"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by ImaFungi
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.

He's not the only one who didn't do enough research, since you're commenting about things you know nothing about. The link to the paper is at the top of this blog post which analyzes the paper:

azureworld.blogspot.com...

If you want to comment more on that paper and analysis, I suggest posting in the thread on that topic here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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.

Try the experiment and then tell me who is smarter.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There is more:

My second hypothesis is that the field is produced by a positive magnetic monopole located close to the north pole of the magnet in combination with a negative monopole of equal magnitude located close to the south pole of the magnet. But what, exactly, is a magnetic monopole? Well, it is the magnetic equivalent of an electric charge. For example, a positive magnetic monopole is an isolated magnetic north pole. . . .

We now have two hypotheses to explain the origin of the magnetic field of a bar magnet. What experiment could we perform in order to determine which of these two hypotheses is correct? Well, suppose that we break our bar magnet in two. What happens according to each hypothesis?

. . . Perhaps there is one more hypothesis to consider. If you take a coil of wire and move a bar magnet past it, you get an electric current. This is how electricity is generated in a generator. So let us go one step further; if the movement of this bar magnet past this coil of wire produces electricity, then why would you have protons and electrons—which have an electric charge—coming out of this coil of wire? We all know that a bar magnet has a magnetic field, not an electric charge. Then why did the protons and electrons come out of the coil of wire? Perhaps they are not protons and electrons, but rather the north and south magnetic monopoles that Paul Dirac theorized existed in 1931 (see Introduction).

That is my hypothesis—that the proton and electron are really Dirac monopoles. The proton is actually a north magnetic monopole, and the electron is actually a south magnetic monopole. . . .

reply to post by Mary Rose

Yes I read that. I don't think he understands Maxwell's equations...they answer his question, not his silly idea that protons and electrons are magnetic monopoles.

This video demonstrates what he describes starting at about 6 minutes, and then starting around 7 minutes explains why it happens, which has nothing to do with the proton and electron being magnetic monopoles:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes I read that. I don't think he understands Maxwell's equations...they answer his question, not his silly idea that protons and electrons are magnetic monopoles.

There's nothing silly about it.

And if you read that, why did you focus on the preliminaries?

You are quite lacking it credibility.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes I read that. I don't think he understands Maxwell's equations...they answer his question, not his silly idea that protons and electrons are magnetic monopoles.

There's nothing silly about it.

Coming from the perspective of someone who apparently likes to believe claims with no experimental evidence, I suppose it might not seem that way. It's probably not as silly as the even more obviously wrong idea that there's a black hole in a Rodin coil and you apparently don't think that's silly either.

And if you read that, why did you focus on the preliminaries?

You are quite lacking it credibility.

I didn't read his whole book, I don't have it. I just read that one page. I only picked an example for an experiment you could try from that one page.

But about his book, even though I haven't read it, it has all the well-known hallmarks of pseudoscience.

It's not a peer reviewed publication and it claims to not only come up with a theory of everything, but to do so by setting aside the existing theories and laws of physics:

The Theory of Everything, Solved

Setting aside the presently known theories and laws of physics and attacking the problem from a different perspective

It's Lawrence J. Wippler's credibility you should be questioning when he sets aside presently known laws of physics. The best someone could do is to come up with an alternate explanation for them...we can't really "set them aside" as they are pretty well established by experimental evidence.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes I read that. I don't think he understands Maxwell's equations...they answer his question, not his silly idea that protons and electrons are magnetic monopoles.

There's nothing silly about it.

But there is. A lot.

It's the same level of meaningfulness as in calling electrons "goldfish crackers" (children love those!). Look, the electron has been studied in quite a bit of detail... The magnetic monopole properties were never seen. Also, the goldfish properties were never detected. The hypothetical monopole does have a number of properties, and that word, the monopole, needs to be used in accordance with this hypothesis. This is not it. So it's plenty silly, and Arb is being generous here. I think it's openly moronic. Now have your cracker.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


How familiar are you with bit rate (as it pertains to analog/ digital), lattice structure of conductive metals, and the strengthening of magnets?

reply to post by Americanist

Very, somewhat, and not sure exactly what you mean. I have a little magnetic tool that has some strong magnets in it, and I can pass a screwdriver through it to increase the magnetism of the screwdriver, so screws will stick to it. Why, you wanna borrow it? They aren't that expensive, this one is about $5.

Magnetizer / Demagnetizer Tool - Blue

reply to post by buddhasystem


Instead of crackers... Why don't you be a doll, and explain how an electron absorbs energy from its surroundings then subsequently radiates off a photon.

