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: 15
39
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 



Ok, let's try something. If you can communicate without continually trying to make personal comments about me, then I will communicate without making personal comments about you. I'd prefer that. Deal?

To me, a theory is not a theory of reality unless there is a solid, explainable connection between the concepts of the theory and the reality of the observable world. Would you agree?

If you agree, then I'd like you to explain what you've just said in terms of how it relates Rodin's ideas to something observable in the world.

Start with something that is clearly Rodin's idea, follow it through step by step, and connect it with something that can be observed in the real world. If any of the steps are unclear, I'll ask for clarification.

How's that sound?


Sounds good, the discussion was getting a bit out of line. In the spirit of ATS, I think we owe that much. My apologies.

Rodin's view of physics is holistic, interdependent, infinite, and wavelike. This is a necessary complement to reductionist, separation, finite, and particle physics.

He most likely denies the latter. This is a consequence of WPD, consistent with Heisenberg Uncertainty, Observer Effect. I think he would agree with Continuum Mechanics.


Continuum mechanics is a branch of mechanics that deals with the analysis of the kinematics and the mechanical behavior of materials modeled as a continuous mass rather than as discrete particles. The French mathematician Augustin Louis Cauchy was the first to formulate such models in the 19th century, but research in the area continues today.

Modeling an object as a continuum assumes that the substance of the object completely fills the space it occupies. Modeling objects in this way ignores the fact that matter is made of atoms, and so is not continuous; however, on length scales much greater than that of inter-atomic distances, such models are highly accurate. Fundamental physical laws such as the conservation of mass, the conservation of momentum, and the conservation of energy may be applied to such models to derive differential equations describing the behavior of such objects, and some information about the particular material studied is added through a constitutive relation.continuum mechanics wiki


He came at this problem trying to find the 'most great name of god' through Baha'i mysticism, and how to correctly pronounce it. He wanted to figure out the correct tone, frequency, vibration of the word etc.

It led him into harmonics, cymatics, math, physics, etc.

He concluded(with help from his subjective internalization of the scripture no doubt) that the structure of spacetime is a toroid wave similar to my conclusion through other means, before I was familiar with Rodin's videos). This, and the holistic interdependent wave structure of space is best described and elaborated upon further by Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM). I do not know if Rodin is aware of Milo Wolff, etc... but If you are looking for a better explanation of a similar idea, IMO, that is where you will find it.

If I understand him right, he somehow came to the conclusion that the toroid structure is the dynamic through which the 'most great name of god' is expressed in all of nature, and the source of motion, consciousness, etc.

Then, he went ape on the torus, and attempted to understand how torus's and vortex's(the center of the torus) in nature work, how sacred geometry(a loose term for atomic order in nature) arises from the toroid spacetime dynamic.

That(or some other revelations from the Baha'i texts, if I remember correctly) led him into his base 9 mathematics, and the sudoku-like grid applied to the torus.

Each number in the grid is a self consistent fractal center emanating its self relational mathematics throughout the grid. These are not just numbers to him, but ratios or inherent harmonics in the wave function of his toroid spacetime dynamic. To him, it explains quark colors and spin, atomic weights, etc.

Thus, he came up with the rodin coil, which attempts to engineer the least friction, most amplification of 'electricity' in the coil. Since he uses two oppositely wrapped wires, which are charged in a certain phase of each other, he considers it much more than electricity, closer to something such as 'magnetic electricity' since it is two way.

As a side note, I am not sure if Rodin is aware, but Mesmer, Keely, and later on as well Leedskalnin maintained similar ideas of electricity and magnetism.

Anyways, since his coil is supposedly 'frictionless', or much more so than conventional ones, he maintains that it is allowing spacetime to 'resonate' or 'amplify' itself more easily - since he is basing the structure of the coil on his model of spacetime itself.

I think another description would be, that EM frequencies from ZPE or below the Planck scale are allowed to elongate, or escape their confinement, or come through the frictionless neutral point in the center of the coil... or resonate with the macroscale space in general... this part I am not very sure about, as you can imagine. I can only approximate it, as we have no good terms to describe such a phenomenon.

