It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 195
39
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

top notch stuff mary. i wonder if orgone energy kellys work and rodin can be integrated?
i am sure its all being suppressed as we speak.

i also have some interesting printouts from research, i will soon be sharing them.

well apparently they have a black hole vortex inside them in the form of a number 9.
i also read somewhere that water is an alien substance, what do you think?
is this true?

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:39 AM

Here's what I think.

You have nothing to say.

And you say nothing with much attention to bringing attention to yourself.

Basically you're full of yourself.

So, just keep posting and entertaining yourself. That's fine. I'm sure there's some purpose in that.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Here's what I think.

You have nothing to say.

And you say nothing with much attention to bringing attention to yourself.

Basically you're full of yourself.

So, just keep posting and entertaining yourself. That's fine. I'm sure there's some purpose in that.

Yeash!
i think he might be a 12 year old having fun with the internet for the first time....or else that's what he seems to be.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
...it's a base 9 number system. Using the example you cited... 18 is (1 + 8) = 9.
In a base 9 number system, 9 (base 10) would be written as "10" (base 9), and 18 isn't equal to 1+8 (or 9) in either base 9 or base 10.
edit on 15-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

The term is called reduction. 10 = 1... This reduction is casting out the singularity event. The base 9 number system is in essence a programming language. Call it what you will... This is the reason you have energy ending up as spun density (mass).
edit on 15-1-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

Remember Marcos said there was no 0 as in the binary system... I'm on your page here.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM

I'm looking at the printout referenced in the OP, and on page 3 he states:

The number 9 is the node and represents Spirit.

and

The zero is always in the center in the form of the vortex hole.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm looking at the printout referenced in the OP . . .

I don't believe this link has been posted before:

"RodinAerodynamics.org featuring the Rodin Coil"

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Here's what I think.
You have nothing to say.

Sir Balazs has a lot to say.

However you, Mary, seem to be refusing to make an effort to actually think. This is the scariest part.

You posted references to Keely, Rodin and a few others. You either admit that these "theories" taken as they are have very little chance of being correct in any way, or try to explain how they can be reconciled. Can they be true all at the same time? How does "orgone" relate to Rodin's donut? Does the donut concentrate orgone? How does Keely vibrationary physics relate to "orgone"? You patted yourself on the back way too many times saying how curious you are and what sort of uncompromising researcher you are. In face of the evidence that can be only characterized as overwhelming, I think your self-bestowed accolades are completely undeserved and what's worse, basic thinking skills simply aren't there to begin with.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:31 PM

Oh, really?

Yes, BS, we hear yo. Keep on keepin on. Wouldn't be the same without ya.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Oh, really?

Yes, BS, we hear yo.

Do you? How come the substantive part of your reply is missing wholesale? Where is "orgone" in Rodin's numerology? Keely played a zither when doing his fraudulent demonstration, but Rodin doesn't play his donut. How come? How come Haramein describes double torus whereas Rodin only has one?

Well at least I'm grateful that you avoided posting something pompous and dumb at the same time, like "it all depends on the dynamics of the black hole and the white hole". Wait, where is orgone in that dynamics?

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:16 PM

How come you never have constructive things to post?

How come you keep comin back even though this is such a stupid thread according to you?

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Try coming down from your high horse some time and posting something insightful of your own.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

How come you never have constructive things to post?

Wait, do you really not comprehend a rather simple question I posted twice (so you have twice the chance to apply your limited reading comprehension skills)?

I asked just how all of this bunch, Keely, Haramein, Rodin etc can be correct at the same time. What's unclear in that? All claim the knowledge of some universal truth. Well, tough, because there can't be a dozen of Universal Truths.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Regarding Rodin and pi, I ‘m wondering whether he’s referring to decimal parity:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Russell P Blake Endoresements and Papers"

Reading this document I see that Blake uses the term "decimal parity." He says the decimal parity digit of 2048 is 5.

So, if you substitute an equal sign for the word "is," then 2048 = 5.

Of course the digits involved are infinite, so I don’t know how the digits to add would be ascertained.

Do you know what parity is in general? Do you know what decimal parity is? Did Rodin mention decimal parity? If not why are you wondering if that's what he meant?

Have you declared that 2048=5?

Or are you saying that the decimal parity digit of 2048 = 5, and if so, what is the definition of a decimal parity digit? What is the relevance of this? Do you even have any idea about what you're talking about?

Your last 5 or so posts which are totally free of content are actually less scary than posts like this one where you seem to be trying to include content that you don't understand.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:54 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 05:22 PM

A useful article on parity can be found on Wiki.

From where I sit, this is a subset of hash function. Not to be confused with the other hash function

So you map an entity to an object that contains much less data.

This in no way establishes any kind of equivalence. The parity bit in many storage systems that employ it does not carry any special significance. I'm not holding my breath that Mary would understand any of that stuff, but then again, what does she?

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

How come you never have constructive things to post?

How come you keep comin back even though this is such a stupid thread according to you?

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Try coming down from your high horse some time and posting something insightful of your own.

