"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Rodin is disingenuous

No, he is not.

Mary, Beebs admitted it.

Even you with your limited math knowledge know that this math is disingenuous:

markorodin.com...

all multiples of 9 equal 9

Beebs pointed out that when he says equal, he doesn't mean equal. That's disingenuous among other things.

Mathematically, all multiples of 9 do not equal 9. You do know that, don't you? I'm assuming you know the definition of "equal", though maybe I shouldn't assume that?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Rodin is disingenuous

No, he is not.

Mary, Beebs admitted it.

Arb, I watched the videos Mary recently linked to, and I now believe he has a psychiatric condition. He does believe in what he's saying. That's one of the reasons he now finds it easier to speak about his visions of spirit and how God provided him with His guidance, as opposed to technicalities of his "invention" -- these things are intangible (as opposed to infinite source of food and money Rodin was promising in the beginning), so there is less of a chance of an open conflict between that pesky thing called "reality" and the nonsense he's spewing out. He has that idee fixe thing going on. I've known people like that before, but they were more sane than Rodin.

reply to post by beebs


Yes, it is very useful for modeling reality. It is mostly pure logic. Are you telling me the quantity we represent by the symbol 2 and the quantity represented by 5 do not total up into the quantity represented by 7, regardless of the qualitative properties of the set in question? Even the real continuum is deduced from logic, namely nested rational intervals. It's not just statistics. That would be an error those who don't know math would say. Math represents the reality of quantity, shapes, and change. It's not just useless abstraction.

The atom I would say is a discrete unit of matter. The atomic theory predicts things such as inter-molecular forces, pressure, changing phases of a system, and much, much more. As a model it predicts many things, and explains many things verified by experiment. Again, what new things does your preferred model predict? The Ramen compels you to speak.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I've known people like that before, but they were more sane than Rodin.

So in other words, he's not spreading lies because he's a liar, but rather, it's because he's not sane? I'm not qualified to judge his sanity, but with my layman qualifications on psychology, I've seen nothing to refute that assertion. If it is idée fixe as you suggest:

the victim of idée fixe was understood to be unaware of the unreality of their frame of mind

Thanks for the link by the way, I wasn't aware of that particular terminology.

I can say that he's spreading lies according to at least one definition of the word lie, definition 1b:

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of LIE
1
a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

If you use definition 1a then perhaps he's not telling a lie if he believes it, but if you use definition 1b he is telling a lie even if he believes it, so the definitions are a little ambiguous.

Whether he's doing it intentionally or not, I can't say, with Rodin or with Haramein. It's conceivable to me that they actually do believe the lies they are telling.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


If we ever need an example of how dense matter really is, in the future I'll just reference everybody back to the 3 Stooges and you. By 3 Stooges I'm citing your band of misfits. Anyhow, on to another lesson I presume.

Singularities exist. We'll call them a product of clockwise/ counterclockwise rotation (aka black hole/ white hole). Within every known observable galaxy we now have evidence of this. What is more interesting and contradicts the standard model of gravity... Galaxies rotate at rates in proportion to the size of the singularity as well as accumulate density in relationship to their center. Fact check:

1. You don't know what you don't know.

2. The reality is most of you admit to being newbs at principles of quantum mechanics which only promotes my case even further... 3 stooges + Arbitrageur.

reply to post by Bobathon

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

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

No it isn't. I didn't say he is lying, did I?

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.

I most certainly did not say his ideas have no merit because he is bad at explaining them, or because he holds back from saying everything he should. Most of his disingenuousness is because of time constraints, and because he sucks at explaining himself.

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.

Yes of course we have amazing predictable power. All I'm trying to get you to think about, is what we are predicting - and the idea that perhaps the wave function is an obvious clue towards the real imaginative structure of the atom. Again, I ask you to please tell us what you think the atom is? In your own words, of course.

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...

No, we will discuss them here, if Mary doesn't mind - they are relevant to the discussion. I can see you just don't understand at all what I am trying to say.

The atom is literally a wave structure in/of space. Thus, the wave function is trying to describe a 'particle' behaving in a wavelike manner - but it is mistaken. It is only the collapsed wave structure that it describes after disturbing the system.

Before the measurement, the atom is in a toroidal standing wave cymatical structure. If you don't understand what I mean by these sentences, please let me know - as it is the whole point and basis for this thread and the subsequent ideas of vortex based math etc.

reply to post by 547000

Yes, it is very useful for modeling reality. It is mostly pure logic. Are you telling me the quantity we represent by the symbol 2 and the quantity represented by 5 do not total up into the quantity represented by 7, regardless of the qualitative properties of the set in question? Even the real continuum is deduced from logic, namely nested rational intervals. It's not just statistics. That would be an error those who don't know math would say. Math represents the reality of quantity, shapes, and change. It's not just useless abstraction.

