, unchallenged theories of science by reviewing the original documents that Newton wrote and examining the mathematics and assumptions that Einstein and Newton used. I have seldom before read a more thorough hatchet job. She must be a relentless researcher with prodigious memory and intellect.
The book is not negative. Dr. Spolter shows Kepler's contributions to be far greater than I previously suspected (Kepler's work is the foundation she builds her work on), and what she tears down she rebuilds.
With this book I can go forward in my project: without it I would be doomed to failure. Thank you, Dr. Spolter, and thank you, NEXUS.
Regards, Paul M., Sydney, NSW, Australia
SOURCE: Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter%2Fdp%2F0963810758&tag=pegasreseacon-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)MORE BOOK REVIEWS
Truth about Relativity and Gravity, January 1, 2008
By David de Hilster (Long Beach, CA USA)QuoteIf you are like most all science students, relativity never sits well with the rest of science. Something is wrong but it is not always easy to put your finger on it and relate it to the history of physics and science. Pari Spolter not only succeeds in explaining special and general relativity, but then sets about in a clear and concise way in showing their flaws by sighting experiments, scientists, and quotes from Newton, to Einstein, to more modern contemporaries putting relativity in it's proper place in science and history. With a plethora of references to books, science papers, concepts, and scientists, it is a study in well-researched references and boiling it all down into 250 pages. If you have always thought relativity to have problems, this book will clear things up.
It is also a great reference book for gravity - one of the great unsolved mysteries of science. Spolter puts out reams of data on the solar system, planets, orbits and the measurement of gravity. All around, it is a wonderful book filling the need in the dissident world to rely on experimental data when taking aim at relativity and gravity instead of philosophical mumbo jumbo. And being a mathematician, Spolter shows math in the book, but it is in the grasp of the average science buff who studied basic physics in college.
Bad reviews on this book are definitely a result of those who are in love with Einstein's theory and take personal offense at any criticism. Yet it is criticism of basic assumption that Spolter points out, not tweaks or slight modifications and there is plenty of other "respected" scientists in the last 100 years she so astutely elicits and puts together in a very quick and to-the-point manner that leaves no extra words on the page. Don't read this book if you are in love with Einstein. You may have to find a new lover after reading this book!
SOURCE: Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter%2Fdp%2F0963810758&tag=pegasreseacon-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)Pari Spolter Shreds Newton & Einstein, April 26, 2008
By John Lear (Las Vegas, NV USA)QuotePari Spolter in 'Gravitation Force of the Sun' exposes scientifically and mathematically the farce of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein's theories of relativity both general and special.
Using current and accepted scientific references Spolter shreds our current beliefs about density, mass and gravity and brings us, scientifically, to what is really going on.
And what is really going on is that we have been hoodwinked by mainstream science to believe that gravity is proportional to the quantity and density of an inert mass of a celestial body.
If you are working on a degree or expecting advancement in the scientific community do not read this book.
However if you are searching for the truth no matter what the cost and you are willing to watch proven scientific data crumble before your very eyes buy a copy of Spolters' 'Gravitational Force of the Sun' and find a nice quiet place to read.
When you finish her book and understand what she is saying I can assure you, you will never be the same. But you will know the truth.
Scientific truth will spring forth in spite of the considerable and combined efforts of the military industrial complex who consider it their sole property.
Pari Spolter will be luckier than Giordano Bruno. Bruno got burned at the stake for supporting the Copernicus idea that the earth revolved around the sun.
All that will happen to Pari is that she will be shunned, denounced, excommunicated and insulted from and by the mainstream scientific community for her efforts to publish the truth.
SOURCE: Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter%2Fdp%2F0963810758&tag=pegasreseacon-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)Mass is a Fictitous Quantity, September 27, 2006
By Charles W. Lucas Jr. (Mechanicsville, Maryland United States)QuotePari Spolter, who is not a physicist, argues based on experimental observations that the force of gravity is proportional to acceleration and not the fictitous quantity called mass. Furthermore, she argues from experimental observations that gravitation is quantized. These arguments invalidate the approximate theories of Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation and Einstein's General Relativity Theory when the scientific method based on the rules of logic is used. It is sad that science has degenerated to fads and political maneuvering to garnish government funds for research such that original thinkers such as Pari Spolter are largely ignored.
