"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 246
39
<< 243  244  245    247  248  249 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestorm
Anytime some ego feels the need to point they should remember that this in Hindu is called the Gyan Mudra ,
The pointing finger represents the EGO; the thumb the True consciousness or the Atman and the other three fingers represent body, mind and intellect


Thanks, that's a very useful description. I'll be making use of it right away in accordance with this ancient tradition. For example, when talking about how Rodin promised to travel to any corner of the Universe, produce unlimited energy, unlimited food, and cure all disease using a plastic donut wrapped in a length of copper wire - I'll use a modern version of the Gyan Mudra, which features a slightly elevated middle finger. That really helps to balance the prana in my body, damaged by exposure to such sheer idiocy. I hope Atman has enough power to counteract that.



edit on 6-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Arb and BS... given the amount of time since our discussions in the past, I thought you both would have approached this subject with more academic rigor. The amount of non-sketchy non-crazy historical sources surrounding this subject are many. They can be used to de-mystify the unclear and mystic notion that Rodin has applied to physics what is taken for granted in fluid dynamics.

Instead, you waste your time with shallow diatribe.

Rodin isn't the first one to talk about vortexes in physics, nor is he even remotely the best one to do it.

It has been argued by people smarter than yourselves that it was completely rational for Lorentz to continue researching in his own program rather than switch to Einstein's.

Why don't you ever talk about Faraday's argument regarding the physical reality of lines of force?

How about the historical FACT that Maxwell explained displacement using vortex 'filaments' concentric with the direction of current in the aether? Oh... but you will say Maxwell was wrong! Even if that is the case (which is debatable), he was still smarter than you.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Arb and BS... given the amount of time since our discussions in the past, I thought you both would have approached this subject with more academic rigor.


Consider the action-reaction law in physics. There is a remote analogy here, in the following way - absurd is called absurd for a reason, and the reason is that an absurd thesis is removed from logic, reality and all things academic. I'd be happy to debate actual physics (and it happens sometimes, and we are lucky to have real experts here on ATS, such as people who design radar systems and a few actual theoretical physicist). However, when I read that God's Will is emanating from Rodin's torus, I can't apply "academic rigor" to it. Aspirin does not cure Ebola virus. Academic rigor cannot dispel something that's already beyond the realm on a normal conscious process.


They can be used to de-mystify the unclear and mystic notion that Rodin has applied to physics what is taken for granted in fluid dynamics.


You see? There is no physics in Rodin's math puzzles with number 9 in them. It beats me how you can assume there is. A word soup of "implosion" and even "argon plasma" does not constitute physics. It's baby's talk.


Rodin isn't the first one to talk about vortexes in physics, nor is he even remotely the best one to do it.


Except there is no vortex in what he's doing. He's saying "there is a vortex!", but this doesn't a vortex make. Seriously. The fluid dynamics that you mention deals with real phenomena that can be observed and measured. However, when Rodin makes a pencil sketch on a piece of paper, that's just that.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
However, when Rodin makes a pencil sketch on a piece of paper, that's just that.


That is a mischaracterization.

This is not a pencil sketch on a piece of paper:


From Notes on Vortex Based Mathematics, "Vortex Based Mathematics - A Summary, Doubling Circuits, Reciprocals & Shearing"



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 

This thread is about Rodin's vortex based mathematics, and it's in the skunk works forum, so nobody here is required to post any evidence in support of their claims.

If you really wanted to discuss real evidence-based science where people WOULD be required to provide evidence to support their claims, I think it would be better to do that in a new thread in the science forum, absent any discussion of Rodin since there is simply no evidence to support his vortex statements.

If you want to talk about real vortices and real experimental evidence, that would be more interesting than Rodin's made-up stuff.

Seems like you are trying to change the subject, perhaps because you realize there's nothing to Rodin's vortex claims, as you have no evidence to share about them. I posted Rodin's "vortex picture" earlier in the thread and explained why it's not even a vortex.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
However, when Rodin makes a pencil sketch on a piece of paper, that's just that.


That is a mischaracterization.

