<div dir="ltr">Hello Tufail.<div><br></div><div>On your request I read your paper about Cube. I was a teacher and as such I had to review many papers for graduation theses (in Dutch). I just wrote my commentary for my students directly when reading the papers, pretending I was an alien reader who did not know the student. So I did with your paper. You know there are thousands of papers written yearly. It is important to get the interest of the reader so he will finish the whole story. So, these are my comments:</div><div><br><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Some remarks at </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:8pt;line-height:11.4133px;color:black">CUBE - THE PHYSICAL FOUNDATION OF MULTIVERSE of Tufail Abbas.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:13.91px"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size:8pt"> </span><span style="font-size:10.6667px"><br></span></font></span><span lang="EN-US">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">The presentation on “Cubes” as being elementary building blocs of the universe, initiates a feeling of “not-acceptable” since most objects we know are spheres and the movements are mostly orbiting motions. As you stated later<i>: </i></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">It's a bit non-intuitive that building block of the Universe could be a cube, as everything that we see in the Universe is curved and waving.</span></i><span lang="EN-US"> So, from the beginning you create a defensive attitude by the reader. You admit this yourself.</span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">You write </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">These Cubes shall explain everything</span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:13pt;line-height:18.5467px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">.” </span></b><span lang="EN-US">That makes it even harder for readers to go on, because most insiders spend already a lot of time reading “final” theories, “theories of everything” and alike. Readers want to judge themselves after reading the whole paper.</span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">You go on than with “ </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Universe is like a Big Bathroom</span></b><span lang="EN-US">”. I am sorry to say this again: the reader does not know what you are going to postulate and he surely does not want to know about a bathroom. As you note yourself: </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:8pt;line-height:11.4133px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Note: This definition is metaphoric . </span></i><span lang="EN-US">But most readers probably lost already their patience and are gone.</span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">Instead of the points 1-3 it would be much better to start with</span><i><span lang="EN-US">: I<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)">t would be possible to express all physical properties (i.e. space, time, energy, charge, momentum, temperature, velocity, force etc) in terms of the geometric parameters (i.e. length, surface area, volume, angle, orientation, cycles) <s>of these cubes </s></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(51,51,51)">That would be interesting because geometry is not often used to describe macro objects and elementary particles.</span><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US">5.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">At page 6 it is going to be interesting. So, you better start with that information. The pictures are beautiful and inviting.</span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US">6.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US">Page 7: makes it clear: </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;line-height:14.2667px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">The perfect orthogonal alignment of motion, flux and current in three spatial orientation cannot be explained, except by an underlying cubicle structure</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US">Now I understand what you mean: you are just looking for a FRAME to put your data in. <b>You don’t mean that things in the universe consist of a cube</b>: it’s just used as your drawing medium, like a painter uses his easel.</span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US">7.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black"> Page 8: </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;line-height:14.2667px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">If we consider the philosophy that consciousness controls matter</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">” I don’t think that consciousness CONTROLS matter. I think: our consciousness <b>defines</b> matter and our definition is related to the physical structure of our brain.</span><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px">8.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">Page 10: </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;line-height:14.2667px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">In our study about the Universe, whether it is study of quantum particles or the study of cosmological movement, the sense that we mostly utilize to collect data, is our sense of Vision. This sense needs some scrutiny for sure. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">Yes indeed: this is what I also stated repeatedly in “Mind-blowing Gravitation”.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px"></span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px">9.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">From page 11: interesting!</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px"></span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px">10.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">Page 12: <i><font size="1">"The reality as we see, can easily be created by infinite number of 2-dimensional planes separated by infinite number of one(1) dimensional connecting link in 3 spatial direction.”</font></i> This is much like the celluloid movies, with pictures that are projected with 25 frames per second. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px"></span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px">11.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">Fig 3.5 affirms what I thought about the cubes: they are an easel for you to represent the objects and movements. They are not really objects THEMSELVES in universe. See point 4 again please.