Did the ‘Big Bang’ Event Happen?


No scientific theory is beyond improvement or dismissal (if proven wrong). Human scientific understanding has ‘evolved’ over-time, moving toward an ever greater, or more subtle understanding of the material universe. Science deals exclusively with the material universe because it can be seen – either technologically or mathematically – and therefore can be ‘observed’ and ‘measured’. This is even true of the quantum level of existence, which humanity only knows is there, because it has been ‘observed’. An apparent problem at the quantum level, is that it is difficult to ‘measure’ the behaviour of certain sub-atomic particles (termed ‘uncertainty’). Below is an informative video that explains the state of human knowledge as it now stands – this is open to revision at anytime. The ‘Big Bang’ event appears to have happened. The universe is expanding, that is, space itself is stretching (apparently faster than light). As space stretches, the light travelling through it is also stretched. However, logically working backwards through time, it appears correct to say that the universe was ‘less stretched’, i,e. ‘smaller’ than it is today at an earlier time in its existence, and this has been confirmed with photographs taken of when the universe was just 370,000 years old – some 13.8 billion years ago. Furthermore, a definite ‘event’ occurred which saw a highly dense and hot universe suddenly emerge and rapidly expand. The sticking-point for many scientists is whether a ‘singularity’ occurred, and if it did, what was its precise nature? Hot plasma transitioned into a gas state, as hydrogen atoms were formed. Simultaneously, the infra-red light which was trapped was suddenly ‘freed’ to expand across the universe.

The Case for a Mind-Generated Existence


Everything a human being ‘senses’ is the product of bio-chemical electricity traversing the neural network that connects the brain with the spine, and the spine with the body. The body, of course, serves as a mediation-point between the physical environment and the brain-spine nexus. A very real problem exists in the form of the gathering and interpretation of sensory data. Admittedly, this is not so much of a problem if the existence of an external, material world is taken for granted. However, the existence of an external, material world – as a distinct and separate entity to the mind-body that perceives it – is simply a philosophical interpretation of reality, entirely premised upon the agency of personal ‘choice’.  If a thought community accepts without question the existence of an independent, external world, then it follows that all scientific and philosophical speculation and development will unfold ‘a priori’ from that theoretical location. The issue here, is that this ‘theoretical location’, because it has been selected as the ‘preferred’ model of reality, is raised to the status of concretised ‘certainty’, and is taken to exist as a matter of common-sense. In this model of reality, the notion of ‘materialism’ becomes the ‘new’ orthodoxy, and all advances in scientific understanding are assumed to ‘hang’ from it, like clothing on a washing-line.

The ‘real’ world is assumed to be composed of observable and measurable matter, with the inner world relegated to the status of ‘immeasurable’ and ‘unreliable’ psychological processes and fleeting emotionally. All the mind creates is endless thought-patterns (of varying quality) that traverse its psychological fabric, interspersed with often ‘irrational’ islands of ‘feeling’. This is the status of the ‘modern’ mind, which is viewed very much as an extension of matter, or the accidental by-products of biological responses to physical conditions. Neuroscience, for instance, claims that the human-brain evolved merely as a means for early humans to effectively traverse their evolutionary (physical) environments, and that the ability to ‘think’ and to ‘feel’ are the left-over attributes associated with this successful function. However the edifice of this ‘certainty’ is punctured if the existence of a separate, material world is not taken for granted. In such a scenario, how can it be known that an ‘external’ environment independently exists, when its presence is apparently known only from the ‘inner’ biological processes associated with bodily ‘sensation’? The structure and texture of an apparently external, (material) world is in reality only the product of bio-electrical energy flowing through nerve-fibres throughout the human-body (and brain). Through a process that is still not fully understood, ‘consciousness’ is generated, and from this, the abilities to ‘sense’, ‘cognise’ and ‘interpret’.

