Thank you, Burton.

I know my qualities. You are reading my qualities. I have submitted many articles and none make it pass the commission.

The problem is not me. The problem is that at the overall (universal) level, we always bump into Rubin's Vase.

When ten million physicists state that the universe is a Vase, and I say that it is the Two Faces, then my articles about the Two Faces are not going to be published.

I have jumped high and low and I cannot get passed the incorrect notions of other people at the collective level.

Right now, I am trying to show the Cyclopic nature of the Big Bang model.

If I show you twenty human faces, but one of them a Cyclops, you'd pick that one out as artificial, unnatural, a fantasy face. You would do that quickly or after five minutes. But you would see it.

Somehow, folks cannot see the Cyclopic aspect contained inside the Big Bang model.

It is difficult to write about it because it is inside your head that I need to operate on your view. It is not impossible, but it takes time, patience. And the success rate of words is rather marginal.

The oldest data is the CMBR and anything prior is a theory. Yet we have as fact that the prior state did indeed establish that result.

How that was done is first of all a structural process. If we do not get that structural process right, then we can also not fill in the data, no matter how correct that data is.

Big Bang model: From A we get B.

Structurally, this is impossible.

One cannot have B that contains distinct features coming from A in a single process. Not possible. That process is a structural Cyclops.

In reality, we must start with A and then have that A do something to that A that undermined A at a fundamental level.

Only after that succeeded can B come into the picture.

The process of A must have produced a divisive situation first before we can have B.

I can't make people see it, Burton. I can't get my work published. No one is interested in the Two Faces. They all think the data shows us a Vase.

Spacetime? Nothing wrong with it. But it is a framework. We should not worship a tool. We can't worship a tape measure and make it more than it is.

I can't make that come across. Folks aren't paying attention to this very refined level.