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: 149
39
<< 146  147  148    150  151  152 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
So what you're forced to mull from BS, Arb, and 547 are toxic concoctions of nuclear physics laced with additives of virtual particles.


If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.



Par for the course... Heat/ waste are exactly what we spawn from, but this has nothing to do with your model of fusion.




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


Can we quote you on that?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

edit on 17-12-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
The fairy tale nuclear science fair has gone on long enough. You espouse two unsupported (yet somehow related) realms
If you mean quantum mechanics and relativity, they aren't realms, they are models. To paraphrase George Box, even the best models we have aren't perfect representations of the natural world (they are after all, just models and not the real thing), but in spite of their imperfections, some models prove to be extremely useful and both those models have proven to be incredibly useful. As long as we don't have a proven model of quantum gravity, nobody is claiming those models are perfect, just that they make predictions with uncanny accuracy. Regarding your claim that the models are unsupported, may I ask how many scientific papers you've read which present evidence in support of these models? Are you, as I suspect, dismissing these models as unsupported without even examining the evidence which supports them? Of course you are; your posts have demonstrated this to be the case.


along with dark matter, dark flow, dark energy, etc., etc. to maintain your shred of credibility.
Scientists have the admirable quality of admitting that in addition to the things we know, there are some things we don't know, and they call them "dark" in the examples you mentioned.

Dark Flow: Since this is at least your second reference to dark flow, let me say the evidence for that is not as well established as the evidence for dark energy and dark matter. My take is that among cosmologists, regarding "dark flow", the "jury is still out" so to speak. More evidence is being collected that may clarify earlier observations which suggested it.

Dark Energy: There are hypotheses which suggest that dark energy is a manifestation of the cosmological constant which Einstein developed, but dismissed because he didn't see any evidence for it. Now we think we might have evidence for Einstein's cosmological constant, so it's being reconsidered. We just need proof before we can conclude this hypothesis is correct, so we still call it "dark" energy, meaning we admit we aren't sure. But it sounds like a reasonable hypothesis, and if it's correct, there's not as much energy in the vacuum as some "free energy researchers" claim, see my new thread on energy from the vacuum

Dark Matter: Scientists claim they cannot explain observations they have made in the bullet cluster which show that even modified gravity theories can't explain why the center of mass or dark matter is displaced so far from the center of mass of baryonic matter. Rodin claims that he's solved the dark matter problem, by concluding that dark matter is the number 9. Do you think Rodin's solution is correct, and if so, what is the mass of the number 9? How many number 9s are in the bullet cluster to explain our dark matter observations there the following 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.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


LOL. You are ignoring the fact that Mary has NOT researched science but has settled for pleasant sounding metaphysics. She fits the priest's role perfectly in her Galileo example. She calls others close-minded but ignores anything contrary to her own desires. The irony is rich.
edit on 18-12-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Regarding your claim that the models are unsupported, may I ask how many scientific papers you've read which present evidence in support of these models?


Anything can be supported by evidence. All manner of arguments can be backed up one way or the other. Lawyers stand up in court everyday and present evidence to support their client. People rationalize what they do all the time. Yawn.

The key to science is taking a holistic approach unfettered by vested interests.







edit on 12/18/11 by Mary Rose because: Remove extraneous text



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Anything can be supported by evidence.
Nobody in this thread has supported even one of Rodin's claims with evidence, other than the fact that he has a coil.

The fact that this thread is so long and still has zero evidence supporting Rodin's claims regarding a black hole, dark matter, etc is a tribute to how completely incorrect your statement is that "Anything can be supported by evidence". If that were true, surely someone would have posted some evidence in this thread to support Rodin's claims in response to hundreds of requests for it. But nobody ever did.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nobody in this thread has supported even one of Rodin's claims with evidence, other than the fact that he has a coil.

People in this thread who are trying to have a civil discussion about Rodin's concepts have spent the better part of a year deflecting the fallacious debating technique of ridicule.

Evidence will be presented as it shows itself through open-source R&D.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nobody in this thread has supported even one of Rodin's claims with evidence, other than the fact that he has a coil.

People in this thread who are trying to have a civil discussion about Rodin's concepts have spent the better part of a year deflecting the fallacious debating technique of ridicule.

Evidence will be presented as it shows itself through open-source R&D.
Pointing out there's no evidence isn't ridicule.

I don't even think comparing Rodin's work to the psychologists claims of a fire-breathing dragon in his garage is ridicule. It's just another claim with no evidence, and therefore no more or less believable than Rodin's claims.

