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: 147
39
<< 144  145  146    148  149  150 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
It is amusing that the shape of atoms is identical to the mode patterns in laser beams I have seen. This proves that laser light is really the amplified pattern of the energetic projection of atomic energy.




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
. . . the current model doesn't exactly include the Field


The atom is 99.9% space, correct?

The field is synonymous with space/vacuum, which, in turn is permeated with energy, which I say is also God/consciousness.

I say the current model of the atom leaves out the most important component: field/vacuum/space/energy/God/consciousness. Surely the space within the atom is a continuation of the same space/vacuum/energy/God/consciousness that's outside the atom.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 23432
. . . the current model doesn't exactly include the Field


The atom is 99.9% space, correct?

The field is synonymous with space/vacuum


It's not.

en.wikipedia.org...

In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated with each point of spacetime


That's it.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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?


Adequate model for what ?

Explaining the nature of universe i.e nature of energy ?

Well , if your model is not based upon Field giving rise to Matter , you are not talking about Rodin's ideas anymore , are you ?

I don't want Universe to be more philosophically pleasing than it already is .

I am wondering where does the instructions for Golden Ratio comes from .

If I understood Rodin correctly , he is stating that the information to manifest the golden ratio is actually coming from the Field .

Whereus Higgs is saying the Field exists to make energy gather mass .

Rodin is claiming that a certain pattern , certain sequence of stops , are followed by energy while it is interacting with the Field .

Did Higgs even go there ?

Or was he content with the existence of a field but not curious about the mathematical mechanics of it ?

I don't know .



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by buddhasystem
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?


Adequate model for what ?


Can you read? I mean seriously, we have a conversation about the model of the atom. Now you have to ask twice?


Explaining the nature of universe i.e nature of energy ?


Nature of the Universe is the totality of what we observe. Atomic structure of matter if one part of it. What you are saying is like claiming that the alphabet is incomplete because it does not contain the whole body of work by Shakespeare.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Nature of the Universe is the totality of what we observe.


With all due respect , that is the biggest bollocks of a claim , ever .

Here , i shall re-word it for you ;

Nature of the Universe is the totality of what we observe at this point in time and this is a changing definition which depends on new ideas and new discoveries .



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Nature of the Universe is the totality of what we observe.


With all due respect , that is the biggest bollocks of a claim , ever .

Here , i shall re-word it for you ;

Nature of the Universe is the totality of what we observe at this point in time and this is a changing definition which depends on new ideas and new discoveries .


So you are not satisfied with any model, be it a structural model of your car, the recipe how to make aspirin or the atomic model of matter, if it does not explain the "nature of the Universe"?

Oh well.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Nature of the Universe is the totality of what we observe.


With all due respect , that is the biggest bollocks of a claim , ever .

Here , i shall re-word it for you ;

Nature of the Universe is the totality of what we observe at this point in time and this is a changing definition which depends on new ideas and new discoveries .


So you are not satisfied with any model, be it a structural model of your car, the recipe how to make aspirin or the atomic model of matter, if it does not explain the "nature of the Universe"?

Oh well.



I am rather satisfied with natural models which are readily observeable and quantifiable .

You are also extrapolating as much as Arb does yet when Mary tries to do the same , the cries of faul arises .

Why ?

Because Rodin & Mary won't stick to rules which are accepted .

No they rather question the accepted reality .

I suspect that at this point of the discussion , this doesn't have anything to do about Rodin anymore .



How hard is it to imagine an existence of a Field which enforces a sets of rules upon all that is within ?

How do you make the fish realise that they are the living water at the same time they are living in the water , which sits on a land mass , all together hurtling into space-time , travelling thru The Field ?

would the fish care ?

Do you think that the Field has some inherent information which dictates how energy becomes matter ?


Lipton does.






edit on 15-12-2011 by 23432 because: ad



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
No they rather question the accepted reality .

I suspect that at this point of the discussion , this doesn't have anything to do about Rodin anymore .


It almost never did. It's about "entertaining" fantasies about this world that have no base in reality.


How hard is it imagine an existence of a Field which enforces a sets of rules upon all that is within ?


How hard is it to imagine that I am an ambassador sent to Earth by the Supreme Being Zmorrg, who rules the Universe from a center of a neutron star? How hard it is to imagine that the digitized sound of my flatulence, when converted to Unicode, contains complete passages from Old Testament? How hard is it to understand that it's pointless to debate things outside of reality -- unless you are simply busy building your own?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
No they rather question the accepted reality .

