It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Bobathon
More lists of what "it has to do with". You can see that you're not explaining anything, right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Aha, so you claim it has to do with everything, and it's self-evident for you, yet it's not self-evident enough for a simple demonstration?
Considering that most of these scientists are many centuries old, and luminous ether has been debunked, and we have had 100+ years to keep revising the theory of electromagnetism and would therefore have plenty of time to rediscover it, don't you feel it's rather silly to still be talking about it like it's real? We now know much more than these pioneers knew about EM when it was at its infancy, and they couldn't have been right about everything, because they just didn't know the things we do now. This is just an argument from authority appeal. Tesla couldn't have possibly been wrong about anything!
Originally posted by beebs
Nice, that is your perspective haha. I can tell thats what its like for you, but its totally opposite for me.
Originally posted by Americanist
Two words: Platonic Solids
The applications which are self evident to you. You know fluid mechanics, and all that other stuff. Just map the numbers to a phenomena instead of just saying it does. If you can't really give any explanation it's quite clear it's not as self-evident. That, or you were just talking baloney about how clear it is useful for EVERYTHING.
I guess I must have gotten bored of seeing some guy who can't explain a damn thing after 11 parts or so and decided to stop watching.
Originally posted by beebs
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.
Each number in the grid is a self consistent fractal center emanating its self relational mathematics throughout the grid. These are not just numbers to him, but ratios or inherent harmonics in the wave function of his toroid spacetime dynamic. To him, it explains quark colors and spin, atomic weights, etc.
Thus, he came up with the rodin coil, which attempts to engineer the least friction, most amplification of 'electricity' in the coil. Since he uses two oppositely wrapped wires, which are charged in a certain phase of each other, he considers it much more than electricity, closer to something such as 'magnetic electricity' since it is two way.
Well the one thing that is objectively true and common to all of us is that nobody on this thread is willing and able to explain how Rodin's ideas connect to anything specific and observable in the real world.
Can you please try? Just say something like "if you make a Rodin coil according to the specifications on here (link) then you will find that it floats in the middle of the room and sings Hallelujah just like in this video (link), which cannot be explained by conventional laws of physics."
Otherwise let's just agree that it's nothing more than a set of ideas that some people happen to think is cool but has no discernable bearing on reality at all, and the only way to 'explain' it is to talk about more ideas that some other people happen to think is cool but have no discernable bearing on reality either, but they all think it's self-evident for no reason that they're able or willing to communicate to anyone else. And then we can go home.
Originally posted by beebs
If you make a Rodin coil according to the specifications here then you will find effects like here:
which cannot be explained by your conventional assumptions of the laws of physics... can they?
I rest my case right here, because you just confirmed what others told you -- that you don't understand what you are talking about, and when pressed hard enough you refer people to other sources you don't understand, and when these are obviously beyond your capacity to effectively utilize, you say the onus is on me, or Bob, or Arb, or someone else with a brain.
You don't understand a word of what you wrote. You can't explain how Rodin explains spin. OR atomic weight. You see, atomic weight is a NUMBER. You repeatedly failed to show any connection between the Rodin's sudoku and the atomic weight of ANY element. It is painfully apparent that you don't have a clue where to start. And despite all this, you make these grand statements. I frankly am losing interest in trying to understand this sort of absurd behavior. If I ask you how Rodin "engineers the least friction" in the goddamn piece of copper wire, you'll tell me it's Baha'i, which again does not explain jack. So again, you don't understand what you are writing.
The use of the name "atomic weight" has attracted a great deal of controversy among scientists. Objectors to the name usually prefer the term "relative atomic mass" (not to be confused with atomic mass). The basic objection is that atomic weight is not a weight, that is the force exerted on an object in a gravitational field, measured in units of force such as the newton.
In reply, supporters of the term "atomic weight" point out (among other arguments) that
the name has been in continuous use for the same quantity since it was first conceptualized in 1808;
for most of that time, atomic weights really were measured by weighing (that is by gravimetric analysis) and that the name of a physical quantity should not change simply because the method of its determination has changed;
the term "relative atomic mass" should be reserved for the mass of a specific nuclide (or isotope), while "atomic weight" be used for the weighted mean of the atomic masses over all the atoms in the sample;
it is not uncommon to have misleading names of physical quantities which are retained for historical reasons, such as
electromotive force, which is not a force
resolving power, which is not a power quantity
molar concentration, which is not a molar quantity (a quantity expressed per unit amount of substance)
It could be added that atomic weight is often not truly "atomic" either, as it does not correspond to the property of any individual atom. The same argument could be made against "relative atomic mass" used in this sense.