"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

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

 

What do you know about it?

I see the guy has no hair on his head, and lots on his shoulders.

Therefore my observational evidence has more basis in fact than his metaphysical ramblings.

reply to post by Bobathon

Beebs, I agree that in the complete absence of any capacity to think for oneself, either critically or logically, and the complete absence of any willingness to apply ANY means of evaluation of claims at all, primary sources are what you're going to rely on, and your argument would be true. Go with who you like!

Bring in the ability to think, and most people would require a bit more.

Your argument says that because every nutjob on the internet is a 'primary source', their word is all you should need. Surely you can see that that's a bit silly.

My argument says nothing of the sort. You utilize circular reasoning once again - assuming the conclusion that Rodin is a nutjob - when no evidence of any such conclusion has been presented.

Come now... your only reasoning is based on the assumed conclusion that Rodin, or myself, cannot think clearly.

And yet you have the nerve to post in a discussion regarding a topic with which you have no familiarity with the source material.

Very little.

That's a request for evidence, Beebs. It's what people use to relate an idea that purports to be about the real world with the real world. Unless you know of any other method?

Your request for evidence is shallow and lazy, given that you haven't even tried to familiarize yourself with the material of which you ask us to provide evidence. In other words, you just assume every idea Rodin has is wrong, and ask us to provide you with a reason its not wrong - a ridiculous proposition since you are not even aware of the ideas which you assume are wrong.

If you will not take the time to see what Rodin claims, and why he claims it, then how can you ask us to show you why those claims aren't wrong?

A request for evidence, in this case, is nothing more than a refusal to look at it for yourself. Thats like sitting in front of a public library entrance and asking people who have been inside to show that the books inside aren't full of crap.

Every reasonable person will realize how ridiculous this is, because:
1. They do not share the presupposition which the question is based upon, that being that the books are full of crap.
2. They have been in the library and seen the books.

This doesn't mean there aren't books full of crap, only that it is ridiculous to assume a book is full of crap when you haven't looked inside the book to begin with.

reply to post by beebs
So you think we should take Rodin at his word because his word is 'a primary source', and you think it's inappropriate for anyone doubting his word to ask for evidence.

What a very lucky little nutjob he is, to have people like you around.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Note that Rodin does use electromagnetic field in his toys. How that field interacts with the vacuum remains a mystery.

"Toys" is not an appropriate word, I believe, in view of this statement

Wait, in a broad sense a toy is an object that doesn't serve a practical purpose, but is made and exists to entertain the user, typically a child. Rodin's contraptions don't generate energy, they don't serve as a "propulsion system" regardless of how many times he repeats that deceptive line. But he can get a magnetized ball spinning at a high rate and in fact it does look cool. Grown men can extract enjoyment out of this. So there.

for just one example, taken from his page of Contributors and Supporters:

I wish he put his money where his mouth is. If he's so invited by academia, how come he's not a professor at a decent University? If he's so wanted by Boeing, how come he doesn't already work on model 1-747 which would fly with zero consumption of fuel? Look, capitalism works, true ideas are not passed. A genius is a genius and often handsomely paid (think Google). A schmuck is a schmuck, and it doesn't matter how many times he repeats how totally genius he is, money tells otherwise (i.e. he is indeed a certifiable schmuck).

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait, in a broad sense a toy is an object that doesn't serve a practical purpose . . .

You don't know that Rodin's invention doesn't serve a practical purpose.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I wish he put his money where his mouth is. If he's so invited by academia, how come he's not a professor at a decent University?

Because that would be a waste of his talent. He's an inventor who is offering his invention to the public by educating others in the hope that his invention will materialize into commercial use.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait, in a broad sense a toy is an object that doesn't serve a practical purpose . . .

You don't know that Rodin's invention doesn't serve a practical purpose.

Please enlighten me Mary, what practical purpose does it serve?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I wish he put his money where his mouth is. If he's so invited by academia, how come he's not a professor at a decent University?

Because that would be a waste of his talent. He's an inventor who is offering his invention to the public by educating others in the hope that his invention will materialize into commercial use.

