Cosmic Secrets
Gravity
Letters To John Lear
by Pari Spolter
Page Two
May 23, 2008
 
From: John Lear
To: Pari Spolter
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 9:17 AM
Subject: Moons gravity

Pari Spolter
Orb Publishing Company
11862 Balboa Blvd. #182
Grenada hills, CA 91334-2753

Dear Pari,

Please consider for a moment what the gravity might be on the moon. Also please consider, at least temporarily, these 2 facts:

(1) Gravitational force is independent of the nature and the quantity of the attracted body.
(2)  No Apollo mission ever landed on the moon and took gravity measurements.
We are told that the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earth.

If the gravity of a planet is quantized and if the gravity of a planet has nothing to do with mass/density, then how could the moons gravity be one sixth that of earth?

The one sixth gravity of earth is a figure derived based on the alleged density of the Earth and the Moon and an equation using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. 

Now that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation has been decisively proven wrong, and that there is no relationship between gravity and the mass/density of a planet it is inconceivable that the gravity of the Moon can still be coincidentally, one sixth that of Earth. It is simply not true. And it is not supported by the facts.

And the facts are that the gravity on the Moon is F=a.A just as all the other planets. There is no 'exception' for planets orbiting other planets. There is no exception that:

"For any moon orbiting a planet F=a.A is suspended."

There is no 'third body problem" any more than there is a 9 body problem with F=a.A.

In you letter of April 16, 2008 you state that the gravitational force of the Moon is 1.540260256 x 1013 . Then you state that the equatorial radius of the Moon is 1,737,400 M. You also state that the area at the Moon's equator is 9.483082025 x 1012 m2. You then conclude that the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earth.

The problem is that you have relied on only one source for the gravitational force of the Moon, Apollo 14. If the orbital velocity at semi-major for the earth is 29.771 and the semi-major axis of revolution around the sun for the Earth is 149.57 then why would these numbers be significantly different for the Moon?

If the gravitational force of a planet is equal to a.A, then why would the gravitational force of the Earth be any different from the Moon? And why, if indeed the gravitational force of the Moon where less than Earth, would it be 83% less?

Surely the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth cannot account for a reduction in gravitational force of 83%. Nowhere else do we find support for the Moon's alleged one sixth gravity of Earth than the alleged Apollo 14 measurements.

Could the FV relationship of the Moon to the Earth of 60% have this kind of effect? There were many failures of probes sent to the Moon in the late 50's and early 60's that appear to have been the result in the assumption of an erroneous figure of the gravitational force of the Moon.

In fact, the highly elliptical orbits of the Lunar Orbiter series of 1966 and 1967 from a mean orbital altitude of 60 to 70 miles would indicate a gravitational factor of the moon far greater than one sixth that of Earth.

We know that NASA claimed that the 60 to 70 mile lunar orbits for the Lunar Orbiter, Apollo, Clementine were because of the alleged effects of Mascons. I suspect that Mascons are fictitious and introduced to hide the real reason for the 60 to 70 mile high orbits which was because of the high lunar gravity.

The alleged movies of the Apollo astronauts on the Moon do not appear to show that the gravity is one sixth that of Earth. The maximum height reached by any jumping Apollo astronaut was barely 18 inches, if that. This is not indicative of one sixth gravity of Earth.

What possible set of circumstances exist that would cause the gravity of the Moon determined to be one sixth that of Earth based originally on Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and hypothesized mass densities of the Earth and the Moon to miraculously coincide after discovering that Newton's was wrong about gravitation being the result of an inert mass.

Maybe it happened like this as Mr. Sun talked to Mr. Moon:

        "Mr. Moon, I realize that you are a planet and that you orbit the sun as well as the Earth. However since you orbit the Earth I am not going to give you the full benefit of F=a.A. I am only going to dole out one sixth of Earths gravity. If at some time you wish to break away from Earth and go into orbit around me on your own, you will then be afforded the full benefit of F=a.A. I hope you understand my feelings on this matter."

