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: 40
39
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What you show a disrespect for in your posts, from my point of view, is learning that you do not approve of.


You admitted yourself your inability to interpret any of excerpts from pseudo-science tracts you keep posting on this board day in, day out. So it's plain that you learn nothing from either established science or from wannabies. All pomp and no substance.




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
, , , pseudo-science tracts you keep posting on this board day in, day out . . .


This is just your opinion. That's all it is.

End of discussion.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'd venture to guess light is a product of "dark flow." And please enlighten us...



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


How is electricity generated? What definition of electricity do you subscribe to? Put your cards on the table (so to speak).



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
How is electricity generated? What definition of electricity do you subscribe to? Put your cards on the table (so to speak).
There are several types of electricity, static and lightning for example. But in the context of the Keely motor video I was reviewing, the intent of the Keely Motor company was some type of commercial application that would recoup the investors' money and show them a profit, so I was referring to commercial power generation, that powers my toaster when I plug it in the wall socket.

en.wikiversity.org...

Hopefully the link and schematic are self explanatory, it's a wikiversity lesson. About half the commercial power in the US comes from plants similar to this, the other half is split up among other types of power generation, also discussed in other parts of that link.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
This has been around since the early 80s. I know a fellow who works in plasma physics and came up with something which might even be identical. The problem with this, is that it has no logical connection to reality , for how elements work together and with the forces. It's only showing how forces work in one space together, the geometry is ridiculous and wrong.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
, , , pseudo-science tracts you keep posting on this board day in, day out . . .


This is just your opinion. That's all it is.
End of discussion.


There have been no discussion, Mary. Discussion involves people using logic. You did nothing on this sort after great many posts on ATS. If you post a paragraph, I think common courtesy requires that you should at least be able relate how one part of it relates to the other and how it all relates to reality. Absent that, it's no different from you publishing and re-publishing statements that hollow Earth is populated with spaghetti monsters.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Absent that, it's no different from you publishing and re-publishing statements that hollow Earth is populated with spaghetti monsters.


A silly statement. And typical of your posts.

However, focusing on each other instead of the topic of the thread is ill-advised, so let's stop now. Agreed?


edit on 03/18/11 by Mary Rose because: Add to the post.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
However, focusing on each other instead of the topic of the thread is ill-advised, so let's stop now. Agreed?


Sure! So again, please explain to me why you deemed necessary to post a statement saying that numbers are elementary particles. And what basis Rodin has for saying that he has successfully created a black hole in the lab.
I'm all ears.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sure! So again, please explain to me why you deemed necessary to post a statement saying . . .


I deemed necessary to post a new thread - let's just talk about the subject in general instead of a part of it - on Rodin's mathematics and coil because I find him to be credible and interesting and his work to be very important and valuable for humanity.

My research indicates that there was a previous civilization on earth that possessed technology more advanced than what we have today - officially, that is. (One example: the technology that was used to build the pyramids.)

Additionally, in modern times, technology that threatens mainstream powers that be is suppressed.

This is why I started this thread.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sure! So again, please explain to me why you deemed necessary to post a statement saying . . .


I deemed necessary to post a new thread - let's just talk about the subject in general instead of a part of it - on Rodin's mathematics and coil


Indeed. To talk about the subject in any meaningful manner means an attempt to promote understanding of same. I see that you do nothing of this sort. If you hear that number "2" is actually an elementary particle, what do you make of it? OK, and at least how does that relate in any way to physical reality around us?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The number must be a part of the blueprint that Rodin has mapped out for us which an engineer would then use.

If the sarcastic ridicule were to be put aside, and a respectful discussion were to take place, maybe other technically minded but creative folks would join the discussion and help shed some light on the subject.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The number must be a part of the blueprint that Rodin has mapped out for us which an engineer would then use.


A blueprint is a diagram that is used to assemble a device. A sudoku-like pattern does not qualify as such. And I wasn't even asking about blueprints in the first place -- I picked one of the most idiotic Rodin's statements that numbers are actually elementary particles.


If the sarcastic ridicule were to be put aside, and a respectful discussion were to take place, maybe other technically minded but creative folks would join the discussion and help shed some light on the subject.


I wish to God there was something in your posts worthy of more than sarcasm. I quite respectfully asked you what you thought what you make of Rodin's claim to have created a black hole. You can't "shed light" on something as bogus as that.

You have statements which bear no relation to reality in any way and you submit your total faith to this. This lack of critical thinking just seems pathological.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This lack of critical thinking just seems pathological.




Your opinion is duly noted by me.