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px"></span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px">12.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">Page 17: you make the drawings and pictures yourself? Nice! But the duck will notice a kind of stream from thw ater passing by….</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px"></span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US">13.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">Page 18: Similar to the example of duck moving through the water in the above example, all objects in the Universe are in state of motion with respect to space. This is just a statement at this moment. You did not prove it yet. So it’s better to say: “It is possible that all objects in the Universe are in state of motion with respect to space”</span><span lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:17.12px">14.<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"times new roman""> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">From here I can follow your reasoning. I am not really educated to judge, but I think it’s OK. I am just curious to see how the Lorentz Trans form would function in your essay.As you write: </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;line-height:14.2667px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">“However, derivation of numerical value of G from above concepts shall require missing values of m</span></i><i><sub><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt;line-height:12.84px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">o </span></sub></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;line-height:14.2667px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">and s and w, which shall be discovered. It should be expected as per BB Model, that ‘w’ will be derived from a Lorentz Factor due to relative velocity of Solar System with respect to Universal Cubic Lattice as explained in previous Chapters.”</span></i></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;line-height:14.2667px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">In general: your paper deserves to be improved in respect to keep the interest of the reader going on. </span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;line-height:14.2667px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">I hope my remarks are helpful. I gave them as my honest opinion.</span></p><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="color:black;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;font-size:10pt">Best regards.</span><br></p><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><p class="gmail-m_-1649368038440903161m_-2124663232716550602gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;line-height:14.2667px;font-family:"pt sans narrow",serif;color:black">Ruud Loeffen.</span></p></font></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Tufail Abbas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tufail.abbas@gmail.com" target="_blank">tufail.abbas@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div>Hello Ruud,</div><div><br></div><div>My comments are as follows:</div><div><br></div><div>The Gravity produce acceleration and acceleration is change in velocity with time. In case of an object that we visually see moving wrt to a reference frame (whatever it is), it is easy to comprehend what an acceleration and velocity would mean. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In case of a body at rest, upon which the net force is zero, it implies that it is moving at a constant velocity.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>Now, what could be the velocity of a body at rest. Intuitively , it should be zero. What if, that is not the case and we have some intrinsic velocity. If we can have an intrinsic angular momentum then why not am intrinsic velocity or velocity of an object at rest. I have explained this concept by taking the example of "The Moving Tub" in the Chapter 4 of my Paper (in progress) titled "Cube". The link is provided as below.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/0d7z0ukm5tp7tez/Cube.pdf?dl=0" target="_blank">https://www.dropbox.com/s/0d7z<wbr>0ukm5tp7tez/Cube.pdf?dl=0</a></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>In order to explain gravity from the concept of this rest velocity, each spherical surface around the mass at the given radius r will be moving at constant velocity. Please note that this is the velocity of the surface itself, and not the velocity of the body moving through that surface. This rest velocity gradually increases with the decreasing radius as the time dilates(whatever that mean) with the surface area. Hence an acceleration as we move toward the center of the mass. </div><div><br></div><div>Attracted body will come to apparent rest at a surface where the rest velocity of surface will be equivalent to rest velocity of the body.</div><div><br></div><div>So far as factor/derivative of gamma is concerned, I see its relevance a bit differently, which is mentioned at the end of the Chapter 5.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Tufail Abbas<br></div><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 Jan 2017 11:42, "Ruud Loeffen" <<a href="mailto:rmmloeffen@gmail.com" target="_blank">rmmloeffen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="m_-6877376988344752031m_3168844874137452966quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal">To Carl Johnson.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I read on Carl’s website interesting
information about the movement of our Sun in the spiral arm of our Galaxy. I favor
Carl’s ideas and insights as he mentioned on his website <a href="http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html" target="_blank">http://mb-soft.com/public/gal<wbr>axy.html</a>
I am especially interested in the information there provided:<br>
<i><font color="#0000ff">"Given that our local motion is believed
to be around 20 km/sec toward the Apex, this means that the Sun has a Z-axis
(vertical) component velocity of around 8.7 km/sec upward relative to the
Galaxy Plane (toward the North Galactic Pole). It also has a radially-inward
(toward the Core) component velocity component of around 12.0 km/sec. The bulk
of this local motion is the third component, along the direction of the
revolution motion of the Sun around the Galaxy, with that component being
around 16.0 km/sec. This is in general agreement with currently accepted
figures: (found in Wiedenhoff) "the galactic circular velocity components,
which give [for the Sun] U = -9 km/sec, V = +12 km/sec, and W = +7
