"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Arbitrageur

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?

And how would you discern the flow of a single electron, when in actuality you're referencing both threshold and range? Does this same electron ever flow as electricity to power your screen? The answer is, no. If fact, there's not an answer as to how and why electrons disappear/ reappear. Now I'll resort to an analogy fit for the mainstream theories - The two number patterns are an egg and its shell.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

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?

And how would you discern the flow of a single electron, when in actuality you're referencing both threshold and range?

It's been done, in various energy ranges and with different apparatuses. Single electrons are prominently present in photomultiplier tubes (where they are, as the name suggests, multiplied due to an avalanche of other electrons they knock out of metal), and in any devices based on photoeffect. In particle physics, single electrons are routinely tracked and analyzed. I built a prototype of the ATLAS TRT, so I do know what I'm talking about. Even at rest, single electrons were detected in the experiments like Millikan's, about 100 years ago. More recently, people have studied single electron quantum dots, where an electrons is trapped in a specially prepared point in a crystal. Smart people do amazing things, you know. Stupid people don't. Idiots can marvel ad infinitum, at some verbal concoction like "third helix of bio-aetheric gap which is equivalent of morphogenic field and is prominently higher dimensional -- so don't ask for it to be demonstrated, because it will forever be invisible, but wait -- it will cure all disease on the planet, and with a little help from a home made black hole, I'm departing for Alpha Centauri tomorrow". Duh.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

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?

And how would you discern the flow of a single electron, when in actuality you're referencing both threshold and range?

It's been done, in various energy ranges and with different apparatuses. Single electrons are prominently present in photomultiplier tubes (where they are, as the name suggests, multiplied due to an avalanche of other electrons they knock out of metal), and in any devices based on photoeffect. In particle physics, single electrons are routinely tracked and analyzed. I built a prototype of the ATLAS TRT, so I do know what I'm talking about. Even at rest, single electrons were detected in the experiments like Millikan's, about 100 years ago. More recently, people have studied single electron quantum dots, where an electrons is trapped in a specially prepared point in a crystal. Smart people do amazing things, you know. Stupid people don't. Idiots can marvel ad infinitum, at some verbal concoction like "third helix of bio-aetheric gap which is equivalent of morphogenic field and is prominently higher dimensional -- so don't ask for it to be demonstrated, because it will forever be invisible, but wait -- it will cure all disease on the planet, and with a little help from a home made black hole, I'm departing for Alpha Centauri tomorrow". Duh.

Divert from electricity then continue to ramble off obvious flaws of experimentation with particles. Electrons are moving parts in and of themselves. Maybe we should marvel at how smart you try to pass yourself off as? Unless you're able to bring the Universe to a standstill - those experiments are the equivalent of card tricks.

Even at rest

Define a rest environment using your example.

On second thought... I'd rather read about:

How changes in phase not amplitude create holographic resonance of consciousness as fields within fields -- the whole universe correlated in harmony.

Post

Originally posted by Americanist
Divert from electricity then continue to ramble off obvious flaws of experimentation with particles.

Put it this way -- I have experimented with particles. A lot. And I mean a lot. You didn't. You sound like a person who just went to a neighborhood paint ball event and then started giving advice to a US Marine sniper. It's really that stupid.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
Divert from electricity then continue to ramble off obvious flaws of experimentation with particles.

Put it this way -- I have experimented with particles. A lot. And I mean a lot. You didn't. You sound like a person who just went to a neighborhood paint ball event and then started giving advice to a US Marine sniper. It's really that stupid.

Funny you should mention it... Have you heard of a combat controller?

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
Divert from electricity then continue to ramble off obvious flaws of experimentation with particles.

Put it this way -- I have experimented with particles. A lot. And I mean a lot. You didn't. You sound like a person who just went to a neighborhood paint ball event and then started giving advice to a US Marine sniper. It's really that stupid.

Funny you should mention it... Have you heard of a combat controller?

I've heard about this profession, it has ZERO to do with physics. In that regard, hotel porters have same qualifications. I'm not sure where masseurs fit into that.

Originally posted by Americanist
Does this same electron ever flow as electricity to power your screen? The answer is, no.

Considering you apparently know next to nothing about electricity, I suppose you just got lucky and guessed the right answer to that question. My screen is plugged into AC power and the electrons in the power cord mostly just wiggle back and forth a little bit under the influence of the AC power source. But just because you don't understand how the screen is powered, doesn't mean nobody does.

Originally posted by Americanist
Unless you're able to bring the Universe to a standstill - those experiments are the equivalent of card tricks.

I suppose every experiment has a risk of being misinterpreted but since we know that, we are always looking for ways that can happen, and a scientist who can prove the other scientist's interpretation was wrong and has a better interpretation can advance his career if he can prove it, so there's some incentive to find better interpretations if there are any.

An experimenter doesn't claim to be "God" who can make the universe stand still, they observe what happens and try to figure out why.

If anyone is to be accused of having some sort of claim to megalomaniacal omnipotence or more specifically omniscience, it would be those who would subscribe to a fictitious claim with no evidence, like

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

The experimenter may not always be 100% completely correct, but at least the experiments provide some basis for developing models and beliefs.

The "guru worshipper" on the other hand, seems to have no basis at all for believing some made-up garbage.

I admit the experimenter could be wrong sometimes, but the guru worshiper approach of believing garbage with no evidence is wrong not just some of the time, but most of the time...if not all the time.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I've heard about this profession, it has ZERO to do with physics. In that regard, hotel porters have same qualifications. I'm not sure where masseurs fit into that.

Let's go to a random computing systems conference and ask the attendees what they think about the Bioaetheric Template (Morphogenetic Field) defined by the mathematical number pattern 3, 9, 6, 6, 9, 3.

With their expertise in physics, would they agree that the nucleus of a single hydrogen atom has a mass of nearly a billion tons, even though the proton mass has been repeatedly measured to be many times smaller? They apparently thought it was such a good idea, they gave the paper suggesting that an award

...it’s clear that it was awarded for best paper presented in that category at a single computing systems conference; and that the ‘peer reviewers’ who awarded it were just the other people on the conference...
...
“(b) His theory implies that the nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons...."

On second thought, maybe attendees at a computer systems conference aren't experts in physics.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The phosphate negative charge would be considered a tendency to form a chemical bond:

Any chance there could be other outcomes of the phosphate negative charge?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

Isn't satisfying ourselves with reliable predictions just maintaining the status quo and stopping progress? In other words, so what?

You're maintaining that a magnetic monopole wouldn't change anything?

Googling magnetic monopole has brought up a website of a person who has his own theory based on the magnetic monopole: The Theory of Everything, Solved. He has a series of videos, one of which is about Leedskalnin's Perpepetual Motion Holder:

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Post

sorry but is that suppose to answer my question, how can a monopole exist?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
...
“(b) His theory implies that the nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen has a mass of nearly a billion tons...."

The only reason I can think of why this was stated was mass energy equivalence. I dont know about a billion tons, but perhaps the energy released in a hydrogen bomb = a lot of mass? Or maybe not, maybe its that a small amount of mass contains so much energy and thats what why Einstein's equation was so ground breaking... but then again he could be on to something... and it could have to do with the meaning of the c^2 in the equation, perhaps the energy stored in an atom a lot of it is massless binding energy... the quantity of potential EM radiation is high but em radiation is massless,..maybe it has something to do with the intrinsic momentum/kinetic energy of the atom and its constituents.. are the masses given for atomic constituents rest masses? are atomic constituents resting in nature?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Isn't satisfying ourselves with reliable predictions just maintaining the status quo and stopping progress? In other words, so what?

I don't want to stop progress. I thought someone might be trying to infer that our existing theories could crumble if the magnetic monopole was discovered, and I was simply trying to suggest that's unlikely to happen. In some theories, it's completely expected already.

You're maintaining that a magnetic monopole wouldn't change anything?

Of course not, that would be silly. I was very specific about stating that as far as I know, Maxwell's equations would generally still apply, and to clarify, specifically on the everyday scales that engineers consider.

The best analogy I can come up with which buddhasystem could rightly point out has flaws like any other analogy, would be to compare classical Newtonian mechanics with Relativity. The former explained almost everything we saw at the time, except for a few things like the precession of Mercury. Then relativity explained the precession of Mercury, but it did almost nothing to invalidate classical Newtonian mechanics on the scales we had observed such as planetary motion. So our faith in reproducible experiments was slightly misplaced but not exactly wrong either.

Where the new science of relativity helped was in more extreme conditions beyond what we had normally observed...relativistic velocities for example, where classical mechanics completely fell apart.

Likewise my limited understanding of monopole theory suggests that discovering the monopole may, like discovering relativity, help us understand some oddities (analogous to the precession of Mercury, but magnetic anomalies), that we don't quite understand today.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The only reason I can think of why this was stated was mass energy equivalence. I dont know about a billion tons, but perhaps the energy released in a hydrogen bomb = a lot of mass? Or maybe not, maybe its that a small amount of mass contains so much energy...

That doesn't make any sense. If a gram of mass has a lot of energy, a trillion grams of mass has a trillion times as much.

It has nothing to do with mass energy equivalence, and everything to do with a guy so mentally challenged he can't even understand how a 2D square is flat and how a 3D cube has volume. He even has a theory that mainstream is wrong about that, which is pretty funny actually because that's pretty much by definition, so there's no way to disprove it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
Divert from electricity then continue to ramble off obvious flaws of experimentation with particles.

Put it this way -- I have experimented with particles. A lot. And I mean a lot. You didn't. You sound like a person who just went to a neighborhood paint ball event and then started giving advice to a US Marine sniper. It's really that stupid.

Can you give a simple description and explanation as to what a particle is? I am semi (on a basic level as im sure youd tell me) familiar with the main particles and concepts of the standard model. But what is a particle and why can they all turn into each other? How do particles relate to space-time? if electron is fundamental and elementary how can non electrons turn into an electron (or produce one from thin space-time)?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The only reason I can think of why this was stated was mass energy equivalence. I dont know about a billion tons, but perhaps the energy released in a hydrogen bomb = a lot of mass? Or maybe not, maybe its that a small amount of mass contains so much energy...

That doesn't make any sense. If a gram of mass has a lot of energy, a trillion grams of mass has a trillion times as much.

It has nothing to do with mass energy equivalence, and everything to do with a guy so mentally challenged he can't even understand how a 2D square is flat and how a 3D cube has volume. He even has a theory that mainstream is wrong about that, which is pretty funny actually because that's pretty much by definition, so there's no way to disprove it.

en.wikipedia.org...


megaton=million tons

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The Theory of Everything, Solved

That website offers four excerpts of the book: Introduction, Magnetic Monopoles, Electricity, and Energy.

He sees protons and electrons as really being north and south magnetic monopoles. He sees the four forces of the Standard Model as being composed of three basic particles: north and south monopoles, and particles of matter that represent an element. He sees the motion of north and south magnetic monopoles relative to space as creating gravity. He describes the creation of electromagnetic waves.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
en.wikipedia.org...

megaton=million tons

For the second time, that's completely unrelated. You obviously haven't even read the paper.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
en.wikipedia.org...

megaton=million tons

For the second time, that's completely unrelated. You obviously haven't even read the paper.

what paper? If he is relating the mass of a hydrogen atom to being a million tons... I assume he is doing so because hydrogen bombs can produce an explosion of energy higher then megatons... Now I think he didnt do enough research and quickly made that statement because atom bombs split 50s of thousands of atoms for detonations in the megatons.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The Theory of Everything, Solved

That website offers four excerpts of the book: Introduction, Magnetic Monopoles, Electricity, and Energy.

He sees protons and electrons as really being north and south magnetic monopoles.

He's about at the intellectual level of Ed Leedskalnin, that is to say, maybe the understanding of a second grader.

My first hypothesis is that the field of a bar magnet is produced by electric currents that flow around the outside of the bar magnet

I believe you can disprove his hypothesis pretty easily, by putting a paper clip on the bar magnet and suspending the bar magnet in a bell jar attached to a vacuum pump. If you evacuate the bell jar, then no significant electric current can flow around the bar magnet (actually there's no significant current in air either which is a pretty decent insulator, but if you have any doubts of that, the vacuum should be more convincing).

If he is right, the paper clip should fall off the bar magnet when you create a vacuum so no current can flow outside the bar magnet.

But it won't fall.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He's about at the intellectual level of Ed Leedskalnin, that is to say, maybe the understanding of a second grader.

I think he's smarter than you. A lot smarter.