"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



The formula or table goes like this:

1,2,4,8,7,5



3,9,6,6,9,3,3,9





You'll have to replace = with the actual word equal in the event it's still confusing.




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Much of it can be considered double-talk unless you want to rewind a thousand years and interpret everything literally. Heck, I think the Pope finally snapped out of it, so perhaps the rest of the World might catch on too.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
The formula or table . . .


Where does it come from?

It seems Rodin says he's discovered it but doesn't tell us what it's based on.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



The formula or table goes like this:

1,2,4,8,7,5



3,9,6,6,9,3,3,9





You'll have to replace = with the actual word equal in the event it's still confusing.
And this is supposed to help explain how 1+8=18?

What I see in the numerical table of a doubling circuit is 1=1 and 8=8

If this is encoding, for those numbers at least, the encoded versions are the same as the original.

I don't know how to use the other table, so if I'm supposed to use that one, please help me understand how?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


He is just taking the numbers and figuring out their digital root. And then getting the patterns based on 1-9. Because all of the numbers can be added until they are down to a single digit.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by cplouffe
 



Originally posted by cplouffe
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

He is just taking the numbers and figuring out their digital root. And then getting the patterns based on 1-9. Because all of the numbers can be added until they are down to a single digit.
So if he adds 1+8, is the answer 9, or 18? And where are the codes that show this? Or are you disagreeing with Americanist's encoding explanation?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
==So if he adds 1+8, is the answer 9, or 18? And where are the codes that show this? Or are you disagreeing with Americanist's encoding explanation?

Not disagreeing really. But to me it seems to be easier to explain than the encoding and formulas.

Using the digital root, the same process as numerology and others, you break down everything to the lowest root. So depending on the situation you can be doubling or halving to get the same results. And from these results you get patterns that seem to ring true throughout nature etc...

So without just stating simply 1+8= it would need to be in context. So if we were looking at the 9s table

9x1=9
9x2=18 but 1+8=9 so the = is used to show the end result of the root
9x3=27 2+7=9
9x4=36 3+6=9
9x5
9x6
9x7
and it continues....

but doing this to other numbers whether multiplying or doubling or adding you will see patterns that repeat themselves.

Does that help? That is how my mind sees it.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
i would like to know what rodin's credentials are. I want to find out more about who this man is and what his theories are. I will probably watch the video sometime this week...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by punctual
 


As far as I know he's self-taught. No university degree.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
If you want to learn TRUE Pythagorean mathematics and see its awesome power at work, stop wasting your time with childish jigsaw puzzles and spend the next six months studying the research material and articles at:
smphillips.8m.com...
Their author, Dr Phillips, a theoretical physicist who has studied with Nobel Prize winners. . . has discovered the amazing, mathematical connection between religions and science. His work reveals overwhelming, mathematical evidence for the existence of a Transcendental Intelligence that expresses its Divine perfection in Pythagorean terms. His work also explains how superstrings, music, DNA and sacred geometries are all manifestations of a universal pattern that is prescribed by the ancient Hebrew Divine Names. He has uncovered a new level of Kabbalah never suspected before now, and he has shown that the Pythagorean tetractys is the key which unlocks information about holistic systems that is contained in the geometry of the Tree of Life.

If you are looking for a TRUE "theory of everything" (only it is not a theory!) that applies to all holistic systems, not just subatomic particles, please study his pioneering work at his website.


Has anyone checked out this work?

Is Rodin's system wrong as well as "childish" - making the Rodin Coil a piece of junk and showing that his endorsers are uninformed?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



And this is supposed to help explain how 1+8=18?


No, that is backwards. 9*2=18. 1+8=9

If you are still at 1+8, then I guess since you are using the system, you know it corresponds (--->) to 18. But 1+8 does not equal 18.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Can you explain the rationale for adding 1 and 8?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
No, that is backwards. 9*2=18. 1+8=9

If you are still at 1+8, then I guess since you are using the system, you know it corresponds (--->) to 18. But 1+8 does not equal 18.
So 18 does or does not equal 9? I think you already agreed that it doesn't yet Rodin claims it does.
edit on 20-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is Rodin's system wrong as well as "childish" - making the Rodin Coil a piece of junk and showing that his endorsers are uninformed?
I have something called a "BS detector". If you don't know what I'm talking about, here are some tips in how to develop one:

www.scottberkun.com...#/

Everyone should get one. And some things that your mother should have told you that should set your BS detector off are that if something sounds too good to be true, then maybe it's not true. At best we should be highly skeptical of something fitting that description and demand more proof.

Now I'm going to compare the claims of Marko Rodin to the claims of Kinoki Foot pads: Let's look at the claims of Kinoki foot pads:

www.everydayhealth.com...


Under the heading of “What specific benefits can I expect?” they have the gall to list the following:
Kinoki Detox Foot Pads may help:

• Absorb toxins released by the body.
• Relieve the burden on the immune system.
• Assist in the natural cleansing of the lymphatic system.
• Assist in the extraction of toxins from the body.
• Support normal blood circulation.
• Assist in the extraction of heavy metals from the body.
• Improve quality of sleep.
• Promote vibrant health and wellness.

And then again they “may” not! Nowhere on the site is there even one shred of scientific support for any of their claims.
Now anyone with a finely tuned BS detector would realize this list is too good to be true at a glance, even before doing research and checking for source material. They actually did cite some research but it was totally bogus.

But the FTC got involved and here's what happened:
latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Foot pads — A dirty foot pad may not mean a clean body after all. At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal judge has banned marketers of Kinoki “Detox” Foot Pads from selling a wide variety of products. The FTC had charged that the marketers falsely claimed that the adhesive pads — which users would attach to the soles of their feet — could treat numerous illnesses and medical conditions. In a settlement announced Thursday, a judge banned Yehuda Levin and his company, Xacta 3000 Inc., from selling any dietary supplements, food, drug or medical device. The FTC had accused Levin of falsely claiming that the foot pads removed toxins from the body.
Apparently they couldn't prove their claims to the feds.

Now look at the claims by Marko Rodin:


If that list isn't setting off someone's BS detector, I regret to say the BS detector is seriously broken.
-Inexhaustible energy, end all diseases, unlimited food, travel anywhere in the universe? and all the rest of that list?

Hey if he can do all that I'd love to be proven wrong, but he has no more proof of his outlandish claims than Kinoki foot pads had for their outlandish claims. The main reason the FTC won't stop him like they did Kinoki is, they prioritize by sales volume, number of consumers defrauded, and Rodin isn't on their radar screen at all on that basis.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I have something called a "BS detector".


I'm not interested in your BS detector, but I am interested in your comments about Dr Phillips' work, if you understand it.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Whats this? All multiples of 9 equals 9?

I dont think so.

9 x 3598745695 = 32388711255


dont forget about 11. you know theres a thread on it here somewhere...

1/11/11 11/1/11 etc

there's also something about 13...
Fibonacci numbers...
britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca...
check out the flower vertexs.
edit on 20-1-2011 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


Keep adding the digits of whatever answer you get when you multiply something by 9, and keep repeating the process until you get a 1 digit number. That's probably what he means.

Neat trick, but I have no idea how it'd help for creating unlimited power.
edit on 20-1-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
check out the flower vertexs.


Is there any relationship between a vertex and a vortex?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I have something called a "BS detector".


I'm not interested in your BS detector, but I am interested in your comments about Dr Phillips' work, if you understand it.
Too bad, you really should get one too.

I thought this thread was about Rodin, not Phillips?

Anyway Phillips is a lot smarter and has a lot more on the ball than Rodin, some of his website information is actually correct. And I'd have to agree Rodin's work seems childish in comparison, to agree with the other poster. But I haven't looked at as closely as the referee who commented on his paper, so you may want to see Phillips paper and the referee comments here: www.scientificexploration.org...

The referree comments start on page 38 of 58, and he sounds sympathetic to want to believe but is unconvinced. I'll excerpt a bit here:


Stephen Phillips opens his paper with a sober and sobering discussion of the
difficulties involved in gaining scientific acceptance for so-called "paranormal"
phenomena. Unfortunately, while he is evidently attempting to address
some of those difficulties in his historical analysis of putative observations by
Theosophists A. Besant and C. W. Leadbeater, he appears oblivious both to the
generic pitfalls of such ex post facto analysis, and to the specific flaws of his
own argument. On the whole, it seems that Phillips' paper has weakened,
rather than strengthened, the public case for the existence of micro-psi.
To depart briefly from the traditional third person of scientific discourse -
it should be obvious, if only from my institutional affiliation, that I have no
particular axe to grind against micro-psi as a concept. Indeed, I would welcome
the publication of strong evidence for the reality of such a phenomenon.
It is disappointing to see, in this paper, a few precious nuggets of such evidence
obscured by irrelevant detail and speculative theorizing. Phillips could
have accomplished a great deal more for his subject by abandoning his insistence
on the particular and detailed accuracy of Leadbeater's and Besant's visions.
Observational Evidence and Special Pleading
The worst and most overarching problem with Phillips' presentation is its
reliance on what appears to be special pleading. Where Besant and Leadbeater
are in accordance with current knowledge, their accuracy is quite rightly declared
as evidence for an objective reality behind their subjective visions. But
is the same standard of evaluation applied when their reported images are at
variance with current knowledge? No....

Conclusions
Aside from a few tantalizing bits of historical evidence, "Extrasensory Perception
of Subatomic Particles" consists almost in its entirety of unsupported,
frequently self-contradictory, speculation. The two-body-fusion model of
micro-psi, as discussed above, introduces as many problems as it solves. The
subquark theory, with its baroque elaboration at the superstring level, gives
every appearance of being an ad hoe imposition whose only justification is
that it allows one to interpret every element of Besant's and Leadbeater's perceptions
as physically real. Phillips does not seem to understand that far more
support of micro-psi as a valid experimental tool would be required before its
findings could themselves be used to support such an overburden of speculative
physics. Neither does he seem to understand that, lacking such empirical
support for micro-psi, the theoretical parts of his paper do not strengthen his
position, but instead weaken it, since they appear to be driven not by a priori
theoretical concerns but instead by an effort to vindicate Besant and Leadbeater
in every observational particular.

So here's a colleague of Phillips saying he would like nothing better than for Phillips paper to be true (actually I think it would be pretty cool myself), but unfortunately not only is it not true, but you could use the evidence he presented to draw the opposite conclusion from what Phillips has drawn.

I think Phillips is a very smart guy, but perhaps slightly delusional if you believe anything York Dobyns has to say, and I do find some of Dobyns' claims credible.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by cplouffe
Does that help? That is how my mind sees it.
Thanks for the explanation.

I can follow your thoughts as well as Beebs, but what you guys are saying isn't what Rodin says.

Beebs admitted Rodin probably isn't using the correct symbols, such as Rodin using the "=" sign when he means something else.

The equal sign has a meaning. If Rodin means something else, he should say something else, just like Beebs suggested.





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join