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: 182
39
<< 179  180  181    183  184  185 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field.
Is the beam coming out of a laser pointer electromagnetic?

Does it have a toroidal shaped field?


is that so hard to imagine?

imagine if the length of that beam was the length of the middle of the Torus, which is like a wormhole that connects the north and south pole of the torus.


"Even though the object on the left is taller than the donut torus, it is still a circular object with a circular hole in the center, so the object on the left fits the definition of a torus."


www.abovetopsecret.com...

this thread is relevant to your post.

enjoy




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
I said:

All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field. Everything is in flux, nothing is static.

not "All fields are toroidal".
Here's a positively charged van de graff generator on the right, interacting with a positively charged particle on the left. Is this an electromagnetic phenomenon?

ocw.mit.edu...

The field lines are shown and I don't see that they are toroidal. Don't believe it? Put some streamers on the sphere:
www.physics.montana.edu...


Where are the donuts?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Yeah I'm still trying to find out what he meant. And Alex Petty doesn't agree with him. Dale Pond just said express it in a different way.


Continuing to seek insight into Rodin's statement about pi, I found this additional quote from Dale Pond. He's talking about living in "The Matrix," which I take to be the false world the powers that be have created for us for purposes of their own. I like what Pond says about reality being 3D and that our constructs in 1D and 2D are incomplete and misleading:

From "Escaping The Matrix":


. . . Everything is 3D in the real world. But in terms of working in The Matrix people unthinkingly relate to 1D and 2D constructs as though they were real. I never took the time to expand QA [Quantum Arithmetic] into 3D situations but it should be easy to do. Also people tend to focus on LABELS such as "PI". They assume (rote memory) that PI equals an irrational number. But we know PI is NOT an irrational number because irrational (insane) numbers do not exist in reality. PI is a ratio between two incompatible values: straight and curved lines. In the real world, yet to be discovered, PI would be a ratio between the inclosed VOLUME of a 3D polygon and a sphere (what you call a ball). One cannot divide apples by oranges or curved lines by straight lines yet geometers do it all the time not realizing the error any fourth grader could tell them about. One can never escape The Matrix as long as one continues to think in and use Matrix labelings.


Smile:

In the real world, yet to be discovered . . .



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

not realizing the error any fourth grader could tell them about.


So what would that error be that is allegedly not realized? Mary, you should be able to tell. Unless your understanding is below that of a fourth grader. Mine obviously is, because I don't know what on earth he is talking about.
edit on 3-2-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I think he is talking about the fact that we have been raised in the matrix and are so caught in it that we can't yet see beyond it.

He's not stating a new truth. He's acknowledging a mystery, I think.

The main thing I like about what he's saying is that the only reality is 3D, and that the scientific world is misled by treating 1D and 2D as if they we representing a true picture of the real world.

Pond wants us to think in terms of the whole rather than its parts. That's what I'm trying to do, too.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Mary Rose

not realizing the error any fourth grader could tell them about.


So what would that error be that is allegedly not realized?
Dale Pond is pretty slow, in fact I'd say his elevator doesn't reach the top floor, based on statements like the one you pointed out and like this one:

www.textfiles.com...

Time will tell whether Mr. John Ernst Worrell Keely was either one of the world's greatest frauds or one of its greatest inventors.
Wrong Dale. Time HAS told, and we know the answer. Even Keely's benefactor figured it out over a century ago, when she found out Keely's claimed "wire" was really an air hose and he was lying and cheating, and she cut off nearly all his funding as a result which is explained here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You should read this as when a genuine scientist makes a genuine discovery that gives us "free" energy, it can be claimed that all those charlatans were right after all. Until that day "time will tell".



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
The following is Dale Pond on ratios and proportions in general:

"Ratios and Proportions":


There are many ways of discussing ratios and proportions. One way that works for me is to read a ratio as "parts". In the ratio 2:1, read two parts to one part. Or in practical terms two measures of a substance to one measure of another substance. Let's say two teaspoons of sugar to one teaspoon of butter. In vibration studies the "unit of measure" may be either frequency (cycles per second) or time (wave number) or space (wave length). So the ratio of 2:1 refers to either of these "units of measure" meaning the first term (2) is TWICE the value of the second term (1). Or reciprocally we can say the second term is HALF the value of the first.

