"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 203
39
<< 200  201  202    204  205  206 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.





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?




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

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?


Detailed answers to your questions are contained in this thread. I admit it's pretty long, but if you really want to know, I suggest you read it. In a nutshell, I have an issue with people posting nonsense, and ignoring facts all at the same time. Actually, even the very title of this thread is 100% falsehood, because 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.

As to Marko... Someone who says, completely seriously, that they created a black hole in their lab, and does not even hint on how they know they did, has a huge chance of being a crackpot.
edit on 5-3-2012 by buddhasystem because: typo



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

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.


Do you have a calculation ready to prove your point?

I won't hold my breath.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


OK - now I know where you're coming from, thanks.

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. Although I applaud your tenacity in an attempt to expose this thread as "falsehood" or for that matter Marko Rodin "a huge chance of being a crackpot".

Here's what I mean - you said:



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.


Yet testimony upon testimony from world renowned experts stamped their names and approval.

Take for example the analysis made by Russel P Blake:


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...


from page 37 of the pdf linked below.
free-energy-info.co.uk...



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.


rodin.freelancepartnership.com...

Does this mean that Mr. Russel and the rest of the experts who endorsed Mr. Rodin's findings from your POV are to quote you has:



a huge chance of being a crackpot.[?]

[?-mine]

I'm curious to know if you view their findings as "nonsense".

If you believe that the Rodin coil is just a "donut-shaped toy" are you saying then that huge corporations such HP and even the military are being bamboozled?

tc



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

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.


If you think I'm on shaky ground the only reasonable way for you to retain credibility is to present the actual math describing the formation of the vortex, period. You probably won't find it in "YT videos", sorry. Actually, you won't find it anywhere, because it does not exist, not in Rodin's materials, not anywhere. What does exist is proclamation that he has found the proper way to spell the name of God. That doesn't qualify as math.



Yet testimony upon testimony from world renowned experts stamped their names and approval.
Take for example the analysis made by Russel P Blake


Ah, so you did miss much of this thread. Please use the search function to find relevant posts on Blake. He's the only one with credible tech background, which still doesn't mean that he can point to ANY mathematics having to do with vortex either. That he has retracted the "endorsement" is relatively unimportant. I want to see:
a) the "math"
b) credible and reproducible experimental confirmation that this math works.

Absent that, all of this is pathetic quackery.

And yes, I feel justified subjecting to ridicule those people who claim how great this stuff is and how it's going to save mankind, yet refuse to invest six bucks in an experiment that would test the veracity of just one claim by Rodin. That really seals it.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


OK - thanks buddhasystem for the quick response - looks like like I need to do more reading of this huge thread.

one request - can you please point me to the page where Mr. Blake retracted his endorsement - I did use the search and it gave me a long list.

tc



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Look for "fanciful nonsense" on this page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

but again, what I find a lot more important is the patent and clear absence of "vortex math".



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
As you can see, Mr. Blake is focused on his own career.


...as opposed to focusing on Rodin's? Good for him.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The point is he didn't retract his endorsement.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

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.


I'm truly surprised why Mr. Blake made an about face on this one (if it's true) after putting his reputation out there.

After all the calculations he made - now he says it's "fanciful nonsense".

I'm curious to know if he will again make another about face once the Rodin Coil becomes mainstream. What do you think Mary?

edit: --
But then again, he might have a way to come back since he said "Most of Marko’s stuff is fanciful nonsense."

Question is which of these "Most" he was referring to?
--
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?

tc

edit on 5-3-2012 by edmc^2 because: Edit



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
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)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

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)


Thanks Aloysius the Gaul (cracks me up
)... but do you have any idea what he meant by "Most"? Does he include the coil?

That is, if the Rodin Coil is just a - as buddhasystem puts it - a "donut-shaped toy"?

Cuz -- to me that's what I'm most interested in - being involved in the electronics field.

tc

edit on 5-3-2012 by edmc^2 because: lol



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

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.


I second this as evidence by the video he endorsed - that I just finished watching.

tc



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

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 think the fact that the U.S. military was or is using a version of the Rodin coil speaks for itself. Beyond that, his endorsers showed the potential for the coil.

Rodin stated that it was up to engineers to develop his concept, but I don't know of anyone who has engineered the coil successfully. I believe the winding is complicated and perhaps the open-source people working on it don't have the capability to do it or the proper materials to use.

As far as I'm concerned, the point is, the person Marko Rodin and his endorsers are not frauds or crazy people as has been alleged on this thread. His concept remains fascinating in my book. There is no proof that the coil works; however, open minds reserve judgment.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You've got everything he wrote to me in response to my query - AFAIK the bit he found interesting was:


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.


So he wrote about decimal parity series - and he characterises everything else as "fantasies".

Extrapolating what he did write to vortexes, etc was exaggeration.

And yes he is certainly more interested in his own work than Rodin's.

He is not in hiding - if you want to know more you'll have to ask him.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
There is no proof that the coil works; however, open minds reserve judgment.


The patently missing proof is only one component that's missing. Yet another is any sort of theory (aside from waving hands and babbling about divine guidance) that would predict and/or describe any sort of vortex. If you are willing to open your mind THAT wide, something might just fall out.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 





There is no proof that the coil works; however, open minds reserve judgment.


Hopefully this guy got something ...we'll have to wait and see with an open mind.



tc





top topics
 
39
<< 200  201  202    204  205  206 >>

log in

join