Mister Mister Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 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 AcademicScience TheScientific Tradition has achieved great things for humankind. It has challenged the prevailing paradigm ofreligion which has been historically oppressive, and stagnating to humanprogress. It has led to manytechnologies which enrich human life. Yet at the dawn of the 21st century, we find ourselves still heavilyreliant on explosive fuels monopolized by a few cartels, seemingly paralyzed toaddress problems of pollution and over-consumption, and many of those who haveleft irrational organized religions behind are left with nothing but adisempowering and disheartening world-view to replace the confusing andinconsistent world-view of religion. Itis with this in mind that I humbly offer criticism of what I see as somefundamental errors in the philosophy of modern academic science. Empiricism - Empiricism is the evidenceof the Senses. The Scientific Method is usuallypresented as Question, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion. This process is then repeated endlessly. Thehuman mind is constantly trying to form a picture of the world and comparingthat with experience. This process haseven been recognized in babies! http://www.alisongopnik.com/thephilosophicalbaby.htm Whilewe can get good information from the senses, it is the opposite part of theprocess, Reasoning, where we produce about a generalization or a law, which isthe real foundation of science. Ofcourse any theory which is inconsistent with evidence is incorrect The Historyof Science will show that it is always a radical conceptual change that leadsto real revolutions in science. Oftenthis change is derived from a moment of inspiration or epiphany in anindividual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_(feeling) Thebest example of a revolution in science, was the replacement of the Ptolemaic,geocentric (Earth-centered) universe with the Copernican, heliocentric solarsystem (I would be remiss not to note that astronomers in Asia and in theAmericans described a heliocentric system hundreds of years before Copernicus). The Ptolemaic system, depicted here http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node151.htmlrelied on a system of "epicycles" to account for retrograde motion ofplanets. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein offers some funny thoughts aboutthis. "Tell me," the greattwentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once asked a friend,"why do people always say it was natural for man to assume that the sunwent around the Earth rather than that the Earth was rotating?" His friendreplied, "Well, obviously because it just looks asthough the Sun is going around the Earth." Wittgenstein responded,"Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earthwas rotating?" The point is that the sensory evidencetells us nothing by itself. The astronomers of that day developed anincreasingly sophisticated mathematics to make this system work. Their mathematics was very clever, andpredicted the apparent motion of planets quite well, but it was based on thewrong concept! Mathematics is a useful tool, but will telluse nothing without the right concept. The mental process of discovering that concept is known as inductivereasoning, and is unfortunately not taught in schools and universities for themost part. The modern physics student isbeing trained instead as a lab technician, engineer, or mathematician, whichare all valuable skills, but the actual art of coming up with new ideas has beenlargely left behind. David Harriman on science'samnesia of its philosophic foundations. http://www.fallingapple.org/Ideas-2.php Themethod of observation and induction is the way Thought naturally progresses inhuman beings; it is only interrupted by having conclusions pushed on us byauthorities. Educators in all fieldswould do well to help students learn how to think, not what to think. Reductionism. Reductionism is an attempt to understand thenature of complex things by understanding their parts. For example, in order to understand a humanbeing, we study the various parts of a human body, different aspects of humanbehavior, etc. Again, this is a usefultechnique in some ways, but is worthless without the opposite process of thenputting together what we know into some general principles which can be of useto us. Science is an organized inquiryinto understanding Nature, for the purpose of improving human Life. Nature as a whole seems to be infinitelycomplex, and there will never be an end to information which we can record,label, and classify. Science, as anenterprise however, must be about discerning Cause, or the general principlesbehind all that complexity. Itis a real tragedy is that Science has abandoned the search for Cause. In the words of quantum physicist MaxHeisenberg, "Thelaw of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory." In the absence of Causality, we are left withmathematical abstractions which leave the average person bewildered, andconvinced that Nature cannot be understood except by an academic priesthood whospeaks the esoteric language of mathematics. The principle of Identity, or precise definitions is also leftbehind. Take for example the concept ofa "field" which replaced the ether theory of light and electromagnetismat the beginning of the 20th century. Afield is defined by Science as an "array of vectors", which means amodel that places numbers indicating value, and arrows indicating direction, inspace. In other words, a field is a namefor an idea in a textbook, a model. Yetthere is clearly something real acting on the falling object or the iron filingsaround the magnet. Academicians haveavoided any need to explain that by substituting its mathematically reducedmodel for reality. Thegreatest example of reductionism is modern particle physics, which attempts todiscover the fundamental building blocks of reality, by measuring very tinyphenomena and classifying them as different particles in an elaborate andconfusing taxonomical system, which include classifications for"direction", "color", and "strangeness". Many ofthe particles in question have never even