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: 43
39
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


This is kinda clever the approach you've taken here; however, why have you posted this but not the answers to my questions I posed to you?




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Because I answer questions as I see fit and don't have to stick to any schedule.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by FequalsForce
 


This post is what I would call avoidance.


No, all he is saying is "put your money where your mouth is". Seems fair!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I could spend my time chasing down your accusations about Rodin's endorsers, etc., but it would not be time well spent.
I agree it wouldn't be time well spent because I see no evidence that you can recognize a scam when it's staring you right in the face.

You might research it and think it sounds like a good idea and help give the crook the $11 million he needs to replace his $50 prototype, so I'm glad you won't pursue it. In spite of our disagreements, I don't want to see you get ripped off.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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?


That's what I meant. The "infinity" is unobservable.


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?


Because it was not relevant in the context of my statement.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That's what I meant. The "infinity" is unobservable.


Okay.

Where did the concept of infinity enter the picture in the first place, then. In your own words, please - no links this time.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In spite of our disagreements, I don't want to see you get ripped off.


Baloney. I know a scam when I hear it!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
i have watched about half over a couple days. interesting concepts. i have to say to those who do not understand this. find what is in your comprehension level and go from there, please dont go above what you dont know and try to bring those minds who have a clear understanding back to the pre programed world, witch wont allow knowledge for the sake of knowledge. let those who stray down the seperate path walk the path they choose, every form of knowledge should be encouraged, math is the foundation of our understanding of how everything works, who came up with this foundation we did along time ago, we have lots of unanswered questions in our current math theory.
and no one should ever be criticized about trying to understand how our world works.

to find what works sometimes takes finding out what dosent work first.
to be wrong a million times dosent matter you now just know a million different ways that dont work.
a single grain on a beach may take a long time to find but the true fun is in looking for it.

please have an open mind if it dosent sit move on to something more simple.
i cant say if it is right or wrong but it posses questions that only a well educated person in this field can debate, and isnt that what this is all about going deeper into what we dont know and making sense of it all.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In spite of our disagreements, I don't want to see you get ripped off.


Baloney. I know a scam when I hear it!


In face of the evidence, that can be only characterized as overwhelming, it does not appear that you do.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Why are you focusing on me?

The topic is vortex math and associated technology; there has been a question put to you that is on topic.

Is this a delaying tactic?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Neither one of you is making any sense whatsoever but I'm not going to recap the series of nonsensical posts. A boring discussion not worth any more valuable time.



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

Originally posted by m.red
please have an open mind if it dosent sit move on to something more simple.
i cant say if it is right or wrong
It doesn't get much more simple than the claim that "all multiples of 9 equal 9"

And anyone who can't tell if that statement is true or not probably shouldn't have graduated from high school. It's pretty simple.

markorodin.com...


all multiples of 9 equal 9.
Is it really that hard to tell if that's true or not? You really can't say if that's right or wrong?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


its the math system you only know that limits you to not know any other system. look at the binary system 2 numbers on and off, 0 and 1 and so on if you try to do binary with 10 number math it dosent make sense. you cant disprove it just cause you dont understand it. and i cant prove it cause im just understanding it. but why waste your time with the yes or no question, if you think we have leaned all the ways to view this universe then then dont try to look into the ideas of another observer.
take it for what it is a new idea, if it has value someday something will come of it. if not we know what dosent work.

in math we simplify the answers to the lowest form. 7+x=z*y=y+x=y+x+z=0 order out of chaos
in his system we do the same
9*1=9
9*2=18=1+8=9
9*3=27=2+7=9
9*4=36=3+6=9
9*5=45=4+5=9
9*6=54=5+4=9
9*7=63=6+3=9
9*8=72=7+2=9
9*9=81=8+1=9
9*10=90=9+0=9
9*11=99=9+9=18=1+8=9
9*12=108=1+0+8=9
9*13=117=1+1+7=9
9*14=126=1+2+6=9

