"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

I love lamp!!!!

I realize that this is too far off topic to be mentioned, but it's getting kinda heated in here. Play nice wont ya?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Sorry, just seems like sophisticated numerology to me - which is, obviously, complete nonsense.

(and, yes, I am a mathematician)

Isnt math just sophisticated numerology?

Not even close. One is science. One is ignorance.

[respectively]

reply to post by ImaFungi

Isnt math just sophisticated numerology?

Maybe you should ask if numerology is math. Other than adding digits for no apparent reason, it isn't.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Were any of the answers correct?

You mean the answers one would have to give in order to pass an exam?

So your hatred for mainstream science extends to logic, reason and simple observation.

Wippler is wrong, I and others have shown you this.

How about this Mary, can you tell me where I was wrong about the Sun NOT causing the Earth's tilt by repulsion of the north magnetic pole?

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Sorry, just seems like sophisticated numerology to me - which is, obviously, complete nonsense.

(and, yes, I am a mathematician)

Isnt math just sophisticated numerology?

Not even close. One is science. One is ignorance.

[respectively]

edit on 2/19/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)

what came first the universe or math? What is your focus as a mathmatician? If I can intuitively grasp the physicality of the universe without knowing much math, is that bad of me...am I wrong? If I can understand the universe by imagining the physical aspects of what goes on but do not know much math, could I ever be of use to physicists?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Isnt math just sophisticated numerology?

Maybe you should ask if numerology is math. Other than adding digits for no apparent reason, it isn't.

If you had to take a guess, from all the science you know and all the thoughts youve thought. What do you think the universe is?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Were any of the answers correct?

You mean the answers one would have to give in order to pass an exam?

AFAIK no exam was involved, and it is possible to give correct and incorrect answers - so how about just simple "correct" as in they answer teh question with factual injformation that can beverified and shown as true, or some such?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Sorry, just seems like sophisticated numerology to me - which is, obviously, complete nonsense.

(and, yes, I am a mathematician)

Isnt math just sophisticated numerology?

Not even close. One is science. One is ignorance.

[respectively]

edit on 2/19/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)

what came first the universe or math? What is your focus as a mathmatician? If I can intuitively grasp the physicality of the universe without knowing much math, is that bad of me...am I wrong? If I can understand the universe by imagining the physical aspects of what goes on but do not know much math, could I ever be of use to physicists?

Your attempt to be philosophical is wasted. 'Intuitively grasp the universe'? What the hell does that even mean?! It is arbitrary and baseless. Not bad of you, and not wrong. But numerology contributes nothing to your argument of this notion. And, no... without math you are of no use to physicists. Period.

The math has always existed. We are just discovering and rediscovering it. It is exact. We have to find new ways to *understand* it.
Numerology was created by man. Stupid men. It is arbitrary and subjective manipulation of numbers. That is all.

Numerology is to math, what astrology is to cosmology/astronomy. Zippo.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Here's a head nod... Analyze the design work of LED's.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Sorry, just seems like sophisticated numerology to me - which is, obviously, complete nonsense.

(and, yes, I am a mathematician)

Isnt math just sophisticated numerology?

Not even close. One is science. One is ignorance.

[respectively]

edit on 2/19/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)

what came first the universe or math? What is your focus as a mathmatician? If I can intuitively grasp the physicality of the universe without knowing much math, is that bad of me...am I wrong? If I can understand the universe by imagining the physical aspects of what goes on but do not know much math, could I ever be of use to physicists?

Your attempt to be philosophical is wasted. 'Intuitively grasp the universe'? What the hell does that even mean?! It is arbitrary and baseless. Not bad of you, and not wrong. But numerology contributes nothing to your argument of this notion. And, no... without math you are of no use to physicists. Period.

The math has always existed. We are just discovering and rediscovering it. It is exact. We have to find new ways to *understand* it.
Numerology was created by man. Stupid men. It is arbitrary and subjective manipulation of numbers. That is all.

Numerology is to math, what astrology is to cosmology/astronomy. Zippo.

edit on 2/19/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)

I was never backing numerology by the way.. but anyway. What I meant by intuitively grasp the universe is: we are all born ignorant, to know things we must think about them and this takes place in our minds, you can spend your whole life doing math and thinking about numbers, I can spend my whole life thinking about the universe (intuitively grasping the mathematical concepts without doing the math, like a basketball player can make a jump shot without doing trigonometry) there for it is possible I can have a better grasp and understanding on what the universe is, then someone who just plays with numbers. Can math exist without material, or a physical realm?

