"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yeah, well thats usually the people that think they are right and have so much invested in their personal worldviews that they don't even try to comprehend other opinions and worldviews.

It is a real insult to me, to have my mental capacities called into question. It is an insult to me, that you were able to work at such high levels in the science community (if that is even true). It is an insult to me, that you believe so much that your personal beliefs have a higher value than another's personal beliefs. You are believing in belief, delegating your doxastic labor to arbitrary authorities.

Instead of considering the alternative points of view for yourself, you delegate all of your thinking to a higher power.

Have the courage to use your own reason. Not reason from the scientific figures you hold dear, BUT YOUR OWN REASON.

Its hard work, because that means you have to actually have to go read these things for yourself. Its insulting to me that you even take part in these discussions, because you usually delegate your reasoning on the subject to a secondary source. Thats like someone coming to class without even the slightest idea of what the topic of the day is, and just going off of hearsay that so and so is crazy, or wrong, etc. Instead of reading the primary texts, you trust in an outside authority that hasn't even done their job properly (if it is even their job or authority to begin with is doubtable...).

It is insulting to me, that you continue to harass someone like Mary, who has the courage to use her own reason. Or someone like Reich, who without a doubt had to use his own reason - because people from the scientific institution (much like yourself) would not use their own reason in assessing his work. Instead, they relied on the 'trusted' names in the business at the time. They gave in to the 'big other' and burned his books.

That is antithetical to the core beliefs of the Enlightenment spirit that is so valued in the western world.

When Arb asks me a serious question, and I seriously respond, he ignores it. The consequences of my response, which any logical person must recognize, are ignored. He ignored my prior responses also regarding Reich's work. To then suggest that I 'believe' Reich's theory is true because it hasn't been disproved, is VERY insulting. I 'believe' in general relativity until it is disproved also. Don't you?!

I have tried over and over again in the past years to get you guys to understand your proper role in the institution, your philosophical presuppositions (biases), the academic context for which 'fringe' or 'alternative' science should be considered, among other aspects of your arguments that are so shameful.

I can't really make it any clearer, but to tell you to go back and read all of my posts again, and attempt to observe your own behavior objectively.

As I said before, I am in this for the long haul. You are but a speed bump in the road of progress, that will be smoothed out by the stampede of thinkers that will succeed you. I really don't think you understand the actual historical state of physics at the moment, and what will be developing in the next century.

Originally posted by beebs
It is a real insult to me, to have my mental capacities called into question.

Good! I like questioning what I observe, such is my curious nature.

It is an insult to me, that you believe so much that your personal beliefs have a higher value than another's personal beliefs.

It is an insult to common sense and sensibility that some people place their personal beliefs above hard cold facts, as if extra eccentricity can compensate for sloppy experimental work, general lack of knowledge, delusion and in some cases fraud.

Its hard work, because that means you have to actually have to go read these things for yourself.

Don't presume to tell me about hard work. It's not "hard work" to be an armchair scientist and theorize how genital stimulation can warp space-time. It's plain stupidity.

And by the way, I did read a fair amount of Reich's work and BLP papers etc. Now it's your turn to crack open Jackson's E&M and actually finish it, complete with problems.

Its insulting to me that you even take part in these discussions, because you usually delegate your reasoning on the subject to a secondary source.

I am my primary source, and I know lab work. I actually did that experiment last night, and I bet you didn't.

Thats like someone coming to class without even the slightest idea of what the topic of the day is

Seriously, that actually describes you. You can puff and huff about zero point field and what not, but not having done course work in physics means you simply don't know jack.

When Arb asks me a serious question, and I seriously respond, he ignores it.

Arb provides remarkably detailed responses to most posts here. He is at times puzzled by your inane attempts at reasoning. So am I, and it gets boring.

You are but a speed bump in the road of progress, that will be smoothed out by the stampede of thinkers that will succeed you. I really don't think you understand the actual historical state of physics at the moment, and what will be developing in the next century.

So much pomp I think if you can tap it, there will be enough power to heat a house.

We are not a "speed bump". We are the truck. You are a bug on the windshield.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, I'm sorry about name calling you. I had forgotten that you were more reasonable than BS.

