Plasma for rubbish

[seasmith]

Altonhare,

Sounds like you are adept, and quite possibly successful, in the more concrete and practical side of our spectrum of reality.
Can i assume that your participation on this forum is basically a droll diversion for you ?

~As Boone said to Newman in Hud; "You got a lotta bark on you son."
[and that's a compliment]

s

[altonhare]

Altonhare,

Sounds like you are adept, and quite possibly successful, in the more concrete and practical side of our spectrum of reality.
Can i assume that your participation on this forum is basically a droll diversion for you ?

~As Boone said to Newman in Hud; "You got a lotta bark on you son."
[and that's a compliment]

s

My participation in this forum is an effort to develop scientific hypotheses regarding observed phenomena in addition to developing a sound, contradiction-free philosophy. I am happy to say that I have developed by leaps and bounds partly due to some of the members here. Solar and I have a very healthy and edifying discussion going on regarding the physical mechanisms behind charge, bonding, and magnetism. With Plasmatic's help I have developed a sound scientific philosophy. Webolife and I have a stimulating discussion regarding light, though I don't know if we're on the same page yet or not. My continued participation is a continuation of this development in addition to an effort to help others develop sound criteria for evaluating theories and ideas. It is my estimation that science has reached its current dismal state by the refusal to apply sound and consistent criteria to scientific theories. This has resulted in reification and modern "science" is practically indistinguishable from religion. I would never be able to discuss such ideas in a conventional physics forum, so I came here to a more open minded community. I have presented my method and shown why it is consistent and avoids self-contradiction and absurdity. I can only hope that some have listened and either taken it to heart or developed there own non self-contradictory criteria for evaluation. I'm also happy to offer any technical expertise at my disposal, also, so if anyone wants to learn a bit more about the technical aspects of gasifiers I'd be happy to share that. I wouldn't characterize myself as an "adept", but I get by mechanically.

More than anything else, though, I want people to understand that a theory of physics must be based on physical objects. The theory of the EU needs a physical, causal explanation that it is currently lacking. The rope/chain model *physically* justifies currently unexplained behaviors of light such as rectilinear travel, quantization, and wavelength. In order to resurrect science from the ashes of supernatural explanations the EU must take recourse in a physical hypothesis such as the rope/chain hypothesis.

[altonhare]

I built a biomass gasifier as my senior design engineering project. Automated it and everything. You turned it on and dumped in corn. It accepted compressed air at ambient temperature and output air at around 1000 degrees F. Pretty useful contraption. It's currently being used as a demo/research model for a large-scale biopower plant at North Carolina State's Centennial Campus. I have pictures of it and the final report I wrote somewhere and I'll search for it if anyone's interested. None of the info is really publicly accessible.

So you built a machine which takes in good corn and pumps out hot air? Why doesn't that surprise me/

GC you have yet decided if A is A. When you've come to a conclusion let me know.

[Grey Cloud]

GC you have yet decided if A is A. When you've come to a conclusion let me know.

To hear is to obey.