Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 213
39
<< 210  211  212    214  215  216 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

The scientific creed
Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.

1 - Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2 - All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.

3 - The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).

4 - The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever.

5 - Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6 - All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7 - Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8 - Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9 - Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

10 - Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.



More




Number 2 on the list makes me wonder most , what is yours ?

Rodin is interesting fellow and he doesn't come across as " Crazy " per se .

Perhaps the vocabulary needed to express his true " insight " is not invented yet .




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

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

Originally posted by 23432

The scientific creed
Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.

9 - Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.


Number 2 on the list makes me wonder most , what is yours ?
Why are you polluting your brain with nonsense lists like that? That's not an accurate representation of scientific beliefs. Science is limited in scope to what can be verified with evidence. If something can't be measured or verified, that doesn't mean it's against scientific dogma so much as that it's beyond the scope of science, so that's a major part of the problem with that list. Take #8 for example. How are you going to set up a scientific experiment to determine if memories are wiped out at death, or not? It's got nothing to do with dogma, and everything to do with whether something can be measured and verified.

Regarding telepathy, that is something that can be measured in scientific experiments, and attempts have been made to measure it, and so far the experiments just haven't confirmed it. Bem said his study yielded a positive result, but that it needed to be replicated independently, and I haven't seen all the replication results yet, but what I did see didn't look too promising. I'd like to believe telepathy is possible, but if there's no evidence to confirm it, there's no evidence, yet. Maybe they just haven't set up the right experiment yet.


Rodin is interesting fellow and he doesn't come across as " Crazy " per se .
"Crazy" isn't a diagnosis. Megalomania isn't a diagnosis either, it's a symptom of some kind of mental problems, which he definitely has. A qualified specialist would need to diagnose specifically which mental disorders Rodin has that result in his megalomania...there could several.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 23432
 


Here's what I found in your link:


The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled.


This is monumentally false. I've either been practicing science or adjacent fields (like computing for science research) for many years now, and what I keep hearing from actual scientists is the opposite. You see, supersymmetry is not a "detail", it's a monumental phenomenon, and we simply don't know whether it does exist, as some theorists believe, or it does not (like other theorists believe). We are waiting for more measurements at the LHC. Whoever wrote that science likes dogma has foresworn their common sense and a lot more.

If one comes up with an exotic theory that is somehow better than, say, common E&M theory, I'm sure they'll get their day in debate. It's simple -- explain all of the existing experimental data and find something else that current science doesn't explain but your theory does.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by 23432
 


The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled.
This is monumentally false.
Thanks. It's nice to hear from a scientist on what scientists really do. Rupert Sheldrake, who wrote that article 23432 posted, and the people that believe it, don't have enough exposure to scientists.

If anyone wants more exposure to a real scientist, here is a good lecture by Richard Feynman which confirms what buddhasystem said. In fact the lecture is about finding new laws. If science had all the answers, scientists wouldn't be giving lectures on how to look for new laws, right?

Richard Feynman Messenger Lectures at Cornell: The Character of Physical Law Part 7-Seeking New Laws

It's about an hour long video, so I'll mention a few highlights relevant to our discussions:


21:15 "We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible"
This destroys the idea that scientists think they are right...they are trying to prove themselves wrong...some discussion takes place about this.
After that he talks about how to test love, vague theories (even ESP), etc which is also relevant to the article 23432 posted (like #9 on telepathy), and the difference between approaching these topics unscientifically versus scientifically.

At 27:30 he explains why ideas like those of Rodin and Powell fail so miserably...because they are imprecise (or even ludicrously vague, like "dark matter is the number 9" which is so imprecise it can't be tested).

At 42 minutes he talks about the two different views of symmetry, of which I think the supersymmetry buddhasystem mentioned is a specific branch, but I'm no expert on that. Even though the particles involved are different, his comments are somewhat similar.


If one comes up with an exotic theory that is somehow better than, say, common E&M theory, I'm sure they'll get their day in debate. It's simple -- explain all of the existing experimental data and find something else that current science doesn't explain but your theory does.
Did you watch this lecture already or are you a scientist? This is similar to what Feynman says around 51:44, though rather than saying it's simple, he says it takes a fantastic imagination to do that, and he explains why.


53:30 We are very lucky to live in an age when we are still making discoveries.
Interestingly, he closes the lecture by speculating about some possible future day when science may understand the mysteries he discusses (related to theoretical/particle physics), but he emphasizes we certainly aren't there yet, so this should drive home the point that there is more than just fine tuning needed, but instead we really don't have the answers yet. Then he says there will be endless new mysteries to explore like space, biology, and so on, so he is really talking specifically about eventually developing an understanding of particle physics, and not saying we will have answers to everything.

Rupert Sheldrake should watch that lecture too, he might learn something about how wrong his article is.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks Arb. Just one random example to illustrate the point -- the history if the Standard model. Despite what the ignorami would say, it was never a "dogma", a "bible" or anything else like that. In the original SM neutrinos were massless (and so was experimental evidence). This didn't stop scientist to keep looking at various signals in neutrino experiments only to finally conclude that neutrinos do have mass, albeit small. There was no "suppression", black helicopters or any other such idiocy that is so often paraded here on ATS. There is theory, there is data, and there are creative minds. And there are other minds (sic) out there, which make a dogma out of a few concocted notions about science which have nothing to do with reality. They call this "alternative science".



