Gravitational Force of the Sun

Gravitational Force of The Sun is a valuable work. For those who care to study this book carefully, there are some valuable insights----especially for mechanical and electrical engineers. This is a significant book and marks a strong turning point in the perceived truth. Pari Spolter has obviously made a monumental effort in search of the TRUTH and she has carried out her work with meticulous care and passion for the truth. The pretenders in physics, science etc will feel threatened(AS SOME ALREADY HAVE) by the remarkable clarity and integrity of this work. Pari Spolter will be remembered long after many of her contemporaries and predecessors are long forgotten. Pari (possibly unconsciously) has opened the door to the development and harnessing of clean, limitless gravitational energy.For those interested in the harnessing of energy, I suggest that they read this in conjunction with Osborne Reynolds book: The Sub-Mechanics of the Universe.

Very interesting read, I wish she would stop calling gravity gravity, it is not a real force, electric universe fans will know that there is only one force in the universe and it is electricity.

Most of astronomy is based on theory. This book goes back to Kepler and starts over. Everything is based on data. There are no theories here. The math is straight forward (mostly algebra). The reasoning is flawless and also straightforward. In fact you have to wonder why it took this long to figure it out. This is one of the most important science books you can read without signing a secrecy agreement.In reading the reviews I see two basic ways of looking at this book. One is to work through the book analytically trying to find flaws in reasoning, or math or the data. Another is to compare the conclusions of this book with the established conclusions of a consensus of experts. This view is unscientific. It allows for no change. To quote a famous physicist "Science only changes on the death of the current generation of scientists." This latter point of view is dogma and the death of reason. Those who don't want you to know the truth are all too happy to provide you with "experts" to tell you what to think. Learn to think for yourself. Then you will know.Thanks to John Lear for pointing this book out to me (on Project Camelot).

Dr. Spolter was trained in Iran. She has developed a theory that basically invalidates much of Einstein's work. I'm not enough of an expert to truly judge this work--she has an talk on YouTube, however the ideas are some of the most non-paradigmatic I've seen, and for this reason alone, I recommend you consider this book as an essential for your physics library.

An exellent book that REFUTES and devastates the wrong theory of Relativity. Tries to give an explanation for Gravity with the Current level of scientific knowledge, but when it analyzes the gravity of Earth and Moon and Sun it reveals that this is a THREE body problem, but when it analyzes the Gravity of all the other PLANETS it fails to list it as a 10 body problem 9 planets + SUN, and to correctly find the REAL FORCE OF GRAVITY it should include also the moons of Jupiter and Saturn or Mars and other planets, then this equation with circa 40 body problem should be solved. Because :If we were to remove one planet from the Solar sytem all planets will change their ORBITAL ROTATION SPEED AND ACTUAL POSITION vs the SUN and so all their RESPECTIVE MOONS PERIODS AND SPEED AND LOCATION WILL CHANGE.So this is the ONLY WAY TO FIND OUT THE CORRECT FORCES IN PLAY IN THIS.........DYNAMICALLY INTERCONNECTED CLOSED SOLAR SYSTEM. All Celestial bodies are all INTERCONNECTED BY GRAVITY WHICH IS A DERIVATIVE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION.

Great supplemental read for students. Must have for anybody researching forces in nature. Points out inconsistency within the standard Newtonian model.

If 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!

Still working through it, but it's one of those books that turns conventional physics on its head. You don't have to buy into every idea that it puts forth, but it makes you think.

