I suspect that Roger Stout set out to try to trash this book without first going through the effort of seriously reading it. This can be readily seen from the word equation that he misquotes. He obviously didn't read the surrounding text with any care to see what kind of a pedagogical bridge I was building via that set of word equations. The point about direct space and reciprocal space that seems to have eluded Stout is that, together, they aoutomatically provide for both the particle aspect and the wave aspect of substance, the two fundamemental but entangled features dealt with by quantum mechanics. The novel approach that I have taken in this book allows one to distinquish these two complementary aspects simultaneously. Furthermore, it is surprising to me that a supposed professional engineer would make the mistake of trying to compare the distance scale of reciprocal space since this is a frequency scale. They do not have the same units of measurement and, therefore, cannot be directly compared, as undergraduate engineers in all universities are taught. If Stout had not been so intent on his "lashing" goal, he might have realized that the very small in direct space corresponds with the very high frequency region in reciprocal space. Likewise, the very large in direct space corresponds with the very small frequency region of reciprocal space. Since high frequency for photons corresponds with high particle energy, he shold have at least seen how the particle size scale in the angstrom and below range match qualitatively with the energetics of fundamental particles. As an illustrative example, if a time domain pattern has a 10 nanosecond interval, then its frequency domain counterpart along the inverse time coordinate would be comprised of a set of waves localized around 0.628 gigahertz for the first band. Likewise, if one has a direct spaces spherical object of 1 angstrom diameter, the first band counterpart in reciprocal space would be comprised of waves in the 6.28 x 10 ^8 cm ^( -1) range. Changing the scale of direct space units that one wishes to use just produces a corresponding scale change of the reciprcal space units one must use. Stout states how much he liked Talbot's book, "The Holographic Universe", yet he seems to have missed the crucial point that the entire basis of holography is wave diffraction. Further, the resultant wave intensity diffracted from any kind of direct space geometrical object can be shown to arise from the modulus of the Fourier Transform for that geometrical shape. He should have learned this in his electrical engineering classes. It is sad that Stout was so intent on trashing this book rather than reading it with an ip mind-he might have learned something useful for his life! As a final comment by the author to this open forum , this book was not in any way casually written, and I know that is is challenging for some readers. However, one should keep in mind tht it was based on 35 years of personal experimentation and thought by an acknowledged world-class expert in several areas of academic science. This same author taught for over 30 years at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, Stanford University, and was selected to be Chairman to study these new areas of human experience. During his industrial and academic career, he has published over 300 peer-reviewed scientific papers in various international journals plus 3 three technical books, all of which have meaningfully aided the evolution of the materials science and materials engineering fields. Can Stout, the trasher, claim as much! In today's world, unfortunately, it seems very easy to trash the works of others. It is much more difficult to constructively build upon them. Roger Stout would be well served by paying more attention to his intenttions than to his misquided logic.