9*2,684=24,156=2+4+1+5+6=18=1+8=9
9*6*16*3=2,592=2+5+9+2=18=1+8=9
9*27*284/6=11,502=1+1+5+0+2=9

x-7
y7
z0
edit on 23-3-2011 by m.red because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by m.red
in math we simplify the answers to the lowest form. 7+x=z*y=y+x=y+x+z=0 order out of chaos
in his system we do the same
9*1=9
9*2=18=1+8=9
9*3=27=2+7=9
9*4=36=3+6=9
9*5=45=4+5=9
9*6=54=5+4=9
9*7=63=6+3=9
9*8=72=7+2=9
9*9=81=8+1=9


Would you mind if the teller in your bank applied same radical math to your account? Say you deposited nine checks, $9 each, and were credited exactly $9. Would it work for you? Or, in the hospital -- the nurse needs to give you 9 mg of a potent drug, but decides to give you 72, because you know, it's all the same and she'd need to trash the rest of the pack anyway. You pay for 3 dozen eggs in the grocery but get one carton (Rodin rules!).

It's really entertaining to imagine what this idiotic calculus did to YOUR life if you really lived by it. You are welcome to try it. Just open your mind.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by m.red
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


its the math system you only know that limits you to not know any other system. look at the binary system 2 numbers on and off, 0 and 1 and so on if you try to do binary with 10 number math it dosent make sense. you cant disprove it just cause you dont understand it. and i cant prove it cause im just understanding it. but why waste your time with the yes or no question,


what yes/no question?


if you think we have leaned all the ways to view this universe then then dont try to look into the ideas of another observer.


who has suggested that we know all the ways of the universe?

If someone shows the world something new then the world checks it, and if it pans out then you get something new - there's lots of such cases.

there's also plenty where someone has claimed something new and it hasn't checked out. In many cases they weer just mistaken, in others a hoax had been attempted.

and here's also many "new" things that don't get checked - that just fade away without becoming important enough to ellicit any investigation.



take it for what it is a new idea, if it has value someday something will come of it. if not we know what dosent work.


Exactly.

and so far most of us can't come to grips with it, and can't understand it let alone make it work, can't see any relationship between it and anythng we do understand, so we're leaning strongly to the logical conclusion that it doesn't.


in math we simplify the answers to the lowest form. 7+x=z*y=y+x=y+x+z=0 order out of chaos


AFAIK that's meaninglessness created out of order



in his system we do the same
9*1=9
9*2=18=1+8=9
9*3=27=2+7=9
9*4=36=3+6=9
9*5=45=4+5=9
9*6=54=5+4=9
9*7=63=6+3=9
9*8=72=7+2=9
9*9=81=8+1=9
9*10=90=9+0=9
9*11=99=9+9=18=1+8=9
9*12=108=1+0+8=9
9*13=117=1+1+7=9
9*14=126=1+2+6=9

9*2,684=24,156=2+4+1+5+6=18=1+8=9
9*6*16*3=2,592=2+5+9+2=18=1+8=9
9*27*284/6=11,502=1+1+5+0+2=9



which is the well known intersting factoid about 9 that repeatedly adding up the numerals of any multiple of 9 ends up with 9.

Shrug...and so what?? wiki even has a page on the patterns of 9 - you missed a few - en.wikipedia.org...(number)


x-7
y7
z0


Which means what?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's really entertaining to imagine what this idiotic calculus did to YOUR life if you really lived by it. You are welcome to try it. Just open your mind.
If I cashed a check for $81 and the teller handed me $9 I'd probably say "let me guess? You read Marko Rodin's paper on Vortex Mathematics? "

But I'd stop laughing pretty quickly if he didn't say yeah, that's the gag, here's the other $72, have a nice day.

I'm still waiting for some of the people posting in this thread to finally say "heeeey, gotcha man, I don't really believe 81 equals 9, I was just pulling your leg" and admit they don't believe it either, like beebs did, props to beebs for admitting it!

The fact that 8+1=9 is interesting to note but it's not the proper mathematics to apply when cashing a check for $81, or doing anything else with the number 81. But if you think it is, and want me to cash your check for $81 by handing you $9, let me know. I just need you to submit to me in writing your belief that those two amounts are equal so I don't get into trouble with regulators. In fact I might still get into trouble, they might still prosecute me, noting that I graduated from the sixth grade so I should know better.

My defense would be "but the person cashing the check for $81 signed a paper saying "all multiples of 9 equal 9". Marko Rodin even wrote a paper saying that. So I thought it was OK to give them $9 when they cashed the $81 check, you mean it's not? Didn't you notice that 8+1 = 9???? Will that defense work?

Yes, it is indeed entertaining to imagine how this "mathematics" would work in the real world.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Vacuum can be thought of as containing an infinite amount of energy.


Why can vacuum be thought of as containing an infinite amount of energy?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


According to wikipedia:


Naively, it is infinite, because it includes the energy of waves with arbitrarily short wavelengths. But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization. In all practical calculations, this is how the infinity is handled. It is also arguable that undiscovered physics relevant at the Planck scale reduces or eliminates the energy of waves shorter than the Planck length, making the total zero-point energy finite.


The dutch Wikipedia says that according to theoretically calculations, the amount of energy per cubic meter is between several MJ and 10^116MJ.

Maybe a sensible analog is the way we determine "height". The height of the mount everest is 8848 m. However, this is a normalized height, compared to sea level. The hight compared to the center of the earth is more in the range of 6379 km. We just say that 6378 km is 0m in order to work with a more piratical system.

My guess is that in quantum mechanics it is also just a practical issue. The infinities will always cancel out so you can as well just make them 0 to start with (correct me if I am wrong). One note on this, it seems that infinity is only the result of purely theoretical calculations, in reality it is an extremely large constant of unknown size. But since an extremely large unknown constant minus the same extremely large unknown constant is still 0, normalization is possible. It is interesting though that, except for the some hypothesis (Planck length), it is not yet known what exactly limits the energy.


All in all, I do not exclude the possibility of somehow making use of the vacuum energy. It seems to me the earth has a relative movement with respect to these vacuum fields, maybe we can somehow find a way to create some sort of mill that is powered by these fields. You would still have conservation of energy, as the energy is actually tapped from the movement of the earth, practically the earth is slowed down. But there are probably good reason why that would never work (general relativity comes to mind). Anyway, its fun to brainstorm about. If only Rodin also just left it at brainstorming
.
edit on 24-3-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
My guess is that in quantum mechanics it is also just a practical issue. The infinities will always cancel out so you can as well just make them 0 to start with (correct me if I am wrong).
As I said earlier, one of the best clues we have to the vacuum energy/cosmological constant were the observations made in 1998.

I think this article elaborates on the different methods of calculating the vacuum energy quite well:

What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?


I've given you 5 answers to the same question:

1. VERY CLOSE TO ZERO
2. INFINITY
3. ENORMOUS BUT FINITE
4. ZERO
5. NOT DETERMINED

So it can be considered as infinity or any of the other 4 answers. Which is right?

We aren't completely sure but based on the 1998 and subsequent observations relating to the accelerating expansion of the universe, I lean toward answer #1 as does the author of that article:


Which should you believe? I believe 1) because it is based on experiment and fairly conservative assumptions about general relativity and astronomy. Answers 2)-4) are based on somewhat naive theoretical calculations. Answer 5) is the best that quantum field theory can do right now. Reconciling answers 1) and 5) is one of the big tasks of any good theory of quantum gravity.

The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers.

I may sound like a broken record but do you recall me quoting Box as saying "all models are wrong, some are useful"? The author is making a similar observation with the comment that "you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers."

I suggest reading the entire link with detailed explanations of each answer, and there are also links with further reading that will shed some light on the topic. As the author points out, a good quantum theory of gravity should help resolve these conflicting answers and hopefully come up with something that matches observation as well as answer #1 seems to.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I have not yet read your link yet (will do that), but I have an issue with seeing the vacuum energy as an actual infinite. You can not normalize an actual infinite, because infinity - infinity = undefined. You can only normalize if you threat it as a constant. It is just an imperfection, or artifact as buddhasystem called it, of the model.

(ps. I added some additional text to my post above that makes note of this)

edit: I read the link, I think it may be a good idea to update the Wikipedia page with this information. I am a bit reluctant to do it myself as I am not really comfortable with this subject.
edit on 24-3-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
39
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join