Somehow, if his model is any closer to the UFT, his coil harnesses the ZPE, or frequencies below the planck scale, or motion of... space itself. Amplifies the vacuum fluctuations, or creates them in the torus dynamic.

At this point, I will stop, as I really don't know the correct terms to use in such a frontier idea. If it isn't entirely correct, there may be pieces we can still use - without throwing the baby out with the bathwater... you know?




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


My apology does not extend to you, of course.

electricpulp.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm listening to an MP3 of an interview of Rodin by Bill Alek of the Vortex Network New Technology Hour which is on the achieveradio.com website. The interview took place July 25, 2009.

I see on this page a link to "The Rodin coil test."


I looked at the link at filled up my daily quota of bullcr@p in no time. Rodin writes:

By winding in this manner, you orient the electrons moving through the windings and thereby minimize random collision of electrons, as well as heat


You orient electrons? By virtue of what exactly? Orient in what dimension?
Mary, please look up "graphomania" on Wikipedia.

As the test goes,

A long ferrite rod placed through the center of the Rodin style coil change the value of the inductance


Well, duh. You place a piece of ferrite in the vicinity of any type of coil and the inductance will be affected.

Where is "emanation"? Where is unlimited energy and food and cure for all decease that Rodin claims will flow freely out of this coil?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Each number in the grid is a self consistent fractal center emanating its self relational mathematics throughout the grid. These are not just numbers to him, but ratios or inherent harmonics in the wave function of his toroid spacetime dynamic. To him, it explains quark colors and spin, atomic weights, etc.


Oh no, not another pile of verbal detritus on this thread...

Number is not a fractal center.
en.wikipedia.org...


* It has a fine structure at arbitrarily small scales.
* It is too irregular to be easily described in traditional Euclidean geometric language.
* It is self-similar (at least approximately or stochastically).
* It has a Hausdorff dimension which is greater than its topological dimension (although this requirement is not met by space-filling curves such as the Hilbert curve).
* It has a simple and recursive definition.


Where is the "fine structure" in Rodin's sudoku? How is is "irregular"? It's actually VERY regular.

And of course you could help to note:

"wave function of his toroid spacetime dynamic"


Wave function of the dynamic???
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


If you want to understand how Rodin's mapping is fractal, take a look at Searl's law of the squares here:
www.searlsolution.com...

Scroll down a bit until you see the big 'sudoku' charts. Each number in the middle is related to the numbers in the proportionally bigger rectangle, and the next, and the next, etc. If you zoom in on the center square, you would make a new proportional grid that looks the same, but it is a smaller frame of reference. It will have the same numerical relationships and inherent values across the table.


"wave function of his toroid spacetime dynamic"


Wave function of the dynamic???


Yes, the real wave structure of space. Not just a probability wave function, but a real one. In a 3D interference pattern which is an emanating, nesting torus of counter-rotating opposite phase standing waves.


What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrödinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics.)


edit on 15-2-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
A passage from a document called "Thoughts upon Reading Marko Rodin's [sic] on his unusual coil design" may shed some light on the practical application of Rodin's math. The author is talking about Rodin's book Aerodynamics Point Energy Creation Physics (1995):


The foundation for the whole book lies in the numerological tradition, which is ancient, probably something handed down from the Sumerians. As a modern, the whole of numerology seems trivial at most; and with various cultural overlays, downright superstitious. The science of the Ancients made much use of numerology along with astrology and sacred geometry, and one would guess these were branches of a central tradition. The assertion is made in this tradition that the base ten system is the most natural number scheme, as it mirrors some potent aspect of exisence. As an example, DNA molecules have ten rungs per complete turn of the helix. The key numerological operation is cross addition, wherein a given number's digits are added to each other horizontally and reduced to a single digit 1-9. Thus, 5682 becomes 21 becomes 3. This tradition would be trying to teach that in forming a physical quantity, single units carry as much weight as units of ten or units of a thousand. Elaborating on the DNA model, it is as if each power of ten denotes an additional dimension of spiraling. Thus the horizontal sum denotes a totalizing of positions on the spirals, the meaning being strictly geometrical in nature, as when a higher dimensional object is projected onto a lower dimensional surface.