This is not a pencil sketch on a piece of paper:


From Notes on Vortex Based Mathematics, "Vortex Based Mathematics - A Summary, Doubling Circuits, Reciprocals & Shearing"
Mary, the author of that is clearly not Marko Rodin.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This is not a pencil sketch on a piece of paper:


From Notes on Vortex Based Mathematics, "Vortex Based Mathematics - A Summary, Doubling Circuits, Reciprocals & Shearing"


Are you saying I'm looking at a computer generated image in my browser? I grant you that. OK, Rodin published a sketch in the form of an electronic document (although there are multiple paper versions, as you surely know). It doesn't mean there is a vortex. It doesn't mean that there is a black hole in the middle. In fact, it doesn't mean anything at all.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arb, that's beside the point. I can produce a fancy picture of a cube and claim there are 8 black holes, one in each apex. Number 8 is somewhat dignified, don't you think? And maybe there is the 9th black hole in the center of the cube, for a good measure.

Here, I've proven it. My proof is just as valid as Rodin's. Anyone who says it's false is an agent of the evil mainstream science.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by beebs
 

...
Seems like you are trying to change the subject, perhaps because you realize there's nothing to Rodin's vortex claims, as you have no evidence to share about them.


...that was my feeling as well, it's a switch attempt.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Mainstream science doesn't assist itself with computers? Get real. The concept is the important thing. The concept is original to him.

He had many endorsers who you ridiculed and ridicule is a fallacy.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Mainstream science doesn't assist itself with computers? Get real. The concept is the important thing.


You seem to contradict yourself. First I said that Rodin produced a pencil sketch (as I'm sure he did). I was frankly referring to a concept, but OK. Then you post a computer-generated image as if it disproves my thesis. It doesn't. Then you are saying that the medium is not important. I can agree with that. As to the "concept" - there is no concept. There is a picture of varying sophistication and color scheme. There is always the central point in the picture (thanks for the symmetry of the circle used), and then, drum roll, comes a proclamation that this center represents a black hole. Phew. That's it. It's not a concept, that's a statement. And it has nothing to do with reality. It does not in fact follow from any of the arithmetic that Rodin likes to do, which is remarkably similar to some Android applications my kids like to use.



He had many endorsers who you ridiculed and ridicule is a fallacy.


"Endorsers" is getting old, especially that one of them basically calls Rodin a kook. And ridicule is a reaction of a healthy mind facing an idiotic and mildly comic statement.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
any body check out walter russell?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I was going to pose this question to you in the other thread, but came across this one and see you troll here too...

What is your greatest scientific achievement? ( you said you worked at cern for 22 years) What was your most impressive discovery ( top 3 would be nice)? What percentage of currently living humans would you place yourself over in regards of having more of a complete comprehension/understanding of what the universe is and the way it works?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestorm
any body check out walter russell?



never heard of him, but looked him up a bit... this is pretty cool





posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
He had many endorsers who you ridiculed and ridicule is a fallacy.
You are fallaciously applying "appeal to authority"


the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously: either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.
None of the endorsers I recall seeing were mathematicians, so it's like Nassim Haramein getting his proton paper endorsed by computer programmers who knows nothing about protons. It doesn't provide any validity in either case.

Moreover, I would suggest if you canvassed some experts in mathematics and asked them to evaluate Rodin's ramblings, that there certainly would be a consensus among mathematics experts, which would match what the one endorser we contacted said about Rodin's stuff: "nonsense".



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
He had many endorsers who you ridiculed and ridicule is a fallacy.
You are fallaciously applying "appeal to authority"


the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously: either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.
None of the endorsers I recall seeing were mathematicians, so it's like Nassim Haramein getting his proton paper endorsed by computer programmers who knows nothing about protons. It doesn't provide any validity in either case.

Moreover, I would suggest if you canvassed some experts in mathematics and asked them to evaluate Rodin's ramblings, that there certainly would be a consensus among mathematics experts, which would match what the one endorser we contacted said about Rodin's stuff: "nonsense".



So is every time you dismiss the credibility of ideas/concepts/thoughts/theories/hypothesis' you werent taught in college also a fallacious appeal to authority?





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 243  244  245    247  248  249 >>

log in

join