2nd edition (2015). This book heavily advertised "Gravitational Force of the Proton" which is still not published in 2018.It is a useful source of physics history.Joannes Philoponus in the 6th cent AD thought projectiles were maintained in flight by impetus or energy implying the concept of inertia and showed falling bodies fell in the same time. Free planetary bodies move in a straight line (Newton's 1st law). Heavenly and earthly bodies follow the same laws. (confirmed)Simon Stevinus (1586) found bodies fell in the same time.Johannes Kepler's (1619) 3rd law is 4Pi*r^3/T^2 is constant where r is the semimajor axis of revolution and T is the period of the orbit in modern terms. (confirmed)Galileo Galilei (1632) found bodies also fell in the same time. (confirmed) Ismael Boullian (1645) found the inverse square law of gravitation.Christiaan Huygens (1669) found conservation of kinetic energy (mv^2) in collisions and in 1673 produced the centripetal acceleration law for circular motion.Gottfried Leibniz (1686) found falling bodies conserved kinetic energy (mv^2). Spolter is wrong, it is only for elastic collisions of bodies and like Newton's 2nd law is only a definition of elasticity. Leibniz' 2nd law of conservation of momentum for elastic collisions is half of Newton's 3rd law.Isaac Newton (1687) said the same but did not recognise the precidence of the previous investigators. (confirmed) Newton's contribution is the 3rd law includes conservation of momentum for non-contacting interaction between bodies.John Bernoulli (1717) defined work as a force times displacement.Henry Cavendish (1784) predicted light bending by gravity.Johann Georg von Soldner (1804) predicted a deviation of light of 0.84" at the Sun. This is half of the Einstein prediction measured during solar eclipses amongst others but not confirmatory of the GR theory.Michelson and Gale (1925) did not use the Sagnac effect which is due to GR. They did find the speed of light (c) is altered by 375 km/s towards the Cosmic Microwave Background anomaly. (Confirmed)Ch.2 has an error, the last term of eqn (2.8c), -ct^2 should be +ic and the last term of eqn (2.8d) -c^2 should not exist (zero). So the next critical paragraph is spurious and should be deleted. Spolter is quite inept in executing differential calculus.Spolter's major objection is that weight=Gm1m2/r^2 is not explicitly in the Principia but it does logically follow. Her statement F=ma is an incorrect statement. Newton said force is the rate of change of the quantity of motion, the latter being the product m*v that is momentum (p). So dp/dt=mdv/dt+dm/dt*v. Only when mass is constant does F=m*dv/dt or F=ma but this assumption was never stated here.Spolter's interpretation is F=Fs*m/r^2 where Fs is a constant in any attractor system . The followers of Newton using his third law where all interacting forces are identical or F1=F2=F.So F1=Fs1m1/r^2 and F2=Fs2m2/^2. As these forces are equal m1/m2=Fs2/Fs1. Multiplying and dividing the left-hand side by a constant (G) we get F1 = F2 = Gm1m2/r^2 = F. So the force does depend on BOTH masses and Spolter is wrong in this. The second mass is not an assumption as she claims.Einstein claimed that the known anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury can be explained by his theory of General Relativity (GR) but the theory fails to explain the anomalous precession of two other planets so the theory is experimentally disproved. The orbits of planets can't be predicted by GR on its own if at all. Newton's laws are the only ones that work.The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen does not believe in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of objects in relative motion.In table 2.5 the total is 1/10 th of the listed totals with no explanation.p.118 'We suggest that the rotation of the star [or any body] generates the gravitational rotational force' with no numerical evidence to validate this, though the rotational periods are listed in Table 11.1. This is completely untrue as Venus and Earth have very similar gravitational fields. The gravitational accelerations are in the ratio 0.816 but the rotational periods vary by 244 times. Now the masses vary by 0.819 or a ratio of 0.996 with gravity so it is mass that makes gravity not rotation. Spolter is wrong here.She defines her gravitational 'force' as Fs=Pi v^2 r which is Pi G M and is incorrectly called a force as it is the gravitational flux in analogy to the electric and magnetic flux. In other words 'Fs' = acceleration X area. This a version of an averaged Kepler's 2nd law over a whole orbit and useless in predicting the motion of a body in this orbit. Kepler said the law was only an approximation except at the aphelion and perhelion where the tangential acceleration is zero. F varies with the inverse square of distance so F (weight) = m/r^2 * GM.Eqn (11.3) is erroneous as it ignores gravity. It should be W = m(g-a).The orbital data though true is quite incorrectly interpreted as a deviation from the classical laws of physics. Relativity does not stand up well to scrutiny.