Wow, that's grasping straws. What better way to educate public than teaching a few hundred students the nuts and bolts of his theory? What better way to get access to better hardware than work in a properly funded research lab?

Bouncing a magnetized ball inside a coil may have its appeal for someone with the development level of 3rd grade, but it's really getting old.

Ridiculous.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Do you have anything that could help suggest that Rodin's words are not entirely empty claims?

How much time have you spent doubting Rodin...

Dude, I bet you Bob didn't spend much time at all doubting Marco, because there is nothing to doubt in that bottle of snake oil.

time which could be spent familiarizing yourself with his work?

If Bob doesn't like Sudoku, that's his call. There is not a single equation in Rodin's discourse that describes the physical phenomena as they exist in our Universe. There is not even any explanation as to why there is an "emanation point" when AC is applied to the coil.

how about go watch some youtube videos?

I actually did, and it's a painful experience. Watching a jerk declaring that he's successfully created a black hole in his own little lab... That's a little too much.

Such a shame that we can't seem to recognize this as a starting point for fruitful discussion about his ideas - not his mental health.

I'm more concerned about yours.

reply to post by Bobathon

So you think we should take Rodin at his word because his word is 'a primary source', and you think it's inappropriate for anyone doubting his word to ask for evidence.

What a very lucky little nutjob he is, to have people like you around.

No. I think when we discuss any topic, such as VBM, it is logical to discuss the primary source material.

I think it is ridiculous for you to ask us for evidence, when you do not specify what you want evidence for, and after you tell us you have spent very little time with the primary source material.

I ask you for evidence that he is a nutjob, because I disagree with your circular conclusion that it is already established that he is a nutjob.

You are assuming he is a nutjob, and base every comment on that conclusion. That is circular, because it is a conclusion which you assume is self-evident, but which it is not. Thats like me asking you "So when will you stop beating your wife?" instead of "Do you beat your wife?"

You should try to prove your stance that he is mentally ill - which would require the context of psychology and psycho-analysis(unless of course you deem yourself a professional therapist as well... ).

As I am familiar with a bit of Freud and Jung, as well as history and philosophy of science, I can tell you that Rodin's world view is common in history - especially from figures who dedicate their lives to such an ominous task as understanding the true nature of the universe... Pauli, Schrodinger, Tesla, Descartes, Sufi mystics, mystics everywhere else, and many others, etc. etc.

Freud called it an 'oceanic feeling' described by some of his patients and acquaintances.. but he couldn't experience this for himself - and so he thought the feeling of connectedness and unity - love - was a pathology which arose from the dissolution of the ego - the dissolution of boundaries, of identifying ones self with another.

I do think Jung is more reliable on this point, because he had most likely experienced this feeling for himself. To Jung, this feeling is the necessary complement towards reductionism and separation. The anima and the animus are necessary complements, both needed in the coniunctio, or the individuation process.

Here is an apt quote from Wilhelm Reich:

“Since this view of nature is a result of the biological constitution of the natural observer, the world picture cannot be separated from the creator of the world picture. In short, against the natural research which created the atomic bomb stands the natural research which discovered the cosmic orgone energy, sharp, clear, and incompatible.

It is a matter of deciding the question whether nature is an “empty space with a few widely scattered specks,” or whether it is a space full of cosmic primordial energy, a continuum which functions in a lively way and obeys a generally valid natural law.”

(Reich, From Ether, God and Devil, 1949, in SW p. 276-277)

Psychological concepts such as vitalism and Gestalt also need to be considered.

These are philosophical presuppositions which provide a context for why Rodin believes and says the things he does.

Originally posted by beebs
I ask you for evidence that he is a nutjob, because I disagree with your circular conclusion that it is already established that he is a nutjob.

We don't have psychiatrists here on this thread to make such a determination, that is true. So we'll have to live with less stringent standard of observation and conclusion.

Rodin says on record that he's successfully synthesized a black hole in his lab. What do you make of that? What evidence does he put forth for such and outstanding claim? He says other weird stuff like the coil "reproduces frequencies from zero to infinity". That is impossible according to rather well understood E&M laws. His giant sudoku tables do not have predictive power, nor can they explain the standard phenomena we observe and measure day in, day out. In face of that, all these claims are wacky.

As I am familiar with a bit of Freud and Jung, as well as history and philosophy of science, I can tell you that Rodin's world view is common in history - especially from figures who dedicate their lives to such an ominous task as understanding the true nature of the universe... Pauli, Schrodinger, Tesla, Descartes, Sufi mystics, mystics everywhere else, and many others, etc. etc.

Now, that statement is also not without its own wackiness. We are talking physics here (or so I thought), and you are talking Sufi mystics. Wow. What an alphabet soup, what an obfuscated way of thinking.

Rodin'g view of the world is both false and limited. His sudoku does not give anyone any basics of knowledge of how to do routine tasks, such as how to wire your house for electricity or how to improve efficiency of a car engine. The link between the EM field in whatever coil one may construct, and the alleged formation of "black holes" does not exist. It does not explain anything and predicts nothing. To put his name next to Pauli is quite ridiculous (to the point of sadness), in all honesty.

Originally posted by beebs

You are assuming he is a nutjob, and base every comment on that conclusion.

No, I am not. I'm just saying he's a nutjob, based on the sheer density of the outlandish things he makes claims for, his utter disregard for the meaning of words, and many other things. If you want clarity, you may treat it as meaning that I have consistently observed him to talk and act like a nutjob, and never observed him to talk and act like an honest, intelligent human being. I won't push the point.

It's not an assumption, and nothing is based on it.

I think it is ridiculous for you to ask us for evidence, when you do not specify what you want evidence for

I've said many times. Evidence of ANYTHING that he claims being true. Or ANY relation between any of his ideas and the observable world.

Any achievement that is more than just a claim. His claims are easy to see. I don't need to ask anyone what he claims to be able to do, they're pretty blatant and ten-a-penny. Something with substance.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Now, that statement is also not without its own wackiness. We are talking physics here (or so I thought), and you are talking Sufi mystics. Wow. What an alphabet soup, what an obfuscated way of thinking.

Rodin'g view of the world is both false and limited. His sudoku does not give anyone any basics of knowledge of how to do routine tasks, such as how to wire your house for electricity or how to improve efficiency of a car engine. The link between the EM field in whatever coil one may construct, and the alleged formation of "black holes" does not exist. It does not explain anything and predicts nothing. To put his name next to Pauli is quite ridiculous (to the point of sadness), in all honesty.

If you don't understand why I mention Sufism, then you haven't spent enough time with the primary source material. Rodin is a Baha'i mystic.
Baha'i Faith

What he calls a black hole is not what you call a black hole. It is closer to the idea of an asymptotic vortex in the center of a toroid wave structure of matter. Self similar toroids nesting across scales also. You will have to watch his longer videos for clarification from him. I doubt he should use the word black hole, but it is probably the closest term for what he means.

And also, I recommend checking up on Pauli's later work, especially his correspondences with Jung. Pauli, and Schrodinger also, were very mystical in their later lives.

He had a life-long interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, which influenced his speculations at the close of What is Life? about the possibility that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[9]

In 1956, he returned to Vienna (chair ad personam). At an important lecture during the World Energy Conference he refused to speak on nuclear energy because of his skepticism about it and gave a philosophical lecture instead. During this period Schrödinger turned from mainstream quantum mechanics' definition of wave-particle duality and promoted the wave idea alone causing much controversy
Schrodinger

At the end of 1930, shortly after his postulation of the neutrino and immediately following his divorce in November, Pauli had a severe breakdown. He consulted psychiatrist and psychotherapist Carl Jung who, like Pauli, lived near Zurich. Jung immediately began interpreting Pauli's deeply archetypal dreams,[3] and Pauli became one of the depth psychologist’s best students. Soon, he began to criticize the epistemology of Jung’s theory scientifically, and this contributed to a certain clarification of the latter’s thoughts, especially about the concept of synchronicity. A great many of these discussions are documented in the Pauli/Jung letters, today published as Atom and Archetype. Jung's elaborate analysis of more than 400 of Pauli's dreams is documented in Psychology and Alchemy.
Pauli

Rodin's schematics are not Sudoku puzzles. If you are looking for something more like that, I recommend studying Searl's Law of the Squares:

Law of the Squares

They are related, but not the same.

reply to post by Bobathon

I've said many times. Evidence of ANYTHING that he claims being true. Or ANY relation between any of his ideas and the observable world.

