Gene Fuller wrote:

...
Vincent does not claim any radical new physics or math, in the style of
EH and CFA. Instead he simply combines several well-known elements into
what he claims as a novel device. The USPO allowed his claims of novelty.

You can accept or reject his claim of novelty, but don't try to add some
modern mumbo-jumbo more related to pondering the scope of the universe.
I doubt that the URI Physics Department would support such ramblings
without a lot more internal review.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Before our present physics and sciences stepped forward in an attempt to
expand mankinds' knowledge, the same winds blew through the trees, the
same sun rose and set, the same rivers flowed, the same earth spun, the
same stars were seen, the oceans existed, the same universe lay spread
before us--the same, the same, the same ...

However, way back when, spirits and the supernatural where given as
explanations, now science attempts to provide the proper
explanations--however, "what was" and "still is" was/is seen by
all--both those who thought the spiritual/supernatural were
responsible--and those who attempted to explain it by "science."

Such is, STILL, as it is today, we are all looking at the same thing,
some of these things are, indeed, working--and working quite
well--although, explanations may vary as to the "why" and "how"...

No radical changes or discoveries need to be had--just logical
explanations had for what already is and has always been ... errors in
our present thinking are quite obvious and abundant ... "true"
explanations few and far between ...

We just now need to refine our math and knowledge to reflect the true
world--accurately ...

Regards,
JS