Edited by author 05-04-2006 12:34 AM
Your imagination is a wonderful tool. The thing is that you must check your imagination's findings. Intuition told Ptolemy's imagination that the world was the universe's center. Intuition also told Copernicus's imagination that the sun was the center of the universe (the known universe of the time, meaning the solar system). Imagination may and should be used to create hypothesis, but hypothesis must always be checked, to see if it can be proven false. In the above case, we have overwhelming mathematical, physical, and witness evidence to support the sun as the center of the solar system. Ptolemy's view explained what was known by the creator of the theory at the time, which may well be true of quantum resonance also. But theory does not only need to explain what is known, since that would then be it's inherent limit. It also needs to be correct, then it would predict things that we don't know, and upon investigation, those predictions prove to be true, increasing our knowledge. Then the theory has at least some truth and cannot just be used as a tool for the known, but also for progress. The death of Ptolemy's theory came when a comet came by earth. The comet obviously did not follow the heavenly crystal spheres Ptolemy supported. Therefore his theory was wrong, and because of that it wouldn't allow for progress, so it was scrapped. Since we do have overwhelming mathematical, physical, and witness evidence stating Matt's quantum resonance to be wrong, it must also.

The people you described used information combined with imagination to imagine what could be true, and then checked it, then built upon it. That is why they have made progress.

The truth is that I have imagined up theories no more correct than quantum resonance. However, I simply checked them and found them to be false, and if any part had merit I kept it and studied it further. The difference with what is happening here is that Matt has posted one of these theories to the public, and portrayed it as true. The problem is not that quantum resonance was thought of, it is what has been done with it. It is incorrect, that really is a fact. But since it has been portrayed in the way it has, people who do not have the specific knowledge in this field have no reason to doubt him. Therefore it is being accepted as truth. The equivalent would be Ptolemy's geocentric theory replacing the sun at the center theory of Copernicus. It is creating a small isolated group that is de-progressing. Since I spend my life for progress, I take serious offense to that, and believe that something should be done.

What you point out with Bearden and the printer support what I'm saying. Bearden would be studying fact to find truth. Matt's quantum resonance niether makes study of fact nor is it truth, in the fact that it does not account for many things that we observe, so it can't be true. The printers you describe actually are something I worked in for a short time. 3D printers themselves are common, and can be found in most university engineering departments and are called rapid prototypers. The part about them making better versions of themselves is the part I worked with. It's called Parametric Invention. The point is that the machine would contain parameters for basically everything we know (which would require quantum computing on a grand scale). That would allow it to use the paremeters to come up with a best possible solution for a problem and make it, or even perform virtual experiment to try to make new parameters for itself, making it able to do more virtual experiment, and more parameters, eventually becoming quite intelligent on its own terms (that would actually be the artificial intelligence I spoke of earlier). The thing is that all of those parameters must be true, and must contain parameters for all the quantum interactions. If one parameter is wrong, then everything the machine "invents" that uses that parameter would work wrong. Again, all theory must be checked, not just thought up, or else it cannot hope to help in the overall of progress. And again, since Matt's theory does not hold up to observation, it must be not used as real theory.

Basically, what you say is right, about imagination. But when theory that is imagined does not work with the facts discovered, it is wrong. All great minds have had wrong theories. The thing is that they checked the theory and found it to be wrong. Matt has a wrong theory, there is no shame in that. Hovever, he needs to stop spreading it portrayed as truth so that it can become a tool of progress. You can only learn from mistakes if you view them as mistake, otherwise you are repeating the mistake over and over.

I agree with most everything your saying, but the point I'm trying to drive home is that imagination must be checked, and Matt's theory does not apply to any of it, since it can be quite proven wrong. For my next post I will try to make a case in as easy as terms as possible for why his theory is wrong. It will be based on fact and indisputable. I don't know if I'll be able to do it in terminoligy and in a general fashion so that it can be understood by the general public, but I will try. It will also probably take some time, and be a very long post. I know my posts are already long, but this one will probably be longer.

