It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 63
39
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 07:41 AM

I laugh at people with an attitude.

When people on the thread drop the ridicule, we can begin having a real discussion.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 08:42 AM
I like the Jason Verbelli video "Rings of Energy - Spin Forces - Magnetic Observations and Mainstream Misconceptions Part 1." It helps to explain the SEG.

From the description for the video:

. . . Thermodynamics and Conservation (Physics) without Cryodynamics and Liberation (Magnetics) is like Male with no Female. . . .

An object in orbit, ( O ) around a fulcrum, ( . ) will gain weight 180 degrees opposite its fulcrum and equal in proportion to the Centripetal spin force initiating / maintaining that orbit.

That weight will shift to always remain 180 degrees to it's fulcrum while on the zero point of the x axis. (Ring of weight)

And since all motion is Polarized, this will result in a N / S establishing themselves on top and bottom of that ring.
Orbit = added weight = electricity = heat = resistance = inertia ( I )

Centripetal Spin = less / inverse weight = Magnetism = cold =
zero resistance ( Ω / ω )

North and South poles of a magnet are indication of the MOVEMENT of the flux.
NOT POLARITY.

The Negative Polarity on the top is circulating in while the Negative Polarity on the bottom is circulating out.

THE CIRCULATION OF FLUX IS NOT THE SAME AS POLARITY.

The vortex created by whatever is spinning in a Centripetal fashion is SUCKING IN both top and bottom of the Magnet.
But the movement of the flux itself is folding inward at the top of the toroid (donut) and looping back around to fold in the top again.

THE PATH OF THE FLUX ITSELF IS NOT THE SAME PATH AS OBJECTS WITHIN THAT FLUX. . . .

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 08:49 AM

How are your lens not tainted? What about the physicists who disagree with your point of view? You blanket accuse them of not being able to think for themselves because they disagree with your metaphysics. Why don't you have an open mind and consider your ideas might be wrong? Or does the trait of open-mindedness belong only to people who disagree with establishment views?

1. My lens is tainted, I have admitted this from the very beginning of my conversation with Arb and Bud. My lens is just more comprehensive. They do not admit that my lens is just as good, in fact better than their own for interpreting the physical world. I have successfully defended this standpoint for at least a year now, if I'm not mistaken, and my case is only getting stronger as the historical figures and modern thinkers continue to pile up in support.

2. There is a difference between physicists who disagree with a type of WSM interpretation, and those that deny it. There is a difference between physicists who are aware that their lens is tainted, and ones who think their lens is the only correct one. There is a difference between physicists who critically think about historical theoretical presuppositions, and physicists who blindly apply dogma with blatant disregard for the difference between mathematical models and reality.

3. I do have an open mind, and consider daily whether or not I am right or wrong, and am amazed at how I am continually persuaded towards the WSM interpretation over Copenhagen interpretation. I humbly ask Arb and Bud to consider the same - but to them every person that suggests such a thing is mentally handicapped.

4. Open-mindedness and critical thinking of established theories is a necessary trait of a good scientist. However, when a person has a prominent role in an established institution, their career is a direct conflict of interest to open-mindedness and critical thinking of established theories. I recommend two books: The Case Against the Nuclear Atom by Dewey Larson, and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:00 AM

I am amazed by the disdain you show towards mathematical reasoning yet still espouse a WSM interpretation which is WHOLLY mathematical. Particles are actually observed, while considering it all to be a wave is filling in gaps which may not be justifiable in the end without experimental verification.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:01 AM

But it's more ridiculous than that! I can prove that the silly claims in this thread are WRONG, therefore it's a non-starter for an ignoramus like you. And just for the record, I'm not a former physics teacher, I was an instructor at a university when I went to graduate school.

Teflon does not conduct electricity. A magnet does not act as a "diode". There is no black hole inside the atomic nucleus. The more you keep repeating these mantras, the further you progress on the road to laughing stock. And you've gone a long way, baby.

No you can't, because you haven't taken the time to fully understand what the claims are in the first place.

And I believe Arb is a former teacher, if my memory is correct. Not everything is about you.

I didn't say anything about teflon in that post... why didn't you respond to any of the other parts in my post? Oh yeah... because it threatens your entire paradigm and mental character structure...

