"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Outbound Correspondence (1998) Oscar Hsu and Bill Ramsay, Oscar Hsu - Memorandum 7-23-98 Proposal #2 Free Energy":

It's interesting and pleasant to read about the feelings this physicist shared:

As a physicist, one of the things I am most interested in is particle pair creation and annihilation, for the insights it gives us into the nature of matter. Physicists have known for quite some time, that in the presence of a nucleus, a highly energetic photon (a single quantum of light) can spontaneously "decompose", as it were, into an electron and an antielectron, or positron.

I first read about this in a book that spoke of matter as being trapped light--"frozen light" were the exact words. The image of all of matter being light running in place or frozen light like ice cubes from water captivated me. It has an aesthetic appeal that I simply cannot describe.

This website brings to mind John Keely and Dale Pond, and Rodin's apparent rediscovery of ancient knowledge. It also appeals to me because of my feeling that we need a new paradigm that synthesizes science and the world of intuition to form a holistic approach to understanding nature. From interferencetheory.com:

Harmonic Interference Theory represents a major breakthrough in our understanding of music and perception. Developed from a moment of insight thirty years earlier, this theory explains how harmonics combine to form the same geometrical patterns in both sound and the human anatomy, triggering emotions according to phase alignment.

Based on this theory, the historical record suggests ancient civilizations understood music perception in much the same way, even developing an advanced harmonic science and spiritual cosmology from it. Suppressed for hundreds of years by anti-pagan religious doctrine, only remnants of this ancient science can be found today hidden inside mythologies, religious symbolisms and the secret fraternities. Known as Musica Universalis or the Audible Life Stream, the physics of music perception was once the theory of everything.

Each book is a journey into this forgotten musical worldview. They seek a deeper meaning in nature than that taught in our schools, laboratories and churches. The kind of meaning most want, but can never find. A meaning protected from subjective opinion and learned behavior—beyond the dogma of culture and faith. A philosophical meaning that explains our place at the razor’s edge between order and chaos, circle and spiral, the limited and the unlimited. A place where music might become the harmonic science it once was and should become.

Like some inverse reflection by painter Rene Magritte, I am your humble observer in this quest. I bring a human element to the method of science and a rationale to the aesthetic of art. My words form neither a scientific paper nor a musical treatise. They are inadequate for both, yet perhaps adequate for the space in between. This is the space that interests me and the space that I believe holds the most promise for the future. This is the model of music harmony that turns out to be the model of everything.

Richard Merrick
December 2010

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From interferencetheory.com:

I see that the author of this site, Richard Merrick, has a proposal of an extension to Darwinian evolution using atomic resonance patterning as a guiding template for cell growth, and that he offers a download of a 2010 NPA paper for an introduction to this theory. (See the description for the 4th book - Harmonic Evolution - A Musical Theory of Everything, to be released in 2012.)

NPA = the Natural Philosophy Alliance.

Checking out the website for the Natural Philosophy Alliance, I find this, under "NPA Principles," Principle # 5 - a breath of fresh air:

REALIZE THAT A GREAT DEAL OF SCIENTIFIC DATA CAN BE INTEREPRETED IN MORE THAN ONE WAY.

You only have to consider the sun in the sky to realize this. We even use the language of the long-discarded Ptolemaic theory to describe how it rises, moves, and sets, even though we believe it is really the earth that is moving. Thus both interpretations still live. The question here is not which is correct (and if we took SR truly seriously, we would have to cast this matter into doubt again), but simply the fact that there are two possible interpretations. The 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment can be interpreted in at least four other ways that do not support SR.

Every last experimental test and technological application alleged to confirm SR, including the CERN meson lifetime experiments and nuclear energy, can definitely be reinterpreted in terms of other, more objective and logical, theories.

Interpretation is everything. And suppression of dissenting views is how mainstream science silences those who would challenge that which perpetuates the underlying foundation for vested interests.

Those who deny suppression have their heads in the sand and are helping vested interests remain vested interests.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

As a physicist, one of the things I am most interested in is particle pair creation and annihilation, for the insights it gives us into the nature of matter. Physicists have known for quite some time, that in the presence of a nucleus, a highly energetic photon (a single quantum of light) can spontaneously "decompose", as it were, into an electron and an antielectron, or positron.

