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: 150
39
<< 147  148  149    151  152  153 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Bravo Lloyd Pye! I love plain-speaking, independent-thinking individuals.


From the .pdf file "Why So Much About Science Is Wrong" page 2 of 5:



What we have on this thread, is hesitancy to consider "outsiders lacking credentials."

That's not scientific. Scientists are curious first and foremost.




posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Now here's the double standard: an outsider can accuse scientists of anything, no matter how unjust or plain stupid. But a scientist cannot debunk anything outsiders say, regardless of facts and evidence, simply because they are scientists. Am I understanding your position correct?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23432

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.



Originally posted by Mary Rose




I read the book Electric Universe years ago. Seeing the Lloyd Pye quote reminded me of it.

Maybe there is a relationship between the electric universe theory and the field that you describe. Is the following a good paraphrase of that field?

A field permeating the entire universe, both the vacuum and the space within the atom, and containing information that guides energy into the formation of matter.


Originally posted by Mary Rose

I’m reading the 51 page .pdf file “Magnetic Current” by Ed Leedskalnin.

The .pdf is available at freeenergynews.com: "Index of /Directory/Magnets/Leedskalnin."

I noticed that Leedskalnin says on page 25 of 51 that the North and South Pole magnets are the “cosmic force.” He said they hold together the earth and everything on it.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This is my intuition speaking to me. It's too showy. It doesn't ring true to me.
How much scientific evidence does it take to persuade you that your intuition is wrong? Is there any conceivable amount or is it an impossible task?


Arb,

look -- Mary keeps saying that "we haven't isolated an electron". I admit that I'm not 100% what it means, but if I venture to interpret that, it seems to be saying that "we don't know properties of the electron", or "we can't measure interactions electrons have with other objects", or "I don't believe atomic structure of matter", or some combination of the above. All of this is bogus, of course, and simply means that Mary has no interest in learning facts. So I understand that no amount of scientific evidence can persuade Mary.

If i may, i would explain it like this;
There are 2 problems with isolating a single particle, one is Heisenbergs uncertainty principle which states that, although you could find it's exact position, the exact moment in time that it's actually there is uncertain, it cannot be accurately measured.
By the same principle, the exact time when a particle is detected can be measured, but it's position would be uncertain.
In other words, you can not measure the exact position of a particle at an exact time, it's one or the other.
This is crucial in determining if it was in fact the same particle interacting with both slits.

The second problem is that electrons are not in any way solid particles, they behave more like a cloud, moving in a teardrop shape around the nucleus.
This is why i have a problem with the whole Coulomb thing, but that's a whole new thread in itself....

In a way, Arbitrageur is right, but i would imagine that the spots on the screen may have been helped by photomultipliers, which use the initial impact of a single photon or electron to start a cascade, which would then have enough energy to form a 'blip' on the screen.
I hope i have been able to shed some light on this topic.
PWM

edit on 19-12-2011 by playswithmachines because: Clarity



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I noticed that Leedskalnin says on page 25 of 51 that the North and South Pole magnets are the “cosmic force.” He said they hold together the earth and everything on it.



not gravity??


How does he propose that planets without planetary magnetic fields (eg Mars) hold together then??



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


IMO the misconception occurs because gravity, a so-called weak force, can strech for zillions of miles, while magnetism, is a force that works over relatively short distance.
They are linked, but i would not place any bets on Rodins model being right......



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


IMO the misconception occurs because gravity, a so-called weak force, can strech for zillions of miles, while magnetism, is a force that works over relatively short distance.
They are linked, but i would not place any bets on Rodins model being right......


Not to be splitting hair, but consider the magnetic field of a wire.

You will notice a 1/R dependency, which is makes it a longer range force. If there were magnetic monopoles, then of course it would be 1/R**2 again i.e. equivalent to gravity.

