Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 247
39
<< 244  245  246    248  249  250 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
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?


Your question was addressed to Arb, but I'll bite:

I find it facetious. Speaking for myself, I had to consider MANY ideas that I wasn't taught in college, simply because my college years are in the past and the science and society made some impressive progress. So I need to keep learning. Second, a reference to college is probably a reference to academia. Even then, there are subjects where there is a consensus (such as we can't detect the size of the electron and for practical purposes it's a point like object). And there are others, such as string theory and other theories, which is not clear to what extent they are credible at all. It's all covered in a good educational system. So if Arb is half as smart as I think he is, he would never imply anything like that.

What's more important, all of this is beside the point. What's presented in this bunch of anti-science threads is well, anti-science, pure and simple. And as I said on many occasions, none of this "material" is rooted in reality. So it's another way where you referencing college is quite moot. Colleges don't deal with Emanations of God's Will coming from donuts. It's not even a concept. It's undiluted stupidity.




posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
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?
If you can't comprehend the material as presented, I'm not sure I can explain it any more plainly.

Appeal to authority is not always fallacious. According to the source I posted, it's fallacious when the authority appealed to is not expert in the subject or when there's no consensus among experts.

So if the authority is an expert in the subject, and there is a consensus among experts, then appealing to authority in this case would not be considered fallacious.

However I don't really even consider authority as significant on this topic. I put more emphasis on experimental evidence than on statements of experts, so I'd say in the case of Rodin's stuff it has little to do with authority and everything to do with experimental evidence...mainstream has mountains of it, and Rodin has a donut, which is also an expression for zero.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
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?
If you can't comprehend the material as presented, I'm not sure I can explain it any more plainly.

Appeal to authority is not always fallacious. According to the source I posted, it's fallacious when the authority appealed to is not expert in the subject or when there's no consensus among experts.

So if the authority is an expert in the subject, and there is a consensus among experts, then appealing to authority in this case would not be considered fallacious.

However I don't really even consider authority as significant on this topic. I put more emphasis on experimental evidence than on statements of experts, so I'd say in the case of Rodin's stuff it has little to do with authority and everything to do with experimental evidence...mainstream has mountains of it, and Rodin has a donut, which is also an expression for zero.


Could you briefly and honestly summarize rodins theory.. and the mainstream theory it falls short against?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Could you briefly and honestly summarize rodins theory.. and the mainstream theory it falls short against?
It's more like incoherent ramblings than a theory. It goes something like this:
Look at mathematical properties of 9 and play with them...use resulting string of digits to put numbers on a donut shaped torus. Wind wires around Torus, make black hole, cure all disease and travel to other galaxies using unspecified methods.

It doesn't even make any sense but if you really thought there was a black hole in the coil you'd have to explain why it's not doing what black holes would do, which is exert a gravitational field so strong that not even light can escape. People put their hand in the middle of a Rodin coil without having their hands ripped to shreds by the black hole, which pretty much proves there isn't one.

Rodin also says he's solved the dark matter mystery, it's the number 9. What does that even mean? It's complete nonsense.

He also says that DNA is a triple helix, whereas all observational evidence points to a double helix. He has no evidence for a triple helix, it seems to be some kind of obsession with the number three that he claims there's a third helix that nobody has ever seen.
edit on 6-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He also says that DNA is a triple helix, whereas all observational evidence points to a double helix.


Quote him. Where does he say that?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He also says that DNA is a triple helix, whereas all observational evidence points to a double helix.


Quote him. Where does he say that?


I oblige. A complete document, complete with his mug shot.

PDF

The particular piece of baloney you are looking for is located on pages 12 and 13.
edit on 6-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He also says that DNA is a triple helix, whereas all observational evidence points to a double helix.


Quote him. Where does he say that?
Mary the researcher, here you go:

ExtraOrdinary Science &Technology - Jan/Feb/Mar 2010
Vortex Based Mathematics, Basis for the ExtraOrdinary Rodin Coil
Marko Rodin-Creator and Inventor


DNA is not comprised of two helices but from three with the third helix being invisible and occupying a displacement space called the Major Groove which is located in between the two helical strands.



Originally posted by buddhasystem
PDF

The particular piece of baloney you are looking for is located on pages 12 and 13.
Thanks for that link, the old one I had from Rodin's website doesn't work anymore.
edit on 6-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: added reply to buddhasystem



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The Major Groove is already in the architecture of DNA.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The Major Groove is already in the architecture of DNA.


Maybe it's Major Tom. To Ground Control.

But in Rodin's writing (and you've been given a quote):


third helix being invisible


You've asked for it. You got it. Where is "thank you"?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


He's not saying there's a third strand.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


He's not saying there's a third strand.


He's saying EXACTLY what Arb quoted, the third helix. Are you done with denying facts?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
tandem.bu.edu...

it seems hes saying there can be imagined a spiral of space represented by the differences in grooves

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ADN_animation.gif
edit on 6-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


He's not saying there's a third strand.


He's saying EXACTLY what Arb quoted, the third helix. Are you done with denying facts?


