"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Does anyone here have an expert understanding of Fractals ?

I am not asking about self replicating pattern or mathematical models .

Perhaps solids are The Aether Density Localizations ?

I wonder if one can develop an Aether Communication Protocol ?

I suspect that Rodin is describing The Path which an Aether Unit takes .

Takes to what ?

An Aether Unit takes a path towards what ?

Is it acceptable to describe a Vortex as Fractal in Motion ?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And chapter 14 in that pdf finally answered the burning question I've had about why some people are so excited about fractals...the answer is you can draw them on the computer screen and play with them so it's the modern replacement for the etch-a-sketch. Pretty, and fun to play with, I admit.

Quote Chapter 14, which is "Overview, Forecast and Some Conclusions," to support your criticism.

Edit to add: Did you mean Chapter 15? If so, did you read the chapter?

No I meant chapter 14 but I admit the first part of my comment was a little unfair, but not the second part of my comment about nobody demonstrating how playing with fractals has accomplished anything in the real world (from p70-71 of your link to Colin Hill's book):

An indicator of how things are likely to go, when more scientists are persuaded
that the cosmos is indeed fractal, is to be found in chapter 10 of the New
Scientist Guide to Chaos (Penguin ISBN 0-14-014571-0) which is by Benoit
Mandelbrot himself.

...It has inspired a new approach to mathematics using a computer screen... In recent decades, there has been no input at all from physics or from graphics, which means that some areas of pure mathematics , such as the theory of iteration... ran out of steam. Fractal pictures done on the computer have revived it. Being able to play with pictures interactively has provided a deep well for mathematical discoveries.”

This echoes James Gleick’s advice, quoted in chapter 3, to seek out the patterns,
which, delightfully, is well within the capabilities and resources of non-professionals.
Perhaps we may not be able to penetrate the utmost depths but we
can surely contribute, as I hope my theory has done.

So my interpretation of "seek out the patterns" by "non-professionals" who "play with pictures interactively" is what I gleaned to be the modern version of the etch-a-sketch with no apparent value in the real world, at least the way Colin Hill applies it.

Can we tell whether the shape of the sun is a sphere or a disk? Colin Hill makes an odd claim about that:

Page 58

The sun has all the attributes of a flat spiral generator except one: it looks
round not flat. Could it perhaps be a disguised member of the flat spiral hierarchy?
There is now good reason to think so. Its apparently perfect sphericity is
deceptive; recent measurements show that the sun is flattened, not by much....

not by much? If you put a human hair a distance of a mile away, that's about how much larger the equatorial diameter of the sun appears. source: www.nasa.gov... So would any sane person claim that means the sun has the shape of a spiral galaxy? Apparently Colin Hill is trying to claim something along those lines.

There is probably no such thing as a perfect sphere in the universe because almost all objects like spheres spin to some degree and this spin does prevent them from being perfect spheres, but in my view the sun is pretty darn close to a perfect sphere.

Colin Hills claim that it's flat like a galactic disk just seems completely insane to me, in fact he or someone claiming to be him posted on a forum that he predicts the sun will be found to have a flat shape, we just think it's spherical because it looks that way:

community.discovery.com...

my prediction, yes PREDICTION, that the sun will be found to resemble a small, barred spiral galaxy. Pages 57/8 of my book.....Colin Hill

If anyone seriously thinks that a spherical distortion the size of a human hair viewed at a distance of a mile away is evidence the sun is disk-shaped like a galaxy, then they are beyond my help.

But sadly this kind of dictionary hijacking is all too common and especially in the fractal field. Nothing is a perfect sphere therefore you can call everything a disk, even those things which are nearly perfect spheres? I don't buy it. The same kind of abuse is done with the word "Fractal" which Mandelbrot inferred applied to clouds, mountains and galaxies, but again by expanding the definition of fractal to the point where it's in effect meaningless, you can claim "everything is fractal" to which I respond, "so?". If the definition has been expanded to the point of being meaningless then the claim has no meaning.

