"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by ImaFungi

reply to post by Mary Rose

Nobody's got all the answers. Not buddhasystem nor anybody else. But Richard Feynman talked about people trying as hard as they can to understand the universe, and the people who object to mainstream science don't seem to be trying very hard because as Phage said, in order to think outside the box, you have to know what's in the box, a type of knowledge Rodin lacks when he says dark matter is the number 9, among other things.

Of course we are interested in solving the dark matter mystery, so if Rodin is right, let's verify his claim...please explain how we can do a scientific experiment to verify the claim. The reason I can't tell you is because saying dark matter is the number 9 makes about as much sense to me as saying "the square root of 2 is the color blue". It sounds like complete nonsense. But if you can help us make sense out of nonsense, please do it. If not, why are you still pretending it's not nonsense?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
tell me to read a book, i will.. but I come here to chat

This site does have a chat feature if that's what you want to do. It's the link just to the left of search.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Introduction to No Coincidence,"

From the .pdf:

‘A concept of the physical world can only be accurate to the degree permitted by the contemporary state of mathematics – a fact well known to all major thinkers of previous centuries. Today almost nobody is aware of it.’ – Peter Plichta, God’s Secret Formula

September 1st 2010 will be a day I never forget.

After a sabbatical following a long contract . . .

I had been sat down for just 15 minutes when I happened across a quote by Nikola Tesla that changed my life:

‘If you only knew the power of the 3 6 and 9 you would have the power of the Universe at your disposal.’

I sat there perplexed as I took the quote in. It didn’t make any sense. I knew a little about Tesla, enough to know he was thought an exceptional genius, one of the greatest to walk the Earth in modern times.

I googled the quote and for 3 weeks solid, 18 hours a day I became transfixed by this enigma eventually finding my way to a rather obscure and esoteric, fringe, branch of mathematics named Vortex Based Mathematics (VBM). This stuff is certainly well outside mainstream academia.

Very briefly, VBM can be defined as the study of resonance and ratio that attempts to identify the natural flow of energy. . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Introduction to No Coincidence"
From the .pdf:

Another quote, referring to Tesla, and central to Rodin's thesis:

His quote unequivocally infers that Numbers are real and it is in understanding the archetypal properties or ‘personality’ of each Number 0 to 9 that we can know, not guess at, how everything works, everywhere in the Universe.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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

Here is the text that goes with it:

Cellular mitosis is essentially the process of cell division that allows humans to grow and
for cells to repair themselves. It gives the following sequence:
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,etc – i.e. the cells simply double and double and double.

When we apply Mod 9 to this sequence, again using the circle as our control, we see a
repeating sequence emerge. 1 2 4 8 7 5.

The VBM guys refer to this as the ‘Doubling Circuit’. They are calling the point at which the
line 4 8 crosses the line 1 5, the Vortex, or Zero point.

Very interestingly this point divides the diameter of the circle perfectly into a ratio of 2 is
to 1 or one third diameter to 2/3 diameter.

Look at that shape. Eyes, ears, nose, hand, feet, lungs?.....

Click here for more information.

^^ dang, now noone can see my hilarious and truthful assessment... will all of their ill mannered posts throughout this thread get removed as well?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Nobody's got all the answers. Not buddhasystem nor anybody else. But Richard Feynman talked about people trying as hard as they can to understand the universe, and the people who object to mainstream science don't seem to be trying very hard because as Phage said, in order to think outside the box, you have to know what's in the box, a type of knowledge Rodin lacks when he says dark matter is the number 9, among other things.

