"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I have an open mind and the lack of an arrogant attitude.

Erm, you are wrong even here. Remember your posts about "Einstein Idiots"? Disparaging remarks about "mainstream science"? Come on, with your level of critical thinking (rather lack of it) you can't even pat yourself on the back without sounding ridiculous.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You are really offended by the Einstein Idiots. I can see why. It's strong language that Bill Gaede uses because he feels that mainstream science does not allow debate and censors the alternative thinkers.

Being offended by it because you are mainstream, you should be able to relate to how the alternative community feels being ridiculed by yourself and others. You should try a little empathy.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You are really offended by the Einstein Idiots. I can see why. It's strong language that Bill Gaede uses because he feels that mainstream science does not allow debate and censors the alternative thinkers.

I'm not offended, actually, I'm humored when I see someone uneducated and uniquely unqualified to form and promote an opinion on a subject, doing just that.

In _these_ threads there is little room for debate not because of some nefarious intervention from "mainstream science", but because of mind-numbing stupidity of the material offered, and absolute refusal to use any semblance of critical thinking (and/or actual thinking on occasion) by the proponents of pathological science.

Rodin's "math" does not contain a vortex. This vortex is something that he created by pointing a pencil to a piece of paper. It does not follow from, nor does it provide the basis for the number sequence. Hence the very act of terming this "vortex based math" is just plain stupid.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm not offended, actually, I'm humored when I see someone uneducated and uniquely unqualified to form and promote an opinion on a subject, doing just that.

A classic illustration of denial.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm not offended, actually, I'm humored when I see someone uneducated and uniquely unqualified to form and promote an opinion on a subject, doing just that.

A classic illustration of denial.

This is denial

I have an open mind and the lack of an arrogant attitude.

You're only fooling yourself.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Okay. That's your opinion, which, of course, you're entitled to.

This thread is veering off-topic into personalities and hang-ups of members so I'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This thread is veering off-topic into personalities and hang-ups of members

No argument here, Mary! When you, Mary, repeatedly praise your "research skills" (which are frankly hard to detect), and recently your interpersonal skills (such as the imaginary lack of arrogance), you surely veer into your own personality topic.

reply to post by buddhasystem

reply to post by buddhasystem


You I hope are familiar with what a synonym is. Just because ancients used terms for things different from those in use today do not mean they were not referring to the exact same phenomena...even a different language can be taken as such. Green, vert, verde...etcetera.

It may do you well, to learn some of these words to expand your knowledge...so you can see what is being described are the same things and concepts, beyond the camouflage of words. If you do not; then you are limiting yourself, to a narrow sphere of research...based around one language of terms.

Sure, if we all had one language or word for the same concepts; research and discovery would move at a very fast rate...but they do not. History has a vast repository of lost concept and technology...fortunately for us some of it has been written down; unfortunately some of it wasn't...

Grab the best quarry and stone cutting technology in the world right now, and have them cut with laser precision and move over land for miles and then hoist a single block weighing over 800 metric tons (1,763,680 lbs)...for perspective a 300 foot tall Sequoia weighs about that amount, for more perspective Big Ben in London is 316 feet tall and weighs only 13.5 tons. It my friend cannot be done now, but it was done then.

Yes history has painted ancient people as ignorant savages; full of irrelevant fairy tales. So it's understandable; to think since we are so far in the future, our advancement trumps their knowledge in every way. The irony of that is the further we progress the more we find; that many of these 'discoveries' are nothing new. The difference? Terminology. The atom is described in detail in the Abhidhamma Pitaka for example, written around 29 BCE.

So it may serve you well to not dismiss the ancients, nor those that have made; the terminology barrier less of one, by digging deeper...if you really like a foreign TV show; are you going to wait until it is exported and dubbed, to learn what's happening? Or are you going find a subtitled version or learn the language? Or dismiss people's knowledge that have watched those as you wait for the dubbed version, cause it's a spoiler?

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
Yes history has painted ancient people as ignorant savages; full of irrelevant fairy tales.

I don't know where you get this from. Quite opposite is true, the ancients are given a lot of respect for what they managed to accomplished with just the tools at their disposal. There were posts in a different thread regarding that. "Savages" aren't capable of feats of organization and discipline required to build the artifacts we find nowadays. Your point is without merit.

