"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

I like this new website that I've found showing open-source R&D for Rodin's math and coil. (Two images are yet to be provided): "Using Rodin's Math to Design a Coil"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This is my intuition speaking to me. It's too showy. It doesn't ring true to me.

How much scientific evidence does it take to persuade you that your intuition is wrong? Is there any conceivable amount or is it an impossible task?

Sorry, somehow I missed that post of yours when I wrote my third request. But you never really explained what it is you think we see in the movie. Do you think those dots are generated with a computer and the whole thing is a hoax? Even though it's been replicated in different laboratories by different people? It's been replicated with different particles too. (or wavicles if you prefer ) One of the videos on youtube says it's showing the same type of result with neon atoms, those can be seen hitting one at a time also.

One researcher in one lab can certainly create a hoax, though more commonly it's some kind of experimental error that we worry about. But the chances of other independent labs confirming a hoax seem pretty unlikely to me.

If it's just too showy, here's another video from a laboratory at Princeton, which isn't showy at all, it's kind of silly actually. But you can see the individual dots of light on the detector, in this case from individual photons starting at about 2:50:


The photons are hitting much faster in this video, so you'd have to slow down the video to get the same effect as the other video but individual flashes can be seen. They have a sound generator set to make a sound when the photons hit in this one.

Originally posted by svetlana84
you see the time go around from 1 to 12 then on the full circle you have either 13 o clock in the 24hr system or 1 o clock in the 12 hr system. so 13 equals 1.
or adapted to the 9system: 10 equals 1

That's a valid form of mathematics called modulo. When applied to a 12 hour clock it's modulo 12.

I explain how that math works on page 98 in this post and how if that's what Rodin is trying to do, he gets it wrong:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read that post and see if that explains how the clock example is a valid form of modulo math, but Rodin's usage is inconsistent with modulo math.

When the clock reads 13, and you say that 13 is congruent to 1 in modulo 12 math, you're not adding digits together like Rodin does, right? If you add 1 and 3 together, you get 4. What's the significance of 4? There isn't any, and that's where Rodin's extreme error is if it's modulo math he's trying to apply when he adds the 2 and the 7 of 27 for example. The congruence of 27 and 9 in modulo 9 math has nothing to do with adding the 2 and the 7 in 27.

In modulo 8 math, 24 and 8 are congruent, and if you add the 2 and the 4, you get 6. It's really kind of silly because the 2 isn't really 2, it's the notation for 20. This is what makes it "nonsense" as Rodin's endorser put it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've been going through my stack of research print-outs this morning. One of them is "RodinAerodynamics.org - featuring the Rodin Coil" which I printed in 2007. . . .
Absolutely fascinating.

Looking over this print-out again, I see some notes I took. Here is a scan of the illustration from page 8:



Rodin says the 3, 9, and 6 is a vector, and the oscillation between the 3 and 6 demonstrates the fourth dimension and the higher dimensional magnetic field of an electrical coil. The 3, 9, and 6 always occur together with the 9 as the control.

He says the Yin/Yang is not a duality; rather, it is a trinary. The 3 and 6 represent each side of the Yin/Yang and the 9 is the "S" curve between them. He says that everything is based on thirds.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This is my intuition speaking to me. It's too showy. It doesn't ring true to me.

How much scientific evidence does it take to persuade you that your intuition is wrong? Is there any conceivable amount or is it an impossible task?

Arb,

look -- Mary keeps saying that "we haven't isolated an electron". I admit that I'm not 100% what it means, but if I venture to interpret that, it seems to be saying that "we don't know properties of the electron", or "we can't measure interactions electrons have with other objects", or "I don't believe atomic structure of matter", or some combination of the above. All of this is bogus, of course, and simply means that Mary has no interest in learning facts. So I understand that no amount of scientific evidence can persuade Mary.

Atomic structure of the universe is a mystery .

Hardly anyone seems to understand the quantum physics .

The very model which the science uses is what Mary seems to be questioning .

For that reason ; I can see how she would not be persuaded by a scientific evidence .

In her reasoning , the evidence is tainted .

It would be interesting to see a double torroid within a sphere , arranged vectorially according to Rodin's numbers .