That's the only explanation I have. It's one thing to say that you object to a theory on scientific grounds and it's another to make vilifying statements 24/7

You have to wonder why someone would sport scientific credentials, yet waste their time on a pseudo scientific thread that apparently has nothing about it worth thinking about.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 09:21 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This in no way establishes any kind of equivalence. The parity bit in many storage systems that employ it does not carry any special significance. I'm not holding my breath that Mary would understand any of that stuff, but then again, what does she?
When I built this computer, I had to decide whether to install parity memory modules, or non-parity memory modules. I had to try to determine what the significance, if any, was. Here's another Wiki link related to that topic:

RAM parity

In the case of the home PC where data integrity is often perceived to be of little importance—certainly true for, say games and web browsing, less so for Internet banking and home finances—non-parity memory is an affordable option. However, if data integrity is required, parity memory will halt the computer and prevent the corrupt data from affecting results or stored data, although losing intermediate unstored data and preventing use until any faulty RAM is replaced. For the expense of some computational overhead, of negligible impact with modern fast computers, detected errors can be corrected—this is increasingly important on networked machines serving many users.

I suppose my decision to buy non-parity memory for my home PC shows that I tend to agree that I didn't find the significance particularly earth-shaking and my PC is still relatively reliable.

Had I been building it for a server application, I probably would have installed parity memory modules as the above quote suggests may be prudent for server applications.

But this is binary parity.

The UPC symbol you see on all the products you buy in the grocery story uses something called a "check digit". Be careful how you use this math because I can't guarantee it won't create black holes or vortexes, though in all the work I've done with UPCs I have yet to see such a thing:

Universal_Product_Code

In the UPC-A system, the check digit is calculated as follows:

Add the digits in the odd-numbered positions (first, third, fifth, etc.) together and multiply by three.
Add the digits in the even-numbered positions (second, fourth, sixth, etc.) to the result.
Find the result modulo 10 (i.e. the remainder when divided by 10.. 10 goes into 58 5 times with 8 leftover).
If the result is not zero, subtract the result from ten.

For example, a UPC-A barcode (in this case, a UPC for a box of tissues) "03600029145X" where X is the check digit, X can be calculated by

adding the odd-numbered digits (0 + 6 + 0 + 2 + 1 + 5 = 14),
multiplying by three (14 × 3 = 42),
adding the even-numbered digits (42 + (3 + 0 + 0 + 9 + 4) = 58),
calculating modulo ten (58 mod 10 = 8),
subtracting from ten (10 − 8 = 2).

The check digit is thus 2.
In this example we could say the parity digit of 03600029145 is 2, though in this case it's called a "check digit" in UPC terminology.

If I follow Mary's lead and substitute "equals" for the word "is" can I write 03600029145 = 2?

No I don't think so. The math for calculating the 2 is clearly shown above. And you will find the equals sign is used numerous times, but nowhere is it used to claim that 03600029145 = 2.
This could be called a sort of hash function as you suggested, though numerous other hash functions could be used. Without specifying what the hash function is, (such as the math in the above UPC example), the relationship between the parity digit and the number that created the parity digit is undefined.

I would also add that while I could probably write an entire book on how this parity check digit on UPC codes helps us in real life reality, I see no application where it helps with the number Pi.

However Mary, if you would like to elaborate on how this might be so, please feel free to elaborate. In the absence of such response I'll just conclude that you are speaking of things which you know absolutely nothing about, while at the same time claiming that people who do know about such things are brainwashed by mainstream science. Which leads me to this cartoon:

I can try to lead people to reality, but I can't make them get a grip. In your case Mary, I'm not sure you want one. Your decision to constantly ridicule all things mainstream, and instead choosing to believe any and every crackpot whose only common thread seems to be that they disagree with mainstream, even when they disagree with each other, tells me you don't. I'm not saying you should automatically believe everything mainstream says...I don't. Some skepticism is healthy, even skepticism of mainstream views. But to just trash everything mainstream when you don't even understand what it is that you're trashing, is not healthy.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:07 AM

Originally posted by squandered
It's one thing to say that you object to a theory on scientific grounds and it's another to make vilifying statements 24/7

Quite so! And note, it's impossible to "object to a theory on scientific grounds" when that "theory" is utterly moronic and in fact don't even exist. As I said many times in this thread, there is no theoretical foundation for any kind of "vortex" being formed in the middle of that kids' toy wrapped in copper. Of course Rodin says that the vortex exists because it's that freaking "fingerprint of God", but can you really, really call that a theory? I mean look at yourself in the mirror and then say "plastic donut forms the fingerprint of God. And there is a real black hole in the center of that plastic donut. And there is also a white hole, I donno why but it exists". Feeling good still, or feeling like an imbecile?

You have to wonder why someone would sport scientific credentials, yet waste their time on a pseudo scientific thread that apparently has nothing about it worth thinking about.

It's good fun and a way to relax! For example, I don't smoke (did you ever wonder why some scientists smoke) -- but I'm glad I can poke fun at this idiocy and relax this way. I do feel guilty at times because the proponents of that cr@p can't possibly be 100% mentally healthy people. That's why I'm holding back.

So when you somehow explain how this nonsense constitutes a "theory", come back to me. Otherwise, enjoy my deeply sarcastic missives and continue being a target for same. I think that the real black hole exists inside the Rubik's cube. Care to debunk me? It sure seems like magic, that cube, and each face has 9 divisions. See a connection to Rodin? Because it's the freaking fingerprint of God. And Rubik is his Prophet.

edit on 13-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 05:11 PM

As I said many times in this thread, there is no theoretical foundation for any kind of "vortex" being formed in the middle of that kids' toy wrapped in copper. Of course Rodin says that the vortex exists because it's that freaking "fingerprint of God", but can you really, really call that a theory?

I see that you have said your piece, but I don't know why you are still here, that's all.

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:39 PM

Thanks. Sorry if I overdid my post.

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:36 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Thanks. Sorry if I overdid my post.

I Fink U Freeky ;-)

new topics

top topics

39