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: 159
39
<< 156  157  158    160  161  162 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
There is a religion called Bahaism , there is no need to start a new one .


In "RodinAerodynamics.org featuring the Rodin Coil" page 4 of 29:


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.




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
What has Cern does got to do with how energy unit naturally follows a geometric shape and in doing so infold - outfold onto itself ?


Short answer is no. Long answer is that rehashing Rodin's nonsense can't possibly create or elucidate any theory or information.

As Arb said, it's perfectly OK to practice religion of any sort, such as to worship Rodin's donut and proclaim him the Ultimate Prophet of the Donut and its Sudoku. No argument there. Religion is not physics and that's that.



I love it the way you and Arb " pass the dutchie on the left hand side " .


Rodin's "nonsense" could be liken to a man in a dark room who has never seen an elephant and is describing the first time encounter via touch , smell .

Once upon a time , whoever said the world is round was also accused of talking nonsense .

300 years ago we ( scientific circles ) thought of speaking germs as nonsense .

Indeed it is perfectly OK to practice any religion and Rodin's ideas are not about math , phyics but GOD .

So pls do take into account what Rodin is preaching .

There is nothing to debunk scientifically .



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
double post
edit on 5-1-2012 by 23432 because: double post



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 23432
Rodin lives in a world of faith and scientists all live in a world of no faith .


Faith in the sense of instinctive knowing by tapping ones intuition for the insights to be gleaned there needs to be incorporated into the world of scientific research.


Focusing only on what the brain perceives using instruments/laboratory equipment and the spoken/written record as tools to gain knowledge is not enough.

True insight requires a holistic approach.


I agree with you .

I predict an explosion of devices/applications in next 10 - 20 years to make tapping into intuition easier , more quantifiable experience.

It never ceases to amazes me what a vigorous scientific training accomplishes in the intuition department of a giving human .



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Indeed it is perfectly OK to practice any religion and Rodin's ideas are not about math , phyics but GOD .

So pls do take into account what Rodin is preaching .

There is nothing to debunk scientifically .


Great, so we agree that "Vortex Based Mathematics" needs to be scratched from the title of the thread. Great. Something about "perfect intonation of the Name of God" would be far more appropriate. I frankly would have never bothered to post in this thread had it been the case. Intone all you want!



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
Indeed it is perfectly OK to practice any religion and Rodin's ideas are not about math , phyics but GOD .

So pls do take into account what Rodin is preaching .

There is nothing to debunk scientifically .


Great, so we agree that "Vortex Based Mathematics" needs to be scratched from the title of the thread. Great. Something about "perfect intonation of the Name of God" would be far more appropriate. I frankly would have never bothered to post in this thread had it been the case. Intone all you want!




No .

Title should stay as it is a correct-ish definition of the claim .

Your definition is a kinda cop out .

Of course you can cop out all you want too .

I rather entertain the idea that there may be God , and name of God is to be found in geometric shape the sound that 9 makes .

This thread is most entertaining thread on whole of ATS imho .




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Arb

There is a religion called Bahaism , there is no need to start a new one . I believe Rodin follows that religion already .
Obviously Rodin has just not yet found enlightenment in the one true religion:



And to modify your words from your previous post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Isn't there exists[sic], a possibility , that the current science lacks the necessary tools and knowledge to evaluate Rodin's[The napkin religion's] claims properly .

If the answer is No , I am afraid that you are just being Dogmatic with your sceptical approach.

I don't think I have changed my tune but only re-asserted "an open minded " stand - giving the subject's nature - yet again .

I repeat , the claims of Rodin's[The napkin religion] does not fall within the remit of current scientific understanding .

Similarly claims of Lipton and Sheldrake [Tukano Indians of South America] also don't fall within the remit of current scientific understanding .

I am not dismissing these people outright , I require further thinking , investigating , delibrating[sic] on the subject of double torroid[sic] vortexes ."

You can substitute any religious belief for any other religious belief and say the same thing about any of them if there is no reason to believe one over the other.

