A Critique of Modern Academic Science

[Mister Mister]

This is an article I am working on.  I wanted to offer it to the brilliant hive-mind here at FDR for critique before publishing.   Sorry for the formatting problems, just copied and posted from Word, but the Forum seems to have done some funny things to the text.  Thank you very much if you do take the time to read all the way through. 

 

A Critique of Modern Academic
Science

 

           The
Scientific Tradition has achieved great things for humankind.  It has challenged the prevailing paradigm of
religion which has been historically oppressive, and stagnating to human
progress.  It has led to many
technologies which enrich human life. 
Yet at the dawn of the 21st century, we find ourselves still heavily
reliant on explosive fuels monopolized by a few cartels, seemingly paralyzed to
address problems of pollution and over-consumption, and many of those who have
left irrational organized religions behind are left with nothing but a
disempowering and disheartening world-view to replace the confusing and
inconsistent world-view of religion.  It
is with this in mind that I humbly offer criticism of what I see as some
fundamental errors in the philosophy of modern academic science. 

           Empiricism - Empiricism is the evidence
of the Senses.  The Scientific Method is usually
presented as Question, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion.  This process is then repeated endlessly. The
human mind is constantly trying to form a picture of the world and comparing
that with experience.  This process has
even been recognized in babies!     http://www.alisongopnik.com/thephilosophicalbaby.htm       While
we can get good information from the senses, it is the opposite part of the
process, Reasoning, where we produce about a generalization or a law, which is
the real foundation of science.  Of
course any theory which is inconsistent with evidence is incorrect The History
of Science will show that it is always a radical conceptual change that leads
to real revolutions in science.  Often
this change is derived from a moment of inspiration or epiphany in an
individual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_(feeling)

           The
best example of a revolution in science, was the replacement of the Ptolemaic,
geocentric (Earth-centered) universe with the Copernican, heliocentric solar
system (I would be remiss not to note that astronomers in Asia and in the
Americans described a heliocentric system hundreds of years before Copernicus).  The Ptolemaic system, depicted here http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node151.html
relied on a system of "epicycles" to account for retrograde motion of
planets. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein offers some funny thoughts about
this.

           "Tell me," the great
twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once asked a friend,
"why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the sun
went around the Earth rather than that the Earth was rotating?" His friend
replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as
though the Sun is going around the Earth." Wittgenstein responded,
"Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth
was rotating?"       

          The point is that the sensory evidence
tells us nothing by itself. The astronomers of that day developed an
increasingly sophisticated mathematics to make this system work.  Their mathematics was very clever, and
predicted the apparent motion of planets quite well, but it was based on the
wrong concept!          Mathematics is a useful tool, but will tell
use nothing without the right concept. 
The mental process of discovering that concept is known as inductive
reasoning, and is unfortunately not taught in schools and universities for the
most part.  The modern physics student is
being trained instead as a lab technician, engineer, or mathematician, which
are all valuable skills, but the actual art of coming up with new ideas has been
largely left behind.  David Harriman on science's
amnesia of its philosophic foundations. http://www.fallingapple.org/Ideas-2.php

           The
method of observation and induction is the way Thought naturally progresses in
human beings; it is only interrupted by having conclusions pushed on us by
authorities.  Educators in all fields
would do well to help students learn how to think, not what to think.

           Reductionism.  Reductionism is an attempt to understand the
nature of complex things by understanding their parts.  For example, in order to understand a human
being, we study the various parts of a human body, different aspects of human
behavior, etc.  Again, this is a useful
technique in some ways, but is worthless without the opposite process of then
putting together what we know into some general principles which can be of use
to us.  Science is an organized inquiry
into understanding Nature, for the purpose of improving human Life.  Nature as a whole seems to be infinitely
complex, and there will never be an end to information which we can record,
label, and classify.  Science, as an
enterprise however, must be about discerning Cause, or the general principles
behind all that complexity.