Any achievement that is more than just a claim. His claims are easy to see. I don't need to ask anyone what he claims to be able to do, they're pretty blatant and ten-a-penny. Something with substance.

Well, his Rodin coil is a technical application. You don't think that matters... I disagree. I think you ought to make one yourself - replicate his experiment. At least he plainly gives you the opportunity to investigate his theory with an experiment, as opposed to Haramein.

How about that natural magnetic fields are torus shaped... He is basically saying that fibonacci ratios in nature arise from the vortexial wave structure of spacetime fields(matter). Something like that.

It is pretty significant, if true. It would also explain how DNA acquired such a perfect and complex geometry - because it arises from some inherent mathematical ratios in 'emerging' spacetime... A bit hard to explain it myself, but I understand what he means when he says it - because I understand his presuppositions and what he is trying to say.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I must say your opinions are strong for someone who sounds like they have not tried to replicate his theories. Myself and a good friend of mine have. What we have found is truly amazing. Let me explain..... Zero friction means no wear and tear. Think of a car drive shaft and the gears it takes to move. We use oil and other lubricates to keep those running smooth, but sooner or later because of heat/friction they start to break down and wear on each other. Now take the zero friction principle and you will see there is no heat from friction. Hence no break down. This might be too much for you but if you are thinking out side the box you will also see free energy that is in fact inclusive to heating and maintaining your home and many other things. Don't be so closed minded, you really are only just limiting yourself. I mean not to belittle you, just see that the possibilities that Rodin puts forth. Those that are open and can see that there are many variables to our existence and to the current technology that we have available. Not for the corporate mongers, but for us. The ones that work hard everyday so they can support their families. Have you ever had a hard time paying an electric bill? How about gas? Now think about how much you would save without having to pay those high prices. There really is quite a bit of fact that surrounds his theories. Put them to the test!

Originally posted by beebs

Well, his Rodin coil is a technical application. You don't think that matters... I disagree. I think you ought to make one yourself - replicate his experiment. At least he plainly gives you the opportunity to investigate his theory with an experiment, as opposed to Haramein.

Why would I if there's no reason to believe that it does anything?

How about that natural magnetic fields are torus shaped... He is basically saying that fibonacci ratios in nature arise from the vortexial wave structure of spacetime fields(matter). Something like that.

What does that even mean? Doesn't sound like you have a clue.

It would also explain how DNA acquired such a perfect and complex geometry - because it arises from some inherent mathematical ratios in 'emerging' spacetime...

If I make a Marko donut, and sit it on my desk, it will tell me all about how life evolved. Sounds nice - like David Attenborough.

Come on man, please try to say something that means something.

Originally posted by damilo

 

Myself and a good friend of mine have. What we have found is truly amazing.

Er, what did you do and what did you find. You didn't say.

Originally posted by beebs
If you don't understand why I mention Sufism, then you haven't spent enough time with the primary source material. Rodin is a Baha'i mystic.

If you don't understand why this is irrelevant, then you haven't spent enough time practicing simple logic. I couldn't care less whether Rodin is a vegetarian, a samurai or a scientologist. Any school of thought is acceptable if it results in something else, other than empty claims. And I only observe the latter in Rodin, and whether he's a Sufi or not has nothing to do with black holes or "vortices".

What he calls a black hole is not what you call a black hole.

It's not just me. It's a physics term. Why is he abusing it? Because it sounds impressive, methinks.

It is closer to the idea of an asymptotic vortex

Do you understand the word asymptotic? And, vortex of what?

And also, I recommend checking up on Pauli's later work, especially his correspondences with Jung. Pauli, and Schrodinger also, were very mystical in their later lives.

I have no problem with that and I don't care because these were physicists.

Rodin's schematics are not Sudoku puzzles.

..but they are just as unhelpful in doing physics.

Law of the Squares

They are related, but not the same.