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I see that DanielNunezMind responded. People who are interested can follow the conversation here.


I see DanielNunezMind featured on a link provided by Pure Energy Systems today: "Daniel Nunez of 1StopEnergies on Larry Seyer's "The Most Dangerous Device show." It includes a downloadable link to the MP3 of the interview, which is excellent:


Topics Discussed:

1Stop Energies is based out of the Bronx, New York and is founded by Erica and Daniel Nunez.

What began as a 'sustainable night light project' became a life long journey to reshape the way to generate and utilize electricity on a fundamental level. . . .

They began by creating simple energy efficient motor/generators based on open source information attainable through internet searches. Shortly after, this led them to Vortex Based Mathematics. The entire VBM premise is based on universal 'natural pathways' or 'flow paths' that exist in the space we inhabit.

After seeing other small scale models created by driven inventors and researchers, they decided to take it a step further and develop their custom framework to control and ensure geometric precision in toroidal space. They began testing different wiring algorithms and creating custom circuitry to understand and replicate their findings for both on and off grid uses.

Over the course of 4 years, Daniel and Erica have developed enough collective knowledge to replicate their results on large and small scale uses while posting their findings to the internet community in an attempt to raise awareness and interest into these wonderful new possibilities.

From the 1Stop Energies website:

WHAT IS THE UNIFICATION COIL?

The Unification Coil is a copper coil formed into a toroid (or donut) which outputs more energy than what is put into it. It is constructed using the mathematics of both Marko Rodin and Randy Powell in order to successfully create the path of least electrical resistance. . . .



edit on 08/29/12 by Mary Rose because: Fix tag



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Their heart is in the right place, I'll give them that much. But they seem pretty clueless.

The "98 LEDs with the energy if 8 LEDs" isn't supported any current, voltage or other measurements. Moreover, all that technical mumbo-jumbo aside, here's the real clue. It's hooked up to a battery. An over-unity device wouldn't need a battery or at the very least you should be able to disconnect it, which they didn't do in their demo.

If it actually had more output than input as they claim, it wouldn't need a battery after it started operating. They might be hoaxers, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and presume it's just incompetence which causes them to demonstrate an over-unity device which needs a battery.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Did you listen to the interview?



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I listened to some of it but even the interviewer didn't believe him. When he talked about inputting sound waves the interviewer corrected him and said it was electrical, then Nunez made some confusing statement about 60 Hz and over 20,000 Hz. This really illustrates the guy's confusion, and I was glad to see even the interviewer noticed it.

But here's the main point. Around 10 minutes he says he hasn't figured out how to loop the energy back around and will need help from a seasoned electrical engineer to figure out how to do that. A seasoned electrical engineer if he's competent should be able to figure out what's wrong with the measurements but I have a pretty good idea already...he didn't mention an oscilloscope so I'm guessing he needs one, but he also needs to know how to use it. As buddhasystem said earlier, you can get them second hand pretty cheap these days. But it's pretty apparent from his admission he needs help from someone who knows what they are doing, that he doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
edit on 29-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Please listen to the entire interview. He talks about purchasing a meter and the limitations of it in the interview. Hopefully -PLB- will listen to the entire interview as well. You are very quick to post retorts. What's your hurry?

I have a different interpretation of the interviewer. I would not say "he didn't believe him" whatsoever.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Please listen to the entire interview. He talks about purchasing a meter and the limitations of it in the interview. Hopefully -PLB- will listen to the entire interview as well.
I already heard the part about him buying an expensive meter and the display blanking etc, which is why I said he needs an oscilloscope. I think I listened to enough to make an accurate assessment. I'm not in any particular hurry but I have other things to do besides listening to the last 25 minutes when the first 15 minutes adequately revealed his level of incompetence. Listening to rambling nonsense becomes a bit like listening to someone making annoying sounds on a chalkboard after a while. But if PLB can suffer through the whole thing, more power to him.


I have a different interpretation of the interviewer. I would not say "he didn't believe him" whatsoever.
Would you agree he corrected him when he said it's not sound, it's electrical? The interviewer was right about that. So not only did he not believe it was sound, he explained what it was instead of sound.
edit on 29-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Would you agree he corrected him when he said it's not sound, it's electrical? The interviewer was right about that. So not only did he not believe it was sound, he explained what it was instead of sound.


I heard them expressing things in different ways. I think that is part of the problem of people claiming that alternative researchers are hoaxers and incompetents. Sometimes there are different ways of looking at the same phenomenon.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I used the email address that Nunez gave in the interview to send him an email with the subject line "Sound vs. Electricity." Here is how I phrased my request for an explanation, with the understanding that I would post his response on this thread: "I heard you say that sound and electricity are one and the same thing. You also mentioned that 60Hz is a sound frequency but then went on to say that you’re operating above 20kHz."

