Newton's Universal Law of Gravity is Wrong
Thanks to the brilliance of Pari Spolter, (author: The Gravitational Force of the Sun, Orb Publishing, Grenada Hills, CA 1993) we now know that Isaac Newton's theory of the Universal Law of Gravitation is wrong. Gravity is not the product of a planets density or size. In fact the gravitational force of an orbiting body is equal to the area of a circle whose radius is the semi-major axis of revolution times the acceleration.
Spolter says, "Using Kepler's Third Law of Motion, the ratio of the cube of the mean distance of each planet from the sun to the square of its sidereal period of revolution shows what is constant for all planets and that constant is the gravitational force of the sun."
If we were to accept Newton's Universal Law of Gravity we would have to assume that the sun somehow recognizes each body around it and doles out a specific amount of its attractive force depending on the particular body that orbits it. The gravity of the sun calculated from Newton's equation would not be constant and would vary from 4.16 x 10 to the 23 Newton's for Jupiter to only 0.31 Newton's for Pioneer 5.
To determine the true gravitational force of a planet using Spolters equations we must have at least one satellite. For the equation and gravitational force of several planets in our solar system please refer to "The Gravitational Force of the Sun", Chapter 7.
We must realize that every book, publication or paper regarding gravity published since Isaac Newton published Principia, (Newton's three books comprising mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy published in July 1687) the information contained therein is wrong. Since Einstein based his theories on relativity both general and special on Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation we must conclude that Einstein's theories on relativity are wrong.
Every schoolbook, reference manual, Atlas, geography book, chart containing information about gravity published since the 17th Century, has gravitational information that is wrong.
The information published by NASA or anyone else containing the facts that the moon's gravity is one sixth that of Earth is wrong also. These figures account for the abnormal amount of failures of the first missions to the moon.
In fact, the gravitation force of the moon, worked as an inverse square and 3 body (Earth, Moon, Sun) problem for July 20, 1969, for the landing of Apollo 11 was 68.71% that of Earth's. This gravitation force would have made a moon trip impossible because of the vast increase of fuel that would have been required considering that even with a gravitational force of one sixth that of Earth's, the alleged Apollo 11 landed with less than one minute of fuel remaining.
Pari Spolter does not believe that the Apollo missions to the moon were faked simply because she believes that the one sixth gravitational force of the moon published by NASA are correct. She also believes that the gravity measurements made by the Apollo 15 mission crew were correct. Spolter has asked me to include these statements about her belief in the Moon's gravity to firmly set her beliefs against mine which are that the Moon's gravity is 68.71% that of Earth's. So here it is once more, Pari Spolter believes that the Moon's gravity is one sixth that of Earth's and that the Apollo 15 crews measurements of gravity and the NASA published figures for the orbit of satellites orbiting the moon are correct.
But, again, I believe that the Inverse Square equations of the Moon's gravity relative to Earth's are correct and that information published by NASA regarding the Apollo missions and lunar gravity is false.
Good to see you John, welcome back!
Rock 8)
As most may know, Pari Spolter, Pegasus Alternate Energy Team,
is a treasured member here, however has not clocked in since 2012. :'(
Zorgon reminded us a while back about her splendid work. ;)
Pari Spolter - Gravitational Force of the Sun (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=1058.msg10498#msg10498)
But she had since changed her mind on the Apollo mission and the gravitational forces stated earlier, right?
Yeah Peer Pressure :P
I had to print a disclaimer for her :D
>:( What ? Spolter changed her belief in the Apollo missions? how the heck did they get to her ?
I wonder if it has something to do with trying to discredit you John ,since you frequently quote her in your interviews?
Good to see you John, welcome back!
Rock 8)
Thanks Rock. It was really nice having you as a guest at my place. You showed the proper
respect. :)
I really appreciated all of the WOW! WOW! WOWS!
But she had since changed her mind on the Apollo mission and the gravitational forces stated earlier, right?
Negatory on the 'changed her mind'. Pari never believed that the Apolllo missions were a hoax. God only
knows how much material I sent to her.
