"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Under "About the creator" for this playlist description, there is a link to a document entitled "How the SEG Operates and Eliminates Radiation."

The YouTuber in question is Jason Verbelli and I've just watched another of his videos, which is very thought-provoking. If he is right in what he's saying, it seems to me that textbooks need to be rewritten.

The description for the video:

www.feandft.com...

Some key people to look into:
Walter Russell, Ed Leedskaln, Professor John Searl, Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat, John Keely, Nikola Tesla, Viktor Grebbenikov, Dan Winter, Dr. Masaru Emoto, Cleave Baxter, Viktor Schauberger, Marko Rodin, John Hutchison, Karpen's Pile, Steorn, Wilhelm Mohorn.
.

Read my papers on scribd.com

The Helical Wake of the Sun:
www.scribd.com...

The Fallacy of a Straight Line and Misconception of Black "Holes"
www.scribd.com...

Cartesian Coordinate Misconception and Geometry of Light
www.scribd.com...
.
.
A New Concept of the Universe by Walter Russell:
www.scribd.com...
.
.
Magnetic Current by Ed Leedskalnin
www.scribd.com...

www.Leedskalnin.com...
www.CoralCastleCode.com...
www.Code144.com...
.
.
Please enjoy this video playlist with over 28 hours of material on PROFESSOR JOHN SEARL's work with magnetics, free energy and inverse gravity:
www.YouTube.com...

www.JohnSearlStory.com...
www.SearlSolution.com...
www.SwallowCommand.com...

A Message From Searl Magnetics
www.scribd.com...
.
.
Universal Laws Never Before Revealed by John Keely, Tesla and more:
www.scribd.com...

www.keelynet.com...
.
.
1) All objects travel in a CURVED path unless acted on by an outside force with constant resistance. That Natural path is a Phi Spiral, NOT a straight line.
The shortest distance between 2 points might be a straight line, but an object can still travel to point B faster using the correct proportion Phi spiral even though it's a longer distance. After a certain point within that vortex, the speed at which it travels will exponentially increase.
If the vortex is large enough, you could theoretically arrive at your destination before you even leave point A.

2) The so called "speed of light" is only unique to the speed at which our Comet we call the Sun is traveling through the void. We are measuring particles fly off from the Sun and we run into them as we follow in the Helical Wake.

3) Like a comet, an "electron" is black on one side while all the heat and light trail behind. If that particle is coming straight at you... you can call it a "positron". If it's traveling away from you... you can call it an "electron." It's the same thing just viewed from different angles. A star is to an electron as a black hole is to a positron.

4) Opposites DO NOT attract.
Like potential seeks Like potential. We are viewing the magnetic current flow, NOT Polarity.

5) Work in = Work Out .... but the amount of work and geometric precision you put into making a system will determine the amount of power you reap back.
So if you make standard gears, you'll get standard power.
If you take a year to make one hand made helical part and THEN started up a system using that... you'll see that it runs more efficiently because you put unique ingenuity and much more Human energy than a conventional and standard machine. The work you put in BEFORE you start up your device will determine how much energy you get back from that device. You can't say there is a standard for power in Every device anymore.

Welcome to the 21st Century Reality of Free Energy and a renewal of Ancient Knowledge of the Universe and beyond.

I have A LOT more to present. I tried to cram a bunch in this 15 minute video.
Please add me on Facebook.com/Verbelli

If something has validity, it has a sense of urgency.
--Jason Verbelli

Stated in the video: "What we need is a vortex according to phi."

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Read my papers on scribd.com

The Fallacy of a Straight Line and Misconception of Black "Holes"
www.scribd.com...

I'm reading this one right now and I'm struck by this:

Rainbows are curved because the prism of the Phi Spiraling void is curved.

reply to post by 547000

A continuous wave would be able to show values, no matter how small, as existing. But we only see certain fractions in nature; we cannot detect arbitrarily small fractions of what we want to study. So when we make probability graphs, we are assuming the dots connect. But what we know so far is nature doesn't work that way. There are gaps in the graph. If you say nature is continuous, why can't we detect 1/17th of the wave packet? Why can we only detect certain fractions? It should be possible if nature is a continuous wave. This is where the particle nature becomes obvious.

Zero Point Energy is what you are talking about. It is arbitrarily small, in fact it approaches infinitely less energy density.

We don't see 'fractions', we see discrete organization.

There are no gaps in the graph, it is just extremely less dense.

We aren't looking for '1/17th of a wave packet', so how do you expect us to see it?

And again, it won't be by itself - it will be bound in a coherent wave structure with the rest of the 16/17ths until we smash the bejeezus out of it or shoot a photon at it, at which time the 'subharmonics' will become more apparent by the collapsed information. Otherwise, it is 17/17 and functionally coherent.