So it's understandable; to think since we are so far in the future, our advancement trumps their knowledge in every way. The irony of that is the further we progress the more we find; that many of these 'discoveries' are nothing new. The difference? Terminology. The atom is described in detail in the Abhidhamma Pitaka for example, written around 29 BCE.

There are many amazing cases of insight and intuition. If you look at Buddhism, there is a notion of the Universe coming in and out of existence (in some texts). Intuition, insight and a hunch are all good. Now, where is that Egyptian MP3 player?

And the crap posted here...

The two elemental polarities form a third shape torus/vortex/oroborous/3d Mobius strip. This is the zero point, the trinity.

Swallow it whole if you like.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Taking something out of context; is a fun game to hammer a point by snippets...it may serve you well with stars, but nothing else. It actually was in reference; to your earlier scoffing at the ancients concept of aether; and how it translates over into other members concepts attempting to bridge the gap, as to why I made the statement. So now it is back in it's clear intended context.

The Pitaka I mentioned; is one of the three baskets that make up the Pali Canon...so it should be obvious to you that I have looked into Buddhism; 22 solid years of it. Do you have the wisdom behind it's concepts or parrot pray? Maybe just thought it a cool screen name...debasing others with names, and ad hominem attacks such as you have done here with others is not a debate. If you can't refute; it appears you decide to just debase and beat down by attacking integrity. Very noble of you sir...

Sounds like the singularity of a black hole it me, or any standard eddy current found in nature; what is your issue with it?

Egyptian MP3

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
...so it should be obvious to you that I have looked into Buddhism; 22 solid years of it. Do you have the wisdom behind it's concepts or parrot pray? Maybe just thought it a cool screen name...debasing others with names, and ad hominem attacks such as you have done here with others is not a debate.

Dude... This is priceless... To knock someone for their choice of screen name, parrot pray and then complain about ad hominem in the same breath. Bleh. Irony is rich in this one... Way to waste 22 years.

If you can't refute; it appears you decide to just debase and beat down by attacking integrity.

I'm not attacking anyone's integrity in the sense that I don't claim they are capable of stealing money or lying to people around them. At the same time, I feel I'm at liberty to point out inconsistencies and cases of sheer idiocy in some of the posts presented here. And what exactly needs to be refuted? "Egyptians used frequencies to alter the structure of matter"? That sort of crap? Seriously?

reply to post by beebs


Looking at descriptions of aether and dark matter they seem to be; pointing to the same thing, but in different terms...if you're still following this thread; your thoughts would be appreciated.

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by beebs

 

Looking at descriptions of aether and dark matter they seem to be; pointing to the same thing, but in different terms...if you're still following this thread; your thoughts would be appreciated.

Aether was regarded by ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato as the most subtle of the five Elements (note the capitalization of this word to distinguish it from the chemical elements). It was equated with the celestial sphere, with space - hence the meaning "space" of the Sanskrit word "Akasha", which is its Hindu counterpart as the fifth tattva (the tattvas are states or kinds of matter. Prithvi tattva is the gross physical matter studied by science).
en.wikipedia.org...
Philosophically speaking, it amounts to a category mistake to regard Aether as dark matter or even as any form of it. Dark matter is merely physical matter that does not emit electromagnetic energy and which is believed by many astronomers to account for about 84% of the mass of the universe. A small fraction of it may be baryonic dark matter: astronomical bodies such as massive compact halo objects. Most of it is non-baryonic matter composed of neutrinos and hypothetical particles such as axions, supersymmetric particles, etc. Dark matter is NOT a more fundamental kind of matter than the more familiar kind that can radiate photons. By definition, Aether IS more fundamental. Indeed, some Victorian physicists believed that atoms were composed ultimately of Aether (e.g., Lord Kelvin modelled atoms as circular vortices in the Aether). The only properties that Aether and dark matter have in common is that they don't emit light. However, it is a fallacy to regard this as sufficient to make them synonymous. Aether does not belong to the material world. Rather, it is non-physical.

The Aether is Akasha, the fifth Element, or state of matter. It is NOT part of the physical universe because it is the matter that belongs to a higher, superphysical reality. All ancient traditions regarded Aether as the SOURCE of the physical universe - not merely as some kind of physical matter IN the physical universe. Mistaking the occult/alchemical "Aether" for their light-carrying medium was the conceptual error committed by many Victorian materialists, who conflated it with the luminiferous ether - the hypothetical medium of electromagnetic waves. By all means use the phase "etheric matter" if you feel disposed to make a distinction between matter that is detectable to the human eye or scientific instruments and more subtle kinds of matter that - like dark matter - are invisible to them. But using the word "Aether" as though it is the basic "stuff" of physical matter is metaphysically, philosophically and scientifically wrong, just as it is fallacious to equate it with dark matter merely because both are invisible.