Here's what I read there:

When the correct matrix of random numbers sum up to the same line value across, down and diagonally, then it is just as valid as the physics regarding the known laws of conservation where energy is neither created nor destroyed, but can be converted from one form to another.

What a fruitcake! "Just as valid"? Why and how? It's like saying that when I cut apples for fruit salad, this is similar to nuclear fission -- they all split!

reply to post by Bobathon

Why would I if there's no reason to believe that it does anything?

Scientists do not say such things.

What does that even mean? Doesn't sound like you have a clue.

It means what it means... sorry language is not my friend when it comes to conveying what is in my mind.

If I make a Marko donut, and sit it on my desk, it will tell me all about how life evolved. Sounds nice - like David Attenborough.

Come on man, please try to say something that means something.

What a stupid remark. A correct model of physics will tell you how life evolved - not some coil - but the natural principles behind what makes the coil work.

Why don't you say something for a change, everything I say is just brushed aside. I have lost count of the substantive material I have provided for discussion, which is always just ignored or one little piece will be blown up into oblivion because I have not given an equation. I am sorry that I think independently, and not like an institutionalized status quo.

I stand on a firm foundation when I put Rodin into a proper context. I find it highly ignorant and disingenuous for that context to be dismissed on the basis that he is a nutjob, and doesn't deserve to be inside the world which is his context and home. You have dehumanized him, as you would do to me. You separate him from his environment, which is of course what the ego does - separates things.

reply to post by buddhasystem

If you don't understand why this is irrelevant, then you haven't spent enough time practicing simple logic. I couldn't care less whether Rodin is a vegetarian, a samurai or a scientologist. Any school of thought is acceptable if it results in something else, other than empty claims. And I only observe the latter in Rodin, and whether he's a Sufi or not has nothing to do with black holes or "vortices".

Yes, how could I forget... philosophical presuppositions have no bearing whatsoever on theories, beliefs, ideas, and world views.

Do you understand the word asymptotic? And, vortex of what?

Yes I do, thanks. Spacetime.

I have no problem with that and I don't care because these were physicists.

They were trying to understand the way the universe worked, same as Rodin. They came at the subject from the opposite side of Rodin, and worked towards his mystical side of things - while Rodin came from the mystical side and went towards physics and mathematics.

What a fruitcake! "Just as valid"? Why and how? It's like saying that when I cut apples for fruit salad, this is similar to nuclear fission -- they all split!

You have such powerful analogies. However, they are usually ignorant and miss the point entirely.

I would tell you to read the rest of the context for that quote, and to do some research in alchemy, mysticism, Keely, Tesla, etc.... but, you know... that does not provide an equation(or a spoon to feed you your fruit salad)

If you think someone is just going to come along and give you an equation for how the universe works, then you are sadly mistaken. I can only recommend that there is a significant amount of work to be digested which points in a more correct way than the current paradigm is headed.

Originally posted by beebs

 

Why would I if there's no reason to believe that it does anything?

Scientists do not say such things.

Of course they do. When faced with someone who talks absolute bollocks and has no evidence, and there's no reason for any sane person to believe that there's anything in it, that is the ONE thing that you can be sure EVERY scientist in the world will say.

I am sorry that I think independently, and not like an institutionalized status quo.

And I am truly sorry that you believe that you think independently. There's truly nothing worse than someone with fixed ideas who believes he thinks independently.

You have dehumanized him, as you would do to me.

Poor Marko. Poor Beebs. No, my little love, I'm not demonising anyone. I'm observing the hundreds of random outlandish claims a minute that he spews, and asking if even a single one of them can be substantiated.

You want me to substantiate the fact that there's no reason to believe all the silly claims that he makes? Er... that's like asking someone to substantiate that there are no teapots in space. Do you understand the phrase "the burden of proof is on the person making the claim"?

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense

Yes, Marko, you rightly should.

Hey, I have a trick. If you add the digits of a number and the result is divisible by three the number is divisible by three. I declare the number 3 sacred, and by using the number 3 and this trick we can create stargates. Now all I have to do is create impressive looking graphics, use a lot of complicated sounding terminology that means virtually nothing, and make wild claims you'd defend me, right beebs?