"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
One thing that fascinates me about us is how easily we are fooled.

You are bamboozled by the establishment.

I found God Mary...

wow. incredibly rude cartoon in context of the thread. i guess rodin brings out the best of all.
anyway, not only is science more mysterious and fascinating then made up pseudoscience, but the men and thinking behind it tell an amazing story.
take jato for example, which is responsible for modern day jet propulsion (space and such also).
these were the man behind it:
theodore von karman - an amazing mind

fritz zwikcy: so ahead of his time, that his work is STILL relevant. a constant scientist, inventor and astrologist. maybe his idea that the sun could be used as a slingshot to propel our solar system should be revisited. anyway, despite his creativity, and amazing depth, he never claimed the ridiculous and was happy to work within the context on the larger scientific community. he first though up dark matter, and much more.

jack parson: now this guy is amazing. almost totally uneducated(despite wikipedia claiming high school diploma, no such records exist)...He was deeply involved with Aleister Crowley, Thelema, black magic, occult. Yet, he worked within the context of science fusing them He saw no problems, or suppression. On his own, he was basically the inventor of the modern jet propulsion system. and when the rockets were tried, he canted his ode to pan. Yet, he too could separate personal beliefs from science without problems.

zwikcy: en.wikipedia.org...
parsons: en.wikipedia.org...
Karman: en.wikipedia.org...ármán
Crowley: en.wikipedia.org...


crowley on science:
" In this connection there was also the point that I was anxious to prove that spiritual progress did not depend on religious or moral codes, but was like any other science. Magick would yield its secrets to the infidel and the libertine, just as one does not have to be a churchwarden in order to discover a new kind of orchid. There are, of course, certain virtues necessary to the Magician; but they are of the same order as those which make a successful chemist.["

Crowley on gender equality: " We of Thelema say that "Every man and every woman is a star." We do not fool and flatter women; we do not despise and abuse them. To us, a woman is herself, absolute, original, independent, free, self-justified, exactly as a man is"

crowley on what it is to be a free thinker, words to bear in mind I say:
" The mainspring of an individual is his creative Will. This Will is the sum of his tendencies, his destiny, his inner truth. It is one with the force that makes the birds sing and flowers bloom; as inevitable as gravity, as implicit as a bowel movement, it informs alike atoms and men and suns.
To the man who knows this Will, there is no why or why not, no can or cannot; he IS!
There is no known force that can turn an apple into an alley cat; there is no known force that can turn a man from his Will. This is the triumph of genius; that, surviving the centuries, enlightens the world.
This force burns in every man."
Enjoy knowledge!

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
One thing that fascinates me about us is how easily we are fooled.

You are bamboozled by the establishment.

In some cases that may be true and I admit it. I don't claim to have superior knowledge over an area of specialization which dedicated professionals have spent their entire lives studying...so I do make some assumptions that they might know more about it than I do. Even if that assumption is true, that doesn't mean they're always right.

However, even with my limited knowledge, I know flat out BS when I see it, and that's what Rodin's claims are.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with any establishment. I have enough personal knowledge of the world to assess Rodin's claims as complete nonsense, without deferring to any other experts.

In the broader context of this thread, I see the same thing happening.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I don't

reply to post by Arbitrageur

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.

I also find ironic the fact that string theory is possibly APPLICABLE.
WELL DONE

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You deliver an adequate basis of reasoning for your stance however you ignore one very simple fact. If an individual has had esoteric experiences that prove to them first hand that their being and conscious awareness has influence over certain circumstances in every day life, then such an individual is actually applying science to their inventory of awareness. I'm not going to give you an example because some of my own are very private to my personal life, and the ones which are most blatant to me would probably disturb your own preferred state of consciousness. It is why the mysterious only shows itself to those who are ready to embrace it.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Origins of Science
....

reply to post by buddhasystem


Are you serious.

your not worth the time.

...

I think its a good Idea to stop feeding this troll he has no inclination to actually give due merit to the posts which explain what he requested and that also counter him. All he does is look for the most out of context portions of that which is provided and then uses it to fuel an act, that is all it is an act.

Further more I saw someone say that vortex mathematics that cannot be applied pragmatically is a form of religion. And nothing more than illusion etc. However the Fib sequence shows that mathematics and the principle of reduction is a tangible reality, whether one applies it to the Quantum and/or the Macro-cosm is irrelevant it exists in that which is observable in the immediate environment. As can be found in my first contribution on this thread it is supportive of the notions of vortex based physics.

Physics is a part of theoretical science therefore a "theory" (for those who can't accept the claim that this info is actually channeled from a higher metaphysical source) which explains things in a more holistic manner than the current model...is therefore more ideal whether it can be proven or not... essentially if a theory cannot be disproven its equally valid..and more so if it is explaining holistic integration of the Macro and the Quantum. Embracing Holism will lead to more discoveries that support it and then there will be more tangible results, anyone who plays down its worth are simply afraid that their scientific reputation and/or adherence will be rendered obsolete. Im think they will be ridiculed at first as well but I don't think the intention would cross the minds of anyone existing on a world that has actually crossed the point of no return into a golden age full of sheer technological wonderment.

Note: I am not defending Rodin (tho I'm sure the man's core intentions are worth it) I am merely expanding horizons.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In some cases that may be true and I admit it. I don't claim to have superior knowledge over an area of specialization . . .

This is a bait and switch, which is a fallacy debate technique. You begin by sounding like you're on-topic and then change the subject.

The use of fallacy to avoid uncomfortable subject matter is what's wrong with this thread.

reply to post by Mary Rose

How is this a bait and switch? I don't understand why you would say that, please explain.

Most scientists are specialists in a particular area of research.

Originally posted by Spiratio
Origins of Science

"Natural philosophy" - music to my ears. It suggests embracing the whole rather than championing one part at the expense of other parts.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You sound sincere so I'm going to take your question seriously and not be a smartass like I've been recently, driven to it in self-defense.

Yes, there is specialization.

Specialization has nothing to do with my statement about you - which was made as a retort to your post about people being fooled. My retort was that you, Arb, are bamboozled by the establishment.

I was referring to the fact that you have authority figures like Carl Sagan (participated in fooling the public) that you repeatedly quote, that you like posting from websites that publish hit pieces (fallacies of reason), that you believe the academic/governmental powers that be in regard to free energy devices; thus, you refuse to acknowledge suppression and make frivolous comments about the evidence of it.

reply to post by Mary Rose

I've responded to these claims. For example, I posted an analysis of Bearden's MEG which is supposedly one of the suppressed technologies. The analysis was of a device which Bearden claimed was an independent replication of his technology which therefore proved its effectiveness through replication.

The analysis didn't even dispute the published data, but rather used the published data to show that in fact the device was nothing more than a very ordinary electrical transformer, and that the misrepresentation of the data as evidence of over-unity is a gross form of incompetence. Since I'm a competent professional in this area, I can confirm the soundness of the analysis.

You have offered nothing of substance to counter this. So if you believe Bearden's claims, then it's you who are bamboozled.

Regarding government suppression of technology, I've acknowledged they are hiding 5000 patents and I don't know what they are and can't tell you about them. But what I can tell you is that Bearden's patent is not one they've hidden, and it's accessible to the public, and the replication of his device has been shown to not perform as Bearden claims.

I can also claim via prima facie evidence that claims Bearden's technology is suppressed are false, as seen by all the things he's published about it with no evidence of suppression. So from my perspective it certainly seems like it's you who have been bamboozled by Bearden.

And you still won't admit that this isn't a face on Mars? You're still beating that dead horse?

www.msss.com...


OK I confess...Sagan did in fact try to convince rational people that this isn't really a face, even before he had resolution this good. But we can all look at that picture and decide for ourselves if he was hiding the truth, unless you think that picture is a fake.

If I happened to believe Sagan when he tried to convince me that it wasn't really a face, it doesn't appear to me that I was wrong, or that Sagan was wrong. So again here, it seems like it's not me who has been bamboozled, but you, if you really believe that's a face, and Sagan tried to cover up that it was really a face.

Originally posted by squandered
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

Scientists aren't laborers? You don't get out much. Having worked in science, I've seen, and participated in, some pretty intense labor. Equally, scientists are advancing skills like there is no tomorrow. Just look at the progress we've made in measurement, there are plenty of examples in most areas of physics -- look at nuclear instrumentation for one.

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

I agree with that. However, in the thread of yours (and this equally applies to Rodin) -- somebody asked you how this works, and you didn't say squat, and the reply to that was that you are engaged in mental masturbation -- quite true by your own admission here.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I posted an analysis of Bearden's MEG which is supposedly one of the suppressed technologies.

There is plenty of stuff to post. There is always plenty of stuff to post. One has to be discerning in evaluating the agenda of the entity that does the "analysis." That's what I'm talking about when I post on the powers that be, front groups, hit pieces, and black projects.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And you still won't admit that this isn't a face on Mars?

If you have not done your homework on the powers that be - who believe in "the noble lie" - then you don't understand. And you'll never understand.

I believe I've mentioned before that people who get their information primarily from the mainstream live on planet Earth A, and people who filter mainstream information with alternative history and alternative science live on planet Earth B, and that communication between the two is almost like having a language barrier.

That's the problem we have on this thread.

Originally posted by Spiratio
Physics is a part of theoretical science

Theory is part of physics, and physics also includes tons, tons and tons of experimentation. I thought that this was obvious.

essentially if a theory cannot be disproven its equally valid..

Oh really? So, Arbitrageur is the Holy Being Zmorrg, broadcasting to Earth on a subspace channel. You can't prove this is wrong. There is no way you can. So, this assumption is valid. Actuall, Arb can attest to the fact that he is in fact Zmorrg. Arb?

Indeed, there is no limit to stupidity.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Spiratio
essentially if a theory cannot be disproven its equally valid..

Oh really? So, Arbitrageur is the Holy Being Zmorrg, broadcasting to Earth on a subspace channel. You can't prove this is wrong. There is no way you can. So, this assumption is valid. Actuall, Arb can attest to the fact that he is in fact Zmorrg. Arb?

I can attest to the fact that Swedlow has said something about being the former ambassador to the planet Umo, a claim which I'm skeptical of since I never even heard of the planet Umo.

But that's just hearsay. This is a book you can buy on amazon, and I can support your point by saying that so far I haven't seen anything in this book disproven...

Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

The author had this to say about this book:

The book is necessary so that people see how much hard evidence supports the existence of the FSM. You can make a pretty strong argument for His existence.

However I don't really buy Spiratio's argument it's equally valid; call me a skeptic if you will, but I like to see more evidence than just a book with no proof to back it up, even if it does have "gospel" in the title which makes it sound kind of official.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I prefer this red book myself, but hey we are all different, its just shades of red:
www.zitantique.com...

or shall will fight out which is the truer gospel? spaghetti monster or mao?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
There is plenty of stuff to post. There is always plenty of stuff to post. One has to be discerning in evaluating the agenda of the entity that does the "analysis." That's what I'm talking about when I post on the powers that be, front groups, hit pieces, and black projects.

Yes if you are ignorant of the subject matter which I believe you've conceded, I can see how you might come to such a conclusion.

However, the analysis I posted was written with care to simplify the math to require no more than high school algebra. This is a level of technical competence which should be directly accessible to a large percentage of the population, though I admit not everybody.

If you learn the material, including some high school algebra, you can make your own assessment of the published analysis, and we could debate the merits of it right here on this thread, which I would be more than happy to do. As I said the analysis is using the authors own published data so that's not even in dispute.

So the best solution to this communication problem, is for you to learn the subject matter, rather than claim ignorance of it whenever we try to debate specifics. And there are lots of simple electrical experiments you can perform yourself to prove that mainstream isn't bamboozling you about basic electrical relationships between current, voltage, resistance, and power. You don't have to take anyone's word for it. I've tested these relationships personally in various labs. You can too. Then we can compare notes and see why you think we have different realities. We should get the same results.

Originally posted by BBalazs
or shall will fight out which is the truer gospel? spaghetti monster or mao?

I can't read Chinese so I can't disprove anything in Mao's book either.

But the relevant topic is the logical fallacy related to burden of proof. Spirato seems to be taking a position called a logical fallacy:

www.nizkor.org...

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position.

I'd say that the burden of proof has not been met for either the black hole in Rodin's coil, nor for the flying spaghetti monster. For Spirato to claim that these or other claims have not been disproven and are thus equally valid, is an example of the "burden of proof" type of logical fallacy.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

yes, I agree, without burden of proof there is no validity. each point is just as valid, so we have entered the territory of faith and religion. from a logic standpoint it is full of holes of logical fallacies, thats why imo faith and religion should be private matters. otherwise, we are just trying to force our views on other and evangelize.
i do like the spagetthi monster though. cool stuff, will integrate it into my cookie monster cult, alongside the fact that the number 9 is a black hole. hey, why not? it makes no difference in the real world, may as well spruce up my private arena of gods and symbology. although i always tended to think 0 was the odd number, but hey, gotta love the whoopee cushion. its a unique selling point, plus if you add suppressed technology, know we are talking.
i often wonder, is this disinfo? does anyone truly believe this? are people unable at this point in time to separate their personal beliefs from the consensual reality and facts of everyday life? are they pulling your leg?