"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 229
39
<< 226  227  228    230  231  232 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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"?


No, I'm not kidding you. Yes, I did all of that. The photo is not identified as to where it came from. The photo credit is what I'm looking for. Who took the photo?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


That's ridiculous. Who it's registered to doesn't mean a thing.

The website has no information about the rationale or the intention or the biography of the people who put together that article.




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
. . . Rodin 'fits the curve', shall we say, of both mainstream and suppressed science.

John Searl found the same thing in numbers, I recommend the documentary "The John Searl Story"...


It is interesting to listen to people brainstorm about Searl technology:




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
You are defined by your word...





posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


That Pulver guy is my 3rd degree connection on LinkedIn, which means my colleagues know his colleagues. He's a techie in New Yorks City area. How that qualifies for "academic exploration", beats me. I'm not dissing techies, I've been one for a long time, but sheesh, that's academic my @ss.

And yeah, no substance in that video. Brainstorming? Nah, brainfarting.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
No, I'm not kidding you. Yes, I did all of that. The photo is not identified as to where it came from. The photo credit is what I'm looking for.
I identified where the photo came from. If you wanted to know the source of the source I posted, you didn't make that clear.


Who took the photo?
Why are you asking me instead of the source? They might not even know, but that sure looks like Leedskalnin to me.

Besides, you can watch Wally Wallington move huge blocks of stone by himself on youtube, using "sticks and stones" as he calls it, meaning very primitive technology, which is literally sticks and stones though his "sticks" may be 2x4's from the local lumber yard but that's not too much of a stretch, he could do the same thing with a tree branch.

Wallington's feat of not even using tripods and block and tackle technology to move huge stones by himself is more impressive to me.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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.



I might be a little late to the conversation but I think you might be able to help me
I have stumbled upon this number table, that I think may be related to this discussion about 9.
I'm not a math person just a patern observer.

I made a Thread about it, not sure if it is any significants, but it sure makes some interesting shapes. The image below is 9 and 11 (1+1=2)

Here's the math I used to create the table.
I took the odd numbers 1 3 5 7 9 11 (1+1=2) 13 (1+3=4) 15 (1+5=6) 17 (1+7=8) 19 (1+9=10 1+0=1)
So it looks like this 1 3 5 7 9 2 4 6 8 1....
I made the table below starting with the above number sequence at 1 and going up diagonaly to 8. I filled in the rest of the numbers then mirrored the number sequence.




edit on 1-11-2012 by Observationalist because: Added a space



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observationalist
I might be a little late to the conversation but I think you might be able to help me
What kind of help are you looking for? Do you want to know how to convert your table of numbers into an intergalactic flux thruster atom pulsar spaceship drive, like Rodin wants to do with his? Even Rodin hasn't figured that out.

You'd get more propulsion from eating a large helping of beans.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Why are you asking me instead of the source?


Because you are responsible for the evidence you post.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Why are you asking me instead of the source?


Because you are responsible for the evidence you post.
Do you think something is wrong with that picture of Leedskalnin?
I don't get why it even matters when Wally Wallington can do better, and you might be able to go watch him do it in person if you asked him nicely. Then you could take your own pictures.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Here:

reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


...amazing what smart people can do... without the help of "flux thrusters" and other such pompous nonsense.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
...amazing what smart people can do... without the help of "flux thrusters" and other such pompous nonsense.
Yes, but I suspect even after watching that video, some people will claim it's as fake as the moon landing video, and that he really raised that block with the help of aliens and/or sudoku, because, you know, humans with primitive technology can't move big stones.

I find not only the primitive technology impressive, but also the fact that he does it by himself...no huge teams of people involved as some had speculated may have been involved with ancient large stone construction.
edit on 1-11-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I find not only the primitive technology impressive, but also the fact that he does it by himself...no huge teams of people involved as some had speculated may have been involved with ancient large stone construction.


