"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

What would you say if I started quoting Thompson, Rutherford, et al.? For every prominent physicist you quote it is possible to quote another one with opposing views. Why not declare pi as the fingerprint of God, or maybe Euler's phi function, since the series 1/p^2 from 1 to infinity converges to (pi)^2 over 6, and pi is an important constant and that series can model some arcane thing about flowers, or because of how the golden ratio connects to phi. There are patterns in nature all over math that is aesthetically pleasing, yet you don't see mathematicians claiming UNLIMITED ENERGY because of them or that they've discovered spirit moves perpendicularly to magnetic fields. Don't you know the general nature of modular arithmetic leads to cyclical geometries? Do you think the pentagram gives free energy too?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This website looks like a good resource: "Vortex Basics and Fractals from the Subatomic to the Super Galactic."

I checked it out and it's a "good resource" for those determined to promote and enhance their level of ignorance. Indeed, the links I saw there contain statements patently false on many levels, and that betray complete lack of knowledge on the part of posters.

One example is the description of gold ion collisions at RHIC. The claim that the number of particles produced in a reaction cannot be greater than the number of constituent quarks is just stunningly, amazingly ignorant.

If you choose this as your source, Mary, you guarantee your continued lack of understanding of this and other subjects.

reply to post by 547000


I would much rather you quote their opinions, and formulate your own to argue your stance, instead of just denying our stance.

I want to know what your model of the universe is, your interpretation of what reality is before mathematical descriptions.

Again, I think too much math is a facade. It is a statistical description of 'how', with no bearing on 'why'.

Do not confuse math with reality.

It is for that purpose, that I believe you should practice elaborating on your interpretation of nature in words - in order to avoid getting sucked into a false identity.

What is the atom, to you?

Originally posted by 547000
Why not declare pi as the fingerprint of God, or maybe Euler's phi function, since the series 1/p^2 from 1 to infinity converges to (pi)^2 over 6, and pi is an important constant and that series can model some arcane thing about flowers, or because of how the golden ratio connects to phi

I can tell you why. That's because this would require from both the charlatan and his cultists, that they understand math beyond 3rd grade level, be good with fractions and even understand convergence of series. So just wait till Mary (or Rodin) gets to this level and gives you a call, you might just have a meaningful conversation. Until then, be prepared to hear about "holistic research" and how "the spirit moves in direction opposite of the magnetic field" etc.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

You refrain from any meaningful dialectic, instead preferring to condescendingly posture yourself as above the material - because it is ridiculous to you and not worthy.

That is specifically an argument appealing to ridicule, a fallacy.

It's not an argument appealing to ridicule, you silly boy. You don't even know what an argument is.

No, it's just ridicule.

Whenever I've given arguments as to why Rodin and his clones are lying, and why their ideas are irrelevant and empty and false, and why the things you've presented as evidence are contentless, such as here and here and here and here and here, they've been virtually ignored.

And as I said here,

This has gone beyond the point at which anything other than ridicule is at all appropriate.

When you can outline a connection between Rodin and reality, you'll be heard.

And you will.

I'm not here to find sneaky ways of dismissing everything Rodin's supporters can throw at me, as you appear to think. Absolutely not. I'm here to see if anyone can say anything remotely sensible that gives any reason to believe any of his theories have any physical or mathematical meaning.

There's been none of that so far. Instead, what we've seen is evidence of him and his colleagues making bogus claims, getting excited over a spinning ball and, worst of all, telling blatant lies in a public talk. When these things are pointed out there's a rapid change of subject.

Take it as you will.

reply to post by Bobathon


Ok, so we each think the same thing, resulting in 'talking past' each other.

I still think the ridicule is a fallacy, especially since you have been here so long - and won't argue for your position that he is wrong... instead you ridicule against that there is merit.

I think it would be best if we get back to basics...

I will ask you also. In your own words, what is an atom?

I think math models reality, straight from natural numbers, to the complex plane. The whys can be figured out from logic, eg WHY e is irrational. But many whys are completely subjective. One says the point of life is to evolve. Another says the point of life is union with God. Without a lock on the how, you often cannot properly come to a reasonable explanations of whys. Without any hows described by the whys it's completely subjective. Without observing patterns, how would you come to a proper explanation of why the atomic theory is a good model of reality? And from that why you can figure out future hows. If the why cannot properly correspond to future hows, you come up with a why that explains the hows.