Mainstream science tell us that we cannot use the Bullialdus/Newton Law of Inverse Square for the determination of the gravity on the Moon because "it creates a third body problem of enormous complexity".

In fact, in my opinion, this is nonsense. Since mass/density has nothing to do with gravity and as F=a.A, the alleged 'third body problem of enormous complexity' has no more validity than saying f=a.A doesn't take into account the 8 other planets.

So Pari, let us assume that the Bullialdus/Newton Law of Inverse Squareisan enormous 'third body' problem. And let us assume that we are going to attempt to see what the effect might be on the 64% of Earths gravity that the Moon has according the Inverse Square Law.

What would be the maximum effect on the figure 64% of:

(1) Maximum perturbation effect of the Sun for the exact date of the neutral point.
(2) Maximum effect of the eccentricity of the orbit of theMoon for that date.
(3) Maximum effect of the particular Moon cycle for thatdate.
Please estimate (ballpark) what the sum of the maximum effect of all of these considerations might be and consider if the sum of these affects would account for the difference between the inverse square result of 64% and the alleged Apollo gravity measurement of 16%.

Pari, I would respectfully request your careful consideration of the above comments.

Thank you and all the best,

John Lear

June 7, 2008
 
From: Pari Spolter [mailto:orbpublishing@msn.com] 


Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:39 PM
To: John Lear
Subject: Re: Moons gravity

Dear John Lear,
Thank you for your letter.
F =a . A is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law. We derive the gravitational force of the Sun from the acceleration of planets at their semimajor axis of revolution around the sun. And we derive the gravitational force of a planet from the acceleration at the semimajor axis of revolution of their Moons or of artificial satellites around the planet. If a body does not have a Moon or artificial satellite orbiting it, we do know its gravitational force. The Earth orbits the Sun; the velocity of the Earth v at the semimajor axis of its revolution r gives the gravitational force of the Sun. The Moon orbits the Earth. The v and r of the Moon give the gravitational force of the Earth.
The three-body problem is real. When a third body is near the other two, its gravitational force causes perturbation of the motion of the system.
Neutral Point
According to the references given in Chapter 3 of Moongateby William L, Brian II, the Apollo 11 passed the Neutral Point (N) between Earth and Moon at 43,495 miles (69,998,417.28 m) from the Moon on July 19, 1969. 
The Horizontal Parallax in The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the year 1969 on July 19.5 gives the Earth-Moon distance of 395,362,477.4 m. Subtracting the NM distance, we get the EN distance of 325,364,060,1 m. The gravitational force of the Earth  is
Fe = 1.252240211 x 10 15 m/s2 . m2

At the EN distance, the acceleration is 3.765291596 x 10-3 m/s2

This acceleration at the distance NM gives a gravitational force of the Moon

Fm= 5.795953977 x 1013 m/s2 . m2

This is 4.628% of the gravitational force of the Earth. The equatorial radius of the Moon is 1,737,400 m. The acceleration at the equatorial surface of the Moon would be 6.1119 m/s2 or 62.38% of the Earth's acceleration at the equatorial surface.

In 1969 The Moon's Apogee was on July 13.75, and Perigee at July 28.375. The New Moon was on July 14.5917, and First Quarter on July 22.507.

The above ratio of Fe /Fm is 21.605. 

This gives at the above EM distance the center of gravity of the Earth Moon system at 17,489,720 m, and the distance of the Moon from the center of gravity 377,872,757.1 m.