It is still a mystery to me how someone so brilliant could not see through the hoax of Mercury, Gemeni and
Apollo missions.
I tried to gloss over her beliefs about the missions but for some unknown reason she just won't buy it.
She has asked both Zorgon and myself to make it clear what exactly her beliefs are. Unfortunately it came at a time that Zorgon wasn't doing any posting. Pari felt that we were intentionally avoiding the issue which was not the case.
I think everything will be OK as long as we continue to show that Pari doesn't believe that the missions wwere a hoax.
I believe that there is something we don't know about Pari which is the reason she believes as she does.
We should all understand that to come to the realization that our 'government' pulled off one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of mankind.
The other great hoax was the Isaac Newton belief that the Universal Law of Gravitation holds water.
So before I croak I want a few more people to understand what a hoax that one is.
Quote from: johnlear on May 19, 2015, 02:50:49 AM
The other great hoax was the Isaac Newton belief that the Universal Law of Gravitation holds water.
If gravity has not passed the test of time as proven by relativity, why the physicists of today are stuck on to an incorrect idea? Is it because they are unable of thinking outside the 'box' made by Newton? Or they are just impotent face other "hidden forces" physics did not found because the answer is not in its field?
Quote from: RUSSO on May 19, 2015, 03:27:32 AM
passed the test of time as proven by relativity,
Well relativity is starting to break down. There have been many scientists over recent years saying "Einstein is wrong"
In fact Einstein himself said
"Reality is merely and illusion, albeit a very persistent one"So I just did a new search just now as I usually do when bringing up and old topic and find this right off the bat. Now these are not conspiracy sites but Live Science and Scientific American
Proving Einstein Wrong with 'Spooky' Quantum Experiment
http://www.livescience.com/50262-spooky-action-is-real.html
Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity/
Sorry, Albert: Physics that challenges Einstein
http://www.newscientist.com/special/challenging-einstein
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
Breaking relativity: Celestial signals defy Einstein
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129500.700-breaking-relativity-celestial-signals-defy-einstein.html
Challenging Einstein
Time Lord.... Louis Essen D.Sc., F.R.S.
Essen was referred to as a "Time Lord" by Guardian Newspapers in Sept. 1997
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Time_Lord_Louis_Essen.html
"If gravity has not passed the test of time as proven by relativity" Huh?
Quote from: johnlear on May 19, 2015, 05:43:27 AM
"If gravity has not passed the test of time as proven by relativity" Huh?
It resisted until now (Einstein's theory as opposed Newton's theory). :) (in the same sense the quote below)
QuoteFew scientists need the final results, which will be revealed in December, to convince them of Einstein's genius. 'From the most esoteric aspects of time dilation through to the beautiful and simple equation, e=mc2, the vast bulk of Einstein's ideas about the universe are standing up to the test of time,' said Robert Massey, from the Royal Astronomical Society.
to illustrate more:
QuoteThe theory explained
When Einstein wrote his general theory of relativity in 1915, he found a new way to describe gravity. It was not a force, as Sir Isaac Newton had supposed, but a consequence of the distortion of space and time, conceived together in his theory as 'space-time'. Any object distorts the fabric of space-time and the bigger it is, the greater the effect.
Just as a bowling ball placed on a trampoline stretches the fabric and causes it to sag, so planets and stars warp space-time - a phenomenon known as the 'geodetic effect'. A marble moving along the trampoline will be drawn inexorably towards the ball.
Thus the planets orbiting the Sun are not being pulled by the Sun; they are following the curved space-time deformation caused by the Sun. The reason the planets never fall into the Sun is because of the speed at which they are travelling.
According to the theory, matter and energy distort space-time, curving it around themselves. 'Frame dragging' theoretically occurs when the rotation of a large body 'twists' nearby space and time. It is this second part of Einstein's theory that the Nasa mission has yet to corroborate.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe)
Nice to see you here again John, and...
QuoteSo before I croak I want a few more people to understand what a hoax that one is.
Im really looking forward about what you have to say. :)
So to simplify
Einstien says "Newton was Wrong"
Pari's book challenges Newton's idea
Modern Physics says "Einstein is wrong"
Ergo John is right :P
Hello John Lear,
Nice to see new posts from you. Welcome back.
