Big Bang

[David Gray]

hello light eye;

i was interested in reading your observations re the doubts about big
bang being a true explanation for the beginning and present state of the
universe. in the last 2 weeks i have been researching the the issue
myself, having always had some reservations about it and the continuing
need to 'tweak' the theory to match increasing numbers of observations
that do not fit with the math.

the problems are being brought to the establishment scientists and
summarily rejected and the astronomers finding their telescope time
threatened and future career prospects vanish. same as in the days when
the earth centered universe was the science and you risked heresy
charges if you differed.

a list of the problems i personally have with it are:

1) the red shift observations of several galaxies are showing objects in
the same galactic material / same galaxy to have several very different
speeds, ngc 7603 shows 4 quasar like objects all moving at dramatically
different speeds. this galactic cluster being only 1 of many collected
by halton arp and others. david wicocks study of light speed variations
and a paper in the website add fuel to the fire.

2) the 'invention' of "inflation" this magical moment where the universe
expands at speeds faster than light conveniently explaining measurements
of the universe that show it to be to big at 14 to 17 billion light
years in diameter.

3) the universe came from nothing...this is a nice idea and i agree with
vacume energy / zpe however what caused this sudden expansion in the
first place ? a theory that cannot be experimentally tested is not very
useful.

4) the age of the universe, in my personal opinion 14 - 17 billion years
is very short, we have observations of galaxy's (fully formed) only 600
million years old at the 'edge' of the universe with red shifts
indicating speeds close to that of light.

5) the universe by this concept has an 'edge' what is on the other side?
perhaps our observed universe is just a small corner of a far greater
system? how can an infinite universe have an 'edge'?

the problems stack up and none of the mainstream scientists want to risk
their tenure or future by investigating and publishing work that
contradicts the establishment. this is a sad state of affairs as it
stifles debate, locks undergraduates into ways of thinking and banishes
creative thought .

plasma galaxies
<http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...sma-galaxy.htm>
this is a new perspective and to my thinking blends well with many of
david's ideas.

i am attaching a jpg image and sending it to you personally since the
newsletter won't accept images.

peace

david gray


[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Lee]

hi there everyone
i am new to this forum so please bear with me if i am not up to speed. having
read quite a bit about problems with the big bang, notably by writers he quotes,
i am surprised to see david sometimes talking as if it actually happened. one of
the most obvious criticisms is by steve newman (in bye bye big bang hello
reality by william mitchell): if galaxies and galaxy clusters are not expanding
(but only the space between them) then you cannot shrink them back to a year dot
(only the space between them). simple as that. mitchell claims that galaxies are
incredibly old, are born and die like everything else. richard pasichnyk takes a
similar view in the vital vastness (vol 2). this makes more sense to me than the
thought that the milky way has only completed fifty or so rotations.
tom van flandern has much more on this at his metaresearch.org website, e.g.
?30 problems with the big bang?, or ?a bang into nowhere? (apeiron vol 10. no. 1
jan 2003) in which constantin antonopoulos lists the fallacies involved: there
is no such thing as ?the universe? (shorthand for things of many ages); space
can only expand into space; the fallacy of self-reference plus reification of
time and space: time cannot have an age, space cannot have a size, etc.
van flandern has a big bang of a different kind in dark planets? starting out
a process of logical reasoning from just one particle, he expands it out to an
infinitely large and old universe infinite in scale in a theory that
automatically includes aetherlike substances and everything else.
talking of galactic rotations, i remember 5/6 years ago discovering the
wilcock constant of 36 planetary alignments per rotation (shift of the ages,
ch.19). i couldn?t help smiling at the telling of it. dw starts out by dividing
the nineveh constant by 100 (taking 0.7 instead of 70) then multiplying it by
3600 (two extra multiples of 60), which is basically multiplying it by 36. he
then takes this number on a trip round the galaxy, finds it fits, divides back
and is astounded to get this round number of 36. you can tell the man?s excited,
as well he might be: he makes three mistakes in a single sentence, amazing!
(?once he had this number, he then simply had to multiply [divide] it by
365.2422 [31,556,926.08] to get the exact number of years that it would be?and
thus a true ?harmonic year? of the galaxy became 223,544,814.9201 million
[delete million] years in length.?)
i wrote this on friday (european time) and was pondering the cosmic
significance of all this until dw in another message suggested his math was just
a bit dodgy and the devil is in the numbers! one thought however: the nineveh
constant of 6.2 m years is one tenth of the 62m year mass extinction/speciation
cycle now overdue, or rather ongoing.
good to be with you
john lee