Charles Lucas - PhD Physics www.commonsensescience.org
SOURCE: Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter%2Fdp%2F0963810758&tag=pegasreseacon-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)Grav. F of the S shows some major errors of modern physics, March 4, 2001
By F. A. PruijnQuoteAfter reading this book it becomes clear how wrong Einstein really was. The way Mrs. Spolter tackled his theories is most convincing and gives me some comfort there are still some independent thinkers who know how to ring the bell.
SOURCE: Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter%2Fdp%2F0963810758&tag=pegasreseacon-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Toons/Einstein_Pari.jpg)
Papers by Pari Spolter
1. Problems With the Gravitational Constant PDF (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/08PDF_Files/Problems_with_the_Gravitational_Constant.pdf)
2. New Concepts in Gravitation PDF (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/08PDF_Files/New_Concepts_in_Gravitation.pdf)
3. Binary Pulsar Tests of General Relativity PDF (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/08PDF_Files/Binary_Pulsar_Tests_of_General_Relativity.pdf)
More Articles
1. Missing gravity near Canada's Hudson Bay (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Pari_Spolter_001.html#Missing) - Comments by Pari Spolter
2. Forces and Related Subjects (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Pari_Spolter_001.html#Forces) - A Communication Among Pari Spolter, Leon Feng and Bob Fritzius
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/banners/john_lear_med.jpg) John Lear
Gravitational Force of the Sun
Pari Spolter
Copyright © 1993 by Pari Spolter
ISBN 0-9638107-5-8
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 93-85943
(rev.5)
Using extensive recent data, GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN presents the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law.
Pari Spolter has successfully attacked and destroyed Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation along with the gravitational constant and thrown Einstein and his pseudoscientific hypothetical equations on the junk heap of philosophical fraud.
What Pari has discovered is that her equation for the gravitational force of the sun Fs = a.A is identical to the 390-year-old Kepler's Third Law, which is r3/t2or "The square of the orbital periods of planets is directly proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axis of the orbits."
What Pari has done is to formulate the equation of the least squares line of regression of the mean orbital velocity of each planet around the sun versus the mean distance of that planet to the sun which she states as Fs = a.A, or 'the gravitation force of the sun is equal to the acceleration times the area' of each planet. And the gravitational force of the sun turns out to be 4.16449 ± 0.00032 x 1020 m s-2 m2.
She proves her equation by taking the 'acceleration' or the square of the mean orbital velocity of each planet and multiplying it by the mean distance (semimajor axis of revolution) of that planet. And the result is always the same: 4.1645 x 1020 m s-2 m2; the gravitational force of the sun.
She further proves her equation by calculating Fs = a.A from the orbit of each artificial satellite orbiting the sun including the Luna 1, Pioneer 5, 6, and 7, Ranger 5, Mariner 2, 5, 6, and 7 and Mars 4. And the result is always the same: 4.16 x 1020 m s-2 m2; the gravitational force of the sun.
What Pari does then is to compute the gravitational force of the sun using Newton's force laws (either the Second Law or the Universal Law) with the mass of each planet given in the tables of the astronomical books.
The gravitation force of the sun, calculated from Newton's equations, F = ma or F = GMm/r^2,is not constant and varies from 4.16 x 1023 kg m s-2 for Jupiter to 5.69 x 1016 kg m s-2 for Pluto; and 16.76 kg m s-2 for Mars 4 to 0.33 kg m s-2 for Pioneer 7.
Thus, if we accept Newton's force laws, we have to assume that the sun doles out a specific amount of its attractive force depending on the particular body that orbits it.
Pari states in 'Gravitational Force of the Sun' (pg. 138) "...convincing experiments (pg. 138-143), with increasing degree of precision, have shown that the gravitational force is independent of the mass or nature of the attracted body."
Pari supports her proof for the constant gravitational force of the sun and her proof that there is no basis for Newton's assumption that the gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity or density of matter by addressing a number of issues of which the following are only a part, in "Gravitational Force of the Sun":
Missing mass
Titius-Bode Distance Law
Direction of Movement, Radius of inversion
Eccentricity
Inertia
As to the 'missing mass' problem Pari states, (pg. 112) "...there is no basis for Newton's assumption that the gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity or density of matter" and cites numerous passages throughout Principia where Newton equates the magnitude of the gravitational force with the quantity or density of matter.
