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: 20
39
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by squandered
 


Science is definitely not your field if you don't let trifle things like REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS get in the way of your pet "theories". Observations and testing are two very important things in the scientific method. If you just want to babble something about wavefunctions and things you don't really understand, trusting your intuition is the way to go. If you actually want to know what you're talking about actually studying physics goes a long way. Intuition is awfully wrong at many things, and quantum physics is just one of them.

I just don't understand this attitude that if someone's intuition tells them something, no amount of actual experimentation and rigorous explanation can move them.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by squandered
 


Science is definitely not your field if you don't let trifle things like REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS get in the way of your pet "theories". Observations and testing are two very important things in the scientific method. If you just want to babble something about wavefunctions and things you don't really understand, trusting your intuition is the way to go. If you actually want to know what you're talking about actually studying physics goes a long way. Intuition is awfully wrong at many things, and quantum physics is just one of them.

I just don't understand this attitude that if someone's intuition tells them something, no amount of actual experimentation and rigorous explanation can move them.


That's plainly unfair. I don't ever say that I ignore facts or put theory before fact. My theories are mine to alter according to deeper provable 'observations' as well as complimentary theories, that... 'resonate well'. I'm not sure why this is a dirty word to you and how I attracted your scorn.

As I'm not a scientists I'm willing to test ideas in my brain to see where they leads me. It's much faster and cheaper and no funding or subsequent exams. I can do this because I'm not constrained to accept only the testable. I feel like that approach is a bit second hand. It involves accepting an existing paradigm, when I want anything but that.

I think your assessment is wrong. You have arrogantly summed me up in a way that goes against the things I say. I don't know why. I enjoy taking little snippets of knowledge - or an idea that resonates well and brainstorm every possible relationship. I'm not debunking science. I think the biggest difference between me and you is that I see theories and models as unproven. I actually know the difference, do you?

You fail to understand a fundamental aspect of science. Knowledge and understanding is expanding at the speed of light along with everything else.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by squandered
 


You basically said you would forgo actually learning science to learn intuition, which is something not wise to do with quantum physics. I don't know why you think I "arrogantly" summed you up when you basically said so yourself. Perhaps you don't like that I have a strong opinion about quantum woo, but I do. Nothing personal against you, I'm just against BS in general.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by squandered
 


You basically said you would forgo actually learning science to learn intuition, which is something not wise to do with quantum physics. I don't know why you think I "arrogantly" summed you up when you basically said so yourself. Perhaps you don't like that I have a strong opinion about quantum woo, but I do. Nothing personal against you, I'm just against BS in general.


I own and run my own business. I distract myself with things that interest me. That's how I found myself here. I only have rudimentary maths. I thought I explained that. If you see me muse with complex ideas it's because I have other ideas / questions that are helped by this topic. If I embark on learning maths I can. I'm not bored by text books if I'm interested in well, the aether (zero point). The fact I've read a few text books enables me to understand this topic.

This has been an enjoyable read. I've related my findings to other unanswered questions
(tentatively) and advanced my lexicon (the scariest hurdle for me). I'll always have a theory. I always did.

I'm not investing my ego in any of this and my theories aren't testable... but if they ever are, they'll be free

I feel like my knowledge is lacking and I have gaps to fill. Is this something you discourage?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by squandered
 


Nothing personal against you, I'm just against BS in general.


I've been defensive, but I guess I already knew I will trigger your BS detector. It's a fluke if I'm right. I assumed that you would be stoic about YOUR knowledge as you paid a lot for it and worked hard to equip yourself.

I have different tests and a lab is alien to me as well as written sums. I'm the opposite. I get answers by using no method at all and just waiting. My test is my day to day life - what resonates, but there is profit to be made by understand energy and mass and time/space.

Everything is provable. We just need context, interaction and then realisation to ahem proof (wisdom).



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
I highly encourage people to know what they are talking about. Because most of pop science or pop philosophy is crap. How can you claim to know quantum mechanics, talking about wavefunctions, if you have no understanding of what it really means? I don't think I know anything just by throwing along jargon, unless I actually understand the jargon. The $400 can be better spent on good textbooks or explanations, than on a DVD which imparts no true understanding. If you're not good at math, there are still good books available that impart a half-scientific understanding, rather than the wishy-washy explanations of, say, Deepak Chopra.

