"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by 23432
Vortexes doesn't extend our understanding of how energy might behave on a quantum level ?

Nothing Rodin says explains anything in the real world, as far as I can tell. He's living in some kind of delusional fantasy world, disconnected from reality, and he's not the only one. Leedskalnin did too, apparently.

Originally posted by 23432
It is ok to state the obvious .
That the current model of Atom is not fully and compherensively defined .
In fact it is a changing model which depends of new ideas and new discoveries .

Let's look at one of those new discoveries:

New Microscope Reveals the Shape of Atoms

Researchers have now managed to image the electron orbitals and show for the first time that, in a sense, atoms really look like those textbook images.

This is really amazing stuff that should blow your mind.

Look at our atomic models in the top graphic. Then look at the images this new microscope produced. Do the images confirm our models in any way?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
reply to post by Nathwa

 

Well it proves that the maths we have been using to simulate atoms and the theories we have come up with about the way they work are correct. It means we are on the right track to understanding how the universe works.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48da3d162815.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68cbe40a92ea.gif[/atsimg]

We are indeed clever little monkeys

This is just amazing that we can even make these images, and that they happen to look just like the models we made before we saw the images.

This makes people talking about how wrong our models are look a little silly. There may be some gaps or missing pieces of information in our models, but what we know is confirmed by quite a bit of evidence and this is one of the most amazing confirmations.

reply to post by 23432


In my opinion, God doesn't have a religion; therefore, the taboo in science against religion does not apply.

Furthermore, I think God and universal consciousness/energy that permeate the entire universe (perhaps multiverse) are the same thing. It is within the purview of science. (Note the word "it": God does not have gender.)

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 23432

 

In my opinion, God doesn't have a religion; therefore, the taboo in science against religion does not apply.

Furthermore, I think God and universal consciousness/energy that permeate the entire universe (perhaps multiverse) are the same thing. It is within the purview of science. (Note the word "it": God does not have gender.)

I could go along with all of that .

Obviously , the existence of GOD is not accounted for in modern science and the dilemma begins at that point .

Idea of a substance that permeates the entire universe is rather appealing and if it were proven to be true , it would utterly and totally revolutionize the way we do " science " .

In the mean time , it is safe to say that no one really compherensively " understands " the quantum nature of universe .

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
It is very fun not only to study the physics of the torsion system but also the metaphysics. Has anyone here pondered about the relationship of evolution & INvolution?

Are you using the definition of "involution" that applies to medicine - a progressive decline or degeneration of normal physiological functioning occurring as a result of the aging process?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by 23432
Vortexes doesn't extend our understanding of how energy might behave on a quantum level ?

Nothing Rodin says explains anything in the real world, as far as I can tell. He's living in some kind of delusional fantasy world, disconnected from reality, and he's not the only one. Leedskalnin did too, apparently.

I am trying to think of a water based vortex where one can get to record the Harmonical Sound waves and perhaps find the patterns of 9's .

What would it prove ?
Natural occurence of a sequence of numbers .
Does it mean anything ?
Probably .

Originally posted by 23432
It is ok to state the obvious .
That the current model of Atom is not fully and compherensively defined .
In fact it is a changing model which depends of new ideas and new discoveries .

Let's look at one of those new discoveries:

New Microscope Reveals the Shape of Atoms

Researchers have now managed to image the electron orbitals and show for the first time that, in a sense, atoms really look like those textbook images.

This is really amazing stuff that should blow your mind.

Look at our atomic models in the top graphic. Then look at the images this new microscope produced. Do the images confirm our models in any way?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
reply to post by Nathwa

 

Well it proves that the maths we have been using to simulate atoms and the theories we have come up with about the way they work are correct. It means we are on the right track to understanding how the universe works.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48da3d162815.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68cbe40a92ea.gif[/atsimg]

We are indeed clever little monkeys

This is just amazing that we can even make these images, and that they happen to look just like the models we made before we saw the images.

This makes people talking about how wrong our models are look a little silly. There may be some gaps or missing pieces of information in our models, but what we know is confirmed by quite a bit of evidence and this is one of the most amazing confirmations.

The pictures actually reminded of freeze frame fractalisation(?) in motion .
I agree that the clever monkeys are upto some good .
Still , I would like to remind you that in essence all that you can SEE is the GEOMETRIC shape .

What would you infer from these pictures may not be completely at odds with what Rodin is preaching .

Even if we could somehow see inside of these shapes and detect the contents of it , would it make any difference to what Rodin is talking about when it comes to the subject of a FIELD ?

