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.

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 224
39
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:55 AM
reply to post by milkyway12

I'm a little unclear about your disdain since casting out nines is established math; Rodin didn't make it up. And it's only the first step of his method. The rest is based on number patterns.

Did you scroll through the document "RodinAerodynamics.org featuring the Rodin Coil" linked here?

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a successful invention that is not associated with an algorithm? Isn't an algorithm only one of many math tools?

edit on 10/09/12 by Mary Rose because: Clarify

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:30 AM

Originally posted by milkyway12
Pretty sure i stated i didnt read the thread and it is very long. However, it took two seconds to confirm his theory was dead in the water. ...

You just cant simply say 27=9 because it is the only correct numbering system.
Some people are a little slower than you so it might take them 10 seconds for it to sink in that 27 is not equal to 9 as Rodin claims. But why it takes anybody longer than that to figure it out is a mystery to me.

100 = Purple.
Actually, Rodin's formula is
9=dark matter

Which makes about as much sense, meaning none whatsoever.

You didn't offend me, because like I said I found it entertaining that you thought buddhasystem was a Rodin supporter. When the thread is 1-2 pages long I do expect people to read it before replying since that doesn't take long, but it would be an unrealistic expectation for a thread this long, so I wasn't suggesting you should read the whole thing, only that you shouldn't make too many assumptions since you don't know what's already been said.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm a little unclear about your disdain since casting out nines is established math; Rodin didn't make it up.

Nowhere in the Wiki on Casting out nines does it say anything like Rodin's claim that "all multiples of 9 equal 9". Equal has a specific meaning in mathematics.

Rodin's claim is not supported by casting out nines. That link addresses the same numbers, and shows the correct math with the equals sign:

9+9+9=27 (2+7=9)
That is correct. But 9=27 is not correct, which is what Rodin claims with "all multiples of 9 equal 9".

9+9+9 is not the same thing as 9, right? But according to Rodin they are equal. They aren't. You do get this, don't you? And that putting an equal sign between them is not casting out nines? You get that too, right?

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nowhere in the Wiki on Casting out nines does it say anything like Rodin's claim that "all multiples of 9 equal 9". Equal has a specific meaning in mathematics.

I believe we obsessed quite a bit regarding the use of the word "equals" by Rodin. I believe what we established is that his intent was to say something like "reduces to."

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nowhere in the Wiki on Casting out nines does it say anything like Rodin's claim that "all multiples of 9 equal 9". Equal has a specific meaning in mathematics.

I believe we obsessed quite a bit regarding the use of the word "equals" by Rodin. I believe what we established is that his intent was to say something like "reduces to."

I can't vouch for his intent, because he does use the equal sign "=" at liberty. Now you are in the business of interpreting of what he possibly wanted to say, right? Meaning that you admit that the face value of his exercise is null? And just one page ago, you also said that it's "unclear" how to find the right winding pattern of the wire for his torus to work, so apparently this aspect of his "teaching" doesn't make sense either, even to you. Even though he seems pretty confident that he has found it already.

Rodin says that number 9 is the missing particle, dark matter and what not. Since numbers aren't particles or matter, you, Mary, will have to spend even more time trying to interpret the idiotic phrases muttered by Rodin.

By the way the "casting out nines" method is just a consequence of us using base 10 system. Read up on this. Again, it's a valid method used to validate normal arithmetic, not some "fingerprint of God" as Rodin keeps saying.

If we used base 8 (e.g. if we had 4 fingers on each hand), there wouldn't be a "casting out 9" method at all, and the four-fingered Rodin would be passionate about number 7. Or something else.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:25 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now you are in the business of interpreting of what he possibly wanted to say, right?

No.

It is crystal clear to anyone who is not a smart-ass detractor that casting out nines math is what he means when he uses the equal sign or says the word "equals" within the context of his Vortex Math and the coil design based on it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Meaning that you admit that the face value of his exercise is null?

That's quite a leap on your part. Which is quite typical of your modus operandi.

Almost two years since I started this thread I remain interested in

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"RodinAerodynamics.org featuring the Rodin Coil."
and hope springs eternal that new people without a smart-ass bent will join me in exploring and understanding the document.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now you are in the business of interpreting of what he possibly wanted to say, right?

No.

It is crystal clear to anyone who is not a smart-ass detractor that casting out nines math is what he means when he uses the equal sign or says the word "equals" within the context of his Vortex Math and the coil design based on it.