I'm adding this only for precision's sake. It does not change the fact that anyone who remotely believes that Liedskalnin's theory of Earth being held together by magnetic fields is an idiot.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've been going through my stack of research print-outs this morning. One of them is "RodinAerodynamics.org - featuring the Rodin Coil" which I printed in 2007.

Lately I've enjoyed thumbing through this print-out again.

On page 3 is:


The repeating number pattern that solves pi and demonstrates it to be a whole number.

I remember Dale Pond making a comment about the importance of whole numbers.

And I did some searches and noted something about the Bible saying that pi is 3. Not that the Bible is an authority; it's just interesting.

I glanced through a physics forum discussion where someone asked what would happen if we eventually discovered that pi is a rational number. The answer was it would break a very large amount of the mathematical machinery that we have created to date. To which someone chimed in and said not to worry: Pi is proven to be irrational. To which someone countered: It could be contradicted by proving that the algorithm used to compute the digits was wrong.

Interesting.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Using a measuring tape you can measure pi yourself. Try it out and report back if you conclude pi to be a whole number.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 






Wow! Such an educated response. I'm soooooooooooo impressed.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Sorry for suggesting to make an actual measurement in reality to see if a certain claim is correct, I know that is not how you operate.

(ps, your response is extremely rude and can be considered as trolling).



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by -PLB-
 






Wow! Such an educated response.


You are trying to be sarcastic, but due to lack of education and complete absence of critical thinking skills, you reached the opposite result. You see, it's indeed an educated suggestion to check whether PI is a whole number or not for yourself, using simple tools. Not even trying demonstrates deplorable ignorance and astonishing lack of curiosity.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 




I remember Dale Pond making a comment about the importance of whole numbers. And I did some searches and noted something about the Bible saying that pi is 3. Not that the Bible is an authority; it's just interesting.


I glanced through a physics forum discussion where someone asked what would happen if we eventually discovered that pi is a rational number.

Last time I checked a whole number is not the same thing as a rational number.
But pi is neither.

edit on 12/20/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I remember Dale Pond making a comment about the importance of whole numbers.


And I remember Dale Pond linking to pyramid schemes on pages like this one.

You really need to check it out. It's under "Broke and tired of it?" on Ponds pages and it promises unlimited income potential. Just like unlimited energy in Rodin coil or other charlatans' "inventions".

What a trap for the gullible people! Those visiting that site and taking it half seriously are already likely to be uneducated, ignorant hacks, ready to take the bait of "unlimited income potential" and be lured by pics of luxury cars, yachts and fine wines.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Last time I checked a whole number is not the same thing as a rational number.


The dictionary says that a rational number is a number that can be expressed as an integer or a quotient of integers, and that an integer is a whole number, so please explain your point regarding Rodin's statement that pi is a whole number.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

My point is that you included a statement about rational numbers with your statement about whole numbers. They are not the same thing.

All whole numbers are rational numbers. Not all rational numbers are whole numbers. Your attempt to link the two statements is nonsensical. Even if pi were a rational number (it is not) it would not be a whole number.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
All whole numbers are rational numbers. Not all rational numbers are whole numbers.


If the rational number in question turned out to be a whole number, which it could, there would be no nonsense involved. So, what you are doing is assuming nonsense instead of reserving judgment.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

It is simple to prove that pi is not an integer (measure it).
There are a number of different proofs, using different approaches, that pi is not rational.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
The following screenshots are from an April-May 1996 .pdf file of a Nexus magazine article:













posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Lately I've enjoyed thumbing through this print-out again.


On page 4:


Since the Bahai sacred scripture was originally written in Persian and Arabic Marko used the Abjad numerical notation system for this letter to number translation. This was a sacred system of allocating a unique numerical value to each letter of the 27 letters of the alphabet so that secret quantum mechanic physics could be encoded into words.


Rodin must be alluding to a previous advanced civilization. Of course this is alternative history, which I highly recommend. Red Ice Creations is a good source.




top topics



 
39
<< 147  148  149    151  152  153 >>

log in

join