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: 139
39
<< 136  137  138    140  141  142 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

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


You see, Arb? Why bother.




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


No seriously, I won't. For all I know my neighbor may be Lord Krishna in disguise, and his Harley Davidson may be a camouflaged celestial chariot. Just throwing around verbiage with no proof, meaning or logic is plain stupid.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 






I think you have tunnel vision.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 






I think you have tunnel vision.


Mary, you eschew objective look at evidence and logic. What's the point in presenting any of that for your perusal? You can say that I have "tunnel vision" or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that you have no interest in learning about reality. You have "intuition", and facts be damned. Oh well.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The naysayers are quite certain that no extended spindown is in evidence, or what?


How can anyone determine whether spindown is extended by simply looking at a spinning ball? Extended compared to what? Why are there no measurements?

If they would use some actual science and make some real world measurements (and do it correctly of course), it will turn out that there isn't any other energy, like zero point energy or radiant energy. If they can show that there is, and the measurements are confirmed by others, then I will no longer by quite certain that this is a bunch of woo. But we know that this will never happen (and not because this is suppressed, but because it is woo).



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
How can anyone determine whether spindown is extended by simply looking at a spinning ball? Extended compared to what?


Extended compared to what you normally see. Life experience.


Originally posted by -PLB-
Why are there no measurements?


Probably because the equipment to do so is expensive, and open-source R&D is done by individuals who care about what goes on in the world and are doing what they do with their own money on their own time. They make their living some other way.

Here is where the worldwide community of open-source R&D comes in. People are starting to pool resources and donate money and equipment.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Extended compared to what you normally see. Life experience.


Not long ago I was working on my bike. I gave the wheel a small push and it turned for an extended period of time.

Do you think other energy like ZPE or radial energy was used by my wheel? Do you think it would be silly if I claimed it was? If so, why do you think it is silly in case of the wheel of my bike, but not silly in case of a spherical magnet in a cup?


Originally posted by -PLB-
Probably because the equipment to do so is expensive, and open-source R&D is done by individuals who care about what goes on in the world and are doing what they do with their own money on their own time. They make their living some other way.

Here is where the worldwide community of open-source R&D comes in. People are starting to pool resources and donate money and equipment.



Weak excuse.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, you eschew objective look at evidence and logic.


Baloney.

I eschew your version of evidence and logic.

My intuition for choosing experts to pay attention to works just fine. Your ridicule of me and my chosen experts is nothing but a fallacy of reason. I reject it.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, you eschew objective look at evidence and logic.


Baloney.

I eschew your version of evidence and logic.

My intuition for choosing experts to pay attention to works just fine. Your ridicule of me and my chosen experts is nothing but a fallacy of reason. I reject it.


No, you eschew objective evidence presented to you. As you say, you "choose experts" based on your intuition, and that's all there is to it. If there is scientific evidence, you promptly describe it as a result of cover-up and/or politics. When asked to explain the workings of Rodin's "math", you plainly state that there are two counter-rotating streams of "aether", and you don't need any evidence to support this ridiculous claim -- at all!

Case in point -- I have nothing to do with arguments in favor or against the Big Bang theory. These are out there for any functional mind to explore. But you refuse to do that! You have preconceived notions and won't allow anything to get between you and your fantasy world.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Do you think other energy like ZPE or radial energy was used by my wheel?

Obviously, it would depend on how hard you pushed, how long it would turn. Pushing a bike wheel is not analogous with electronics engineered in a new way.


Originally posted by -PLB-
Weak excuse.

Why? Do you think these are a bunch of crooks out to cheat the public, or what?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Pushing a bike wheel is not analogous with electronics engineered in a new way.


There is ZERO evidence that this "engineering" even exists.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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?
This seems to answer my question about whether there's any conceivable amount of scientific evidence that can outweigh your intuition. The answer is no, there's not. And to proudly admit this on a site with the motto "deny ignorance", your claim is that you embrace ignorance.


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?
This is a muddled and confused explanation, partly perpetrated by the media who want sensational sounding headlines with words like "big bang" in them. The media reports I heard which I think I even complained about on ATS, said that scientists were using the LHC to try to recreate conditions right after the big bang, and as I pointed out the LHC falls far short of achieving big bang conditions.

