"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by buddhasystem


No, Rodin said nothing about stealing. The word "trust" comes to mind. The only thing I remember about what he said was that Blake didn't trust working with Rodin because he wanted to pursue his own interest for a patent.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
he said was that Blake didn't trust working with Rodin because he wanted to pursue his own interest for a patent.

If this doesn't sound like "stealing the patent idea", I don't know what does.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

No, Rodin said nothing about stealing. The word "trust" comes to mind. The only thing I remember about what he said was that Blake didn't trust working with Rodin because he wanted to pursue his own interest for a patent.

OK so now have we established that the one remaining person on Rodin's endorser list (Blake) we thought might be credible/trustworthy, proved that he probably isn't, because he contradicted himself?

We already established that Bearden's credibility was flushed down the toilet here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

We can't ask dead endorsers what they REALLY think like ATG did with Russell Blake, so without dated, notarized endorsements, claimed statements from dead people without proof have little credibility. And even if they really said what Rodin claimed at one point, how do we know they didn't wise up like Blake apparently did and realize it's fanciful nonsense?

Rodin doesn't even have this endorser list on his website anymore. So is the number of credible endorsers of Rodin zero? Absolutely nobody with any credibility is alive and can be questioned about their endorsement, is this right?

Rodin is a creative man, trying to produce findings to support an idea of his. He is the last person to steal patents... no?

Originally posted by squandered
Rodin is a creative man, trying to produce findings to support an idea of his. He is the last person to steal patents... no?

Did you read Mary's post?

It reads as "Blake was pursuing his interests getting a patent".

Oh maybe I'm wrong.

reply to post by buddhasystem

I didn't read it like that at all. I may be wrong.

Chasing patents may be a tangible obstacle to getting something on the market. There is obviously a big outlay.

Have there been any major patent disputes?

In this video, Rodin talks about someone by the name of Brad who was working on a project having to do with how to make a changing aspect ratio. Rodin says that he told Brad not to tell him what he was doing, because Rodin believed that Brad was applying for certain patents. Rodin says you know what my position is: You don't want anything shared with the public, then don't tell him, because he's a blabbermouth. He said his purpose is to teach.

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I didn't read it like that at all. I may be wrong.

Chasing patents may be a tangible obstacle to getting something on the market. There is obviously a big outlay.

Have there been any major patent disputes?

Look, apart from blanket promises of solving world hunger and traveling to distant galaxies, Rodin is claiming that he's created a black hole in the center of a plastic donut-shaped toy, wrapped in wire. A patent would require an explanation of how that happens (otherwise there is nothing to patent, there needs to be a method). Rodin has nothing in way of explanation of how it all works (well in part because it doesn't). I bet you all the money I have, that when the Patent Office receives a manuscript where it says that properly spelling the name of God opens a vortex in space-time and leads to its implosion, there reaction will be "Rodin needs psychiatric help" --- which I think he does.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Rodin needs psychiatric help" --- which I think he does.

Ridiculous cop-out. Easy statement to make. The fallacy of ridicule.

You are saying absolutely nothing of substance.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Rodin needs psychiatric help" --- which I think he does.

Ridiculous cop-out. Easy statement to make. The fallacy of ridicule.

You are saying absolutely nothing of substance.

You know, pointing out lack of substance in Rodin's claims may not be the greatest thing in the world, and it's trivial indeed as obviously there is no substance in these claims -- but that's the substance of what I was saying.

What exactly is the electric current in the coil needed for, Mary?

You know, the real fallacy here is a pretty pathological lack of critical thinking on the part of Rodin's fans/

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You are saying absolutely nothing of substance.

This actually sums up virtually everything I've heard Rodin say quite nicely. There seems to be no substance to anything he said. No evidence. No real world examples, except for a coil that doesn't even do what he says, since he never proved the black hole in the middle.

Originally posted by 23432

Rupert Sheldrake has some overlapping research going on into these areas :

2.1 Morphic field
2.2 Morphic resonance
2.3 Morphogenetic field


Information from the field is the main common point .

From noetic.org: ”Science of Intuition” with Rupert Sheldrake:

. . . one definition of intuition is "knowing without knowing how you know." . . . for over a century many experiments have been conducted exploring the nature of "unknown knowing," and we are beginning to understand this domain. Rupert Sheldrake will describe some of the types of intuition and experiments he has developed to study such phenomena. He will also discuss experimental replications of these effects, which is a central issue in establishing scientifically acceptable facts.

Rupert has promoted what he calls the democratization of science, and he’ll discuss experiments that many lay people from all over the world have contributed to in this effort. He will also discuss how dogmatic beliefs within science, known as "scientism," are analogous to fundamentalist religious beliefs, and how both ideologies actively block the spirit of unfettered inquiry in science.

That’s a good word: “scientism.” It has been demonstrated on this thread.

From mindfully.org, a good article, ”Suppression of Dissent in Science”:

. . . Studies of suppression can provide a convenient probe into the exercise of power in science and more generally into the dynamics of expertise and legitimacy in a technological society.

