"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Mary Rose


Mary, do you understand what base10 or base9 actually means? Can you give the result of 6+7 in both bases? And if you can, what would be your conclusion about which base is used by Rodin?

It is much more valuable to understand why something works in a certain way than to simply know the answer.

Originally posted by -PLB-
It is much more valuable to understand why something works in a certain way than to simply know the answer.

Bravo! I agree.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Mary, do you understand what base10 or base9 actually means?

Does it mean how many digits you have in a system before it starts over again??

Originally posted by -PLB-
Can you give the result of 6+7 in both bases?

No. (Duh.)

Originally posted by -PLB-
And if you can, what would be your conclusion about which base is used by Rodin?

I don't really care which base is used by Rodin.

What I care about is understanding this:



Because intuitively I think that graphic represents something real in nature, and, dynamic.

reply to post by Mary Rose


It puzzles me how you can both agree that understanding it is more important than getting answers, and then state that you don't understand number bases and don't care to either. What if I told you that you will never understand that image if you do not understand basic things like number bases? What does your intuitions tells you about that?

reply to post by -PLB-


That perhaps you might be right.

Are you?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by -PLB-
Can you give the result of 6+7 in both bases?

No. (Duh.)

Instead of going "duh" on PLB, you should have done a modicum of effort and do what they asked about. It should be entirely within the reach of mental capacity of a functioning adult. It's really simple. And what I observe consistently in this one and other pseudo-science threads is one thing that proves how toxic this pseudo-science is: it cultivates laziness. It creates an illusion that you are "onto something" to the extent that you don't bother to grab a pencil and a textbook and spend an hour studying base 10 or the Ohm's law. And remain mired in ignorance, which you will onto yourself.

Because intuitively I think that graphic represents something real in nature, and, dynamic.

You can't even point to what it might remotely represent (hint -- nothing, really). There are all sorts of symmetrical designs out there that are "philosophically pleasing", as Feynman said in the famous video. This doesn't mean jack.

reply to post by buddhasystem


No lectures from you are in order.

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

In the section "Extension - 'Advanced' Mathematics: Its Relationships to Energy," on page 69, the author states:



Here are the links:

The Rodin Glossary (Uploader misspelled "Rodin" on the cover sheet only.)
Periodic functions
algebraic groups
modular forms
Shimura's conjecture
equations of Diophantus
Fermat's equation

I don't recall seeing "The Rodin Glossary" before. It's 484 pages.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

No lectures from you are in order.

Freeeeequencies!

reply to post by buddhasystem




Particles!! Status quo!! Ridicule!! Fallacies!!

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

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In the section "Extension - 'Advanced' Mathematics: Its Relationships to Energy," on page 69, the author states:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Here are the links:

The Rodin Glossary (Uploader misspelled "Rodin" on the cover sheet only.)
Periodic functions
algebraic groups
modular forms
Shimura's conjecture
equations of Diophantus
Fermat's equation

I don't recall seeing "The Rodin Glossary" before. It's 484 pages.

milkyway12,

Are you still around?

What do you think?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The Rodin Glossary (Uploader misspelled "Rodin" on the cover sheet only.)

I like this statement, from "How to Use This Book," page 2:

Do not force your linear thought patterns onto the diagrams . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Particles!!

It's been a while (if ever) that I posted anything on particles, and I'm even less inclined to obsess about them, as opposed to many participants in these pseudo-science threads who keep mumbling their "harmonics", "frequencies" and "vibrations". So Mary, that's a non sequitur on your part.

Ridicule!!

That's right, what else. Learn or be laughed at.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That's right, what else. Learn or be laughed at.

I could say the same for you, but that's inappropriate, because ridicule is a fallacy of logic and has no place on a forum.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That's right, what else. Learn or be laughed at.

I could say the same for you, but that's inappropriate, because ridicule is a fallacy of logic and has no place on a forum.

Well logic doesn't work well anyhow, when one is looking at grandiose pronouncements like Rodin's, who reported that he created a black hole in his garage and will be able to travel to any location in the Galaxy, and cure all decease. That, and number 9 is dark matter. This is stone cold stupid nonsense, and there are few ways to deal with it outside of ridicule. Sorry.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Regardless of your point of view, ridicule is an unacceptable debate modus operandi.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Regardless of your point of view, ridicule is an unacceptable debate modus operandi.

I admit I don't readily see how one can "debate" a statement that base 10 arithmetic is God-given, and that in the middle of a torus there is a point where "space-time implosion" takes place. You can't debate random statements based neither on facts or even mere logic. "There is no spoon". Likewise, there is no debate.

And if you dislike ridicule, please go back and erase your posts referring to "Einstein's idiots". Unless you do so, you don't have a high horse to speak from, not even a pony.

Freakuencies.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Freeeeequencies!

From David Icke's October 27, 2012 presentation at Wembley:



Eventually, people will see the light.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Lots and lots of pretty pictures, Mary. First, Rodin's sudoku in neon colors, now this. Unfortunately, no amount of artistic value can compensate for lack of thought.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I'll give you both mad props, if you can go out and balance a 9-ton swivel door all by your lonesome with no heavy machinery.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . But he's at a disadvantage to Ed Leedskalnin, since he's not using the more advanced block and tackle technology Leedskalnin is seen using in this photograph:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09ab04affd83.jpg[/atsimg]
Leedskalnin even had a smaller block and tackle to haul up the heavier block and tackle.
More pics of Ed and his lifting hoists at themanyfacesofspaces.com

Here is a screenshot of the home page of the website where you got the photo you posted:



I'm posting this because I always check who is behind a website so I know who my source is. Who is behind this website?

And where did your posted photo come from?

Also - this is just curiosity about the photo itself: What's this?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm posting this because I always check who is behind a website so I know who my source is. Who is behind this website?

And where did your posted photo come from?

You have got to be kidding me. Where did the photo come from? Did you try clicking the link that is under the photo in your quote? You don't see the link to it there in the middle row of coral castle thumbnails on the right? And underneath the thumbs it says "click pics to enlarge"?

Regarding who is behind the website, for a researcher like you Mary, it's a piece of cake to see who the website is registered to. Beyond that I couldn't tell you. But I'm not sure how good a researcher you are if you didn't see the link under the picture.

Also - this is just curiosity about the photo itself: What's this?

I would need to examine the negative to make a more definitive evaluation, but without doing that I can speculate because I've seen similar defects from my own darkroom...looks like bubbles:

Film & Camera Defects

There is indeed a lot that can go wrong with photographic film. Water drops, chemicals residues or particles of dust can attach themselves to the gelatine emulsion of a photographic film, causing specks or spots of different sizes and shapes (many photographic artifacts are due to insufficient agitation of the developing solution). Even in the manufacturing stage, air bells and all sorts of undesired substances can create UFO-like images when they get trapped between the emulsion layer and the film support.

So, by examining the negative, I might be able to determine if the bubbles are actually in the emulsion itself, or if there were bubbles on the negatives while it was being processed and if insufficient agitation resulted in bubbles sticking to the film and interfering with the processing. It's possible that some other type of film defect is present but some type of bubbles would be my first guess.

Here's a related link with some discussion about bubbles:
Bubbles in the emulsion!!! How to avoid!