Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 275
39
<< 272  273  274    276  277  278 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


I'm not making any judgments about right or wrong. I'm asking pertinent questions and exploring alternative science, which I believe is the hope for humanity. Mainstream science is failing us unless you like weapons and trinkets. I want to see R&D for vortex math supported because I like the goal of new energy and energy medicine devices. My posts are related to investigating as many alternative theories as I find credible in search of progress in technology to make this a better world.




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In the Rodin Coil, the 9 represents the node of Inertia Aether Flux; the 3 and 6 represent the associated magnetic field.
Earlier, I posted a diagram showing an arrow which "represents" gravitational acceleration of a satellite in orbit around the Earth. I can demonstrate that what this arrow represents is real...by dropping an apple, and watching, measuring and timing the gravitational acceleration.

How can you, or Rodin, or anybody, demonstrate that those things "represent" what you/he claim they do? Someone else can say "the 8 represents the node of Inertia Aether Flux; the 2 and 4 represent the associated magnetic field." How do you prove which claim is correct? Maybe the guy talking about 8, 4 and 2 has better intuition...after all, the numbers 2, 4 and 8 are much better suited to a "doubling circuit" that Rodin likes to talk about so much...they show perfect doubling properties. 3 only doubles to 6 and then it's not doubling anymore when you go from 6 to 9.

One made up intuitive claim is just as good as another made up intuitive claim if there's no evidence for either one, right?


Originally posted by Mary Rose
Mainstream science is failing us unless you like weapons and trinkets.
Considering your ability to use a computer that works and an internet that works, not to mention many appliances that all work, I'd say it's working pretty well.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 





My posts are related to investigating as many alternative theories as I find credible in search of progress in technology to make this a better world.


In order to investigate, you must be willing to separate correct from incorrect, no?

The reason I'm on about this tilt is because it's SIMPLY demonstrably wrong. Are you willing to discuss this simple example? No mainstream science needed really, at least nothing that's been disputed by Wippler.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Perhaps you should explain how dark matter fails to emit EM radiation.


I see, you switched back into the absurd mode... And I had high hopes... But oh well.

Anyhow, if Arb or I could explain that, we'd be boarding the plane right now, for a trip to Europe to pick up our well deserved Nobel Prize. Seeing it as we are still stuck on ATS, you could have easily make the conclusion (and it beats me that you failed to reach it) that we don't know the answer.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
The reason I'm on about this tilt is because it's SIMPLY demonstrably wrong.


On that note, there is nothing in this thread in the vein of experimental part of pseudo-science that is SIMPLY demonstrably RIGHT. Rodin says there is a black hole inside the copper coil, but it's not there to be found. Nunez trims the current in the circuit by attaching an inductor in series and claims that he's saving energy this way -- what a dumb fella, really. One ATS member presents a wilted and half-rotten zucchini as an irrefutable evidence of time dilation. That Wippler guy doesn't think twice before denying the observable facts that are out there for everyone to see, such as teh Earth axis tilt. And some are excited about Reich's "orgasm in a box" product, i.e. the wooden "orgone accumulator".

So I understand why you are upset. Witnessing so much stupidity can do that to you.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Considering your ability to use a computer that works and an internet that works, not to mention many appliances that all work, I'd say it's working pretty well.


Compared to the technology that is being held back, those are trinkets.

If you study alternative history and alternative science, you find this out.

Thank God for computers and the internet, though. Without them we would not be able to study alternative history and science.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

If I understand the conspiracy theory you've been promoting in this regard, TPTB silences the people that promote or find out about this new technology. So according to your pet theory, I'm probably one of the 21,000 and counting people on a hit list for finding out about this new tech....hence you better not watch this video, lest you end up on a hit list too:

Solve for X: Charles Chase on energy for everyone


And as fascinating as the idea of greed-driven conglomerates suppressing new technology for their own profit is, I could almost be persuaded to believe in such conspiracy if there's sufficient evidence of it, but I haven't seen that, but instead ramblings of delusional people with no evidence. Further, there's actually a profit motive in implementing this new technology...so yes conglomerates are driven to add to their bottom line...but this will help them do that, so I'm not losing any sleep worrying about being on a hit list.


I think you've criticized tokamak research before, and you might actually like this guy since he points out some of the issues with that technology, like the inherently unstable design, scale required for economic version, and timelines, etc.

But it appears this new tech is founded in mainstream science, and has nothing to do with Rodin's or Haramein's un-measurable "black holes".

Of course I do wonder about all the other stuff he can't talk about, but I suspect it's largely related to what you mentioned earlier..."weapons", or defense tech.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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
If you trying to say that the planets/moons are falling around the earth/sun you are mistaken. Take the moon for example it too has a magnetic field that pushes away from the earth, this is why we have tidal forces, if the moon were falling around the earth it would not be able to create tides in the earth's oceans.

If you were falling to earth could you pick up a bucket of water?

All planets and moons have a magnetic field, some are stronger than others but they all have a magnetic field.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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??????????
Magnetism keeps planets/moons in orbit. not objects



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


I'm not making any judgments about right or wrong. I'm asking pertinent questions and exploring alternative science, which I believe is the hope for humanity.


Pertinent questions would be along the lines of "does it work?" , "Is there a reason why it should work?"

I don't see you asking those at all.

I see you saying "I don't care what the evidence says I think it works nyah nyah nyah"

that is not a question and it is a judgement - and it is of no use to humanity at all.
edit on 21-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: because my spelling/typing is even worse than usual this morning!