I suspect that at this point of the discussion , this doesn't have anything to do about Rodin anymore .


It almost never did. It's about "entertaining" fantasies about this world that have no base in reality.


How hard is it imagine an existence of a Field which enforces a sets of rules upon all that is within ?


How hard is it to imagine that I am an ambassador sent to Earth by the Supreme Being Zmorrg, who rules the Universe from a center of a neutron star? How hard it is to imagine that the digitized sound of my flatulence, when converted to Unicode, contains complete passages from Old Testament? How hard is it to understand that it's pointless to debate things outside of reality -- unless you are simply busy building your own?



How hard is it to understand that this is the SKUNK section of a discussion forum about CONSPIRACIES ?

Debate is only pointless when there is a Sophism.

If you can build a model based upon your mighty fart , well , your choice , go ahead .



Reality is only electrical signals interpreted via our brains .

You can debate anything you like imho .

This web site is not a serious section of a serious academic publication .

People are already debating and they also have the access to same information as you do .

Let me ask you this question , do you think the difference of mass between a glass of milk and a glass of mercury is only explainable via Higgs field ?

Could it also be explained via Rodin's numbers ?










edit on 15-12-2011 by 23432 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
On a side note ;

God Particle was not named so to begin with .

It was actually called the God Damn Particle .

Leon Leidermen wanted to name it as such but the publishing house decided to name it the God Particle .


edit on 15-12-2011 by 23432 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by eywadevotee
It is amusing that the shape of atoms is identical to the mode patterns in laser beams I have seen. This proves that laser light is really the amplified pattern of the energetic projection of atomic energy.
You're talking about these?

en.wikipedia.org...
I see the similarity in SOME of the images, but certainly not all. Further, that something LOOKS like something else doesn't prove it's the same. There is a prominent electric universe proponent (retired professor) who says the Grand Canyon has a shape similar to a lightning pattern so he proposes it was caused by lightning.

He has been rightfully bashed by the scientific community for his claims that just because something looks like something else, that's evidence of a relationship.

For example I could say that image O2 looks like a 4 leaf clover, therefore a 4 leaf clover isn't a plant but this proves it's a laser mode projection in green light. See how ridiculous that argument is? At least I hope you see that and I haven't convinced you that 4 leaf clovers are laser mode projections.

So no, the similarity you rightly observed in some images doesn't prove what you say.


edit on 15-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: add link



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I say the current model of the atom leaves out the most important component: field/vacuum/space/energy/God/consciousness. Surely the space within the atom is a continuation of the same space/vacuum/energy/God/consciousness that's outside the atom.
I don't know if these videos still play for anyone else but I haven't been able to play them since I upgraded my OS a few months ago:


(click to open player in new window)

This clip talks about aliens and UFOs and near the end, Carl Sagan is interviewed and he makes some comments that I think are relevant to this discussion, even though we're not talking about aliens and UFOs. Sagan says that people appear to have a need to believe in a higher power.

I think this is true. When we discover primitive human tribes who haven't had contact with civilization, we often find they have some kind of belief in Gods of some sort, which may suggest our need to believe is intrinsic as Sagan suggests.

Then Sagan talks about the role of God in the world, and how as science advances, there's less and less that God needs to do. All that's left for God to do it seems is snap his fingers twice, once to start the big bang and a second time to start abiogenesis, and of course we look for rational explanations for those which don't require any diety so God probably isn't even needed for those two things. Yet, Sagan points out, we still have the same need to believe that we've always had, and perhaps even moreso given the times we live in which I infer to mean out ability to destroy ourselves and our environment with our technology, including but not limited to our nukes.

Then he talks about the Alien contactee myths. You might even say The former ambassador from the planet Umo could fall in this category though I think there are better examples. Sagan describes these as pseudoscientific ways to try to convince ourselves there is a higher power, because the traditional religion beliefs don't sound very scientific anymore. But most scientists admit that if humans can spring up, so can aliens, so of course it seems more scientific to believe in aliens visiting Earth than to believe in the more traditional God displaced by science, though some scientists still believe in God, though I think they are in the minority.