This is precisely why I brought up quarks, because nature appears to be fundamentally organized in certain discrete harmonic thirds, and not others such as 55ths and 17ths.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The Fallacy of a Straight Line and Misconception of Black "Holes"
www.scribd.com...

Here's another one:

Cartesian Coordinate systems do not work in 3D space because they deal
with straight lines. (See my paper link above)
They work just fine for our tiny universal frame of reference at this point in
Humanity. But if we wanted to travel really really far, I think we would need
to use a spherical coordinate system or something even more complex
because of Vortation according to Phi. Water doesn’t go down a drain…
water stays put while the universe vortates around it. Think about that one
for a while.

Originally posted by beebs
The energy is at any place in this area. Until we touch it. I will elaborate a bit more on the analogy of the situation as a string vibrating, and when we touch the string the vibration stops. Our observation/measurement of the location/momentum is the point at which the skin on our finger comes into contact with the string.

Before we touched it, the location/momentum of energy was in a coherent 'superposition' in a standing wave structure of whatever wavelength/frequency the string was vibrating at. When we touch it, there is no more superposition or standing wave structure, the system is changed into a decoherent and collapsed one. The energy that was in the string before is now dissipated through the fingertip and environment.

I will only answer to this part for now as I think it is the most relevant. This is where I think the idea that an actual real wave exists goes totally wrong. Lets keep it simple and look at a single slit experiment. Take a look at the following image:

micro.magnet.fsu.edu...

You can see that after the slit, the wave propagates in a circular shape. Now we can ask which point of this wave will hit the screen first: it is the exact center, where the "P" is in the image. So if this is the place where the wave hits the screen first, this is also the place where the wave collapses, according to your argumentation. So shouldn't this also be the place where the observation of a particle is made? How do you explain that observations are also made in different places?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading this one right now and I'm struck by this:

Rainbows are curved because the prism of the Phi Spiraling void is curved.

I explained why they're curved a few posts back. Here's more:

Why are rainbows curved as semicircles?

The rainbow is curved because the set of all the raindrops that have the right angle between you, the drop, and the sun lie on a cone pointing at the sun with you at one tip. The rainbow may look semicircular if the sun is setting or rising (a good time to see a rainbow because the sunlight at that time can get under rain clouds because it is traveling horizontally). If the sun is higher in the sky, the earth gets in the way and you may see less than a semicircular rainbow.

More: Rainbow

The cause is fully described without any "Phi Spiraling void".

reply to post by beebs


Your idea of what constitutes a continuum is strange. Density is precisely what makes something a continuum. Otherwise you are just connecting the dots and assuming continuity, which is imprecise. Think of the difference between an infinite summation and an integral from calculus II.

Have you thought about why despite being continuous, you cannot observe intermediate values (think about why continuity implies this), but only special multiples? That's a sign right there that the assumption of continuity fails, and you're trying to reconcile that by making a more complicated theory. In either case, experiments show that nature is discrete. Without evidence of density, you're putting a more general assumption that may not be warranted, which experiments do not show.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by beebs

 

Your idea of what constitutes a continuum is strange. Density is precisely what makes something a continuum. Otherwise you are just connecting the dots and assuming continuity, which is imprecise. Think of the difference between an infinite summation and an integral from calculus II.

Have you thought about why despite being continuous, you cannot observe intermediate values (think about why continuity implies this), but only special multiples? That's a sign right there that the assumption of continuity fails, and you're trying to reconcile that by making a more complicated theory. In either case, experiments show that nature is discrete. Without evidence of density, you're putting a more general assumption that may not be warranted, which experiments do not show.

You're missing it... You strike a key on the piano and only hear one note doesn't discount all strings vibrating along, or the fact chord progression gels. Spun density is an orchestra. Melodies are patterned within chord structure. What you're lacking perhaps is a modest background in music theory.

You might as well subscribe have solipsism syndrome, because unless you can detect this hidden phenomenon experimentally, anything goes. For all you know all this everything is a wave theory is wrong, because you can't detect the implied continuity. Without any evidence it's just speculation. Occam's razor suggests what to do in a case like this. Unless there is something about this that can be verified or denied experimentally?

Originally posted by 547000
You might as well subscribe have solipsism syndrome, because unless you can detect this hidden phenomenon experimentally, anything goes. For all you know all this everything is a wave theory is wrong, because you can't detect the implied continuity. Without any evidence it's just speculation. Occam's razor suggests what to do in a case like this. Unless there is something about this that can be verified or denied experimentally?

edit on 3-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

Apply Occam's razor to the quote in my signature file, and you'll recognize knowledge base as well as points in space. Speculation or theory... Take your pick. In this case we've been chasing everything from dark matter to dark flow in order to plug the holes. What we should be entirely focused on is aspect ratios to known structures. When the smoke clears you'll view nature for what it truly is. An organized map.

reply to post by Mary Rose


You gotta like this guy:

www.youtube.com...

