It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 101
39
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


So he was posting an ad hominem.




posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by arbiture
hear the cafeteria even offers organic produce. Is this true, or just a cruel rumor?


I'm just back from there 15 min ago, I didn't specifically see organic produce, it may exist on some shelf. You can always Google CERN restaurants, they offer their menu on the Web.

But the pate they have at the salad bar rocks. I break my vegetarian routine here just because of that.


Well, thats good to know. You break the vegetarian motif on occasion too? Hate to admit it myself but for me giving up booze, that was easy. Giving up meat is hard! (Oh, I'm soo pathetic)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I was writing Fortran IV in 1975 at 14...does that count??


but that was in a computing class at lunchtime once a week for kids interested in that stuff....which I wasn't really & never followed up until I had to do more Fortran in Engineering school 10-11 years later (I had time off to become an aircraft mechanic).

My eldest son could write in 7 styles (including variations of basic & visual basic) when he was 7....now I swear he's more literate in any code than in English!!


Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


So he was posting an ad hominem.


I thought he was expressing exasperation.

Perhaps you could ask him??


edit on 19-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Denying a theory at first is one thing; firing a reporter and publishing a scathing editorial is something else.
What was the name of the reporter that got fired? I missed that. And is this the scathing editorial to which you refer?

invention.psychology.msstate.edu...

Some scholars believe that the Wright brothers themselves were complicit in engineering secrecy from the media, especially prior to 1906 when they got their patent.

Wright Brothers

They invited reporters to their first flight attempt of the year on May 23, on the condition that no photographs be taken. Engine troubles and slack winds prevented any flying, and they could manage only a very short hop a few days later with fewer reporters present. Some scholars of the Wrights speculate the brothers may have intentionally failed to fly in order to cause reporters to lose interest in their experiments.[57] Whether that is true is not known, but after their poor showing local newspapers virtually ignored them for the next year and a half.
What is known is that they were very concerned about having their invention stolen by competitors so they were very careful about who they let see it.

So when Wade Frazier writes:
www.ahealedplanet.net...

The Wright brothers did not listen to the "experts" and flew at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina. They returned to their bicycle shop in Dayton Ohio, and continued refining their airplanes. They wrote to newspapers and politicians, inviting them to come see human-powered flight, and even sent out pictures of their planes in flight. They were ignored.
I think he's painting a very distorted picture. While the Wright brothers indeed invited reporters to the test flight that was unsuccessful as just noted, some scholars believe they planned it that way to get the reporters off their backs. My research has indicated that they were doing everything they could to keep reporters away, possibly including sending them an invitation to a failed flight attempt to discourage any further media interest.

My reason for pointing this out is, that it lowers Wade Frazier's credibility to me when his context gives the impression that they invited reporters but they just didn't show up. The reporters did show up, and the flight failed, and that's why the reporters lost interest. So when he makes such a misleading presentation of history regarding the wright brothers, his credibility is already low enough that when he talks about some un-named acquaintance seeing free energy and gravity, we can put his credibility in perspective.

However I don't deny that science resists paradigm shifts. The timeline for the paradigm shifts, of manned flight from say 1903 to 1908, and acceptance of relativity from say 1916 to perhaps 1919 or 1922, was roughly half a decade give or take. That doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me, when I study the history of those events. Now if you use that half a decade as a yardstick to compare when we should have seen a paradigm shift from free energy inventions of any of the folks on your list, they are way overdue, especially Keely at 130 years!


Perhaps TPTB think it's not in their best interests to murder Rossi. Do you think they have to murder everyone that is important in free energy for the allegation to be true? Is that the extraordinary evidence you demand?
I'm just trying to understand how you manage to sort out all these seemingly contradictory observations in your mind, that's all. One guy claims TPTB suppressed him for free energy, and another free energy guy seems to have no suppression at all from TPTB. If your intuition you like to rely on isn't sending up red flags about the inconsistency of these events, I'm not sure what good my answer will do, but of course I don't want to see anyone murdered.
edit on 19-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What was the name of the reporter that got fired?


The name of the reporter was not mentioned in the interview.


And is this the scathing editorial to which you refer?


That is the article that Frazier posted, with the caveat that the website that hosted the article has the date of the article wrong, the correct date being January 13, 1906.


I think he's painting a very distorted picture.


I think you're jumping to conclusions. Frazier looks to me to be a good researcher. He lists extensive footnotes.


I'm just trying to understand how you manage to sort out all these seemingly contradictory observations in your mind, that's all. One guy claims TPTB suppressed him for free energy, and another free energy guy seems to have no suppression at all from TPTB. If your intuition you like to rely on isn't sending up red flags about the inconsistency of these events, I'm not sure what good my answer will do, but of course I don't want to see anyone murdered.


All these seemingly contradictory observations?

Anyway, what you seem to be indicating is, it's all or nothing. If they're not all murdered - there's no fowl play in evidence regarding free energy pioneers.

Things are not that cut and dried.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I was writing Fortran IV in 1975 at 14...does that count??



Yes, my friend.


but that was in a computing class at lunchtime once a week for kids interested in that stuff...