The atom I would say is a discrete unit of matter. The atomic theory predicts things such as inter-molecular forces, pressure, changing phases of a system, and much, much more. As a model it predicts many things, and explains many things verified by experiment. Again, what new things does your preferred model predict? The Ramen compels you to speak.

No, the qualitative aspect in general usage should have no bearing on the quantity. I think that is mostly for convenience in our macroscopic world, though, wouldn't you say?

Math is great.

As for your model of an atom... "A discrete unit of matter."

Is this to say then, that the atom is implicitly finite? What is your sense of how matter relates to space?

Is matter 'in' space, or 'of' space?

Is an atom defined competently as its parts? Namely the quarks, protons, neutrons, and electrons?

What about the space inside the system? Is that part of the atom, or just a medium for the forces between the parts?

I am not asking you to repeat definitions from other sources - although i think quotes from physicists are alright.

More, I am interested in your personal way of explaining your imaginative understanding of nature at these microscopic levels.

After we establish an agreeable definition of the atom to use, then we can gauge whether Rodin's model has any correlation to reality.

My own definition will always be imprecise; I'm no physicist. I just happen to think the standard model is good at predicting many things. I think nature is composed of small particles of matter. I think matter has properties such as charge and mass. I wouldn't mind a different model if it explains something we don't already know. The idea of an atom allows us to explain why nature has the physical properties I mentioned earlier. The theory of orbiting electrons explains much of chemistry. What does the theory of calling everything a wave predict? Apart from being pleasant to a metaphysicist? I think matter is discrete, not continuous; it's elements are just so tiny it seems continuous from our point of view. Space is, well, space. It's just what humans can perceive as reality. Any subset of space can contain these discrete parts of matter. Matter is not "of space" but "in space".

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The interviewer is Matt Pristi.

Correction: Presti

During the interview Presti talked about a book that had a profound influence on him: The Secret of Light by Walter Russell. Exploring Presti's work I see on his YouTube channel that he has a series on Russell. The first in the series shows a quote from Russell that is very apt for this thread:

"the fundamentals of science are so hopelessly wrong and so contrary to nature, that nothing but a major surgical operation upon the present primitive beliefs can ever put them in line for a workable cosmogenic synthesis" --Dr. Walter Russell 1930

Originally posted by Americanist

If we ever need an example of how dense matter really is, in the future I'll just reference everybody back to the 3 Stooges and you. By 3 Stooges I'm citing your band of misfits. Anyhow, on to another lesson I presume.

...

The reality is most of you admit to being newbs at principles of quantum mechanics which only promotes my case even further... 3 stooges + Arbitrageur.

Dude, Buddhasystem and I use quantum mechanics in our work. You're being a real dick.

Originally posted by beebs

No, we will discuss them here, if Mary doesn't mind - they are relevant to the discussion. I can see you just don't understand at all what I am trying to say.

No it's not relevant, and I'm not interested in listening to you talk garbled nonsense and then blaming your audience for not agreeing with it.

reply to post by Bobathon


This is called avoidance.

So anyway, why is it a torus and not a triangular prism, or even a cylinder? What about an ellipsoid?

reply to post by 547000

My own definition will always be imprecise; I'm no physicist. I just happen to think the standard model is good at predicting many things. I think nature is composed of small particles of matter. I think matter has properties such as charge and mass. I wouldn't mind a different model if it explains something we don't already know. The idea of an atom allows us to explain why nature has the physical properties I mentioned earlier. The theory of orbiting electrons explains much of chemistry. What does the theory of calling everything a wave-function predict? Apart from being pleasant to a metaphysicist? I think matter is discrete, not continuous; it's elements are just so tiny it seems continuous from our point of view .

Okay, now we can start having a discussion. This is what you have been presupposing for the entire thread.

Rodin and the wave crowd, come at it from the other side of the complementarity.

The classical atomism is only comprehensive and explanatory regarding our observations if we ascribe to the discrete units of matter the properties and characteristics of waves.

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.

Classical atomism cannot predict or explain those things like continuum mechanics, wave mechanics, etc. do.

Do you see the issue at hand in this thread? One group is arguing from the reductionist, atomistic, separation point of view. The other is arguing from the holistic, wavelike, interdependent point of view.