Originally posted by 23432
Atomic structure of the universe is a mystery .

For me, swahili language is a mystery. But that's because I never took time to learn it. Still, I don't go around claiming that native speakers and world experts on that language got its grammar wrong, simply because I have a feeling they are all wrong. If I did, I would look like a complete moron.

reply to post by 23432


In the meanwhile, science has brought us all the technology we are currently using, such as computers, cars, mobile phones etc. Ironically, all the technology that made it even possible to questions the science is based on this same science.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
Atomic structure of the universe is a mystery .

For me, swahili language is a mystery. But that's because I never took time to learn it. Still, I don't go around claiming that native speakers and world experts on that language got its grammar wrong, simply because I have a feeling they are all wrong. If I did, I would look like a complete moron.

Atomic structure of the universe is not a mystery to you too ?

If Rodin learnt conventional physics , do you think he would of had a better understanding of what he doesn't currently understand ?
Or do you think he would still insist on Baha'i heritage of 9's to be represented in his model ?

Have you thought about a biological explanation for Quantum Physics ?

I understand that you want to stick to a scientifically proven method to explain away what doesn't fit into what you understand to be solid facts .

Rodin doesn't want to play that game at all .

I don't think it is any use to expect Mary to play that game either .

Originally posted by 23432
The very model which the science uses is what Mary seems to be questioning

Mary is denying the experimental evidence of individual electrons being fired in the double slit experiment.

That's quite different than questioning the models of how this evidence should be interpreted, which even scientists do.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Beebs was questioning interpretation and why everyone believes the Copenhagen interpretation. Not everyone believes in the Copenhagen interpretation. A poster on physicsforums said even if we can't all agree on the interpretation like Copenhagen or otherwise, at least the one thing we can all agree on, is what the experimental evidence shows us.

I thought that we could all agree on that too, before Mary said she didn't even believe that!

I must admit my own intuition isn't so good when it comes to quantum mechanics, and I found it pretty hard to set aside my intuition when I first learned it. But I finally accepted that I'm the product of an evolutionary process where my hunter/gatherer ancestors had no need to evolve an understanding of the microscopic world to survive.

I also find this perspective interesting:

lesswrong.com...

Quantum mechanics doesn't deserve its fearsome reputation. If you tell people something is supposed to be mysterious, they won't understand it. It's human intuitions that are "strange" or "weird"; physics itself is perfectly normal.

I don't think our intuitions are strange on objects large enough to see, but for objects too small to see, it is strange to think we should be able to trust our intuition. So on the quantum scale, it's not nature that's strange, it's human intuition that's strange.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thanks arbitrageur for your quick and logic answer.

Originally posted by svetlana84 you see the time go around from 1 to 12 then on the full circle you have either 13 o clock in the 24hr system or 1 o clock in the 12 hr system. so 13 equals 1. or adapted to the 9system: 10 equals 1 That's a valid form of mathematics called modulo. When applied to a 12 hour clock it's modulo 12. I explain how that math works on page 98 in this post and how if that's what Rodin is trying to do, he gets it wrong: www.abovetopsecret.com... Read that post and see if that explains how the clock example is a valid form of modulo math, but Rodin's usage is inconsistent with modulo math. When the clock reads 13, and you say that 13 is congruent to 1 in modulo 12 math, you're not adding digits together like Rodin does, right? If you add 1 and 3 together, you get 4. What's the significance of 4? There isn't any, and that's where Rodin's extreme error is if it's modulo math he's trying to apply when he adds the 2 and the 7 of 27 for example. The congruence of 27 and 9 in modulo 9 math has nothing to do with adding the 2 and the 7 in 27. In modulo 8 math, 24 and 8 are congruent, and if you add the 2 and the 4, you get 6. It's really kind of silly because the 2 isn't really 2, it's the notation for 20. This is what makes it "nonsense" as Rodin's endorser put it.

With

When the clock reads 13, and you say that 13 is congruent to 1 in modulo 12 math, you're not adding digits together like Rodin does, right?

I agree. I see the flaw.
So I went back to my watch example. When it s 13h you subtract 12 = 1.