My college physics professor was a rocket scientist (yes a real one, retired) and I enjoyed some of the theoretical discussions and experiments he had us do. But, I'm not a physicist, just a biologist by training, and most of the quantum mechanics stuff seems like hooey to me (it wasn't just beginning when I was in college). And I don't accept ideas just because it comes from someone with a PhD. So, with that for background, I don't buy the space-time-fabric distortion explanation because objects like marbles revolving around a depression do fall into the center (unless a new force is constantly applied). And I don't get what the fabric is supposed to be - a fabric made of what, nothing? Anyway, I'm not sure what the point is because it is still a measurable force - the fabric pushing against the object and/or the object pushing against the fabric. If it is the latter, then density would seem to be a factor. If the former, size might be a factor too (more area in contact with the fabric). I do admit I don't understand gravity very well in the context of outer space. Like with any theory, if you want it to be accepted, it'll have to be explainable to more than just those who are experts in the field.
P.S. I know the government lies a lot, but I'm not sure what parts of the space program were real.
Quote from: RUSSO on May 19, 2015, 06:10:49 AM
It resisted until now (Einstein's theory as opposed Newton's theory). :) (in the same sense the quote below)
Nice to see you here again John, and...
Im really looking forward about what you have to say. :)
Einstein was not a genius. He was a hoaxer. He collaborated with Admiral Simon Newcomb to try and discredit anybody who suggested there might be life on the farside of the moon or that Newton's theory of the Universal Law of gravitation might be in error.
"The vast bulk of Einstein's ideas about the universe are standing up to the test of time". Give me three, please. 'Vast bulk' my butt.
We are finding more and more examples of objects exceeding the speed of light including:
Cerenkov radiation
Antimesons
Superluminals
Here are a few quotes from noted scientists:
Leon Brillouin: General Relativity is a splendid piece of mathematics built on quicksand and leading to more and more mathematics about cosmology (a typical science-fiction process)."
Robert H. Dicke:
"In my view, the grand opportunity for the experimentalist lies not in the application of General Relativity but rather in its foundations. It would be a shame for dozens of very able theorists to devote a second half century to developing the results of General Relativity only to discover eventually that the theory is defective, that some basic assumption is incorrect."
Robert H. Dicke:
"Here is an elegant, well defined theory but almost no experiments. Far from experimental science being a crutch on which the theory leans, in the case of general relativity, theory has far outstripped experiment, and the big problem is one of finding significant experiments to perform. This situation raises serious problems for theory and our understanding of gravitation. For where there are no experiments the theory easily degenerates into purely formal mathematics."
Pari Spolter:
The theory of relativity cannot account for the Moon's movements of the node and perigee. Nor does General Relativity explain the apside movement or the precession of the plane of the orbit of the artificial earth satellites.
Einstein's theory of gravitation does not provide for calculations of the perturbations.
Einstein's equation 2.20 (pg.57-58 Gravitational Force of the Sun) contains C2 in the denominator. There is no convincing argument why the apside movement of a planet should have anything to do with the speed of light.
Einstein's general theory of relativity does not explain:
1. The rotation of the 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.
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.
Louis Essen:
The so-called theory of special relativity is thus not a theory at all but simply a number of assumptions and the assumptions made implicitly in the course of thought-experiments contradict those made initially.
G.Burniston Brown:
Indicates that many physicists feel that the theory of relativity is not a genuine physical theory.
Peter Andreas Hansen, a Danish astronomer and mathematician, and twice recipient of the Royal Astronomical Society Gold Medal presented in 1854 to that same society the possibility that there might be life on the farside of our moon. The Society and all of Europe was enthralled.
A few years later Admiral Simon Newcomb went to Paris with the sole purpose of trashing Hansen, which he did without facts or any other kind of substantiation. Hansen made several requests for a one on one debate which Newcomb ignored.
The Society and everyone else began to forget Hansen's ideas of life on the farside and Hansen passed away 4 years later in 1874.The ideas of life on the farside has been subtly ignored if not outwardly trashed ever since.
