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: 160
39
<< 157  158  159    161  162  163 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Many years (and sadly decades) ago, I was developing my own prints. I would actually prepare solutions from scratch, for the developer solution bath and that other stuff.

Thing is, variations in the components of the mix, even in the age of B/W photography, would give the print a different hue. I liked the sepia kind of a hue, for some prints people did gun metal sort of effect, but you get my idea.

If I was photographing Mars, I would have a hard time just avoiding any coloration of the print in the first place. Doable, yes, guaranteed? No.

Point is, even if a photograph comes at a different temperature (as in optics) or if a hue is different or even more dramatic (a common place everywhere), the evidence or lack thereof is pretty much there. In case of the infamous Face on Mars, it simply does not exist... So, sadly, in this case Dr.O'Leary looks like a bag of hot air.




posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

That's pretty cool, I had my own darkroom too! It was nice to be able to make slight compensations for a little over or under exposure of the original image, by varying the processing in the darkroom.

Then of course automated processing equipment like in the 4 hour processing centers could make the adjustments automatically, and of course now adjustments are made digitally.

My guess is that in a modern magazine, the number of images that haven't been altered in some way is probably pretty close to zero. But I don't think it's part of a conspiracy to hide the truth about UFOs, it's part of an economic business model that dictates that good looking covers and images inside the magazine, sell more magazines.

Even NASA has doctored space pictures for public relations purposes by enhancing colors. However for anybody who bothers to look, NASA also makes the original scanned image available for download. Someone just started a thread on ATS making claims like Mary that NASA altered the image...he didn't even look for the original, unaltered image scan, which is easily available as was pointed out in the thread.

I've never seen any evidence NASA is hiding UFOs; on the contrary: youtube is full of NASA videos which show what some people claim are UFOs. So how can they be hiding them?


It's a popular conspiracy theory though.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


As usual Arb, you have an extremely good point


My only communication with Bearden got a reply to the effect that he appreciated my interest, & will have his MEG on the market next year.
That was back in 98 i believe...
Both Naudin & myself tried to replicate the MEG, i can't vouch for Naudin (although he did admit the plans that were supposed to come from Bearden had some basic flaws) as i found with my model.
Since i could not find the exact composition of the core, i can't replicate the MEG.
BUT; My MEG tests did show up some interesting anomalies, which i won't go into detail about, but gave some credence to his theory......
And i certainly agree that there is far too much hype & scamming going on, it makes my work that much harder



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


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.


I know we've had our differences, but i'm with you on this one.
Sagan is right, and i even though i do challenge mainstream science, i use their tools, their language.
Only then can it be viewed subjectively.
For instance, i would need to see some kind of proof that the number 9 is more relevant than cow's farts

However, from Wiki; Equatorial anomaly
"Electric currents created in sunward ionosphere.Within approximately ± 20 degrees of the magnetic equator, is the equatorial anomaly. It is the occurrence of a trough of concentrated ionization in the F2 layer. The Earth's magnetic field lines are horizontal at the magnetic equator. Solar heating and tidal oscillations in the lower ionosphere move plasma up and across the magnetic field lines. This sets up a sheet of electric current in the E region which, with the horizontal magnetic field, forces ionization up into the F layer, concentrating at ± 20 degrees from the magnetic equator. This phenomenon is known as the equatorial fountain."

I bet that 'approx 20 degrees' translates to 19.5 degrees


edit on 8-1-2012 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
My only communication with Bearden got a reply to the effect that he appreciated my interest, & will have his MEG on the market next year.
That was back in 98 i believe...
It seems like it was always a year away, right? For the last 15 years, at least?



Both Naudin & myself tried to replicate the MEG, i can't vouch for Naudin (although he did admit the plans that were supposed to come from Bearden had some basic flaws) as I found with my model.
Did you see the report I posted in this thread about the analysis of Naudin's replication? It used Naudin's own data to show there was no over unity.


Since i could not find the exact composition of the core, i can't replicate the MEG.
Yes, the "secret recipe". Rossi plays that card too, but it doesn't make his claim any more credible to the skeptics...however the gullible seem to eat it up. If there was any truth to it, he would have done what he told you he was going to do, and released his working machine in a year or two, or three...but here we are 14 years later....not even waiting anymore.


Originally posted by playswithmachines
BUT; My MEG tests did show up some interesting anomalies, which i won't go into detail about, but gave some credence to his theory......
And i certainly agree that there is far too much hype & scamming going on, it makes my work that much harder
I've seen some interesting anomalies in my day too, one of which I showed my university professor in the university lab and he couldn't explain it either. I think I might have been able to explain it if I had a couple of months to work on it but my course load at the time didn't permit that. But if you do enough experiments, you can see some unexpected things, no doubt.

