"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by Bobathon

 

So, scientifically, what was the point of spending the time arguing such things (for 60+ pages) instead of just leaving well enough alone, or actually exploring it for yourself? Why even waste the time?

It's a good question. I wouldn't want to try to argue that it does any good at all. I'm not here to defend these silly arguments. That certainly wasn't the point that I made.

The point I made was that if Rodin's ideas had anything about them, someone would have done something. And nobody has done anything.

Surely that says pretty clearly that there isn't anything to do with Rodin's ideas. It can't get much clearer.

Now that's sorted, we're clear to see him as the fruitloop that he is and we don't need to argue any more. We can go and test ideas that aren't bullsh1t instead. Everybody wins!

Originally posted by Bobathon

The point I made was that if Rodin's ideas had anything about them, someone would have done something. And nobody has done anything.

Surely that says pretty clearly that there isn't anything to do with Rodin's ideas. It can't get much clearer.

i am not so sure such an assumption can be made... and i struggle to see how such an attitude would be beneficial within the field of science. why would anyone explore anything then? perhaps i misunderstand you?

Because of rodins presentation, it is also possible most wrote off the underlying concept of different magnetic patterns as a result of varied toroidal winding because he presents it in such a fantastic and marketed way. At the very least, we know electromagnetism has much left to explore, and that is exactly what concept this is dealing with.

This thread presented an opportunity for ATS to cooperatively explore an arena that isnt that well known, under a specific starting point. The time that was used in arguing could have been used in actual research of the topic of electromagnetism and coils. i feel the scientific mindset always wants to explore and verify things for itself, because not only do people make mistakes and have limited understanding, but our own context can grow for the subject at hand. The debate/lawyer type mindset would rather come up with the best stance to take before proceeding to argue the topic at hand with the sole intent of winning, sometimes to amazing extents. i feel we should approach areas of science by scientific means. i see it as simply a different type of approach, but not as productive or effective.

Oh well.

Originally posted by sinohptik
It might be bit tricky to find, but rodin does detail the application of the pattern to the torus. He shows it in a graph pattern where you can see how he builds off of the pattern. Though, he is certainly lacking on the "why" of the specific pattern iteration, he seems to be quite honest about his own level of understanding of the subject.

Rodin is lacking in the ability to express a coherent theory. Case in point:

markorodin.com...

The number nine is the missing particle in the universe known as Dark Matter.

Even if you don't understand dark matter as well as I do, it should be obvious to you that 9 is a number, not a particle.

So, what do you think, is everyone confident enough to test their own theories in cooperation with others? Or would people rather just argue?

People like Buddhasystem already do test their theories in cooperation with others. I take the theories that other people came up, with and apply them to the design and manufacture of real-world products. I guess you could say that's a form of testing the theories, because if the theory was false, the product might not work. I don't see anything from Rodin I can use to design and make real products. Even his coil appears to be inferior to the coils typically used in manufactured products, regarding things like leakage that Rodin brags about, but manufacturers actually try to minimize.

I don't see much to argue about. If someone lacks the cognitive ability to determine that the statement "The number nine is the missing particle in the universe known as Dark Matter" is essentially incoherent, then my efforts to make coherent arguments with such an individual will prove fruitless because that individual in addition to Rodin must have such difficulties with cognitive perception that they won't even understand my argument. So why argue? I'll just point it out, and people that see it's nonsense at first glance won't really need more convincing.

However, if you wanted to describe to me an experiment whereby you could confirm "the number nine is the missing particle in the universe known as Dark Matter." as Rodin claims, please do so as I'd find that quite interesting.

Regarding experimentation with any other aspect of Rodin's stuff, anyone who thinks there's value in it may do so, but I'd be willing to wager that 1000 people could research every aspect of it for 1000 years and come up with nothing but headaches and embarrassment. I see many other promising avenues of investigation that are more likely to yield real-world results.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


i guess we will have to see then, neh?

Through research of the same concept, but completely different context, i am quite certain such areas of study will yield usable, applicable results.

edit: if you dont "see much to argue about," what was your intent here? why spend so much time on this? It seems more beneficial to just move on or explore it. You say you work on other things too, so those would likely be more important as well, right? i am just trying to understand your mindset in spending so much time arguing individual context (rodin's presentation), which will innately be limited anyway, without getting firsthand experience testing the concepts at hand.