Those supporting Einstein are usually not aware of the facts and babble on about 'the genius'. Einstein was a fair mathematician and that's about it. Supporting Einstein is supporting ignorance in science.
If you are going to support Einstein then you have to read Pari Spolter's "Gravitation Force of the Sun," so that you can debate with facts instead of the old rah rah sis boom bah <rimshot>!
Quote from: zorgon on May 19, 2015, 06:24:48 AM
So to simplify
Einstien says "Newton was Wrong"
Pari's book challenges Newton's idea
Modern Physics says "Einstein is wrong"
Ergo John is right :P
LOL...I like your assessment "Z" ..., nice ad neat .[grin] Especially the part about John being right [grin]
Hi John , great to see you back on the forum . Your operation must have done some good in reducing your pain . I look foreword to more of your posts.
Quote from: repeater on May 19, 2015, 03:06:18 PM
And I don't get what the fabric is supposed to be - a fabric made of what, nothing?
This has been a question that has never been answered because THEY DON'T KNOW
Same as electricity We use it, we can generate it but we still do not know exactly what it is yet.
Back in my high school days I had already started looking into UFO's... In my physics class we did an experiment. It was the copper sphere with a hole in it and a pith ball
(http://tsgphysics.mit.edu/pics/D%20Electrostatics/D20/D20_2_small.jpg)
The ides was that when the sphere is charged the pith ball is either attracted or repelled depending on the charge... but when places on the INSIDE there is no effect because the effect is cancelled out.
So I asked my teacher if that holds true on shapes OTHER than a sphere. He said yes, it would work on any symetrical shape but say a cube or lens shape , the exterior charge would be stronger at the seams (edges)
So take the classic lens shape
(https://scontent-6.22773.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10458937_1012033282147668_5458841410835500695_n.png?oh=bcc180e0cf1af40ceb8415a6256b86be&oe=56096BDF)
When you apply the field charge you get THIS but NO EFFECT inside
(https://scontent-6.22773.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/21724_1012033318814331_4148383065988884500_n.png?oh=a8b5e0bd0bca2fb15ec2cfd804b10e76&oe=5605B3F5)
Teacher asked me why I asked I told him I had a theory on Flying Saucers He got mad Dunno why :P
Now if we assume a Flying Saucer of that old classic disk shape has an intense field of some type around it (and it would need one that has mastered the unified field problem) then we would see blurry fuzzy UFO's by day and glowing ones by night
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSS-elagTnIg-DcTeu7-WrXzMwLF0gt5h6bOlGEAGwAk5C1v0m_Ug)
These facts fit the observations back in the day so was usefull to weed out the fakes
QuoteAnyway, I'm not sure what the point is because it is still a measurable force - the fabric pushing against the object and/or the object pushing against the fabric. If it is the latter, then density would seem to be a factor. If the former, size might be a factor too (more area in contact with the fabric). I do admit I don't understand gravity very well in the context of outer space.
Well the other common type of ovserverd saucer in the early days was the clasic saucrer shape (upside down tea saucer) With that design you make a 'hole' in that fabric and fall into it
(http://thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/01archives_local/Onion_Drive_files/onion3.gif)
(http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/beam.jpg)
(http://users.skynet.be/bob.lazar/www.boblazar.com/closed/DISTORTION2_long.jpg)
(http://users.skynet.be/bob.lazar/www.boblazar.com/closed/distort2.gif)
(http://users.skynet.be/bob.lazar/www.boblazar.com/closed/DISTORTION_long.jpg)
QuoteLike with any theory, if you want it to be accepted, it'll have to be explainable to more than just those who are experts in the field.
Well to a layman.... put two dots on a paper... fold the paper till the dots touch and step from dot a to dot b... The paper is the fabric... point A is you point be is your destination.
You fold the fabric so that point B comes to you then you simple step over and let the fabric snap back
QuoteP.S. I know the government lies a lot, but I'm not sure what parts of the space program were real.
