"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.]

More than likely, the above was a hit piece.

After watching the Dale Pond video posted on this thread, I doubt very seriously that Keely did anything untoward. If money was lost, there could be an explanation for it that has nothing to do with whether or not Keely was an honorable person, or whether or not his invention worked.

There is exhaustive information about Keely on the Sympathetic Vibratory Physics website.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
After watching the Dale Pond video posted on this thread, I doubt very seriously that . If money was lost, there could be an explanation for it that has nothing to do with whether or not Keely was an honorable person, or whether or not his invention worked.

There is exhaustive information about Keely on the Sympathetic Vibratory Physics website.

Is your link a hit piece too?

If Keely didn't do anything untoward, why is the link you posted citing articles saying that he did? This is from the site you linked to:

KEELYS SECRET DISCLOSED. Scientists Examine His Laboratory and Discover Hidden Tubes in Proof of his Deception.

NYT - PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 19, 1/20/1899 - The Press today published an illustrated article giving the details of an investigation made by that paper of the dismantled workshop of the late Inventor Keely. The Press contends that the results of the investigation clearly prove the mysterious Keely motor to have been a delusion and deception, and that its alleged mysterious forces were the result of trickery.

Keely was playing to the gullibility of investors at the time, but they could at least be forgiven somewhat for being deluded by the trickery in Keely's lab that was unearthed after his death. People today don't have any such excuse.

The article on the site you linked to goes on to talk about the deception and the psychological factors involved:

Prof. Hering says in his signed statement:

"The discovery of so many tubes with couplings, which exactly resembled those shown in the photographs of Keelys apparatus, and were recognized by some of those who had seen the experiments, seems to leave little doubt that Keely probably lied and deceived. Personally I am satisfied now that he used highly compressed air, and that he intentionally and knowingly deceived the public when he held his exhibitions. Moreover, there is nothing wonderful about any of these experiments, of which I have seen descriptions, if he used highly compressed air."

Prof. Witmer, who treats the subject from psychological standpoint, says:

"The external evidence of reservoirs and tubes was hardly necessary to demonstrate the delusional character of Keelys theories. Even had these objects not been found, the writing of Mrs. Bloomfield-Moore, the pseudoscientific jargon of Keely, and the official reports of the Keely Motor Company would have furnished, upon critical examination, indisputable testimony to the unsoundness of Keelyism. This mad doctrine struck, to borrow Keelys phrase, a chord that was composed of nearly all the fundamental tones of delusion that vibrate in ill-balanced mental systems - a revelation of natures mysteries, the stultifying of current science, a new mechanical contrivance to develop untold power, a process for the manufacture of gold, the cure of the sick, a religion, and a scheme of moral regeneration. Little more is needed to give Keelyism its proper place in a museum of pathological mental products."

Isn't that also a perfect description of Rodin?

"a revelation of natures mysteries, the stultifying of current science, a new mechanical contrivance to develop untold power, a process for the manufacture of gold, the cure of the sick, a religion, and a scheme of moral regeneration." That reminds me a lot of Rodin's grandiose claims:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9ab1585ce06.png[/atsimg]
untold power
cure for the sick...
the same claims professor Witmer mentioned from a psychological standpoint when he said "The external evidence of reservoirs and tubes was hardly necessary to demonstrate the delusional character of Keelys theories."

Personally I'd like to think we will someday find a source of power that's cheap and plentiful, so just the claim we might do that isn't by itself necessarily delusional, but what tips me off to a delusional state of mind is the inclusion of unrelated claims like "cure for the sick" mentioned by professor Witmer, or in Rodin's case, "End all diseases". That is certainly not an expected consequence of finding a cheap energy source or a unified field theory. If a new technology today allowed us to manufacture and sell gasoline for a penny a gallon, I don't see how that would cure a sick person, though it might free up some of the money that was being spent on fuel to do medical research. There are interesting parallels in the delusional state of mind of Rodin versus Keely.

But there is no reason people should still believe these delusions of grandeur, unless it's some kind of flaw in the human mind, that we want to believe, so badly, that we ignore obvious facts staring us straight in the face like the delusional nature of Rodin's list on that chart, to maintain our beliefs.

You gotta love that last one though: "Flux Thruster Atom Pulsar", this was also a favorite strategy of Keely to baffle people with BS, string some words together that sound really cool and pretend they mean something. The full name is even cooler:

“The Flux Thruster Atom Pulsar Electrical Venturi Space Time Implosion Field Generator Coil”


I have to give Rodin SOME credit. In a contest with Keely to come up with the coolest name for completely bogus technology claims, Rodin wins.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


When I have the time, I will consider your post - perhaps. I'm going to think about it.