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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??????????
Magnetism keeps planets/moons in orbit. not objects


What keeps an object like a STEREO satellite in an orbit of the Sun similar to that of Earth?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

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?

In the beginning magnetism is what caused the earth's axis to tilt, As the earth rotates its axis becomes stable and will always point to polaris.

During the equinoxes the earths axis is still pointing to polaris, look at the first diagram.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
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...
I will try to make this simple as possible
here are the facts.

The earth axis always points to polaris.

The tilt of the earth's axis was caused the magnetism.

The earth and sun's magnetic poles are what cause the earth's elliptic orbit.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LawrenceWippler
 




In the beginning magnetism is what caused the earth's axis to tilt, As the earth rotates its axis becomes stable and will always point to polaris.

That is ridiculous. If the magnetism is strong enough to tilt the Earth 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic and away from the Sun, at the one time that it truly points away from the Sun, then why is there NO repulsion at say the equinoxes when the distance to the Sun is nearly the same?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
I will try to make this simple as possible
here are the facts.

The earth axis always points to polaris.

The tilt of the earth's axis was caused the magnetism.

The earth and sun's magnetic poles are what cause the earth's elliptic orbit.


It is easy to say things when you do not have to justify them.

Ther is as much evidence for your theory as ther is for the tilt being caused by all eth dinosaurs being turned to gas on the night side of the earth 65 million years ago, thus providing moer lift there and permanently realigning the axis.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LawrenceWippler
 




During the equinoxes the earths axis is still pointing to polaris, look at the first diagram.

I KNOW THAT! That has been my main point. I've been trying to get you to explain WHY there's no tilt away from the Sun then for awhile now. You can't do it.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In the Rodin Coil, the 9 represents the node of Inertia Aether Flux; the 3 and 6 represent the associated magnetic field.
Earlier, I posted a diagram showing an arrow which "represents" gravitational acceleration of a satellite in orbit around the Earth.


The reason this happens is because of a vortex.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
Perhaps you should explain how dark matter fails to emit EM radiation.


I see, you switched back into the absurd mode... And I had high hopes... But oh well.

Anyhow, if Arb or I could explain that, we'd be boarding the plane right now, for a trip to Europe to pick up our well deserved Nobel Prize. Seeing it as we are still stuck on ATS, you could have easily make the conclusion (and it beats me that you failed to reach it) that we don't know the answer.



Its because 'dark matter' is really gravity waves. ( my theory) ... Or dark matter is just planets, asteroids, gas, brown dwarfs which dont emit their own light and are too far away for us to detect. But I think scientests proposed the existence of something besides those things because it still would not be enough to keep stars farther away from the central black hole from flinging off into space.
edit on 21-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
If you trying to say that the planets/moons are falling around the earth/sun you are mistaken.


No. The Moon is just a satellite, not too different from other satellites orbiting our planet. They are all in free fall, and because of their velocity vectors they just turn around Earth instead of hitting it. You either post all of this in jest or are delusional, but either way the man-made satellites that are launched into orbit generally don't have a magnetic field associated with them. They are still in the orbit, and come of them are even used to transmit the Internet traffic, which unfortunately contains some of the most brain-dead stuff I've ever encountered if my life, like the Moon doesn't fall into Earth because of the magnetic repulsion.


Take the moon for example it too has a magnetic field that pushes away from the earth, this is why we have tidal forces, if the moon were falling around the earth it would not be able to create tides in the earth's oceans.


Of course it would. It's just the ancient concept of the gravitational pull.



If you were falling to earth could you pick up a bucket of water?


Sure, and also a lot of other stuff. People get married in free fall (they have the parachutes to break it in the end, thank God). The priest is holding his Bible when he officiates. I can imagine he could also pull a rope connected to a bucket. Big deal.


All planets and moons have a magnetic field, some are stronger than others but they all have a magnetic field.


You didn't read my post about Mars and Venus, or just decided to pretend you don't know any of that science stuff.

edit on 21-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
If you trying to say that the planets/moons are falling around the earth/sun you are mistaken.
I wouldn't phrase it exactly that way, though some people do.

What stops airplanes at cruising altitude from falling is a force called "lift". Without that, planes would fall, and if they get too much ice on the wings, that disrupts the lift and they can fall.

What stops satellites like the moon and man-made satellites such as Rosat from falling is their tangential velocity, and if that slows down too much, they fall:

ROSAT Reenters Earth’s Atmosphere

So if the orbital speed of a planet or satellite slows down or becomes zero, then the satellite or planet will fall. Its orbit is a careful balance between speed and the force of gravity that results in the orbit.

There are two separate things:
-the force that causes things to fall, which results from gravitational acceleration.
-the actual falling

If a skydiver jumps out of an airplane, he starts falling toward the ground, because the force is pulling on him. When he hits the ground, gravity is still pulling on him, but the earth has stopped his fall (hopefully gently if he used a parachute).

Now if for some reason you think the force causing him to fall isn't still there once he's on the ground, here's an experiment you can try to prove otherwise. Find a hole in the ground, and stand over it, like this one:



The force is there pulling on you and other objects like the bucket, and if there's nothing to stop the fall, they will fall. The ground or your chair is stopping your fall right now, but put your chair over that hole, and what will happen?
edit on 21-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 272  273  274    276  277  278 >>

log in

join