Hi there! This forum has seen some dialogue! I think it's great that there's some new food-for-thought. And a lot of it. I agree with some of Bryan's ponts; however, I'm also confused with others.

In terms of agreement:

(1) Thank you for pointing out my mistake with position and momentum, whereas it's supposed to be position and velocity. That's a clear mistake and I missed it. My background is in philosophy and psychology. Although I believe that I understand some aspects of quantum physics, I am not a quantum physicist, and I can certainly be mistaken regarding my understanding. It's happened more than once.

(2) Also, my use of "quantum" (pl. quanta) in application is certainly different than a traditional application in physics. In using the term, I am drawing an analogy which I believe is relevant, and trying to expand upon it. However, from a literal perspective, one could also argue that I am applying the term incorrectly. It is "literally wrong."

(3) Quantum resonance theory, overall, lacks direct evidence for absolute support or rejection. In my opinion, this fundamental weakness of quantum resonance theory parallels similar problems with string theory. Bryan, I would be very interested in how you feel about string theory. Mathematically, string theory appears very promising to some; however, it can not be directly observed or disproven. That's a big weakness, and some reject the theory on the face of it for this reason. (In fact, by definition, one could literally argue that it isn't a theory. I understand this.)

On the other hand, I believe that Rage of Reason has raised a good point in stating that "the entire foundation of mankind's science is based on hypothesis." Sure, we could discuss physics and particle experiments and decide that we "know" what exists through observation. Or we could discuss neuropsychology and question whether we ever "know" what exists because neural activity can produce similar patterns whether we are experiencing something, or remembering an experience, or even thinking about a possible experience. Any interpretation of the "observed" events will depend on your fundamental hypotheses regarding reality. Quantum resonance theory seeks to explain psychological experiences, among other things, as they may relate to physical observations. In doing so, one hypothesis related to quantum physics relates to Bohm's concepts of the explicate and implicate orders. These concepts are also controversial because you cannot observe the implicate universe and the theory appears impossible to prove or disprove. (Again, similar to string theory.)

Finally, this brings me to a major point of confusion. Bryan, you stated repeatedly that the ideas within quantum resonance theory have been explored and have been proven to be wrong. I would love to read an exploration of quantum physics that "disproves" string theory, or Bohm's concepts of the implicate and explicate ... or disproves the assertions of quantum resonance theory. I had thought the theory was far too philosophical at this point; and besides, I did not think that quantum resonance theory made new predictions about particle behavior in quantum physics. (Not yet, anyway.) Please elaborate!

On the other hand, Bryan, if you want to assert that quantum resonance theory is NOT a REAL theory because there appears to be no way to prove or disprove it -- then, from a literal perspective, I agree with you. And I certainly do not present it as "correct."

I repeat: QUANTUM RESONANCE THEORY IS NOT PRESENTED AS "CORRECT." As the most recent abstract (v. 1.3) states, "Lastly, it must be noted that the process of describing quantum resonance theory, itself, implies some separation from experiential truth; nevertheless, like a finger pointing at the moon, the theory suggests many parallels and the potential for reframing and uniting of a variety of disciplines." The theory provides food-for-thought. And I do believe there may be significant merit in quantum resonance theory; and I may be wrong. Each person should consider it critically and decide for themselves.

I look forward to more discussion!

First I must say that this was by far the best discussion I have come across on this topic. It is my hope that it continues and that Bryan continues to insert his input.

There has been no discussion since 07-28-2006 and I would like to read the reply from Bryan to Matt’s last question.

 Everything I have read on the subject (Barnes and Noble, Library, Internet, etc...) Seem to come from two separate thoughts;

1. Physical (REAL SCIENCE)
2. Psychological, Neurological, Biological (REAL SCIENCE), Philosophical

I don't claim to be as learned as Bryan in his field or Matt in his, however I am some one who thirsts for knowledge and is also looking for the truth.

