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.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 24
39
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Okay, what assumptions about aether do I have to make? What assumptions about energy do I have to make?




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 
I don't set traps, my friend.


In order to relate to you we'll have to get this straight... Energy as "ether' is woven into matter. When you're willing to entertain this thought...
But what if that thought isn't the way things are? Are we allowed to question this 'ether' thought, or must it just be accepted?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
I vote for this thread we just assume there is aether as per the specifications Americanist makes. Obviously for the theory to be scientific it has to be falsifiable, so it has to make testable predictions. Then we can use the predictions and check out data observed and see if they correspond or not.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 
Cool. Ok, we assume the ether as Americanist describes it, and see what happens...

No traps. Just curiosity.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
 
I don't set traps, my friend.


In order to relate to you we'll have to get this straight... Energy as "ether' is woven into matter. When you're willing to entertain this thought...
But what if that thought isn't the way things are? Are we allowed to question this 'ether' thought, or must it just be accepted?


Sure, and we can question why nothing really matters as a rule of thumb too... Accept it as a practice or not: Nothing matters, so you're right back to the place you started.

In order for this platform to operate it requires two objects: The vehicle behind spun density and a background substance to line vector based pathways or structures.

These pathways have already been detailed for you: 1,4,7 - 2,5,8 mapping our 6 directions of space. 3,6,9 as a binding current of "aether." The vehicle in question amounts to myriad singularities and vortices nestled within tori morphing derivatives via a clockwise/ counterclockwise rotation.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 
Ok, you lost me. Can you explain 'spun density'?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
 
Ok, you lost me. Can you explain 'spun density'?



Spun density: the product of a binding principle whereby energy "aether" is raveled into what we experience as mass.

Results: reality, gravity, and infinite potential scales.
edit on 18-2-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist


psuedo-scientific terms
reply to post by QuantumDisciple
 


You wouldn't be referring to dark matter, dark flow, dark energy, etc., etc. would you?

What was it Stephen Hawking classified as a term? Massless Virtual Particles I believe it was.


An editor of Discover magazine once set out to find out how permanent magnets work. After a ton of reading and inquiry, he ended up speaking with a Nobel-winning physicist who spent 15 minutes spinning the theory that "virtual photons" were responsible. And the physicist ended by saying the editor wasn't really interested in science, just in baiting scientists. Virtual photons pick up masses of metal. And make magnets levitate above bismuth. Yeah.
I once asked a physicist about this myself, years before I read that. He blithely stated it was the "magnetic domains". Just the geometric order of atoms/molecules in space.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Rodin relates his work to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle beginning at 5:15 in a September 3, 2009 interview of him by Laura Fox of Visionary Culture Radio. The MP3 can be downloaded here.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I think the irony in this discussion has become so overwhelming, that I find I cannot participate anymore to the degree I wish I could. I just don't have enough time nor the patience to keep repeating things that should be apparent in the source material. There is so many youtube videos with/about Rodin, that if any skeptic is still wondering why/how Rodin's ideas match the observable universe - they have not taken the time to quench their wonder.

I thought this was a case of misplaced presuppositions, and I still think that is part of the case, but now I think it is more psychological.


“The most modern physics, even in the finest details, can be represented symbolically as psychic processes.” - Wolfgang Pauli



“Like Jung, Pauli believed that confronting the problem of evil was a necessity for human survival. He had in mind physicists in particular, even those who had no direct connection to the development of destructive forces. He felt that physics was caught in a web of adverse consequences of its own making, and that failure to consciously address this issue would lead to a stagnation of physics because of an unconscious loss of interest in the subject.” - (Lindorff, Pauli and Jung, p. 118)



“Functional thinking tolerates no static states. For it, all natural functioning is moving even where our thought technique deals with rigid structures and mobile forms. It is just this motility and uncertainty in thinking, forever flowing, which places the observer in contact with the natural process.” (Reich, SW p. 293)



“Since this view of nature is a result of the biological constitution of the natural observer, the world picture cannot be separated from the creator of the world picture. In short, against the natural research which created the atomic bomb stands the natural research which discovered the cosmic orgone energy, sharp, clear, and incompatible.
It is a matter of deciding the question whether nature is an “empty space with a few widely scattered specks,” or whether it is a space full of cosmic primordial energy, a continuum which functions in a lively way and obeys a generally valid natural law.”
(Reich, From Ether, God and Devil, 1949, in SW p. 276-277)



“The prevailing dogmas may be right, but they still need to be challenged. I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies. Since I am heretic, I am accustomed to being in the minority. If I could persuade everyone to agree with me, I would not be a heretic.” - Freeman Dyson, Many Colored Glass



Matter which we perceive is merely nothing but a great concentration of energy in very small regions. We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense. . . . There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter for the field is the only reality. -Einstein (Capek, Milic page 319 The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics.)