Ah, but by stating this you deny his claims to divinity. Casting out nines is simple arithmetic, and as I said similar rules work in systems different from decimal. I mentioned base 8. Question to you, Mary, what would happen to Rodin's "math" if we used base 8? Please be specific.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Meaning that you admit that the face value of his exercise is null?

That's quite a leap on your part. Which is quite typical of your modus operandi.

Wait, you said in plain English that it's "unclear" how to wind the coil. One of Rodinesque sites repeats what he said almost verbatim:

These number groupings piece together into a jig-saw-like puzzle pattern that perfectly demonstrates the
way energy flows. Our base-ten decimal system is not man made, rather it is created by this flow of energy.

Do you agree that Rodin has discovered the way the energy flows? Or do you not? If you do agree, then it should be clear what the "way" is. If it's not clear, than his statement is frivolous, and he didn't find jack.

edit on 9-10-2012 by buddhasystem because: typo

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I can't find this one.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I could give you the page numbers, but that wouldn't be fun, now would it?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I found it in 2 minutes. It's not much past the beginning of the book. Sheesh.

I thought that you had misquoted him.

I finally found it, on page 5 under the heading “Misconception of Electro-Magnetism":

Electricity is the only force which God makes use of to create this universe.

There is a difference between "source" and "force."

edit on 10/09/12 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Electricity is the only force which God makes use of to create this universe.

There is a difference between "source" and "force."

Oh, sorry about the typo, I was typing by hand, there was no way to copy-paste. Thanks for highlighting just how absurd this sentence is, now with the "force" in it.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I found it in 2 minutes. It's not much past the beginning of the book. Sheesh.

I thought that you had misquoted him.

I finally found it, on page 5 under the heading “Misconception of Electro-Magnetism":

Electricity is the only force which God makes use of to create this universe.

There is a difference between "source" and "force."
I doubt either is correct so I'm not sure how significant the difference is, but if you really want to bring that up, "force" has a very specific meaning in physics, which refers also to gravity.

I know electric universe ideas are popular and there is lots of electricity in the universe, but to exclude gravity as a force involved in the creation of the universe seems like an idea completely without merit, as there is overwhelming evidence of its significance. So if anything, this "correction" is actually worse than the typo, but I admit I'm not proofreading for typos when I'm on page 5 in 2 minutes. And it took you how long to get to page 5?

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:58 AM
The guy is not a mathematician .. from reading a couple of papers / video presented on this thread, the guy obviously doesn't know much about established / accepted principles.

Hopefully most of you know how the properties of modular arithmetic work. This is what he is using. He hasn't discovered anything. He just adds his own magical spin of mysticism that makes very little sense and has very little math to back up his ... theory.

Biophysical harmonics, which is the same as neurogenesis, is the secret of how to repair or regenerate areas of the brain damaged through injury or disease. In 2005, medical researchers were able to achieve regeneration of mammal organs, bones and tissue, but not of brain tissue. In his early research, Marko Rodin began exploring how sound effects the human brain, and using the biophysical harmonics of the Rodin Torus Coil to treat autism and brain damage. The foundation of understanding the human brain´s neurosynaptic connections resides in the mathematical patterns Rodin has discovered, which model how the brain – a form of a torus - wires itself.

Righty then, thank you for telling us how this is achieved, you are a genius. (Sarcasm)

I figured most of this was already discussed but it seems it wasn't ... this guy has discovered mathematical concepts already widely known ... and there is nothing special about it.

All of this material is taught in Number Theory, so that is why i was being so sarcastic, i thought you guys knew that .... this guy hasn't discovered anything, he is just using Mysticism and established math to back up his weird theory.

For example, Ring Math was here way before his amazing discovery.

Ring Math:

Operation of Z, mostly, is addition and multiplication
Z=[]

Modulo N
Z/nZ=[0,1,2,⋯,n−2,n−1].

Multiples of N
nZ=[]

Only two numbers a,b in Z equivalent modulo n ONLY if a-b is divisible by n ....

Here is an ABSOLUTE PERFECT EXAMPLE! Let's use the 27=9 i was mocking.

32−5=27=3⋅9
32≡5 (mod9)

His ... math ... is not some recently discovered pattern and there is nothing special about it. I skipped about 95% of the math. If you don't understand it, google Ring Math.

From the looks of it, the rest of his work is just putting numbers into prime. One of the most basic concepts he could have used for this is simply using Euler's Totient ...

116256479883743529, i am still trying to figure out how he got this sequence ....... it makes no sense, but here is his explanation.