Bryan:
I think you present a very strong argument and I would like to here more from you. You had mentioned that you would explain yourself much better but it would be a lot of reading. I, for one, am looking forward to your knowledge.
But science has yet to accurately explain (the Dare I say it) Consciousness (whatever meaning is used). Which is why I understood Rages’ Brick/Flamingo comment? It could have all the properties of a brick. But if the person, who invented the brick, first called it a flamingo, it would then have all the properties of a flamingo. (Or do I mean Brick.) Stupid argument but a philosophical one just the same, one that has no place in "Physical - Real Science," or does it?
Don't get me wrong I agree with, and understand everything you have written. I certainly hope you continue to educate. As a layman searching for answers, I could easily equate everything I read concerning REAL Quantum Physics with theories relating to Quanta Resonance as applied in philosophy.
 
Matt:
 Presents a very strong argument as well, coming from Psychological, Neurological point of view. Please Matt correct me if I am wrong. Do light waves resonate to our eyes? Does sound waves resonate our ear drum? Are these small waves then deciphered by our brains based on the meaning we put to them. That is, a meaning based on our previous memory and overall acceptance of that meaning given to those quanta resonance?

Now there is where I get confused!!!
.
If everything is energy, that would mean we emit energy?
Do we somehow receive those energy waves others emit through one of our senses, or is it Entropic to Anthropology? (I don’t know if I used it right.)
I understand we are just scratching the surface in our knowledge of DNA, RNA and PROTEIN. Is there something there more than physical?
 How about understanding Consciousness or Sub-Consciousness, Nobel Prize Winner, Eric R. Kandel, wrote in his book; “Francis Crick (Influential Biologist who helped crack the genetic code) ...despite almost thirty years of continuous efforts, was able to budge the problem only a modest distance. Indeed Some Scientist and Philosophers of Mind continue to find consciousness so inscrutable that they fear it could never be explained in physical terms.”

 Bryan, I read the Anthropic Principle. Thanks, time well spent.
  “If the most accurate cosmological principle is anthropic in nature, then it is highly probable that the connection between the forces of the universe and humans also extends to the evolutionary process of humans and the universe to higher-orders of the same basic structure.”
     “Anthropic-Principle.ORG”

Matt, Excellent Blog and great discussions I hope we keep it going. I’ve got so much to learn!!
Thanks
RJVelotti@aol.com

Thanks, RJ (may I call you RJ? RJ Velotti felt so formal...)
8)

I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion. I haven't always been very active in it -- but I've been lucky to have some visitors with cool ideas and more initiative.

Regarding your questions, "Do light waves resonate to our eyes? Does sound waves resonate our ear drum? Are these small waves then deciphered by our brains based on the meaning we put to them. That is, a meaning based on our previous memory and overall acceptance of that meaning given to those quanta resonance?" (RJ Velotti, previous message)

First, I need to emphasize that I am applying the term "quantum resonance" in a new way. And yes, the plural would be "quanta resonance," although the "singular" concept of quantum resonance already includes a singular and collective identity ... I suppose proper usage would depend on context. To be honest, it's something to which I haven't given much thought. I believe that the phenomenon in physics may relate, and I lack the background to explore this possibility to my own satisfaction. (Bryan...?)

Without claiming scientific truth, various theories suggest resonance in the functioning of neurons as well as cognitive models of memory. I expect that this is the best way (yet) to explain these phenomenon. In terms of applying this essential perspective to the physical universe, a classic book that I'd recommend is the Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot; and I would recommend the more recent book, Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. Their perspectives are different, and yet similar. (And of course, there's the popular Tao of Physics, Fritjof Capra; and Dancing Wu Li Masters, Gary Zukav.) All of these perspectives may be mistaken, of course.

Thanks again, RJ. I await Bryan's description of physical processes that disprove my conception of quantum resonance; hopefully, this will deepen the discussion. And it may provide opportunities for deeper understanding.

Thanks Matt

You're welcome

Just a quick adjustment RJ, Francis Crick, while he worked with biologists, was in fact a Physicist... just throwing it out there

Thanks Sean, I always appreiciate the adjusting. knowledge is good, facts are "mo betta" After reading Eric R. Kandel's AutoBiography, I put Francis Crick on my list of interesting people to research. If you are aware of a good books that covers his research and him, please pass that info on.

