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: 119
39
<< 116  117  118    120  121  122 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
With the website you cited, it sounded very scientific and official.


There you have it, Mary. You are allergic to anything that has to do with science, and will embrace any backward medieval notion that would come your way.


How can these academics be objective in their peer review when the financial support of their institution may be adversely affected by the results?


It won't. Quite the opposite, new research in such a breakthrough field with enormous potential for both commercial AND military applications would be lavishly funded. It would be a good source of funding for quite a while, in case there was a hint of an evidence that the physics was there. DOD would shower you with money.




posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There you have it, Mary. You are allergic to anything that has to do with science, and will embrace any backward medieval notion that would come your way.


Knowledge of the role of front groups is a "backward medieval notion"?


Originally posted by buddhasystem
It won't.


Let's take the MIT example I cited.

Academics there would not be worried about their hot fusion research funding?
edit on 11/11/11 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There you have it, Mary. You are allergic to anything that has to do with science, and will embrace any backward medieval notion that would come your way.


Knowledge of the role of front groups is a "backward medieval notion"?


No, it's your disdain for any person or entity who sounds "scientific".




Let's take the MIT example I cited.
Academics there would not be worried about their hot fusion research funding?


No, because they would hit the jackpot of cold fusion and basically rule the world. In fact, they could safely count not only on increased govt funding (and I specifically mentioned DOD in addition to DOE, and I would throw in NASA in the mix as well, because that's a hell of an energy source for propulsion in space!) but on private equity grants etc. Gosh that would be a party! And you know, any physicist can use a Nobel Prize...



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
No, it's your disdain for any person or entity who sounds "scientific".


Let's stick to the topic I raised, shall we?

Back to square one.

Are you aware of the numerous front groups funded by foundations posing as philanthropic organizations or the U.N., who disseminate disinformation to the public for the purpose of furthering the agenda of the powers that be?

Are you not curious about the source of funding for websites that you quote?

Are you not curious about the level of professionalism of a site claiming to be a journal endorsed by the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health, a panel that includes prominent psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and Nobel prizewinners. which links to "csmmh.org - This domain name has just been registered"?


Originally posted by buddhasystem
No, because they would hit the jackpot of cold fusion . . .


Academics at MIT would not be defensive about their hot fusion research program? Research that cost Uncle Sam approximately $20 billion over a period of about five decades without success? They're going to admit they've been on the wrong track all those years? They're going to jump into a researching a discovery coming out of another university?



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Are you not curious about the level of professionalism of a site claiming to be a journal endorsed by the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health, a panel that includes prominent psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and Nobel prizewinners. which links to "csmmh.org - This domain name has just been registered"?
You can look up the information they've had on their site anytime you want on the wayback machine from over 90 different archives, and their site really didn't change much between 2005 and 2011. They made most of the changes to it between 2003 and 2005.

It's affiliated with CFI which looks to have roughly 50 websites (I didn't count) and the one you're asking about is the very last one on their list here: www.centerforinquiry.net... see the top right section titled "The CFI Web Network" and view the dropdown box. I didn't check them all but I checked a handful and except for the very last one they all work. Maybe they are just trying to maintain too many websites?

Now the example of a front group I gave was when Scientology took over the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) so they could change the message of CAN to stop calling Scientology a cult. I understand how that worked.

But I still don't understand what you're questioning or claiming about csmmh being a front group? Fronted by who and for what purpose?




edit on 11-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But I still don't understand what you're questioning or claiming about csmmh being a front group? Fronted by who and for what purpose?


I didn't get an answer to that simple question, your mileage may vary.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I didn't get an answer to that simple question, your mileage may vary.
Mary asked me if I was speaking for you when I asked that before.

I hadn't intended to, but in that case, I guess maybe I was?

edit on 11-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
No, it's your disdain for any person or entity who sounds "scientific".


Let's stick to the topic I raised, shall we?


Is that how you cop out when I simply point out the attitude of your post? Come on, Mary. The crazier, the more un-scientific, the more unproven, the more impossible to prove -- the better for you.


Are you aware of the numerous front groups funded by foundations posing as philanthropic organizations or the U.N., who disseminate disinformation to the public for the purpose of furthering the agenda of the powers that be?


I'm aware of the following:
a) you didn't answer my question where I asked for detail of your allegations against the entity to whose web site I linked
b) I have a really good head on my my shoulders, thank God, and tons of formal training and bazillion hours in the lab. All of that is conducive of critical thinking. What I read about Reich raises as many red flags as the Chinese Army has, and more. What I read on that site a bout Reich does not.


Are you not curious about the source of funding for websites that you quote?


I may be curious, but this is low on my list of priorities. Besides, you abjectly resigned from providing info of that sort.


This domain name has just been registered"?