And so it appears quite likely that a "huge team" of workers, when properly trained and managed, can do so much more. That being said, when it comes to Stonehenge, I am more intrigued by how they transported the stones to the site. Installation, while hard, always seemed doable to me. But carrying that stuff from quarries had to be quite hard.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

There is one area of particularly rough terrain where it's been estimated a team of 100 men would have been needed if they pulled the stones up the hill on a sled.

But if Andrew Young's ball hypothesis is correct, it may have been easier than that. The 70mm stone balls found near stone circles in Scotland gave Young the idea that wood balls might have been similarly used to move the Stonehenge stones...he's already proven it's possible with the smaller stones, and last I heard he was trying to get funding to test it with the large stone equivalents. Too bad there won't be any remnants left of wood balls after this amount of time, so all he can do is show feasibility I suppose...but at least the stone balls survived at other stone circle sites.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

One interesting idea is that a glacier may have transported the bluestones the majority of the 160 mile distance to the source (perhaps 100 miles), but they are presumably still looking for signs of quarrying to see if this is the case. Either 60 or 160 miles wouldn't be easy over land, but on the water, it would be a lot easier, and it seems likely they covered part of the distance on water. There's been some speculation on the exact route the stones took, some suggestions have the route using as much water as possible.

news.nationalgeographic.com...
edit on 2-11-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Right.

Another weirdness I experienced while examining the stone circles in England was the Ley line phenomenon. I went dowsing and got a signal when crossing a Ley line (without knowing in advance where it would be precisely located). And you know me Arb, I'm hardly a woo-woo. The signal was reproducible when I walked backward.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

I know nothing about ley lines, so I read the wiki. I still didn't know what they were so I read it again...and I still don't know. I know what the wiki says, but it's so generic in its description I don't really understand it. I suppose I'd have to read the sources cited to know what they really are, if there is such a thing. But first impression is it does sound kind of woo-like, though the claims by John Michell perhaps moreso than the claims by Alfred Watkins, though the impression I got was that neither's claims have been widely accepted.

However I regarding your experience, I've read claims of magnetic anomalies at henge sites (which I haven't confirmed), and also seen this research exploring whether or not humans can sense magnetic information (like some birds can):

Humans have a magnetic sensor in our eyes, but can we detect magnetic fields?

Steven Reppert, who led the new study, is also cautious. However, he notes that Cry2 is heavily active in the human retina. “It’s beautifully poised to sense light but we don’t know if it has the downstream pathways that communicate magnetic information to the brain. The possibility exists.”
So if magnetic anomalies exist and if humans can sense them, then it may not be woo. I tend to have an open mind about things like this which at least seem within the realm of possibility (because birds have shown the ability), but have just not been proven yet by science. It's not Rodin's type of woo where sudoku magically somehow can become an interstellar spaceship drive, since there's no plausible hypothesis for this.

At least one might be able to come up with a plausible hypothesis for the phenomenon you describe.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


After I posted on my Ley Line experience, it occurred to me that this particular instance could have been a hoax. You see, this is a VERY popular tourist destination, and a thriving business for a great number of tour guides. I think it's inside the realm of possibility that someone planted a magnetized piece of steel pipe a few inches below the surface, to "enhance" the tourist attraction. I believe the dowsing rods were steel. So there. I'm nowhere certain about it, but that's one thing that I believe is possible.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

Now that's what I call a plausible hypothesis! Deception and human greed are certainly documented phenomena. And if people are burying magnetic objects at the sites, then there could be magnetic anomalies there, though the cause wouldn't be natural. I was a bit skeptical of the magnetic anomaly claims, but if the anomalies are caused by humans promoting tourism, I'm not as skeptical.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist


I think you are right! This is the right way to spell the name of God, and Rodin was wrong all the way! Make sure you let him know! Clearly, you are onto something.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I think you are right! This is the right way to spell the name of God
Now that we know how to spell it, we have to get the pronunciation right. Since that spelling has more characters than the typical three, I think this longer pronunciation may help to reflect the longer spelling:

Carl Sagan-Cosmos edited for rednecks





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 226  227  228    230  231  232 >>

log in

join