If you want to give them all a fair shot you need to join all of them, but you see there's a problem with that because the napkin religion claims it's the one true religion so they may not appreciate you being a member of all the other religions. And in case you're wondering, as far as I know, there's no such thing as the napkin religion, I'm just using an example to illustrate a point.


You have brought many angles on the table of discussion yet never acknowledged the GOD in your assertions .

I think that stand you take may serve a wrong purpose while being upright in it's own right.
What stand? The topic of this thread is not my personal religious beliefs, but to respond to people discussing "Rodin religion" I discussed religious views as they pertain to this thread in this post on page 147.

Consider the beliefs of Albert Einstein. Despite the claims of Mary's favorite "you stupid relativist" guy, Einstein was a pretty bright fellow, and to my understanding, he believed that the way God revealed himself to us is through the beauty of nature...which might have motivated Einstein to understand natural laws better; the more he could understand natural laws, the closer he felt to understanding God. And you know, I really can't argue with that viewpoint at all, because it has a foundation in the reality of what we observe in nature, which is a lot more than I can say for Rodin's claims, which seem to have no foundation in reality whatsoever.
edit on 5-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Obviously Rodin has just not yet found enlightenment in the one true religion:


Yes, Rodin has a religion but he studied all the world's "great" religions, the printout says. It says he began at age 15 with a search for the answer to, "What is the secret behind intelligence?" He then intuitively discerned that all intelligence comes from a person's name; thus, the significance of the names of God.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

And to modify your words from your previous post . . .
"Isn't there exists[sic] . . .


Aren't you the clever, witty one? The subtle jab.

Oh, the technique of ridicule. How you rely on it!! Like clockwork.

Quite a wordy response the rest of your post is. I'm only scanning it because I'm fairly certain there's no substance and I don't want to waste my time wading through it.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Despite the claims of Mary's favorite . . .


Why do you exaggerate?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
He then intuitively discerned that all intelligence comes from a person's name


...and at this point became really mad at his parents!


Oh, the technique of ridicule. How you rely on it!! Like clockwork.


Just like new technologies extract energy and other useful stuff from waste, one can extract useful comic moments from the otherwise garbage thread. So thank you.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . one can extract useful comic moments from the otherwise garbage thread.


You should know; you're contributing garbage right and left.

It's so amazing that you post so much on this thread. With your attitude, I would think you would want to take your talents elsewhere and have a real discussion with members. Guess you mostly like perverse entertainment for yourself rather than intelligent discussion.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Guess you mostly like perverse entertainment for yourself rather than intelligent discussion.


I am contributing to other threads where people actually know stuff an intelligent discussion can indeed occur.

If, however, one says "number 9 is dark matter" or "number 9 is God's particle" or "number 9 will cure all decease in the world", the very idiocy of such pronouncements precludes any possibility of discussion of any sort. So we are left with recycling grey water as pastime.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
He then intuitively discerned that all intelligence comes from a person's name; thus, the significance of the names of God.


Yes, the charge for the service in this ad is high; I'm not interested in that, however.

I think this quote from expansions.com is very thought-provoking:


Name Energy Scan
“Who and What You Truly Are”

The name you chose before birth reveals incredible insights about you. Your name is a spiritual code, similar to the DNA in your body, which is a code of your genetics.

How do you feel about your name?

Do you realize that you actually chose your own name before you were born?

Do you know that each letter of the alphabet is actually an archetype with a specific meaning?

In combination these letters reveal information from your conscious, subconscious, and superconscious minds about your personal reason for being in this reality and why you chose the family genetics that you did.

Your personal code is hidden in the letters, colors and frequencies of your birth name. Once you understand your personal code, you can move towards your goals much more swiftly than ever before. Knowing Who and What You Truly Are is the key to creating success and happiness – across all parts of your life.

You will treasure your Name Analysis forever.


Before you ask, it's none of your business; so don't ask.

The world of consciousness is a fascinating world that will be explored in the decade to come.