But still, do you understand that the experiment you are referring to, is not the majority of Reich's experiments? Its a little one that didn't require the facilities that the other ones did. He did all kinds of experiments with radiation, mice(or rats), and several configurations of the radioactive materials and 'orgone accumulators'.

Furthermore, do you agree with the relationship between GPB and aether I outlined?

reply to post by buddhasystem

It is an insult to common sense and sensibility that some people place their personal beliefs above hard cold facts, as if extra eccentricity can compensate for sloppy experimental work, general lack of knowledge, delusion and in some cases fraud.

Ugh, you are yet again conflating your personal beliefs with cold hard facts. Do you not see how you elevate your own beliefs to the status of 'cold hard facts'? Multiple theories and interpretations will always be able to account for those 'cold hard facts', so you are making an ontological jump when you assert your theoretical interpretation over others. Practice underdetermination. Please stop ad-hominem on Reich.

Don't presume to tell me about hard work. It's not "hard work" to be an armchair scientist and theorize how genital stimulation can warp space-time. It's plain stupidity.

Again, you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of Reich's theory.

This misunderstanding either results from 1. Lack of comprehension, or 2. Lack of familiarity with the primary source material, or 3. You are being deliberately provocative and providing a straw man position for the purpose of ridicule.

I have opted on the nice side, and went for 2, although I know you practice 3 regularly.

People having sex does not have some crazy new age implication of changing the structure of the universe.

I see I have to spoon feed you, yet again, with basic concepts:

Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity) refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields produced by living cells, tissues or organisms. Examples include the cell membrane potential and the electric currents that flow in nerves and muscles, as a result of action potentials.Bioelectromagnetism Wiki

Magnetobiology

etc. etc. I don't have time for this.

Originally posted by beebs
Ugh, you are yet again conflating your personal beliefs with cold hard facts. Do you not see how you elevate your own beliefs to the status of 'cold hard facts'?

It is not my belief, but a fact that Beard and/or Searl can't demonstrate their supposed "new energy" devices. There is zero belief in that. Just fact. It's also a fact that no "space-time implosion" happens in the middle of a plastic toy that Rodin covered in copper wires. On the other hand, you and/or Mary, more characteristically, continue to express your BELIEF that there is truth in these claims. So puh-leeeeze.

Multiple theories and interpretations will always be able to account for those 'cold hard facts', so you are making an ontological jump when you assert your theoretical interpretation over others.

Let's see, I have a set of rigorous theories that allow me to synthesize protein out of oil, steer spacecraft to distant planets build game consoles, GPS systems etc ad infinitum. On the other end of the spectrum, I have people who have nothing to show for their truly grandiose claims.

Again, you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of Reich's theory.

I clearly spent more time reading this Reich cr@p than I should have. I was actually referring to Montauk experiment (Mary's favorite, apparently), where people were bending space-time with the force of their orgasm, opening wormholes to distant galaxies and all. Reich didn't get to this point in his "work", but he was also obsessing about sex and its galactic meaning. Whatever, dude.

People having sex does not have some crazy new age implication of changing the structure of the universe.

But yes they do, according to that guru Swerdlow, who has been paid by Mary to explain to her the meaning of the word "vortex". I think there were links to videos in this thread, about the Montauk experiment, in which Swerdlow alleges to have taken part. Complete with orgasm and all. Just look up "Cameron".

This is my favorite video of Lewis Black. What he says about religion equally applies to the "new energy" stuff. In this video, just replace "evolution" with "physics" and "fossils" with "experimental facts", and "devil" with "government", and "flintstones" with "Swerdlow DVD". Enjoy. I pretty much feel the way that Lewis expresses at 2:05.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Swerdlow, who has been paid by Mary to explain to her the meaning of the word "vortex".

This is the second time I have had to correct you on this.

I inquired about the possible relationship between math and the vortex, and the possibility of a connection to alternative energy technology/suppressed knowledge.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . .Montauk experiment (Mary's favorite, apparently), . . .

There is no basis for that statement.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This is the second time I have had to correct you on this.

I inquired about the possible relationship between math and the vortex, and the possibility of a connection to alternative energy technology/suppressed knowledge.