Originally posted by sinohptik

Originally posted by Bobathon

The point I made was that if Rodin's ideas had anything about them, someone would have done something. And nobody has done anything.

Surely that says pretty clearly that there isn't anything to do with Rodin's ideas. It can't get much clearer.

i am not so sure such an assumption can be made... and i struggle to see how such an attitude would be beneficial within the field of science.

...

i feel we should approach areas of science by scientific means. i see it as simply a different type of approach, but not as productive or effective.

Oh well.

Well don't just sit there arguing about other people arguing then. Nobody here is stopping you exploring it.

You're right that it's a different type of approach. Although it has a great deal in common with the ridiculous amount of pseudoscience you can find anywhere on the web.

Let me help you with your struggle regarding 'such an attitude'.

My 'attitude' is not to look at a new idea and then rail against it because I don't like it or because it doesn't fit my worldview. My attitude is to look at a new idea and consider it in quite a lot of detail, and to spend a long time asking people who subscribe to it to give any sense in which it reflects anything novel or interesting in the observable world. My attitude is to search for the positive, and to try to understand why people support his theory. Because even if the theory isn't true, there might be something meaningful that people are getting from it.

And at some point, you have to say look, this is a pile of cr@p. Not because I want to close off from anything, but because some things are a pile of cr@p, and it really does noone any favours to not recognise this.

Nobody will speak up for it except in the most vague and hollow ways. The claims made for it are consistently empty, often absurd, always either meaningless, unjustifiable or plain false. Nobody with any depth of understanding of electromagnetism ever speaks up for it.

If you can buck the trend and point to real specific areas of interest, where you believe there is real potential, based on a real understanding of why his torus would do anything any different to any other toroidal electromagnet, then go for it. If you can say anything interesting about it without putting down other people, making unjustifiable claims, or getting overly defensive about things you don't understand, then I'm sure you'll find you have a keen, though skeptical, audience.

An interested, willing, skeptical audience is the best thing any discussion of scientific matters can have. It's the best thing any developer of scientific ideas or designs or equipment can have. It's the only way science can progress.

A fan base never did any scientist any favours.

That's the attitude I try to have, at least.

And no, I ceased treating Rodin's ideas as scientific long ago, because they are so clearly nothing of the sort. But if you have anything specific to say about how, exactly, anything he says relates to anything specific in the observable world, then go for it. You could surprise a lot of people. It'd be cool.

Originally posted by sinohptik

Through research of the same concept, but completely different context, i am quite certain such areas of study will yield usable, applicable results.

Regarding saying something specific, that's a perfect example of what I don't mean. Y'get me?

Originally posted by sinohptik
edit: if you dont "see much to argue about," what was your intent here?

If someone not familiar with this runs across it in a search engine, it would be nice if they can see both sides of the story.

If all they see is this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9ab1585ce06.png[/atsimg]
I can see why they might get excited, if there's nobody to tell the other side of the story.

You would have people spend their times on worthless pursuits like testing Rodin's nonsense.
I am directly opposed to your position, as I would have people spend their time on worthwhile pursuits. That in itself, I believe, is a worthwhile pursuit.
I think it's more important for people to hear my message than your message, so that's one reason I'm here.

If both viewpoints are posted here, people can read both, and make up their minds how they want to spend their time.

Originally posted by sinohptik
Because of rodins presentation, it is also possible most wrote off the underlying concept of different magnetic patterns

What magnetic patterns? Please be specific. Also, whatever patterns may exist, the "vortex" apparently is pronounced to manifest itself (which is spectacularly does not) right in the center of the torus, a well defined point, where a magnetic field can (and may be) measured.

So there you have it, an alternating magnetic field opens a vortex. You said that's Rodin's theory and not yours, effectively admitting that you don't understand jack of his pronouncements. If you do insist that a particular pattern of magnetic field creates a "vortex", there are two things you need to do in order to accomplish this w/o looking like a complete jerk:

a) demonstrate a plausible cause that a varying magnetic field creates an unusual phenomenon. Be specific. Use Rodin's math, if necessary, to demonstrate this. Again, don't lose the focus on the electromagnetic field which can be easily measured and characterized.

b) from your UNDERSTANDING of Rodin's math, please tell us what are the characteristics of the alleged VORTEX.