This theory is useless at explaining anything. It is just demonstrating the patterns of the decimal number system. So, is your only explanation some wiffle-waffle about metaphysics and philosophy? If so, maybe you need to read why science has to be falsifiable. Maybe you want to read some Karl Popper. I don't know. Philosophy is not my thing. I just know what this is not a science.

Here is what the standard model says, since you don't know what an atom is defined to be. If you disagree, what model do you propose? One that explains something new, of course, otherwise it's non falsifiable. I could just as well posit that reality works due to the power of the Ramen, but without experiments showing it's a better model no one has to believe me.

reply to post by buddhasystem


It's an excellent resource.

I'm listening to an interview of the creator of the site Robert Otey. Very smart guy. A researcher. A thinker. He understands the problem of today's academia and the mess physics is in. He talked about an honest professor from a junior college that he had back in '76, among other things. The interviewer is Matt Pristi. Scroll down to "April 26, 2010 Robert Otey." Listen beginning at 15:45.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

you have been here so long - and won't argue for your position that he is wrong... instead you ridicule against that there is merit.

No, I've argued my position countless times from both directions: for the complete absence of any reason to believe him, and the abundance of reasons to disbelieve him.

Nobody can find any objective connection between his ideas and the things we can observe in the world.

If there is no specific connection, it has no relationship to reality.

Similarly,

it is not mathematics because there is no kind of rigorous logic involved at all. Mathematics relies absolutely on rigorous logic, presented explicitly and openly. There is none.

(And no, spotting something that looks like something else is not a specific connection. That definitely would be a logical fallacy.)

I've also argued that he, his website, and those who speak for him are full of crap.

1. "the most advanced mathematics known to mankind"
   
2. "what we have is the grand unified field theory"
   
3. "with it you can create inexhaustible free energy, end all diseases, produce unlimited food, travel anywhere in the universe, build the ultimate supercomputer, artificial intelligence and [make] obsolete all existing technology"
   
4. "[numbers] are actually points or locations that fold out into a 3D shape defining space and time literally"
   
5. "a feat that's baffled countless scientists and mathematicians"
   
6. "these shapes form pathways for any matter and motion"
   
7. "everything is a coil"
   
8. "marko's antenna designs are protecting the four corners of the United States"
   
9. "they're found to be the most sensitive antennas ever created"
   
10. "Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine stated that this math was so advanced it would never be understood in Marko's lifetime unless he cloned himself"
    
11. "the connection between all these sciences is doubling"
    
12. "doubling is motion at an angle, or what's called angular momentum"
    
13. "it (doubling) spins the earth on its axis, the solar system, galaxy, the whole universe"
    
14. "at the centre of magnetism is… dark energy, tachyons, monopoles, gravitons, we call it etheron energy… it's conscious and alive… it's the ultimate fundamental particle in the universe, the god particle, and I know how to harness it"
    
15. "etherons are literally the glue that holds the universe together"
    
16. "with it it's possible to create a localised, spacetime implosion, a controlled desktop black hole"
    
17. "are such things possible? frankly, yes, they are, and my team is ready to develop them at any time"
    
18. "it has been peer reviewed by some of the best names in science"
    

None of this is true, is it. There isn't a single argument in favour of any of it, nor a single piece of evidence, nor a single thing that can substantiate any of it. They are straightforward lies, many of them utterly blatant ones.

reply to post by 547000

I think math models reality, straight from natural numbers, to the complex plane. The whys can be figured out from logic, eg WHY e is irrational. But many whys are completely subjective. One says the point of life is to evolve. Another says the point of life is union with God. Without a lock on the how, you often cannot properly come to a reasonable explanations of whys. Without any hows described by the whys it's completely subjective. Without observing patterns, how would you come to a proper explanation of why the atomic theory is a good model of reality? And from that why you can figure out future hows. If the why cannot properly correspond to future hows, you come up with a why that explains the hows.

