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: 41
39
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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.



Not quite inaccurate. Vacuum can be thought of as containing an infinite amount of energy. It doesn't mean that it can be tapped.




. . . 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.


This statement just doesn't seem to make sense. It does not exist for QED to work, it's simply one interpretation of the solutions of QED equations. And most equations in quantum physics simply don't depend on zero point energy at all. That's a pretty stupid thing to say, really.





edit on 20-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
Is it inaccurate for me to say there are an infinite number of points in a 1 cm long line?

My point was, it's a mathematical construct to state there are an infinite number of points. Theoretically and mathematically we can conceive it. But practically, the infinite number of points may not translate to the real world. One practical constraint preventing us from actually getting infinite points in the real world might be the planck length for example. This is an analogy and doesn't translate exactly, but I'm trying to keep the analogy simple, since I suspect the renormalization topic is too advanced, bobathon explained it in the other thread but many people didn't seem to grasp it.

In any case, I only quoted one of the two comments but I'd say my comments and analogy extend to both of them. There are mathematical constructs or models, and then there's the real world. If the models are useful in predicting real world observations, we use them. But not all models are useful in all situations, and some of them may reflect the real world in some situations but not others.

Whatever the energy level in a vacuum is, what we call "vacuum energy" is the lowest possible energy state, meaning it can't get any lower. So the vacuum energy state exists, but going below it (which you'd have to do to get energy out) is sort of like trying to travel south from the south pole. There is nothing south of the south pole. And there's no lower energy level than the vacuum energy. It's not zero, but it's already as low as you can go.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Not quite inaccurate. Vacuum can be thought of as containing an infinite amount of energy. It doesn't mean that it can be tapped.


But are vacuum and the zero point field the same thing?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
But are vacuum and the zero point field the same thing?

Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Oh whoah! Would you look at that, Coupling does have a physical meaning and is used in a very precise way by the person who used the term!!


In physics, two systems are coupled if they are interacting with each other. Of special interest is the coupling of two (or more) vibratory systems (e.g. pendula or resonant circuits) by means of springs or magnetic fields, etc. Characteristic for a coupled oscillation is the effect of beat.



4. (Electronics) Electronics the act or process of linking two or more circuits so that power can be transferred between them usually by mutual induction, as in a transformer, or by means of a capacitor or inductor common to both circuits See also direct coupling
5. (Physics / General Physics) Physics an interaction between different properties of a system, such as a group of atoms or nuclei, or between two or more systems


Even more specifically, it would be a type of harmonic coupling or micro-to-macro resonance.

Hmm... that must mean those people who didn't understand what he was talking about, or thought he was talking gibberish were grossly mistaken yet again, and the problem is rather that They Don't Understand it Themselves.

So, of course, the only strategy left is to go down the fallacious road of ridicule and diversion back to the most easily discredited statements - while of course ignoring all of the other primary source material which could have been studied in the mean time.

---

There is no such thing as a vacuum. The best definition for ZPE is the definition Milo Wolff gives for Space:

Space: The space around us is not empty; Space is a quantum wave medium of spherical quantum waves. The energy-density of space is due to the sum of waves from all matter in the Universe.


There is density fluctuations in space itself, these can be harnessed in a similar way to your Atmos clock. And also, I suspect, through amplification and coupling mechanisms, and also to concentric mechanisms such as the Searl Effect Generator and other 'magnetic motor' designs.

There are no such things as 'particles' in the classical sense, quantum wave functions are describing a real wave structure in space.

I am sorry that your life works were based on an incomplete and inaccurate model. Please, recognize the fullness of space as a necessary truth.

There is still reality below the planck scale, and beyond the borders of the seeable universe. It doesn't just stop.

There is constant motion and density fluctuations of a functional continuum in the whole system we call the Universe.
edit on 21-3-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Oh whoah! Would you look at that, Coupling does have a physical meaning and is used in a very precise way by the person who used the term!!


Beebs, did you even try to understand what I wrote? Where did I say that coupling did not have a physical meaning?

You actually proved my point with your quotes, thank you. Coupling can exist BETWEEN systems etc but cannot be applied to a singular object. That's what I said and what you repeated almost verbatim. So thanks Beebs, it appears you agree that the statement from this guy is crock. It's just that next time, please take time to actually read my posts.

And... It would be good if you stopped right there, but of course you couldn't help but serve another portion of word soup:


Even more specifically, it would be a type of harmonic coupling or micro-to-macro resonance.

Micro-to-macro resonance. Hmm... Fractal meatballs in zero point marinara sauce.




edit on 21-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



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.


Coupling between ZPE fluctuations and the coil that facilitates macro scale effects. Doesn't that make sense at all to you? I'm not saying it works on Rodin's coil, but that is clearly what he means.

But since they are not completely separate systems, I think Harmonic Coupling or Harmonic Resonance illustrates the idea better.

How is this for word soup:

Wave frequencies in space(ZPE) are amplified or 'scaled up' through harmonic sympathy with the geometry of the counter-rotating, double helical streams of the toroid dynamic. Since that particular path of motion is the most efficient way to mediate density and temperature fluctuations in space(energy), the EM 'noise' if you will, seeks out or is attracted to any mechanism - (planetary, solar, astronomical, or atomic, machinery, etc.) - which reproduces the fundamental structure of motion mediation - the counterrotating toroid geometrical dynamic.

At least that is the working theory.

See: Helmholtz, Thomson, Schroedinger, Dirac, William Clifford, De Broglie, Einstein, Dewey Larson, Milo Wolff, Tesla, Keely, etc.
vorticity
knots and physics
Models of the Atom
Case against the Nuclear Atom


edit on 21-3-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
How is this for word soup:

Wave frequencies in space(ZPE) are amplified or 'scaled up' through harmonic sympathy with the geometry of the counter-rotating, double helical streams of the toroid dynamic......

At least that is the working theory.
I see the word soup. So despite some of our disagreements, I do actually agree with your description of that stringing together of words as "word soup" so it's nice we agree on something!


Calling it a working theory on the other hand, I don't understand. How is it a theory? Does it make any predictions of any observable phenomena in the natural world? Is it your own unique theory? I see a lot of sources there besides Rodin, and as far as I can tell, a lot of your sources disagree with each other significantly and some of them don't seem to support that word soup at all.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Coupling between ZPE fluctuations and the coil that facilitates macro scale effects.


Don't reinvent the quote. It went literally like


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.


So there. Just coupling. My glass of diet soda couples, period, how is that?

And then...

I'm sorry but coupling between some fluctuations (which were never explained in the Rodin's context) and a physical object like a coil does not make sense until qualified. The coil is an object just like your watch. To couple to anything, it needs physical fields to be present. None of this was either demonstrated or explained. Let alone calculated.



How is this for word soup:

Wave frequencies in space(ZPE) are amplified or 'scaled up' through harmonic sympathy with the geometry of the counter-rotating, double helical streams of the toroid dynamic. Since that particular path of motion is the most efficient way to mediate density and temperature fluctuations in space(energy), the EM 'noise' if you will, seeks out or is attracted to any mechanism - (planetary, solar, astronomical, or atomic, machinery, etc.) - which reproduces the fundamental structure of motion mediation - the counterrotating toroid geometrical dynamic.


I agree, this is word soup in its pure form, undiluted by presence of human intelligence.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
To recap a series of posts:


Originally posted by buddhasystem

Not quite inaccurate. Vacuum can be thought of as containing an infinite amount of energy. It doesn't mean that it can be tapped.


reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Arbitrageur, answering the question I put to Buddhasystem:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.


~~~~~~~~~~

Says Wikipedia in Arbitrageur’s link:


In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, is Buddhasystem’s vacuum with the infinite energy that we don't know how to tap into the same as Arbitrageur’s vacuum of the lowest possible energy (they disagree), or, is “vacuum state of an individual quantized field” referring to something more specialized than just “vacuum”?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Arbitrageur,

If the vacuum state of an individual quantized field is different from the vacuum Buddhasystem was describing, why did you post the Wikipedia article in response to my question:


Originally posted by Mary Rose

But are vacuum and the zero point field the same thing?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So, is Buddhasystem’s vacuum with the infinite energy that we don't know how to tap into the same as Arbitrageur’s vacuum of the lowest possible energy (they disagree), or, is “vacuum state of an individual quantized field” referring to something more specialized than just “vacuum”?


There is no disagreement.

Wiki:

But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization.


So you have an artifact of quantum field theory.

Basically look over "zero point field", "vacuum energy" and other such links on the Wiki.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is no disagreement.

Wiki:

But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization.
Exactly, there is no disagreement, but I'll try to clarify a bit why the apparent discrepancy really isn't one.

Remember I tried to simplify it with the analogy of an infinite number of points along a straight line 1 cm long. The two things that really count in a straight line 1cm long are the locations of the endpoints, because the length (and direction) can be deduced by taking the difference between the endpoints. The fact that it contains an infinite number of points, while interesting, doesn't really affect the length.

Likewise while a vacuum can theoretically contain an infinite number of energy states just like the 1 cm line can contain an infinite number of points, it is the difference between two energy states that's measurable just as the difference between the two endpoints of the 1cm line is measurable.

While it's not a perfect analogy (no analogy is perfect) it does try to conceptualize the idea without having to elaborate on renormalization. I thought bobathon explained renormalization well in the other thread but I got the impression several people didn't understand it. Here's another explanation:

Renormalization Made Easy The text is too long to post but you can read it if you're interested.

And I know I said this before but it bears repeating, "all models are wrong (meaning imperfect representations of reality), but some are useful" (George Box). That was never more true than when it comes to vacuum energy calculations. While I agree with buddhasystem that quantum field theory calculates infinite vacuum energy, we can show that specific aspect of the model is wrong (though QFT is useful for other calculations which DO match observation). Infinite vacuum energy would lead to a larger cosmological constant than we observe, therefore we know from observation the vacuum energy is less than infinite.

So when the model says one thing (infinite vacuum energy) and the observation says another thing (less than infinite vacuum energy), I have to go with observation, and not the model. But this doesn't mean we throw out the model of quantum field theory, because it works well in other cases. This is the limitation of all models that George Box was trying to point out when he said that "all models are wrong, some are useful".

I suppose it's possible that a "theory of everything" (TOE) developed in the future may explain nature well enough that it doesn't have a limited range of applicability like current models do, but until we have that "TOE", the models we have now seem to have limits.

I don't know how much energy is in the vacuum, but I do know of observations that determine what it's NOT:

It's NOT infinite.
It's NOT zero.

Additionally, to clarify my earlier statement about the lowest possible energy state, see the following:
Zero-point energy

Zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state. ...

Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[3] The variation in zero-point energy as the boundaries of a region of vacuum move leads to the Casimir effect, which is observable in nanoscale devices. A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.


The observations of the universe first made around 1998 may be giving us some clues about how big the vacuum energy actually is by showing us the rate at which the expansion of the universe is accelerating which leads to estimated values for the cosmological constant. Having a good clue doesn't mean the riddle is solved however, that's why we still call it "dark energy", the "dark" means we still haven't figured it out.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
This is a blatant scam. Just because he has hours and hours of videos, and many pages worth of fancy material doesn't mean hes right and that science is oppressing it!
The funny thing is, all the people who are supposedly endorsing him are completely made up! Don't believe me? Google their name. Even an unknown scientist can be googled as they could be part of a university, or have some type of online footprint. Don't be quick to jump to conclusions as then you cannot distinguish between the truth from the lie.
This guy is so full of it and is making money from suckers who fall into his trap.
edit on 21-3-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: nrg



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


Russ Blake - Linked In

Simply put: We are the sum of all things zero.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


Russ Blake - Linked In


Please expand on this, with details. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Russell Blake is one of Marko Rodin's alleged endorsers on Rodin's website here: markorodin.com...

That link shows the specific patents he wrote, so it's not hard to verify the patent:
www.google.com...,067,412
Blake is one of five co-authors.

I suspect Americanist was referring to this link: www.linkedin.com...

And the communication he was mentally projecting but didn't actually say was:

"If this guy doesn't exist, then how come he has a linked in page, that even shows his picture?"

My mind reading skills are a little rusty, I had some difficulty tuning in to the sympathetic vibratory oscillations embedded in the global harmonic cymatic frequencies I typically use for telepathic communication, so I could be a little off, I blame it on HAARP.


Americanist, am I close? Or did HAARP disrupt my tuning into your mental frequency?




edit on 22-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My mind reading skills are a little rusty, I had some difficulty tuning in to the sympathetic vibratory oscillarions embedded in the global harmonic cymatic frequencies I typically use for telepathic communication, so I could be a little off, I blame it on HAARP.


No kidding! When you are at it, can you locate (on the web or otherwise) the company this gentleman says he founded and is leading? HAARP got the best of me as I was doing that.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My mind reading skills are a little rusty, I had some difficulty tuning in to the sympathetic vibratory oscillarions embedded in the global harmonic cymatic frequencies I typically use for telepathic communication, so I could be a little off, I blame it on HAARP.


No kidding! When you are at it, can you locate (on the web or otherwise) the company this gentleman says he founded and is leading? HAARP got the best of me as I was doing that.
Which one, Money facts? The only reference I found to that is on Rodin's site.

What's even stranger is if you go to Russ Blake's Experience section on linked in, and click on the company name where it says "currently holds this position", the link does go to a Microsoft partner company. But it lists three employees, none are named Russ Blake.

Readify assists organisations to innovate with software on the Microsoft Applications Development Platform.

* Igor Gorelik

Senior Developer


* Mehdi Khalili

Senior Developer


* Zulhafiz Akbar

Senior Developer


Microsoft did pretty well from 10/88 to 1/96 so if he was getting a lot of company stock, he might not have to work. They do mention that their "consultancy team" has 11 people, so perhaps Blake is one of those?


Readify is proud to have eleven Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals (MVPs) within our consultancy team.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
blake must exist - "he" wrote a reference to Rodin that is on Rense


www.rense.com...

(which is of course the same one that is on Rodin's own page - markorodin.com...)

And if you look at this thread on Wolfram someone called Geoffry Blake says that he is his (Russ's) brother & gives some institutions he (Russ) attended..in his one and only post.

So it must be true.

Or not.....


Edit: don't universities usually maintain a list of Masters theses?
edit on 22-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
blake must exist - "he" wrote a reference to Rodin that is on Rense


www.rense.com...
I see no reason to doubt the existence of Russell P Blake, the former Microsoft research guy.

Whether he wrote what Rodin posted, what specifically his role was or is with Rodin (as mentioned on Rodin's site when he says "Mr. Rodin's work has suffered from a lack of adequate scientific attention, and I am sure that as the research momentum builds and the proper relationship between the Rodin Torus and conventional science is fully understood, both areas of endeavor will attain new heights. I am very much looking forward to playing a role in this adventure."), and what he's doing now are less clear.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join