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


OMG... That charlatan charges $359 for interpreting your name? He really has found some niche! He's like a Tarot psychic on steroids, plus he can tell a few lurid tales about s3xu4l t0rture opening portals to other dimensions. He rocks!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Stewart Swerdlow is a survivor of a black project for whom I have high regard. Nothing you say about him impresses me.

I suspect that his pricing is according to whatever is appropriate for him to charge, according to the time it takes and whatever charge makes it worth his while to offer the service.

His pricing is irrelevant to the topic of consciousness, which is a very important topic, and one that mainstream science would be wise to embrace. Including the "paranormal." Actually, especially the paranormal. The mysterious should be that which the scientific mind seeks to explain.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Stewart Swerdlow is a survivor of a black project for whom I have high regard.
I must say I hold Swerdlow in higher regard than the blacklight power fraudsters. They've created an expectation for investors that they may get a return on their investment, which they never will, so they aren't delivering what they promise.

Swerdlow on the other hand, deserves more respect in a twisted sort of way. He has found a niche market of people who like to believe in tall tales (I tried to think of a way to scientifically test his assertion you can choose your own name before birth, but I'm not having much luck). He then provides a service of delivering exactly what his target market wants, tall tales. So in Swerlow's case, his customers are getting exactly what they want and expect. It's hard not to have some twisted admiration for that kind of evil genius.

But the people who really deserve admiration are those who help people seek enlightenment through the truth. People like Carl Sagan, who encouraged us to think critically so we can recognize the difference between verifiable truths versus a bunch of baloney.


If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.
-- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

When Mary says "think for yourself", it means don't get educated and follow the ideas of those who also didn't get educated, and often don't apply any scientific methodology.

When Carl Sagan says "think for yourself", he does encourage people to get educated and learn to think critically. Then challenging authority, even if it's mainstream science, can at least be done rationally, and let's face it: science has advanced over the years because great scientists have challenged the authority of mainstream science and ultimately our views changed as a result. However I'm trying to think of cases where our mainstream world views have changed as a result of people like Rodin, who can't even seem to formulate a scientifically testable idea, and I'm not coming up with any examples.

So the moral of the story is, even if you think the mainstream science view is totally, utterly wrong, you're unlikely to change it if you can't even communicate in the same language of science which has developed this scientific world view. The way to change it is to educate yourself, learn the language scientists use, conduct experiments and present your scientific findings. Then you can join the ranks of the great scientists in history, who have challenged mainstream science, and won. I'm not saying it was easy, but they did it.

Barring such effort, Rodin's proclamations that he's solved the dark matter problem with the number 9 will be taken as seriously as cow flatulence; correction...less seriously. Cow flatulence may lead to global warming so at least scientists are willing to consider that.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Swerdlow on the other hand, deserves more respect in a twisted sort of way. He has found a niche market of people who like to believe in tall tales


I quite agree. I can't blame a person for following his calling to be an entertainer, and a pretty good one at that! He's a one stop shop for all sorts of New Age nuts who crave speaking to, I quote, interdimensional teacher, who once also had a gig as a galactic ambassador to planet Emo or something. I mean, where else do you get this stuff? Have no fear, just come to Swerdlow and have you pick. From a $900 collection of DVDs explaining the wonders of dimensional travel and deep meaning of the word "vortex", to $359 service of reading the secret meaning of your name, he's got you covered. To spice things up, he'll throw in a lascivious story about Montauk and all.

He's good at what he does, so more power to him. It's not even that he charges a "stupidity tax", it does seem that he sells entertainment.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

When Carl Sagan says . . .




Your beloved Carl Sagan.

I prefer to pay attention to the testimony of Brian O'Leary on Carl Sagan.


Now, I wonder how creative you're going to get in your next attack: Brian O'Leary. How ridiculous will it be? What front group will you quote? Should be entertaining.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Front group? I don't understand, are you calling Sagan a "Front group"?

And do you still think this hill on Mars is a face, and you don't like Carl Sagan because he suggested it wasn't, or adjusted the hue of the picture in the magazine? Is that what your post is about? It's not like he photoshopped it.