Perhaps this quote will help to illustrate the idea:

“Since this view of nature is a result of the biological constitution of the natural observer, the world picture cannot be separated from the creator of the world picture. In short, against the natural research which created the atomic bomb stands the natural research which discovered the cosmic orgone energy, sharp, clear, and incompatible.
It is a matter of deciding the question whether nature is an “empty space with a few widely scattered specks,” or whether it is a space full of cosmic primordial energy, a continuum which functions in a lively way and obeys a generally valid natural law.”
(Reich, From Ether, God and Devil, 1949, in SW p. 276-277)

We are well within our right to come at physics in this manner - as I have tried to stress the entire time. I tried to have our presuppositions compared at the very beginning, but this was denounced as philosophy and irrelevant because there is the word 'math' in the title of the thread.

Rodin's model is clearly based on the wavelike presuppositions. He is well within the scope of modern physics to do so.

Then, after that is clearly understood, he has provided the geometrical dynamic in which he thinks wavelike mediums are the most stable and facilitate density fluctuations and temperature regulation: the torus.

Then, after that is clearly understood, he has analyzed the singularity and the vortex in the center of the toroid geometry - which is where his mapping comes into play.

He has attempted to understand the geometrical ratios and patterns in which the vortexial singularity of the medium in the torus dynamic tends towards infinity.

If you don't accept the fundamental idea that atoms and matter are simply standing wave structures extending from space, then you will clearly not accept that there can be such a thing as vortex based mathematics.

See what I mean?

Originally posted by beebs

Okay, now we can start having a discussion. This is what you have been presupposing for the entire thread.

Rodin and the wave crowd, come at it from the other side of the complementarity.

Science comes at it from experience, from observation and from logic, not from the false presuppositions you've invented for it. This is just silly. Delusionals like Rodin come at it from their own fantasies, and then people hang on it as if it means something. What's the point if you can't relate any of it to anything specific and observable?

That's all well and good, but I still think the Rodin coil is crap. There is NO evidence for it, and the mathematics is nothing new or breathtaking, just a narrow part of number theory. The fact that you got excited about a spinning ball and ascribed it to action at a distance instead of rotational energy and friction pretty much says it all. You don't know the standard model, yet think it needs to be replaced.

reply to post by Bobathon

No it's not relevant, and I'm not interested in listening to you talk garbled nonsense and then blaming your audience for not agreeing with it.

No, I am not blaming you for not agreeing... I am saying that you don't understand what I am trying to say. One has to understand something before you can disagree with it.

Quit pretending that you understand nature better than we do because you use math everyday at work. We are just as capable as you are. Apparently, you do not notice your condescension.

If you would like to explain why your interpretation of reality is better - why your model of an atom is more comprehensive... I am all ears.

reply to post by Bobathon

Science comes at it from experience, from observation and from logic, not from the false presuppositions you've invented for it. This is just silly. Delusionals like Rodin come at it from their own fantasies, and then people hang on it as if it means something. What's the point if you can't relate any of it to anything specific and observable?

Well, I think I have established the psychological block that prevents this discussion from going anywhere.

You are clearly not familiar with any of the physics that I am, and therefore you are totally one sided and biased.

I have tried again and again to make my point, but you deny that it is a relevant point.

You are psychologically blocking the entertainment of any idea which is contrary to your reductionist, egotistical, atomistic, divided reality.

Nature is whole, it is functional, it is inseparable, it is based on waves and harmonics.

An atom is not a 'particle' in the traditional sense of a billiard ball, but it is a standing wave structure of space.

“The most modern physics, even in the finest details, can be represented symbolically as psychic processes.” - Wolfgang Pauli

reply to post by 547000

That's all well and good, but I still think the Rodin coil is crap. There is NO evidence for it, and the mathematics is nothing new or breathtaking, just a narrow part of number theory. The fact that you got excited about a spinning ball and ascribed it to action at a distance instead of rotational energy and friction pretty much says it all. You don't know the standard model, yet think it needs to be replaced.

You can believe what you want to believe, and I guess no one can change your mind. That doesn't mean you are right. Blind faith combined with a closed mind is a dangerous situation.

You do not understand the theoretical physics of the wave stuff do you? Tough luck, I have provided more than enough resources for you to figure it out.

There is demonstrations of all kinds of Rodin coils, and other coils from other scientists, on Youtube. You can repeat the experiments yourself if you want even - build your own coil.

Please repeat that spinning ball experiment. Until then, I am going to consider what electrical engineers and other physicists have to say - because at least they make sense and argue for their interpretations of reality.

Adios.

reply to post by beebs


Bye bye then. Asking for evidence is being blind? Lol.