Ratios are nearly always (but not always!) reduced to their least common factors. Hence if we had a ratio of 200:100 or 4:2 it would usually be reduced to 2:1 to keep things simple. So if there is another ratio of 4:7 it would mean 4 parts to 7 parts. We can multiply the 4 and 7 respectively times anything we want: bushels, teaspoons, inches, cycles per second or whatever. The important thing is the final result must always be the same PROPORTION of 4 to 7.

An additional thing to remember is to avoid reducing the ratio to a decimal. Sometimes reducing it to a decimal can be helpful but the decimal is NOT the original ratio. Another problem is a whole number ratio represents whole number quantities of two distinctly different things. So the reduction to a decimal is the same thing as dividing apples by oranges. This is not something most people see and understand. They've been mistaught in school to always reduce to a decimal. And this, in my opinion, is a grave error. We see this tendency quite often in the reduction of the ratio of 20612 : 6561 which is the ratio of the parts of a circumference of a circle (curved line) to the parts of length of that circle's diameter (straight line). These two numbers represent whole number values of two distinctly different things. How could they be divided and still have accuracy? Not possible - one ends up with an APPROXIMATION which is a value acknowledged to have an error. Adding more decimals does not eliminate the error, it is simply reduced.


Whole number quantities of two distinctly different things . . .


edit on 02/03/12 by Mary Rose because: Deletions



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

It can be claimed that the moon is made of cheese, but that won't make it true.

Even if LENR energy proves to be viable, that won't prove that "Keely used the sound from a zither to activate the globe liberator which then transmitted the etheric force through a wire to the water container." It was never a wire, it was an air hose.

And Dale Pond must be missing a lot of brain cells to not be able to realize that.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


So first we get an explanation of a ratio on elementary school level. And then we get some story that we are being taught that ratios must be reduced to decimals. (although, maybe it was taught in the school he went to, hence his confusion). Then he is claiming that the length of a curved line is something completely different than a length of a straight line, so they can not be divided. All while people all around the world do this every day with great success, engineering they greatest stuff. And of course, when you measure this everyone in the world knows there will be an error. It seems that Dale Pond is the only person on earth that did not know this, and then made, in his mind, this great discovery.

If this is the error that is allegedly not realized, he should add that only himself did not realize it. The rest of the world realizes this error perfectly fine.

This man is really the definition of ignorance, and should be denied as per motto of this site.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Just look what this village idiot Dale Pond has written:

But we know PI is NOT an irrational number because irrational (insane) numbers do not exist in reality. PI is a ratio between two incompatible values: straight and curved lines.


"But we know" -- how does he know that? Answer: he doesn't feel comfortable with math due to his quite limited mental capacity, so refuses to accept something that's above his level of understanding. He's only got enough neurons to comprehend integers.

And here's the kicker: one of the first irrational numbers discovered was square root of two, which is the length of hypotenuse of a right triangle with legs of length 1. There is nothing "curved" about the isosceles triangle. But Pond, in his stone age sort of ignorance, is not aware of that. What's more, there are a number of theorems proving the irrational nature of square root two. Now, has Pond bothered to show that these are incorrect? Nah, he'll just say all of the math is bogus because he doesn't get it. Well, duh, moron.


edit on 3-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiratio
www.abovetopsecret.com...
this thread is relevant to your post.
enjoy


Oh, that one where you say:


Hence gravity is a wide thin waveform but there is a hidden factor which gives its thinness a mighty quality


There are some amazing discoveries right there. We learn that waveforms can be "thin". That's quite revolutionary. Apparently, the are mathematical functions that are thick, and some that are thin. Are there fluffy ones, or any that are rock solid? And this astonishing intellectual journey doesn't end here. Apparently, a function can be thin in a mighty, awesome way. Due a factor hidden from everybody. But awesome nevertheless.

edit on 3-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: type



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
I said:

All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field. Everything is in flux, nothing is static.

not "All fields are toroidal".
Here's a positively charged van de graff generator on the right, interacting with a positively charged particle on the left. Is this an electromagnetic phenomenon?

ocw.mit.edu...

