"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Rodin did not claim a material third helix, but an energetic(his definition of that "higher
dimensional Bioaetheric Template
(Morphogenetic Field) defined by
the mathematical number pattern 3,
9; 6; 6, 9, 3") field in the given constrained space of DNA, and labeled this concept as a third helix. Anything to the contrary is misrepresenting Rodin's claim.

Any person with reading comprehension see that critics are saying the same thing as ImaFungi stated, but see the only aspect of the concept their "side"(critics aren't willing to debate or don't give the impression to be doing that) wants to admit, don't concede the point and polemicise further to derail the topic more than it is at this point.

But discarding Rodin for a moment, even on accepted science, much is not known "published in scientific journals" yet.

News of a four-stranded structure of Quadruple helix in DNA, based upon guanine.

Released last month, by authors at Cancer Research UK and University of Cambridge.

Discovery and research in quad-helix DNA has been published! 21-1-2013 by Krakatoa
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread920145/pg1

20 January 2013 Last updated at 19:19 GMT

'Quadruple helix' DNA seen in human cells
By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21091066

Peer-reviewed Nature Chemistry, open access to fulltext

www.nature.com/nchem/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nchem.1548.html

Quantitative visualization of DNA G-quadruplex structures in human cells

Giulia Biffi, David Tannahill, John McCafferty & Shankar Balasubramanian

Nature Chemistry (2013) | doi:10.1038/nchem.1548
Received 17 October 2012 | Accepted 06 December 2012 | Published online 20 January 2013

Abstract

Four-stranded G-quadruplex nucleic acid structures are of great interest as their high thermodynamic stability under near-physiological conditions suggests that they could form in cells. Here we report the generation and application of an engineered, structure-specific antibody employed to quantitatively visualize DNA G-quadruplex structures in human cells. We show explicitly that G-quadruplex formation in DNA is modulated during cell-cycle progression and that endogenous G-quadruplex DNA structures can be stabilized by a small-molecule ligand. Together these findings provide substantive evidence for the formation of G-quadruplex structures in the genome of mammalian cells and corroborate the application of stabilizing ligands in a cellular context to target G-quadruplexes and intervene with their function.

Originally posted by beebs
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?

Because they have nothing to do with Rodin's use of the word vortex. If you think you can provide a link, by citing a historical mathematical description of a vortex, and showing how that's related to Rodin's mathematical description of a vortex, that would be on-topic, but since Rodin has no mathematical description of a vortex, that's not possible.

An analogy would be if person X started a thread on cars that run on vacuum energy, and you want to discuss horse drawn carriages. Yes, horseless carriages and horse drawn carriages can both be called carriages, so they use the same word, but discussing horse drawn carriages will do little or nothing to advance the discussion of propelling cars powered on vacuum energy...it's just as irrelevant as your desire to discuss historical references to vortices which have no relevance to Rodin's ramblings. But if you feel otherwise, go ahead and start the discussion with an explanation of the relevance. Just saying both people used the word "vortex" does not show relevance, as in the analogy of using the word "carriage".

To me, it seems then that you have missed the point AND have ignored an attempt to increase the level of discussion.

What point did I miss?

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
Rodin did not claim a material third helix, but an energetic(his definition of that "higher
dimensional Bioaetheric Template
(Morphogenetic Field) defined by
the mathematical number pattern 3,
9; 6; 6, 9, 3") field in the given constrained space of DNA, and labeled this concept as a third helix. Anything to the contrary is misrepresenting Rodin's claim.

Any person with reading comprehension see that critics are saying the same thing as ImaFungi stated

First of all it's the "critics" which stated there was a claim from Rodin about an invisible third helix, which is 100% correct in the sense of stating what Rodin has said. He did. Interestingly enough, "ImaFungi" thought they need to repeat exact same thing, as if it disproves anything or somehow provides an escape from inescapable, which is realization of Rodin's idiocy. Rodin said there was an invisible helix. The user "Arbitrageur" said the same. The user "ImaFungi" said the same. Now, it's you who's saying the same. Who's complaining about "reading comprehension now"?

I won't go as far as to ask WHY is Rodin mentioning the "Bioaetheric Template". Scratch that, I AM going to ask why Rodin is telling us about that "template". How did he detect its existence? What's the proof? How did he detect the "invisible helix"? If you have never read the "Emperor's New Clothes", now is a good time to catch up on your education. You just might learn a thing or two. They also had invisible threads in that paper, you know. Andersen doesn't say if the threads were bio-aetheric.

There is the same idiotic pattern in that whole charade. Rodin says there is a black hole inside a donut. There is literally not even a prediction of why it would ever form. It can't be seen or detected by any means or methods. Like the clothes of the naked emperor in the book. Exact same pattern applies to the "third helix". There is not description of the "field", no motivation of its existence and for that matter, no way to ascertain same. You see, it's "higher dimensional". Just like emperor's new clothes. Yet those who fancy all that New Age crap are happily buying that, for they value instant gratification of cool words and ILLUSION of knowledge ("black holes", "aether", "higher-dimensional" and all that other word soup") above their ability to look sane, smart and/or respectable.

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
Any person with reading comprehension see that critics are saying the same thing as ImaFungi stated

Which version? ImaFungi flip-flopped. First said it sounds like a "spiral of space", then said "guess not". That resolved the discrepancy but you don't seem to be able to keep up.

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 ...

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

Originally posted by ImaFungi
hmm guess not.. guess it sounds more like a field in a space

I was giving exact quotes from Rodin.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
Any person with reading comprehension see that critics are saying the same thing as ImaFungi stated

Which version? ImaFungi flip-flopped. First said it sounds like a "spiral of space", then said "guess not". That resolved the discrepancy but you don't seem to be able to keep up.

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 ...

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

Originally posted by ImaFungi
hmm guess not.. guess it sounds more like a field in a space

I was giving exact quotes from Rodin.

I responded with that because after reading what he wrote in the paragraph you linked,, it sounded like he thinks there is some action going on in between the strands themselves in the groove spaces... I was trying to make a snide remark by calling this a field of activity, in space... because fields are something that is thought to be useful and meaningful and valuable and something, and at the same time "invisible"

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I was trying to make a snide remark

Yes, that's typical of trolls.

But it's still a significant difference.

A maglev train will operate if there's a field in the space between the train and the track.
If there's no field in the space, it won't operate. So a field is really something even if it's invisible.

Of course none of this lends credence to Rodin's field claims. In the case of the maglev train we have evidence of the field when the train levitates. What evidence do we have of Rodin's claimed field? He provides none.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


As it is an argument now and not a debate for tens of pages, in the last few pages of analysing flow of posts, that was a non-issue.

You all agree that Rodin claimed there is 3 helix DNA. What triggered the cascade of posts to devolve into a non-issue was Mary Rose's post, coming from the viewpoint of chemical helix, when Rodin was not claiming a chemical helix.

You were all-inclusive, adding the third helix under Rodin's own physics framework.

Mary Rose didn't presume that you talked about an energetic helix, as you spoke in a non-descriptive generic way.

Normally it would never devolve into such circumstance in a debate, but it shows that analytics-based discussion fell long ago.

With the above, it can be seen that ImaFungi didn't flip-flop. It all comes to presumptions and what a poster bases its posts on, which groundwork it builds upon, down to the minimal sentence and expression, etc.

ImaFungi was speaking of the physical nature under Rodin's physics framework.

I don't see how "spiral of space" can be confused for something else when Rodin clearly qualified it as non chemical by saying 'invisible'

Spiral= the third helix that Rodin claims Space=the physical nature of the helix

His next post (www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread651297/pg247#pid15879607) again reinforced what he meant, by newly generated bickering

ImaFungi :

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

He clarified the non-issue of chemical or physical(Rodin's physics) with the statement you think flip-flops

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

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

As it is an argument now and not a debate for tens of pages, in the last few pages of analysing flow of posts, that was a non-issue.

It became an issue when Mary effectively claimed that Arb was lying. Arb quoted Rodin to the T, but Mary, regardless of her self-proclaimed "research skill", was not aware of that paragraph that Rodin wrote, and demanded a direct reference. Said reference was promptly furnished to her. The rest of this is whitewash, saying "oh I didn't really mean that" or "Mary didn't mean that" or "critics didn't mean that".

You were all-inclusive, adding the third helix under Rodin's own physics framework.

WHAT FRAMEWORK? WHAT PHYSICS? Pointing your finger in some direction and saying there is a black hole there, and a "bio-aetheric field" here, is NOT physics, it is bullcrap.

Mary Rose didn't presume that you talked about an energetic helix, as you spoke in a non-descriptive generic way.

She would have done well if she took a little time to research the very source she's promoting on ATS for some years, without bothering to learn what it's all about. The paper is clear. Mary didn't know what's in it.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Mary is the only person who knows for sure what Mary meant.

Clearly Arbitrageur was insinuating that Rodin thinks we have 3 strands of DNA when the whole wide world knows otherwise. Keyword: "seen":

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Are you suggesting that my statement "third helix that nobody has ever seen" is materially different from Rodin's "the third helix being invisible"?

If so please explain the difference. I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

Furthermore, there is no excuse for the above misrepresentation, in view of the crystal clear statement at the end of the article referenced:

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.

No "triple helix" there.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Mary is the only person who knows for sure what Mary meant.

Clearly Arbitrageur was insinuating that Rodin thinks we have 3 strands of DNA when the whole wide world knows otherwise. Keyword: "seen":

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.

Mary, the keyword is "not seen", as you just posted yourself. Do you insist it is seen?

And Arb didn't insinuate, he quoted. There is no escaping here, Mary.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
No "triple helix" there.

So is it now your position that Rodin is contradicting himself, one moment claiming there are three helices and the next claiming there are only two?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


His use of the word "helix" as a third helix was clearly and consistently with the context of:

. . . being invisible and occupying a displacement space called the Major Groove which is located in between the two helical strands.

What you did was lump the third helix together with the known 2 physical strands of DNA and accuse Rodin of being delusional.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

His use of the word "helix" as a third helix was clearly and consistently with the context of:

. . . being invisible and occupying a displacement space called the Major Groove which is located in between the two helical strands.

What you did was lump the third helix together with the known 2 physical strands of DNA and accuse Rodin of being delusional.

Mary, the direct quote from Rodin you have been offered a few times on the past couple of pages (and which doesn't seem to sink in) is this:

DNA is not comprised of two helices but from three with the third helix being invisible

DNA is comprised of THREE helices in Rodin's own words. Who's lumping up what? If you imply that Rodin is being imprecise and ambiguous, he sure as hell is. But don't shoot the messenger, Arb was right on the money pointing to this as a choice piece of baloney.

The "third helix" in DNA which is so conveniently invisible, undetectable and shifted to other dimensions - sheesh...

It's beyond my comprehension how a healthy mind can take a random statement for truth. I take it back, a healthy mind cannot. Check this out:

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.

reply to post by buddhasystem


The third helix is clearly associated with magnetism, and energy healing.

Magnetism is different from physical strands.

Now do you understand?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

His use of the word "helix" as a third helix was clearly and consistently with the context of:

. . . being invisible and occupying a displacement space called the Major Groove which is located in between the two helical strands.

What you did was lump the third helix together with the known 2 physical strands of DNA

Rodin did that himself and you edited the quote to try to make it look otherwise. Here is the full quote:

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.

I still don't see any material difference, yes I said the third helix had never been seen and Rodin said it was invisible. How is that any different? It's not.

Seems like I hit a nerve with this and you are trying to resolve your cognitive dissonance by inventing some kind of misrepresentation by me when there isn't one. I may have paraphrased what Rodin said before I quoted him but I'm comparing my paraphrasing to the actual quote and it looks very accurate to me.

and accuse Rodin of being delusional.

Isn't he? Did he present any evidence for his invisible helix?
Claiming an invisible field for which evidence is presented, as in maglev train = not delusional
Claiming an invisible field for which no evidence is presented = delusional in my book, but what else would you call it?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

The third helix is clearly associated with magnetism, and energy healing.

According to the Rodin's paper, it's associated with higher-dimensional bio-aetheric template, not some "magnetic field". Why are you putting words in Rodin's mouth? Why is it "clearly" associated? What's magnetism? If it's a magnetic field, what's causing it?

Magnetism is different from physical strands.

Magnetism is a phenomenon. Strands are molecules. What you are saying is like "color 'green' is different from a tub of ice cream". Duh, it is.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
According to the Rodin's paper, it's associated with higher-dimensional bio-aetheric template, not some "magnetic field". Why are you putting words in Rodin's mouth? Why is it "clearly" associated? What's magnetism? If it's a magnetic field, what's causing it?

Yes, you can substitute "magnetic field" for the word "magnetism," the word I used.

Here are the relevant things Rodin said:

This Major Groove is not empty but instead is where all information for the genetic coding of life exists. . . . inside the Major Groove of DNA exists a higher dimensional Bioaetheric Template (Morphogenetic Field) definded by the mathematical number pattern 3, 9; 6; 6, 9, 3 revealing the existence of an All Coherent higher intelligence guiding evolution.

. . . 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 its associated magnetic Field represented by the numbers 3 & 6 which are perfectly nested in unison within the Major Groove of DNA.

. . . 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.

Yes, he's making a reference to God in the aether being manifest in a magnetic field which houses a Master Plan, so to speak.

It's still a magnetic field housing information - just like Rupert Sheldrake's Morphogenetic Field.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
According to the Rodin's paper, it's associated with higher-dimensional bio-aetheric template, not some "magnetic field". Why are you putting words in Rodin's mouth? Why is it "clearly" associated? What's magnetism? If it's a magnetic field, what's causing it?

Yes, you can substitute "magnetic field" for the word "magnetism," the word I used.

Well this is strange, but OK.

Here is a part of your quote from Rodin:

. . . 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.

This is patently false. I can charge a metal sphere with a negative charge, and there won't be any magnetic field generated. For that matter, I charge it positively. How come this simple stuff slips by your research skills?