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Here's a head nod... Analyze the design work of LED's.

So, this?






this is what you think the universe is?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
you can spend your whole life doing math and thinking about numbers, I can spend my whole life thinking about the universe (intuitively grasping the mathematical concepts without doing the math, like a basketball player can make a jump shot without doing trigonometry) there for it is possible I can have a better grasp and understanding on what the universe is, then someone who just plays with numbers.

I doubt that's possible. In my experience the most amazing stuff becomes accessible through math, in part because some of the phenomena is not even visible to human eye or perceptible otherwise, and can only be appreciated via its mathematical description, to begin with. Comparison with an athlete is completely off mark here, because it is indeed rooted in a mechanical and mechanistic, if you will, sort of environment which we are already relatively good at perceiving, because of our dependency on it and the evolution process which educated us in great deal regarding that. There is no intuition that will tell you that the electric field tends to be stronger in the vicinity of strongly curved conducting surfaces (of which a particular case is a spike or a wire). There is no intuition that will tell you that the plane of polarization of light will be rotated in a solution of sugar. Heck, your intuition will be mum when you consider total internal reflection. So no, don't fool yourself, you don't have much "grasp" of anything by just looking around.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
you can spend your whole life doing math and thinking about numbers, I can spend my whole life thinking about the universe (intuitively grasping the mathematical concepts without doing the math, like a basketball player can make a jump shot without doing trigonometry) there for it is possible I can have a better grasp and understanding on what the universe is, then someone who just plays with numbers.

I doubt that's possible. In my experience the most amazing stuff becomes accessible through math, in part because some of the phenomena is not even visible to human eye or perceptible otherwise, and can only be appreciated via its mathematical description, to begin with. Comparison with an athlete is completely off mark here, because it is indeed rooted in a mechanical and mechanistic, if you will, sort of environment which we are already relatively good at perceiving, because of our dependency on it and the evolution process which educated us in great deal regarding that. There is no intuition that will tell you that the electric field tends to be stronger in the vicinity of strongly curved conducting surfaces (of which a particular case is a spike or a wire). There is no intuition that will tell you that the plane of polarization of light will be rotated in a solution of sugar. Heck, your intuition will be mum when you consider total internal reflection. So no, don't fool yourself, you don't have much "grasp" of anything by just looking around.

I didnt say I have anything against experiments or math. But I think there is also an important aspect to scientific discovery, understanding and knowledge of the universe which is accessed and progressed via thought and imagination. Can you explain to me what goes in with the plane of light in sugar? So the light enters the solution of sugar with its fields oscillating perpendicular to the path of propagation, and by rotate do you mean the fields begin to rotate around the path of propagation (like spiral around?)? Is this due to the molecular structure of the sugar as well as the light 'imparting' its energy on every electron it contacts?

electric field stronger near a curved surface compared to flat, and your examples of wire and spike as compared to some rectangular wire? Well this is difficult because I have asked you before and I dont know if you told me, but is it known exactly how a field works or what it is? What I mean by that is, how an electron exerts a force beyond the permitter of itself. does it happen because all the electrons in atoms near by line up to create some relatively weak circuit through air (is that what a field is? If I did interpret correctly and you were talking about the difference between a curved conductor like a wire and a non curved wire, I would guess that it had something to do with the angles of the non cylindrical material which created destructive interference which would not allow the charged particles influence to be as cleanly distributed to the surrounding area.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"15 February 2013, Vortex Electricity, Daniel Nunez, Randy Powell, The Energy Evolution"

Beginning at about 29:18 Randy Powell talked about light not being able to escape from a black hole, but that he has a theory that sound can.

Now I see that Randy Powell has posted a YouTube video on his Facebook page related to sound.

Here is the Description:

Uploaded on Mar 1, 2010

Saturn




On the 25 August 1981, the probe Voyager 2 approached the Saturn system.

The probe is carrying different detectors : magnetometers, plasma detectors, low-energy charged particles detectors, cosmic rays detectors, radiowaves receivers.

Recordings were made.

Interractions of the solar wind with planet's magnetosphere, magnetosphere itself, electromagnetic fields, charged particles emissions, charged particle interactions of the planet, its moons, and the solar wind.

