"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by beebs

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.

I appreciate you trying to be nice, but I have looked at everything you've posted. Nobody wants to be accused of 'clearly' having not done something when they know they have. I'm trying my best.

Sure, I can see similarities between this and that, ideas that use some of the same words, the odd reassuringly familiar picture, but nothing that explains how any ideas of Rodin's have anything to do with anything observable.

Imagine you wanted to know what was so relevant about Newton's theories of optics. If I pointed at rainbows and pointed at some of Newton's favourite books and then talked about his Christian inspirations and then pointed at a light bulb, you might have some vague sense of something to do with light and colours and God, but that's all.

If instead I said that Newton had taken a prism and allowed ordinary daylight to pass through it and observed that it split into a spectrum of different colours, and from that he'd come up with a theory that perhaps the colours of the spectrum are all present within white light, and that these colours are fundamental and not made of yet more colours... then I've told you one of his theories.

If I then said that he tested this theory be using prisms to split the spectral colours, and they remained exactly the same, and that no experiment to this day has ever succeeded in splitting a pure spectral red into other colours, then that would show that this part of Newton's theory relates to things in the real world. And if I said that he tested his theory further by recombining the spectral colours to see if white light was reformed, and found that it was, that is also something in the real world that supports his theory. And the fact that nobody has succeeded in creating or observing any white light that cannot be split into colours even to this day - that is also an impressively solid connection between his theory and the real world.

Newton's optics involves a hell of a lot more than splitting colours, but that's the kind of thing that I mean. Even if that was the only thing he'd done in his life, I could still point to it and say look, he showed that this is true, and that's how he did it, and this is how you could test that he's not just bullsh1tting.

That's what science is for - the attempt to create real, significant, reliable, solid pathways between the world of thought and the world of substance.

It's a lot more than just talking about some stuff and spotting something that reminds someone of something. It's the real thing. I know Rodin talks about some stuff. He might be very entertaining. But if it has nothing to do with reality, then I ain't interested, cause I got some great solid real theories that I know connect to reality (because I questioned the hell out of them and they stood up to it all). And when I want stories, I read good fiction. You get me?

That's why I'm asking for what I'm asking for. Very simple: just one explanation of just one thing in the real world that you or anyone can explain from his theories. (Not ten thousand, like I could give you for Newton. I'm making it easy, because nobody is saying Rodin is Newton. Just one.)

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beebs
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.

Originally posted by beebs
Nesting is nesting. Think Russian dolls.

My sister had barbie dolls but she never had any Russian dolls, what do they have to do with nesting? There is definitely a language barrier here.

It's almost like Rodin and others have taken words from the English language and hijacked them to gove them different meanings but haven't defined the different meanings.

And Beebs, it seems like you're doing the same thing.

Not only is the reference to Russian Dolls pretty opaque to me as a means of defining nesting, but even worse is the definition "nesting is nesting", how is that supposed to clarify the meaning?

Isn't there a better word than "nesting" to describe what you mean? And if nesting is the correct word, can't you do better than "Nesting is nesting. Think Russian dolls."?

Words have meaning. (or at least they are supposed to). Please try to recognize that words have meaning and choose them carefully. In the arena of science and mathematics, precise definitions of words become even more important to clearly express precise meanings. If one scientist wants to duplicate an experiment of another scientist (or if a mathematician wants to replicate a mathematical result), communication must be as clear and unambiguous as possible to facilitate this.

Originally posted by Bobathon
nobody is saying Rodin is Newton

Verily, verily thou hast spoken.
Amen.

I still do not understand how the arrangement of numbers correspond to anything. He just basically said "here are some neat patterns" and "here is a neat diagram" and started talking about how time emanates from the center of his diagram, without even connecting it to time at all. Wow 2^(n-1) is congruent to n and repeats in cycles when cross-adding that must mean energy can be harnessed from nothing!

I think this quote applies here: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beebs
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.

Originally posted by beebs
Nesting is nesting. Think Russian dolls.

My sister had barbie dolls but she never had any Russian dolls, what do they have to do with nesting? There is definitely a language barrier here.

It's almost like Rodin and others have taken words from the English language and hijacked them to gove them different meanings but haven't defined the different meanings.

And Beebs, it seems like you're doing the same thing.

Not only is the reference to Russian Dolls pretty opaque to me as a means of defining nesting, but even worse is the definition "nesting is nesting", how is that supposed to clarify the meaning?

Isn't there a better word than "nesting" to describe what you mean? And if nesting is the correct word, can't you do better than "Nesting is nesting. Think Russian dolls."?