---------------------------------
dãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ã ƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâ ƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â©couvrez une nouvelle faãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â§on d'obtenir des rãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ã ƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâ ƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â©ponses ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒ ã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â* toutes vos questions !
profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â ‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ã ƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â©riences des internautes sur
yahoo! questions/rãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ã ƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâ ƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â©ponses.

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[David Wilcock]

-----original message-----
from: asc2k@yahoogroups.com [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of john
lee

hi there everyone
i am new to this forum so please bear with me if i am not up to speed.
having read quite a bit about problems with the big bang, notably by writers
he quotes, i am surprised to see david sometimes talking as if it actually
happened.

dw: i do believe in an origin to the universe, and a time before there was
physical matter. imprecisions in language may make it seem that i am
supporting the conventional big bang model, but i am certainly not. the idea
that "nothing" exploded, and created all known matter in the universe in a
single instant, is preposterous.

>one of the most obvious criticisms is by steve newman (in bye bye big bang
hello reality by william mitchell): if galaxies and galaxy clusters are not
expanding (but only the space between them) then you cannot shrink them back
to a year dot (only the space between them). simple as that. mitchell claims
that galaxies are incredibly old, are born and die like everything else.
richard pasichnyk takes a similar view in the vital vastness (vol 2). this
makes more sense to me than the thought that the milky way has only
completed fifty or so rotations.

dw: there could be more... but the harmonics is what i'm most interested in.
given the speed with which the earth is expanding, and how little of one
rotation we've been able to witness, i do not rule out the possibilities i
have previously given.

>tom van flandern has much more on this at his metaresearch.org website,
e.g. "30 problems with the big bang", or "a bang into nowhere" (apeiron vol
10. no. 1 jan 2003) in which constantin antonopoulos lists the fallacies
involved: there is no such thing as "the universe" (shorthand for things of
many ages); space can only expand into space; the fallacy of self-reference
plus reification of time and space: time cannot have an age, space cannot
have a size, etc.
van flandern has a big bang of a different kind in dark planets. starting
out a process of logical reasoning from just one particle, he expands it out
to an infinitely large and old universe infinite in scale in a theory that
automatically includes aetherlike substances and everything else.

dw: again, part of what we're dealing with in my work is validation of the
law of one material, since it is so extensively supported by research
evidence. bearing that in mind, it is clearly stated in this material that
the universe did have a point of origin, a point of maximum expansion, and a
point of full collapse back into singularity.

>talking of galactic rotations, i remember 5/6 years ago discovering the
wilcock constant of 36 planetary alignments per rotation (shift of the ages,
ch.19). i couldn't help smiling at the telling of it. dw starts out by
dividing the nineveh constant by 100 (taking 0.7 instead of 70) then
multiplying it by 3600 (two extra multiples of 60), which is basically
multiplying it by 36. he then takes this number on a trip round the galaxy,
finds it fits, divides back and is astounded to get this round number of 36.
you can tell the man's excited, as well he might be: he makes three mistakes
in a single sentence, amazing!

dw: this is a cruel and humiliating way to point out my lack of savvy with
factoring... one of the most troubling aspects of mathematics i dealt with
in hs. how about we work as a team, instead of expecting me to be flawless
and then firing off personal attacks when i am not?

if you hadn't made a useful point i would never have answered this letter
due to the complete disrespect and condescension you show in the way you
write about my work.

>i wrote this on friday (european time) and was pondering the cosmic
significance of all this until dw in another message suggested his math was
just a bit dodgy and the devil is in the numbers!

dw: at least here you have toned down your sarcasm. forget about there being
cosmic significance... math is not my strong point. we are a team and people
like you can help this material be the best it can be, rather than stand at
the periphery and criticize! i do believe you are doing that, and you want
to help, so that's why you're here.

it seems likely that my own recent (and highly silly) mathematical mistake
may have been a direct telepathic response to your letter... before you sent
it. the timing is certainly synchronistic. i'm no ramanujan, channeling
advanced theorems. you can't be an expert in everything. the "internet peer
review" process has been an essential element in putting the pieces
together. from now on let's just make it respectful, k?

the key of my discovery (however i got there) was that 36 cycles of the
nineveh constant brings you very close to the estimated time, in years, for
one revolution of the galaxy.

if every orbit in the solar system is driven by a unified cycle, whose roots
are in simple vibration (since it can be boiled down to 70 multiplied 7
times by 60) then it is logical to assume that the same clockwork-type
mechanism would hold true as we blow it out to the entire galaxy.

and it does.

how i discovered it is less important than the fact that it fits so
precisely - roughly 223.2 million years compared to the mainstream
calculation of 225. there are no fudge factors, no extra variables or
constants, no math-a-magical hocus-pocus to shoe-horn the data to fit a
theory. it's really simple... 36 nineveh constants add up precisely to the
calculated length of one rotation of our galaxy. very harmonic, pure and
clean.

this is not an accident... it is consistent with the model.

>one thought however: the nineveh constant of 6.2 m years is one tenth of
the 62m year mass extinction/speciation cycle now overdue, or rather
ongoing.

dw: i've been aware of this for over two years... and have not yet written
about it, though i did mention it at joshua tree, and on my last sacred tour
through the mayan ruins.

you're the first person besides myself to discover this... so i congratulate
you for that! it helps win you back a few points after dissing me in public.


i remember the day i saw it, sitting there at my desk in kentucky back in
2005... not long after the rohde data about the 62-million-year evolution
cycle first came to my attention.

i got very excited and wrote it all onto a post-it note, which i'm sure i
still have somewhere. i had been saving that point for when i wrote the next
convergence book... but perhaps i'll mention it in journey to 2012 or a
website update.

i then wrote it up as a proposal for an appearance on coast, and was turned
down... it was said to be "too technical" for the coast audience. had it
been accepted i would have written it up as an article right away, and we'd
all have been talking about it for 2 years now!

i was frustrated by this at the time and didn't pursue another show for
quite some time... right up until recently.

>good to be with you

dw: good data sleuthing. a+ on math, c- on respect...

peace be with you -

- david

john lee

[Nelson Mac]

look, i just spent a long 45 minutes preparing a response to the "math guy" we
had a sudden power surge and i lost my e-mail. i deciced to either fight it or
not. i let go of it.
in simple to this math guy, with all the love in my heart and without editing
or further ado. ( because my thought has already been sent to the heavens). math
is a map, after spirit has attained light!. math is a road map. don't be
concerned with the details, they allways follow.
don't mess with davids math. go big picture boss, 1's and 0's are 1's and 0's
= light after such is attained. to me that is a shortcut. live life, seek light
full on and die for it period !!!!!!
we'll talk math later my brother.

i love you anyway!

also thanks david for taking the time to spend with people on the more
"mundane" level about the science because some of us get you right away, others
have to be shown a "map"
god bless them (us) all i say.

sorry i'm pissed off and had a lot of info in the earlier e-mail that got
zapped, the most i had to share since i've joined. but the boys upstairs said
nope.

love ya,
nelson


david wilcock <djw333@...> wrote:
-----original message-----
from: asc2k@yahoogroups.com [mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of john
lee

hi there everyone
i am new to this forum so please bear with me if i am not up to speed.
having read quite a bit about problems with the big bang, notably by writers
he quotes, i am surprised to see david sometimes talking as if it actually
happened.

dw: i do believe in an origin to the universe, and a time before there was
physical matter. imprecisions in language may make it seem that i am
supporting the conventional big bang model, but i am certainly not. the idea
that "nothing" exploded, and created all known matter in the universe in a
single instant, is preposterous.

>one of the most obvious criticisms is by steve newman (in bye bye big bang
hello reality by william mitchell): if galaxies and galaxy clusters are not
expanding (but only the space between them) then you cannot shrink them back
to a year dot (only the space between them). simple as that. mitchell claims
that galaxies are incredibly old, are born and die like everything else.
richard pasichnyk takes a similar view in the vital vastness (vol 2). this
makes more sense to me than the thought that the milky way has only
completed fifty or so rotations.

dw: there could be more... but the harmonics is what i'm most interested in.
given the speed with which the earth is expanding, and how little of one
rotation we've been able to witness, i do not rule out the possibilities i
have previously given.

>tom van flandern has much more on this at his metaresearch.org website,
e.g. "30 problems with the big bang", or "a bang into nowhere" (apeiron vol
10. no. 1 jan 2003) in which constantin antonopoulos lists the fallacies
involved: there is no such thing as "the universe" (shorthand for things of
many ages); space can only expand into space; the fallacy of self-reference
plus reification of time and space: time cannot have an age, space cannot
have a size, etc.
van flandern has a big bang of a different kind in dark planets. starting
out a process of logical reasoning from just one particle, he expands it out
to an infinitely large and old universe infinite in scale in a theory that
automatically includes aetherlike substances and everything else.

dw: again, part of what we're dealing with in my work is validation of the
law of one material, since it is so extensively supported by research
evidence. bearing that in mind, it is clearly stated in this material that
the universe did have a point of origin, a point of maximum expansion, and a
point of full collapse back into singularity.

>talking of galactic rotations, i remember 5/6 years ago discovering the
wilcock constant of 36 planetary alignments per rotation (shift of the ages,
ch.19). i couldn't help smiling at the telling of it. dw starts out by
dividing the nineveh constant by 100 (taking 0.7 instead of 70) then
multiplying it by 3600 (two extra multiples of 60), which is basically
multiplying it by 36. he then takes this number on a trip round the galaxy,
finds it fits, divides back and is astounded to get this round number of 36.
you can tell the man's excited, as well he might be: he makes three mistakes
in a single sentence, amazing!

dw: this is a cruel and humiliating way to point out my lack of savvy with
factoring... one of the most troubling aspects of mathematics i dealt with
in hs. how about we work as a team, instead of expecting me to be flawless
and then firing off personal attacks when i am not?

if you hadn't made a useful point i would never have answered this letter
due to the complete disrespect and condescension you show in the way you
write about my work.

>i wrote this on friday (european time) and was pondering the cosmic
significance of all this until dw in another message suggested his math was
just a bit dodgy and the devil is in the numbers!

dw: at least here you have toned down your sarcasm. forget about there being
cosmic significance... math is not my strong point. we are a team and people
like you can help this material be the best it can be, rather than stand at
the periphery and criticize! i do believe you are doing that, and you want
to help, so that's why you're here.

it seems likely that my own recent (and highly silly) mathematical mistake
may have been a direct telepathic response to your letter... before you sent
it. the timing is certainly synchronistic. i'm no ramanujan, channeling
advanced theorems. you can't be an expert in everything. the "internet peer
review" process has been an essential element in putting the pieces
together. from now on let's just make it respectful, k?

the key of my discovery (however i got there) was that 36 cycles of the
nineveh constant brings you very close to the estimated time, in years, for
one revolution of the galaxy.

if every orbit in the solar system is driven by a unified cycle, whose roots
are in simple vibration (since it can be boiled down to 70 multiplied 7
times by 60) then it is logical to assume that the same clockwork-type
mechanism would hold true as we blow it out to the entire galaxy.

and it does.

how i discovered it is less important than the fact that it fits so
precisely - roughly 223.2 million years compared to the mainstream
calculation of 225. there are no fudge factors, no extra variables or
constants, no math-a-magical hocus-pocus to shoe-horn the data to fit a
theory. it's really simple... 36 nineveh constants add up precisely to the
calculated length of one rotation of our galaxy. very harmonic, pure and
clean.

this is not an accident... it is consistent with the model.

>one thought however: the nineveh constant of 6.2 m years is one tenth of
the 62m year mass extinction/speciation cycle now overdue, or rather
ongoing.

dw: i've been aware of this for over two years... and have not yet written
about it, though i did mention it at joshua tree, and on my last sacred tour
through the mayan ruins.

you're the first person besides myself to discover this... so i congratulate
you for that! it helps win you back a few points after dissing me in public.


i remember the day i saw it, sitting there at my desk in kentucky back in
2005... not long after the rohde data about the 62-million-year evolution
cycle first came to my attention.

i got very excited and wrote it all onto a post-it note, which i'm sure i
still have somewhere. i had been saving that point for when i wrote the next
convergence book... but perhaps i'll mention it in journey to 2012 or a
website update.

i then wrote it up as a proposal for an appearance on coast, and was turned
down... it was said to be "too technical" for the coast audience. had it
been accepted i would have written it up as an article right away, and we'd
all have been talking about it for 2 years now!

i was frustrated by this at the time and didn't pursue another show for
quite some time... right up until recently.

>good to be with you

dw: good data sleuthing. a+ on math, c- on respect...

peace be with you -

- david

john lee







---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? find a flick in no time
with theyahoo! search movie showtime shortcut.

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Adam West]

hi nelson,

i take and accept your point without reservation. however, on a narrower
concern, i would argue technical precision is of absolute importance when
articulating our conceptual work for our fellow professionals. it would seem to
depend on which audience we are writing for, and if we wish to be taken
seriously by academia and professional scientists and philosophers. the devil
is always in the detail. there is no room for sloppy work if we want to play at
the big boys table.

in many of the premier peer reviewed journals, there is something like a 90
- 95% rejection rate; and these submissions are coming from professional
academics. the standards to get published are very high. this is simply what
is expected of our fellow professionals, if we are to have an ongoing and
mutually beneficial dialogue.

we have to earn our credibility if we are to have an impact on the ongoing
dialogue in the upper levels of professional conceptual work. certainly, it is
not personal, nor do professionals ever make it personal; it is the quality of
the work which determines if it is to be taken seriously, or simply dismissed.

in kind regards,

adam.

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ron Erickson]

dw: i do believe in an origin to the universe, and a time before there was
physical matter. imprecisions in language may make it seem that i am supporting
the conventional big bang model, but i am certainly not. the idea that "nothing"
exploded, and created all known matter in the universe in a single instant, is
preposterous.

ron: my current response is not concerned with numbers but rather with a
philosophical issue. mathematics may be the main language of rationalism, but
mathematics can only ascribe to finite and infinite quantities a limited range
of properties - which is not to say that all infinities are equal. if we assume
that time exists objectively (something that i don't personally believe), and
then we claim that there was "an origin to the universe", then we necesarily
have a logical paradox. if there was an event of creation, then apparently
there must have been something beyond and prior to this event. because human
beings tend to consider these problems rationally, we logically need to create a
separate, dualistic "god"/creator as this creative source. if we assume that
this god exists within time, then this merely shifts the paradox, because we
must then deal with god that existed for an infinite period of time - which
cannot be proved or disproved within rationalism. so, if god is beyond time and
space, it is clear that we have a dualist separation between the creator and the
creation. for me, the main appeal of "the law of one" is that it largely
removes dualism - but in order for it to remain consistent, there cannot be a
finite "origin to the universe" within time or space. so what alternate
explanation is possible? well, my view is that time and space are not at the
most fundamental level of existence - but rather these are illusions created
within consciousness. consciousness, which is eternal creation without a
creator, is thereby rendered all that is truly real. conscious apprehension
changes what is merely possible (defined probabilistically) into reality, as
shown by quantum theory. this is essentially compatible with "the law of one"
concept of "densities" because individual (3d) consciousness is a limited view,
whereas there could be higher levels of consciousness that approach a unity of
consciousness that is the infinite eternal present - that we can choose to call
"god". i believe that i mentioned this before, but i recommend reading "the end
of time, the next revolution in physics" by julian barbour.