For the record the existing model might be incomplete yet partially functional .
These pictures bring about an option to understand the nature of matter/mass .

So all in all , it is good and proper yet somewhat inadequate in explaining the existence of Field .

Do you entertain the idea of an existence of a Field which permuates entire universe and everything in it ?

Originally posted by 23432
That the current model of Atom is not fully and compherensively defined

What is missing? Please be precise.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
That the current model of Atom is not fully and compherensively defined

What is missing? Please be precise.

Higgs Boson ?



You can't be serious , can you ?

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
That the current model of Atom is not fully and compherensively defined

What is missing? Please be precise.

Higgs Boson ?

You can't be serious , can you ?

I'm dead serious. Atom a system of a nucleus and electron shell. It can be studied and even imaged as demonstrated in this and other threads and publications. If Higgs has any measurable effect on the atomic structure, this would have been discovered a long time ago.

What did the science get wrong in describing H as a proton and an electron, bound by Coulomb potential?

Originally posted by 23432
Do you entertain the idea of an existence of a Field which permuates entire universe and everything in it ?

I already answered that...sort of...when I asked you if the vacuum is what you were talking about.

Words have meaning, please make a note of that.

If you mean the vacuum, say vacuum.

Field is a different word which has a different meaning. We have evidence of fields such as gravitational fields electromagnetic fields.

If there's another type of field proposed, one would need to describe what properties it would have or not have, how it would or would not interact with various types of matter and energy, and then that information could be used to develop experimental tests to accept or reject the hypothesis that it exists.

So, you got any of that? (Besides Sheldrake where I already posted the article by his research assistant saying she did help him test for such a field, and as a result, she saw no evidence to support the existence of his hypothesized "morphogenic fields").

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
That the current model of Atom is not fully and compherensively defined

What is missing? Please be precise.

Higgs Boson ?

You can't be serious , can you ?

I'm dead serious.
Atom a system of a nucleus and electron shell. It can be studied and even imaged as demonstrated in this and other threads and publications. If Higgs has any measurable effect on the atomic structure, this would have been discovered a long time ago.

What did the science get wrong in describing H as a proton and an electron, bound by Coulomb potential?

OK

Presumably these sub atomic particles at some point were in energy form and became matter/mass due to high energy concentration of the big bang .

Can your stand attempts to explain how the energy units organised themselves into their matter/mass form ?

Was the information to differentiate structurally inherent or emissionally received ?

I see you are having a nonsense of a meal with that Field approach .

Buddha , chillax , will you please ?

I see you still have not answered the question directly ; Do you entertain the idea of e field which permuates all the universe ?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by 23432
Do you entertain the idea of an existence of a Field which permuates entire universe and everything in it ?

I already answered that...sort of...when I asked you if the vacuum is what you were talking about.

Words have meaning, please make a note of that.

If you mean the vacuum, say vacuum.

Field is a different word which has a different meaning. We have evidence of fields such as gravitational fields electromagnetic fields.

If there's another type of field proposed, one would need to describe what properties it would have or not have, how it would or would not interact with various types of matter and energy, and then that information could be used to develop experimental tests to accept or reject the hypothesis that it exists.

So, you got any of that? (Besides Sheldrake where I already posted the article by his research assistant saying she did help him test for such a field, and as a result, she saw no evidence to support the existence of his hypothesized "morphogenic fields").

You've actually dodged the question but it really doesn't matter .

You see , you are engaged in a discussion of Physics and Math .

Rodin is not .

Sheldrakes assistans revelations mean not much as I have pointed out that this is still an ongoing research thus it is unfair to dismiss or judge as of yet . I have read that somewhere in the scientific methodology manual or something like that .

Bruce Lipton refers to a Field and I can observe the energy becoming mass/matter everyday with my own eyes .

I see you have dismissed these two academics without much of a delibration on the actual contents of their works.


I think what Lipton & Sheldrake are stating is not imaginary .

I am currently developing some biotech protocols in relation to tissue engineering and my existing models in vitro will be re-arranged while taking into account of what Lipton has found in his research .

Originally posted by 23432
I see you still have not answered the question directly ; Do you entertain the idea of e field which permuates all the universe ?

I do. It's the Higgs field. Now, how does Rodin describe that?

Originally posted by 23432
Sheldrakes assistans revelations . . .

"Assistans"?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
I see you still have not answered the question directly ; Do you entertain the idea of e field which permuates all the universe ?

I do. It's the Higgs field. Now, how does Rodin describe that?

As far as I can see , Rodin describes the Field as grid of numbers in a torroid and the Energy Unit which circulates a pattern , indefinitely .