I first read about this in a book that spoke of matter as being trapped light--"frozen light" were the exact words. The image of all of matter being light running in place or frozen light like ice cubes from water captivated me. It has an aesthetic appeal that I simply cannot describe.

This is the same "physicist" that says it's OK that visual observation of the alleged phenomena was not confirmed when they tried to capture it on film? Sheesh. Sounds like an episode of Ghostbusters. And saying that he's most interested in pair creation and annihilation is beyond weird, because it's commonplace in physics. It's like saying that as a physicist, I'm most interested in measuring the temperature of boiling water. Well I guess if you can call Rodin a "mathematician", you can call Oscar Hsu a "physicist". Everything goes in the bizarr-o-world!

As to "aesthetic appeal" -- sounds just like in Feynman's video -- he "wants things to be simpler, more philosophically pleasing than this Universe". Well, go somewhere else!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

And your point is?

Well since you didn't get Arb's point, I'll have to come to the rescue and spell it out:

to say that Rodin't coil has special significance because there are topologies in GR that have some characteristics of the torus is moronic. Please read this carefully.

Or, maybe Mr.Hsu should go about investigating the unique taste of Dunkin Donuts. It must be microscopic black holes that give them that special something. It's a torus, you see? And the conical shape of the coffee cups in the same establishment cannot be a coincidence! It maps onto the conical shape in Rodin's diagrams of "imploding" space-time, and give the coffee its special aroma. Surely, Mr.William Rosenberg was a physicist!

Strangely, our cars do not have antigravity built in, despite the fact that their wheels are spinning and have characteristics of a toroid.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Wow such profound insight.



Creative, though in the sarcasm department and simply filling up space.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sounds like an episode of Ghostbusters.

Impressive use of the fallacy of ridicule. Again.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

As to "aesthetic appeal" -- sounds just like in Feynman's video -- he "wants things to be simpler, more philosophically pleasing than this Universe". Well, go somewhere else!

Your beloved Feynman.

This is the Feynman who shouted, "This is a goddamned hoax!" at a demonstration of Joseph Papp's engine, November 18, 1968, and then interfered with the control system. A person was killed that day when there was an explosion. (This is discussed in Part 12 of the Mallove interview.) According to Feynman: Papp blew up the engine with explosives to prevent it from being tested. Yeah right. Sounds exactly like the kind of replies I've heard on this thread regarding evidence of suppression.

reply to post by Mary Rose


That Papp?

On August 11, 1966, a fishing boat off Brest, France spotted someone floating in the water, clutching an inflatable life raft.[citation needed] They fished him out and found that he was dressed like a pilot with a flight helmet and goggles. He was barely coherent and badly bruised. When questioned, he identified himself as Canadian Josef Papp and claimed to have just bailed out from a submarine. When asked where the crew was, he replied that he was alone in his submarine and had just crossed the Atlantic in 13 hours.

Papp, a Hungarian-Canadian engineer, claimed to have built a special high-speed submarine in his garage that was propelled by a special underwater jet engine. However, on his maiden voyage across the Atlantic he encountered a stability problem and the submarine sank. The media ridiculed him, calling him a madman, a liar and a fraud. He protested against these accusations and even wrote a book entitled The Fastest Submarine, which described the design process, construction and the voyage in his own words. What the book does not describe is how the submarine in question worked. Nor did Papp ever reveal this secret or attempt to prove that it could indeed work. The media found it all too convenient that the submarine had sunk, that two plane tickets to and from France had been found in his pocket, and a man resembling him had been seen boarding a plane to France some hours earlier. So the story of Josef Papp fell into relative obscurity, as did his book. The submarine was never found

The submarine was never found and neither was Rodin's black hole. Oh, similarities...

The engine story is indeed fascinating:

There were quite a few wires running from the engine down to where Mr. Papp and the spectators were standing, into a set of instruments used for measurement; these included a variac, a variable transformer with a dial which could put out different voltages. The instruments were, in turn, connected by a cord to an electrical outlet in the side of the building. So it was pretty obvious where the power supply was.

The engine started to go around, and there was a bit of disappointment: the propeller of the fan went around quietly without the noise of an ordinary engine with powerful explosions in the cylinders, and everything- it looked very much like an electric motor.

Mr. Papp pulled the plug from the wall, and the fan propeller continued to turn. 'You see, this cord has nothing to do with the engine; it's only supplying power to the instruments,' he said. Well, that was easy. He's got a storage battery inside the engine. 'Do you mind if I hold the plug?' I asked? 'Not at all,' replied Mr. Papp, and he handed it to me.

It wasn't very long before he asked me to give me back the plug. 'I'd like to hold it a little longer,' I said, figuring that if I stalled around enough, the damn thing would stop.

Pretty soon Mr. Papp was frantic, so I (Richard Feynman) gave him back the plug and he plugged it back into the wall. A few moments later there was a big explosion

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Wow such profound insight.

Creative, though in the sarcasm department and simply filling up space.

Actually buddhasystem got my point rather well. I'm sorry you didn't, though not surprised. It could also be said that a quote about imaginary tiles on an imaginary torus, which proves there's a black hole at the center of a torus and that mainstream science is wrong for claiming there's no black hole, is wasting space by pointing out how similar the construct is to mainstream science. That's kind of an ambivalent position isn't it?

First mainstream science is wrong for saying there's no black hole at the center of the torus, but then you post a quote pointing out how supposedly similar the torus construct is to mainstream GR space-time? But wait, I thought the claim was mainstream science was wrong, so why point out the similarities with a mainstream construct?
======

reply to post by buddhasystem

I recall reading that story before. Feynmann seemed rather disappointed that his employer, Caltech, paid a settlement to keep Papps lawsuit against him out of court because Feynmann didn't believe Papp could prove to the court his engine ever worked.

There's a similar but not as dramatic story about another of Mary and beebs' favorite hoaxers, Keely.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is a two part video entitled "Dale Pond - The Basic Principles of SVP - John Worrell Keely."

The description:

The basic principles of SVP and Keely's work. Dale Pond gives a clear and concise 3 hour lecture with extensive illustrations on this fascinating subject. Presentation to the United States Psychotronics Association in 1994. Very little of the information is contained in any printed source. John Worrell Keely Sympathetic Vibratory Physics Dale Pond www.svpvril.com...

Here's a related story about Keely, though actually this isn't the only one, there are several.

www.lhup.edu...

E. Alexander Scott, an electrical engineer, witnessed such a demonstration. When Keely showed him the etheric power causing a weight to rise and fall in a closed flask of water, Scott was unimpressed. Keely used the sound from a zither to activate the globe liberator which then transmitted the etheric force through a wire to the water container. Scott suspected the weight was hollow, so that the slightest change of water pressure could cause it to rise or fall, just as a Cartesian diver. The wire, he guessed, was a hollow tube transmitting air pressure to the water chamber. To counter this suggestion, Keely cut a ways into the wire with a file to prove it solid. But Moore surreptitiously picked up a scrap piece of similar wire in the workshop and later found that it did have a very fine, hollow center. ..

Mrs. Moore

(Keely's benefactor who was paying him a salary of $2500 a month to do research)

suggested that the definitive test would be to cut that wire that Scott alleged was really an air line. This time Keely flatly refused to comply. Lascelles-Scott retreated to England, and Mrs. Moore, her faith shaken, reduced Keely's salary to $250 per month.

Whoa, a 90% pay cut! I'm surprised she paid him at all after that!

She had deep pockets but I guess her brain wasn't too shallow if she practically cut off all his pay after his refusal to demonstrate his claim. (Includes an obscure reference to the deep pockets and shallow brains of the similar, modern day Blacklight Power hoax).

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It could also be said that a quote about imaginary tiles on an imaginary torus, which proves there's a black hole at the center of a torus and that mainstream science is wrong for claiming there's no black hole, is wasting space by pointing out how similar the construct is to mainstream science. That's kind of an ambivalent position isn't it?

I don't know, I would simply call it hypocritical. It's typical of charlatans to cherry-pick notions from what they call "mainstream science", pejoratively, and then try to buttress their opposition to same, by using what they borrow from "mainstream science". Rodin does that routinely by using a lot of terms (which he has no idea about) from real science, albeit in an alphabet soup. Oscar Hsu and others also excel in that. Dr.Fleischman, sadly, also demonstrated that by borrowing what he called "QED paradigm" from physics, only to declare that parts of same physics must somehow be wrong.

As I said already, reminds me of Amway motivational tapes -- if you believe enough, facts don't matter.

Now those MEG pictures seem to have disappeared
If i was paranoid, i would scream 'conspiracy'
And why do i get the urge to have my heating set to 19.5 degrees??

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This website brings to mind John Keely and Dale Pond, and Rodin's apparent rediscovery of ancient knowledge. It also appeals to me because of my feeling that we need a new paradigm that synthesizes science and the world of intuition to form a holistic approach to understanding nature. From interferencetheory.com:

The website's author Richard Merrick offers a free download of a 410 page .pdf e-book of his theory, "INTERFERENCE: A Grand Scientific Musical Theory." It's an interesting read. From page 44:

. . . the Middle Ages with its quadrivium system stand in stark contrast to the enlightened modern man and educational system. The old view of a natural and universal philosophy grounded in universal harmonic principles is antithetical to the modern man's project of specialization, compartmentalization and isolation. Science works to dissect things into such small parts that the whole picture - the harmonia - becomes invisible.

Well said.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

. . . the Middle Ages with its quadrivium system stand in stark contrast to the enlightened modern man and educational system. The old view of a natural and universal philosophy grounded in universal harmonic principles is antithetical to the modern man's project of specialization, compartmentalization and isolation. Science works to dissect things into such small parts that the whole picture - the harmonia - becomes invisible.

Well said.

No, it's not well said. Science works in an exactly opposite manner, synthesizing comprehensive knowledge of the Universe from our understanding of individual parts. There are phenomena in biology that are impossible to understand without using quantum mechanics, and there are problems in quantum mechanics which are impossible to solve without using complicated math; population of species in closed ecosystems is described by a set of differential equations, and indeed fractals can be found in many natural phenomena; mp3 format would only be invented by studying psychoacoustics, and in turn this technology depends on the science of encryption. So this particular pronouncement of this auteur is plain silly.

I liked parts of his book where he talks about music and its perception, and how it can be synthesized into other and new art forms. That's all very well and makes a lot of sense to me, as an amateur musician. But taking a Mandelbrot shape and superimposing it onto anything in sight is ridiculous. He's just trying to use it as a cookie cutter to map everything from the Pyramids to the shape of human body. Now, that's an example of a dogma... in action.

And I have a huge problem when I see "grand theory" in the title, and "cutting edge research" in his description of the material. That's just illusion of grandeur and is IDENTICAL to the words used by Rodin and his followers, I mean verbatim -- "grand" and "cutting edge". If you must be a successful charlatan, please be more inventive.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Shock!



You don't see.

Tunnel vision is like that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

From interferencetheory.com:

I see that the author of this site, Richard Merrick, has a proposal of an extension to Darwinian evolution using atomic resonance patterning as a guiding template for cell growth, and that he offers a download of a 2010 NPA paper for an introduction to this theory. (See the description for the 4th book - Harmonic Evolution - A Musical Theory of Everything, to be released in 2012.)

NPA = the Natural Philosophy Alliance.

Checking out the website for the Natural Philosophy Alliance, I find this, under "NPA Principles," Principle # 5 - a breath of fresh air . . .

Yes, the NPA is my kind of scientific organization.

Merrick's 2010 paper is also available online. : "Harmonically Guided Evolution"

I like the way Merrick thinks.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Tunnel vision is like that.

Yes, tunnel vision is like that -- when somebody overlays a Mandelbrot doodle with a picture of a Pyramid, human body, pizza pie or toilet seat. And that's the extent of the second portion of the book you linked to. It has it's bright moments, but "grand cutting edge theory" it is not.

Americanist

I am still considering the shape of a heart .

Thank you and while I am at it , another thank you for your posts in this thread too .

I am trying to get my head around Rodin's numbers .

I think modelling a coil is not what this is all about , ultimately .

