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: 188
39
<< 185  186  187    189  190  191 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





"I found the fingerprint of God", of all things. That's not a small accomplishment, is it? Jesus and Mohammed have nothing on Rodin. Wow. If course, having an autographed card from God himself is trivial for a person who can create black holes out of his own fart, day in, day out.


I find the fingerprint of god in anything I look at, if I care to look. Isn't he eluding to the "language of god" or a principle of life.. ?

You make him sound saint like in a Hitchhikers Guide sort of way.

It's the hair right?




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 23432
reply to post by buddhasystem
 




All the theory about black holes must be considered with the utmost care, by keeping in mind the fact that it's only a mathematical theory, at the moment, but whose physical reality is becoming more and more obvious.



Well Rodin is quite upfront about it -- he's certain that he's created a black hole, in fact a few of them. Does it make sense to you?


You've yet to define a black hole, so what is it? A mathematical construct? An actual hole in space-time with infinite mass? Hard to play the game with no cards in your hand... You're not putting anything on the table either.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





"I found the fingerprint of God", of all things. That's not a small accomplishment, is it? Jesus and Mohammed have nothing on Rodin. Wow. If course, having an autographed card from God himself is trivial for a person who can create black holes out of his own fart, day in, day out.


I find the fingerprint of god in anything I look at, if I care to look. Isn't he eluding to the "language of god" or a principle of life.. ?

You make him sound saint like in a Hitchhikers Guide sort of way.

It's the hair right?



From a butterfly to a fingerprint:



Next check out bees and beetles...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


I'm finding god in being at a computer on the internet receiving a response about gods fingerprint, images attached. Gods ironic



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
You've yet to define a black hole, so what is it? A mathematical construct? An actual hole in space-time with infinite mass? Hard to play the game with no cards in your hand... You're not putting anything on the table either.
I assumed anybody could look up the definition on Wikipedia.

I guess I need to stop assuming.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

Yes, I have know many of bahai faith.
They have always been tolerant, open minded people. I was always welcome, and they make me feel right at home.
I have always had a very high level view of those following bahai faith.
It is no wonder that Bahai doesn't endorse Rodin, not in the last few years anyway.
Totally against the bahai principles, what he is doing, in the form and shape he is doing it.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
You've yet to define a black hole, so what is it? A mathematical construct? An actual hole in space-time with infinite mass? Hard to play the game with no cards in your hand... You're not putting anything on the table either.
I assumed anybody could look up the definition on Wikipedia.

I guess I need to stop assuming.


So assumption on top of an assumption. I figured someone would take the bait... Might as well be you, but then again, I was just assuming!

edit on 8-2-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Assuming that Rodin or his followers know anything about the subjects he is preaching is indeed a big mistake. In fact, it is a requirement that you know very little about the subjects. If you do have basic knowledge about the subjects, you won't be a follower.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Yes, mainstream knowledge perpetuates itself by coercion, and those wallowing in it do so at the expense of progress. The technique of debate - ridicule - demonstrates the lack of substance in the argument.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


So please name any progress that came from non-mainstream knowledge. Be aware that I can name a few that came from mainstream knowledge. To start off, computers, automobiles, planes, cures and prevention of many diseases, just to name a few. Your turn.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Yes, mainstream knowledge perpetuates itself by coercion, and those wallowing in it do so at the expense of progress. The technique of debate - ridicule - demonstrates the lack of substance in the argument.
There is definitely lack of substance in the argument on Rodin's side of the debate, no doubt about that.

Americanist doesn't even know the definition of a black hole. How are we supposed to debate something when the supporters don't even know what the heck it is? Infinite mass? Give me a break.

There are numerous members of ATS here more than willing to debate substance, if there was any. You haven't taken me up on my challenge to you to apply voltage to a resistor, and see if you measure a different current than I do, but instead you claim I'm living in some kind of alternate reality and you seem to think we wouldn't get the same results. Buddhasystem even showed you where you can buy an economical test kit. That would be substance, to see if we really do get the same measurements, and we wouldn't have to trust any mainstream book or claim to do it.

But since there is no substance brought forth by Rodin supporters, ridicule is about all that's left, probably appropriately. No wonder Rodin supporters find it credible there's a black hole in Rodin's sudoku donut if they don't even know what a black hole is and have to ask somebody else to define it.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
(taken from above)


You haven't taken me up on my challenge to you to apply voltage to a resistor, and see if you measure a different current than I do,


I humbly support this endeavor. Rodin is a great find in increasing efficiency (in my findings anyways), and the shape is useful in a myriad of ways, but not as an answer to the whole problem. Pardon my speaking in generalities.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Rodin is a great find in increasing efficiency


Efficiency of what, and demonstrated by what?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Rodin is a great find in increasing efficiency


Efficiency of what, and demonstrated by what?


Quite a few things actually. Mechanical system energy outputs primarily, in my experience. Though I'd imagine (read: guessing) that it could be applied in other areas. Any thoughts on this?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Rodin is a great find in increasing efficiency


Efficiency of what, and demonstrated by what?


Quite a few things actually. Mechanical system energy outputs primarily, in my experience.


Please clarify what method suggested by Rodin applies to efficiency of mechanical systems, what exactly systems and how it was implemented.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That would involve quite a number of schematics, prints, and explanations that I can't really go on into right now for reasons of time and confidence but I'll look into finding something to post here in answer to your query.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVisions
 

Buddhasystem already explained one method of checking Rodin's efficiency claim in this post

Did you try it and if so which outcome resulted? Nobel prize or eating your hat?

Please post results here.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


=P I mentioned confidence. As in, non-civilian design. I'm trying to be helpful but I'd need to find something other than what came to my mind right away.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVisions
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


=P I mentioned confidence. As in, non-civilian design. I'm trying to be helpful but I'd need to find something other than what came to my mind right away.


A multimeter and a length of copper wire hardly constitute a piece of classified technology. Needless to say, you saying "I have a proof but I'll have to shoot you" is laughable.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


So please name any progress that came from non-mainstream knowledge. Be aware that I can name a few that came from mainstream knowledge. To start off, computers, automobiles, planes, cures and prevention of many diseases, just to name a few. Your turn.


if anything "non-mainstream" became "progressive", wouldn't it be adopted by the "mainstream" by default?

if "non-mainstream" knowledge over time proves to "progress" (what is being progressed?--> the mainstream) science, then it would cease to be considered "non-mainstream" and begin to be deemed "mainstream".

therefore IF THERE WAS any "non-mainstream" knowledge which has "progressed" "mainstream" science, then it's history of being "non-mainstream" would be pretty hard to find or observe.

~ then again, "mainstream" science thought the Earth was flat for a good few hundred years....and they discredited and disrespected the "non-mainstream" scientists who proposed the Earth was round.

some scientists were even killed and had their lives ruined because of their beliefs in the "round Earth theory"...do you think that that was fair? it doesn't seem fair or logical to me.

you're making statements which show you are in the paradigm of the "flat Earth" theorists. ...your prejudiced view (and some other locals here too) towards "non-mainstream" knowledge is exactly the same as the close-minded paradigm of the flat Earth theorists.

is this a good enough example? or are you still letting your irrational anti-Rodin mindset convince you into saying/believing foolish things?

edit on 2/8/12 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 185  186  187    189  190  191 >>

log in

join