I believe the reference to the ancients is important in that my research tells me that in the modern times we live in, there is suppressed knowledge and technology that the ancients had. Haramein talks about this when he talks about how the pyramids were built. I think that the critics on this thread and other science threads who ridicule people like Haramein and Rodin have not researched what has been suppressed.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Ok, cool.


Originally posted by Bobathon
 

Start with something that is clearly Rodin's idea, follow it through step by step, and connect it with something that can be observed in the real world.



Originally posted by beebs
 

Rodin's view of physics is holistic, interdependent, infinite, and wavelike....

He came at this problem trying to find the 'most great name of god' through Baha'i mysticism, and how to correctly pronounce it. He wanted to figure out the correct tone, frequency, vibration of the word etc.

It led him into harmonics, cymatics, math, physics, etc.

He concluded(with help from his subjective internalization of the scripture no doubt) that the structure of spacetime is a toroid wave function
Ok, you've started with his personal history, which is not what I was asking, but it's cool...


This, and the holistic interdependent wave structure of space is best described and elaborated upon further by Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM). I do not know if Rodin is aware of Milo Wolff, etc... but If you are looking for a better explanation of a similar idea, IMO, that is where you will find it.
Those are some things that he likes...


If I understand him right, he somehow came to the conclusion that the toroid structure is the dynamic through which the 'most great name of god' is expressed in all of nature

...

That(or some other revelations from the Baha'i texts, if I remember correctly) led him into his base 9 mathematics, and the sudoku-like grid applied to the torus.
That is some more history and some more things that he likes...


Each number in the grid is a self consistent fractal center emanating its self relational mathematics throughout the grid. These are not just numbers to him, but ratios or inherent harmonics in the wave function of his toroid spacetime dynamic. To him, it explains quark colors and spin, atomic weights, etc.
More things that he likes... and some unexplained connections...


Thus, he came up with the rodin coil, which attempts to engineer the least friction, most amplification of 'electricity' in the coil. Since he uses two oppositely wrapped wires, which are charged in a certain phase of each other, he considers it much more than electricity, closer to something such as 'magnetic electricity' since it is two way.
More history... and more unexplained connections...


Anyways, since his coil is supposedly 'frictionless', or much more so than conventional ones, he maintains that it is allowing spacetime to 'resonate' or 'amplify' itself more easily - since he is basing the structure of the coil on his model of spacetime itself.
Some claims... some things he likes to think (no reason given)... more unexplained connections...


I think another description would be, that EM frequencies from ZPE or below the Planck scale are allowed to elongate, or escape their confinement, or come through the frictionless neutral point in the center of the coil... or resonate with the macroscale space in general... this part I am not very sure about, as you can imagine. I can only approximate it, as we have no good terms to describe such a phenomenon.

Somehow, if his model is any closer to the UFT, his coil harnesses the ZPE, or frequencies below the planck scale, or motion of... space itself. Amplifies the vacuum fluctuations, or creates them in the torus dynamic.
Some wordsoup (sorry, I can't see anything sensible there).


At this point, I will stop, as I really don't know the correct terms to use in such a frontier idea. If it isn't entirely correct, there may be pieces we can still use - without throwing the baby out with the bathwater... you know?


Ok. Most of what you've said is just lists of things Rodin likes to think. Things someone likes to think could very easily be random and meaningless. So I'm looking for a route from something in Rodin's ideas that connects to something observable. What should I go for?

My request to you is that you try to avoid just listing things that Rodin thinks, because it doesn't explain anything except to people who will are prepared to just swallow it. (I'm prepared to listen, but not to just take him at his word for no reason.)

