"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 202
39
<< 199  200  201    203  204  205 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23432

He was an odd duck in many ways.


Yes, focusing on personality matters or concluding that someone is a fraud because you don't agree with the person or are unaware of some things can cause society to "throw out the baby with the bath water."

We need to focus on ideas, with humility. This will bring out the best in all of us - drawing on everyone's strengths.




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You complained bitterly about your desire to discuss math being unfulfilled, so as always you are welcome to fix that.


I'm not a mathematician, and you know that, so, your point is simply more ridicule of me, because my role is as a researcher, which is valuable, and there are plenty of members on ATS who could post about the ins and outs of math, but I suspect they stay away because of the reaction they would get.


They stay away for a few reasons. In some cases, there is simply no "math" at all, like in Rodin's "math". A few arithmetic number tricks with number 9 (and as has been shown with a few different numbers that can be used as well) in no way lead to a mathematical foundation of any sort of "vortex" and/or black hole. Even if you don't know math, you really need to face this fact, Mary. If Rodin provided a formula for the probability that "implosion of space-time" will takes place under a current "I" and frequency "f" when a particular coil is wound with "N" turns of wire, we'd have a chance to examine the theory and the veracity of the formula. It doesn't take ANY math knowledge to see that there are no mathematical instruments are provided by Rodin to back up his stupendous claims.

In other cases, people like Arb (who I have no doubt has good knowledge of applied math) do weigh in and point out wild inconsistencies in formulas like one found in Haramein's proton paper. You then immediately reject this mathematical comments. It's more convenient for you to pretend that there are people who know some kind of math that validates orgone, Haramein and Rodin's sudoku, but they are hiding from public eye. This is ridiculous.

Finally, it was you who complained that someone made impossible for you to discuss math. Here you admit that you don't know math anyhow. Who are you trying to send on a guilt trip?

You called yourself a "researcher" on many occasions, pointed out that your research skills are considerable and you are saying that you are valuable as a researcher. Apparently your definition of research is limited to cut-and-paste from the Internet, of all and any wacky theory which must only satisfy one condition -- it has to go against the current body of scientific knowledge, no matter how laughable or contested by reality. To try and find any value in that is same as trying to find a black hole in Rodin's plastic donut.
edit on 26-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You are hopelessly caught in the matrix.

That's okay.

Carry on. I'm sure you're doing the very best that you can.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I see you still haven't explained why nothing disappears into the black hole in the middle of the Rodin coil


Surely you know that the term "black hole" in the context of a Rodin coil has nothing to do with the popular concept of things getting sucked into a black hole in a galaxy never to return?

Surely you must know that the question itself is a mockery? An attempt to trap? Ridiculous? Silly?
Funny that you have the cognitive ability to recognize it's silly, yet you don't admit it's silly. A black hole is a black hole, and it can be different sizes. The smallest one we think we've discovered so far is several solar masses, and that would be a stable black hole. In theory there is a critical mass below which a black hole will not be stable, and the less massive it is, the faster it would "evaporate". It was theorized the LHC might have the ability to make some small black holes but to my knowledge they haven't observed any yet.

But when somebody says "black hole", I assume that by that, they mean "black hole". And for that you accuse me of being silly? Can I return the favor and accuse you of being silly for suggesting I'm silly to think that? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that "black hole" means "black hole". If he's talking about something else, not only should he call it something else as buddhasystem said, but he needs to define what the new term is.

By the way, real black holes are at the center of a "donut"; not the edible kind, but the shape:

Black Holes Are Like Doughnut Holes

By comparing the proportion of X-rays to infrared light coming from around a black hole, McKernan and his colleagues indirectly figured out how material may be distributed around the black hole. After partitioning the data into those observed edge-on and those observed face-on, the team found that 90 percent of the active galactic nuclei observable face-on had basically the same proportion of X-rays to infrared light.

The conclusion: No matter the heft of the black hole, its surrounding material took the shape of a doughnut with a black hole at its center.

"Now we know they all look like doughnuts, and the same kind of doughnut too," McKernan said. "The lack of variety would disappoint Homer Simpson."
So yes, of course when Rodin says black hole in the middle of a donut, of course I'm thinking he means a real black hole. Why wouldn't I? That's the way real black holes are: surrounded by donuts.


Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I interpret him to mean sucking aether in and expelling energy out - black hole - white hole.
You have to do better than that. What are the properties of this "black hole" or "Rodin hole" or whatever you want to call it that we can measure in the lab? That's right, you don't know, and neither does Rodin. So yes it's silly to claim it's a black hole, and just as silly to claim what he's calling a black hole isn't a real black hole if you can't define exactly what it is, and how to measure it, so we can see if it exists. And of course if it's not a black hole, then he shouldn't be calling it a black hole.

You and others need to stop making excuses for Rodin and stop saying "but what he said is not what he meant". After you say that you can make up anything you want to, but that really won't validate what Rodin actually said, now will it?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You're in the same predicament as BS.

What exciting times these are, though. The times really are a-changin.' The aforementioned mainstream trusting planet earth A residents will eventually catch up with residents of planet earth B, and when that happens, we're going to have a better world.




