I am a big egg fan as well. The reason I am so skeptical of academic science just now, despite a long career in science and engineering, is after noticing what looks like a massive hole in research knowledge which actually has always been under our noses, and is fundamental to the disastrous events we are seeing with the climate. When we follow it through, using modern formal Systems Engineering techniques (Developed in Industry), to all the implications, it reveals we are in much greater jeopardy than we realise by established science and education. But worse, it is completely avoidable, and as far as I can tell, the reason it has been avoided is because it looks too religious. I first came across this whilst working on a PhD candidate research program of my own proposal in 2017, which started out looking mostly unrelated, but this issue, which I now call the global energy problem, ended up taking over the course of my whole effort, given that if it is not sorted out, there can never be any real benefit from the outcome of the original proposal, nor any other for that matter. The problem actually stands in the way of so much potentially beneficial technology, it is difficult to see even a fraction of it, if we haven't dug a little into this area of research at all.

So I find myself again questioning almost everything I ever learned about science, through this new lens.

I would love to know the fundamental reason we missed this now glaringly obvious omission.

We never thought to mathematically sign energy, positive when added to Earth, negative when taken out, so as to show that Earth is really just a kind of rechargeable battery which is trickle charged by the energy of the sun, and we are rapiidly discharging it, as things stand, with disastrous effects. When we do this we realise all the terminology of net-zero, renewables, carbon mitigation, and even some forms of currently accepted "Green" energy technologies are actually nothing of the sort. This completely trashes the established view of what the problem is really about, and the full implications of it.

Yet we've had simple batteries since almost the beginning of electrical and electronic circuit theory. We never thought to do an analogy for the energy system of Earth and sun, at least not as far as I know, and I should know, given my background.

So I find myself questioning all kinds of things now. I have become a very inquisitive "Conspiracy theorist" in the eyes of some folk, who can't seem to get their head round how wrong conventional science really is, on the energy problem.

I won't go over all the details of the whole thing here, its a long story, and my reply is already long.

But I do have a question for you directly relevant to your article; what do you think of the work of Rupert Sheldrake, specifically his materials on morphic resonance, of formation of new crystal structures?