Start with my Naval Space Command section :D
Thanks for the attempt at helping. I was just thinking in terms of fixed bodies (planets and moons) for now. But since you brought up movement, what about meteors and and asteroids? They move right through the fabric; so I guess they are making temporary holes in it. I don't want to sidetrack the thread though so I'll take my questions elsewhere.
The folding paper analogy didn't click for me, not relative to gravity. That sounded more like parallel universes.
Just getting a trustworthy measure of the moon's gravity would be a good start for me. 66% vs 16% should affect what happened in the Moon missions. I wonder if any remote measurements from Earth would be good enough to settle the controversy or does someone have to go there.
[My previous post should have read QM *was* just beginning, not that it matters.]
Quote from: johnlear on May 19, 2015, 05:49:28 PM
Supporting Einstein is supporting ignorance in science.
Ok, I will try to remember that everytime I turn my car's GPS on or when I don't get smashed by a elevator door among other little things of course.
QuoteIf you are going to support Einstein then you have to read Pari Spolter's "Gravitation Force of the Sun," so that you can debate with facts instead of the old rah rah sis boom bah <rimshot>!
As I have not read her book, unfortunately you are right, I can not weave any review of her work.
I will try if I get the time for it. Thanks for your time. Much appreciated. :)
Here is something else you might be interested in folks.
Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place.QuoteBlack holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren't bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don't exist.
By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.
"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
This is important to this thread because Einstein's General Relativity predicts the existence of black holes. But that is not all....
Based on the predictions of modern physics, most of the matter in the Universe is missing. To explain the anomaly physicists performed the wizardry of inventing the theory of "Dark Matter". The problem is when the ESO looked for it from their Telescope in Chile they could not find any around our Galaxy.
QuoteIf future surveys of the motions of stars bolster the ESO findings, strongly suggesting there really is no dark matter in our region of the galaxy, then cosmologists may have to scrap all the current theories and begin anew. "To date, a comprehensive relativistic theory alternative to the dark matter paradigm, able to explain the observations on all scales, from galactic rotation to the clusters of galaxies, is not known," Moni-Bidin said.
Princeton's Tremaine concurred: "I don't think any of the alternatives to dark matter are very likely."
http://www.livescience.com/19796-dark-matter-alternatives.html
What is the answer? Don't look at me, I'm not even a physicist. :P
Quote from: repeater on May 20, 2015, 07:44:22 AM
But since you brought up movement, what about meteors and and asteroids? They move right through the fabric; so I guess they are making temporary holes in it. I don't want to sidetrack the thread though so I'll take my questions elsewhere
Start a thread on that I to am interested in that point
QuoteThe folding paper analogy didn't click for me, not relative to gravity. That sounded more like parallel universes.
Well it requires the 4th dimension but it is increased gravity that makes the fold... the same way they say a black hole has gravity so strong light bends back to the source.
Can we fold space to that degree? The reports I get on saucers is that they do it in a series of little jumps not one big leap.
It does however also touch on dimensional portals so its still a lot of unknown. Are black holes a hole in the fabric? Hmmmmm
QuoteJust getting a trustworthy measure of the moon's gravity would be a good start for me. 66% vs 16% should affect what happened in the Moon missions. I wonder if any remote measurements from Earth would be good enough to settle the controversy or does someone have to go there.
IF NASA landed on the moon etc they would have to have known the gravity.
In that Time magazine article (1961?) von Braun stated that the neutral point was closer to where John says it is. This was backed up by actual readings on Apollo 8 when it crossed the neutral point closer to where John says it is. We posted all that I know its on the website somewhere :P
So my question is if NASA knew this WHY did they need a NEW mission to calculate the Lunar gravity? The Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL)
WHY is no one paying attention to the Japanese Kaguya/Selene spacecraft that remodeled gravity on the moon and found that gravity on the Farside is stronger than that on the Nearside... something that supports what John has said and what astronomer Peter Andreas Hansen said in the 1800? This higher gravity allows for air to be in those low regions. The Hansen Hypothesis rules the day before Simon Newcomb came along
Quote from: RUSSO on May 20, 2015, 04:35:46 PM
As I have not read her book, unfortunately you are right, I can not weave any review of her work.