Of course we are interested in solving the dark matter mystery, so if Rodin is right, let's verify his claim...please explain how we can do a scientific experiment to verify the claim. The reason I can't tell you is because saying dark matter is the number 9 makes about as much sense to me as saying "the square root of 2 is the color blue". It sounds like complete nonsense. But if you can help us make sense out of nonsense, please do it. If not, why are you still pretending it's not nonsense?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
tell me to read a book, i will.. but I come here to chat

This site does have a chat feature if that's what you want to do. It's the link just to the left of search.

edit on 18-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: added chat feature comment

Richard Feynman also said: "There's a big difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something" - Richard Feynman

You know some parts and pieces that are interesting abstractions of reality. But you are not capable, nor do you want to attempt to think about, the ways in which these pieces fit together, and what the complete meaning of the puzzle can mean, or can be.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

 

Nobody's got all the answers. Not buddhasystem nor anybody else. But Richard Feynman talked about people trying as hard as they can to understand the universe, and the people who object to mainstream science don't seem to be trying very hard because as Phage said, in order to think outside the box, you have to know what's in the box, a type of knowledge Rodin lacks when he says dark matter is the number 9, among other things.

Of course we are interested in solving the dark matter mystery, so if Rodin is right, let's verify his claim...please explain how we can do a scientific experiment to verify the claim. The reason I can't tell you is because saying dark matter is the number 9 makes about as much sense to me as saying "the square root of 2 is the color blue". It sounds like complete nonsense. But if you can help us make sense out of nonsense, please do it. If not, why are you still pretending it's not nonsense?

The amount of creativity in the "alternative" science community never ceases to amaze me. If they were more focused on practicing science, exploring, and actually learning rather than "fighting the man," it would be a pretty damn impressive sight to behold.

In a chicken or the egg scenario, the "mainstream" scientific community tends to immediately discredit all alternative viewpoints and despite knowing that "box" very well, tend to be completely unable to break outside of it (though the individual perception may say otherwise).

Together, they have so much to offer one another. Divided just seems to lead to complacency and comfort on one hand, and outright vitriol on the other. Its too bad really, that the "alternative" science community has no interest in actual science, and that the "mainstream" science community tends to discard anything without a scientific basis as being inherently false.

Maybe some day this will change, but I do feel the alternative community is the one that needs to step up. If they were only to employ the scientific method and experiments, their acceptance would be a foregone conclusion. Perhaps this is fought so strongly because it would then make them part of the same community, where it seems most of the passion is in fighting the mainstream at any cost.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

 

Nobody's got all the answers. Not buddhasystem nor anybody else. But Richard Feynman talked about people trying as hard as they can to understand the universe, and the people who object to mainstream science don't seem to be trying very hard because as Phage said, in order to think outside the box, you have to know what's in the box, a type of knowledge Rodin lacks when he says dark matter is the number 9, among other things.

Of course we are interested in solving the dark matter mystery, so if Rodin is right, let's verify his claim...please explain how we can do a scientific experiment to verify the claim. The reason I can't tell you is because saying dark matter is the number 9 makes about as much sense to me as saying "the square root of 2 is the color blue". It sounds like complete nonsense. But if you can help us make sense out of nonsense, please do it. If not, why are you still pretending it's not nonsense?

The amount of creativity in the "alternative" science community never ceases to amaze me. If they were more focused on practicing science, exploring, and actually learning rather than "fighting the man," it would be a pretty damn impressive sight to behold.

In a chicken or the egg scenario, the "mainstream" scientific community tends to immediately discredit all alternative viewpoints and despite knowing that "box" very well, tend to be completely unable to break outside of it (though the individual perception may say otherwise).

Together, they have so much to offer one another. Divided just seems to lead to complacency and comfort on one hand, and outright vitriol on the other. Its too bad really, that the "alternative" science community has no interest in actual science, and that the "mainstream" science community tends to discard anything without a scientific basis as being inherently false.

Maybe some day this will change, but I do feel the alternative community is the one that needs to step up. If they were only to employ the scientific method and experiments, their acceptance would be a foregone conclusion. Perhaps this is fought so strongly because it would then make them part of the same community, where it seems most of the passion is in fighting the mainstream at any cost.