So here's a question from what you've said: Can you tell me how he arrives at atomic weights, or quark colours and spin? That would be observable. Something to do with the wavefunction of a toroidal spacetime. That sounds like something worth looking at. Can you say more about what his theory says about that, how it relates to observable reality, and why?

I'm not sure if anything else you've said is observable... that's all I can see at the moment. Maybe you can point to something else if you don't want to focus on that one thing.
edit on 15-2-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 



Can you tell me how he arrives at atomic weights, or quark colours and spin? That would be observable. Something to do with the wavefunction of a toroidal spacetime. That sounds like something worth looking at. Can you say more about what his theory says about that, how it relates to observable reality, and why?


They are probably subharmonic triples of the standing wave function. I mean, they would be interference nodes in equadistant triples given in his 'VW' diagram - the 9 on top, 3 and 6 in the bottom right and left.

At this point, I must veer to Keely, because I think he understood it better than Rodin.
www.svpvril.com...

keelynet.com...

www.keelytech.com...

pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com...

The atom is the ultimate, original, shape power structure. Its perpetual vibration and motion reveals that it operates at the interface of the physical universe with the aetheric realm. All known forces and elements are embedded in the structure of the atom, and probably many more that we don't yet know about. Solve how the atom does its perpetual motion miracle and you have solved how the physical universe is constructed. Gravity control and free energy will be some of the resulting developments when the atom is understood.

In chapter one, the simple atom, as envisioned by John E. W. Keely, was depicted as a torroidal vortex of aetheric force, with a substructure of torroids embeded within the larger torroid in a triple particle effect. The main torroid is made up of three smaller torroids rotating to form the larger main pattern, with each pattern repeating at each sub-level, possibly ad infinitum.

Modern physics envisions the atom as a collection of nuclear particles which are held together by the strong force, the weak force, gravity, electricity, and magnetism to form the various atomic elements. Their theory is that the center of the atom has a nucleus, a core of these subatomic particles, which is surrounded by a cloud of electrons orbiting the nucleus at tremendous speed.

Neither Keely's model without electrons nor the modernist view with their particle soup is a satisfying concept. Electrons exist, at least particles that look like them, smell like them and quack like them, so Keely's model is incomplete or we simply don't have enough information to define it. Further, an electron or a cloud of them continuously rotating about the nucleus should quickly deplete their energy through electromagnetic radiation so we have more anomalies to deal with. oriharu.net...


Link above has some math for you to check, as well as similar ideas to Haramein - although I doubt they have heard of each other. Scroll down for some good diagrams also.

You will have to spend more time on this part, I know it sounds jumbled, but if you can point me to where the clarification needs to be, that is where we should focus:


I think another description would be, that EM frequencies from ZPE or below the Planck scale are allowed to elongate, or escape their confinement, or come through the frictionless neutral point in the center of the coil... or resonate with the macroscale space in general... this part I am not very sure about, as you can imagine. I can only approximate it, as we have no good terms to describe such a phenomenon.

Somehow, if his model is any closer to the UFT, his coil harnesses the ZPE, or frequencies below the planck scale, or motion of... space itself. Amplifies the vacuum fluctuations, or creates them in the torus dynamic.





not sure why it was/is bolding everything
edit on 15-2-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Yes, the real wave structure of space. Not just a probability wave function, but a real one.


OK, please defined the "real wave function". I'm all ears.


In a 3D interference pattern which is an emanating, nesting torus of counter-rotating opposite phase standing waves.


What is emanating torus? What is nesting torus? I though that birds were nesting, not tori. And by the way waves don't rotate, do that? If standing waves coexist in same domain and you claim they have "opposite phase", don't you think they would cancel each other?

Graphomania much?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon
 



Can you tell me how he arrives at atomic weights, or quark colours and spin? That would be observable. Something to do with the wavefunction of a toroidal spacetime. That sounds like something worth looking at. Can you say more about what his theory says about that, how it relates to observable reality, and why?


They are probably subharmonic triples of the standing wave function. I mean, they would be interference nodes in equadistant triples given in his 'VW' diagram - the 9 on top, 3 and 6 in the bottom right and left.

