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: 168
39
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
it just would have been a dis-honor to myself and the truth of torsion physics if i didn't give you some idea of what Rodin's studies are about.


Now that you have properly honored yourself, may I ask what "torsion" exist in Rodin's "studies"?

Eat more donuts. Maybe you'll teleport to the center of the Galaxy. Torsion, dude, totally.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Both Rodin & Nassim have theories which warrants further thought experiments at least .

Since standard model is an incomplete beast , I don't really get this opposition to new ideas .

Oh it may have something to do with God .



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
. . . so, onward! keep posting about how marko rodin is a fool in a thread that is dedicated to his work . . .


The word "pride" comes to mind.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Since standard model is an incomplete beast , I don't really get this opposition to new ideas .

Oh it may have something to do with God .
The term is broader than God, it's religion. As already stated, there's no opposition to new religious ideas.

The opposition is to calling new religious ideas science or mathematics when there's no science and no mathematics.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Since standard model is an incomplete beast , I don't really get this opposition to new ideas .


Haramein has written a paper asserting that the proton is actually a black hole. This is wrong according to the vast body of experimental data that we have. Do you think opposing theories that are patently false is inappropriate?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Google Schwarzchild proton.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by angrysniper
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Google Schwarzchild proton.


No, I won't. I've had enough of this nonsense right here on ATS in a separate thread. Read the "paper".



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by angrysniper
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Google Schwarzchild proton.


No, I won't. I've had enough of this nonsense right here on ATS in a separate thread. Read the "paper".



I have read the paper. What issues do you have with it?
edit on 27-1-2012 by angrysniper because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by 23432
Since standard model is an incomplete beast , I don't really get this opposition to new ideas .

Oh it may have something to do with God .
The term is broader than God, it's religion. As already stated, there's no opposition to new religious ideas.

The opposition is to calling new religious ideas science or mathematics when there's no science and no mathematics.


God is above religion , so to speak .

Rodin's equations have God in them . Therefore I propose that any debunking formulae of his ideas ought to also have God in them too .

Rodin's view advances God as owner of it all , including math and science .

Why not take this into an account and construct a debunking formulae based on the existence of God ?

It's all well that the two of you are so much into " beating the dead horse " but it would be far more entertaining and informative to play the devil's advocate from within Rodin's ideas imho .



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by angrysniper
I have read the paper. What issues do you have with it?


I don't really want to re-tread a few long threads in which I posted (along with Arb, Bobathon and 547k).

Long story short, (a) we don't observe the black hole inside the proton in many experiments being conducted (b) the mass of the proton according to Haramein must be something very different from what we measure

User search function on ATS for details.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
Since standard model is an incomplete beast , I don't really get this opposition to new ideas .


Haramein has written a paper asserting that the proton is actually a black hole. This is wrong according to the vast body of experimental data that we have. Do you think opposing theories that are patently false is inappropriate?


I think the opposing theories are inadequate as I have stated before .

I have to read Haramein's paper about the assertion you have mentioned . I have listened to Haramein and Rodin and found these two to be worth listening to .

They probably do have their false conclusions and subsequently might have developed wrong theories .

I don't rule this out .

Similarly , I don't treat current scientific understanding of humanity as end all & be all .

Infiniteness of space - time and time - space concepts are indeed puzzling .

Event horizon also being the observer is rather an attractive proposition imho .



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Similarly , I don't treat current scientific understanding of humanity as end all & be all .


Nobody in his right mind would assert that is "end and be all". Quite the opposite. However, within their limits of applicability, the current theories do match observation often with astonishing accuracy. Please ponder this.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
Similarly , I don't treat current scientific understanding of humanity as end all & be all .


Nobody in his right mind would assert that is "end and be all". Quite the opposite. However, within their limits of applicability, the current theories do match observation often with astonishing accuracy. Please ponder this.



I am aware of the asthonishing achievements in science in general .
However , It must be pointed out that Rodin is not strictly speaking conventional scientific lingo.

Therefore one must insist that the opposition also deploy similar non conventional scientific lingo in the debunking of Rodin.

Perhaps due to technology not yet beind invented ; we are not truely capable of understanding blackholes despite all the data we have on them .

9 being a blackhole ?