          It
is a real tragedy is that Science has abandoned the search for Cause.  In the words of quantum physicist Max
Heisenberg, "The
law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory."  In the absence of Causality, we are left with
mathematical abstractions which leave the average person bewildered, and
convinced that Nature cannot be understood except by an academic priesthood who
speaks the esoteric language of mathematics. 
The principle of Identity, or precise definitions is also left
behind.  Take for example the concept of
a "field" which replaced the ether theory of light and electromagnetism
at the beginning of the 20th century.  A
field is defined by Science as an "array of vectors", which means a
model that places numbers indicating value, and arrows indicating direction, in
space.  In other words, a field is a name
for an idea in a textbook, a model.  Yet
there is clearly something real acting on the falling object or the iron filings
around the magnet.  Academicians have
avoided any need to explain that by substituting its mathematically reduced
model for reality.

           The
greatest example of reductionism is modern particle physics, which attempts to
discover the fundamental building blocks of reality, by measuring very tiny
phenomena and classifying them as different particles in an elaborate and
confusing taxonomical system, which include classifications for
"direction", "color", and "strangeness". Many of
the particles in question have never even been measured, but are "virtual
particles" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles, which means
they pop in and out of existence just long enough to provide a certain function
necessary for an equation to work. 
Needless to say this is not good science, and has set the precedent for
Super-Strings, Black Holes, Dark Matter, and many other theoretical objects
which can conveniently not be observed by anyone.       Take the recently popular particle-collider
experiments at CERN.  These amount to
generating a massive explosion through the collision of gold atoms, and
recording that explosion with computers, and reducing it to mathematical
abstractions.  Supposedly, one day, this extremely expensive process, will lead us to a fundamental understanding of the Universe, which will somehow
improve our lives. Again, I contend that no amount of mathematical reduction
will lead us to a correct answer in the absence of the correct ideas, which can
only come from an inward reasoning process.

 

           Universality - The greatest problem with modern academic science is its lack of
Universality.  For a long time it was
believed that the "Heavens" or the planets and stars, followed
different Laws than phenomena here on Earth. 
Isaac Newton made one of the greatest revolutions in modern science by
unifying the Heavens and the Earth with a few simple Laws of Motion.  The fact that he made some failures should
not deter us from this pursuit.  In more
recent times, science has gone the other way, with Quantum Physics to describe
phenomena at very small scales, Relativity to describe phenomena at very large
scales, and all kinds of laws for various things in between, including
chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology and so on.  Often each of the proponents of these various
theories believe that they will come to some Universal Understanding by
pursuing things in one direction, i.e. discovering the God Particle, or Dark
Matter, or Dark Energy etc.  They very
rarely collaborate outside their specific field, often compete for funding, and
it seems no one wants to face the possibility that there are fundamental mistakes
in the foundations of the models they are working with.

           You
may have heard of the pursuit for a Unified Field Theory.  Despite the lack of  a real definition of a "field"
mentioned earlier, let's look at where this stands now and see if we can spot
any inconsistencies.

          According
to modern physics, there are four basic forces: Gravitation, Electromagnetism,
Strong Nuclear Force, and Weak Nuclear Force.

Gravitation basically says that all matter attracts all other matter, relative to
its mass, and inverse to the square of the distance.  This means that the more massive an object, and
the closer to other objects, the stronger their attraction

Electromagnetism is a little more complicated, and is based on Coulomb's Law.  Mass can have an added property called
charge. Some mass is "positively charged", and some mass is
"negatively charged.  You may have
learned that Opposites Attract, and Like Charges Repel.  In other words, Positive attracts Negative,
but Positive repels Positive and Negative repels Negative.

 

The nuclear forces were developed
because investigation into atoms revealed inconsistency with the conclusions of
Coulomb's Law. as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Strong
Nuclear Force accounts for how supposed Positive
Masses called Protons are bound together near the center of atomic systems, but
don't repel each other and fly apart as Coulomb's Law would suggest (one might
ask how any proton or electron itself is held together if like charges repel).  It is believed that the Proton contains a
virtual particle called a gluon, literally glue-on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon),
which "glues" the nucleus together. 
So now, positively charged mass has a special property, under certain
circumstances, where Positive attracts Positive.     

Weak
Nuclear Force accounts for how supposed Negative
Masses called electrons spin in their orbits continuously, without decaying as
the Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)
would imply.  Weak force is believed to
be caused by bosons, which provide enough energy for negative electrons to
avoid the positive nucleus they should be attracted to.  So, in an atom, Negative repels Positive just
enough.