Originally posted by micpsi
The Aether is Akasha, the fifth Element, or state of matter. It is NOT part of the physical universe because it is the matter that belongs to a higher, superphysical reality. All ancient traditions regarded Aether as the SOURCE of the physical universe - not merely as some kind of physical matter IN the physical universe.

Can it be tapped and converted to useable power?

This is from "INTRODUCTION TO ADVANCED ETHER (DARK ENERGY) THEORY Copyright (C) 2002 by Lew Paxton Price":

In 1965, anyone who mentioned ether seriously was considered a candidate for an asylum unless, of course, he were someone who worked with it such as a radio operator, a navigator, or an engineer. Ether had been proposed and given certain qualities which I found to be false. So when I began to work with advanced ether theory, the name "ether" was tainted. To avoid confusion with old obsolete ether theory, I gave the dynamic ether a new name. I began calling it "nether" after the mythical ancient Greek name for the underlying substance. Today the astrophycists, not able to cover up its presence any longer and wanting to refer to it in a way that would make it appear to be a new idea, have christened it "dark energy".

Here's another Lew Paxton Price quote, from "PERTINENT INFORMATION":

Gravity proved to be the key to understanding the rest of the universe and its phenomena. The nature of light and magnetism were immediately apparent. The fact that time dilation existed became apparent in a matter of weeks and the same equation for time dilation found in Einstein's theory was easily derived from this new foundation for physics. Of course, what is called "Dark Energy" today was known immediately as it is an integral part of the correct theory for gravity. Dark Energy and "Dark Matter" are still problems for contemporary physicists. Both have been explained very logically on this website and are certainly no mystery.

I had always wondered why E = mc 2 did not conform to the usual equation for kinetic energy which is KE = mv 2/2. It was the "divided by two" part of the KE equation that did not translate into the matter/energy equivalency. Once the nature of light was understood, I could easily derive the matter/energy equation from the KE equation. When I received copies of Einstein's last work from Princeton, I realized that Einstein had been fruitlessly working along the same lines.

So a true understanding of gravity is the key. Gravity can be easily and thoroughly understood by any competent aeronautical engineer, by most plumbers, and by many housewives. Yet, it is almost incomprehensible to the typical physicist.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here's another Lew Paxton Price quote, from "PERTINENT INFORMATION":

He goes on to say this, which is true:

This not the fault of the physicists. Physicists are not trained for such things and must "unlearn" too much to easily grasp concepts such as "funnel" gravity. Our educational institutions require overhauling in every way from their financial foundations to their fundamental philosophy of non-acceptance of the new and unusual. Small wonder that the true nature of gravity, simple as it is, has not been discovered by those who claim to be the authorities. Yet, there are physicists and engineers who were working along the same lines and have discovered most of the basics on their own.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Gravity can be easily and thoroughly understood by any competent aeronautical engineer, by most plumbers, and by many housewives. Yet, it is almost incomprehensible to the typical physicist.

May we have a summary of your comprehension of gravity?

Published on Oct 2, 2012
Description: In this video, British biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, describes how science is being constricted by unexamined assumptions that have hardened into dogmas*. These dogmas not only put arbitrary limits on the depth and scope of science, but may well be dangerous for the future of humanity.

According to these dogmas, all of reality is material or physical; the world is an inanimate machine; nature is purposeless; free will is an illusion; notions of higher orders of consciousness and absolute ("God") awareness exist only as ideas in human minds, which are themselves nothing but electrochemical processes imprisoned within our skulls.

So Dr. Sheldrake asks: should science be an ideology or belief system, or should it reclaim its birthright as an unbiased, open-ended method of inquiry? In his latest book, SCIENCE SET FREE, he argues that the materialist ideology is moribund; under its sway, increasingly expensive research is reaping diminishing returns while societies around the world are paying the price. In the skeptical spirit of true science, SCIENCE SET FREE turns ten fundamental dogmas of materialist science into exciting questions, and shows how all of them open up startling new possibilities for discovery. This book may well challenge your view of what is real and what is possible.