Frank Russo at 52 Russo vs Einstein - Guestbook

Old Guestbook Entries of Frank Russo

(New messages can no longer be posted)... the following ones were posted in the early days of the website...
These are messages for "RUSSO RELATIVITY"... Frank Russo's theory that's going to gain the ascendancy on Einstein's theory:

Best wishes for your studies Frank. Ron."It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet
Burman <ron.burman@physics.uwa.edu.au>
Perth, WA AUS - Friday, March 02, 2001 at 23:37:14 (CST)
As I mentioned in this guestbook on Feb. 12 2001, the reason why 10 to the 40 is so significant, is because you need 10 to the 40 atoms lined up side by side to measure-out the width of the universe.
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Friday, March 02, 2001 at 13:11:40 (CST)
Of course seeing that at one level below us, much more than 15 billion relative years have gone by since the big bang: I would anticipate that they would have unshackled themselves from 'primitive' lifespan constraints long ago!
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Thursday, March 01, 2001 at 21:40:13 (CST)
As one moves down to the sub-atomic level of organization, the physiological meter becomes one divided by ten to the forty... but gravity is not diluted hence the 'electromagnetic' force between electrons and protons will appear stronger than gravity, by ten to the forty! Whereas in actuality it's the same force! Hence gravity in the subatomic world will go to 9.8 times 10 to the 40 meters per second squared (physiological meters of course)...hence everything will take place much faster! Therefore: elephants live a long absolute time; mice live a shorter time; bacteria live hours; viruses a bit less; and people inside atoms a great deal less again. SUCH LIFESPANS ARE NEVERTHELESS COMPARABLE PHYSIOLOGICALLY!!! These numbers have been noticed by great scientists in years gone by, but they just put them down to "cosmic coincidences" eg in E.R. Harrison's "Cosmology".
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Wednesday, February 28, 2001 at 14:00:58 (CST)
For those who do not know why the number one followed by forty zeroes is so significant, here's the reason: it's because it's the number of atoms you have to line up in a row to measure out the width of the universe... ie from one end to the other end!. Frank.
Adelaide, SA AUS - Monday, February 12, 2001 at 16:24:07 (CST)
I guess one could always bring up. "What happens when you're shining the light-source edge-on to the on-coming absolute velocity?" Well one must remember that the absolute velocity is the vectorial solution to "myriads" of relative velocities...it might just be possible that the "effect" might still be felt with the screen perpendicular to the absolute motion...after all one could learn from aberration which is very dependant on relative motion.
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Monday, February 05, 2001 at 21:59:03 (CST)
My letter on the motion of photons from a couple of years ago is interesting: it not only explains the double slit experiment but it also sheds further light on the nature of light itself. This perception came about thanks to my breakthrough on stellar aberration.
Adelaide, SA AUS - Thursday, February 01, 2001 at 13:34:36 (CST)
Frank, I have listed you in my favorites. When Nature does an editorial I'll be there! Regards Barryh.
Hailstone <barryj@senet.com.au>
Adelaide , SA AUS - Monday, January 29, 2001 at 11:47:52 (CST)
Hello I have had a quick look at your web site. If you would like us to do a story you need to fax us a summary in lay man's terms with the news angle you would think our viewers are interested in. Our fax number is 8239 0403. Thanks, Sylvia
nitschke
AUS - Monday, January 29, 2001 at 11:27:30 (CST)
dear frank,I have just seen your website for the first time and this is the first time I have sent a message on the internet,so I will keep it short.I have also tried to ask alot of questions about life and the universe, but few people are even interested or perhaps fear what truth may reveal to them if they find it. anyway,having had a glimpse of where your mindset is at I think it has been too long since I sat down and talked to my uncle about life in general. I will call you soon and we,ll have that game of chess although i,m sure your skills are far beyond mine hope to see you soon. your nephew mario john russo.
russo./
AUS - Monday, January 08, 2001 at 22:44:02 (CST)
Frank, your second name is "Persistence"
Osborn;maryw@senet.com.au>
AUS - Tuesday, October 31, 2000 at 12:37:25 (CST)
Actually I am getting a bit rusty because I didn't explain the visualization all that well! There ends up being a Va) at the start of the interval and one at the end: the first one moves the origin forward and the second one moves the endpoint forward. However, what I said still goes because by moving the endpoint forward you tend to stretch the interval.
