"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I can rest now.

I'm not sure if you can rest yet. I still see a few items on this list that haven't been addressed yet, like item #22: Nobody has yet compared themselves favorably with Newton, that I can recall....Oh wait, I forgot, you posted something from Bill Gaede who claims that not only is Einstein completely wrong but so is Newton. So I suppose we can call that a claim he compared himself favorably to Newton, right?

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics

On second thought, maybe you've pretty much got them all covered, with a little help from some other posters here, so yes, you can rest now. (unless you find some that you missed?)

This thread probably has one of the highest ratings ever for this "potentially revolutionary contributions to physics" scale, or at least, I've never seen a thread with a higher rating.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I hate that.
I can't use the GPS on my boat with my polarized shades unless I start looking like a confused dog.

It gets worse than that. I have problems pumping the right grade of gas and paying at the grocery, sometimes the screen is completely blacked out. I only wish all fields were toroidal, may that would have helped us avoid this annoyance.

reply to post by buddhasystem

blah, don't worry about that, free energy and atom flush neon eon or whatever is around the corner.
thats what rodin is using right now!
he is in fact visiting alpha centuri as we speak!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
A voice of reason, integrity, and just plain common sense! A breath of fresh air

Of course! A person who peppers ATS with pearls of reason and integrity like "eat me!" and offers to mail boxes full of his excrement to unsuspecting members, and patently lacks any sort of knowledge of anything as it were -- who else can be called the paragon of expertise and virtue?

Then again, why am I not surprised? For you, Mary, like to quote people who call Einstein a moron, and refuse to do even most primitive reading in physics, and what's worse, to use your brain. For you, everything is a donut.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
A voice of reason, integrity, and just plain common sense! A breath of fresh air

Of course! A person who peppers ATS with pearls of reason and integrity like "eat me!" and offers to mail boxes full of his excrement to unsuspecting members, and patently lacks any sort of knowledge of anything as it were -- who else can be called the paragon of expertise and virtue?

Then again, why am I not surprised? For you, Mary, like to quote people who call Einstein a moron, and refuse to do even most primitive reading in physics, and what's worse, to use your brain. For you, everything is a donut.

edit on 2-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason tigiven)

Love you too

Still waiting on a static object from you. While you accuse me of the above you must have forgotten that you called my posts bullsh!t....very convenient for to forget that.

Actually,on average, ats members tend to me with me about twice as much as they agree with you.

All you need to do is observe the ratio of our post count to star count. On average, my posts get more stars than yours do...All my "bullsh!t" posts seem to be agreed upon by ats members more than your posts

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I can rest now.

I'm not sure if you can rest yet... you posted something from Bill Gaede who claims that not only is Einstein completely wrong but so is Newton.

Einstein is not "wrong" persay, it's just that not all laws are applicable in space as opposed to on a planet or surface (gravity issues, etc.) E=MC(squared) being one of them. I won't debate this now but in a vacuum of space there are multiple factors that punch holes in this.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
This thread probably has one of the highest ratings ever for this "potentially revolutionary contributions to physics" scale, or at least, I've never seen a thread with a higher rating.

Rodin is a wonderful design especially in regards to energy but we've had this "new concept" working in labs ever since even before electromagnetism was put out there as a unified field theory.

Not putting down the math in any of this, it just strikes me as silly. For example, the effectiveness of vortex-based designs as being something "new." But how long have we known that this is the fastest method to empty out liquid (example only)? It's almost like in regards to hydrofoils increasing speed. KNOWN designs like this taking years before their effectiveness is widely known. If no one is aware, our Mach-speed drones (in use now, and the next in development still) use this in capacities that allow the increase of speed skipping along the planet's stratosphere rather than water. We've actually been showing everyone things like this for the longest time and it still seems like unless it's pointed directly out, then it's not even there.

I had some guy ask me this question in regards to why we don't have weapons like "nukes" out in space that have this design on them rather than the directed energy ("laser") weapon that's in the design for the next (defensive)"Mach jet." The potential for throwing the drone off course is insane. It's simple things just like this, and the amazement shown in regards the Rodin design that make me just ::facepalm::. I'm not saying much more on this but some folks just need to increase their perceptiveness.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
Still waiting on a static object from you.

Then you should learn to read better.

All you need to do is observe the ratio of our post count to star count.

All I need to observe that some uneducated vulgar piece of worthless trash starred your post with "eat me" and another one where you were contemplating mailing a load of excrement via USPS. So it seems that you are in a good company of dumb and vulgar hicks.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
Still waiting on a static object from you.

Then you should learn to read better.

All you need to do is observe the ratio of our post count to star count.

All I need to observe that some uneducated vulgar piece of worthless trash starred your post with "eat me" and another one where you were contemplating mailing a load of excrement via USPS. So it seems that you are in a good company of dumb and vulgar hicks.

haha, I expected this sort of answer from you, just full of hate & thus fear. Name calling and all...