There is nothing else that shapes society/civilization/culture/perspective/comfort/ability in life and on earth other then mans science. From the first spears and wheels, to huts and fire, to sewage and agriculture, to medicine to the industrial revolution and beyond. The only reason we are not monkeys, is because our knowledge of the principles and mechanics of nature. We, the living, are always on this cutting edge of history, with new discoveries made daily, more knowledge and more ways to implement it. So the science taught in universities is cutting edge, brilliantly advanced stuff, physics, chemistry, biology and every subtle sub category imaginable. these schools are literally indoctrination centers on how to become a modern manipulator of nature to fulfill a function in society. There are a lot of (im sure) alternatively classes at some universities, things regarding AI and out of the box thinking, but its kinda hard to teach students the information and things we dont know, and if you are paying 5 grand a semester to learn information to build your future life with, you may be bummed to take a class dealing with all the things we dont know about the universe and ourselves. So I think a big problem is there is no central drive or motivator or goal of science, ( besides: Know everything) but mainstream science kinda plays that role, there are humans who dont think mainstream has figured it all out, or looked at things in a way they can be looked at, which can be correct and potentially useful, and now it is a conflict of interests. I cannot hate on mainstream science at all, because it is not a 'thing' that exists. Water treatment plants and electrical grids and nuclear power plants and large hadron colliders and satellites and factories using robotics were created and exist. They serve a function and fulfill a demand. they were established through evolution (of technology/knowledge) and make it possible for humans to do things on earth in ways they couldnt do before. So my only qualm about science in general, is the lack of a goal/foresight. Are we just blind tinkering around smashing things together and seeing what works, or do we have common plans for the future? Or if one company wants to create a lethal epic virus, and it accidently gets out that is ok, or if a company wants to create terminator AI thats ok.. ( these may seem silly, but i am honestly wondering) Is there a planned or desired future for humanity, is there a determined path of probability, or we will see when we get there?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So the science taught in universities is cutting edge, brilliantly advanced stuff, physics, chemistry, biology and every subtle sub category imaginable. these schools are literally indoctrination centers on how to become a modern manipulator of nature to fulfill a function in society. There are a lot of (im sure) alternatively classes at some universities, things regarding AI and out of the box thinking, but its kinda hard to teach students the information and things we dont know, and if you are paying 5 grand a semester to learn information to build your future life with, you may be bummed to take a class dealing with all the things we dont know about the universe and ourselves. So I think a big problem is there is no central drive or motivator or goal of science, ( besides: Know everything) but mainstream science kinda plays that role, there are humans who dont think mainstream has figured it all out, or looked at things in a way they can be looked at, which can be correct and potentially useful, and now it is a conflict of interests. I cannot hate on mainstream science at all, because it is not a 'thing' that exists. Water treatment plants and electrical grids and nuclear power plants and large hadron colliders and satellites and factories using robotics were created and exist. They serve a function and fulfill a demand. they were established through evolution (of technology/knowledge) and make it possible for humans to do things on earth in ways they couldnt do before. So my only qualm about science in general, is the lack of a goal/foresight.

I really couldnt agree more (as I have made similar points in other threads). We do not have a system in place that teaches how to learn and explore, just what. I really do feel we should base our education around the scientific method itself, and not its findings. Education in its current form teaches what to know, then teaches how to question it. That is pretty much the definition of indoctrination.

Are we just blind tinkering around smashing things together and seeing what works, or do we have common plans for the future? Or if one company wants to create a lethal epic virus, and it accidently gets out that is ok, or if a company wants to create terminator AI thats ok.. ( these may seem silly, but i am honestly wondering) Is there a planned or desired future for humanity, is there a determined path of probability, or we will see when we get there?

I think that brings up a good point, where are we going/growing from here? It seems it is just wherever the wind takes us.

Every once in a while, a visionary or group of visionaries decide that they want to try something new based on lessons learned. This is how I look at the American Revolution and formation of the United States. Though, it ended up being usurped all the same despite measures against it. I think the trick is in understanding that there are things we could do that work towards an ideal and goal. At this point, all most are concerned about is to win at absolutely any cost. In some contexts it manifests as profit, other times it manifests as the absolute need to be right at any cost (even if that cost is being wrong!). It doesnt even matter if that cost is a lower quality of living for those who perceive to be so "rich" with numbers in a computer system.

I think the idea of being destructively competitive may not be in our best interests as a society, but its a large portion of the foundation that inspires what most of us do in every day life. It is something that we can quantify and observe, and also question "is this actually the best way to do this?" I dont think it is.

Will it change? I think so. It will just have the same requirements of the right variables as it always has. When will it change? I really couldnt even venture a guess, though if things get put aside for too long, they start to rot.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
In a chicken or the egg scenario, the "mainstream" scientific community tends to immediately discredit all alternative viewpoints and despite knowing that "box" very well, tend to be completely unable to break outside of it (though the individual perception may say otherwise).

This statement is false. There are numerous examples proving that. Look up "November Revolution" in physics, that is mainly due to the discovery and study of the charm quark. If what you said was true, the supposedly ossified science community would find a more conventional explanation for the signal observed. And look at RHIC. The thinking was that there was a "soft" QGP plasma to be formed in these conditions, when the discovery proved otherwise, we didn't waste time looking at the new theory venues and came up with new techniques to measure and quantify these effects. The OPERA experiment which at first saw a superliminal neutrino made a full official presentation of their results at the CERN colloquium, pretty mush a top forum as far as discoveries go. And LEP was built to measure the number of "generations" of leptons. If there physicists were "thinking inside the box", there wouldn't be any need for this exercise. Boxes are built and broken daily in physics. Your ideas about this science are very wrong.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The OPERA experiment which at first saw a superliminal neutrino made a full official presentation of their results at the CERN colloquium, pretty mush a top forum as far as discoveries go.

Yes, that was an outside the box announcement. But I was a little concerned about Ereditato’s resignation as Chairman of the OPERA experiment:

OPERA: Ereditato’s Point of View

I have no idea about the politics that went on within his team aside from a few articles I've read on the subject, but it seems like the rest of his team members wanted him to resign, so he did, even though he defends what he and his team did. So I have to wonder if the next team that has an out of the box result will be more reluctant to share it as a result.

But it does show they had the courage to think outside the box, and were looking for any correct answer, whether it was inside or outside the box.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I have no idea about the politics that went on within his team aside from a few articles I've read on the subject, but it seems like the rest of his team members wanted him to resign, so he did, even though he defends what he and his team did. So I have to wonder if the next team that has an out of the box result will be more reluctant to share it as a result.

I don't have any idea of the OPERA's politics either, but from what I heard at CERN, part of the group was willing to author the announcement and another part was not, insisting (I suppose) on a more rigorous analysis. This may be an oversimplification but it's not hard to imagine there could have been a split. It had less to do with "the box" and more with how you define "due diligence". If you read the link you posted, there is evidence of exactly that sort of scenario. After all, when they dug further, they did find a likely glitch in the apparatus and the procedure. They could have done it BEFORE making an announcement if they had gotten their act together.

But it does show they had the courage to think outside the box, and were looking for any correct answer, whether it was inside or outside the box.

Most definitely!

I know that my late former boss was not afraid to interpret some of the data his team got in a way that was far from orthodox. Even though he was ultimately proved wrong, he wasn't beheaded, crucified or lost his job. Quite the opposite.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The OPERA experiment which at first saw a superliminal neutrino made a full official presentation of their results at the CERN colloquium, pretty mush a top forum as far as discoveries go.

Yes, that was an outside the box announcement. But I was a little concerned about Ereditato’s resignation as Chairman of the OPERA experiment:

OPERA: Ereditato’s Point of View

I have no idea about the politics that went on within his team aside from a few articles I've read on the subject, but it seems like the rest of his team members wanted him to resign, so he did, even though he defends what he and his team did. So I have to wonder if the next team that has an out of the box result will be more reluctant to share it as a result.

But it does show they had the courage to think outside the box, and were looking for any correct answer, whether it was inside or outside the box.

they didnt have courage to think outside the box... They had motivation to garner attention to their work and potentially receive more money "look at me! look at me, faster then light we did it!"... Why didnt they do the months worth of checking to make sure there were no mechanical problems with the equipment before announcing an unsure mistake? I just made a new particle in my bathroom that goes faster then the speed of light, im going to contact all the papers, see if I can get some more funding, then once everyone is talking about it, im going to start seeing if there was anything I did wrong with my experiment.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
they didnt have courage to think outside the box... They had motivation to garner attention to their work and potentially receive more money "look at me! look at me, faster then light we did it!"...

There is no pleasing you. At least they had DATA and an apparatus they spent a whole lot of effort tuning and calibrating and what not. It's a bit disingenuous to criticize these people in the same thread which populated by imbeciles like Rodin et al, according to whom you spell the name of Lord, wave your hands and 'poof'! You have created a black hole.

Why didnt they do the months worth of checking to make sure there were no mechanical problems with the equipment before announcing an unsure mistake?

Again, how come I haven't heard much criticism coming from you, regarding the various stupid "theories" posted here, supported by NOTHING at all? Not months, not even hours of work?

People made an honest error. Kudos to them for following through.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Why didnt they do the months worth of checking to make sure there were no mechanical problems with the equipment before announcing an unsure mistake?

Who says they didn't do months of checking?

They spent 6 months doing that. They listed all the sources of errors they could think of in their paper, and one of the reasons they published it is to get help possibly finding sources of errors they didn't think of. But you're here to chat, and you aren't crazy about actually having to read something to learn the facts?

en.wikipedia.org...

After six months of cross checking, on September 23, 2011, the researchers announced that neutrinos had been observed traveling at faster-than-light speed.

OPERA Experiment

The team has recorded over 16,000 events now, and the profile of events over time very closely matches the structure of the proton bunches that created them.

But that doesn’t mean that this presentation is the last word on the topic. There are a lot of potential sources of error they know about—the paper’s table lists a dozen of them. Small errors in each of these could add up to something more significant than their total error. Then there are the classic unknown unknowns. The authors have tried to think of everything, but it’s not clear that they can.

How much time did Rodin spend verifying the black hole in his donut?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

They listed all the sources of errors they could think of in their paper, and one of the reasons they published it is to get help possibly finding sources of errors they didn't think of.

Isn't there a term for that...wait..on the tip of my tongue. Peer....peer something.
Funny how Rodin and Whipple don't seem to go in for that.

The team has recorded over 16,000 events now, and the profile of events over time very closely matches the structure of the proton bunches that created them.

But that doesn’t mean that this presentation is the last word on the topic. There are a lot of potential sources of error they know about—the paper’s table lists a dozen of them. Small errors in each of these could add up to something more significant than their total error. Then there are the classic unknown unknowns.

Wow this is worse then I thought. This means there may be countless errors in every experiment and subsequent paper and subsequent particle discovery. If it ever turns out any big discvoeries were wrong I hope the scientests dont have to give their shiny trophy back

What do particle physicists think the standard model says about the universe? what do they think it means? the values, can they relate it to anything, the way the particles exist and interact? does it make sense? what could have created such a weird and wacky and complex and sophisticated and expansive system that is capable of lasting so long and doing all we know the standard model is responsible for doing? Does this system remind them of anything? What is all this fancy stuff doing here?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

They listed all the sources of errors they could think of in their paper, and one of the reasons they published it is to get help possibly finding sources of errors they didn't think of.

Isn't there a term for that...wait..on the tip of my tongue. Peer....peer something.
Funny how Rodin and Whipple don't seem to go in for that.

Maybe the "scientists" wouldnt understand it. They werent taught it at college and they already know what the universe is and how to use it to make models.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Or maybe it's nothing but nonsense.
On second thought, no. It is nonsense.
Did Whipple answer any of your questions? He didn't answer mine except to say the data is wrong.