In a sense, this model of a bio-chemical, bio-electrically generated world within the brain is an alternative ‘materialist’ interpretation that replaces a concrete ‘external’ world with an equally ‘concrete’ internally generated world. The materialistic goal-posts have been moved. Nothing for certain can be known about any theoretical ‘external’ world, because there is no way of gaining truly ‘independent’ or ‘objective’ information about such a world. As matters stand, humanity is perceiving the inner processes associated with its own biological functionality, and mistaking this ‘subjective’ data for a ‘true’ and ‘genuine’ reflection of an ‘external’ and ‘independently’ functioning world. The human-brain is a physical organ that has apparently ‘evolved’ due to environmental pressure, and yet this entire process cannot be known to reliably exist outside of the mind that perceives it. All of this interpretation exists firmly within the material realm, but relocates ‘reality’ within the human-brain, rather than being external to the human-body. If this is correct, then the human-brain ‘generates’ reality through the agency of ‘perception’, whereby nothing truly exists until it is internally ‘generated’ through the processing of sensory-data. An external world only appears to exist as a necessary means to fit-in to the trap of limited human perception. An independently functioning ‘external’ world cannot be known to reliably ‘exist’ outside of the sensory processes that assume its presence.

What of metaphysics? A brain can generate many different kinds of realities if the concrete (material) world is not a priori assumed to independently exist. These models do not necessarily have to be religious, but the idea of religion is obviously not excluded. A mind does not have to be associated with a god-concept, but neither is there any reason for it not to be. Deciding on a ‘mind’ or a ‘god’ is simply moving the metaphysical goal-posts, as in reality, existence is interpreted as being ‘non-material’ in essence. Of course, religious dogma can get in the way of interpreting reality, just as scientific dogma can hinder in exactly the same manner. Is ‘perception’ responsible for reality, or is material existence the product of a ‘divine will’? When the edifice of a separate (material) reality is rejected, then any and all ideas become of an equal validity in essence, and only differ in practical manifestation. Obviously, a religious or ideological fanaticism is problematic for the over-all survival humanity, but for those stuck in this dogmatic reality, the often violent and intolerant structures afford a certain ‘advantage’ over other fellow human-beings, despite the inherent injustices associated with such mindless violence and bigotry. It must be stressed, however, that just as much destruction has been wreaked upon the world by countries that pursue a strictly ‘scientific’ and ‘materialist’ agenda, as has been inflicted by any religiously minded regime. The point here, is the freedom to place one’s awareness exactly where it is needed to generated the maximum ‘meaningfulness’ for each individual (and communal) existence, free of anger and aggression, whilst being full of love and compassion for the entirety of existence. If a mind-generated existence is not motivated by the highest ideals envisioned by humanity, then what is the point of such a reality?

Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) and the Re-Discovery of the Atom in Western Science



Although the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus (460-370 BCE), and his famous student Epicurus (341-270 BCE), speculated that ‘atoms’ existed beneath the surface of conventional reality (which could not be seen with the naked eye), this did not mean that following the ‘Renaissance’ in Europe (and the re-discovery of ancient Greek logic and reason), all Greek ideas were automatically accepted without question. This is the case with atoms. Western science evolved not only from the logic of Greek thought, but also from the rejection of Judeo-Christian theology (and faith) as a means to discern correct knowledge about the universe. Empirical science is premised upon the correct observation and measurement of matter and material processes. The problem with the atom hypothesis was that the existence of an atom had to be taken on ‘faith’, and because of this, many leading scientists in the 19th century refused to accept the idea of an atom on the grounds that its existence could not be confirmed and verified through observation and measurement. This is where mathematics and algebra came into play. Mathematics (and algebra) represent the meaningful arranging (or sequencing) of numbers and letters, so that empirical truths could be revealed about the material nature of reality. Ludwig Boltzmann, being fully aware that atoms had to be ‘statistically’ proven to exist, exercised his particular genius, and developed a mathematical formula which proved the existence and behaviour of atoms. In-short, Ludwig Boltzmann developed what is known as ‘statistical mechanics’. Statistical mechanics confirms the existence of atoms, and predicts how the mass, charge, and structure of an atom will behave. Such an observation determines the physical properties of matter – namely the viscosity, thermal conductivity, and diffusion. Ludwig Boltzmann lived at a time when microscopes were not yet powerful enough to observe individual atoms (or sub-atomic particles), and so had to use the power of representative mathematics to ‘reflect’ a material world that could be ‘predicted’ to exist with the human mind, but which could not yet be seen with the human eye.

Did Albert Einstein Mention Buddhism?