Here is the explanation he provided: "Simply put, we are all electric beings who inhabit an electric universe. Sounds, thoughts, colors, and just about everything we perceive are electrical impulses that are being translated into usable information by our brains. When I said sounds are electrical; I was referring to the fact that we generate sounds using a simple device which is, in fact, creating electrical oscillations. We then feed those frequencies into our coils and extract higher energy potentials on the output side.

"Being very different from a 'step-up transformer', these coils are able to increase energy potentials without having to increase the ratio beyond 1:1; which hasn't been done before. The phenomena occurs at different frequencies from coil to coil, but generally happens in the Kilohertz range. This provides us with a different understanding of sound and the relationship it maintains with the surrounding environment."



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
When I said sounds are electrical; I was referring to the fact that we generate sounds using a simple device which is, in fact, creating electrical oscillations. We then feed those frequencies into our coils and extract higher energy potentials on the output side.
Interesting "clarification" which only serves to confirm his confusion.

Mary this is an important distinction which also comes up in HAARP threads where some people don't seem to understand the distinction between sound and electromagnetism. They are separate phenomena.

I've not seen any research indicating that humans can take electromagnetic radiation being emitted at say, 60 Hz, and convert that into perceived sound. There's no sound in that process.

If a singer uses their voice to shatter a glass at say, 556 Hz, that's entirely a sound phenomenon from the point the sound leaves their throat until it reaches the glass where it resonates and shatters:



There is no electromagnetism. So let's not confuse these two different processes.

Here's another source explaining the difference:

wiki.answers.com...

I did a little search when I found that and I found a number of people asking for explanations of the difference, and not many good answers, in fact apparently a lot of people don't understand the difference, so he's in good company if he's confused.

There are two types of man-made devices which can convert sound to electrical energy and vice-versa which are called microphones and speakers respectively. Sometimes a fluorescent light fixture can emit a 120Hz hum where the light fixture is acting as a sort of unintentional speaker powered by the 60Hz electricity. And the ear can convert sound energy to different kinds of electrical impulses that the brain can interpret, but the ear works much differently from a microphone and the electrical impulses are different. That's interesting, but there's no evidence I saw in the video that he's using speakers, microphones, or any kind of sound at all, when he talks about sound, so there's no reason for him to mention sound. And the interviewer was right to point out it's electrical, not sound.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
When I said sounds are electrical; I was referring to the fact that we generate sounds using a simple device which is, in fact, creating electrical oscillations. We then feed those frequencies into our coils and extract higher energy potentials on the output side.


The above looks like it's me talking but it's not.

Perhaps the outside text tags are in order. Daniel Nunez:


"Simply put, we are all electric beings who inhabit an electric universe. Sounds, thoughts, colors, and just about everything we perceive are electrical impulses that are being translated into usable information by our brains. When I said sounds are electrical; I was referring to the fact that we generate sounds using a simple device which is, in fact, creating electrical oscillations. We then feed those frequencies into our coils and extract higher energy potentials on the output side.

"Being very different from a 'step-up transformer', these coils are able to increase energy potentials without having to increase the ratio beyond 1:1; which hasn't been done before. The phenomena occurs at different frequencies from coil to coil, but generally happens in the Kilohertz range. This provides us with a different understanding of sound and the relationship it maintains with the surrounding environment."



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


there is a very distinct electrical potential within any physical compression wave.

that is not difficult to understand.

the two phenomena are far more linked than you are letting on. but I would guess that you really enjoy your chauvinism.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
there is a very distinct electrical potential within any physical compression wave.

that is not difficult to understand.

the two phenomena are far more linked than you are letting on. but I would guess that you really enjoy your chauvinism.
Then maybe you'd like to enlighten me with a source?



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Thanks for the clarification and yes I see your point about how it looks like you talking in my reference, but since I referred to "his confusion" hopefully it's clear I knew that was him talking and not you, but I guess I was a little sloppy in my quote, sorry about that. The EX tags do help though. I would have maintained those had they been present.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I emailed the link to your post and asked for feedback.

Daniel Nunez:


Thank you very much for the feedback. There is a pulse going into our coils that beats in the Kilohertz range. That frequency vibrates, or resonates, the coil to a degree that allows it to pull in High Voltage from the surrounding environment. We are then able to utilize this High Voltage for lighting or charging batteries. The process is actually a lot more simple than people care to admit; it's really a byproduct of very precise geometrical design. On a 1:1 ratio coil, we don't normally see this effect, but these specialized coils operate differently than conventional ones by following natural flow paths.

On the matter of sound being electric; I am resolved in my understanding that the universe is entirely electric. Hence, everything in it operates under the same unifying laws; from the micro to the macro. After all, if it weren't for the electrical receptors of the brain, there would be no perception of sound. And if we take it a step further, two people have the ability to listen to the same sound and hear two completely different things. We are merely interpreting electrical impulses; this is the wonder of the senses.


In the beginning, there was a sound...



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Yes but the glass in the video I posted still shatters even when a deaf person watches it shatter, in which case there are no electrical impulses reaching the brain of the deaf person.

Many things are indeed electrical. Some things are not.





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 210  211  212    214  215  216 >>

log in

join