"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 212
39
<< 209  210  211    213  214  215 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





Good find. I see the last picture shows a modified version of a common household vortex generating device...so maybe we can all make our own at home?


Really, for as horrible as you are with comebacks you should stay at home and suck with a Dyson.

Good times. Oh, and don't fill us in with its hose usage. TMI
edit on 16-8-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 

At least I'm discussing the topic, which is Marko Rodin (and Randy Powell who proclaims he is Rodin's "clone").

You on the other hand are discussing me, which is off topic, and it shows that in your desperation to post something all you have is a personal attack against me, and nothing to defend Rodin and Powell against the facts I've mentioned, like the one "endorser" of Rodin we can find saying he never endorsed Rodin, but instead saying Rodin's stuff is "utter nonsense", which by the way, it is.

So I really appreciate the personal attack. It's a clear demonstration you have absolutely nothing to refute the "utter nonsense" determination of Rodin's work by Rodin's "endorser".



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist
 

At least I'm discussing the topic, which is Marko Rodin (and Randy Powell who proclaims he is Rodin's "clone").

You on the other hand are discussing me, which is off topic, and it shows that in your desperation to post something all you have is a personal attack against me, and nothing to defend Rodin and Powell against the facts I've mentioned, like the one "endorser" of Rodin we can find saying he never endorsed Rodin, but instead saying Rodin's stuff is "utter nonsense", which by the way, it is.

So I really appreciate the personal attack. It's a clear demonstration you have absolutely nothing to refute the "utter nonsense" determination of Rodin's work by Rodin's "endorser".


To the contrary, all that tells me is Blake has an ego which is considerably greater than the theory he proposes. Where Rodin and Powell are concerned... What you don't get doesn't make it "utter nonsense." Our knowledge is in constant transition, so one day we have VHS and cassette. Fast forward until it's digital media stored on cell phones. Outside of Tesla, Stubblefield, and Russell not many were on the level with these thoughts and inventions - much less their implementation several decades ago.

I'm sure you had a name for your "blankie" and toys growing up, yet you were never required to be spot on at that development age. When you let go of "dark matter" as a label we'll perhaps discuss real progress. In the meantime, continue to research the topology of a torus along with an infinite realm of communication being cycled as we "dig" into the fabric of our Universe.




edit on 16-8-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So I really appreciate the personal attack. It's a clear demonstration you have absolutely nothing to refute the "utter nonsense" determination of Rodin's work by Rodin's "endorser".


Well said!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
To the contrary, all that tells me is Blake has an ego which is considerably greater than the theory he proposes.


You are not qualified to judge his theory, anymore than you are to judge Rodin's. And frankly, seeing it as Blake does not promise to travel to a distant corner of the Galaxy in the next 5 min, cure ALL decease and produce UNLIMITED amount of food overnight, I can only conclude that Blake's ego is reasonable and Rodin is by comparison a sad, sick megalomaniac.


Our knowledge is in constant transition


...but the principles on which it's founded are pretty solid and include critical thinking as the crucial cornerstone. If you refuse to use THAT, you have no business talking about knowledge or science.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
To the contrary, all that tells me is Blake has an ego which is considerably greater than the theory he proposes.


You are not qualified to judge his theory, anymore than you are to judge Rodin's. And frankly, seeing it as Blake does not promise to travel to a distant corner of the Galaxy in the next 5 min, cure ALL decease and produce UNLIMITED amount of food overnight, I can only conclude that Blake's ego is reasonable and Rodin is by comparison a sad, sick megalomaniac.


Our knowledge is in constant transition


...but the principles on which it's founded are pretty solid and include critical thinking as the crucial cornerstone. If you refuse to use THAT, you have no business talking about knowledge or science.





but the principles on which it's founded are...


If you refuse to acknowledge they're also in transition, you'll turn yourself into a broken record.

I use common sense for a litmus test. Had Blake placed emphasis on this design, I might have taken a closer look...



Perhaps he just has bad taste in graphic artists.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
If you refuse to acknowledge they're also in transition, you'll turn yourself into a broken record.


At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will say that scientific method seems to work really well, while machinations of the likes of Rodin simply don't. Now, as I explained to Mary, you can always spend six dollars and prove Rodin right.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
If you refuse to acknowledge they're also in transition, you'll turn yourself into a broken record.


At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will say that scientific method seems to work really well, while machinations of the likes of Rodin simply don't. Now, as I explained to Mary, you can always spend six dollars and prove Rodin right.


You ever play with RC vehicles? How about hand twist an electric motor on that scale? I'm wondering how precise you are...



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Time - "Time decreases with potential. Time decreases with decrease in radius." Russell, The Universal One



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
You ever play with RC vehicles? How about hand twist an electric motor on that scale? I'm wondering how precise you are...