And the 9 demonstrates the omni dimension which is the higher dimensional flux emanation called Spirit that always occurs within the center of the magnetic field lines. The last number left to be explained from The MATHEMATICAL FINGERPRINT OF GOD is the number 9. The number nine is Energy being manifested in a single moment event of occurrence in our physical world of creation. It is unique because it is the focal center by being the only number identifying with the vertical upright axis. It is the singularity or the Primal Point of Unity. The number nine never changes and is linear. For example all multiples of 9 equal 9. 9x1=9, 9x2=18, but 1+8=9, 9x3=27, but 2+7=9. This is because it is emanating in a straight line from the center of mass out of the nucleus of every atom, and from out of the singularity of a black hole. It is complete, revealing perfection, and has no parity because it always equals itself. The number nine is the missing particle in the universe known as Dark Matter.

Wow! He really surprised with just how much .... he um, well, what was he saying again, and how did this explain sequence / pattern he came up with? I dont see it.

I mean there is nothing we can debate, he discovered Number Theory, congratulations. He hasn't cured cancer yet, produced a free energy source, or even showed us his exact math, at least i haven't seen it yet, i may be missing something. Dont keep making outrageous claims if you dont have any proof in any form other than ... your imagination.

Also, i keep Googling this Russell P. Blake guy .. nothing is showing up on him, other than Mark Rodin.
edit on 10-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:43 AM
I am not trying to be rude, but the papers I am reading go all over the damn place ... i can't formulate a cohesive understanding because i can't really find one! I am still stuck trying to figure out how his most basic concepts factually apply to his theory.

I am not trying to be slow here, but dang. It doesn't really make sense to me .. at all.

How do you go from god .. to a Gene - Ray ... i was still stuck on the god part and i literally closed the file when i saw the Gene-Ray thing.

I am sorry Rose, i may be too dumb to understand. I know what math he is using, it isn't difficult, but how he keeps applying his philosophy is just .... outrageous. I am even a Christian, but he isn't doing God any favors.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Actually, Rodin's formula is 9=dark matter.
Which makes about as much sense, meaning none whatsoever.

I think his Vortex thing might be right, how else would i have known he was going to say something like that and give an exact example if i didnt even read his theories, just his base 10 idea (that it is the only real numbering system).

edit on 10-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:09 AM

Originally posted by milkyway12
I figured most of this was already discussed but it seems it wasn't ... this guy has discovered mathematical concepts already widely known ... and there is nothing special about it.

Here is what Russell Blake said about Rodin before there was a split between the two, when Blake went his own way to pursue his ambitions, according to Rodin. This is from a 40 page .pdf file entitled "Analysis of the Rodin Coil and Its Applications (2001) by Russ Blake (PDF)" which can be clicked on at the Vortex Mathematics Gateway Portal:

ENDORSEMENTS and PAPERS

1. RUSSELL P. BLAKE

Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:16:11
Subject: The Rodin Coil

To Whom It May Concern:

Two years ago I met Marko Rodin through a mutual acquaintance. Mr. Rodin shared some of his results with me at that time. It became clear to me that Mr. Rodin's work was a synthesis of numerical patterns which had previously been overlooked by conventional science and mathematics. In hopes of bridging the gap between Mr. Rodin's discoveries and conventional science, I put forth an analytical framework in which mathematical formulae generate the numerical patterns of the Rodin Torus. These formulae suggested that the Rodin Torus lies not just on the surface of the "doughnut" shape, but into the interior as well; in other words, the Rodin Torus is three dimensional.

This mathematical formulation is as yet incomplete, and the physical meaning of these numerical phenomena remain unexplored still. Yet in my career I have several times discovered new mathematical formulations which have led to new products. In the late 1970's I discovered Atomic Modeling which revolutionized computer performance modeling, measurement, and sizing. In the early 1990's I discovered new ways to express the time-dependent behavior of program code, which led to reductions of program code size of 50% of the original size for all programs to which it was applied. I mention these facts merely to convince the reader that my intuition has a history of success in the practical application of new mathematics. . . .

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:38 AM

Originally posted by milkyway12
Also, i keep Googling this Russell P. Blake guy .. nothing is showing up on him, other than Mark Rodin.
We discussed him as recently as page 211 in this thread. He has a new theory of everything or something like that here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As far as I can tell, he has difficulty believing quantum mechanics, so he redesigned the quantum world in his mind so it behaves classically, or so he claims

I think our goal in science is to make models that conform to experimental evidence, but it seems to me like he's trying to shoehorn the evidence to fit his model, and I don't think it does.