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Tuesday, October 17, 2000 at 02:47:32 (CST)
I guess, point 4 in my letter to the editor of SST could have been worded better. Namely, I am not simply using ratios...the untold truth is that in the away component of t1), the earth has to travel 63,469,182.21m to give the appearance of having traveled the one second length of 53198115.45m... hence its relative speed will be slowed down to 44,589,190.99m/sec . Similar reckonings apply to the return segment...OF COURSE THE KEY TO VISUALIZING THIS IS WHETHER YOU PUT THE V(a) FIRST AND THEN TRAVELLING OVER IT OR WHETHER YOU HAVE YOUR V(a) AFTER YOUR ONE SECOND LENGTH, AS YOU SHOULD SO THAT YOUR V(a) IS STRETCHED AS LIGHT IS COMING ACROSS ITS GAP!
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Monday, October 16, 2000 at 19:11:52 (CST)
Actually, I believe that the Gauss Law is very pertinent to the inverse square law. However it is rarely invoked because it's too complicated! Incidentally I am very excited about the "Sunday Times" article by Jonathan Leake : "Einstein debunked as quick as a flash". IT'S ABOUT TIME!
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Friday, June 09, 2000 at 15:01:09 (CST)
I was talking to a mathematician today and mentioned that 10 years ago, when I was working on gravity, I realized what the inverse square law was all about! That is that the surface area of a sphere is equal to 4Pi multiplied by the radius squared. Now 4Pi is a constant, hence it is clear that as a sphere increases in size, the surface area follows the "inverse square law"... hence this is why the intensity of gravity, light etc. drops off from the source...it is being diluted by the extra area it has to cover. In gravity one has to be more specific: ie the further one goes from a gravitational center, the more one can stack-on and this is of a finer and more microscopic nature.
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Friday, June 02, 2000 at 17:58:47 (CST)
I am finally being vindicated! The Einsteinian cart is losing its wheels : "space is flat!"... I've been saying space was flat publically for at least 12 years! But what the scientific community doesn't realize, is that without the curvature, the bending of light and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury are also in the balance. Einstein knew both of these results and engineered, ("cheated"), his equations to reflect these values. However his contrived permutations are inflexible, because they are unable to adjust to new discoveries: eg I discovered that Newton actually predicts twice as much bending of light as Einstein thought he did! This leaves Einstein in the "cold! Furthermore, on the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, Einstein is inflexible predicting the full 43" with his Relativity : I however, predict about 41" due to "negative aberration" and this is flexible because it leaves approximately 2" to the oblateness of the sun. Had Einstein known about this latter complication ...I am sure he would have "fabricated" something"!
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Wednesday, May 17, 2000 at 12:38:03 (CST)
Hi Frank, Very interesting reading about your life, and what great pictures. I will mail the journal issues to you asap. Have a great day. Regards, Margaret
Deignan <margaret.deignan@wkap.nl>
Dordrecht, NL - Monday, February 14, 2000 at 19:24:21 (CST)
In a paper to Nature dated June 24 1988 and entitled "The meaning of time (and cryogenics)", I made some interesting comments which "illustrate" my previous entry very well! I quote "another aspect of time is its physiological value : it could speed up physiologically as one steps down through the infinitesimally decreasing atomic sub-structures of our brain so that when we make a decision, an infinite number of "earths" have contributed their so-called freedom of choice. By the same token, it could slow down physiologically as one moves up the infinite array of macro-atomic structures due to the greatly increased relative motions required for life functions. This would in turn mean that either the earth is in the brain of an embryo who has not developed enough to make use of his facultative powers or we may be a part of other structures (eg bone) or of inorganic compounds. FAR-FETCHED! YOU MIGHT EXCLAIM- NOT ANYMORE THAN EINSTEIN's RELATIVITY!" (End of quote)...Of course this could simplistically mean that at 'the next level down' one of our Kg might relatively weigh approximately [one/10 raised to the 40th power]...likewise the there conscious being would have a similar relative meter and a similar 'relative' speed of light. ATRUE RELATIVITY! Perhaps we are the architects of consciousness for the levels 'above' us! PERHAPS THIS IS WHY GOD (ELOHIM), IS A PLURAL TERM IN HEBREW!