The Right Ascension of the Moon on July 19 was 166°.307975 and on July 20 it was 177°.264376. The Declination on July 19 was 6°.5978 and on July 20 it was 0°.71767. The Cos formula for the arc traversed in one day gives 12°.42115962 equal to 0.2167901323 radians. At the above distance from the center of gravity it gives a velocity v of 948.1376 m/s, an acceleration of 2.379 x 10-3 m/s2,  and a gravitational force of the Earth equal to 1.06818 x 10 15 m/s2 . m2. Subtracting (Fe-Fm) gives 1.27099496 x 10 14 m/s2 . m2. So on that day the perturbation by the Sun was negative. Adding this to the gravitational force of the Earth, we get 1.3793397 x 10 15 m/s2 . m2. At the EN distance above, we get an acceleration of 4.147 x 10-3 m/s2

This acceleration at Neutral Point gives Fm= 6.384 x 1013 m/s2 . m2. This is 5.1% of Fe. The acceleration at the equatorial surface of the Moon would be 6.73 m/s2 or 68.71% of the Earth's acceleration at the equatorial surface.

If Fe = 1.252240211 x 10 15 m/s2 . m2 =ae . BRe2 , and Fm= 1.540260256 x 1013 m/s2 . m2 = am . BRm2 , at Neutral Point ae = am  and Fe / Fm= 81.3. Re + Rm = 395,362,477.4 m. Re = 355,892,075.4 m and Rm = 39,470,402.03 m. The ae = am = 3.147 x 10-3 m/s2.

The gravitational force of the Moon has to be a lot less than the gravitational force of the Earth, because the Moon orbits the Earth. If the gravitational force of the Moon was in the same range, or even 30% of the gravitational force of the Earth, Earth and Moon would be in a binary orbit around their common center of gravity. So the above result would not be inconsistent with observations. But this is the result from just one report of the Neutral Point by Apollo 11 on July 19, 1969. More accurate determinations of the Neutral Point at other times are needed to confirm this and eliminate the possibility of interference from other sources such as the solar wind. In 1969 the Sun was at the peak of its 11-year activity cycle.

Several artificial satellites have been placed in orbit around the Moon and the gravitational force of the Moon derived by the use of Kepler's third law. Also, Apollo 11, 12, and 14 astronauts have measured acceleration on the lunar surface. The gravitational force of the Moon reported from these observations is 1.540260256 x 1013 m/s2 m2 or 1.23% of the gravitational force of the Earth. Acceleration at the equatorial radius of the Moon is 1.624 m/s2 or 16.6% of the acceleration at Earth's equatorial surface.

Regards,

Pari Spolter

June 7, 2008

Thank you Pari,

for your incredibly informative answer to my letter.
It is with deep appreciation that received your email today.
As soon as Ron Blackburn finishes the “Gravitational Force of the Sun”  we
will go over the details and respond.
Again, for your untiring efforts to educate and inform me,

I remain, sincerely,

John Lear

June 9, 2008
 
From: John Lear
To: 'Pari Spolter'
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:05 AM
Subject: RE: Moons gravity
Thank again Pari for your incredibly detailed answer.
I want to be sure that I understand the abbreviations EN and NM on the first page in the sentence:
"At the EN distance, the acceleration is 3.765291596 x 10-3 m/s2. This acceleration at the distance NM gives a gravitational force of the Moon."
Also on page 2 with reference to this sentence:
"More accurate determinations of the Neutral Point at other times are needed to confirm this and eliminate the possibility of interference from other sources such as the solar wind. In 1969 the Sun was at the peak of its 11-year activity cycle."
I have never known you to joke around so I am wondering if you were serious that the solar wind could cause an interference in the Neutral point between the Earth and the Moon and if so, in which  respect?
Hope you have a great week.
All the best,
John Lear
June 9, 2008

From: Pari Spolter

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:14 PM
To: John Lear
Subject: Re: Moons gravity
Hello John,
EN is the distance from Earth to Neutral Point. NM is the distance from Neutral Point to the Moon.
The solar wind sometimes reaches a speed as high as 800 km/s; it can push the Apollo in the direction of the Moon.
Regards,
Pari Spolter
June 9, 2008

From: John Lear
To: 'Pari Spolter'
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: Moons gravity

