"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 249
39
<< 246  247  248    250  251  252 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here are the relevant things Rodin said:


. . . 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.
With any negative electric charge, there is always going to be an associated magnetic field?

Is that true Mary?

Or is there a magnetic field if the negative electric charge is in motion, but not if the negative electric charge is at rest?

Magnetic fields and how to make them

Electric fields come from charges. So do magnetic fields, but from moving charges, or currents, which are simply a whole bunch of moving charges.
edit on 7-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, let's talk about magnetism.

Please comment on this post from another thread.

And do you concede that magnetism is not clearly defined in mainstream science? Do you know of any unsolved issues?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Is gravity not invisible to us? How about a higher-dimensional bio-aetheric template? You're arguing semantics which normally goes nowhere at all.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
by Walter Russell
this man had a fourth grade education, he once said that if you could count to nine you could know the universe... his templates are amazing and any student of unified theories should be checking this guy out...

"The cardinal error of science lies in shutting the Creator out of His Creation.

This one basic error topples the whole structure, for out of it all of the other misconceptions of light, matter, energy, electricity, magnetism and atomic structure have grown.

If science knew what LIGHT actually IS, instead of the waves and corpuscles of incandescent suns which science now thinks it is, a new civilization would arise from that one fact alone.

Light is not waves which travel at 186,000 miles per second, which science says it is, nor does light travel at all.

The light of incandescent suns is but an effect of one of the two equally-opposed electric pressure conditions which interweave this universe into visible solids and liquids surrounded by invisible gases of space.

These two opposite electric conditions which form the basis of the constitution of matter are the compressed condition of gravity pressure and the expanded condition of radiation pressure. These two electric conditions are the equal-and-opposite pressures which make motion imperative and without which motion is impossible.

The positive electric condition compresses large volumes of light-waves into small volumes by winding them up centripetally into spiral vortices by thrusting inward from without. That is what gravitation is.

The negative electric condition expands small volumes of light-waves into large volumes by unwinding them centrifugally into voiding equators where matter disappears. That is what radiation is. Radiation thrusts outwardly from within to depolarize matter and void motion.

The light of suns and the dark of space are but two opposite conditions of the same thing. They interchange constantly. Each becomes the other sequentially.

Science excluded God from its consideration because of the supposition that God could not be proven to exist by laboratory methods.

This decision is unfortunate for God IS provable by laboratory methods. The locatable motionless Light which man mistakenly calls magnetism is the invisible, but familiar, Light which God IS--and with it He controls His universe--as we shall see."



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Yes, let's talk about magnetism.

Please comment on this post from another thread.

And do you concede that magnetism is not clearly defined in mainstream science? Do you know of any unsolved issues?
Of course the existence or not of magnetic monopoles is an unsolved problem in physics.

Now, can we claim to have an understanding of magnetism with this question being unanswered? We've discussed Maxwell's equations before and they will likely still apply even if the monopole is discovered

Magnetic Monopoles - Interview with Jonathan Morris

Drillingsraum: It wouldn't be a challenge to adapt Magnetic Monopoles to the Maxwell Equations. But how would our picture of electrodynamics and physics in general change, if we would find Magnetic Monopoles one day?

Jonathan Morris: Maxwell's equations do not change with our observations. The reason for this is the Dirac string. This contains the magnetic field that flows from the monopoles, and so the Maxwell equation that says that the magnetic field is continuous, and has no sources, still stands.
The unsolved magnetic monopole problem doesn't really suggest that we can't still make reliable predictions using the Maxwell equation model since experimental results are consistent with predictions and will continue to be so whether we find a magnetic monopole or not.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Is gravity not invisible to us? How about a higher-dimensional bio-aetheric template? You're arguing semantics which normally goes nowhere at all.
I'm arguing for evidence.

An invisible electromagnetic field causes levitation of the maglev train. This is observational evidence.
An invisible gravitational field causes an apple to fall on top of your head. This is observational evidence.

Where is the evidence for: "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."?

