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: 172
39
<< 169  170  171    173  174  175 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
So is this now the "paste artwork here with no explanation" thread?

If so, my response is "pretty".

If it's some lame attempt to suggest that all those pictures are related in cause rather than appearance, my response is, the causes of those pictures can be explained and they are not all the same.

Like the science community tries to explain to professor Don Scott: "just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean it has the same or even similar causes". Don Scott is the guy who says he thinks the grand canyon was formed by lightning because it looks like a lightning pattern, which is the kind of muddled thinking that was more than likely used to assemble that collage, unless it's just artwork.




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
. . . you mock and insult Rodin & this thread constantly . . .


Yes, this is the problem.

It is one thing to disagree respectfully. But it is entirely unacceptable to use ridicule as a debate tactic.



I agree.

It also beggars the questions as to whose purpose it is to stifle debate.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Mostly nature's artwork... Get a load of it. Again, for observation use since your head is typically buried.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
So is this now the "paste artwork here with no explanation" thread?

If so, my response is "pretty".

If it's some lame attempt to suggest that all those pictures are related in cause rather than appearance, my response is, the causes of those pictures can be explained and they are not all the same.

Like the science community tries to explain to professor Don Scott: "just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean it has the same or even similar causes". Don Scott is the guy who says he thinks the grand canyon was formed by lightning because it looks like a lightning pattern, which is the kind of muddled thinking that was more than likely used to assemble that collage, unless it's just artwork.


The author fully intends to prove that. There is an explanation to energy that is witnessed by the footprint it leaves behind. It is even mathematically provable, if only by integers?

It doesn't strike me as important except there are vortex' everywhere.
We are limited to brain function, surrounded by a swirling chaos!
:-



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
I agree.

It also beggars the questions as to whose purpose it is to stifle debate.


What "debate"? If there was evidence of "vortex" or a mathematical construct predicting some vortex and some of its properties, we could have debated (a) merits of the experiment (b) merits of the theory.

You can't debate something that does not exist in any shape or form. Someone can tell you there are a dozen spaghetti monsters hiding in your closet, and ask you to debate such hypothesis. Will you?

Here we have neither experiment nor theory. Combined with illusions of grandeur on Rodin's part, and his set of silly promises to save mankind and travel "anywhere in the Universe", this provides a natural setting for ridicule and not much else.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Is it your stance nature doesn't form vortices? If not, how did you come to this conclusion, and would it also be relevant to devise a mathematical structure to calculate positioning?

If so, perhaps it's your head that's the cork-screw.


edit on 29-1-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I guess you are right. There is no debate at all. Why did reply to me directly just to tell me that?

I have enjoyed learning answers for many questions and I know I would not have gleamed so much without antagonists demanding proof.

Tell me why you try to defeat the arguments with belittling and sarcasm?

Thanks for a better understanding about the universe.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Spiratio
A teenager could give you a description of what those terms mean, maybe not what they imply in context but at least what they mean.


Maybe a teenager can, I don't know, but you don't seem to be capable of doing that. I asked some very straightforward questions about that strange phrase of yours, and all you can do is to say "it's so easy a teenager can do it"?

So again,
a) what's Vacuum Domain?

...it's a very unusual term, and may have different meanings. So, what did you mean here?

b) what's an atoms torus field?

...and what kind of field is it? Why is it torus? What exactly sort of atom do you imply?

c) how can a field "flux"?

...ditto. The verb flux is not compatible with "field", because it implies that the "field" liquifies "thrust"

That's just a stellar example of absolute verbal and mental garbage.


Dude!!! I posted links...read them for goodness sake.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Combined with illusions of grandeur on Rodin's part, and his set of silly promises to save mankind and travel "anywhere in the Universe", this provides a natural setting for ridicule and not much else.


This is a good choice of quote.

If you may recall, I felt I could provide answers for that based on an intuitive inkling. The thing is, I don't care. The idea is too uncomfortable and when we have the capability to move in different circles we won't think about who was the first one to find out.

I see how you grant yourself license to ridicule.

I wish it were possible that the applications of rodins coils be in the reach of the creator.

Interesting thoughts



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiratio
Dude!!! I posted links...read them for goodness sake.


You primarily posted a link to your own thread.

In particular, there we find:


From the multidimensional perspective it can be said that life exists in higher integers of a given planetary toroid field, some of which are not that much higher than everyday reality but still beyond the everyday perception. Like two TV/radio channels which are close enough that they overlap slightly during the phase transition whilst tuning, where each have their data partially received and broadcast simultaneously as tho superimposed. Yet from their mean band of emanation they are experienced as separate from one another without interference. This analogy is to highlight the overlapping nature of each proceeding integer in a torus fields overall spectrum, in the context that on one level (integer) a planet may be barren and uninhabited whereas on another it may be teeming with life. This entails that the level teeming with life must have an EMF which likewise correlates with the same relative level of the suns toroid, thereby maintaining the orbit and spin of the planet in the lower base physical level by proxy of the overlapping nature of its toroids higher integers.


As one of the thread participants said:

Rubbish. Next.

and the other one:

quite frankly, if you cannot produce some kind of effect (do something) with this, then all you have accomplished here is a cheap bit of mental masturbation.


edit on 29-1-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
If you may recall, I felt I could provide answers for that based on an intuitive inkling. The thing is, I don't care.


Interesting! First you complain about the absence of real "debate", then proceed to say that anyhow you don't care to express yourself. Why did you lament the non-existence of the debate in the first place, if you don't care?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by squandered
If you may recall, I felt I could provide answers for that based on an intuitive inkling. The thing is, I don't care.


Interesting! First you complain about the absence of real "debate", then proceed to say that anyhow you don't care to express yourself. Why did you lament the non-existence of the debate in the first place, if you don't care?


I wasn't really debating the ability to time travel with you. Yes that's correct.

You are the one who said that there is no debate. Because you said so, I agreed that, indeed, there is no debate. I don't care if you ridicule anything. You do it by impulse. You said so.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Spiratio
Dude!!! I posted links...read them for goodness sake.


You primarily posted a link to your own thread.

In particular, there we find:


From the multidimensional perspective it can be said that life exists in higher integers of a given planetary toroid field, some of which are not that much higher than everyday reality but still beyond the everyday perception. Like two TV/radio channels which are close enough that they overlap slightly during the phase transition whilst tuning, where each have their data partially received and broadcast simultaneously as tho superimposed. Yet from their mean band of emanation they are experienced as separate from one another without interference. This analogy is to highlight the overlapping nature of each proceeding integer in a torus fields overall spectrum, in the context that on one level (integer) a planet may be barren and uninhabited whereas on another it may be teeming with life. This entails that the level teeming with life must have an EMF which likewise correlates with the same relative level of the suns toroid, thereby maintaining the orbit and spin of the planet in the lower base physical level by proxy of the overlapping nature of its toroids higher integers.



stuff to ignore:

" here is a cheap bit of mental masturbation"


This is another excellent descriptive evaluation of our universe showing that ideas need supporting answers, questions to which are given for answers, perspective remaining in tact.

Scientists were never the forerunners of science.
edit on 29-1-2012 by squandered because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
Scientists were never the forerunners of science.


Cool. And drivers were never forerunners of the Grand Prix, and dentists were never forerunners of root canal. Astronomers were never at the cutting edge of the art of observing celestial objects, and surgeons would have never come up with the idea of bypass. Such advanced activities are best left to babbling idiots. They are the real movers and shakers.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
The author fully intends to prove that.
The author intends to prove what? That the shape of a manmade crop circle and the standing waves in cymatics have the same cause?


Originally posted by squandered
It doesn't strike me as important except there are vortex' everywhere.
There are numerous vortices, such as the one in my sink. Saying they are everywhere may be stretching it. Most relevant to this topic, nobody has demonstrated there's a vortex leading to a black hole in Rodin's coil.


We are limited to brain function, surrounded by a swirling chaos!
Yes, we all have limited brain function, but some brains are more limited than others.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by squandered
Scientists were never the forerunners of science.


Cool. And drivers were never forerunners of the Grand Prix, and dentists were never forerunners of root canal. Astronomers were never at the cutting edge of the art of observing celestial objects, and surgeons would have never come up with the idea of bypass. Such advanced activities are best left to babbling idiots. They are the real movers and shakers.


Interesting quote. I think you are wrong. Science as a noun describes a library of thought; the extent of empirically proven knowledge. Scientists aren't laborers and they are not advancing the 'skill' of science. They seek to apply theorems to ideas for testing.

It's the guy making the hypothesis that is the scientist, not the lab technician. You have confused your role as a bastion of science.

The forerunners of science are the bright sparks with the ideas that work.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Would you define a black hole as having mass or being mass-less? The sink drain is a great place to start. In your case the toilet bowl, but you can work your way out...



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . nobody has demonstrated there's a vortex leading to a black hole in Rodin's coil.


So what??

The OP of this thread expresses fascination with a topic. Your immediate contribution was to shoot down that fascination and to nitpick over the word "equals." You've been nitpicking consistently ever since.

Are you ever fascinated by anything? Or do you just rely on picking things apart to get your jollies?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by squandered
The author fully intends to prove that.
The author intends to prove what? That the shape of a manmade crop circle and the standing waves in cymatics have the same cause?


Originally posted by squandered
It doesn't strike me as important except there are vortex' everywhere.
There are numerous vortices, such as the one in my sink. Saying they are everywhere may be stretching it. Most relevant to this topic, nobody has demonstrated there's a vortex leading to a black hole in Rodin's coil.


We are limited to brain function, surrounded by a swirling chaos!
Yes, we all have limited brain function, but some brains are more limited than others.


1. Yes, see how they can put together. Simple obvious things can be the best proof.
2. Concerning the application I think that it does matter.
3. You don't understand that anything other than is empirically proven (or perhaps not) exists, yet I'm the one limiting my ability to understand what?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . nobody has demonstrated there's a vortex leading to a black hole in Rodin's coil.


So what??
Well since we have well over 150 pages of people asking for one shred of proof that anything Rodin says is true, and not one shred of proof has been provided, I'd say that's relevant.


The OP of this thread expresses fascination with a topic. Your immediate contribution was to shoot down that fascination and to nitpick over the word "equals." You've been nitpicking consistently ever since.
Saying that 9 doesn't really equal 18 isn't nitpicking. If I said that 9.000001 doesn't exactly equal 9, while it may be true, I'd call that nitpicking. But 18 isn't even close to 9.


Are you ever fascinated by anything? Or do you just rely on picking things apart to get your jollies?
I'm fascinated by many things in the natural world, which is one of the reasons I studied science, to learn more about it.

But lately I'm fascinated by some human attributes. One thing that fascinates me about us is how easily we are fooled. Take this as an example, but it has much broader implications:

Amazing Fire Illusion!


I see the outline of a rectangular solid. I know there's not one there, but my brain is telling me there is. This is quite amazing that even in the face of evidence to the contrary, I can try to perceive something that I know doesn't really exist.

In the broader context of this thread, I see the same thing happening. People are exposed to all kinds of perceptions. Some are real, but some are illusions or not real. I'm fascinated by how different people have developed different cognitive approaches to determining which is which. I'm also fascinated how, as in this candle illusion, you can clearly demonstrate to others that it's just an illusion, but they choose to ignore the evidence of that and just see what they want to see.

This is an absolutely fascinating field of study to me, to understand how we can think we are so good at perceiving things, when really we aren't very good at it at all. I find it even more fascinating that some people then want to take all these known imperfections in human observational capability, and make claims like "our intuition is better than scientific measuring instruments" and similar claims, when we know that human perception is extremely flawed. That video of the candle illusion is just one example but there are many, many other examples.

And this is why scientists find anecdotes have such little credence...they (generally) know how flawed our perception is.

String theory doesn't interest me at all because we have no way to measure it (yet, that I know of), so I have no idea if something I can't measure is real or not. But nearly every other aspect of science, which can be measured, fascinates me to various degrees.

You should try it Mary. Real science is actually more fascinating that pseudoscience...and not just because real science is real and pseudoscience isn't. The universe is a strange place as real science will attest and we don't even have to make up nonsense like Rodin, to enjoy the REAL mysteries of the universe.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 169  170  171    173  174  175 >>

log in

join