Edit to add:

Originally posted by playswithmachines
I bet that 'approx 20 degrees' translates to 19.5 degrees

And the significance of the 19.5 degrees is? I don't get it, though I do understand the article you linked to.
edit on 8-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I missed the Naudin post, will have to backtrack


I corrected the faults (they looked intentional to me) and fired it up.
I did not get what you might call overunity, but i did measure what you might call 'negative resistance' in objects placed in or near the MEG circuit.
I also managed to get extremely high current pulses from the magnet using very little exitation, call it a 'super transformer'. I cannot validate that there was more energy out than in, simply that i got these anomalies.
They are repeatable, but it's flogging a dead horse.
My experiments with charge, however, have yielded positive overunity results, first 240 milliwatts, and more recently about 3 watts.
OK so we have a long way to go before this machine will run a car, but it's possible.
The gravity link still has to be proven (by me) and then i will be satisfied.
As for the 19.5 Degrees, don't you ever read the sacred geometry/illuminati/mars threads

edit on 8-1-2012 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Here is Bearden's MEG;


Here is Naudin's;


And here is my micro-meg during second trials with a barium magnet;


As you can see, it was never developed for any 'power' applications, more as a proof of concept.
I am not finished with the MEG, but my charge system gives far better results

Apologies for the too-big pictures, i'm too tired to change them.
Se ya'all tomorrow

PWM
edit on 8-1-2012 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 





As for the 19.5 Degrees, don't you ever read the sacred geometry/illuminati/mars threads


To be more exact... The star tetrahedron. As for "electricity" take another look at the action surrounding Earth's null point. For that matter, fluid mechanics as a whole.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I'm having to scan through several pages of posts, but partial summary here... As we unravel the nano-scale the lattice structure in particles conducts the flow of electromagnetic fields. The arrangement is certainly crucial to attaining higher volumes of energy.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Standard edition from '09...

Signature of Antimatter Detected in Lightning

www.wired.com...



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 23432
 


You could, but take another look at the symbol we use for a heart.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Reduced Violent Crime in Washington, DC

www.mum.edu...



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Dreams held more relevance for Tesla. Had they gone unheeded I doubt we'd have a place called CERN.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 



This example shows how the number 9 is encoded within the structure of the alphabet itself. It is revealed by essentially folding the alphabet in half; that is, by combining the alphanumeric value of the first letter "A" with the alphanumeric value of last letter "Z", and adding them together. Do the same with each pair of letters from the opposite ends, working inward toward the center where M(13) meets N(14). Thus, [A]1+ [Z] 26 = 27. Reduced, 2+7=9. The same with B added to Y, and C added to X, and so on.

RESULTING PATTERN (each instance reduced to single digit): A+Z=27=9, B+Y=27=9, C+X=27=9, D+W=27=9, E+V=27=9, F+U=27=9, G+T=27=9, H+S=27=9, I+R=27=9, J+Q=27=9, K+P=27=9, L+O=27=9, M+N=27=9



www.myspace.com...



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
Here is Bearden's MEG;

Here is Naudin's;

And here is my micro-meg during second trials with a barium magnet;

As you can see, it was never developed for any 'power' applications, more as a proof of concept.
I am not finished with the MEG, but my charge system gives far better results

Apologies for the too-big pictures, i'm too tired to change them.
It's easy to change them if you know how, I didn't upload anything.

"Charge system"? So that's along the line of Bedini's contraption that charges a battery? His system uses 2 batteries making it quite challenging to measure true input and output as the power storage capacity of the two batteries is a complicating factor.


Originally posted by playswithmachines
As for the 19.5 Degrees, don't you ever read the sacred geometry/illuminati/mars threads
Poor Edward Current is going to have a nervous breakdown when I tell him there's even more sacred stuff he didn't even mention in this video:

I've Converted To EVERY Religion (Just In Case)

I don't know how he's going to find the time to add geometry to his schedule.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 23432
 


Scientists say they’re getting closer to Matrix-style instant learning

io9.com...



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
THE HISTORY OF MIT’S BLATANT SUPPRESSION OF COLD FUSION


A stunning report written by the late Eugene Mallove details the efforts of professors, researchers, and even the former President of MIT to squash cold fusion at all costs. If you have any doubt that Pons and Fleischmann had enemies desperately trying to discredit them, this article will erase it! A funeral party or wake to mock cold fusion was held by biased hot fusion scientists at MIT before their experiment to replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s results was even complete



www.setyoufreenews.com...



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks, like i said, i was too tired to change it


I don't mean a Bedini contraption, i mean it is possible to arrange charges in such a way as to tap off usable current without there being any loss due to resistance.
Maybe i'm using 'sacred geometry' without even knowing it



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Do you have any idea how moronic that story sounds when the discredited scientist admitted he was wrong?

Utah Fusion Scientists Admit Error In Experiment

LOS ANGELES -- One of the two scientists who set off an international furor by claiming to have achieved nuclear fusion in a jar of water says that a key result of their experiment, which they had taken as a sign of fusion, was in error.
So, the people discrediting him were right, and he admits it.

So whatever subsequent success has occurred in cold fusion research, it hasn't come from Fleischmann and Pons, and it appears that the people who discredited them were correct, and as this quote shows, by Fleischmann's own admission.


In response to a question from Stanley Luckhardt of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about whether neutrons were produced in the experiment, as would be expected according to conventional fusion theory, Fleischmann said a graph in their published paper indicating that neutrons were created was wrong because his neutron detector was faulty.

``We are well aware that peak (in the graph) is wrong ... . It disturbs me greatly,`` Fleischmann told the audience of hundreds.
So other scientists said he was wrong.

He admits he was wrong.

Where exactly is the problem in discrediting him as wrong when he even admits he was wrong?

This makes Mallove look like a complete nutcase, and anyone quoting what Mallove said as if it has merit look quite ignorant.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I relayed the story... Nothing more. If you'll recall, the batch of palladium used in subsequent attempts to verify (immediately following), had been compromised.




top topics



 
39
<< 157  158  159    161  162  163 >>

log in

join