Albert Einstein apparently held Buddhist philosophy in high regard, stating that it represented both a social science and a natural science. Of course, the Buddha was right when he stated that the human mind can only know a certain level of knowledge within its natural state. This suggests that the Buddha was discussing a human mind unassisted by modern technology. Of course, through the use of the mind in a particular manner, technology can be produced that augments the mind’s ability to perceive and understand phenomena, but the mind itself is always hindered by a ‘knowledge barrier’ as suggested by the Buddha. The Buddha not only rejected a society premised upon theism, but advocated a complete revolutionary break with the past. This aspect of Buddhism is virtually ignored in the bourgeois West, or those Asian counties that embrace predatory capitalism. As for natural science, it is well-known that the Buddha explained how it is that a bowl of water is teeming with life so small the human eye can not ordinarily detect such entities, and that other worlds exist in the universe, more numerous than the grains of sand in the Ganges. The Buddha clarified the two ways of understanding the universe, namely through logic and reason, and a properly guided intuition. Both types of mind activity are required for the development and progression of scientific understanding. In 2012, those with a superstitious and irrational mind-set thought the world was going to end because the Mayan Calendar appeared to indicate this. Buddhism rejects the ‘argument from authority’ premise, and has a much broader concept of time and space (very similar to modern science).

However, in the West there seems to be confusion about whether Albert Einstein really did praise Buddhism, or consider it a ‘scientific’ philosophy. As Western sources all seem to be copying one another’s lack of knowledge on this issue, I have accessed the Chinese language internet to shed some light on this matter. These are the observations, quotes and attributable sources that I have found, gathered from the work of Chinese scholar Fu Dujun (杜福君) [https://www.zhihu.com/question/24587915]:

1) ‘What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.’

Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side – The Chinese author states the phrase containing the word ‘Buddha could be found, but nothing relating to ‘Buddhist’ or ‘Buddhism’.

2) ‘The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism….’

Source: Albert Einstein, quoted in Madalyn Murray O’Hair – All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists (1982) vol. ii., p. 29 – The Chinese author states that this quote cannot be directly attributed to Albert Einstein – and was probably a product of paraphrasing, condensing and re-imagining a number of known Einstein quotes about Buddhism – as conceived by Madalyn Murray O’hair.

A further note states: A reply from the Einstein Archives of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem states: ‘The quote under discussion which I know is quite ‘popular’, appears to paraphrase some ideas Einstein developed in an essay titled “Religion and Science”, written in 1930. Here, Einstein mentions the “cosmic religiosity” (not religion!), Buddhism, and a belief that avoids dogma and theology.’

3) Einstein’s knowledge of Buddhism comes mainly from Schopenhauer. There is no evidence that Einstein understood Buddhism in its Asian cultural context, or through its broader philosophical implications.

4) Basically, it is clear that Einstein possessed a positive attitude towards Buddhism. In fact, many scientists also have a positive attitude towards Buddhism, but this does not necessarily mean that Buddhism can be of any direct assistance to scientific research, or represents a philosophy higher than science. It is more the case that Buddhism’s understanding of the world seems to be in line with the scientific method. Like science, Buddhism opposes dogma (and agrees with dialectical research), but Buddhism is generally more tolerant toward different types of thinking, than is mainstream science. In-short, the Buddhist integration of wisdom and tolerance allows people to feel good. It should also be noted that this positive attitude of modern science toward Buddhism is ‘generic’, as most scientists (including Einstein) rarely have an in-depth understanding of Buddhist philosophy, and usually do not agree with the concept of re-birth (or reincarnation), as found within popular Buddhism.

Chinese Language Reference Articles:




How the Big Bang Continues to Defines Human Existence


The Universe Just 370,000 Years Old

The universe began from an event which human understanding knows to have happened, but which is difficult to define. Space and time suddenly emerged for reasons unknown, within a infinitesimally small area, and suddenly expanded, releasing immense light energy and heat (i.e. ‘inflation’). This process was not an explosion in the conventional sense, as an ordinary explosion requires a change of pressure. The above photograph shows the process of the ‘big bang’ from year 0 – 370,000 years (around 18.7 billion years ago). This is a hot ball of plasma, within which areas are beginning to cool and condense into solid matter. This process produces matter as light energy slows down. This matter has been thrust outward at tremendous speed, and over-time, has created the physical universe (the earth was formed around 4.9 billion years ago). When matter is formed, gravitational force is generated (as a side-effect) which pulls all galactic objects into a rounded shape (due to gravity operating in all directions). Gravitational pull generated by a sun, for instance, also sets the orbits for all the planets (and other objects) to circumnivigate through, in any given solar system. The entire universe appears to rotate around a theoretical centre-point at the heart of existence. As matters stand, human science does not know what caused the big bang, or what exists beyond the light horizon. As there is no data to analyse, or experiments that can be carried-out, everything beyond this point of understanding is purely speculative (with one theory being as valid as anyother). The big bang was probably not a ‘big bang’ – as nothing seemed to exist before this event – or exist in a manner that humanity can currently perceive and understand. Why and for what reasons the physical universe emerged are unknown, but one-day this will be known. There probably is something beyond the light horizon, and there was probably some kind of existence prior to the emergence of the physical universe. Or, it might be that concepts such as ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’ have no ultimate meaning, and that humanity is looking at existence from an incorrect interpretive position, or utlilising a flawed logic. What is known, is that space at this current time is beginning to speed-up in its expansion rate, and that this expansion of space will continue forever, or what humanity perceives to be ‘forever’. If multiple universes exist, it could be that the universe that humanity inhabits is just one amongst many, with each having its origin through a ‘big bang’ event. As human science is premised upon immutable laws, its understanding is limited to the observation of light. If material (of whatever kind), exists beyond what humanity can see through the observation of ‘light’ (i.e. the ‘light cone’), then as long as human science remains focused upon the observation of light, any reality beyond the light horizon will remain beyond what can be observed and measured. The human universe can probably be defined as having a boundary – the true extent of which cannot be observed through the measuring of light – but it might also be true that the pattern of material universal existence could be repeated infinitely throughout reality, so that there could be many such universes. This feeds into the multi-verse theory and the idea of parallel universes. The point is that anything and everything could have happened before the big bang, but it has been the big bang that has served as the basis of the material reality within which humanity exists and has evolved.

Assessing Baryonic Matter, Dark Matter & Dark Energy – the Building Blocks of Existence


The current state of human scientific knowledge suggests that the majority of the physical construction of the universe is actually comprised of a substance that cannot, as yet, be directly observed using the most advanced technology and methodology. The majority of ‘stuff’ in the universe (multi-verse) certainly cannot be detected with the naked human eye – but it can be predicted to exist through the correct and disciplined use of the human intellect and imagination. Imagination is an important part of advanced scientific thinking, but its function is often down-played or ignored when scientific processes develop into sound theories that nolonger require ‘speculation’ to fill-in the gaps in knowledge. Of course, this might be because the human capacity to ‘misuse’ the imagination can get in the way of the scientific method, and lead the entire process away from the desired objective. Whatever the case, the constitution of the universe (multi-verse) currently looks like this:

a) 4.9% ordinary (Baryonic) matter

b) 68.3 dark energy

c) 26.8 dark matter

Human beings have evolved around perceiving the 4.9% of material stuff that comprises their immediate environment, although it is speculated that dark matter and dark energy may well be everywhere. If this is correct, then it is curious that throughout human evolution, the ability to ‘see’ these material substances was not developed – probably because the perception of these substances had no direct impact upon human survival. Another way in which these ‘unseen’ substances are known to be present is through the effect they appear to have on objects moving through what was once thought to be ’empty’ space. There appears to be a ‘gravitational’ effect on objects moving through apparently ’empty’ space that should not be happening if space was in fact ’empty’. The human intellect has devised mathematical formula to demonstrate the ‘presence’ of these still ‘theoretical’ material substances. Although the Buddha and a number of ancient Greek philosophers used their minds to state that in all likelihood perceivable matter could be comprised of ‘atoms’, it has been the development of scientific technology (as an extension of the human mind), that has allowed for the perception of sub-atomic particles, and for the detection of different types of matter and energy. The following documentary presents a very good over-view of the current state of human knowledge in this area:

The Material Basis of Quantum Mechanics

Quantum theory is an extrapolation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the study of the construction and functionality of low level physical matter. It is not a theology, a metaphysics or a spirituality. Without quantum mechanics – that is the mathematical analysis of low level physical matter – there can be no quantum theory. Quantum theory in its strict scientific manifestation, has been taken by idealists and adapted and adopted to serve all kinds of disembodied thinking – effectively the process of distorting hard material science to justify theological thinking – or the exact opposite of what scientific thinking is supposed to be. The reason this happens is because the implications of quantum mechanics (essentially the paradoxical idea that light energy can behave as either a ‘wave’ and a ‘particle’ – but never at the sametime), suggests that low level reality is different from that of macro reality as described by classical physics. As classical physics serves most human needs within macro reality (i.e. the everyday world), the low level world of quantum mechanics gives the impression to the ordinary mind that there are two radically different realities functioning simultaneously. This suggests ‘nothing is certain’, and this idea has been incorrectly used to allow for theology to be used as a consequence of this paradox – but this is illogical. Theology is not a product of science and remains ‘unscientific’ from beginning to end – and this remains the case regardless of the extent of the development of scientific understanding. The way the human mind is used to develop science, is very different from the manner in which the mind has been used in the past to develop theology (with its accompanying mythology that its theistic content was somehow developed ‘outside’ the mind that conceived it). The reality is that the micro (low level) world of quanta (or small pockets of energy), and the macro world of everyday life do reconcile – albeit in a manner that is not yet fully understandable to the rational mind. This is an ongoing process of scientific development and discovery. Even if it is allowed that human perception somehow ‘adds’ to the phenomenon being observed – there is no evidence that this process exists outside the world of physical matter. This would suggest that ‘consciousness’ (used as a back-door into science by religionists), is not an entity ‘separate’ from matter (like a theological ‘spirit’ or a ‘soul’), but is rather part and parcel of an integral aspect of material existence. Whatever consciousness is – it does not lie ‘outside’ of the realm of material existence. This is because it is incorrect to associate ‘consciousness’ with a theological concept of ‘soul’. Why this happens is curious, because even within theological teaching, it is clear that a ‘soul’ is very different from humanity’s ‘ordinary’ conscious awareness. Modern science does not speculate beyond the logical analysis of physical existence – whereas the entire premise of theology is that it speculates about what might lie beyond the boundaries of material existence. Both systems of thought are completely different and cannot be reconciled without one over-coming and subsuming the other. The theories that underpin quantum mechanics are scientific and not theological. Conscious awareness – regardless of its origin, nature and functionality – is not a ‘spirit’ that stands in opposition to physical existence. Therefore, it logically follows that quantum mechanics – regardless of its paradoxes and implications – cannot be used as a substitute for theology. Once the material basis of human consciousness is fully understood and appreciated, an in-depth study and analysis of its implication and functionality can be ‘scientifically’ pursued outside of the limitations that theological understanding suggest and impose. Without firmly separating the study of evolutionary consciousness from theology – the true extent of the power of the human mind will not be fully understood.

The Pseudo-Science of ‘Dr’ Lissa Rankin – Publicity Over Common-Sense!


The woman in the video link below, is a con artist, possibly insane, and definitely criminal in intent. If you are ill and refuse modern medicine – then you will get worse and if the ailment is severe, you will die. This woman wants you to buy her book and she is willing to propagate a very dangerous New Age myth to convince you to part with your money. Further, as a White middle class woman, she has no respect for the working class, or understanding of their historical conditioning. She does not recognise that poor people are ill because they inherit bad health from their ancestors, and that the only way to eradicate this bad health amongst ordinary people is not to sit there lovingly staring at a crystal – but rather to instigate a system wide and free at the point of use healthcare system. This woman reminds me of those HIV-deniers who were diagnosed with HIV-AIDS and then went around earning a living on the lecture circuit ‘denying’ their diagnosis – until they finally died from the disease! This woman is catering to the rich by perpetuating the myth that will-power can heal illnesses – this is scientifically ridiculous. Modern medicine (or even ancient medicine) exists to cure human beings of their ailments. Positive thinking is fine for people with minor ailments, or who are perfectly healthy, but it is of no use to someone who is already ill and in a bad way. This is just a new form of ‘faith’ healing and should be avoided at all costs. Lissa Rankin has realised that she can earn more money from her rich, middle class clients by selling them a myth, than by treating them in the operating room. The way for society to advance, medicine must be developed to its highest degree, and administered ‘free’ to the populace. Rankin simply diverts away from being a GP to being an amateurish psycho-therapist talking bilge. Of course, as a beneficiary of the unequal and unfair capitalist system, Rankin is not interested in critiquing the capitalist system – which is the psycho-physical basis of ALL modern illnesses. This woman is making money out of other people’s suffering – end of story. Human beings eventually manage to fight-off certain ailments not through faith-healing, but through evolutionary development. Whatever the case, it is science that progresses humanity – and not wishful thinking. The mind does not heal the body – the body heals itself through cause and effect. Quite often changing the physical environment will alter the manner in which the body functions. The mind – being part of the physical body through the brain – is not separate from the body, but is part of the processes of that body. A peaceful environment creates a calm mind and a relaxed body. The mind can cognise and perceive, and allow the individual to pursue healthy lifestyles, or unhealthy lifestyles, but there is no legitimate scientific evidence that it can change physical chemistry by an ‘act of will’. Malfunctioning Body chemistry is altered by medicine, change of lifestyle habit, or change of environment, and nothing else. People get better because their body chemistry changes, and not because they think ‘nice’ thoughts.


