"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 256
39
<< 253  254  255    257  258  259 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LawrenceWippler
 



monopoles which have been separated into concentrated streams using the law of attraction.

What is this "Law of Attraction" and how does it separate magnetic monopoles?




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
I don't expect you to fully understand my theory in just a few posts on this forum.


I read significant tracts of the text written by you, as I have already made clear, so I have plenty of material to work with when I ask a simple question, which alas apparently is not meant to be answered! And again, with such crucial emphasis on simplicity in your theory, it is highly specious that you are saying "oh well I'm not going to explain this to you because you don't understand my theory". Sorry but that's just hilarious, and not in a good way. I've asked questions ENTIRELY within the scope of your papers that I read. The fact that you PLAIN REFUSE to comment speaks volumes, and what it does speak is that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR THEORY YOURSELF.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Does this mean you'll share your Nobel prize with Mary?


You get a prize for sarcasm and ridicule.


I frankly find it hard to formulate appropriate reaction, that does not include sarcasm or ridicule, when a person is denying the existence of electrons. Of course professionals in the field of mental health may have more refined and focused ways of looking at that, but for a layperson - proclamations that electrons don't exist are likely to produce, indeed, a comic and unfriendly reaction.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
buddha,
wise old owl sat on an oak, the more he saw the less he spoke, the less he spoke the more he heard, why cant we all be like that wise old bird....
seriously what is you problem, who pooped on you ideas in life? Now you feel the need to be a grumpy ole man, you could be a part of the conversation without BEING A JERK, just saying...

lawrence,
thanks for coming here and sharing, many of us appreciate having a place to talk about this, dont mind the scepticism, some people here make it their life and there is really no need to even reply to them unless you have all day, everyday like they do to keep talking in circles..



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestorm
wise old owl sat on an oak, the more he saw the less he spoke, the less he spoke the more he heard, why cant we all be like that wise old bird...


I very much envy the wise old owl. My suspicion and indeed a theory is this: said owl made his nest in a place where people respected common sense and dignity of discourse. A place where a person who says "electrons do not exist, I don't like that pesky notion of 'electron'" would be quickly removed to different woods, as would be a person who says "toilet paper does not exist, that's just an ossified notion from mainstream hygiene. I recommend people use streams of magnetic monopoles instead, to clean up their act". Because you see, no amount of wisdom can save you from eventual insanity when you are exposed to moronic rants, like "alpha particle is a short duration pulse of EM", or like "number 9 is dark matter" or "electrons don't exist".

I mean seriously, if you want to be an owl, sit back on you tree branch and enjoy. I am, however, human, and I can afford to make fun of morons who insist that "electrons do not exist". I know they do, just like Las Vegas and Staten Island.


edit on 11-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


A perfect example of ATS at its worst: The ATS swagger.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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:



Checking out the Pure Energy Systems website this morning I see another reference to the Perpetual Motion Holder, "Leedskalnin "Perpetual Motion Holder" (PMH) Bond Effect." (NEST = New Energy Systems Trust):


For some of you, this may be old news, but this is the first that I have encountered this. I ran this by my Dad, who is an atomic clock physicist, and he had not heard of it either.

Check out this 21-second video by my NEST associate, James Rodney (most of you know him by the cool 5 kW E-Cat design he came up with). In this video, he shows a crazy phenomenon. Two blocks of flat steel (soft iron?) with a small channel between them, just large enough to run an 18-gauge, insulated wire through, become bonded to each other when a current from a car battery is very briefly run through the wire. The bond doesn't seem to be magnetic, as the bonded blocks don't exhibit any external magnetism, and there is barely any magnetism after the halves are sheered apart.


The description for the video on YouTube:


Published on Feb 6, 2013

Demo of a simplified version of the Leedskalnin device, showing bonding between two pieces of un-magnetized tool steel, using an insulated 18g copper wire & car battery.



edit on 02/12/13 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


A perfect example of ATS at its worst: The ATS swagger.


Since when sticking with facts and verifiable experimental evidence qualifies as "swagger"? Well I guess if you get used to dictionary hijack, there is no going back, and therefore sticking with basic common sense (which tells us that electrons do exist) is called "swagger".

I can tell you what conforms much better to definition to "swagger": declaring that there is a black hole inside a plastic donut, declaring that number nine is the missing particle and dark matter, and repeatedly posting videos titled "Einstein's Idiots". Swagger is calling yourself a good researcher and failing to find a reference inside a paper to which yourself personally link here on ATS, because you can't be bothered to actually read. Swagger is a declaration of a new and very simple theory, and subsequent refusal to answer a simple, primitive question related to same. Swagger is calling your stupid "theory" (which doesn't explain anything anyway, and consists of hand waving) a "Grand Unified Theory". Or "Theory of Everything".



edit on 12-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Do you need help with your understanding?

Here is your swagger succinctly stated:


Originally posted by buddhasystem
I am, however, human, and I can afford to make fun of morons who insist that "electrons do not exist". I know they do, just like Las Vegas and Staten Island.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I have seen this thread floating around over the years, however, since I am no mathematician I have never bothered to look at it before now.