Beebs, I finally was able to find where his quote came from:

reply to post by Americanist


Yeah, its kind of his 'meme signature' because he is fully aware of the controversy over his work. What he has come to find, is a similar story to Tesla, Keely, Reich, etc. I've heard him say it in a couple different videos. I highly recommend taking the time to watch The John Searl Story, very well made, and helps explain some of the spike in UFO sightings in the 50's, 60's.

He knows he isn't crazy, and that the lack of attention/suppression of his work is due to others' ignorance and immorality - not his own.

This is the one thing that allows for revolutionary progress in such a stale and neurotic institution - namely the confident ability to think openly and clearly.

reply to post by -PLB-

You can see that after the slit, the wave propagates in a circular shape. Now we can ask which point of this wave will hit the screen first: it is the exact center, where the "P" is in the image. So if this is the place where the wave hits the screen first, this is also the place where the wave collapses, according to your argumentation. So shouldn't this also be the place where the observation of a particle is made? How do you explain that observations are also made in different places?

Well, it is the place we measure the 'collapsed' values. I am not sure whether or not the surrounding ripples in space(that have not interacted with the detector) actually cease to exist... this seems to be a good point for further investigation/discussion.

But as of right now, I think the prevailing interpretation would say that what happens is that the wave function superposition of the particle 'realizes' out of probability at the foremost edge of the spherical propagation when it encounters the detector.

Either way the detector is certainly the place where the observation of a 'particle' is made, because we can't measure it until we interact with it.

If observations are made in different places, of the same wave function, even after the leading edge interaction with the detector, then that would appear to be in favor of the WSM interpretation... wouldn't it?

But is that graph for a beam of light? Or one 'particle' at a time?

See, you have brought up one of the best points so far in the argument compared to the 'experts'.

reply to post by 547000

Your idea of what constitutes a continuum is strange. Density is precisely what makes something a continuum. Otherwise you are just connecting the dots and assuming continuity, which is imprecise. Think of the difference between an infinite summation and an integral from calculus II.

Have you thought about why despite being continuous, you cannot observe intermediate values (think about why continuity implies this), but only special multiples? That's a sign right there that the assumption of continuity fails, and you're trying to reconcile that by making a more complicated theory. In either case, experiments show that nature is discrete. Without evidence of density, you're putting a more general assumption that may not be warranted, which experiments do not show.

There isn't just a 0 or 1 value when it comes to density... Well, I guess there is, but there is nothing that has no density.

Nature, or this dimension at least, approaches infinitely less energy density in the case of ZPE, and perhaps approaching infinitely more energy density in the case of something like a black hole or 'singularity'.

Why is there no intermediate values? Well besides those of ZPE... I guess it is because waves are quantized in periodicity, wavelength, frequency. 1/4 of a wave is not a full quantum, therefore it is something else and not 1/4. Perhaps this is related to radiation/decay?

This theory is certainly not as complicated as you make it out to be. In fact it is the most logical, and the simplest possible explanation.

That is one of the bones Feynman, and his henchmen, pick with Schrodinger's universe. They just want to accept the crazy irrational stuff - then they can claim the esoteric throne of the dogma because no normal people (rightly so) can understand how the theory matches experienced reality at all.

Not sure what you mean by no evidence of density...

A related bit from the wiki:

In probability theory, a probability density function (pdf), or density of a continuous random variable is a function that describes the relative likelihood for this random variable to occur at a given point. The probability for the random variable to fall within a particular region is given by the integral of this variable’s density over the region. The probability density function is nonnegative everywhere, and its integral over the entire space is equal to one.

But the density fluctuates between the infinite extremes.

Originally posted by beebs
Well, it is the place we measure the 'collapsed' values. I am not sure whether or not the surrounding ripples in space(that have not interacted with the detector) actually cease to exist... this seems to be a good point for further investigation/discussion.

We know for quite certain that once the observation of the particle (or the wave collapsing as you call it) is made, no subsequence observation is made, and all the energy it accounted for.

But as of right now, I think the prevailing interpretation would say that what happens is that the wave function superposition of the particle 'realizes' out of probability at the foremost edge of the spherical propagation when it encounters the detector.

Either way the detector is certainly the place where the observation of a 'particle' is made, because we can't measure it until we interact with it.

If observations are made in different places, of the same wave function, even after the leading edge interaction with the detector, then that would appear to be in favor of the WSM interpretation... wouldn't it?

I would say the opposite. It seems to me it can only be explained if the particle was also a particle before it hit the screen. If it were a wave, it would always hit the screen at the same place. If it were a particle that is somehow redirected, it can hit the screen anywhere.

But is that graph for a beam of light? Or one 'particle' at a time?

Both if you look at it as a probability distribution. It doesn't matter if it is a beam or a single particle, the distribution is the same.

See, you have brought up one of the best points so far in the argument compared to the 'experts'.

I am always up for constructive discussion . You don't seem close minded to me, although in some occasion (like with Searl) you seem to lose a critical eye over things. So I kinda do understand where those "experts" are coming from.

Wasted (4:24)
- Cartel

www.playlist.com...

Slightly hidden meaning, but just for the record...

"We're all Wasted."

reply to post by beebs


By density I mean you can observe infinite values. For example the set of rational numbers is dense because given any fractional value, you can construct a number that is arbitrarily small in distance from any number, and there are infinite numbers in the continuum: given a value a you can construct a number (a - 1/10) or (a - 1/1000000000000000000000000000000). They are both valid and they are both rational numbers. Real numbers, of course, inherit this property; they are also dense, in fact denser. But to say something is "less dense" or "more dense" can only work if the set of elements fulfills this density property. Again, that you can only observe certain fractions shows only that the hypothesis that it is dense is not necessarily fulfilled; it's an assumption because we don't observe in practice. The particle nature explains it perfectly, but the wave nature does not: you have to make up rules that you can only observe certain harmonics; but why would this be the case if it is indeed continuous? Sound like fudging with the theory to make it fit where you want it to. What's worse is it doesn't seem to be falsifiable presently.

I've come across a YouTube video of an interview of David Ash, who, like Rodin is self-taught and has combined religion and science in his work. I'm posting this because of Ash's focus on the vortex, and, the thoughts he expresses about the nature of particles.

Here are the notes that I took re. the video:

1. The vortex creates an illusion.
   
2. The spin creates stay-putness. (The static inertia of mass. The seeming solidity of the particle.)
   
3. The vortex has no surface; it just gets thinner and thinner: The vortex extends into infinity.
   
4. The thick vortex energy at the center is what we perceive as a sub-atomic particle.
   
5. The thin vortex energy is what we perceive as space: as electric charge, as magnetism.
   
6. Energy is not a thing; it's more like a thought.
   
7. So, all we really have is the movement.
   
8. The speed of light is just the speed of movement. Everything is relative to movement.
   
9. The universe is more a thought than a thing.
   
10. The consciousness underlying particles is indivisible.
    

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Cartesian Coordinate systems do not work in 3D space because they deal
with straight lines. (See my paper link above)
They work just fine for our tiny universal frame of reference at this point in
Humanity. But if we wanted to travel really really far, I think we would need
to use a spherical coordinate system or something even more complex
because of Vortation according to Phi. Water doesn’t go down a drain…
water stays put while the universe vortates around it. Think about that one
for a while.

At least the first part of that agrees with relativity, the coordinate system used for relativity isn't for 3D space, but for 4D space-time with time being sort of a 4th dimension:

physics.about.com...

Spacetime is a four-dimensional coordinate system containing three spatial dimensions and one time dimension...

The concept of a spacetime coordinate system was introduced in 1907, two years after Einstein originally proposed the theory of special relativity. Hermann Minkowski, a former professor of Einstein, presented the idea of this spacetime coordinate system. The ideas were inherent in Einstein's version of the theory, but he hadn't thought of it that way. In a 1908 talk called "Space and Time," Minkowski elaborated on these concepts and they began to gain popularity.

Because of Minkowski's involvement that coordinate system is sometimes referred to as "Minkowski Space-time"
And since gravity warps space-time, light does follow the contours of the space-time warped by gravity. So some of that is actually sort of true if you use a generous enough interpretation.

But using a polar coordinate system instead of cartesian doesn't change the direction of light. Conversion between the two is a simple trignonmetric function:

math.info...

The polar coordinates r and θ can be converted to the Cartesian coordinates x and y by using the trigonometric functions sine and cosine:

x = r sin θ
y = r cos θ

Furthermore, the x and y Cartesian coordinates may be converted to the polar coordinate r using the following:

r2 = x2 + y2

If you can understand those simple conversion formulae, you will see there's nothing about the conversion that will affect the direction of light. But in Minkowski space-time and in general relativity gravity certainly can and does curve light. Here's a picture of light being curved by gravity:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c989478b2d72.png[/atsimg]
I drew ellipses around the stretched out shapes that are caused by the gravity of the supercluster (shown by the arrows).

Edit to add: here's a little video explaining why light doesn't travel in a straight line (the real reason):
Alex Filippenko on gravitational bending of light


Now I thought about this part of that quote: "Water doesn’t go down a drain…water stays put while the universe vortates around it." So if there are 100 different drains around Earth in different locations, and water is going down the drain in all of them at once, does that mean the universe is vortating in 100 different directions at once? How is that possible?