been measured, but are "virtualparticles" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles, which meansthey pop in and out of existence just long enough to provide a certain functionnecessary for an equation to work. Needless to say this is not good science, and has set the precedent forSuper-Strings, Black Holes, Dark Matter, and many other theoretical objectswhich can conveniently not be observed by anyone. Take the recently popular particle-colliderexperiments at CERN. These amount togenerating a massive explosion through the collision of gold atoms, andrecording that explosion with computers, and reducing it to mathematicalabstractions. Supposedly, one day, this extremely expensive process, will lead us to a fundamental understanding of the Universe, which will somehowimprove our lives. Again, I contend that no amount of mathematical reductionwill lead us to a correct answer in the absence of the correct ideas, which canonly come from an inward reasoning process. Universality - The greatest problem with modern academic science is its lack ofUniversality. For a long time it wasbelieved that the "Heavens" or the planets and stars, followeddifferent Laws than phenomena here on Earth. Isaac Newton made one of the greatest revolutions in modern science byunifying the Heavens and the Earth with a few simple Laws of Motion. The fact that he made some failures shouldnot deter us from this pursuit. In morerecent times, science has gone the other way, with Quantum Physics to describephenomena at very small scales, Relativity to describe phenomena at very largescales, and all kinds of laws for various things in between, includingchemistry, biology, geology, meteorology and so on. Often each of the proponents of these varioustheories believe that they will come to some Universal Understanding bypursuing things in one direction, i.e. discovering the God Particle, or DarkMatter, or Dark Energy etc. They veryrarely collaborate outside their specific field, often compete for funding, andit seems no one wants to face the possibility that there are fundamental mistakesin the foundations of the models they are working with. Youmay 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 spotany inconsistencies. Accordingto 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 toits mass, and inverse to the square of the distance. This means that the more massive an object, andthe 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 calledcharge. Some mass is "positively charged", and some mass is"negatively charged. You may havelearned 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 developedbecause investigation into atoms revealed inconsistency with the conclusions ofCoulomb's Law. as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. StrongNuclear Force accounts for how supposed PositiveMasses called Protons are bound together near the center of atomic systems, butdon't repel each other and fly apart as Coulomb's Law would suggest (one mightask how any proton or electron itself is held together if like charges repel). It is believed that the Proton contains avirtual 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 certaincircumstances, where Positive attracts Positive. WeakNuclear Force accounts for how supposed NegativeMasses called electrons spin in their orbits continuously, without decaying asthe Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)would imply. Weak force is believed tobe caused by bosons, which provide enough energy for negative electrons toavoid the positive nucleus they should be attracted to. So, in an atom, Negative repels Positive justenough. Soat the moment, academic science understands that all mass, which is made ofequal positive and negative masses, attracts all other mass M-->|<--M, Opposite chargesattract, and like charges repel, P-->|<--N P<----->P N<---->N, except inatoms, which make up all mass, where positive masses attract one another P--->|<---P and negative massesrepel positive masses a little bit N<---->P. If logic is truly the art ofnon-contradictory identification, clearly there is a problem here. No amount of academic sophistication can makeall of these ideas Universal or consistent. Alternative - It may be put forth, thatthis is the best we can do at the time. While this paper is a critique, rather than a new theory of existence, Iought to offer my thoughts on some concepts that might address these errors inthinking, largely influenced by the work of Walter Russell, Nicola Tesla,Viktor Schauberger, and many other inspired geniuses. Infollowing with Newton's example, I believe we can unify all of Nature under asimple concept of Motion. Newton's fundamentalmistakes are that he described Motion in straight lines, and material objectsoccupying empty space. We now know that allMotion is curved, all matter spins, and that Motion is everywhere; there is noreal empty Space. There has beenpopularization of an idea that the Universe is a hologram. A hologram is a seemingly static objectcreated 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 allForm, 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 toDNA to plants and animals, to galaxies, and how we can replicate this to reduceour energy consumption in a revolutionary way. Primer Fields: there is some hyperbole and religious language used here, butnonetheless this man is creating the equivalent of objects we see in Space in aVacuum tube with Electricity, giving proof for the Universality of physics andthe relativity of scale; atomic/stellar/galactic systems can all be replicatedat 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 communityby implying that an object's mass can be changed by spinning it. This suggests that mass is only a function ofmotion. Also see www.gyroscopes.org The Science of Cymatics shows how a liquid medium subjected to sound cangenerate a whole range of beautiful and stable geometries. This shows that a fluid substance can appear tohave a definite shape, which is only sustained by Continuous Motion.http://www.nims.go.jp/apfim/fimdesc.html This electron microscope photograph ofTungsten Atoms in a Crystal Lattice does not look like any of the textbook modelsof an atom, but rather more like a standing