phyllotaxis

I'm writing from a phone, unable to write with any depth. See this list of papers written on the topic

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Bayes.pdf http://members.cox.net/dascott3/AppendixB.pdf

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Au...

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclus...

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_...

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals

Look, I've been reading the same science you have been for 25 years. I have excitedly followed every development from Hawkings discovery of black holes to Feynmans physics work to all the various string theory, dark matter, red-shift big-bang, etc...

I've been reading the same things as you have. I believed them too, as far as one can without any hard evidence. Even the people in this line of work tell you they have ideas, but few facts. When I found this, it seemed to actually answer, in a lab, no less, some things that common astrophysics can not explain. And it does it coherently, in a methodology that can be observed in a lab. I love science as much as you guys do, and I think you ought to at least acquaint yourself with the plasma sciences, as they are amazingly explanatory of observed interactions both here and in deep space.

I'm not playing zealot here. Take the info as you will. But when I see a scientific explanation that stands up to scientific-method scrutiny, I believe it deserves to be considered in relation to other hypotheses that claim to explain events in a conflicting way.

People like Galileo? Einstein? Maxwell? Crick? Pasteur?

I apologize for offending sensibilies here. For those that are actually intellectually curious, I ask you to read the data. Read the data. Read the data. THEN make up your mind.

Flatline, read the site. Read the links. I would never spam this site with wacked out bullshit. Look past personality here and read the science of plasma and electricity explaining, repeatedly, many questions that the popular hypotheses simply don't, at least not without creating mathematically abstract "things" that "must be there, except we can't see them, or measure them, or even prove via experiment that they exist. Dark matter and energy, for example. The plasma explainations DO address these things, and to my critical eyes, very compellingly. Just give it your time, and be objectively critical.

EDIT- WHY IS THIS STATEMENT DOWNVOTED? REALLY?

There are huge flaws in the art as it is practiced today. They aren't finding what they're looking for because it IS NOT THERE. Go to the following site, and understand the gap between the fantastic but invented idea-chasers that are currently en vogue, and the scientists that are taking measurements and fitting the results to known phenomena.

This will change your view of modern science forever, and I humbly assert that it should.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

How would you distinguish your approach from, say, StumbleUpon?

This 2 minute chat just rocked my world :)

This is my favorite read all week. Thank you! As an "idea writer" with plenty of notebooks around at all times to capture thought fairies, this is a freakin beautiful way to extend that practice and take it to many levels I hadn't even thought about. I will buy this book as thanks to the author and poster- Cheers-

Related: http://mobile.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07...

I like what he says very much. Perhaps his title is a bit incendiary, but the principles he writes on are very lucid, and I found myself thinking hard about them. Excellent read.

The sentiment is unimpeachable- but the advice isn't. Get the education, and the perspective that come with it- absolutely. But it doesn't require a retreat to academia for several years to gain it anymore.

The internet is the collective knowledge and experience of all humanity. To seek this information is wise and wonderful- but I respectfully suggest that dropping ones life to go back to school, chained anew in debt, isn't necessary for the attainment of that wisdom.

I really loved reading this. I'm in a similar boat, though not at the stage of recruiting anyone yet. Let me ask you this though: are you unconcerned about not having people in a face-to-face environment?

I can't imagine working with someone on developing my/our shared passions remotely. Besides, I communicate far better in person. Is that an unusual position to take, in your eyes, or do you just know what you need from a technical standpoint and choose not to worry about personalities etc... ?

The question that pops out to me after reading your request is what is the role of these people? Are you just looking for contract code, or co-founders? These are two fundamentally different people/groups, requiring two different aproaches during the search for them.

Pursuit of government sponsorship is easier than convincing people to part with their hard earned money by persuasion. A government bureaucrat with a magic bank account called a "departmental budget" filled with other peoples money can be far easier to entice with the latest lame scheme to make the area look good on paper, while adding nothing of genuine utility to the infrastructure.