All this electromagnetic phenomenons can be transformed into electric signals, which can in turn be amplified and used to excite the membrane of a loud speaker ; thus making audible to the human ear the rustling of the cosmos.


All these sounds were recorded while Voyager 2 was passing near Saturn, and assembled without manipulation.

Extract from "Symphonies of the planets vol.6 - Saturn", Nasa Voyager Recordings, Brain/Mind Research, 1990.

voyager.jpl.nasa.gov... en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
www.ciclops.org...

I am interested in learning more about Randy's theory about sound and the possible connection between R&D of vortex math and cymatics.

This also brings to mind the earlier discussion of Daniel Nunez actually saying that sound is electric, which I posted about here.

I will be looking for more information about sound.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Unsurprisingly, Nunez gave you a really messed up answer, which goes like this:

"Simply put, we are all electric beings who inhabit an electric universe.

A statement that is so generic and grand it's useless. If someone takes out my pancreas, I'll be suffering not because my electric circuit is broken, but because of a plethora of chemical imbalances it will create.

Sounds, thoughts, colors, and just about everything we perceive are electrical impulses that are being translated into usable information by our brains.

Again, neurotransmission is impossible without a whole lot of various chemical reactions taking place.

When I said sounds are electrical; I was referring to the fact that we generate sounds using a simple device which is, in fact, creating electrical oscillations.

That's some really clouded explanation. Yes, a generator is creating "electrical oscillations". Duh. Does it even merit an e-mail? However, the question whether the sound "is electrical" or not, is not even answered here. Of course, the sound is a sound, and it's not electrical. But Nunez can't just spell it out straight.

The phenomena occurs at different frequencies from coil to coil, but generally happens in the Kilohertz range. This provides us with a different understanding of sound and the relationship it maintains with the surrounding environment."

Huh? What "understanding"? He doesn't have any, from just looking at what he wrote. What does Rodin coil have to do with sound? It can emit a buzz just like many other coils when you pass a current through it, but whatever the supposed principle of operation it uses was never explained as "sonic", if anything, Rodin says it's the black hole inside the torus. Interestingly, Nunes does not see a black hole there.

I communicated with Nunez on YouTube and unfortunately he's just not a smart person.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Unsurprisingly, Nunez gave you a really messed up answer, which goes like this:

"Simply put, we are all electric beings who inhabit an electric universe.

A statement that is so generic and grand it's useless. If someone takes out my pancreas, I'll be suffering not because my electric circuit is broken, but because of a plethora of chemical imbalances it will create.

Sounds about right to me... quarks have electric charge, so do electrons, and thats what we are made of.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Sounds about right to me... quarks have electric charge, so do electrons, and thats what we are made of.

Let me guess...you also read the wiki on protons 50 times?

most of a proton's mass comes from the gluons that bind the constituent quarks together, rather than from the quarks themselves

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I communicated with Nunez on YouTube and unfortunately he's just not a smart person.

Physicists don't have it so easy to just delete their negative peer review, like Nunez deleted his "peer review" comments on youtube. I was disappointed to see him do that rather than address the questions and issues raised. But, we see a lot of that kind of avoidance here too, when people ask tough questions, like how Wippler knows our observations of the Solar magnetic cycle are wrong.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Sounds about right to me... quarks have electric charge, so do electrons, and thats what we are made of.

Let me guess...you also read the wiki on protons 50 times?

most of a proton's mass comes from the gluons that bind the constituent quarks together, rather than from the quarks themselves

How many gluons are in a proton? Where do the gluons come from?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
How many gluons are in a proton?

A lot. You can look it up, too, you know?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You mean the answers one would have to give in order to pass an exam?

Answers that would agree with observation, like the sun reversing magnetic polarity every 11 years. Wippler says our observations are wrong.
How does he know this, and what observations has he made to refute this, and how has he made them?
I was looking forward to seeing his explanation but he never gave any.

edit on 19-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

All magnetic dipoles are created the same way, this included bar magnets and even planets, and yes the sun too. if you hold a bar magnet in your hand for 11 years would you expect the poles to reverse?

The sun and the earth have magnetic fields with their north poles on the same side, using only the law of attraction they will repel each other, lets not forget gravity an attractive force, this will bring them closer together and magnetism will keep them apart. If the sun's poles reversed, their magnetic fields would now attract each other bringing them closer together. Now you must ask yourself, does the sun and the earth smash into each other every 11 years?