The deployment of scientific and technological expertise is central to contemporary societies, and hence it should follow that the exercise of power in society routinely and pervasively infiltrates technical domains. In speaking of power, it is possible to refer to several dimensions or faces . . . including the overt exercise of power over others to get one’s way, the setting of agendas, and the shaping of people’s beliefs. In the second and especially the third dimension of power, powerful people and groups are able to get their way without the appearance of having intervened in a blunt fashion: their power has been naturalized and made to appear legitimate. Another way to conceive this is to say that power is thus embedded in systems of knowledge and understanding . . .

For any group that is able to acquire a disproportionate share of society’s wealth, power, or status, it is advantageous for this inequality to be seen as legitimate. One of the key bases or supports for legitimacy in contemporary societies is scientific and technological expertise. Because scientific knowledge is widely believed to have an authority derived from nature, undisputed scientific knowledge claims can play a powerful legitimating role. When technical experts unanimously agree on a policy or practice, this provides a persuasive justification for that state of affairs. . . . Unanimous expert support helps bring rewards for certain groups. . . .

Legitimacy based on science is precarious, however. A few dissenting experts are sometimes all it takes to turn unanimity into controversy. The existence of controversy, even when one side has many more numbers and prestige, usually serves to undercut the legitimacy of the dominant position . . .

When dissident experts challenge a scientific or technological orthodoxy, this potentially becomes a challenge to the privileges of groups associated with the orthodoxy, since the legitimacy of those privileges may be thrown into question along with the orthodoxy itself. In this situation, some of the groups that are able to exercise power against challengers may, on occasion, use their resources to do so. In other words, if a few scientists break ranks and question received ideas or even support the challengers, they pose a severe threat to interest groups associated with the dominant position and, therefore, are potential targets for attack. Many dissident scientists can be likened to heretics, who are doctrinal critics working within the dominant institution. Attacks on heresy can serve to articulate the belief systems and social organization of both the institution and the challengers . . . It is to be expected that wherever legitimacy supported by technical expertise is important–namely in a vast range of areas–there is a reasonable chance that some cases may be found of the exercise of power to suppress dissent from dominant views.

What can be called suppression of dissent in science typically has two components. Firstly, a scientist does something–research, teaching, making public statements–that is perceived as threatening to a powerful interest group such as a corporation, government department, or professional group. Secondly, agents or supporters of the powerful interest group make attempts to stop the scientist’s activity or to undermine or penalize the scientist, for example by censorship, denial of access to research facilities, withdrawal of funds, complaints to superiors, reprimands, punitive transfer, demotion, dismissal, and blacklisting, or threats of any of these.

Mainstream science: A haven for vested interests.

reply to post by Mary Rose


"Suppression", "vested interests". It's all good. On the topic -- what exactly part of Rodin's nonsense was "suppressed"? Are you saying an actual black hole was stolen from Rodin's lab (more likely kitchen)?

Bearden's papers are out there for everyone to enjoy. Never mind they make no sense, but still -- what part of his gadget was "suppressed"?

I noticed that when you have nothing to say, you reach for the old and tired "suppression" card, pretty rough around the edges.

Look, former ambassadors to planet Emo and participants in Montauk sexual torture rituals are walking among us! They are not suppressed in any way. One of them, by the name Swerdlow, has recently gone on a cruise to exotic islands, accompanied by a bunch of gullible cretins, who paid for his cruise and then some. There are people who actually pay for this stuff, you know... Poor retards.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I've noticed you never have anything constructive to say, and that you're never on-topic and that you're totally in denial about suppression of free energy by the powers that be and are functioning quite nicely as one of their minions.

I'm reading a book about healing at present and I've just come to a reference to the five bodies/levels delineated by the ancient Yoga Sutras: the physical, energy, mental, intuitive, and spirit.

What's wrong with mainstream science is that it's stuck in level one: the physical - that which is perceived by the five senses.

The ancients were smarter than we are. But some of us are leading the way back to lost wisdom.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I've noticed you never have anything constructive to say

This is a pathetic lie.

I was one of people who carefully analyzed the failed experiment by Buturff, and offered a few points from basic physics for you to learn and comprehend, should you be so inclined. I also spoke about features of the magnetic field created by the coil. Dissipation of energy by a spinning metal ball on glass surface was also discussed, and a bunch of other very concrete and constructive issues. Being thoroughly constructive, I commented on physics aspects of what's being debated here, and you either refused to even try to understand these, or your mental capacity prevents you from doing so.

I inquired about vital parts in Rodin's technology on a few occasions, last time on this page or on the previous page (about the role of electric current). I also asked about the assumed "vortex", and you quoted some charlatan who said there were two counter-rotating streams of "aether" -- which in fact does not explain jack, it's like saying there are 2 spaghetti monsters inside the donut. You never answered anything. So who's being not constructive here?

When I offer an angle at Swerdlow's lifestyle, I do believe it provides a more complete view of that New Age craze phenomenon. So that's plenty constructive. I want any believers to see the progression of Swerdlow -- from an alleged witness of sexual torture in Montauk, and opening dimensional portals by means of erect penis, to being appointed a galactic ambassador to planet Emo, to coming back to Earth only to charge $600 for a DVD that describes these exploits -- and finally kicking back on board a Caribbean cruise, sipping frozen daiquiries, and quietly laughing at the bunch of New Age imbeciles who funded the trip to attend this Caribbean "seminar".