We had special curriculum and there were regular classes a couple of times a week, but we were only having access to the actual machine like twice a month (there were few in these times), it had 4k words memory (ferrite core) but it was 32 bit words! Used mnemonic for assembly and it wasn't really hard.


.which I wasn't really & never followed up until I had to do more Fortran in Engineering school 10-11 years later (I had time off to become an aircraft mechanic).


I've done tons of it throughout my career, and most recently as little as 4 years ago, granted it was in a macro form so a kind of a dialect rather than real f77.


My eldest son could write in 7 styles (including variations of basic & visual basic) when he was 7....now I swear he's more literate in any code than in English!!


That's a scary thought!



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hello there,
Just wanted to comment that as I understand it, Rodin is looking for the pattern of the doubling circuit.
the numbers (1-9) are placed on a circle and lines are connected between 1->2->4->8->7->5 (and back to 1.)
so when he says 16 = 7, what he means is that when you double 8 and get 16, you can traverse the circle starting from 9 and count 16 sections until you land on the 7, or you can take the shortcut and just do 1+6 = 7.
that's all. The pattern stays the same.

Jonathan



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jodagm
 


Jonathan,
as others commented, there are a few of arithmetic properties of number 9 that are quite interesting. So?
It doesn't cause any "implosion of time-space" or anything else of this kind. There is no magic energy released, there is no "more efficient path" for electrons to follow. it's all essentially a lie. That it was committed by a marginally insane person does not make it a truth.

edit on 23-10-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jodagm
so when he says 16 = 7, what he means is that when you double 8 and get 16, you can traverse the circle starting from 9 and count 16 sections until you land on the 7, or you can take the shortcut and just do 1+6 = 7.
that's all. The pattern stays the same.
So let's say you go into a fast food joint and the bill comes to $4.

You hand the cashier a $20. You're expecting $16 in change. But he hands you $7.

You ask "Where's the rest of my change"?

He pulls out this wheel

And he explains that 7 and 16 are equal to each other because "when you double 8 and get 16, you can traverse the circle starting from 9 and count 16 sections until you land on the 7, or you can take the shortcut and just do 1+6 = 7"

So do you agree with the cashier that 16=7 and just accept the $7 in change?

Or do you try to convince the cashier that 16 does not really equal 7 no matter what he does with that wheel, and he should really give you $16 in change?

And if your answer is that you would accept the $7 in change, then I could also understand why you might believe that transaction just cured all disease. But hopefully, you are smarter than that.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I can appreciate the sarcasm, but in this case your analogy is incorrect.
You think linear, as if you have x/y axes and the cents value increments by the value of 1 cent diagonally. That circle is modeling 3D space and the doubling circuit is tracing a logarithmic spiral, which MR claims to depict the movement of all mater in the universe.
So, if you think again about 8 doubled to 16, using the pencil in the image you posted above, you would start from 9 and go around the circle a full cycle, then the 2nd cycle would end on number 7.
This does not mean that 7 and 16 are equal in 3D, saying that would not be a logarithmic spiral. Once you imagine the spiral you immediately see how 16 and 7 are the same. It is like you zoomed out of the original circle and now you have a new circle, double the size and your 16 is where your 7 would be on the smaller one.

Here is a short clip on a different subject, but on 2:30 they show how Fibonacci series models a 3D logarithmic spiral.

www.youtube.com...

MR shows in another video how any Fibonacci series, when reduced to single digit, show the pattern of the doubling circuit. I will try to look it up and post it here.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jodagm
when he says 16 = 7, what he means is ...



Originally posted by jodagm
This does not mean that 7 and 16 are equal in 3D...


So is 3D the world we live in? And are you agreeing that 7 and 16 are not equal? So therefore you wouldn't accept the $7 in change rather than $16?

And no I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious. When Rodin claims that two numbers or expressions are equal to each other, in mathematics that has a meaning.

What you seem to be saying is that there is some kind of relationship between the numbers 7 and 16, but they are not equal. Correct?
edit on 24-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Let's take a step back.

I get the feeling that it is more important for you to prove me wrong than to hear me. You are quoting me as if to show contradictions, while what I am trying to do is approach the answer from a different angle.

We are using a language (English) which is not as accurate as mathematics. In other words we say "Equal" and write =, and we think it means the same thing. MR uses "Equals" to mean "sameness" in the sense a small fractal is the same as the bigger fractal. Of course that in many senses they are different, but lest agree that in some senses they are the same. Let's go out from the things we do agree upon rather than those we disagree.

So if we have a fractal pattern that we want to investigate. Soon enough we understand that by zooming in and out we encounter the "same" shape. It may be in different ratio, however, it is the shape that we are interested in. when an electron is moving in a logarithmic spiral through space; it goes through a very specific self similar path that grows from the center of the vortex outwards. This is what that 1-9 circle is trying to represent. It is the underlying pattern of logarithmic spirals.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jodagm
 

This thread is about mathematics. And the term equal has a definite meaning in mathematics, whether you use the = symbol or write the word.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm trying to get you to admit Rodin is wrong, when he says all multiples of 9 equal 9.