In addressing the Titius-Bode 'Distance Law, Pari plots the mean distance of the planets from the sun, r, versus the sequential numbers, n, on semi-logarithmic paper together with the least square line of regression. >From the result of her equation she concludes "the distance law is an integral part of gravitation; i.e., gravitation is quantized."
She addresses the radius of inversion and concludes, "like the distance law...is an integral part of gravitation."
For the question of eccentricity, Pari proves the increment of the force at perihelion is, in all cases, equal to the negative of the increment at aphelion and the increment is due to the sum of perturbations in the direction of the line of apsides. She states that the sum of the forces at perihelion and at aphelion divided by two is the gravitational force of the Sun.
She concludes that the eccentricity is, simply, the ratio of perturbations to the gravitational force of the sun.
In addressing inertia Pari accepts the classical definition: Inertia is the tendency of an object to maintain its state of rest or uniform motion.
Pari points out that simple laboratory experiments can be performed to determine the density of matter necessary, in a given volume of a sphere that is turning by an electric motor at a given setting, to produce various degrees of retardation of angular velocity.
Using accepted orbital mechanics that 'the mean orbital acceleration of the planets decreases with the square of the distance from the sun', Pari then explains how a planet with a given mass would then weigh less in the outer than in the inner system and would therefore offer resistance to its angular velocity.
Further she shows how seasonal variations in Earth's spin ratio may be a change in the weight of the planet. As the Earth's weight is equal to its mass times acceleration and because measurements of the time of the rotation of Earth in terms of the cesium atomic standard show that the Earth spins faster in summer and slower in winter, the Earth would weigh less in summer than it does in winter and offers less resistance to its angular velocity.
Pari points out that the rotational retardation of a planet is proportional to its weight and also to the distribution of matter inside the body and that planets with greater rotational inertia have matter nearer the center.
She concludes that this is why the inner planets Mercury and Venus have no satellites and the outer planets have rings and several satellites.
Pari also dismisses Einstein's Theory of Relativity, both General and Special in Chapters 2 and 3 of "Gravitational Force of the Sun" and concludes" by noting that Einstein's Theories of Relativity fails to explain:
(1)the rotation of celestial bodies
(2) the orientation of the axis of rotation of the planets
(3) the orbital planes of all planets approximately on the solar equatorial plane (±12?)
(4) the inclination of the plane of the orbit of each planet
(5) the direction of movement of the planets (counterclockwise as viewed from north)
(6) the distance law
(7) the eccentricities
(8 ) the regression of the nodes
(9) the precession of the equinoxes
(10) the perturbations
You can be sure that deep in the bowels of the Pentagon someone already knows all of this. But we don't.
Pari Spolter has uncovered many truths about our planet, our solar system and universe by deductive reasoning, science and mathematics using recent data.
A few of those truths are:
Inert mass does not cause gravitational attraction
Mass and energy are not one and the same
Although the mass of a body remains constant, its weight increases when accelerated
The question of what causes gravity remains unanswered. Inert mass does not cause it. Neither does the nature of the attracted body cause it. Neither is gravitational force proportional to the quantity or density of matter of the attracted body.
You don't need a security clearance to buy Pari Spolter's "The Gravitation Force of the Sun," but I bet someone wishes you did.
John Lear
Las Vegas, NV.
August 24, 2008
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/banners/john_lear_med.jpg) John Lear
April 7, 2008
Ms. Pari Spolter
Dear Ms. Spolter,
I just finished reading "Gravitational Force of the Sun" your extremely well researched and thoroughly fascinating book about the suns gravity. Rarely have I ever read a book as intellectually stimulating. Of course, in my opinion, you are correct on every point.
I confess that I am not as strong in mathematics as I could be but I understand the well presented evidence. I doubt that the scientific community had much comment because the information you disclose is very classified. I know you must be very busy but if you could spare a few minutes I have 2 questions:
1: On page 196 Table 8.1 the pF of the earth is 15.0977 and that of the Moon is 13.1876. What would be the gravity on the Moon compared to Earth. Would it be .873 percent that of Earth?