This theory is useless at explaining anything. It is just demonstrating the patterns of the decimal number system. So, is your only explanation some wiffle-waffle about metaphysics and philosophy? If so, maybe you need to read why science has to be falsifiable. Maybe you want to read some Karl Popper. I don't know. Philosophy is not my thing. I just know what this is not a science.

Here is what the standard model says, since you don't know what an atom is defined to be. If you disagree, what model do you propose? One that explains something new, of course, otherwise it's non falsifiable. I could just as well posit that reality works due to the power of the Ramen, but without experiments showing it's a better model no one has to believe me.

Math models statistical observations of reality. Math is not reality.

The observations we do, change the functional system into a new and changed system. So, math models statistic observations of reality in a changed system after observation.

What I am concerned with, is reality before the system is disturbed - and statistics have been derived.

I agree with many of your points.

But you still haven't really said what you think the atom is. I have repeated my opinion on the matter several times throughout.

Wave structure of matter models predict the interference patterns in WPD, nonlocality, entanglement, zero point energy, heisenberg uncertainty, superposition, and perhaps others.

Simply for the reason that the models embrace the fullness of space, and the literal wave structure emerging in space - rather than suggesting that particles behave like a wave, they are instead literally cymatics in space.

This is what I take the atom to be, before we have collapsed it through observation.

BTW, Philosophy and metaphysics is indeed the proper context for this material...is it not? I am sure I said that a long time ago... it just didn't seem to register.

Philosophy of science, more specifically. That is why I am here.

ETA:

And please, say what you think the atom is in your own words if you can.

And notice, that if you agree with wikipedia generally, then you are presupposing reductionism, separation, atomism. I presuppose the opposite.

I do not think there is a fundamental, indivisible foundation of the universe, or 'god particle'.

I think the universe is a functional whole, in which division is an illusion and does not represent reality properly.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

reply to post by beebs


The Sum Of All Things Zero!

reply to post by Bobathon


Ok. Rodin is disingenuous and bad at explaining himself. We can agree on that.

I do not concede, however, that there is no observable connection to his model of an atom in reality. To me, that is a radical proposition, and I do not understand how you can come to this conclusion after understanding what Rodin has said himself about how it relates to reality.

Forget the sudoku, that is building upon a presupposition of his, which we have yet to address in this discussion... perhaps we can get to it later. For now...

What do you think of the idea that an atom is a toroid and/or cymatical wave structure of matter as an extension of space?

That the atom is literally like this:

www.world-mysteries.com...

And not just a 'particle' behaving probabilistically like that... A literal wave function as opposed to a mathematical description of observations of a 'particle's' behavior after the functional system is disturbed.

Can you see how equating math with reality, however close the mathematical description we have, is not yet correct?

IMO, we have all of the math we will ever need - we just need to reapply it in a new context.

Originally posted by beebs
I do not concede, however, that there is no observable connection to his model of an atom in reality.

You've been asked great many number of times to provide such connection, and you never did. Your point?

What do you think of the idea that an atom is a toroid and/or cymatical wave structure of matter as an extension of space?

As Bob said once, it's all bollocks.

That the atom is literally like this:

www.world-mysteries.com...

And not just a 'particle' behaving probabilistically like that... A literal wave function as opposed to a mathematical description of observations of a 'particle's' behavior after the functional system is disturbed.

"Literally"??? Yes, I understand that one of the primary motivations for your irrational line of thought is to be comfortable with complex systems, but frankly if you hope to reduce physics to kindergarten level and say "look, this is how atom REALLY looks like. It's pretty. I drew it" -- you are out of luck.

Wave function is a mathematical instrument, so if you are saying that there is some other "wave function" that is not, it's complete nonsense.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Wave function is a mathematical instrument, so if you are saying that there is some other "wave function" that is not, it's complete nonsense.

No wonder you're not up to par... Half of your thought process is bass ackwards.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Ok. Rodin is disingenuous and bad at explaining himself. We can agree on that.

Cool. That's the relevance of anything he says as a "primary source" completely dispatched. Good work.

Forget the sudoku, that is building upon a presupposition of his

Cool. That's the relevance of his pretence at 'mathematics' as a primary source dispatched too. We have progress.

Can you see how equating math with reality, however close the mathematical description we have, is not yet correct?