I myself still struggle to understand whatever he means by that and I am not afraid to admit it either .

He could be describing the natural path of energy unit gaining mass via repetitive geometric movement .

Often I ponder as to how energy gains mass .

Observing the obvious fractal nature of universe ; it is not difficult to assert that there must be a pattern to all this that one sees/feels out there and within .



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
However , It must be pointed out that Rodin is not strictly speaking conventional scientific lingo.


And therein lies a problem. When we try to ascertain how a theory relates to reality, we use measurements. For better or worse, this works for humanity. You predict a mass - measure it. You predict a voltage - measure it. Compare. You measured a voltage? Go back to you theory and try to see why it was such. That's how it works.

So if science lingo is not good enough for Rodin (actually it's inaccessible to him due to limited mental capacity), he should have invented his own, but one that is somehow tied into observables. But look what happens instead: Rodin does use the scientific lingo, but he hijacks mysterious sounding terms from real science and cooks alphabet soup from them.

Implosion of space-time? Black hole? No evidence of either.

"Flux thruster atom pulsar".

Erm, right...


edit on 27-1-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Flux thruster atom pulsar".


You really don't know one way or the other, anything about it. You've made it crystal clear on this thread you're not interested in it, and only have the goal of perverse entertainment for yourself and your cronies with various expressions of ridicule.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Flux thruster atom pulsar".


You really don't know one way or the other, anything about it.


I agree! Fact is, nobody does. It does not exist. However, I have an invention for sale, which is called "multiphase manifold magnetic discombobulator". It's based on sacred ancient knowledge, and employs arcane mathematical ratios found in the Eye of Horus. If you saw the design of some RFID chips introduced into the market, you would notice that some big companies finally got to the core of this ancient design, and quietly put it into production, without much fanfare. The Discombobulator is shaped as a pyramid, strictly observing ratio of the Great Pyramid of Giza. The delicate design of the Eye of Horus is etched on the sides of the pyramid and covered in pure gold. When these conducting pieces are energized, and respective harmonics are radiated towards the center of the pyramid, a null magnetic vortex is created. Once this happens, I start to slowly rotate the device, until its rotational frequency matches the local vorticity of the aether. As you can imagine, this in turn leads to "freezing" of time in the focal point, creating a wormhole to the world of the same characteristic vibrational frequency. I hope that open source community R&D will allow me to finish this project. Otherwise, I require $20M to finalize a working prototype.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Flux thruster atom pulsar".


You really don't know one way or the other, anything about it. You've made it crystal clear on this thread you're not interested in it, and only have the goal of perverse entertainment for yourself and your cronies with various expressions of ridicule.


exactamundo


worded simply, accurately, and short. i'd ATS-applaud you if i knew how, haha

edit on 1/27/12 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
However , It must be pointed out that Rodin is not strictly speaking conventional scientific lingo.


And therein lies a problem. When we try to ascertain how a theory relates to reality, we use measurements. For better or worse, this works for humanity. You predict a mass - measure it. You predict a voltage - measure it. Compare. You measured a voltage? Go back to you theory and try to see why it was such. That's how it works.

So if science lingo is not good enough for Rodin (actually it's inaccessible to him due to limited mental capacity), he should have invented his own, but one that is somehow tied into observables. But look what happens instead: Rodin does use the scientific lingo, but he hijacks mysterious sounding terms from real science and cooks alphabet soup from them.

Implosion of space-time? Black hole? No evidence of either.

"Flux thruster atom pulsar".

Erm, right...


edit on 27-1-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



Buddha

There is no problem as such .

His ideas are just that , ideas so far .

If he is wrong , it will come out and he will be forgotten sooner then later .

Problem begins when one attempts to debunk his semi religous ideas with a strict scientific approach .

Why would you eat your soup with a fork ?

Use a spoon if you wish .

Terminological misunderstanding aside , "Flux thruster atom pulsar" sounds more trekkie then ever .

But if you really want to understand what he is saying ; then you have to entertain the thoughts behind his ideas .

There are some questions one ought to ask . Usually beginning with " what if ... " loop , so to speak .

What if there really is a pattern which smallest energy unit follows due to it's nature ?

Numbers being real ?

What we call reality is really all about bio-electric signal processing within out brains .