2: Did you write, or are you going to write the Gravitational Force of the Proton?"
In closing I would like to mention that yours is the first mention I have seen on Rear Admiral (U.S. Navy) Simon Newcomb's comments on the discordance of the 4 planets. Odd because of the short shrift that the good Admiral gave Peter Andreas Hansen's findings of the coefficients of the lunar perturbations he had discovered and Hansen's theory to go along with those discoveries.*
Admiral Newcomb published a brief article on Hansen's theory and wrote, "in case of the evection, the supposed discordance between theory and observation would not follow from Hansen's hypothesis, and therefore, if it exists, cannot be attributed to that hypothesis."
My email is johnlear@cox.net.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
John Lear
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society containing Papers and Abstracts of Papers and Reports of the Proceedings of The Society from November 1854 to June 1855 Volume XV (Prof. Hansen, on the Construction of New Lunar Tables). Annual Half Volume. Printed by George Barclay, Castle Street, Leicester Square, London 1855.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Pari_Spolter/Letter_004.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Pari_Spolter/Letter_004a.png)
April 18, 2008
Dear Ms. Spolter,
Thank you for your quick response. And thank you for all of the reading material.
I can imagine the resistance from the establishment. I respectfully believe that you are in error about Brian'S calculation of the Neutral Point at 23,900. I don't believe that he calculated any neutral point. I believe that he took his Neutral Point based on what Wernher Von Braun said it was and that was 43,495 miles.
Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17) made the following statement in his book "Last Man On The Moon" page 310, "It was Saturday, December 9, (1972), we were in the moon's firm hold, only about 38,000 miles out and drawing closer by the moment.
Reginald Turnhill, in his book "The Moon landings, wrote, "the spacecraft had been gradually slowing down, until its velocity was 2724 mph and its position 38,900 miles from the moon. For the first time, men had reached a point were the pull of Earth's gravity was less than another body.
I would respectfully suggest that the Neutral Point is very close to 43,495 miles from the moon and that the perturbation of the sun is either already accounted for or not part of the consideration.
That of course would make the moon's gravity at least 64% of Earths which I know to be at least that figure if not more. I notice that in "New Concepts in Gravitation" both tables 8.1 and 8.2 are missing.
Let me respectfully point out that you did not answer my question in my letter of April 7, 2008.
My question was this:
1: On page 196 Table 8.1 the pF of the earth is 15.0977 and that of the Moon is 13.1876. What would be the gravity on the Moon compared to Earth? Would it be .873 percent that of Earth?
You gave me some data from the "The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2009 which is not what I asked for.
If you are uncomfortable answering the question as posed just say so. I will understand.
On page 108 of 'Gravitation Force of the Sun' you mention the gravitational force which keeps the planets in orbit around the sun. This is also the force which holds us onto a planet and in some scientific circles is referred to as the Gravity B wave.
You also mention the 'strong nuclear force' which holds the atomic nuclei together. In some scientific circles this is referred to as the Gravity A wave.
Both of these gravities are waves, and as waves possess amplitude, frequency and length.
I can appreciate the problems you are facing with the scientific community. There are specific reasons why we must believe that the gravity of the moon is one sixth that of Earth and it is to preclude that we should ever find out that:
1. There is substantial gravity on the moon
2. There is breathable atmosphere on the moon.
3. People live on the moon.
4. There are lakes and rivers on the moon.
5. There are forests and meadows on the moon.
6. There are huge industrial complexes all over the moon.
7. There are large cities all over the moon.
8. We've been hornswaggled.
Whether or not you make any further contributions you can rest assured that you were the person who published the key which will eventually lead to the unraveling of the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind.
All the best,
John Lear
April 19, 2008
Pari Spolter
Pari,
They can't deal with you like they did with Giordano Bruno. Whether or not you own up to your rightful place in history matters not a whit. You are already there. You squeezed the toothpaste out of the tube and you are not going to be able to put it back in.
I can imagine the resistance from the establishment. It's the 'establishment' these days, not the 'Church' as back in Bruno's time. At the risk of stating the obvious, I respectfully believe that you are in error about Brian's calculation of the Neutral Point of 23,900 miles.
I don't believe that he calculated any neutral point. I believe that he took his Neutral Point based on what Wernher Von Braun said it was and that was 43,495 miles.
Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17) made the following statement in his book "Last Man On The Moon" page 310, "It was Saturday, December 9, (1972), we were in the moon's firm hold, only about 38,000 miles out and drawing closer by the moment.
Reginald Turnhill, in his book "The Moon Landings", wrote, "The spacecraft had been gradually slowing down, until its velocity was 2724 mph and its position 38,900 miles from the moon. For the first time, men had reached a point were the pull of Earth's gravity was less than another body."
I would respectfully suggest that the Neutral Point is very close to 43,495 miles from the moon and that the perturbation of the sun (as dreadfully complicated a three-body problem as it is) has been already accounted for. That, of course, would make the moon's gravity at least 64% of Earths which I know to be at least as much, if not more.
I notice that in "New Concepts in Gravitation" both of your tables 8.1 and 8.2 from 'Gravitational Force of the Sun' are missing.
Let me also respectfully point out that you did not answer my question in my letter of April 7, 2008.
My question was this:
1: On page 196 Table 8.1 the pF of the earth is 15.0977 and that of the Moon is 13.1876. What would be the gravity on the Moon compared to Earth? Would it be .873 percent that of Earth?
You gave me some data from the "The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2009 which is not what I asked for.
My problem is to resolve the difference between 64% and 87%. Just looking at the videos of the astronauts on the moon during the Apollo program the gravity has to be somewhere between these 2 values. It cannot be one sixth that of Earths.
On page 108 of 'Gravitation Force of the Sun' you mention the gravitational force which keeps the planets in orbit around the sun. This is also the force which holds us onto a planet and in some scientific circles is referred to as the Gravity B wave.
You also mention the 'strong nuclear force' which holds the atomic nuclei together. In some scientific circles this is referred to as the Gravity A wave.
Both of these gravities are waves, and as waves possess amplitude, wavelength and frequency just like any other wave. There are no gravitons and there is no such thing as a graviton.
I can appreciate the problems you are facing with the scientific community. Please check out my website thelivingmoon.com.
There are specific reasons why we must believe that the gravity of the moon is one sixth that of Earth and that is to preclude that we should ever find out that:
1. There is substantial gravity on the moon
2. There is breathable atmosphere on the moon.
3. People live on the moon.
4. There are lakes and rivers on the moon.
5. There are forests and meadows on the moon.
6. There are huge industrial complexes all over the moon.
7. There are large cities all over the moon.
8. We've been hornswaggled.
Whether or not you make any further contributions you can rest assured that you were the person who published the key which will eventually lead to the unraveling of the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind. And that key is F=a.A. Along with all of its ramifications. And what they are covering up is that the moon is inhabited.
Your rightful place is alongside Galileo, Copernicus, Leonardo da Vinci and many other scientific geniuses. This is true whether you accept it or not. But stand up anyway, dammit!
All the best,
John Lear
April 21, 2008
Pari Spolter
Hello Pari,
Enclosed are several photos.
The large poster is of the interior face of the northeast rim of Copernicus. This oblique photo was taken by Lunar Orbiter 2 in 1966. The frame number is 162H and the altitude at which it was taken was 45.9 kilometers.
The latitude of the frame center was 5°30' North and the Longitude 20°00 West. The sun elevation was 24°40'.
We are obviously looking at a strip mine and with a large magnifying glass you will find some interesting surprises, which would lead you to question the moons alleged one sixth gravity of earth.
I have enclosed herewith one colorized photo of a bucket wheel excavator enlarged from the upper left hand portion of the poster. There is another bucket wheel excavator in the upper center of the photo.
The history of this particular photo is interesting. I ordered it along with several others from a NASA contractor. It came, surprisingly, in the form of a 16 by 20 negative. It took a few years until the technology in Las Vegas had reached the point to even print from this large a negative. When I finally got the print I found many interesting things.
This poster is made from the original print.
I am enclosing several other photos from the farside. Taken from Apollo 8, frame 2209 from cartridge 12 this photo of the far side originally appeared in NASA publication SP-246 "Lunar Photographs from Apollos 8, 10 and 11" and was printed before NASA started airbrushing photos of the moon in earnest.
