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: 64
39
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Yeah, I read the part on the polarization... pretty bad rep for Bearden after that one . . .


Please elaborate.

And have you viewed the 8 part interview of him?

He has a ton to say about electromagnetics and history and the need for an overhaul of the model that is used for engineering.




posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


No, I only made it to part 2 the other day.

I will have to take a look at it then, it might be a while as I have other priorities first... but as of right now I am going off of the quote from Mr. Anderson - I too want to know how polarization works in Scalar theory.

But it is an open-ended discussion, perhaps for another thread. We go off on all kinds of tangents here that could easily be separate threads haha... perhaps we should start doing them separately just because.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
I will have to take a look at it then, it might be a while as I have other priorities first... but as of right now I am going off of the quote from Mr. Anderson


This would be the Mr. Anderson who accuses Mr. Bearden of being bipolar? Or did I not scan well enough?



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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


Jason Verbelli's words.

My posts have indicated numerous examples of challenges to mainstream science - yes - I find the sources I quote very credible.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


No, I don't think so. The author of that paper quotes some other testimony that was posted on KeelyNet regarding polarization vs. Bearden's supposedly longitudinal scalar waves. But I will have to do more research on Bearden.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 547000
 


I see you have posted a hit piece.

Sigh.


You know, "Sigh" seems to be the only function of your body and mind (to the extent they exist) that registered in this thread. You can't read basic math and/or physics, and it just goes without a sigh, moan, grunt or comment.
Zero, dead cold zero. Zombie on ice.

edit on 8-4-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by buddhasystem
 
I'll give you both mad props, if you can go out and balance a 9-ton swivel door all by your lonesome with no heavy machinery.
I've studied the work of Wally Wallington who moves huge stones with "sticks and stones" and plans to reproduce a model of Stonehenge using those methods. I think I could do what he's doing after watching him do it. But he's at a disadvantage to Ed Leedskalnin, since he's not using the more advanced block and tackle technology Leedskalnin is seen using in this photograph:

Leedskalnin even had a smaller block and tackle to haul up the heavier block and tackle.
More pics of Ed and his lifting hoists at themanyfacesofspaces.com

I've been to Coral Castle and personally seen the stone you're talking about, it did swivel at one time but it didn't when I was there. The Pivot was made from a Ford Model "T" rear Axle and I guess it eventually wore out, I don't know if they've repaired it since I was there.

I do give Leedskalnin the same admiration I have for Wally Wallington, as it does take some ingenuity to move huge stones around all by yourself. But don't think that just because YOU don't know how to do it, that Wally Wallington, Ed Leedskalnin or myself couldn't do it. Leedskalnin is working with much more advanced technology in that photo than Wallington uses.

And in spite of his abilities to move huge stones, the pamphlets that he sold like "magnetic current" are pretty junky. I can see why folks are impressed with Tesla because of his real contributions to modern technology like AC current, but I think similar admiration for Leedskalnin is grossly misplaced.

Compare his books, that seem to be at an 8th grade level, like this one:

Magnetic Current
p39 of the pdf says: "To make a stronger magnet yet, you would have to - wind more layers on top of the coil you have now", referring to an electromagnet.


To engineering feats like the generators installed at the Hoover Dam 9 years Earlier:

Let me ask you, do you think the guys that designed and built the Hoover dam generators already knew what effect more windings would have? But it is in fact a true statement, and he does talk through some simple experiments, but there's also some woo in there about perpetual motion.

I'll give you and beebs props if you build his perpetual motion thingie on page 34, and report back to us in the thread here after you've used it to create your own power, and take yourself off the grid. Good luck.

And regarding suppression of free energy technology, I gave you the pdf link, nobody's suppressing it, knock yourself out having fun with it!


Cheers



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
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.

I do not think people that have a differing interpretation than the Copenhagen interpretation are mentally handicapped.

I'm not "married to" the Copenhagen interpretation. Actually the only thing I'm "married to" are the observations, they should be something we all agree on. When I have doubts about my interpretation, as I do with the Copenhagen interpretation, the only thing I have to fall back on that I don't have doubts about are the observations. I think reasonable people can and do have other interpretations than the Copenhagen interpretation.

One such example is the "many-worlds" interpretation. I can't say it's wrong, and I can't say it necessarily disagrees with observation. But what it will take to make me prefer such an interpretation, would be some evidence of the existence of the "many worlds". I used to like watching a TV show called "sliders", sort of a takeoff on the many worlds interpretation, where people could travel to the alternate universes. So it's a fun idea, as that TV show portrayed, but where's the evidence.

The video I posted about Skewed views of science (did you watch it? It's only 10 minutes unlike the hours you asked me to watch) talks about three levels a theory can have relative to observation (2:24 in the video):
1-Supported by evidence
2-Not supported by evidence
3-Refuted by evidence

The many worlds interpretation isn't refuted by evidence, but until I see evidence of the many worlds I can't say it's supported by evidence. I have to go with option 2, not supported by evidence yet, though maybe it has been and I just haven't seen the evidence, or maybe the evidence is yet to be discovered. I haven't ruled it out, since it's not refuted by evidence.