Or you could go HERE http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Pari_Spolter_000.html
::)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Toons/Einstein_Pari.jpg)
Isaac Newton was an alchemist and possible Freemason. I don't at all consider alchemy to be inherently incriminating by itself; but I have said before that I believe that Freemasonry is guilty of both having the correct cosmology and basic understanding of the universe on the one hand, and deliberately giving humanity and mainstream science a deeply flawed, erroneous cosmology and understanding on the other. This has been done in order to consolidate and perpetuate their authority.
Some of the old alchemists would no doubt bitterly protest that they had at times offered their secrets to the public, which fell on deaf and scornful ears, and I accept that. I can also accept passive secrecy for the sake of their own safety, but what I will not condone is deliberate deception as a means of subjugating the public. I consider that wicked, and entirely morally indefensible.
It has been written numerous times, and I will do so again. The time for secrets is over; as is, also, the governmental system of Hell (vertical hierarchy) being used as a means of regulating human beings and physical reality.
The rest of you have your own purposes, both in life and for being on this forum. Mine, specifically, is to learn as much as I can about the fundamental nature and workings of the universe, primarily for the sheer joy of doing so; but also to benefit others by sharing what I find.
Crowley wrote that the directive for the end of secrecy came straight from the aether itself; and whenever I have seen said directive followed, I have seen happiness, individual autonomy, environmental restoration, and peace as the result. I have an instinctive urge to enact said directive myself, wherever, whenever, and however I can.
Quote from: zorgon on May 20, 2015, 09:13:24 PM
So my question is if NASA knew this WHY did they need a NEW mission to calculate the Lunar gravity? The Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL)
If you know the mass of the Earth and the inverse square law is true (which it probably isn't if the Dark matter is not there!) then you don't need to go to the Moon with that purpose because you can calculate the mass of the Moon using its distance from Earth. From the Moons mass you can calculate its gravity.
If Newton is wrong then obviously the real figure will be different to the calculation.
@Petrus: Regarding science, the "secrets" that the Masons inherited was Geometry. Literally Geometry is the measurement of the Earth which was known at least since the building of some megalithic Earth-works and also ancient Egypt. The science of the knowledge of the measures and proportions of the Earth was applied to the building of temples (see Stonehenge, Karnak, Great Pyramid, Gothic Cathedrals of Europe), astronomy (yes they knew the Sun was the centre but secrecy was due to the church ;)), artworks and the measures of the human and natural forms. The megalithic yard is proof of this.
Geometry: early 14c., also gemetrie, gemetry, from Old French geometrie (12c., Modern French géométrie), from Latin geometria, from Greek geometria
"measurement of earth or land; geometry," from comb. form of ge "earth, land" (see Gaia) + -metria (see -metry).
Apart from the secrets like passwords signs and rituals, which matter little if you don't care for the boys dinner club, this knowledge of geometry was the most important of the ancient knowledge of the Masons which is the link with architecture, astronomy and mathematics and the root of Masonic interest in archaeology. That knowledge is there and has been shared with the world but its significance is both profound and for the individual to realise.
In my opinion, what appears to be errors in fundamental science is not an attempt by the Masons as a whole to deliberately deceive humanity but a partially successful attempt by certain scholars to use the mathematics derived from geometry to explain the whole mechanics of the physical world. This single eyed way of viewing the world brought us materialistic science which has ultimately eaten its own tail when quantum physics demonstrated that the Universe is no such thing as matter!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Newton-WilliamBlake.jpg/220px-Newton-WilliamBlake.jpg)
William Blake's "Newton" is a demonstration of Blake's opposition to the "single-vision" of scientific materialism: The great philosopher-scientist is isolated in the depths of the ocean, his eyes (only one of which is visible) fixed on the compasses with which he draws on a scroll. He seems almost at one with the rocks upon which he sits (1795).I may start a study group within PRC but need to discuss with the Commander (Zorgon) and decide whether I believe I am ready to teach this "stuff" (I am only 40). As always time is an issue which itself is linked to the Megalithic Yard ;)