And besides, didn't someone already mention the dielectric properties of teflon? It is specifically being used as a type of 'dam' for EM energy in the SEG, Searl has mentioned this. Case closed.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:06 AM
I agree with what Jason Verbelli says at the beginning of "Rings of Energy - Spin Forces - Magnetic Observations and Mainstream Misconceptions Part 2":

"It was disheartening to learn Michio Kaku denies the work of Professor John Searl. . . . had never heard of Walter Russell, refused to acknowledge Coral Castle and the work of Ed Leedskalnin, never heard of Marko Rodin, and said 'perpetual motion and free energy is impossible.'

"Not all mainstream heroes are as heroic as we might think. . . . "

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:10 AM

I am amazed by the disdain you show towards mathematical reasoning yet still espouse a WSM interpretation which is WHOLLY mathematical. Particles are actually observed, while considering it all to be a wave is filling in gaps which may not be justifiable in the end without experimental verification.

I have disdain for confusing mathematical models with reality.

Math, in its benign form, is essential for science and humankind.

There is good math, and bad math.

There are good interpretations of mathematical descriptions, and bad interpretations of mathematical descriptions.

Particles are not actually observed - that is a bad interpretation of an observation through the lens of a certain mathematical description and theoretical model.

I would rather interpret the probability distribution of 'particles' as cymatic values of space.

Math will continue to be a useful tool, but the language we use to interpret what the math says is forever limiting.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:16 AM

Originally posted by beebs
And I believe Arb is a former teacher, if my memory is correct.

Yes.

From the "Free Physics E-book" thread:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Mary Rose

Hey we have something in common then! I was teaching university freshmen part time in courses that have lots of formulas but I had to stop because of my travel schedule, but since I'm not traveling as much anymore I might start again.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:47 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Thanks, good to know my memory was still functioning properly!

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 10:00 AM

Are you tying to be ironic or are you just not aware that this whole WSM deal is just an elaborate mathematical model? No, particles are an excellent model, and they predict many things that have been confirmed. If you took your time reading texts on mathematics you would be aware of the limitations of mathematical theories and it would be quite obvious particles are the best way to model reality, because nature does not act continuous. You have to create a whole ulterior theory of why nature behaves like particles despite being a wave. Again, what would the theory predict that can be validated, except for one's personal philosophical preferences? It seems like the only thing that determines whether an idea is correct or not is whether its accepted by most scientists. If it's not, it must be correct and cutting edge! Or why else would you argue for Haramein's silly claim that there is a black hole within every atom?

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 10:25 AM

Originally posted by beebs
And besides, didn't someone already mention the dielectric properties of teflon?

Yes they did. It was me.

It is specifically being used as a type of 'dam' for EM energy in the SEG, Searl has mentioned this. Case closed.

If you did go through the pain of reading Searl's rubbish, you would have noticed that piece of completely insane rubbish that I feel I need to remind you of:

The dam itself is the dielectric material Teflon.
The electrons will accelerate from the rare earth material in an organized fashion
through the teflon like water shooting out of a pressurized and controlled hole
in a dam.
The teflon can only hold back so much electron pressure just like a dam can only
hold so much water pressure.
The electrons will pass through the teflon into the ferrite permanent magnet
layer where they are accelerated outward in a ring. The magnets act as the diode
and one way valve.

So according to that demented Searl person, the electrons DO pass through teflon.

Then, you accuse me of wanting to be spoon fed information. What bullsh!t! It is me who actually READS this and analyzes details of this poor excuse of physics discourse, and doesn't just swallow this dung line, hook and sinker as you and Mary do.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 10:29 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
So according to that demented Searl person . . .

You apparently have not the capacity to restrain yourself.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 10:36 AM

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 10:57 AM

I see you have posted a hit piece.

Sigh.

How much time will be consumed analyzing vitriolic ad hominems?

None, by me.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Read the whole document. You might learn a thing or two. Especially the part on polarization.