In fact to make this distinction more clear, in order to test some aspects of string theory, we would need an accelerator 100 trillion times as powerful as the LHC. Now if someone built that, and claimed it came close to duplicating conditions in the big bang, I would admit it comes a lot closer than the LHC does. So by this example I say the LHC is 100 trillion times less powerful than it needs to be to get close enough to big bang conditions to test string theory.

However if someone claims it's the closest we have yet come to duplicating big bang conditions on Earth, I can't really dispute that claim. And none of that involves the Higgs specifically. The whole idea of getting conditions closer to the big bang is to peer further inside atomic structure.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
You see, Arb? Why bother.
You were right.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Case in point -- I have nothing to do with arguments in favor or against the Big Bang theory. These are out there for any functional mind to explore. But you refuse to do that! You have preconceived notions and won't allow anything to get between you and your fantasy world.
I have preconceived notions too. I have no philisophical preference for the universe to have a beginning versus steady state, infinite or not, I'm fine with all that.

My preconceived notions are along the lines of this:
  1. How can the entire Earth, everything I see on the planet, occupy a space smaller than the head of a pin? OK I know that atoms are mostly space so if you take out all the space what's left is pretty small.
  2. However the sun is a million times larger than the Earth, how can that be smaller than the head of a pin?
  3. The Milky Way galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars, how can that be smaller than the head of a pin?
  4. There are probably a hundred billion galaxies, how can all of them together be smaller than the head of a pin?


    If the big bang didn't have some pretty strong evidence supporting it, and I reled on my intuition, my intuition would say that maybe some people are overly optimistic about how much matter can fit in how small a space. But the big bang theory DOES have very strong evidence supporting it, (for anyone willing to look at the evidence), so now instead of relying on my intuition, I look for ways my intuition might be wrong. If all the evidence suggests that much matter fit in that small a space, and my intuition says it can't, then the problem must be with my intuition. If there was another theory that explained all the observations without having to fit so much matter in so small a space, I'd probably prefer it, but I 've looked at alternative theories, and none of them fit the evidence.


    Originally posted by Mary Rose
    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 demonstrated 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?
    Apparently, it doesn't matter what people say who base their conclusions on evidence.

    What does your intuition say? That should be the guiding light of ultimate truth for not only you, but for me, all the scientists on Earth, and all the people on Earth, right? Why bother with silly things like evidence?

    Here's why. Someone else thinks their intuition is just as good as yours, so who's intuition is right if they can't both be right? In the simplest possible way this explains why intuition is insufficient and if you prefer intuition over evidence, that's your choice but you should at least acknowledge this path leads not to truth but to a personal state of delusion and ignorance.

    As has already been pointed out in this thread, MAGLEV trains have been built using electromagnetic levitation principles. And I'm pretty sure that if they used any coils in their construction, they weren't Rodin coils.
    edit on 7-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Obviously, it would depend on how hard you pushed, how long it would turn.


And for the ball in the cup it would depend on the strength and direction of the field. Is the fact that you can not see this field the reason you are puzzled how this ball can turn as long as it can? As opposed to that you can see me push the wheel, and therefor less of a mystery to you?


Pushing a bike wheel is not analogous with electronics engineered in a new way.


Why exactly are the two situations not analogous?


Why? Do you think these are a bunch of crooks out to cheat the public, or what?


It is pretty easy to construct a method to do such a measurement and it would require no or very little money. Just measure the revolutions (can be done by measuring the field, or maybe even using a stroboscope). The people aren't even trying.

These people are either a bit disconnected from reality or they are indeed scammers.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by -PLB-
Why are there no measurements?


Probably because the equipment to do so is expensive, and open-source R&D is done by individuals who care about what goes on in the world and are doing what they do with their own money on their own time. They make their living some other way.

Here is where the worldwide community of open-source R&D comes in. People are starting to pool resources and donate money and equipment.


OK, so Mary admits that there is no real measurement and no result whatsoever. I concur. I'm also willing to wait until people "donate money and equipment".

As a person who likes lab work, however, I must say that some measurements can be done with amazingly low investment. One can etch a tiny dot on the surface of the magnet and use a strobe to accurately measure rotational speed. Such supplies can be had for mere dollars in surplus stores! As to "own time"... Look, this person apparently has got a lot of it on his hands since he built the coil. So yeah, he does have the time. All he needs is a brain. And that's a lot harder to get than a strobe light.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
It is pretty easy to construct a method to do such a measurement and it would require no or very little money. Just measure the revolutions (can be done by measuring the field, or maybe even using a stroboscope).


