"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Americanist


Okay, where's the mapping?

reply to post by 547000


Dang, did you have to post it? I did a lot of research on chakras and presented a brief overview on the now previous page, thanks to your unnecessary post.

reply to post by beebs

Which part of it does he start explaining that? I've watched 11 so far and have felt I have utterly wasted my time.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Sorry.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Sorry.

That's OK, thankd for being nice. I hope you enjoy the reading. I didn't have time to post more, but it's clear that the chakra theory has a lot of potential. Rodin with his "vortex" has nothing on it. Sorry but you can't open chakras with a stupid electromagnet at 120VAC.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Wow! Oh my gosh buddhasystem! You figured it all out!

Oh man, I'm going to email Rodin, Haramein... and tell them that they are wrong - because what you said was so much cooler!

---

But seriously, I see your point. The only problem I have, is that your graphomania is sarcastic, ridiculous nonsense. Yeah, thats what you think of all these 'charlatans', but that is because you

A. Already assume they are crackpots, so you are seeing what you want to see.

B. You genuinely don't understand the most general concepts of WSM, VBM, or SVP.

C. Your philosophical presuppositions of reductionism, separation, division, atomism bias you towards the other side of science.

For more information on your diagnosis, see the Bohm interview(all of it) I posted back a couple pages.

Cheers.

Originally posted by beebs
But seriously, I see your point. The only problem I have, is that your graphomania is sarcastic, ridiculous nonsense.

You are trying to dehumanize me, but it's not going to work. Sure, you can read Rodin's cr@p and think high of him, but he'll never explain the QCD, while the chakra theory can. Didn't you see the colors? Did you count the degrees of freedom? Please.

reply to post by buddhasystem




Man, you don't understand how science evolves. You feel threatened because you think Rodin's(and a growing amount of others) model would erase everything such as QCD... but it won't! It will just reveal more comprehensively what is actually being described by QCD.

Is that ridiculous to you? Is the concept of knowing more comprehensively the structure of what we call the 'atom', ridiculous?

Can we never advance to a new paradigm? If it isn't Rodin, Haramein, Wolff, Keely, Bohm, etc... Who will it be?! Certainly not yourself, because you have it all figured out - and everyone else is full of crap.

reply to post by beebs


Why are you calling it a new paradigm? Most of the people you list have been dead for over a century an rely on the archaic notions of aether. Anyway, which part of the 44 part series connects the numbers to a UFT?

Originally posted by beebs
Man, you don't understand how science evolves. You feel threatened because you think Rodin's(and a growing amount of others) model would erase everything such as QCD... but it won't! It will just reveal more comprehensively what is actually being described by QCD.

I don't need Rodin to explain or "reveal" QCD. Chakra mechanics does it well enough, with a host of all other phenomena. That dufus cannot "threaten" me.

Originally posted by beebs
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.

Are you telling me that my claim about Rodin is extraordinary, but Rodin's claims are not?

Rodin's claims:
that he has found the one true name of god, is able to make a black hole, has discovered a unified theory that will eliminate poverty and allow faster than light travel, etc. etc. etc.

My claims:
That nobody can find any objective connection between his ideas and the things we can observe in the world.

You've got to be kidding.

Anyway, to back up my claim, I'm investigating it here as much as I can, asking for these connections (again and again). I'm open to whatever anyone can provide, and I'm taking them seriously. If you think any have been presented and I missed them, do point them out again. All I ask is that I'm allowed to ask questions and not just swallow someone else's version of what's going on (such as "the ball is powered by action at a distance" when this isn't what's being observed).

My 'reality' is not dogmatic, Beebs, it's nothing more than the things we can observe in the world.

Some things 'resonate' for some people, they 'feel' that there's some truth in them, in spite of a ton of 'reasons' to the contrary.

We all have two choices: O and R.

O. focus on exploring the implications in the real world, compare these to reality, and be prepared for the reality not fitting how you think it should be - observable reality is king; or
R. focus on your own feelings and the resonance, and beware people using logic who insist on applying it to some objective reality - resonance is king.

Some choose O, some choose R.
But which is the blue pill, which is the red pill?
It's a matter of taste, surely, and not for anyone to decide.

Some of the R people find the O people threatening and arrogant, even when the O people see themselves as down on their knees before nature. Some of the O people find the R people self-obsessed, inflexible and irrational, even when the R people see themselves as devoted to opening their minds by nurturing the heart.