           So
at the moment, academic science understands that all mass, which is made of
equal positive and negative masses, attracts all other mass M-->|<--M, Opposite charges
attract, and like charges repel, P-->|<--N  P<----->P N<---->N, except in
atoms, which make up all mass, where positive masses attract one another P--->|<---P and negative masses
repel positive masses a little bit N<---->P.  If logic is truly the art of
non-contradictory identification, clearly there is a problem here.  No amount of academic sophistication can make
all of these ideas Universal or consistent.

 

          Alternative - It may be put forth, that
this is the best we can do at the time. 
While this paper is a critique, rather than a new theory of existence, I
ought to offer my thoughts on some concepts that might address these errors in
thinking, largely influenced by the work of Walter Russell, Nicola Tesla,
Viktor Schauberger, and many other inspired geniuses.

          In
following with Newton's example, I believe we can unify all of Nature under a
simple concept of Motion.  Newton's fundamental
mistakes are that he described Motion in straight lines, and material objects
occupying empty space.  We now know that all
Motion is curved, all matter spins, and that Motion is everywhere; there is no
real empty Space.  There has been
popularization of an idea that the Universe is a hologram.  A hologram is a seemingly static object
created and sustained by the Continuous Motion of Light.  It is my contention that Motion, not of objects,
but of a Universal Substance we might call Light or Energy, can account for all
Form, Mass, Attraction, and Repulsion. 
The following links should give some justification for this.

David Harriman on What is Space?

Jay Harman shows the ubiquitous spiral in Nature, from subatomic particles to
DNA to plants and animals, to galaxies, and how we can replicate this to reduce
our energy consumption in a revolutionary way.

Primer Fields: there is some hyperbole and religious language used here, but
nonetheless this man is creating the equivalent of objects we see in Space in a
Vacuum tube with Electricity, giving proof for the Universality of physics and
the relativity of scale; atomic/stellar/galactic systems can all be replicated
at a practical scale where we can study them with our eyes, in real-time.

Eric Laithewaite studied gyroscopes and caused a stir in the physics community
by implying that an object's mass can be changed by spinning it.  This suggests that mass is only a function of
motion.  Also see www.gyroscopes.org

The Science of Cymatics shows how a liquid medium subjected to sound can
generate a whole range of beautiful and stable geometries.  This shows that a fluid substance can appear to
have a definite shape, which is only sustained by Continuous Motion.

http://www.nims.go.jp/apfim/fimdesc.html This electron microscope photograph of
Tungsten Atoms in a Crystal Lattice does not look like any of the textbook models
of an atom, but rather more like a standing wave structure in a fluid
medium.  It resembles ripples in a
rain-puddle, but what is causing the ripples?

 

           This
brings us to an important point.  If all
Natural phenomena are merely different aspects of Motion, we must ask, "what
is causing motion in the first place?" 
Aristotle made an argument for the existence of God, that there must be
a Prime Mover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens or a First Cause which
set the Universe into Motion.  This same
philosophical thinking motivated the Catholic Scientists who put forth the Big
Bang Theory.  Reason demands us to reject
the self-contradictory God of modern organized religions, but what is being
asked here is a deeper question: if all the Universe is in Motion, what Energy
is sustaining that Motion? 

           The
true definition for Energy is from the Greek word for action or motion,
indicating what it is that really moves the Universe.  The best answer I can give is in what
Scientists call Vacuum Energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy  It can be shown and measured that in a state
of near-emptiness, an immense amount of energy exists.  More are concluding that this is not some
special, exotic form of energy, but rather the source of all energy in the Universe.  This energy is responsible for "Vacuum
Fluctuation" or the spontaneous emergence of "particle
anti-particle" pairs from seemingly Empty Space, a seeming contradiction
of The Second Law of Thermodynamics. 
From this point of view, the Vacuum is not an empty "vacuum"
but rather the Universal Substance at rest, and what is being seen could be
described as the spontaneous emergence of Motion from stillness.