If you don't realize how little you would know if you only had "intuition", I can't help you. There's a lot of bull# which "resonates" with people. Quantum healing and so forth.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Quantum healing is pet favourite of mine. It's a concept. I can see the difference. The only way I limit my acceptance of esoteric is to limit myself to learning from the best. I find that part of intuition easy to grasp. It's always only you who can understand what you know, that your choices create you...

Maths finds infinity, NOT. See things for what they are by having an open mind.

I'm outa here. There's only 3 people in this thread who's posts I have read.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by squandered
 


Welcome to the party, and glad you have made it through the gauntlet relatively unharmed.


I think the reason this discussion is so volatile, is that we understand our limitations and presuppositions, whereas if you try to establish the relative limitations and presuppositions of the antagonists - it is either ignored or vehemently denied that such limitations and presuppositions exist. I can't even remember how many times I have tried to make that point to no such avail.

The most basic example, is that the wave function is just a statistical algorithm for determining the position of the 'particle' electron.

This is a fundamental presupposition which is not necessarily the case. I think it is evident that instead we must treat the wave function as a real, physical, space-filling wave.

Bohm goes into this a bit in that interview I posted, although not to the extent that Milo Wolff does in WSM. I highly recommend watching the entire interview.

Cheers.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
If that's the way you think, you won't be surprised to to know I'll be concentrating hard on what resonates well with me and not putting much effort into learning the current theories and models or even begin to understand the maths.


So you don't know science but you have no problem making a statement about what 'cutting edge is' and that science is all wrong:

If someone like me can understand and talk about cutting edge quantum / energy patterns and hint to it's application then I'd say science is in for an overhaul.




I have my own theories and I'm finding some symmetry in the ideas put forward, plus I see an enormous mount of hope in the ongoing science. I have more theories than you've had hot dinners.


Sure, it's not difficult to put forth absurd "theories" with no foundation in practice.


It's rare that I'm able to apply them.


Why am I not surprised?


I've a decent 'idiots guide' to read


Good, you can never have too many.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . practice.


Practice as in using equipment and then placing an interpretation upon what the equipment reveals.

That's one form of information gathering.

The truth-seeker will use all forms available.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


If you only took a college-level science course, you would know that's not how physics works. For instance, in most experiments you find a rational way to predict what will come from the experiment first, and repeat experiments multiple times until you come up with a theory that give real world results.

If being ignorant of science is what truth seekers do they don't really seek the truth but only ideas that "feels" right to them.
edit on 17-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
If you only took a college-level science course, you would know that's not how physics works.


Re-read my post.

Pay attention.

Don't think that you know it all, because you don't.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


It's not just reading results off an equipment. That's a gross simplification of the scientific method, almost on the border of caricature.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 
I love your signature, 547000. Just had to say.

I've kind of lost track of the conversation now. Have we all given up on Rodin's theories having anything to do with reality?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Thanks man. I found the quote while browsing the internet and thought it was funny.

I think so. The only argument being given now is about philosophical assumptions. Basically, "no, it can't be applied to anything, tested in any way, predicts anything, but it's still somehow useful for learning about science". I think the main argument is "these scientists using obsolete models spoke of this so this is something important". Basically it's aether woo.

So, anyway, beebs, what about Rodin's number game corresponds to harnessing energy from a vacuum? Which part corresponds to which important idea that you read about that makes you think it's a UFT?
edit on 17-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 



Have we all given up on Rodin's theories having anything to do with reality?


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right? Your claim is that Rodin's theories have nothing to do with 'reality'... is it not?

I believe the burden of evidence is on the person making the claim. Please provide evidence that Rodin's theories have nothing to do with 'reality'.

And also, please refrain from using your dogmatic preconception of what 'reality' is as a basis for judging Rodin's theories.

Rodin's model is based on the space-filling reality of a literal 'wave function' in space. In other words, the wave function is not just an algorithm for predicting 'particle' electrons, but a literal wave in space. I am sure you realize that this is the model of physics we are talking about here - the (more) correct model. I reference you to the Bohm interview I posted a few pages ago, as well as the work of Milo Wolff, if you have further questions on the model from which you will argue that Rodin's theories have nothing to do with 'reality'.

If you are going to argue with abstract mathematical descriptions of statistical observations - observations which are not based on 'reality', but which change reality to obtain statistics - then you need not attempt, as all your efforts will be based on the wrong context for this discussion.