So i tried this within a 9 system: from every number subtract 9 until you get a single digit.
Example:

24 IS in Rodin's system 6
24-9=15 15-9 = 6

43 IS in Rodin's system 7
43-9=34 34-9=25 25-9=16 16-9=7

I just did this with about 20 randomly picked numbers and always got the same results as in rodin's system.
(Please put it to the test)
If this pattern is really true, it leaves me puzzled: on one hand disagreeing rodin's way of calculating the digit sum of numbers, based on 9 but on the other hand it would prove "my" watch-theory which comes to the same results as rodin?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by 23432

 

In the meanwhile, science has brought us all the technology we are currently using, such as computers, cars, mobile phones etc. Ironically, all the technology that made it even possible to questions the science is based on this same science.

Some people ( including me ) on this thread are actually thinking that there is a conspiracy to be found about the way the science has hogged the development of humanity .

While you do have a valid point to make . Somewhat your point doesn't come at the expense of the larger point being made .

It is potentially possible to have an incomplete understanding of a giving subject and make use of it .

In science , it is adviced to question everything . It is unscientific to rule out questioning routine .

Giving that the nature of universe still eludes me and others , I guess we will keep asking questions , even silly ones time to time .


Nature of Universe fascinating and I don't believe that we will ever have a complete understanding of it .

How do we know that a Galileo moment is not being repeated in this very subject which we are discussing ?

If I am correct the calculation works as well by dividing by 9 and the reminder is the same as the Rodin's digit sum:

examples:

263 digit sum is 11 is 2
263 / 9 = 29,.... (29x9=261) 263-261= 2

127 digit sum is 10 is 1
127/9 = 14,.. (14x9=126) 127-126=1

did this with many numbers and came to the same results as rodins digit sums.
there are specials though, all number which can be divided by 9
example 135 is 15x9, so reminder would be 0.
135 rodin digit sum is 9. but back to the clock example 12 would be 0
or in rodin's world 9 is 0.

Am I correct here ?

Just an addition when 9 is the spirit. I see a paralles in 9 is 0 as in
"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

(Wow, would never have thought to do maths on my spare time AND cite the bible I used to stay way away from both math and the bible....)

Originally posted by 23432
Atomic structure of the universe is not a mystery to you too ?

Actually, no. There are deep mysteries in other areas of physics, as well as nuance in the atomic model, but by and large we got it down cold.

If Rodin learnt conventional physics , do you think he would of had a better understanding of what he doesn't currently understand ?

That's a possibility. Looking at videos from Rodin and reading his write-ups, I see that he doesn't understand much of anything, so taking some classes and getting a grade can't possibly make it worse.

Or do you think he would still insist on Baha'i heritage of 9's to be represented in his model ?

We call something a "model" when it maps onto an entity and/or a process in what we call "reality". Rodin's sudoku does not. Waving hands and chanting "aetheric flux" does not a model make.

I understand that you want to stick to a scientifically proven method to explain away what doesn't fit into what you understand to be solid facts .

Rodin doesn't want to play that game at all .

It's not a game. It's a thing called "reality". See Lewis Black's video I posted some time ago.

Originally posted by svetlana84
I just did this with about 20 randomly picked numbers and always got the same results as in rodin's system.
(Please put it to the test)
If this pattern is really true, it leaves me puzzled: on one hand disagreeing rodin's way of calculating the digit sum of numbers, based on 9 but on the other hand it would prove "my" watch-theory which comes to the same results as rodin?

This is correct. Modulo math is valid math and you're doing it correctly, by subtracting the modulo number. That's the way we work with 12 hour clocks. If Rodin had also subtracted the modulo number we could say he was doing modulo math correctly too, but this isn't how he did it, he added the digits.

Originally posted by svetlana84
did this with many numbers and came to the same results as rodins digit sums.
there are specials though, all number which can be divided by 9

We arbitrarily use a base 10 numbering system, perhaps because most of us have 10 digits on our hands (though a few people have more or less, we just tend to ignore them )

vanrentalwarriors.blogspot.com...

If all of us looked like this instead of just a few of us, we may be working with a base 12 numbering system. In this case someone would be claiming "11 is the fingerprint of God" because it's one less than the base you're working in.

But I think what you will find is that if you work in base 12 or base 9 instead of base 10, you will no longer see such properties of the number 9 in other bases, which are also perfectly valid numbering systems. In fact the computers we are using to post here are using the base 2 numbering system because computerized transistors can only recognize 2 states, 0 or 1. That works great for computers where the number 9 is written as 1001. In fact I think you can confirm that Rodin's method turns into complete gibberish in base 2 like your computer uses, try it.

I'm not aware of anything ordained by God that all math has to be done in base 10, and it isn't, as I just pointed out. Your computer and mobile phone couldn't work in base 10 if they wanted to.

If 9 is such a great number, maybe we should work in base 9 instead of base 10? Aside from the fact that would be confusing, the number 9 is written as "10" in base 9. Does 9 still have magical properties in base 9? base 8? base 2? base 12? All these are completely interchangeable to a mathematician, and certainly base 2 is routine for computer applications.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
Atomic structure of the universe is not a mystery to you too ?

Actually, no. There are deep mysteries in other areas of physics, as well as nuance in the atomic model, but by and large we got it down cold.

I do seem to remember how ideas changed about the nature of the atom in last 100 years .
Science build a model. If new evidence comes along, the model gets changed.
Are you telling me that this current model is all that there is to it ?
No more changes in the future to nature of Atom ? Is that what you believe too ?
If yes , I am afraid I disagree .In all likely hood , what you got down cold in relation to Nature of Atom probably will change .

If Rodin learnt conventional physics , do you think he would of had a better understanding of what he doesn't currently understand ?

That's a possibility. Looking at videos from Rodin and reading his write-ups, I see that he doesn't understand much of anything, so taking some classes and getting a grade can't possibly make it worse.

Elephant in the dark room analogy comes to mind .

Or do you think he would still insist on Baha'i heritage of 9's to be represented in his model ?

We call something a "model" when it maps onto an entity and/or a process in what we call "reality". Rodin's sudoku does not. Waving hands and chanting "aetheric flux" does not a model make.

Reality is a subjective term , is it not ? In another reality , the physics have found a way to accept Aether perhaps .

I understand that you want to stick to a scientifically proven method to explain away what doesn't fit into what you understand to be solid facts .

Rodin doesn't want to play that game at all .

It's not a game. It's a thing called "reality". See Lewis Black's video I posted some time ago.

What is reality ? Isn't it the electrical signals interpreted by our brains ? Perhaps what you are adhering as reality is just another layer within the fabric of space-time ?

reply to post by 23432


I don't care whether reality is a set of signals in my brain or something else. I'm speaking strictly in the sense that's something I can experience in an objective manner. I throw a stone, and it comes back down. I do a calculation for a transformer, build it, take a measurement, and guess what, it works as I designed it to work.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by 23432

 

I don't care whether reality is a set of signals in my brain or something else. I'm speaking strictly in the sense that's something I can experience in an objective manner. I throw a stone, and it comes back down. I do a calculation for a transformer, build it, take a measurement, and guess what, it works as I designed it to work.

you do take this subject too seriously imho .

Rodin is as eccentric as it gets but he doesn't strike me as a fraud .

Oh , I also have designed + built a thing or two that works .

Originally posted by 23432
you do take this subject too seriously imho .

Possibly! Then again, the motto of ATS is "deny ignorance".

Rodin is as eccentric as it gets but he doesn't strike me as a fraud

I already voiced my opinion that he's not a fraud. Just delusional

Originally posted by 23432
Oh , I also have designed + built a thing or two that works .

Anything similar to a Rodin coil?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
you do take this subject too seriously imho .

Possibly! Then again, the motto of ATS is "deny ignorance".

Rodin is as eccentric as it gets but he doesn't strike me as a fraud

I already voiced my opinion that he's not a fraud. Just delusional

I think you have long gone passed the point of denying ignorance .

Above and beyond is where you are at imho .

I have no doubt that you are an expert in your area .

But I don't think what Rodin is trying to tell us actually falls within your remit.

Status Quo needs to change and indeed it does change with ideas .