"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by MamaJ

I would like to see a good thread whereas an idea can be presented and the participants dissect the presentation in a way that brings meaning and not discontent.

I would like to see participants answer valid questions rather than evading and changing the subject but that doesn't seem to happen often.

Also, it takes someone with patience to understand and maybe even ask questions to what is not workable in their view.

Such questions have been asked.

I have the right to be nice, understanding, and ask questions when something doesn't make sense.

And how often do those question have to be asked without being answered?

I do it because its the nice thing to do.

You are a very nice person. Let's leave the modding to the mods.

Do you really want to go back and forth with quotes? Do you not think this is silly?

The quote I gave was in specific reference to the comment you made about Einstein's manner. As I said, he was known to throw out some rather strong zingers. I have never devalued the importance of imagination.

Originally posted by MamaJ

Are you saying that just tossing out everything that has come before, ignoring it, isn't a valid approach?

reply to post by Phage

 

Wait.

Are you saying we should continue working on the same problems with the same methods that are not advancing us?

There is only one method that the scientists are not willing to give up: it is the scientific method, which frankly boils down to not being a sad, pathetic kook, and just look around carefully, and not make things up. If you do that, you won't be nodding your head when Rodin says "number 9 is dark matter". That's the only method that needs to stay.

All other methods are freely negotiable, and have been reformulated numerous times both in the 20th century and the 21st.

And if you are saying that the methods used in science are not advancing us, you are not getting out much, figuratively speaking. I look around and I'm stunned 90% of the time, just looking at how far we got in both science and technology in the past decades. My cell phone has more computing power than the major computing center I was using as a student back in my days. What we achieve in the lab was unthinkable 15 years ago. And if you are thinking we are not advancing, and pretty fast, you simply aren't willing to learn (I know it's hard, but still). It's just a lot easier to say "everything is made of monopoles. Pretty cool, heh?"

By giving people the opportunity to voice theories, without ridicule (cough, cough) we are more apt to be open and allow new opportunities for growth.

If the "theory" doesn't match some basic facts from reality, from the get-go, it needs to be promptly discarded, lest it becomes yet another pile of mental excrement here on ATS. If a theory contains a lot of word soup but can't explain a nuclear reaction or basic properties of a baryon, again, hit the "delete" button before you press "send".

I would like to see participants answer valid questions rather than evading and changing the subject but that doesn't seem to happen often.

reply to post by Phage


As far as me, the participant goes, I can only speak for me. Each question that has been asked has been answered. I have not evaded nor changed the subject.

Such questions have been asked.

What questions?

And how often do those question have to be asked without being answered?

Which questions are you referring to that have not been answered? Be specific.

You are a very nice person. Let's leave the modding to the mods.

Thank you. I never stated I would do otherwise in regards to the "modding". I have stated I am surprised they allow the rules to constantly be broken whereas a poster can continue to be demeaning.

The quote I gave was in specific reference to the comment you made about Einstein's manner. As I said, he was known to throw out some rather strong zingers. I have never devalued the importance of imagination.

I know why you quoted him as saying that. I never asked you why you quoted it. His manner may be humorus, but it is not demeaning. He was a very humble man. He asked a lot of questions but was not like him to be ill mannered except when he was playing the violin.

And if you are saying that the methods used in science are not advancing us, you are not getting out much, figuratively speaking. I look around and I'm stunned 90% of the time, just looking at how far we got in both science and technology in the past decades. My cell phone has more computing power than the major computing center I was using as a student back in my days. What we achieve in the lab was unthinkable 15 years ago. And if you are thinking we are not advancing, and pretty fast, you simply aren't willing to learn (I know it's hard, but still). It's just a lot easier to say "everything is made of monopoles. Pretty cool, heh?"

reply to post by buddhasystem


You are confusing my "advances" thought. I was not implying the advances in technology were not happening at a quick pace. Its evident. It is and its great.

Im ready for major break through's in understanding of the scientific method. I want to know it all and how it all works and interacts. It takes time and I know this. Being patient and walking through a theory is the approach I like to take. So, it may take me longer. I just want people to have the chance without ridicule to their persona. Why is that too much to ask?

If the "theory" doesn't match some basic facts from reality, from the get-go, it needs to be promptly discarded, lest it becomes yet another pile of mental excrement here on ATS. If a theory contains a lot of word soup but can't explain a nuclear reaction or basic properties of a baryon, again, hit the "delete" button before you press "send".

What is reality? Then we can go from there.

reply to post by MamaJ

Off the top of my head. Two very specific questions. Asked nicely
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The reply (not an answer mind you):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And it goes on and on. To you, it may have seemed like he was answering but he wasn't he was evading and changing the subject.

His manner may be humorus, but it is not demeaning.

Saying someone's stupidity has no limits is not demeaning? Seems that your sense of niceness may be a little biased.

And it goes on and on. To you, it may have seemed like he was answering but he wasn't he was evading and changing the subject.

reply to post by Phage


No, you are assuming. It happens a lot when there is not good communication.

I noticed he was not answering and evading to the link or the complete theory to be recognized and understood, however its no excuse to be down right mean to his personal intellect.

I asked for a name and a personal reviewed paper, yet it was not given. I asked questions too, yet they were unanswered.

Saying someone's stupidity has no limits is not demeaning? Seems that your sense of niceness may be a little biased.

He was being funny. Some people have something called humor within their personality, even Einstein. It seems as if you do not recall the countless other quotes there are from Einstein that are quite humble and NOT demeaning to an intellect. You are asking me about bias? You have a sense of humor too!

reply to post by MamaJ

He was being funny.

Very funny. And at the expense of someone else.
Do you think it's "nicer" to insult someone with humor? It's actually a pretty good way to go about it because it really gives the subject no way to respond without making themselves look worse. It's a good way to shut someone up. And that was my original point. Maybe Albert was funnier, but he was using ridicule.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Well, your "Ed Jr." sarcasm sounds silly to me. So that makes two of us.

Your participation is not helpful when you resort to a technique like that.

It's expedient. Why post 100 words to the effect of Wippler's simply repeating ole Ed? My sarcasm was sufficient to make my point. Instead of focusing on tone and participation style, why not consider the purpose? What do you have to say about the woeful response from Wippler? I think my question which wasn't even really answered by what he told me to read exposed another flaw in his (really Ed's) theory.

reply to post by Phage


A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
Albert Einstein

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
Albert Einstein

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Albert Einstein

Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.
Albert Einstein

I could go on and on with quotes from one of the greatest thinkers EVER. I know what I know and everything else I don't know.... yet.

We are learning.... that is what life is all about.

Einstein you may say was a demeaning person but I disagree.

reply to post by MamaJ

I thought you weren't going to trade Einstein quotes.
I gave one and now you posted a list. What's your point? Are you claiming that Einstein never ridiculed anyone? No matter how many "nice" quotes you post, you're wrong about that.

And that was my original point.

reply to post by Phage


I know what you are/were getting at. I disagreed and still do. The easiest and quickest way to shut someone up is not to say anything, thus the conversation stops.

reply to post by MamaJ

thus the conversation stops.

Not on ATS it doesn't. The nonsense perpetuates.
Allowing it to do so is sort of against the motto.

You're wrong.

reply to post by Phage


Im not worried abut being wrong. Are you?

I stated if you are saying Einstein was a demeaning person then I disagree. I never said you are wrong, hence my non issue with being right.

If you are so concerned with being right, I will say this and go about my night. You are right.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MamaJ

 

thus the conversation stops.

Not on ATS it doesn't. The nonsense perpetuates.
Allowing it to do so is sort of against the motto.

edit on 2/14/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Demeaning is against the T&C, or so I thought.

Have a good night Phage. Have a happy love night. xoxox

reply to post by MamaJ

Im not worried abut being wrong. Are you?

Nope. As long as I learn something in the process.

I stated if you are saying Einstein was a demeaning person then I disagree.

But I didn't say that. I said that he was not "above" using ridicule.

If you are so concerned with being right, I will say this and go about my night. You are right.

Awww. Thanks. But I'm afraid I have to doubt your sincerity.

reply to post by buddhasystem


My question... Working out the commonalities between the two - producing fusion.

The fusion of two nuclei with lower masses than iron (which, along with nickel, has the largest binding energy per nucleon) generally releases energy, while the fusion of nuclei heavier than iron absorbs energy. The opposite is true for the reverse process, nuclear fission. This means that fusion generally occurs for lighter elements only, and likewise, that fission normally occurs only for heavier elements.

Source

The lattice structure of our basic elements (hydrogen, helium vs. the heavier iron, nickel), spin - velocity, electricity, EM radiation, and transmutation.

Originally posted by MamaJ

Which questions are you referring to that have not been answered? Be specific.

I asked quite a few questions and didn't get zelch in way of any answer at all. Here are actual examples:

Thank you. How do you demonstrate that an alpha particle possesses the properties of a magnetic monopole? In terms of magnetic monopole characteristics, what's different between the alpha particle and the He3 nucleus?

...and

a) if alpha is a magnetic monopole, what is the nucleus of lithium?
b) how come the proposed "structure" of the atom it not borne out in the experiment? I mean, it was MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO that two young and bright fellows, Geiger and Marsden, observed the positively charge atomic nucleus, by using alpha particles to bombard a thin gold foil.
c) how does one describe the neutron, or for that matter, any of the baryons we see in this Universe?

...and

Since you mentioned the Beta particle, which in fact is an electron, I would like to extend my question to cover this: what do you have to say about the positron?

Your reference to alpha and beta as "short duration EM waves" is utterly confusing. In Standard Model, this is certainly not the case. If you are referring to your model, what is this assertion based on?

...about the suggested 3D nature of monopoles

Interesting. If they are 3D objects, they must possess shapes. What shape is it? They would also have size. What's the size?

Oh and by the way, how do you describe the Omega Baryon in your model?

No answers... No answers...

reply to post by buddhasystem


I asked you questions as well. Why did you not answer them?

When someone evades questions, there is a reason and the reason is questionable, is it not?

When another poster was asking questions, he was called a troll. I don't get the double standards, but thats life.

Speaking of... I have to get ready. I am too pretty to be sitting here while the weather is good and the drinks are cold.

Have a happy love night.

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I asked you questions as well. Why did you not answer them?

Wait, you told me you don't care what I say.

Have a happy love night.

That's the plan, but... Do they have smileys for champagne toast? Beer on Valentine's is so low class.

reply to post by LawrenceWippler

Additional text from the section "Energy":

. . . The unique properties of each element are determined by the amount of magnetic lines of force that element is able to hold and the lines’ relative positions from the core of the element. These are what create the different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, as well. This difference also affects how the elements react with each other and how atoms transform energy from one form to another.

Are you saying that changes in elements are caused by both the amount of magnetic lines of force the elements are able to hold and the relative positions of them from the cores of the elements?