At this point, I must veer to Keely, because I think he understood it better than Rodin.
www.svpvril.com...
keelynet.com...
www.keelytech.com...
pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com...


Whoa, you totally dodged a very pointed question.
Unqualified defeat.
And, you pretty much contradict yourself -- Rodin understands so much according to you, than you admit he does not. Wow, just wow.


edit on 15-2-2011 by buddhasystem because: added a sentence



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


And I'm sure in 3 minutes, you have mastered all of the material I presented.

In order to understand Rodin's quarks, I suggest Keely's instead - as they are similar but Keely is much better at explaining, as well as Milo Wolff in WSM.


Rodin understands so much according to you,


Excuse me, but haven't I been explicitly of the position that Rodin FALLS WITHIN A CONTEXT?!

I believe there is a quiz I recommended for you a couple posts back... you must have missed it.
edit on 15-2-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


And I'm sure in 3 minutes, you have mastered all of the material I presented.


It's mostly kindergarten doodles. No derivation of mass of quarks etc WHICH YOU WERE EXPLICITLY ASKED TO PROVIDE.

Again, how does Rodin derives masses of particles and physics constants from his sudoku?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon
 



Can you tell me how he arrives at atomic weights, or quark colours and spin? That would be observable. Something to do with the wavefunction of a toroidal spacetime. That sounds like something worth looking at. Can you say more about what his theory says about that, how it relates to observable reality, and why?


They are probably subharmonic triples of the standing wave function. I mean, they would be interference nodes in equadistant triples given in his 'VW' diagram - the 9 on top, 3 and 6 in the bottom right and left.

At this point, I must veer to Keely, because I think he understood it better than Rodin.

...

Link above has some math for you to check, as well as similar ideas to Haramein - although I doubt they have heard of each other. Scroll down for some good diagrams also.

Ok, well maybe that wasn't a good one to choose. The links don't make any sense to me in terms of anything observable. It feels like you're sending me off to look at things you don't understand yourself, rather than explaining anything.

Forget the atomic weights and quarks then. Do you know any other things that you can explain, where there's some connection between his ideas and something observable?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by beebs
.....


Ok, well maybe that wasn't a good one to choose. The links don't make any sense to me in terms of anything observable. It feels like you're sending me off to look at things you don't understand yourself, rather than explaining anything.


You know, you summed up pretty nicely, that modus operandi of Beebs.


Forget the atomic weights and quarks then. Do you know any other things that you can explain, where there's some connection between his ideas and something observable?


Can't wait to hear what he has to say!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



OK, please defined the "real wave function". I'm all ears.

In a 3D interference pattern which is an emanating, nesting torus of counter-rotating opposite phase standing waves.


What is emanating torus? What is nesting torus? I though that birds were nesting, not tori. And by the way waves don't rotate, do that? If standing waves coexist in same domain and you claim they have "opposite phase", don't you think they would cancel each other?


Nesting is nesting. Think Russian dolls. Emanating torus = 3D wave coming from atomic vibrations. Yes, they cancel each other out for the most part but are standing cymatics - but everything is moving and interconnected.






Determination of the stable motion of electrons in the atom introduces integers, and up to this point the only phenomena involving integers in physics were those of interference and of normal modes of vibration. This fact suggested to me the idea that electrons too could not be considered simply as particles, but that frequency (wave properties) must be assigned to them also.
(Louis de Broglie, 1929, Nobel Prize Speech)

Thus I arrived at the following general idea which has guided my researches: for matter, just as much as for radiation, in particular light, we must introduce at one and the same time the corpuscle concept and the wave concept. In other words, in both cases we must assume the existence of corpuscles accompanied by waves. But corpuscles and waves cannot be independent, since, according to Bohr, they are complementary to each other; consequently it must be possible to establish a certain parallelism between the motion of a corpuscle and the propagation of the wave which is associated with it. (Louis de Broglie)

The next step was taken by de Broglie. He asked himself how the discrete states could be understood by the aid of current concepts, and hit on a parallel with stationary (standing) waves, as for instance in the case of proper frequencies of organ pipes and strings in acoustics. ... Experiments on interference made with particle rays have given brilliant proof that the wave character of the phenomena of motion as assumed by the theory does, really, correspond to the facts. (Albert Einstein, 1954)



What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ...
The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ...
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists. (Erwin Schrodinger)

Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. (Schrödinger E, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, CN, 1995).