Regarding the WSM model, I've watched the dialog you've engaged in here and when pressed for answers about the model, you seem uncertain about exactly what your WSM consists of. So until you can define it more clearly and answer the questions about how you reconcile it with observational evidence, it's hard to judge something that appears to be ill-defined.

I've read WSM speculation on the internet, like this site:

WSM The thinking is muddled, refers to metaphysics and philosophy more than physics and hard evidence. And in one place it lists a long list of names which reminded me of you:

Founded on Ideas of Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Spinoza, Huygens, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Einstein, Planck, Schrodinger, de Broglie, Feynman, Wolff, Haselhurst.
There are several problems with that, not the least of which is, how many of those folks were even privy to the observations we have available to us today?

Plato and Aristotle may be great sources for discussing philosophy, but please, how could they know anything about quantum mechanical observations? Did they do the double slit experiment? Study the photoelectric effect? Work with particle accelerators? We have observations today they probably didn't even conceive of. So let's explain the observations, if we can, and stop listing a bunch of names of dead people as if it means something when many of them didn't even know about the observations we have today.

Here are some other alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation:
en.wikipedia.org...

The Ensemble Interpretation is similar; it offers an interpretation of the wave function, but not for single particles. The consistent histories interpretation advertises itself as "Copenhagen done right". Consciousness causes collapse is often confused with the Copenhagen interpretation.

If the wave function is regarded as ontologically real, and collapse is entirely rejected, a many worlds theory results. If wave function collapse is regarded as ontologically real as well, an objective collapse theory is obtained. Dropping the principle that the wave function is a complete description results in a hidden variable theory.

Many physicists have subscribed to the instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics, a position often equated with eschewing all interpretation. It is summarized by the sentence "Shut up and calculate!". While this slogan is sometimes attributed to Paul Dirac[19] or Richard Feynman, it is in fact due to the lesser known David Mermin.
I think the instrumentalist interpretation is more of a lack of interpretation, right? If we can all make the same observations repeatably, then the observations may be the only thing we can agree on for sure.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
This guy Robert Arnett Otey of "Free Energy and Free Thinking" is a thorough researcher with a heart in the right place, in my opinion:



Vortex Basics and Fractals from the Subatomic to the Super Galactic



. . . This is the evidence describing the Vortex nature of our curved and divided, Electric Universe of appearances, from the so-called "sub-atomic" to the super-galactic, as opposed to the four dimensional, curved space and time of einstein's imagination. This site details the cause of our Universe of appearances due to the optical nature of gravity controlled light, which pushes and pulls electricity and its resultant magnetism into vortices of expansion or compression, thereby creating all of the various conditions of matter and energy witnessed by mankind through our limited senses and technical instruments.

The history of suppression of knowledge and inventions by the global elite and the mechanisms and machinations by which they operate in plain view, without being noticed by the populous at large, will be thoroughly addressed in the many links found upon this page as well as links to the many recent findings which validate this Cosmology of Light.

I have woven together many disparate theories found in the links from this web page, which interface with one another in their central tenets, relating to vortices. The various theorists are describing similar perceptions of the mechanics of our Universe according to different terms at times and from different levels of observation at others. The point of my work here is to show via the latest discoveries, the similarity of all these alternative and dissenting theories which are diametrically opposed to the physics as taught by corporate academia.

These theories have born technologies, which will free us from the present pyramidal systems of control administered by the global elite, central bankers, energy barons, and war mongers. When the people of this planet finally understand this dissenting science, they will demand the immediate release and production of all free energy machines for the benefit of mankind as a whole. . . .



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I like this curmudgeon:




posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
6 I don't believe Marko Rodin's Vortex-Base-Math works. He admitted it himself to Lee Burton. Vortex-Base-Math is incomplete and ERROR. Now I Ching Math is Complete.

Here are some of his videos:

Lo Shu found in 123 Field Lattice Matrix I Ching Fractal SPOKE Plains.
www.youtube.com...

I Ching- Shangri la 9 stack mountain Lo Shu c5 Holographic Indras net field.wmv
www.youtube.com...

Lo Shu Magic square origins Shemhamporash and 'Prometheus rising' coil..wmv
www.youtube.com...




edit on 9-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: language spelling

edit on 9-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: lost text



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I don't Marko Rodin's Vortex Base Math works because he admitted it himself to Lee Burton.
Interesting!

Where and when did he admit it? Source?



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




"Only the I Ching finished where vortex math limits Marko knows this and told me i have done what he never did."
- Lee Burton (Lived Live) on link: forum.davidicke.com...


Beware false prophets! ------>>>> Marko Rodin

Here is Lee Burton's youtube channel: www.youtube.com...


edit on 9-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: adding material youtube



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN
 
Thanks for the links!

It's not exactly a first-hand admission by Rodin, it's more like hearsay, so I guess it would mean more if Rodin said it himself.

But I looked up the Luo Shu after watching your link and found this:
Luo Shu

It looks like the same thing as Rodin's Torus, and it says "A Lo Shu Torus, Courtesy of Lee Burton" So they're both using the same torus, that they both got from the Lo Shu? Or is there a difference I'm not seeing?



