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: 45
39
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary RoseNo, it's not. Among others - Tesla. Reich. Rife.


Besides whether those peoples work was repressed (I don't believe that), how long ago did they live? Don't you think science has progressed since then? Don't you think the world has changed completely?




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I believe that technology is still being suppressed.

The profit motive of the powers that be is what causes this - not scientists.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


You correctly categorize your position as a belief, which is fine by me. Beliefs are not really interesting in a discussion though.
edit on 25-3-2011 by -PLB- because: spelling



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No matter what discussion is taking place, people are always stating their belief. Even when you state facts - in reality, what you're doing, is stating what the facts are as you believe them to be.

That is the human condition.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


If you call everything a belief, it becomes a hollow term. In this context this following definition applies:


confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


When people are discussing things on a forum, they're always stating what they believe to be true (or at least they should be - assuming they're in good faith).

That's my point.


edit on 03/25/11 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Yes I understand your point. And my point was that your position is without any proof, and therefor not interesting to discuss any further. You believe it is true, I do not. End of discussion.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 






That's a great idea!



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No matter what discussion is taking place, people are always stating their belief. Even when you state facts - in reality, what you're doing, is stating what the facts are as you believe them to be.

That is the human condition.


From AmWay motivational tapes:

"If you believe enough, facts don't matter".





posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No matter what discussion is taking place, people are always stating their belief. Even when you state facts - in reality, what you're doing, is stating what the facts are as you believe them to be.

That is the human condition.


From AmWay motivational tapes:

"If you believe enough, facts don't matter".




On the level of believing in red shift and an expanding universe when media refraction hasn't been factored in for decades. That crowd is still out there... Even the orbit of celestial bodies hasn't evolved much. I guess it's too difficult to image a cork screw.

Anyhow, I prefer something closer to Rodin's approach...

www.physorg.com...

1,4,7 - 2,5,8


www.sciencedaily.com...
edit on 25-3-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Anyhow, I prefer something closer to Rodin's approach...

www.physorg.com...

1,4,7 - 2,5,8
Are you saying that article has some relation to Rodin's 1,4,7 - 2,5,8? If so what is it, I'm not seeing the connection.

In addition, I'll bet donuts to dollars that nothing in that math says anything like "all multiples of 9 equal 9".


www.sciencedaily.com...
That pattern recognition is more mathematically valid than the bible code, but I'm not sure how it's any more useful.

However if you are claiming this does anything for Rodin, I'd say it is exactly the opposite. People have been asking for any link between Rodin's work and the real world and nobody seems to have any.

Music exists in the real world and someone has demonstrated mathematical patterns in the scales (though I'm not sure if that's the great discovery it's being hyped up to be, we already knew there were patterns, they are just looking at it mathematically in a different way)

That's an example of what's lacking with Rodin's work, a connection to the real world.
edit on 26-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dude, come on. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not there.

I don't know how many times I have tried to show you that your presuppositions of reality are not necessarily correct.

You keep judging Rodin's model on your own understandings... yours always trumps because you are an expert!

You are falling to a basic fallacy inside your own mind.



You will never understand this topic if you don't Try.

I am sure in your mind you are winning this debate, because to your low standards you have refuted enough to make you feel comfortable again in your box.

Wake up, Mr. Green.







posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
this is such an entertaining thread .




posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
You will never understand this topic if you don't Try.
I did ask a question didn't I? Isn't that trying? still waiting for an answer, because this doesn't exactly answer my question:


Dude, come on. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not there.
How does that explain anything? If I post a video of a third grader counting backwards from 9 can I say the same thing, that there's a connection but just because someone can't see it doesn't mean it's not there? Actually that would seem to have more of a connection to Rodin's work because it started with the number 9.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If I post a video of a third grader counting backwards from 9 can I say the same thing, that there's a connection but just because someone can't see it doesn't mean it's not there? Actually that would seem to have more of a connection to Rodin's work because it started with the number 9.


What you do is pick one item out of context and ridicule it.

You cherry-pick things to make your case while ignoring the big picture.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What you do is pick one item out of context and ridicule it.
How is this out of context?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
Anyhow, I prefer something closer to Rodin's approach...
www.physorg.com...
1,4,7 - 2,5,8
Are you saying that article has some relation to Rodin's 1,4,7 - 2,5,8? If so what is it, I'm not seeing the connection.
You and beebs both seem to be claiming a connection but neither of you seems to be able to explain it, other than saying "big picture" as if that's an explanation.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



How is this out of context?


Because you have admitted that you have not taken the time to study the greater majority of Rodin's material. This is the primary source material for this discussion, which happens to be aptly named 'Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin'.

Thus, as you should be able to deduce, Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin is the topic for this thread.


You keep bringing up this "9 equals 9" straw man, which is the only thing you took from the half hour of the one video you took the time to watch. Several times you have alluded to this, even mentioning that I explained what he meant by this, but you still use it as a point of ridicule against Rodin's credibility. You attack what he said, not what he meant.

That is the precise definition of cherry picking, and it is an ignorant cherry pick.

Vortex Based Mathematics is not "9 equals 9", that is your ignorant projection for ridicule.

Vortex based math is about the structure of the atom, the nature of reality, theoretical physics, philosophy, etc.


You and beebs both seem to be claiming a connection but neither of you seems to be able to explain it, other than saying "big picture" as if that's an explanation.


big picture


Would you ridicule VBM in such a lazy and ignorant way, if the title of the thread was 'Vortex Based Mathematics by Hermann von Helmholtz'?

hmmm.... dibs on making that thread!

edit on 26-3-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
How is this out of context?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
Anyhow, I prefer something closer to Rodin's approach...
www.physorg.com...
1,4,7 - 2,5,8
Are you saying that article has some relation to Rodin's 1,4,7 - 2,5,8? If so what is it, I'm not seeing the connection.
You and beebs both seem to be claiming a connection but neither of you seems to be able to explain it, other than saying "big picture" as if that's an explanation.


I've pointed out that casting out nines is a legitimate math technique, and using it to create a blueprint shouldn't be so far fetched. I also think Rodin's endorsers are legitimate, and feel that you have cherry-picked things in order to put Rodin down. I don't sense a search for the truth on your part. I also think that you have not researched suppressed technology - which is relevant because if you were aware of what is suppressed, you would not find it difficult to believe what the Rodin coil can do - you would have a different perspective.

Your first post on this thread was to say the thread should go in the hoax file. You expressed your anger with the
emoticon. You seem to be protecting something.

I like the links Americanist posted. I thought they were stimulating reading. I hope we can discuss them respectfully.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 23432
 


Amen.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 




Glad you're enjoying it!



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join