I'd never equate math with reality, so we're agreed there too. Excellent.

I'd say mathematics is a study in pure investigative logic, and if you're trying to figure out the implications of a model, some of the tools that have been developed in mathematics are bound to be pretty much essential.

What I'd also say is that there are models of physical reality that have been constructed with very particular simple mathematical structures and have been found to be astonishingly accurate, and the logic of those mathematical structures have proved to have incredible predictive power. That is simply an observation, one that is very consistent over a great deal of observations of the physical world, which I guess you won't appreciate unless you're intimately familiar with it. For me it makes it clear that some of these mathematical structures do have some undeniable relationship with physical reality. But that's not equating.

Powell equates them:

"[numbers] are actually points or locations that fold out into a 3D shape defining space and time literally"

That's just meaningless garble. Points, shapes and numbers are three entirely distinct things. They can be used together creatively, but you can't just equate them unless you don't know (and don't care) how to be precise with concepts. It's the same with saying an atom is "literally" a wavefunction. It just isn't.

As for your other questions about atoms and cymatics, I'm not clear what they have to do with this topic. Didn't you set up a "physical realities" thread at one point? Perhaps we could look at them there...

reply to post by Bobathon

That's just meaningless garble. Points, shapes and numbers are three entirely distinct things. They can be used together creatively, but you can't just equate them unless you don't know (and don't care) how to be precise with concepts. It's the same with saying an atom is "literally" a wavefunction. It just isn't.

The fact nothing is quite clear to you becomes apparent the more you chat.

Here, I'll go one step further... Everything is a product of wave-function. Your claim is that it isn't. Explain to us using your own techniques the double-slit experiment. You should be up to speed given the nearly 3 hour video posted earlier.

The floor is yours...

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Ok. Rodin is disingenuous and bad at explaining himself. We can agree on that.

Cool. That's the relevance of anything he says as a "primary source" completely dispatched. Good work.

Forget the sudoku, that is building upon a presupposition of his

Cool. That's the relevance of his pretence at 'mathematics' as a primary source dispatched too. We have progress.

Can you see how equating math with reality, however close the mathematical description we have, is not yet correct?

I'd never equate math with reality, so we're agreed there too. Excellent.

Wow this IS progress.

Regarding equating math with reality, sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. With gravitation, math is such an outstanding model that we can send spacecraft millions of miles with high accuracy, even using the "slingshot effect" around planets to accelerate the craft, etc. So the math makes accurate predictions, but I can't equate it with gravity as a reality because I don't fully understand gravity even though we can describe it mathematically.

But in some cases I do equate math with reality where I understand the reality. One example of that would be the light from a light source, like a light bulb or a star. I can visualize a sphere of light leaving the light source, and I know that the surface area of the sphere increases with the square of the radius. Therefore the inverse square law mathematically says light intensity decreases with the square of the distance from the center of the light source. This seems to not only represent a mathematical construct, but also a physical reality based on the geometry of a sphere and it's surface area relative to its radius. However even in this case you can find exceptions, because the inverse square math forces one to assume the light source is perfectly isotropic, and many real light sources are not always perfectly isotropic. However I still don't see this as a disconnect between math and reality. It just takes some effort to determine whether the assumptions the math is based on are true or not, and to make the correct assumptions.

But if we can agree that Rodin is disingenuous, and forget his sudoku, I agree, we have made progress.

Finally!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Rodin is disingenuous

No, he is not.

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Here, I'll go one step further... Everything is a product of wave-function. Your claim is that it isn't. Explain to us using your own techniques the double-slit experiment. You should be up to speed given the nearly 3 hour video posted earlier.

I didn't say that, my spiky little friend. I said that physical things cannot be equated with wavefunctions. They are mathematical constructions, operating within a particular mathematical model of physical reality. It's an astonishingly powerful model, as I said, but even if the objects in the model described entirely perfectly the objects in the physical world, they would still be mathematical constructions, not physical objects.

Oh, and the video is 16 hours, not nearly 3. It does get to wavefunctions, but only about 13 and a half hours in, after vector spaces, spin states, probability, entanglement, interference, density matrices and quantum entropy. It's very good.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Rodin is disingenuous

No, he is not.

Is too.