           So
the alternative being suggested here is that the phenomenal Universe of Nature
was not created long ago, but is continually Creating, from an ever-present and
inexhaustible Energy Source.  Thus we
have a direct relation to the Source of the Universe, rather than the esoteric
God or mathematics responsible for an event long ago, and we may participate in
the Universal Creative Process, which is ongoing.  Thank you so much for reading, please offer
comments/questions/criticism, and have a beautiful Life.

 

           Reductionism.  Reductionism is an attempt to understand the
nature of complex things by understanding their parts.  For example, in order to understand a human
being, we study the various parts of a human body, different aspects of human
behavior, etc.  Again, this is a useful
technique in some ways, but is worthless without the opposite process of then
putting together what we know into some general principles which can be of use
to us.  Science is an organized inquiry
into understanding Nature, for the purpose of improving human Life.  Nature as a whole seems to be infinitely
complex, and there will never be an end to information which we can record,
label, and classify.  Science, as an
enterprise, however must be about discerning Cause, or the general principles
behind all that complexity.       

  It is a
real tragedy is that Science has abandoned the search for Cause.  In the words of quantum physicist Max
Heisenberg, "The
law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory."  In the absence of Causality, we are left with
mathematical abstractions which leave the average person bewildered, and
convinced that Nature cannot be understood except by an academic priesthood who
speaks the esoteric language of mathematics. 
The principle of Identity, or precise definitions is also left
behind.  Take for example the concept of
a "field" which replaced the ether theory of light and electromagnetism
at the beginning of the 20th century.  A
field is defined by Science as an "array of vectors", which means a
model that places numbers indicating value, and arrows indicating direction, in
space.  In other words, a field is a name
for an idea in a textbook, a model.  Yet
there is clearly something real acting on the falling object or the iron filings
around the magnet.  Academicians have
avoided any need to explain that by substituting its mathematically reduced
model for reality.

           The
greatest example of reductionism is modern particle physics, which attempts to
discover the fundamental building blocks of reality, by measuring very tiny
phenomena and classifying them as different particles in an elaborate and
confusing taxonomical system, which include classifications for
"direction", "color", and "strangeness". Many of
the particles in question have never even been measured, but are "virtual
particles" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles, which means
they pop in and out of existence just long enough to provide a certain function
necessary for an equation to work. 
Needless to say this is not good science, and has set the precedent for
Super-Strings, Black Holes, Dark Matter, and many other theoretical objects
which can conveniently not be observed by anyone.       Take the recently popular particle-collider
experiments at CERN.  These amount to
generating a massive explosion through the collision of gold atoms, and
recording that explosion with computers, and reducing it to mathematical
abstractions.  Supposedly, one day, this
will lead us to a fundamental understanding of the Universe, which will somehow
improve our lives. Again, I contend that no amount of mathematical reduction
will lead us to a correct answer in the absence of the correct ideas, which can
only come from an inward reasoning process.

 

           Universality - The greatest problem with modern academic science is its lack of
Universality.  For a long time it was
believed that the "Heavens" or the planets and stars, followed
different Laws than phenomena here on Earth. 
Isaac Newton made one of the greatest revolutions in modern science by
unifying the Heavens and the Earth with a few simple Laws of Motion.  The fact that he made some failures should
not deter us from this pursuit.  In more
recent times, science has gone the other way, with Quantum Physics to describe
phenomena at very small scales, Relativity to describe phenomena at very large
scales, and all kinds of laws for various things in between, including
chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology and so on.  Often each of the proponents of these various
theories believe that they will come to some Universal Understanding by
pursuing things in one direction, i.e. discovering the God Particle, or Dark
Matter, or Dark Energy etc.  They very
rarely collaborate outside their specific field, often compete for funding, and
it seems no one wants to face the possibility that there are fundamental mistakes
in the foundations of the models they are working with.

           You
may have heard of the pursuit for a Unified Field Theory.  Despite the lack of  a real definition of a "field"
mentioned earlier, let's look at where this stands now and see if we can spot
any inconsistencies.

          According
to modern physics, there are four basic forces: Gravitation, Electromagnetism,
Strong Nuclear Force, and Weak Nuclear Force.