The field lines are shown and I don't see that they are toroidal. Don't believe it? Put some streamers on the sphere:
www.physics.montana.edu...


Where are the donuts?

Firstly one cannot be certain that the entire field is being measured. If a measurement is made it is a known measurement, whether or not more to its dynamics exists beyond measurement is simply unknown via conventional observation.

secondly this has all been explained, even if a field is not apparently toroidal in its phenomenally measurable level or even if it is, it is merely the diffusion effect of a toroids radiative state during decomposition. Electronics can sustain this diffusive de-structuring state of a toroid field radiating its resources, so long as an external source of power can feed it before it fully collapses thus sustaining the field as it continually breaks down radiating outward. therefore no looping back onto it self will occur as in a closed toroidal system instead the radial state renders it as an opened system . Nevertheless the components responsible for the effect via the quantum foam are still Micro-Toroids.


Originally posted by Spiratio
The variable harmonic matrices of any given Torus/element as well as the kinds of particles absorbed by them determine a wide variety of discharge patterns. i.e. straight beams, splayed funnel beams both single or double ended, and then different velocity and amplitude equatorial ripples. When all of them occur at once in more or less equal measure omni directional phenomena such as sound and light/radiation result, this is the general default in nature but in electronic devices arrangements of uncommonly met clusters produce accentuated pulses of radiation such as a laser beams etc.

see link
 



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiratio
Firstly one cannot be certain that the entire field is being measured. If a measurement is made it is a known measurement, whether or not more to its dynamics exists beyond measurement is simply unknown via conventional observation.


We live in a measurable world. The science is formulated according to what we observed, not to be "more philosophically pleasing" in the words of Feynman. I measure the field and demonstrate its effect to anyone interested. If you are saying I'm missing something, I'll take my test charge again and show to you that it behaves the way it does, not in some unspecified way you think it "should".


it is merely the diffusion effect of a toroids radiative state during decomposition.


I'm afraid you are having a case of verbal diarrhea once again.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


It's where the action is.



"flux field of electromagnetism"


is where the action is? What action? What is "flux"?

Specifically, electric fields exist in most of the known Universe. What does "where" apply to?


What do you use to capture/ contain anti-matter? Any guesses?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem

is where the action is? What action? What is "flux"?

Flow of energy.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Specifically, electric fields exist in most of the known Universe. What does "where" apply to?


Where applies to drawing energy out of the vacuum with a device.



a) so you are saying that Rodin's DIAGRAM (something that one can draw on paper) creates a flow of energy?
b) in electromagnetism, fields do not necessarily result in flow of any energy


So that explains why they want to renormalize the planck constant... No flow.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field. Everything is in flux, nothing is static.

You are a fluxing em field.

But as usual, you'll find some other bone to pick


By now you realize he talks out both ends...


(of the argument).

edit on 3-2-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Everything is in flux, nothing is static. Bullsh!t #2


Perhaps you would grasp the simple concept... A river flowing.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
imagine if the length of that beam was the length of the middle of the Torus, which is like a wormhole that connects the north and south pole of the torus.
The square peg just doesn't fit into a round hole, but you're trying to pound it in anyway.

If there is nothing in the path of the beam from the laser pointer, it will continue traveling in a narrow cone shape for infinity. The main reason it won't do that in practice isn't because it has a toroidal field, it's because deep space has a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter and chances are most of the photons from the laser pointer will eventually interact with those and get scattered.

Also, here's a dot from a laser pointer on the wall:

laserpointerforums.com...


Close up of laser dot on wall through goggles. Distance is about 3m


Are you asking me to imagine that I see a hole in the middle? Because I'm not seeing one.


What shape does light travel in? Why don't you take a well rounded look...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


*Sigh*

yet another link brushed aside.

Your words still dont hold any mertit to the fact that the observable/unobservable and measurement are not mutually inclusive. Dark matter is theorised to exist because we observe an effect but it cannot be measured. Does science have any idea what it really is no.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 179  180  181    183  184  185 >>

log in

join