It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 138
39
<< 135  136  137    139  140  141 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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


Anything similar to a Rodin coil?



Nope .

MicroSurgery and Aeronautics are where my work to be found .



edit on 6-12-2011 by 23432 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
But I don't think what Rodin is trying to tell us actually falls within your remit.


Wait... Rodin is saying some very specific things, like that he created a way for super efficient movement of electrons. He also says that he has created a black hole in his lab. That falls squarely "within the remit" of anyone with decent education in natural sciences. If Rodin was discussing swahili or ancient Greek literature, it would be different. But here he is, saying that he's creating black holes. This makes about as much sense as saying that his dog poops diamonds.


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


It can't be changed by saying false and irresponsible things and effectively promoting ignorance.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 




Galileo moment , yet again .

Of course do deny ignorance but to do it so vehemently and repeatedly like you do is not usual in this context imho
.

Natural sciences education has no coverage for what Rodin is talking about .
The guy is preaching mysticism & bahaism mathematics and a stone cold physicist is trying to debunk his take on creation .



For the record , I don't believe that Rodin is delusional . He maybe mistaken .







edit on 6-12-2011 by 23432 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432

MicroSurgery and Aeronautics are where my work to be found .

Sounds interesting, though.


Originally posted by svetlana84
Especially with the rodin knowledge it should be interesting to look back again into two subjects or work of two people which i ve been into, but left because it literally did my head in, since i knew there is something big, but important pieces of puzzle have been missing: . . . and ed leedskalnin (corral castle).



Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Using Rodin's Math to Design a Coil"

Leedskalnin is mentioned in the above:


Your probably asking "what would a shorted out, series circuit of 6 iron coils do?". My thoughts are that they will carry magnetism as described in Ed Leedskalnin's books. In his Perpetual Motion Holder experiments he describes how "North and South pole magnets" will travel faster in soft iron. The north and south flow in opposite directions at the same time. They also flow forever, as long as the iron circuit is connected.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Natural sciences education has no coverage for what Rodin is talking about


I agree with that! I didn't "cover" anything in particular. When he says "this is a perfect intonation of the name of God", I as a physicist won't comment. But clearly, he's engaged in promising unlimited energy and cure for all decease, and things of that nature. In addition to interstellar travel, of course. These are some very practical propositions, don't you think? And of course, the black hole claim. If you are telling it's all Baha'i, you took upon yourself to interpret Rodin and willing to take a huge stretch there.


For the record , I don't believe that Rodin is delusional . He maybe mistaken .


Oh puh-leeeeeeze...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
Natural sciences education has no coverage for what Rodin is talking about


I agree with that! I didn't "cover" anything in particular. When he says "this is a perfect intonation of the name of God", I as a physicist won't comment. But clearly, he's engaged in promising unlimited energy and cure for all decease, and things of that nature. In addition to interstellar travel, of course. These are some very practical propositions, don't you think? And of course, the black hole claim. If you are telling it's all Baha'i, you took upon yourself to interpret Rodin and willing to take a huge stretch there.

Mysticism & Bahaism are the two influences that i can spot easy . There maybe more influences but I am not able to spot them .
As for what he is promising i.e free energy , cure of illnesses , interstellar travel and all the rest , well , where are they ?
They don't exists as of yet because according to Rodin , an engineer have to come along and make the application of the knowledge that Rodin claims to have uncovered .
In order that to happen , one had to study and understand the whole damn thing in depth .
I am too old for that type of study so I'll let the young bucks do the duty .

According to a Bahaist associate of mine ;
There was once a river bank full of mud which was very rich in fine particles of bismuth .
Any wool which was dipped into this mud and made into a carpet would have special properties which enabled it to float over very magnetic grounds .



For the record , I don't believe that Rodin is delusional . He maybe mistaken .


Oh puh-leeeeeeze...


No , seriously . He might be onto something but due to his mistaken understanding of the subject , he may be over estimating or plain wrong .
Give the man benefit of the doubt . After all this the Skunkwork section of a conspiracy theory forum .



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
No , seriously . He might be onto something but due to his mistaken understanding of the subject , he may be over estimating or plain wrong .
Give the man benefit of the doubt . After all this the Skunkwork section of a conspiracy theory forum .
No, he's not onto something, and it's insulting to people who ARE onto something to lump Rodin in that same group with them.

For example, a number of people doing dark matter research may be onto something with the publication of this landmark paper:

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter


An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen.


However along comes Rodin who says "the number nine is the missing particle in the universe known as Dark matter". How dies this explain mathematically the the bullet cluster observations I just cited? It doesn't.