Gravitation basically says that all matter attracts all other matter, relative to
its mass, and inverse to the square of the distance.  This means that the more massive an object, and
the closer to other objects the stronger their attraction

Electromagnetism is a little more complicated, and is based on Coulomb's Law.  Mass can have an added property called
charge. Some mass is "positively charged", and some mass is
"negatively charged.  You may have
learned that Opposites Attract, and Like Charges Repel.  In other words, Positive attracts Negative,
but Positive repels Positive and Negative repels Negative.

 

The nuclear forces were developed
because investigation into atoms revealed inconsistency with the conclusions of
Coulomb's Law. as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Strong
Nuclear Force accounts for how supposed Positive
Masses called Protons are bound together near the center of atomic systems, but
don't repel each other and fly apart as Coulomb's Law would suggest (one might
ask how any proton or electron itself is held together if like charges repel).  It is believed that the Proton contains a
virtual particle called a gluon, literally glue-on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon),
which "glues" the nucleus together. 
So now, positively charged mass has a special property, under certain
circumstances, where Positive attracts Positive.     

Weak
Nuclear Force accounts for how supposed Negative
Masses called electrons spin in their orbits continuously, without decaying as
the Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)
would imply.  Weak force is believed to
be caused by bosons, which provide enough energy for negative electrons to
avoid the positive nucleus they should be attracted to.  So, in an atom, Negative repels Positive just
enough.

           So
at the moment, academic science understands that all mass, which is made of
equal positive and negative masses, attracts all other mass M-->|<--M, Opposite charges
attract, and like charges repel, P-->|<--N  P<----->P N<---->N, except in
atoms, which make up all mass, where positive masses attract one another P--->|<---P and negative masses
repel positive masses a little bit N<---->P.  If logic is truly the art of
non-contradictory identification, clearly there is a problem here.  No amount of academic sophistication can make
any of these ideas Universal.

 

          Alternative - It may be put forth, that
this is the best we can do at the time. 
While this paper is a critique, rather than a new theory of existence, I
ought to offer my thoughts on some concepts that might address these errors in
thinking, largely influenced by the work of Walter Russell, Nicola Tesla,
Viktor Schauberger, and many other inspired geniuses.

          In
following with Newton's example, I believe we can unify all of Nature under a
simple concept of Motion.  Newton's fundamental
mistakes are that he described Motion in straight lines, and material objects
occupying empty space.  We now know that all
Motion is curved, all matter spins, and that Motion is everywhere; there is no
real empty Space.  There has been
popularization of an idea that the Universe is a hologram.  A hologram is a seemingly static object
created and sustained by the Continuous Motion of Light.  It is my contention that Motion, not of objects,
but of a Universal Substance we might call Light or Energy, can account for all
Form, Mass, Attraction, and Repulsion. 
The following links should give some justification for this.

David Harriman on What is Space?

Jay Harman shows the ubiquitous spiral in Nature, from subatomic particles to
DNA to plants and animals, to galaxies, and how we can replicate this to reduce
our energy consumption in a revolutionary way.

Primer Fields: there is some hyperbole and religious language used here, but
nonetheless this man is creating the equivalent of objects we see in Space in a
Vacuum tube with Electricity, giving proof for the Universality of physics and
the relativity of scale; atomic/stellar/galactic systems can all be replicated
at a practical scale where we can study them with our eyes, in real-time.

Eric Laithewaite studied gyroscopes and caused a stir in the physics community
by implying that an object's mass can be changed by spinning it.  This suggests that mass is only a function of
motion.  Also see www.gyroscopes.org

The Science of Cymatics shows how a liquid medium subjected to sound can
generate a whole range of beautiful and stable geometries.  This shows that a fluid substance can appear to
have a definite shape, which is only sustained by Continuous Motion.

http://www.nims.go.jp/apfim/fimdesc.html This electron microscope photograph of
Tungsten Atoms in a Crystal Lattice does not look like any of the textbook models
of an atom, but rather more like a standing wave structure in a fluid
medium.  It resembles ripples in a
rain-puddle, but what is causing the ripples?

 

           This
brings us to an important point.  If all
Natural phenomena are merely different aspects of Motion, we must ask, "what
is causing motion in the first place?" 
Aristotle made an argument for the existence of God, that there must be
a Prime Mover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens or a First Cause which
set the Universe into Motion.  This same
philosophical thinking motivated the Catholic Scientists who put forth the Big
Bang Theory.  Reason demands us to reject
the self-contradictory God of modern organized religions, but what is being
asked here is a deeper question: if all the Universe is in Motion, what Energy
is sustaining that Motion? 