The mass psychology of physics is a recurring cycle of paradigm anxiety and social suppression. It is relevant to us today, just as it was for the Copernican and Einsteinian revolutions. The unconscious aspects of complementarity and holism are coming into conscious focus by the depleting stature of the reductionist system of science. Since the scientific belief system and method is one of the prevailing frameworks for world views in todays society, this coniunctio may have a significant impact on mass psychology in general.

The mass psychology of physics is infatuated with the male archetype, thus allowing the neurotic symptoms of imbalance to arise from the suppression of the female archetype, that of holism and of the richness of the vacuum of space.

The dissolution of boundaries represents the suppressed anima, as well as the fullness of space in a physical sense, and the irrational interdependency of quantum mechanics between the subject and the object. Classical reductionism is the ego which has divided the world up, and quantum mechanics is the uncomfortable reminder that such division is not real - the unconscious truth known inherently to nature regardless of human arguments over reality. This notion has survived in certain Eastern philosophies, as well as certain occult and alchemical practices which helped develop science, leading right up to the denial of the aether models around the turn of the twentieth century.

Then, we got so caught up with there not being an aether in the traditional sense, that we didn't realize when we just renamed it and redefined it more precisely. It still provides the same function - ZPE, below the Planck scale, quantum foam, 'sea of probability', etc. Light does not travel through empty space, there is no such thing as empty space, space itself is wave-like and has density fluctuations - it is a medium of approaching infinitely small wavelengths and is not static - always uncertain.


Obviously, then, there must be a conflict between the paradigm that discloses anomaly and the one that later renders the anomaly law-like. -Kuhn, The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions





The wave function is not an algorithm for predicting behavior of a particle, rather it is a literal structure in the medium of space.

After this is realized, then we can talk about Rodin and Keely in the proper context.

My 2c.



ETA:

edit on 18-2-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I know I'll draw flake for this, but you really can't use post-modernist critiques to erect new science. Theories must be falsifiable to be accepted as scientific. If there's no way to test it, it becomes a kind of faith, not science. Wanting a new paradigm is all well and good, but just because you want it to be accepted as so doesn't mean it is scientific in any way. If aether exists, but it is not testable in any ways, makes no new predictions that can be observed, then it's a matter of faith, not science.

My 2c.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



I know I'll draw flake for this, but you really can't use post-modernist critiques to erect new science. Theories must be falsifiable to be accepted as scientific. If there's no way to test it, it becomes a kind of faith, not science. Wanting a new paradigm is all well and good, but just because you want it to be accepted as so doesn't mean it is scientific in any way. If aether exists, but it is not testable in any ways, makes no new predictions that can be observed, then it's a matter of faith, not science.

My 2c.


You don't get what I have been saying. Aether is not the word we use for it now. Instead, we use terms like Zero Point energy, quantum foam, and concepts like 'below the Planck scale' to more precisely describe what was once called 'aether'.

A new paradigm will not make your precious observations irrelevant, rather it will simply explain the observations in a more comprehensive way.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
 
Ok, you lost me. Can you explain 'spun density'?
Spun density: the product of a binding principle whereby energy "aether" is raveled into what we experience as mass.

Results: reality, gravity, and infinite potential scales.
Doesn't it also have something to do with ten being equal to one through the reduction process which is casting out the singularity event using a base 9 number system which is in essence a programming language? (As you explained to me on page 1):


Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
...it's a base 9 number system. Using the example you cited... 18 is (1 + 8) = 9.
In a base 9 number system, 9 (base 10) would be written as "10" (base 9), and 18 isn't equal to 1+8 (or 9) in either base 9 or base 10.


The term is called reduction. 10 = 1... This reduction is casting out the singularity event. The base 9 number system is in essence a programming language. Call it what you will... This is the reason you have energy ending up as spun density (mass).

My math teacher told me that in "base 9" the number 9 doesn't appear because in base 9 the number 9 was represented by a one followed by a zero, was my math teacher wrong about base 9?

Actually it was base 8 my math teacher explained something like this, is this wrong?

www4.ncsu.edu...

Introducing Base Eight
So what if we had eight fingers, or for some other reason, we decided to start over every eighth number instead of every tenth? Then we would have "base eight" (also known as "octal") counting. In this system, there are eight symbols to work with:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

We don't need an 8 or a 9 at all: out of just those eight symbols above, we are going to represent every possible number! So, we start by listing all the symbols after the "zero."

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

When we get to that point, we're out of symbols. So what do we do? We go all the way down to zero, and add a one to our left: we write "one-zero" (10). It means "the number that comes after seven," or what we normally call "eight." This is the key turning point in this paper, so make sure you're still with me: when I write "one-oh" (10) in base eight, I don't mean ten, I mean the number eight.
Do you see how based on that I assumed there would be no 9 in a base 9 number system since there's no 8 in a base 8 number system?