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Wednesday, January 19, 2000 at 15:25:24 (CST)
Had an interesting exchange regarding the Aether, through this site's email...here'an extract: "Mark! I think you read my message but did not understand all of it... the old "aether" sounded like magic... I choose the benefits without old-fashioned terminology... if space isn't a "vacuum" then there's something there whether one chooses to call it "aether" or subatomic particles. My analogy to "up or down" was not in reference to 3-dimensional space... obviously for strong gravity to become the strong nuclear force you have to move "up" a stage to the world where our stars or "universe" is the equivalent of an atom to the there "conscious" world. Conversely, for what we observe as the strong and weak nuclear forces to manifest themselves as the strong and weak gravity you have to move down a stage to the world where our atoms are "universes" to "conscious"beings of that world. I've had this view since 9 years of age but I then had to abandon it because of the then inappropriate speeds." ie the electron was travelling at near light-speed whereas planets and stars are going at negligible speeds: my "absolute speeds" recently came to my rescue! Bingo! A UNIFIED THEORY!
Frank Adelaide, S.A. AUS - Saturday, January 08, 2000 at 13:38:37 (CST)
Finally got round to viewing your web site it is very well presented and I believe it to be one of the better ones that I have had the pleasure of reading. Perhaps some more recent photos would be of value. It would allow people to become more familiar with image of a future noble prize winner (winners). Regards Peter Heidenreich
Heidenreich <capezo@eisa.net.au>
Adelaide, SA AUS - Thursday, January 06, 2000 at 21:03:42 (CST)
I found this site very interesting with some of the things that were on this site. From Jordan Crago
Crago <crago@visto.com>
Adelaide, S.A Australia - Monday, December 13, 1999 at 15:24:47 (CST)
Burjin: I think you will find I gave you my phone no. some years ago rather than months...obviously you've got to update it to 8 digits. As for the E-Mail address: if you scroll up on the home page, you'll find it there. MANY THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST IN MY SITE.
Frank Adelaide, SA AUS - Monday, November 01, 1999 at 14:24:26 (CST)
Hi Frank: After our tel coversation this morning I tried to e-mail you the material we spoke about but apparently I do not have your correct e-mail address so the e-mail bounced. Please send me your e-mail address by sending me an e-mail. I tried to phone you but the phone number which you had given me some months back did not work either! Burjin
kotwall <burjin@acay.com.au>
AUS - Sunday, October 24, 1999 at 11:33:44 (CST)
Hi Frank: Just visited your site. It is very well put together. I am not a scientist like you so I cannot discuss the technical details with you. Obviously you are very knowledgable. You have indicated on your site that you have attempted to change the blood doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses. I would be interested in finding our how far you have been successful in your efforts. On another point, your site should have your e-mail address so that persons interested in communicating with you could do so on a one to one basis. Cheers! Burjin
Kotwall
Australia - Saturday, October 23, 1999 at 19:12:44 (CST)
Good luck with your studies Frank. "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." -- Einstein.
Burman <ron@physics.uwa.edu.au>
Perth, WA AUS - Monday, October 18, 1999 at 14:17:43 (CST)
Hi Frank! Just started looking at your site. Looks professional. I'll get back to you as soon as I "assess" your site. Regards Ludo
Parisella <lu.lin@usa.net>
AUS - Saturday, October 16, 1999 at 01:19:22 (CST)
Quite astonishing mathematics Frank,keep up the good work.
WILLIAMS <PWILLI@SENET.COM.AU>
ADELAIDE, SA AUS - Sunday, October 10, 1999 at 13:02:18 (CST)
Looking forward to accompanying you to Sweden in the near future.
Ray Osborn;maryw@senet.com.au>
AUS - Monday, October 04, 1999 at 23:18:11 (CST)
Looks good Frank
<hartley@southcom.com.au>
hobart, tas AUS - Friday, September 24, 1999 at 11:05:21 (CST)