There are too many great minds (Tesla being just one) who claim their ideas were "not their own" and simply communicated to them "for whatever reason" to disagree with this point of view.

I sometimes wonder, given Newtown's disposition to go way, way off the beaten path, what EXACTLY he meant by "standing on the shoulders of giants" ... for example, are the "Annunaki" often eluded to on shows like Ancient Aliens to be taken literally? Or are they symbolic in the sense that "they" ... whatever your definition of "they" may be, had certain humans quest for "golden nuggets of wisdom" rather than actual physical gold?

The whole thing could be symbolic in that sense.

But then again, given Newton's penchant for occult studies "who knows" what he meant.

I remember reading an article in Scientific American in the mid-late 90s; the first part presented the idea, the second part was about 50 pages of math that I didn't even try to pretend to understand.

The gist of the idea presented, as far as I could tell, was sort of like a theoretical "Imagine a space ship that could travel much faster than the speed of light all the way to the outer reaches of the universe as we imagine it."

Basically, it was suggesting that another dimension to physics should be considered: on "our scale" but in the furthest reaches of the universe where the ratio of physical matter to space/energy is very different than what we experience here where we are - basically at the very fringes of what we imagine the universe to be.

Basically what was proposed, as far as my recollection was, would be that the universe would be so unstable at it's furthest points, it would basically be one never-ending series of unstable reactions that would affect nearby, more matter-dense adjacent parts of the universe in such a way that the whole thing would just accelerate as it got closer to the center of the universe.

But this doesn't seem to be what actually happens. So the idea was that "something" must be "balancing" the furthest reaches of the universe with some sort of opposite matter/space/energy ratio signature.

The only thing we as humans know that fits this category (assuming you don't buy into adjacent multiverses with exact opposite qualities as our universe) is the part of the universe where we are.

So the idea suggested was that the "outer reaches" of the universe somehow "folds in" to the center; so basically assuming you had a ship of humans that was somehow able to magically make it to the end of the universe, it would have to dramatically change it's physical makeup, as would it's crew.

So it would, according to the article, "be there" AND "here" simultaneously, but in a very different form than what we'd be accustomed to.

And that in my mind just brings up the whole "entities" and "angels" and "demons" and what-have-you that humans have been claiming to communicate with since the dawn of time.

So now what if there are "non-physical" as we are used to "beings" that exist as frequencies at the furthest edges of the universe as we know it - according to this article, from a "physics model needed to explain why the universe doesn't just instantly blow up" perspective - whatever is "there" is also "here" at the same time.