"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 226
39
<< 223  224  225    227  228  229 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Compression via yanking 0's... Quite a comparison!
I followed the same method in each base. You seem to be implying the methods are different, but they aren't. If it's "compression" (as you call it), on one base, why isn't it "compression" in all of them? It just so happens the other digits being "compressed" already happen to be zero, but you can still add the zeroes.


First question, what/ where/ and how does mapping vectors work in your view?
I use vectors the way I was taught in the university. I haven't seen anything really wrong with that or a need to change it.


Second, would the other systems display a lattice structure of any kind?
If you have multiple memory modules inside your computer, storing binary information, you could say that's sort of a lattice structure, but I don't really understand the question or what you're specifically getting at, so I'm just guessing at the answer.


Last but not least... Where is Zero-Point found?
I don't understand that question either. If you said zero I'd say I just didn't show it on the table because it's trivial, but it could be shown with another row on top. But since you said zero-point, that tends to have a different meaning from zero, which is more a topic of physics than mathematics.




posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Notes on Vortex Based Mathematics"


I don't believe the following has been posted or considered yet. It's from page 29 of 132:



Maybe you have to have an image to pinpoint what Blake was referring to.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Notes on Vortex Based Mathematics"


I don't believe the following has been posted or considered yet. It's from page 29 of 132:
Was that written by Blake?

Here are comments from page 3:

What can one share but their opinions? Invariably, much of what follows will be colored by my interpretations. It will also be highly speculative in nature as I am still learning much, so please forgive me of any errors or redundancy. Many of these patterns were pointed out to me by others for which I am very grateful. I humbly offer my ideas on these matters for your consideration, and welcome any feedback in response. Let us work together to take it further and apply it towards constructive purposes (i.e.: that which is mutually beneficial towards ALL simultaneously)
So, it's "highly speculative in nature", and this is from the author, who is putting it kindly, that there's probably nothing at all behind this.

Regarding applying it "towards constructive purposes", we haven't seen any evidence of that in 226 pages and I don't suppose we will start seeing that now? Other than looking at those diagrams and saying "Oh I see a pattern!", if that brings you joy then by all means say that. But besides that, I don't know what anybody is going to do with it. You can write that number sequence or any sequence you want around a torus, but it doesn't change the torus or have any special significance that I can see, and apparently by the author's reference to "highly speculative" writing, they have no real basis for attributing any significance to this sequence either.




Maybe you have to have an image to pinpoint what Blake was referring to.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Where is Zero-Point found?


Does the following excerpt have any bearing on the Zero-Point you are referencing?

From "Stochastic Electrodynamics":


Max Planck opposed Einstein's photon idea from the beginning, and remained a champion of the unquantized Maxwell field throughout his life. For example, in 1907 in a letter to Einstein, he said I am not seeking the meaning of the quantum of action (light quantum) in the vacuum but rather in places where emission and absorption occur, and I assume that what happens in the vacuum is rigorously described by Maxwell's equations. It should be noted that nowadays it is customary to refer to "light quanta" as "photons".

In 1911 Planck introduced the hypothesis of the zeropoint electromagnetic field in an effort to avoid Einstein's ideas about discontinuity in the emission and absorption processes. His ideas were published in successive editions of The Theory of Heat Radiation, which came out in an English version, published by Dover, in 1959. They were rediscovered by various people, including myself, in the 1950s and 1960s. We tried to explain all quantum effects with this zeropoint field, and called the new discipline Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED)

While achieving some notable successes, for example with the Casimir effect, SED must overall be judged a failure. (Of the two recent textbooks we cite in the reference list below one agrees and the other disagrees with this evaluation.) It is now clear to me that the reason for this failure is that we did not take into account the extended structure of the electron, which is what gives it its spin for example (see Quantum Electrodynamics ). Nevertheless, we have been able to show that the phenomenon of Parametric Down Conversion is, like the Casimir effect, explainable using only the zeropoint electromagnetic field. Note that recently our work in this area has enabled us to make a direct challenge to the established Photon theory of this phenomenon, with a fairly easy and striking new experimental prediction. For details go to the above page.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Notes on Vortex Based Mathematics"


From page 65:


I find that Vortex Based Mathematics is a very elegant framework. I would even venture to say that it literally contains and unifies all branches of all currently known mathematics. However, the approach is so different that it may not be readily apparent as to how.