           The
true definition for Energy is from the Greek word for action or motion,
indicating what it is that really moves the Universe.  The best answer I can give is in what
Scientists call Vacuum Energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy  It can be shown and measured that in a state
of seeming emptiness, an immense amount of energy exists.  More are concluding that this is not some
special, exotic form of energy, but rather the source of all energy in the Universe.  This energy is responsible for "Vacuum
Fluctuation" or the spontaneous emergence of "particle
anti-particle" pairs from seemingly Empty Space, a seeming contradiction
of The Second Law of Thermodynamics. 
From my point of view, the Vacuum is not an empty "vacuum"
but rather the Universal Substance at rest, and what is being seen could be
described as the spontaneous emergence of Motion from stillness.

 

           So
the alternative being suggested here is that the phenomenal Universe of Nature
was not created long ago, but is continually Creating, from an ever-present and
inexhaustible Energy Source.  Thus we
have a direct relation to the Source of the Universe, rather than the esoteric
God or mathematics responsible for an event long ago, and we may participate in the Universal
Creative Process, which is ongoing. 
Thank you so much for reading, please offer
comments/questions/criticism, and have a Beautiful Life. 

  -Cody

[ribuck]

For a critique of science, you sure speak a lot about religion. I was hoping that I might find a mention of "truth" in the first paragraph, and less pseudo-science in the rest of the article.

By the way, you have included the "Universality" section twice.

[David L]

Cody, thanks very much for your critique thus far, I'm very intrigued, and there are lots of stunning synchronicites in your post for me personally pertaining to my own thinking and reading earlier today. I'd be interested first off in knowing if you're aware of the work of Nassim Haramein. He came to my attention specifically in regard to your position surrounding the vacum. Among many You Tube videos, see for example this one....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmE7Y5K7Q9c

Thanks for any comments.

[Mister Mister]

 

For a critique of science, you sure speak a lot about religion. I was hoping that I might find a mention of "truth" in the first paragraph, and less pseudo-science in the rest of the article.

By the way, you have included the "Universality" section twice.

 

  When did I talk about religion?  I think I only mentioned Aristotle's cosmological proof for God as a large question as to the Source of Motion in Physics.  Yes, maybe it would be a good idea to define philosophical truth, I suppose my point is that empiricism in and of itself can provide no truth without the inductive faculties of the Mind.  What pseudo-science are you referring to?  What is your definition of pseudo-science?  I was trying to make the point that many aspects of modern cosmology fit the textbook definition for pseudo-science, in that they involve claims that cannot be demonstrated, or disproved.  For example, how would you disprove the existence of gluons, or of dark matter?  Since they cannot be measured, and only exist to complete an equation, they cannot be disproved empirically which means they are not really legitimate scientific claims.  As far as all the links I posted, some of them may be associated with some New-Agey stuff, but the experiments themselves deal with actual dynamics that we can see and try to understand, rather than esoteric mathematics or computer readouts of contained nuclear explosions in a particle chamber.
  Thanks for your comments.  And sorry about the formatting problems, I don't know what happened. 

[Mister Mister]

 

Cody, thanks very much for your critique thus far, I'm very intrigued, and there are lots of stunning synchronicites in your post for me personally pertaining to my own thinking and reading earlier today. I'd be interested first off in knowing if you're aware of the work of Nassim Haramein. He came to my attention specifically in regard to your position surrounding the vacum. Among many You Tube videos, see for example this one....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmE7Y5K7Q9c

Thanks for any comments.

 

Yes I have heard of him, that is the first place I heard of vacuum energy I believe.  I think he is a bit of an ego and has some far-out ideas, but still brings up a lot of interesting ideas and gives a fascinating lecture.  There is of course a lot of dismissal of him from the scientific community, but I have not seen a real refutation of his equation uniting gravity and strong force.  You might be interested in Walter Russell and Viktor Schauberger as well.  I'll put up some links later.
  Thanks for your interest.