Nowadays, when photos of the moon are taken such as those from Clementine, offensive material is removed digitally and automatically. I think the Naval Research Laboratory got a little arrogant with this technique which I will discuss at another time.
But the reason I have enclosed AS-8-12-2209 is that if I had only one photo to show to convince somebody there was a civilization on the moon this is the one I would choose.
It is a photo of the moon just over the eastern horizon as we view the moon at about the 2:30 position at Latitude 30? north. The dark bottomed crater is Lomonosov. The white 'rays' described by NASA as a "very bright rayed crater" are actually an early crude attempt at using 'white out" to hide offensive material.
But in their attempt to 'white out' the offensive material they missed many other objects.
The photo that I have labeled as AS8-12-2209 (1) is scanned from SP-246.
Photo AS8-12-2209 (2) is the same photo but with a green circle.
Photo AS8-12-2209 (3) enlargement of whats inside the green circle. Photo AS8-12-2209 (4) is the object colorized and labeled. Although it is much more defined on a computer screen it appears to be a terminal of some sort with two enormous opening. To the left and behind the 'terminal' are 2 arches which may form a bridge.
And extending to the right of the terminal is a tube with supports that extend to the ground. Lomonsov is 50 miles in diameter. Using it as a scale this 'terminal' has to be huge beyond all belief.
Another enclosed photo is of Aristarchus taken by a friend on mine in England with a 10 inch scope. We believe that the blue is the Cherenkov effect because we believe that Aristarchus is a nuclear reactor of some sort.
Another photo was also taken by Apollo 8 cartridge 12 frame 2189. Humboldt is center left and at the top center right with the arms sticking out is Petavius B.
One more enclosed photo is the LO-II-162H photo of Copernicus but with the actual color of the sky. I sent a color swatch chart to Howard Menger who visited the moon in 1954. He described it as a 'saffron' color. Howard just turned 86 and lives in Vero Beach, Florida.
Please excuse me if you have already seen all of these photos.
And also please forgive me if I have stretched your imagination to its limit but its important for you to know why there is so much resistance to your theories on gravity as regards to the moon.
All the best,
John
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Pari_Spolter/Letter_001.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/banners/john_lear_med.jpg) John Lear
April 28, 2008
From: John Lear
To: Pari Spolter
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:17 AM
Subject: correlation coefficient
Good morning Pari,
Hope you had a nice weekend. As I mentioned I am not strong in math so I wanted to know how you arrived at a correlation coefficient of r=0.9999 (page 128)? Is it the orbital velocity at semimajor versus semimajor axis of revolution?
Why do you have to multiply v2 by r?
Sorry to bother you but all the best,
John Lear
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Pari_Spolter/Letter_002.png)
April 30, 2008
From: John Lear
To: Pari Spolter
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:26 AM
Subject: various
Hello Pari,
We have a section on you at thelivingmon.com.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Pari_Spolter_001.html
We would like to add the Jan/Feb 2005 Infinite Energy Magazine article,
"Problems With the Gravitational Constant."
Can you send it in Word or html?
Also we would like to post Physics Essays' "New Concepts in Gravitation". Do you have that in Word? Maybe these are the same article.
My fathers company was one of the original government contractors (Lear,
Inc.) for gravity shielding in 1952.
Pari, is it ok if I post your letters to me on our website?
All the best,
John Lear
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Pari_Spolter/Letter_003.png)
Since we have not yet mastered displaying Unicode on this forum style sheet, the rest of the letters containing mathematical formulas will not display properly so to read them visit the website
Letters to John Lear 01 (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Pari_Spolter_002.html)
Letters to John Lear 02 (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Pari_Spolter_003.html)
Pari Spolter just registered tonight and I sent confirmation email 8)
Newtons so called LAWS,
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
hobbit
Here´s an interview with Pari Spolter
enjoy
QuoteDr. Pari Spolter, the author of Gravitational Force of The Sun, clues us in on the academic landscape upon which new knowledge is smashed, evidence blocked, and new discoveries that challenge established dogma go unheard. In this passionate conversation, Dr. Spolter discusses a long list of revelations about Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, gravity, her research findings, and how science should be operating to deliver new energy solutions to free us from dependency on foreign oil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaT3Gm2ajvU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVjDC1t9hqQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsOsnjI7znY