And he invited you to purchase his DVD set for $700? I thought that you did made that investment, since I believe you mentioned DVD as your source of knowledge, but now I see that you probably meant other DVDs. So you are still in the dark about what the "vortex" is.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . .Montauk experiment (Mary's favorite, apparently), . . .

There is no basis for that statement.

I just reviewed a large part of this thread and you are right. My apologies. The secret story of Montauk and child abuse that allegedly happened there may not be your favorite, although when I asked you about whether you believe that space-time can be manipulated by means of genital stimulation, you answered

There are some very strange things in this world, (and beyond), yes.

So you put quite a bit of trust in Cameron's story, the power of his orgasms and memoirs of the ambassador from planet Umo, who now goes by "Swerdlow".

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . you mentioned DVD as your source of knowledge

Yes, I made a separate general statement about DVDs being a tool for education and an honest source of income for people who produce them.

Your constant sarcastic remarks about DVD sales are irrelevant.

And your crude remarks regarding the Montauk Project are also irrelevant.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Your constant sarcastic remarks about DVD sales are irrelevant.

Irrelevant in what regard? The thread about the kooky Rodin became a nuclear waste dump of materials on charlatans, frauds and troubled individuals. If you, Mary, are exchanging e-mails with a former intergalactic ambassador and self-proclaimed interdimensional methaphysical guru, and believe that powerful orgasms can open gateways to interdimensional travel, I'm sorry but sarcasm seems quite a healthy reaction to that.

And your crude remarks regarding the Montauk Project are also irrelevant.

I didn't make anything up! If you think it's crude, watch the video and read the sources. It's macabre, grotesque and sick, but according to you "strange things happen".

reply to post by buddhasystem


Stewart Swerdlow is a survivor of a black project who is making a positive contribution to society.

My response "strange things happen" was a brush-off to your apparent attempt to derail the discussion away from vortex math, new energy technology, suppression of technology, and the work of innovators similar to Rodin.

Originally posted by beebs
Arb, I'm sorry about name calling you. I had forgotten that you were more reasonable than BS.

No problem, I didn't report it, I'm surprised it was deleted. I've been called worse!

But still, do you understand that the experiment you are referring to, is not the majority of Reich's experiments?

I was only referring to one experiment which was the topic of this thread for a time. And if one experiment was flawed, it may not be the only one.

Furthermore, do you agree with the relationship between GPB and aether I outlined?

Originally posted by beebs
Light does not, and indeed CANNOT, travel through a vacuum. There is no such thing as a literal 'vacuum' of nothing, or 'empty space'. The Gravity Probe B experiment is just a modern Michelson-Morley experiment, measuring the 'drag' of aether/spacetime.....That is aether, or call it spacetime if you want.

While Einstein did refer to it as "new aether" that name didn't stick and we call it spacetime so I think calling it aether is probably not such a good idea if you want to communicate clearly.

Zero Point Energy(or vacuum density fluctuations) can be interpreted entropically with the wave nature of matter. Rather than the density of spacetime being due to 'virtual particles flitting in and out of existence', it is the result of quantum wave interactions from all matter in the universe. Imagine the surface of a body of water. It is always approaching equilibrium. Certain levels of disequilibrium arise as 'crests', and also 'troughs'. But they are always changing - going up and down, making themselves more and less distinct from the background tendency towards equilibrium. ...It is with respect to that medium, that 'inertia' exists.

The density of local spacetime (which is the energy density relative to that spot from the quantum waves from all the rest of the universe) is 'matter', and 'mass' is that matter in motion 'through' dense spacetime. That energy density isn't IN spacetime, it IS spacetime. Thus, 'gravity' isn't a force, it is an effect of spacetime/aether density.

I don't follow that completely but it sounds like you have some kind of idea for a unified field theory which bridges the theoretical gap between gravity and quantum mechanics such as loop quantum gravity theory tries to do but hasn't been proven. So with no proof of loop quantum gravity, no proof of string theory, no proof of Garret Lisi's or anyone else's unified field theory that I know of, the best I can say is that we don't yet have any proven unified field theory bridging the gap between gravity and quantum mechanics.