Words have meaning. (or at least they are supposed to). Please try to recognize that words have meaning and choose them carefully. In the arena of science and mathematics, precise definitions of words become even more important to clearly express precise meanings. If one scientist wants to duplicate an experiment of another scientist (or if a mathematician wants to replicate a mathematical result), communication must be as clear and unambiguous as possible to facilitate this.

I hope you’re the devil’s advocate and not half-brained. I reminded of a quote when I read your material… That and a couple of the other standout antagonists in here.

It's easier to build strong children than to repair broken men - Frederick Douglass

If nesting is best explained by means of a visual, knock yourself out with this:

reply to post by Bobathon

That's why I'm asking for what I'm asking for. Very simple: just one explanation of just one thing in the real world that you or anyone can explain from his theories. (Not ten thousand, like I could give you for Newton. I'm making it easy, because nobody is saying Rodin is Newton. Just one.)

Two words: Platonic Solids

reply to post by beebs


Indeed you are... Of course we're constantly on the same page, so it's no surprise!

reply to post by buddhasystem


What's broken is your concentration. I refer back to terminology as sub par on your part. You supply your own contextual core which is blatantly falsifiable. Plus those preconceived notions rule contrary to science. Reason being: You're filtered out as trash talk.

reply to post by Americanist


Please elucidate. Explain in concrete terms instead of just pointing to a general field and topic. If you understand how you can explain it perhaps with equations and formulas, explaining exactly how this is useful for said topic. If you don't understand it you can keep spewing a mish-mash of terms to deflect from your true lack of understanding yourself. You're basically saying "this is useful and scientific and has vast applications that can even lead to free energy". Okay, then explain it.

reply to post by buddhasystem

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.

You are not thinking clearly. I said Keely understood this better than Rodin. Both Keely and Rodin have similar models and presuppositions.

So, I laid it out clearly in front of you to see. You expect that there should be a new equation, a new mass etc.. But those are just things you will have to work out for yourself. I expect they have the same 'mass' that they do now, only perhaps it is a bit different before we blast apart the atom.

The philosophical consequences of continuum mechanics is something you will have to be familiar with before you continue further.

Originally posted by Americanist

That's why I'm asking for what I'm asking for. Very simple: just one explanation of just one thing in the real world that you or anyone can explain from his theories. (Not ten thousand, like I could give you for Newton. I'm making it easy, because nobody is saying Rodin is Newton. Just one.)

Two words: Platonic Solids

Hello? That is not an explanation of what Rodin's ideas have to do with the real world. It's a name for some shapes.

reply to post by Bobathon

It's a lot more than just talking about some stuff and spotting something that reminds someone of something. It's the real thing. I know Rodin talks about some stuff. He might be very entertaining. But if it has nothing to do with reality, then I ain't interested, cause I got some great solid real theories that I know connect to reality (because I questioned the hell out of them and they stood up to it all). And when I want stories, I read good fiction. You get me?

That's why I'm asking for what I'm asking for. Very simple: just one explanation of just one thing in the real world that you or anyone can explain from his theories. (Not ten thousand, like I could give you for Newton. I'm making it easy, because nobody is saying Rodin is Newton. Just one.)

You make a great point, no one could disagree with you.

However, this is more complex since you must first familiarize yourself with the context of Rodin's ideas, and the philosophical presuppositions and new model of atomic physics.

His Rodin coil = your prism. He has provided you with a way to verify or falsify through experimenting yourself.

As for what we can observe in nature that has to do with VBM - everything. Mapping toroid wave function 'grain'(sorry, but that is the best term) of space, understanding fluid mechanics better - such as why nature chooses a spiral vortex for regulating temperature, exchanging density in volumes, etc... why spiraling is the best geometry to achieve transfer of a substance from one place to another - because it is inherent in space-time and represents the motion of all natural mechanics.

I don't know, at this point its all self-evident to me... mostly because of the context I am familiar with, and which I study every day.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

My sister had barbie dolls but she never had any Russian dolls, what do they have to do with nesting? There is definitely a language barrier here.

And Beebs, it seems like you're doing the same thing.

Isn't there a better word than "nesting" to describe what you mean? And if nesting is the correct word, can't you do better than "Nesting is nesting. Think Russian dolls."?

Words have meaning. (or at least they are supposed to). Please try to recognize that words have meaning and choose them carefully. In the arena of science and mathematics, precise definitions of words become even more important to clearly express precise meanings. If one scientist wants to duplicate an experiment of another scientist (or if a mathematician wants to replicate a mathematical result), communication must be as clear and unambiguous as possible to facilitate this.

