169responses.html 
Date: 01/07/05

Science Forum Responses:

Science Groupsrv Forum
See rude, stupid people react badly, with no explanation.
See totally irrelevant defenses offered.
See claims of incomprehensible questions.
See every excuse offered to avoid answering.

Relativity Forum
Many viewings of paper with no commentary.

PhysLink Forum- University Faculty Discussion
PhysLink removed the paper three times, without comment.
Finally it was banned from the whole Forum.
Perhaps one of you can ask these limp-wrists why they can't come up with a defense.

Einstein Forum
Many viewings of paper with no commentary.

Email Responses:

Subject: Fwd: Your challenge
From: Larry Brasseur
To: rgrace@rgrace.org
Date: Fri, January 14, 2005 11:41 am

--- Begin forwarded message:  

From: "Larry Brasseur" larr@idirect.ca
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:30:06 -0800
To: terrypp@aemail4u.com
Subject: Your challenge

Robert,

After careful consideration of the matter it does appear that everything Einstein said was true its just that he did not explain his ideas well enough although better than most would have. This conclusion was arrived at from the theory that there are no wrong answers only badly explained answers.

Larry.


Subject: Fwd: Re: Your challenge
From: Larry Brasseur
To: rgrace@rgrace.org
Date: Tue, January 18, 2005 10:59 am

--- Begin forwarded message:

From: "Larry Brasseur" larr@idirect.ca
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:07:05 -0800
To: terrypp@aemail4u.com
Subject: Re: Your challenge

Robert,

Sorry for wording my answer so badly.

9+1= 10, 8+2 = 10, 7+3 = 10, 6+4= 10, 5+5= 10 are these answers correct? Yes and no they should read 2+8 =10. Proof: 001010 = 10 any answer can seem right and is right but explained badly will appear wrong. The proof is in the computer it can only use 2+8. It seems correct to me. My own personal experience is that I have made thousands of mistakes but I have never been wrong. Nature will never allow you to be wrong.

----- Original Message -----

From: rgrace@rgrace.org
To: Larry Brasseur
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Your challenge

Hmmmmm........can you give me a "for example" to illustrate what you mean by Einsteins true equations leading him to badly explain it? This assumes the equations are true but the explanation is backward.

Robert

______________________________

Subject: RE:
From: "Bruce Harvey" bruce@bearsoft.powernet.co.uk
To: rgrace@rgrace.org
Date: Fri, January 14, 2005 12:28 am

Hi Robert,

Let's be clear, I do not argue against the equations, just Einstein's derivation and physical interpretation.

Regards Bruce
Bruce Harvey
bruce@bearsoft.co.uk
The Alternative Physics Site http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft

> -----Original Message-----

> From: rgrace@rgrace.org
> Sent: 13 January 2005 17:43
> To: bruce@bearsoft.powernet.co.uk
> Subject: RE:

> Hello Bruce,

> Ok I'll do some reading of your papers. From the list of persons I sent this email to, most of you argue with Einsteins postulates also.

> Robert Grace
> rgrace@rgrace.org

> > Hi Robert,

> > Thanks for the e-mail,

> > Might I recommend you read my own papers.

> > Regards Bruce
> > Bruce Harvey
> > bruce@bearsoft.co.uk
> > The Alternative Physics Site
> > http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft

> >> -----Original Message-----

> >> From: rgrace@rgrace.org [mailto:rgrace@rgrace.org]
> >> Sent: 12 January 2005 19:00
> >> To: crey@adinet.com.uy; halfox@qwest.net;
> >> bruce@bearsoft.powernet.co.uk; donhotson@yahoo.com;
> >> melehy@uconnvm.uconn.edu; vortexfinder@earthlink.net;
> >> alai@yk.netlaputa.ne.jp; sapogin@cnf.madi.ru; ryabov@vmat.madi.ru;
> >> sceptre@orbita.ru; haspden@iee.org; coolwar@aol.com; dalesvp@ipa.net;
> >> discjt@servtech.com; john_hutchison@geocities.com;
> > wiseeagle@cyberlink.bc.ca;
> >> 102331.2166@compuserve.com
> >> Cc: rgrace@rgrace.org
> >> Subject:

> >> Einstein was precisely backward, deliberately

"Let's be clear, I do not argue against the equations, just Einstein's derivation and physical interpretation."


Yes, let's be very, very clear.
Einstein left all of science with a viewpoint that is exactly opposite of Reality. RG

______________________________

Subject: Re: Einstein Backward Challenge
From: Marc
To:
Date: Wed, March 30, 2005 12:45 pm

That's right. Must be.

Keep it up. Your work is great. Thanks again.

rgrace@rgrace.org:

> Marc,

> Yea, all waves follow the toroidal spiraling path...there is no straight
> line forces in this toroidally curved Reality. So...you say Majka is in
> error of perception also...I can accept that too. Soooo...this
> misperception on my part may mean that all of spiraling space is not only
> light velocity but probably all velocities...hum?

> Robert

>> PERMISSION GRANTED. Thanx for your reply. You are right in your
>> answer,but what I meant is different. Actually the "lightspeed" changes
>> very quickly. Only the moment it enters the visibility-bandwidth appears
>> to be constant, but this arbitrary because "visibility" depends on the
>> receiving instrument (i.e. the eye or the lightspeed meter). Let me
>> clarify by an example. When two thunderclouds hit, there is a discharge
>> and a wave forms in the medium, just like concentric rings form in the
>> water when a pebble hits the surface) At first the frequency of this
>> wave is very high, then it gradually slows down. At some point the
>> wavespeed is 186,..mph and it appears to our senses or instruments as
>> light(ning) then it slows down further and it appears to us as sound
>> (thunder), as it slows down even more it appears to us as pressure etc.
>> So the moment it registers on the receiving instrument may be "constant"
>> , in fact there is just one thing: a spiralwave slowing down.
>> So in this view lightspeed or Majka's space speed is not really constant.
>> (the wave and its speed follow your torus, right?)

rgrace@rgrace.org:

>>> Hello Mark,

>>> Yes, you are right to show that our measurements, either from
>>> professional scientists with highly complex instruments or theorizings are only taking a "snapshot"
>>> and, perhaps, the logic of Majka, is only taking a "snapshot". Not too many people
>>> understand that there are really no constants in universe. All things
>>> change eventually. It's just that the constants take a whole lot of
>>> so-called "time" to change. And so-called "spatial constants" are the
>>> same.

>>> Well done, Sir. I think I'll add your email to the list of Responses
>>> with your permission. >>>

>>> Robert

>>>> In answer to: http://rgrace.org/159/168contacts.html

>>>> Where light is a spiral contracting or expanding, then its speed is
>>>> not a constant thing. the speed of 186,(000)...mp(s) is just a moment when
>>>> the lightwave slows down (or speeds up) into the visible bandwidth
>>>> and is then measured by some machine, tuned to catch this frequency.

>>>> So I agree with you here.

>>>> But the same holds true for "space". Where space is a spiral
>>>> contracting or expanding, its speed is not a constant 186,...mph like
>>>> your Mr.. Majka says. (or does he say different?)
>>>> Again, this speed is just a momentary situation in a speeding up or
>>>> slowing down space, measured by (in this case) Majka's machine tuned
>>>> to that frequency.

>>>> In general scientific measuring devices only take "photos" and don't
>>>> see films (of what's really going on, right?)
>>>> You can't blame them. The real source is just immeasurable, right?

>>>> Thank you Mr. Grace.


Impossible Correspondence Index

© Copyright. Robert Grace. 2004