If you never ran a web site, you have no idea how much cr@p you have to deal with, when accidentally lapsing domain registration and doing site maintenance, especially when you move to a different provider. I did run a web site.


Academics at MIT would not be defensive about their hot fusion research program? Research that cost Uncle Sam approximately $20 billion over a period of about five decades without success?


Hey, you sound dismissive again... Sure it's not as expensive as many other programs that may or may not have yielded results. And the rest of my argument stays. Read it again. There are numerous cases in the history of R&D when a program which was heavily invested in is abandoned and a new direction is funded even more heavily. You wouldn't know, Mary.


They're going to jump into a researching a discovery coming out of another university?


Yes, this is normal. Again, you wouldn't know. Whoever confirms a discovery of that sort will get a Nobel Prize along with the original team and become very rich and very famous. Nothing wrong with that, is there? It takes two to tango.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Now the example of a front group I gave was when Scientology took over the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) so they could change the message of CAN to stop calling Scientology a cult. I understand how that worked.


I would call this infiltration or hostile take-over or something like that rather than a front group.

A front group is set up for the purpose of fooling the public. You've heard of a CIA front? The oligarchs of this world use front groups in the same fashion.

It has already been pointed out that Reich's writings were burned and he was thrown in prison, where he died, on trumped up charges. This should be a clue that maybe his work threatened the powers that be in some way.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Of course it's a hit piece . . .


Think about your post.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Let's focus on theory a little bit.

We know that relativity and quantum mechanics conflict and we need a unified theory.

In the Mallove interview it was pointed out that the work of two giants in the history of physics - Reich and Tesla - has been suppressed and needs to be re-discovered. Both of these scientists did work associated with the aether.

Mallove stated, and I think what he says makes sense, that the Big Bang theory is wrong and that the underlying reality of the universe is a mass-free energy. He also said that he doesn't believe ZPE theory is the proper aether theory. The important thing, though, is that there is an aether and we can tap into it to harness "free energy" which is infinite.

The Mallove interview was re-broadcast after Mallove's death as a tribute and the audio archives were posted free to the public. But the links for Hours 2 & 3 don't work and I'm emailing Coast-to-Coast trying to straighten that out. Once I get that done I will post the link to that page. Maybe MP3 is a convenient way people can listen to this interview, which I think is excellent.

Also, I want to mention that the YouTube video illustrations don't necessarily match the content of what's being discussed, so it's best to just listen to the videos...

Edit to add: Also, the YouTuber states that Mallove was killed the same day that the interview took place. That's not true. The interview was on February 3, 2004; Mallove was killed May 14, 2004; and the re-broadcast was May 21, 2004.
edit on 11/12/11 by Mary Rose because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Of course it's a hit piece . . .


Think about your post.
I have thought about it and I think buddhasystem might be right about you being allergic to science.

A lot of my favorite sites attack crazy nonsense and try to get at the truth. But I guess we had different ideas about what "hit piece" means; in your mind it's a requirement for something in the hit piece to be false, and in my perception a hit piece can be nothing but factual assertions that points out all the ways some ridiculous assertions are wrong.

So perhaps it's best if we don't use the term "hit piece" since we don't agree on the definition.

Here's an attack by Brian Dunning on the Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites

I think there's room for discussion about which 10 sites should actually be on that list since there seems to be a lot of competition out there for some really bad websites, but he does specify his key selection criterion:


Many of these sites promote some particular ideology, but I want to be clear that that's not why they're here. Sites that make this list are only here because of the quality of the science information that they advocate.
I'm somewhat familiar with 9 of the 10 websites he mentioned (I don't know the "Australian Vaccination Network" site) and as far as I can tell, even though what he says about these sites appalling lack of science is predominantly negative, it looks to me like it's probably all true. So is that article a "hit piece" even though everything it says appears to be true? If not, what would you call it?

He does make some comments about Huffington post being OK in some areas, his main attack on them is their lack of science on alternative medicine.

Brian Dunning certainly isn't the repository of ultimate truth in the universe, but I really have to look extremely hard to find anything he says that I can criticize or disagree with. And not everything he writes is a "hit piece" or whatever you want to call it. He also wrote some advice you may want to consider on how to spot which claims you're researching are pseudoscience instead of science:
How to Spot Pseudoscience --- This 15-point checklist will help you tell science from pseudoscience.

If you applied that checklist to the sources you research, then you might get over your allergy against science. I think it's a neutral, unbiased appeal to scientific reason, but on second thought, you may see it as a "hit list" against your ideology, for example:


4. Is the claim based on the existence of an unknown form of "energy" or other paranormal phenomenon?
Loose, meaningless usage of a scientific-sounding word like "energy" is one of the most common red flags you'll see on popular pseudoscience. Terms like energy fields, negative energy, chi, orgone, aura, psi, and trans-dimensional energy are utterly meaningless in any scientific context. Approach with extreme caution.