If you can't do "a" and "b", shut the f up. I can tell you that 7 is a prime number and if you circumscribe you bed with written pattern of 7, you will become rich. If you don't, you aren't worthy. Prove me wrong.

The time that was used in arguing could have been used in actual research of the topic of electromagnetism and coils.

I heartily invite you to do that before you dare to speak to those who did. Bag of hot air.

reply to post by buddhasystem


my point was simply that the time used to debate this could be used to explore the concepts presented, or even spend the time doing something to further research elsewhere. Basically, why have you chosen to spend so much time doing this particular thing? Presenting both sides is good, but neither side has even explored the concept beyond the context which rodin provides, and have been doing that for over 60 pages. Both sides have no idea what they are talking about beyond Rodins heavily marketed BS context of electromagnetism and toroids (nice picture of him standing by that sign for clarity ). i have made it quite clear i have no intention of defending rodins position on this, or any matter, but the underlying concept deserves exploration regardless of context. There is so much to learn about this field (electromagnetism, specifically toroidal mechanics in this case) and the more people that get involved actually doing their own research on topics which they are willing to devote some time, the better for society as a whole. i saw that after 60 some odd pages that obviously the people involved in this thread were willing to put time into the topic. But it seems the idea is not welcome that "next time" we put the same time put into research, and less into posting, if we are to post anything on the subject at all.

It was an idea of cooperation instead of blind competition. Might have been the wrong way to approach it though..

i have no idea what im talking about on anything i say though, so good call there That doesnt detract from my initial point that all this time could have been spent doing something productive, whether it is researching this specifically, or something considered actually worth effort (other than argument). i would say though, if you get some spare time, wrap a few different coils up and mess around with them. They tell an amazing story about not only the relationship between electricity and magnetism, but also the very nature of them as a combined force. Using ferro-fluids (if available) is also fantastic (as it would be anyway, really!). i expect that you would know how to properly test such a thing.



There is significantly more to this than what rodin is presenting. He does openly say he wants others to push it forward though... its a bit of a strange situation to me overall. i also do not agree with his vortex concept, but its not like my own ideas are any more "mainstream."

My attempt here was to challenge certain types of thinking into actually exploring a concept for themselves, instead of only the context in which the concept is delivered. Didnt quite work out as i though, but thats ok. Its a learning process for everyone.

and boba, believe me, i know that wasnt the specificity that you were looking for, but it is simply not my place to talk about it, y'get me? I just think it would be great if more people were willing to actually do experiments themselves overall, but it seems that many i have talked with think such things are solely to prove things "right/wrong." Throughout my own career, and also in some of my hobbies, i learned the most from the simplest of experiments dealing with the concept at hand. i never necessarily did them to "prove" anything, it was to observe consistent patterns in order to apply them to real world mechanics. i dont see it so much as right/wrong, true/false, etc. as it is thousands of iterations of the same process Sometimes exciting, sometimes.. not so much but always, always a learning process.

Originally posted by sinohptik

i have no idea what im talking about on anything i say though, so good call there

Yes, a common thread runs through every commenter that speaks up for Rodin's ideas. Appreciating the honesty though, that's often absent.

My attempt here was to challenge certain types of thinking into actually exploring a concept for themselves, instead of only the context in which the concept is delivered.

Then surely you just need to bring up a specific aspect that you think is worthy of exploration, and say why. You haven't done that.

Throughout my own career, and also in some of my hobbies, i learned the most from the simplest of experiments dealing with the concept at hand. i never necessarily did them to "prove" anything, it was to observe consistent patterns in order to apply them to real world mechanics.

Good. Then we have much in common! We like to investigate patterns that we find interesting or that seem to point to new things. My guess is that you, in common with me, wouldn't waste time investigating things that we know only exist in someone else's delusions.

I don't agree with you that scientists are better off experimenting with things they know don't exist rather than talking to people. That doesn't make sense.