I don't mind either, to be honest. I've done more spiritual practice, meditation retreats, rituals and festivals in my life than you might think, but I'm a devoted O type at heart. I still don't see the point of R people who preach about objective reality. They can f off. And I guess the O people who deny or dismiss other people's inner experiences are just as annoying to the R people.

Sometimes people aren't as arrogant or self-obsessed as they appear. These forums don't always bring out the best in people. Might be worth bearing in mind.

Just my thought for the day.

reply to post by Bobathon


I am a bit of both. I believe in some things that can't be proven objectively because of religious experience but I don't think it's honest at all to pass up what isn't science as science. That's why many New Age quacks turn me off so much. They use all these technical terms and act as if they are saying something of importance, but usually what they pass off as "scientific" truth isn't scientific at all.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Bobathon

 

I am a bit of both. I believe in some things that can't be proven objectively because of religious experience but I don't think it's honest at all to pass up what isn't science as science. That's why many New Age quacks turn me off so much. They use all these technical terms and act as if they are saying something of importance, but usually what they pass of as "scientific" truth isn't scientific at all.

I'm sure we're all a bit of both, really. Even people who claim there are "no such thing as facts" still know that opening the door will help them walk through the doorway.

But the R people who claim that science has everything wrong for describing the world of matter and space... I don't know what you can do with them. It's nothing but prejudice - casting judgement on something they don't understand. And if they make money doing it, it's just grim.

Surely there's a better way of interpreting one's experience than dishing out prejudice against science, and clinging on to charismatic figures who bash it. Surely.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Americanist

 

Okay, where's the mapping?

The mapping is provided by Rodin which you should obviously put on hold for now. Your focal point will be the formulas and equations per request.

Originally posted by beebs
But seriously, I see your point. The only problem I have, is that your graphomania is sarcastic, ridiculous nonsense. Yeah, thats what you think of all these 'charlatans'

To be fair, shouldn't we apply the same standard to any scientific claim?

When Einstein claimed that gravity bends light, if we took this forum back to 1915 and Einstein posted that claim here, I could see myself or buddhasystem or bobathon asking Einstein if this has ever been observed in the real world.

Then Einstein would reply that his associate Freundlich was trying to observe an eclipse in Russia to prove his theory with real world observations, but the Russians arrested Freundlich and his team as Russian spies. Then I'd wonder if that was a "dog ate my homework" excuse for not having any real world observation to back up the claim, and I'd have to wait a couple of years before someone else would observe an eclipse and finally prove that Einstein wasn't just another crackpot with a theory that had no connection to real world observations.

So according to you Rodin is making claims similar to Keely's claims over a century old.

And we've got buddhasystem's unproven theory.

Which of these two is more likely to be correct?

From my perspective, I'm willing to give buddhasystem a few years to come up with the observations to prove his chakra theory, if he's got a game plan like Einstein did on how he'd prove his theory with real world observations. And from my perspective his chakra theory doesn't sound any more or less plausible than anything written by Rodin or Keely. I don't know why you were so insulting and negative about it, don't you have an open mind?

In contrast, with Keely's claims being over a century old, he and his supporters have had over a century to provide any real world observations in support of the theory.

In my assessment, this makes Keely's claim more clearly false since in over a century there's no real world observations to back it up, at least buddhasystem's theory is so new he can claim he just hasn't had a chance to assemble the observational evidence for it yet.

I really don't understand why you think buddhasystem's theory is "sarcastic, ridiculous nonsense", people have similar theories and they are very serious about them.

This leads us to the question of why we should accept or reject ANY of these theories, from Einstein, buddhasystem, Rodin/Keely, or people who have theories like buddhasystem's chakra theory and are quite serious about them. The closed-minded reductionist answer is of course that if Einstein is the one who has proven his theory with real world observations, that gives his theory more credibility than the others. The open minded intuitive answer is that the real world eclipse observations made proving that gravity really does bend light as einstein claimed is just an illusion, and we can't trust it because it's the type of mainstream dogmatic science that people use to get funding, and any alternate theory could be just as true even if they conflict with each other and have no real world observations at all.

Without some kind of real world observation, why is Rodin/Keely's theory any better than buddhasystem's?

