It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 274
39
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
Now you must ask yourself, does the sun and the earth smash into each other every 11 years?
Not that I've noticed. Thanks for finally posting a reply. However the reason the Earth and sun don't collide is the same as the reason the moon and the Earth don't collide, which is illustrated in this animation:

en.wikipedia.org...

A satellite orbiting the earth has a tangential velocity and an inward acceleration.

The force of gravity you mention is represented by the arrow pointing inward.

The other arrow shows what's keeping the two bodies from "smashing into each other" as you put it, the tangential velocity.

The simple proof your assertion is wrong about magnetic fields keeping the two bodies apart is that Venus has no significant magnetic field.

So what keeps Venus in its orbit?

Nothing, according to your idea, but the animation shown also explains the orbit of Venus.
edit on 20-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 02:01 PM

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
lets not forget gravity an attractive force, this will bring them closer together and magnetism will keep them apart.

Are you serious in saying that it is magnetism that keeps objects in orbit??????????

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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

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

Dont you know that I know that I know this. Dont you know that I come here to chat with you guys. Arb brought something to my attention in an argumentative manner, I asked him a question hoping to further the discussion. Are you his mommy, stepping in before he falls into a trap?

will you answer the other part of my question? Where do gluons come from?
edit on 20-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Arb brought something to my attention in an argumentative manner, I asked him a question hoping to further the discussion. Are you his mommy, stepping in before he falls into a trap?

Arb? Falling into your trap?

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:52 PM

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.

In a Red Ice Radio interview, he mentioned that this sound is no longer a wave, but a quasiparticle.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

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.

Take a look at the diagrams and text found at this link, www.physicalgeography.net...

Remember there is only about a 3% difference in distance here. Do you really think magnetic repulsion could cause this?

Can you please explain the following? Why no tilt relative to the Sun here?

Figure 6h-6: During the equinoxes, the axis of the Earth is not tilted toward or away from the Sun and the circle of illumination cuts through the poles.

Does your view still make sense to you?

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 05:47 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Arb brought something to my attention in an argumentative manner, I asked him a question hoping to further the discussion. Are you his mommy, stepping in before he falls into a trap?

Arb? Falling into your trap?

Are you going to respond to my last reply to you regarding my attempt to comprehend the examples of difficult to intuit phenomenon you provided? If I wasnt close in my assessment I would like to hear in what ways I was incorrect in my thinking.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

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.

Take a look at the diagrams and text found at this link, www.physicalgeography.net...

Remember there is only about a 3% difference in distance here. Do you really think magnetic repulsion could cause this?

Can you please explain the following? Why no tilt relative to the Sun here?

Figure 6h-6: During the equinoxes, the axis of the Earth is not tilted toward or away from the Sun and the circle of illumination cuts through the poles.

Does your view still make sense to you?

Those images are highlighting the axis not the magnetic poles. But anyway, why do the axis change like that through earths orbit? If every thing about the solar system was the same, except the sun did not produce solar wind, and the earth had no magnetic field/magnetic poles, would there be any difference in the way earth orbited the sun?

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:18 PM
reply to post by ImaFungi

Those images are highlighting the axis not the magnetic poles.

Wippler's claim is that the Earth's axial tilt is caused by repulsion of the north magnetic pole by the Sun.

But anyway, why do the axis change like that through earths orbit?

The thing is, IT DOESN"T CHANGE. That's part of the frustration with this. Regardless of where the Earth is in the orbit, the axis points to Polaris.

www.physicalgeography.net...

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:39 PM
Mars does not have any significant magnetic field. Last time I checked, it was not falling into the Sun. Venus has an extremely weak field compared to Earth. It seems to be doing OK in its orbit as well.

Just saying.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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

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

This is why it's damn near impossible to have a serious debate with the two of you... Gluons? Let's see what they've done here. Glu for Glue. Ons for lump this together with all the other fictitious particles.

Now, into the realm of theory: we are looking for an internal symmetry having a 3-dimensional representation which can give rise to a neutral combination of 3 particles (otherwise no color-neutral baryons). The simplest such statement is that a linear combination of each type of charge (red + green + blue) must be neutral, and following William of Occam we believe that the simplest theory describing all the facts must be the correct one. We now postulate that the particles carrying this force, called gluons, must occur in color anti-color units (i.e. nine of them). BUT, red + blue + green is neutral, which means that the linear combination red anti-red + blue anti-blue + green anti-green must be non-interacting, since otherwise the colorless baryons would be able to emit these gluons and interact with each other via the strong force—contrary to the evidence. So, there can only be EIGHT gluons. This is just Occam's razor again: a hypothetical particle that can't interact with anything, and therefore can't be detected, doesn't exist.

Source

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by Americanist

I wouldn't call them fictitious. They form a pretty dense matter at high energies, as evidenced in studies done at RHIC and now at the LHC.

Also,
Color Glass Condensate

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by Americanist

I have to give you credit for taking things further than ImaFungi and actually looking something up, instead of asking for it to be spoon-fed to you.

I look up a lot of things myself and I'm amazed how many times I see John Baez's name on sources I end up finding. He's a professor of mathematics, but one who apparently takes an interest in practical applications of mathematics in physics, which is far more interesting to me than Rodin's fictional math and numerology...I re-read some of Rodin's stuff yesterday, and I can't see why you'd find anything he says more credible than what John Baez has written.

I don't know if you followed the RHIC link buddhasystem posted a few days ago, but I did, and it was some interesting stuff. Real world experiments made by people trying as hard as they can to understand how all these observations fit together. But you want us to believe Rodin? Here's what he has to offer instead of experiments:

rense.com...