You are probably sending me on a wild goose chase; you've done that before.

Enjoy yourself, Arbitrageur.

reply to post by Mary Rose
Mary, that's your link I quoted from.

It's Keely and Rodin sending people on wild goose chases.

I'm trying to help. Recognize who your friends are, the people deceiving us are not our friends.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I know it's my link. There is a ton of information at that link. Have you researched this thoroughly? I doubt it.

I suspect you also have not viewed the Dale Pond video.

It is a time-consuming task to unravel a knot of accusations made against people who have anything to do with innovations that will threaten the profits of certain individuals.

As an aside, you need to stop re-posting embedded videos of Rodin. It's not necessary. We all already know he looks silly. I mean he's hairy and all that. It's a cheap shot.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I know it's my link. There is a ton of information at that link. Have you researched this thoroughly? I doubt it.

I admit there's only so much of these nonsensical claims I can read before my brain feels like it's about to fall out (see my signature). So I've researched quite a bit but I won't claim 100%.

As an aside, you need to stop re-posting embedded videos of Rodin. It's not necessary. We all already know he looks silly. I mean he's hairy and all that. It's a cheap shot.

I didn't embed any video, it's a screenshot and I'm pointing out the delusional nature of his list. I didn't say anything about his appearance, that's all your doing, Mary.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

As an aside, you need to stop re-posting embedded videos of Rodin. It's not necessary. We all already know he looks silly. I mean he's hairy and all that. It's a cheap shot.

I didn't embed any video, it's a screenshot and I'm pointing out the delusional nature of his list. I didn't say anything about his appearance, that's all your doing, Mary.

I repeat. You're posting his picture again and again. I think I know what you're doing.

You haven't watched the Dale Pond video, have you?

And I suspect what you've done is cherry picked what to read about Keely - looking for ammunition.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

As an aside, you need to stop re-posting embedded videos of Rodin. It's not necessary. We all already know he looks silly. I mean he's hairy and all that. It's a cheap shot.

that's actually my contribution from weeks ago - how could you not believe someone with that much hair on his shoulders but none on his head?

I'll thank you to direct your scorn to the correct quarters! :p

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Yeah I remember you!!



I didn't appreciate your post one bit.

Since then I've thought about the fact that it is unfortunate that Rodin looked the way he did in that video. He could have put more clothes on, even in the Hawaii heat. Too bad. Maybe he's eccentric. I forgive him.

People do react. It's human nature.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You haven't watched the Dale Pond video, have you?

You're referring to the 2-part video on page 3? I took some notes on the part I did watch in the format of a time index (all from part 1), quote from Dale Pond, and my comments:

6:04
"There's only two books written on cavitation ever been written that I've able to track down and both of them say the same thing: There are infinite levels of energy being released during the process of cavitation."

Have you ever seen a dimmer switch? It has a knob you can turn to adjust the light level from an incandescent light bulb. You could also claim that there are infinite levels of energy the light bulb can emit between 0 watts and 100 watts if it's a 100 watt light bulb. You can adjust the energy output by turning the dimmer switch.

Also I found a book on cavitation online and it doesn't say anything like that: caltechbook.library.caltech.edu...

If you ignore quantum mechanics and look at a large scale system like a 100W light bulb, or a motor, saying there are infinite levels of energy as controlled by a dimmer switch or an accelerator pedal is nothing astonishing. But Dale Pond tries to sell it like it's amazing, and talks about "female energy". I think he wants us to disregard the word "levels" and think he's talking about "infinite energy" but that's totally different than "infinite levels of energy".

In quantum mechanics there probably really are not infinite levels of energy because as the name quantum mechanics implies, energy levels are quantized and therefore necessarily NOT infinite, I'll just mention that as an aside and go with his approximation for macro systems using the dimmer switch analogy. Infinite levels of energy is NOT infinite energy, right?

8:55
"Eventually he (Keely) came to say and teach us that 'all force in the universe is mind force' "
This is easily proven false. There are forces making stars shine and they have been doing so for billions of years, what could this possibly have to do with "mind force"? As far as we know there weren't even any minds in existence 10 billion years ago when some of the starlight now reaching us was generated by forces in the absence of minds. Evidence of mind force is quote dubious a this point, though it's something I'd personally like to believe because it seems cool. Like Carl Sagan, I did my own personal experiments in telekinesis without much luck. And a critical examination of the available evidence for mind force such as that is unfortunately, less than convincing, as much as I'd like to believe it. We know the brain has electrical function and we've tapped into that by attaching electrodes to the head and some people have been able to change the voltage across the electrodes. this research is the closest thing I've seen, though I wouldn't exactly call it "mind force":

Brain Power: Mind Control of External Devices

11:00 -Talking about the Keely motor.
"If any of you are engineers and look at this thing you'll say this is absolutely bizarre, there's no way this thing could work" Funny he should say that, because he later admits that it in fact doesn't work and Keely abandoned it.