5. Do the claimants state that their claim is being suppressed by authorities?
This is usually a really frail excuse for why mainstream scientists don't take their claim seriously, why the product is not approved by the FDA, or why scientific journals won't publish their articles. ....

6. Does the claim sound far fetched, or too good to be true?
When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Free energy? "orgone" energy? Claims of suppression? Far fetched claim, too good to be true like unlimited supply of free energy from the vacuum? I can't say with complete certainly it's too good to be true, but I can agree with his explanation that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and at the very least it's an extraordinary claim.

It almost sounds like he's been reading this thread, but he wrote that back in 2007!


There are some other good hints to separate science from pseudoscience on that checklist too, so it's worth a read, even if you decide to ultimately ignore it, which I expect you probably will.


Originally posted by Mary Rose
In the Mallove interview it was pointed out that the work of two giants in the history of physics - Reich and Tesla - has been suppressed and needs to be re-discovered.
See tip #5...suppressed, eh?

Reich and Tesla were geniuses who made some contributions to society before going mad, but unfortunately it appears Mallove is most fond of the contributions they made after going mad, an indication of his own madness, clearly exemplified by referring to Reich as a "giant in the history of physics".

Reich was pretty much the complete opposite of that description, which is once again evidence backing up my assertion Mallove was mad so it's not a logical fallacy, it's backed by evidence.


edit on 12-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I have thought about it and I think buddhasystem might be right about you being allergic to science.


I have printed your post and will digest and respond to the rest of it later, if I decide that anything in the rest of your post warrants a reply.

I love science as I know it.

Based on your posts and BS's posts, science is whatever you think is acceptable, and it appears what you think is acceptable is what is in the mainstream.

Since becoming a serious researcher about five years ago, I have come to see that there are two versions of planet earth: planet earth A and planet earth B. Planet earth A is populated by people who believe what is in the mainstream. Planet earth B filters what is in the mainstream through the additional insights that are available on the internet, provided the internet is vetted carefully. Communication between earth A and earth B is almost as if there were a language barrier. It is extremely difficult.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


In order to evaluate whether or not there is "extraordinary" evidence, one has to begin at the beginning and study someone's work.

So let's start at the beginning.

As far as I know, the genesis of Reich's work begins here:


Originally posted by Mary Rose

In Part 7, it is brought out that the Michelson-Morley experiment only established that there is no electromagnetic aether. Reich's experiments, on the other hand, revealed a mass-free plenum. Reich did a simple experiment using a mercury thermometer on the surface of a Faraday cage and a similar thermometer suspended in air. In 1941, Reich had a 4 1/2 hour meeting with Einstein about this, but the meeting is not generally known because it is virtually absent from Einstein biographies:



The result of that 4 1/2 meeting, I understand, is that Einstein's assistant did some experiment, explained away Reich's findings to Einstein, and that was the end of that.

Mallove did the same experiment that Reich did himself, observed the Correas' experimental evidence, and drew conclusions based on all his research in total.

edit on 11/12/11 by Mary Rose because: Clarification



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Well, you can overcome the language barrier by not using the word "science" to describe your "research". I recommend you use the phrase "gubbity goo" as it's more accurate to describe your findings. By using the word "science" to describe it you are inviting ridicule from scientists and students of science. It is only fair considering you don't know science nor care to find out what it is; therefore don't call it science, since you don't know what it is.
edit on 12-11-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Let's focus on theory a little bit.


What, you know theoretical physics? When did that happen?


We know that relativity and quantum mechanics conflict and we need a unified theory.


Special relativity and quantum mechanics happily coexist in the form of quantum field theory. Just saying that you made a whopping generalization.


In the Mallove interview it was pointed out that the work of two giants in the history of physics - Reich and Tesla


I just spilled coffee on my keyboard, please send me a new one... Reich was a giant in the field of physics? ROTFLMAO.


Both of these scientists did work associated with the aether.


In case of Reich, he spent a lot of effort on genital stimulation. Not sure if "aether" was involved.


Mallove stated, and I think what he says makes sense


Why do you think that? Itemize facts.


that the Big Bang theory is wrong and that the underlying reality of the universe is a mass-free energy.


What is mass-free energy, as you understand it?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Mary, it would behoove you to not post falsehoods. Reich's experiments did NOT reveal any sort of "plenum". What a fancy word, by the way. I recall it means "curtain" in Latin.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
He's not saying all multiples of 9 = 9. It's obvious he's just stating that it may be a startling coincidence that if you add up the digits in any number that you get as a result of multiplying by nine the answer is always nine. it's so easy to see that this is what he's implying by saying; "all multiples of nine equal nine" people need to get there head out of their a@@es. It's a thing he noticed and people have to make it all about the imperical validity of the grammer. way to miss the point



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by facewhatly
all about the imperical validity of the grammer. way to miss the point


Did you misspell two words in one sentence to make some sort of a point?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by facewhatly
He's not saying all multiples of 9 = 9.