Thank you Pari,
 

I was under the impression from Brian's book page 91 that:
"The primary constituent particles of the solar wind are supposed to be hydrogen and helium traveling with velocities up to 1000 kilometers per second. However the solar wind is so minuscule that its density only fluctuates between 1 and 30 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter during quiet Sun activity. The assumption of a solar wind of 4 atoms percubic centimeter during quiet Sun activity yields an impact pressure of 10-8 dynes per square centimeter. If 10 times the pressure is assumed for an active sun, the pressure turns out to be .000000000000034 pounds per square inch. This pressure could not even be measured without specially designed sensitive instruments."
Much less push an Apollo Spacecraft in the direction of the Moon.

Arthur C. Clarke wrote a wonderful story published in "Boy's Life" 1964 called "Sunjammer" in which lightweight space ships with a solar sail stage a race in space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunjammer

With great respect, I remain,

Sincerely,

John Lear

June 9, 2008
 
From:Pari Spolter


Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 9:20 PM
To: John Lear
Subject: Re: Moons gravity
 

I would like to add that the solar wind changes the direction of the comets' tail. See for example PHYSICS OF COMETS by K S Krishna Swamy published by world Scientific 1986 pages 203-208 and page 215.
Regards,
Pari Spolter
July 29, 2008

From: John Lear

To: 'Pari Spolter'
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:19 AM
Subject: RE: Moons gravity
Hello Pari.
I have been talking about your book on various radio programs. I hope you have received some orders.
To clarify in my mind what you have said below:
"In 1969 The Moon's Apogee was on July 13.75, and Perigee at July 28.375. The New Moon was on July 14.5917, and First Quarter on July 22.507.
The above ratio of Fe /Fmis 21.605. This gives at the above EM distance the center of gravity of the Earth Moon system at 17,489,720 m, and the distance of the Moon from the center of gravity 377,872,757.1 m.
The Right Ascension of the Moon on July 19 was 166¢ª.307975 and on July 20 it was 177¢ª.264376. The Declination on July 19 was 6°.5978 and on July 20 it was 0°.71767. The Cos formula for the arc traversed in one day gives 12°.42115962 equal to 0.2167901323 radians. At the above distance from the center of gravity it gives a velocity v of 948.1376 m/s, an acceleration of 2.379 x 10-3 m/s2,  and a gravitational force of the Earth equal to 1.06818 x10 15 m/s2 . m2. Subtracting (Fe-Fm) gives -1.27099496 x 10 14 m/s2 . m2. So on that day the perturbation by the Sun was negative. Adding this to the gravitational force of the Earth, we get 1.3793397 ¡¿ 10 15 m/s2 . m2. At the EN distance above, we get an acceleration of 4.147 x 10-3 m/s2. This acceleration at Neutral Point gives Fm= 6.384 x1013 m/s2 . m2. This is 5.1% of Fe. The acceleration at the equatorial surface of the Moon would be 6.73 m/s2 or 68.71% of the Earth¡¯s acceleration at the equatorial surface."
Taking into consideration for Apollo 11:
(1) Maximum perturbation effect of the Sun for the exact date of the neutral point.
(2) Maximum effect of the eccentricity of the orbit of theMoon for that date.
(3) Maximum effect of the particular Moon cycle for that date.
That the gravity on the Moon should have been 68.71% that of earth's. (We will discuss the other issues you pose in the next email.)

All the best,

John Lear

July 29, 2008

From: Pari Spolter
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:16 PM
To: John Lear
Subject: Re: Moons gravity

Hello John,

Thank you for your email. Yes, the reported Neutral Point by the Apollo 11 Astronauts is in conflict with the accepted gravitational force of the Moon by the establishment, and I have not seen any explanation for the discrepancy.

Yes, I have sold a lot of books the last three months. Thank you very much.

Regards,

Pari Spolter

August 18, 2008

From: Pari Spolter
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 2:55 PM
To: John Lear
Subject: Re: Your questions

Hello John,

Thank you for your email.

