It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 28
39
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


How would you test the theory if you can't figure out anything new with it, or even connect it to things already known? I'm curious about how it corresponds to frequencies of light and sound. If nothing "mainstream" can be figured out from it, why is Rodin using mainstream devices like ammeters or voltmeters?




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . he realized the coil is a dud.


You have not the slightest idea what you're talking about.

You really need to stop making statements about anything, including Rodin's work, that is related to suppressed (therefore it is cutting edge) science and technology, because you haven't researched it.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose


Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . he realized the coil is a dud.


You have not the slightest idea what you're talking about.

You really need to stop making statements about anything, including Rodin's work, that is related to suppressed (therefore it is cutting edge) science and technology, because you haven't researched it.
Buddhasystem is being suppressed! Buddhasystem is being suppressed!

Evidence right there!

And suppressed people must be right. Therefore Rodin is a dud.

You can't fault the logic...



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Hey, Bob, is your next blog entry going to be about the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM)? I would love to read it if that is what you are working on.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . he realized the coil is a dud.


You have not the slightest idea what you're talking about.


Do you mean I missed a proper demonstration of the coil where it did something more than shake or spin a magnet, just like the coil in your doorbell? Please do send a link. Otherwise, desist.


You really need to stop making statements about anything, including Rodin's work, that is related to suppressed (therefore it is cutting edge) science and technology, because you haven't researched it.


I spent more time than I should have, watching this nut first saying that he will stamp out hunger and decease on the whole planet with his stupid donut, then that he's effectively a prophet of God our Lord ("divine guidance", "the fingerprint of God). That gives me plenty of reasons to state that he's a nut. When I see a single loaf of bread or a vial of vaccine emerging from his kindergarten toy, I will change my opinion. Since you by your own admission don't know any math or physics, your "research" is a coping mechanism and can't be taken seriously. If you relate Rodin to science (!) then it is you who doesn't know what they are talking about.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
 

Hey, Bob, is your next blog entry going to be about the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM)? I would love to read it if that is what you are working on.
There are plenty of people who can make much better sense of the wave structure of matter than me. It's not really the kind of thing that can be summed up in a blog post.

The Susskind lectures are a brilliant resource. He did a series on quantum mechanics (in addition to the one on entanglement that I linked to above). He gets to the double-slit experiment in lecture 4. But he goes rather more deeply into mathematics and abstraction than he does the entanglement series, so it's probably not for everyone.

Some people prefer to think of quantum theory in terms of state vectors in Hilbert spaces rather than in terms of waves, and I'm one of them. Which probably doesn't help you very much. The two ideas will always give the same answers (they have the same mathematical structure despite the difference in concepts). Waves are nice, but they're not the only way of seeing things.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
As far as scientific facts go, the Rodin coil will not be proven or disproven by the mainstream, because it is associated with alternative energy, and alternative energy is suppressed and has been suppressed for some time, due to the profit motive and its role in society.


Oh, but Rodin has so many videos on the web and not a single one has a demonstration of the coil which is satisfactory according to physics 101. Are you serious about him being "suppressed" in his own garage? Do you think all this was filmed under duress? Seriously, Mary?
There are a number of things about this I don't get. First we have Rodin making his "inexhaustible energy" claim.

I presumed this is the kind of energy in the real world we can cook our food and heat our homes with, right? Which would make it real physical energy.

Then some people in this thread are apparently claiming that Rodin's concepts are not manifested in the material world, right? Or did I misunderstand? They would have to be manifested in the real world to get free energy, right?

As much as I think it would be nice to see someone spewing as many false claims as Rodin get suppressed just on the basis of making false claims like the Kinoki foot pads were "suppressed" for making false claims (It's called fraud), I'm seeing no evidence of any suppression of Rodin at all with the multitude of videos he's made. Just that one video series has 44 parts and there's a lot more. Whatever the opposite of suppression is, I'd say that's a better description of the exposure Rodin is being afforded through youtube.