Here's an exact quote from Rodin's article I quoted back on page 1 of this thread:


The last number left to be explained
from The Mathematical Fingerprint
Of God is the number 9. The
number nine is Energy being manifested
in a single moment event of
occurrence in our physical world
of creation. It is unique because it
is the focal center by being the only
number identifying with the vertical
upright axis. It is the singularity
or the Primal Point of Unity. The
number nine never changes and is
linear. For example all multiples
of 9 equal 9. 9x1=9, 9x2=18, but
1+8=9, 9x3=27, but 2+7=9. This is
because it is emanating in a straight
line from the center of mass out of
the nucleus of every atom, and from
out of the singularity of a black hole.
It is complete, revealing perfection,
and has no parity because it always
equals itself. The number nine is
the missing particle in the universe
known as Dark Matter.


So if you're wearing hip waders long enough to wade through pseudoscientific nonsense babble that deep to find it, you'll see that Rodin indeed says "all multiples of 9 equal 9."

facewhatly says, "he's not saying all multiples of 9 = 9."

So if that's not what he's saying, then why did he say it?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What is mass-free energy, as you understand it?


I have just been introduced to this term by listening to the Mallove interview.

The term shows up in the infinite-energy.org website FAQ under "Vacuum Energy" (I've bolded it):


Vacuum Energy

This is a very controversial area of New Energy research, even within the paradigm-breaking New Energy field. The central idea is that what we normally think of as the vacuum of space itself can be tapped for energy! Nonetheless, vacuum energy is very real, based on robust experiments and devices that we have observed and measured. Like new hydrogen physics energy, it also has a variety of carefully conceived theoretical explanations behind it-not all of which can be correct. In many respects, Vacuum Energy is on as solid ground as New Hydrogen Physics Energy-provided that the appropriate information and devices within this field are accessed. There is, indeed, much misinformation floating around. The field of vacuum energy actually predates the Fleischmann-Pons work by many years, but ultimately this area of physics may provide part of a crucial understanding of what is going on in New Hydrogen Physics Energy.

However, the large field of claimed devices that appear to work as "perpetual motion machines," with no apparent fuel, not even hydrogen, is also the area of New Energy that is most fraught with uncertainties about which devices work and which ones do not. There is a range of quality from highly competent and scientifically credible work to incompetence in measurement; and, there are cases of probable outright fraud. The basic conceptual framework of vacuum energy is that the so-called "vacuum" of space is not really a vacuum at all, i.e. there is no such thing as "nothingness" or a true "void." What we normally think of as a vacuum (a space devoid of particles with mass) is actually pulsating with energy that can be exhibited in experiments and tapped in technological devices. The term most often associated with this energy is Zero Point Energy, or "ZPE" for short. This comes from standard quantum mechanics theory, which says that "quantum fluctuations" in a "space-time electromagnetic foam" of an extremely small granular size (far below the size of atoms) form a jiggling field of energy. An excellent research compendium on the Zero Point Energy viewpoint about vacuum energy is the book by Moray B. King , Quest for Zero-Point Energy: Engineering Principles for "Free Energy" (2001) [order from our catalog].

Another radically different perspective on vacuum energy has led, beginning in the mid-1980s, to prototype technological devices that generate electricity and motive power from the vacuum, devices which we have personally examined on-site. The theoretical model is not "ZPE," but rather a pervading massfree form of energy that can exhibit electrical properties, as well as anti-gravitational properties, and which can also convert to massbound (ordinary mass) forms under the proper circumstances. This line of investigation originated with the work of Nikola Tesla (1856-1943), the pioneer of our present electrical power generating grid of alternating current (and the recognized original inventor of radio), and with the controversial biomedical scientist Dr. Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957), who experimented in mid-20th Century with what he called "orgone" energy. It turns out that both Tesla and Reich had remarkably accurate things to say about a dynamic ether (or aether), the static "luminiferous ether" form of which was rejected by 20th Century physics as a carrier of light waves, following the ascendancy of Einstein's relativity theories. Unfortunately, because of major theoretical errors that have entered modern physics and pervade it, an energetic, dynamic ether with properties measurable in the laboratory was overlooked. The work of Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa of Canada (www.aetherometry.com and www.aethera.org) has built on and apparently has validated the stream of aether physics work that was begun by Tesla and Reich.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 116  117  118    120  121  122 >>

log in

join