Oh yeah, and don't try to spin the 'burden of proof' of this around on me or Rodin, because we have put forth our arguments plenty - you just ignore them. Not to mention that you have admitted your lack of effort into understanding Rodin's ideas.

Now it is time for you to be a proper protagonist for your radical stance.

Cheers.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Can't prove a negative dude. Rephrase that.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
Quantum healing is pet favourite of mine.


Yes, but have you heard about transcendental chakra theory?
For starters, look at that diagram.



When you start adding sacred geometry to the numbers, according to quantum principles and vibratory perception at subliminal levels, you'll start seeing how things relate to each other (you can easily look it up on the web). Then, with time, based on this geometry, you should be able to identify space-time vortices in real life. In everyday language, people call it "I have that feeling that somebody's looking at me". In fact, nobody's looking but you are in the vicinity of a vortex and thus connected to other sapient beings (in a tenuous way, of course) -- that's what gives you the sense of somebody's presence. There are just so many weird experiences which people call "paranormal" whereas they are not, it's either a stationary or transient vortex. Look, if you read most insurance policies in fine print, you'll find that "mysterious disappearances are not covered" (no I'm not kidding). Insurance being a serious business, they have to admit they can't explain stuff but they are not willing to underwrite. I mean people claim they see ghosts, but there are no ghosts, this is laughable, there are vortices created by chakras that give a person an appearance of the ghost or can cause Poltergeist.

The vortices are where inherent frequencies of nature reside, and emanate from, giving energy to surrounding space. But there are a few different kinds. Ancients called them "places of power", each place corresponding to a specific chakra. Ancient Greek discovered one on Mount Olympus (no there is no Zeus there, just a vortex). With due meditation effort, once you find such a place, you should be able to look deeply inside the atom, or vice versa, exercise remote viewing of Venus, for example. I don't promise you that's easy, coz it's not.

Examples abound. In astronomy, there are a few different classes of stars. Conventional science has problems explaining the detail of their genesis and connection. With quantum chakra theory, it is clear that each star has a specific chakra associated with it, which explains different spectral characteristics and different degree of space warp around each star. It's all about finding resonance with surrounding space. And then, it scales down to quarks in a fractal manner. Observe "colors" of chakras! These map onto what scientist routinely call "color field" in SU(3) theory. If you don't believe me, look at that page. You'll see that SU(3) is used in QCD. Hence the gluon exchange the scientists talk about is simply morphing chakras, which explains the strong interaction.

You can learn a lot with an open mind.


edit on 17-2-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


If you only took a college-level science course, you would know that's not how physics works. For instance, in most experiments you find a rational way to predict what will come from the experiment first, and repeat experiments multiple times until you come up with a theory that give real world results.

If being ignorant of science is what truth seekers do they don't really seek the truth but only ideas that "feels" right to them.
edit on 17-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


In defense of Mary. The easiest way to spot a phony... Actually, in relationship to this thread a bunch of crackpot antagonists, is when they demand to see formulas and equations raveling Rodin with wave function, they do nothing. None of these jokers addressed the formulas and equations as they were presented. What, you expect us to believe your notions now? Less trash talk... Come on, that's all you got really. It's time to put up or shut up:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



I think so. The only argument being given now is about philosophical assumptions. Basically, "no, it can't be applied to anything, tested in any way, predicts anything, but it's still somehow useful for learning about science". I think the main argument is "these scientists using obsolete models spoke of this so this is something important". Basically it's aether woo.

So, anyway, beebs, what about Rodin's number game corresponds to harnessing energy from a vacuum? Which part corresponds to which important idea that you read about that makes you think it's a UFT?


Yes, philosophical assumptions leads to a world view which you use to justify your belief. Sometimes, these assumptions do not match reality.

Yes, Rodin's theories can be replicated or falsified. Build and experiment on your own Rodin coil.

Rodin's theories can be applied to explain many more things in nature than the current model - if correct. If you have followed his 'endorsements' on biology and DNA, on toroid geometry, etc. you would understand the implications of his model. Biology and physics are not separate in his model, which is a definite 'one-up' on standard models.

And lets remember, that Rodin is not alone. He is not standing on an isolated island as you want him to be - because then it is easy to call him a lone nut. But you think context, and similar ideas, and quotes from other physicists in the same vein - you think all of these don't matter, so I won't bother listing references again.

As for your last question about numbers and UFT, I expect you should go listen to Rodin some more - as he can at least explain that much.

Cheers.





top topics



 
39
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join