I further propose that saying "the number nine is the missing particle in the universe known as Dark matter" goes far beyond delusional. Delusional is when your skin itches and you think you have invisible parasites eating your skin which is what is making it itch. Saying the number 9 is a missing particle is the statement of a madman.

For one thing, the number 9 has never been missing as long as we have had our current numbering system, so how it it missing? And how is it a particle? What is its mass? How many number 9's are there in the bullet cluster? And where is Rodin's evidence for any of this?

No, let's not insult people who really might be onto something by dumping the ravings of a madman into the same basket with them, it demeans the work and their contribution of people who really ARE onto something.
edit on 6-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I agree; the universe has always been here, and will always be here; it' infinite:




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I have found it rather funny that Rodin's talks could be offensive .



Perhaps this is why I actually think that this thread is suberbly entertaining while informative at the same time .



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I agree; the universe has always been here, and will always be here; it' infinite:

Your ability to consistently find sources who get basic things wrong continues to amaze me.

The big bang theory is usually credited to Lemaître's 1927 writing: www.rsc.org...

The Higgs particle wasn't even proposed until 1964, so I find that video rather laughable to say that the Higgs is the basis for the big bang theory, and failure to find the Higgs means the big bang theory is wrong!

Mary you pursue so many lies, deceptions, frauds, and hoaxes I have to wonder if you ever run across the truth even by accident? How do you suppose the big bang theory managed to exist from 1927 to 1964?

I can tell you, because the big bang theory during that time was derived from observations related to the Hubble constant, not from the Higgs. And failure to find the Higgs has done nothing to change observations of the Hubble constant.

Georges Lemaître

Lemaître's theory changed the course of cosmology. This was because Lemaître:

Was well acquainted with the work of astronomers, and designed his theory to have testable implications and to be in accord with observations of the time, in particular, to explain the observed redshift of galaxies and the linear relation between distances and velocities;

edit on 6-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It's come time to put up or shut up... The Big Bang. In your opinion did it happen as popularly mentioned? Mass-less virtual particles exist or not? Rhetorical question of course. Last but not least... How do you account for background radiation and galactic clusters seemingly moving towards the same location in our known Universe?

Answers would be helpful... Playground physics that fail to match up with recent findings won't hold weight any longer.

If you'd like to populate this construct with virtual reality, I've got some virtual food for thought with your name on it.
edit on 6-12-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 

Here's a concept that doesn't require any advanced physics to comprehend.

With the exception of Andromeda and perhaps a few other blue shifted galaxies, most other galaxies are red shifted meaning they are moving away from us and from each other.

If they are moving apart now, where were they a year ago? A little bit closer together, it would seem.

And the year before that? A little bit closer.
And the year before that? A little bit closer.
And the year before that? A little bit closer.

So where does this lead?

Here's a simple analogy you might remember from grade school math

"Two trains have been traveling in opposite directions for an hour each at a constant speed of 60 miles per hour.

They are now 120 miles apart.

What was the distance between the trains 30 minutes ago?

What was the distance between the trains one hour ago?"

If you can solve the train problem (can you?), then you can apply the same math to galaxies in a similar fashion. If you really want to get fancy you don't even have to assume the galaxies have moved at a constant speed, but when you do this, you have to explain why the speed isn't constant, or in other words, support your assumptions.

You can do all that without ever invoking the Higgs particle.

So the question is, if galaxies are moving apart, how far back in time do you have to go when the distance between them was zero? In concept, it's not a hard question. In practical application, there are some complications that have to be considered, but those still don't make it hard to grasp conceptually.

edit on 6-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You sound confused.

The point of the video was that the pursuit of the particle was to try to prove the Big Bang theory - not that it was the source of the theory.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The point of the video was that the pursuit of the particle was to try to prove the Big Bang theory - not that it was the source of the theory.
That statement only confirms the video is wrong.

The pursuit of the Higgs was not to prove the big bang theory. The big bang theory was already established decades earlier.

The wiki on the Higgs boson is somewhat lengthy and it doesn't even mention the big bang.

Moreover a list of evidence for the big bang doesn't say anything about the Higgs either:

Evidence Supporting the General Big Bang Scheme


    As of now, the Big Bang theory is the only one that can explain all of these observations.

  1. The galaxies (or galaxy clusters) are systematically moving away from us such that the farther away galaxies are moving faster away from us. As a result of General Relativity this means that space itself is expanding carrying the galaxies with it. Both the Big Bang Theory and its major competitor, the Steady State Theory, could explain it. Recall that the Steady State Theory used the perfect cosmological principle while the Big Bang uses the cosmological principle.