In fact Peswiki is full of free energy claims, I don't see any of them being suppressed, you can read peswiki all day and free energy inventors of all kinds have their stuff posted there. Buddhasystem makes a valid point, how is this evidence of suppression?

btw buddhasystem, I'm looking forward to seeing Lewis Black but I had to call my ISP because I'm having trouble playing it.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by 547000
 

Hey, Bob, is your next blog entry going to be about the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM)? I would love to read it if that is what you are working on.
There are plenty of people who can make much better sense of the wave structure of matter than me. It's not really the kind of thing that can be summed up in a blog post.

The Susskind lectures are a brilliant resource.
I thought he was talking about the other WSM, this one, that some posters in this thread have alluded to:

www.spaceandmotion.com...

I realise that there are a lot of 'crackpot' theories about truth and reality on the internet, but it is easy to show that the Wave Structure of Matter is the correct solution as it deduces the laws of Nature (the fundamentals of Physics & Philosophy) perfectly (there are no opinions).
That's like the preamble I got on e-mails about pyramid schemes..."I realize there are a lit of pyramid schemes out there, but this isn't one" but then you read it and find out it IS. So it's funny to see the warning about crackpot theories and then find him quoting Darwin and then proving Darwin correct almost as if he doesn't have a clue what Darwin said:


Charles Darwin well understood this extreme 'skepticism' that claims we can never know the truth about things;

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. (Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man, 1871)"
So after making this quote we then see the ultimate example of ignorance begetting confidence with extreme irony:


once we know reality, as I am convinced we now do with the wave structure of matter in space, then this marks the end of postmodernism
By the "end of postmodernism", he's referring to the fact that we couldn't explain everything before, but now with his theory, we can:


There is a tacit assumption within postmodernism that no theory will ever explain all things.
However, there is no reason for this assumption other than history showed that no theory had yet explained all things (see Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper).


www.spaceandmotion.com...


The Laws of Nature - The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) deduces the laws of Nature that have been empirically observed and quantified over the past several centuries. This changes the foundations of science / physics from inductive (uncertain) to deductive (certain).
I guess I should ignore the decision by the US supreme court that science is by definition falsifiable. Now that this one metaphysics expert has removed all the uncertainty from science and made it certain, I suspect all the scientists in the world are out of a job?

I haven't seen the Susskind lectures, but somehow, I doubt that's what they say.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I thought he was talking about the other WSM, this one, that some posters in this thread have alluded to:

www.spaceandmotion.com...

...Now that this one metaphysics expert has removed all the uncertainty from science and made it certain, I suspect all the scientists in the world are out of a job?

I haven't seen the Susskind lectures, but somehow, I doubt that's what they say.

Oh. I see.


No, I was thinking of wave mechanics, which is a real theory of the wave structure of matter and genuinely interesting, rather than that website, which seems to be an arrogant pile of random opinionated nonsense.

I'm not interested in APRONs unless they start making specific claims regarding observable reality that can be investigated. If it does, then I might check it out. If not then I don't see the point.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
I'm not interested in APRONs unless they start making specific claims regarding observable reality that can be investigated. If it does, then I might check it out. If not then I don't see the point.
That's a logical stance. I looked for any specific claims but on the perhaps 15% of the site I went through so far I haven't found any, just the general claim that he's solved everything with WSM so there's no more uncertainty in science. There is a comment that it's easily explained, but following that comment where I'd expect to find the explanation, there isn't one.

What are APRONs?



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

What are APRONs?

Arrogant pile of random opinionated nonsense. I just invented it.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

What are APRONs?

Arrogant pile of random opinionated nonsense. I just invented it.


Gosh darn! I thought that APRON meant Asymptotic Perpetual Resonance Omniscient Network.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Gosh darn! I thought that APRON meant Asymptotic Perpetual Resonance Omniscient Network.
Looks consistent with my definition. I'll accept that.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
Arrogant pile of random opinionated nonsense. I just invented it.
I actually searched for that...twice! No wonder I couldn't find anything except the cooking kind, or maybe a lab version or two!