Thanks also to Matt. I have read Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. good book. I liked it enough to read the others you recommended.

I hope to hear from others with great insight. With "What the Bleep" and now "The Secret" covering "Law of Attraction", which I believe is the same as "CAUSE AND EFFECT", there are many so called "Experts" out there and sometimes truth is twisted to fit a $$$$Seminars$$$$ or sell a movie. My Skepticism, not to be confused with a Pessimist, Keeps me searching and excited about this topic.

Still would love to hear from Bryan.

SUB: COSMOLOGY VEDAS INTERLINKS-BOOKS

The author Dr. Vidyardhi Nanduri
Promotes the unity of science with philosophy

COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY :

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=1019

Presently Cosmology is undergoing REVISION

and BIG-BANG,Dark Matter,DARK ENERGY and Blackholes are all under
question.
Evolution needs to catch up with creation.
These books provide search links,routes and

many COSMOS QUESTIONS
that form links to COSMOS YOGA SERIES as

follow-up.

PURPOSE OF INTERLINKS:
1. The Science of Philosophy: Divinity,

Vedas, Upanishads, Temples & Yoga
2. Philosophy of Science : Plasmas,

Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
3. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier

Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows
4. Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment,

Divine Nature and Harmony

    
FOR Scientists and Cosmologists

Plasma Vision of the Universe :

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=195

Cosmic to PREM -Plama Regulated

Electro-Magnetic Universe :

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=228


FOR Cosmologists
Cosmic Consciousness to Cosmology Revision

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=200

FOR Philosophers
Scientific Essenceof Cosmic Philosophy
 
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=209
NEW-BOOK:SEARCH BEYOND DARK

MATTER-IMPORTANT NOTES.
VISION DEVELOPMENT SERIES IN PHASES COVER –
COSMOS YOGA SERIES-I 10^3 LY-Tamasoma

Jyothirgamyam
BEYOND DARK MATTER BY VIDYARDHI NANDURI TXU1-282-571
JUNE 2005 Copy rights USA - Contact Author


Vedic Vision of the Universe-PartI 1

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=212
        
Cosmology
Vedic Vision of the Universe-Part II Vedas,Upanishads :

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=240
        
For INTEGRATION: Science,Philosophy and Religion
Unity of Consciousness in Science,Religion and Philosophy
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=239
                    
FOR COSMIC VISION: Centre of the Universe
Heart of the Universe-Dec 2006 -Application

Copy Rights
The Science in Philosophy- Pridhvi Viswam Asya Dharineem
Cosmos yoga vision series-II- cover upto 10^5 Light Years

All Books
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/AuthorLibrary.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY :

http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=1019
        
        
Edit Summary:Cosmology,Cosmogony,Space Science,Philosophy,
consciousness,interlink fields,alternate cosmology,
cosmology-vedas,Cosmology Interlinks,Space Exploration,
Knowledge Expansion
Vidyardhi Nanduri
Cosmology for World Peace
ALL BOOKS
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/AuthorLibrary.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=1019
http://cosmologyvedas.blogspot.com/
SPONSORS TO ORGANISE EAST_WEST CENTER FOR INTERACTION ARE WELCOME TO CONTACT
vinandi41@gmail.com