"because in conventional male-oriented physics we put in energy, we have to hit it with something. This makes no sense because it doesn't operate with that philosophy. It operates with the female forces of implosion. So the thing kind of operates backwards." Actually it doesn't operate, as he later admits.

"the water formed a part of the mechanism, that's not normal engineering, we don't normally do that where the water is part of the motion of the machine, this machine is kind of like a holistic machine, it's not a machine operating on the water or the water operating on a machine, it's the water and the machine operating together as a whole unit."

I guess he doesn't know how electricity is generated, water converted to steam is an integral part of the machine.

20:00
"This was the machine he gave up on."
He spent all that time telling us how it works and now he's saying it doesn't work?
The first question the audience asks "Is it operational?",
Dale Pond replies "no it's not operational"
Then he makes up some BS about how it worked but it didn't work. Puhleeze! He admits Keely gave up on it which he of course wouldn't do if it really worked.

36:19 Slide showing states of matter and energy
37:00 "When Einstein hit the scene he plagiarized all these things and he wrote it like this: E=mc^2"

"What this says, the faster something goes, the higher the energy content"

No Pond doesn't understand this simple equation.
It says the more mass, the more energy content, so it's a statement of mass-energy equivalence. The velocity of light, c, is a constant that never changes. There are other formulas that relate the velocity to the mass and the energy but it's not shown in that equation as he claims. It shows Pond isn't too bright and doesn't understand equations too well, which is surprising given how exceptionally simple that equation is. In other words, it takes a special kind of stupidity to misunderstand an equation that simple so badly.

42:49
"the higher the frequency, the greater the energy content..the higher the density of the medium the greater the velocity of propagation of sound" The first statement is true but not the second in an ideal gas which our atmosphere approximates:

Speed of sound

assuming an ideal gas, the speed of sound c depends on temperature only, not on the pressure or density (since these change in lockstep for a given temperature and cancel out). Air is almost an ideal gas.

So it's not true for an ideal gas, is it true for a liquids or solids?

Thus the speed of sound increases with the stiffness (the resistance of an elastic body to deformation by an applied force) of the material, and decreases with the density.

Wait, Dale pond just told us "the higher the density of the medium the greater the velocity of propagation of sound". He's got it completely backwards, more evidence he has a special kind of stupidity like the kind that can't understand a simple equation like E=mc^2.

"If we go up here to particles that have infinitely high energy content and they have infinitely small dimensions, therefore that realm has an infinitely high density, so the propagation of a wave through that media is going to be at infinite velocity"

OK now he's just talking nonsense. Maybe in 1880 people didn't know any better and might believe this garbage, but we have plenty of proven observations in the 130 years since to describe the universe much more accurately than this and show things like infinite velocity don't happen since the speed of light is a limiting factor for most things (aside from quantum entanglement which he is definitely not referring to).

Then he says "it's just common sense".

No, if you know anything about physics, it's not common sense to cavalierly throw around infinite expressions like infinite density and infinite velocity, in fact it contradicts common sense. That's about all I can take, I'm open minded, but after that claim, my brain started to feel like it was falling out. The nonsensical claims get worse from that point. He says you can tell a vacuum has infinite energy in it just by looking at it. That's completely false. A vacuum just looks empty. How does looking at it tell you it has infinite energy? That claim doesn't even remotely make any sense.

Mary, I guess if you don't know any physics one bit of nonsense sounds as good as another bit of nonsense. But hopefully someday you'll learn some physics and realize that it's not all nonsense. Some claims are supported by observations, and others aren't. The ones supported by observations are the basis for science.

The others can be said to be a basis for fantasy, or at least unproven reality like my pink flying elephant theory. I don't have any observations to back it up, but so far nobody has proven to me there aren't any pink flying elephants. The motor he demonstrates, or more correctly shows but FAILS to demonstrate, may as well be a pink flying elephant, he presents virtually no evidence it works and lots of evidence it doesn't work, mainly his statement that Keely abandoned his efforts to make it work.

I will say this though, I don't think Dale Pond is an intentional charlatan, I get the impression he really thinks he can make that motor work with some tweaks. I'll bet any amount of money he can't unless he cheats like Keely did and hooks it up to an external power source, like the hidden lines that were found in Keely's lab he used to cheat during his demonstrations. So Keely was definitely a charlatan, Dale Pond is just gullible and kind of dumb, given he can't even understand a simple equation like E=mc^2.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arbitrageur,

Thank you for this. I've only glanced at your post so far, but this looks like a good springboard for discussion.