Pages 65 - 78 are on this topic and the document includes numerous helpful links.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Was that written by Blake?


The author of the document is unknown to me. I checked on Scribd for clues but I don't know who it is.

In my opinion, the author is highly intelligent and thorough in his/her research, and is extremely careful and articulate.

The document is full of links to other documents and videos.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The document is full of links to other documents and videos.


For example, I learned about this link:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "Stochastic Electrodynamics":


Max Planck opposed Einstein's photon idea from the beginning, and remained a champion of the unquantized Maxwell field throughout his life. For example, in 1907 in a letter to Einstein, he said I am not seeking the meaning of the quantum of action (light quantum) in the vacuum but rather in places where emission and absorption occur, and I assume that what happens in the vacuum is rigorously described by Maxwell's equations. It should be noted that nowadays it is customary to refer to "light quanta" as "photons".

In 1911 Planck introduced the hypothesis of the zeropoint electromagnetic field in an effort to avoid Einstein's ideas about discontinuity in the emission and absorption processes. His ideas were published in successive editions of The Theory of Heat Radiation, which came out in an English version, published by Dover, in 1959. They were rediscovered by various people, including myself, in the 1950s and 1960s. We tried to explain all quantum effects with this zeropoint field, and called the new discipline Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED)

While achieving some notable successes, for example with the Casimir effect, SED must overall be judged a failure. (Of the two recent textbooks we cite in the reference list below one agrees and the other disagrees with this evaluation.) It is now clear to me that the reason for this failure is that we did not take into account the extended structure of the electron, which is what gives it its spin for example (see Quantum Electrodynamics ). Nevertheless, we have been able to show that the phenomenon of Parametric Down Conversion is, like the Casimir effect, explainable using only the zeropoint electromagnetic field. Note that recently our work in this area has enabled us to make a direct challenge to the established Photon theory of this phenomenon, with a fairly easy and striking new experimental prediction. For details go to the above page.


by clicking on the link, from page 108 of 132, under "Wave Theories," Caroline Thompson's Phi Wave Aether Theory," which, in turn, gave me several other links to pursue.

The link for "Caroline Thompson's Phi Wave Aether Theory" brings up the page "Caroline Thompson's Physics." The first sentence on the page is:


This site is about what is wrong with Fundamental Physics.


I see that the page is based on material that came from a website associated with a university in Wales.


edit on 10/16/12 by Mary Rose because: A correction



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Notes on Vortex Based Mathematics"


From page 65:


I find that Vortex Based Mathematics is a very elegant framework. I would even venture to say that it literally contains and unifies all branches of all currently known mathematics. However, the approach is so different that it may not be readily apparent as to how.



The next two paragraphs are this:


While it seems to be only arithmetic patterns based on numerology-like reasoning, these only serve as a means to introduce a more fundamental order which can be approached in "higher" dimensions as well. As Rodin's associate, Alastair Couper writes:"Marko's original vision was essentially a perception of a four dimensional sphere, which becomes a complicated toroidal structure when projected into three dimensions. He also perceived a mapping of an energy flow on the surface of this projected toroid."

I will try to make the following topics as approachable and friendly as possible. Even if it does not make sense immediately, please keep reading. Feel free to skip over parts and come back to them later.


By googling "four dimensional sphere" I learned there is the term "hypersphere":


A mathematical object existing in more than three dimensions, analogous to the sphere in that all points on the surface are equidistant from the central point; a generalization of a sphere in more than three dimensions.


Is a "hypersphere" the same as a "four dimensional sphere"?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Where is Zero-Point found?



Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "Stochastic Electrodynamics":


. . . In 1911 Planck introduced the hypothesis of the zeropoint electromagnetic field in an effort to avoid Einstein's ideas about discontinuity in the emission and absorption processes. His ideas were published in successive editions of The Theory of Heat Radiation, which came out in an English version, published by Dover, in 1959. . . .


