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.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 215
39
<< 212  213  214    216  217  218 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Metatronin
My oscilloscope showed a basic DC waveform. I didn't use it with AC or anything like that. What exactly are you looking for in the waveform?
What does the basic DC waveform look like on the oscilloscope? Can you describe it's appearance?

Typically I use the oscilloscope for non-DC (either AC or other types of non-DC). If looking at an AC waveform I want to see how sinusoidal it is before I try to measure it with an RMS meter, because I know if it's not sinusoidal, the meter can give strange (inaccurate) results.


You should pop in a mastered album then analyze RMS. The stereo levels are slammed so hard with compression they come off as square waves.




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Metatronin
I have found that the rodin coil is actually an electrical pressure amplifier(hence the increased voltage). It however is not over unity in any way. It is similar to a kort nozzle, or even a jet, but happening in an electrical field.


You've perhaps failed to take into account the torus itself spins.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Metatronin
I have found that the rodin coil is actually an electrical pressure amplifier(hence the increased voltage). It however is not over unity in any way. It is similar to a kort nozzle, or even a jet, but happening in an electrical field.


You've perhaps failed to take into account the torus itself spins.


I didn't see that the torus was spinning, in numerous videos posted, and I also don't recall Rodin called for the spin.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Metatronin
My oscilloscope showed a basic DC waveform. I didn't use it with AC or anything like that. What exactly are you looking for in the waveform?
What does the basic DC waveform look like on the oscilloscope? Can you describe it's appearance?

Typically I use the oscilloscope for non-DC (either AC or other types of non-DC). If looking at an AC waveform I want to see how sinusoidal it is before I try to measure it with an RMS meter, because I know if it's not sinusoidal, the meter can give strange (inaccurate) results.


You should pop in a mastered album then analyze RMS. The stereo levels are slammed so hard with compression they come off as square waves.


If every wave top was clipped as you describe, this would result in a terrible distortion. Sure there is plenty of compression, but it's applied with skill.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
You should pop in a mastered album then analyze RMS. The stereo levels are slammed so hard with compression they come off as square waves.


If every wave top was clipped as you describe, this would result in a terrible distortion. Sure there is plenty of compression, but it's applied with skill.
Some albums are more skillfully mastered than others. It's all over the place depending on who did the mastering and what their motivations were:

The Death Of Dynamic Range
edit on 31-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Good link, Arb. At one point, I succumbed to the notion "the more compression, the better", and had about 8 on every individual bus, plus one master compressor. I don't know what I was thinking.

On the other hand, you can't do without a compressor in the studio, you just can't. I bought a Blue Max and used it sparingly, didn't mash anything, and the result was more pleasing. You can go to last.fm and search for buddha system, album called "Clarity".



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"I heard you say that sound and electricity are one and the same thing. . . .


I have a .pdf file of Walter Russell's A New Concept of the Universe that I refer to from time to time. I was checking this morning concerning the Coulomb law when this chapter caught my eye:


V THIS ELECTRIC UNIVERSE OF SIMULATED ENERGY

In order to know more dynamically what electricity really is, I will define it. I will then amplify my definition by example.

Electricity is an effect of strain, tension and resistance caused by the energy of desire in the Light of Mind to divide and extend the balanced unity of the ONE still Light of Universal Mind into pairs of many divided units of thinking-Mind.

When electric strains and tensions cease to oppose each other, electricity ceases to be. Electricity is dual action-reaction. When dual actions-reactions cease to vibrate, electric effect is voided by the one universal condition of rest.

Sound vibrations of a harp string are an electrical effect. The electrical vibrations of sound are a division of undivided silence. When sound vibrations cease, silence has "swallowed them up" by voiding them. . . .



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have a .pdf file of Walter Russell's A New Concept of the Universe that I refer to from time to time. I was checking this morning concerning the Coulomb law when this chapter caught my eye:


Sound vibrations of a harp string are an electrical effect. The electrical vibrations of sound are a division of undivided silence. When sound vibrations cease, silence has "swallowed them up" by voiding them. . . .

Do you believe that? And if so what are the electrical measurements such as Volts/Amps/Watts etc related to the harp string? Electricity is measurable.

Sound is measurable too. The people that make the measuring instruments have to understand the difference. I use both kinds of measuring instruments and they measure completely different things. Walter Russell apparently has no need to know the difference, but I do.

reply to post by buddhasystem
 
I was going to sign up but then I saw I needed to download an app, and I need to do that on a different computer as I only allow pre-tested apps on this PC to ensure stability.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have a .pdf file of Walter Russell's A New Concept of the Universe that I refer to from time to time.


Yeah, well...


Electricity is the only source which God makes use of to create this Universe


If this makes any sense to you, pray tell.

In general, I find this "pdf" an exceptional exemplar of word soup.


Mind thinking is electric


It must be cool to just sit around and produce these grand sounding statements. Alas, there is no sense there. At the very least, the brain is not a 100% electric device, there is plenty of chemistry going on. If by "mind" he means something entirely different and distinct from the brain, I want to know how he measures this alleged electrical activity, when and where. Otherwise, it's just "blah".


Gases and vapors seek gases and vapors by rising to find them.


Well, that one just really seems like a mental case.

Russell did have many talents, I assume, but it's just silly to extrapolate his talents into the realm of physics. A gas is rising to find another gas. Please show me where and how. As to him being a talented ice skater, great. I like skating myself.


edit on 3-9-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





At the very least, the brain is not a 100% electric device, there is plenty of chemistry going on.


I suppose you've heard of quantum entanglement. Delve into our sense of smell while you're on the topic of chemistry.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





At the very least, the brain is not a 100% electric device, there is plenty of chemistry going on.


I suppose you've heard of quantum entanglement.


Indeed. Now, how does Russel explain the importance of quantum entanglement in the mind process?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





At the very least, the brain is not a 100% electric device, there is plenty of chemistry going on.


I suppose you've heard of quantum entanglement.


Indeed. Now, how does Russel explain the importance of quantum entanglement in the mind process?




He's explaining away chemistry and replacing it with signals via eddy currents.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


So, your idea of debate is to simply make up quotes and stick outside text tags around them?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


So, your idea of debate is to simply make up quotes and stick outside text tags around them?


I didn't "make up" quotes, as I hoped you understood. These exemplars of sheer nonsense come directly from the works of Russell.

I mean, if you agree that "gas is seeking gas and is rising to find some other gas", more power to you in your quest for truth. I see it as plain idiocy.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





At the very least, the brain is not a 100% electric device, there is plenty of chemistry going on.


I suppose you've heard of quantum entanglement.


Indeed. Now, how does Russel explain the importance of quantum entanglement in the mind process?




He's explaining away chemistry and replacing it with signals via eddy currents.


He "explains away" lots of stuff, actually all of it, replacing what we call reality with his own fantastical version.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
These exemplars of sheer nonsense come directly from the works of Russell.


Link to them.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
These exemplars of sheer nonsense come directly from the works of Russell.


Link to them.


Ah. Now I know you don't read the stuff that you pushing in this thread. I don't blame you, it's such garbage, even though your self-designated status of "good researcher" once again went to the dogs.

PDF (New Concept of the Universe)

Enjoy.

edit on 4-9-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Electricity is the only source which God makes use of to create this Universe


I can't find this one.


Mind thinking is electric


Found this one. It is number five on page 66 under "Creation -- Postulated Progressively."


Gases and vapors seek gases and vapors by rising to find them.


Can't find this one, either.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Electricity is the only source which God makes use of to create this Universe


I can't find this one.


Mind thinking is electric


Found this one. It is number five on page 66 under "Creation -- Postulated Progressively."


Gases and vapors seek gases and vapors by rising to find them.


Can't find this one, either.


Mary, Mary, Mary... You need to work on you "researcher" chops. All the three quotes in my post are in that book, in the link I provided. I could give you the page numbers, but that wouldn't be fun, now would it?

I can almost feel your pain when you are trying to penetrate these pages upon pages of sheer nonsense. No wonder some tidbits are lost in the process, but hey, no big deal, as the book is utterly meaningless.


When man breathes out he depolarizes his body...


Umm... Sure.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I finally found the gases and vapors quote by seaching under a different word in the quote. It's on page 18.

Still can't find the third one. I think you're misquoting him.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 212  213  214    216  217  218 >>

log in

join