Comment: Completely agree

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I appreciate the thought out reply (see in situ)

Completely agree

I didn't throw out the math. I have a minor degree in math and I love its simplicity and exactness. I also love this trick of non-3's, the tricks of 3's, the trick of 5's and a few others that have been missed by the education system. I merely threw out the unnecessary connections he uses to tie these commonly unknown math principles to those other mystic type attributes I listed. I wasn't denigrating you for your enjoyment of it but merely cautioning against getting focused on this as being new math (it really isn't) or similar things like rodin coils or magnets. They're fun to play with but misleading as to what is really going on.

Sure, magnets have the same attraction (pun INTENDED) in that they're absolutely magical to play with and to visualize ways they can be used to achieve new results, but one must realize that they are not a source of energy or work. They are a high efficiency battery for physical force, that's all. If you push them together, they will yield that same push back apart. Reversed, if you let them attract, you must impart the same EXACT work to pull them apart. This is the case in every configuration, but often times it becomes very hard to find the total of work done on them to get this balance calculated correctly. This means that many people are easily swayed into thinking perpetual motion, over-unity and zero point energy systems can exist. I'm not accusing you of being in that category, but showing that your level of excitement usually results in that thinking.

Is this closed minded? No, I don't think so. I happen to be the most open minded person I know but I also happen to do the most in-depth research on these things of anyone I know too. This has led me to be a very cynical optimist. I'm initially optimistic until I find the trick and then I'm very critical of the person or the process. If I don't find a trick or other downside, then I become an avid promoter. An example is that I'm against cold fusion. Not because there's a trick because I think it does work, but because the equipment, regulation, controls, maintenance and security to make it work in the home would make it more expensive than where solar is heading. Sad to say but cost ranks above the 'free-ness' of energy.

I must commend your suspicion of self reliance being the only solution because mine is similar. In researching and debating that for the last 5 years, I have fostered plans for making every need of the average family completely self sustainable and the majority of wants can also be either self or locally sustainable. This covers all the basics of food, shelter, water, energy and the extras like information, communication, education, security, transportation, employment, government and exchange. I have partnered with those doing what I can't and coordinated with others already working on the rest. Each of them were tackled the same way you are growing your food. Take each step and isolate a problem, solve it by yourself, modify it so as to be locally / independently sustainable, and implement it to test.

There's no magic in any of them. No claims that people can't or won't believe. Put simply, there's no controversy. Even if they could be made to work, that would become an impediment to their adoption. However, to put most of them in place requires that the others be available too. (You can't suggest aquaponics without aquaculture existing first, right?) For this reason, they're taking a little time. But don't worry, it's coming together much faster than initially predicted and when it does, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. PM me if you want any further info.