At the beginning of his book the author draws attention to the fact that economic science is in chaos and that it can no longer constitute the means of managing economy.
This chaos, the author believes, is the result of sketchy and inadequate understanding of capital. The classics of economy and Marx have formed a school of thought on capital, a theory on capital that seemed to be totally true and final. It appeared that capital as such was thoroughly understood. This has been amply confirmed in practice – in the application of their theories in comprehending the movement of capital and in controlling that movement. Their theories did not, however, foresee that capital would continue to develop (perfecting within itself) and that it would prove itself through that very development to be quite different from their concept of it.
When capital had reached the stage of true development it began to function quite differently, and this was – according to the author – the reason behind the inadequacy, impotence even, of those theories to either explain its movement or to control it. In order to deal with the resultant problems and to forestall damage, economists are attempting to discover a different application of existing theories, or to create their own new, modified ones on the basis of the existing. Since those new and modified theories all fall short of being able to explain matters, they are being propped up by auxiliary theories which in their turn are supported by secondary theories… and so on. The sheer volume of those auxiliary means is rendering contemporary economic science utterly ineffective. It can no longer be aided by refinement of modification of existing theories; there is a need for change of Copernicusian dimensions to put matters to rights.
The economic theory of social ownership is not plagued by such confusion, but only – the author believes – because there is as yet no theory.
Summa oeconomie, economic science today
This article summarizes one of the topics covered in my book Prilog razumijevanju i kritici teorije relativnosti (Contributions To the Understanding and Criticism Of the Theory of Relativity), presenting an analysis of various interpretations of relativistic phenomena and of attempts to conceive an experiment that would make it possible to achieve supra-light velocity.
Well, I’m a professor of philosophy and art history, but from an early age, mathematics and physics were my hobby. In 1968 I started to experiment with levitation devices. It was during 1975 that I got the first affirmative results in the laboratories of "Tehnoloski fakultet" - University of Zagreb. At the time, though, I couldn’t explain the results, and I temporary stopped conducting my research. In 1982 I discovered the "double curved trajectory of a ring mass rotating in a gravitational field", and made calculations based on a hypothesis of gravifugal force that explained my experimental results. After I completed developing the theory I had no further theoretical or technological problems.
If satellites were motionless, they would rapidly plummet to Earth - but they don't because of a magic ratio between forward velocity and the rate at which they fall, giving them a stable orbit at any altitude. This concept captivated Professor Petar Bosnic, leading him to a simple question: could a rapidly rotating ring create lift in the same manner that a satellite remains in free-fall? He joins us to talk about his vision for a new propulsion from the concept of "Gravifugal Force"
Read more about Antigravity and gravifugal force.
All other articles, science papers, etc. are available in their respective categories. Recently published articles are available in shortened form on left side.
Are you having a hard time finding articles. Use sitemap or archive for quick overview,