The question is not one of semantics, it's one of evidence.
Rodin doesn't present any evidence.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


And yet, if they're one in the same, no 'gravity' is going to keep your argument from falling apart.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The only reason I asked is that I'm following up on Rodin's claim about phosphate and a magnetic field.

Is it correct to say that for his claim to be true, there would have to be such a thing as a monopole, as apparently Maxwell thought?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Maxwell previously stated that there must needs to exist a Monopole to symmetrize all of his electrical equations.


There is an article at PHYS ORG dated March 24, 2010 entitled "Magnetic monopole experiment at CERN could rewrite laws of physics." I wonder what the outcome of the experiment was. I'll see what I can find.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'll see what I can find.


Still looking for the outcome.

Here is the CERN COURIER article about the experiment, dated May 5, 2010, "A new experiment is set to join the LHC fold. As James Pinfold explains, MoEDAL will conduct the search for magnetic monopoles.":


. . . One of the world's leading string theorists, Joseph Polchinski, has reversed Dirac's connection between magnetic monopoles and charge quantization. He has posited that in any theoretical framework that requires charge to be quantized, there will exist magnetic monopoles. He also maintains that in any fully unified theory, for every gauge field there will exist electric and magnetic sources. Speaking at the Dirac Centennial Symposium at Tallahassee in 2002, he commented that "the existence of magnetic monopoles seems like one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen" (Polchinski 2003). The MoEDAL collaboration is working to prove him right.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Maxwell previously stated that there must needs to exist a Monopole to symmetrize all of his electrical equations.


There is an article at PHYS ORG dated March 24, 2010 entitled "Magnetic monopole experiment at CERN could rewrite laws of physics." I wonder what the outcome of the experiment was. I'll see what I can find.


Their web site

There doesn't seem to be a lot of activity, on any site I could find and which was connected to this project. Too bad. There is also a forum on the LHC portal, but there is nothing recent either. My gut feeling is that they have been having funding problems. It's unusual for an experiment to have such a limited footprint on the Web.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Is gravity not invisible to us? How about a higher-dimensional bio-aetheric template?


Oh come on, that's too much... Sound is also invisible under most conditions, but you have no problem using your cell phone, I hope. Gravity speaks for itself. However, the "higher-dimensional bio-aetheric" crap is nowhere to be found. Rodin says it exist. You obediently believe him, because this is your dogma.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Still looking for the outcome.


Here is the only paper James Pinfold has published since then, according to his profile on the University of Alberta website:


J. L. Pinfold & L. Sibley, "Measuring the Lifetime of Trapped Sleptons Using the General Purpose LHC Detectors". Phys. Rev. D83:035021, 2011.


"What's a trapped slepton?" she asked.
Per The Free Dictionary:


In particle physics, a slepton is a sfermion which is hypothetical boson superpartner of a lepton whose existence is implied by supersymmetry. Sleptons have the same flavour and electric charge as corresponding leptons and their spin is zero. In an exactly supersymmetric world they also must have the same mass, but thus far such a particle has not been observed. If they exist, supersymmetry must be broken and their mass is beyond current experimental reach.


Hmmmm. Wonder if that has anything to do with a monopole.

I don't see anything about a "slepton" in either the PHYS ORG or the CERN COURIER article. Guess not.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Yeah, he doesn't seem to be active at all. My guess is that this experiment went dormant. If it didn't, I'm pretty sure they would have had a seminar at CERN since the LHC started running, if only for a reason they established upper limits on the monopole cross-section. Such seminar, as I'm fairly certain, never happened (could have missed it, but I get e-mail announcing most of them).

They seem to be on a back burner. Again, that's a shame. We could have done some neat measurements in STAR at RHIC, but the resources were committed to other pressing aspects of the project. I never had time to re-write all the tracking (charged particles spiral in a magnetic field, while a monopole will follow a parabola). I wish I did.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The only reason I asked is that I'm following up on Rodin's claim about phosphate and a magnetic field.