I am not sure how to say this, but I don't think I have the science knowledge to develop a unified field theory myself, and it appears to me that you have even less science knowledge than I do, so I'm not really expecting you to be the one to come up with a unified field theory, if that's what you are suggesting you have knowledge of, or maybe I misunderstood your post.

reply to post by Mary Rose


My definition of hit piece is yours. I'm just following your logic. That's what your logic looks like, so if you don't like it you have to do some re-evaluation.

You don't know the first thing about science, so it appears like the only thing that lends credibility is that it's not mainstream or it's "suppressed".

Originally posted by 547000
My definition of hit piece is yours. I'm just following your logic. That's what your logic looks like, so if you don't like it you have to do some re-evaluation.

Hmmmmm.

So, according to you, Brian O'Leary's answer to a question about his personal experience knowing Carl Sagan is a hit-piece as I defined it earlier in this thread - the author is setting out to discredit someone by cherry-picking details. So, you're making an accusation about Brian O'Leary, I suppose.

Originally posted by 547000
You don't know the first thing about science, so it appears like the only thing that lends credibility is that it's not mainstream or it's "suppressed".

"Not mainstream or it's suppressed" is related how to the O'Leary interview? What's your point?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

"A Special Selection from Infinite Energy Magazine"


From the above link, "Commentary on Maxwell’s Equations and Special Relativity Theory," by William H. Cantrell, Page 99:

Abstract

The importance of Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory (SRT)
is discussed in the context of our modern technology and the
progress of science. Historical reasons are given for the development
of SRT, and the problems it attempted to solve concerning
The Holy Grail of Science: Maxwell’s Equations. . . . The justification
for SRT, that of making Maxwell’s Equations covariant to
inertial translation by using the Lorentz-transformation, is discussed.
This, in turn, creates problems, paradoxes, and logical
flaws, which are enumerated herein. . . .

When I see articles about Maxwell's Equations in relation to new energy, I'm interested because of the research Bearden did , which I've posted about, regarding the historical tampering with his equations that removed the potential for drawing energy out of the vacuum.

I think that this article by Cantrell focusing on Maxwell's Equations in relation to SRT and the logical flaws it results in is important.

It seems that SRT needs to be replaced so that we can move into the era of new energy.

reply to post by Mary Rose


He's trying to discredit Carl Sagan by cherry-picking details about his interactions with him and bold accusations of fraud. By your very own twisted logic Carl Sagan is right because he's being picked on. Probably by the alternate energy cartel and its nefarious agenda to discredit science.

reply to post by 547000


Convoluted nonsense from 547000!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
When I see articles about Maxwell's Equations in relation to new energy, I'm interested because of the research Bearden did

Bearden seems to have completely faded into the sunset regarding his promised technology, is the conclusion I come to after reviewing the updates on his website. So he never made anything that works and it appears he never will, so I can't see why you find his "research" interesting.

The only product he's provided to society lately appears to be his DVDs which ironically use the very science and technology he says is wrong, because the DVD technology uses the accepted versions of Maxwell's equations.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 547000

 

Convoluted nonsense from 547000!

That's the kind of nonsense almost all your posts are filled with. It's funny how you don't notice your own nonsense but are quick to recognize it for what it is when others do it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Stewart Swerdlow is a survivor of a black project who is making a positive contribution to society.

My response "strange things happen" was a brush-off to your apparent attempt to derail the discussion away from vortex math, new energy technology, suppression of technology, and the work of innovators similar to Rodin.

You can't have it both ways Mary, although you seem to always try. If you believe that Swerdlow is really a survivor of a black project, then you must also believe that he used to be an intergalactic ambassador on planet Umo and a participant in the deviant rituals in Montauk, no matter how unsavory or "crude" they may seem to you. I don't think that spreading this bizarre load of cr@p qualifies as "making a positive contribution to society". He's a predator feeding off the gullible, the uneducated and troubled people.

And I have to say once again that there is no "vortex" in what you call "vortex math". Heck, you didn't get clarification from Swerdlow, did you? That was his chance to "make a positive contribution to society". He's not good at that, apparently.

It's interesting to watch Jason Verbelli participate in open source R&D of the Rodin Coil: