It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 22
39
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by buddhasystem

Rodin is exacting with universal schematics ... Your theory is vague at best. You also use the term resonance which is the equivalent of surface tension when referencing reality.

If you'd like to imagine our structure, start with the menger sponge then substitute the volume of voids with vortices and remainder with tori.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

Rodin is exacting with universal schematics ... Your theory is vague at best.

I challenge you to demonstrate how my theory is "vague" while it has direct connection to spectral classes of stars and even predicts the existence of black holes (the missing 8th chakra, since the black hole is in fact OUTSIDE of our Universe), while there are exactly 8 gluons forming the color field. Symmetry is of paramount importance in physics, just look up SU(3). Rodin't theory is off by one number and as such is useless. It's not 9, it's 8. Number 8 is considered lucky in Oriental cultures because the ancients could see deeply with their meditation techniques, many of which concentrated on chakras.

You also use the term resonance which is the equivalent of surface tension when referencing reality.

The resonance is an amplifying effect of frequency coming out of emanation point (such as inside a star, or one of the places of power), when it maps onto the fractal structure of space-time in perfect phase.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

There is a key element to all theories purposed. The underlining science behind it is thought. What happens then is a huge ripple, a type of shock wave that spreads. These great people through out society have given us something more then what they represent. They give the power to think and do for ourselves, ie will power. Now when applying these things in your current life with an open mind, we find that they might not be so far fetched after all. The Chakras are real. They have had a dramatic impact on my life and the people around as well. Rodin has displayed a theory that might be hard to grasp if you take his words as literal. If you look at what he claims in a display of pictures and then slowly turn them in to a type of slide show, something magical happens. You see the great genius' saw everything in picture form, as this is the Universal Law of Language. I have applied his theory in my life as well, and have found out some truly remarkable things. As well as some pretty cool toys too. We have to open our mind and see past what is presented on the table, but take in to account what steps were taken in order for it appear there in the first place.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Real-world observations

General Relativity is applied to real world observation, and it allows us to throw satellites up in space. Now in the same world we have nanometers and nanohertz where it doesn't provide worthy explanation. Why cling to General Relativity, and use it as the basis for arguments then? I find that part carelessness - part hypocrisy.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by damilo
The Chakras are real. They have had a dramatic impact on my life and the people around as well. Rodin has displayed a theory that might be hard to grasp if you take his words as literal.

Frankly, it is he who insists that his words be taken literally, because he keeps touting his silly coil. Which he keeps plugging into the outlet. If he constrained himself to the study of sacred geometry and graphic design pleasing the eye, or better yet got serious about chakra meditation, that would be one thing. His claims of forming a black hole at will and creating a cure for all decease reveal a babbling idiot in that person. He missed out on the chakras altogether.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Real-world observations

General Relativity is applied to real world observation, and it allows us to throw satellites up in space. Now in the same world we have nanometers and nanohertz where it doesn't provide worthy explanation.

As a matter of fact,
www.nature.com...

By measuring a spectacularly small difference in the ticks of two quantum clocks, physicists have proven a pillar of Albert Einstein's theory of gravity to be on firmer footing than ever before.
...
Now, a team led by Holger Müller of the University of California, Berkeley, has measured the time-shifting effects of gravity 10,000 times more accurately than ever before. They show that gravity's effect on time is predictable to 7 parts per billion (H. Müller, A. Peters and S. Chu Nature 463, 926–929; 2010). And they did it using two laboratory clocks with a height difference of just 0.1 millimetres — a set-up that seems quaintly small in this day of big physics.

And that's nanoscale for you.

Why cling to General Relativity, and use it as the basis for arguments then? I find that part carelessness - part hypocrisy.

Why cling to ignorance, and use it as the basis for arguments then? I find that part laziness - part hypocrisy.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:32 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

Rodin is exacting with universal schematics ... Your theory is vague at best.

I challenge you to demonstrate how my theory is "vague" while it has direct connection to spectral classes of stars and even predicts the existence of black holes (the missing 8th chakra, since the black hole is in fact OUTSIDE of our Universe), while there are exactly 8 gluons forming the color field. Symmetry is of paramount importance in physics, just look up SU(3). Rodin't theory is off by one number and as such is useless. It's not 9, it's 8. Number 8 is considered lucky in Oriental cultures because the ancients could see deeply with their meditation techniques, many of which concentrated on chakras.

You also use the term resonance which is the equivalent of surface tension when referencing reality.

The resonance is an amplifying effect of frequency coming out of emanation point (such as inside a star, or one of the places of power), when it maps onto the fractal structure of space-time in perfect phase.

Gluons? Really? You remind me of Hawking on some of his earlier book deals... What was it he said? Virtual massless particles. Yeah, that's it.

Your confusion is citing gluons as a real particles. Reality is a process of binding principles. Ravel to cords together short enough in length to take a good look at both ends. Pay close attention to the altering of clockwise - counterclockwise as it appears straight on.

In addition: Structure alters vibrations as frequency goes, Rodin's mapping is contained within 8 as our 3-dimensional framework, and again... You're wholly confused. 1,4,7 - 2,5,8 are planes of existence. 3,6,9 is an energy well whereby pathways are created to border said planes. I've already provided an example of a fractal pattern, so it's put together quite solid in this context. No need for further guess work from you.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:38 PM
Vortex based mathematics is bunk, stupid, and that guy is an idiot.

With regular mathematics I can get the indefinite area under a curve: Integral of e^(2x)*x^2 dx using tabular integration, i can set f(x) to x^2 and derive 2x, 2, and 0 while setting g(x) to e^(2x) I can integrate e^2x/2, e^2x/4, and e^2x/8 resulting in 1/2x^(2e)2x - 1/2xe^(2x) + 1/4e^(2x) plus a constant, and if I want to get the area between two points on the x-axis, I just have to solve for the definite integral.

Can anyone show me how to do this with vortex based mathematics?

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Vortex based mathematics is bunk, stupid, and that guy is an idiot.

With regular mathematics I can get the indefinite area under a curve: Integral of e^(2x)*x^2 dx using tabular integration, i can set f(x) to x^2 and derive 2x, 2, and 0 while setting g(x) to e^(2x) I can integrate e^2x/2, e^2x/4, and e^2x/8 resulting in 1/2x^(2e)2x - 1/2xe^(2x) + 1/4e^(2x) plus a constant, and if I want to get the area between two points on the x-axis, I just have to solve for the definite integral.

Can anyone show me how to do this with vortex based mathematics?

You should ask Beebs. He think there is a method that has to do with Baha'i teachings (or Sufi, I can't be sure).

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Americanist
Your confusion is citing gluons as a real particles

Of course, any one familiar with physics knows that with enough energy, they can be put on the mass shell. They will subsequently fragment, but since we can measure the structure function, you can't say they are not real. They are morphing chakras coming in and out of plane of existence, I thought that was easy to understand.

In addition: Structure alters vibrations as frequency goes, Rodin's mapping is contained within 8 as our 3-dimensional framework, and again... You're wholly confused. 1,4,7 - 2,5,8 are planes of existence. 3,6,9 is an energy well whereby pathways are created to border said planes. I've already provided an example of a fractal pattern, so it's put together quite solid in this context. No need for further guess work from you.

No need for 9. Rodin is wrong and he totally missed the importance of chakras. If you look at the symbols of chakras, they have nothing to do with Rodin's stupid sudoku.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

I really think that at this time in your life currently you might be over looking a few things. Marko Rodin is a head of his time. As the majority is concerned he speaks of things that are to complex for the un-opened mind to comprehend. The black hole part.... that is real. Just as real as our Chakras. When looking at energy and the things that move thru us on a daily basis there is a type of continuity to the movement. It all flows with a type of direction and purpose. Rodin found a way (like many) to tap into this field and see the way energy flows. Not in a straight line, but in a circular movement. This is really no different then the way our Chakras move about. Applying the same principles as you do with your inner self....... Now imagine displaying them in real form. To have them displayed so that all could see. Now take in account that the millions viewing this all are viewing from their perception. Their own reality in which they live. Are they seeing the colors, or are they color blind and unable to see red? Are they further ahead and can see the aura that surrounds it and sees it completely different then Bob who repairs your car? We have to take in to considerations the many different variables. Rodin is on a completely different level. I applaud him and the many others that have gone out on a limb to give us inside information on how our reality works. Look outside the box.. Open your mind to endless possibilities that surround us on a daily basis. It is truly remarkable!

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

That must be your idea of a prank on us. So they solved QG, with their more accurate time count? Right. I guess it depends on what University you attend, since there's conflicting research. Even so... The deeper you dig you'll still find a rhythm. That's just the cyclic nature we're a part of.

www.stanford.edu...

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:10 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
Your confusion is citing gluons as a real particles

Of course, any one familiar with physics knows that with enough energy, they can be put on the mass shell. They will subsequently fragment, but since we can measure the structure function, you can't say they are not real. They are morphing chakras coming in and out of plane of existence, I thought that was easy to understand.

In addition: Structure alters vibrations as frequency goes, Rodin's mapping is contained within 8 as our 3-dimensional framework, and again... You're wholly confused. 1,4,7 - 2,5,8 are planes of existence. 3,6,9 is an energy well whereby pathways are created to border said planes. I've already provided an example of a fractal pattern, so it's put together quite solid in this context. No need for further guess work from you.

No need for 9. Rodin is wrong and he totally missed the importance of chakras. If you look at the symbols of chakras, they have nothing to do with Rodin's stupid sudoku.

So you resort to name calling, when it's something you're unable to comprehend. Childish. The 3,6, and 9 are alternating energy pathways and "egg shell" of 3 dimensional vectors (i.e. platonic solids).

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Americanist
That must be your idea of a prank on us.

Try to think harder when you post. I cite a respectable source on which I have no influence. How on Earth can that be a prank? I didn't make this up. The scientists did the measurement.

So they solved QG, with their more accurate time count? Right.

They did another test of general relativity, under completely new conditions, and it came out right. They can test stuff, and Rodin can't. Feel the difference.

The deeper you dig you'll still find a rhythm.

I totally dig this. The deeper I go, the better I feel the rhythm. Then, my chakra starts pulsating.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by damilo
Marko Rodin is a head of his time. As the majority is concerned he speaks of things that are to complex for the un-opened mind to comprehend. The black hole part.... that is real.

I don't see any evidence of that! And I've seen a few videos. There is no support for black holes in his sudoku puzzle, and no support for it in his experiments.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:41 PM

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.

You're right, Arb, but I think you've missed the most important difference:

If we'd asked Einstein if it has ever been observed in the real world, he would have said "no."

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by damilo
he speaks of things that are to complex for the un-opened mind to comprehend.
How open minded do I need to be? Open minded enough to believe that science doesn't have all the answers yet and there's more to be learned and maybe even some things to be unlearned? I'm that open minded.

But see my signature, if we have to be open-minded enough to let our brains fall out, I'm not quite that open-minded.

The black hole part.... that is real.
How do you KNOW this?

Now take in account that the millions viewing this all are viewing from their perception. Their own reality in which they live. Are they seeing the colors, or are they color blind and unable to see red?
This is a good example of why measuring instruments can be trusted more than flawed human senses. Scientific devices can not only see red whether the operator of the device is color blind or not, but it can even tell what frequency or wavelength of red the light is.

Rodin is on a completely different level.
You're contradicting beebs who keeps saying we can't look at his ideas in isolation but as building on the foundation of others. But I can't argue about him being on a completely different level. The question is, does the level he is on have any connection to reality, and if so, what is it?

Originally posted by Bobathon
You're right, Arb, but I think you've missed the most important difference:

If we'd asked Einstein if it has ever been observed in the real world, he would have said "no."

Good point!

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

Okay, I'm going to throw you a biscuit.

There's really nothing to say though. Your post to me was deliberately insulting.

Maybe I need a new theory...
The people who collate various sentences and answer them all in their own chosen context are trolls who will have nothing useful to contribute.

At some point you'll need to get real and contribute something to your chosen field. You are defensive as hell, maybe because you feel threatened. You'll deny that, but you'll admit that your 'superior' knowledge is threatened by ideas that you won't get marked on.

That's fine... you are deliberately ignorant. You want to limit me / us, to your constraints.

This time next week I'll know more than now... will you?

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by squandered

Welcome to the party, and glad you have made it through the gauntlet relatively unharmed.

I'm pretty sure the human spirit is incapable of being harmed. If you drill down into me to find the indivisible 'grain' (say total energy) you'll find the same grain that grain that existed during the big bang - which has never moved.

"This is a fundamental presupposition which is not necessarily the case. I think it is evident that instead we must treat the wave function as a real, physical, space-filling wave"

Yes, and the observer function is just an observers, observation. The weirdness about quantum theory is the human. These amateur mathematicians are getting it wrong because they arrogantly assert presuppositions on a very limited model of human observation.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by squandered
The people who collate various sentences and answer them all in their own chosen context are trolls who will have nothing useful to contribute.

I'm sorry but if you read this thread, the above is the most apt description of Beebs. Most other didn't not collate "various sentences" w/o being able to answer for each and every component.

You are defensive as hell, maybe because you feel threatened. You'll deny that, but you'll admit that your 'superior' knowledge is threatened by ideas that you won't get marked on.

Well, I don't detect any ideas in the pile of metaphysical manure that is passed as some revolutionary theory. Ergo, there is no threat to anything.

That's fine... you are deliberately ignorant.

Sorry dude, but I have a good education, you might have heard about this brilliant concept, so I'm anything but. I recommend you take a close look at it instead of being proud of eschewing math and science.

new topics

top topics

39