I agree with the author on this one- it's a waste of money. But is it "entrepreneurial"? Yes. Sad, but yes.

If you didn't bother yourself to read the article, why do you feel anything you have to say on the topic is relevant?

This guy is rather brilliant, methinks.

[Quote]TV didn't kill radio[\quote]

Nope, but the internet is. (i work in radio, BTW)

Can't happen soon enough, if you ask me.

I appreciate the point of this article. I have always felt that the entire purpose of music has been to pass emotion from one person to another in a defined, purposeful way.

I hear songs from 20 years ago, and I am instantly transported to a time or place, or I can feel the presence of friends, or a past girlfriend, or an entire chapter past--it's there, within that song.

Such wonderful power, so important. I think the "industry" has gotten itself confused about the fundamental misunderstanding of just what we pay for. Once they figure out that it isn't for a piece of useless plastic, or some badge of "legitimacy" they attempt to force us to comply with in how we acquire or enjoy that experience, that "industry" will transform back into what it is meant to be- an open conduit for musical communication.

For interested readers, further elaboration on some of the points raised in the article above can be found here.

http://mises.org/daily/5437/What-We-Need-to-Know-about-Money

I think the most important and appropriate follow-up question is: should we focus so hard on dividing and compartmentalizing our relationships?

What will all this filing and sequestering of attributes gain us in the lifetime picture?

This article poses good questions.

This should be read by anyone with the drive to make their own future. I believe passionately in building strong relationships with as many people you can- but having someone that truly shares your type of drive is rare.

I think this article should be as useful to all you current co-founders, too, as a reminder of the elements to work toward in a genuinely symbiotic partnership.

Excellent advice.

One vision is marketing. One is not. You decide which is which. I'm not being sarcastic at all- I wonder if marketing is targeting the low-hanging fruit if college-age kids because they're intuitively easy to imagine being "cutting edge".

Maybe- but I will say they certainly don't have the marketplace of ideas cornered, and a LOT of incredible talent is being left on the table. It will change.

I like the way you think

"Dammit Jim, you're a celebrity, not a Wal-Mart greeter"

My pleasure :) (maybe we'll get lucky and somebody else will develop it for us)

A game where you play Conventional Wisdom Slayer. I'm a fan already :) Shoot some green-smoothie bombs and vitamin D3 bullets at carcinogenic cosmetics and processed food-slimes. Hell yes. (The expansion packs into other false "common sense" domains could be limitless.....)

Get to work!

I think you're on the right train of thought. One suggestion I would offer regards the intended result. How about taking the "set of selfish individual preferences" and route them go a variety of solutions both public and private? Instead of attempting to channel everything through government in a more optimal way, which is a laudable goal, give people more ways to solve the issues that currently may seem confined to government intervention. I view every person as an agent acting in their own best interest. Why not view the answers given as avenues for groups and organizations to market their services to? Maybe you're creating a democratic system that let's people say exactly what they want, and define what they will pay for it.

Again, just musings- but I'm happy to have found you and your efforts.

I love the thought put into this, and I have done years of thinking on similar topics... but let me ask you a point-blank question: do you seriously- seriously - believe for one instant that clarity on majority desire would be any less malleable than it is currently? Do you think that those that are promised free <blank> or tightened regulation/penalty/restriction on whatever their religious or cultural morals dictate would not do as they do now: vote for what benefits them, and ignore the repercussions?

The answer of how to balance a budget is as simple for a government as it is for you and me: don't spend more than you have. So what does your network vote to cut? How can that be peacefully decided? What will those that claim "disenfranchisement" do?

Please understand, I am heartened to see this topic here, and I, like you, want to work toward a better system of government. I just see human nature working against any centralized power system, as those least deserving of the power always work hardest to yield it.

Good conversation. Good group involved. I am glad to see your group thinking on this incredibly important issue.

P