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You are hopelessly caught in the matrix.


Oh, that one magnanimous answer. So, OK, assume I'm caught in the matrix. Help me out! Where is the formula describing the formation of the vortex? You need to provide it or stop talking about "vortex math", unless you insist on looking very, very silly.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I can't help you. You have to do your own research. Anything I would say would be immediately rejected by you. The only research you can trust is your own, and the only person who can do it is you.

End of discussion - to quote a fellow poster on this thread.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I can't help you. You have to do your own research.


Wait, you proclaimed yourself a researcher par excellence. You can't help me?

Fine, I don't need your help, in part because you're woefully unequipped to provide any . In fact, I read lot of same material by Rodin as you did, and the said formula is nowhere to be found, which means quite unequivocally that his "theory" is a dud and anyone who takes it with any degree of seriousness is a pretty dim fellow or a mental case.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



You are sooooo funny. I love the way you spout insults right and left. It's hilarious.

"A merry heart doeth good like a medicine."



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

You're in the same predicament as BS.

What exciting times these are, though. The times really are a-changin.' The aforementioned mainstream trusting planet earth A residents will eventually catch up with residents of planet earth B, and when that happens, we're going to have a better world.
Translation: I'll continue using a meter to measure the electrical resistance of a wire, to test any extraordinary claims about what happens to it.

You on the other hand, will never actually measure it, but yet you will believe a silly story somebody tells you about what will happen to it.

And you dream of the day where I and my methods will catch up to you and your methods.

I hope the moderator by this name will forgive me for invoking it here, but:

YeahRight


Keep dreaming, because that's what you seem to be living in, a dream world. You can't build your own super-collider, but you can get a meter from Radio Shack and start measuring this stuff instead of taking people's word for their silly stories. But will you do that? I said I wasn't a very good prognosticator and I don't think anybody is that great at it, but I actually might be able to guess the answer to that question...."no". Am I right?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You have not the capacity to understand. You've made that crystal clear. Try meditating. It might help you.


I think you lack the capacity to understand "it" too - since you are unable to express "it" in a manner that is meaningful to human beings.

It is clearly your inadequacy of understanding, and inability to be honest about your lack of understanding, that is holding back the human race from this wonderful technology.

You should stop confusing the issue, and get out of the way so that someone who DOES understand "it" can tell us all about "it".



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

You're in the same predicament as BS.

What exciting times these are, though. The times really are a-changin.' The aforementioned mainstream trusting planet earth A residents will eventually catch up with residents of planet earth B, and when that happens, we're going to have a better world.
Translation: I'll continue using a meter to measure the electrical resistance of a wire, to test any extraordinary claims about what happens to it.

You on the other hand, will never actually measure it, but yet you will believe a silly story somebody tells you about what will happen to it.


In all seriousness, I'm not clear about why Mary can't afford to spend $6 on equipment, just to measure the very phenomenon that in her own opinion can improve the condition of all humanity if found to be true. This is beyond me. It's like finding the actual Holy Grail in a thrift store, and writing 202 pages on ATS describing how wonderful and authentic this very holy Holy Grail is, and then refusing to pay $2.99 to acquire this object. Again, it's either a very focused attempt at deception or a sign of mental illness. You are holding the keys to the future of mankind, and at the same time are likely paying a few bucks a month for Internet access, which is the misused to post all sorts of nonsense. But when it comes to a simple and cheap way to ascertain an idea, you go mum.

There is probably a term in English language for people who talk a lot and do nothing to prove or support what they are saying, but I let Mary do her own research. Sorry if it's not going to sound very flattering. I'm not an expert in English, but I doubt it will sound nice.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

In the case of Abell 520, the situation is completely different: The galaxies sailed through the collision, but the dark matter piled up in the middle, along with the hot gas.



cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...


On to the next...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Fascinating!

Thanks Mary for sharing the info.

S&F



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Thanks for posting something coming from the mainstream science. It's refreshing.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yes, mainstream science should not be thrown out - just modified by alternative science.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...


OMG that is one gorgeous photo:



Americanist,

I'm not sure what your point is. Please help me out.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   





edit on 4-3-2012 by 23432 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 23432
 


I like it.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
This is interesting, from "Sound forms All things…Cymatics – The Science of the Future?", referring to Hans Jenny:


An interesting phenomenon appeared when he took a vibrating plate covered with liquid and tilted it.The liquid did not yield to gravitational influence and run off the vibrating plate but stayed on and went on constructing new shapes as though nothing had happened. If, however, the oscillation was then turned off, the liquid began to run, but if he was really fast and got the vibrations going again, he could get the liquid back in place on the plate. According to Jenny, this was an example of an antigravitational effect created by vibrations.


Also:


In his research with the tonoscope, Jenny noticed that when the vowels of the ancient languages of Hebrew and Sanskrit were pronounced, the sand took the shape of the written symbols for these vowels, while our modern languages, on the other hand, did not generate the same result!





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 199  200  201    203  204  205 >>

log in

join