And now instead of aliens, we in this thread, once again find ourselves trying to invent a God, which I suspect results from our need to believe, as Sagan suggested. What you are doing is claiming space or space-time is God, or something like that. Space-time is space-time, and to my knowledge, nobody has demonstrated that it has any kind of consciousness. If that's what you need to believe, you can, but there's not really any scientific evidence for that. So it's a religion; perhaps not formal, but a religion nonetheless.

Einstein expressed a different belief that what we observe in Nature is how God chooses to reveal himself to us. This actually seems somewhat more logical because then you can claim everything we do have evidence for is evidence of your religious belief, whereas if you say the consciousness of space is God, you have the problem that space hasn't been shown to have consciousness, in spite of several pseudoscientists arguing otherwise.

Lastly, regarding the Taboo of scientists looking for God, there was a 2 hour show on the History channel yesterday about the scientific search for God. They showed for example, astronomers from the Vatican with modern telescope and modern astronomy training, looking for evidence of God in the heavens, and they interviewed several religious scientists searching for scientific evidence of God and in some cases biblical accounts.

And there's a new episode of the series "The Universe" coming up on December 20, called God and the Universe


This episode embarks on a mind-bending scientific search for God, asking physicists and theologians if the seemingly miraculous way the universe has been calibrated to support life is evidence of a creator...whether string theory will eventually be able to rule out the existence of God...why Stephen Hawking says the universe could have been created spontaneously..
It sounds like more questions than answers to me, but at least the topic isn't taboo.

What would at least be interesting, for example, is if the ark of the covenant were found to contain stone tablets written in the hand of God where examination by scientists revealed that no known technology was used to create the writing, at least then we'd have something interesting to talk about.

Lacking that, we have Mary creating God in her image or the image in her mind that God is space, we have Rodin creating an image of God where his fingerprint is in a base 10 numbering system for some reason, and we have this:

encyclopedia.jrank.org...

Descriptions of many other religious and ceremonial complexes of tribal peoples on every continent were published in the twentieth century, for example, descriptions of the Tukano Indians of South America, the Kachin of Burma, and the Ndembu of Africa (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971, Leach 1970, Turner 1967). As with languages, the observation that tribal religions were in any sense “primitive” says more about the ethnocentric and often racist and intolerant attitudes of the European observers than about the condition of tribal religions.
The US was founded on freedom of religion so choose whatever religious beliefs you want.

All I ask, is that you don't pretend your religious beliefs are scientific, until you have some scientific evidence. And until we have that, I am not seeing why the religious beliefs of the Tukano Indians of South America are any better than anyone else's, or vice-versa.
edit on 15-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Debate is only pointless when there is a Sophism.


Bravo!!

Fallacious arguments are often used by those with an agenda to protect the status quo. A person's livelihood can be the motivating factor. (Which is understandable; we all have to make a living. But some of us find other ways to make a living.)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


The status quo is that people like Marko don't have any evidence to back up their claims and to protect this status quo they avoid coming with experiments that can disprove their theory. (Which is understandable; we all have to make a living. But some of us find other ways to make a living.)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Nice try.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Laying out the facts is not a try.

What is the evidence of a black hole in the center the Rodin coil and what experiment can disprove this theory?

What is the evidence of an energy field 13 powers greater than the consumed energy in an electrical system and what experiment can disprove this theory?

What is the evidence for north pole and south pole particles that move freely through iron and space and what experiment can disprove this theory?

I rest my case.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Bravo!!

Fallacious arguments are often used by those with an agenda to protect the status quo. A person's livelihood can be the motivating factor. (Which is understandable; we all have to make a living. But some of us find other ways to make a living.)




Those who benefit from any societal mechanism
rarely wish to understand that mechanism , especially
if it appears to grant them power , control or authority
over their fellow (hu)man and understanding that mechanism would limit , diminish or remove that apparent power , control or authority.

They simply do not want to know

Because

It is far easier to ignorantly control others than
it is to wisely control yourself.

R Menard


p.s thank you for the reminder Mary .
edit on 16-12-2011 by 23432 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2011 by 23432 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
To replace the missing graphic from page 73:




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Rather than focusing on Bruce DePalma's character, let's discuss the information in the article.


Sigh.

Sooooooo tiresome this thread is.

Someone has to do it. Why me, God?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 144  145  146    148  149  150 >>

log in

join