I was expecting to find bunch of math guru´s bouncing equations and diagrams and other math stuff but instead I find nothing but immature bickering about various stuff unrelated to the topic in between "snake oil" youtube videos and extraordinary claims with no proof!

I am baffled how this thread has survived for all these years without being locked or simply forgotten because in fact nothing has been added to the OP for over a year now!



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Waldy
 


Well, you could always fill out a "Complaint" form, correct?

It's always good to look out for the integrity of ATS!



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I will do that, thanks for the tip



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Waldy
 


Well, you could always fill out a "Complaint" form, correct?

It's always good to look out for the integrity of ATS!


You are answering a person who complained about you posting "snake oil YouTube videos". Then you commend them on looking out for the integrity of ATS.

Not sure whether it's a sophisticated insult or just chutzpah.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I'm not here to lecture people about what's appropriate in my view. I post what I find to be worth investigating. I work hard on my posts. I stand by them.

Others disagree with me. That's life in the city.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I was wondering what you think about this notion starting at 4:16 (or so) and is discussed until about 7:21..



pretty much asking how do we know the quantum world we are measuring and detecting and mapping, is a fundamental image and reality of nature, and not just us distilling the waters and describing our fallible measurement apparatuses and techniques over biased quantities of time and distance and mass and energy? there is a semi stable configuration of energy/matter and when we split it and smash it we are not measuring a more fundamental nature of this energy/matter, but we are measuring the energy/matter snapping back into its stable nature? Because dont we figure that even the quantum mechanics and standard particles must have been brought into existence by an event that has some definite existence or reality? Cant all quantum mechanics and particle hunting be results of minor and momentary disturbances between the fundamental constituents? Or is that the point, the experiments are determining the limits of quanta of energy at tiny scales how massive and long lasting they can be? I know im confused...What do you think of the supposed existence of the hundreds of particles? what does this mean for the nature of reality? Does it say anything about whether the universe may be an open or closed system, infinite or finite? Does it say anything about the nature of space and or the vacuum? Can you tell me if there is a specific quantity of energy/matter in the universe always that never changes ( and this specific quantity is the universe itself, which can never be created or destroyed?)?



edit on 12-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LawrenceWippler
 


Is what you are saying in your theory... the south monopole is the electron... and lets say it has negative charge...

and north monopole is proton.. lets say it has positive charge..

and the elements are different quantities of monopoles interacting?

and electricity is not just the south/negative/electron monopole interacting with itself and/or an electro-magnetic field... but it is the south monopole interacting with the north monopole? or its energy created from the separation of their attraction your saying?

also like some other members are asking, Im curious as to what made you have the urge to create your theory? What couldnt the current popular modern theories explain about reality, or what about them is wrong and why?
what caused nature to produce so many monopoles? and I still havent seen you explain the fundamental principles behind the laws of attraction, its very general terms.
1. Your understanding of monopoles has improved to a great extent, congratulations.

2. Electricity is nothing more than separated monopoles, north monopole/positive, south monopole/negative.

3. I created my theory because none of the other theories could explain all known phenomenon, so I began by taking the end results of all experiments and setting aside their underlying principal and then I began with the most basic form of energy that I could find and that was magnetism. Then I theorized just how a magnetic dipole could be created using subatomic particles. Once completed I then began new theories to explain the end result of all known experiments using the same particles that I used for magnetism in doing so, would unite the fundamental forces.

Nature did not produce monopoles. Monopoles and what I call a particle of matter, cannot be created or destroyed, they have always existed. Energy for example cannot be created or destroyed (monopoles) only changed to a different form. the first law of thermodynamics.

The law of attraction, like poles repel ,unlike poles attract.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by LawrenceWippler
 



monopoles which have been separated into concentrated streams using the law of attraction.

What is this "Law of Attraction" and how does it separate magnetic monopoles?
Like poles repel, unlike poles attract.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
I don't expect you to fully understand my theory in just a few posts on this forum.


I read significant tracts of the text written by you, as I have already made clear, so I have plenty of material to work with when I ask a simple question, which alas apparently is not meant to be answered! And again, with such crucial emphasis on simplicity in your theory, it is highly specious that you are saying "oh well I'm not going to explain this to you because you don't understand my theory". Sorry but that's just hilarious, and not in a good way. I've asked questions ENTIRELY within the scope of your papers that I read. The fact that you PLAIN REFUSE to comment speaks volumes, and what it does speak is that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR THEORY YOURSELF.
You must read the entire text, not significant tracts.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
Monopoles and what I call a particle of matter, cannot be created or destroyed, they have always existed.


I believe this to be true. And I don't believe we can prove it. Sometimes we just have to use our common sense. It makes more sense that these building blocks have always been here, than it does that somehow they were created where before there was nothing.

In my opinion we should not be spending one dime trying to prove the "Big Bang."

We should be researching technologies to make this a better world.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


There is the planck's constant which has been normalized to draft up particles in the first place.




Planck discovered that physical action could not take on any indiscriminate value. Instead, the action must be some multiple of a very small quantity (later to be named the "quantum of action" and now called Planck's constant).


Source
edit on 12-2-2013 by Americanist because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
39
<< 253  254  255    257  258  259 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def