It seems hes speaking about the space between the two strands, as being a third invisible helix

So one of the only things you could nitpick about his theory was something you mis interpreted
edit on 6-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
PDF



DNA and Microbiology

How precious are your eyes and the priceless gift of sight? Do you really believe that your vision evolved from the random hap hazard trial and error of evolution? Chance alone is not possible to make up the secrets contained within your DNA. Then where is preserved this missing and hidden information? DNA is not comprised of two helices but from three with the third helix being invisible and occupying a displacement space called the Major Groove which is located in between the two helical strands. Nature abhors a vacuum. This Major Groove is not empty but instead is where all information for the genetic coding of life exists. Rodin’s Vortex Based Mathematics is the schematic for life revealing that inside the Major Groove of DNA exists a higher dimensional Bioaetheric Template (Morphogenetic Field) defined by the mathematical number pattern 3, 9; 6; 6, 9, 3 revealing the existence of an All Coherent higher intelligence guiding evolution.

Selective splicing of novel DNA sequence combinations are able to be performed at will for medical treatment and the elimination of all diseases by utilizing these higher
dimensional Flux Fields to control DNA cleavage and receptor sites.

Maxwell previously stated that there must needs to exist a Monopole to symmetrize all of his electrical equations. Rodin’s math is a blueprint that gives us the ability to observe this missing Monopole in the form of an Inertia Aether Flux represented by the number 9 and it’s associated Magnetic Field represented by the numbers 3 & 6 which are perfectly nested in unison within the Major Groove of DNA.

The backbone of DNA’s double spiral helix is comprised of phosphates and phosphates are known to always have a negative electric charge and obviously with any negative electric charge there is always going to be an associated magnetic field.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
tandem.bu.edu...

it seems hes saying there can be imagined a spiral of space represented by the differences in grooves

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ADN_animation.gif
That's not Rodin...did you read what Rodin said? Here's a longer version of the quote (ibid):


DNA is not comprised of two helices but from three with the third helix being invisible and occupying a displacement space called the Major Groove which is located in between the two helical strands. Nature abhors a vacuum. This Major Groove is not empty but instead is where all information for the genetic coding of life exists. Rodin’s Vortex Based Mathematics is the schematic for life revealing that inside the Major Groove of DNA exists a higher dimensional Bioaetheric Template (Morphogenetic Field) defined by the mathematical number pattern 3, 9; 6; 6, 9, 3 revealing the existence of an All Coherent higher intelligence guiding evolution.


Do you really think that sounds like a "spiral of space"??



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


He's not saying there's a third strand.


He's saying EXACTLY what Arb quoted, the third helix. Are you done with denying facts?


It seems hes speaking about the space between the two strands, as being a third invisible helix

So one of the only things you could nitpick about his theory was something you mis interpreted


a) You seem to conveniently (or by mistake) omit all the other stuff that Arb posted on your request, by the way. About that moronic torus and all.

b) Arb did not misinterpret anything. He's reference is correct. Mary made an attempt to discredit Arb, and suffered an epic fail. Arb referred to an invisible helix, and so did you. Are you misinterpreting yourself, by chance?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
tandem.bu.edu...

it seems hes saying there can be imagined a spiral of space represented by the differences in grooves

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ADN_animation.gif
That's not Rodin...did you read what Rodin said? Here's a longer version of the quote (ibid):


DNA is not comprised of two helices but from three with the third helix being invisible and occupying a displacement space called the Major Groove which is located in between the two helical strands. Nature abhors a vacuum. This Major Groove is not empty but instead is where all information for the genetic coding of life exists. Rodin’s Vortex Based Mathematics is the schematic for life revealing that inside the Major Groove of DNA exists a higher dimensional Bioaetheric Template (Morphogenetic Field) defined by the mathematical number pattern 3, 9; 6; 6, 9, 3 revealing the existence of an All Coherent higher intelligence guiding evolution.


Do you really think that sounds like a "spiral of space"??


hmm guess not.. guess it sounds more like a field in a space



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
It seems hes speaking about the space between the two strands, as being a third invisible helix

So one of the only things you could nitpick about his theory was something you mis interpreted
I only gave you the readers digest version of discrepancies with Rodin's claims, because you've exhibited troll-like behavior in the past and I didn't want to waste too much time on a troll. I'd say you're exhibiting that behavior again, accusing me of misinterpretation when it's you who are doing so, and you didn't even address the other points I mentioned. There are other claims of Rodin like 9=18 etc but hey what's the point of bringing those up when you haven't even addressed the other points I already made, which are hardly nit-picks?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





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.


No. You have it backwards. Rodin's idea is not a priori absurd. Rather, you have spent time reducing his mysticism to absurdity. While in principle the method is valid, most of the time it is not clear that you are actually showing derived consequences of Rodin's ideas or just misrepresenting them as straw mans. Rodin himself could obviously be more clear... but then again we must remember he is a Bahai mystic.


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.


You do realize the same can be said about the theoretical entity/term 'electron'. Just because you do all of the calculations and have had predictive success in the past using the theoretical 'electron' does not mean there is a corresponding real thing existing in the world that is an 'electron' precisely as described by the theory.

No comment on Maxwell's vortices, eh?! Faraday? What about Thomson's vortex atom?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Your argument is that historical physical theories and physicists that talk about vortices should not be a part of this thread because there is no evidence for Rodin's theory?

To me, it seems then that you have missed the point AND have ignored an attempt to increase the level of discussion. Why you would persist in the shallow diatribe rather than take an opportunity to discuss relevant and important things is beyond me. Oh, sorry, I guess this is the wrong forum.






top topics



 
39
<< 244  245  246    248  249  250 >>

log in

join