Higgs describes the actual particle acceleration being affected due to interaction with a field .

I have not seen anything about indefinite circular movement of energy in Higgs field .

If you entertain the idea of a substance which permuates whole universe , why is it so difficult to entertain Rodin's ideas ?

Perhaps the energy unit does follow a sequence of pattern to become matter/mass .

Perhaps the instructions to differentiate to become different type of matter is hidden within the pattern .

As you can see many legit questions can be asked without violating understood knowledge .

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 23432
Sheldrakes assistans revelations . . .

"Assistans"?

Assistant's .

English is not my first language .

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
I see you still have not answered the question directly ; Do you entertain the idea of e field which permuates all the universe ?

I do. It's the Higgs field. Now, how does Rodin describe that?

As far as I can see , Rodin describes the Field as grid of numbers in a torroid and the Energy Unit which circulates a pattern , indefinitely .

Well he may well define anything for himself, without any bearing on reality.

If you entertain the idea of a substance which permuates whole universe , why is it so difficult to entertain Rodin's ideas ?

Because the Higgs hypothesis provides ways to actually test it, and explains how observables will look under certain conditions, and Rodin does nothing of that sort. What's so difficult to get here?

Perhaps the energy unit does follow a sequence of pattern to become matter/mass .

Perhaps the diffferentiation to become different type of matter is hidden within the pattern .

As you can see many legit questions can be asked without violating understood knowledge .

As I can see that's a bunch of verbal soup.

Originally posted by 23432
Presumably these sub atomic particles at some point were in energy form and became matter/mass due to high energy concentration of the big bang .

Transition of energy to mass and back is happening all the time, what's your point?

Can your stand attempts to explain how the energy units organised themselves into their matter/mass form ?

Why did they need to "organize" themselves?

More to the point, you didn't answer my question as to what' missing in the model of the atom as we know it. So what's the missing bit?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
I see you still have not answered the question directly ; Do you entertain the idea of e field which permuates all the universe ?

I do. It's the Higgs field. Now, how does Rodin describe that?

As far as I can see , Rodin describes the Field as grid of numbers in a torroid and the Energy Unit which circulates a pattern , indefinitely .

Well he may well define anything for himself, without any bearing on reality.

If you entertain the idea of a substance which permuates whole universe , why is it so difficult to entertain Rodin's ideas ?

Because the Higgs hypothesis provides ways to actually test it, and explains how observables will look under certain conditions, and Rodin does nothing of that sort. What's so difficult to get here?

Perhaps the energy unit does follow a sequence of pattern to become matter/mass .

Perhaps the diffferentiation to become different type of matter is hidden within the pattern .

As you can see many legit questions can be asked without violating understood knowledge .

As I can see that's a bunch of verbal soup.

edit on 15-12-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

ho ho ho

Merry Christmas Buddha - that is an embedded oxymoron , isn't it ?

Are you telling me that the energy is more likely to follow a non patterned path while on it's journey of becoming matter/mass ?

How do you think energy becomes matter ?

I think it is possible that it follows a pattern and different pattern means different type of matter .

Is there a geometric shape which energy must follow to become mass ?

According to what Arb posted , indeed there are many shapes that energy makes while being in mass state .

This particle of Higgs is missing at the moment but we continue to search and when we find it , you are sure it will be the LAST subatomic particle to be found ?

I humbly suggest it won't be the last .

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
Presumably these sub atomic particles at some point were in energy form and became matter/mass due to high energy concentration of the big bang .

Transition of energy to mass and back is happening all the time, what's your point?

Point is that there is a pattern . The pattern might have something to do with how the matter organises itself .

Can your stand attempts to explain how the energy units organised themselves into their matter/mass form ?

Why did they need to "organize" themselves?

More to the point, you didn't answer my question as to what' missing in the model of the atom as we know it. So what's the missing bit?

I presume they need to organise themselves as per rules the Field enforces . Missing bits ? I am going to prefer the term inadequate .I think when I stated that the current model doesn't exactly include the Field , that would be the answer to your question . Was I wrong or have you missed it perhaps ?

Originally posted by 23432
Missing bits ? I am going to prefer the term inadequate .I think when I stated that the current model doesn't exactly include the Field , that would be the answer to your question . Was I wrong or have you missed it perhaps ?

If the current model is in agreement with observables to many decimal places, how can you call it inadequate?

I know how -- because you want the Universe to be more philosophically pleasing. Well, as Feynman answered to that, "go somewhere else". Why do I need some field I don't know anything about, and why do I need to inject it into a picture that is the adequate model?