[RascalPuff]

From dleviwing (David), to RascalPuff 5/30/07.
___________________________________________

I still do not see what you are referring to; what translation are you referring to?

I am not concerned with my reputation but I find that you hardly qualify as an expert in the physical sciences. Maybe if a reputable publisher picks up your work and give you greater credibility, I may reconsider; until then, I think my expertise exceeds yours and I see no value in your “Gravity is the 4th dimension” nonsense.

Does this qualify you????

__________________________________________________ ______________

Dear dleviwing.
For a man who alleges not to be concerned about his reputation you write like a man who is concerned about his reputation.

'What translations are you referring to?' You ask.

I'm referring to the three page preface to Newton's Principia Mathematica, which don't require any translation when they're written in English to an English speaking person, which, I think includes you... sir.

Your (abstract, obfuscatory) statements that I am not qualified as an expert (which I've not purported to be, though I do have a way of proving it), are not qualified.

The list you troubled to carry to this forum is 'About the author'. With a few titles of his previous works.

Incidentally, I'm no longer living in Santa Cruz, CA. and have moved to the east coast of Virginia state. Refer 'About the author'....

It's a standard format at or near the closing of a lot of books.

More about the author:

I never really had a publisher, I have sponsors who finance my small press books and essays, since 1959. I've never made much money at it, though my sponsors have an excellent track record for consistent if modest profit. My third edition was internationally distributed and sold out through the Portola Institute's Whole Earth Catalogue in 1970. Consequent small press editions were distributed and sold out in six of ten editions, all over California state in 41 book stores. I received and still treasure hundreds of letters from my readers, who are unabashedly impressed.

On the other hand it appears that you aren't impressed with my qualifications or history, and that you won't be until Scientific American or the Physical Science Journal, or Time-Life magazine gives you and others like you the go ahead on being impressed with my qualifications.

Am I qualified? I suppose that depends on whether I'm qualified or not. Science is not a democracy. As I've pointed out before, if it were a democracy, the universe would still be revolving around a flat, square, hollow earth, etceteras... People like yourself might still be burning people like me at the stake. Although, the inquisition hasn't really rescinded, only its methods have changed.

I may only speculate from the resonance of your latest post that you aren't satisfied with affirmation of what I call Newton's 'gravitational alternative' - that gravity is either an impelling or a repelling force, in those words. It appears that you figure, as long as you don't concede to your own undoing, you won't have been undone. Lately, as regards your brashness about whether or not Newton's Preface to the Principia says what it says, as I have brought the quotation to you, since you indicated your inability to locate it.

For a fellow that researches as much as you apparently do, it's kind of surprising that you are unable to locate the statement I cite, when it exists in context of the three pages of Newton's Preface to the Principia. as I described then and still do describe - and quote.

I would be content to ramble further on but I just received a phone call from another one of my small press sponsors and my dog just politely reminded me that it's time for her dinner. Being on the net - albeit in a condensed format - is nice too.
Until next time, Mr deliviwing, sir, I wish smooth sailing to you and yours.

Regards
- RP

Post Script: You misspelled nonsense.
(Perhaps that word is too challenging for you?)