Is it correct to say that for his claim to be true, there would have to be such a thing as a monopole, as apparently Maxwell thought?
Let's address the issue for the simpler claim first:
"with any negative electric charge there is always going to be an associated magnetic field" is not a true statement, but rather the negative charge must be in motion to create the magnetic field as Maxwell's equations suggest and discovery of a magnetic monopole is unlikely to change that.

The phosphate negative charge would be considered a tendency to form a chemical bond:


A chemical bond is an attraction between atoms that allows the formation of chemical substances that contain two or more atoms. The bond is caused by the electrostatic force of attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons and nuclei, or as the result of a dipole attraction.
The "static" in "electrostatic force" implies "lack of motion", and that it is primarily electric rather than magnetic attraction. So I don't see how discovery of a monopole will make this claim true. Rodin makes his logic clear that it's based on the premise that "with any negative electric charge there is always going to be an associated magnetic field" and we can show this to be false in the case where the negative electric charge is static, with or without magnetic monopoles.


edit on 7-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: changed "electric" to "magnetic"



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
He probably made the connection between negative charge and magnetic field, because the most popular ( i think) negative charged particle is the electron, which is responsible for magnetic fields... I dont see why the word static and movement would have anything to do with this... im sure the DNA molecule involved movement of its parts while it is created, and i cant imagine its atoms standing still after that either...

I also however, cant imagine how a monopole can even theoretically exist... I could only I guess imagine it if it were 1 dimensional or something... and I cant imagine even theoretically how something 1 dimensional can physically/at all exist in a 3-d (4-d) universe...



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Is gravity not invisible to us? How about a higher-dimensional bio-aetheric template?


Oh come on, that's too much... Sound is also invisible under most conditions, but you have no problem using your cell phone, I hope. Gravity speaks for itself. However, the "higher-dimensional bio-aetheric" crap is nowhere to be found. Rodin says it exist. You obediently believe him, because this is your dogma.


Sound is also being used to draw energy from "solid" objects... They say seeing is believing, but we're limited to our senses including the things we create. My dogma has always been - root cause. Gravity is an effect.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Post



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Sound is also being used to draw energy from "solid" objects... They say seeing is believing, but we're limited to our senses including the things we create. My dogma has always been - root cause. Gravity is an effect.
Is there even any "effect" evidence from Rodin, without knowing the root cause? No.

Understanding the root cause can certainly help, but we had plenty of evidence of electricity and some of its properties before we discovered the electron and root cause:

Discovery of the Electron

Scientists worked with electricity long before they understood that current was made of electrons. The cathode tube was a prime example. By switching on some voltage, scientists could make fluorescent streams of electricity travel from the bottom part of a glass tube to the top -- but no one knew how it worked.

If someone else claimed the Bioaetheric Template (Morphogenetic Field) was defined by the mathematical number pattern 2, 4, 8, 7, 9, 1, 6 instead of 3, 9, 6, 6, 9, 3 as Rodin claims, how would you discern which claim is correct?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Is gravity not invisible to us? How about a higher-dimensional bio-aetheric template?


Oh come on, that's too much... Sound is also invisible under most conditions, but you have no problem using your cell phone, I hope. Gravity speaks for itself. However, the "higher-dimensional bio-aetheric" crap is nowhere to be found. Rodin says it exist. You obediently believe him, because this is your dogma.


Sound is also being used to draw energy from "solid" objects... They say seeing is believing, but we're limited to our senses including the things we create. My dogma has always been - root cause. Gravity is an effect.


Your whole post is basically deflection. First you tried to put "higher-dimensional bio" bullcrap on the same footing is gravity, because the gravitational field is generally invisible - however of course it's eminently observable, and there are conditions where it's even visible, confer gravitational lensing as a direct optical evidence.

When confronted with the reality of that and the sound (which is also rarely visible), you are saying that there are a lot of things we can't see. Duh. We can't see the atomic nucleus, but some of us are smart enough to build machines to help us study that, just like we have microscope to study the otherwise invisible bacteria. So whatever your dogma is, you dodged out of this thread of conversation. Which is: "bio-aetheric template" is fiction so pure, so unadulterated with facts...


edit on 7-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
39
<< 246  247  248    250  251  252 >>

log in

join