I say Keely's worse since there's been over a century to provide real world observations to support Keely's theory, and there still isn't any. But if you've got any real world observations to back up claims by Keely or Rodin, please present it (100th request maybe?).

reply to post by Americanist


Yes, we know that there is a an equivalence between energy and mass, as per e = mc^2. This is a result derived from arguments by relativity.

But what is the elastic substance? Are we simply assuming there is one to get the equation to say what we want it to?

EDIT: Looks like the jokes on me again. They give these crank sites as math work and I end up reading it and taking it seriously.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Americanist

 

Yes, we know that there is a an equivalence between energy and mass, as per e = mc^2. This is a result derived from arguments by relativity.

But what is the elastic substance? Are we simply assuming there is one to get the equation to say what we want it to?

EDIT: Looks like the jokes on me again. They give these crank sites as math work and I end up reading it and taking it seriously.

edit on 17-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

You didn't use enough toilet paper... There's an obvious odor of cop out permeating from those proverbial britches of yours. If all you gleaned was e = mc^2, we solved a longstanding problem. You don't absorb information... Just stench.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
When Einstein claimed that gravity bends light, if we took this forum back to 1915 and Einstein posted that claim here, I could see myself or buddhasystem or bobathon asking Einstein if this has ever been observed in the real world.

Then Einstein would reply that his associate Freundlich was trying to observe an eclipse in Russia to prove his theory with real world observations, but the Russians arrested Freundlich and his team as Russian spies. Then I'd wonder if that was a "dog ate my homework" excuse for not having any real world observation to back up the claim, and I'd have to wait a couple of years before someone else would observe an eclipse and finally prove that Einstein wasn't just another crackpot with a theory that had no connection to real world observations.

Two points here:
en.wikipedia.org...

Einstein himself had shown in 1915 how his theory explained the anomalous perihelion advance of the planet Mercury without any arbitrary parameters

So he already had facts straightened out. Second, there was verifiable math that could be gracefully reduced to classical case. So that's another difference between him and charlatans du jour.

From my perspective, I'm willing to give buddhasystem a few years to come up with the observations to prove his chakra theory, if he's got a game plan like Einstein did on how he'd prove his theory with real world observations. And from my perspective his chakra theory doesn't sound any more or less plausible than anything written by Rodin or Keely.

I respectfully disagree. There is at least a set of observables that map onto chakras, i.e. different types of stars map onto the colors of chakras. See Harvard Spectral Classification. It's clearly not a mere coincidence that the colors and the actual number of star classes map onto the chakra diagram one-to-one! Look, Rodin doesn't have any of that. I'm still working out detailed of how this ties into the color field in QCD, but combination of colors (gluons) clearly gives rise to the hues of coloration of chakras. Again, I have at least some links between my theory and what we observe in experiment. Rodin doesn't.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Einstein himself had shown in 1915 how his theory explained the anomalous perihelion advance of the planet Mercury without any arbitrary parameters

So he already had facts straightened out. Second, there was verifiable math that could be gracefully reduced to classical case. So that's another difference between him and charlatans du jour.

Point taken, however as discovery.org says:

www.discovery.org...

The solar eclipse observations, unlike the advance of Mercury’s perihelion, confirmed General Relativity.

I may be taking that slightly out of context but not too much, they basically point out the importance of the prediction versus the retrodiction, though I'd even settle for a retrodiction in the case of some of these alternate theories just to see SOME kind of connection to reality. But yes I'm guilty of glossing over some of his earlier contributions like his "miracle year" papers in 1905, etc, but I was just trying to illustrate that even an Einstein has to prove his stuff with observations, nobody is exempt, so that's the message I don't want to get lost in our discussion of the details which I'm sure we agree on.

There is at least a set of observables that map onto chakras, i.e. different types of stars map onto the colors of chakras. See Harvard Spectral Classification. It's clearly not a mere coincidence that the colors and the actual number of star classes map onto the chakra diagram one-to-one! Look, Rodin doesn't have any of that.

I agree, the Rodin/Keely theory has no evidence relating to real world observations in over 100 years.

Yes I guess your theory has some connection to real-world observations and however dubious it is, it's more than Rodin has offered, I'll grant you that.

However my intuition still likes that Rodin solved the dark matter problem with the number 9 which is a particle, because it was kind of bothering me there was all this matter out there we couldn't see, and my intuition doesn't like that. Since your theory hasn't solved dark matter so simply and elegantly it's not as intuitively appealing, but it does have more connection to real world observables.