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: 38
39
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Sly1one
First, VBM is easier to understand for those who don't have a fortress like foundation of "math" already built around them

Well now, it's telling that you put the word math in quotes. Not much of expertise there, I can assume.

Basically those who are less educated in traditional math can understand VBM easier as they don't have to break down as many walls.

VBM does not "break walls". It does precisely nothing. If you disagree, please explain how you would use it to solve:

Lotka–Volterra equation
Gaussian Integral
Actuarial problems e.g. as it relates to your car insurance
Propagation of neutrons in solids.

If you can't illustrate any of these, I'm assuming you don't know jack about math in general and are far less than qualified to judge whether "walls" are being broken.

Personally I feel base 9 illustrates "number mechanics" far better then base 10 or any other base for that matter.

... and you don't know that Rodin wouldn't be able to write down his sudoku if he was using base 9, because such a number wouldn't exist in base nine notation.

THIS IS WHAT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE

I personally believe that professing your faith in Rodin and his junk science allows you to take a shortcut to a satisfying feeling that you know something. You don't.

This also creates the dimensions

Not only that, but also flatulence in your stomach.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:13 PM
There is a website called Vortex Based Math work group where members join and contribute photos. I see on the site a screenshot taken from the Rodin tutorial that I think is a good graphic.

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

I think this slide shows his math skill best:

vbm369.ning.com...

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
There is a website called Vortex Based Math work group where members join and contribute photos. I see on the site a screenshot taken from the Rodin tutorial that I think is a good graphic.

You think it's a "good graphic"? In what sense? If it's good, surely it explains how a "space-time vortex" appears inside a sudoku. I'm all ears. Mary, if you can explain how the vortex appears, come forth. If not, meditate for 2 hours. Repeat.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:18 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

You know, when using this concept, you are able to check calculations:

146X539=78694(simplified as 7+8+6+9+4=34 further simplified as 3+4=7)

Simplify the numbers before you carry out the calculation to check- 146(simplified as 1+4+6=11 to 1+1=2) 539(simplified as 5+3+9=17 to 1+7=8) 2X8=16. 16(simplified to 1+6=7)

In both situations, the simplified answer equals 7, so you would know that 146X539=78694 is probably the correct answer. (Useful when you want to make sure something is correct when you do not have a calculator handy).

So, I'm thinking if it can be used to check the calculations, it can be used to to solve the calculations in a simpler, faster way.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by wiggles18

Sorry, but that's about as novel and sophisticated as a waterwheel.

Here's an article in a paper from 1896 about a mathematician who died in 1794 who apparently "first called to attention" the fact that little digit tricks could be used like this.

If you know anything of the history of mathematics, you'll recognise that even that account is bunk - it's an example of someone thinking the first person they heard using an idea was the first person to have thought of it. Sadly all too common, is it not.

If you consider that way back in 1545, Gerolamo Cardano was employing advanced algebra and complex number methods that would blow your naive little noodle if you could even glimpse the conceptual brilliance of it, you might get what I mean.

And you kind of need to realise that mathematics has developed for 450 years since then.

If Rodin ever wants to stop doing number games at children's parties and start doing actual math, he'll have several centuries of catching up to do.

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by wiggles18
If you consider that way back in 1545, Gerolamo Cardano was employing advanced algebra and complex number methods that would blow your naive little noodle if you could even glimpse the conceptual brilliance of it, you might get what I mean.

And you kind of need to realise that mathematics has developed for 450 years since then.

If Rodin ever wants to stop doing number games at children's parties and start doing actual math, he'll have several centuries of catching up to do.

Quite.

A year ago, I tried to read some of the works of Sir Isaac Newton (which is more recent than Mr. Cardano) and it was a pretty damn tough read despite some standard (and decent) education in math I was fortunate to get. I mean geez, math was already a thriving, sophisticated and pretty demanding field back then, and looking at a bunch of ignorant village idiots now, in 21st century, who claim to be "on the cutting edge of mathematical research" (with their imbecile 9x3=9 kind of "equation") is quite a sight.

Edit to add:

Let Rodin chew on this.

Réflexions sur la résolution algébrique des équations

* Joseph Louis Lagrange (1770)

Description: Made the prescient observation that the roots of the Lagrange resolvent of a polynomial equation are tied to permutations of the roots of the original equation, laying a more general foundation for what had previously been an ad hoc analysis and helping motivate the later development of the theory of permutation groups, group theory, and Galois theory. The Lagrange resolvent also introduced the discrete Fourier transform of order 3.

edit on 3-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:41 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Let Rodin chew on this.
I see fractal math on that list, something Mary brought up on page 37 that I've been reading about recently, since I never had much exposure to it previously and was curious about it:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Americanist

As soon as I saw the number map I realized the Universe is an assembly based on fractal patterns.

From the Fractal Universe website, does the following relate to what you're saying?

Benoit Mandelbrot announced in 1977 that the distribution of galaxies in space shows a fractal pattern.

Images from the best telescopes, equipped with CCD cameras and backed by digital processing, now show enough detail to add support to his observation.
Some of the claims on that site are pretty far-fetched, but I did find a paper called Fractals and the Distribution of Galaxies in the Brazilian Journal of Physics.

I also noticed Fractal mathematics was one of the mathematical topics in the link buddhasystem just posted. I've skimmed through Mandelbrot's book on fractals, but I'd never studied Fractal math in detail before. That paper happens to have something of a fractal primer. Unlike Rodin's fictional math, there is real math involved in Fractals. If I was a mathematician I suspect I might enjoy playing with fractal math (or with string theory math), but with my physics and engineering background, the most important thing to me about math is what can I do with it. Other than playing with the formulas, so far I haven't found any real useful purposes for fractal math. As the paper says:

Pietronero (1988) has pointed out, the fractal concept provides a description of these irregular structures on nature, but it does not imply the formulation of a theory for them. Indeed, Mandelbrot has not produced a theory to explain how these structures actually arise from physical laws.
It's fair to say that what Mandelbrot failed to address, is what really interests me: how structures actually arise from physical laws, especially with respect to the formation of galaxy clusters and filaments.

Well, as it turns out, we have some (but certainly not all) answers to this question for galaxies, as shown by George Smoot in this excellent presentation: George Smoot on the design of the universe

As evidence that we have some basic understanding of how these structures form, Smoot demonstrates how a computer model is able to take a matter distribution suggested by WMAP and create the filaments and structure we observe. He also compares this with actual data from the Sloan digital Sky Survey on one million galaxies and plots the structure of the universe in the most detail I've ever seen.

And somehow, he manages to examine all this real data on a million galaxies and how the structure of the universe formed, without using the word "fractal" even one time in his presentation.

Frankly I find Smoot's presentation and approach much more interesting and useful in understanding the structure of the universe, than the paper "Fractals and the Distribution of Galaxies". I don't really have a problem with the paper or the math in it which looks valid enough to me from my limited exposure to fractal math, but if I bring that paper and \$4 to starbucks I can buy a cup of coffee. I don't know what else I can do with it. I can do a lot more with Smoot's work, like see how the structure we see evolved from the WMAP data, in a computer model, and we can see the actual structure in far greater detail than the simplified view that fractal mathematics gives us.

In conclusion, it was nice to finally get to read about some real math, like Mandelbrot's work, and the work in the "Fractals and the Distribution of Galaxies" paper, in contrast to a thread about Rodin's mathematics that has almost no real mathematics in it at all.

So thanks for mentioning the fractal stuff Mary, it was nice to finally see some real math mentioned in a math thread. It's interesting math, but isn't Smoot's presentation and approach regarding the distribution of galaxies much more interesting and informative than the Mandelbrot/Ribero/Miguelote fractal math? It is to me. And both of those are far more interesting than Rodin's fictitious math!

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:48 AM
Mod Edit: Accidental double post by member.

edit on 3/4/2011 by AshleyD because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by Bobathon

Don't make assumptions about my intelligence.

I was merely showing how one could actually use the number trick for something useful.

Even though it seems to take more mental capacity, I do not think complex necessarily means more advanced. Compare calculating equations with large unsimplified fractions, to when you simplify them before carrying out the calculation. They both are asking the same thing.

" Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." -Einstein

I think Mr. Rodin's teachings are something more complex in a simplified form.

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by wiggles18
I was merely showing how one could actually use the number trick for something useful.

Nobody ever disputed that. "Number tricks" come in many different ways, and are used in physics as well.

But: something useful does not include the alleged appearance of a black hole right on the sudoku page of your Sunday newspaper. And that's the kind of claim Rodin is making.

Even though it seems to take more mental capacity, I do not think complex necessarily means more advanced.

Frankly, you are wrong here, you know why? Because by definition, the simple stuff is easily researched, analyzed and utilized by most people. The challenge, the "event horizon" of our knowledge base lies squarely in the realms that are extremely complex for us to understand. And no, 9x8=9 is not a part of that realm.

I think Mr. Rodin's teachings are something more complex in a simplified form.

What makes you think so?

If you have a curious mind, study mathematics, it's a fascinating field.
edit on 4-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by wiggles18
I was merely showing how one could actually use the number trick for something useful.

Nobody ever disputed that.
Nobody has yet but I'm going to dispute the usefulness slightly.
Prior to the development of pocket calculators, and computers, I can see some limited usefulness.

But I see it as somewhat of a flawed approach to checking my math. I haven't researched the exact accuracy rate, but since it relies on one digit and there are about 10 of them, I'm guessing there's roughly a one in ten chance of coming up with the same number even if the answer is wrong. I can't really afford to be wrong 10% of the time so if I'm going to double-check my work, I have to use something more accurate than something that's only going to point out a mistake 90% of the time.

That might be good enough for some applications so I can't say it's completely useless, but now that we have calculators and computers, I don't really see why anyone would use this old 90% correct method to double check an answer when a \$2 calculator will do the job with 100% accuracy provided you key in the data with 100% accuracy.

Regarding the simplicity or complexity of Rodin's math, I can't even get past whether it's right or wrong to address that. When Rodin says "all multiples of 9 equal 9" I know that's wrong, so it doesn't really matter how simple or complex it is.

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by wiggles18
I was merely showing how one could actually use the number trick for something useful.

Nobody ever disputed that.
Nobody has yet but I'm going to dispute the usefulness slightly.
Prior to the development of pocket calculators, and computers, I can see some limited usefulness.

I just meant "number tricks" in a lot broader sense, not just simple arithmetic.

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:00 AM
Re-reading the OP this morning, I discovered an error of repetition I made when I copied and pasted the description of the video.

Here is the description as it should have read:

Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin

4:35:03 - 2 years ago

Within, you will be taken on a spiraling tour through the toroidal roller coaster of our deterministic universe. Dark Matter, the vibratory essence of all that exists, is no longer on its elusive hide and seek trip -- it has been found! With the introduction of Vortex-Based Mathematics you will be able to see how energy is expressing itself mathematically. This math has no anomalies and shows the dimensional shape and function of the universe as being a toroid or donut-shaped black hole. This is the template for the universe and it is all within our base ten decimal system! You have entered a place where Numbers are Real and Alive not merely symbols for other things. You will discover that the relationships between numbers are not random or man-made but that numbers are actually elementary particles of which everything is composed. This lost knowledge was well known to our ancients and is now being uncovered for us today. Gradually you will come to see numbers in a simple yet profoundly perfect three-dimensional matrix grid pattern that forms the shape of a torus. The number grid reveals the calibration and timing for an engine that can take us throughout the universe and solve mankind's energy needs. Interested? Delve in... www.markorodin.com... www.youtube.com...

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Mary,

do you really understand any of that nonsense you linked to?

You will discover that the relationships between numbers are not random or man-made but that numbers are actually elementary particles of which everything is composed.

Explain, Mary, how you are composed of numbers 0..9

Seriously, try your best.

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

A hopeless task with a cynical audience.

Not that I'm equal to explaining Rodin's concept.

Regardless, the topic is fascinating. Speaking only for myself, of course.

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Not that I'm equal to explaining Rodin's concept.
Regardless, the topic is fascinating.

Indeed! In a paragraph meant for laypeople, Rodin explains to you that you, Mary, are made of numbers. This statement does not make a slightest degree of sense to you, but you dutifully express your admiration at his depth of thought.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:50 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Indeed! In a paragraph meant for laypeople, Rodin explains to you that you, Mary, are made of numbers. This statement does not make a slightest degree of sense to you, but you dutifully express your admiration at his depth of thought.

Are you telling me how stupid I am?

Perhaps you just don't understand what it's like to be fascinated by a subject. Perhaps you need to broaden your horizon. I don't know. And I don't care. You are not the subject of this thread.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Are you telling me how stupid I am?

Perhaps you just don't understand what it's like to be fascinated by a subject. Perhaps you need to broaden your horizon. I don't know. And I don't care. You are not the subject of this thread.
I'm usually not that fascinated by things I don't understand.

It reminds me of the expression: "If you can't impress them with intelligence.. baffle them with BS"
The latter consists of someone (like say, Rodin) saying things we don't understand, in the hopes that we'll be baffled enough by the BS to think he knows something we don't.

Investors have been cheated out of millions of dollars using techniques like these on supposed "free energy" devices like the KEELY MOTOR, they were so baffled by BS in 1872, they ended up losing over \$110 million in today's dollars by believing in BS they didn't understand.

Mr. Keely was immediately to begin "focalizing and adjusting the vibrators"—a delicate operation but easy for him—...The news called forth several funny paragraphs in the newspapers and quite a flutter among the stock holders and directors, who have been for several years investing money to back up this nineteenth century discoverer of "perpetual motion" It is difficult, indeed, to consider seriously this alleged invention, or justly characterize the inventor, who, in this age, not only assumes to get something out of nothing, but would hide all his methods and processes and affect more than the mystery of the alchemists of the early ages. Yet it is a serious matter to those who have been sinking their money therein. Now, however, we seem at last to have reached the "beginning of the end," and the attention of the investors can, at an early day, be "focalized" on their profit and loss accounts. [Scientific American, March 25, 1884, p. 196.]
So were those "free energy" investors "stupid"? I think the word I would use is "gullible".

Investors may have learned something from that incident and today they might hire a professional to evaluate something to make sure it's not BS before sinking a lot of money into it. You have some resources available to you in this thread like buddhasystem and bobathon who are capable of pointing out the BS. I would say if the investors choose to listen to their resources, and you choose to ignore yours, that makes the investors smarter than you.

On the other hand, you don't stand to lose \$110 million dollars like the Keely Motor investors did, so I suppose it really doesn't matter if you choose to ignore your resources and believe in things you don't understand, at least from an economic standpoint.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm usually not that fascinated by things I don't understand. . . .

End of post as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not going to waste anymore of my time.

I've experienced enough of your replies. I know the drill.

new topics

top topics

39