This led Marko into a journey of thoroughly studying all the world's great religions. When he was introduced to the Bahai Faith he immediately became a believer. Literally days later Marko decided to take The Most Great Name of Bahaullah (prophet of the Bahai Faith) which is Abha and convert it into numbers. He did this in an effort to discover the true precise mystical intonation of The Most Great Name of God. Since the Bahai sacred scripture was originally written in Persian and Arabic Marko used the Abjad numerical notation system for this letter to number translation. This was a sacred system of allocating a unique numerical value to each letter of the 27 letters of the alphabet so that secret quantum mechanic physics could be encoded into words. What Marko discovered was that (A=1, b=2, h=5, a=1) = 9.
So, buddhasystem posted a link to the RHIC. What link points to experimental evidence of Rodin's "secret quantum mechanic physics"? You and I both know the answer to that...he made it up.

As DenyObfuscation stated earlier, whatever heartburn you may have with modern science with its gaps, holes and unsolved problems, you should have a million times as much heartburn with Rodin's stuff where there isn't just a "gap" in understanding, the entire theory has no basis in evidence, if you can even call it a theory. As that quote shows, it's more of a religious proclamation of "truth".

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:39 PM
reply to post by Americanist

By the way I agree with Arb and give you credit for doing research and posting on topic (at least topic of this page). Refreshing.

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:43 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Americanist

I wouldn't call them fictitious. They form a pretty dense matter at high energies, as evidenced in studies done at RHIC and now at the LHC.

Also,
Color Glass Condensate

Where do gluons come from? Do they exist outside of protons and neutrons? How long after the big bang big banged did quarks form? did gluons form at exactly the same time? did the exact time quarks form, they formed in pairs of 3 and created protons and neutrons (or this has to do with the quark generations)? Am I wrong for thinking gluons do not really exist as physical particles, but are more the results of quarks interacting with one another and conserving their total energy? When one quark 'waves' it sends energy to a near by quark which catches this energy and immediately sends it to another, and so gluons are like the hot potato? How important of a role if any, does the space within an atom and within a proton and neutron play in these processes, is this space like a perfect vacuum chamber ( are these space-times able to have qualities like dark energy, space-time distortion, gravity waves)?

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

reply to post by buddhasystem

Or field density... Whatever floats your boat, right? How Rodin came about the topology of the torus is just about as relevant as the manner in which Tesla brought about his inventions. Who are you to dispute intuition, especially if you're not even in the same ballpark?

To recap from various posts found here:

The observations you continually overlook are now widely accepted. By studying the center of galaxies - light variation seems to denote black holes. Furthermore, galactic clusters are traveling towards a similar point in our Universe.

From macro to micro - galaxies to gastropods, double helix eleven light years across to the DNA we're composed of - a matching design work is truly appreciated.

What you tout? The Higgs Boson or some other exotic particle TBD. That alone is banging out a theory for dark matter, dark flow, and dark energy. In other words, your foundation is smoke and mirrors to begin with. What you don't understand is while you're huffing and puffing on fumes, there's a driver to reality regardless of the experiments.

Perhaps you should explain how dark matter fails to emit EM radiation.

On that note... Happy colliding.
edit on 20-2-2013 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Americanist
Perhaps you should explain how dark matter fails to emit EM radiation.
The true mystery of dark matter is fascinating, and one which nobody can really explain. The only thing we are sure of is that we have observations that are difficult to explain in other ways. If we don't know what it is, we say we don't know. That's better than making something up to pretend we do know, right?

Apparently Rodin doesn't think so, since his proclamation that he's solved the dark matter mystery by identifying dark matter as the number 9 doesn't solve anything. Someone else could claim dark matter is the number 8. What experiment would you conduct to show that Rodin is right that it's the number 9 instead of the number 8 as claimed by another crackpot, er, um I mean by somebody else? If it's just intuition, maybe the guy saying it's 8 has better intuition. Without evidence how do you know?

And since you brought up John Baez as a source, he apparently has also seen his share of crackpot theories and wrote a fun little piece to rate them:

The Crackpot Index
Three of the last four are particularly interesting/relevant to these discussions:

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Originally posted by Americanist
In other words, your foundation is smoke and mirrors to begin with. What you don't understand is while you're huffing and puffing on fumes, there's a driver to reality regardless of the experiments.
And that driver would be what, exactly? "Frequency"?
The spiel about the foundation being smoke and mirrors and you claiming there is something better but having no theory with concrete testable predictions is obviously not original, since Baez wrote that back in 1998.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Apparently Rodin doesn't think so, since his proclamation that he's solved the dark matter mystery by identifying dark matter as the number 9 doesn't solve anything.

You have made no progress in understanding since your silly opening post two years ago:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I think Rodin's claim that "all multiples of 9 equal 9" violates the ATS terms and conditions against posting incorrect, false or misleading information, and that this thread should be moved to the [HOAX] forum.

You're still harping on your literal interpretation of vortex math.

In vortex math, the number 9 functions in a system that maps a torus corresponding to the shape of the universe on the macro level.

In the Rodin Coil, the 9 represents the node of Inertia Aether Flux; the 3 and 6 represent the associated magnetic field.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:28 AM
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is that counter-intuitive?

Perhaps the aether plays a role in attraction? The more aether, the more attraction, not very much aether, no attraction?

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:37 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

You have made no progress in understanding since your silly opening post two years ago:

You call that silly? Seems pretty rational to me.

Have you made any progress in understanding why Wippler's claim about the tilt of the Earth is silly? This has been shown in many different ways. My angle may not be the best way to refute Wippler but I think it's the simplest. I don't use the more science dependent methods because I'm not familiar enough with them to argue them.

Where do you think the evidence against Wippler's claim is wrong?

new topics

top topics

39