What is Spiritual Bliss?


Within Buddhism, the realisation of a ‘still’ mind is also accompanied by a sense of psychological completeness and physical tranquillity. What is this feeling of bliss? Over the years I have experienced this bliss many times during yoga relaxation and seated meditation practice. Although many spiritual practitioners ascribe to the notion that something ethereal is ‘entering’ their mind and body from the outside universe, I do not subscribe to this interpretation. This is because my experience during these ‘peak’ times, is that of a body-wide set of very subtle but precise muscular contractions, that are default set to achieve a sense of ‘bliss’ in the body. This feeling of physical bliss has a corresponding psychological reaction that ‘mirrors’ this experience as a profound sense of well-being in the mind. Given that this ‘bliss’ experience does not enter from ‘outside’ the body, what is its physical origination? It seems to be linked to the pleasurable muscular contractions experienced during sexual intercourse – minus the orgasm – which is further linked to the childbirth process. This area of physical evolutionary development appears to be where the experience of spiritual bliss originates. It is, therefore, a category error to suggest that this obviously ‘physical’ experience has a ‘non-physical’ origination. It is perhaps ironic, that a spiritual practitioner must spend long years in celibate practice before this (sexually related) experience is triggered. Just as a pregnant woman giving birth experiences a naturally changing brain-wave frequency (to facilitate the psychological and physical birthing process), it could well be that when a meditator reaches (artificially) exactly the same mind-frequency level (as a pregnant woman in labour), this muscular contraction response is triggered (even in men) and experienced outside of sexual intercourse and child-birth. When experienced through spiritual practice, this ‘bliss’ appears to facilitate a sense of ‘oneness’ (despite the isolatory nature of most spiritual practice). Whereas a pregnant woman may experience a sense of ‘oneness’ with her baby and partner – and a lover a sense of unity with their beloved – a spiritual practitioner experiences a sense of ‘oneness’ only with themselves, quite often justified as being part of an ‘imagined’ universe.

Kirkaldy Testing Museum – London (2.7.2017)


Kirkaldy Testing Museum

We arrived on the Tube – one form of modern technology – as a means to take our children to the Kirkaldy Testing Museum in Southwark, London. This is the home of a magnificent and still functioning Victorian era, scientific measuring machine, which was designed by Scotsman David Kirkaldy (1820-1897) and eventually stationed in a purpose-built London factory (the site of the museum today). In fact, Kirkaldy entitled his device ‘Universal Testing Machine’ (weighing 116 tons), which although premised upon leverage, pulleys and weights, was actually water-powered.  Any substance could be put under a pulling or pushing pressure to see how much poundage it could take before ‘snapping’. In the case of wrought iron, this was very important for buildings, bridges and other structures that were reliant upon iron -girders for their stability and correct functionality.  One of the volunteers – Roz Currie – helped Mei-An use a similar but much smaller machine (made in 1926) which usually tested the strength of parachute cords. Mei-An tested a piece of nylon-type string used to wrap packages sent through the post. the string snapped at 200 lbs of pressure! David Kirkaldy’s motto was: ‘Fact not opinion.’














































%d bloggers like this: