A Challenge for Skeptical Viewers

	The Basic Principles of Conceptualism are all, for the most part, diametrically opposed to the current standard models of scientific academia, which is mired in both: continuing reconciliation discrepancies and proliferating enigmas concerning its own models and theories; thus the need for:
	a . . . Paradigm Shift !

	In various manner, though, in a consistent form, persistently . . . the scientific and philosophical concepts of Conceptualism have been presented to academia since 1955; the reception, with very few exceptions, can only be described as a "thundering" . . . "ignore"ance.
	While Conceptualism was being ignored by academia it was being presented to individuals both in writing, conversation, and debate since its earliest days. In many instances, there was enthusiastic acceptance for what each person understood in consideration of their own experiences. And most always, there was a request for more information. Those persons that had interest displayed diverse and varying concerns; they were an eclectic group . . . pre-school children to a two-time Nobel laureate, many diverse demographic groups, the formally educated and those not as fortunate. The only discernible connecting thread among those that enjoyed Conceptualism appeared to be a lack of elitism, a mind that had not closed, and an overriding concern for: "Why?"

	And, yet, regardless of approach, and there were many over a period of about fifty years, academia refused consideration or debate. Journal publication without academic support was out of the question. The usual request presented to academia was for an informal seminar of graduate students to review the material for any relevance or interest. In general, the presented material challenged accepted concepts of arithmetic and mathematics, the Big Bang theory, Black Hole theory, force unification, and gravity . . . it became evident that there was no place for any alternative theory from outside of academia concerning such heresy. Almost as if academia had forgotten that Albert Einstein was an outsider. Einstein never received a Nobel prize, academia's highest award, for his relativity theories, which are generally considered the foremost theories of the twentieth century; yet, he was recognized as Time magazine's "Man of the Century" (An excellent choice). Einstein continuously resisted many of the theories that became the cornerstones of modern physics . . . including his own theories of relativity, which he spent most of his adult life, unsuccessfully, trying to reconcile with the theories of Quantum Mechanics that attempted to explain the phenomenon of Light. No one understood better than Einstein the limitations of the theory of General Relativity.
	THUS, when considering the treatment of Einstein by the elite, the reason should become apparent for the strong wording within the following challenge to academia and those others that are skeptical concerning the Basic Principles of Conceptualism:

The Challenge . . .

Is to precisely indicate a flaw in observation, philosophical logic, or scientific method concerning the twenty-three Basic Principles of Conceptualism.

Until any of the Basic Principles of Conceptualism are disproved by an amalgamated, academic, peer review, all premises of Conceptualism must stand; thus,

in Conclusion . . .
Among many corollaries; are:

The Equilibrium Theory of Reality is a viable alternative to the Big Bang Theory of creation; and,

Science, Theology, and Philosophy are one.

For those accepting the above challenge, or challenging specific Basic Principles of Conceptualism, the crux of the challenge involves proving that:

Infinity, and/or the infinitesimal, is a locus other than as described.

Or, proving that gravity waves exist, which waves will explain both: action-at-a-distance and the universality of gravitational "attraction."

Or, explain what force, acting in the opposite direction of gravity, is responsible for accelerating, galactic expansion.

Or, providing an alternative etiology for LIGHT other than Conceptualism's premise that Light is a manifestation of Infinity and seminal motion as heuristically described by Conceptual ellipses.

Or, provide an alternative theory that will explain: Why the speed of Light remains constant regardless of the speed or direction of the observer?

Or possibly, simply explain the etiology of phenomena other than LIGHT from which matter is "built."

Or, simply, prove "one."

Another challenge extended since 1955 by Brunardot, that has never been accepted by a peer-recognized and awarded physicist, is to debate that the fundamental forces, upon which all physics' theory is based . . . are not metaphysical.

Click Image for Larger View