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Nina]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com, "david wilcock" <djw333@...> wrote:
> dw: .... we are a team and people like you can help this material be
the best it can be...,and you want to help, so that's why you're here.
> peace be with you - - david
> john lee
dear david, john, and everyone,
important...being a team! working together for the greatest good!
david is "right on" about this. welcome - ability to dialog.
recently shared how left steiner list/ due to "post rejection" when
host would not share steiner quote "one stream of pure love"(re-tomb of
jesus). how wish had been able to be more "open" to being a team!
instead i was an "outsider" since loo fan. value the freedom and
openness in this group.
we all make mistakes! shared here how was struggling to understand
two of steiner's statements, how could both be true (re- done for
today...about buddha/mars timeframe discrepency). not looking for
faults - aim to understand and report.think we are all striving for
unity here. peace to all - nina

[Dave]

here's to the team.
like i tell my boss," if i was perfect, i wouldn't be working here"


--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com, "nina" <emeraldnina@...> wrote:
>
> --- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com, "david wilcock" <djw333@> wrote:
> > dw: .... we are a team and people like you can help this material
be
> the best it can be...,and you want to help, so that's why you're
here.
> > peace be with you - - david
> > john lee
> dear david, john, and everyone,
> important...being a team! working together for the greatest
good!
> david is "right on" about this. welcome - ability to dialog.
> recently shared how left steiner list/ due to "post rejection"
when
> host would not share steiner quote "one stream of pure love"(re-
tomb of
> jesus). how wish had been able to be more "open" to being a team!
> instead i was an "outsider" since loo fan. value the freedom and
> openness in this group.
> we all make mistakes! shared here how was struggling to
understand
> two of steiner's statements, how could both be true (re- done for
> today...about buddha/mars timeframe discrepency). not looking for
> faults - aim to understand and report.think we are all striving for
> unity here. peace to all - nina
>

[John Lee]

my humble apologies for getting the tone of my remark completely wrong. no
criticism was intended, on the contrary. i like the way david often quotes
something and then takes it one stage further, as he does here.
how clumsy can you get?
what i meant was that when things don't come out right, there is often more to
it than meets the eye. this link between the solar system and the galactic level
for me is very important as it meshes us in at this level in a way i haven't
seen elsewhere.
i'm sorry, i was a bit thrown by the synchronicity. here's another one: a
friend has just handed me her son's school reports to translate... i'll work on
that c-.
thanks for responding


---------------------------------
dãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ã ƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâ ƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â©couvrez une nouvelle faãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â§on d'obtenir des rãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ã ƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâ ƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â©ponses ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒ ã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â* toutes vos questions !
profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â ‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ã ƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â©riences des internautes sur
yahoo! questions/rãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ã ƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâ ƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â©ponses.

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Charles Cox]

i've seen/heard david make other mathematical mistakes. as a
mathematics student and tutor i tend to catch those things. so long
as it doesn't jeopardize the validity of his work i don't mind it and
don't point it out, but i do hope that he will be careful if/when he
publishes these types of data that they are reviewed carefully so that
its credibility is not questioned on an even more public scale.

i greatly appreciate what david is/has-been doing for the scientific
and spiritual communities and am blown away by how seamlessly he
typically provides information to both audiences! the convergence
work is greatly needed for both communities and i look forward to some
day seeing the scientific side if it presented in a very through,
rigorous, and formal way which may help get some scientists' heads out
of their ... (hint hint).

-charles