Jamie,

I have discovered that my writings tend to alienate people and I don't want to do that to you. You have been honest with me and have kept your word and for that I will always respect you. I have put on hold my efforts to get someone else to look at the meteorite sample, as per your instructions. I don't want to cause you any pain and I am willing to work with you as long as it takes, if you are still interested. But I do feel I owe it to you to explain the entire situation.

In the early 1970's while attending Texas Tech, I worked on a paper I called the philosophy of space and time. I thought then that many things being taught in cosmology and science were incorrect but I didn't feel I had the energy or evidence to pursue my ideas. But about 3 years ago, I read the article "Crisis in the Cosmos" in Discover magazine and I found the proof I needed to support my old view. So for the last 3 years, I have worked on nothing else but refining a new model of cosmology based on an infinite cosmos and multiple big bangs. In the process of developing this model, I realized that I needed a whole new way to look at everything and thus the gravionic model of physical systems was developed which is based on three major principles. The first is that mass and gravity are two aspects of the same thing and must be considered together to describe any real system. Thus E=mc^2 couldn’t be correct and E=gmc^2 would have to be correct both philosophically and logically. The second principle states that all reactions of nature must be preceded by a connection of gravity and thus gravity must propagate at a speed that is "faster" than the speed of light. I have proposed therefore, that the "speed" of gravity must be C^2. The third principle is that the cosmos must be infinite. All three of these principles are supported by observational evidence and in fact, answers many of the questions currently bothering science. As an example, take the experiment which recently separated a photon into two parts. When something affects one part, the other "knows" about it at a speed which is greater than the speed of light. My model shows that a photon is not a "real" entity by itself as it is part of a gravionic system and one must considered the whole system which means not only the energy of the photo, but the gravitation and mass structures which support it.

I don't intend to bore you with all the details since you can find them at my web site if you are interested. What I do want to say is that I am willing to give you all the time you need with my rock. I will only take this project to the public if you decide you don't want to spend anymore time analyzing it. But the problem is, I have been battling Texas Tech for 3 years now and I am ready to take this fight to the public. Both topics are discussed on my web site and I don't even know if I can attract any attention, I just know that I must now begin trying. Three years is a long time for me to be patient and my patience is wearing out. So I am completely willing to separate these two projects, but I can't promise that something I do as far as space and time is concerned won't lead to somebody seeing the Mars section of my web site.

So I want to help you anyway that I can and I am willing to give you whatever time you need, but I just want you to understand that I am pursuing this other project and it might "bleed" over to your project.

Your friend,