But of course, it's just a hit piece, because even though his research is bull# his character is not a dead give away.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:10 AM

Are you tying to be ironic or are you just not aware that this whole WSM deal is just an elaborate mathematical model? No, particles are an excellent model, and they predict many things that have been confirmed. If you took your time reading texts on mathematics you would be aware of the limitations of mathematical theories and it would be quite obvious particles are the best way to model reality, because nature does not act continuous. You have to create a whole ulterior theory of why nature behaves like particles despite being a wave. Again, what would the theory predict that can be validated, except for one's personal philosophical preferences? It seems like the only thing that determines whether an idea is correct or not is whether its accepted by most scientists. If it's not, it must be correct and cutting edge! Or why else would you argue for Haramein's silly claim that there is a black hole within every atom?

How we interpret the math is the primary factor of disagreement. It is no more elaborate than the Copenhagen interpretation, and it is much more intuitive and simple.

You don't have to agree with WSM, but you do have to acknowledge that it is a viable alternative to your own interpretation.

Nature does act continuous, in a discrete fashion. This is not mutually exclusive, in the same manner that finite and infinite are not mutually exclusive - when we reconcile them in a fractal.

And please, we already have the theories and math trying to explain why waves behave like particles... Copenhagen just says that they are BOTH. WSM says it is only waves.

WSM predicts wave behavior of what we call 'particles'. It predicts quantums, and the structure/geometry of probability densities. It predicts that phenomenon like superposition will be measured and misinterpreted as particles being in more than one place.

Its fine if you want all of the irrational complex quantum quirks, but I just think they are unnecessary abstractions built upon faulty presuppositions and lack of critical thinking about the foundational theories.

I argue for my own particular interpretations, which follow those of Schrodinger, Wolff, Larson, Tesla, Keely... which are more comprehensive than your own. IMO.

How do you account for the 'strong force'? Are you aware that there are a number of attempts to reconcile this through quantum gravity models? What is an electron, and how do we know its a real physical particle?

Your rhetorics are lacking in knowledge of current and historical context on the issues.

Haramein is doing just fine on his own, no need to bring him into this.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:17 AM

Can electromagnetic waves pass through teflon? How about around?

So according to that demented Searl person, the electrons DO pass through teflon.

Then, you accuse me of wanting to be spoon fed information. What bullsh!t! It is me who actually READS this and analyzes details of this poor excuse of physics discourse, and doesn't just swallow this dung line, hook and sinker as you and Mary do.

Just because Searl may get his interpretation of the phenomenon wrong, doesn't mean there isn't a phenomenon.

And don't even try to elbow yourself higher by alluding to the fact that you read what Mary posted, because you are missing the primary source material of Searl's words themselves in videos and interviews of him and his work.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:29 AM

dis·crete
/dɪˈskrit/ Show Spelled[dih-skreet] Show IPA
1.
apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts.
2.
consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; discontinuous.
3.
Mathematics .
a.
(of a topology or topological space) having the property that every subset is an open set.
b.
defined only for an isolated set of points: a discrete variable.
c.
using only arithmetic and algebra; not involving calculus: discrete methods.

Yes, they are mutually exclusive. Just because an infinite limit approaches a finite value doesn't mean they aren't mutually exclusive. The keyword is it is a LIMITING process that joins the two. Again, you should be able to detect ANY fraction of a particle if it were the case, even the transition from not a particle to it's a goddamned particle. But you can't do it so you have to invent an ulterior explanation as to why not. Cyc-whatchamacallits.

I see you happily standing on a perch decrying math-based physics but you don't even seem to understand the implications of continuity or that before you can apply a wave-based model you need to understand the mathematical implications thereof.
edit on 8-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:42 AM

Yeah, I read the part on the polarization... pretty bad rep for Bearden after that one. I never heard of the guy until a few weeks ago. Although it doesn't mean all of his theories are complete junk. I don't know enough about him to comment further, but he is not in the same caliber as Schrodinger, Wolff, or Tesla, obviously.

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:50 AM

Haha some formatting thing must have went awry, but I see you are ridiculing the term 'cymatics'.

After you do an expose on the term 'discrete'... I would think you would have the ability to look up cymatics too...

But seriously, I see your point about my use of the term discrete.

What I probably mean, is a quantized continuum which appears discrete.

top topics

39