I'll conclude with this thought from Sagan:

Carl Sagan Quotes

Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along. [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]

Originally posted by 23432
Perhaps solids are The Aether Density Localizations ?

Solids are manifolds of Aetheric Energy that is flowing along specific paths, according to laws of attraction, towards vortexes formed by orgone emanations (as they switch dimensions). Collapse of such manifolds is what physicists call "annihilation", and in the process a significant portion of orgone energy is released into the environment, which we perceive as radiation.

I wonder if one can develop an Aether Communication Protocol ?

It is very hard. But you can start working on it. I have a tentative code name for it, ACP.23432

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So my interpretation of "seek out the patterns" by "non-professionals" who "play with pictures interactively" is what I gleaned to be the modern version of the etch-a-sketch with no apparent value in the real world, at least the way Colin Hill applies it.

The value in the real world is people getting involved by identifying patterns. What's wrong with that?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

. . . not by much....

The rest of the sentence was "but enough to provoke comparisons with other stars:" followed by 4 bullet points.

Chapter 11, "The Sun, Other Stars and Planets" is six pages, which I haven't read yet. But it appears to me that you have not digested the whole chapter before using the word "insane" to describe Hill. I suspect he's not insane, and that his idea is not insane.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The value in the real world is people getting involved by identifying patterns. What's wrong with that?

As I said there's nothing wrong with it just like there was nothing wrong with playing with an etch-a-sketch. Both are fun, but don't accomplish much of any practical value other than entertainment.

The rest of the sentence was "but enough to provoke comparisons with other stars:" followed by 4 bullet points.

And he compares it to a star with an equatorial radius 1.5 times larger. It's hardly a comparison to the sun.

But if his point is "everything in the universe is non-spherical", well who can argue with that? But what does that prove? Nothing. It's so vague and overgeneralized as to be a meaningless declaration.

And do you believe his prediction "the sun will be found to resemble a small, barred spiral galaxy "?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Playing and identifying patterns are two different things. There is value in identifying patterns. Lots of value. It's like connecting dots. It's like interpreting what is found in an experiment. It's like coming up with an original idea. A theory. It's what independent thinkers and creative people do.

I don't have an opinion, yet, about Hill's theory. But I like his independence from mainstream scientific dogma.

reply to post by buddhasystem




I take it you're dishing out more ridicule?

More use of that fallacy.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
More use of that fallacy.

Wait, I was trying to reconstruct Rodin's path of thought. What part of it do you find lacking?

reply to post by buddhasystem


For what you set out to do, you did, just like you always do, with the repeated technique of ridicule.

Again, and again, and again, ad nauseam.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

For what you set out to do, you did, just like you always do, with the repeated technique of ridicule.
Again, and again, and again, ad nauseam.

Wait, when you mention aetheric curents, that "precisely" explain movement of "all energy", that's kosher according to you. When I do exact same same thing, you find it unacceptable. Go figure!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't have an opinion, yet, about Hill's theory. But I like his independence from mainstream scientific dogma.

You don't have an opinion? Come on Mary! The Einstein cross example Buddhasystem used was accurate but I thought maybe a bit esoteric for a non-scientist like you, so I tried to pick the simplest thing I could find, comparing simple shapes like spheres and disks.

How long does it take you to determine if these two objects have the same or shape or not?

The sun:
www.astropix.com...


Spiral Galaxy (NGC 4565):
www.lostvalleyobservatory.com...


So you're still trying to decide whether those look the same or not? How long can that take?

Look, I know a little about human anatomy and I happen to know that based on the spacing of rods and cones in your eyes, you can't even see a human hair at a distance of a mile away, much less tell that's how out of round the sun is. So it shouldn't really take that long to make a comparison of those two pictures and conclude the guy is not playing with a full deck when he points out the similarity in shape.

Science may just be our best theory today, and we may find a better theory tomorrow. But at least the scientific theories, imperfect though they may be, have at least passed a level of scrutiny to weed out the really bad ideas, which Colin Hills work still contains.

