"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Bobathon

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.

Circular conclusion rears its head again!

You are assuming the conclusion that it is bollocks before you argue with evidence from the primary source material for that point. You also attack ad hominem, implying that no sane person will take the time to investigate a claim which you have circularly concluded is bollocks.

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.

Obviously I think more independently than yourself, otherwise you would address some of the points I have brought up in dozens of posts. The fact that you don't, or can't, says that you are not familiar with the same material I am, and it is not beneficial for your weak argument to address my points.

I think its pretty clear that you take the institutional status quo standpoint on every issue. That being - the ego, separation, isolation, reductionism. The animus.

I also think its clear that I agree with all of the best physicists, who recognize that the separation is not real, and that nature is interdependent, interconnected, and Gestalt. The anima.

Since you will not address these philosophical presuppositions, your ego is so threatened by the possibility that the separation is not real - that you deny and cannot consciously discuss any of Rodin's ideas, Haramein's ideas, or those of Keely, Tesla, Pauli, Schrodinger, Einstein, Reich, etc. Everyone who has ever recognized that nature is a continuum, and interdependent.

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.

No, not demonising. De-humanizing. And no, you aren't observing the hundreds of random outlandish claims a minute, because you are hardly familiar with Rodin's material at all - besides the fact that he talks pretty slow and spends a lot of time on each point.

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"?

No, I want you to argue for your position that he is making silly claims - be a protagonist. Your current argument is circular.(assuming there are no teapots in space, instead of arguing that there are none)

Yes, you are right. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim... that person is Rodin, so you have many hours of youtube ahead of you. Good luck.

reply to post by 547000

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?

Defend is a strong word. If any of your ideas made any sense given the academic context, then they would be up for discussion.

Most likely you are implying that Rodin uses "complicated sounding terminology that means virtually nothing", but I disagree.

You think he is a grade A charlatan, but I disagree.

I know he is a Baha'i mystic, and so I judge him from that context.

Now, your context in that situation would be to make fun of Rodin because you don't understand what he is talking about... so I would judge you from that context.

It is one thing to argue against Rodin's points, another to think you are smarter than him and assume he is a charlatan.

reply to post by beebs


Whatever he is preaching is not science, that much is clear.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by beebs

 

Whatever he is preaching is not science, that much is clear.

More like the basis of science. I will say this... The reason I like you guys coming on here and trashing the work... Two reasons actually. One: It serves to pique curiosity and Two: It bumps the thread.

I'd advise you reference the dictionary before you throw any more statements around.

Oh please. It's really not. I have no clue where you got your engineering degree, but this is not science. I'm currently watching it and it's real clear that it's not. It's all metaphysics and sophistry abound. Even Einstein had to prove relativity mathematically before it was tested and found true. Anyone who has gotten a decent education in the technical fields should see the obvious. So go ahead keep waving your degree as credential proof that this is science, you're only devaluing it.

Originally posted by 547000
Oh please. It's really not. I have no clue where you got your engineering degree, but this is not science. I'm currently watching it and it's real clear that it's not. It's all metaphysics and sophistry abound. Even Einstein had to prove relativity mathematically before it was tested and found true. Anyone who has gotten a decent education in the technical fields should see the obvious. So go ahead keep waving your degree as credential proof that this is science, you're only devaluing it.

Tell that to Russ Blake and others of his ilk. Your intellect is either stifled by ego or hasn't evolved to remotely challenge and/ or debate this topic. I would suggest you, as a naysayer, look into the use of fractals for our antennae arrays. We're dealing entirely in wave function. I'm sure you've heard the term triangulate. This is how energy is compressed into mass on myriad scale.

reply to post by 547000

Whatever he is preaching is not science, that much is clear.

It is not your conception of what science is. A person's philosophical presuppositions have a direct impact on their world view, and how they view other's work. If you do not recognize your own philosophical presuppositions, then you lack the introspect necessary to think critically.

Your science is probably separation, isolation, reductionism, and finite.

Rodin harkens back to the development of science, when philosophers(yep, pesky philosophers giving birth to science) complemented that stance with interdependence, interconnectedness, holism, and infinite.

Science is now one sided, but that doesn't mean the other side doesn't exist. On the contrary, it means the other side is suppressed.

Cheers.

ETA:

Originally posted by beebs

 

Circular conclusion rears its head again!

You are assuming the conclusion that it is bollocks before you argue with evidence from the primary source material for that point.

No I'm not. Where can a discussion even begin if nobody can show any substance to what he's saying?

Yes, you are right. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim... that person is Rodin

Where can a discussion even begin if nobody will stand up for any of his claims?

I want you to argue for your position that he is making silly claims - be a protagonist. Your current argument is circular.(assuming there are no teapots in space, instead of arguing that there are none)

Aw, you really didn't understand the teapot argument at all did you. Never mind.

Neither you nor anyone else appear capable of providing a single reason to take anything he says remotely seriously. I'm not assuming that there are no such reasons. I'm observing that nobody has given any.

All it takes is a logical outline of how any of his ideas connects to things that can be observed in the real world.