As we've all said numerous times, if you think there's something in it, go and explore it. Or at least say specifically what you think it is if you're actually interested.

Otherwise it looks like you're just attached to the idea of something having potential but don't care in the slightest about the details or whether or not it actually does.

TR-3B Plasma Torus Anti-Gravity Centrifuge Engine


"Free" Energy - The Infinite Battery -- Does not violate second law of thermodynamic



SEG EBM Overunity Generator


Laser Pumped Flying Saucer Spacecraft


NanoEngineering Supermaterials -- nanotechnology was deconstructed extraterrestrial spacecraft

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN

Er, what about them?

reply to post by Bobathon

It's a good question. I wouldn't want to try to argue that it does any good at all. I'm not here to defend these silly arguments. That certainly wasn't the point that I made.

The point I made was that if Rodin's ideas had anything about them, someone would have done something. And nobody has done anything.

Surely that says pretty clearly that there isn't anything to do with Rodin's ideas. It can't get much clearer.

Now that's sorted, we're clear to see him as the fruitloop that he is and we don't need to argue any more. We can go and test ideas that aren't bullsh1t instead. Everybody wins!

If you continue to use such blatant fallacies in your argument, then you will never provide real critical analysis of the topic at hand. It is an argument from ignorance, in which you assert that since it has not been proven true, it is necessarily false. And then you throw in some ad hominem jabs just in case.

This youtuber actually walks the walk and shows us all up:

rwgresearch.com...

I am not in a position right now to do experiments, but I will be in the future and I will not write all of this off because some guy on the internet thinks its a bunch of bull crap - even if they work for ATLAS.

And for the record, Helmholtz is the proper originator of the vortex atom theory, while Descartes is a precursor of macrocosmic 'vortex' theory. This is what I mean by a 'clear and discernible academic context'.

Descartes' Physics
Special section on vortex (Helmholtz)

When you add on top of that an extremely fine fluidlike medium of space (approaching zero density) demonstrated through ZPE, we have a solid case for vortex geometry formed in spacetime.

Even wikipedia has it:
Vortex Ring

And keep in mind Helmholtz was proposing the idea of vortex rings in a perfect fluid, such as aether. Clearly, ZPE meets the definition and purposes of the medium which was formerly called aether. ZPE or density of space is as perfect a fluid there is.

Originally posted by beebs

It is an argument from ignorance, in which you assert that since it has not been proven true, it is necessarily false.

No it isn't. It's an argument from all the evidence, and it's a clear request for anyone who thinks I'm missing something to say specifically what.

And then you throw in some ad hominem jabs just in case.

No I don't. My assertion that his ideas are fallacious and his claims are empty don't in any way rest on him being a fruitloop. (Although he is.)

I am not in a position right now to do experiments, but I will be in the future and I will not write all of this off because some guy on the internet thinks its a bunch of bull crap

Nobody's asking you to. In fact we're all asking anyone to do the experiments if you think it's worthwhile. And show us what you find.

Can we be more clear?

reply to post by Bobathon


Its still an argument from ignorance, and they are still ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but thats the reality.

Do you care to address the actual points of the argument, such as Helmholtz or ZPE?

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Its still an argument from ignorance, and they are still ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but thats the reality.

Er, no it's not. For the reasons I gave. Enjoying your rebirth as a self-styled logician though, keep it up.

Do you care to address the actual points of the argument, such as Helmholtz or ZPE?

I've addressed ZPE numerous times. What are you referring to when you say "the argument" re Helmoltz?

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Its still an argument from ignorance, and they are still ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but thats the reality.

I'm sorry but that's not the reality. If a person insists that an actual check is the criterion of truth, and you call this attitude ignorance, I don't know what to think but in a nutshell this may mean that you are sick. In Britain, they call it "fruitloop", but since I'm an American I'll stick with "sick".

Check, Check, Check. Try it out. When you find any evidence of a vortex, or other unusual phenomena, please post. Otherwise, remain a prime example of a fruitloop.

Originally posted by beebs
When you add on top of that an extremely fine fluidlike medium of space (approaching zero density) demonstrated through ZPE, we have a solid case for vortex geometry formed in spacetime.