I guess that you could say "inexhaustible energy, unlimited food, end all diseases and travel anywhere in the universe" are some pretty arrogant claims, as is the claim to have removed all uncertainty from science by finally explaining everything with certainty.

There might be some testable claims about the psychiatric condition of a person making such physics claims, but I'd rather debate the testable physics or mathematics claims, if there are any. I've said there aren't any, but in a way, there are.

We DON'T have inexhaustible energy
We DON'T have unlimited food
We HAVEN'T ended all diseases
and we CAN'T travel anywhere in the universe

I don't know what other specific testable claims we can look at besides those, so if that's all there is (aside from Rodin's demonstration that he doesn't know the difference between true power and apparent power due to phase shift in a coil), then can we say the claims are proven false?



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I actually searched for that...twice! No wonder I couldn't find anything except the cooking kind, or maybe a lab version or two!
I've just submitted it to Urban Dictionary. Maybe it'll catch on.


If that's all there is (aside from Rodin's demonstration that he doesn't know the difference between true power and apparent power due to phase shift in a coil), then can we say the claims are proven false?
Proof of negative isn't possible, but – as Russell's Teapot tells us – it would be nonsensical to assert that it's unreasonable to suggest that the claim is empty. So in practical terms, yes.
edit on 19-2-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
Proof of negative isn't possible
True, I didn't phrase that very well.

I should have said Rodin has failed to prove his own grandiose claims.

I didn't mean to claim "inexhaustible energy" is impossible, though I wouldn't use the word "inexhaustible", but something close to it might be possible with something like a Dyson Sphere


The concept of the Dyson sphere was ...a system of orbiting structures (which he referred to initially as a shell) designed to intercept and collect all energy produced by the sun.

Feasibility

...design variants of the sphere based on orbiting satellites or solar sails do not require any major theoretical breakthroughs in our basic scientific understanding for their construction.
So it's not really that much of a stretch to do it with our current technology, the biggest barrier now is that oil costs less than $500 a barrel, this probably won't always be true. The output of the sun is finite therefore the energy isn't technologically inexhaustible, but it so greatly exceeds out current energy needs that whether it's "inexhaustible" night be a moot point. I've seen a claim that the sun radiates more energy in one second than people have used in all time. So we don't even need to capture all the sun's energy, just a tiny fraction to more then meet our needs. It might actually start happening sometime after peak oil occurs when the economics will be more sound, but probably not before.

This could be done without Rodin's vortex mathematics. Dyson is a bit of a renegade, but unlike Rodin, he knows what the heck he was talking about.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Dyson is a bit of a renegade, but unlike Rodin, he knows what the heck he was talking about.
He certainly does. He's a proper crazy genius, not a fake one. He invented the astrochicken.

Also it is possible to harness the inexhaustible zero-point energy of the vacuum itself. All we need to do is throw a harness around a neighbouring galaxy cluster, and then let the accelerating expansion of the cosmos do all the work...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose


Randy Powell has a series of videos explaining Vortex Math: in 16 parts, "Randy Powell - Intro to Vortex Math," and in 5 parts, "Randy Powell - Advanced Vortex Math."



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
This is a YouTube video of the Bill Alek audio interview of Marko Rodin posted previously: "Marko Rodin July 25 2009 Vortex Net Technology (1) (FUTURE SCIENCE SERIES)"



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 



Says Powell,
"...which involves no more than 9 numbers placed around the circle. And with it, you can do all functions of all branches of math instantly. It displays perfect spin symmetry of numbers... The infinity symbol is the equation for the world we live in."

Truly a case of verbal diarrhea.

I seriously would like to ask Randy to do just one function of one branch of math... Instantly! Then observe his horror and confusion.




edit on 20-2-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
39
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join