Did the term "Zero-Point" originate in 1911 with a hypothesis by Max Planck of a "zeropoint electromagnetic field"?

And was the hypothesis a result of Planck disagreeing with Einstein?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Notes on Vortex Based Mathematics"


From page 93, the section "Addendum - Sine Waves":



The section concludes on page 108 with this:


It is important to keep in mind that the waves on an oscilliscope (which includes sine waves) describe a periodic motion. It can be applied to axial spin/rotations, beating/pulsations, orbits/spiralling, cycles consisiting of two or more states, and other like phenomena, not just "waves" in the traditional sense.


Does mainstream science recognize a "Phi spiral" as used in this context?

Is the role of "spin" neglected in mainstream science?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

The decimal, base 10 is the most chaotic, and computers don't use that internally for that reason because the function of computers has some basis in doubling. So from an engineer's perspective, these other bases are more likely to be mathematical gifts from God than decimal . . .


From page 6, under "Vortex Based Mathematics - A Summary":




This figure is the crux of much of the work, and the means by which the number patterns necessary to be able to apply it are usually introduced. Each pattern has physical correspondences that I will attempt to elucidate after I describe them all.

All the math patterns are shown by "casting out nines" – i.e.: reducing every multiple digit numbers into a single digit through addition (also known as Modular-9 Arithmetic, Decimal Parity or Digital Root; others might even use the terms Indigs or Fadic Sums for this type of action).

Nearly everything will be referenced against the number 9.


Is it accurate to be talking about base 10 and its attributes vs. other bases when base 10 has 10 digits but Rodin's math only uses 9?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Or could just be the path of light from its source to wherever its perceivably supposed to be.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Notes on Vortex Based Mathematics"



It unites all branches of mathematics because it can do all mathematical functions simultaneously.Furthermore, the coordinate system it contains allows you to model everything as a vortex in great detail,from the structure of atoms to galaxies.The vortice is ubiquitous throughout nature.By "casting out nines" you take all things back to their archetypal form. All numbers can only interact with each other in certain patterns, and therefore imply an underlying geometry. It is this geometry that describes how all energy naturally flows, the numbers acting like pathways. It is the science of harmonics


This was quoted in this thread before, but it still strikes me as sheer nonsense. "All mathematical functions"? Like, how many?

A quick primer on how functions are defined and what they can represent shows rather quickly just how stupid that passage from Rodin is.

Further, I don't see the structure of the atom modeled in this torus in any shape or form.

Blah.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


We know, BS.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


We know, BS.


You know? You are good with math, and you agree that it's BS?



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


We know how you, BS, feel.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


We know how you, BS, feel.


But of course you do, Mary. And I know that no matter what, you will pick a poor brand of mysticism over education.
"Emanations" my @ss.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is it accurate to be talking about base 10 and its attributes vs. other bases when base 10 has 10 digits but Rodin's math only uses 9?
Where did you get the idea Rodin's math only uses 9?
I already had this discussion with Americanist but either you weren't paying attention or you forgot.
You do realize the number 9 doesn't exist in that form in base 9, right?
the number 9 in base 9 is written as 10 (base 9), and 8 is the highest single digit number in base 9.
edit on 24-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Where did you get the idea Rodin's math only uses 9?

By looking at this:




Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I already had this discussion with Americanist but either you weren't paying attention or you forgot.

I remember the argument but it didn't make much sense to me.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You do realize the number 9 doesn't exist in that form in base 9, right?

No, I don't realize that.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
the number 9 in base 9 is written as 10 (base 9), and 8 is the highest single digit number in base 9.



~~~~~

I looked at the Wikipedia article "Modular arithmetic" regarding the term "modulo." It says that the "modulus" is the number after which a system starts over, and with the clock, it's 12. And I thought we were calling Rodin's math base 10. Thus, my question.

Why is base 9 not in your chart:



~~~~~

Thanks for your help with this.




new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 223  224  225    227  228  229 >>

log in

join