David Black

The entire staff of LP&I

December 8, 1998

Dear David and staff,

It has come to my attention that you and your staff feel that I have been too pushy in my efforts to bring the Frass Meteorite to the people of the world. In my defense, I would just remind you that I have been trying to get someone to look at this rock for over two years. I have spent thousands of dollars on tests and travel while trying to get a fair and open hearing on this important rock. My own personal experiences have convinced me beyond a doubt that the rock is a meteorite and so this experience has taken on the role of a pilgrimage to me. A complete year and a half passed before I even contacted my congressman and senators. The first e-mail from Buck Sharpton to me occurred on May 22 of this year. During this time I have been rejected, laughed at, ignored, and lied to. But none of that is important to me. I don't care about the problems faced by my material body, since my journey is one of the spirit. Thus, nothing that has been done to or against me in any way makes me angry or makes me want to get even with anyone. All I want to do is get a fair hearing on the Frass Meteorite so that the world will learn that life did evolve on other planets than our own and that mankind has a responsibility to leave the planet Earth and control our solar system. Also, I have stated on many occasions, that what I plan to do is give a small piece of the meteorite to everyone who has hampered my progress, because in the end, what I want is for everyone to believe in miracles, one of the benefits of an infinite cosmos.

No one should fear me except those who would hide the truth. I am a small and gentle person and have no desire to hurt any person on the planet. Even my name means "little Mike." If you too, search for the truth, then we should be friends because we have that in common. I have worked in several scientific labs and have never had trouble getting along with anyone. If we had met under different circumstances, I'm sure we would have been friends and it is still my goal to be your friend. The situation is different now because I have spent many years alone working on philosophy projects and I guess I have lost my touch in getting along with others, at least over the Internet. But it is only my excitement that scares you and if you would just give me a chance, you would find that I can be your friend and I can expand your horizons. I will ask no one to believe anything that I say, only that you try to determine if what I say is true.

If you want to check the record, you will find that I have proven myself very capable in every scientific endeavor I have attempted. I graduated from Texas Tech University in three years with a BS in Zoology, with honors. I was working as much as 40 hours per week during my college years, although I didn't have to work the first year and a half. Then later, I decided to go to a new electronics school in Amarillo and learn the new microcomputer devices. I graduated from their two year course in one year with a perfect 4.0 average and I was accepted as a teacher in the institution the day I graduated. I declined because I am very independent and I have always had to do things my own way. I have not been particularly successful in business because all I ever cared about was doing the science, not the money. The name of Micro Mike was given to me because of my great skills in computers. I can explain every aspect of a computer from the time the electron leaves the ground at the power station until the time it represents one's and zero's inside your computer. My logical processes have been finely honed by years of solving logical problems in computers because I have been known as the guy who has never met a computer problem that I couldn't solve. I only write these things about myself because I want you to know that you shouldn't fear me. I am one of you, but the only difference is that I believe in an infinite cosmos.

I guess that I do look at the cosmos in a different way than other people. When I was young, about 6 or 8, my mother and I had gone to get my dad from work and we had just pulled into our driveway and got out of the car when I looked up at the stars. We had been studying stars in school that day and they had told me that they were other suns just like our own, except that the stars were very far away. It was a crisp clear night in the late autumn and in the early 1950's, there were very few streetlights and the view was actually extraordinary. By the way, I can go less than 30 miles from my house and still get views that are very similar. But as I paused there behind our old car and looked up at those stars, I asked my mother a very simple question. "How far do they go?" I asked her… "Forever," she said. So I have lived my life believing in an infinite cosmos.

The difference between us thus, is just that all of you were raised in a finite cosmos. If you believe in a single big bang, then it must logically follow that you believe in a finite cosmos. (I have been a computer "expert" for over 20 years and so my logical skills have been honed by the constant interplay of logical processes between the computers and me. So I will challenge anyone to fault my logic on any statement that I make.) A single big bang, with a single rate of expansion, and a finite time since the event must have boundaries and any set with boundaries is a closed set and is thus finite. This argument is pure logic and set theory. So I understand why you refuse to accept the Frass Meteorite, because you were raised to believe that the world is finite and thus you must have limits on what you may accomplish and what things you can change about this world. But I know no such limits. I believed my mother that day when she said the stars go on forever. That seems reasonable to me. A single big bang model does not allow that to happen and seems to go against every other scientific principle that I have ever been taught or come to believe. An infinite cosmos is much more likely.

And look at the evidence. Point the Hubble in any direction and do a deep field and what do you get? More stars than we ever knew about. My point is that the same experiment could be done with progressively larger telescopes, being pointed in any direction and achieving the same results. The cosmos is infinite. Now a few of the questions I would like to ask are "Did those people who calculate the density of 'the universe' calculate the mass of these stars when determining if 'the universe' is open or closed?" "Did they calculate the volume of their universe as a finite volume?" and "What is the speed of gravity?" Since gravity must know about all of these events for a single big bang model to have validity, all of modern cosmology is relying on the assumption that the speed of gravity is infinite. Physicists insist that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light (from my electronics background) and I can prove philosophically and logically that that notion can't be true either. Also the assumption that the speed is infinite by cosmologist gives further evidence that the speed of gravity must be faster than the speed of light but less than infinity.

In philosophy and physics, we are taught about a cone of knowledge. All our information presently comes to us at the speed of light, thus the very fact that light has a finite speed means that there will always be more that we don't know about than the amount that we can see. Thus to say the cosmos is finite (single big bang model) is to directly contradict the cone of knowledge, which is accepted by all physicists and philosophers that I know of. So for those who are calculating the density of "the universe," did they include all mass outside our cone of knowledge in their calculations, and if they did, what value did they use? Any discussion of density must talk specifically about a volume and so could never apply to an infinite cosmos, only a known portion of it, which probably would be called a universe.

In an infinite cosmos, things are much different. Big Bang Events (BBE's) occur at particular points in space and time and don't involve all the material of the cosmos. Einstein was wrong on several of his assumptions. It really bothered him that his equations showed everything coming together, but that is the natural workings of gravity. One of his bad assumptions was that since every particle has a beginning and an ending does not mean that every particle has the same beginning or ending. In a multiple big bang cosmos, material is continually recycled in black holes and then released as big bangs when the energy contained within the mass is no longer sufficient to hold the system together and a big bang occurs. (See the PST and SPOC documents at www.micromike.com for more information.) Three-dimensional cosmic maps already show big bubbles, which probably show the areas where a number of recent BBE's have occurred. Also, in an infinite cosmos, with multiple BBE's, there is no conflict when stars are older than the last big bang, it just means the stars were created from material from another Event. There has been good evidence for many years that stars near the center of the Milky Way are 20 billion years old and until recently, that information was accepted without question since the evolution of stars is fairly well known.

In an infinite cosmos, the Milky Way is much older than 15 billion years. Many times I have sat near granite rocks that are dated at over 3 billion years. Are you trying to tell me that that rock represents one fifth of everything that has ever occurred? I don't buy it. Scientist now claim that 90% of the matter in the Milky Way is "dark matter." Never mind the philosophical and logical implications of dark matter, for the important point here is that under an infinite cosmos model, this fact means that 90% of the material of our galaxy has already "gone down the drain" of the black holes at the center of our galaxy. This means our galaxy has been rotating for tens of billions of years if not hundreds of billions of years.

Here is a picture of the gravitational fields (black holes) of a galaxy cluster.