Ah, yes, philosophers. The cocktail party kind are especially great. The significance of relativity is everything is relative, they say, depending on one's frame or reference. But they don't even know what they philosophize much about are not the concepts mathematicians and scientists are talking about. For instance, a frame of reference refers to a coordinate system. That everyone perceives things differently is NOT the significance of relativity, and is something any dunce could agree with without having to think much.

Frankly I wouldn't trust a philosopher on science and math, but scientists on science and mathematicians on math. Go ahead, call "quantum numerology" science if you want. Nothing significant will come of this; I've watched 11 parts and it is clear that he's just playing with numbers and conjuring up pet explanations for the patterns that do not follow.

reply to post by Americanist


Funny, I think it's your ego that makes you say he's right when his arguments are really pisspoor and unrigorous. But right about what? What is the significance of his discovery of cross-addition patterns? Please, do tell. Tell me EXACTLY how you can use this in applied science? Formulate an outline because I see no substance to all those bold claims.

Originally posted by Americanist
We're dealing entirely in wave function.

How do you "deal in wave function"? Are you a dealer of functions? What else do you guys have available?

I'm sure you've heard the term triangulate.

Indeed, is a measurement technique: en.wikipedia.org...

This is how energy is compressed into mass on myriad scale.

No it's not. Triangulation does not compress energy any more than a box of spaghetti in your pantry compresses your neighbor's dog.

And "myriad scale"? Puh-leeeze.

Another fan of piling up pseudo-scientific jargon which results in having.... a pile of cr@p.

Originally posted by 547000
Formulate an outline because I see no substance to all those bold claims.

You have to get inside the mind of the "underpants gnomes" from South park. Here is their model:

Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit

Don't ask too many questions about phase 2 or you may get a hostile reaction:

Paul Cantor, a literary and economic professor who uses South Park episodes to teach courses, said "no episode of South Park I have taught has raised as much raw passion, indignation, and hostility among students as 'Gnomes' has. I’m not sure why, but I think it has something to do with the defensiveness of elitists confronted with their own elitism."

Rodin's model is similar:
Phase 1: Play with numbers
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Unified field theory, endless energy, food, etc:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9ab1585ce06.png[/atsimg]
Once again, don't ask too many questions about phase 2 or you may get a hostile reaction!

Lol at Arbitrageur's 'phase 2'

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3651a9e6b66a.jpg[/atsimg]

Also profound truth of the week goes to Buddhasystem:

Triangulation does not compress energy any more than a box of spaghetti in your pantry compresses your neighbor's dog.

Top class.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
We're dealing entirely in wave function.

How do you "deal in wave function"? Are you a dealer of functions? What else do you guys have available?

I'm sure you've heard the term triangulate.

Indeed, is a measurement technique: en.wikipedia.org...

This is how energy is compressed into mass on myriad scale.

No it's not. Triangulation does not compress energy any more than a box of spaghetti in your pantry compresses your neighbor's dog.

And "myriad scale"? Puh-leeeze.

Another fan of piling up pseudo-scientific jargon which results in having.... a pile of cr@p.

The Universe is the "deal." The complete stack of cards or a stage - if you will. I don't have issue relishing your trash talk. In fact, it's with ease I dish back. i.e.:

Your pitfall is expounding terminology:

a : to divide into triangles
b : to give triangular form to

Now what you cope with in your own skull is a pseudo-brain. Fortunately, there's some bright sources to mimic while you're getting your chops up. Don't forget to enjoy the hard curves.

reply to post by Bobathon

Top class.

Sure is, when you minus off the first two letters of your last choice of words.

reply to post by Americanist

it's with ease I dish back.

Indeed! And now, undermined all our arguments are by your cunning and devastating logic.
Strong you are with the force.

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist

it's with ease I dish back.

 

Indeed! And now, undermined all our arguments are by your cunning and devastating logic.
Strong you are with the force.

What a dictionary does for the English language especially when referenced correctly is Jedi. So you guys had a valid argument against?!? That was mistaken for trash talk. It was so poorly drafted on the opposite end of this debate it's been nothing but devastating to watch you waste your efforts.

Originally posted by Americanist

 

So you guys had a valid argument against?!?

That was mistaken for trash talk.

Yes, that does appear to keep happening.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Americanist

 

So you guys had a valid argument against?!?

That was mistaken for trash talk.

Yes, that does appear to keep happening.

I'll play the role of teacher and call recess. Now your "top class" can go play wall-ball or hang from the jungle gym. Perhaps you'll have better luck with some brute force or basic PE. I realize there's always workarounds to learning.

reply to post by Americanist


Actually I'm a bit of a nerd. I love reading books on university level math and science in my free time. Please teacher, I would like that outline, on how EXACTLY this can be applied in science. You see there were these claims about a grand unified theory, how this was science, etcetera, but all I saw was a math game involving cross-addition of digits with absolutely no rigor. I failed to see any proof of his metaphysical claims of time and energy from a vacuum. It was thoroughly unscientific, and he seemed to use a lot of fancy words that confuses laymen in an unscientific manner.