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What's wrong with mainstream science is that it's stuck in level one: the physical - that which is perceived by the five senses.

It's not "wrong". It's definition of science. You used the word "physical", well duh, that's the same as in "physics", and if you don't like it, that's your problem. You can't blame cheese for being cheesy. What you are saying is like complaining that gardening courses do not include dentistry, and veterinarians rarely take into account geology. You seem to be pretty mixed up and confused up there, Mary.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading a book about healing at present and I've just come to a reference to the five bodies/levels delineated by the ancient Yoga Sutras: the physical, energy, mental, intuitive, and spirit.

What's wrong with mainstream science is that it's stuck in level one: the physical - that which is perceived by the five senses.

If you can define something, and measure it, you can apply the scientific approach to it. I don't think it's fair to say it's stuck at the five senses. First, most scientific research these days has evolved way beyond the five senses. The latest telescopes are peering at the cosmos in wavelengths that humans can't even see, so this is clearly beyond the five senses.

The Higgs boson can't be detected by the five senses directly, so we rely on instruments to extend our perception beyond our five senses.

There is even scientific research on psi. A peer reviewed paper was published last year by Daryl Bem called "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect".

dbem.ws...

The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are
currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. Two
variants of psi are precognition (conscious cognitive awareness) and premonition
(affective apprehension) of a future event that could not otherwise be anticipated
through any known inferential process. Precognition and premonition are themselves
special cases of a more general phenomenon: the anomalous retroactive influence of
some future event on an individual’s current responses, whether those responses are
conscious or nonconscious, cognitive or affective. This article reports 9 experiments,
involving more than 1,000 participants, that test for retroactive influence by “timereversing”
well-established psychological effects so that the individual’s responses are
obtained before the putatively causal stimulus events occur. Data are presented for 4
time-reversed effects: precognitive approach to erotic stimuli and precognitive
avoidance of negative stimuli; retroactive priming; retroactive habituation; and
retroactive facilitation of recall. All but one of the experiments yielded statistically
significant results; and, across all 9 experiments, Stouffer’s z = 6.66, p = 1.34 × 10-11
with a mean effect size (d) of 0.22. The individual-difference variable of stimulus
seeking, a component of extraversion, was significantly correlated with psi
performance in 5 of the experiments, with participants who scored above the midpoint
on a scale of stimulus seeking achieving a mean effect size of 0.43. Skepticism about
psi, issues of replication, and theories of psi are also discussed.

So you see Mary, you're arguing against a straw man by claiming that science doesn't look at things beyond the five senses. This paper is evidence that it does.

And while this scientist is a professor emeritus and apparently well respected, one of the reasons he has my respect is that he's quite blunt about admitting that unless this research can be replicated, it can't be considered scientifically valid. Historically, that's been the problem with psi research.

It's actually been going on for decades, contrary to your ignorant claim that "science is that it's stuck in level one: the physical - that which is perceived by the five senses."

I guess we will find out later this year if replication experiments of Bem's research confirm his findings. If they do, it will be a rare exception, but from what I've read, the preliminary results have not been too promising.

So you see Mary, the problem isn't that science refuses to look at things beyond the five senses. Science has looked at it, and is still looking at it, but it hasn't stood up to scrutiny. The vast majority of replication experiments fail to replicate the initial psi studies showing some results beyond the five senses. Dr. Bem is quite aware of this and even dedicates a fair amount of space in his paper addressing these issues, so it's worth a read for that reason among others.

Personally I think it would be cool if science did confirm some kind of psi phenomenon, as it's something I'd like to believe, as apparently would you and many others. I have to say I'm a little disappointed that so many replication experiments have failed. I don't think we can say science has proven it false since we can't prove a negative. What we can say, is that so far every apparent positive result hasn't held up to scrutiny so far, though the jury is still out on Bem's research.

And of course there's also the Randi organizations jref challenge to give a million dollars to anybody who can demonstrate true psi ability to a high level of statistical significance. That million dollars has been unclaimed for a long time.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I didn't read it like that at all. I may be wrong.

Chasing patents may be a tangible obstacle to getting something on the market. There is obviously a big outlay.

Have there been any major patent disputes?

Look, apart from blanket promises of solving world hunger and traveling to distant galaxies, Rodin is claiming that he's created a black hole in the center of a plastic donut-shaped toy, wrapped in wire. A patent would require an explanation of how that happens (otherwise there is nothing to patent, there needs to be a method). Rodin has nothing in way of explanation of how it all works (well in part because it doesn't). I bet you all the money I have, that when the Patent Office receives a manuscript where it says that properly spelling the name of God opens a vortex in space-time and leads to its implosion, there reaction will be "Rodin needs psychiatric help" --- which I think he does.

Lol, but I can see where he is coming from; looking for perfection and applying certain ancient principles.

What I'm asking is if there are patents at large that are related to this body of work. I know that there is something to dispute and / or steal, as you guys are making an accusation on that basis.