Hinducosmology in consonance with Modern Science
National Seminar-Tirupatti
Feb 10th-11th 2007
ThemeI:Hinducosmology in consonance with Modern Science
Key Speaker:Vidyardhi Nanduri
Theme II :Temples as a matrix of Indian History and Culture
Key Speaker: M.Radhakrishna Sarma
Joint Organisers:Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams.Tirupati
and
Itihasa Sankalana Samiti(Bharateeya),Andhra Pradesh
.............................................................
HINDU COSMOLOGY IN CONSONANCE WITH MODERN SCIENCE
(THE SCIENCE OF COSMOLOGY AND VEDAS: INTER-LINKS)
VIDYARDHI NANDURI*
ABSTRACT
The Cosmic Puzzle attracts Scientists, Philosophers and all mankind in several disciplines in search of divinity of the Human Being and Nature. The present day cosmology has advanced through Explorers, satellites and Galactic probes. Many Noble Scientists have advanced through these fields of sciences : Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmogony to Cosmology, Plasma Physics, Electromagnetic Fields and imaging techniques covering
up to 10^16 Light years (LY). In comparison, the center of Milky-way Galaxy is a spiral within 27,000 LY from Sun. The present day concepts appear to cover the Universe only in parts. Nobel Laureate Alfven (1984,1992) has opened-up a dialogue in search of new
insights through various Philosophies. This search opens up new frontiers in many inter-disciplinary areas of science that help even science to progress.
Vedic knowledge of the cosmic universe inspires many Philosophers of repute and all mankind from a different perspective:
“PURNAM ADAH PURNAM IDAM PURNAT PURNAM UDACHYATE
PURNASYA PURNAM ADHARAYA (ADAYA) PURNAM EVA AVASISHYATE”.
This statement signifies (1) the Cosmic universe is complete energy, (2) out of the northern part emerged a lower Southern Cosmos and (3) the present observational
universe is an envelope emerged out of this southern cosmos. The Milky Way galaxy is
a part of this material cover. The time-phase relation is attributed through “cosmic
junctions” under a cosmic process. The mysterious nature of “cosmos and cosmic function” may become evident if the search is directed to understand the basic attributes of Nature through critical junctions i.e. galactic group junctions, aligned cosmic flow-fields and neutral processes that form the “core cosmic route”. This approach raises few questions:
Is It a Reflecting Cosmos?
Is it a Field Dominant Cosmos?
Is it a Flow Dominant Glowing Universe? Or
All these above in a COSMOS complex?
One needs to search beyond the present domains of knowledge for comprehension and function of the Universe as part of Cosmos. A neutral approach of Data in Nature helps to evolve new models that form interlinks between
(1) the Science of Philosophy and (2) the Philosophy of Science.
1.BACKGROUND.. Sequence of Books
2.PURPOSE OF INTERLINKS:
1. The Science of Philosophy: Divinity, Vedas, Upanishads, Temples and Yoga
2. Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
3. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows
4. Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment, Divine Nature and Harmony
3.THE BEAUTY OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY:
There is no other enunciation except Indian Philosophy in-depth with comprehension that answers many queries about the science of the Universe: Cosmic Universe to Galaxy, Macro-Cosmic to Micro-Cosmic Divine Phenomena as process, Atomic structure to Cosmic Structure, links through `OM' for Core flows, Fields, Reflectors and Sources leading to Cosmic Source as Unity in diverse fields of Intellectual pursuit of knowledge directing towards Cosmic Conscious state of realization i.e. God, Divine function and Human Being in-depth as part of Cosmic Process (Reproduced from Om Vedic Vision of the Universe-part I, 1996)
4.INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSPHY
5.VEDIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW (VISWAM DARPANA DRUSYAMANA JAGATEEM)
6.Uthithista Uthithista Garuda Dhwaja Om Govinda.
7.OM APAH JYOTI RASAH AMRUTAM BRAHMA
8.INFLUENCE ON MAN, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURE
9.VISION BEYOND
10.EARTH'S GLOW AS INDEX TO COSMIC SIGNATURES
11.LIFE BEYOND- COSMOS SEARCH
12.Cosmic String Theory
13.SREE TATVA DARSANA
14.REFERENCES
1 Hannes Alfven 1984,1992 Cosmology:Myth or Science ?
Journal Astrophysics and Astronomy,Indian Academy of Sciences,1984
IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science,Vol20,No 6,Dec 1992
2.Vidyardhi Nanduri,1991,Universal Plasma Energy Model,
IEEE ICOPS-Space-Plasmas-Cosmology
Books:By Vidyardhi Nanduri
ALL BOOKS
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/A...ry.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/author...p?EbookId=1019
..............................
NOTES: Yhose who are interested in the detailed paper
may contact author:vinandi41@gmail.com
Contribution Us $5 will be appreciated to cover mailing charges

i am not sure how i stumbled onto this message board, but seeing as i have and that all of you have seen fit to wright these very long winded msgs. i think it might be nice if someone would try to in simple words, tell me what the hell you are all talking about? is it good for me? will it bring peace to my mind? do i have to take out a loan on someone eleses mind to get it? god i hope there is a simple way that anyone could understand what your talking about. you all go on and on about this or that and who you have read and who you admire. thats all great but if the goal here is to get people involved and have others want to join in the free-for-all. then you had better tone it down. matt seeing as you are both target and hero i think it is up to you to teach me this thing. all other are welcome as well. thanx S.M.

Simple Mind, thank you for your interest. I'm not sure how well I can explain a theory that confuses me, but I'll do my best to say something.

An important aspect of the theory, from a human perspective, would be that we have senses relating to our inner and outer worlds ... and that as humans, in general, we appear to be obsessed with our outer senses, while losing touch with our inner senses. And in theory, our outer (empirical) reality is derived from a larger reality (cf. David Bohm's Implicate Order), and our inner senses are there to relationship with the greater Mystery (g~d, etc.). Moral: Listen to your heart because the universe is alive and trying to tell you something. That's a small but important piece. When you apply this to everything else as a theory of everything (or a grand analogy), then it gets much more complicated. I would also recommend reading the introduction:

http://www.xmission.com/~mkeener/essay04.pdf

I hope that helps in some way.

To Matt C. Keener,
Sub:Quantum Resonance- Search further- INWARD TUNE-IN
One needs to search further- Electromagnetic frequencies, depth of penetration, Inward resonance, Earth's Schuman resonance and to Cosmos YOGA- This helps Vision development links
. Plasma Vision of the Universe (1993) Copy rights USA 1999- BOOK BY VIDYARDHI NANDURI
A Scientific approach towards Seven Dimensional Model of Plasma Electro-
Magnetic Universe.
Plasma Science: Introduction from Laboratory to Space Plasmas
Present day Universe: overall picture by space Scientists
Electro-Magnetic Fields: Frequencies, effects on Man, Environment
Plasma Vision: New approach to Higher Dimensional Knowledge
Over all View: Plasma Electro-Magnetic Universe and Bio-Energy (AURA)
More information to Scientists, Philosophers and others for comprehension,
Vision and perception of the Universe.
2. Next comes from Bilogical frame to Vortex Tube Structure and interlinks
(see Nallimov-Space Time Energy- Book)
A liittle more in-depth ledas to Cosmology Interlinks..see COSMIC TO PREM UNIVERSE-1996 by Vidyardhi Nanduri
Human Being in search of inward truth - before proposing theories
one needs to search a lot of interlinks.
My books provide many interlinks and Cosmos Yoga Vision seriesI- LEAD KINDLY LIGHT (June 2005),II- HEART OF UNIVERSE( Dec 2006) and III (under final stages of Compilation that include Space data)
This Vision from Heart of the Universe provides new meaning to LIFE,
Earth planet under severe strain or delicate balance and Science to advance with Comprehension of Knowledge.
Please do read :Unity of Consciousness that throws open questions-
Evolution to catch up with creation as well.
Thanks for encouraging the right spirit of discssion.
Vidyardhi Nanduri
ALL BOOKS
http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/AuthorLibrary.asp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY
http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=1019
http://cosmologyvedas.blogspot.com/
SPONSORS TO ORGANISE EAST_WEST CENTER FOR
INTERACTION ARE WELCOME TO CONTACT me

Vidyardhi Nanduri,

Thank you for the information; however, we've already seen the links to your books -- which appear to cost money, so your information does not appear to be free? In any case, some discussion would likely be more appreciated on this discussion space rather than advertisements.

I certainly support your interest in this area. Please provide any insights or questions, and perhaps others could dialogue with you.