Dear Reader,
Here's the thing. Science is profoundly based on what is seen and can be measured. But the art has now moved into fields where we need to infer what we can't see or measure. It's the art of inference led by our quantum physicists that has unraveled the mysteries of the atom. But what has happened now is something new. A kind of confusion that results from wild unsupported inference. It introduces a confusion of possibilities that are logically unsatisfactory.
My own response to this was to find some logic behind all that scientific inference. And I modestly propose that this may have been effective. Certainly the experimental evidence seems to support the reasoning. But having said that I am still left with so many questions that I know I've barely touched on the explanation. And to compound this unhappy condition - I am personally aware of how utterly and offensively simplistic is that early explanation.
Science rocks. Our boffins are amazingly insightful. They work with abstractions that beggar belief. They deal with facts and figures that are infinitely variable on the studies of matter and manifestations that are both infinitely large and infinitely small. It's amazing, profound, extraordinary, precise. Mind boggling. Yet, on a deep, deep level - it's not logical. And that logic - that missing something - is what compelled me to add my bit.
But I am also, unhappily, very aware of the presumption in proposing anything kind of thesis. And then. I do it from a position of very little knowledge about anything at all. And then - the proposal - the 'solution', if such it is, is so self-evident, so obvious - that, at it's best, it will be offensive to those rather weighty thinkers that make up the 'school' of mainstream thinking.
I'm equally embarrassed - if that's any comfort. I'm embarrassed that I may be wrong and yet clamorously demanding attention. And I'm embarrassed that I may be right - and yet clamorously demanding attention. My excuse is that 'if I'm right' then there's a very tangible solution to our energy crisis. Maybe I can use that to excuse my otherwise inexcusable presumption in proposing anything at all. And, I suppose, in the final analysis, I'd prefer to stand up for what I believe, even if I'm wrong.
But it's lonely out here. If peace of mind is the overriding objective of life , and if majority consensus is required for peace of mind, then I strongly recommend that you do not follow in my footsteps. This place where I'm at is not a happy place.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
click here to see what I'm talking about
BTW - those batteries are still cooking. Still at those improbably high values. Still showing no signs of 'discharge' or 'recharge'. Just exactly where they were. That's way more articulate than anything I've managed in this post. Perhaps I'll hear from someone today about funding that 'live broadcast'.