According to you, Anyone who agrees with my posts must be:

"an uneducated vulgar piece of worthless trash"..ooh and a "hick" too! Alright, if you say so.

Because everything you say is true.....speaking of that: do you still think a blood pressure reading is an example of a static system? Maybe ask some of the scientists you supposedly work with at CERN! They should be able to help you out no prob.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
do you still think a blood pressure reading is an example of a static system?

Oh man... I didn't say it was an example of a static system, I said it was an example of a measurement, but of course things like that are lost on you.

So again, how does a point charge create a "toroidal" field?

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
Maybe ask some of the scientists you supposedly work with at CERN! They should be able to help you out no prob.

I know you directed this to that other gentleman but I just wanted to step in this thread and say something else real quick since CERN was brought up.

Were this donut-vortex alignment used instead of just speeding the particles through the center of the "bike tire" shape, the output would increase dramatically. I'm not sure how to explain this in lay terms but it pretty much works in the same way that a plane turning works. In the turn, even though it's straight-movement speed hasn't increased, it actually IS speeding up just by turning. I hope this makes sense. The laser gyroscopes we use in our missles can actually be made more precise in this manner too (comment directed to anyone on the forums here working in the Defense trade), but with the other positioning systems in place, it just ends up not being necessary.

Originally posted by SoulVisions
In the turn, even though it's straight-movement speed hasn't increased, it actually IS speeding up just by turning. I hope this makes sense.

Are you confusing "accelerating" with "speeding up"?

If the acceleration occurs in the direction of travel it is in fact speeding up, but the acceleration can occur in other directions in which case it's not speeding up, and it can even cause slowing down.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by SoulVisions
In the turn, even though it's straight-movement speed hasn't increased, it actually IS speeding up just by turning. I hope this makes sense.

Are you confusing "accelerating" with "speeding up"?

pardon, semantics. I wasn't sure how to explain this clearly. In any event, the end result is there if anyone out there wishes to test it. perspective and forces applied.

Edit: I think I'm not being clear still. Force must be overcome during the turn, yes. But I was not trying to imply the particles inside the collider follow this shape of path, but rather the accelerators of the collider themselves. Maybe this makes more sense to say.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
is this an indirect way of saying you admit that you were wrong? that there is no such existence of static objects on Earth?

No, it's not. Most things are an approximation. Your own weight constantly changes as you breath. Yet there is a number in your medical chart. Same with blood pressure.

Looks to you were giving an example of what you think is static. The word measurement is not brought up at all, and actually I was the one who claimed that it was a measurement, not you.

So, if is this not your example of a static object, what is?

Then you should learn to read better.

Which post are you referring to, that I should "read better"?

reply to post by metalshredmetal


As I said, you don't get it, and I guess you never will. The static field of the charged metal sphere can fluctuate due to changes in air density around it, so I that's what I meant by measurement -- if these fluctuations are small compare to the problem you are trying to solve in the lab, it's still static.

Now again, for the fifth time -- how does a sphere produce a toroidal field?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

As I said, you don't get it, and I guess you never will. The static field of the charged metal sphere can fluctuate due to changes in air density around it...

I think you meant "the surrounding air pressure," not air density. The ratio between pressure and density is temperature dependent.

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

As I said, you don't get it, and I guess you never will. The static field of the charged metal sphere can fluctuate due to changes in air density around it...

I think you meant "the surrounding air pressure," not for air density. The ratio between pressure and density is temperature dependent.

No I didn't mean pressure, I meant density and assumed temperature was constant. And at that, what I really meant was dielectric constant of the medium, which can fluctuate.

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Edit: I think I'm not being clear still. Force must be overcome during the turn, yes. But I was not trying to imply the particles inside the collider follow this shape of path, but rather the accelerators of the collider themselves. Maybe this makes more sense to say.

What do you mean by "accelerators"? The superconducting magnets? They're standing still.

reply to post by SoulVisions


Hello,

if you have time, you would do well to go to the source and see how the LHC works.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Edit: I think I'm not being clear still. Force must be overcome during the turn, yes. But I was not trying to imply the particles inside the collider follow this shape of path, but rather the accelerators of the collider themselves. Maybe this makes more sense to say.

What do you mean by "accelerators"? The superconducting magnets? They're standing still.

Yes, the magnets. Setting up this "relay" in such a pattern can make more effective use of space if set up correctly. As for them standing still or moving? Hadn't really thought about it but I suppose they could be made to move, but I can't imagine the cost of such a system. It wouldn't affect the end speed that much even if they did, to be honest.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by SoulVisions

 

Hello,

if you have time, you would do well to go to the source and see how the LHC works.

sigh. Okay, nvm. The fault here is my own I guess. Perhaps I'm not explaining well enough.