Your hovercraft is full of eels.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Time - "Time decreases with potential. Time decreases with decrease in radius." Russell, The Universal One


www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/lib/klib/kiyo/lit/l2001/l200104.pdf p43-44

Russell claimed that his knowledge came from a religious experience he had in 1921. He revealed the details to Glenn Clark as follows:

"...the secrets of the universe were unfolded to me in their great simplicity as the doors to the Light opened fully to my consciousness. In less time than it takes to put into words, I knew all there was to know of the CAUSE of all effect..."


I guess it's fitting to include another megalomaniac along with the megalomaniacal Rodin and Powell, except with Russell he knew all there was to know, and so on. We could use a guy like that because there are still some things we don't know. I thought even you said something like that, Americanist? Like here:

Originally posted by Americanist
Our knowledge is in constant transition, so one day we have VHS and cassette. Fast forward until it's digital media stored on cell phones. Outside of Tesla, Stubblefield, and Russell not many were on the level with these thoughts and inventions - much less their implementation several decades ago.
Sounds like Russell already had a form of omniscience in 1921, so why would our knowledge be in transition?

I'm sure he didn't know "all there was to know of the CAUSE of all effect", just like I'm sure Rodin and Powell won't cure all disease. But some people apparently have some interesting delusions.
edit on 17-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
Time - "Time decreases with potential. Time decreases with decrease in radius." Russell, The Universal One


www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/lib/klib/kiyo/lit/l2001/l200104.pdf p43-44

Russell claimed that his knowledge came from a religious experience he had in 1921. He revealed the details to Glenn Clark as follows:

"...the secrets of the universe were unfolded to me in their great simplicity as the doors to the Light opened fully to my consciousness. In less time than it takes to put into words, I knew all there was to know of the CAUSE of all effect..."


I guess it's fitting to include another megalomaniac along with the megalomaniacal Rodin and Powell, except with Russell he knew all there was to know, and so on. We could use a guy like that because there are still some things we don't know. I thought even you said something like that, Americanist? Like here:

Originally posted by Americanist
Our knowledge is in constant transition, so one day we have VHS and cassette. Fast forward until it's digital media stored on cell phones. Outside of Tesla, Stubblefield, and Russell not many were on the level with these thoughts and inventions - much less their implementation several decades ago.
Sounds like Russell already had a form of omniscience in 1921, so why would our knowledge be in transition?

I'm sure he didn't know "all there was to know of the CAUSE of all effect", just like I'm sure Rodin and Powell won't cure all disease. But some people apparently have some interesting delusions.
edit on 17-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Why stop there? Include the fellow responsible for powering your computer. Tesla had been delivered information via dream state too. Honestly, I'm pretty sure this portion of the conversation is a rehash from much earlier in the thread. I'm feeling the Déjà vu. Scroll back a bit 'back' will you?
I swear, you guys are the epitome of broken record.

Russell passed away; hence, his knowledge is in transition, but a term I'd use to describe yours at this stage...

Dense:

slow to understand : stupid, thickheaded



Again, knock yourself out...
edit on 18-8-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." -Arthur Schopenhauer



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." -Arthur Schopenhauer


I'm sure Herr Schopenhauer meant something more wholesome by this than a ridiculous cop-out in the style of "Emperor's new Clothes". Like Rodin can't measure sh!t with his donut and Powell can't prove any mathematical theorem using number 9, despite his bold claims of doing "cutting edge math". Of course, you are welcome to see Rodin and Powell as geniuses who pursue targets the rest of the world can't see. However, this would include yourself, to make you position all the more pathetic.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Originally posted by Americanist
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Americanist, what is the source of that quote? Is it from something that Schopenhauer wrote? If so, what is the publication title and date published? If it's something he said, when and where did he say it, and who recorded it and when? The only source I could find was a book published in 2004, which I don't consider a valid source since Schopenhauer died in 1860.

I downloaded and searched everything I could find written by Schopenhauer (in a brief search, translated to English). I found zero uses of the word "target" and over 100 uses of the word "genius" (He apparently liked writing about genius). This is the closest quote I found with the source, and it is somewhat different from the quote you cited.

The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer: The Art of Controversy


The Pythagorean principle that like is known only by like is in many respects a true one....
This is why it is mind alone that understands mind; why works of genius are wholly understood and valued only by a man of genius, and why it must necessarily be a long time before they indirectly attract attention at the hands of the crowd, for whom they will never, in any true sense, exist.
So which one makes more sense? Can no one else see genius or can other geniuses see it? Or how about his quote:


It is the curse of the genius that in the same measure in which others think him great and worthy of admiration, he thinks them small and miserable creatures.
Why would others think the genius "great and worthy of admiration" if they couldn't see the target? Did you take your quote out of context? Or did he really say that?