A google search of terms you are unfamiliar with will help.

Russian dolls
nesting

Structures within structures.



I am using each and every term very deliberately, because they are the best method for me to convey and represent what is in my head.

Ask specifically which terms you think are hijacked and wrong please. I apologize for nesting, I thought it was general knowledge.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

As for what we can observe in nature that has to do with VBM - everything. Mapping toroid wave function 'grain'(sorry, but that is the best term) of space, understanding fluid mechanics better - such as why nature chooses a spiral vortex for regulating temperature, exchanging density in volumes, etc... why spiraling is the best geometry to achieve transfer of a substance from one place to another - because it is inherent in space-time and represents the motion of all natural mechanics.

Great. Then explain something using this math. Show how it can be used to predict phenomena already known or new phenomena. Solve a problem in fluid dynamics if it's all so elementary. Show your work, use equations, do something to show how these mathematical concepts are not just arbitrary. For example, maybe explain why he chooses powers of 2 instead of 3 or 4 or 5 or even 9 to "show" his work.

reply to post by 547000

I still do not understand how the arrangement of numbers correspond to anything. He just basically said "here are some neat patterns" and "here is a neat diagram" and started talking about how time emanates from the center of his diagram, without even connecting it to time at all. Wow 2^(n-1) is congruent to n and repeats in cycles when cross-adding that must mean energy can be harnessed from nothing!

They are self-relational fractal centers which provide consistent mathematical functions across scales. The number in the middle square of the larger square of 9, will dictate the functions for the larger square, and the larger square around that, and the larger square around that, etc. Also, you can zoom into the single square in the beginning, and make a whole new proportional grid and it will keep going smaller, smaller, smaller etc.

scroll down here for a visual

Originally posted by beebs

As for what we can observe in nature that has to do with VBM - everything. Mapping toroid wave function 'grain'(sorry, but that is the best term) of space, understanding fluid mechanics better - such as why nature chooses a spiral vortex for regulating temperature, exchanging density in volumes, etc... why spiraling is the best geometry to achieve transfer of a substance from one place to another - because it is inherent in space-time and represents the motion of all natural mechanics.

More lists of what "it has to do with". You can see that you're not explaining anything, right?

I don't know, at this point its all self-evident to me... mostly because of the context I am familiar with, and which I study every day.

If you want to communicate it to people who aren't just willing to swallow whatever you say without thinking, then you have to be able to explain what it's for and give something to back it up.

Otherwise you're just preaching to the converted, and you'll find that every single person who has questions about it will treat you as if you're talking nonsense. Nothing will change.

There's a pattern to all these threads:

Person A makes a claim for someone's theories
Person B asks for evidence
Person A says some stuff
Person B says "that doesn't seem to make any sense"
Person A blames person B for not understanding what they think is self-evident
and then it descends into bickering for weeks.

Blaming someone for not understanding what you've said never helps.

If the person you're communicating with doesn't understand what you've said, you're not communicating.

reply to post by 547000

Great. Then explain something using this math. Show how it can be used to predict phenomena already known or new phenomena. Solve a problem in fluid dynamics if it's all so elementary. Show your work, use equations, do something to show how these mathematical concepts are not just arbitrary. For example, maybe explain why he chooses powers of 2 instead of 3 or 4 or 5 or even 9 to "show" his work.

You do the darned equations. I think Keely and Milo Wolff have plenty for you to study up on. They understand it better than Rodin.

I am not going to sit here and figure it out for you - I'm still trying to figure it out myself, through Keely.

If you can wait, wait... but I recommend studying up or building one of Rodin's coils for yourself.

As you can see, these theories are not going away for awhile, so you might as well start investigating yourself.

Cheers

reply to post by beebs


So... what does any of that have to do with time or harnessing energy from a vacuum? Or any of the other nutty claims at the beginning of the lecture?

reply to post by Bobathon

If you want to communicate it to people who aren't just willing to swallow whatever you say without thinking, then you have to be able to explain what it's for and give something to back it up.

Otherwise you're just preaching to the converted, and you'll find that every single person who has questions about it will treat you as if you're talking nonsense. Nothing will change.

What is it you want me to explain? You asked for correlations to observable nature... I hope you didn't mean observable atom smashing... But if you did, then it looks exactly the same - we have just had the wrong idea of what kind of atom we were smashing.

The experimental results do not change, rather they are interpreted in a new light.