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.
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
Basically those who are less educated in traditional math can understand VBM easier as they don't have to break down as many walls.
Personally I feel base 9 illustrates "number mechanics" far better then base 10 or any other base for that matter.
THIS IS WHAT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE
This also creates the dimensions
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.
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.
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.
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 buddhasystem
Let Rodin chew on this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by wiggles18
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.
I think Mr. Rodin's teachings are something more complex in a simplified form.
Nobody has yet but I'm going to dispute the usefulness slightly.
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nobody has yet but I'm going to dispute the usefulness slightly.
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.
Prior to the development of pocket calculators, and computers, I can see some limited usefulness.
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...
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.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Not that I'm equal to explaining Rodin's concept.
Regardless, the topic is fascinating.
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.
I'm usually not that fascinated by things I don't understand.
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.
So were those "free energy" investors "stupid"? I think the word I would use is "gullible".
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.]