km/sec." where "Space motions comprise a three-dimensional
determination of stellar motion. They may be divided into a set of components
related to directions in the Galaxy: U, directed away from the galactic centre;
V, in the direction of galactic rotation; and W, toward the north galactic
pole."</font><span></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I hope you read my Emails about the possible
relation between Gravitation (especially the Newtonian Constant) and Lorentz
Transformation of Mass-Energy (LTME). I calculated the velocity “v” in the LTME equation to be 12278 m/s <font color="#9900ff">(12,278 km/s)</font> or v^2 to be: 1,507553E+08<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Do you think that there could be some relation between the magnitudes above and the calculations in the LTME calculation?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I put a paper about the reasoning on the factor Gamma in my Dropbox. Perhaps you and other members could be interested. <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/88c4chl850mrqjc/The%20GAMMA%20FACTOR.pdf?dl=0" target="_blank">https://www.dropbox.com/s/88c4<wbr>chl850mrqjc/The%20GAMMA%20FACT<wbr>OR.pdf?dl=0</a>
<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best regards.<span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Ruud Loeffen.</span></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="m_-6877376988344752031m_3168844874137452966elided-text">On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:11 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cj@mb-soft.com" target="_blank">cj@mb-soft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div class="m_-6877376988344752031m_3168844874137452966elided-text"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">To Tom Hollings:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I think we are on the same page, but I really
believe that Gravitational Lensing is POSSIBLE, although I do not think it is
due to any GR effects. My specific issue here is that geometry and logic
should seem to create "perfectly symmetric" patterns of images, same brightness,
same spacing, same spectras. When I have looked at claims of
Einstein Crosses, and very carefully measured the spacing of the images, I have
not seen any which really have precise spacing. I have not had access to
the spectra of the various Einstein Cross images, but some seem to just be
"really poor". </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">As to the basic CAUSE of possible Gravitational
Lensing, it may be beyond me. I look forward to anyone informing me of any
Einstein Cross which seems to be logically and geometrically impressive, to
confirm to me that the "phenomenon" is credible. Once that is the case,
bring on any arguments regarding mass and such.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Mr. Hollings, you may enjoy a graphic in one of my
web-pages, <a href="http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html" target="_blank">http://mb-soft.com/public/gala<wbr>xy.html</a></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">IIt is a sky map showing the locations of the Core,
the location 90 degrees away from that (as a potential direction our "sun
orbiting" might be headed in that <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">200
million year orbit), the ACTUAL direction our Sun is moving (XYZ), etc. I
used that info to determine the Z velocity of our actual sun's motion (currently
upward). I also combined the various velocities to determine our
components due to the Kepler gravitational effect and some other velocities we
experience within our Orion Arm. Around twenty years ago, I concluded that
our Solar system "weaves" radially across our Arm (partly due to the asymmetric
taper spape of all Spiral Arms, where more attraction is "ahead of us" and less
attraction "behind us" in our Arm. Other gravitational effects also exist,
all of which I credit to Newton, and NONE of which I credit to any GR. I
spent a couple years doing the newtonian gravitational attraction calculations,
and came to an estimate that one result is that we "weave" back and forth across
our Arm about every 52 million years (and we are currently near the inner edge
of it. </font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">No one has ever bought into this (yet) but those
calculations suggest that we pass through a very cluttered Arm center-line area
every <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">26 million years. I think it may
be a cause for the Moon and Mars and Mercury to have southern hemispheres which
are very pock-marked. And possibly bombardment on us on Earth 65 million
years ago which might have toasted the latest dinosaurs.</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Oh, the <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">200
million year sun orbit figure is mostly due to a (very weak) Kepler
calculation. It may be fairly accurate, but I am uncomfortable with the
logic in relying on Kepler for it.</font></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">And people in this group seem to assume that I am a
"Relativity wonk". RARELY, I see enough logic to support some possible SR
or GR claims, but many of you guys seem to w ant to associate GR with far too
many things. I am currently composing a fairly brief discussion about SR,
which mostly denies almost all the issues it gets credit for. It IS valid,
but for some reason, nearly everyone seems to give even SR all kinds of
credit.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Carl Johnson</font></div>
<div> </div></div>
<br></div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/ma<wbr>ilman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_-6877376988344752031m_3168844874137452966m_-8888235710422807783gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Ruud Loeffen</b></font><div><font face="monospace, monospace">Paardestraat32</font></div><div><font face="monospace, monospace">6131HC Sittard</font></div><div><a style="font-size:12.8px" href="http://www.human-DNA.org" target="_blank">http://www.human-DNA.org</a><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</font></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/ma<wbr>ilman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Ruud Loeffen</b></font><div><font face="monospace, monospace">Paardestraat32</font></div><div><font face="monospace, monospace">6131HC Sittard</font></div><div><a href="http://www.human-DNA.org" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">http://www.human-DNA.org</a><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>