  2. The cosmic microwave background radiation can be explained only by the Big Bang theory. The background radiation is the relic of an early hot universe. The Steady State theory could not explain the background radiation, and so fell into disfavor.

  3. The amount of activity (active galaxies, quasars, collisions) was greater in the past than now. This shows that the universe does evolve (change) with time. The Steady State theory says that the universe should remain the same with time, so once again, it does not work.

  4. The number of quasars drops off for very large redshifts (redshifts greater than about 50% of the speed of light). The Hubble Law says that these are for large look-back times. This observation is taken to mean that the universe was not old enough to produce quasars at those large redshifts. The universe did have a beginning.

  5. The abundance of hydrogen, helium, deuterium, lithium agrees with that predicted by the Big Bang theory. The abundances are checked from the spectra of the the oldest stars and gas clouds which are made from unprocessed, primitive material. They have the predicted relative abundances.
That video is really pretty silly, but then so are most of the sources you come up with.

The best source I can think of you've found so far, is the guy who admitted he (re-) invented the dimmer switch. I respect someone like him who can admit the accuracy of facts which are pointed out to him.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The pursuit of the Higgs was not to prove the big bang theory. The big bang theory was already established decades earlier.


Listen to yourself.

Here's Arb: The big bang theory was already established decades earlier.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I didn't say it was proven. I didn't even say I like the theory.

My post says it's the only theory we have that explains all five of those observations.

So far, nobody's got a better theory that explains those observations, right?

And more to the point of the video you posted, those five observations have nothing to do with the Higgs, right?
edit on 7-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And more to the point of the video you posted, those five observations have nothing to do with the Higgs, right?


I don't know. I see you've posted five observations, but to be honest, I'm not interested in reading and researching them.

Why? Instinctively, I know that there was no beginning to the universe, because if there were to be a beginning, then how can we explain how whatever made the beginning happen, got here?



The universe is infinite works for me.

Listening to the video again, I learned a new term: Biocentrism. Interesting. Also mentioned was plasma cosmology. These are the theories I'm interested in.

The video made it clear that the LHC, which took 16 years to build at the cost of $10 billion (is that figure too low?), has been called the "Big Bang Machine" and that the search for the "elusive" Higgs boson was for the purpose of finding that particle that set off the Big Bang. (In addition to trying to prove string theory.)

Are you saying that, no, that's not what CERN scientists have been trying to do there?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Are you saying that, no, that's not what CERN scientists have been trying to do there?


As an aside, I'd like to mention that it is very possible that the official story of why the LHC was built and what has been going on there could simply be a cover story.

This is something I've heard before, and I've noticed that someone put that in the comments for the video. It will be interesting to see where those comments end up.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
My understanding is that the blocks that were used to build the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple that are in front of the Sphinx in Egypt came from the enclosure area that is around the Sphinx, (we know this because the strata of the blocks match the strata of the enclosure wall) and that these blocks weigh in excess of 200 tons.



Originally posted by Mary Rose
Talk about in-your-face evidence of "paranormal" technology related to energy!


My belief is that our official technology today could not transport 200 ton blocks from here to there on planet earth.

Therefore, my assertion that there is suppression of free energy technology is supported by the existence of the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple that are in front of the Sphinx in Egypt.

Naysayers of suppression of free energy technology point to what modern day technology to transport 200 tons?

edit on 12/07/11 by Mary Rose because: Wording



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
On Page 36 I linked to the video “Rodin Coil Levitation and Spin of Neosphere.” (I brought it up again on pages 102 and 131 but no discussion ensued.)

Alex Petty states that he thinks what is demonstated in this video is fascinating and that there is a huge amount of potential represented:



What do this thread’s naysayers say about this? Is what is demonstrated routine? Nothing whatsoever unusual? Or what?

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

And, regarding this video:



And this comment:


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Hard metal on glass will result in a very low friction coefficient. OK, so the magnet will spin for a while after you stopped supplying energy to it via a leaky toroidal coil. What is the big deal here?


And this response:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
From Jack Scholze:


. . . The resonances observed show an extended spindown of the spinning neoball magnet beyond what you expect from simply resistance. . . . The good question is, does any other energy come into the system while this is occurring, like the Zeropoint energy, or the radiant energy, etc. . . .


The naysayers are quite certain that no extended spindown is in evidence, or what?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 135  136  137    139  140  141 >>

log in

join