It ( testing ) has to be done in some other way .

wow, just starting toying with the "view post history" feature of ATS, already found a dis-info shill or two:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I went to BuddhaSystem's page, made a search for "Rodin" and found 322 matches, hahaha
www.abovetopsecret.com...&display=posts

and it only goes back to september of 2011, ! not even a year and 322 replies to this thread alone!

who knows how many more there are between 2011 - 2007! given your average you could bet there's at least a couple thousand more !

i'd be willing to bet that at least 60-70% of your posts are on this thread, doing nothing but arguing with any un-suspecting follower of Rodin's work.

like i've said before, it just makes you look bad to so frantically dominate this thread with one-liners and lame de-bunking.

oh, and are you still working at CERN like you claimed, back in 2011?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As it happens, I'm here at CERN right now next to that statue of Shiva between buildings 39 and 40.

i wouldn't be surprised for 1 second if the other "locals" lurking this thread had a very similar post history. maybe i'll check into them next...

can't we just move on?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
NPA = the Natural Philosophy Alliance.

Checking out the website for the Natural Philosophy Alliance, I find this, under "NPA Principles," Principle # 5 - a breath of fresh air . . .

Yes, the NPA is my kind of scientific organization.

Meaning what? Ignorant, uninformed, and anti-mainstream science?

Take John Chappell's his claim about the Sagnac effect for example:

Establishment physicists have usually ignored the Sagnac effect, or once in a while they have attempted to explain it in terms of special or general relativity--but all of these attempts have fallen short.

"Attempted to explain it"? How about it was a predicted effect of relativity, 2 years before the 1913 experiment which measured it?

Sagnac Effect

Max von Laue in 1911 continued the theoretical work of Michelson, and also incorporated special relativity in his calculations. He predicted a positive result (to first order in v/c) for both special relativity and for the stationary aether, because in those theories the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source

Why would scientists need to "attempt to explain" a predicted result of relativity?

Chappell also does a lot of Einstein bashing, but he doesn't present any better ideas. He does this for time dilation:

THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF REAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF TIME DILATION, AS OPPOSED TO CLOCK RETARDATION. Einstein is praised for having made a "leap of faith" beyond the pedestrian reasoning of Lorentz and others, by claiming that when clocks slow down in a relativistic fashion, it is really time itself that is slowing down. But every bit of alleged evidence proves, at most, nothing more than that the clock slows down. Too many physicists subscribe to the belief that there is nothing to time except what can be seen on the face of a clock; but that amounts to the ridiculous statement that a measuring device has been built to measure nothing but itself. This view is an extreme version of operationalism, a very simplistic version of Machian positivism. So the "leap of faith" claiming time dilation remains totally unsupported by facts; mere speculation, not science.

First, we define the unit of a "second" time by ticks on an atomic clock, so it's hard to say we are wrong about time being ticks on a clock when that's how we define the units of time.

Second, if he has a better way, what is it? He doesn't present it, he only bashes the current mainstream as wrong with arguments which are quite ignorant.

So yes Mary, based on your posting history, I'm not surprised you'd like a source like that. You're relatively consistent in your admiration of mainstream-science bashing sources which display profound ignorance of what it is that they try to bash. So I guess John Chappell does have this much in common with Marko Rodin.

reply to post by metalshredmetal

Buddhasystem isn't the topic of this thread, but since you brought it up, he's a pretty smart guy, and you could learn something from him.

CERN has over 10,000 visiting scientists from 608 universities, so I don't find a claim to be one of those 10,000 people to be lacking in credibility given the obvious knowledge of physics buddhasystem has shown.

I can't say the same for all ATS posters who have claimed to be PhD physicists, there are some who I think are making false claims, but I suspect Buddhasystem's claim is true.

While I can't vouch for his degree, I can vouch for his knowledge, which is pretty impressive. Physics was one of my majors as an undergraduate, so I do have some basis for evaluating others' knowledge of physics.

Originally posted by 23432

Americanist

I am still considering the shape of a heart .

The first post on this:

Originally posted by Americanist

. . . if you examine the symbol we use for heart, you start to notice alternating 9's being driven slightly away from each other facing a central linear column...


Love is a great place to find answers!

23432, have you ever heard of BioGeometry?