<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You have a number of very interesting
insights. But I disagree with a few.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>As to LaGrange (4 or 5) points, and that asteroid
we (Earth) has which is 97,000,000 miles ahead of us in our orbit. The
asteroid and the many smaller objects which share the L4 point actually move
around in Lissajous orbits, which are NOT "two dimensional", they are rather
bizarre three dimensional paths. So I disagree with your comment
there.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>A similar issue is where I totally agree with you
that "gravity wells" is a terrible description, but I have an issue there.
You describe gravitation as being two dimensions, where the "gravity wells" are
an effort to enable a z-axis visualization of a gravity well. My Research
seems to show something different. Newton's gravitation is a Vector
equation, where all three of x, y, and z are in play. My Research
seems to indicate that the (alleged) "gravity well" is actually a "fourth
dimension effect", where TIME is actually very, very slightly altered (in
compliance with General Relativity. I agree with you that NO "gravity well
imagery" is appropriate. But in a 4d graphic (as of the solar system),
there IS a "curvature" present, but NOT in x, y, or z. The "curvature"
seems to exclusively be in the TIME dimension. It is a REALLY minimal
effect for something with minimal mass such as the solar system. But it
EXACTLY complies with the math of the Equivanency Principle and Einstein's
GR.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>So, yes, I totally agree with much of what you say,
but not with your two-dimensional limitations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>As to "complex numbers" and dimensions, you sort of
seem to agree with me. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>By the way, I am curious of your thoughts on my
Research regarding Mercury's odd orbit. The math I have done seem to
suggest that Einstein had been wrong about that. That the math does NOT
have that two percent error of Einstein. I used an application of Euler's
(three dimensional) differential equations where I feel that the planets perturb
each other in not only the usual "two dimensional mutual perturbations" but
where the planet Jupiter actually gets a Z-axis perturbation FROM Mercury (and
from everything else as well). As a result, my math finds that Mercury
does NOT need GR or any other goofy effects, but the VERY PRECISE effect is due
to a three-dimensional mutual perturbation effect which also (slightly) moves
Jupiter in the z-dimension. Mercury seems to have a VERY precise math
explanation, and it does NOT have the "two percent errors" that other
explanations have always had (including Einstein and his GR)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>By the way, I am personally fascinated Trojan
asteroids, as well as our own. There are DEFINITELY "dimensional factors"
involved, and I like your thinking.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Oh, Lissajous orbits require three dimensional
math.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Thank you for your comments and
insightgs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Carl Johnson</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>