It sounds like you are confirming there's no evidence by pointing out it's yet to come.

The psychologist can make the same claim about the fire breathing dragon in his garage. All he has to do is add the word "yet" to his statement "I don't have any evidence".

That doesn't make it any more credible for me, but maybe it works for you?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nobody in this thread has supported even one of Rodin's claims with evidence, other than the fact that he has a coil.

People in this thread who are trying to have a civil discussion about Rodin's concepts have spent the better part of a year deflecting the fallacious debating technique of ridicule.


What "concepts"? When I asked you about how the "math" works, you presented a quote from an "expert", who claimed that there are two counter-rotating streams of aether in the coil. You failed to explain how such arbitrary claims represent "math". I can say that there are not 2, but 4 different fluxes in the coil. Or nine. There will be same foundations for such statement, i.e. zero. How do you propose to discuss something as baseless and arbitrary, in a civil manner or otherwise? Sorry, but nonsense does not belong in civility. And as such, it deserves all and any ridicule that I can produce in my lifetime. You want to be civil? Follow simple logic.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Evidence will be presented as it shows itself through open-source R&D.


Then it would be well to leave this thread to rest, until this happens. Right?



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Wrong. The concepts in the print-out referenced in the OP are just as fascinating with or without evidence demonstrated by a working coil.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Pointing out there's no evidence isn't ridicule.


Listen.

Ridicule is ridicule. People know it when they see it.

People using ridicule have an agenda. That agenda is contrary to public discourse aimed at progress for the good of humanity.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
People using ridicule have an agenda. That agenda is contrary to public discourse aimed at progress for the good of humanity.
Why entertain delusions with public discourse? It's not logical to even pretend humanity might possibly benefit from this.

And yes there's an agenda spelled out here:

Book Review: The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark


if there is anything I disagree with in Sagan's book it is probably his encouragement of skeptics to be as civil as he is in dealing with what skeptics see as the dark that extinguishes the candle. He writes


...the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: US vs. Them--the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive....whereas a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.
I can't deny that there is a strong appeal in this call for compassion, for seeing the occultists of the world as after the same thing skeptics are after, and for recognizing the skepticism in those who adhere to pseudoscientific or New Age spiritual notions.
I too see the value in Sagan's argument, but.....


If the goal were to try to get the true believer to give up his or her beliefs, then I would agree that an aggressive campaign which arrogantly maintains that it is better to live according to evidence than according to wishes might not be the best tactic. But, the aggressive, blunt, seemingly arrogant approach might be best if the goal is not to convert true believers to skepticism but to provide ideas which will counterbalance the plethora of occult, pseudoscientific, supernatural and paranormal notions which pervade just about any atmosphere in America, or the world, for that matter.
You have personally demonstrated why this agenda is fitting, when you refused to even look at the evidence I posted, saying that instead you preferred to use your intuition.

So you, Mary, are a hypocrite. You refuse to engage in rational debate, by refusing to look at evidence. Then when others apply tactics to respond to your refusal to debate rationally, you have the gall to accuse others of not wishing to debate rationally. What goes around, comes around, you reap what you sew, or whatever appropriate saying you want to apply describes the necessity of using such tactics with people who refuse to engage in rational debate.

When people do show an interest in rational debate, I do try to show some compassion as Sagan suggests, but when they don't, as when you in effect said that no amount of scientific evidence could outweigh your intuition, it's probably counterproductive to do so.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Oh, please. Spare us.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
That agenda is contrary to public discourse aimed at progress for the good of humanity.


Look, you admit that there is no evidence of anything in all the outrageous claims you keep quoting here, year in, year out. As a collateral, you have no basis of saying what you do is for the good of humanity. I see it as quite the opposite, actually. Practicing superstition and eschewing science means moving back in time, straight to Dark Ages.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That is your opinion. I have a differing opinion.

If you want to debate the concepts in "RodinAerodynamics.org featuring the Rodin Coil" you should do it without resorting to ridicule to make your point.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That is your opinion. I have a differing opinion.


Hot Air



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 




Hope springs eternal. I'm persistent. If you don't like it , tough!

Edit to add: Hope for what? A civil discussion.
edit on 12/18/11 by Mary Rose because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
I highly recommend watching the John Searl Story, because he does something similar with The Law of the Squares. IMO, John Searl understands it better than Rodin, but they are both onto the same thing.


Searl Magnetics is making progress, I'm very happy to see...




new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 146  147  148    150  151  152 >>

log in

join