Hey I thought the face picture was cool when it came out, and I wondered, I admit. And I liked that movie "Mission to Mars" where the face on Mars was a real face.

science.nasa.gov...


But once I saw those 1998 and 2001 pictures, I haven't wondered since...

Do you still think it's a face?

And regarding O'Leary's claim that:
www.brianoleary.info...


there exist hundreds of proofs of concepts of new energy devices, ranging from energy from the vacuum (zero point), cold fusion, and special hydrogen and water technologies, and energy from the thermal environment.


If there are hundreds of proof of concepts of zero point energy from the vacuum, cold fusion, and hydrinos, how come I haven't seen even one? Where the heck are they? I'm sure the hydrogen (hydrino) technology he's talking about is Blacklight power, and you sure as heck can't claim they are suppressed, they do nothing but crow about their great free energy thing to get more investors. But they've never produced any commercial power, or proof of concept.

You also can't claim Bearden's zero point vacuum energy is suppressed, with all he's published about that, heck they even gave him a patent and everybody knows it! So how much energy has he produced? Zero.

I think you and O'Leary have something in common; you both want this free energy thing to be real so badly you convinced yourselves it must be true, facts and evidence be damned. I on the other hand would like for it to be true, but when I look for evidence of it, none of the evidence ever stands up to the slightest scrutiny. Wanting a thing to be true doesn't make it so. I know this conflicts with what your new age gurus tell you, but they are just telling you what you want to hear. It's not reality.

If there is such a thing as free energy, nobody has demonstrated proof of concept yet...I've looked. It will be cool if they do that someday, but it just hasn't happened.

I think that despite his delusions about proof of concept of vacuum energy machines, an extraterrestrial presence on Earth, its relationship to those potentially transformative technologies, etc, O'Leary's heart was in the right place. I, like O'Leary, value the planet Earth and don't like to see it raped and abused, and hope there's a way we can meet our energy needs without causing excessive damage to our home planet, which is the only inhabitable planet we've got right now.

Unfortunately, believing in fantasies doesn't solve the problem. We need to pursue real solutions.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You don't understand my post? How come? I think it was clear. I was anticipating your posting a hit piece about Brian O'Leary from a website associated with a front group. Front groups are tasked with casting aspersions on whistleblowers and innovators who challenge the status quo that the powers that be are determined to protect.

I don't have a "dislike" of Carl Sagan. You are the person who seems to have feelings about Sagan. What's important is suppression of technology and disinformation.

Yes, it is like he photoshopped it. What matters is intent. O’Leary’s testimony is that Sagan participated in a deliberate cover-up of the UFO phenomenon.

NASA is not to be trusted regarding the Face on Mars. This is well documented in Dark Mission – The Secret History of NASA and The Mars Mystery: The Secret Connection Between Earth and the Red Planet.

No, O’Leary and I don’t have a problem with facts and evidence.

Yes, we need to pursue one real solution: Acknowledge suppression and remove it.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You don't understand my post? How come? I think it was clear. I was anticipating your posting a hit piece about Brian O'Leary from a website associated with a front group. Front groups are tasked with casting aspersions on whistleblowers and innovators who challenge the status quo that the powers that be are determined to protect.
I see. Well as you may have noted, no front group is needed to point out the fallacy of O'Leary's claim of hundreds of proof of concepts of zero point energy from the vacuum, cold fusion, and hydrinos, etc....there aren't any. O'Leary's own words and the absence of claimed proof of concepts are sufficient to debunk him.


Originally posted by Mary Rose
Yes, it is like he photoshopped it. What matters is intent. O’Leary’s testimony is that Sagan participated in a deliberate cover-up of the UFO phenomenon.
I meant it's not like he altered the anything but the hue of the image, right? Please explain how tweaking the color of a hill to print it in a magazine constitutes a deliberate cover-up of the UFO phenomenon, or am I misunderstanding that too? And now that you see the photo more clearly, there's nothing there, right? Or are you claiming the more recent NASA photos are fakes?




top topics



 
39
<< 156  157  158    160  161  162 >>

log in

join