So it seems to me that in your zest to escape the frying pan of inaccuracies that are included in modern science, that you have decided to jump into the fire of much larger inaccuracies and often complete nonsense of pseudoscience.

Carl Sagan Quotes

I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true. [Carl Sagan, The Burden Of Skepticism]

There are some shards of truth in Hill's work like the fact that the sun is wider by the width of a human hair viewed a mile away in one direction. But to compare something that spherical to the shape of a spiral galaxy seems to be well into pseudoscientific territory.

Now that you've escaped the inaccuracies of the dogma of modern science, you can enjoy the much greater inaccuracies and in some cases, complete nonsense, that is pseudoscience. Congratulations.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait, I was trying to reconstruct Rodin's path of thought. What part of it do you find lacking?

Actually you went beyond Rodin's work and included a systhesis of some of Reich's work also, in a way I haven't seen anyone else do before! I want to hear more about this. But before I buy your DVDs I'd want to make sure you've consulted with Swerdlow to make sure the Umonians concur with your explanation.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't have an opinion, yet, about Hill's theory. But I like his independence from mainstream scientific dogma.

You can safely leave out "yet". You don't care about truthfulness of any theory or experiment, and will accept it if and only if it does not align itself with the "mainstream dogma". That's good enough for you. This thread is a huge monument to that. No matter if the "theory" du jour is in plain contradiction with what you can see out of your window, or that it's bizarre by any standard, like it requires proper worship of Kali to get those "aetheric" juices flowing and open a "portal" to a different reality, -- you'll say that it's interesting and "suppressed".

Look at these pages -- year in, year out, you are using this thread as a veritable spam platform. I like the last set of links -- i.e. that the Sun is not actually round. I'm waiting for the next installment, because I start to suspect that Earth is not round either, i.e. it's actually flat like the ancients believed a long time ago. Because I know that "ancient wisdom" is important for you, Mary. As long as it's "ancient" crazy stuff and somebody says that there is a "fingerprint of God" in it, it's good to go. And facts be damned.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm waiting for the next installment, because I start to suspect that Earth is not round either, i.e. it's actually flat like the ancients believed a long time ago. Because I know that "ancient wisdom" is important for you, Mary.

People who are free of the oppressive scientific dogma have already realized that, and their theory is supported by evidence. Some people who are brainwashed by their education to think the Earth is round have found what they claim to be some holes in the flat Earth theory, but the dogma-free people have addressed those "holes", so they say.

So if Colin Hill thought the sun is flat, these folks also free of dogma think the Earth is even flatter, but interestingly, they admit the sun is round, even if it is only 32 miles in diameter, just like the moon:

The Flat Earth Society

Q: "Is this site a joke?"

A: This site is not a joke. We are actively promoting the Flat Earth movement worldwide. There are members who seriously believe the Earth is flat...

Q: "Why do you believe the Earth is flat?"

A: It looks that way up close. In our local reference frame, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. In addition, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat.

See? I told you there was even experimental evidence!

And you are correct that ancient wisdom rulez!

Q: "What is underneath the Earth?"

A: This is unknown. Most FE proponents believe that it is generally composed of rocks. Please note that in Hinduism, the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

That Hindu belief is the ancient wisdom I recall, but apparently flat Earthers don't all agree on that.

This one has me baffled though:

Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"

A: A celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon.

OK I'm a little suspicious now. I've never seen any evidence of this antimoon. So there might still be a few holes in the theory, but it just goes to show what can be accomplished when you're not bound by that scientific dogma. If they submitted this idea for peer review some brainwashed professor would annoyingly ask for proof of this "antimoon", well, how does he know it doesn't exist? We do at least see evidence of it in the lunar eclipses, right?

The mainstream ignores the flat Earth theory as much as they ignore Colin Hill's flat sun theory, and all the flat earth documents were destroyed in a fire, so was someone trying to conceal the true shape of the earth?

About the Flat Earth Society

In 1995, a fire destroyed the Johnson's home as well as all of the Flat Earth Society's library, archives and membership lists.

Before reading this thread I probably would have thought that was just an ordinary fire, but what I've gleaned from some of the postings in this thread is that anytime someone who doesn't agree with the mainstream has an adverse event like a death, or a fire, or is even is merely discredited by their colleagues, we must consider the possibility that information is being suppressed by TPTB because they don't want the truth to get out. Maybe my question about the antimoon was answered in one of those documents lost in the fire? I guess we'll never know, thanks to TPTB, or whatever caused that fire.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't have an opinion, yet, about Hill's theory. But I like his independence from mainstream scientific dogma.

Hill's flat sun theory, and the Flat Earth Society's flat earth theory, they really get you thinking don't they?.

Ahhhh, freedom from mainstream scientific dogma.....ain't it wonderful?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You don't have an opinion? Come on Mary! The Einstein cross example Buddhasystem used was accurate but I thought maybe a bit esoteric for a non-scientist like you, so I tried to pick the simplest thing I could find, comparing simple shapes like spheres and disks.

BS’s post was vague:

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . falsehood of one of Hill's assumptions.

To which I posted this:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Why did you not specify the assumption in question?

To which I received no answer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


reply to post by buddhasystem


reply to post by Arbitrageur


reply to post by buddhasystem


Here’s BS and Arb:

I'm not going to respond to it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . falsehood of one of Hill's assumptions.

To which I posted this:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Why did you not specify the assumption in question?

To which I received no answer.

Mary, it's pretty amazing that I actually read this cr@p to which you link, and you don't, because you don't care. So there, Hill goes about some stone cold stupid theory of Einstein Cross that you (I assumed) read in your own link, or should be able to find in a split second. Apparently your self-proclaimed "research skills" are vastly overrated and you (right here) explicitly require information to be spoon fed to you.

Here’s BS and Arb:

Yes, I thought that was the extent of your debating skills.

This is sooo entertaining .

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
“ It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . .

The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity.

This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry.
It turns out that such matter exists.
About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids.
Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness.
It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part.
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, it's pretty amazing that I actually read this cr@p to which you link, and you don't, because you don't care. So there, Hill goes about some stone cold stupid theory of Einstein Cross that you (I assumed) read in your own link, or should be able to find in a split second. Apparently your self-proclaimed "research skills" are vastly overrated and you (right here) explicitly require information to be spoon fed to you.

You did not specify that the assumption you were talking about was regarding the Einstein Cross. When I read your post, I interpreted the rebuttal of the Einstein Cross as being in opposition to whatever assumption it was that you were talking about.

Yeah, you're right, I didn't go to the 77 page document and search for "Einstein Cross." That's because I wasn't thinking in those terms.

Lastly, I have just begun reading the 77 page document, which I find very interesting.

Perhaps I was in error in not announcing that I had not read the whole document before recommending it.

Originally posted by 23432

" . . . The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”

en.wikipedia.org...

When a term is "taboo," it's more religion than science, isn't it?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 23432

" . . . The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”

en.wikipedia.org...

When a term is "taboo," it's more religion than science, isn't it?

I suspect the "taboo" was to avoid confusion with the "luminiferous aether" which is the type of aether that had been rejected by experiment.

The "taboo" wasn't so strong that it prevented Einstein from using the term "new aether" but it's probably good that term didn't stick because that was nearly a century ago and today it wouldn't be so new anymore, so that probably wasn't a very good name for it.

So from my perspective they just decided to call it something else (space time) because aether already had a common definition or meaning, which was luminiferous aether, and Einstein's "new aether" was something quite different so calling it something else like spacetime would help avoid confusion. That sounds like a logical reason to me that has nothing to do with religion.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 23432

" . . . The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”

en.wikipedia.org...

When a term is "taboo," it's more religion than science, isn't it?

Walks like it , talks like it , quacks like it ,

It ought to have a high probability of being a Duck .

Dogmatic Duck is a good description , imho.

No body has a complete understanding of Quantum Physics , which is why it is interesting and entertainting .