From: John Lear 
To: Pari Spolter
Cc: Ron Schmidt; Ron Blackburn & Susan
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:08 AM

Good Morning Pari,
I have a few questions if you don't mind:

1) Would it be correct to state: "The gravitational force of a planet is created by the gravitational force of the sun."
No. If not, what would be the correct statement as to how the gravitational force of a planet is created.
We do not know how gravitational force is created. I have presented evidence that it is not the inert mass. I believe, as Kepler did, that it is the magnetism.
(2) What is the difference between orbital velocity semi-major and mean orbital velocity? Is it that orbital velocity semi-major is at a specific point being where semi-major intersects the orbit and mean orbital velocity is an average for the entire trip around the sun?
There is no difference. Yes.
(3) What is the difference between (t) sidereal period of revolution and (v)
mean orbital velocity?
The sidereal period of revolution, t, is the period of revolution with respect to the background stars. Mean orbital velocity, v, is 2Pir/t, or the circumference of a circle with radius equal to the semimajor axis of
revolution divided by the sidereal period of revolution. 
(4) In the equation at the top of page 128, which is the equation for the least squares line of regression what are the mathematical steps to get to v = 364.0877 ± 0.0463?
When I first did this work in the 1980s, no software was available to plot the data or to do the statistics. I used a handheld scientific calculator to calculate the logarithm of each individual data. The procedure for calculations of the slope and the intercept of a straight line on a logarithmic or on a semi logarithmic paper is described by C. O. Oakley in Chapter 12 of his book Analytic Geometry. The procedure for calculations of the Confidence Intervals of the slope and the intercept are described in any advanced book on Statistics, for example, in Chapter 1 of Applied Linear Regression by Sanford Weisberg, published by John Wiley and Sons in 1980.
The advances in technology have made things a lot easier. Now you can use any of a number of software available to plot, to calculate, and to print the statistical data. I use www.polysoftare.com As an experienced pilot you may enjoy using the PSI-Plot.
(5) In the equation v = (364.0877 ± 0.0463 x r(-0.500007±0.000082) what is r? And what is the superscript number?
r is the semimajor axis of revolution and the superscript number is -0.5. 
(6) On page 61 table 2.4 B0 (couldn't find exact character) is said to be the heliographic latitude. But in the text, the numbers are referred to as inclination of the planets orbit to the solar equatorial plane. Is this correct?
Yes. They are the same.
(7) In the statement "Eccentricity is the ratio of perturbations to the gravitational force of the sun," where do the perturbations come from?
The perturbations are due to the gravitational forces of other bodies.
(8) In the statement "replacing v with 2Pir/t we get r3/t2 can you show me the mathematical steps to do that?
v = 2Pir/t  v^2 = 4Pi^2r^2/t^2  v^2/r = 4Pi^2r/t^2  v^2/r . Pir^2 = 4Pi^3r^3/t^2
(9) How do we figure the number for the sidereal period of revolution t?
The references are given on the bottom of the tables.
Thank you for your time and patience.
John Lear
Regards,

Pari Spolter

September 11, 2008
From: Pari Spolter


Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:32 PM
To: John Lear
Subject: Re: Perihelion rotation

From: John Lear
To: Pari Spolter
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:42 AM
Subject: Perihelion rotation
  Good morning Pari,

Hope all is going well for you.

I am writing an essay on your Relativity Part 1 and Part 2 and I have a few questions if you don’t mind.

(1) If you had to give a title to Part 1 and Part 2, whatwould these titles be?

"Einstein's Relativity--A Critical View" This is a suggestion. You can modify or change it to something you like better.
(2) Regarding the advance in the perihelion of Mercury ‘greater than could be accounted for’ would this question be correct: Why is Mercury arriving at its closest point to the sun earlier than can be accounted for adding together the gravitational effects of the known planets?
Yes.
(3) Regarding the motion of the node of Venus would this question be correct: Why does Venus arrive at the longitude of its ascending node earlier than expected?
Yes.
(4) Regarding the motion of the motion of the perihelion of Mars would this question be correct: Why is Mars, at its closest approach to the sun 3 times further away than its theoretical probable error?
Yes.
(5) In commenting on the eccentricity of Mercury what did, in your opinion, Admiral Newcomb mean when he said, “…it is to be remarked however that the probable error of this quantity is very largely a matter of judgment, and that’s its value may have been underestimated?
The word “underestimated” is confusing me. I would think it would be “overestimated” which probably shows I don’t understand the problem.
As Newcomb stated the masses of Mercury and Venus were not known to very high accuracy (because they do not have moons. What they mean by mass is gravitational force.) The change could be plus or minus, so the probable error could be underestimated or overestimated depending on the direction of the change.
(6) On page 92, line 8, you make the statement: “The time corresponding to the speed of light, 40.668134n, lied 2.7671648 standard deviations from the arithmetic mean.” Could you please give me a short explanation of this? The word ‘lied’ is confusing me.
It means it is not significant. Any data within 2.767 standard deviation of the mean is statistically not significant. "The probability that the velocity of the antimesoms was greater than the speed of light was 99.72%."  Highly significant.
Thank you for your help and infinite patience Pari.
All the best,

John Lear
 

P.S. My daughter thought your Einstein-Pari poster was cool.

You probably noticed they have closed "Gravity without Mass" discussion at the scienceforums.net. D.H. refused to give the Neutral Points distances for all the nine manned Apollo lunar flights. He said: "Spacecraft going to the Moon do not pass anywhere close to your 'neutral point.'" This is nonsense. If a spacecraft went from Earth to the Moon, it must have gone through the Neutral Point, regardless of the trajectory.

Attached is an article by Louis Essen (1908-1997) the inventor of the atomic clock and a fellow of the Royal Society, criticizing the Hafele & Keating data. You may want to post this on your web site.

...
September 15, 2008

From: Pari Spolter
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:34 PM
To: John Lear
Subject: Re: A few words...

From: John Lear
To: Pari Spolter
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 10:19 AM
Subject: A few words...

Good morning Pari,

There is no hurry on the following but for my essay tentatively titled:

A Review and Comments on Pari Spolter's Scientific Forensic Investigation into the Claims of Einstein's Theories Both General and Special

On page 81 you make the following statement:

"Einstein's equations of relativistic dynamics are mathematically incompatible with the experimentally verified Plank's formula of quantum mechanics. This problem, as well as the concept of "negative mass" in relativity and Einstein's postulates of "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" will be discussed in detail in the second book Gravitational Force of the Proton."

What I would like from you if possible is 10 to 15 words to be placed after the words “transverse mass” instead of the reference to the second book.

Kind of like this:

“…are all hypothetical concepts with no experimentally provable or other basis in science.”

This is good.
Thanks,
All the best,

John Lear

Regards,

Pari Spolter

September 16, 2008

From: John Lear
To: Ron Schmidt
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2008  7:26 AM
Subject: Einstein

Ron,
I posted this on Open Minds forum this morning. Am heading for the mine. Back tomorrow night.
John

Peer review  might sound like an excellent idea but it is actually the way that 'they' (whoever 'they' are) stifle important work.

I am currently writing an essay in which I use Pari Spolter's material to debunk Einstein and his whole relativity scam. What I am finding is that there were and are plenty of mathematicians and scientists that have the goods on Einstein and relativity but they can't get it published. Further, I see how students of higher mathematics are sucked into the scam as Louis Essen said "Students are told that the theory (Relativity) must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma."

Yesterday I got an email from Pari about the scienceforum. She said:    "You probably noticed they have closed "Gravity without Mass" discussion at the scienceforums.net. D.H. refused to give the Neutral Points distances for all the nine manned Apollo lunar flights. He said: "Spacecraft going to the Moon do not pass anywhere close to your 'neutral point.'" This is nonsense. If a spacecraft went from Earth to the Moon, it must have gone through the Neutral Point, regardless of the trajectory."

Pari is correct. It is nonsense but apparently 'somebody' has control of the scientific community and they discuss only the issues that further the agenda. Whatever that agenda might be. It certainly is not a 'truth' agenda.

After I finish my essay I will post it and then I will start to work on how Einstein was selected or how he came to be one of the biggest mathematical hoaxers of all time. I say 'hoaxer' because the Theory of Relativity both general and special are hoaxes: scientific and mathematical hoaxes. But what was the exact purpose of the relativity hoax?

Last night I googled Einstein Newcomb and I may have found a major clue. Simon Newcomb as you may recall was the U. S. Navy Admiral who was head of the Navy Observatory in Washington D.C. He is the one that went over the Paris and stomped respected Danish astronomer and mathematician Peter Andreas Hansen into oblivion in 1870 for his theory presented to the Royal Astronomical Society in 1856 that there was possibly an atmosphere, oceans, flora, fauna and even a civilization on the far side of the moon.

Somehow Einstein and Newcomb are connected in the Theory of Relativity scam.

John Lear

September 16, 2008

From: John Lear
To: Russ Hamerly
CC: Ron Schmidt
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2008  8:59 AM
Subject: RE: S&TR | September 2002

Hello Russ,

I am currently writing an essay in which I use Pari Spolter's material to debunk Einstein and his whole relativity scam. What I am finding is that there were and are plenty of mathematicians and scientists that have the goods on Einstein and relativity but they can't get it published. Further, I see how students of higher mathematics are sucked into the scam as Louis Essen said "Students are told that the theory (Relativity) must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.

Yesterday I got an email from Pari about the science forum. She said:    "You probably noticed they have closed "Gravity without Mass" discussion at the scienceforums.net. D.H. refused to give the Neutral Points distances for all the nine manned Apollo lunar flights. He said: "Spacecraft going to the Moon do not pass anywhere close to your 'neutral point.'" This is nonsense. If a spacecraft went from Earth to the Moon, it must have gone through the Neutral Point, regardless of the trajectory."

Pari is correct. It is nonsense but apparently 'somebody' has control of the scientific community and they discuss only the issues that further the agenda. Whatever that agenda might be. It certainly is not a 'truth' agenda.

After I finish my essay I will post it and then I will start to work on how Einstein was selected or how he came to be one of the biggest mathematical hoaxers of all time. I say 'hoaxer' because the Theory of Relativity both general and special are hoaxes: scientific and mathematical hoaxes. But what was the exact purpose of the relativity hoax?

Last night I googled Einstein Newcomb and I may have found a major clue. Simon Newcomb as you may recall was the U. S. Navy Admiral who was head of the Navy Observatory in Washington D.C. He is the one that went over the Paris and stomped respected Danish astronomer and mathematician Peter Andreas Hansen into oblivion in 1870 for his theory presented to the Royal Astronomical Society in 1856 that there was possibly an atmosphere, oceans, flora, fauna and even a civilization on the far side of the moon.

Somehow Einstein and Newcomb are connected in the Theory of Relativity scam.

Attached is a response on Open Minds called, Gravity, A New Essay.

Also attached is my final revision on my book report for Pari’s Gravitational Force of the Sun.

All the best,

John

September 23, 2008

From: Ron Schmidt 
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:29 PM
To: John Lear
Subject: Relativity

Seems you and Pari are not the only ones picking on Einstein

http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html
 

September 24, 2008

From: John Lear
To: Ron Schmidt
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2008  4:02 AM
Subject: RE: Relativity

Louis Essen is one of Einstein's most famous and knowledgeable critics. Essen's field was the measurement of time and the use of and calibration of clocks.

Essen was forced into early retirement because of his criticism of Einstein.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Pegasus Research Consortium distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
~ MENU ~

 

Webpages  © 2001-2008
Blue Knight Productions