Hopefully, you haven't killed the thread.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I asked you to define electricity. Do you go by the dictionary?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
I asked you to define electricity. Do you go by the dictionary?
I spent years at the university studying how to make electricity do things like run the computers we're posting here with, make it power all the things in your home from vacuum cleaners to electronic air ionizers, and in industry from power generation and distribution, lightning protection, all the way down to the quantum mechanics of semiconductors and the behavior of semiconductors at quantum mechanical scales. So my understanding is based largely on what electricity does in the world of human application of electricity.

Why would you or I argue with the dictionary definition of electricity? I'm excited by people coming up with new laws of physics or discoveries, but I'm suspicious of people that want to re-write the dictionary. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but if I call it a "dinklehorf", most people probably won't know what the hell I'm talking about or if I call it a "faucet" people will think I'm referring to a bathroom fixture instead of a flower. The reason we have dictionaries is so we can communicate with each other using a common language that we all understand. So there should be a very good reason for not using dictionary definitions if our intent is to communicate clearly with other people.

However if our intention is to attempt to baffle other people with BS, or to show our own ignorance, using words differently than they are portrayed in the dictionary may sometimes achieve such goals.

This is really on-topic as a discussion point because I've literally never seen a worse abuser of the dictionary than Marko Rodin. Even beebs agrees that Rodin uses the word "equals" with in complete contradiction to the way that word is defined in the dictionary. It's kind of like the example I gave earlier if I take the red flower most people call a Rose, and call it a faucet. That's pretty stupid. The word "faucet" is already taken and means something else.

Likewise, the word equals is already taken, and is defined in the dictionary.

Likewise, the word electricity is already taken, and is defined in the dictionary. If you mean something else, then say something else. Don't say 18 equals 9 and don't say that red flower is a "faucet".
edit on 18-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Putting Keely aside and going back to Jamie Buturff's work with the Rodin coil:


Originally posted by Mary Rose

Jamie Buturff (holding up a picture of the Rodin coil):

"There're two circuits here, and there's the blank space. That blank space is what pulls in... zero point energy, the zero point field is something that exists in order for the quantum electro dynamics to work. All their equations in quantum physics have to work according to the ZPE. There is infinite amounts of energy in the zero point field. What this space does in here, when this coil is pulsed properly, opposite directions from one another, at variant times... it causes a coupling of the ZPE."


Is Jamie accurate in this part:


. . . the zero point field is something that exists in order for the quantum electro dynamics to work. All their equations in quantum physics have to work according to the ZPE.


and/or this:


There is infinite amounts of energy in the zero point field.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What this space does in here, when this coil is pulsed properly, opposite directions from one another, at variant times... it causes a coupling of the ZPE."


Mary, what makes you think there is at least 0.0000000001% of truth in this statement? I.e. that Rodin extracts energy out of vacuum? What it "pulsed properly" vs "pulsed improperly"?

Besides, "coupling" is a word used with regards to at least two entities. It's like being married -- you can't really be married to yourself. So to say "it causes a coupling of the ZPE" is pretty damn ignorant. Coupling to what? As Arb said, messing with the dictionary and meaning of words is pretty much smokescreen meant to confuse the gullible.

One of Rodin's many ridiculous claims (that he found some ultra efficient path for electrons in the coil so they can move with less resistance) can be checked with a digital multimeter you can get for $4.99:
www.harborfreight.com...

Has Rodin demonstrated that what he's saying is happening, is indeed happening, using this affordable device? The test is simple --

a) measure the resistance of a length of wire, then put same wire in the coil configuration and measure again.
b) two outcomes are possible:
1) Indeed there is a significant drop in resistance --> Collect the Nobel prize money.
2) No difference whatsoever --> Shut the heck up and eat your hat



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Why are you you dancing around my questions?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
and/or this:


There is infinite amounts of energy in the zero point field.
Did you read my review of the Dale Pond video? Here's an excerpt:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.
You can add making cavalier claims about infinite energy.

This gets into the renormalization issue which we already discussed at some length in the Haramein thread.

One analogy would be to say, there are an infinite number of points along a 1 cm long line. But a 1 cm long line is still just 1 cm long. I don't get too excited about the fact that it contains an infinite number of points, it's just a mathematical construct.

Don't forget, "all models are wrong, some are useful"- George Box



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'll take that as a Buturff is inaccurate here:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
There is infinite amounts of energy in the zero point field.


~~~~~~~

Just so there is precision here, what about the other question?


Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . the zero point field is something that exists in order for the quantum electro dynamics to work. All their equations in quantum physics have to work according to the ZPE.




top topics



 
39
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join