!The Rodin Con Exposed?

To all those familiar with Rodins work, check out this:

farm3.static.flickr.com...

His theory indeed! I counted 17 serious flaws in his work if you'd like me too reel them off, by all means ask.

Heres the first to get you started, vortex mathematics is a rude interpretation of (1500BC) Vedic mathematics. Which is beautifully explained on about.com

hinduism.about.com...

They are the geniuses, check out this little chestnut:

If you want to find the square of 45, you can employ the Ekadhikena Purvena sutra ("By one more than the one before"). The rule says since the first digit is 4 and the second one is 5, you will first have to multiply 4 (4 +1), that is 4 X 5, which is equal to 20 and then multiply 5 with 5, which is 25. Viola! The answer is 2025. Now, you can employ this method to multiply all numbers ending with 5.



[edit on 29-2-2008 by sansiden]

[edit on 29-2-2008 by sansiden]

The language of pattern is worth reading on Mystery mathematics

Originally posted by sansiden
To all those familiar with Rodins work, check out this:

farm3.static.flickr.com...

His theory indeed! I counted 17 serious flaws in his work if you'd like me too reel them off, by all means ask.

Originally posted by nibbler
Originally posted by sansiden
To all those familiar with Rodins work, check out this:

farm3.static.flickr.com...

His theory indeed! I counted 17 serious flaws in his work if you'd like me too reel them off, by all means ask.

Thank you for the link to "his theory indeed" I was not aware of that.
I would like to see the 17 flaws.

I have known Rodin since 1995.

Edited to correct quotes


[edit on 3/19/2008 by benevolent tyrant]

hmmmm.... he never came back to show us the 17 flaws.

come back please.... I don`t care if he is proven or right..
I only search the truth....

but I do hope he is proven wrong or right..
he seems like a very interesting soul indeed.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Maya432]

Hi there, the flaws still remain, here are 3.

1. The theory is'nt his, it is plaigarism, a seriouse flaw for any hypothesis dont you think?

2. Any combination of numbers from 1 - 9 aranged around a circle will display the same degree of symetry, Pythagoras knew it, Manly P Hall knew it, I know it, now so do you.

3. Rodins coil is supposed to show a 60% increase in efficiency, through alternate windings? A coil is a coil is a coil, increasing the density(number and not quality of windings), (so im told) of conductive material is the only way of changing it's properties.

Hey, Rodin is an artist, more like J Pollock than Davinci though

Hi, back again, Rodin IS a con.

If anyone can prove one theory amongst that gibberish ill give them £20 ($35). simple as that. You'd be lucky to find one coherent idea at all.

I will gladly accept £25 to prove him wrong.

reply to post by sansiden


A few years ago I watched a video of Rodin explaining his vortex math theory. I'd like to see one or two flaws pointed out if you still remember them.

Originally posted by sansiden
Hi, back again, Rodin IS a con.

If anyone can prove one theory amongst that gibberish ill give them £20 ($35). simple as that. You'd be lucky to find one coherent idea at all.

I will gladly accept £25 to prove him wrong.

Actually his vortex theory of a contraction, expansion, and wrapping around a toroid is a pretty damn solid theory of the function of the universe, in fact it makes a hell of a lot more sense of the big bang-big crunch theories that seem to have a lot of problems explain exactly HOW the big bang and big crunch happen.

Also the universal toroid design explains the conservation of energy and why energy cannot be created or destroyed it is just simply recycled through transformation of states, again warping around itself.

It explains nicely both the concepts of infinity and finite. The idea there is an infinitely expanding universe is correct only if it wraps around itself much like he explains very well in the vortex model.

Honestly I have very little higher education math or physics but maybe that is why it makes more sense to me than what has been presented thus far in the main stream sense of things. I have a clean slate to build new concepts and ideas from which is essentially what is needed to break away from the pre-built fortified house that is main-stream science. Its very difficult for higher educated people to break down some of their pre-built fortified house of science to allow expansion of understanding in other areas...

There is a level of arrogance in higher educated science that defeats the purpose of science all together. At some point higher education and its "laws" and "rules" influence people to conclude based on those laws and rules instead of actually, observing, testing, and experimenting first. It gives them an "out" to every possible theory or out of the box idea that in turn makes them lazy and text book reciting computers rather than true scientists...

sorry for the rant..