I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
(Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics)



The most difficult problem … concerning the use of the language arises in quantum physics. Here we have at first no simple guide for correlating the mathematical symbols with concepts of ordinary language: and the only thing we know from the start is the fact that our common concepts cannot be applied to the structure of the atoms. (Heisenberg, The Tao of Physics, p54



The more success the quantum physics has, the sillier it looks. ... I think that a 'particle' must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. ... God does not play dice with the cosmos. (Albert Einstein, On Quantum Physics)

Einstein, don't tell God what to do. (Niels Bohr in response to Einstein)
Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum physics cannot possibly have understood it. .... When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images.
It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.
(Niels Bohr, On Quantum Physics, 1885-1962)



In relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events, connectable by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails in unbroken wholeness. (David Bohm, On Quantum Mechanics, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

At present quantum physicists tend to avoid the issue by adopting the attitude that our overall views concerning the nature of reality are of little or no importance. All that counts in physical theory is supposed to be the development of mathematical equations that permit us to predict and control the behaviour of large statistical aggregates of particles. Such a goal is not regarded as merely for its pragmatic and technical utility: rather, it has become a presupposition of most work in modern physics that prediction and control of this kind is all that human knowledge is about. (David Bohm, On Modern Physics, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

One is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and existing parts … We have reversed the usual classical notion that the independent ‘elementary parts’ of the world are the fundamental reality, and that the various systems are merely particular contingent forms and arrangements of these parts. Rather, we say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is the fundamental reality, and that relatively independent behaving parts are merely particular and contingent forms within this whole. (David Bohm, On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory, Foundations of Physics, vol 5, 1975)


www.spaceandmotion.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



It's mostly kindergarten doodles. No derivation of mass of quarks etc WHICH YOU WERE EXPLICITLY ASKED TO PROVIDE.

Again, how does Rodin derives masses of particles and physics constants from his sudoku?


Kindergarten doodles are better at explaining the universe than you are... tough luck.

They are not particles. Get over yourself.

You think I am Rodin's lapdog, but I have argued from the beginning that he is only significant in a context of other thinkers and theories.

Quit wasting your time on this forum and go read some books on philosophy - you have none.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 



Ok, well maybe that wasn't a good one to choose. The links don't make any sense to me in terms of anything observable. It feels like you're sending me off to look at things you don't understand yourself, rather than explaining anything.

Forget the atomic weights and quarks then. Do you know any other things that you can explain, where there's some connection between his ideas and something observable?


Oh man... I don't know what else to say. I want to be nice, but you clearly have not read or looked into a single thing I have posted in dozens of posts... I thought maybe you would be doing your own research in your spare time, but apparently you just glance at what I post and assume I don't understand what I am posting.

Empirical equivalence and complementarity. Continuum mechanics. Keely and SVP. Milo Wolff and WSM. Mesmer and magnetism. Occultist philosophers. History of science.

Cheers.












posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I haven't read through all this thread so don't know if anyone has already said this. In the presentation video posted at the beginning of this thread they say they have something unique then they show a Bedini motor spinning up a neo ball magnet in a glass container....sorry but what a load of crap, that is useless and only fascinates those who don't know what a Bedini motor is.
There is no over unity there, nothing special and when he presents that and says they are openly giving this technology to the world...well that is plagiarism because it was Bedini who invented that motor and he already gave it to the world!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


How do ANY of the links contain calculation of quark mass etc based on Rodin's sudoku? Please answer.
"Continuum mechanics" is not an adequate answer.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join