Or are you saying the base 9 number system I was taught has nothing to do with the base 9 number system you are talking about and someone decided to call it the same thing even though it's completely different? I'm confused.

edit on 18-2-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Well, if it makes no prediction which can be tested, it's a matter of faith which theory you want to use. Whether you prefer the old way or the new way is entirely up to you, until there is a prediction that the new theory makes that can be tested. Then it's not up for debate, it's whichever one is experimentally superior. Most people who think the new way is superior will complain about the mindlessness or peer-pressure or conspiracy of science, while those who prefer the old way will complain about the fact it makes virtually no new predictions. Surely you can't expect all people to accept another paradigm just because it's "progressive", can you?

EDIT: And yes, I know that you're calling the sea of virtual particles "aether", but what exactly does the new form of aether predict that couldn't be predicted before? I'm mentioning this so Americanist doesn't come rolling it which his character assassination again. For example, can you harness the zero-point energy? If so, how? What exactly can you predict about it apart from "it's more intuitive to explain things with"? I personally believe science should be a conservative field so we don't go for false positives and take on new theories which are later found out to be false steps. Math, which is the field I'm better acquainted with, has been affected by this type of thinking. Intuition is often wrong. I think when you make progress, it should lead to positive results in the search for truth.
edit on 18-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


The person who was interviewed along with Rodin is Jamie Buturff, who has a background in building construction, and after a spiritual awakening, began researching alternative energy. He has a website and a YouTube channel. He gave a presentation at the 2010 Extraordinary Technology Conference. Here is the description for an associated video:


Here are a few excerpts from the "Health and Biological Effects of the Rodin Coil" presentation at the Extraordinary Technology Conference in Albuquerque, NM by Jamie Buturff.





posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
You don't get what I have been saying. Aether is not the word we use for it now. Instead, we use terms like Zero Point energy, quantum foam, and concepts like 'below the Planck scale' to more precisely describe what was once called 'aether'.
Aether isn't the word we use for it now, because it's not the same thing. What we now call the invisible structure of space is "the fabric of space-time" instead of aether.

Einstein referred to it as a "new aether" but with different properties:

Luminiferous aether


In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether....

he continued that special relativity does not necessarily rule out the aether, because the latter can be used to give physical reality to acceleration and rotation. This concept was fully elaborated within general relativity, in which physical properties (which are partially determined by matter) are attributed to space, but no substance or state of motion can be attributed to that "aether" (aether = curved space-time).
so to some degree one could say that what we now call the "fabric of space-time" might be what Einstein referred to as the "new aether", but it's very confusing to call it aether for a number of reasons...it wasn't the same as the old luminiferous aether because it had different "properties" and general relativity obviated the need for it. But the term aether had other problems in that it had been used to describe a wide variety of other failed concepts which were never confirmed with observation, and in fact proven false:


Maxwell wrote in Encyclopædia Britannica:[A 2]


Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic effluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, until all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers.... The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light.
So the fact that the "new aether" of Einstein not only wasn't the same as the old luminiferous aether, but also the fact that aether had been used in so many different ways as described in that Maxwell quote, that we dropped the term aether.

We've discussed the need to clearly communicate in this thread, and how failure to do so has resulted in some lack of understanding. If we say "Fabric of space-time" I think that clues us all in to the general relativity description. If we say "aether", what does that mean? It's not clear. It has been used by Einstein to refer to "new aether" which is different from the luminiferous aether which is also different from all the other types of aether referred to by Maxwell in the above quote.

So that's my opinion on why we don't call it "aether" anymore, the term has been used to describe so many different things, all of which have been proven false except for maybe the Lorentz aether and general relativity eliminated the need for that, so we decided it's better to just call it the "fabric of space-time" instead of "new aether" as Einstein did because that would have added one more definition of "aether" to the confusing multitudes of definitions that already existed.

In conclusion, I think it's a seriously gross oversimplification to claim that "Aether is not the word we use for it now." which implies that we just call it something else. We call it something else, because it's not the same thing, not because we decided to rename it.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Demonstrations and discussion:




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Parts 2 - 8:
















edit on 02/18/11 by Mary Rose because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


So Mary, what do you think was exactly demonstrated in this video? I watched it through 7:20. I don't see anything outstanding happening at all. The reading of the current that the guy is taking is irrelevant as it does not reflect the power consumed by the motor fed with AC, they teach you that in electrical engineering 101. Voltage and current are not in phase when you apply AC to a coil. At 6:30 the guy says he's not an engineer. I believe him! And... in the beginning Marko says he's enjoying "divine guidance"... and I don't believe him. He just looks pathetic.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Measuring AC power


You are correct to worry about phase shift. That is a common mistake many folks make when they try to do power measurements. Multiplying the RMS voltage with the RMS current will not produce an accurate result if phase difference is present. And if you are using a powerful motor like a router, you can expect some phase shift.







 
39
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join