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN
 
Thanks for the links!

It's not exactly a first-hand admission by Rodin, it's more like hearsay, so I guess it would mean more if Rodin said it himself.

But I looked up the Luo Shu after watching your link and found this:
Luo Shu

It looks like the same thing as Rodin's Torus, and it says "A Lo Shu Torus, Courtesy of Lee Burton" So they're both using the same torus, that they both got from the Lo Shu? Or is there a difference I'm not seeing?



The difference between a Rodin Torus and Lo Shu Torus is that the Rodin Torus only produces a limited torus which unlike in the lo shu torus, more torus are produced. I guessed I should e-mail lee burton to see if Rodin did really admit it to him. But you went to the wrong link. Go to lee's website:
loshumatrix.webs.com...
I linked you to the torus paged he produced.

loshumatrix.webs.com...
loshumatrix.webs.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I guessed I should e-mail lee burton to see if Rodin did really admit it to him.
You already provided the post by Lee Burton, so Rodin is the one you'd need to e-mail if you wanted to confirm that's what he said.


Go to lee's website:
loshumatrix.webs.com...
He's got more than Rodin!

I went to your links, but I found some others on my own. I was trying to see if I could figure out who was copying what from who/what.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I guessed I should e-mail lee burton to see if Rodin did really admit it to him.
You already provided the post by Lee Burton, so Rodin is the one you'd need to e-mail if you wanted to confirm that's what he said.


Go to lee's website:
loshumatrix.webs.com...
He's got more than Rodin!

I went to your links, but I found some others on my own. I was trying to see if I could figure out who was copying what from who/what.


What exactly is your point, Lee Burton did his own work with cooperation from friend Paul Martin Smith. He didn't copy the work of Rodin, even Lee said Rodin started off of the I Ching. Did you even read what Lee Burton wrote on his site.
edit on 9-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: additional info



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

There are several problems with that, not the least of which is, how many of those folks were even privy to the observations we have available to us today?

Plato and Aristotle may be great sources for discussing philosophy, but please, how could they know anything about quantum mechanical observations? Did they do the double slit experiment? Study the photoelectric effect? Work with particle accelerators? We have observations today they probably didn't even conceive of. So let's explain the observations, if we can, and stop listing a bunch of names of dead people as if it means something when many of them didn't even know about the observations we have today.


Did the Greeks know about the Luo Shu? Pythagoras and Chinese numerology. Plato and the 27x27 Magic Square.
This makes in interesting case. Check out the link: www.luo-shu.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I like this passage from Rodin's website Vortex Based Mathematics:


The potential scope and breadth of the Rodin Solution is staggering; it is universally applicable in mathematics, science, biology, medicine, genetics, astronomy, chemistry, physics and computer science. The Rodin Solution will revolutionize computer hardware by creating a crucial gap space, or equi-potential major groove, in processors. This gap space generates underpinning nested vortices resulting in far higher efficiency with no heat build-up. The Rodin Solution replaces the binary code with a new code called the binary triplet which will revolutionize computer operating systems. It will transform physics and astrophysics by finally answering how black holes and pulsars work. Space travel will be revolutionized by reactionless drives that are unaffected by the weight they pull, making the present day combustion engine obsolete. The revolution brought on by reactionless drives will far surpass the societal changes wrought by the shift from steam engines to the present day combustion engine. The Rodin Solution can even be applied to ending pollution and drought by creating an inexhaustible, nonpolluting energy source. Because Rodin´s Vortex-Based Mathematics enables him to condense a trillion-fold calculation to only a few integer steps and because he is able to solve all the mathematical enigmas, the Rodin Solution will revolutionize computer information compression.

Rudimentary versions of the Rodin Coil, or Rodin Torus, have been created and tested by leading scientists and are presently being used by the U.S. Government in antennas that protect the four corners of the continental U.S.. Life-saving medical devices based on crude approximations of the Rodin Coil Torus are being manufactured and used in the treatment of cancer patients. Microsoft´s former senior researcher is using the Rodin Coil to research, develop and patent new computer information-compression schemes.

Although many people are applying aspects of the Rodin Solution, on the basis of private consultations and a Rodin monograph published 20 years ago, Marko Rodin has never explained key concepts such as the phasing and energization of the Rodin Coil. Although there has been a virtual stampede to get at this work, Rodin has remained silent or uncooperative, preferring to continue his work and research in isolation. He is now ready to reveal publicly the true power and scope of the Rodin Solution.



Times New Roman
What a crock Mary, the truth is that Rodin Vortex-Base-Math is a rip off of the I CHING. Mary beware false prophets who speak in spiritual language.

edit on 9-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Religion played in to Rodin's work. The .pdf mentions a prophet of the Baha'i Faith, and converting the name of the prophet into numbers using the "Abjad numerical notation system" to do so.

This reminds me of the fact that Haramein used meditation in his work.

I like the fusing of science and spirituality. I think it's a smart approach.



Just goes to show the kind of threat the I Ching poses to RELIGIOUS FANATICAL LIARS who speak of its origins but denies its right and claiming it as their own work.




top topics



 
39
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join