Regarding these quotes, I don't know of any geniuses who think Rodin or Powell is a genius. If you were thinking of naming Mary Rose as the genius who recognizes the genius of Rodin, that would be inconsistent with Schopenhauer's sexist writing (among other issues), because Schopenhauer apparently thinks women have no genius:

www.gutenberg.org...

Women have, in general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius.
Being sexist today is socially unacceptable, but I suppose that wasn't always the case? In the context of today that seems absurd, as a woman friend of mine had a love of art and extensive knowledge of it as do many other women...but I don't know about women art lovers in Schopenhauer's time.

I cited that quote about women not to promote a sexist viewpoint, but instead to show that I don't agree with everything Schopenhauer said. Even if you agree with Schopenhauer, I don't see how his quotes support Marko Rodin being a genius. But if you find some people who Rodin sees as "small and miserable creatures" who think Rodin is "great and worthy of admiration", I suppose that might be consistent with Schopenhauer's quote.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Originally posted by Americanist
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Americanist, what is the source of that quote? Is it from something that Schopenhauer wrote? If so, what is the publication title and date published? If it's something he said, when and where did he say it, and who recorded it and when? The only source I could find was a book published in 2004, which I don't consider a valid source since Schopenhauer died in 1860.

I downloaded and searched everything I could find written by Schopenhauer (in a brief search, translated to English). I found zero uses of the word "target" and over 100 uses of the word "genius" (He apparently liked writing about genius). This is the closest quote I found with the source, and it is somewhat different from the quote you cited.

The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer: The Art of Controversy


The Pythagorean principle that like is known only by like is in many respects a true one....
This is why it is mind alone that understands mind; why works of genius are wholly understood and valued only by a man of genius, and why it must necessarily be a long time before they indirectly attract attention at the hands of the crowd, for whom they will never, in any true sense, exist.
So which one makes more sense? Can no one else see genius or can other geniuses see it? Or how about his quote:


It is the curse of the genius that in the same measure in which others think him great and worthy of admiration, he thinks them small and miserable creatures.
Why would others think the genius "great and worthy of admiration" if they couldn't see the target? Did you take your quote out of context? Or did he really say that?

Regarding these quotes, I don't know of any geniuses who think Rodin or Powell is a genius. If you were thinking of naming Mary Rose as the genius who recognizes the genius of Rodin, that would be inconsistent with Schopenhauer's sexist writing (among other issues), because Schopenhauer apparently thinks women have no genius:

www.gutenberg.org...

Women have, in general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius.
Being sexist today is socially unacceptable, but I suppose that wasn't always the case? In the context of today that seems absurd, as a woman friend of mine had a love of art and extensive knowledge of it as do many other women...but I don't know about women art lovers in Schopenhauer's time.

I cited that quote about women not to promote a sexist viewpoint, but instead to show that I don't agree with everything Schopenhauer said. Even if you agree with Schopenhauer, I don't see how his quotes support Marko Rodin being a genius. But if you find some people who Rodin sees as "small and miserable creatures" who think Rodin is "great and worthy of admiration", I suppose that might be consistent with Schopenhauer's quote.




I can clearly see one of the problems. Your search engine is busted.




Compassion is the basis of all morality.

Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.

Life is short and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth.

The composer reveals the innermost nature of the world, and expresses the profoundest wisdom in a language that his reasoning faculty does not understand, just as a magnetic somnambulist gives information about things of which she has no conception when she is awake. Therefore in the composer, more than in any other artist, the man is entirely separate and distinct from the artist.

The effect of music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the other arts, for these others speak only of the shadow, but music of the essence.

Reason is feminine in nature; it can give only after it has received. Of itself alone, it has nothing but the empty forms of its operation.

In early youth, as we contemplate our coming life, we are like children in a theatre before the curtain is raised, sitting there in high spirits and eagerly waiting for the play to begin.




Cont.

Source



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


I saw that. It cites the 2004 source which I mentioned in my post. As I said, he died in 1860 so 2004 can't possibly be an original source. What is the original source?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist
 


I saw that. It cites the 2004 source which I mentioned in my post. As I said, he died in 1860 so 2004 can't possibly be an original source. What is the original source?



Talent is able to achieve what is beyond other people's capacity to achieve, yet not what is beyond their capacity of apprehension; therefore it at once finds its appreciators. The achievement of genius, on the other hand, transcends not only others' capacity of achievement, but also their capacity of apprehension; therefore they do not become immediately aware of it. Talent is like the marksman who hits a target which others cannot reach; genius is like the marksman who hits a target, as far as which others cannot even see.

~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation (translated from German by E. F. J. Payne)





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 209  210  211    213  214  215 >>

log in

join