But regarding Marko Rodin, he confirms Rodin's stuff is utter nonsense as discussed there, and also if you can find the source for the trimmed quote by Aloysius the Gaul which Mary Rose cited in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I tacked down Russell Blake to an Australian firm, and have swapped a couple of emails with him. . . .
www.youtube.com...
I think ATS member Aloysius the Gaul also exchanged e-mails with him where Blake also confirmed Rodin's stuff is nonsense.

Of course you don't need Blake to tell you that, and I don't know if Blake had a change of heart (or mind) but he certainly doesn't endorse Rodin's work according to the e-mail exchange with Aloysius the Gaul or the source I discussed on page 211.
edit on 10-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is what Russell Blake said about Rodin before there was a split between the two, when Blake went his own way to pursue his ambitions, according to Rodin. This is from a 40 page .pdf file entitled "Analysis of the Rodin Coil and Its Applications (2001) by Russ Blake (PDF)" which can be clicked on at the Vortex Mathematics Gateway Portal

From page 4 of 40 of the .pdf:

Analysis of the Rodin Coil and it’s Applications

Russ Blake

Introduction

I have reviewed previous and current work on the theories of Marko Rodin. Mr. Rodin has discovered a series of regularities in the decimal number system heretofore undocumented in mathematics. These patterns lay out on the surface and within the internal volume of a torus.

A number of scientists and engineers have voluntarily joined with Mr. Rodin over recent years to explore the implications of his findings.

The Rodin Coil

The Rodin Coil is a toroidal—or doughnut-shaped—form wound by wires in a pattern consistent with the number patterns discovered by Mr. Rodin. Toroidal shapes wound with wires are commonly used for inductors in electrical circuits, often for use in transformers. However the pattern of winding in a Rodin Coil is radically different from conventional toroidal coils. Experimenters have produced some samples of the Rodin Coil to measure the effects of this new approach to winding wires around a torus. . . .

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

The excerpt that you quoted seems to contradict what you said about wire winding patterns being "unclear". Quite the opposite, the patterns are "discovered" by Rodin, according to the quote. What the hell has he discovered?

And you missed the white elephant in the room: Rodin said that base 10 (and his particular brand of sudoku) is given to us by God. So it's not ANY sort of research. It's plain superstition, not math.

Just to help you out with the question you can't POSSIBLY answer, Mary, despite claims to being a "researcher": what would happen if we used base 8?

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:02 PM

Originally posted by milkyway12

Also, i keep Googling this Russell P. Blake guy .. nothing is showing up on him, other than Mark Rodin.

I tracked him down - see

www.abovetopsecret.com... (page 106 of this thread - the linked post is at the top of the page, there is some discussion on that page))

and exchanged a couple of emails with him -

www.abovetopsecret.com... (page 127)

If he's still working for that aussie outfit they are on the net & easy enough to find - readify.net... - IIRC I jsut used their contact address & asked them if he was there, and they eitehr sent me an email address or passed my email onto him - I forget which.

I got the impression he doesn't really care about Rodin - as per that email I quoted back on page 127 - he thinks he had an interesting idea or 2, but is a bit of a nut.
edit on 10-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

I got the impression he doesn't really care about Rodin - as per that email I quoted back on page 127 - he thinks he had an interesting idea or 2, but is a bit of a nut.

So, your impression is that Blake no longer trusts his own intuition that he had back in 2001?

posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

It became clear to me that Mr. Rodin's work was a synthesis of numerical patterns which had previously been overlooked by conventional science and mathematics.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Mr. Rodin has discovered a series of regularities in the decimal number system heretofore undocumented in mathematics.

Are there math experts on the forum who can recommend a website or a book title or some other resource for reading up on numerical patterns and regularities in the decimal number system?

posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 06:14 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

For me personally, I find it hard to fully appreciate the significance of the patterns until I examine other number systems, like base 8 for example.

So if you really want to learn to understand an appreciate patterns, you may be asking the wrong question, by focusing on the base 10 numbering system.

Once you see the patterns in other numbering systems, in addition to the base 10 numbering system, then you may have a new appreciation for the patterns in base 10; at least that was the case with me.

posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 06:32 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Do you have a resource recommendation?

And do you have a comment about regularities in the decimal number system? Rodin said his math has no anomalies. Is that a reference to regularities in the decimal number system?

top topics

39