wave structure in a fluidmedium. It resembles ripples in arain-puddle, but what is causing the ripples? Thisbrings us to an important point. If allNatural phenomena are merely different aspects of Motion, we must ask, "whatis causing motion in the first place?" Aristotle made an argument for the existence of God, that there must bea Prime Mover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens or a First Cause whichset the Universe into Motion. This samephilosophical thinking motivated the Catholic Scientists who put forth the BigBang Theory. Reason demands us to rejectthe self-contradictory God of modern organized religions, but what is beingasked here is a deeper question: if all the Universe is in Motion, what Energyis sustaining that Motion? Thetrue 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 whatScientists call Vacuum Energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy It can be shown and measured that in a stateof near-emptiness, an immense amount of energy exists. More are concluding that this is not somespecial, exotic form of energy, but rather the source of all energy in the Universe. This energy is responsible for "VacuumFluctuation" or the spontaneous emergence of "particleanti-particle" pairs from seemingly Empty Space, a seeming contradictionof 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 bedescribed as the spontaneous emergence of Motion from stillness. Sothe alternative being suggested here is that the phenomenal Universe of Naturewas not created long ago, but is continually Creating, from an ever-present andinexhaustible Energy Source. Thus wehave a direct relation to the Source of the Universe, rather than the esotericGod or mathematics responsible for an event long ago, and we may participate inthe Universal Creative Process, which is ongoing. Thank you so much for reading, please offercomments/questions/criticism, and have a beautiful Life. Reductionism. Reductionism is an attempt to understand thenature of complex things by understanding their parts. For example, in order to understand a humanbeing, we study the various parts of a human body, different aspects of humanbehavior, etc. Again, this is a usefultechnique in some ways, but is worthless without the opposite process of thenputting together what we know into some general principles which can be of useto us. Science is an organized inquiryinto understanding Nature, for the purpose of improving human Life. Nature as a whole seems to be infinitelycomplex, and there will never be an end to information which we can record,label, and classify. Science, as anenterprise, however must be about discerning Cause, or the general principlesbehind all that complexity. It is areal tragedy is that Science has abandoned the search for Cause. In the words of quantum physicist MaxHeisenberg, "Thelaw of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory." In the absence of Causality, we are left withmathematical abstractions which leave the average person bewildered, andconvinced that Nature cannot be understood except by an academic priesthood whospeaks the esoteric language of mathematics. The principle of Identity, or precise definitions is also leftbehind. Take for example the concept ofa "field" which replaced the ether theory of light and electromagnetismat the beginning of the 20th century. Afield is defined by Science as an "array of vectors", which means amodel that places numbers indicating value, and arrows indicating direction, inspace. In other words, a field is a namefor an idea in a textbook, a model. Yetthere is clearly something real acting on the falling object or the iron filingsaround the magnet. Academicians haveavoided any need to explain that by substituting its mathematically reducedmodel for reality. Thegreatest example of reductionism is modern particle physics, which attempts todiscover the fundamental building blocks of reality, by measuring very tinyphenomena and classifying them as different particles in an elaborate andconfusing taxonomical system, which include classifications for"direction", "color", and "strangeness". Many ofthe particles in question have never even been measured, but are "virtualparticles" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles, which meansthey pop in and out of existence just long enough to provide a certain functionnecessary for an equation to work. Needless to say this is not good science, and has set the precedent forSuper-Strings, Black Holes, Dark Matter, and many other theoretical objectswhich can conveniently not be observed by anyone. Take the recently popular particle-colliderexperiments at CERN. These amount togenerating a massive explosion through the collision of gold atoms, andrecording that explosion with computers, and reducing it to mathematicalabstractions. Supposedly, one day, thiswill lead us to a fundamental understanding of the Universe, which will somehowimprove our lives. Again, I contend that no amount of mathematical reductionwill lead us to a correct answer in the absence of the correct ideas, which canonly come from an inward reasoning process. Universality - The greatest problem with modern academic science is its lack ofUniversality. For a long time it wasbelieved that the "Heavens" or the planets and stars, followeddifferent Laws than phenomena here on Earth. Isaac Newton made one of the greatest revolutions in modern science byunifying the Heavens and the Earth with a few simple Laws of Motion. The fact that he made some failures shouldnot deter us from this pursuit. In morerecent times, science has gone the other way, with Quantum Physics to describephenomena at very small scales, Relativity to describe phenomena at very largescales, and all kinds of laws for various things in between, includingchemistry, biology, geology, meteorology and so on. Often each of the proponents of these varioustheories believe that they will come to some Universal Understanding bypursuing things in one direction, i.e. discovering the God Particle, or DarkMatter, or Dark Energy etc. They veryrarely collaborate outside their specific field, often compete for funding, andit seems no one wants to face the possibility that there are fundamental mistakesin