Originally posted by Americanist
Instead of crackers... Why don't you be a doll, and explain how an electron absorbs energy from its surroundings then subsequently radiates off a photon.

So you want me to explain quantum mechanics/quantum electrodynamics in one post? You still haven't explained why you were asking about bitrates.

But at least you're consistent. Consistently random, that is.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
Instead of crackers... Why don't you be a doll, and explain how an electron absorbs energy from its surroundings then subsequently radiates off a photon.

So you want me to explain quantum mechanics/quantum electrodynamics in one post? You still haven't explained why you were asking about bitrates.

But at least you're consistent. Consistently random, that is.

I think there is a scientific explanation for the behavior of your interlocutor. When you look up the mathematical topic of Random Walk, you'll see

Imagine now a drunkard walking randomly in an idealized city. The city is effectively infinite and arranged in a square grid, and at every intersection, the drunkard chooses one of the four possible routes (including the one he came from) with equal probability. Formally, this is a random walk on the set of all points in the plane with integer coordinates. Will the drunkard ever get back to his home from the bar? It turns out that he will.

So this behavior has been studied before. Fascinating!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
Instead of crackers... Why don't you be a doll, and explain how an electron absorbs energy from its surroundings then subsequently radiates off a photon.

So you want me to explain quantum mechanics/quantum electrodynamics in one post? You still haven't explained why you were asking about bitrates.

But at least you're consistent. Consistently random, that is.

You missed something... The post wasn't addressed to you.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You're pretty good with wikipedia... Is that the extent of it? Oh, I see what you did there... QM and randomness!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
Instead of crackers... Why don't you be a doll, and explain how an electron absorbs energy from its surroundings then subsequently radiates off a photon.

So you want me to explain quantum mechanics/quantum electrodynamics in one post? You still haven't explained why you were asking about bitrates.

But at least you're consistent. Consistently random, that is.

Let's start with the basics...


What does a magnet do to strengthen the effect of another object?

Originally posted by Americanist
Let's start with the basics...
What does a magnet do to strengthen the effect of another object?

Let's start with something even more basic. Have you tried searching this and were unable to find an answer? Or you did and didn't like the answer and want me to give a different one?

If the former you can try drinking a cup of coffee to get some extra energy to type some alternate search terms in Google.
If the latter, why do you want me to repeat the mainstream answers you already find on Google, if you already know what they are? If you have a problem with them, shouldn't we just discuss that instead of playing juvenile games?

Originally posted by Americanist
You're pretty good with wikipedia... Is that the extent of it?

And what's wrong with Wikipedia? Despite the criticism I've read on it, the articles I've seen with significant issues are nearly always labeled as such, with things like [citation needed] and [may contain original research]...etc. and especially in the physics area they seem to be pretty decent sources for a layperson. While Wikipedia isn't suitable for more advanced theoretical discussion, you haven't demonstrated an understanding which would indicate Wikipedia is insufficient for your needs.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Final answer? Is this what you would rather reference?

Link

I say:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
the articles I've seen with significant issues are nearly always labeled as such, with things like [citation needed] and [may contain original research]...etc. and especially in the physics area they seem to be pretty decent sources for a layperson.

And what do you do, present me with an article that says:

This article needs additional citations for verification.

At the top?

So you really do need help with Google? Or are you just trying to be difficult by specifically looking for a source I suggested to NOT look for? Besides that section doesn't get into root cause and you said earlier that's what you were interested in, so it seems you didn't look very hard.

Some of the articles linked to that one don't have such disclaimer at the top, you might have better luck with those, or try putting host:edu at the end of your search string to get more reliable sources outside Wikipedia...often they are university sources.

reply to post by Americanist


Your link is to the 156 page .pdf "The Connectivity Hypothesis - Foundations of an Integral Science of Quantum, Cosmos, Life and Consciousness" by Ervin Laszlo. Along with Rupert Sheldrake's Morphogenetic Field and Rodin's BioaethericTemplate housed in the Major Groove of DNA, it brings to mind for me the mystery of nonlocality in physics.

But about his book, even though I haven't read it, it has all the well-known hallmarks of pseudoscience.

It's not a peer reviewed publication and it claims to not only come up with a theory of everything, but to do so by setting aside the existing theories and laws of physics:

The Theory of Everything, Solved

Setting aside the presently known theories and laws of physics and attacking the problem from a different perspective

It's Lawrence J. Wippler's credibility you should be questioning when he sets aside presently known laws of physics. The best someone could do is to come up with an alternate explanation for them...we can't really "set them aside" as they are pretty well established by experimental evidence.

If you have any questions pertaining to this theory please ask, it's not pseudoscience,