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.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by edmc^2
budhhasystem,
I'm not sure what's your agenda is but why do keep attacking the OP?
And do you think Marko Rodin is a "crackpot"?
If so may I know why?
Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Mary Rose
To highlight the error in logic. If dark matter set our physical matter in place with its density, then these clusters wouldn't escape.
there is no math related in any way to the alleged "vortex" that is declared to exist inside a plastic donut-shaped toy, when you wrap it in a layer of copper wire. I'll say it again: there is no math predicting or explaining the vortex. So if you are OK with silly and arbitrary claims, that's fine, my position is that of disgust.
Towards a Mathematical Formulation of the Rodin Coil Torus Russell P. Blake Introduction The following is an attempt to formalize the mathematics of the Rodin Torus.
The goal is to attain a higher level of understanding of the Rodin Torus than can be obtained merely by observing the numerical sequences generating the Torus. Key to the development is the use of decimal parity. Decimal parity is an operation that sums the digits in a number repeatedly to yield a single digit, the decimal parity digit for the original number...
Russell P. Blake
Microsoft Corporation (10/1/88-1/3/96) Senior Researcher, Advanced Technology (9/93-1/96).
Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:16:11 Subject: The Rodin Coil To Whom It May Concern: Two years ago I met Marko Rodin through a mutual acquaintance. Mr. Rodin shared some of his results with me at that time. It became clear to me that Mr. Rodin's work was a synthesis of numerical patterns which had previously been overlooked by conventional science and mathematics. In hopes of bridging the gap between Mr. Rodin's discoveries and conventional science, I put forth an analytical framework in which mathematical formulae generate the numerical patterns of the Rodin Torus. These formulae suggested that the Rodin Torus lies not just on the surface of the "doughnut" shape, but into the interior as well; in other words, the Rodin Torus is three dimensional. This mathematical formulation is as yet incomplete, and the physical meaning of these numerical phenomena remain unexplored still. Yet in my career I have several times discovered new mathematical formulations which have led to new products. In the late 1970's I discovered Atomic Modeling which revolutionized computer performance modeling, measurement, and sizing. In the early 1990's I discovered new ways to express the time-dependent behavior of program code, which led to reductions of program code size of 50% of the original size for all programs to which it was applied. I mention these facts merely to convince the reader that my intuition has a history of success in the practical application of new mathematics. Now I am completely convinced that the Rodin Torus will likewise lead to new and revolutionary advances in art and science. Mr. Rodin's work has suffered from a lack of adequate scientific attention, and I am sure that as the research momentum builds and the proper relationship between the Rodin Torus and conventional science is fully understood, both areas of endeavor will attain new heights. I am very much looking forward to playing a role in this adventure.
a huge chance of being a crackpot.[?]
Originally posted by edmc^2
But after reading some of your response and watching the entire Marko Rodin video posted in the OP and his other recent seminars as well as the many YT videos from many folks and testimonies from various experts in the field of mathematics and sciences I think you're on a shaky ground.
Yet testimony upon testimony from world renowned experts stamped their names and approval.
Take for example the analysis made by Russel P Blake
Originally posted by edmc^2
one request - can you please point me to the page where Mr. Blake retracted his endorsement
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I tacked down Russell Blake to an Australian firm, and have swapped a couple of emails with him.
His comments about Marko's maths are:
Most of Marko’s stuff is fanciful nonsense. I found some of what he was involved with rather interesting, and ended up formalizing some of the mathematics around his various series, which I discovered to be decimal parity series. I wrote this up in a paper for him, but can’t vouch for any of the rest of it.
Here is something that is perhaps more enlightening:
www.youtube.com...
I have one paper published on this topic, and a second I am presenting in Hong Kong in December. Unlike Marco’s fantasies, this is real.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
As you can see, Mr. Blake is focused on his own career.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by edmc^2
one request - can you please point me to the page where Mr. Blake retracted his endorsement
The discussion about this begins on page 127, with this:
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I tacked down Russell Blake to an Australian firm, and have swapped a couple of emails with him.
His comments about Marko's maths are:
Most of Marko’s stuff is fanciful nonsense. I found some of what he was involved with rather interesting, and ended up formalizing some of the mathematics around his various series, which I discovered to be decimal parity series. I wrote this up in a paper for him, but can’t vouch for any of the rest of it.
Here is something that is perhaps more enlightening:
www.youtube.com...
I have one paper published on this topic, and a second I am presenting in Hong Kong in December. Unlike Marco’s fantasies, this is real.
As you can see, Mr. Blake is focused on his own career.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by edmc^2
He didn't make an about face - it is quite clear from the above that the level of his "endorsement" was greatly exaggerated.
If you want to check you can ask him yourself.edit on 5-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
He didn't make an about face - it is quite clear from the above that the level of his "endorsement" was greatly exaggerated.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
He didn't make an about face - it is quite clear from the above that the level of his "endorsement" was greatly exaggerated.
No, what is clear is that his endorsement, as expressed originally, pertaining to the vortex math that he saw much potential for, intuitively as he put it, stood, and what he was most interested in talking about in response to your inquiry, was his work.
Originally posted by edmc^2
But as far as the coil is concern is there anything out there that's able to create the same or better magnetic field than the Rodin Coil?
Also as far as the math is concerned - can any coil winding achieve the same result without following the same "basic" Rodin winding sequence?
Any idea Mary?
I found some of what he was involved with rather interesting, and ended up formalizing some of the mathematics around his various series, which I discovered to be decimal parity series. I wrote this up in a paper for him, but can’t vouch for any of the rest of it.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
There is no proof that the coil works; however, open minds reserve judgment.
There is no proof that the coil works; however, open minds reserve judgment.