Thank you, Ken, for your reaction to my article. It allows me to declare the finer point I am making in a few words.

Is it science? The article presents structural thought about scientific information. The answer should therefore be yes, but I understand where you are coming from.

The heart of this article (number 5 in a ten-article series that tries to show how the brain itself is an instrument that needs to be understood before the big picture becomes obvious) is about how the four forces relate. I claim it is more intrinsic than currently considered. Where three forces have been tied together in the Grand Unifying Theory by physicists, the relationship of gravity is not understood. In comes the pyramid in which gravity is presented as the intrinsic outcome of the other forces. The brain has to make the connection; it is not out there in the field itself.

As I see it, scientists are currently looking with a single eye for an outcome all can agree on, and many can therefore not see the connection among all forces. Depth perception is absent (in the scientific realm of thought).

The problem with depth perception is that it is self-evident for anyone looking with two eyes, but people with just one eye cannot be convinced how depth perception plays into the big picture. How to provide evidence for something that is self-evident? I can talk more about it, but I see your short reply, and will leave it at that right now.

So, there is the conundrum, Ken. I do not know how you view scientific information from a structural perspective. Let me formulate it as sharply as possible to take in a clear position: Only if you have a different ToE than a pyramid can you actually claim my information is not science.

Yes, I appreciate your honest and direct reply very much.