And here is the explanation he writes to explain how all multiples of 9 equal 9, and I don't even see the word fractal, but there's plenty of delusional nonsense in the description.

markorodin.com...

For example, how is the number nine the missing particle in the universe known as Dark matter? How is the number 9 even a particle? If I type a bunch of 9s om my keyboard, does this create an excessive amount of dark matter will it create a black hole which will swallow the earth and our entire solar system? Does that even make any sense?

I got that paper from his website but that link to the paper doesn't work anymore, though it might work on the wayback machine.

Also, I read Mandelbrot's book on fractals, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, and he doesn't abuse mathematics or the definition of "equal" to communicate his point. There is no need for that. He came up with fractal mathematics as far as I know.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thank you for bearing with me.

I am willing to admit that Rodin is wrong in the sense that he is using the term Equal not as conventional mathematician would use. Rodin admits this himself, saying he is a sitting duck for conventional scientists' mockery, because he is using the terms with different meaning. Rodin was not educated in any faculty of mathematics. He came to his finding from spiritual search and investigation of the most great name of God, as defined in the Baha'i scripts. That sure sounds crazy and unscientific. But the fact remains that in order to fully understand his work one must put down everything he thinks he knows about mathematics and physics.

So it takes us back to the debate about the definition of the word Equal, which although interesting in itself, is not as interesting as trying to truly understand what Rodin means when he uses that term.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jodagm
 


I think it's balls. I understand what he means with his imprecise language, but I don't think he understands that there is nothing magical about what he's doing. All multiples of 9 have digits which add up to a number divisible by 9 and if you do the same thing continuously till you get a 1 digit number you will end up with 9. It's called the divisibility test. Similarly all digits of a multiple of 3 add up to a multiple of 3 and if you keep doing it till you get a single digit number you will end up with 3, 6, or 9. With 9 you only get 9 because it's the lowest single digit multiple of 9. Base-10 is arbitrary, so his trick is not the secret of the universe.
edit on 24-10-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jodagm
 

Thanks for admitting that.


Originally posted by jodagm
But the fact remains that in order to fully understand his work one must put down everything he thinks he knows about mathematics and physics.
Physics uses a tremendous amount of mathematics. And we have numerous models that make accurate predictions about our universe.

I am willing to set all this aside for a model that makes better predictions about our universe than the existing model. In fact numerous posters have asked for this kind of evidence numerous times in this thread, but nobody has offered any evidence that Rodin's work has any basis in reality at all, nor can they describe how it will lead to any of these things:



So I can't see any logic in abandoning models which are useful and make accurate predictions with tons of evidence to back them up, in favor of a model which has zero evidence to back it up.

As Carl Sagan said, "It's good to have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out". To believe that the number 9 is the particle known as "dark matter" requires more than just the brain falling out. Even if you forget all the math and physics you ever knew, that "9 is the dark matter particle" claim still doesn't even begin to make sense. Where is the evidence that 9 is the dark matter particle? What is the mass of the number 9? How many number 9's does it take to equal one solar mass?

It's not that I'm unwilling to set aside the math and physics I know for a better model, I am willing to do that if the better model does a better job of explaining observations and experiments.

But nobody has provided any evidence that Rodin's model is any better, nor for that matter that it has any connection to reality.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jodagm
when an electron is moving in a logarithmic spiral through space; it goes through a very specific self similar path that grows from the center of the vortex outwards. This is what that 1-9 circle is trying to represent. It is the underlying pattern of logarithmic spirals.


When, why and how does the electron move "in a logarithmic spiral"? What about other types of particles?

And how does the oscillating magnetic field of the donut-shaped coil leads to "implosion of space-time"?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I am willing to set all this aside for a model that makes better predictions about our universe than the existing model. In fact numerous posters have asked for this kind of evidence numerous times in this thread, but nobody has offered any evidence that Rodin's work has any basis in reality at all, nor can they describe how it will lead to any of these things:


Right. It's pretty troubling to see this happen: Marko Rodin goes on record to claim that he has created a black hole in this lab. He really does say that in one of his videos. That's an astonishing claim, perhaps the most astonishing ever made. He does not have an iota of supporting data or any evidence for that claim. Now, there are people who still take him seriously after all that, and that's the troubling part. One has to be as disconnected from reality as Rodin's sudoku, to find oneself in such condition.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Marko Rodin goes on record to claim that he has created a black hole in this lab. He really does say that in one of his videos. That's an astonishing claim, perhaps the most astonishing ever made.
The doomsayers were afraid CERN's LHC was going to create a black hole and destroy the Earth, but if they ever created even a fleeting micro black hole yet, I haven't heard about it.

I suppose the doomsayers should have been more worried about Marko Rodin's lab?


Or, since he has no evidence for his black hole, probably not.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Maybe this is the Air Space America Convention in 1988 that Rodin says he gave a presentation to on power and propulsion systems about which he says James Martin, editor of Defense Science Magazine, a now defunct, I believe, military journal, called Rodin's work "the most revolutionary propulsion system ever created for outer space":

"Air/Space America '88 is on"

Not proof of anything, of course - just interesting.




top topics



 
39
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join