Even wikipedia has it:
Vortex Ring

Vortex rings are cool. Here's a collection of pictures of them taken in the Earth's atmosphere, which is a fluidlike medium but it's rather dense compared to space, so I wouldn't say it's approaching zero density:

www.caelestia.be...
This one even looks a little bit like a UFO and I wouldn't be surprised if this is what they saw at O'Hare airport since it resulted from burning diesel and O'Hare burns a lot of jet (similar to diesel) fuel:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f2ca4262314b.jpg[/atsimg]

However it seems to me you're throwing out a bunch of terms like "vortex ring" and "ZPE" and you're not giving us any critical thinking about how they tie together or how either one of them in reality relates to Rodin's work. Rodin's coil is a ring but it has little to do with the fluid mechanics that result in a vortex ring, are you trying to suggest otherwise? And if so where's the evidence?

I've studied coils and I've studied vortex rings and I think I understand them reasonably well. I've tried to understand ZPE and I don't think anyone fully understands it yet, but we do have observational evidence for its existence and I am familiar with some of that observational evidence, and I don't see how it supports your claims.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by beebs
When you add on top of that an extremely fine fluidlike medium of space (approaching zero density) demonstrated through ZPE, we have a solid case for vortex geometry formed in spacetime.

...snip...

However it seems to me you're throwing out a bunch of terms like "vortex ring" and "ZPE" and you're not giving us any critical thinking how they tie together or how either one of them in reality relates to Rodin's work. Rodin's coil is a ring but it has little to do with the fluid mechanics that result in a vortex ring, are you trying to suggest otherwise? And if so where's the evidence?

I've studied coils and I've studied vortex rings and I think I understand them reasonably well. I've tried to understand ZPE and I don't think anyone fully understands it yet, but we do have observational evidence for its existence and I am familiar with some of that observational evidence, and I don't see how it supports your claims.

Arb, are you still surprised that Beebs doesn't have much in way of critical thinking?

I was playing with vortex rings (and built an apparatus to help me study those) when I was 18. There is some incredible physics there, when two smoke puffs shaped as rings scatter elastically just like particles, off each other, or solid objects. You need to try it out to appreciate the beauty.

Beebs will continue his chatter box "ZPE", "vortex" and "black hole" ad infinitum, without having 10**-15 of the knowledge to relate to any of those terms. Oh well. His chakras are not aligned with the cymatic structure of space-time and so he has no vortex to speak of. Or singularity. Or thinking.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Arb, are you still surprised that Beebs doesn't have much in way of critical thinking?

I think beebs has a lot of admirable qualities that I wish more people had.
He has a lot of curiosity, and an ability to think in new and different ways.
I also have independently come up with different ways of looking at nature than mainstream science, like beebs has done, and I think that's a good thing, since we all know mainstream science isn't always right and sometimes creative thinking gives us new solutions.

But the critical thinking step does seem to be the one attribute that beebs could use more of. In my personal experience, when I've come up with an idea not consistent with mainstream science, I start out by researching why scientists have the idea they have, and what evidence they base that idea on. I usually find that the more I learn about all the research that's taken place, the less appealing my alternative idea seems and the more I appreciate all the work and research that has gone into developing current models.

I'm not saying all mainstream science is right, we may have a modern day version of a phlogiston theory somewhere, or more than one. But the way we need to find it is to debunk it the same way the phlogiston theory was debunked, with good solid evidence that it's wrong, and with a better theory to take its place. That's what's lacking in beebs theory, evidence that the current theory is wrong and that he has a better one.

So beebs, if you've got any specifics based on critical thinking, go ahead and present them. But please, don't post a long list of names of people that you seem to think somehow collectively form a "big picture" when as far as I can tell, they don't even all agree with each other. The other major problem I have with your listing a bunch of names with a lot of dated knowledge is that a huge percentage of the research done on some of these topics has happened only in the last few decades. For example, I think one of the most interesting pieces of research we have that may be related to Zero Point Energy, is the accelerating expansion of the universe, only discovered in 1998. Prior to 1998 I don't recall anybody who expected what the research revealed. That's just one example and there are many others.