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Flux thruster atom pulsar".


You really don't know one way or the other, anything about it. You've made it crystal clear on this thread you're not interested in it
Well I'm interested in it! Please tell me all you know about it. And don't be shy with the technical specifications...if it looks promising maybe I can make one.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I've seen allot of beef on the first page of the Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin thread, about reduction being a violation/manipulation of mathematics etc.

Americanist, stated however, something along the lines that it represents the singularity of the vortex, specifically the number nine. This is correct and applies to the significance of all numeric reduction in context of torsion. I do not share this to endorse rodins approach of gaining monetary support but merely to point out that its valid math under the context that it is delivered. (I feel all persons working in this field would be wiser to work together as a foundaton.

The missing factor necessary to understand is the principle of infinite depth of space i.e. metaphorically speaking a universe can sit in the palm of your hand.

Numerological reduction of the Fibonacci (Fib) sequence yields a repeating 24 number pattern and no matter how large the Fib numbers get they always reduce to these 24 single digits, whilst the approximation of the phi ratio between the numbers continues to become greater.

We would expect a pattern to exist in the Fibonacci series since each number in the series encodes the sum of the previous two. What's not quite so obvious is why this pattern should repeat every 24 numbers or why the first and last half of the series should all add to 9.

source www.goldennumber.net...
...

This coupled with the notion that the singularity of a toroidal field shrinks into infinite depth thus maintaining resolution (i.e. akin to the “universe can sit in ones palm analogy” rather than compressing as contemporary black hole physics assumes - although compression occurs under certain conditions as well), can therefore enable one to contend with the notion that the fundamental waveform of a toroid is the aspect which envelopes the entire field so the singularity is part and parcel of the fundamental field. All layers within however shrink in resolution so as to escape the wavelengths of immediate perception.

For instance: a black hole shrinks matter and light into wavelengths out of sync with that which is receptive to sensory perception, none the less the imperceptible resolution is existing inside the infinite depth if space that is inwardly “expanding” i.e. increasing implosive volume which shrinks as it is pulled inward.

Thus if we say that the fundamental layer (perfect octave) of a toroidal field is symbolized by 9 and the next octave of resolution inward ( being double the value of the one before it) is 18. Then the factor of shrinking resolution of space renders the next octave within (symbolized by 18) contained within the scope of the first 9 thus reducing its volume to the same quantified space as the fundamental 9, is therefore synonymous with the reduction of 18 - 1+8 = 9.

So reduction in the esoteric math of ancient India is directly related to and symbolic of energy condensed – condensed from the perspective of the fundamental wavelength however, not in essence as in squashed. 9 is also synonymous with 1 because the Hindus equate 0 as 1 which is synonymous with infinite potential; formless Oneness. Therefore making 9 the tent number which reduces to 1 representing completion of a cycle of an octave and back to the origination point but at a higher frequency (next octave) I feel however, that in the case of implosion dynamics the next octave can express the same amount of potential as the first because of the infinite depth/resolution factor. It may also exceed the previous octave depending on the level of potential accessed...this all comes down to the events that play out in a cosmic Yuga (great cycle of life/evolution) thereby defining the length of its cycle due to the overall energy conservation of the cosmos

So the Fib sequence and its nature of reduction is indicative of the integers and intervals between the perfect octaves of 9, 18, 27 and so on. There is a factor which can be referred to bi-folding tangents which is that the Fib is based on two counter vortating spirals which are mirrors to one another – synonymous with the double torus, yet they are the same field intrinsically entangled. So the fact that the 24 reduction seq reduces to 12 sets of 9 when folded over itself as two parallel sets of 12 is also correlative of the maths behind the fractal infinity of implosive torsion fields

These 8 layers also correspond with the notion that each wavelength of reality is cycling on a different concentric band - tho to themselves they are a spherical existences; the reference to being concentric bands is merely a way of indicating their individual frequency/channel vibrationally centered on a different section than the others and not that they are literally cycling as shell-like sections of an onion, rather they are toroids which overlap into one another in graduated integers of depth but they are broadcast each on a fundamental lengths whose central point of emanation do not make contact with each other. Thus their tangible levels of reality do not enmesh they are separated.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Spiratio because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
39
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join