"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by buddhasystem

I challenge you to demonstrate how my theory is "vague" while it has direct connection to spectral classes of stars and even predicts the existence of black holes (the missing 8th chakra, since the black hole is in fact OUTSIDE of our Universe), while there are exactly 8 gluons forming the color field. Symmetry is of paramount importance in physics, just look up SU(3). Rodin't theory is off by one number and as such is useless. It's not 9, it's 8. Number 8 is considered lucky in Oriental cultures because the ancients could see deeply with their meditation techniques, many of which concentrated on chakras.

I had an answer for that too, if memory still serves you correctly. You're more like the Hawking of 2 decades ago. Fortunately, we're all in the same class because his assertions almost certainly began with imagination (massless virtual particles).

Originally posted by FequalsForce
reply to post by Americanist

 

programmer here.

can't understand a #ing thing you're saying.

Hope you're not referring to basic. Feel free to post your background and certs without going into a full resume. I have conversations with my brother on a constant basis, and he's been MCSD certified for a decade. Do you have any additional studies... Say sound or electrical engineering?

There is a person interested in energy research by the name of Alexander S. Petty who has an online journal called "Energy Research." He is a colleague of Jamie Buturff.

From his article "36 Point Rodin Coil Windings”:

I have drawn up the winding pattern I have been using for constructing Rodin coils, or as Marko prefers to call them, “Flux Thruster Atom Pulsers”.

The operation of a Rodin Coil is a pretty incredible as it appears to generates [sic] a rotating magnetic field without any mechanical apparatus. The advance is significant and provides nothing less then the ability to generate a macroscopic scale physical singularity in magnetic flux (ie. a photonic field) that you can experiment with on your bench! If you have not built one of these yet, I recommend that you do so as soon as you can!

My view of how this coil works is that it sets up opposing Aether Flows. By Aether, I am referring to the flow of numbers (perturbations in the conscious field) which the Universe builds itself upon. See my earlier post The Foundational Number System. . . .

From his article "Buturff – Petty 360-123/2 Rodin Coil Winding Series”:

After much experimentation, I and independently Jamie Buturff (a colleague of mine in this research), have devised a way to wrap 360 winds on a small torrid surface. What we have done is use all 120 pins as a single first wind. Then we use the initial wire itself as the guide for the second winding, winding always to the right of it. This allows one to create a 360 point coil without hitting the physical limitation of running out of room for guide pins! This approach works very well to allow you to get a maximum of copper on the core. . . .

A demonstration: “Rodin Coil Levitation and Spin of Neosphere”

reply to post by Mary Rose
It's still an electromagnet.

It doesn't matter how many people stand around it talking about aether and black holes and monopoles and a tuned interface with the framework of Creation. It's just an electromagnet.

And it doesn't matter how many people stand up and claim it will cure all diseases or providing free energy for the world or creating a localised spacetime implosion. ALL the videos just show it behaving like an electromagnet.

It's an electromagnet.

Get over it.

Originally posted by Bobathon
It's an electromagnet.

As far as I'm concerned, you are not a credible source to say what it is or is not.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

As far as I'm concerned, you are not a credible source to say what it is or is not.

Perhaps you're confusing credible with credulous. Easy mistake to make.

reply to post by Mary Rose


It is clear to me from your post history and your blog that you are protecting the status quo in math/science/technology for personal reasons. You are not objective.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

It is clear to me from your post history and your blog that you are protecting the status quo in math/science/technology for personal reasons. You are not objective.

Whatever you want
Whatever you like
Whatever you say
You pay your money
You take your choice

reply to post by Mary Rose

The advance is significant and provides nothing less then the ability to generate a macroscopic scale physical singularity in magnetic flux (ie. a photonic field)

Mary, this can't possibly be true because due to symmetry reasons (cf. the toroid shape) both phases of the magnetic flux cancel out (it's easy to see if you take odd-numbered terms in the power series), thus preventing the possibility of a macroscopic singularity. Absent that, the photonic field would feature random phase oscillations (similar to Spin Glass) and therefore collapse onto itself. Do you agree?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

It is clear to me from your post history and your blog that you are protecting the status quo in math/science/technology for personal reasons. You are not objective.

You directed that at Bobathon but I don't think it's true of him and it's definitely not true that I'm protecting the status quo, in fact nothing would please me more than to find out that cold fusion or some alternate energy source is real. And cold fusion is definitely anti-status quo, so why am I interested in it? Because there's real research and real evidence to examine in the real world.

Here's an example of non-status quo research that is interesting to me:

en.wikipedia.org...

Researchers working at the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons in a standard cold fusion cell design[74] using CR-39,[14] a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften.[75] The authors claim that these neutrons are indicative of nuclear reactions,[76] although skeptics indicated that, to have their claims accepted by the scientific community, the authors have to make a quantitative analysis and they have to exclude other possible sources for those neutrons.

So if they actually found high energy neutrons, can this be replicated? What is the source of the neutrons? Could it be LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) which is the new euphemism for "cold fusion"? Actual reports from credible researchers finding actual things in the real world like energetic neutrons is a great way to challenge the status quo.

What has Rodin got to challenge the status quo? His coil doesn't do anything special as far as I can tell despite claims to the contrary: what we see demonstrated with his coil, can be demonstrated with other coils. So what else has he got as real-world evidence besides a coil which can demonstrate nothing extraordinary? Nothing as far as I can tell. Since bobathon has asked for some real-world evidence of Rodin's claims repeatedly in this thread, and nobody has provided any, apparently nobody else knows of any connection between Rodin's claims and the real world either.

And that's why I dismiss Rodin, but I don't automatically dismiss others bucking the status quo who have some real world evidence to back up their challenge, like the cold fusion researchers have in the form of high energy neutrons. I'm not protecting the status quo. However I am looking for some evidence from people challenging the status quo that what they are proposing is real and not imagined.

Do you see why for me it's got nothing to do with protecting the status quo, but it's got everything to do with seeing real-world evidence?

It keeps getting harder to explain things for the ol' status quo operatives:


Dark Matter: New Evidence on How Galaxies Are Born


www.time.com...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Real World is the galaxy we reside in... You find two opposing directions of rotation, a singularity, and size and speed of said galaxy in direct relationship to the size of its center.

Originally posted by Americanist
It keeps getting harder to explain things for the ol' status quo operatives:
Dark Matter: New Evidence on How Galaxies Are Born
www.time.com...

...and it's getting close to impossible to extract from you any degree of relevance of this Time article to the topic of this thread.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I trailed it with another post in summary... I don't know about you, but I get tired of hearing the terms dark flow, dark energy, and dark matter as concepts. Couple that with virtual massless anything, and you've turned the Universe into a sideshow.

Originally posted by Americanist

It keeps getting harder to explain things for the ol' status quo operatives:

Can you say anything without lashing out at your own caricatured versions of your opponents? It's a bit lame. I can't make out what you're trying to say through your little streams of derision.

What do you think of Rodin anyway?

reply to post by Bobathon


As soon as I saw the number map I realized the Universe is an assembly based on fractal patterns. The torus number map provides a solid example of 3 spatial dimensions originating from said mapping while creating conduits for energy to line/ bind/ wind/ wrap around (the egg shell we experience as mass/ matter).

Rodin is extremely intuitive... He's also removed the blinders.

As this lovable curmudgeon in this 21 part series points out, mathematical physics is in need of an overhaul:

"Einstein's Idiots"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
As this lovable curmudgeon in this 21 part series points out, mathematical physics is in need of an overhaul:

"Einstein's Idiots"

This "lovable curmudgeon" doesn't know jack. I already referenced his video in this thread, where he says something incredibly stupid about quarks and collisions at RHIC. By the way the picture shown there is from the experiment I worked on.

And of course Mary, you of all people need to make important comments about mathematical physics.

It's like a butcher's apprentice would remark that neurosurgery is in dire need of an overhaul.

reply to post by Americanist
Cool. Thanks A.

From Jamie Buturff's website, a succinct description of what's different about Rodin's coil, taken from "Inventor Conceives Energy Breakthrough" by Susan Johnson, Larson Newspapers:

Russ Blake, formerly a senior researcher for Microsoft who wrote an analysis of the Rodin Coil described it thus: “it is doughnut-shaped and three-dimensional, its form wound by wires in an exacting numerical pattern discovered by Rodin.”

Similarly coiled shapes are commonly used for inductors in electrical circuits, according to Blake; however he said the pattern dictated by Rodin is radically different.

The central figure formed by the wires in the doughnut hole is really a polygon of 24 sides for each completed wrap, Blake explained.

“Due to the central circle of wires, it naturally creates a greatly increased magnetic field in the center of the torus, compared to a conventional coil with the same amount of wire,” Blake said.