I have Universal Laws Never Before Revealed: Keely's Secrets in my stack of books waiting to be read. It's under Schrodinger's Universe, The Math Book, and Adventure with Real Magic. When I've finished reading The Blood and its Third Element - almost there - I'll get to the others. So much to learn...

Anyway, I look forward to a productive discussion.

Please, other members, join the discussion.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Arbitrageur,

Thank you for this. I've only glanced at your post so far, but this looks like a good springboard for discussion.

I have Universal Laws Never Before Revealed: Keely's Secrets in my stack of books waiting to be read.

I highly recommend that you add a selection of physics textbooks, from most elementary to medium complexity, to your book stack. Your world will never be the same after you read these. You'll see the beauty and harmony of the Universe, and your view will be unobstructed by impostors' claims.

reply to post by buddhasystem




even better:

www.khanacademy.org...

even has math exercises so you can practice problems up to the chain rule.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . your view will be unobstructed by impostors' claims.

Smile.

Buddasystem speaks.

An objective viewpoint?

Hmmmmm.





How sarcastic is your reply going to be?

Don't forget about the Terms and Conditions, B.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . your view will be unobstructed by impostors' claims.

Smile.
Buddasystem speaks.
An objective viewpoint?
Hmmmmm.

How sarcastic is your reply going to be?
Don't forget about the Terms and Conditions, B.

My reply will be extremely sarcastic. You see, you admit yourself that you are not equipped to judge the veracity of a particular set of claims, which however you insist are true. When I offer you a way to become qualified for such determination, you say that I'm not being objective.

You are willfully blind, as you just demonstrated.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You see, you admit yourself that you are not equipped to judge the veracity of a particular set of claims, which however you insist are true.

Buddhasystem,

You need to pay closer attention to what is going on.

Go back and re-read the thread.

Insist are true?

Get real.

~~~~~
Why don't you stop insisting that you know everything and just contribute to the discussion in a productive manner?

I'd recommend a book on number theory so you can learn some real math about numbers and cyclical patterns. But you probably need math maturity up to calculus level to actually understand most introductory books about it.

For instance look at the digit patterns of rational numbers of the form a/7 where 1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I highly recommend that you add a selection of physics textbooks, from most elementary to medium complexity, to your book stack. Your world will never be the same after you read these. You'll see the beauty and harmony of the Universe, and your view will be unobstructed by impostors' claims.

That's a good recommendation.

Ever heard the saying "you are what you eat"? It refers to the thought that eating a bad diet might lead to bad health and eating a good diet might lead to good health, all else being equal.

I think a similar thought might apply to the kind of knowledge we feed our minds. Books, papers, etc written by smart people if properly ingested by our minds might make us smarter. Likewise, ingesting books written by people telling us things completely opposite of reality might make us dumber. Being able to tell which is which might be a little tricky, but another good book to help tell the difference is this one:

The Demon-Haunted World
Science as a Candle in the Dark
by Carl Sagan

Here's a little quote from the book (page 7) along the lines of what buddhasystem suggests:

while the ocean keeps many secrets, I knew that there
isn't a trace of oceanographic or geophysical support for Atlantis
and Lemuria. As far as science can tell, they never existed. By
now a little reluctantly, I told him so...

And yet there's so much in real science that's equally exciting,
more mysterious, a greater intellectual challenge - as well as being
a lot closer to the truth.

That is so true, people that don't seek out real science may not appreciate how fascinating it is. In some cases it really is a case of fact is more exciting than fiction. So yes it's definitely worth studying some real physics, instead of the not real or completely wrong stuff.

Mary, I hope you add some real physics books to your reading list, or since you seem to like videos, check out the KhanAcademy site FequalsForce suggested, since the videos might be more to your liking than reading physics books. I haven't used that site before but at first glance it looks pretty good.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Why don't you stop insisting that you know everything and just contribute to the discussion in a productive manner?

I never insisted that I know everything, what you are saying is simply untrue.

I don't know a lot. But I value what I know, and I earned my knowledge the hard way, so I have respect for learning process and critical thinking. As a corollary, I have utter disrespect for lack of desire to engage in learning process and lack of critical thinking.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I never insisted that I know everything, what you are saying is simply untrue.

No, not directly, in those words, have you said it.

You insinuate it often in your put-downs of others as you compare them to yourself.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
As a corollary, I have utter disrespect for lack of desire to engage in learning process . . .

What you show a disrespect for in your posts, from my point of view, is learning that you do not approve of. This is your opinion. Other have their opinion.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . and lack of critical thinking.

As in agreeing with you?