the foundations of the models they are working with. Youmay 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 spotany inconsistencies. Accordingto 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 toits mass, and inverse to the square of the distance. This means that the more massive an object, andthe 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 calledcharge. Some mass is "positively charged", and some mass is"negatively charged. You may havelearned 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 developedbecause investigation into atoms revealed inconsistency with the conclusions ofCoulomb's Law. as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. StrongNuclear Force accounts for how supposed PositiveMasses called Protons are bound together near the center of atomic systems, butdon't repel each other and fly apart as Coulomb's Law would suggest (one mightask how any proton or electron itself is held together if like charges repel). It is believed that the Proton contains avirtual 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 certaincircumstances, where Positive attracts Positive. WeakNuclear Force accounts for how supposed NegativeMasses called electrons spin in their orbits continuously, without decaying asthe Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)would imply. Weak force is believed tobe caused by bosons, which provide enough energy for negative electrons toavoid the positive nucleus they should be attracted to. So, in an atom, Negative repels Positive justenough. Soat the moment, academic science understands that all mass, which is made ofequal positive and negative masses, attracts all other mass M-->|<--M, Opposite chargesattract, and like charges repel, P-->|<--N P<----->P N<---->N, except inatoms, which make up all mass, where positive masses attract one another P--->|<---P and negative massesrepel positive masses a little bit N<---->P. If logic is truly the art ofnon-contradictory identification, clearly there is a problem here. No amount of academic sophistication can makeany of these ideas Universal. Alternative - It may be put forth, thatthis is the best we can do at the time. While this paper is a critique, rather than a new theory of existence, Iought to offer my thoughts on some concepts that might address these errors inthinking, largely influenced by the work of Walter Russell, Nicola Tesla,Viktor Schauberger, and many other inspired geniuses. Infollowing with Newton's example, I believe we can unify all of Nature under asimple concept of Motion. Newton's fundamentalmistakes are that he described Motion in straight lines, and material objectsoccupying empty space. We now know that allMotion is curved, all matter spins, and that Motion is everywhere; there is noreal empty Space. There has beenpopularization of an idea that the Universe is a hologram. A hologram is a seemingly static objectcreated 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 allForm, 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 toDNA to plants and animals, to galaxies, and how we can replicate this to reduceour energy consumption in a revolutionary way. Primer Fields: there is some hyperbole and religious language used here, butnonetheless this man is creating the equivalent of objects we see in Space in aVacuum tube with Electricity, giving proof for the Universality of physics andthe relativity of scale; atomic/stellar/galactic systems can all be replicatedat 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 communityby implying that an object's mass can be changed by spinning it. This suggests that mass is only a function ofmotion. Also see www.gyroscopes.org The Science of Cymatics shows how a liquid medium subjected to sound cangenerate a whole range of beautiful and stable geometries. This shows that a fluid substance can appear tohave a definite shape, which is only sustained by Continuous Motion.http://www.nims.go.jp/apfim/fimdesc.html This electron microscope photograph ofTungsten Atoms in a Crystal Lattice does not look like any of the textbook modelsof an atom, but rather more like a standing wave structure in a fluidmedium. It resembles ripples in arain-puddle, but what is causing the ripples? Thisbrings us to an important point. If allNatural phenomena are merely different aspects of Motion, we must ask, "whatis causing motion in the first place?" Aristotle made an argument for the existence of God, that there must bea Prime Mover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens or a First Cause whichset the Universe into Motion. This samephilosophical thinking motivated the Catholic Scientists who put forth the BigBang Theory. Reason demands us to rejectthe self-contradictory God of modern organized religions, but what is beingasked here is a deeper question: if all the Universe is in Motion, what Energyis sustaining that Motion? Thetrue 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 whatScientists call Vacuum Energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy It can be shown and measured that in a stateof seeming emptiness, an immense amount of energy exists. More are concluding that this is not somespecial, exotic form of energy, but rather the source of all energy in the Universe. This energy is responsible for "VacuumFluctuation" or the spontaneous emergence of "particleanti-particle" pairs from seemingly Empty Space, a seeming contradictionof 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 bedescribed as the spontaneous emergence of Motion from stillness. Sothe alternative being suggested here is that the phenomenal Universe of Naturewas not created long ago, but is continually Creating, from an ever-present andinexhaustible Energy Source. Thus wehave a direct relation to the Source of the Universe, rather than the esotericGod or mathematics responsible for an event long ago, and we may participate in the UniversalCreative Process, which is ongoing. Thank you so much for reading, please offercomments/questions/criticism, and have a Beautiful Life. -Cody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribuck Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David L Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts