Hi Dr. Dick,

I am fed up! This post probably will be censored!

The web-master here has done wonders for us. But now, the forum seems to be dying. One can not rely on posts being posted ("Additional Note" I wrote did not go through.)

I do not want to complain to the webmaster as I understand it is a free gift of his time to keep things tidy here. And some posts I do not think are censored but simply fail due to gremlins.

But maybe censorship is heavy now?

What I am going to say will probably be censored:

I didn't want to upset you by raising this but remember at Counterbalance when I wrote a reply to you and you proceeded to tell me the very points I told you! Because you didn't complete reading my post after I used the word "nonsense".

My guess is that you have not read stuff I wrote on mapping physics some time ago. If you were to read my posts fully I think you might see I know a fair bit about your idea. Earlier in my investigations I had the backing of a mathematician on my math-free translation of your system.

To be "rational" is to be "open to argument"; to "not be deaf to argument".

You claim to be the only person to understand the nature of time? If I told you every newborn baby understands time rather well; and so perhaps do many adults (on another forum someone wrote "eternity lies still"); how can you dispute that?

I had hoped you would explain your symbols in eqtn. 2.17

By the way, I may have almost totally cracked the paper you wrote; and found just what goes on re: "c", re: sq.rt. -1; QED, QCD, etc. BUT turns out it is all up in the air as soon as one counts to 2. But it was fun to figure it out. Thank you for your revealing thought experiment; turns out Tarvo has been travelling the same road via an innovative computer programme.

I have a lot of stuff to type to show you what I figured out; but if you refuse to read it; how is that being rational (open to argument)?

Thank you for the fun and games!

Bye,

Alan