Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 270
39
<< 267  268  269    271  272  273 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by LawrenceWippler
 



The diagram posted earlier shows part of this oscillation, notice that the earth's axis is pointing toward the sun one side of the diagram, and pointing away from on the sun on the other side of the diagram.

The diagram you said was inaccurate? Let's take a look



departments.jordandistrict.org...

Can you explain exactly what is incorrect? Keep in mind the points a,b,c and d represent the solstices and equinoxes. At a & c the axis is tilted toward and away from the Sun however at b & d there is no tilt toward or away from the Sun, AFAIK.
edit on 17-2-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: southerner's prerogative
edit on 17-2-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: fix reply link address
edit on 17-2-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: link address again
The orbit is incorrect, the earth should be closer to the sun at C. and begin moving further away at area B.and D. and furthest at area A. The magnetic pole begins moving away at area B. and D.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by LawrenceWippler
 



The north pole of the earth is pushed away from the sun.


Why wouldn't the south pole get pushed away from the Sun also?
edit on 17-2-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: link address
The north monopole is slightly stronger that the south monopole, the more monopoles that you have at each pole the greater the difference will be.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
The north monopole is slightly stronger that the south monopole, the more monopoles that you have at each pole the greater the difference will be.


And how do you measure the "strength" of the monopole? And what exactly has driven you to this conclusion about "strength"?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LawrenceWippler
 




The orbit is incorrect, the earth should be closer to the sun at C. and begin moving further away at area B.and D. and furthest at area A. The magnetic pole begins moving away at area B. and D.

Actually A is closest and C is the farthest. A is near but not on the December solstice. C is near but not on the June solstice. You have that part backwards. The Earth does tilt away from the Sun (A) when it's the closest to the Sun. It tilts toward the Sun (C) when it's farthest from the Sun.


At its nearest point on the ellipse that is the earth's orbit around the sun, the earth is 91,445,000 miles (147,166,462 km) from the sun. This point in the earth's orbit is known as perihelion and it occurs around January 3.

The earth is farthest away from the sun around July 4 when it is 94,555,000 miles (152,171,522 km) from the sun. This point in the earth's orbit is called aphelion.

geography.about.com...




departments.jordandistrict.org...

There is only about a 3.3% difference in distance and you wish to attribute the 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth's axis to that? Again, there is NO TILT relative to the Sun at B or D. Why not?

The tilt remains constant relative to the ecliptic and the stars. There is no "oscillation" of anything required for the Earth's tilt to remain unchanged. Rotation explains nothing concerning the polar axis pointing toward Polaris.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Which is more fundamental energy or matter? You need energy to make matter and matter to have energy dont you? Is it hypothetically possible for a system to be "isolated" and composed of entirely/fundamentally different constituents and physics then the system it resides in (even if you cant comprehend why this would be significant, it is, so I would appreciate your knowledged perspective)? Whats the deal with 1/3 quark charges, is this a mathematical crutch, what does this mean about the nature of charge, how/why can a fundamental particle like the electron be completely negatively charged and another fundamental particle (non isolatable standing wave?) like a quark have a 1/3 of a charge? Does this have to do with chromodynamics, and does this say more about our primitive understanding of the nature of reality at this space/energy/time scale, and not so much an intuitive or comprehensive understanding of what nature actually is, how it does what it does, why it does it that way, and what caused it to do it these ways? The model may be genius and swell and descriptive and perfect, but do the understanders of the model understand reality? why it must be that way, and what the heck it actually is?
Why dont photons have charge? 2 electrically charged particles have a field in between them ( are the field lines physical, do infinite physical photons make up this field or the photons only physically exist when the charges are moved in relation to one another.. whats going on here?
edit on 17-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
ImaFungi keeps asking off-topic questions like this is his own personal brain dump

Amen. Verily, verily thou hast spoken.


And it's not like he doesn't know it's off-topic:

Originally posted by ImaFungi
(hypothetically) if there was a perfect mirror surrounding the sun, the sun would exist for ever? because energy is just changing form, energy lost here, would give energy there,, energy given there, would give energy there, one perfect cycle with no energy lost? ( i know off topic)...
ImaFungi,
I don't think of myself as a "topic Nazi", but please...if you know all this stuff is off topic which you probably do...why not start your own thread?

Some of these questions are interesting...but we have different threads for different topics.
edit on 17-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Is this even vaguely relevant to the topic any more? Anytime within, say, the last 50 pages??



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 



In effect you're saying that the monopoles are spheres that attract in all directions but up close they don't? How, then, would the attractive force emanating from the monopoles change from no attraction to attraction?

With a wave of the hand one could invoke the woo principal to achieve this. After all, we all know magnets only attract until they're "close".



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Is this even vaguely relevant to the topic any more? Anytime within, say, the last 50 pages??


Topics are irrelevant in this "bunch" of threads, originated by same author. No matter was pseudo-science topic is offered for the ATS members' attention, the author is likely to inject any or all of the following, into any of these threads:

Rodin
Bearden
Leedskalnin
Tesla
Schauberger
Gaede
Haramein
Reich
Swerdloff (the most bizarre of all)
Schumann resonance



So in a way I feel bad when I point out that Mr.XYZ posted off-topic here, true as it may be. Thing it, there is no real topic here, just like there is no "vortex math". You start with an absurd assertion, and it's all downhill from there.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


hence my smiley!



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Mary Rose
 



In effect you're saying that the monopoles are spheres that attract in all directions but up close they don't? How, then, would the attractive force emanating from the monopoles change from no attraction to attraction?

With a wave of the hand one could invoke the woo principal to achieve this. After all, we all know magnets only attract until they're "close".



Is ther a quantum of woo closeness?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Is ther a quantum of woo closeness?

I can't see chromosomes with my naked eye while squinting against a cloudy background so I can only guess it would be about 9 or 18 monopole radii. Then again those are equivalent so who knows?

For anyone not familiar with the chromosome reference


This is for biologists. I can see chromosomes without a microscope. To see I close my eyes and then I open one eye just a little to look at the blue sky. Then I can see chains of beads floating in the liquid in my eye.

....... To see finer things yet I look in a gray cloud with the eye open until I see a darker spot. When the spot begins to boil in the middle, then I can see tiny multi-colored streaks running out of the middle.

www.rexresearch.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Wait, are you saying that we should NOT recycle our bodies by sending them to the Sun? Because your source reads:


To begin, a meteor rock falls in the sun, the sun dissolves the rock to the final division of matter, the North and South pole individual magnets, and the sunlight then sends them out here. The vegetation absorbs some of the magnets and the sunlight then sends them out here. The vegetation absorbs some of the magnets and the sunlight, and then grows. We eat the vegetation products and build up our body, and then we die and our body is cremated, the ashes can be made into a rock, and the rock can be sent to the sun to be dissolved again.


Just like that. From rocks to rock. Unclear how exactly the Sun "dissolves" the rock, but who cares.

It really takes a woo-woo to believe 1% of this.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So in a way I feel bad when I point out that Mr.XYZ posted off-topic here, true as it may be. Thing it, there is no real topic here, just like there is no "vortex math".
I Agree, I've never seen any vortex math in Rodin's Vortex-based mathematics (kind of an odd name, to call it vortex math, when there isn't any vortex math in Rodin's work).

And while you've probably seen vortex math before, for the benefit of those who haven't, can I be the first poster in the thread to post some?


Rotational (rigid-body) vortex


Irrotational vortex

Is that the first vortex-based math we've seen in 270 pages of a thread on vortex based math? I don't recall seeing any earlier, and certainly not in Rodin's article on "vortex-based mathematics".

Regarding the topic, I took a stab at what I thought it might be, partly based on Mary's recent comment and earlier comments about what she wanted to discuss in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



It really takes a woo-woo to believe 1% of this.

I would assume Leedskalnin believes it since he wrote it. That whole page is his work and what I posted isn't even the most bizarre part of it but bizarre nonetheless.

I would assume that Wippler, apparently being a follower of Ed's work, believes it as well. I've tried to point out many times that Wippler's main theory is really Ed's anyway. I think that's why he can't effectively answer questions that point out the shortcomings of this theory. No answer for the isotope problem for example.

Also bear in mind the post to which I replied. The Gaul's question appeared to be in jest, a quantum of woo closeness? I took it as tongue in cheek and replied likewise. 9 equivalent to 18? I thought that would be obvious sarcasm.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
For anyone not familiar with the chromosome reference


This is for biologists. I can see chromosomes without a microscope. To see I close my eyes and then I open one eye just a little to look at the blue sky. Then I can see chains of beads floating in the liquid in my eye.

....... To see finer things yet I look in a gray cloud with the eye open until I see a darker spot. When the spot begins to boil in the middle, then I can see tiny multi-colored streaks running out of the middle.

www.rexresearch.com...
That's actually an interesting topic because most eye floaters are thought to be made of collagen, which can have a triple helix appearance, not completely dissimilar to the double helix appearance of DNA, though I doubt we can see the actual structure all that well.



I've tried to observe the structure more closely, but as this video demonstrates, it's not easy:




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You dont know what the universe is, you dont know what energy is, you dont know what a particle is, you dont know what a wave is,you dont know what a field is, you dont know what a quark is, you dont know what EM radiation is, you dont know how magnets work, you dont know how gravity works, you dont know what space is, and you dont like to discuss interesting topics because you fail to answer my questions. You have so much time on your hands to write meaningless posts, but you cant answer my questions ( maybe they are meaningless questions, but I dont think so, I think if you fail to see the importance of my questions theres something wrong with you, not me and curiosity...tell me to read a book, i will.. but I come here to chat)?
edit on 17-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I relate to your frustration, ImaFungi. There has been a lot of flippant, memorized by rote, answers to questions that were intended to be probing questions about the big picture design of the universe on this thread. Answers that have been quite condescending and insulting to others.

Rodin's work and this thread is about the big picture of the universe but there are members here who don't seem interested in it. They're interested in protecting their status quo and entertaining themselves ridiculing others.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From Randy Powell's Facebook page:


An amazing video by my long time cohort in Vortex Based Mathematics Tom Barnett. This is the best animation I've seen that demonstrates the variation in the spiral patterns that I originally discovered are possible with these different toroid models. It also contains additional insights from Tom about how this all relates to the Phi ratio which is stunning.

www.youtube.com...


Another post on Randy Powell's Facebook page is about a 21 page .pdf file by his friend and collaborator Anthony Morris. The title is "Fibonacci & Other Integer Sequences – Mod 9":


. . . 1.618 - The Golden Mean - PHI: The Organising Structure Found Throughout Nature.
Evident In Every Living Thing.


(3 5 line needs drawing in)

. . . Even more interesting is when we write the Fibonacci sequence, Mod 9, like this:
1 1 2 3
5 8 4 3
7 1 8 9
8 8 7 6
4 1 5 6
2 8 1 9
Column 1 shows the Doubling Circuit Numbers of the 1 2 4 8 7 5
Column 2 shows 1 and 8 Number Pair.
Column 3 shows the Doubling Circuit Numbers again.
Column 4 shows the 3 6 9 Family Number Group (more about these later). . . .


In the .pdf Anthony Morris references another paper, a 5 page .pdf "Introduction to No Coincidence," in which this diagram appears:






new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 267  268  269    271  272  273 >>

log in

join