Before I query Jack Scholze on this, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

What he has failed to do is measure the revolutions. This could be done by measuring the field. You also mention using a stroboscope.

Are you saying that the revolutions are measured by either measuring the field or using a stroboscope?

If that's what you're saying, then how does one measure the field?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   







..................................................................................
Posting video links - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
* Link
* Description
* Review/Opinion



edit on 12/8/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What he has failed to do is measure the revolutions. This could be done by measuring the field. You also mention using a stroboscope.


Thats one thing he failed to measure. He should of course also measure the power consumed by the coil.


Are you saying that the revolutions are measured by either measuring the field or using a stroboscope?

If that's what you're saying, then how does one measure the field?


Those are two methods I can think of. A stroboscope may not work if the number of revolutions is too high. The field can be measured simply by placing a wire next to the ball. The (moving) magnetic field will induce a current in the wire, which can be measured using a oscilloscope. Alternatively a multimeter which can measure frequency can be used, although the signal may require amplification. It is also possible to use the coil itself to measure the revolutions, by disconnecting if from the power while the ball is turning inside it. In effect you will have a generator.

You have to realize that is the basics of the basics of electromagnetism. This subject has been studied for more than a century. Measurements like this were first conducted by Faraday, and made it possible for Maxwell to come to his equations.

There is absolutely nothing mysterious going on with this rotating ball. The only thing I can think of that makes you wonder is that you can not see the field. But using the Maxwell equations we can exactly describe these fields mathematically, and these equations have never ever been proven wrong by any experiment ever. Proving those equations are wrong or incomplete would be world news, maybe even the scientific discovery of this century. Yet those people in that video of yours don't even bother, and just look at a rotating ball and thats it. If they really cared about "free energy" they would do the measurements. Its just extremely naive to buy into this.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
There is absolutely nothing mysterious going on with this rotating ball.

Why are you saying that now when before I asked the question and your answer was:


Originally posted by -PLB-
How can anyone determine whether spindown is extended by simply looking at a spinning ball? Extended compared to what? Why are there no measurements?


You've said measurements have not been done so we don't know.

So why would you conclude that there is absolutely nothing mysterious when the measurements have yet to be done? Are you not jumping to conclusions?


Originally posted by -PLB-
The only thing I can think of that makes you wonder is that you can not see the field.


No, that's not making me wonder.

What's making me wonder is that I've observed someone experimenting who has shared his observation, based on his personal experience, that the spin lasted longer. It's just an observation which obviously needs verification. That's what R&D is.


Originally posted by -PLB-
But using the Maxwell equations we can exactly describe these fields mathematically, and these equations have never ever been proven wrong by any experiment ever. Proving those equations are wrong or incomplete would be world news, maybe even the scientific discovery of this century.


Have you been following my numerous posts about Maxwell's original 20 equations?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by -PLB-
There is absolutely nothing mysterious going on with this rotating ball.

Why are you saying that now when before I asked the question and your answer was:


Originally posted by -PLB-
How can anyone determine whether spindown is extended by simply looking at a spinning ball? Extended compared to what? Why are there no measurements?


You've said measurements have not been done so we don't know.

So why would you conclude that there is absolutely nothing mysterious when the measurements have yet to be done? Are you not jumping to conclusions?


Because the observed behavior looks like what we would expect. Only when measurements show otherwise something mysterious may be going on. Much more likely there is a very normal explanation that is overlooked. If you are going to class every observation that has not been measured properly a mystery, almost everything becomes a mystery. For example me pushing the wheel of my bike. By just looking at the wheel rotate, you do not know the energy that is involved. You would need to measure it. Yet you would agree with me that there is no mystery there, right?


Originally posted by -PLB-
No, that's not making me wonder.

What's making me wonder is that I've observed someone experimenting who has shared his observation, based on his personal experience, that the spin lasted longer. It's just an observation which obviously needs verification. That's what R&D is.


So if I posted a video of me pushing the wheel of my bike and saying, based on personal experience, the wheel rotates for an extended time, it would have you wondering? If not, what is the difference?


Have you been following my numerous posts about Maxwell's original 20 equations?


I have seen your talk about a different notation. You should realize that the different notations are mathematically equivalent. In other words, using either notation, the outcome will be exactly the same when applied to the same situation.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Check out this spinning Dreidel:



Does it not look totally mysterious? Must be spinning because of aetheric flux attracted to magic letters on it!



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 136  137  138    140  141  142 >>

log in

join