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: 42
39
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.


i wonder what the people listed would say when contacted about their involvement with Rodin...well, except Salk, who is dead. And was never a physician during the entire time Rodin has been alive, but thats been covered.

the rest i couldn't find via google searches unless it was on crackpot sites already.

so yeah. full of #.




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FequalsForce
. . . Salk, who is dead . . . never a physician during the entire time Rodin has been alive . . .




Salk died in 1995. What's your point?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


That Rodin is full of crap and a fraud?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FequalsForce
 






So, exactly what is your point about Salk?

Was he alive at the same time as Rodin?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by FequalsForce
. . . Salk, who is dead . . . never a physician during the entire time Rodin has been alive . . .




Salk died in 1995. What's your point?
Hans A. Nieper, another Rodin endorser, died in 1998.

If I write an endorsement from him about my flying spaghetti monster theory, and affix a likeness of his signature to it like Rodin did to his testimonial, would you believe he supported flying spaghetti monsters?

It's convenient to use dead people for undocumented assertions, because they aren't alive to dispute the claims we make.

In fact Rodin doesn't list any date at all for the communication he alleges to have received from Dr. Nieper.

markorodin.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


FequalsForce needs your assistance?

You have a habit of answering questions put to other members.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

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




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.


So you have an artifact of quantum field theory.

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


There is one link on the Wiki for zero point field - from the Cornell University Library -
”Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum For Interstellar Flight.”

There is one link for vacuum energy – to the Wiki for it – and the message at the top of it is

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Physics or the Physics Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2010)

~~~~~~
Buddhasystem,

What do you mean when you say the infinity can be removed by renormalization, so what we have is an artifact of quantum field theory?

And in your original statement that we can’t tap into it, but the vacuum can be said to contain infinite energy, why didn't you mention renormalization when you said that?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's convenient to use dead people for undocumented assertions, because they aren't alive to dispute the claims we make.

In fact Rodin doesn't list any date at all for the communication he alleges to have received from Dr. Nieper.

markorodin.com...


If these were the only endorsements Rodin has, you might have a point.




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


you need to read better.



i wonder what the people listed would say when contacted about their involvement with Rodin...well, except Salk, who is dead. And was never a physician during the entire time Rodin has been alive, but thats been covered.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FequalsForce
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


you need to read better.



i wonder what the people listed would say when contacted about their involvement with Rodin...well, except Salk, who is dead. And was never a physician during the entire time Rodin has been alive, but thats been covered.



That's your answer? My reading skills?

Again, was Salk alive at the same time as Rodin?

This is getting really tiresome, isn't it? A waste of cyberspace.

How about answering the question directly, or, if you misspoke, say so.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


FequalsForce needs your assistance?

You have a habit of answering questions put to other members.
No I don't think FequalsForce needs any assistance from me and yes you need to "read better". You asked him about Salk, I didn't say anything about Salk (though if I wanted to I would have), so I can't really see how that answers the question you asked him, that's why I'm saying you need to read better. I'm just skeptical of testimony from dead people if it's not documented somewhere reliable.

And it's a public forum, anybody can answer in a public forum.

Also Bearden, another Rodin testimonial source, is telling lies like he had a prototype of a free energy machine that had 100 times more output than input but he lost it or something and now he needs 11 million dollars to build another one. But back in 2002 he was saying it would be in production by 2003. If this is the type of charlatan that supports Rodin I'm not surprised, birds of a feather and all that.

peswiki.com...:Motionless_Electromagnetic_Generator


On March 26 2002, Tom Bearden announced the arrival of the MEG technology (Motionless Electrical Generator). This device was supposed to be in mass production by 2003, and promised unlimited energy from the vacuum, to answer mankind's power needs. Promoted through JLNlabs[4], Cheniere.org[5] and an Egroup called "MEG Builders"[6], the device was even written up in Vol. 14., No. 1, 2001, Foundations of Physics Letters[7]. As of 2005, the MEG is still not in production, and Tom Bearden claims he needs about $11 million to develop it to a viable commercial form. [8] Tom also admits he presently has no working prototype, stating the 'last working demonstrator promptly destroyed'.
The last working demonstrator promptly destroyed, what? They didn't even finish the sentence. Did they mean "was destroyed" or "destroyed itself"? The only thing I'm sure that's destroyed is any credibility with the ultimate "dog ate my homework" excuse.


edit on 23-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And it's a public forum, anybody can answer in a public forum.


Yeah I know, but it depends on the situation whether or not it's courteous and appropriate to step in on a question asked by one member to another as a follow-up.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Also Bearden, another Rodin testimonial source, is telling lies. . .




Your opinion is duly noted.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Your opinion is duly noted.
That part is fact, he said in 2002 his "perpetual motion machine" would go into production in 2003...it didn't. Not an opinion.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arbitrageur,

So what?

Things often do not go as planned in life. That does not make him a crook.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Then by all means, you should send him your entire retirement account as this investment will pay off HUGE. Just think of all the money you'll make as an investor in an energy source that can continuously produce energy with little overhead!

You'll be so rich you could buy us all 5 times over.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by FequalsForce
 


This post is what I would call avoidance.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So what?

Things often do not go as planned in life. That does not make him a crook.
So what?

You don't see the pattern? Hundreds, if not thousands of perpetual motion machines have all been just on the verge of "almost being ready for production" for over a century, but they never actually do go into production.

All Bearden needs is another $11 million to replace the prototype his dog ate, that by the way looks like less than $50 worth of parts in the old photo on the peswiki page.

The promoters of these devices that aren't crooks and charlatans tend to be incompetent fools that believe their own crackpot theories. I'd put Keely in the former category and Rodin in the latter category.

Did you ever hear the saying "those who don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it"? I'd say that applies to scammers of perpetual motion machines as well as any topic.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I could spend my time chasing down your accusations about Rodin's endorsers, etc., but it would not be time well spent. If I had reason to suspect there is value in your accusations, I would, but I don't, so I won't.

I have better things to do with my research time.




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Things often do not go as planned in life. That does not make him a crook.


Yes Mary. That's what practitioners of the Shell Game keep telling their customers. I mean the winnings were so close, but things didn't go as planned. Sure.

The pea was never there, Mary.




top topics



 
39
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join