It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 17
39
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:36 AM

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?

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Bobathon

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.
More lists of what "it has to do with". You can see that you're not explaining anything, right?

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.
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.

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.

This is mapping not formulas. You don't grasp the former, so I highly doubt you'll understand the latter... Just in case though:

Wave Equation in an Elastic Wave Medium Deducing Matter Energy Interactions in Space.

Einstein's E=mc2, Planck's E=hf, Newton's F=ma.

Deducing Matter Energy Interactions

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:50 AM

There's a pattern to all these threads:

Person A makes a claim for someone's theories
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.

Nice, that is your perspective haha. I can tell thats what its like for you, but its totally opposite for me.

Mine is:

Person A: Take a look at this guy's theories.
Person B: Oh yeah, some of it makes sense, some of it doesn't.
Person C: He is a crackpot.
Person B: How do you know he is a crackpot? What is wrong with his idea?
Person C: Look, I have credentials and can do complex abstract math, so trust me hes a crackpot.
Person B: Can you actually discuss his ideas to prove your stance? Because in the context of mysticism, philosophy of science, history of science, Keely, Tesla, Wolff, continuum mechanics, etc. it seems not so farfetched...
Person C: Its nonsense, the words he's using. And there is no maths. And what do all of those unrelated things have to do in this thread?
Person B: I can't do maths, but I can read all of the context which his ideas exist in.
Person C: Since you can't do maths, you don't understand what you are saying either, and are a replication of Rodin and his nonsense.
Person B: No I'm not, have you read those things I posted?
Person C: What is there to read? Its nonsense.
Person B: No, its not.
Person A(thinks to themselves): wtf
Person C: Its plainly nonsense.
Person B: Can you tell me why its nonsense?
Person C: Show me how its not nonsense.
Person B: Okay... look at this... this, read this. look at this diagram here, this word means this. this, this, and this, and your philosophical presuppositions are different than his... etc.
Person C: But this one point you said in one sentence is off, so I will not try to understand you, but instead assume you are making this up as you go, jumbling together random words, and ignore all of the so-called 'context'

etc. etc.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:55 AM

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?

He is trying to map the vacuum fluctuations/space time geometry. Clearly related to the idea of harnessing the vacuum.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:56 AM
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!

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:57 AM

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?

a...HA!

Build a Rodin coil. I will when I have the time and the means, which is not now.

What kind of demonstration are you getting at?

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:01 AM

How so? What part of it corresponds to space-time geometry? I missed that part.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:02 AM

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!

The aether just changed name. Now, we call it vacuum density fluctuations, or Zero point energy, or quantum foam, or the vibrations and frequencies below the Planck scale.

I personally am not that satisfied with all of these advancements in modeling. Of course we have more brute force applications, but our models are convoluted and complex.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:04 AM

How so? What part of it corresponds to space-time geometry? I missed that part.

Thats kind of a big part...

The torus.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:05 AM

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.
edit on 16-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:08 AM

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.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:15 AM

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.

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."

Anything?

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.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Americanist
Two words: Platonic Solids

Maybe you should try Teutonic Liquids. Or anything else, as long as it helps you to connect Rodin's sudoku to the real world in a tangible way, i.e. numbers, observables etc.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:01 AM

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.

Ok... would a simple UFT have useful applications? Yes it would. Now, we can discuss Rodin's Toroid space time dynamic, with his fractal 'sudoku' harmonics or 'grain'... or we can start at the basic context and presuppositions as to how he came to that conclusion in the first place, and why it isn't all gobbledeegook.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:03 AM

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.

Yeah, thats unfortunate. He is really terrible at explaining himself. I again refer you to the context which will make it easier to understand.

Good luck.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:04 AM

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.

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.

This is what you wrote (and I chuckle pasting this):

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.

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.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:14 AM

I really don't think it's a UFT. Come on, it's self-evident to you. Can't you apply it to any one of the various things it's supposedly useful for? Or was the part about how it's useful for EVERYTHING is plain BS because you can't seem to find SOMETHING it's useful for other than looking cool? So you admit there's nothing scientific about this and it's all just metaphysical dribble? Okay we got a deal.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:41 AM

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."

Anything?

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.

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? Please elaborate.

Wait, is that what you wanted me to say? Sounds like you are already familiar with this example... hmmm...

Rodin, Keely, Tesla, Wolff, and all of the physicists quoted on the WSM website, clearly understand that the atom is not 'particles' in space, but wave structures extending from space itself. The wave function is not a statistical description of where the 'particle' is, but a cymatical structure of vibrating space itself.

I think that is the idea which you do not understand, and it is the idea which this whole discussion revolves around.

These are not just 'cool' ideas, they are descriptions of a more accurate model of reality.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:58 AM

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?

Thanks Beebs! We have focus for discussion.

So all we need now is:
1. which part do you think cannot be explained by the 'conventional' laws of physics?
2. and how is it specifically explained by this guy's theories?

Or, alternatively, and I would say equally valid:
3. which part do you think can be specifically explained in a more elegant way by this guy's theories than by the 'conventional' laws of physics?

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:59 AM

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.

See, there is a difference between you not understanding what I write, and me writing it to explain my understanding. Atomic weight will appear the same, but only be defined differently.

The use of the name "atomic weight" has attracted a great deal of controversy among scientists.[5] 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)[5] that
the name has been in continuous use for the same quantity since it was first conceptualized in 1808;[8]
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.

A wave structure in space, Rodin's model for the atom, would re-define what the atomic weight is. So you tell me.

I am sorry that I think Rodin is best explained through Keely, because Rodin does a crap job at it.

Less friction comes from aligning the flow of EM in the coil to the 'grain'(the 'sudoku' to you) in Rodin's toroid spacetime geometry. What don't you understand about that. I suppose it is the word grain, the word toroid, the word spacetime, and the word geometry.

They are all mutually exclusive in your vocabulary. But then you will obviously not see what I am saying, and you will obviously not attempt to even try to understand what I am saying. I have provided diagrams to help you understand, but I will not spoon feed you everything else(although I have spoon fed you quite a lot in dozens of posts). You have NEVER posted any information to refute the information I provide you, instead you assume they are irrelevant and wrong also. That is the epitome of ignorant. You do not argue for your stance, never becoming a protagonist, only a vulgar doubter. You never say "This is why its ridiculous." Only "I know its ridiculous."

You think I am delusional. I think you are a pompous ass that has based his whole career on wrong principles and assumptions. I think you are neurotic, and your ego will not allow you to see things a different way.

new topics

top topics

39